GENIUS FORUMS

That's what the story of Abraham is, you know.
The faithful will tell you it's one of "faith," but it's just as much a story of breeding - of seeds, of nations, of patriarchy, of men . . . .

There is a saying: "Show me your God, and I'll show you the man". Meaning that the type of person you are determines the nature of your God. There would be a lot of individual Muslims who are by nature kind, and see within Islam peace and redemption. Your underlying character has a lot to do with how you interpret your religion. Christians, for example, seek the God who best suits their purposes. The media doesn't distinguish criminal actions by "Christians" because this is not a recognisably collective group, as are Muslims. Our westernised society is secular, and most people attend church once in every blue moon. Referring to wrongdoers as "Christian" so as to appease Muslim interests is ludicrous. Most of us don't identify ourselves primarily by our religion, and this is an important distinction between the Muslim and the Westerner. For most of us, our daily lives revolve around general matters like family, work and relationships. Our self-view is more concerned with where we fit into society, and the middle-eastern crisis is no more than a news story. So reporting or even interpreting the misdeeds of Westerners as being those of the "Christian race" is illogical. There is no Christian "race", but there is a collective of Westerners world-wide, whose creed would be best described as one of peaceful coexistence and individual freedom. Whatever little box they tick for "religion" is incidental.

There is no recognisably "Christian" group behaviour, but there is recognisably "Muslim" or "Middle-Eastern" group behaviour, and we experience this on a daily basis. We're told that racism is wrong because the majority of Muslims are as equally repulsed by extremism and injustice, much the same way that mainstream Christians would be opposed to the actions of the ultra-right. But mainstream Christians are very vocal in their denouncement of crimes committed in the name of Christ, whereas mainstream Muslims appear more reticent. It is this reticence that breeds suspicion, that along with the fact that it is impossible to quantify with any precision the proportion of rational from radical Muslims.

One of the most vile, infirm minds on the face of this planet wrote:

There is a saying: "Show me your God, and I'll show you the man". Meaning that the type of person you are determines the nature of your God.

Indeed. And what a disgusting, conscienceless and unprincipled weasel God you have.

I retract my earlier claim that you are a Christian. Kevin is a Christian. You are a Jew!

Israel is the only state created in the last century whose legitimacy was recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations. The League of Nations Mandate did not create the rights of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine, but rather recognized a pre-existing right - for the links of the Jewish people to their historic land were well-known and accepted by world leaders in the previous century.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm

The Balfour Declaration:

November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

Excerpt:

The Churchill White Paper, 3 June 1922

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Region ... -Authority:

"Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (OT) suffered wide-ranging human rights abuses and humanitarian conditions deteriorated significantly due to military and punitive economic actions by Israel, cuts in international aid and growing violence between rival Palestinian political factions. Killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces increased threefold compared to the previous year, totalling more than 650; some of the victims were militants engaged in violence against Israel, but half were unarmed civilians. Palestinian armed groups carried out further attacks on Israelis, killing 27 Israelis, half the previous year's figure, of whom 21 were civilians. Inter-factional violence between rival Palestinian security forces and armed groups increased; some 150 people were killed in gun battles and attacks, including scores of civilian bystanders. Abductions of Palestinians and foreign nationals, notably journalists and aid workers, were frequent. Foreigners were promptly released unharmed, whereas some Palestinians were killed or ill-treated. Impunity remained widespread, with law enforcement and the administration of justice virtually paralysed by inter-factional confrontations.

"Destruction of Palestinian infrastructure by Israeli forces caused long-term damage and a further worsening of living conditions. In June, Israeli forces bombed and badly damaged the Gaza Strip's only power plant, which supplied electricity to half of its 1.5 million inhabitants and left them without electricity for most of the day throughout the hottest months of the year, and often without water that is extracted and distributed using electricity. Israeli forces also bombed bridges, roads, and water and sewage networks. Hundreds of Palestinians were made homeless as scores of buildings were destroyed and damaged by Israeli air strikes and artillery shelling in the Gaza Strip. Other homes were demolished by Israeli bulldozers in the West Bank, including in the East Jerusalem area."

More on its way...

Leyla Shen wrote:I retract my earlier claim that you are a Christian. Kevin is a Christian. You are a Jew!

Kevin who? Probably not Kevin Solway, as on The Reasoning Show he is billed as co-founder of The Athiest Society of Australia.

Leyla Shen wrote:One of the most vile, infirm minds on the face of this planet wrote:

Leyla, do you think you could present an argument without committing appeal to ridicule or appeal to spite or poisoning the well or personal attack or any of the other logical fallacies?

Bilby wrote:There is a saying: "Show me your God, and I'll show you the man".

There is another saying: "Play the ball, not the man." With racial discrimination, the man is the racial group; the ball is individual behaviour.

One reason is that playing the man frequently leads to escalations of hostility based on an increasingly polarised alienation between (noble) "us" and (morally degenerate and detestable) "them".

Bilby wrote:There is no Christian "race", but there is a collective of Westerners world-wide, whose creed would be best described as one of peaceful coexistence and individual freedom.

Peaceful, such as, say, World Wars I and II? Such as the forced transportation of convicts for trivial poverty-based offenses, decimation of native inhabitants and later (current) refusal to acknowledge the brutality of the invasion and subjugation? Such as violence by police against protesters at economic forums - trampling people with horses?

And in an earlier post, Bilby wrote:

So my original question was: If I believe that a race or creed has entrenched beliefs and behaviours that compromise my moral code, which is the greater sin – racial discrimination or relaxing your moral values?

I believe that you should not relax your moral values, so the question reduces to "is it ever legitimate to racially discriminate?" My answer is "if it helps to make the world a better place". And I don't think that this thread has become "better" for discrimination (although it has become more interesting) - discrimination has only served to increase conflict. So my question to you in return is: what is your purpose in racially discriminating and what are you hoping to achieve by it other than inflaming tensions?

Bilby wrote:I can’t tell you exactly what a Muslim or Jew is, because I don’t know. [...] I believe a Muslim can live anywhere, although traditionally they are based in the Middle East, and so they are either born to, or accept as their religion, Islam.

That seems to be as reasonable a definition as any.

Bilby wrote:I don’t believe that Muslim extremism is an isolated thing.

Bilby wrote:[Leyla's posts are] a very half-hearted ramble on Jews and the Middle East crisis (which is not what we’re talking about)

Do you not see the connection between the two?

By the way, Leyla: I was very interested to read those revealing excerpts - thanks for providing them.

Leyla Shen wrote:By the way, Laird, thanks for your concession but--no thanks. See, it’s a bit like the concession a bunch of interrogators make to a person whose head they’re holding a gun to and saying, “You’re a Muslim, don’t ask us what we mean by that, just tell us why we shouldn’t shoot you for being one…”

It's a very, very little bit like that - it would be a lot more like it if you had written instead: "...just tell us why we shouldn't shoot you for raping this man's daughter..."

Braindead wrote:

Leyla, do you think you could present an argument without committing appeal to ridicule or appeal to spite or poisoning the well or personal attack or any of the other logical fallacies?

You mean, like this--it‘s got all of them:

Bilby: The murder of innocent people is wrong, in anyone’s language. Rape is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong. I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race.

Leyla: But what about Jews and Christians committing the same crimes?

Bilby: I particularly wanted to know her views on the Sheik who made such disparaging remarks on women and rape, but she seems to baulk at committing herself. So in a sense Leyla, being the only mainstream Muslim representative on this board, is helping to bolster my argument that the values of mainstream Muslims aren’t all that different to the values of extreme Muslims.

Bilby: [Since the west is a secular society…] Referring to wrongdoers as "Christian" so as to appease Muslim interests is ludicrous. Most of us don't identify ourselves primarily by our religion, and this is an important distinction between the Muslim and the Westerner. For most of us, our daily lives revolve around general matters like family, work and relationships. Our self-view is more concerned with where we fit into society, and the middle-eastern crisis is no more than a news story.

Go back to bed, Elizabeth.

~

More on the secular Middle East; your friendly neighbourhood theocratic democracy:

Excerpt:

How Religious are Israeli Jews?
Many of these "traditional" Jews differ from the Orthodox only in that they will drive their cars on the Sabbath, use electricity, watch television, or go to a soccer game or to the beach, frequently after attending religious services in the morning and the evening before. Many of the men don tefillin every morning. What is critical is that all are committed to a major religious component in the definition of their Jewishness and the Jewishness of the Jewish state.

The fourth group consists of those who define themselves as secular, some 20 percent of the Jewish population. These are people whose beliefs are secular. Their practices, on the other hand, may be quite similar to those of many traditionalists, only they claim to maintain those practices for family and national reasons rather than for religious ones. The fact that Jewish religious observance has such a strong national component makes it a major component of most Jews' national identity even if they no longer see themselves as believers in the Jewish religion.
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/relin ... sensus.htm

Excerpt:

Statement, Arab League upon Declaration of the State of Israel (1948).
Palestine was part of the former Ottoman Empire subject to its law and represented in its parliament. The overwhelming majority of the population of Palestine were Arabs. There was in it a small minority of Jews that enjoyed the same rights and bore the same responsibilities as the (other) inhabitants, and did not suffer any ill-treatment on account of its religious beliefs. The holy places were inviolable and the freedom of access to them was guaranteed.

The Arabs have always asked for their freedom and independence. On the outbreak of the First World War, and when the Allies declared that they were fighting for the liberation of peoples, the Arabs joined them and fought on their side with a view to realizing their national aspirations and obtaining their independence. England pledged herself to recognize the independence of the Arab countries in Asia, including Palestine. The Arabs played a remarkable part in the achievement of final victory and the Allies have admitted this.

In 1917 England issued a declaration in which she expressed her sympathy with the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine. When the Arabs knew of this they protested against it, but England reassured them by affirming to them that this would not prejudice the right of their countries to freedom and independence or affect the political status of the Arabs in Palestine. Notwithstanding the legally void character of this declaration, it was interpreted by England to aim at no more than the establishment of a spiritual centre for the Jews in Palestine, and to conceal no ulterior political aims, such as the establishment of a Jewish State. The same thing was declared by the Jewish leaders.
http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm

Laird wrote:

It's a very, very little bit like that - it would be a lot more like it if you had written instead: "...just tell us why we shouldn't shoot you for raping this man's daughter..."

Yes, well, I suppose the obvious is out of the question, eh? ...

Leyla Shen wrote:Braindead wrote:

Leyla, do you think you could present an argument without committing appeal to ridicule or appeal to spite or poisoning the well or personal attack or any of the other logical fallacies?

You mean, like this--it‘s got all of them:

Bilby: The murder of innocent people is wrong, in anyone’s language. Rape is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong. I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race.

Leyla: But what about Jews and Christians committing the same crimes?

Bilby: I particularly wanted to know her views on the Sheik who made such disparaging remarks on women and rape, but she seems to baulk at committing herself. So in a sense Leyla, being the only mainstream Muslim representative on this board, is helping to bolster my argument that the values of mainstream Muslims aren’t all that different to the values of extreme Muslims.

Bilby: [Since the west is a secular society…] Referring to wrongdoers as "Christian" so as to appease Muslim interests is ludicrous. Most of us don't identify ourselves primarily by our religion, and this is an important distinction between the Muslim and the Westerner. For most of us, our daily lives revolve around general matters like family, work and relationships. Our self-view is more concerned with where we fit into society, and the middle-eastern crisis is no more than a news story.

I don't think those were pieced together just like that - but as for fishing out your decent question - Bilby, would you please answer her question:

Leyla: But what about Jews and Christians committing the same crimes?

Leyla Shen wrote:Go back to bed, Elizabeth.

Yes, ma'am. Good plan. Turns out that of all the weird things, they stole my pre-formed pond liner. As far as stereotyping, now I'm thinking it was teenagers. When all I'd noticed was the smashed door, and the dog found a knife in the back yard, I thought it was some weirdo or my ex - but a stolen pond liner makes me think teenagers. Maybe it's off in the woods somewhere. How far could they get with something that looks like an 8 foot black kiddie pool?

Laird: It's a very, very little bit like that - it would be a lot more like it if you had written instead: "...just tell us why we shouldn't shoot you for raping this man's daughter..."

Leyla: Yes, well, I suppose the obvious is out of the question, eh? ...

To me the obvious is in the question, or at least in its answer: "because life should be respected regardless of its past behaviour".

I hope your visitors have left for good, Elizabeth.

Laird, the purpose of this thread was never to increase conflict. I didn’t say that all Westerners were saints. The point was that generally, Westerners value peace above religion. Human conflict and war are inevitable when you’re dealing with mankind and predominantly masculine ideals. So in answer to your question: what is your purpose in racially discriminating and what are you hoping to achieve by it other than inflaming tensions?

I am asking people to think more creatively. I am hoping for a rational, open-minded enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted, because I think this is important.

My purpose in racially discriminating is to maintain my moral code so that I can distinguish wrongful behaviour. A society that doesn’t have a clearly-defined moral code with strict guidelines for behaviour is edging towards chaos. I am hoping to instigate a change in established and quite dogmatic thinking about racism because this is long overdue. We’ve been indoctrinated to believe that racism is wrong, and that this has to be accepted without question, with no room at all to manoeuvre if you have private qualms. So if my common sense is outraged by this, I have to ignore my own conscience and follow the herd mentality, thereby compromising my morals in the process. This isn’t fair, it’s not logical, it doesn’t reflect the realities of modern life, and on a philosophy board of all places, it should be discussed with more vigour than has happened here.


We’re all a product of our westernised upbringing, and value ideals like rationality and fairness. And this is how the concept of racism arose in the first place. The level of discrimination against blacks in America prior to the civil rights movement was plainly wrong. Everyone would agree that mindless racism based solely on skin colour is unjust. But what if there are genuine reasons for racism? How is it better for society to ignore them by maintaining our blind obedience to the tenet of tolerance? In our real world, how practical or ideal is this? How does refusing to associate Muslim terrorism with Muslims, thereby making ourselves more vulnerable in the process, make the world a better place?

Knowing the frailties of the human race as we do, why would you close your mind to there ever being genuine reasons for racism? Are all people, world-wide, exactly the same and equally deserving of respect?

Bilby wrote:

I am asking people to think more creatively. I am hoping for a rational, open-minded enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted, because I think this is important.

Oh, you’re kidding, right? No, you are not. You’re asking people to mindlessly discriminate against Muslims. That’s it.

You have provided no such “creativity” to convince anybody of your proclaimed moral fortitude.

You are disingenuous, Bilby. And I have absolutely no respect for it. Is that grounds for racism, I wonder?

If you were interested in an open-minded enquiry into the nature of racism, you would have jumped on the opportunity to discuss it regarding Jews. You’ve heard about the Holocaust, right? Yet, you offer nothing creative or philosophical on the matter; only this:

My discrimination of Muslims is also based on their attitudes to women and rape, as well as their belief that terrorism in western countries is a legitimate part of the ongoing war with Israel. Most of “collateral damage” wouldn’t have a clue about the Israeli/Arab conflicts. They’re just innocent civilians.

Where is your “creative thinking” here? Where is your contribution to a rational, open-minded enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted because you think it’s important? No sound reasoning behind why and when you think it appropriate to mash race and religion together so it can be identified whenever it arises--nothing but...racist rubbish.

Where is any of that in relation to the many questions you have been asked and left severely wanting?

I shall provide you with a list of these questions to give you another opportunity to show just how important to you “creative thinking and open-minded, rational enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted” is. You should also use it to evaluate your supposed contribution to a discussion you claim to hope for. You have to engage, Bilby, otherwise something else becomes more than apparent--and that is that racism is always mindless.

Laird wrote:To me the obvious is in the question, or at least in its answer: "because life should be respected regardless of its past behaviour".

What? You mean I raped someone's daughter in a past life, or something?? Or are you with Bilby on the idea that it must be in my genes??!

Laird: To me the obvious is in the question, or at least in its answer: "because life should be respected regardless of its past behaviour".

Leyla: What? You mean I raped someone's daughter in a past life, or something?? Or are you with Bilby on the idea that it must be in my genes??!

By "past behaviour" I simply meant acts that have been committed in the present life but before the present time. I'm saying nothing about whether or not a Muslim is more likely to rape someone, I'm saying that I believe that capital punishment is never justified, no matter what the crime is, including rape.

Bilby wrote:Laird, the purpose of this thread was never to increase conflict.

I believe that your intentions are good, but really Bilby, what sort of response do you expect when you tell people that the group that they are affiliated with is morally reprehensible? In the world of enlightenment according to the rational infinitists, emotion would not arise and those people would calmly and objectively examine the evidence and evaluate whether what you said is true. In the real world, you can see what actually happens - they find your comments offensive and conflict and aggression ensue.

Bilby wrote:I am asking people to think more creatively. I am hoping for a rational, open-minded enquiry into the nature of racism and whether it is warranted, because I think this is important.

You have caused me to think creatively - since my previous post I have been trying to see it from your perspective and to think of situations where it might be useful to discriminate. I've only been able to come up with one possibility, but I'll share with you all of my attempts. My first attempt was for reasons of safety. I figured: if a typically Aussie chick is walking through the south western suburbs of Sydney and comes upon a bunch of young Muslim men then she might legitimately fear pack rape based on prior happenings in that part of Sydney, and walk in the other direction merely because they are Muslims. But then I thought - well, there haven't been enough reported episodes of pack rape by Muslim men to make this any more of a legitimate concern than that she might be raped by any other random stranger(s).

So then I thought, well what about safety at the national level - perhaps it's legitimate to discriminate against Muslim countries by refusing to sell them weapons due to their record of terrorist acts. But then I thought firstly, of Leyla's point - that Muslims have been as much the victims of terrorism as the sponsors of terrorism - and secondly, that in my opinion *no* country should be in possession of weapons of mass destruction, so I don't see any cause for discrimination there either.

My second attempt was for reasons of improving behaviour. Should, for example, sanctions of some form be applied to Muslim men to encourage them to treat their women to greater freedom? But this assumes the unproven claim that Islam diminishes the role of women, and I think that we merely perpetuate condescension by trying to force upon a culture a change that its adherents are capable of effecting themselves. If Muslim women start clamouring for our support then let's grant it to them (in which case some form of discrimination might be useful - this is the one situation that I can see where it might be warranted) but otherwise is it not arrogant of us to assume to know better than they what they should want?

There you have it, Bilby. If you can see any other situations where discrimination against Muslims might be useful, then please add them.

Bilby wrote:My purpose in racially discriminating is to maintain my moral code so that I can distinguish wrongful behaviour.

That sentence indicates to me that you have totally rejected (or at least ignored) the point that I made in both of my prior posts, which is that racial discrimination and condemnation of wrongful behaviour are two separate things - the latter useful and the former generally counter-productive due to its promotion of a hostile us-them attitude.

Bilby wrote:But what if there are genuine reasons for racism?

To me racism is an unjustified negative judgement against the character or traits of a member of a race, so by definition there can be no genuine reason for racism. For example, if it were proven that black men had an average IQ of twenty points below the average IQ of white men, then it would not be racist to refer to them as less intelligent, because this would be a justified negative judgement.

So in order to answer the rest of your questions I will assume that by "racism" you mean "discrimination".

Bilby wrote:How is it better for society to ignore them by maintaining our blind obedience to the tenet of tolerance?

Because tolerance promotes mutual respect and goodwill, which is a healthy environment for cooperation and improvement to flourish in, and because - as I've tried to explain above through my attempts to find situations in which it is helpful - I can't see any corresponding benefit to discrimination.

Bilby wrote:In our real world, how practical or ideal is this?

Very - as we've seen in this thread, discrimination often leads to conflict or at least resentment. Tolerance is more typified by peace. You seem to value peace.

Bilby wrote:How does refusing to associate Muslim terrorism with Muslims, thereby making ourselves more vulnerable in the process, make the world a better place?

Who said that we should dissociate the two? I've only said that we should decry bad behaviour and avoid discrimination, not that we should fail to properly analyse the causes - which might include membership of a group - of bad behaviour.

Bilby wrote:Are all people, world-wide, exactly the same

No.

Bilby wrote:and equally deserving of respect?

Yes. Their behaviour, however, might not be.

Bilby wrote:My purpose in racially discriminating is to maintain my moral code so that I can distinguish wrongful behaviour.

Would you please define what you mean by racially discriminating?

Also, in Leyla's above question, I know that you said that certain things are wrong in any culture, so it may have looked odd that I asked you to please answer Leyla's question. I believe that what Leyla was getting at in her question was - to paraphrase - Do you make generalizations about other groups with members that do bad things, or just Muslims?

I was also hoping that you'd pick up on the other clarification - Leyla accused you of various logical fallacies in your statements. Would you please clarify how those are statements of your perceptions (which at this point, for the sake of attempting to coach this debate but not play puppeteer, I will only state that your perceptions may or may not be fallacious).

As a note on technicalities, even fallacious perceptions are different from fallacious arguments. Fallacious perceptions are the whole purpose of logical debates. One side, the other, or both (at least in part if not wholly) must have a fallacious perception or both sides would already be in agreement, and there would be nothing to debate.

Bilby wrote:My purpose in racially discriminating is to maintain my moral code so that I can distinguish wrongful behaviour. A society that doesn’t have a clearly-defined moral code with strict guidelines for behaviour is edging towards chaos. I am hoping to instigate a change in established and quite dogmatic thinking about racism because this is long overdue.

I can't believe, Laird and Elizabeth, that you two are still taking Bilby's implied willingness to mend herself of misdoing as genuine.

I suggest you scrutinise the thread in its entirety. Look reaaaally carefully...

Laird, Muslims aren’t as much the victims of terrorism as the sponsors of terrorism in the western world. They’re not victims of terrorism at all in the western world. To what degree should the Middle-East wars implicate ordinary Americans and Australians? What exactly, is our individual responsibility here? Where is the open declaration of war and where are the protagonists plainly identified? Are Australians, for instance, at war with Islam, and has there been an explicit reason given for this? Which Islam are we at war with – the nation of Islam or the religion of Islam? Doesn’t a declaration of war usually involve the aggressor declaring at least who they are? Is there a statement of facts which plainly sets out our complicity in the war between the Arab and the Jew? What exactly, have we, the western world, done to deserve acts of terrorism against us in our own homelands?

Laird, you really haven’t thought of any situations where it would be useful to discriminate? How many instances of terrorism are acceptable to you?

I’m a little incredulous if you genuinely believe that Islam honours women. Muslim women clamouring for change are often subject to death threats. I don’t think it’s a simple thing for them to do.

Elizabeth, I would like to respond to your question: Do you make generalizations about other groups with members that do bad things, or just Muslims?

I don’t condone violence by anyone. Where I have been disagreeing with Leyla, is in identifying all crime by westerners as “Christian” so as to provide a seemingly balanced view of the proportion of crime as committed by “Christians”, and those as committed by Muslims. An act of terrorism committed by an American in his own country is usually the act of a psychopath, not a Christian. The only one thing that links all acts of terrorism is an adherence to extreme thinking which often has religious, pseudo-religious or extreme right-wing overtones. The connecting motivation for all is one of control and dominance. They will more than likely have hostile views towards women. Occasionally America and Australia, to a lesser extent, produce people like these. Referring to them as “Christian” so as to provide a point of reference to Muslims is simply wrong. But you could certainly describe them as “American” which would suit the purpose. But the difference between the American terrorist and the Muslim terrorist is that the western world recognises in the American terrorist his psychopathic nature. In other words, we know that bombing buildings with people in them is wrong. And we recognise that for someone to resort to such an action indicates a deep sickness. American psychopaths don’t generally seek solidarity in political groups. If they did, then I would be here saying exactly the same thing about them as I do about anyone else who blows up buildings with people in them. If a group of psychopaths had established a core group with an international presence, I’d be arguing for discrimination against them, on the basis that they are harmful to society, they lack empathy for people generally and we must do all we can to intervene before they do any real damage.

But judging by the arguments I’m hearing, the Muslim isn’t recognised as belonging to this psychopathic group, because he hates Jews on the other side of the world. So it’s all perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Blowing up Americans or any other westerner, while perhaps not ideal, is at least understandable when you view it in this political context. Are you people for real? It isn’t me who should be examining their conscience.

Bilby wrote:

I don’t condone violence by anyone.

Yes, you do--implicitly. And that, in your language, makes you a "Muslim terrorist." In mine, it makes you an arsehole.

Where I have been disagreeing with Leyla, is in identifying all crime by westerners as “Christian” so as to provide a seemingly balanced view of the proportion of crime as committed by “Christians”, and those as committed by Muslims.

That is a false representation of my position.

Blowing up Americans or any other westerner, while perhaps not ideal, is at least understandable when you view it in this political context. Are you people for real? It isn’t me who should be examining their conscience.

Yes, it is you who should not only be examining your conscience, but your genetically inherited intelligence.

Most American Muslims reject suicide bombings, poll says
Chad Groening OneNewsNow.comMay 24, 2007
The head a pro-Israel ministry says she's not any more comfortable about Muslims living in America, despite a new poll that shows nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings of civilians. The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, also revealed that most Muslims living in the United States reject Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/most_ ... ject_s.php

Do I really need to more clearly point out why there is no poll about how many American Israelis support the attacks on Palestinians, yet not only can you find a poll on what American Muslims think of suicide bombers but on how many Americans think Palestinians support killing Jews by suicide bombers?

And you still can’t make the connection between Israel, America and terrorism? You may play with labels all you like. Your hypocrisy sticks out like dogs' balls to me.

Lukewarm attitudes about the Palestinians are consistent with Americans' perceptions of their support for terrorism. In April 2002, CBS News asked how many Palestinians "share the views of the suicide bombers who want to kill Jews and other Israelis." A slim majority of 53% said that "only a few" shared those views, while only 33% felt "most" Palestinians did.[10a]This is true despite media images of Palestinians cheering the events of September 11. When asked in a Time/CNN survey days after the attacks, 41% reported feeling less favorable toward Palestinians as a result of 9/11, and just 3% felt more favorable. Still, a majority of 53% said their view of Palestinians was not affected.[10b] Unfortunately there is no trend line data on this question.
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/r ... IsrPal.cfm

I don’t believe Australia has been attacked, though you are eager to make it appear that way.

[General edit]

A thread that belongs in Worldly Matters, if there ever was one.

It's increasingly panning out that way, Carl, but I'm going to leave it here for now as the initial intention - whether believed or not - was worthy of attention of a more philosophical nature. If we take Bibly's original question at face value, it's quite interesting from a logical and psychological perspective. That's been lost a little in the muddied waters of trying to sort out what her position is with respect to Muslims - so we can get to the pertinent to the OP aspects.

A few things in passing:

# There's a difference between mounting a philosophical or theological argument against Islam, which is an easy enough thing to do, as with any religion, really, but it's another ball game entirely mounting a cogent cultural or political argument against it - or for discrimination and prejudice towards it. It is patently clear that there is a section of the Islamic community, loosely scattered throughout nations with a Muslim population, against whom we should have a genuine prejudice. In fact, I don't even want to use the term "prejudice" to describe it, because that has connotations that to me are just wrong. They are dangerous and moronic fanatics. All such people should have their capacity to behave moronically, limited, be they Muslim, Xian, Jew or Calathumpian. We could, I suppose, suggest that it's the Muslim fanatics that are more obviously - and some might even try to say exclusively trying to do us harm - but that seems politically naive to me. We have simply been culturally brainwashed into taking sides and not seeing the larger picture. I consider Talmudic Zionists (and even fanatical Zionists generally) and Armageddonist Xians as just as dangerous as their Islamic counterparts. Those who place us in harm's way for their own nefarious purposes are just as dangerous - perhaps even more so - than those whom we can clearly see are out to harm us.

# How the existence of a certain fanatical and dangerous element within the complex fabric of the Muslims world translates automatically in some people's minds to a question about the legitimacy of prejudice against Muslims generally is something I have trouble understanding. It doesn't make any logical or empirical sense so it has to come down to irrational mind processes, bigotry and mindless parochialism. Questions about how many Muslims support terrorism or suicide bombings or violence of any kind against the West all parade a host of presumptions and guilt assumptions that I find distasteful at best, disgusting at worst. I have no idea how many Muslims privately support anything. Neither does anyone else here. Islam is not, in my opinion, as complex in religious and devotional character as Xianity, but it is still highly complex. None of can say how many Catholics give a fig about the dictates of the Vatican. Many do, many more, don't. Not every Muslim agrees with the opinions of the local Mufti. Not every Anglican agrees with the gibberings of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet, when a Mufti says something slightly controversial, or slightly foolish, we tend to automatically ascribe his views to the general population of Muslims; we never do that to other religions. The question then is: why? What are our actual grounds for this behaviour? Certainly here in Australia I don't see any at all. I don't see any in a place like Iran either. I see it moreso in a place like Palestine or Iraq for obvious reasons - they are essentially war-zones and people tend to pay more attention to their leaders in such circumstances. When various fundamentalist Muslim leaders publicly denounced Al Queada and their terrorist activities, it got no press at all, to the extent that most people don't even know they did so. So, when we ask why the mainstream or even non-terrorising elements within the Muslim community don't more openly condemn the terrorists, what we should be asking is why don't we report that they do? We need to see the creeping evil within ourselves before we paranoically see it in others. It isn't just politics that thrives on fear and an "enemy at the gate" mentality, it is also the media. More importantly, we do too.

# We have more to fear from the Fred Niles in this country than the Fehmi Naji el-Imams. Or, at least until the latter start occupying seats in parliament - then they'll be just as dangerous.

# Islamic misogyny is a popular catch-cry but we have yet, in this thread anyway, to see a shred of evidence for it. Though it ranges wildly through various Muslims cultures, gender role is nevertheless a feature of many such cultures. Strict gender role dynamics are not equivalent to misogyny. I find it rather funny that when men are controlled and limited by such roles no-one cares or even notices, but when women are there are immediate outcries of "misogyny!". I'm sorry, but it's just stupid. Ever seen how conservative Greek Orthodox families work? Strict gender role culture, be they religious or secular are limiting to both sexes. Let's call them misanthropic rather than misogynistic.

# It is absurd, in my view, to harp on about Islamic violence in a political, cultural and historical vacuum. The suggestion that there is something inherent in Islam that makes it more violent, or more prone to violence than Judaism or Xianity (or humans generally) is one for which I can find no historic evidence. The "West" went through a process of secularisation that we have yet to allow to the [Mid]East. One suspects we have some sort of secret vested interest in discouraging it, because we most certainly do discourage it. From Al-Andalus onward we have pretty much pushed Islam into a more conservative religious state and done nothing to encourage an intellectual heritage and legacy that we barely even recognise.

Bilby wrote:Elizabeth, I would like to respond to your question: Do you make generalizations about other groups with members that do bad things, or just Muslims?

While keeping to the fore my remembrance that all people are individuals, I do make generalizations about all groups, not just Muslims. I know that question was insulting, and I apologize for the emotional impact of having to repeat it, but obviously Leyla could not infer from your other comments along the lines of bad is bad, whatever the group - but she did manage to fish out a clear question, so for that reason alone I felt it should be answered. Her later response of:

Leyla Shen wrote:Bilby wrote:

I don’t condone violence by anyone.



Yes, you do--implicitly.

should be followed up with the question "How so?"

Thank you for answering the question, and I hope you understand my reason for prompting a response from you.

Also:

Leyla Shen wrote:And that, in your language, makes you a "Muslim terrorist." In mine, it makes you an arsehole.

How does name-calling contribute to the uncovering of truth in this example?

Leyla Shen wrote:That is a false representation of my position.

Then please clarify your position. A debate is more than "no - you're wrong."

Bilby wrote:But you could certainly describe them as “American” which would suit the purpose. But the difference between the American terrorist and the Muslim terrorist is that the western world recognises in the American terrorist his psychopathic nature.

I don't know. Here's another one in today's local news (one of many local murders reported today). It's getting to be pretty usual over here. I agree that the appropriate descriptor is "American" and we still arrest them for this kind of thing, but I'm not so sure "psychopathic" is really how people think of this thing anymore. It's just too common.

Bilby wrote:It isn’t me who should be examining their conscience.

Actually, we should all be examining our conscience, continually. You, me, everyone.

Carl G wrote:A thread that belongs in Worldly Matters, if there ever was one.

Well, the topic has turned from the original material that was worthy of the main forum - whether or not stereotyping is justified - to something more worldy (Muslim focus - although I don't understand why Dan chose to narrow it to just Muslims rather than prejudice on the whole - which I think is a very worthwhile discussion) - I vote that the fact of it becoming secondarily an educational exercise in using logic despite a heated topic, qualifies this to stay in the main forum.

Leyla Shen wrote:I can't believe, Laird and Elizabeth, that you two are still taking Bilby's implied willingness to mend herself of misdoing as genuine.

What implied willingness? Instead I see express statements rejecting engagement in misdoing:

Bilby wrote:I’m basically saying that my prejudice against Muslims is morally correct, and to think otherwise would be compromising my moral values.

All that I'm taking seriously is the process of engagement and the privilege/responsibility of expressing my own viewpoint as clearly as I can (which I believe in strongly and which I hope will rub off on Bilby, but no doubt Bilby feels the same way of eir viewpoint and of its potential effect on me).

Listen, Elizabeth, I know you think you’re really clever--but, you’re really very stupid. My grounds for calling you such (in this instance alone)? …

Bilby: I don’t condone violence by anyone.

Leyla: Yes, you do--implicitly. And that, in your language, makes you a "Muslim terrorist." In mine, it makes you an arsehole.

It is impossible not to condone violence by anyone. We all do it, all the time--even if implicitly. If Bibly eats meat then, whilst she may or may not be killing the meat she eats, she condones the killing of animals by purchasing the meat. Surely she doesn’t really think that lamb and beef are born all chopped up and pre-packaged for our consumption. One wonders whether she’s ever visited a slaughterhouse; seen a truck packed full of sheep on their way to meet the blade, and various other acts of violence involved in the simple sustenance of her comfortable lifestyle. Does the label "lamb chop" make it any less an act of violence. Surely she condones the violent treatment of surgery, for the greater benefit it offers. In relation to this discussion, she condones violence against Palestinians by her ignorance and she proposes that it is moral to do so because it will save her neck, and for no other reason.

If such an empty utterance is the form of her morality, what’s actually moral about it?

What meaning or morality, then, is there in saying the “Muslim race” is inherently violent because of their supposed and isolated condoning of violence?

PS: Typically, it's men who commit these acts of violence for "our" sustenance. It's extraordinary, then, for anyone not so willing to do so to consider themselves in any sort of position of moral righteousness over those who do without recognising even in the slightest the nature of their own parasitic existence. I mean, let's just be honest here.