M. Augustus
United States
|
Mark: See, here's the thing – I just don't agree with you, Mark, that something can be 'racist against your beliefs'. We can submit this to a usage panel if you like. ;) However, I will point out that there are far more definitions of 'race' on the dictionary.com page that you cite that argue that 'race' is something you are born with. Even the definition that you cite seems to me to have these characteristics – I do not believe that a person can move to the Netherlands at age 35 and proclaim himself a Dutchman, for instance, while a Muslim or Christian evangelical would welcome that same 35-year-old if he suddently converted. Again, I agree with you that what they're doing is (a) wrong and (even worse), (b) annoying as all hell. I'm simply arguing with you about what to call it. ;). To me, racism simply HAS to be hating someone (or thinking them inferior, etc) on the basis of something that they do not have the power to change – and I think common usage backs me up on it. (IE, 'the color of their skin' rather than 'the content of their character'.) I agree with you on this: I've lurked through the past month or so of threads and on the whole, you seem to not to strongly insult those who believe in God and do adopt some form of middle ground. I will say, however, that your tendency to over-use (in my view) the word Islamo-Fascist in places where 'Islamo-Evangelical' might be a better word, could be taken as insulting. Blake: Ouch, Blake – you are found guilty of not being able to recognize Cary Grant on sight, and what's worse, not having seen "Arsenic & Old Lace." The sentence is death.
And I totally agree with you that some current of the Muslim posters here has an anti-Jewish slant, and that this IS racism. (The Jews in general complicate the question of 'race', as they themselves do identify themselves as a 'people' according to a particular matrilineal descent, but at the same times, some forms of Judaism do accept converts…) However, two points: (A) Some of these posts are merely disagreeing with the practices (or the existence) of the state of Israel, and this is not inherently racist. Anti-Zionism cannot be immediately conflated with Anti-Semitism. While an Anti-Semite is almost definitely an Anti-Zionist, an Anti-Zionist is not necessarily and Anti-Semite. (I myself question the rationale for founding the state of Israel on the basis of a claim from 2000 years ago, for instance – but I find anti-semitism one of the most cringe-worthy forms of racism to exist.) (B) Not all of the 'Islamic Evangelicals' here post anything at all about the state of Israel or the Jews, and in fact some post saying that the Jews are 'believers' (people of the book and all that) even though their text has got it wrong. So I feel we have to distinguish between posters like hakimi (who seems to have some anti-Jewish racist tendencies, at least) and posters like muslima who (as far as I can recall in the recent past) does not. But of course, what do I know? My mind is polluted by Jewish-fascist propaganda and alcohol. (Not a fan of 'drugs', but GOD do I love Jewish-fascist propaganda. I think I might go do some right now, along with some scotch.) Kanaobi: Your answers make sense – during times when women have no form of individual support, polygamy is in the best interest of the women. However, anyone who says that women are now free and equal to men, and is claiming that may 'own their own property, run their own business, and inherit in their own right' as Muslima does, is contradicting themselves if they then argue that these same women in some way might need the protection of a husband so much that it is in their interest to become wife#3 to a man who has 2 others rather than remain single.
|