The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

reply to post by WhiteWash


That depends on which denomination you ask.

Originally posted by asmeone
I did not demand absolute proof in my last post.

In one of your previous comments I believe you used the term 'proof' but I'm not worried about that. I understand what you are asking.

I was pointing out that there is a discrephancy between the posts that you gave, which were examples of followers of Islam reacting to what they perceived as insults against their beleifs

This is what my original thread stated:

"It is to discuss the possibility of a conspiracy to silence all dissenters of Radical Islam either through the 'social shame' of being labeled intolerant or violent backlash from Radical Islam."

However, my focus is on the social stigma and not so much the violent backlash. As you even admitted, we all know violence has occurred due to criticism of Islam. I don't need evidence of something I am already convinced of and can see in the news. However, I would like the opinions of others as to whether or not there is a social stigma of such behavior. I am asking about the possibility of such a thing and believe the comments of this very thread serve as an example that such a bias exists.

So far, we have been side tracked with semantics, redirects, off topic remarks, and ad hominem arguments.

Edit: Also read THIS comment where I clarified when things started getting off topic. It's the same thing I just explained to you above.

Also, go back through and read some of the comments on this thread. There are other examples people have submitted in this thread about silence in the media and other forms of anecdotal evidence. It would seem that is enough to give us enough base to go on from there. It would be nice if we could move past the 'evidence' stage and get to the discussion.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Hi AshleyD,

So far, we have been side tracked with semantics, redirects, off topic remarks, and ad hominem arguments.

I don't believe I've had any of those in my posts, but I haven't had a response so far. Do you have any thoughts about my reasons for feeling that there is no taboo of criticizing "radical Islam"? Thanks.

Here's the evidence your whining about.

Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Secondary school pupils in north-eastern Nigeria have killed a teacher after apparently accusing her of desecrating the Koran, police say.

The teacher, a Christian, was attacked after supervising an exam in Gombe city. It is not clear what she had done to anger the students.

The authorities, concerned that communal unrest could break out, have ordered all the city's schools to shut.

Similar accusations sparked riots in neighbouring Bauchi State last year.

At least 15,000 people have been killed in religious, communal or political violence since the country returned to civilian rule in 1999.

BBC

Hmmmm read that last line again for me please....

In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says.

Now if it was a Christian who killed someone they would blame his religion. But noooooooooo in this case of Koran being criticized, then murder of a Christian teacher is completely due to environmental conditions.

Boogeymen yeah right


[whammy edit- take out atheist ]
[Mod edit - trim external quotes]

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS


[edit on 25/2/2008 by Sauron]

[edit on 2/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by AshleyD


I was refering to your post that said this:

This is aimed at not a single person in particular: As Matt said, I really don't want this thread to spiral off topic with personal insults or about religious doctrine. Technically, this thread is about the conspiracy to silence criticism of Islam from the liberal media, teachers at school, your politically correct sensitive friend who doesn't like you talking about it, etc. It is not necessarily about Radical Muslims blowing up a radio station for speaking out against Islam although that is included in the topic as well.

It would be easier for everyone to debate you on these terms if you gave examples of criticism from media, teachers, ect., not against individuals who may or may not have done something to insult Islam.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


"secular humanist atheists"? Better than a fanatic inhumane theist, I suppose. Dunno who you're putting hte appellation to, though.

[Edit - re-read]

So wait. You're basing your statement on the word "if"? Seriously? "IF this had been Christians..."?

I'm glad to finally meet someone who can see into parallel universes.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


That's not proof of a conspiracy of silence, it's a case of students who committed murder, possibly due to religious beleifs.

EDIT: By the way, please don't assume that those with views that differ from your own are athiests...

[edit on 25-2-2008 by asmeone]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says.

Now if it was a Christian who killed someone they would blame his religion. But noooooooooo in this case of Koran being criticized, then murder of a Christian teacher is completely due to environmental conditions.

Boogeymen yeah right

Very interesting, BW. Thanks for contributing. It is interesting how an excuse keeps being given. Some other posters were blaming it on poverty and resources as well in this thread.

Originally posted by asmeone
It would be easier for everyone to debate you on these terms if you gave examples of criticism from media, teachers, ect., not against individuals who may or may not have done something to insult Islam.

First off all, again, others have already given a few examples throughout this thread. Second, again, I will add some more in the morning. I've been asked for evidence from Islam- it has been given. Evidence from media has been asked for- it has been given. Evidence through anecdote has been asked for- it has been given. You might have missed my edited add on from above. Although I will add more in the morning and compile all evidence from other posters in a single comment along with the additions, it would be nice to move on a bit concerning the topic.

Originally posted by asmeone
I was refering to your post that said this...

More nit picking. To quote your quote of my comment:

"It is not necessarily [read: only] about Radical Muslims blowing up a radio station for speaking out against Islam although that is included in the topic as well.

reply to post by asmeone


I apologize for calling anyone an atheist who isn't one.
Sometimes when I am looking into parallel universes with my special powers I get a little excited. After all I am one of those religious nuts.

Silence? I thought the argument was "walking on eggshells" in the OP so that's a perfect example.








[edit on 2/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by AshleyD
NOTE: This thread is not about the religion of Islam itself but about the injustice of anyone speaking out against Radical Islam being labeled intolerant and treated like a pariah. It is to discuss the possibility of a conspiracy to silence all dissenters of Radical Islam either through the 'social shame' of being labeled intolerant or violent backlash from Radical Islam.

Not true at all. The problem is not criticism, but the way its formulated. Viciousness isn't criticism. 99% of muslims have nothing to do with fundamentalism. Yet people put them in the same pit.

Its all really non essential, this discussion is invalid. The way I see it, first there were the Nazi's. Even though we know Hitler tried to come to peace with Churchill, repeatedly, to prevent the second world war. And we all know the way the 'free' press manipulated people. For example, Americans actually supported the Germans a few years before the war, then the newspapers reversed that and vilified them. But the conditions for war were already set financially. The money supply in America was restricted. People were led to believe that war would save the economy. It did. Same thing is about to happen.

Then their was communism.

Now its Islam.

There'll always be an external threat that the sheeple will buy.

Ever read Albert Pike's letter to mazzini?

I suggest you do. www.threeworldwars.com...

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

[Mod Edit- add external quote tags]

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

[edit on 25/2/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by asmeonethat'swhat I addresssed

 

I apologize for calling anyone an atheist who isn't one.
Sometimes when I am looking into parallel universes with my special powers I get a little excited. After all I am one of those religious nuts.

Silence? I thought the argument was "walking on eggshells" in the OP so that's a perfect example.

Well, I did edit prior to this post

You've shown that a reporter stated that there could be other reasons - as a tail end to a story about "Crazy muslims beat someone to death over the Koran and riot, killing five more"

I'm not exactly sure what sort of definition you might have for "Walking on eggshells" but in MY head it would have been near full omission of any sectarian angle to the story, an immediate justification for it, and not an ass-end "Oh, by the way, there MIGHT be some other explanation, but we won't go into detail"

Maybe this goes back to that sub-topic on hte "liberal media" I had with Ashley. Maybe people - such as you and her - see an article that isn't blatantly anti-Islam and immediately think it's "walking on eggshells" because it's not throwing enough indictments and referencing unrelated events.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Hm. As much as I hate throwing the term around, it seems like a strawman tactic to compare the existence of a split liberal/conservative media to a cult shooting themselves in the face for mistaking a solar eclipse as a frog eating the sun.

Everyone is bound to agree the act of the cult would be foolish but the first case it not quite so black and white and is a social/political/religious observation rolled into one.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


That's an excellent point, BW. It seems semantics is their only line of defense in the subject if they are focusing on 'silence' while ignoring 'egg shells.'

reply to post by raze78


Maybe it's because I'm exhausted and about to go to sleep but can you rephrase that for me? I think my brain is blowing a fuse as I did not understand 90% of that.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


And now you are on topic and offering a valid explanation. Even if it is only to say 'it's all in our heads.'

Every religion is evil at its root. The older ones, such as Buddhism and Judaism, have lost their vitality and with it much of their power to harm. Christianity has similarly declined in the Old World and is now relatively harmless there, but it is alive and well in America; that is why American versions of Christianity are so hate-filled, divisive, and violent compared with most European or Middle Eastern ones.

Islam is the youngest of the world religions: like all adolescents, it is raw and unsubtle. That is why it is the most hate-filled, divisive and violent of all faiths, displaying the viciousness it shares with all religion brashly and with little attempt at dissimulation. This undoubtedly makes it the worst of all leading religions at this point in human history, but give it time. It will mellow.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Astyanax]

I don't think there is a social stigma against speaking out against muslims radical or otherwise, at least not among evangelical christians who seem to take great pleasure in not loving their enemies.

I think that most people regard the threat of terrorism as being way overblown and have little to say about it for that reason. For the past six years we have been treating terrorists as if they were some kind of larger than life noble warriors when we should be treating them like the piss-ant common criminals they are.

Now lest you say I am soft on Islam you should know I think muslims are at least as delusional as christians or any other religionists but it is a tough call since christians imo are really out there with their super-duper godman fantasy.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Hm. As much as I hate throwing the term around, it seems like a strawman tactic to compare the existence of a split liberal/conservative media to a cult shooting themselves in the face for mistaking a solar eclipse as a frog eating the sun.

Everyone is bound to agree the act of the cult would be foolish but the first case it not quite so black and white and is a social/political/religious observation rolled into one.

My point is that these idiots choose idiocy, and so I have no problem calling them such. There is no "liberal" media. There's not even "centrist" media. There's just two varieties of right-wing media. One type is less of a sideshow and so is dubbed "liberal" by the people who think Fox is "center base"

It's a bit of pride to me that this standard is starting to crack at the seams, with the "liberal spokespeople" they trot out onto these shows actually saying things instead of tittering nervously and acting in a general "tee hee, I have besoiled myself!" manner... I'm looking at you, Alan Colmes.

As you say, it's off-topic. Sort of. To me, it looks like an example of you finding another windmill to tilt at.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

And now you are on topic and offering a valid explanation. Even if it is only to say 'it's all in our heads.'

It's all perception, yeah. To you, your eyes highlight every possible, potential slight against Christianity, for instance. You are also convinced that Islam gets nowhere near the same treatment. Know what? My eyes tend to pick out the crazy crap people say about various Pagan approaches, and I figure Christians don't put up with that crap at all.

But in reality? For every time I've had to explain that "Samhain" is not the "Celtic lord of the dead", you've probably had to explain that Osiris is not, in fact, Jesus. Every time you've glazed over blatant and rampant anti-Muslim spew and legitimate criticism, I'm sure that some atheist has done the same with regard to Christian issues.

And then we all sit back, feel slighted, and then start snipey messages on internet forums.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

I am an atheist (rationalist) so I pretty much am biased against all religions. That being said; I do believe that Islam is the spoiled little brat of the pack.

I know of the contributions of early Islam such as libraries, hospitals, mathmatics and algebra but that was 600+ years ago. The constant degragation of women (burhkas, stoning and imprisonment of rape victims, honor killings and so forth), have pretty much negated any of their contributions.

The sad but undeniable fact is seen in the papers and news almost daily. The Wahabi sect of Islam is their downfall

It is time for them to grow up and contribute to society instead of tearing it apart.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

 

You've shown that a reporter stated that there could be other reasons - as a tail end to a story about "Crazy muslims beat someone to death over the Koran and riot, killing five more"

No the story was Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran' See you are trying to make it sound like it is slanted against muslims.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of definition you might have for "Walking on eggshells"

"Nigeria teacher dies over Koran" just dies? That is waling on eggshells she was murdered. But we don't want to portray muslims as killers do we?

but in MY head it would have been near full omission of any sectarian angle to the story, an immediate justification for it, and not an ass-end "Oh, by the way, there MIGHT be some other explanation, but we won't go into detail"

Not at all what it says

Religious differences have long been used to justify all kinds of violence in Nigeria, our reporter says.

In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says.

source

See ? It's not "religious differences" -- "In reality" take your pick of ethnic or political conflicts, or lack of resources or poverty.

Anything but Radical Muslim Extremism



[edit on 2/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No the story was Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran' See you are trying to make it sound like it is slanted against muslims.

No, no. That's me calling htem crazy. Sorry for the misunderstanding there. Nuttier than a peanut butter factory.

"Nigeria teacher dies over Koran" just dies? That is waling on eggshells she was murdered. But we don't want to portray muslims as killers do we?

It's not that - Muslims are frequently called murderers (or the even worse "terrorists") in the media. What we may be looking at here is the dehumanization of an African. This is pretty common in American and British media - If it happens in Africa, nameless people "die" just as if some mysterious thing caused them to fall over. You can only "murder" a human being, and African people are rarely considered such in modern media.

Not at all what it says

See ? It's not "religious differences" -- "In reality" take your pick of ethnic or political conflicts, or lack of resources or poverty.

Anything but Radical Muslim Extremism

And as I said, it's an afterthought to "crazy muslims beat the living hell out of someone and then riot over something ridiculously stupid."

But hey. Remember what I asked? Why the extremism?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Putting two and two together for evidence of a media bias is not 'choosing idiocy.' It's an opinion that many hold based on evidence. Believing broadcast CEO's are reptilian/rabbit hybrids controlling our minds through coded transmissions without any supporting evidence is 'choosing idiocy.' But I'm thinking of making a thread about the conspiracy unless someone has already beat me to it.

reply to post by capgrup


I love how you explain your atheistic views and clarify it with with the definition of 'rationalist." I'm a rationalist, too... only a Christian rationalist. Thanks for your reply and I do agree with some of the points you brought up.