The Islamophobia Network

[Whiskey_Lord]

A single, theistic god is by definition a dictator. Ultimately everything in creation is the property of the dictator who can never be challenged or appealed.

 

[Junius]

A single, theistic god is by definition a dictator. Ultimately everything in creation is the property of the dictator who can never be challenged or appealed.

If you mean the word dictator in the original latin sense (ie autocrat, one person rule) then yes it would be. If you meant to attribute the normal negative connotation (and i'm pretty sure you did) then it would be incorrect to say monotheism is totalitarian. It would be even more incorrect to say it is "obvious" and "intrinsic".

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Can you point to any monotheistic holy texts in which god does not behave like a tyrant?

 

[Ajidica]

Bahai? I religion that can be summarized as 'hippie Sufi Islam' has to have something going for it.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

AFAIK, Bahai believe in hell as being a separation from god if the soul fails to develop properly (whatever that means). This implies there is some penalty for failing to live up to a divine standard. It's about as weakly totalitarian as it gets, but it's still there.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Can you point to any monotheistic holy texts in which god does not behave like a tyrant?

The Bible

He really doesn't behave tyrannically in the Bible TBH. It only seems that way.

 

[PeteAtoms]

The Bible

He really doesn't behave tyrannically in the Bible TBH. It only seems that way.

Lol. OMJC, there is no way you can simply say that without some examples Give us an example in which God seems to be tyrannical, but really isn't.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Yeah, global infanticide only seems tyrannical.

 

[classical_hero]

Yeah, global infanticide only seems tyrannical.

Just watch the Evangelist thread for an answer to that.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I'm not sure it's possible to justify the mass drowning of countless children. I might take your advice though, if only to be reliably disgusted.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Here's not the place. Back on topic, please.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Another thing I can't seem to grasp: why does it seem like atheists/secularists/whathaveyou will mock Christianity without a second though, yet decry mocking of Islam to be bigoted or Islamophobic or whatever? I just treat all religions with relative degrees of derision.

Because making a serious case for one religion to be supportive of violence is not the same as mocking. I don't know many who react as you do to mocking Islam. Mocking any religion, and mocking lack of a religion is fine by me. Heck, it's a sign of civilisation.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Exactly. Mocking religion is the lifeblood of free society. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between people who hate and fear Muslims and those who just make fun of Islam because they think it's stupid.

 

[classical_hero]

So you just go down to mocking. I thought that is what children do, not grown up adults.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you just go down to mocking. I thought that is what children do, not grown up adults.

This is just painful.

 

[Flying Pig]

So you just go down to mocking. I thought that is what children do, not grown up adults.

Don't tell a comedian that! But seriously, even Cromwell apparently encouraged the nobility to mock each other constantly - in a manner rather similar to best mates today - because beforehand they had been so defensive of their honours that any tiny insult could end in duelling and bloodshed. The right to mock people for almost any reason and a culture which can take good-natured mockery are fundamental in keeping a multicultural society. Of course, there are instances when mockery is a symptom of real dislike, and that's a different story.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Because making a serious case for one religion to be supportive of violence is not the same as mocking.

Is it impossible that the followers of one religion could be more inclined to violence due to the texts the same religion is based upon?

Exactly. Mocking religion is the lifeblood of free society. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between people who hate and fear Muslims and those who just make fun of Islam because they think it's stupid.

Would making a case such as mentioned above put you in the "hate and fear" group instead of the "mocking" group?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it impossible that the followers of one religion could be more inclined to violence due to the texts the same religion is based upon?

The only way to respond to this is: "making a serious case for one religion to be supportive of violence is not the same as mocking".

I've been around long enough to have had the argument you're steering at a thousand times. I can almost do the whole thing by myself based on past experience. I'll just reply to your question: I believe the way you phrased means you realise the weakness in it, and stick with my statement and not expand to more dubious claims.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The only way to respond to this is: "making a serious case for one religion to be supportive of violence is not the same as mocking".

Of course not and that wasn't the question. Somehow this case-making seemed to put one in a hate and fear camp, which is a far too common tactic in this forum.

I've been around long enough to have had the argument you're steering at a thousand times. I can almost do the whole thing by myself based on past experience. I'll just reply to your question: I believe the way you phrased means you realise the weakness in it, and stick with my statement and not expand to more dubious claims.

I'm not trying to steer into anything. Acknowledging the possibility of a difference between religions and their expressions in society seems pretty basic imo. But even this seems to be a bit controversial. It may have something to do with the likelihood of ending up in a hate&fear camp...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not trying to steer into anything. Acknowledging the possibility of a difference between religions and their expressions in society seems pretty basic imo. But even this seems to be a bit controversial. It may have something to do with the likelihood of ending up in a hate&fear camp...

Nope controversy wasn't the reason. It's just the repetition that put me off. To give some kind of answer, I think the political environment of the more unstable regions play a far bigger role than what religious texts are used to justify actions. That's my take on it, I think I've looked into the matter sufficiently but I won't make a case for it (because of those past experiences )

edit: By the way, the reason I answered as I did was because: "Is it impossible". Nothing is impossible, so I didn't think that was a fair question.