the conservative political machine: manufacturing islamophobia

I made my point, didn't you understand it? The problem is two fold. First there are people who hate Muslims for no reason other than their religion and they want to promote their hate. Second, there are people who overreact and exaggerate the influence of the first group. Both groups are irrational.

Most people (like almost all) do not hate Muslims and will never hate Muslims simply based on their religion. This will be true regardless of the amount of money raised or PR campaigns to promote religious hate.

I fear the above needed to be said, hence it is a valuable messages and does not waste anyone's time.

 

ace, no one has suggested that the anti-Muslim environment in the US is widespread, despite Islam being viewed far more negatively in the US than any other major religion:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/religious-prejudice-stronger-against-muslims.aspx

But rather it is deeply held among those who hold those strongest views and, more importantly, fueled by the rhetoric of those persons identified in the report who see a terrorist behind every Muslim and every mosque.

 

ace cant possibly be talking about the same thing as others because he won't read the report. the main point of the report is that there is a campaign in conservativeland to maintain these negative views of islam by conflating the entire religion with "terrorism"--and that campaign has specific actors who are funded in particular ways by a particular institutions. the campaign is aimed at a particular demographic, which it reaches through specific organizational networks. this network has a specific media echo effect, which also involves particular players in particular positions. ace would prefer to believe that this is all some floating commonsense conclusion arrived at by "americans"--- but the facts are otherwise. what ace does--thats sadly typical of conservatives of a certain type--is he refuses to address the facts of the matter and tries instead to swap for it some vaporous understanding that he assembles god knows where that functions to minimize or eliminate the facts of the matter. my basic problem with ace in particular is that his form of conservatism operates in a reality-optional mode that nonetheless justifies itself on utilitarian grounds---but because of the reality-optional mode, the utilitarian justifications are nothing more than a rhetoric. and that is an unethical use of ethical argumentation. but ace, in particular, won't accept responsibility for that unethical use of ethical language. instead, it's arbitrary assertion upon aribitrary assertion that we're subjected to. it's horseshit and further it's exactly the kind of horseshit that's presupposed by the operatives in the network that the report details--a demographic of people who prefer to live in the same kind of reality-optional environment that ace does. people who know nothing about islam and nothing about muslim people and dont feel as though they need to in order to arrive at judgments about them. people who switch the grounds of assertion every time they're confronted with the facts of the matter because, at bottom, they don't care about the facts of the matter. i wont waste my time to speculate as to why that is the case. suffice it to say that there's nothing more anti-democratic imaginable than this reality-optional business and no demographic that's more politically dangerous than people who operate in that space. because this, folks, is the demographic that neo-fascism speaks to. and they should be marginalised. because this is a dangerous bunch of people. you cant appeal to reality to dissuade them of things. that's a Problem.

 

Rational people can have rational discussions.

At the core, this is one key question:

If in a society that promotes freedom of religion (i.e. US and Canada), a group in the name of their religion (Muslims) wants the right to practice what their religion requires (i.e. Sharia law), but that practice is in conflict with the governing laws of the society (i.e. US Constitution) how should those conflicts be resolved?

The above question is on the minds of many rational people who do not hate. How do you respond to the question?
--- merged: Sep 5, 2011 2:14 AM ---

Issues like this are resolved through open and honest dialogs and exchanges of information. Fear is a normal reaction. There are some productive ways to address fear and some not so productive. Ask yourself the question - If I am fearful, what is the best way for me to overcome that fear? If your answer is consistent with what you post, then you are on the right track. Personally when I have a legitimate fear and some one says something like - I am being unduly influenced by a PR campaign - engaging in hate crimes - a racist or some other "ist" - etc., it is not very helpful. I may be in a small minority, I don't know. But I do have real fears, questions and concerns.

 

My response?

It demonstrates an ignorance of sharia law, or at very least, painting it with a broad brush and its most extreme interpretation when in fact the interpretation and application varies significantly within the Muslim community, and it is on the mind of many rational people based on the misinformation spread by the anti-Muslim folks cited in the report, which, I assume, you still have not read.

Conflicting with the US Constitution? There is a conflict betwen Catholic Cannon Law, as it applies to abortion, and the US Constitution. So what's your point?

 

I am not even going to read your entire post.

Perhaps you are influence by PR campaigns, I am not.

On its face the point of the article is absurd. If PR is all that is needed, why not start of "Love PR" campaign. Raise some money and end all war, end all hate. Gee!

 

your capacity for avoiding information is remarkable, ace. what you're doing is basically defending an exact parallel of racism. and you're doing it because it's a parallel of racism that works for a political position that you endorse. so it's an instrumentalized parallel of racism. one in which the facts are irrelevant. like what sharia actually is. and you won't look into it. instead, you defend what amounts to intellectual laziness with these ridiculous claims that fear of the unknown is normal. but you also enact a defense of keeping the unknown in that position. it's repellent. it really is. and worse, you claim to be interested in dialogue. apparently, you don't know what the word means.

 

And my response to you is "Dah"!

Yes, I am ignorant of Sharia Law and I don't even know where to begin. I don't understand it. I don't know what Muslims want regarding it. I don't know how it is to fit in with current law. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Instead of calling me an islamaphobe perhaps, there can be a real open and honest dialog on the issue. I wonder, do you want to solve a real problem or do you have another agenda?

 

ace...if you want to have an open and honest dialogue....start by reading the report or educating yourself, at least at a very basic level, on Islam and not spouting misinformation about sharia law when you admittedly know nothing about it.

 

I don't avoid information. I have questions. You have a pattern of not answering questions. I stated that the premise of the work you cited was absurd and I said why and your response is an inaccurate comment about me. We have been there and done that many times.

My opinion is my own. I am sure others will engage you in the details of your citation.

 

how about you read the report, ace? stop being disengenuous for once. stop the idiotic game you are running. there is the basis for a dialogue in the op. if you want to have one, read the report. then maybe a dialogue would be possible. but if you don't, then how about you just fuck off. it's pretty simple.

 

The report is a waste of time. The report starts by saying my fears, concerns, questions are not real - that they are manufactured by some right wing hate group. you call that a good start? I don't. to me a good start would be you or anyone answering that little core question I presented.

 

I answered your question about sharia law by pointing out that there is no one interpretation and application of sharia law and those who express and promote fear are making a sweeping generalization based on the most extreme interpretation and one that is not the interpretation of most moderate Muslims (or Muslims in the US).

I further pointed out that the conflict with the US Constitution is, in most respect, no different than the conflict of Catholic cannon law and the US Constitution.

Sharia law is not at the core of the anti-Muslim sentiment. Sharia law is only the most recent boogeyman. It is the sweeping association of Islam and terrorism that pervades much of the right wing media (eg, taring every Muslim organization in the US and many mosques as fronts for terrorism) that is at the core.

 

You say you know nothing, but yet you want to hold onto your fears.

And you see nothing wrong with this?

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with telling someone to fuck off when they are being deliberately obtuse in order to "win" something. It's like poking a dog repeatedly in the eye with a stick and then whining when the dog bites you.

 

I fail to see what is crazy about the OP. Call me a radical left nutjob if you like, but people who are running scared because of the Muslim menace and the spread of shari'a law are indeed suffering from some sort of mass, fear-addicted insanity. I fail to see how pointing that out is just as crazy.