Family History (Real Names Changed To...
Genealogy2 mins ago
Intolerance: Christianity Vs Islam
46 Answers
I have noticed in the last few weeks and months that very few debates on Islam have occurred, yet several questions on the validity of Christianity have been posted. All things have been debated – from the real-world abuse of children to various metaphysical conundra.
I have responded to several of these question and have been highly critical of the Christian faith, its supporters and its leaders. No one, so far, has rebuked me for doing so, nor have they called me childish names.
However, in the recent past when I have been critical of the Islamic faith, I have been accused of being ignorant, bigoted and in one memorable post, labelled “our resident Muslim maligner”.
What makes the supporters of Islam (on this website at least) so vehement, fervid, and intolerant of criticism?
I have responded to several of these question and have been highly critical of the Christian faith, its supporters and its leaders. No one, so far, has rebuked me for doing so, nor have they called me childish names.
However, in the recent past when I have been critical of the Islamic faith, I have been accused of being ignorant, bigoted and in one memorable post, labelled “our resident Muslim maligner”.
What makes the supporters of Islam (on this website at least) so vehement, fervid, and intolerant of criticism?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Personally speaking I'm no more a friend of Islamic beliefs than Christian ones or indeed any mumbo jumbo
However I don't recall you often attacking Islamic beliefs more often the culture of some Muslims.
For example wearing a veil is not a universal muslim religious belief although it does seem on the rise at present. The hijab is actually banned in Turkish Universities and for public sector workers.
My line is quite simply that people should be quite free to follow whatever religious practices they like but it should not be funded or supported by the state.
In this country that means the Christian Church because they are the established church and have bishops in the house of Lords etc.
However I don't recall you often attacking Islamic beliefs more often the culture of some Muslims.
For example wearing a veil is not a universal muslim religious belief although it does seem on the rise at present. The hijab is actually banned in Turkish Universities and for public sector workers.
My line is quite simply that people should be quite free to follow whatever religious practices they like but it should not be funded or supported by the state.
In this country that means the Christian Church because they are the established church and have bishops in the house of Lords etc.
Misguided political correctness. Whether it's because criticism of Islam is erroneously thought to be synonymous with racism, or because people will champion this religion, warts and all, simply because they consider it to be peopled by an 'ethnic minority', Islam, regardless of what it does, is wrongly deemed by many here to be beyond criticism - and it isn't. (Incidentally, some seem to think that all religion should be beyond criticism. Can't think why).
If no one has rebuked you or called you childish names for criticising Christianity, may I suggest you're not doing it properly..? ;-)
On a general level, there is a difference between Christianity and Islam in that most of us grew up with some measure of Christianity in our lives; it's something we're pretty well up on when it comes to criticising it. Islam doesn't fall into this category for most people. I'd wager that 9/11 significantly increased people's knowledge and awareness of what Islam is about, but also added more disinformation and fear-mongering too. Add into that the fact that for some their anti-Islam sentiments are actually just a cloak for the fact that they're your bog-standard racist. If followers are defensive, there may be some reasons for being so. Islam is also a younger religion, and perhaps like a petulant teenager, its followers are more inclined to fits of pique. Give them another five hundred years and if they're still around they'll probably respond to criticism by having a bring and buy sale.
None of that, of course, affects one iota the fact that Islam is just as silly and made up as Christianity.
On a general level, there is a difference between Christianity and Islam in that most of us grew up with some measure of Christianity in our lives; it's something we're pretty well up on when it comes to criticising it. Islam doesn't fall into this category for most people. I'd wager that 9/11 significantly increased people's knowledge and awareness of what Islam is about, but also added more disinformation and fear-mongering too. Add into that the fact that for some their anti-Islam sentiments are actually just a cloak for the fact that they're your bog-standard racist. If followers are defensive, there may be some reasons for being so. Islam is also a younger religion, and perhaps like a petulant teenager, its followers are more inclined to fits of pique. Give them another five hundred years and if they're still around they'll probably respond to criticism by having a bring and buy sale.
None of that, of course, affects one iota the fact that Islam is just as silly and made up as Christianity.
-- answer removed --
Well Naomi, it seems we're on different sides of the fence when it comes to the issue of whether anti-Islamism is sometimes a cloak for racism.
It certainly isn't always, but you only have to recall the posts of that chronic inadequate ex-poster Ward-Minter (sadly missed from AB, though not by me) or that senile git who clogs up the News topic with all his race-obsessed fetishism to see that for some their hatred of Islam is at least partly plain old bigotry.
It certainly isn't always, but you only have to recall the posts of that chronic inadequate ex-poster Ward-Minter (sadly missed from AB, though not by me) or that senile git who clogs up the News topic with all his race-obsessed fetishism to see that for some their hatred of Islam is at least partly plain old bigotry.
Perhaps (at the risk of being called a defender of evil Islam) waldo I might point out that Islamic spain in the middle ages were allowing Jews and Christians to cohabit (albeit at an excess tax rate) while we in the England were mudering Jews before finally expelling them from the kingdom.
So I think your thesis of maturity is a little misplaced - attitudes come and go in waves - look at pictures of Cairo in the 70's you'll find it was much more liberal than today. Much as 18th Century Britain was more Liberal than 19th Century Britain.
Give them 500 years and maybe thell have bring and buy sales while a resurgent fundamentalist Christianity runs amok in the UK
So I think your thesis of maturity is a little misplaced - attitudes come and go in waves - look at pictures of Cairo in the 70's you'll find it was much more liberal than today. Much as 18th Century Britain was more Liberal than 19th Century Britain.
Give them 500 years and maybe thell have bring and buy sales while a resurgent fundamentalist Christianity runs amok in the UK
Eddie a point of debate not criticism.
600 years ago chrisitianity was in a word of limited communication (and dare I say it, superstion) Where the word of God was unquestioned, basicaly because the clergy were the most learned in most communitys.
To that extent in the modern world why don't Islamists question thier religion. They have every facet of modern thinking at thier disposal but they go forward, apparently,
blindly.
There are however, for want of a better phrase, secular Islamists and I understand that these people are growing.
600 years ago chrisitianity was in a word of limited communication (and dare I say it, superstion) Where the word of God was unquestioned, basicaly because the clergy were the most learned in most communitys.
To that extent in the modern world why don't Islamists question thier religion. They have every facet of modern thinking at thier disposal but they go forward, apparently,
blindly.
There are however, for want of a better phrase, secular Islamists and I understand that these people are growing.
supposing for the moment that this is a serious question rather than another statement of your own position:
Christians seldom bother to enter these threads because they find the proponents of atheism loud-mouthed and close-minded. They are comfortable in their beliefs but choose not to subject themselves to pointless abuse. (And it is abuse rather than debate: words like 'blind' and 'delusional' are readily thrown around). Jake, who is genuinely tolerant, is an exception to this.
However, they may be prepared to stand up for Islam not because they believe in Allah but because they don't like to see members of a minority come under attack in a way that is not merely abusive but often racist. They will stand up for members of other races in a similar fashion.
Christians seldom bother to enter these threads because they find the proponents of atheism loud-mouthed and close-minded. They are comfortable in their beliefs but choose not to subject themselves to pointless abuse. (And it is abuse rather than debate: words like 'blind' and 'delusional' are readily thrown around). Jake, who is genuinely tolerant, is an exception to this.
However, they may be prepared to stand up for Islam not because they believe in Allah but because they don't like to see members of a minority come under attack in a way that is not merely abusive but often racist. They will stand up for members of other races in a similar fashion.
No, I don't think we are on different sides of the fence, Waldo. I think most certainly it is sometimes a cloak for racism, but I don't believe that's generally the case within R&S. Unlike those you mention, the majority of opponents here are more likely to argue the rationality and the non-validity of its doctrine, and I don't believe those arguments are based in the least on racism - although unfortunately some don't appear to understand that.
Like patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel, I find calls of racism simply because one is critical of a stand point as redundant.
There is no doubt that there are racist views however I would say that when the debate "heats up" that it is intellectual debate that takes over and there a number of people who can argue thier points at great length.
As far as I can see the reason that the christians "seldom bother" is because they cannot answer the questions posed - Those that do are far from abused but engaged in debate.
Islamists cannot accept that there is any other view apart from Islam. They appear to just hide behind dogma and rhetoric not always the case maybe? My mind has been twisted by one particular poster.
There is no doubt that there are racist views however I would say that when the debate "heats up" that it is intellectual debate that takes over and there a number of people who can argue thier points at great length.
As far as I can see the reason that the christians "seldom bother" is because they cannot answer the questions posed - Those that do are far from abused but engaged in debate.
Islamists cannot accept that there is any other view apart from Islam. They appear to just hide behind dogma and rhetoric not always the case maybe? My mind has been twisted by one particular poster.
Is there a similar religious equivalent to 'Godwins Law' ?
It is a real pity that the cut and thrust of R&S debate is so often de-railed (mixing of metaphors IS allowed, I presume?) by someone crying "Racist !".
Naturally, forwards from that point, the thread becomes full of 'credentials and justifications' and the direction of the thread becomes irretrievably altered.
It is a truth that many spectacularly offensive comments start with "I'm not racist but........." and continue with a statement that gives lie to the opening phrase.
Whilst it is ridiculous to expect every contributor to provide some sort of CV giving the forum details of their views on race, etc., surely a little leeway or latitude ought to be given to allow each of the posts made by any particular person to form a cohesive whole.
Levels of erudition differ here; some are faster typists; some are instinctive responders whilst others take time to consider.
Jumping on a comment and shouting "racist!" without allowing your target to completely hang themselves merely serves to interrupt a grown-up conversation.
It is a real pity that the cut and thrust of R&S debate is so often de-railed (mixing of metaphors IS allowed, I presume?) by someone crying "Racist !".
Naturally, forwards from that point, the thread becomes full of 'credentials and justifications' and the direction of the thread becomes irretrievably altered.
It is a truth that many spectacularly offensive comments start with "I'm not racist but........." and continue with a statement that gives lie to the opening phrase.
Whilst it is ridiculous to expect every contributor to provide some sort of CV giving the forum details of their views on race, etc., surely a little leeway or latitude ought to be given to allow each of the posts made by any particular person to form a cohesive whole.
Levels of erudition differ here; some are faster typists; some are instinctive responders whilst others take time to consider.
Jumping on a comment and shouting "racist!" without allowing your target to completely hang themselves merely serves to interrupt a grown-up conversation.
Jno, is it better that I simply say that Christianity is "The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."
Why shouldn't I describe that as delusional, since it plainly is? One can rewrite that belief using whatever language one prefers, but it won't change the fundamentally delusional basis of the belief. Calling it delusional is not being abusive but merely descriptive. It's not my belief system, so it's hardly my fault if it's complete arsewater.
The notion that being open-minded is good depends on the nature of what we're discussing. Flat Earth vs Oblate Spheroid are two different views, but it's not being closed-minded to point out that one of these views is wrong.
As for being loud-mouthed; whatever. You know; I've been told I'll be eternally tortured by believers, which I would suggest is considerably worse.
Why shouldn't I describe that as delusional, since it plainly is? One can rewrite that belief using whatever language one prefers, but it won't change the fundamentally delusional basis of the belief. Calling it delusional is not being abusive but merely descriptive. It's not my belief system, so it's hardly my fault if it's complete arsewater.
The notion that being open-minded is good depends on the nature of what we're discussing. Flat Earth vs Oblate Spheroid are two different views, but it's not being closed-minded to point out that one of these views is wrong.
As for being loud-mouthed; whatever. You know; I've been told I'll be eternally tortured by believers, which I would suggest is considerably worse.
