Naziaphobe... Why Protect Ideologies from Criticism?

by freemindfade 12 Replies latest social current

• 

  freemindfade

  Naziasm is an ideology... Islam is an ideology... both encourage dangerous, ugly ideas...

  if I say "screw Nazi's" no one is going to call me a racist, a xenophobe, or a naziaphobe.

  Anyone is capable of snapping, or just being an ahole and committing atrocities, but why does radicalization work so well in Islam? Is it not that it is truly rotten at its core? Can someone be called radical for acting out a completely plausible interpretation of their religion? Can you subscribe to something so hateful, disgusting, and violent as the Koran, then be absolved yourself when one of its adherents commits atrocities based on it? "that's not really Islam..." actually according to the rule book it is.

  You cannot kill ideologies with force. Isis is not a country, it may get beat down and run out town, but the ideologies that led to its creation are just as strong in the next group to take its place. over and over and over and over

  If someone called you a Nazi the majority of mentally healthy normal people would be offended. its something shameful. Why isn't Islam? And for those who will compare all other religions faults, you are a few centuries too late, there is no systematic radicalization of Jew, or Catholics, scream all you want its just not happening. When the pope speak, millions of Catholics listen, who speaks for Islam? Can anyone tell me?

  Just some things I wonder. I abhor ALL RELIGIONS, but I feel Islam is a special apologist case that will never allow itself to be reformed. As long as the "non-radical" adherents try to distance themselves from the "radical" adherents, there will never be reform. It is a HUGE religion, the fact that such an enormous ideology that includes world leaders, famous people, very rich people and so on cannot get things in order in its own house I feel says something about what the religion is at its heart. Evil.

  Some crazy christian bombs an abortion clinic, they are outsiders, on the fringe of global Christianity. When terror occurs in the name of Allah, isis and islam, the radical are the insiders, at the core of the religion with no central higher voice to condemn what they do, just people saying "that's not MY islam"...

  So called moderate Muslims are afraid to speak out because of "violent intimidation."

  And every time somebody says 'Islamophobia,' it gives the people who are intimidating cover.
• 

  ctrwtf

  I'm inclined to believe that it's not so much the religion that foments radical terrorism but rather the political and economic fabric of society in the middle east that is responsible. I would point to the fact that in mostly prosperous, stable societies radical islamists are about as rare as right wing nutters that bomb abortion clinics or shoot up AAME churches. The recent bombings in Paris and attacks in the US are being inspired by the radicals in poorer countries, not the Mosque around the corner.

  The middle east has been and will continue to be a hotbed of government corruption and economic instability that sparks isolationist, fundamentalist thinking.

  It's alarming that in the US and Britain and other western countries, the political trend is to feed into the same fear and economic anxiety that the Imams in Iran are using to whip up unrest. Brexit and "I'm gonna build a wall," pander to the same base fears of people on the margins of society.

  The comparison to Nazism is interesting inasmuch as the National Socialists ran a campaign of fear and hatred of the Jews at a time when Germany was on the ropes economically. Sounds to me alot like the Republican Party today.

  Just my two cents.
• 

  Simon

  Nazism was stopped by force, not reasoned arguments. Sometimes reason doesn't work - because you are not dealing with reasonable people.

  The problem with Islam isn't the book (the bible is just as bad) but the high-level religious leadership that not only doesn't condemn the extremism, but actively promotes it.

  Imagine if the pope was calling for crusade against the east or for people to act out the bible stuff for real? It doesn't happen because Christianity, although stupid, is mostly civilized and definitely reformed from it's blood-lust past.

  There really is no comparison.
• 

  freemindfade

  Nazism was stopped by force, not reasoned arguments. Sometimes reason doesn't work - because you are not dealing with reasonable people.

  I believe force will work against ISIS but the underlying rogue and tribal nature of Islam will allow some other movement to pop up in its place. Whether its a country or an Imam or a tribe.

  The comparison to Nazism is interesting inasmuch as the National Socialists ran a campaign of fear and hatred of the Jews at a time when Germany was on the ropes economically. Sounds to me alot like the Republican Party today.

  You missed my point, I only reason I use nazism is to illustrate that we are not afraid to bash an ideology, but somehow religion and especially Islam tries to get a pass by making criticism of the entire religion tantamount to bigotry.

  I would point to the fact that in mostly prosperous, stable societies radical islamists are about as rare as right wing nutters that bomb abortion clinics or shoot up AAME churches.

  Also i think every month that passes this tired argument that i once agreed with based on data is getting less relevant as attacks are legitimately increasing. It may still be the case, but it doesn't seem like it will stay that way.

  And anyone who wants to downplay Muslim perpetrated terrorism should consider the globe, not just one place. take a scroll through this page. you can't compare this staggering worldwide violence in just the last 6 months to years worth of abortion clinic bombings, or one church shooting incident in america.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2016

  Also if you look at most abortion clinic attacks, they amount to vandalism. You really can't compare.
• 

  redvip2000

  I'm inclined to believe that it's not so much the religion that foments radical terrorism but rather the political and economic fabric of society in the middle east that is responsible.

  Which political and economical fabric exactly? The fact that they poor? Why don't we see all of the folks around the world that are even poorer than Muslim societies strap themselves with bombs as well?

  Let's stop obfuscating the real issue by somehow trying to blame the West for it's economic policies. The fact is that the root of this issue is religion. Islam, just like christianity, promotes violence in different ways. Now, christians have grown to learn how to cherry pick the text and play mental gymnastics to interpret it in a way that is fairly tame and passive.

  Muslims however are still going through the growing pains that will lead them to this path as well. For now, they have a pretty literal interpretation of their holy book. Yes, as shocking as it may seem, ISIS has a more pure and close interpretation of their bullshit book, than some of the Muslim we call moderates.

  In fact most Moderate Muslims, like many of the ones we see in the US, call themselves Muslims as a way to identify themselves culturally or ethnically, but really don't give two shits about what the Koran says (just like Christians with the Bible.), and have completely assimilated (or mostly) to the culture that surrounds them.
  

  
  

  I would point to the fact that in mostly prosperous, stable societies radical islamists are about as rare as right wing nutters that bomb abortion clinics or shoot up AAME churches.

  Well, clearly with muslims being a minority in western countries, radical muslims would even be a greater minority, no surprise there.

  However when it comes to Muslim countries that live under the thumb of their medieval theocracy, which is almost all of them, the landscape is different. In those places, the amount of Muslims that are willing to kill others to defend their faith is still small, but you then have a much larger group that although not willing to take action themselves, implicitly support the idea of violence against those who criticize their faith, or their prophet. This is a problem, and this is not a path towards reformation of the religion.

  
  

  In summary, if a religion exists that advocates for violence, and some followers decide to follow it to the letter, we can well say they should know better than that, and that they should do just like the followers that play mental gymnastics to cherry pick only the good things, but this shouldn't negate the fact that the religion itself is destructive and should be criticized for what it teaches in the first place.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  if I say "screw Nazi's" no one is going to call me a racist - that's because Nazis were a subset of German people. Saying "screw Germans" would be racist.

  Comparing Islam and Nazism, there are some differences and some similarities.

  Islamic terrorist groups consist of people who are a subset of Muslims.

  Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but neither can one honestly say that Islam is a religion of peace. There is some link between the terrorists' religious beliefs (an interpretation of Islam) and all the violence.

  And every time somebody says 'Islamophobia,' it gives the people who are intimidating cover - indeed. There's an e-book that I've wanted to read but haven't got round to it - "Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady" by the excellent and clear-thinking Douglas Murray. I'm sure the author has much to say on this.
  
• 

  bohm

  Naziasm is an ideology... Islam is an ideology... both encourage dangerous, ugly ideas...

  
  

  ...but comparing nazism and islam, thats encouraging peacefull, beautiful ideas...
• 

  freemindfade

  The only similarity I am talking about is that they are both man made ideas

  one we have no problem being ashamed of because it encourages genocide, homophobia and so on

  the other we defend even though it encourages genocide, homophobia etc.

  they are just ideas, bad ideas.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  one we have no problem being ashamed of because it encourages genocide, homophobia and so on

  the other we defend even though it encourages genocide, homophobia etc - yes, you make a good point, FMF.

  Again, I think "Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady" would be an excellent read and would have much to say on this very point. The author, Murray, is a very clear thinker.

  The Nazis were bigots and they were also white. It's ok, even fashionable in some quarters, to criticise white bigots. Most Muslims are non-white. The people who have no qualms about condemning white people's bigotry often fall silent when brown-skinned Muslims call for Jews or homosexuals to be killed. It is very strange.

  Future historians will no doubt look back on our period and scratch their heads.
  
• 

  bohm

  Yah sure, just comparing ideas... One idea happens to be islam and the other happens to be nazism...