h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's a question.

The 1st part of the question: Is there a mathematical way to explore religious intolerance? Answer: Possibly yes. You could devise Religious Intolerance Quotients for ALL the world's major religions. Something like this:
Take any religion and write down the number of years it has existed.
Call that number 'Y'.
Next take the number of people killed, injured or tortured "in the name of" that religion. To the nearest million will probably do.
Divide 'Y' into 'X' to get the basic intolerance level.
I appreciate that you must factor in the number of followers of your chosen religion to get the accurate RIQ but not being a maths professor I'm not sure how this could be done.
The RIQs for the major religions can then be compared. And later maybe a graph could be devised, like they have these days for global warming, showing possible trends.

The 2nd part of the question: How do we know that the "intolerant" activity is being carried on in the name of a religion? For example we only have the start-line word of Bush, and the circumstantial evidence of the Bush-Blair private prayer session to back up the idea that the present adventure is "a crusade". It may have nothing to do with religion. Or it may have everything to do with religion. It's very difficult to get a handle on this. Fog of war and all that. Getting the full picture of what "the other side" is thinking (for lack of a better word at the moment) is likely to prove equally problematic.

"I would argue that all fundamentalist religious people, whether lobbying for intelligent design in the US, writing in the Daily Heil or leaving bombs on tubes are equally as dangerous to me and my life style in the long run.

I therefore put them all in the box called 'them'. The us box is all non-religious, weakly religious or tolerant religious people, no matter what their deity."

Hey blicky, I missed you


>>
There have been occassions when attacking Christianity could be viewed as racist. The Armenian genocide might be one. In places where significant numbers of people have rejected the traditional faith of their culture, it would likely be odd to describe it as such though.
>> Bouncy

I would think that there are places where the Christian minority in a country are ethnically different from the non-Christian majority, and suffer as a result.




<<
But I agree that shouting racist was never a sensible decision in that thread gone by. I don't think its reasonable to stifle all criticism of a system of ideas simply because some people may be using it disingenuously.
<< Bouncy

Do you really think that that is what happened though? I mean no-one posted "you're a racist, shut up and go away", or "you're a racist and you're not allowed to post here".

I can't see how you can say that people naming racism were stifling all criticism of a system of ideas (do you mean racism as the system of ideas?). We had a long, wide ranging discussion about racism and calling people racist. There was no stifling going on.

Or do you consider disagreeing with someone strongly as a form of stifling?

>>
I am prejudiced against Islam and I believe I have good reason to be.
<< SWL

Yep, and other's have their own ways of commenting on that I still think it's instructive that you weren't the one that had a problem with being named as something, and I know that even where I vehemently disagree with your views on something I can still have a conversation where I debate the points and call you on stuff etc. Sure things might get a bit heated, but I'm not worried that you will take offense and have a fit about it. Which is to say that it wasn't conflict around you that was the problem in the other thread

*

There does seem to be this idea around that the only reason someone would debate with someone about racism is to try and change them. It's been said by quite a few people now that there are other reasons for debating racism, including to expose covert racism for what it is so that it's visible. This keeps certain kinds of covert racism from becoming mainstream and acceptable.

How shall I put it. Saying someone is racist is:

1) An insult.
2) Saying their views are wrong, because their views are racist, and everyone knows racist views are wrong .

So yes, that is stifling debate. Personally there are plenty of things I dislike about Islam, and I'd rather not be called a racist for it. Moreover, saying that someone or something is racist is simply no longer of any purpose.

Only an ill-informed person would stick to the old-fashioned clash of the lines of men style racism, and such can be fairly easily dismissed with a quick lesson in biology.

The modern cultural racism is something else again, close perhaps to imperial snobbery. And...some people obviously think its reasonable to dislike an entire culture. And they don't seem too keen on being grouped with the original racists.

Are you saying that 'old' and 'new' racism are such completely different things that they need different words to describe them?

Oopps. Didn't mean to post in this convo.

TRiG.

Well I suppose I'm saying, once again, that racism has sod all to do with culture. The clue is in the name: race is a failed biological classification.

If people are going to come under criticism for getting paranoid about immigration and religion then that's fine, but I don't think it belongs under an umbrella that makes us immedietly think of deliberate extermination of everyone with a Jewish grandmother.

Thank you for your responses!!


Ed, to quote:
"First of all...one has to ask whether *in this country* (Not in Saudi Arabia, not in China, etc. etc.) there's a general climate of attacking Christianity. Self-inflicted martyrdom over costume jewellery, the mythical 'banning' of Christmas and the demented ramblings of Ann Atkins aside...I think not."

Why must that question be asked? Would a general climate of attacking Christiantiy equal a general climate of racism towards Christians? Why is that?

Interesting piece of case law/article. Although it doesn't need repeating that legal results/laws does not equal "moral" or "right". But the key difference is that David Wilson was promoting hatred against *Muslims* - not Islam the religion, but a specific group of people, practicing that religion in a *very* specific localized region (Pollokshields, Scotland).

"the contemporary zeitgeist suggests that there is frequently a certain sub-text (conscious or otherwise) to criticisms of Muslims which is not present in discussions of Christianity"

By David Wilson? Certainly, but it wasn't sub-text. It seems you're using the same logic you deplore - you're grouping everyone who criticizes Islam as a member of BNP, saying that the larger group is represented by the small minority (David Wilsons).

"D'ya reckon he's regretting it?"

I'm not.


-----------------------------
Ferretbadger: I asked the question on the original thread, at least 370 posts before it was closed.

FB, you said the tactics were redolant of the BNP. My point however is that the criticism is of a religion, not its practicioners. A key difference. Neal Stephenson has made the case that religions are like computer viruses. Religion is a collection of ideas/beleifs - rituals are like algorithms. How can it be racist to criticize ideas? It can be annoying and rude, but racist?

I'm sorry I offended you, but honestly, I think the sloppy logic used has been offensive - especially the double standards.



---------------------------------
blicky

I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, absolutely, when criticising a religion you have to do your best to not be racist. And the key is not associating that religion with any specific group of practicioners, and also as you said being open about the fact that many (all?) of the major problems of organized religions are shared by all. But again, just because you, I or anyone continues to argue and differentiate one religion from another doesn't make their arguments racist. It makes them stubborn/closed-minded.

"Do you know what racism is?"

Not as much as most anybody else in the world, but I was called "slant-eyes" growing up, b/c basically I grew up in a town of swedish-americans, and I'm not. I lived with/was good friends with minorities throughout school, and witnessed racism against them. I'm engaged to a woman who is of a different race then me, and we've discussed it extensively.



------
kea

"I would think that there are places where the Christian minority in a country are ethnically different from the non-Christian majority, and suffer as a result."

And their religion, their Christianity, is just a part. If this group is already an ethnic minority, does it matter what their religion is? Would that magically make the persecution go away?


"Do you really think that that is what happened though? I mean no-one posted "you're a racist, shut up and go away", or "you're a racist and you're not allowed to post here"."

Actually that was basically what happened.


--------------------------
Lucky Llareggub

I beleive what you would want to do is divide your RIQ as defined by the number of adherents to the faith, thus giving you the "per capita" RIQ. That way comparing different religions RIQ wouldn't be affected by number of followers. I have a friend who may know if anyone has made a systematic study like the one you describe.



--------------------------
My basic premise is that the way to "defeat" racism - in general (long term) - is to have better *logic*. That is not the approach employed. The result: another us-vs-them battle.

>>Personally there are plenty of things I dislike about Islam, and I'd rather not be called a racist for it.<<

Bouncy, please show me ANYWHERE in any of these conversations that myself, or ETB, or FB, or blicky or anyone has ever said that critiquing or disliking Islam is a form of racism. I can't believe after all this time, and the various explanations that someone still thinks that that is what we have been on about

On the other hand I can show multiple examples where we have all said that it's fine, and in some cases entirely necessary, to critique Islam. You can find some examples in this thread.


>>
How shall I put it. Saying someone is racist is:

1) An insult.
2) Saying their views are wrong, because their views are racist, and everyone knows racist views are wrong .
<<

And you are entitled to your opinion on this I happen to disagree with both points so obviously I don't have a problem with the term 'racist' in the way that you do.

I was in a conversation with a friend a while ago, who strongly implied without stating it directly that I was being racist in what I was saying. At first I was indignant, but then I had to laugh and walk my talk, and really think about what she was saying. She was saying that there was something about my point of view that appeared to be discriminatory against, in this case, Maori. There is nothing wrong with her saying that - it was her experience of me at that time. The onus on me was to look at what I was saying, and see if it really was racist, or more to the point where it might be racist in ways that I didn't understand. Which I did, and I understand now why it appeared that what I was saying came across as racist.

As it happened I don't think that what I was saying was racist particularly, but I do understand that there are quite a few situations where I couldn't say those things because they are so easily captured by the racist bigots. Which makes me more careful about how I use my arguments. This is a useful thing, that she challenged what I was saying and that I had to think about it.

I've also been in other situations, usually amongst non-whites, where my attitudes were challenged as being racist. This wasn't done in a direct manner of labelling. But it did show me that there are ways that we simply do not understand our own racisms until they are pointed out to us. I am grateful for the times that this has happened, and still appalled at how much white people are resistant to this.

In terms of understanding racism there is no substitute for turning up amongst non-whites with my white girl assumptions (conscious and unconscious). Of course you have to have a willingness to acknowledge where you have been wrong or ignorant. An open heart also helps.

What I am saying here is that I find naming racism a very useful thing for improving the human condition. Anyone who has their views called racist can use this as an opportunity to examine what they are saying, what they mean, where they may be mistaken etc. If they decide there is nothing wrong with what they say then fine, they can stand their ground.


Further to all that, I don't see how you can say that naming racism stifles debate when all those naming racism have been having a big, long debate with the people who's views they think are racist.



>>
Only an ill-informed person would stick to the old-fashioned clash of the lines of men style racism, and such can be fairly easily dismissed with a quick lesson in biology.

The modern cultural racism is something else again, close perhaps to imperial snobbery. And...some people obviously think its reasonable to dislike an entire culture. And they don't seem too keen on being grouped with the original racists.
<<

You've lost me there. What is "old-fashioned clash of the lines of men style racism"

I don't know what you mean by 'modern cultural racism' either.

Can you please clarify?

>>Well I suppose I'm saying, once again, that racism has sod all to do with culture. The clue is in the name: race is a failed biological classification.<<

Yes, it's a failed classification, but most people with racist assumptions don't think about it in that way.

I can't see how racism isn't about culture. I mean, Maori aren't a separate race, but yet they still experience a wide range of racisms. Or are you saying that that doesn't exist?

>>>
-----
kea

"I would think that there are places where the Christian minority in a country are ethnically different from the non-Christian majority, and suffer as a result."

And their religion, their Christianity, is just a part. If this group is already an ethnic minority, does it matter what their religion is? Would that magically make the persecution go away?
<<< Arnie

In such a culture (an ethnic minority in a non-Christian country) where Christianity is adhered to by most people of the ethnic minority, you can't really separate out religion from culture from ethnicity. So where ethnicity=christianity then attacks on christianity are going to be ethnic attacks and vice versa.

The point being made about attacking Islam in the UK is that people like the BNP are trying to use religious intolerance to hide their racism. The reason they can do this is that most Muslims in the UK aren't anglosaxon or celt. If many muslims were also white then bigots couldn't use religious intolerance in the way that they currently do, they would have to be more specific.

The other situation I am thinking of is the extent to which Catholicism is cultural as well as religious. I have a friend who is an Irish Scot from a Protestant background (although she's not religious herself). She grew up in Glasgow and experienced a level of bigotry I find hard to understand from this side of the world because it doesn't happen here like that. I'm not sure I would call it racism but it's still hard out bigotry. This is why I am quite happy to call some of SWL's views bigotry instead of racism because there comes a point where the semantics get boring.



<<<
"Do you really think that that is what happened though? I mean no-one posted "you're a racist, shut up and go away", or "you're a racist and you're not allowed to post here"."

Actually that was basically what happened.
<<<


Care to show where that happened? Seriously, I'd like to know which bits of the conversation meant that to you.

Um, no I don't care to re-examine the the other thread in its entirety. Are you seriously claiming it never happened?

"So where ethnicity=christianity then attacks on christianity are going to be ethnic attacks and vice versa."

Right, and in those cases the attacks are against "the Christians" "the Jews" "the Muslims". Not against "Christianity" "Judaism" "Islam" - the concepts.

"The point being made about attacking Islam in the UK is that people like the BNP are ..."

And the point I'm trying to make is that your using the same exact logical fallacies which racists employ. You're saying "the BNP does this and it is bad, and you're doing something similar so you are the BNP".

I think many here are as guilty as the BNP in fighting old battles with yesterday's terminologies. This just evinces a fundamental ignorance of the situation.

This thread itself is ample demonstration. Rather than discuss the issue, many would prefer to bicker endlessly about labels.

Islamic extremists are murdering by the score every single day. They have slaughtered thousands of innocent people in the West. All in the name of Islam.

How many have the BNP butchered?

The Home Secretary tells us that an Islamic attack is likely in the UK this Christmas. That is the reality of the situation we face. There are some ninety or so alleged terrorists awaiting trial, thirty-odd plots being investigated and restrictions on all our freedoms being promulgated but it is more important for some here to make sure they're using the right label to slap onto someone for identifying that the facilitating dogma behind attacks worldwide is Islam.

What do the Islamists have to do to gain your approbation? Say something racist?

>>Um, no I don't care to re-examine the the other thread in its entirety. Are you seriously claiming it never happened?
<<

Yes, I've already said I don't think that is what happened, which is why you challenged me.

But in this case, unless you are willing to backup what you say, I will say put up or shut up Just for you

I'm just kidding really. You are entitled to see it any way you want. But if you want to challenge my view of it then you'll have to do better than some kind of 'yes it is no it isn't' banter.

I'm fairly certain that no-one actually used language like "you're a racist so shut up". However I can't speak for the intentions of others (they've been pretty clear themselves anyway). I can say for myself that in the arguments I've made about racism I don't intend that the other person's views are suppressed. On the contrary, if they're views based in racism then the more visible they are the better IMO.

As I've said a number of times, I think everyone has racism in them to some degree, so it doesn't make sense to take an analysis of racism from me as a form of suppressing someone.


I'm a bit concerned at this idea that arguing against something strongly is seen as a form of suppression. I mean, this is h2g2 after all, and the Forum. Isn't this where we go to argue strongly?




>>>
"So where ethnicity=christianity then attacks on christianity are going to be ethnic attacks and vice versa."

Right, and in those cases the attacks are against "the Christians" "the Jews" "the Muslims". Not against "Christianity" "Judaism" "Islam" - the concepts.
<<<

Not sure what your point is. Obviously there is a difference between people and belief. And I don't think that hating Islam as a belief system is necessarily a form of racism where it's a form of fundamentalist atheism (although I'm not a great fan of hatred against things collectively). But where I would start to question it as racism is where Islam was equated to all Muslims, and all Muslims are seen as xxx, and that this view took place in a society that had institutional racism.

I know you want there to be some kind of logical consistency, but unfortunately most racism has very little to do with logic.


>>>
"The point being made about attacking Islam in the UK is that people like the BNP are ..."

And the point I'm trying to make is that your using the same exact logical fallacies which racists employ. You're saying "the BNP does this and it is bad, and you're doing something similar so you are the BNP".
<<<

I don't think I've ever said that anyone here is the BNP (although I have wondered about the political affiliations of some people).

What I'm saying is that the BNP consciously use techniques of racism that the culture at large is taking on (probably mostly unconsciously). I doubt that the BNP is the causative factor, but if it were my country I'd be worried that a high profile group is gaining so much acceptance, because this is how culture changes - it happens slowly, over time, and often without people realising what is going on. Any group on the fringe that gets power shifts the centre to it's position somewhat.

But it's also true that the BNP gets the support it needs to get that power because of the racism already inherent in the situation. So it's not a straight cause and effect, but more a circular influence that reinforces itself in various ways.

My arguments against SWL's views have very little to do with the BNP. In fact I could never mention the BNP again, and still crititque what he says. But there is a cultural context, in that most of the people here are in the UK, so I can't see how we can not refer to the BNP as an example.

Having said all that, I don't actually understand what you mean. Maybe you could point out the logical fallacy clearly and I'll see if I get what you are referring to.

this is a straw-man argument:
"I'm a bit concerned at this idea that arguing against something strongly is seen as a form of suppression. I mean, this is h2g2 after all, and the Forum. Isn't this where we go to argue strongly?"

I'm not saying you can't argue against anything strongly. In point of fact, I'm saying you should. So this sentence makes no sense.


A misquotation:
"I know you want there to be some kind of logical consistency, but unfortunately most racism has very little to do with logic."

No, what I said was I want the opponents of racism to be logically consistent. This is exactly the opposite of what I said.


For the 2nd time, the logical fallacy is that criticising islam = criticising muslims = BNP. Maybe you didn't make the last step, but you seem to accept the first.

>>Islamic extremists are murdering by the score every single day<<

I'm presuming you're talking about Iraq, SWL. And yes it's working. The might of the US and the somewhat lesser might of the UK is being defeated. Unbelievable as that may have seemed when we walked into Bagdhad and Rumsfeld was all across our TVs, wetting himself with excitment as the staue of Sadam came down.

Do you blame Christian ideology for the flattening of Dresden or Hiroshima?

There's a power struggle going on in the world and yes people are doing horrible things on all sides. What's new? But why do you persist with this idea that all outrages perpetrayed by Muslims are somehow oh so much worse than anything the West has done oh so recently and for the last few hundred years? British Empire? slavery? Vietnam?

Are you utterly blind to history?

"I can't see how racism isn't about culture. I mean, Maori aren't a separate race, but yet they still experience a wide range of racisms. Or are you saying that that doesn't exist?"

I'm saying that the term racism is strictly incorrect in this circumstance. Particularly because Blicky was saying 'racism is this...' and he was wrong.

Racism means that these classifications are inherent. That 'people with x ethnicity are also like this'. For an easy example, all Jews inheriting the status of Christ-killer. What you are calling racism is people saying 'I don't like these aspects of x culture'. This might still be unpleasant, it might even be practiced by the same people, but its not the same thing.

Is Maori aren't a different race (obviously they're not technically, but in the mind of a racist), how do people single them out for discrimination?

Defeated? The objective was to overthrow a dictator and secure long-term bases and access to oil. Job done. Along the way Iraqis had the opportunity in free elections to vote for the leaders they wanted. That they now are gripped within an orgy of self-destruction is blamed upon the lack of a ruthless despot to keep them in check Are the Americans & British at fault for not ruling with an iron fist?

<>

Should I? Was that a religious war? Did Paul Tibbets yell "God is great" as he dropped the first atomic bomb?

<>

The "sh!t happens" defence then? Do previous wrongs make the current one right?

>>
this is a straw-man argument:
"I'm a bit concerned at this idea that arguing against something strongly is seen as a form of suppression. I mean, this is h2g2 after all, and the Forum. Isn't this where we go to argue strongly?"

I'm not saying you can't argue against anything strongly. In point of fact, I'm saying you should. So this sentence makes no sense.
<<

Fair enough. You can take my statement as directed at the people that think naming racism is a form of suppressing views



>>
For the 2nd time, the logical fallacy is that criticising islam = criticising muslims = BNP. Maybe you didn't make the last step, but you seem to accept the first.
<<

No. As I have explained quite a few times now (as have others) I don't think criticising islam = criticising muslims.

The part where I have a problem with someone criticising islam is where they themselves say such things as all muslims believe xxx about Islam, and Islam is evil. If Islam is evil, and all Muslims believe the same thing about Islam I feel quite justified in questioning the poster about their beliefs on the basis that they're being bigoted.

I myself have a pretty strong critique of Islam, as well as Muslim cultures (hell, I have a strong critique of most things). I just don't get to talk about it here much as the conversation here is too fundamentalist for it to be worth my while.

>>
"I can't see how racism isn't about culture. I mean, Maori aren't a separate race, but yet they still experience a wide range of racisms. Or are you saying that that doesn't exist?"

I'm saying that the term racism is strictly incorrect in this circumstance. Particularly because Blicky was saying 'racism is this...' and he was wrong.

Racism means that these classifications are inherent. That 'people with x ethnicity are also like this'. For an easy example, all Jews inheriting the status of Christ-killer. What you are calling racism is people saying 'I don't like these aspects of x culture'. This might still be unpleasant, it might even be practiced by the same people, but its not the same thing.
<<

You are taking a literal definition of racism. I'm using one that is applied throughout the world. Yes the word itself is technically incorrect, but everything I or blicky or whoever has said still stands if we call it say ethnic bigotry instead.

If you look at the wide range of people involved in anti-racism work, you'll see that the word 'racism' while imperfect is still quite usable.

I'm unclear if you are saying the terminology is wrong, or if you are saying that racism doesn't exist, but a lesser? kind of bigotry around ethnicity does exist. Please clarify.


>>What you are calling racism is people saying 'I don't like these aspects of x culture'.<<

I'm not saying that at all. I can probably name something about every culture on the planet that I don't like. Where did you get that from?


>>
Is Maori aren't a different race (obviously they're not technically, but in the mind of a racist), how do people single them out for discrimination?
<<

Most people do still think in terms of race. That's how they practice racism. Racism, ethnicity, whatever, it's semantics. Maori are discriminated against where they are perceived as being Maori.