Saturday, September 15, 2012

Guest Post: Islamophobia vs. Racism


According to the FBI’s database of Hate Crime Statistics, in 2010 (the latest year for which numbers are available) there were 160 hate crime incidents involving anti-Islamic bias in the United States. Such incidents have seen a marked rise following the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001 and have recently made headlines with various incidents around the country, ranging from arson attacks on mosques to pig parts being thrown at the site of a proposed Islamic center.

Such trends are rightfully worrying in an increasingly multicultural society which supposedly prides itself on freedom, equality, and justice for all. There is however, another closely related issue, which is in its own way nearly as disturbing. It is the hyper-politically correct reaction to such so-called “Islamophobia,” specifically, how it is consistently and fallaciously labeled as “racism.” Setting aside broader discussion of the overall subject of Islamophobia in all its complexity (including its root causes and any possible merit or lack thereof), let’s examine this charge of racism. Without in any way condoning or defending the ridiculous actions of the small percentage of angry, spite-filled bigots who lash out at those whom they fear solely on the basis of superficial differences, the fact remains that this particular assertion of racism is simply ludicrous.

The dictionary defines racism as 1) “the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others,” and 2) “abusive or aggressive behavior towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief,” with race meaning “a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.” The key word here in both terms is “heredity.” Although it seems rather remedial to have to explain it, apparently there are many in the media, academia, and general public who somehow fail to discern what seems a very basic point, so I’ll state it as clearly as possible: Islam is a religion, not a race.

While it’s true that most people are indoctrinated into their religion osmotically from an early age through the influence of their parents and surrounding community, I think you would be hard pressed to identify any kind of allele coding for “submission to Allah” within the DNA of Muslims (or a “Jesus gene” in Christians, etc.). Religions, no matter how deeply embedded in the psyches of their adherents, are essentially ideologies; they are systems of beliefs – collections of ideas, traditions, and practices.

Although, as Richard Dawkins has astutely pointed out, as a meme they exhibit many of the same characteristics as a virus – replicating and spreading, and altering behaviors to ensure their continuation – they are still acquired traits, and as such, they are not something you are born with, nor are they in any way intrinsically wedded to your physical being. Regardless of the fact that “apostasy” – disavowing Islam or converting to another religion – is still a capital offense in many Muslim nations, doing so nevertheless remains a considerably easier task than Michael Jackson’s sad and misguided attempts to change his race through plastic surgery and skin bleaching. Once again, for those still missing the essential point, this is because Islam is a religion, not a race.

Approaching this oft-repeated Islamophobia-equals-racism fallacy from another perspective, let’s look at some uncontroversial statistics. It is estimated that there are currently close to 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth. Of these, nearly 222 million live in Indonesia and Malaysia alone. Another 242 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. Around 75 million live in Iran, and 322 million live in the Middle East and North Africa. Pretending for a moment that Islamophobia is indeed a form of racism, just how exactly is it supposed to work?

It may come as a shock to some, but most people hailing from Indonesia and Malaysia, if filling out a form requiring them to check a box for their race, will likely check “Asian/Pacific Islander.” Those from sub-Saharan Africa will likely check “Black/African” and those from the Middle East either “Caucasian” or the recently added category “Arabic/Middle Eastern.” Thus, racially, Islam is far from being monochromatic, and it is far from being a purely Arab phenomenon. So presumably, this charge of Islamophobia equaling racism only applies when the perceived bias is originating from those of Western European descent? (Which smells an awful lot like the logical fallacy of “special pleading.”)

How then to categorize the ongoing religious strife taking place in Nigeria between Christians and Muslims? Is that racism? I mean, the two sides seem inordinately fond of chopping each other up over issues such as the forced implementation of Sharia law. Yet they are all black Africans. Or what about the worsening violence between Indonesian Christians and Muslims? – all of them Asians. After centuries of relative peace and tolerance, church burnings and mob beatings there are now on the rise. Racism?

What about the interminable conflict between Israelis and Palestinians? Perhaps one of the biggest surprises resulting from National Geographic’s Genographic Project has been the revelation that Israelis and Palestinians are genetically almost identical. They are the exact same people – they’ve simply assumed mutually exclusive labels over the past few millennia in the name of religion.

And then what of Iran? It’s perhaps not widely known, but the name of that nation is derived from the word Aryan, referring to the original inhabitants of the Pontic-Caspian steppe region near modern Ukraine (also known as the Indo-Europeans). Back in late prehistory, this group, through conquest or assimilation, spread out into Persia as well as most of Europe and northern India, leaving behind a linguistic legacy uniting speakers of such disparate languages as Spanish, English, German, Farsi, and Hindi. Considering this history, it’s really quite ironic that a group of ignorant white supremacists residing in Idaho would call themselves the “Aryan Nation,” oblivious to the etymology behind their group’s name and to their close genetic, historic, and linguistic ties to people they likely despise.

To this day, despite a predilection for dark hair, many Iranians and the inhabitants of the Himalayan regions of India are to all appearances about as white as Bing Crosby, as would be expected. Race, remember, means “related by common descent or heredity.” So how do squabbles over religious identity get elevated to the level of “racism” between related descendants of a single ethnic group who only diverged within the past ten thousand years? (A blink of the eye in evolutionary timescales.)

Despite all of these apparent logical absurdities which become evident with even a cursory amount of contemplation or the slightest respect for semantics, supposedly serious scholars and institutions continue to assert that Islamophobia in any form clearly amounts to racism. Okay then, if being less than enthused about adherents of an acquired belief system automatically amounts to racism, what does it mean to be anti-Nazi? After all, it’s a bleak yet undeniable fact that pretty much every last Nazi was Caucasian. So if you hate Nazis, like it or not, your rage is directed almost exclusively at white people!

Now, if the implications of that sound offensive as well as ridiculous, they should, for it employs exactly the same faulty reasoning (or total lack of reasoning) used by those myopic, self-righteous scholars who intuit an “obvious” equivalence between opposition to Islamic totalitarianism and hatred based on heredity and skin color.

Finally, to touch on one of my favorite subjects, what does all of this mean for atheists/anti-theists, who find all religion to be both false and harmful, and who feel humanity and the planet would both benefit immensely if religious belief were to suddenly go the way of the dinosaurs? By the stated rationale of the Islamophobia-equals-racism crowd, surely all anti-theists (regardless of their own racial makeup or “post-racial” indifference to distinctions of race) must be “omni-racist” – racist against every race? Is such a thing even possible or meaningful in any sense of the word?

The reality is, people often look for reasons not to get along. Skiers dislike snowboarders, sailors dislike power boaters, even Brians dislike Bryans. Coining neologisms and being sloppy with terminology is not going to change that. That said, violence for any reason other than immediate self-defense is seldom justifiable. Threats, harassment, and destruction of property have no place in civil society – especially as the world grows ever more crowded. The actions of the vast majority of the morons committing these anti-Islamic acts are indefensible and should rightly be punished. But so should the actions of fanatical Islamists such as the man who attempted to bomb Times Square back in 2010, expressing the attitude and fervent desire (as stated in his video suicide note) that, “I really wish that the hearts of the Muslims will be pleased with this attack, God willing,” going on to predict that, “Islam will spread on the whole world and democracy will be defeated.”

How are we to have constructive dialogue or debate if stifled by censorship masking itself as political correctness? How can we rationally address the very real problem of religious zealotry and the violence it inspires (latent in the most of the world’s holy books) if muzzled by a misguided pandering to the perceived victimhood of certain special interest groups? To try to shield radical Islam from legitimate and honest criticism by hiding behind the indefensible and unconscionable evil of racism is an affront to all victims of actual racial discrimination as well as an invitation for true intolerance to destroy our most cherished rights and freedoms. To conflate concern about Islamic radicalism with the horrors of racism in order to squash dissent is both illogical and inconsistent with the values of a free society. To resort to irrationality in order to confront it is not only counterproductive but profoundly idiotic as well. We can do better than that. Think!


Colby Hess is a freelance writer and photographer living near Seattle, WA. He is currently writing a book about science, philosophy, and freethought. Follow him on Twitter @ColbyTHess

Originally published as:
“Islamophobia vs. Racism” on September 14, 2012 by Disinformation > http://www.disinfo.com/2012/09/islamophobia-vs-racism/

Friday, September 14, 2012

Friday Link Dump 9/14/12



Thursday, September 13, 2012

Penn State Group to "Stone an Atheist"

photo via the PSU AAA site.
Also, I really like the use of the null set. 

“Have a dollar and want to throw something at heathens? Well then here’s the event for you.”  via Onward State
The Penn State Atheist/Agnostic Associate is holding a unique event to raise funds for charity. The event entitled “Stone an Atheist” will have AAA students offering themselves up to get “stoned” (not the 420 kind) with water balloons. Anyone can come up and purchase water balloons and “stone” the godless. The charity, VillageReach, is a non-profit providing medical supplies and sustainable health care training for third world countries.

If you’re a Penn State student, faculty, “townie”, or the Willard Preacher; you can find the “Stone an Atheist” event on the HUB lawn  September 18-21, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Sidenote: I’m sure most will participate for fun, but I have to believe some people will really be throwing those balloons with some extra smite on them.




UPDATE: From some of the comments at Onward State and at least one other atheist blogger it seems like some people think this isn't a good idea or that it's in bad taste. To them I say "Lighten the fuck up!" Many are comparing this event to Ernest Perce V's Zombie Mohammad or his proposed and idiotic Quran whipping. That is a false analogy and just plain lazy criticism as this event isn’t designed to inflame anyone’s sensibilities. Getting pelted by water balloons for charity can only offend or inflame those that take things too seriously or who would really want to stone themselves an atheist. This is a good natured joke. If anyone is the “butt of the joke” it’s those that can’t see it, theist or atheist.

It is a good opportunity for atheists to present themselves with a sense of humor instead of the false stereotype of glum, miserable people (which is dumb considering many atheists love Douglas Adams, Bill Hicks, etc.). It is an opportunity for theists to engage this group of atheists in a funny manner and see that some of us at least, really don’t take ourselves too seriously.

After getting pelted, the Atheists/Agnostic Association will be answering questions and are open to a dialogue.

AWFUL, insensitive stuff, I know.  <sarcasm font>


Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Look at that dot...


The Left Hemispheres Podcast Ep02-I Have A Prefrontal Cortex Therefore Magic


Show Notes Episode 02

Chris Kluwe Destroys Bigoted Anti-Gay Preacher/Politician


As I noted in this week’s FLD, Delaware Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. (D) wrote a letter to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens demanding that Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo be censored for speaking in favor of same-sex marriage.

In response Chris Kluwe (Minnesota Vikings punter) wrote a letter to Burns. I was going to excerpt Kluwe's statement below, but after reading it I felt it would be a disservice to the level of awesome he brought. It deserves to be read in its full glory. Please enjoy.

  
Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.


Friday, September 7, 2012

Star Trek Voyager: Distant Origin Theory vs. Doctrine

Friday Link Dump 9/7/12






Thursday, September 6, 2012

Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'

“Who cares about creationists? They don’t know anything.”



via CNN

"We Want to Take America Back to the Book of Genesis"

"You know, Barack Obama is out there, or the Democrats are out there, saying we want to go back, saying Republicans want to take us back to the days of black-and-white TV, that's what Barack Obama says.

And I say no, we're going way, way, way back further than that; we are going all the way to the dawn of creation. God is the one who created us male and female; God is the one who formed marriage, who created marriage, who designed it to be a union of one man and one woman for life. So we're going way past the 1950s; we're going clear back to the Garden of Eden.

Now I contend that we shed innocent blood and we honor sexual perversity to our national peril. This is not an incidental thing; it puts our nation in grave danger of the judgment of God. If we shed innocent blood and we embrace sexual deviancy, this will bring the judgment of God upon any nation that approves of those behaviors and gives them special protection in laws."



Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Bart Ehrman - How the Trinity was Added to the Bible

Mormonism and Inter-Faith Defense


I find it disturbing how people (*cough* liberal believers *cough*) will defend a religion by pointing out that all religions have their kooky parts. Think about that logic for a minute. 
  1. An integral component or claim of a particular religion is demonstrably false and only believed via willful ignorance.
  2. But all religions have demonstrably false claims.
  3. Therefore, you shouldn’t criticize religion.

 What?

I previously mentioned this phenomenon in regards to religious opposition to same-sex marriage, but it really doesn't matter what the topic is. The sentiment holds true:

I have to say that I am always suspicious when the disparate religions get together and defend each other. It's almost as if—deep down—they all know its bullshit, but feel the need to circle the wagons.

As a secondary note, Mormonism is a complete fabrication by a con man. It is the Scientology of the 19th century. The idea that this point is unimportant is frightening. The GOP and Mitt Romney are asking the American people to put our trust in man that not only believes this nonsense, but himself is a leader within that cult. It would be laughable if it weren't true.


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Metzitzah B’peh: Ancient, Cruel, Disgusting, NOT SACRED!





“…200 ultra-Orthodox rabbis have signed onto a Proclamation…saying that the Health Department "printed and spread lies . . . in order to justify their evil decree." Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, said that mohels will not comply with the regulation if it is approved.  He said: "For the government to force a rabbi who’s practicing a religious act to tell his congregants it’s dangerous is totally unacceptable. You’re forcing the mohel and the parent to sign a piece of paper that contradicts their religious convictions."


via Religion Clause




Sunday, September 2, 2012

Dr. Peter Boghossian - Faith a Cognitive Sickness



Listen to internet radio with NationalProgressiveTalkRadio on Blog Talk Radio


via National Progressive Talk Radio

You can listen to the episode here if this player doesn't cooperate with your browser. 

Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Left Hemispheres Podcast: Interview Ep 01-Taylor Muse of Quiet Company


This week we have our first Interview Episode!

The 4 our us (Steve, Adam, Nick, and Jack) will be back next week with another discussion episode but this week Nick got the oportunity to interview Taylor Muse of Quiet Company.
For more info on the the band and their upcoming tour visit quietcompanymusic.com


Check out this episode!