Opinion on racism.

[Lootifer]

Depends on the context.

Also depends on your interpretation of the word racist.

I generally think that any incorrect generalisation falls under the "implicitly racist" (compared to explicit "I hate x" racism) category. So saying all muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality is implicitly racist (i.e. it implies you are likely racist as you are making sweeping generalisations about populations based on their race - you may, however, just be making a simple mistake and are not actually racist).

The comment "Some muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality" is nothing but a factual statement.

TL;DR a simple "all" or "some" placed in the sentance settles the issue.

[GeneralRisk]

I think everyone knew what you meant with the title.
So the question is whether or not its stereotyping to suggest that Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality then. I'd say it's a generalization at the very least since it can't possibly apply to all Muslims. I suppose it would depend on the Muslim and whether or not if he/she were put in a position to decide whether or not violence should be used against a homosexual/homosexual acts. Tbh I'm not even knowledgeable enough about the religion to know if it's belief system dictates one way or another.

I certainly agree with your post here. To say that all Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuals is ludicrous. To make any statement that would suggest an entire group of people would want to oppose homosexuals with violence is not being fair. Certainly individuals would not all agree with the question being asked; however, I can say that Islam is not the only religion that professes the "evils" of homosexuality. The Old Testament gave the commandment:

If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Putting homosexuals to death was apparently commanded by God, and not only Muslims practiced executing homosexuals. My question would be: "Does GOD violently oppose homosexuals?" Because the obvious answer is: "Yes!"

Do you think God is wrong? To say all Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality is denying the fact that the USA currently has in office a Muslim, bisexual President. It is not hard to envision what the liberal's next sexual agenda will most likely be.

show: Pederasty, Pedophilia

[notyou2]

The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.

[GeneralRisk]

The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.

Sounds like a misinformed conspiracy theory and/or you have developed preconceived notions about what different groups will impose on others. There are 72 nations that homosexuality is illegal. 7 countries have the death sentence as a possible penalty, although usually not on the first offense. Do you suggest that we militarily overthrow these nations and install a homosexual puppet President [dictator, in more ways than 1] to enforce your liberal ideals?

[Lootifer]

The people that are making decrees and laws in the countries that are executing homosexuals are doing it for the power and the control. Next it will be the christians and jews, if there are any living there, then the intelligentsia, then any muslim sect that differs from the rulers sect, and so on. This is no different than what hitler did to the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and anyone that was different or spoke out. It's all about CONTROL. These guys are just using religion as an excuse, like so many others be they christian, jewish or muslim, or any other religious group or order. It won't stop until we all see it for what it really is....HATE.

Sounds like a misinformed conspiracy theory and/or you have developed preconceived notions about what different groups will impose on others. There are 72 nations that homosexuality is illegal. 7 countries have the death sentence as a possible penalty, although usually not on the first offense. Do you suggest that we militarily overthrow these nations and install a homosexual puppet President [dictator, in more ways than 1] to enforce your liberal ideals?

No but we can scorn them for their lawmakers/whoever* being a bunch of homophobic fuckwads.

* To be labeled as a homophobic fuckwad, you must of course be homophobic, i award the fuckwad status as a bonus prize I do not however think for a minute that all the people living in a country with homophobic fuckwad laws are actually homophobic fuckwads.

[2dimes]

My opinion on use of the term "all" when you're generalizing. It might be racist. For sure it's dumb and it's highly unlikely to be accurate.

[oVo]

Putting homosexuals to death was apparently commanded by God, and not only Muslims practiced executing homosexuals. My question would be: "Does GOD violently oppose homosexuals?" Because the obvious answer is: "Yes!"

The obvious answer is not yes. God gives you free will, love and forgiveness. Unless you prefer the vengeful version of the almighty who is your judge, jury and executioner. Either way it's not man's job to carry dish out punishments justified by holy books, let God sort it out. Select "translations" of the Bible & Koran that suit particular agendas are applied to homosexuality, while translations that might have an effect on other aspects of how you live your life are ignored.

Religious texts are a convenience to claim a higher moral ground that doesn't universally exist, while aggressively acting on fears with deadly violence and no regrets.

[2dimes]

I like the direction of your post there oVo and it reminds me I wanted to respond to TeeGee but forgot.

I am no expert on any religion, I prefer the Big Bang theory. I have never read the christian bible, but doesn't that say all things about homosexuality are bad and should be punished? Why single out Muslims?

Some of the concept of "We need to stop the bad people." Stems from when God gave a a select chosen people laws. Those laws were specific and tough to follow. But at the time they were there to keep those specifically chosen people pure in order to enter temples that no longer exist.

If you separate the Old Testament or Torah portion of the bible from the New Testament portion that was written after Christ was a human. Then no because there is no specific mention of homosexuality in the New Testament.

Further and this is important. Christ taught. Stop throwing rocks. You're doing it wrong!

There is mention that effeminate will not inherit heaven or similar depending on translation and some go there for justification.

The thing is if a person is consumed with hate and needs to act like the Westburo Baptists they can probably rail against their target using a sales flier for Walmart.

I think that the larger problem is interpretation of books rather than translation. I used to quite enjoy comparing translations and even the watch tower society who specifically altered certain parts of the bible for their agenda never added anything in the New Testament to harm people for being gay.

Part of the problem is fear that if we don't obey God he will smack us. That tends to be when people decide punishing others will gain them favour. That is directly opposed to what Christ taught. He said, "Love your enemy."

[BigBallinStalin]

What's wrong with throwing rocks?

Some places don't have much wood, so throwing rocks serves as a cheaper substitute to hangings or crucifixions--which believe me take awhile to do. Very labor-intensive in terms of security and construction. Beheading seems to make the most sense though, but throwing rocks is a communal activity. The people join in the justice, so what could be greater than that?

[thegreekdog]

I answered no... does that make me a racist? I think we need another poll.

[2dimes]

I love polls, let's make the another one.

You should be deported to Canada BBS.

[BigBallinStalin]

Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.

[2dimes]

Yet you fail to explain how "the second amendment" makes sticks and rocks obsolete? For shame.

[Lil_SlimShady]

Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.

It wouldn't be much running or color changing. We share the white and the red...its only the blue that you have to give up. And if you are a Republican then you have already done that

[BigBallinStalin]

Canada? Excuse me, sir, but these colors don't run.

It wouldn't be much running or color changing. We share the white and the red...its only the blue that you have to give up. And if you are a Republican then you have already done that

You're part of the TPDS, aren't you?

Yet you fail to explain how "the second amendment" makes sticks and rocks obsolete? For shame.

Ah-ha! SHAME ON YOU, THRICE, SIR!!

[Lil_SlimShady]

What's TPDS? I googled it but i dont think you mean "Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems"

[thegreekdog]

What's TPDS? I googled it but i dont think you mean "Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems"

Tea Party Death Squad. Do a search for that term on this site.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm curious about this.

Sorry there's no spectator options. Even though that pains me, you must chose of you want to vote.

I have left it so you can change your opinion later if you wish.

I skimmed through the past pages, so might have missed this point, but it seems that you are really asking 2-3 different questions in one.

First, are Muslims "a race". Biologically, even if you accept the notion that race is real, no. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, Asian Muslims.

Second, are all Muslims actually against homosexuality? That's debateable. Many are, but Christians have historically been considered "against homosexuality" .. up until pretty recently. What we see on the news as Islam is really several different very radical branches of Islam, not "Islam", any more than, say Southern Baptists or the Missionary Alliance Church represent "all of Christianity".

The third question is whether opposing homosexuality at all represents racism. Again, prejudiced, perhaps, but not racist.

Is it prejudice? Well, that really depends. Do or do not people have the right to think that things other people do are wrong? If you say they do then merely thinking that homosexuality is wrong is not itself wrong, anymore than any other idea. HOWEVER, the problem comes in how far you think you have the right to take that belief or idea. If you believe that your thinking homosexuality is wrong gives you the right to, say, not work with homosexuals, not live next to homosexuals, or if you think they should be put into jail for acting up homosexualtiy, then most would say you are acting with prejudice. Many would argue that evidence supports that position, but I certainly would not.

[2dimes]

In case anyone comes in here and then starts wondering.

Not only was I not asking any of those three questions. I fail to see any connection between them and what I was asking.

I guess it is up to angry mobs or religious zealots (yes possibly "Christians") to decide wether it is right to, beat, kill or merely threaten people to insure they don't walk in an area where they have lived nearly all their life.

[PLAYER57832]

In case anyone comes in here and then starts wondering.

Not only was I not asking any of those three questions. I fail to see any connection between them and what I was asking.

I guess it is up to angry mobs or religious zealots (yes possibly "Christians") to decide wether it is right to, beat, kill or merely threaten people to insure they don't walk in an area where they have lived nearly all their life.

Perhaps you meant to ask if Muslims are prejudice or if people, in general using religion to harm homosexuals is justified.. but that was not your question.

Your question was whether Muslims are racist... and to answer that, means identifying racism versus just any kind of prejudice.

[2dimes]

Or perhaps I meant to ask the exact question I asked.

"Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

I don't really care about why or if there is a possibility that opinion is flawed by semantics.

How in the bloody blue puddle of beer flakes did you make the jump to the Muslims being racist?

[thegreekdog]

Or perhaps I meant to ask the exact question I asked.

"Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

I don't really care about why or if there is a possibility that opinion is flawed by semantics.

How in the bloody blue puddle of beer flakes did you make the jump to the Muslims being racist?

2dimes, meet Player. Player, 2dimes.

Now that you've indicated you don't care about semantics, I will answer a different question.

"Is it offensive to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

Yes. It is offensive and possibly bigoted.

[2dimes]

Why, just because there are some who are not?

Can you not discern the difference between terms?

Prejudice? Yes. Offensive? To a few people? Yes.

Arguably you might suggest being prejudice is what makes someone a bigot but if that's true everyone is a bigot because you can't avoid being prejudice sometimes. There is a difference in my opinion between people with the ability to overlook a prejudice and those that cannot. That can be a problem even if it's a positive prejudice.

Example, "XXXX is a religion of peace and can't lead to violence." I just as wrong as saying, All of a group of people are or will do the exact same thing. Basically you did say, "All of them will be peaceful." Positive but you still just prejudged them.

Even though saying. Islam is typically a religion of peace, many Muslims are gentle people who would not commit acts of violence without just provocation like most normal people. Is correct.

Is there a difference?

[thegreekdog]

Why, just because there are some who are not?

Can you not discern the difference between terms?

Prejudice? Yes. Offensive? To a few people? Yes.

Arguably you might suggest being prejudice is what makes someone a bigot but if that's true everyone is a bigot because you can't avoid being prejudice sometimes. There is a difference in my opinion between people with the ability to overlook a prejudice and those that cannot. That can be a problem even if it's a positive prejudice.

Example, "XXXX is a religion of peace and can't lead to violence." I just as wrong as saying, All of a group of people are or will do the exact same thing.

Even though saying. Islam is typically a religion of peace, many Muslims are gentle people who would not commit acts of violence without just provocation like most normal people. Is correct.

Is there a difference?

Which two terms am I supposed to tell the difference between? thegreekdog's high school English teacher turns over in her grave.

It is a broad generalization based upon a religion. That tends to make it offensive (depending on how it is used - and how it was used by what's-his-face is offensive).

"XXXX is a religion of peace" is not a generalization about a group of people; it is a statement about a religion. If you were to say "Muslims are peaceful," I think that is a generalization. It may not be offensive because it doesn't have a negative tone.

Being bigoted means one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance of hatred (according to Merriam-Webster). The way in which what's-his-face posted, he is being bigoted. He is regarding members of the same group with intolerance and hatred.

[2dimes]

Which two terms am I supposed to tell the difference between? thegreekdog's high school English teacher turns over in her grave.

Seriously?

Now that you've indicated you don't care about semantics, I will answer a different question.

"Is it offensive to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?"

Yes. It is offensive and possibly bigoted.

I will openly admit having not completed High School my english skills might not be up to your standards but...
To me you are missing parts in that question. Does it remain a mere offensive suggestion if you add "many" to it. Because then it would be fact. Feel free to disagree but, many Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality.

As notyou2 has pointed out they might not even believe in potentially important things that would actually be required for them to be a "true" Muslim. That unfortunately still drives many prejudices good and bad.

It is a broad generalization based upon a religion. That tends to make it offensive (depending on how it is used - and how it was used by what's-his-face is offensive).

"XXXX is a religion of peace" is not a generalization about a group of people; it is a statement about a religion. If you were to say "Muslims are peaceful," I think that is a generalization. It may not be offensive because it doesn't have a negative tone.

Being bigoted means one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance of hatred (according to Merriam-Webster).

Well yeah, that's kind of in the direction that I'm going here.

If every time you had sex with Muslims you got pubic lice. You will think all Muslims have pubic lice.
(I wanted to use a different example but if we can't start a new thread for it Muslims it is.)
Wrong? yes. Sensible? possibly in that context. In fact it could be true that every Muslim you met including the ones you had sex with had or have pubic lice. I feel how you go forward will make a pretty huge difference.

If you decide. I'm going to be more cautious having sex with Muslims to try and see if I can find one without pubic lice. That's prejudice but it's good. If you start throwing special shampoo at random Muslims. That there is bad.

The way in which what's-his-face posted, he is being bigoted. He is regarding members of the same group with intolerance and hatred.

Yeah and if other guy knew that it was indeed what's-his-face even though it's prejudice it might be correct to label what's-his-face as racist. Completely seperate conversation really.