We can and probably should try harder to be as specific as possible to prevent sounding bigoted with regard to how we criticize religions and those who we believe hold bad ideas. It does seem though that no matter how hard you try sometimes, people still don't hear what you're saying and think it's all hateful bigotry.

If providing a chart by a well respected polling organization like Pew of alarming numbers of Muslim's answering poll questions horribly and then arguing that Islam might not be compatible with Western civilsation isn't being specific enough to show that maybe we're talking about those Muslims who interpret the teachings of Islam in a way that lead them to answer those poll questions so horribly, then I guess we should try harder. Then again, at some point could people stop assuming the worse of every single statement uttered? It seems like we're stuck in a loop of this terrible conversation:

Don't you think that secularism is in large a tenet of modern society which has given us the freedom of pursuit of knowledge and thus has lead to a technological revolution. That is an integral part of the modern western civilization the way I see it.

By pluralism, do you mean the acceptance of subgroups within a society? if so. then yes, the goal of Islamism is a society with Islamic values dominating all spheres of life. This is already a clear result in much of the middle east. Competing religions or identities are almost extinct.

The way I see it, you do likely believe that Islamism is incompatible with modern western society after all, you just don't want to admit it in plain English for some reason.

shhhh, I wan't to get these feel good 'bigot' shamers to hang themselves.

Really? I think you could make a great argument for exactly that. The powers of the Church had to be separated out and fought against. Surely you could make a great argument that the reason it took so long for things like gay rights was because of being held back due to widely held religious beliefs, as people like Master like to point out every chance they get.

This argument doesn't hold water at all.

The statement "Islam is compatible with Western civilization" is nearly trivially true, as there are tens of millions of Muslims who are proper unimpeachable citizens of European/North American countries. And the statement "Islam is not compatible with Western civilization" is bigoted for the same reason.

The statement "Islamic theocracy is incompatible with all European/North American political philosophies except for lolTurkey" is nearly trivially true and not bigoted. Do you agree that there's a big difference in meaning between these two statements?

Actually, no, secularism is a completely overrated factor in the progress of knowledge and technology. And if it weren't for those Muslims, "Western civilization" would be like 300 years behind in math and science.

Just so I understand, they're going extinct now, as opposed to like the thousand+ years they didn't go extinct surrounded by those same Islamists?

I don't doubt that that's the way you see it.

It's not trivially true, because there are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who prefer theocracy. So it depends on which interpretation if Islam we're talking about. If I said "Islam is compatible with Western civilisation," but I'm one of those who believe in the interpretation of Islam that punishes gays and adulterers, and prefers sharia to secular law, then I'm making a bigoted statement in the same way that "segregation is compatible with Western civilisation." Since the polls show majorities of Muslims in many countries, even Great Britain, believe homosexuality should be illegal, then your statement is probably bigoted by your own standards. I guess it's probably not useful to make either statement, since they're too ambiguous, so people should probably try and be more specific.

Also there is that when talking about the "Western Democratic Experience", there are tremendous differences between European and American experiences. In Europe the Enlightenment was definitely a move to be "Free from religion", while in America it was more accurately described as "Freedom of religion". Two very different concepts. In it Europe it was political, very much like what is happening in the Islamic world, while in America it was more about free exercise of self defined spirituality.

Sorry, you can make a great argument that centuries of European history don't count as "Western civilization"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...he_Middle_East


The number of Middle Eastern Christians is dropping due to such factors as low birth rates compared with Muslims, disproportionately high emigration rates, and ethnic and religious persecution. In addition, political turmoil has been and continues to be a major contributor pressing indigenous Middle Eastern Christians of various ethnicities towards seeking security and stability outside their homelands. Recent spread of Jihadist and Salafist ideology, foreign to the tolerant values of the local communities in Syria and Egypt has also played a role in unsettling Christians' decades-long peaceful existence.[21] In 2011, it was estimated that at the present rate, the Middle East's 12 million Christians would likely drop to 6 million by the year 2020

Can you quote something that addresses my actual question, how did these Christian communities survive for a thousand years surrounded by what I assume you're calling Islamists?

Nice opinion man.

My opinion is that these middle eastern societies which developed early maths and navigation had their societies hijacked by powerful religious and societal leaders with less noble values. Starving any free thinking individuals into conformity.

They have been persecuted over all time, the fact that they have survived is the bar you are setting in this discussion, really?

And many of those centuries didn't turn out so well, did they? Was the line of progress linear? Or can we make an argument that the less influence Christianity had on Western civilization the faster the progress?

I don't think it's an accident that in the United States as we see less adherence to religion we see faster progress. Maybe someone can find some data to prove or disprove that, I'd be interested.

Islam made a decision to become more closed off and conservative in the 9th century. It's paid the price since. When I say Islam is moving backwards, I don't mean it figuratively. They are moving backwards in every way shape and form. Which Muslim countries are shining examples of tolerance and advancement of human rights?

Okay so hundreds of millions of Muslims don't live in the West. If you're asking as an empirical matter whether millions of Muslims can live normally inside a secular Western society then the answer to that question is a trivial yes because millions of them are, like look around. Granted I don't know what thoughtcrime or pewpollcrime they're guilty of in Sam Harris land.

Perhaps this is my philosophical bias, but when I say that A is compatible with B, I don't usually mean that some large proportion of instances/examples of A live in harmony with B, I mean that there is no contradiction between A and B. Even if it were the case that most Muslims were fundamentalist theocrats, it wouldn't follow that Islam is categorically incompatible with secularism because there is a minority of Muslims who are not fundamentalist theocrats who have no problem living in a secular society.

I don't know what this "most Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal" chessmate is supposed to be. I never said Muslims can't be bigoted. A lot of white Baptists used to be/are bigots, it's still bigotry to say that Baptists are incompatible with Western civilization.

Early maths and navigation? Are you under the impression that I'm talking about ancient Babylon? All I can do here is to encourage you to read some history.

The swift (and pretty violent) spread of Islam in the 7th century transformed Arabia from a largely nomadic loose association of tribes into one of the great empires in world history. From the late 7th/8th century to the 13th century (when the Mongols stopped by and razed or cleansed nearly every great Islamic city in sight), the Islamic world became richer, more tolerant, and more culturally advanced than the European ****bags of Christendom. Since we're quoting wikis, here's an assessment of the causes of the Islamic Golden Age:

* is for those Christians you're interested in.

I don't know what "Christian influence" means. Are you talking about the Catholic Church? In which case maybe. If you're talking about Christianity in general, I have no idea but I'm pretty sure you cannot make that argument.

The United States has been and continues to be more religious than Europe, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Anyways, the maxim is "The East has logic and lives on rice, the West has mystery and motor cars", look it up.

You might just be catching them at a bad time? Probably not as bad a time as 1940s for the West though.

I don't think if there are Baptists who believe being gay should be illegal then they are compatible with Western civilization, and if you do, then I think it's more accurate to call you a bigot than me, because you're saying a belief in making homosexuality illegal is compatible with Western values. Likewise, if a majority of those who practice a particular religion hold a certain bigoted belief that they claim their religion commands them to believe, I don't think it's out of line to call that religion out of sync with modern Western values, ie, incompatible.

It's probably better to say something more specific, like "the Baptist religion, as practiced by the majority of Baptists, who believe being gay should be illegal is not compatible with Western civilization." And we should not call Baptists who don't have that bigoted belief bigots, we should applaud them and lend them support in helping make their fellow worshippers more tolerant. There was a time not so long ago where the above statement would have been true, but thanks to criticism and a shift in beliefs, it appears that time is past.

I'm not trying to chessmate you here, just trying to figure out what is an acceptable way to criticize religions and religious people. Maybe we're getting hung up on the word "incompatible." Just because something might be incompatible now doesn't mean it is destined to be forever incompatible. The idea in pointing out it is incompatible is to get it to become more tolerant and compatible in the future.

Did I say or imply that it's bigoted to think that bigots are compatible with Western civilization? I said the statement that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization is bigoted. Unpack for me how you think that commits me to thinking that tolerating bigots is not compatible with Western civilization? Extending a healthy measure of tolerance to bigots is one of the better features of "modern Western values".

Segregation is not compatible with modern "Western civilization", but the bigots who believe in segregation are afforded a certain level of tolerance, which is not assent to segregation. Thinking being gay should be illegal is not compatible with modern "Western civilization", but the homophobes who believe that are afforded a certain level of tolerance, which is not assent to homophobia.

Jettison "Western civilization" from your lexicon. Don't rely on hasty generalizations, don't overvalue the significance of polls and don't undervalue how people actually live their lives in practice.

Also when you see a Sam Harris talking about Islam, don't think "Hey, this is a sober minded academic dispassionately analyzing a complex topic"; do think "Why is Gaylord Fokker, a male nurse, pontificating about comparative religion?"

Yeah, this is where you let the mask slip by not calling them Muslims.

Q: Why do you think the wayfarer was exalted?

Follow-up Q: Do you have any idea what that even means?

The only reason I haven't gone HAM with spelling this out, instead hinting at it and playing coy, is that I was really wary of the response.

This is basic history knowledge.


p.s. Wait, yeah, I'm disheartened you even had to spell it out regardless.

Meh, Western civilization here is fine. Anyone who objects to using that phrase isn't going to be happy if we replace it with "modern world" or "Western values" or if they are, someone else will get mad. The point is we're saying X doesn't fit in with Y, (or what we think Y should be, ideally), and many people who really like X will often get upset with that, and so will U, apparently. But that shouldn't stop anyone from criticizing X and attempting to make it more compatible with Y in the future. Incidentally, this is in no way meant to imply X is entirely bad or that Y is entirely good. We can and do criticize Y as well - actually much more.

I agree one of the Western world's greatest assets has been its tolerance, even of those who hold intolerant ideas. The Muslim world is tolerant in many places, and has been much more tolerant in the past. No reason it shouldn't be again. I'm not suggesting we round up Muslims (or anyone else) and punish them because many of them have bad beliefs, or not admit them into the West. I'm suggesting we continue criticizing the belief system that leads many of them to hold bad beliefs. Just as we've done with other belief systems like Christianity. Btw, a lot of Muslims and ex Muslims who don't hold those bad beliefs are also criticizing Islam in attempt to reform it so it will be more compatible with Western civilization. I don't think they're being bigoted.

"Western civilization" is not fine because a) it's a zombie concept that doesn't refer to anything that actually exists and worse b) it's a zombie concept that enables a kind of simplistic and often bigoted mode of thinking about people deemed to be outside of it. I actually prefer the less grand "Islam is incompatible with the U.S. constitution" or "Islam is incompatible with liberté, égalité, fraternité"; at least these are not amorphous, near meaningless relata.

It is a problem rather than the point that you are saying X doesn't fit in with Y. Your "X" is Islam, which makes every possible (coherent) interpretation of "fitting in with" and "Western civilization" false, as there are millions of Muslims currently fitting in with Western civilization by being citizens in it and living in it, end of story.

Your "Y" of "Western civilization" is a non-existent entity; if you want to talk about secular political government being incompatible with Islamic theocracy then talk about secular political government being incompatible with Islamic theocracy.

"Fitting in with" is not too clear either. Out of consistency you seem to want to say that Baptist bigots don't "fit in with" modern Western civilization but to me that's really clumsy. Baptist bigots are a part of modern Western civilization (whatever that means); their values are part of the plurality of "modern Western values" not opposed to "modern Western values"; they are opposed to our secular values but our secular values are not one and the same as "modern Western values" -- so again this civilizational scope is worse than useless.

If they say things like "Islam is not compatible with Western civilization" they're being bigoted. Bigotry is intolerance and reductive stereotyping of ethnic or religious groups. That's just what the word means.

I dunno. It seems like you're just granting special privilege to a bunch of loony ideas because they're called a religion. If I say Islam is stupid, evil and corrupt, and it has no place being forced on little children am I being a bigot, even if that is true? Even if it's true about Christianity? What if I say the same about Scientology? They think our emotions are really caused by aliens living inside us or some such nonsense, and the religion is clearly a huge scam that started as a damn self help book. I think our society would probably be better off if that religion disappeared from existence. Bigoted?

What is it about calling any of those religions incompatible with Western society that pushes your buttons? Is my bro in law, a hard core athiest who thinks religion is the root of all evil and the bane of civilization writ large the biggest bigot possible?

I can see how calling for people to be deported or excluded from the US for their religion is bigoted, but for simply saying the religion is stupid and probably harmful and bad for our society, I don't think that's wrong.

A component of bigotry is that it is directed at one religious or ethnic group, almost always by some other religious or ethnic group. If you were a religious bigot living 350 years ago in Europe, chances are you were a Protestant who hated Catholics or a Catholic who hated Protestants, although I'm not sure when the modern usage became prevalent. Hastily generalizing about Islam, signaling out Islam as a sui generis problem, meets the current definition of bigotry.

I suppose if you hate all religions close to equally you're not being a bigot, just as if you hated all human beings more or less equally you wouldn't be a racist.

Your brother in law sounds like a teenager.