3 ms·

I suspect -- but can't prove -- that Islam is perceived as more dangerous because it is currently more foreign. There has been a huge and relatively recent surg

I suspect -- but can't prove -- that Islam is perceived as more dangerous because it is currently more foreign. There has been a huge and relatively recent surge in western awareness of it, but it is not a pervasively western philosophy. So that means that our primary perceptions of Islam are going to come from the news, or from discussions of the news, and it is the worst, most backwards fundamentalist atrocities against people that will make the news. This is not at all an apologia for those acts. There is no place left in the world for things like the stoning of a raped woman. However, we should also keep in mind that such acts are as much cultural as they are religious, and arguing that one religion is worse than another because of them is ignoring the cultural aspects of tribalism. I'm not a fan of, say, homeopathy, but I'm also uncertain about the extent to which we should protect people from themselves. There is at this point plenty of easy-to-find criticisms of homeopathy; if someone chooses to try it anyway, either because they didn't do any research about it or because they did and ignored it, is that really our business? It's certainly not mine.

lmm 14y ago
>However, we should also keep in mind that such acts are as much cultural as they are religious, and arguing that one religion is worse than another because of them is ignoring the cultural aspects of tribalism. I'm not much concerned with which religion is worse on some scale. Religions which encourage or tolerate such evil - whether because of something intrinsic to that religion or simple demography - deserve to be criticized more than those that don't. It's not Islamophobic to pick on Islam, if the acts done in the name of Islam really are worse than those done in the name of some other faith. >I'm not a fan of, say, homeopathy, but I'm also uncertain about the extent to which we should protect people from themselves. There is at this point plenty of easy-to-find criticisms of homeopathy; if someone chooses to try it anyway, either because they didn't do any research about it or because they did and ignored it, is that really our business? It's certainly not mine. I wouldn't argue for it to be made illegal or anything like that. But it really is bad for people, and pointing out and publicizing its flaws, the way these skeptics and skeptic organizations do, really does save lives - not by taking away people's choices, but by keeping them fully informed. Even if you don't want to spend your own time doing that, there seems little justification to hate on those who do, the way the original article seems to.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  The way I see it is that we already made "patent medicines" illegal. If you want to sell your miracle snakeoil in a jar these days you (unfortunately) still can, though to keep it legal you have to follow some basic labelling rules. It would be better if these labelling rules were more clear to the general public, but I would describe them as semi-functional at least. Does such a thing exist for "alternative" treatment though? Are there laws about what sort claims faith healers and chiropractors are allowed to make? Maybe there are, but I am not aware of them. They definitely do not seem to be enforced at least. My concern then is that we are failing to protect those who lack the information to make an informed decision by permitting those people to go uninformed by their scammers. If you already know that chiropractors are not "back doctors" and do not have medical degrees in chiropracy, but nevertheless decide to visit one, then that is your own problem at that point. I suspect many people do not know that though, and we are permitting these charlatans to pass themselves off as something that they are not (either through blatant lying or perhaps more commonly lying through omission). That seems like something we can easily make illegal.
- batista 14y ago
  >It's not Islamophobic to pick on Islam, if the acts done in the name of Islam really are worse than those done in the name of some other faith. It will take a while for the crimes made in the name of Christianity to match the crimes done under Islam. And even more time for it to match the crimes made in the name of Western superiority. Last time I checked, no muslim country has dropped two A bombs in 300,000 civilians.
  - lmm 14y ago
    >It will take a while for the crimes made in the name of Christianity to match the crimes done under Islam. Well, Christianity had a 600-year head start. But for those of us who care about preventing evils today rather than counting the historical scores, there is more work to be done regarding Islam. >And even more time for it to match the crimes made in the name of Western superiority. Last time I checked, no muslim country has dropped two A bombs in 300,000 civilians. No-one pretends that was about western superiority - just about killing them without losing our own soldiers. And using an inflated number (IIRC the accepted historical count is about 230,000, including military) only harms your argument.

lmm 14y ago

>However, we should also keep in mind that such acts are as much cultural as they are religious, and arguing that one religion is worse than another because of them is ignoring the cultural aspects of tribalism. I'm not much concerned with which religion is worse on some scale. Religions which encourage or tolerate such evil - whether because of something intrinsic to that religion or simple demography - deserve to be criticized more than those that don't. It's not Islamophobic to pick on Islam, if the acts done in the name of Islam really are worse than those done in the name of some other faith. >I'm not a fan of, say, homeopathy, but I'm also uncertain about the extent to which we should protect people from themselves. There is at this point plenty of easy-to-find criticisms of homeopathy; if someone chooses to try it anyway, either because they didn't do any research about it or because they did and ignored it, is that really our business? It's certainly not mine. I wouldn't argue for it to be made illegal or anything like that. But it really is bad for people, and pointing out and publicizing its flaws, the way these skeptics and skeptic organizations do, really does save lives - not by taking away people's choices, but by keeping them fully informed. Even if you don't want to spend your own time doing that, there seems little justification to hate on those who do, the way the original article seems to.

jlgreco 14y ago
The way I see it is that we already made "patent medicines" illegal. If you want to sell your miracle snakeoil in a jar these days you (unfortunately) still can, though to keep it legal you have to follow some basic labelling rules. It would be better if these labelling rules were more clear to the general public, but I would describe them as semi-functional at least. Does such a thing exist for "alternative" treatment though? Are there laws about what sort claims faith healers and chiropractors are allowed to make? Maybe there are, but I am not aware of them. They definitely do not seem to be enforced at least. My concern then is that we are failing to protect those who lack the information to make an informed decision by permitting those people to go uninformed by their scammers. If you already know that chiropractors are not "back doctors" and do not have medical degrees in chiropracy, but nevertheless decide to visit one, then that is your own problem at that point. I suspect many people do not know that though, and we are permitting these charlatans to pass themselves off as something that they are not (either through blatant lying or perhaps more commonly lying through omission). That seems like something we can easily make illegal.
batista 14y ago
>It's not Islamophobic to pick on Islam, if the acts done in the name of Islam really are worse than those done in the name of some other faith. It will take a while for the crimes made in the name of Christianity to match the crimes done under Islam. And even more time for it to match the crimes made in the name of Western superiority. Last time I checked, no muslim country has dropped two A bombs in 300,000 civilians.
- lmm 14y ago
  >It will take a while for the crimes made in the name of Christianity to match the crimes done under Islam. Well, Christianity had a 600-year head start. But for those of us who care about preventing evils today rather than counting the historical scores, there is more work to be done regarding Islam. >And even more time for it to match the crimes made in the name of Western superiority. Last time I checked, no muslim country has dropped two A bombs in 300,000 civilians. No-one pretends that was about western superiority - just about killing them without losing our own soldiers. And using an inflated number (IIRC the accepted historical count is about 230,000, including military) only harms your argument.