Can the doctrine of separation of Church and State be compatible with Islam?

I am prepared for outrage promulgated by this essay. Let it come--but do so in a rational fashion, which may be considered rationally. Now this subject may be a bit more intricate in practice than in theory, as I will explain.

We have a Constitution of the United States which forbids the mingling of Church and State (beware of Cruz and Pence). This essay is not anti-religious. After all, I am a devout pastafarian, wishing no one harm.

I am not an Islamic scholar but I have been educated for the needs of this essay sufficiently to write about it. One of my mentors is Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn born Muslim. Bernie really liked her at one point, though many were suspicious. Allow me to quote from the collected diatribes of Linda Sarsour.

She also paid tribute recently to Imam Siraj Wahaj, a man who was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and said homosexuality is a disease.

Sarsour praised Assata Shakur, a convicted cop killer who escaped prison and fled to Cuba, where she has been hiding out for almost 40 years.

She has said so many disgusting things about Israel, that I wouldn’t even know where to begin, but I’d say her calling for a one-state solution that would completely wipe Israel off the map might be a decent starting point.

And, of course, there’s her most recent lunacy, which was calling for “Jihad” against President Trump and the American government. Her later claims about this – that she would never advocate violence and was instead referring to the literal definition of a struggle as opposed to the widely accepted definition of violent overthrow – are so ridiculously disingenuous, that I’d laugh if it wasn’t so pathetic. Remember, she’s incredibly peaceful, except when she’s lauding the actions of a convicted cop-killer, an accomplice in a bombing, or cheering on Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis as a profile in courage on Twitter.

Whatever one may think of the one state solution, it should not involved ethnic cleansing by either Jew or Arab.

Want more Sarsourianism?

"I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House," Sarsour said.

"Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority," she said. "Our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, to make sure our women are protected in our community."

"Our top priority and even higher than all those other priorities is to please Allah and only Allah," Sarsour declared.

That last sentence, subtle or not (and it is NOT) means the supremacy of Sharia in the US. You can believe that with a sizable minority in the US, the fundamentalist Islamists (FI) would extend as much tolerance to our home grown "non-believers" as ISIS does to its captives. Is that harsh? Yes. Is it true? Let's explore.

Islam is a religion with a monotheistic god, a prophet, a holy book, and various sects. Sounds like Christianity so far (not that Christians have been morally superior in the past either--think of the Inquisition and the prior rape of Palestine).

Unlike Protestants and Catholics, who, despite differences in doctrine, finally got to agree to mutual existence with the other, Islam has not. It is primarily composed of two basic factions (and other minor ones) Shia and Sunni. They have hated one another more than a thousand years and continue to slaughter each other when the opportunity arises. But this sectarian violence is still not the point of this essay.

The problem about which this is inspired pre-dates the Shia-Sunni divide and goes directly back to Mohammed. Don't let anyone sweet talk you about how Muslims are so open to nationalities of all kinds, which, as long as you believe in the "correct" sect, welcome you gladly. To this day, even should you not be of the approved sect, bad on you. However this paragraph leads away from the basic teachings of Mohammed.

According to what I have seen reported, including from some Muslim sites, Islam is not only a religion but inextricably combined with a theocracy. Theocracy is a political system in which the rules of a religion (any religion) dictate the governance of those whom are ruled.

The major outcropping of this is Sharia Law, the harsh medieval rules of a regressive world view. (I expect the fatwahs coming). Sharia is inimicably incompatible with modern western values, not that modern western values are so wonderful. They aren't. But Islam encourages, if not demands several ideas abhorrent to most modern western societies.

Some of these involve the following:
1. Denigration of women
2. Sexual mutilation of women
3. Sharia-approved rape, often with the rape victim being severely treated or even stoned to death.
4. Lying, even when swearing an oath on the Koran (Q'ran, or whatever) if if lying promotes the interests of Islam. In that regard however, it would be hypocritical of me not to mention the routine lying under oath which goes on in our "exceptional" country. We also aren't very good at abiding at honoring treaties, either. So I guess, this makes Capitalism and Islam morally equally bankrupt.
5. Jihad. Don't let Sarsour's talkback of her use of "jihad" to mean anything other than violent opposition to the unbelievers. Her feeble excuse was pure bullshit. Jihad is a DUTY on believers to violently oppose unbelievers whenever they can.

Associated cultural practices, as evolving in Europe and the U.S. are non-assimilation, social isolationism into Muslin enclaves (in EU these apply to the so-called "no go zones" inhabited by radical Islamists and other thugs), and efforts to enforce Sharia.

I am deeply disturbed by Keith Ellison's continuing support of Sarsour after her intemperate remarks. Now I wonder if "Berniecrat" Ellison, like former Berniecrat Sarsour, is in favor of legalizing Sharia. I don't believe he has been questioned on this. There are at least two other Muslim representatives in Congress, including Carson (D-IN) who should be required to answer to answer this question unequivocally. If any of these representatives support Sharia, they should summarily be removed from Congress for sedition.

I am deadly serious about this. A side-note: in Minneapolis this past week, a non-citizen Somali Minneapolis policeman shot and killed an unarmed woman who called 911 for help with a suspected sexual attack (not involving herself). In other words, Mohammed Noor, the shooter, actually shot across his partner's body to kill the woman who was actually addressing the partner. The Muslim mayor of Minneapolis fired the police chief who wanted to prosecute Noor. The mayor commanded that Noor be placed on paid administrative leave. Is that a religious conflict of interest, or a CYA moment, or both?

There will be no other such instances rolled out in this essay.

If, and that's a big IF, Islam can be disentangled from Sharia, female inequality, etc., I will cease my objections.

Is this Islamophobic? Are we talking about the religion? Are we talking about the Theocracy? Are we inevitably talking about both.

I present this essay at c99 with the knowledge that, although many of you may disagree, the issues raised will be discussed with comity.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Pluto's Republic's picture

…and when its cultural expressions are marginalized — an invisible monster springs to life. And it grows and grows. When you're dealing with a culture and a race and a religion all in one, it will drag everyone down into mistrust, oppression, fear, resentment, and involuntary restraint.

Groups of people should be able to select the cultural lives they want to live. They will gravitate to a familiar culture that brings them comfort and security. They should be able to live their lives on the land they occupy, as a closed society or an open one, as they prefer. It is the most important human right of all. It is the right of Self Determination.

And everyone should mind their own goddam business. The intervention of nosey people is the greatest of social evils. Treaties can be written for the laws of the neutral zones, the common areas and the public spaces between cultures. But if a Culture settlement wants Sharia Law, that is their own business. Tolerance, friendship, festivities, and shared adventures are the only agendas that should exist in the spaces between cultures. Instead of growing a monster, a heart will spring into existence and grow and grow.

Imagine Israel without zionists, developed the right way by an enlightened people. It is very, very doable. A negotiated utopia is struggling to take form on this planet — it won't stop until it succeeds. There are too many destructive laws written by dead people. Laws that are petitioned must be reconfirmed by living people, or discarded

That's my take. Besides, I don't think there is any other path forward.

I unsuccessfully tried to answer this question last week, too Smile

https://caucus99percent.com/comment/281223#comment-281223

Thanks for such an honest and authentic question to consider. You expressed just the right amount of bias and curiosity.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
studentofearth's picture

@Pluto's Republic

creates a continual tension for a governing body and opportunity for theological suppression.

Common aspects
The unifying characteristic of Abrahamic religions is that all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham.[57] All are monotheistic, and conceive God to be a transcendent creator and the source of moral law.[58] Their religious texts feature many of the same figures, histories, and places, although they often present them with different roles, perspectives, and meanings.[59] Believers who agree on these similarities and the common Abrahamic origin tend to also be more positive towards other Abrahamic groups.[60]

In these four Abrahamic religions the individual, God, and the universe are highly separate from each other. The Abrahamic religions believe in a judging, paternal, fully external god to which the individual and nature are subordinate. One seeks salvation or transcendence not by contemplating the natural world or via philosophical speculation, but by seeking to please God (such as obedience with God's wishes or his law) and see divine revelation as outside of self, nature, and custom.

Christianity differs somewhat in that it includes the key tenet of "salvation by grace" and not through seeking to please God or by good works. Obedience for the Christian is expected as a natural response to having received salvation. This tenet is based on the Abrahamic principle of righteousness imputed by faith, and only through the provision of payment for sin by Jesus' sacrificial death as the promised Messiah

Fundamentalists in Islam, Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and Judaism all represses girls. women and other religions/cultures grant them equal status or power. The religious leaders at different times in history have worked to have their religion codified in various levels of government.

God Bless you and God Bless America. In God We Trust the petrodollar.

up
0 users have voted.

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Alligator Ed's picture

@Pluto's Republic First for you knowing comment of 7/19/17 which pithily explains a hoped for blossoming of human culture in an age of spirituality. I am not sure, but this development was severely constricted by technological advances. Humans were (and still are) NOT to use their new "toys" well. It's like a couple of three year-olds sitting down with a Tinker Toy and instead of building something(s) together, they throw them at each other. A great deal of cognitive dissonance exists in humans singly and as a society.

And everyone should mind their own goddam business. The intervention of nosey people is the greatest of social evils. Treaties can be written for the laws of the neutral zones, the common areas and the public spaces between cultures. But if a Culture settlement wants Sharia Law, that is their own business. Tolerance, friendship, festivities, and shared adventures are the only agendas that should exist in the spaces between cultures. Instead of growing a monster, a heart will spring into existence and grow and grow.

This quotation from your above comment is eloquent, but, in my mind, puzzling. If Muslims choose to live in their own enclaves, fine. Let them. This goes for any ethnicity, race, etc. But there are two aspects of our current situation which needs further explication. One, although many religions impose religious law, especially including Israel, That may be appropriate up to a certain point. For instance, orthodox Jews may sue for drive (called a "get") and even obtaining one may work out culturally to the satisfaction of both parties, that divorce is not recognized civilly without using proper legal procedures. So far, unless the Christian Theocrats take power, these legal divorce procedures must be performed in order to comply with the law of the STATE, not with the law of religion(s).

So here is the second point, which reverts to the theme of my essay: will Sharia claim supremacy in any or all jurisdictions, when the appropriate LEGAL (i.e., civil law) rules on the same subject. I don't know because I am not aware of currents in modern Islamic doctrine. I admit this in both my essay and this comment.

As far as religious fundamentalists, of any persuasion, when they hold public office, they are obliged to follow the law. The brou-haha in Ohio, I believe, when a city clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple even though this was a civilly permitted act, performed her assigned job in a manner which was incompatible with her oath to obey the laws of the state of Ohio making gay marriages legal. A work-around in that case developed when the state made the county appoint a different registrar to issue the license. Fine. But what if all clerks from that community were theocrats, how would that license be issued? The original clerk of course was a Christian fundamentalist. So the point of my essay is not just to point blame at Muslims. There is plenty of blame to go around for lots of things. I would much appreciate an HONEST answer from an Islamic scholar as to whether Sharia must eventually be subservient to civil law. This is an honest question, not cynicism.

BTW, I am not sure what answers Cruz or Pence would give to a similar question as to whether Christian biblical law should ever prevail over civil law, despite the fact that both gave oaths to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United Sates". These are questions that perhaps should be asked of any law-maker prior to being to administer the civil oath of office.

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Alligator Ed

BTW, I am not sure what answers Cruz or Pence would give to a similar question as to whether Christian biblical law should ever prevail over civil law, despite the fact that both gave oaths to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United Sates". These are questions that perhaps should be asked of any law-maker prior to being to administer the civil oath of office.

I suspect that the "no religious tests" clause of the US Constitution might preclude new lawmakers from being asked that question as a condition of taking the oath of office.

From Article Six of the Constitution, bolding supplied by me:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

In other words, the sworn oath of office, in which the new legislator pledges to support the US Constitution (which explicitly says that the Constitution is the law of the land), is sufficient qualification in and of itself.

That leaves We the People with having to do our homework ahead of time, and not electing folks whom we know (or should know) are likely to place religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution as a lawmaker.

Even if we did ask someone like Pence the question directly, "Bible or Constitution?", we might not get a straight answer. One reason may be that many of them undoubtedly believe that in acting according to religious tenets -- "obeying God's word", for instance -- they are doing what's best for the United States. To me, that in itself is a reason not to let them hold public office. The religious fundamentalist mindset, almost by definition, requires them to violate their oath of office.

up
0 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Alligator Ed's picture

@Centaurea @Centaurea I do not dispute a single thing you wrote in your comment. But, living in the current US cesspool, I have become almost an incorrigible cynic. Just like the Islamic practice of what I believe is called Taqqia, meaning your can swear an oath without intending to uphold, if, by so doing, will advance Islam. The same might be said of any religious fundamentalist, regardless of professed religion.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Alligator Ed

…the first thing they think of is sex. Americans are sex obsessed. (Genital mutilation is not Sharia.) So while it is true that that Sharia covers behaviors between the sexes, just as orthodox Jews follow a doctrine of their own in that regard, Sharia is about much, much more. Sharia is the reason that Middle East banking (which are also international) is among the most stable banking system in the world. Islamic banking works just fine in the US. You ever wonder why it seems like Arabs own most of the gas stations and convenience stores in the US? You ever priced one to buy? They cost a fortune, and require cash up front. More than a couple can ever hope to save up. But they can buy a business like that with Sharia loans, which make big things possible for the middle class. Instead of paying interest there's profit sharing. Islamic banks work in the same way. Instead of earning interest on your savings, you get a share of the bank's profits.

There are plenty of Sharia, or Islamic banks in the US, and a growing number of US banks offering Sharia-compliant products, as JP Morgan does. Even the Federal government offers Sharia compliant Treasuries. Islamic banking is overseen by federal regulators such as the Federal Reserve System and they must meet the specific state Department of Financial Institutions' requirements.

Islamic finance differs from conventional banking systems in that usury and speculation are prohibited. Transactions have to comply with Sharia, the legal code of Islam based on the Koran, and are based on principles of risk and profit-sharing. It prohibits taking interests on loans and funding any business involving products like alcohol, pork or gambling. Islamic banking is more risk adverse in its investment practices, typically avoiding business that could be associated with economic bubbles.

You don't have to be Muslim to get a Sharia mortgage. Sharia 401k's and retirement accounts are on the rise, especially in Silicon Valley. The point is that the Islamic finance system, which was going on when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temples, works well within US regulations. The laws and regulations of a sovereign nation are adhered to by all entities. State laws supersede as well. Sharia marriage and divorce will adhere if couples wish to enjoy the civil rights and benefits of the married. Otherwise, they can pretend to marry and pretend to divorce.

On a side note, marriage is nothing more than making someone your next of kin for probate purposes and civil rights designations. Marriage laws should fit on ten pages or less. It's hardly a big deal. It's a revokable no-fault partnership agreement. Who cares what sex or religion they are? It's bringing kids into the world you should need a license for.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Alligator Ed's picture

@Pluto's Republic I never knew about these, and probably other, aspects of Sharia other than as I listed in my essay. We are fortunate in c99 to possess members who write intelligent, thoughtful things to enlarge the knowledge base of us all.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Alligator Ed

The people here are really generous with their expertise and discoveries. Our analytical types, like you, manage to hang on to their objectivity as they logic through the constant flow of new information. Narratives update and everybody evolves.

The contrary state is too depressing to contemplate. We know what that looks like.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Alligator Ed's picture

@Pluto's Republic From my inter tubes meanderings, I have come across so many sites that are intemperate, bigoted places. Having an opinion is not bigotry. Having a hateful opinion in the absence of evidence is bigotry.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

And ya, I think you're generalizing about a religion that has the same fucking problems as other religions, particularly Christianity.

Relative to this:

"They have hated one another more than a thousand years and continue to slaughter each other when the opportunity arises.",

sounds like the war OF terror propaganda has got to you.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Big Al in which I stated that western civilization was NOT a MORAL MODEL. I do not excuse pseudo-religious excesses, no matter committed by whom. Please note my mention of the Inquisition and the rape of Palestine by the Crusaders.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed like it "encourages female genital mutilation", that the Muslims have been fighting for centuries and that they believe in Jihad and want to institute sharia law in the U.S.

The myth of the 1,400 year Sunni-Shia war
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013719220768151.html

And you're focusing on the muslims when the Christians are the clear winner when it comes to including religion in government in this country justifying such things as native American genocide and Manifest Destiny and black slavery which carries on to this day. The Christians, like Pence, controlling our government are the craziest and most dangerous fuckers on the planet.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Big Al Obviously, as I admitted, I am not a Muslim scholar, so perforce am constrained by knowledge that is obtained from the past few years. That article, eloquent as it is, gives the long view of Islamic history, which I freely admit to lacking. One the purposes for my essay was to obtain information. That is why the title is a question, not an answer. I am grateful for your citation and your participation in this thread.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed I'm no fan of any religion and think most are nothing but make believe cults especially Christianity and Islam. And certainly Islam in some areas is behind the times of modern Christianity but it wasn't long ago Christians would dress in their sunday best to watch hangings in he court square or lynchings in the woods wearing their fucking white hats.

But I'm very sensitive about anything regarding the war OF terror, which I believe is a fraud and fake war started by a false flag on 9/11 to enable all the bullshit we've seen since then. Muslims and Islam were made the enemy and the false narratives, myths, etc., trotted out to scare and divide the people and convince them that permanent war and a permanent police state is in their best interest.
We have to expose the lies, false narratives and myths if we're ever going to stop it.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@Alligator Ed http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47523.htm

from Chris Hedges

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Big Al The piece by Chris Hedges is so eloquent and insightful that it should be more widely disseminated. There are too many good things in there for me to comment upon in short form as in these limited commentary spaces. If you would consider my suggestion, I would be honored. Please consider writing an essay featuring the Chris Hedges article. If you have done so already, please send me the URL.

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

Is that everyone wants to be Theo:

According to what I have seen reported, including from some Muslim sites, Islam is not only a religion but inextricably combined with a theocracy. Theocracy is a political system in which the rules of a religion (any religion) dictate the governance of those whom are ruled.

We are having an identical problem with Christian Dominionism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

Thanks for raising a difficult problem Al. I am concerned about religious theocratic tribalism from all sources. I do not know the "truth" about the specific issues and individuals in your post. I have had heartfelt conversations with Skid Row and Jail House Muslims who insisted that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been twisted and mangled byself serving "lawgivers" just like Christian fanatics have mangled Christianity and how Jewish fanatics have mangled Judaism.

Any religious beliefs can be a force for good or evil. How, or even if, we work through the clashes between these malignant forces of religiosity is a huge problem.

Thanks again Al. Tough issue and a difficult conversation.

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Alligator Ed's picture

@Meteor Man

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

and much of current law is already based on religion, in particular the restrictions on reproductive rights and funding for birth control, for example, and marriage and family law. Christianity is older and perhaps at least a few steps ahead of Islam in moving past some of that, but we are from having a truly secular society or a separation of church and state as it is.

I think getting religion out of politics and government everywhere would be a fantastic idea. Government based on any official theocracy does terrify me. I read too many historical accounts of the crusades and the inquisition during my Wicca phase. I had nightmares from learning how Christianity spread and what they did to people who refused to, let's say, bend the knee.

I've also read dire books about how there are enough "true believers" in all of the big 3 religions, and in the great final clash between Christian, Jewish, and Islam religions as foretold in revelations is destined, and want to help bring it about. I saw a documentary some time ago about sects of Fundamentalist Christians in this country who sincerely believe that such a war is what god wants; ergo, peace is the devil's work! Seriously. They oppose peace and want war, because god and Jesus said so.

These people are already in our government and -- even more worrisome -- in our military. The continued wars between Israel and various Islamic theocracies are also necessary parts of the Great War. Religion does drive these conflicts and I worry about how to stop it.

I also know that many drivers of the endless war machine worship another god: money. religion isn't the sole problem. But it's still a major obstacle to secular society and equality, human rights, across most of the planet. And it may yet kill us all. Fundy true believers are frighteningly unreachable.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@CS in AZ @CS in AZ Culturally, it appears that organized religions have to be actively dragged into the present. Unlike the Constitution which has mechanisms for change, I know of no religion that speaks of change in mores or customs to deal with the times. If Jews want to avoid eating Meat and milk together, fine. But this dietary religious edict is not forced down anybody's throat--at least, not yet in the US of A.

up
0 users have voted.
detroitmechworks's picture

Feeling my oats today, so disconnect now if you don't want a service man's opinion on his former enemy.

I find fundamentalism of ANY stripe abhorrent. While there might have been at some point an Islam that is compatible with democracy, it is not the one currently in power or shaping the direction of the religion. Similar to the current state of Christianity, those who have moderate views have been pushed to the side and only the insane and fanatical are running the show. Everybody else just "goes along to get along" and it's even worse with Islam because the fanatics actually KILL people who criticize the religion. (One could say the same with the Christian Fanatics, but they tend to limit their killing to the educated and liberal, where Islam is an equal opportunity murderer.)

Islam is a hierarchical system, which demands fealty to bloodlines in a feudal manner. Which bloodline of course is a matter for the sects, who kill each other to establish dominance. It has no place in a tolerant, open society, because it directly opposes every single value that a tolerant open society has.

The term "Islamophobe" is noxious to me. It derives from "Homophobe" the idea that if you dislike homosexuals, you are afraid that you ARE one. I have no fear of becoming an Islamist. I DO fear them taking over and not being able to criticize them. Already I've had difficulties dealing with incompetent school officials, simply because the woman wears a hijab. I can't say ANYTHING against her, because although she is insanely incompetent, she runs the show at my kids school. I must remain silent, while the Islamic children are angrily yelled at, right in front of me, in Arabic by men who clearly feel no fear of reprisal. Their values are what is to be honored by our society, in an insane subjugation of what I consider right.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Ravensword's picture

@detroitmechworks Islamophobia just means you dislike Muslims, without the fear of becoming one. That is completely absurd.

Likewise, a homophobe need not be a person who fears that he might become gay, therefore you don't have to be a closet homosexual just to hate on gay people. There are more heterosexual homophobes than closeted ones.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@Ravensword

And, by the way, studies have shown that people with homophobia are in fact more likely to have unacknowledged same-sex attractions (which they are afraid of).

Homophobic people have a higher chance of being gay, according to science

According to co-author Richard Ryan: "In many cases these are people who are at war, with themselves, and they are turning this internal conflict outward."

Exactly.

"Islamophobia" is an inaccurate term, an insult designed to shut down criticism. People who don't like or agree with religion are (usually) not "phobic" -- except perhaps some people with religious-upbringing related PTSD, who may tremble uncontrollably at the sight of a nun, for example, even into adulthood when the nun can't harm them. That would be a phobia. Just being against something because you've thought about it and don't agree with it, is not a phobia.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@CS in AZ I will name of few of these flaws after citing some of the verbiage:

The study measured explicit (those we are consciously aware of) and implicit sexual attractions (those we do not acknowledge or know about), by examining the difference between how people described their sexual orientation, and how they reacted during a quick timed task.

The researchers also measured explicit and implicit homophobia, via questionnaires and debate.

The methodology involved showing participants words and pictures on a computer screen. They were also primed with the words 'me' and 'others', before being shown the words 'gay', 'straight', 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' as well as a number of pictures.

It's worth noting that the study assumed that a faster association of 'me' with 'gay' indicated an implicit homosexuality, which is arguably flawed.

The results found that participants whose performance in the implicit tests were 'less heterosexual' than how they described themselves, they were more likely to be hostile towards gay people.

1. This is a one-dimensional study, in that reactions were measured in terms of stimulation by a computer system--not real life.

2. The cohort consisted of young adults.

3. The standard for determining proclivities toward gayness was reaction time, with the as yet unproved assumption that reaction time to computer-generated images is a valid test of anything.
(To this particular objection, I must note that evoked potentials to stimulation have been correlated with preferences or functioning.--but has this technique been used to support the reaction time theory? And yet, there are other, reliable methods of measuring thought [not outcome] with fMRI.

4. Socioeconomic factors play heavily in such single-point-of-measurement studies. Were ethnicity, income, education, social status considered in the so-called reaction times of the participants?

While an interesting theory is presented in that link, it has a far way to go to prove that it is a valid measure of phobia. fMRI of amygdalar blood flow following and preceding presentation of similar images, regardless of what they are, would be a far more valuable measurement tool for this or any other anecdotal, scientifically propounded theory. The study is anecdotal not only for the reasons above but also for lack of meaningful statical analysis of whether this so-called study is sufficiently powered [i.e., enough participants] to determine to the p ≤ .05 level required almost universally as a measure of probability as opposed to mere coincidence.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@Alligator Ed

The article itself points out some of those problems you noted. It's one study. However, it's also not the only one with similar findings. I'm on my way out for awhile, no time now to search them out right now. But I've read of others in the past. I'll just say the idea makes sense to me, and reflects what I've seen in real life.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@CS in AZ Then perhaps more discussion--if needed.

up
0 users have voted.
Ravensword's picture

@CS in AZ More likely, eh? Well, then. I guess most of the evangelical community is just one big giant gay club in a closet, then.

As for the whole phobia thing, it's just a matter of semantics.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@Ravensword

I guess most of the evangelical community is just one big giant gay club in a closet, then.

I kinda thought everyone knew that. Yes, there are many, many closet cases in homophobic churches. Some eventually commit suicide because they can't pray it away and also can't accept it. (I knew someone like that, so this subject is a bit of a sore spot).

Not everyone in such churches is a closet case, obviously. But I wouldn't say they are "phobic" in that case. I'd say they are brainwashed, arrogant and ignorant.

Just semantics? Words have definitions and meanings. You said a phobia just means you don't like something. It doesn't mean that.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Ravensword The irrational fear of homophobes is not the fear of becoming a homosexual. It is a hatred bred of isolation, ignorance and religious intolerance. It is NOT a fear of becoming one of "them".

Please provide me any valid sociologic or psychologic studies that affirm your position.

up
0 users have voted.
Ravensword's picture

@Alligator Ed I'm not the one that equivocates being and Islamophobe with someone who hates or is afraid of a Muslim for fear of becoming one.

up
0 users have voted.
detroitmechworks's picture

@Alligator Ed The term specifically suggests that it's an irrational fear.

Therefore there can be no legitimate criticism, and the person experiencing it is mentally ill. (This seems to be the general media attitude. If you've experienced different, feel free to disagree. I find they use the -phobic tag as a bludgeon to silence critics.)

There are two groups that the -phobic response applies to. Homophobic of course was popularized when Freud's theories were in vogue and as a result it inherited a great deal of his other theories. In particular, "Projection" was applied strongly, and the prevailing theory among academics in my experience was that groups that had strong male bonding and large amounts of discrimination against homosexuals, (Such as the police and military) were in fact repressing their feelings.

As a result, In my experience, the islamophobic label is used to suggest that the fear of islam is in fact an irrational fear, and possibly projection.

It's an application of a diagnosis, with all the baggage that goes along with it, to a political opinion, thus making the opinion toxic by the very words used to describe it. As we've seen today, even when a man is caught red handed stealing, the politicians will instantly fall back onto "Islamophobia" as their excuse, used to tar the accuser and create a false sense of irrational targeting.

This is also why I usually bow out. I dislike arguing over words which is what the discussion always ends up becoming.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

CS in AZ's picture

@detroitmechworks

I appreciate your comments and this is very well said. Key points:

I find they use the -phobic tag as a bludgeon to silence critics.

Absolutely.

As a result, In my experience, the islamophobic label is used to suggest that the fear of islam is in fact an irrational fear, and possibly projection.

I haven't considered projection as an aspect of so-called islamophobia, as I find it difficult to think anyone has a closet Muslim inside that they are trying to repress. However, I totally agree that the term is meant to imply that any criticism of Islam or muslims is de facto irrational, as well as the implication it is "fear" rather than even possibly a valid criticism.

It's an application of a diagnosis, with all the baggage that goes along with it, to a political opinion, thus making the opinion toxic by the very words used to describe it. As we've seen today, even when a man is caught red handed stealing, the politicians will instantly fall back onto "Islamophobia" as their excuse, used to tar the accuser and create a false sense of irrational target.

Yep, spot on. Yes today's news provides a timely example of how this labeling is used to control what can and cannot be said. I think it's good you brought this into the discussion. People tend to tip-toe around this topic because of the boundaries this term has constructed around the conversation.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@detroitmechworks

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

Islam and Islamaphobia are both problems:

One skirmish—minor in the scheme of things but important for what it represents—is underway in San Diego. Earlier this month, the San Diego School District announced that it was developing a plan to combat Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslim students in San Diego schools.

San Diego is hardly a hotbed of godless progressives. The plan:

The plan will also take a novel approach toward students who bully their Muslim peers. Rather than being placed in detention, “the school will use a restorative-justice method involving the student who did the bullying speaking with [the Muslim student].” Sounds pretty radical.

Of noes! Sharia!

Despite its evident moderation, the school district has been pilloried for its abject capitulation to Islamic radicals and terrorists. At the website of the Angry Patriot, for instance, 35,000 people “liked” an article with the headline, “Islamic Takeover CONFIRMED—American School Surrenders to SHARIA LAW.”

Okay! I'm glad we got that cleared up. There's more detail and discussion at the link. The conclusion:

It is far too early to say which side will prevail, and I do not have enough faith in the country to hazard a prediction. Much depends on whether Trump decides to fan the populist, racist flames as he did during the campaign. So far at least, the San Diego School Board shows no sign of backing down. For now, the rampart holds.

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/05/01/really-mean-culture-war

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Alligator Ed's picture

@Meteor Man

In short, teaching about religion—or about any particular religion—is emphatically not the same as either promoting one religion at the expense of another, or of promoting religiosity at the expense of agnosticism or atheism. I for one think students should study “religion and its tenets.” Students ought to study the Bible, just as they should study the Torah, the Koran, and many other religious texts. Such study tends to impart a much-needed sense of tolerance.

I believe that San Diego's approach to religious bullying is for the two antagonists (the bully and the bullied) sit down together and reasonably talk about their differences AND their similarities. Understanding Islam is not the same as ratifying Sharia, no more than supporting a sports team has anything to do with legality.

One of the changes in pre-highschool education and beyond would profitably be a mandatory comparative religions course. Such courses should be offered as electives in high school. I willingly took a comparative religions course in college and have been pleased ever since that I did.

up
0 users have voted.
MarilynW's picture

democratic government.

Pence is believed to be behind Trump's latest edict banning transgendered people from the military. Trump himself "he doesn't care." Cherchez the fundamentalist close to Trump who does care.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/26/trump-blindsides-pentagon-in-transg...

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

Alligator Ed's picture

@MarilynW

up
0 users have voted.

By the basic nature of accepting an imaginary deity to be the center of one's life and the object of worship all religions are un-democratic to varying degrees. Look at the basic language... God/Allah/Yahweh is KING! This flies in the face of what it means to be an American. None of the Abrahamic based texts support anything less than theocracy, (pay unto Caesar not withstanding). The ONLY reason that Christianity was finally kicked out of its over 1000 years of European theocratical rule was because of the writing of our Constitution, followed by the French Revolution. This humbled Christianity for awhile, but make no mistake... what our founders feared with Christianity (particularly with the Roman Catholic church) has been successfully re-emerging and I feel we are already once a again a theocracy (a whole topic of its own)and every day heading for more of it. Europe is ahead of us on this... most of their governments are far more secular than ours. Islam has never been through the same kind of whipping that Christianity experienced. It has only grown and grown to the point that it is a real threat to world peace and survival of democracy (or what's left of it). That Muslims in the US have mostly been able to co-exist with our democracy is an anomaly overall. Every other country in Europe that has taken in a huge Muslim population has had terrible problems. But we are already making the kinds of mistakes that are setting us up for conflict. We allow the Roman Catholic Church to remove abusive priests from our legal systems to deal with them within their own in-house punishment system in Rome. Is this not the same as allowing Sharia courts within our democracy? We allow the Roman Catholic Church to own hospital and health care systems that impose Cathoic theological tenets on ALL patients and still receive federal funds while being exempt from many of our health care laws. Is this NOT a huge violation of separation of church and state? Is this not a violation of equal treatment under the law for women in the US? I would be willing to bet that if you sat inside the US Bishops conference room within this country, you would hear thinking and expressions similar to Ms.Sarsour. The CAtholic Bishops conference lobbies against gay rights and women's reproductive rights EVERY DAY with plenty of money behind them.

So I get the issue of Islam and democracy and the questions that are raised here. However, if we are just looking at our own country, we have far more to fear from our own Christians than the small number of Muslims in the country.

But in short answer to your question, Ed, the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a whole host of other religions are NOT compatible with Separation of Church and State. And that is why we have been and will be forever struggling to keep that concept alive.

up
0 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Fishtroller 02

But in short answer to your question, Ed, the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a whole host of other religions are NOT compatible with Separation of Church and State. And that is why we have been and will be forever struggling to keep that concept alive.

Name some of these "other religions".

I'll spare you some work. You can't. This problem with the modern concept of Church-State Separation is pretty much a problem with the Abrahamic religions. Worshippers of various other Deities tend only to demand the right to do so in peace.

Another way to view this: Name a religion-driven conflict since 1980 to which an Abrahamic religion wasn't a party. Again, I don't think you can; not because I doubt your prowess in any way, but because I don't think there is any such animal! (I realize I could be wrong here, but I don't think I am!)

Not all the Deities worshipped by humankind are jealous (see Exodus 34:14). And it's this aspect of the God of Abraham which causes most of the trouble this Essay speaks of.

EDIT: Also see Exodus 20:5.

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

@thanatokephaloides I can name other religions that have a problem with separation of church and state. Look at the Hindu take over of the government of India. I have a friend who now teaches in the US who is Indian and she has been lamenting the religious takeover of the Indian government for years. They are writing laws that are strongly theocratic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/12/india-hindu-taliba...

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Salman-Rushdie-amp-Indias-new-theoc...

I am sure that there are other examples of religious groups, who, given political power that rises to a majority view, would fall into theocracy. It is the nature of all religions to be dominionistic. Even Buddhism, which is rife with conflict over what it stands for when it comes to the governing of Tibet if it is ever free from China. And there is lots of violence between Buddhists and Muslims in a couple of areas. Peaceful religions who just want to be left alone? Yeah, I think maybe in the jungles of Brazil along the Amazon....

http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden11.php

up
0 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Fishtroller 02

Look at the Hindu take over of the government of India. I have a friend who now teaches in the US who is Indian and she has been lamenting the religious takeover of the Indian government for years. They are writing laws that are strongly theocratic.

Islam (Abrahamic) is a full party to that, and has been since the Mughal conquests. (And apropos to our Essayist's theme.)

The Hindutva movement in India is rooted in Abrahamic efforts to deny Hindus the right to be Hindus in peace. Although (to their discredit) the more fundamentalistic Hindus are now cultivating that crop, it was Muslims, using their religion as directed, who first planted it.

Reactionism is often brutal, as you know. Indian reactionaries are no different from France's, or Germany's, or ours.

Even Buddhism, which is rife with conflict over what it stands for when it comes to the governing of Tibet if it is ever free from China.

I am unaware of any armed Buddhist-on-Buddhist conflicts regarding Tibet and her rightful independence from China. I realize there is debate, but the only resort to violence I am aware of is Tibetan Buddhists on one side and Chinese on the other. Again, I could be wrong about that, though.

And there is lots of violence between Buddhists and Muslims in a couple of areas.

Once again, violent conflicts with Abrahamic parties. Big surprise (not!).

As a general rule, historically speaking, serious violence between religions doesn't show up until the worshippers of the God of Abraham do. And then the corruption rooted in the whole "jealous God" thing spreads like wildfire. Even the Buddhist-Hindu conflicts in Sri Lanka have these fingerprints all over them.

Peaceful religions who just want to be left alone? Yeah, I think maybe in the jungles of Brazil along the Amazon....

Yeah, and that'll be gone as soon as the missionaries show up..... Sad

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Alligator Ed's picture

@thanatokephaloides

Peaceful religions who just want to be left alone? Yeah, I think maybe in the jungles of Brazil along the Amazon....

Yeah, and that'll be gone as soon as the missionaries show up..... Sad

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Fishtroller 02 Any religion which becomes dominant in a country is at risk for being perverted into theocracy. England slowly weaned itself from theocracy, starting with Henry VIII dissolution of the Catholic Church, replacing it with the Church of England. The transition was not smooth, witness the succession of Catholic Stuarts to a now officially Anglican State. This caused quite a bit of ruckus (and death) until the House of Orange restored some semblance of sanity to Britain's religious troubles.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@thanatokephaloides

I'm not knowledgeable about religion, I just googled "religious violence hindu Buddhist" and immediately found this very interesting site:

Center for Reduction of Religious-based Violence

Here's the page on Hindu v. Buddist conflict in Sri Lanka: Hindus versus Buddhists

...Three years later Bandaranaike was murdered by a Buddhist priest. In 1983, frustrated Tamil politicians walked out of Parliament, and more radical groups began a guerrilla insurgency that had since claimed thousands of lives. The situation continued to deteriorate until, in 1986, it exploded. Sri Lanka used to be called pear-shaped. Tear-shaped would be more appropriate now.

It's true that the majority of religious conflicts listed on this site as "hot spots" are fights among the big 3 religions (including intramural), but other religions are not immune. As a rule, government and religion really don't mix well, and the combination tends to be volatile.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@CS in AZ

It's true that the majority of religious conflicts listed on this site as "hot spots" are fights among the big 3 religions (including intramural), but other religions are not immune. As a rule, government and religion really don't mix well, and the combination tends to be volatile.

As I pointed out to Fishtroller above, the Hindu-Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka isn't totally clean of Abrahamic influence.

And you're right about religion in government. The only times any nations at all got along reasonably well pre-Enlightenment were when reasonably strong Kings were able to keep government "over here" and religion "over there", each in its own proper sphere.

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Bollox Ref's picture

@thanatokephaloides

Were partly leery of religion because of feared papal influence. Henry V of England denied his uncle, Henry Beaufort, a cardinal's hat, despite Beaufort's dexterous administration that allowed Henry to invade France, win Agincourt and potentially the French crown, because he refused to allow the Pope to have such a powerful, servant within his realm.

Of course, Henry V died, a child became king and Beaufort got his hat anyway... and became notorious via Shakespeare.

up
0 users have voted.

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Bollox Ref

Medieval kings in Europe (to varying degrees) Were partly leery of religion because of feared papal influence. Henry V of England denied his uncle, Henry Beaufort, a cardinal's hat, despite Beaufort's dexterous administration that allowed Henry to invade France, win Agincourt and potentially the French crown, because he refused to allow the Pope to have such a powerful, servant within his realm.

Of course, Henry V died, a child became king and Beaufort got his hat anyway... and became notorious via Shakespeare.

And Joan of Arc, whose heresy trial Beaufort participated in but whose result he objected to.

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Alligator Ed's picture

@CS in AZ So true. As with our current drug-fueled epidemic of despair, religions are susceptible of over-dose: too broadly prescribing a code of conduct differing from those of unbelievers.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@Alligator Ed

As Marx said: "religion is the opioid of the people" So true. As with our current drug-fueled epidemic of despair, religions are susceptible of over-dose: too broadly prescribing a code of conduct differing from those of unbelievers.

He actually said "opium of the masses". The distinction of "opioid", at least as a word used by non-chemists, came later than Marx's time.

And it seems we've come full circle here. Now, instead of religion being the opium of the masses, opioids have become the religion of the masses......

Wink

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Alligator Ed's picture

@thanatokephaloides PC in this case means Pharmaceutically Correct. The first opioid was indeed opium. Then, with some tinkering, it was made much more potent and devastating.

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

@Fishtroller 02

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

SparkyGump's picture

that naturally influences it's government. Me, I think religions are a scam that takes advantage of one's fear of death and yearning for justice then charges you for their service and tells you what to do. I think they were both necessary and useful in the past but now are an exercise in hypocrisy. We may very well pass on to another state of being or universe when we die but I tend to doubt killing an unbeliever's child gets you there.

up
0 users have voted.

The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.

Alligator Ed's picture

@SparkyGump

I think religions are a scam that takes advantage of one's fear of death and yearning for justice then charges you for their service and tells you what to do.

That sentence is perfectly true but incomplete, I think. Another "service" offered by religion is a sense of and support for stability, i.e., the Status Quo.

up
0 users have voted.

I know only one Christian from the Philippines very well. I have had a fair amount of contact with Muslims from the Middle East living in the US and enjoy their company very much. However, I have had considerable contact with Christians from the Middle East of several generations. I would not want to be anything but a heterosexual male Muslim if I lived in one of the Middle Eastern Muslim countries today.

I'd have a different set of things I would not want to be if I were living in Israel or Texas. Theocracies are not good.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@HenryAWallace You might adopt certain religiously indicated practices, but you are too fucking independent to really believe the part you would be playing coercively. If I am incorrect, please tell me.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed

or why you are talking about what religious practices I would or would not adopt. No clue, either, what the independence you impute to me has to do with anything. Even less clue why anyone would have voted up that kind of reply to my post.

As best I can determine, you misunderstood my post, so I will reword. I said, in part that I would not want to be a woman, a gay, Christian, etc. living in the Middle East because I don't want to live my life the way they must live theirs there. I also said that I have a very different experience of Muslims I meet in the US than Christian immigrants I know from the Middle East had with Muslims when living in the Middle East.

However you read or misread my post, though, you reply should have addressed whatever issues you thought my post raised, and not by going ad hominem.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@HenryAWallace I obviously interpreted your comment to mean something other than what you meant. For that I apologize. I still think you are an independent sort.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed

for itself.

Your reply to me was not polite nor neutral. I have not replied that way eve to posters who attacked me personally with no provocation. Wwhatever you thought my post meant, your response should have addressed whatever issues you thought my reply raised, not what you imagine to be my personality, my off-board conduct or my religious practices or lack thereof. And, I fear, I am missing the point of your doubling down on my alleged independence.

Henry, you are too damn independent for me to believe that

@HenryAWallace You might adopt certain religiously indicated practices, but you are too fucking independent to really believe the part you would be playing coercively. If I am incorrect, please tell me

Moving on....

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@HenryAWallace

whatever you thought my post meant, your response should have addressed whatever issues you thought my reply raised, not what you imagine to be my personality, my off-board conduct or my religious practices or lack thereof.

Please consider this a retraction to all my comments.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Now it is not.

up
0 users have voted.

@Battle of Blair Mountain

Middle East (though Israel and Lebanon have long been democracies). However, we were the sole government power in Iraq overseeing adoption of a Constitution that adopted all of sharia law by reference--no specifics.

Um, wouldn't that be an establishment of religion in which our government is forbidden to engage? Although the language of the first amendment is that Congress will adopt no law, etc., the Supreme Court has established that it applies to any arm of federal or (through the 14th amend.) state action that treats a religion as an official religion.

The language of the Establishment Clause is not expressly limited to the US. The Constitution would have prevented us from establishing a religion for any of the Territories, Hawaii or Alaska before they officially became part of the US, or for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. So, how on earth did we have the power to do it in a nation in which we were the sole government authority. And we knew that some Christians had been so underground in Iraq that they were conducting services in Aramaic. A constitution that adopted all of sharia law by reference sure wasn't going to allow them free exercise of religion at long last.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

up
0 users have voted.