I do think it's fair to criticize a religion's teachings based on the behavior those teachings encourage.
That said, I think the difference is one of degree, not of kind. There are violent Christians, too, after all -- and violent Jews (ask the Palestinians about these) -- and violent atheists. There are many places in the world where the Western concept of human rights has not caught on, and you don't have to be a right-winger to suggest that we who believe in such rights should continue to press the concept on others (even as we continue to clean our own houses).
You don't really say exactly what it is that you're agreeing with the right-wing parties about. If you're suggesting that Muslim immigrants should be excluded from the US, for example, that would seem to contradict your claim that you're not saying anything about individual Muslims.
So what is it, exactly, that you think "rational people" couldn't disagree with?
Perhaps I'm just ill informed or not getting a fair spread of viewpoints. When I saw I'm not saying or against individual Muslims, I mean to say I don't have something against them personally, just their views. I'm not saying they're bad people. Just that overall, at least from what I've read, the views the group appears to hold are not acceptable to me, nor should they be to anyone in favour of humanity. But I'm basing my understanding of the group numbers off of Pew Research, so perhaps they are incorrect?
As far as liking the right, only the right wing parties seem to be willing to openly say there may be an issue with the group beliefs. Your comment, which is sensible and accurate, does not seem to be what I've seen most left-leaning people saying. I've not heard EU/US leaders say anything like "X religion has some serious issues, but we need to work to fix those issues". But again, perhaps I've got sampling bias.
> I've not heard EU/US leaders say anything like "X religion has some serious issues, but we need to work to fix those issues".
Here in California, in 2008, we had Proposition 8, which rescinded the right of marriage which the state Supreme Court had declared less than a year earlier was available to same-sex couples. After that, it was noted that violence against gays increased. The vote was taken, by some, as an official statement that discriminating against gays was okay.
What do you think would happen if Obama said "Islam has some issues"? Don't you think there would be plenty of people who would take this as an excuse to start beating up Muslims? The fact that he didn't even mean his comment to be taken that way would be no defense against this very predictable consequence of his saying it.
I think he has to stick to the line that "Islam is a religion of peace". The vast majority of Muslims, after all, are peaceful. I've even read about mosques working with the FBI to help identify potentially violent people. We need that kind of partnership to continue and expand, and to make that happen, it's important to express that side of the truth, if you will. Saying "Islam is a religion of peace" says "if you're a Muslim who abhors violence, the US is on your side". That's a good message!
I don't think anyone on the left is unaware of the risks posed by violent extremism, Islamist or otherwise. It's more a question of what is the best response. As tempting as it is to say, Let's just keep out the people who seem most inclined to do such things -- if that means all Muslims, I think that would be a terrible mistake, as it would keep out large numbers of desirable citizens in order to stop a few violent crazies. (Of course I have no objection to deporting individual immigrants who have committed crimes or otherwise demonstrated a predisposition to violence.)
I appreciate the response and admit I didn't really consider the scenario you explained (retaliation). Thank you.
But could you explain why you say it's only a few people? I guess it all hinges on what is meant by "a few" and "peaceful".
Because according to Pew Research, the number of Muslims worldwide that support death for apostasy is very high - hundreds of millions[1]. This is not a fringe/extremist/radical minority. Major, rich, countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE have severe penalties for religious-based "crimes" or sexuality. Even in the UK, the percentages are in the double-digits for those that support violence against cartoonists, or death to apostates. The views and numbers on homosexuality are likewise appalling and indefensible.
You mention Prop 8 but sort of draw the opposite conclusion. The Mozilla CEO supported Prop 8, and he was cast out. Mormons got some bad rep due to their involvement with it. But these countries do far, far, worse, and our leaders don't condemn them?
Maybe you're right that professing there's no problem is the best tactic. But it's going to look very insincere, perhaps outright dishonest, to many people.
- Perhaps the research is wrong. I'd love to hear that these numbers are total fabrications. But all I've seen when I look is a lot of handwaving about interpretations and No True Scotsman arguments.
The Pew numbers are interesting, and sobering. I have no basis on which to contradict them.
As a general matter, I would expect that hard-liners would be less interested than moderates in emigrating to a West they see as hopelessly decadent. Certainly, if they want to live in a country where Sharia is the law of the land, that's not going to happen here, or even in France. So I expect there's a substantial amount of self-selection going on already.
That said, I'm sure there is a clash of values in some cases. I recall reading about a woman walking her dog in NYC -- she happened to go past a mosque, and was accosted by one of its members (dogs are "unclean", apparently). I certainly think it should be impressed upon the members of the mosque that they have no right to control who uses a public sidewalk, and that walking one's dog is perfectly legal. They've come from a very uniform society into a very pluralistic one, and they're just going to have to get used to it.
I think such clashes are of the same kind as other debates about the degree to which adherents of a religion may impose their views on others: debates over abortion rights, state-sponsored prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, Israelis settling in the occupied territories because they believe God gave them the land, etc. etc. I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't just Muslims who try to do this.
Anyway, in principle I have no problem with interviewing applicants for immigration (and/or their friends and relatives) to estimate their predisposition to violence, and rejecting individuals who seem so disposed. In practice, I admit, that sounds like a hard thing to do well. But I think it would be better for us to try such an individualized approach than to impose blanket restrictions on entire religious/ethnic groups.
Interesting that you should bring up Brendan Eich. I originally signed an online petition calling for his ouster, and then as I read more about the situation, came to regret doing so. Not because there was any indication that he'd changed his views, nor because I came to see the pro-Prop. 8 campaign as anything but one vicious calumny after another, but because he had made a credible pledge not to let his views affect his treatment of Mozilla employees, and a considerable majority (though admittedly not 100%) of those employees believed he would live up to it. Certainly, had he stayed on as CEO, and failed to live up to his pledge, he could have been ousted with much better reason and less debate. I now think he should have had the chance. Instead, he was a lightning rod for a lot of pent-up anger that many, including me, had over the success of the Prop. 8 campaign and had not really had any target to direct it at.
> But these countries do far, far, worse, and our leaders don't condemn them?
Well, along with the risk of fanning the flames of anti-Muslim prejudice, there's also the fact that some of these regimes are, at least nominally and for the moment, our allies against Daesh, the self-styled Islamic State. However bad you think Saudi Arabia is, and I'm sure I agree, Daesh is much worse. I have not been paying attention to exactly what our leaders have and have not been saying about Daesh, but I'm not under the impression that they've spared the group any criticism.
I don't entirely disagree with you. But I think the situation the world is in is very delicate, and wise leaders will choose their words very, very carefully.
I also think it's important for us as individuals to resist identity-group politics. The better we all get at seeing people of other cultures as human beings -- however misguided some of their beliefs might seem to us -- the better the world's chance of navigating these perilous shoals.
That said, I think the difference is one of degree, not of kind. There are violent Christians, too, after all -- and violent Jews (ask the Palestinians about these) -- and violent atheists. There are many places in the world where the Western concept of human rights has not caught on, and you don't have to be a right-winger to suggest that we who believe in such rights should continue to press the concept on others (even as we continue to clean our own houses).
You don't really say exactly what it is that you're agreeing with the right-wing parties about. If you're suggesting that Muslim immigrants should be excluded from the US, for example, that would seem to contradict your claim that you're not saying anything about individual Muslims.
So what is it, exactly, that you think "rational people" couldn't disagree with?