Bigotted criticism of groups I want to criticise more measuredly (Catholics, Muslims etc) makes me

feel extremely awkward.

I'm going to do this as a series of bullet points, rather than as a continuous argument, to make it easier for people to single out bits they disagree and agree with, rather than just endorsing or condemning me.


I believe that the teachings of Mohammed, as interpreted by a large majority (by no means all) of his followers, contain a great deal of moral instruction that can legitimately be described as evil.

I think that the teachings of Mohammed, by any interpretation whatsoever, contain a great many factual claims that are false.

I believe that the teachings of the Catholic church, as set forth by the catholic hierarchy and accepted by many catholics (almost certainly most worldwide, but I'm not 100% sure, and possibly fewer in the West than elsewhere), contain some aspects that can fairly be described as "evil" and a great deal that can fairly be termed "wrong", "objectionable", "mistaken" or other milder terms.

I think that the teachings of the Catholic church, by any interpretation whatsoever, contain a great many factual claims that are false.

I think that many other religions put forwards moral teachings which are in some part evil or misguided, although some don't. Also, of course, the moral teachings of most religions also contain plenty of good.

I think that some religions contain much more evil than others - noteably, I think that the majority of interpretations of Islam are *massively* worse than the majority of interpretations of any other religion.

I think that all religions, without any exceptions whatsoever, put forward factual claims which are false. I do not think that their is anywhere near as much to choose between religions in the accuracy of their factual teachings as their is in the quality of their moral teachings.

I do not think that belonging to a religion whose teachings contain evil or misguided aspects automatically makes you a bad person.

I do think that belonging to any religion automatically makes you wrong. I do not think this is something you should necessarily lose much sleep over...


I see a lot of people in general society launching criticism of Muslims and of Islam that I consider to be bigoted. I

I have recently seen a lot of people on DU launching criticism of Catholics and of Catholicism that I consider to be bigoted.

What do I mean by bigotry? Usually, the word is used to mean "strongly-held opinions that I disagree with and am unable to come up with a proper rebuttal of". I hope I'm not using it like that, but I worry that I may be.

One obvious distinction is factual accuracy - if you're exaggerating how bad something is, that's probably "bigoted"; if you're being careful not to overstate your case, that probably isn't.

Another distinction, I think, is that specific and limited criticism - picking out a negative quality, criticising a religion for promoting that quality, and making clear that your criticism is limited to only those probably isn't "bigoted", whereas more general criticism of the form "religion X is bad" probably is.

I think the onus is very much on the critic, here: you have a moral duty not merely to avoid explicitly excessive or overgeneral criticism, but also to ensure that what you say cannot be interpreted in such a way. If you attack the Muslims or the Catholics, and later come back to explain that actually you only meant the bad Muslims or the bad Catholics, and obviously you have nothing against the ones who aren't, and that should have been obvious from context and so on, I still view that as bigotry. When you criticise a large group of people, even for good reasons, you are playing in very dangerous waters, and you have a duty to take all possible safety precautions; you don't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

Another possible distinction is between behaviours and labels. Saying that people have a moral duty not to act in ways that you associate with a religion is on one side of a line that could be called "bigotry". Saying that people have a moral duty not to label themselves as members of that religion is on the other.

(Cue obvious, fair point that it is entirely reasonable to condemn someone for labelling themself as a Nazi, even if they don't actually go around advocating for racial supremacy and military dictatorship. Cue obvious response that no religion has anywhere near as little that is morally neutral and/or benign in it as Nazism.)

The above said, saying that people have a moral duty not to believe in God is entirely fine, obviously. But if people want to label themselves as "culturally Catholic" or "culturally Muslim", that *has* to be fine. I'm at least somewhat culturally Jewish, despite the fact that I think that the teachings of non-ultral-liberal streams of Judaism are utterly wrong, and even the most liberal reform traditions are factually 100% wrong.

But even so, I'm not sure that "bigotry" is a rigorously-defined term. Oh well. Lets say that I encounter lots of "unfair" criticism, as opposed to "fair".


Another possible distinction between good and bad forms of criticism of religion is the action you encourage people to take based on that criticism. I think that (most forms of) Islam and Republicanism are both immoral philosophies, but I think that it is no more legitimate to restrict the construction of mosques than it is to ban the Republican party.

Which is not to say that I wish people *wouldn't* practice Islam or vote Republican. Merely that they should be allowed to decide for themselves, and that their rights should be protected.

I think that it's probably fair to term most people who advocate for the restriction of the rights of followers of a given religion as "bigots".

I haven't seen that directed at catholics on DU, unlike some of the categories of arguably-bigoted criticism I've described above. But I've seen a fair bit of it aimed at Muslims by conservatives in the US media.




Large quantities of bigoted criticism against a group I am myself highly critical of for - I think - good reasons and in - I hope - non-bigoted fashions always makes me feel immensely awkward.

When a lynch-mob is forming to hang someone for a horrible crime which nevertheless does not merit hanging, you have no choice but to side with a devil.

(Note that I'm explicitly do *not* think that either DU is a lynch mob or Catholics are horrible criminals. But I hope the analogy is obvious).

One can try to say "Yes, he's a bad person, but even so we shouldn't hang him", but will anyone really hear both halves of that.

One can shut up. But then you're failing to stand up to evil twice over. But given that "standing up" in this case is just an over-aggrandised way of saying "posting on an internet discussion forum", that may well be the best option even so.

Or one can say "don't lynch him" without commenting on his moral character. Sometimes this is necessary, and maybe you can try him afterwards.

Or one can try to say "Yes, he's a bad person, but even so we shouldn't hang him, for these reasons:" slowly and clearly, and hope people will listen. Bullet points may help...




In the context of Muslims and wider society:

I think that most liberals are too unwilling to say "The teachings of Mohammed as interpreted by the majority of his followers, are worse than the teachings of most other religions; Islamic societies and values are objectively inferior to western liberal societies and values; we should not be ashamed to encourage them to change; this does not mean that we should deny Muslims basic civil rights; it certainly does not mean that we should drop bombs on Mecca".

Because of this, voters may feel like the only two messages they are being presented with are "there is nothing wrong with Islam" and "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". And the former of those is clearly absurd, I think (as is the latter, of course).

We need to be very careful with the word "Islamophobia" - it's sometimes legitimate, but often not - and we need much more, stronger, carefully measured and limited liberal criticism of Islam. The problem is that there's already far too much, too strong, completely unmeasured conservative criticism of Islam, and we need to be careful to challenge rather than reinforcing that.



In the context of DU and catholicism:

The last pope, the current pope and almost all of the vatican hierarchy hold views on abortion, gay rights and (most importantly, because it kills millions) contraception that are very wrong indeed. We need to continue to condemn these views, and the *individuals* who hold them.

But as a demographic, American catholics are more liberal than most other demographics. We should avoid suggesting that all Catholics, or pretty much *any* of the catholics who will read whatever you post on DU, share these views, or that those who do not are endorsing them by staying in the Catholic church.

At its heart, a religion is a factual, not a moral, claim. The question of whether or not a religion is *true* is independent of whether or not it is *good*; someone who abandons a religion on moral grounds, no matter how evil it may be, is not even pretending to be acting logically, and nor is someone who demands that others do.



In a wider context:

If you only take one paragraph away from this, I'd suggest the one about the moral duty to avoid abiguity when being critical of groups. It is not sufficient to avoid saying anything which you consider to be intended to be bigoted (whatever that means...). You have a moral duty not to say anything that could reasonably be misinterpreted as such, I think