Is fear of Islam really irrational?

Stochos

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
70
The term Islamophobia is being banished in the media recently, especially since the alleged murder of a Muslim on religious grounds. If true this act needs to be condemned by all as it would be barbaric
Apart from the criminal act, the discrimination is contrary to our much admired Constitution.

A phobia is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:
phobia
n noun irrational fear of something.

Acts of violence are in the media on a daily basis associated with Islam. The headlines of any international news channel, BBC, CNN and even Al-Jazeera, contain almost with fail an act of terror committed in the name of Islam.

Would it be irrational then for a reasonable person not to fear Islam? Then the term Islamophobia is incorrect.
 
I fear faith, and what it can drive people to do. Christianity has perpetrated its fair share of faith-based horrors on the world, as have many religious sects.
 
I fear faith, and what it can drive people to do. Christianity has perpetrated its fair share of faith-based horrors on the world, as have many religious sects.

That's true!

The problem is that 'Christians' dont do the killing anymore in the name of religion (the last time is Irish religious war), they just abuse children and pay priests off. While 'Muslims' continue to do the killings in places like North Nigeria, Egypt, etc. Atheists on the other hand have continued where they left off in USSR and there's no end to their killings and tortures in Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, etc.

Morale of the story is that people just kill others, with or without religion.
 
That's true!

The problem is that 'Christians' dont do the killing anymore in the name of religion (the last time is Irish religious war), they just abuse children and pay priests off. While 'Muslims' continue to do the killings in places like North Nigeria, Egypt, etc. Atheists on the other hand have continued where they left off in USSR and there's no end to their killings and tortures in Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, etc.

Morale of the story is that people just kill others, with or without religion.

Hello rza, I disagree with just about everything you've just said, but I honestly don't have the strength to engage with you further about this, please pardon me.
 
The term Islamophobia is being banished in the media recently, especially since the alleged murder of a Muslim on religious grounds. If true this act needs to be condemned by all as it would be barbaric
Apart from the criminal act, the discrimination is contrary to our much admired Constitution.

A phobia is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:


Acts of violence are in the media on a daily basis associated with Islam. The headlines of any international news channel, BBC, CNN and even Al-Jazeera, contain almost with fail an act of terror committed in the name of Islam.

Would it be irrational then for a reasonable person not to fear Islam? Then the term Islamophobia is incorrect.
In some cases it may be an irrational fear and thus a phobia.
In some cases the fear may be entirely rational, then it is not a phobia. Simple as that.

No person can really claim that there can be NO rational fears of Islam, whatsoever. Same goes for any other concept.

I fear faith, and what it can drive people to do. Christianity has perpetrated its fair share of faith-based horrors on the world, as have many religious sects.
As pointed out before, your definition of "faith" does not appear to be a concept that many people of faith would accept anyway. So you might actually have a phobia and tear down straw man views of faith.

There is also this interesting piece from foriegnpolicy.com

God and the Ivory Tower: What we don't understand about religion just might kill us
Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

Indeed, inclusive concepts such as "humanity" arguably emerged with the rise of universal religions. Sociologist Rodney Stark reveals that early Christianity became the Roman Empire's majority religion not through conquest, but through a social process grounded in trust. Repeated acts of altruism, such as caring for non-Christians during epidemics, facilitated the expansion of social networks that were invested in the religion. Likewise, studies by behavioral economist Joseph Henrich and colleagues on contemporary foragers, farmers, and herders show that professing a world religion is correlated with greater fairness toward passing strangers. This research helps explain what's going on in sub-Saharan Africa, where Islam is spreading rapidly. In Rwanda, for example, people began converting to Islam in droves after Muslims systematically risked their lives to protect Christians and animists from genocide when few others cared.

Although surprisingly few wars are started by religions, once they start, religion -- and the values it imposes -- can play a critical role. When competing interests are framed in terms of religious and sacred values, conflict may persist for decades, even centuries. Disputes over otherwise mundane phenomena then become existential struggles, as when land becomes "Holy Land." Secular issues become sacralized and nonnegotiable, regardless of material rewards or punishments. In a multiyear study, our research group found that Palestinian adolescents who perceived strong threats to their communities and were highly involved in religious ritual were most likely to see political issues, like the right of refugees to return to homes in Israel, as absolute moral imperatives. These individuals were thus opposed to compromise, regardless of the costs. It turns out there may be a neurological component to such behavior: Our work with Gregory Berns and his neuroeconomics team suggests that such values are processed in the brain as duties rather than utilitarian calculations; neuroimaging reveals that violations of sacred values trigger emotional responses consistent with sentiments of moral outrage.

Sure, religion is the result of SOME wars, but like the article states "Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny".

Fearing religion because "religion causes SO MUCH WAR/CONFLICT" would, it appears be another example of a phobia.
 
That's true!

The problem is that 'Christians' dont do the killing anymore in the name of religion (the last time is Irish religious war), they just abuse children and pay priests off. While 'Muslims' continue to do the killings in places like North Nigeria, Egypt, etc. Atheists on the other hand have continued where they left off in USSR and there's no end to their killings and tortures in Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, etc.

Morale of the story is that people just kill others, with or without religion.

Yes, there are those leaders who call themselves atheists who get involved in atrocities.

While atheists are just as capable of committing atrocities as theists, atheists havent been slaughtering people to promote their atheism. Christians, Muslims and others target people of other religions because they arent the same religion. These atheists do it for the power. And they readily kill any atheist who tries to stop them. They arent trying to promote atheism. They are trying to promote and enrich themselves. Ofc, you may say, well that is the result of atheism. But then how do you justify the crimes committed by theists. Just like some atheists here, you try to downplay the atrocities by "your own" and highlight the atrocities of the other side.
 
I think people kill people and try to justify it in any way they feel is accepted.

but back on topic, if its not Islamophobia, what is it?
 
Yes, there are those leaders who call themselves atheists who get involved in atrocities.

While atheists are just as capable of committing atrocities as theists, atheists havent been slaughtering people to promote their atheism. Christians, Muslims and others target people of other religions because they arent the same religion. These atheists do it for the power. And they readily kill any atheist who tries to stop them. They arent trying to promote atheism. They are trying to promote and enrich themselves. Ofc, you may say, well that is the result of atheism. But then how do you justify the crimes committed by theists. Just like some atheists here, you try to downplay the atrocities by "your own" and highlight the atrocities of the other side.

Zippy, religious people were killed in USSR because the atheist regime adopted a no-religion rule, and this continues today in North Korea and other atheistic countries. I know atheists dont like to identify themselves with other atheists in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc (they prefer those in Sweden, Japan, etc) but reality is that atheists have committed atrocities in the name of (no)religion.

The point Im trying to make is that people have the capacity to hate and kill their neighbours, and religion is just an excuse.
 
Zippy, religious people were killed in USSR because the atheist regime adopted a no-religion rule, and this continues today in North Korea and other atheistic countries. I know atheists dont like to identify themselves with other atheists in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc (they prefer those in Sweden, Japan, etc) but reality is that atheists have committed atrocities in the name of (no)religion.

The point Im trying to make is that people have the capacity to hate and kill their neighbours, and religion is just an excuse.
I would argue that atheism is not the cause of ANY action. Atheism on its own is utterly useless to society and contributes absolutely nothing of value and nothing constructive to it. It is not an ideology. But, like you said, anti-religion ideologies on the other hand such as Communism can be and are major contributors to major atrocities. So it is differences in ideologies that drives conflict, be it religious, non-religious or anti-religious ideologies.
 
I am scared of all Religion, "blind faith and disagreeing with proven reality" = "psychosis".

To rephrase, I am scared of all Crazy People.
 
fire walled:cry: but I have heard some stories that pics are being Photoshoped, but the story is real tho which is why I opted to post a google search rather than an opinionated news article from a source that maybe discredited

Its a piece of corrugated iron over a fire with burning babies and body parts on it.
 
Yes, it is totally irrational. There are at least half a million muslims in South Africa, for example, who live peacefully here. Most muslims, here and around the world are not violent or threatening in any way. To fear your neighbour, who has never threatened you in any way, simply because he is muslim is irrational. Yes.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X