(11-15-2016 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (11-15-2016 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (11-15-2016 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Xenophobia: Ban on all Muslims
xen·o·pho·bi·a
[zen- uh- foh-bee- uh, zee-n uh-]
NOUN
1.
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
Clearly not hatred. Unreasonable is debatable(literally). Is it reasonable to suspect there might be terrorists among the refugees?
Xenophobia is a very misused term.
he didn't call for a ban on Swedes or Hindus. Surely they are just as foreign or strange.
If he had said a ban on Muslims with ties to Islamic extremists I would understand.
But he called for a ban on an entire religion, something that is pretty much explicitly forbidden in our Constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).
To counter your argument, this is a prime example of xenophobia because of just that. As you said, xenophobia is an unreasonable fear of foreigners. This ban that Trump proposed, remember, on ALL Muslims, was out of fear of all foreigners from one group, a group who has no uniform ideology except their religion. This ban was not suggested out a fear of those with ties to extremist ideology, because if it had been, he would have said that. So how is that fear reasonable? There are Christian extremists but he did not propose putting a ban on Christians entering the country.
Also, I take issue that just because one doesn't have an unreasonable fear of all things strange that one can't have xenophobic tendencies, or an idea can't be xenophobic. That's partly because what is strange or foreign is different from person to person. So someone who doesn't understand Muslims and find them strange, may not feel the same way about the other ethnicities/religions you mention because they have been more exposed to them. But also, because then, the word Xenophobic wouldn't exist, you would just have the word for hermit.
To further that idea, we can go look at the word racism. Would you say someone wasn't a racist if they, say, hated all white people for no reason, but were fine with other races?
The problem is in the definition.
Again, I'll start with the statement that Muslims, like any other faith, should have the right to live, assemble and worship freely in the U.S. Total immigration bans would be immoral, unethical and in many cases inhumane (for refugees).
When you say Islamic extremist, your frame of reference is the actions of the people themselves. Judging based on their actions, Islamic extremists are a minority of all practicing Muslims.
However, there is another frame of reference for defining Islamic extremism and that is within the belief system itself. The base belief system allows for extremism and could be said to encourage it. Mohammed led armies and Islam first spread by the sword. Islam as a belief system centers around worldly kingdoms. Countries built and ruled by Islamic law in the here and now. There are a number of these countries in the world today.
As Islam came into power as a major religion and as a major political force, it became more tolerant. Forced conversion (whether under Constantine or under a caliphate) doesn't create ideological purists. As with all political groups, when the majority of a population is 'middle class' or happy with the status quo, the drive to risk life and limb to extend boundaries (whether Roman, American or any other country) is considerably weaker.
There is nothing wrong with this, it's a good thing,
But with respect to the actual belief system, the 'extremists' are in some sense the majority of Muslims, particularly those living in 'Westernized' societies, that have moved beyond the concepts of jihad and caliphates and Sharia Law.
The original beliefs and base texts haven't changed over time. And when you have large groups of adherents who live in poverty or without a voice, or who feel isolated, they are looking for someone or something to given meaning to their lives, and that meaning can be found in their own belief system, in what we, in our liberalized view of the world, view as radicalization.
(pretty much the same conditions that exacerbate racism in our country, or that allowed the Nazi Party to rise in Germany, by the way)
I get your point about Christian extremists. They exist too. But they cannot point back to anything Christ taught to justify their extremism. I'll generally assume a base knowledge of the New Testament here, and won't bore folks with chapter and verse, but suffice it to say that the teaching "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's" (when Jesus was asked about taxes), make Christianity a 'safe' religion for Constantine to adopt and export across the empire when some of his family were converted. Christianity has been perverted most when governments have adopted and coopted the belief system, and the power structures of the government/empire and the power structure of the organized church became intertwined and self-sustaining.
But that said, Christianity at its core was NOT about establishing earthly kingdoms, and it survived and spread for centuries without government support. Just as it is surviving now in China and other areas of the world without attempting to change the governments.
Please note that I'm not negatively comparing the moral behavior of the millions of peaceful Muslims with Christians or any other group of people. Far from it. I have Muslim friends who I admire greatly and go to for advice.
But I see ISIS, and the Taliban, and Armenia, and honor killings and Sharia Law, and the role of women in fundamentalist Muslim society, and as a Christian, I fear the basic tenets of Islam that can be used to justify those expressions of faith.
So back to your definition. I don't hate anyone because of their beliefs. I don't fear any of the Muslims I know, and I honestly respect them.
But I just expressed an unfavorable view of the belief system itself. Is that an 'unreasoning fear'? (you said unreasonable, I modified the term here).
I am not sure I would be comfortable living in a country that had an Islamic government. I would be perfectly comfortable with Muslims living on either side of me.
People here use the term Islamophobia as an indictment. Does fear or disagreement with the belief system, while caring about the Muslims I know and being committed to the Bill or Rights, make me an Islamophobe? Am I a bad person as a result?
And if the "radical" adherents of a world-wide belief system (liberal definition of radical - i.e., ISIS type extremists, or the Taliban, or to a much lesser degree the Saudi government - - not how I defined radical extremist above) believe in and condone practices that go against our Bill of Rights, are they any different than Nazis or racists? If so, to what degree and how?
The reason I bring this up, is that I notice the tendency on this board is to talk about racists and misogynists (in this case in support of Trump, alleged or otherwise). As opposed to racism or misogyny.
You know, the guys who are 'deplorable' (most women can't be deplorable I think, not sure why). Is there a deplorablephobia? Can you be a deplorist, guilty of deplorism?
Do we do a disservice to the human beings we're labeling by focusing on the people and demonizing them? Would we better off focusing on the beliefs and discussing things at that level?
Maybe I just think too much.
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
