Is criticism of a group defined by their beliefs acceptable?

I got scolded by a moderator for making broad comments about Moslems in general.

It's my opinion that religion is a choice. Skin color, sex, even sexual preference aren't by choice, but isn't religion?

So, I ask the group and moderators: What beliefs are legitimate targets of criticism? If a group is defined by their beliefs, what's the difference between criticism of the group and the criticism of beliefs that define the group?

Before you answer, consider all those people that describe themselves as "Republican" or "Progressive" or any other label that describes what they believe. Is criticism of these groups as groups wrong?

So, when is religious belief off-limits? Suppose a religious sect incorporates racism? This not a hypothetical. Such religions have existed. Is it proper to criticize such a group?

You can see where I'm going with this: suppose a group advocates the murder of infidels? Is Al-Queda political or religious or both? Is it wrong to criticize such a "religion"?

I'll admit I may have gone overboard with my comments earlier. So, where should the boundaries be?

I'm putting on my flame retardant under-ware.

Leftist/secular views should not be above criticism from the right but I will argue to great lengths to prove that our policies generally result in the greatest overall good.

Why not? The Apostle Paul said the the Cretians of the time were lazy, gluttonous and drunkards; Was it racism, or was it true?

I say it was true! :)

MasterKey-- :)

a political discussion, rebellion, and power-seizing group (we hope!). Therefore the religious criticisms should be limited only to those that are politically pertinent.

To some degree, therefore, that puts religions, of whatever brand, that espouse theocracy on the table.

It is a very common position that Islam does not recognize such a separation.

The Islam FAQ for example:
http://www.oneummah.net/faq/index.php?op=view&t=17

» Does Islam uphold the separation of Church and State?

No, there is no such monster in Islam.
Islam is a complete way of life,and thus, it fully embraces all arenas of human existence.
Allah is the Supreme Ruler, and the state assumes power only as the state is following the laws, injunctions, and the Will of Allah.
Islam is a unified, indivisible, harmonious whole and no facet of existence can be separated from it. Just like the branch cannot be separated from the tree and maintain its vitality.

From http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Articles/separ.htm

So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state in their countries? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of God, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of God to the Prophet peace be upon him. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God.

Secularists in the West will agree with this, then they will point out that under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors, and details of living.

it's a recurring feature of religions originating in that part of the world. Look at Europe, after all, following the fall of Rome - there was hundreds and hundreds of years of theocracy.

And while your research on Islam being political look & sound reasonable, I'm unsure that Islam is the monolith you imply. Being of a mystic faith myself, I'm aware that there are damn few other mystic religions around - and one of them, Sufi, is a variety of Islam that has no interest in running the government, even though, like my religion, quakerism, they espouse the religion "as a complete way of life,and thus, it fully embraces all arenas of human existence." This is the same attitude Quakers hold - we do not separate the world into holy/secular parts, we strongly emphasize a unity of creation. But we aren't out there trying to run the government, nor are the sufis. The type of quote you found doesn't necessarily lead to theocracy. We Quakers fit the description you apply to Muslims. But we function well in a world filled with non-Quakers, simply because we're pretty daggone tolerant, sometimes to a fault. I would argue that such people and groups are not unknown in the Islam world as well. How say you?

A secular Muslim country? No religion is immutable, clearly interpretation varies widely to accommodate local necessities.

Are all people equal under Christianity? Ask the same questions about Judaism.

Religion is a political tool used to control the masses. It is malleable. Hence, you have diverse societies within particular religions and diverse schools of thoughts within religion. Do you really think American Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Morrocan Muslims, British Muslims, Afghani Muslims, Saudi Muslims, and Indonesian Muslims all think alike?

Do you really think American Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Morrocan Muslims, British Muslims, Afghani Muslims, Saudi Muslims, and Indonesian Muslims all think alike?

Let me ask you this: if there were no similarities, why use the word "Muslim" in each of those labels?

are all people who claim to be christians 'similar?'

She answered that question very well.

Will you answer the question? Do you think they all think alike?

Will you answer the question? Do you think they all think alike?

I believe that some subset of their beliefs are similar enough that it makes sense to say such people are "Moslem", just like there are groups of people that share certain beliefs can are called "progressives".

Does that mean there are no differences? Of course not. I've never said that. There is going to be variation.

But the label is meant to communicate something about beliefs held. It can't be stretched forever. It would be silly to claim that a member of the KKK is merely a "progressive" who just thinks a little bit differently than the rest of us.

I think the problem I'm running into here with many people is that it's assumed religious belief is just something accidental like race. It's not. People have a choice. Putting religion in the same category as race is a terrible idea! It reinforces the idea that behavior and race are linked, an obvious mistake.

You're the one equating religious belief with race. Nobody else is.

The question that you pose: "Is it pretty cool to lump all members of a religion together." The simple answer, given you several times, is: No.

The reason the answer is no, regardless of how much you squirm, is that not all people who follow a certain book think about it the same way.

I find it more than slightly fascinating that you studiously avoid addressing the correct analogy: Do you think that all people who call themselves Christians can be lumped together? At some level, they all share some core beliefs, which is your excuse for lumping all Muslim people together.

You keep going back to your equation of Muslim and Progressive. I suspect it will come as something of a surprise to you, considering what I suspect to be your sources, that the Progressive movement, however defined, is not a religion. Imagine that!

Hence, you really should address the analogy offered you. Do you particularly mind if I go pull some quotes off the Chalcedon website in which they espouse the whole of the Old Testament law, right down to stoning people to death, and use that to demonstrate that Christians are monsters? Would you be down with that?

C'mon sport! You wanna play? Play big. Tell me why I can't tar all Christians with the Falwell brush (or do you not consider that tarring at all?).

You want to hold all Muslims to chapter and verse of the Koran? Fine. Then we can make an argument for polygamy (Kings David and Solomon); genocide (God's orders to his people upon conquering the promised land); and quite a host of other glories. Oh yeah! Subjugation of women is pretty big in the Bible, too. No problem with that, I assume.

So don't maunder on about progressives. Being an Xtian is a choice, too.

Just be straight. Don't dodge. It's unbecoming.

Jesus did say "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's".

ONce, I think it was by P.J. O'Rourke, more of a lighthearted look at politics and such, pointed out that he always felt college harassment policies were odd because they banned actions which were discriminatory based on race, sex, religion or sexual-orientation. Because what about religions who teach discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation....

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

.

Most people have a hard time seeing things abstract, they take it as personal and lash out accordingly.

First, religion isn't particularly an issue of free choice. Most people on Earth, even in the 21st century, face an enormous amount of pressure to remain in the religion they were assigned to.

But as to your question, I think it's valid so long as you're careful not to stereotype. For instance, I'm not real fond of some of the Islamic teachings regarding women. However, many Muslims and many Islamic societies treat women well, and some are even led by women. Belonging to Islam doesn't mean you have those beliefs, no matter how much it appears to outsiders. Similarly, not all Catholics support draconian reproductive policies, no matter how much the organization teaches it, no matter how much the organization holds it to be an essential part of being in that faith.

So is it fair to attack religious racism, and the religious approval of murder? yes.

The problem lies in thinking that people who say they subscribe to the religion actually subscribe to those beliefs, no matter how much the pimps who run the shows say it's a package deal.

First, religion isn't particularly an issue of free choice. Most people on Earth, even in the 21st century, face an enormous amount of pressure to remain in the religion they were assigned to.

But that only argues for increased pressure in the other direction!

<snip>

The problem lies in thinking that people who say they subscribe to the religion actually subscribe to those beliefs, no matter how much the pimps who run the shows say it's a package deal.

Well, people shouldn't be so casual in their support of a religion without seeing what that implies.

Again, that suggests criticism is more appropriate, if for no other reason than to reduce ignorance.

Bigotry is like religon, in that while there are so many veiws, and disagreements, some how or another, we learn or believe a certain thing, and that frames are mindset. whether or not that is a choice is moot, if one wishes to critisize the mindset with which one looks at the world, they can go right ahead. Just be ready to defend your own. see what i mean.
we cling to freedom of religon, so we try not to critisize it or its effects and practices, even when there is a legitimate point of critisim, or question.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I definitely think it's acceptable. When certain groups hold horrifying, cruel, violent beliefs, those beliefs need to be criticized and even attacked if necessary. Some ultra-tolerant PC types will disagree, obviously, but I think they're cowards.

or Christian Reconstructionists who hold horrifying, cruel, violent beliefs--damn straight, it's definitely acceptable to criticize and attack them.

that it's NOT a problem to criticise a religion or indeed ALL religion as I have done in the past and for which I have had no warnings or deletions. The problem begins when people use the views/opinions of certain members of said religion to define/criticise the whole religion.

I have seen people on this board insist that in all Muslim countries women are "second class citizens" yet do not know that Muslim countrys have had (and do have) female heads of state (Indonesia, Bangladesh) or to insist that a certain interpretation of Islam is THE defining one - that's like me saying that ALL Christians are bampots because people like Jerry Falwell exist, that would be a stupid, offensive and patently WRONG statement.

Likewise some people point to certain Islamic writings or even sections from the Koran to support certain viewpoints they claim are discriminatory or bigoted but do not acknowledge that the difficulties inherent in translating ancient documents and the fact that all religious tomes are products of a culture and generation ALSO apply to the Christian Bible and to Jewish sacred texts.

No one Muslim can speak for ALL Muslims just as Rabbi Kahane can not speak for all Jews and Pat Robertson can not speak for all Christians.

Criticise Al Qaeda all you like I very much doubt that you'd get an argument here - likewise if you criticise the Wahhabi's and Sayyid Qutb but do not link them with ALL MUslims - THAT'S where people find it offensive.

Seems that you are well off into fundiemania with those precepts. You confound people and beliefs. You confuse broad generalizations with reality. These are rather different "things."

Islam, probably your preferred hate target, is not a unitary, homogeneous ideology, any more than pacifism or Christianity or socialism or conservatism.

People who function within the mindset of any of these ideologies are no more interchangeable or identical than Americans or Moslems or Afghanis or monotheists.

If you want to critique a belief, do so with facts and such, but when you extend that criticism to the great masses of people under the sway of such an ideology you fall victim to your own ideologically based ignorance.

So, let me say this: The ideologies of the Islamists, the Christian fundies, the Republican Party, the NeoCon whores, the "freepers" - these are utterly vile and hateful things. I don't think that regarding those who inhabit regions where these ideologies prevail in the same way as the I regard those belief systems is either sane or sensible.

Seems that you are well off into fundiemania with those precepts. You confound people and beliefs. You confuse broad generalizations with reality. These are rather different "things."

Our understanding of reality depends on abstracting out of particulars those things that are more general. It would be impossible to reason about reality without removing unimportant details.

When discussing politics we can't avoid discussing those things that motivate political behavior and this includes what people believe. So no, I'm not confounding people and beliefs. I recognizing that human behavior has some explanation in belief. It therefore makes sense to use words like "Islam" to identify a collection of beliefs and people that hold these beliefs "Muslim".

Islam, probably your preferred hate target, is not a unitary, homogeneous ideology, any more than pacifism or Christianity or socialism or conservatism.

The word "Islam" must mean something, otherwise it is an empty word and useless. What collection of ideas should be called "Islam"?

Now maybe your point is that the recent violence committed by those calling themselves Muslim is completely unconnected with those ideas called "Islam", but I am skeptical.

People who function within the mindset of any of these ideologies are no more interchangeable or identical than Americans or Moslems or Afghanis or monotheists.

This is obviously false. The mere fact that you can use words to describe whole classes of people proves that under some set of criteria, they are interchangeable. Only if they were unique in every way there would be no basis from which to abstract out the concepts with labels "Americans", etc.


If you want to critique a belief, do so with facts and such, but when you extend that criticism to the great masses of people under the sway of such an ideology you fall victim to your own ideologically based ignorance.

I suppose then criticizing Nazis is objectionable to you too since that would be extending the criticism of Nazism to "the great masses of people under the sway of such and ideology".

So, let me say this: The ideologies of the Islamists, the Christian fundies, the Republican Party, the NeoCon whores, the "freepers" - these are utterly vile and hateful things. I don't think that regarding those who inhabit regions where these ideologies prevail in the same way as the I regard those belief systems is either sane or sensible.

What isn't sensible is pretending these ideologies only exist as platonic ideals separate from the people the advocate them. That's a mistake. It can even be dangerous.

I also want to say you are a victim of the very error you accuse me of committing. Reflect on your message. It's filled with hostility towards me. I've said a few things that have caused you to put me into some ideological category. I haven't labeled myself. I haven't expresses any commitment to any world view, but that hasn't stopped you from putting me into some group has it? Your message is filled with contempt for me.

Yup.

I know Americans. They are not all the same.
I know monotheists. They are not all the same.
I know Moslems. They are not all the same.
I know Christians. They are not all the same.

If you think they are all "the same" because of these labels you are a fool and a bigot.

I never said "they are all the same". Where did you get that?

and apply it (and your "moral" outrage) to a whole population. From your original post: "If a group is defined by their beliefs..." That is your starting point, and it is a dangerous delusion. It is the same belief system that justifies the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis because "they" (that population) are the same as "them" (monotheist fundie hatemongers or however you describe Al Qaeda-istas).

You take a generic ideological category and apply it (and your "moral" outrage) to a whole population. From your original post: "If a group is defined by their beliefs..." That is your starting point, and it is a dangerous delusion. It is the same belief system that justifies the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis because "they" (that population) are the same as "them" (monotheist fundie hatemongers or however you describe Al Qaeda-istas).

Hold on there. I didn't do that at all.

I IDENTIFIED a population by their beliefs. That's a very different thing than asserting that people of some nationality necessarily "all think alike", as someone else put it.

When I wrote "If a group is defined by their beliefs" I was selecting a subset of all possible groups. Namely, those groups were membership is determined by beliefs. I wasn't saying that all members of an arbitrary group necessarily share the same beliefs.

In other words, I assume the existence of many kinds of groups, but focus on those groups were belief is the standard by which membership is determined. I exclude all other types of groups, so things like nationality or race or anything else aren't relevant.

as was not too long ago,the institution of slavery. Our laws re the death penalty are indeed, imo, barbaric also, although we do it rather nicely. This is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. So some people do deserve to die for the crimes they have committed against others. All in the Bible. It seems to me that with the arrival of democracy and democratic principles and laws, the interpretation of the Bible suitably changed to fit, although the words did not change. The Bible certainly has not changed one word--there are different translations, but generally, the text is the same as it was two thousand years ago. It must be other factors involved that would cause this and if so, what about any changes in the future?

Bishop Spong has written a book called "Christianity Must Change, or Die" With the idea that "cafeteria style" religion is now perfectly OK and people shy away from being labeled liberal, or rightist Christian or whatever, it would seem that those who prefer that are actually changing the religion and the old one has indeed died.

And if you're having trouble finding source material to cite that supports your beliefs, you may want to rethink your take on the whole thing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and self-regulation. perhaps you should examine your beliefs about islam and muslims if you are stereotyping.

and self-regulation. perhaps you should examine your beliefs about islam and muslims if you are stereotyping.

and self-regulation. perhaps you should examine your beliefs about islam and muslims if you are stereotyping.

since actions are what really matters. I've often been surprised by the fact that people can say very similar things while behaving very differently. Hate speech and inappropriate calls for violence may provide evidence of belief systems worthy of contempt, but general religious labels are unlikely to proivide useful information.

Before you bash Islam, you might learn something about its history. The Islamic nations saved and extended classical science and learning when my European forefathers were wallowing in the Dark Ages. In some of the Battles associated with the Crusades, Christians slaughtered whole towns after capture, sparing none of the "heathen" men, women, and children; in others, Islamic victors simply disarmed the defeated Christian populations and moved on. I sometimes call myself a Christian, but there are "Christians" I consider enemies of mankind. I despise the fanatical suicide bombers, but there are Islamic philosophers who have changed my mind for the better. Classical Islam was an early historical source of anti-racist ideas.

Thanks for your thoughtful message.

Your point about general religious labels is a good one. In another message I asserted that these labels, "Christian" "Muslim", etc must mean something, otherwise they are empty and useless. Well, maybe they aren't entirely empty, just mostly.

So the question becomes: at what point does a label become qualified enough so that it makes sense to laud or be critical of that belief? Can we be critical of <radical> Islam? Can we laud <classical> Islam?

Where should we draw the line?

You can find the reference.

<deleted dupe>

So we can tell you why you're wrong.

The problem is that the right to freedom of religion allows you to "CHANGE" religions at any point in your life. This means that
you must plan legally for you yourself to be one of the group that
the media is going to critisize their beliefs... as come one...
media criticism is so crass, your reputation is permenently injured
if they spin your viewpoints down. Anyone with a little video
editing experience can make even the most eloquent speaker sound
like an ass, so criticism, in the public common by media...
That is really creating the ground for further abuse and the
worse potential for institutional racism and further miscomprehension
of the right to freedom of relgion.

You have the right to, 10 years from now become a neo-buddhist.
Then you might meditate more often and believe nothing at all, and
lots of things that can't be explained. How sad then, that you'll
realize that people are not their thoughts and that categorizing
them based on thought could be generally a misapplication.

Thought is learned behaviour. Buddha is not thought. It is not
a place or a statue or a shrine. It is you. The enlightened
awareness is covered by a veil of thought and ego-identification
towards the body.

You might not believe this now, as your religion might not be
buddhist. But one day, you might become a buddhist, and then
you'll be a fool today for hating yourself tomorrow. Leave people
grow and mature understanding different views of themselves,
religion, education andpolitics as they grow and mature.
Let people change and let society be fluid. This typecasting of
sets of individuals really isn't so helpful in it all. It is divisive.

The tone of a discussion is an entirely different matter though.

I'm seeing your question as can I make personal assertions about a group as though they are all the same because they share a belief. Further, do assertions to a group somehow diminish the assertion on an individual level. No, it doesn't.

Christians... Moslems... Atheists... preceding something negative attempts to prejudge every member. Rarely are such statements true across the entire grouping. The result is an attack on individuals, their friends, and families. An attack that is really meant as an attack on actions or ideas becomes focused on individuals to whom the attack does not apply which confuses the response ruining discourse.

Attack the idea or act, not the individual either personally nor through a grouping. If attacking the idea or act seems ineffective, it's time to take another look at your point.

Good luck.

...be they Christian or Islamic dish it out very well. They sure as hell can't take it though. They have been on the attack for years now, trying to deny rights to homosexuals, trying to outlaw abortions, trying to keep women from obtaining equal rights, and trying to impose their own morals (many of them non-biblical by the way) on the rest of us.

So hell yeah. If they are going to be hyper-critical of society, they better be prepared for any backlash that comes from pushing their narrow views on to us.