4 opinions, 4 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted No.
2 votes
Feb 1, 2016

Are you ashamed to belong to the same race as Nazis if you're white, or Mugabe if you're black?

Are you ashamed to belong to the same faith system as most of the Soviet elite and Bolsheviks if you're an atheist, or King Leopold II of Belgium if you're Christian?

Are you ashamed to belong to the same nation as slave-owners and genocidal maniacs if you're American, or frankly most other European nations?

The people asking these kinds of questions are not honest. Every ethno-national group, every religious group and faith system, has been associated with violence. It is only the bigot (and everyone who answered "Yes" to this question is a bigot, no matter how they rationalize it or how subdued that bigotry is) who holds people accountable for the behavior of some arbitrarily defined group. Does every Republican in the U.S. have to prove that theyare disavowing Trump, "white ISIS"? It's also blatant hypocrisy in the Biblical sense, in that it evinces a mentality that would rather throw stones than work on one's own sin. No person is perfect and no group is perfect. People with integrity work on that instead of asking if other people should be ashamed.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
2 votes,
Feb 1, 2016

"Are you ashamed to belong to the same race as Nazis if you're white, or Mugabe if you're black?

Being muslim (or following any other form of religion) is not an innate characteristic.

"Are you ashamed to belong to the same faith system as most of the Soviet elite and Bolsheviks if you're an atheist, or King Leopold II of Belgium if you're Christian?"

"Are you ashamed to belong to the same nation as slave-owners and genocidal maniacs if you're American, or frankly most other European nations?"

The difference is that the examples you have given cannot be associated with the present. We are in 2016.

Of course we could be ashamed of our ancestors' actions. But then again, what can we do about it? We cannot go back in time. The best we can do is to apologize and give money to the victims or the victims' children. But where does it end? Should we dig in our collective history up until we expose the original sin?

But let's come back to the original topic.

I sometimes felt ashamed in the past. Felt ashamed of the actions of a relative. Felt ashamed of my country. Felt ashamed of mankind in general. ISIS is committing atrocities as we speak, and they use the Quran to justify their actions. I would feel ashamed to be associated with them if I had any ties with them, and this includes Islam as a religion.

However... And this is important.

If I feel ashamed, does it mean I have taken part in the actions? Not at all. If I maintain my faith in Islam even though others are murdering people in the name of the religion, does it mean I support ISIS? Not at all. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that feeling ashamed is not necessarily a rational behavior to adopt, especially when we don't take part directly in whatever caused the shame. But many still feel shame nevertheless. And I believe it's just normal. Humans are divided in numerous communities, whether it be racial, cultural, social or religious. It's just the way it is. As much as we feel like we are part of a group and feel pride for being part of that group, we can also be subjected to feeling shame if that same group has members who have done something wrong.

Also, I couldn't access the video in your link. Apparently I cannot view it in my country. But I read a little about it and the controversy it has generated. Correct me if I am wrong, but despite all the hate Donald Trump has inside of him, he has yet to decapitate a man.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
2 votes,
Feb 1, 2016

Being muslim (or following any other form of religion) is not an innate characteristic.

Neither is being white or being black if we're being honest. Ethnicity is not inherited, it's learned. Race doesn't exist.

The difference is that the examples you have given cannot be associated with the present. We are in 2016.

Should an American be ashamed of the Iraq War? Of the rape and death of death squads in Central America? I picked examples from the past because there the clarity is higher and the silly arguments not as relevant. European nations commit serious crimes today too.

Also, I couldn't access the video in your link. Apparently I cannot view it in my country. But I read a little about it and the controversy it has generated. Correct me if I am wrong, but despite all the hate Donald Trump has inside of him, he has yet to decapitate a man.

Hitler didn't kill all that many people directly. The fact that Trump will have other people do his dirty work for him doesn't make him any more moral. That's one of the worst hypocrisies we've inherited. America's hands are no more clean because we drop bombs from drones instead of cutting people's heads off in a video. The torture victims and the widows don't much care.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
2 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

"Neither is being white or being black if we're being honest. Ethnicity is not inherited, it's learned. Race doesn't exist."

That is an admirable point of view, but alas I do not share it because I believe it is too far from reality.

According to you, races do not exist and ethnicity is learned.

If I would follow the same logic, it would mean sexual orientation is also "learned", right?

One major argument of those who are against homosexuality is that people become homosexuals after getting "in contact" with certain "disruptive" outside elements, like befriending other homosexuals or experiencing childhood abuse, for example. Thus, according to them, they "learn" to be homosexuals, right? I don't think you would agree on that.

My opinion is that "races" exist. And just like sexual orientation, probabilities are it is a process which begins during conception.

On the other hand, you cannot be "born" as a Muslim. There isn't a "Muslim gene". You are certainly taught to be one and you become one because you grow up with Muslims in your environment.

Clearly, there has to be a difference between being a Muslim and being white/black. If you'd have to give the "innate" etiquette to one "concept", it has to be white/black.

I picked examples from the past because there the clarity is higher and the silly arguments not as relevant. European nations commit serious crimes today too.

I understand, but you have to admit that right now, Islam is at the center of the vast majority of organised civilian murders. There are terrorist attacks made in the name of Islam almost weekly nowadays. You simply won't find violent acts being committed under the same common denominator on a comparable scale in the present time. That's what I was trying to point out. Picking up other dark pages of history won't erase the fact that there are terrorist attacks made by Islamic extremists every month all around the planet.

Besides, it seems you cannot defend the religion without attacking others who oppose (openly or not) Islam. I would expect a solid defendant to say:

"You claim Islam is doing this, but the reality is that Islam is doing that."

Instead you say:

"You claim Islam is doing this, but others are doing that."

Which is, to me, a behavior one could believe is quite close to bigotry.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

That is an admirable point of view, but alas I do not share it because I believe it is too far from reality.
According to you, races do not exist and ethnicity is learned.
If I would follow the same logic, it would mean sexual orientation is also "learned", right?

That's a false analogy. These are NOT a priori issues: You have to actually go out and CHECK.

Sexual orientation has been studied, and it is highly heritable. It's NOT 100%, so I agree that actually sexual orientation IS partially learned socially. Look at ancient Sparta: Does anyone seriously argue that the rate of homosexual encounters there was just as high as modern America? Of course not. Sexual identity IS a lot more fluid than we socially give it credit for. But, just like other complicated aspects of human psychology like schizophrenia or autism, genes ARE involved.

Race and ethnicity do not exist in genes. Period. The clusters of genes just do not match any racial taxonomy people use. And ethnicity is just so obviously social. Do you really believe there's a gene that makes Arabs and Israelis both like hummus? Do you really believe that there's a gene that makes Americans like hot dogs?

My opinion is that "races" exist. And just like sexual orientation, probabilities are it is a process which begins during conception.

Your opinion is wrong. There are virtually no geneticists who will support this claim at this point. Human populations are genetically virtually identical, such that variations within groups are WAY bigger than variations outside of groups. That's why some of the tallest people in the world have been Chinese even though Chinese are not on average taller. The vast majority of apparent clusterings along racial lines are secretly other factors in disguise; The impacts of micro-aggressions from discrimination, lack of access to resources, education, etc.

If we were honest about the genetics, we'd say that there are tens to HUNDREDS of African groups, because African genetic diversity is huge. We don't. Race is a construct, period. To quote Bill Nye: "There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species".

On the other hand, you cannot be "born" as a Muslim. There isn't a "Muslim gene". You are certainly taught to be one and you become one because you grow up with Muslims in your environment.

So why is there such a huge correlation between Islam and ethno-racial groups, then?

The problem with your assertion is that all of the predictions that racial models would make just do not hold up. Differences between ethnic groups are far better explained by diet, access to resources, wealth, education, etc. etc.: In other words, politics, economics and culture.

I understand, but you have to admit that right now, Islam is at the center of the vast majority of organised civilian murders

Do I? Rwanda, the most horrible recent act of genocide, had almost nothing to do with Islam. Rwanda is a Christian majority nation, by HUGE margins. Russia's violence and the violence of the United States are both by Christian majority, European, white nations. The reason why people think that Islam is so awful is because

a) We automatically abstract out wholesale aggression like war and focus only on retail aggression like terrorism, because it is the most powerful nations who do the biggest wholesale aggression and they are NOT Muslim
b) Even after doing that, there is still huge anti-Muslim propaganda

Besides, it seems you cannot defend the religion without attacking others who oppose (openly or not) Islam. I would expect a solid defendant to say:

"You claim Islam is doing this, but the reality is that Islam is doing that."
Instead you say:
"You claim Islam is doing this, but others are doing that."
Which is, to me, a behavior one could believe is quite close to bigotry.

I can absolutely do exactly that: "Islam" is not doing ANYTHING. Individual MUSLIMS are doing such things, often because of factors like race, colonialism, etc. The vast majority of Muslims, just like the vast majority of PEOPLE, are peaceful.

But it is not bigoted to point out when someone is being a hypocrite. The logic here is really simple and I am astonished that you miss it: If other groups do the exact same thing and only Islam is condemned for it, then there is a bias against Islam. And if ALL groups do the same or comparable things, the problem CANNOT be Islam, but it must be something else. I submit that the problems we as a species face stem from problems of political economy, bigotry, race, and totalistic ideologies, not any one religion or ethnic group. My theory is superior to the "Islam is intrinsically bad" theory because it explains why Islam is NOT intrinsically bad comparatively when one looks at the actual DATA.

subscribe
100
User voted No.
1 vote
Nov 20, 2015

Not all Muslims are terrorists. That's a mistake people are doing, and that's the way they've been thinking like recently.

It's a simple explanation; because everyone of that particular group does it, it doesn't mean that everyone else does aswell.
Recently, a muslim did this in france - as a sign of trust and to spread this message around, that being a muslim isn't being a terrorist, and also that people aren't all the same because they belong to a certain religion, group, or community - there's different varieties, subgroups, and etc that can all vary and change; regardless of it's main "roots".

Here's the video, which - is tough and says a lot. Watch it all and you'll understand - some comments & replies to the video also have very informative and descriptive content that may help a few or lots get the idea a little better.
Enjoy, and please understand.
youtube.com/watch?v=lRbbEQkraYg

subscribe
100
opinion
1 vote
Nov 25, 2015

Why would I? The Muslim religion is based on the Quran which supports these acts. I'm not Muslim and I will not support the terroristic attacks but I don't see why a Muslim wouldn't.

subscribe
100
opinion
1 vote
Mar 1, 2016

A 'terrorist' may share my religion but not my belief.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: