re: #96 wrenchwench

Where does your knowledge of Islam come from, then?

Certainly not Robert Spencer, although I try to keep up to speed on the subject from a variety of sources. But what does it matter? Are we saying that one needs to be an authority on Islam to criticize certain aspects of it? Does one need to be an authority on Christianity to criticize opposition to birth control or gay marriage?

I notice you didn’t respond to my questions:

Perhaps we should define what exactly “anti-Islam bigotry” IS. Is any and all criticism of Islam “bigotry”? Is it scapegoating all Muslims to criticize the religion they follow? Are all religions equally pre-disposed towards violence? Are all religions morally equivalent?

Seems pretty basic. One side of this argument is clearly trying to draw a moral equivalence between all religions, lest we “scapegoat” followers of a certain religion. Well, are they equivalent?

To mix things up a bit, would we make the same claim of pre-Enlightenment Christianity vs. post-Enlightenment Christianity? One of those burned witches at the stake, tortured “heretics” into false confessions, and saw rival denominations slaughter each other en masse. Yet the modern version (mostly) recoils in horror at that barbarism, as I hope any liberal would. I would go so far as to say that modern Christianity is not morally equivalent to medieval Christianity. So little equivalence, in fact, that they are practically different religions, probably almost as different as Christianity and Islam are now. There are some differences in doctrine, yes, but the main difference is how the general populace reacts to and interprets that doctrine, because we belong to a liberal humanist and post-Enlightenment society.

Can we admit that Islam has simply not reached its liberal humanist post-Enlightenment stage, and that, aside from a few exceptional countries, it has not reached the point at which it can comfortably co-exist with modern notions of freedom of speech, gender equality, and pluralism?

I quote Randall from post #18:

Islam is going through a slow motion centuries long reformation, and there are reactionary forces against that change - just as there were reactionary forces against Xtian reformation.

Exactly. And of course we should support the moderates against the reactionaries by whatever means are possible and realistic. But I’m not going to pretend that Islam as it is RIGHT NOW is morally or practically equivalent to every other religion on this planet.

Let’s imagine those Muslim moderates that we’re all so enthused about, trying to start a public debate about whether following Sharia is actually a good idea in the 21st century (I haven’t seen much real evidence that this is actually occurring, not least because anyone who does is in great danger of being murdered, but humor me for a minute)

Do you think they care about some nutjob Christian fundie on the Kansas schoolboard trying to ban the teaching of evolution, or about some Christian villagers in Eritrea who burned a witch?

“Well, I guess it’s not such a big deal that 75% of my countrymen support murdering apostates, because…look at this whackjob in Utah who doesn’t think gay people should get married! I guess we’re no worse off than Americans and therefore our efforts towards change are pointless!”

But you know what? Maybe they should just stick to politically correct arguments and promote tolerance and understanding. Don’t make any moral judgements about conservative Islam at all. Just like Enlightenment thinkers and Christianity….oh wait.