The seeming immunity of Islam in certain liberal circles

[anriana]

Most of my friends have liberal beliefs and self-identify as socially liberal. The political blogs that I read - mainly feministing and feministe - are liberal. I've had multiple discussions and seen multiple posts on tolerance towards Islam and not criticizing its beliefs. I've even seen posts on hijab being a feminist act. I disagree with these stances, but I absolutely HATE the response to ciriticism of the stances even more. I dislike ALL patriarchal religions. I especially dislike all Abrahamic religions.

Both of these websites (and most of my friends) have no problems criticizing practices of Judaism or Christianity or people who claim to adhere to those religions, but when it comes to Islam, they're all about cultural relevance and not silencing women's voices. It makes me so angry!

[Flyndaran]

I think it's simply a case of overcompensation. They don't want to alienate a minority that is suffering from more discrimination in the present that previously.

[Sylvia727]

I understand what you mean entirely. Some people will whine and moan about how Christianity oppresses its women by blowing up molehills into mountains...and when it comes to the same or more grievous practices by some Muslims, all of a sudden it's evil to criticize these practices.

A despicable action is a despicable action, no matter what name you address your god with.

[Boozy]

This reminds me of some conversations I had about ten years ago when I was in college. "Cultural relativism" was a popular concept back then, and was especially timely given the focus on anti-globalization, anti-trade, anti-WTO.

Here's the wikipedia entry for the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

Not such a bad theory. The problem is that the anti-globalization movement ran this solid academic concept off the rails. All of a sudden, forcing women to wear burkhas (for example) was considered acceptable because that culture was expressing their own morality. Criticism of these cultures or regimes was simply the imperialist West attempting to force their ideals onto unwilling cultures, usually to force trade.

This bastardized theory of cultural relativism is finally falling out of favour. It never made much sense; can we not agree that some things must be absolute? Is the subjectification of women not wrong everywhere? If a woman was forced to wear a burkha in Afghanistan, do we then allow her husband to enforce the same rule after they emigrate to Canada? After all, their culture has not changed, only the laws of the land they live in. Where do we draw the line?

If someone is doing something immoral, we need to speak up. I don't care what religion they are.

[Slytovhand]

mmmm.... yeah..... well.....

The question comes down to - what's 'moral' and what's not.
Are morals absolute?

Nice and easy to say yes... lot harder to prove it for all situations.

There are things that are easy to look back on and say ewww, but I'm also sure that there will be cultures a few hundred years from now and look back on us and say the same. And then, there will be societies a few thousand years that will look back on those with the same attitudes.

Societies change - so do social mores. 'Right' and 'wrong' are hard to define.

As for the burkha issue - how is that different from circumcising all males because it's part of a religious practice? (yes - it still happens today... aboriginal tribes of the various continents still practice this - do you then tell them they are wrong because the Rainbow Serpent doesn't require this ritual to enter manhood anymore??) Or wearing a Kippah if Jewish (male!)

Who decides what's going to be absolute?

I think the cultural relativism came out of a realisation that for the past few thousand years, western culture had been forcing it's ideals on those unwiling cultures. To the point that people were killed if they didn't accept them (mostly religious). Take, for example, the English Empire's walk through India and the other colonies. The need to 'educate the savage'.

Back to Anriana in particular the OP... I think it's because Jewish and Christian laws don't have the idea of executing people who choose to show their disagreement (eg - Salmon Rushdie's little book...). Sharia law is pretty tough.. especially to those used to a lot of freedoms. Perhaps there's some fear inherent in being nice???

I'm not trying to defent the viewpoint - only offer explanation.

Humans are still running on herd mentality...

[Boozy]

The question comes down to - what's 'moral' and what's not.
Are morals absolute?

I'm not saying that the West has the final word of morality. My argument is against taking relativism to the extreme, in which nothing is ever wrong as long as someone says it's right for cultural or religious reasons.

As for the burkha issue - how is that different from circumcising all males because it's part of a religious practice?

I would say it's not.

Who decides what's going to be absolute?

That's a personal decision. Personally, I feel that the Holocaust was wrong. I don't care that the Nazis disagreed with me. I feel justified in judging them. I am not swayed by any "cultural" reasons for killing Jews.

That's an extreme example, of course. And in many cases, it would not be fair or right for me to force my morality on others. However, if someone else's morality is causing them to harm others, I do feel like I should speak up. The burkha example is a good one. If a woman chooses to wear a burkha, then no harm is being done and I should keep my mouth shut. If she is being forced against her will to wear one, then I have no problem with speaking out. Claiming that it's okay to harm or oppress others for religious reasons is idiotic, and it's even worse to claim that we aren't allowed to judge them.

[Flyndaran]

I believe in freedom for all, except of course those that curtail others' freedom.
Morality has no place in law or any other governing body.
Limiting pain and maximizing joy are the only obvious laws of human society. Everything else is just micromanaging and oversimplification that leads to suffering.
You live your life the way you feel is best for you, and I will do the same.

[Saydrah]

I think the difference is that American Muslims are in a vary precarious situation right now. Hate crimes against anyone who appears Muslim or Arab are common and have been since 9-11. When the 9-11 attacks happened, my father managed software development at a midsize company, and several of his employees were immigrants or foreign workers on temporary visas who appeared to be of Muslim descent. He had to send them all to work from home for fully two weeks because it was just too dangerous for them to commute to work.

Also, few people who are not Muslim understand the many forms Islam can take. Shari'a law is very misogynistic, but Islam as it's practiced in much of the Muslim world values women and gives them a great deal of control over communities and families. There are many different sects and types of practice of Islam, and a non-Muslim American is unlikely to be able to intelligently discuss their differences.

For those two reasons (endangering American Muslims and sounding ignorant), I also do not criticize Islam overall. When the subject comes up, I say something like, "Muslim culture is fascinating, both present-day and historically. I enjoy studying Arabic. As far as I can tell, Islam is a peaceful religion that is practiced in a bastardized form by violent fanatics in some areas-- sort of like Christianity and Fred Phelps."

[Shards]

To the are morals absolute question:

No, however, the fact is that we, as humans, will never be able to respect one another and function as a society without a governing body forcing us to. We're just not built that way, and those of us who are as a group lack the fundamental skills that would allow them to hold together and survive without the rest of us against an entire planet of better-evolved, better-equipped creatures that don't have any qualms with wiping out an endangered race.

So, if we're accepting that anarchy is not a viable option, we must also accept laws as a natural extension of the government existing. From there, we can, and should, accept that these laws will be consistent, and that while in a land with laws, it is right and proper to obey said laws. The law will never be able to take into account every possible situation where an exception being made is morally sound, and for that reason, I believe the only fair way to handle a given issue is to follow the law, without exceptions. If you truly believe that breaking the law was the right thing to do, then in a moral sense, you should be willing to accept your punishment for doing so, and if you aren't, then you really need to consider that when deciding that breaking the law is a just/good idea.

Just my opinion. Keep in mind this is coming from a Military Policeman in training, so I'll be a bit jaded as far as the positives of human nature.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm, Shards, IIRC, you were playing a paladin, yes??

[Shards]

A SOUTHERN BAPTIST paladin. But that's just in D&D.

[Slytovhand]

Ah!.. Just your post there was very Lawful Good, tis all

[Shards]

Well, I've always liked to think of myself as Lawful Neutral with good tendencies. I would say Lawful Good, but I grew up in such a liberal area that those of us who were still hanging on to old fashioned morals were browbeaten with 'uncaring' and 'amoral' until we could hear it in our sleep. I've yet to get over that, or forgive them: So I have a different outlook than you do on the ideas of morality and how best to help people! If I were a god-fearing man, I'd say you were going to hell, but I don't yell at you for it at every opportunity!

Sorry, as I said, VERY one-sided area growing up. Defending my views as if I've been personally insulted has become a knee-jerk reaction.