Friends of AM23's Threatening to Kidnap Westerners for Depiction of Mohammed

[alonzomourning23]

That's a particularlly biggoted thing to say about biggots. "Most" is an unfair blanket statement about muslim haters. Many biggots I know are selective in their hate and don't mix their hatred for hindus with their hatred for muslims.

I didn't say there wasn't a distinction in their mind, but that they often don't know the difference in practice and make hindu's targets because they think they're muslim.

[quote name='KrAzY3']As much as I hate to say it, yes those should be allowed. You can, of course get into the realm of psychological harm, and I do think you can prevent said things from being show in public places and the like but the right of someone to do said things on his private property in keeping with his any homeowner's agreements he may or may not have signed? It is his right, I can't advocate him doing it but freedom of expression includes freedom to be a jackass. I know you're just arguing to argue now though, the devil's advocate part was a bit of a giveaway.[/quote]

So if someone decides to display a burning cross on his lawn that's directed at his black neighbor (but still on his lawn) doesn't that amount to threatening and terrorizing his neighbor? It's not legal to do such things.

Yes I'm arguing just to argue here, but only partially. My point is there are limits to free speech and while I'm not necessarily saying where that limit should or shouldn't be (even if it appears I am), my point is that what the symbol or language represents is often a legitimate consideration in whether it is simply free speech or whether your freedom of expression has gone beyond that and infringed on the rights of others. Burning crosses, particularly in public view, is generally considered a type of expression that crosses that line.

Well, you tell me? I was once involved with a Indian woman. The first time she was pointed out to me, my friend said something about "that Hindu over there" being hot. She was in fact not a Hindu, she was a Protestant and married to a preacher at that. Of course that is another story. Anyway, here you have two groups commonly identified together. Hindu and Indian. Her being a Indian told someone almost nothing factual about her. You could look at her and go, well she must be from India. No, she was not her parents were. She was a South African Indian. You could look at her and go, well she must be a Hindu. No, and while she wasn't a very good Christian she certainly belonged to the faith. Once I know her religion, I can and do make many judgements about her. A good Christian probably doesn't get involved with minors 16 years younger than them. I can judge her according to her religion because her religion dictates certain behavior and beliefs. If she strays from them, or even if she follows them it can subject her to criticism. However, I can find no logical grounds to judge her according to her race. She did not choose it, she didn't not ask for it and it only provided a cosmetic feature, no more, no less.

Now, take Arabs for instance. You'll notice this is the first time in my discussions on the board I even used the term. Now, I'll skip the argument of what dictates a race and just take it for granted that they are considered one. A Arab might be VERY likely to be a Muslim. I would say it is approaching a 95% chance. Yet, I refuse to judge a Arab superficially. Now, Islamic culture might put a great deal of pressure on a Arab to be a Muslim. To the extent that they might even fear violence. And that is one reason I limit my criticism to some protestors and the violent Muslims. If I judge a religion's followers, I think it goes without saying that I spare people practicing it because of coercion. I've made a point of saying things like "violent minority" and the like.. But, even if I did not, Islam has a set of beliefs. Islam has prophets which are open to criticism. Once I determine someone is a Muslim, I can now judge them accordingly.

Race, allows me to do no more than make assumptions and the like. There is nothing factual (once again beyond cosmetics) for me to judge a person on, merely on the basis of race. As a matter of fact race can be VERY misleading as I said before. A religion tells me a LOT about a person, it tells me what belief systems they have and/or if they follow it. That can tell me the character of the person, the fervor of the person as well as allow me to determine if I can get along with them and the like. Race? All that can allow a person to do is make assumptions, which are often incorrect.

Well religion can be a very poor predictor of behavior and personality, and, for the most part, even beliefs. I've found it to be a horrible basis to judge people, and it is absolutely worthless as an indicator of whether you can get along with them (unless you hold prejudicial views that prevent that). One of the best examples I can think of this was a muslim girl who was co-leader of a liberal group I was involved with in toronto. She was pro palestinian but she was also pro choice, pro same sex marriage, and on hot days had a tendency to walk around in a sporting bra (I remember this because she was extremely hot). At the same time there were many women on campus who wore hijabs, and at least 4 (I could tell by the height of them, but there were probably more) wore a burka. At a school a friend goes to the GLBT group is led by 2 hindu lesbians. Hinduism, while very diverse (to the point of often almost being different religions sometimes), they're not exactly the most supportive of homosexuality, and homosexuality itself is illegal in india. And for christianity, well every single political position in this country is occupied by them so I'm not sure what that label can even hope to tell you besides the belief in jesus and god (and I've even met an exception or two for that).

But what you've done is described how you view race and how you view religion. You didn't describe the difference in hating people due to race and hating them due to religion, and the difference that effect has on people and society.

 

[KrAzY3]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if someone decides to display a burning cross on his lawn that's directed at his black neighbor (but still on his lawn) doesn't that amount to threatening and terrorizing his neighbor? It's not legal to do such things. [/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt that would be in keeping with his homeowners agreement/agreements he may or may not have with his landlord. And, as I said there are gray areas I have to concede that. I already did as a matter of fact. To really interpret things properly you would have to get into state, local and federal laws. For instance though, the protestors advocating violence and supporting terrorism were not arrested in the UK. Yet, people have been arrested for using "hate speech" in regards to Islam. I think this is clearly a matter that we have to look at from all viewpoints, but if there is any doubt I think we should go with freedom of expression. We certainly need to avoid a double standard in which one form of hate speech is perfectly acceptable and another is completely denied. I think the line might best be drawn at how direct things are. I can't provide a sound resolution, but I think that if we defend the right of people to hold up signs that say "Behead those who defame Islam" or the like then we are also obligated to defend the right of newspapers, for instance to publish offensive pictures.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well religion can be a very poor predictor of behavior and personality, and, for the most part, even beliefs. I've found it to be a horrible basis to judge people, and it is absolutely worthless as an indicator of whether you can get along with them (unless you hold prejudicial views that prevent that). One of the best examples I can think of this was a muslim girl who was co-leader of a liberal group I was involved with in toronto. She was pro palestinian but she was also pro choice, pro same sex marriage, and on hot days had a tendency to walk around in a sporting bra (I remember this because she was extremely hot). [/QUOTE]

Everything you described is still relative to her religion though. Even your description of her is clearly based around what might be typical beliefs/teachings of Muslims. I did not say that you could or should have expectations based on their religion, I said that you should be able to draw many conclusions. I might, for instance both judge someone favorably because they follow their religion's teachings, or if they thoroughly reject them (in that case I would suppose it would be ex-religion). The person I judge harshest might be the person that poorly follows the teachings of their religion, yet still professes to be a believer and a follower. Religion does not tell me how someone acts, but it does tell me how their religion dictates they should act and I can reach and number of logical conclusions based on that.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But what you've done is described how you view race and how you view religion. You didn't describe the difference in hating people due to race and hating them due to religion, and the difference that effect has on people and society.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I ever even used the word hate. Remember the context, I defended the right of people to be biased against Islam (particularly the radical elements) while also rejecting the idea of racism (which IS blind hate) as being similar. I'm not here to write a thesis on the effect of hatred of race and religion in society, I am merely here to point out that bias based on religion can have a great deal of logical grounds while bias based on race can never be based on anything other than assumption (aside from the very few biological differences, almost all cosmetic).

 

[alonzomourning23]

Well, there is considerable controversy over the fact that no one was arrested in that protest, muslim leaders are among those arguing there should have been arrests. Their rights to advocate violence are not being defended by anyone of significance it seems. Also, many people own their home and therefore have no agreement with the landlord because there is none. It's only laws that apply. The point I was asking is whether laws should control that.

There are cultural differences to be found in adults. A person from beijing is more likely to have certain values or behavior pattens than another person from capetown is to have those same values and behavior patterns. It's not biological, it's differences based on culture and leave lasting impacts on the behavior, values, beliefs etc. of other people. This is becoming particularly evident in fields such as psychology which is finding out (just one example of many cultural issues) that methods that work well with europeans often don't work as well when blacks, latinos, asians etc. step into their office. Bigotry (or what you term bias) towards members of a religion has no more basis in logic than does bias towards members of a race. If you ask what religion somebody is and they say they are christian, what are you to take away from that? What assumptions can you reasonably make that will have bearing on your interaction with them? Almost every opinion in this country is dominated by them. There are certain assumptions you can make when dealing with groups as a whole. For example, if you're dealing with Iranian tourists it probably isn't best to leave that picture of ariel sharon on the wall that you put up for the Israeli tourists. But, when you're dealing on an individual level, the broad assumptions that may have sufficed for the group don't work very well. Cultural norms are one thing, it's a bad idea to go to Syria and start giving people "thumbs up" for example. But that doesn't say much about the individual people you will be dealing with while you're there.

But bias towards members of a certain religion is a form of prejudice. I'm not sure what's so hard to explain here, in practice how does bigotry due to race differ from bigotry due to religion? It would seem to have the same effect, especially in instances (such as muslims) that people are easily identifiable as muslim (whether they actually are or not is another issue).

I've been trying to use words that are as neutral as possible. Bigot is more neutral than racist or similar terms, and when I use such terms I'm not using it to attack and I'm referring to the actual definition not the extra baggage that people sometimes add onto it.

 

[Zoglog]

Now they've put a hit bounty on the creator of the cartoon? This is ing rediculous I say they should beat all the protesters senseless and end this stupid crap.