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

Well now...since Arnie has addressed me directly...although I'm ignoring the other self-justificatory tosh on this thread, I'll respond.

>>Why must that question [ie whether there is an atmosphere of attacking Christianity in this country] be asked? Would a general climate of attacking Christiantiy equal a general climate of racism towards Christians? Why is that?

Agreed. I don't think it would *necessarily*. Hypothetically, a non Christian (let's say me) attacking Christianity might not equate to racism in a population where Christianity is the vestigial faith of the majority ethnic group. (Fully accepting that it is also the faith of many black Britons). It would, most likely, be racism if the attack was coming from another identifiable ethnic group - or at very least we'd have to be careful that a theological discussion didn't spil over into or cloak racism. But that's hypothetical. I don't believe that antipathy towards Christians is a major social concern in the contemporary UK (feel free to provide contrary evidence if you disagree). Our situation is one in which British muslims are overwhelmingly Asian. It is disingenuous to say "But some of them are white" - like Yusuf Islam or Richard Thompson. In this climate, while I will defend the right to criticise religion, to disprortionately and repeatedly single out Islam seems to me to be highly indicative of (but admittedly not proof of) racism. Certainly a safe working assumption is that anyone who advertises an Islamophobic obsession is very likely to also be a racist.

Which brings me to:

>>Me:
"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"

>>Arnie:
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).

I must briefly start by saying it is asserted by many in the know that Wilson was the canon fodder for a campaign organised by others. (pre-emptive clarification for the Mods: I will carefully avoid naming the organiser for legal reasons. However, it is a matter of public record).

But, no. I'm not for a minute suggesting that Islamophobia is the sole preserve of the BNP. Unfortunately it has leaked into the mainstream and we therefore have to be careful of whether we are buying in to racist assumptions. One way of reality checking is to look for other subtexts. As an example, it is (I assume) widely assumed because the previous thread was closed due to my constant branding of racist any criticism of Islam. This was not the case. The remark I originally objected to concerned the nationality of a white, British-born public figure (and there followed an exchange regarding what criticism the mods would allow). So...singling out of Islam...I'll admit that I'm on my guard and looking for a subtext. But whan I see remarks about nationality...well, I begin to think "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it needs a few more minutes in the microwave".

And yes, it's a judgement call. So when I see someone like Fanny criticising extreme Islam on the grounds of their attitude toward sexuality, I note that she also refers to religious dogmatism in general and generally assume that she's not motivated by racism. But when I see attacks solely and relentlessly on Islam...I think that in the current UK political context, I'm entitled to my pessimism. And I should also note that my alarm bells also start ringing at the conflation of the wholly unrelated issues of the veil and the cross.

So, no, attacks on a religion are not the same as racism...but they can be and often are. So let's use our radar, huh?

"How can it be racist to criticize ideas? It can be annoying and rude, but racist?"

In that case Arnie I think you are fundamentally missing my point. In which case I must apologise because evidently I have not made myself clear.

I dont, nor have I ever said that "criticism of islam = racism" as a matter of course.

However that isnt to say that just because criticism of Islam does not necessarily equate to recism, that it doesn't sometimes. Whitin the UK we have an avowedly *racist* party called the BNP. The BNP who are subject to "Race Hate" laws and have to be very careful about how they put their points over.

Therefore they have changed tack and decided to start attacking Islam, clearly as a proxy for Racism that they can now no longer say publically. I would hope that *no-one* in this thread seriously doubts that the BNP are a racist party and that their actions in regard to islam are just a proxy for racism.

Therefore I feel that it is possible that other people might do the same thing, and if I think that someone is using attacking Islam as a proxy for racism and I call them on that I dont see what I am doing wrong, or where I have a logical fallacy.

I myself am hugely critical of just about every religon, being of the "disease of the mind" school of thought .

Not seen myself attacking myself as a racist over this.


I have to say Arnie I missed both of your posts until the one that prompted my rather angry reply yesterday. This happens though sometimes on a site with fast moving threads, particuarly if people are busy. My posts often get ignored, thats life and it does not make people hypocrites.

Hi Edward, thanks again for the response.

"Certainly a safe working assumption is that anyone who advertises an Islamophobic obsession is very likely to also be a racist"

And certainly a safe working assumption is that anyone with [insert racial characteristic] is very likely to also be a [criminal/drunk/etc.].




FB:
"Therefore I feel that it is possible that other people might do the same thing, and if I think that someone is using attacking Islam as a proxy for racism and I call them on that I dont see what I am doing wrong, or where I have a logical fallacy."

logical fallacy is as described above. I share a common trait with the BNP, therefore I share all traits of the BNP. For example, I'm caucasian. Most BNP members are caucasian. Therefore, I'm a ractist.

"My posts often get ignored, thats life and it does not make people hypocrites."

Missing posts doesn't make you a hypocrit, I mis-typed if that's how I came across. Criticising Christianity while condemning criticism of Islam however does.

"logical fallacy is as described above. I share a common trait with the BNP, therefore I share all traits of the BNP. For example, I'm caucasian. Most BNP members are caucasian. Therefore, I'm a ractist."

Errr no. Are you actually reading what I am posting or are you reading something else.

If I said that everyone who criticises Islam is a Racist then you might have a point.

But that just isn't what I have said, in fact I made no generalisation. At the time I was speaking about one individual researcher I seem to recall.

Thinking about it, it would have been a logical fallacy for me to say:-

Anyone who critices Islam is a racist.

But I didn't. I challange you to point out a post where I said that.

Anyone who agrees with part of the BNPs agenda agrees with all of it.

But I didn't. I challange you to point out a post where I said that.

Hi all,

If I have been a bit slow in coming back, it is because gazelle like movement is not becoming on me at my age. I hope you will forgive me for that. I hope you would also be able to accept that I simply post as plain old me, not as spokesman for the BNP, SWL or anybody else.

I have tried to study carefully all the posts. What Psycorp wrote about the origin of Democracy is just a matter of historical record. If any culture is to be credited with starting it, it should be Athens and not Christianity. Sorry, SWL, I cannot accept what you said on this. Fanny, as you can see I am no fan of SWL. Where I can agre with him I will. Where I cannot, you will know with equal certainty.

Psycorp, and many others have said that criticising religion is not racism. I agree. Fanny, any rational person should reject all religious dogma. It stifles the soul and that is what religion is supposed to lift. So such dogma, by definition, is self-contradictory. To what you say about sexual preference, I agree. And I would add freedom about contraception, abortion, euthanasia and NO religious conditioning at school. Our schools should be about opening minds, not closing them. Ferrettbadger, I hope you will note that I am actually agreeing with you, within the limits of what I think you believe religion to be.

Arnie, I am not sure why you asked “Is attacking Christianity racism?” Of course, the answer is NO, simply because there are christians of many races. But why attack anything?

I am not against religion but the excesses of it. Religion is a necessity. As Nietzsche said, “if there was no God, Man would have to invent it.”. Simple as that.

Edward, I don’t quite get the bonobo, but putting that aside, “Christians, Muslims and Atheists alike are all 'Us', surely?” Yes indeed. But it takes two to tango. When Muslims start to make their differences so much “in your face” it simply does not help. I am referring to the Niqab, the burqua, the cartoon saga, the Pope saga etc. It just seems to go on and on and on.

Bouncy bit …Those are modern innovations on the concept, read some Nietzsche. Indeed. I hope you will forgive me, if I quote a favourite of mine:
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

And last, but not the least, blicky, I sympathise with you that your “anscestors were raped by christian clerics”. Exactly, how long ago was that?

I also sympathise with “the christians put to death by the pagan Romans” I believe that was about 2000 years ago. Am I right?

Now would you please do me a huge favour, for which I would give you £20,000 here and now. Would you please put me back to where I was not 2000 years ago but only two minutes ago, ot two seconds, for that matter.

The sad truth is that we live in the here and now. We have no choice. And we have to meet the problems that are facing us here and now, not fight yesterday’s battles.

Now if you will excuse me, it’s way past my bedtime.

Regards.

Prashna.

FB, this is the statement:

"However that isnt to say that just because criticism of Islam does not necessarily equate to recism, that it doesn't sometimes"

What other evidence do you require that changes in your opinion whether critisism of Islam is or is not racist? You haven't stated anything that I can see besides drawing analogies with the BNP - hence my response regarding the BNP.

“Christians, Muslims and Atheists alike are all 'Us', surely?”

That's probably the most sensible post I've ever seen made.

>>
Errr no. Are you actually reading what I am posting or are you reading something else.
<< FB

I think he is reading something else. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he hadn't actually read most of the VC1 thread and so, like you and EtB, laid out where he was misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting what I've been saying. I also thought perhaps I hadn't been clear enough, but I think after 3 of us re-explaining the points, again, someone who doesn't get it now is either being obtuse or disingenuous.

Let's make it plain: none of us think that criticising Islam per se = racism. But some of us think that one can criticise Islam from racist viewpoints. Numerous examples have been given.

duh.

"FB, this is the statement:

"However that isnt to say that just because criticism of Islam does not necessarily equate to recism, that it doesn't sometimes"

What other evidence do you require that changes in your opinion whether critisism of Islam is or is not racist? You haven't stated anything that I can see besides drawing analogies with the BNP - hence my response regarding the BNP."

Basically it depends on a large number of variables. The main one in my mind being where poster or the debater (depending on the context) says things about Islam specifically as if that criticism were specific to just Islam, when in fact it applies equally well to any Abrahamic religon.

It is difficult to say, so for example when someone like Blatherskite the Mugwump criticises Islam I am confidnet it comes form a deeply held distaste for religous ideas, and nothing to do with his predjudices about the people following those religons.

However there are some others who I dont have that same ocnviction and so I think they may be motivated by something else.

I will BTW try and dig out some literature I have on the BNP "modus operandi" in relation to using Islam as a proxy for "brown people". And see if I can send it to you.

Of course if a racist was attacking Islam for racist reasons, his racism would be evident on other threads and he wouldn't be able to say anything good about people racially similar to the supposed target.

Unless he was rather caculating and clever! Or supposed he was!

Welcome back again Prashna!

Or maybe it's just easier to jump to conclusions. Labelling is so much easier than thinking..

Tell you what; prove I'm racist. Put up or shut up.

ASrnie:
>>"Certainly a safe working assumption is that anyone who advertises an Islamophobic obsession is very likely to also be a racist"

>>And certainly a safe working assumption is that anyone with [insert racial characteristic] is very likely to also be a [criminal/drunk/etc.].

No. That's not the same argument. Racial characteristics are shared by a diversity of otherwise different individuals. They are innate and involuntary. An obsession takes a voluntary act of will. And I'm talking about *obsession* about Islam here, not generalised comments about religion. Look, Arnie - sincerely - I do not think that criticism of a religion automatically equates to racism. That is not the basis of my argument, much though some may wish to imagine it is.

As for Fanny's response to SWL..I really don't think that anyone is covering up here. At least, not competently. On numerous occasions at least one of the resident students of Islam has slipped up and changed tack to talking about, eg, immigration or black and asian crime. These concerns - and the misrepresented evidence provided in support - have given me cause to wonder whether their comments about Islam are part of a more general mindset.

sorry - my mistyping at the start of the last post might look like I was trying to be rude. I promise it was just my fat fingers.

kea, that's especially rich coming from you, given your (what now appears to be) deliberate lying about what I posted. You really are the worst hypocrit here, bar none.

"Let's make it plain: none of us think that criticising Islam per se = racism"

Gee kea, you can say it over and over again, it doesn't make it true. I can say I'm not a racist for criticising Islam exclusively repeatedly, will that make you beleive it? DUH.


------------------------
FB, thanks for the elaboration, I think that is a respectable amount of additional criteria. On the other hand, I do wonder why I would have to clarify my criticism of a specific religion by saying everytime "yes I know the others do this." Isn't that sort of a given. And clearly religions are different from one another, so you would expect there to be some difference in how they interact with "others" and are present themselves...? So what differences are allowed to be elaborated upon without being racist?

If you send the lit I promise to read it.

-----------------------
Ed -
"Racial characteristics are shared by a diversity of otherwise different individuals. They are innate and involuntary. An obsession takes a voluntary act of will. And I'm talking about *obsession* about Islam here, not generalised comments about religion."

Well, you did use the word "Islamaphobia" in your original post, and to my understanding not many people have control over their phobia's do they?

>>>
kea, that's especially rich coming from you, given your (what now appears to be) deliberate lying about what I posted. You really are the worst hypocrit here, bar none.

"Let's make it plain: none of us think that criticising Islam per se = racism"

Gee kea, you can say it over and over again, it doesn't make it true. I can say I'm not a racist for criticising Islam exclusively repeatedly, will that make you beleive it? DUH.
<<<

See, this is why I normally don't bother engaging with your comments. The first paragraph above I have no idea what you are on about. You haven't explained, and because I've been reading your posts and not really understanding what you are on about and because you generally fail or refuse to explain or give links to what you are referring too, I really can't be bothered going back an rereading your posts in this thread to try and understand. What it looks like to me is that you are simply repeating the same mistaken assertions over and over despite people here quite adequately explaining what they mean.

If you choose to not believe me when I state my belief about something I have no control over that, it's entirely up to you.


>>I can say I'm not a racist for criticising Islam exclusively repeatedly, will that make you beleive it?<<

I have no evidence that your racism is above the level of most people's in the West. Meaning I haven't thought about you in terms of if you or your arguments are particularly racist or not. So if you say to me that your criticism of Islam isn't based in racism then yes I believe you (unless I see something that persuades me otherwise).

Really, you have all these ideas about me and my beliefs that are just plain inaccurate That in itself doesn't bother me overly because I can probably just start ignoring you again, but simply posting refutations without explaining them is a lazy way of arguing IMO (or a disingenuous one). Or maybe you're just trying to wind me up

Actually kea it's quite simple. All you would be required to do is remember what you've wrote, and what my responses - just to you - are. For example, your post 54:

"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?"

nowhere did I say anything to that effect. You desire references - I challenge you to provide some of your own. My response, already posted:
"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."


also in your #54:

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

What I've been saying again and again is that I want more logic from the opponents of racism. Again, where did I ask for logic is racism? I asked for the opponents of racism to employ logic.

Again, I make no assumptions about you or your beleifs. I have just read, repeatedly, your tendency to use broad sweeping generalizations, and bad logic. I point it out. You're response is to misquote me to the point of attributing the opposite meaning to me. You're so blinded by the idea that you are inherently "right" that you can't step back and see the logical fallacies you rely on, and instead resort to misquotations.

Ok.

>>>
Actually kea it's quite simple. All you would be required to do is remember what you've wrote, and what my responses - just to you - are. For example, your post 54:

"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?"

nowhere did I say anything to that effect. You desire references - I challenge you to provide some of your own. My response, already posted:
"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."
<<<

Yes, and immediately after you posting saying you never said that, I said:

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

I thought that was sufficiently clear that I had accepted you correcting me.

There were a number of people in that day or so who *were* implying that saying something very strongly was akin to suppression of views, or at least that was how I heard it, and I was concerned about it. My statement was a general follow on from what I was saying to you, but I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the broader conversations than just to you. I don't remember why I thought you were one of those people, but I did accept you corrected me on that.


>>>
also in your #54:

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

What I've been saying again and again is that I want more logic from the opponents of racism. Again, where did I ask for logic is racism? I asked for the opponents of racism to employ logic.
<<<

Yes, I understand what you meant, and I did read where you responded to my post 54 about that. But it's a big thread with lots going on, I don't respond to or acknowledge everything that happens or even that is directed to me. I don't think anyone here does.

I did have some additional thoughts about the need to logical consistency in arguing a view of racism, and why I said that racism isn't generally logical, but at the time didn't have the energy to go into it.


>>>
Again, I make no assumptions about you or your beleifs. I have just read, repeatedly, your tendency to use broad sweeping generalizations, and bad logic. I point it out. You're response is to misquote me to the point of attributing the opposite meaning to me. You're so blinded by the idea that you are inherently "right" that you can't step back and see the logical fallacies you rely on, and instead resort to misquotations.
<<<

It's true that I do generalise at times. I often feel that what I say is either far enough out of the mainstream, or is outside the experience of people here (in the case of posting examples from NZ), that at times I will just drop things into the conversation and wait to see if it interests anyone. If it does I am usually more than willing to explain what I mean, but I often don't see the point in writing a long explanatory post unless I know that people are actually reading it.

At other times I will generalise in a long post, but often I will acknowledge the generalisation, it's just a form of shorthand. And I can tell you that when I do generalise I can just about always back up or explain in more depth what I mean. I don't have a problem with generalising per se where it's useful in communicating something.


>> I point it out. You're response is to misquote me to the point of attributing the opposite meaning to me.<<

It's interesting that you say that about me because I feel you do the same in talking to me. I'm not aware where I have misquoted you, but I acknowledge that often I don't understand the points you make.


>>
You're so blinded by the idea that you are inherently "right" that you can't step back and see the logical fallacies you rely on, and instead resort to misquotations.
<<

See the problem is that I still don't know what the logical fallacy is that you are referring to. You've just given me two examples of my posts but neither of those contain logical fallacies on my part. The first I was mistaken and subsequently acknnowledged that. The second was some lazy posting on my part that was open to misinterpretation and I didn't bother explaining myself further.

But by all means, if I post a logical fallacy please point it out. It will probably work better if you quote me, with the post number, and then explain why the logic is faulty. That way I can respond to what you are saying directly instead of wondering what you are talking about


I'm not saying that I'm always logical, or that I don't make mistakes (on the contrary I learn quite a lot by making mistakes). And I'll let you know now that I don't consider logic the only valid form of understanding something. Sometimes being able to think intuitively or use irrational experience teaches me much. Sometimes the emotional reality is just as important. And I'm pretty comfortable with paradoxical or conflicting realities or truths.

But I do agree that in debates of this kind logical consistency is generally needed as the basis of effective communication (although I need to be careful here as I'm sure you and I see logic in different ways).