There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said.
As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesus. I can honestly say that sometimes I was offended and at other times, I had to laugh. But what I never did was go and kill those that offended my religion and my god.
We should hold accountable all individuals in any religious community that promote this type hatred and murderous attacks.
I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.
In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.
Importantly, it's just a variation of Osama bin Laden's self-stated goal for 9/11: poke the bear in order to get him to chase us into our trap.
The French will surely be more willing to pursue military intervention against jihadists, leading them to inevitably kill some innocent Muslims in the process, increasing recruitment.
To be clear, I don't mind the fact it was deleted. I do think Freedom of Speech is a poor justification for reprisals against Muslims of Islam partly because, as Stanley Fish put it, there's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.
Religion is software: adopt a baby from a family with a different religion and odds are that the baby will grow into an adult having your religion. It may feel like an inseparable part of oneself, but it is not: ideas can be reevaluated at any time, and probably should be.
You are responsible for the memes you host and propagate. You should be free to believe and say anything. But ideas have consequences, and you own the consequences: at least to the extent that your ideas are open to criticism or ridicule, but not to the extent of violence.
If we look at someone who is born into a religion, lives their life holding those religious beliefs, and dies as a member of that same religion - is it valid to assume that they could have separated themselves from their beliefs? Just because a subset of the population undergo religious conversion or deconversion later in life (for whatever reason), does not imply that everyone has that capacity. It may well be that for those people, their religion is effectively immutable.
(Also, racial characteristics are at least partially alterable, using plastic surgery to modify physical ethnic traits, e.g. see http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/ethnic-plastic-surgery.html)
Ofcourse that's fully possible. My parents was Christian. They raised me a Christian.
It wasn't until my late teens, when I got a job that I was exposed to a critical thinking crowd. They were very much willing to speak their minds, instead of showing religion some special-cased "respect".
It made me think. It made me reconsider. I'm now an atheist.
But oh boy was the period in between then and now a interesting one. Somehow just asking yourself "what if there is no God?" felt so incredibly wrong and the mind many, many times tried to stop itself thinking that very thought. Confusion is certainly not a sufficient word to describe what went on then.
Anyway today I'm extremely thankful that people didn't show me nor my religion "respect". They treated me with reason, rationality and critical thinking even though they knew it might offend me. Now that is showing someone real respect!
Exercise — of both body and brain — is work. Not having done it does not mean one is unable to.
Many live entire lives without a taut muscle. Yet we know they could have lived differently.
Actually, its not. The term "race" refers to two things (which people often fail to recognize are two different things) -- self-identity with a particular group -- which can change -- or an external, social perceived association with a particular group -- which can also change.
> You are responsible for the memes you host and propagate
Group identity (both self-identification and which buckets you put other people in) is a set of memes as much as any religion is (in fact, historically, its often been a set of memes tied to religion.)
Race is a dubious concept to begin with, but if we hope to salvage any useful semantics the only sane way forward would be to define race as those things about you that don't change when Jor-El puts you on a spaceship and ships you off to Earth to be raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent.
(Have you seen Dave Chappelle's parody of a blind black man who grew up as a member of the KKK? It's relevant to question at hand. It's easy to find on Youtube. While you're watching, consider where the character places his identity.)
Race describes one of two things:
1. Self-identification in a class socially constructed to be a "race", and 2. Externally perceived membership in a class socially constructed as a "race".
Ethnicity is identical, but with "race" replaced with "ethnicity". The distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" being quite arbitrary.
> Race is a dubious concept to begin with, but if we hope to salvage any useful semantics the only sane way forward would be to define race as those things about you that don't change when Jor-El puts you on a spaceship and ships you off to Earth to be raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent.
I'm not interesting in redefining race to make it a category that you find useful, I'm talking about what it actually means as it is used -- which does not refer to an immutable trait. (Though it does refer to a trait that is not easy to change, and which -- especially in the external form -- is very hard for the subject to change, absent moving to a different society with different conceptualization of race.)
This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment.
This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal.
If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on the same playing field, this includes opening religions up to the same discourse we levy at other things.
After September 11th, I read the Qur'an[1] to see what the fuss was about. I encourage others to do the same. Unlike the Bible, it is not a long text. Even if you take notes while reading, you can finish it in a few days. Unless you're indoctrinated in the faith, it will be obvious that the Qur'an preaches violence toward the infidel much more than nonviolence.
1. Or more correctly, an English translation of the Qur'an.
Look on the life of Prophet Muhammad for instance (you'll find plenty of non-Muslim accounts on His life that are non-biased) never you'll find any instance where he punished someone just because he ridiculed him.
Forget about prophet, just when Europe was going through the dark ages and Muslims were building knowledge cities in Spain etc. There were departments specifically reserved for scholars to come and discuss and question each other's religion! It's part of our history books, and a fact.
What we're seeing today is some radical Muslims dominating the majority and just because they have taken up guns people have started associating violence with Islam.
Do you know that the most number of people that have suffered from these extremists are infact Muslims themselves? I'll urge you to dig this further :)
p.s "Islam" when translated to english means Peace. Do I need to say any further?
Abu 'Afak seems close. He wrote a politically charged poem against Muhammad and was killed. Perhaps not just for ridicule, more for political opposition but even so it seems bad form.
Then you didn't read the actual Quran. I will not claim that the Quran is more violent than other holy books, but it certainly has its share of calls to violence.
A more common translation is "submission".
Religions really do cause their hosts to have different propensities for violence.
1. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/jain...
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-vegetarian-...
When religious folk say that the other religious folk are misinterpreting religious text x, I can't help but think they are in no position to make that judgement fairly unless they have their own sense of ethics that overrides the ethics fed to them by their religion. Their view is simply another interpretation of their texts on the broad scale of interpretations of their religious texts.
If their ethics are therefore not derived from their religion, seems like a large chunk of the utility of their religion is an illusion. They are not good or better people because of their religion, their ethical foundation is already formed inside them regardless of what religion they pledge membership to.
Then you can't have read the bible very well, let alone any other holy texts.
At the risk of going slightly off topic, quoting Hitler:
“I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were."
And to quote the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie:
"Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitler's passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed...because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus."
So the acts may indeed have been related. Not so much to the teachings of Jesus but to the various churches that followed.
Have you read the Book of Revelation?
(2) Religion does not preach, people preach. It doesn't really matter what is in the text of these old books - the only relevant question is what people do. I couldn't care less if their theological thoughts are sound or not.
* Well, its way more complicated, but he did not claim to act as he did because of his Christian faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I´m sorry if you see anything more in it.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-he...
Peaceful stuff eh? "This verse is often cited to justify attacks of Muslims on non-Muslims both in classical exegesis and in contemporary jihadism" according to Wikipedia.
Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be applied to people who believe in the existence of a god.
I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of:
- Been brought up in the environment
- External pressures from relatives/society
- In some cases institutionalised to their religion
- Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion
- Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to their religion
I don't believe in God, but I think saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter
- You sincerely believe it to be true.
If you don't have a doubt in your mind that something is true (e.g. that torture is never morally justifiable, or that God doesn't exist because of Epicurus' trilemma, or that an unborn baby has a right to life, or that objective truths exist) then to say that you could "choose" to believe something else is not quite accurate.
And since a religion is, fundamentally, a collection of truth assertions, it's not necessarily true that you can "choose" it intellectually.
Whether you are free to choose it socially or legally is another story. In many places, converting to another religion can be a very dangerous thing to do.
Yes. You're listing reasons why people might choose to join/stick-with a religion. The fact that there are (social/psychological) arguments for or against doesn't mean it's not a choice. The fact that it may require courage to choose the unorthodox option doesn't mean it's not a choice.
There's also a distinction between what someone believes and what they appear to believe. Many people go through the motions for the social acceptance, but don't believe any of it.
> saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter
I agree with this, but I don't think anyone's saying that religion is a "pick and choose" affair. Most religious people were indoctrinated into their particular religion, but as independent adults they can still choose whether to continue with their religion, abandon it or switch to another one.
It would be nice if religion truly were a case of "pick and choose", eg. as a child. At least that way, children would see that there are alternatives, and that their parent's religion isn't irrefutable.
People living in a totalitarian state can not always pick their religion (as in "the official religion is mandatory") but that's not a reason to restrict freedom of speech, including freedom to criticise religions, in our democracies.
No, racism is bad because it involves discrimination in many contexts on bases irrelevant to the context in which discrimination is being done; it is not bad "because you can't choose your race".
Often you cannot.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countr...
And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far.
It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards.
It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane?
The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth.
> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo.
My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
> And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).
The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree.
The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not?
Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn.
>My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world.
I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic.
In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.
> Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc.
What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits).
> I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant real-world issues, which I think, beyond a certain point, just gets us off track.
Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. Now, your evidence is evolving and is incomplete. In fact, scientific evidence has been overturned by more evidence. There have even been cases wherein the Bible was presumed wrong, but later corroborated by archaeological evidence. The state of science hadn't yet caught up to the reality that the Bible had already documented.
And, suffice it to say, there are many scientists who, at a certain point, draw the conclusion that there is some sort of intelligent design behind our universe. Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. There are also fundamental, observable laws of physics that must be broken in order to accommodate a spontaneous eruption of the universe. That is, accepted science contradicts itself. In some cases, the science is predicated upon assumptions that cannot yet be proven. That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
All of this to say that taking a position of assuredness in one's belief in something in the face of incomplete knowledge is the same, irrespective of some subjective measure of "degree of evidence" that one side or the other would like to impose. Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
Likewise, subjecting to ridicule those whose beliefs don't align with your own is short-sighted and destructive on either side.
In my opinion, the scientist's mind remains open until conclusive proof is in. Now, you may choose not to believe in Islam or Christianity, etc. because you have no proof of their truth. But, the most you can say about them is there's not enough evidence to convince you. You simply cannot conclude that they are wrong if you are applying those same "laws" of evidence to which you subscribe.
No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evidence to disclaim their belief, just as I don't need evidence to disclaim the belief of unicorns; the person making a proposition should present a proof. Edit: Mind you, I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. Basically: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
> That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Even gravity is not "proven"; it's only "demonstrated" to such a degree that we reasonably believe it's foolish to believe anything else.
> Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? There is no "they" who could be "right"; there are different fractions of people, having different, incompatible but equally irrational beliefs (Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, Hindu god(s), ...). Each of these theories could be true, and if one is true all others are necessarily false (including atheism). Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Compelling, of course, is a subjective word. So, you mean to say that there is no evidence that compels you. But, certainly, you are aware of eyewitness accounts of, say, Jesus' life and work, as well as archaeological evidence. You can choose not to be compelled by the evidence, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. And, you obviously cannot claim that it fails to compel others.
>I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof.
It's pretty stunning that, to your mind, nothing exists unless it can be proven. Again, I take you back to that trite and cliche notion that you cannot prove your own existence.
Alone, that statement would be pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I say this here only because the utter paucity in what any of us knows should undermine your confidence in imposing your own beliefs at least somewhat?
But, keeping it to the physical world, you are arguing, essentially, that you can explain (or prove) each and every thing that you observe.
>No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements.
Measurements are mere interpretations of what is "demonstrated". There is faith in science the moment we draw a conclusion predicated upon something that we cannot fully explain, but can only observe. In fact, religion itself has served this very role for millennia.
Some of our most accepted and consequential theories (e.g. Big Bang itself) are predicated on things that we cannot yet explain. In fact, we make "allowances" for some of these things that are themselves yet proven.
Yeah, it's the best scientific explanation we have so far. But, I think it's a bit presumptuous to go bashing people over the head with it.
>This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God?
Well, I wonder, if you allow that any God created the universe, whether the discussion about which God dissolve into pure meaninglessness? That is, if you acknowledge the existence of a God that created the Universe (and you), then are you really in a position to quibble about God's nature if you're not willing to consider the "evidence" from those who claim to know?
But, any one of these, all of these, or none of these could be correct. There could be some truth that reconciles all of these, as much as some unknown about dark matter or gravity or time could unify physics.
>Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Yeah, I think I may have come across one of the most famous "mental tricks" in the world from time-to-time! Seriously, it actually has an interesting history with regard to religion and its namesake, who was actually a Christian. You should look it up.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...
It's behind a partial paywall. You may need to Google the title and link to it from there.
First, the statistics are completely idiotic - the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science". SETI has scanned close to 0% of the sky, and has been operational for approximately 0% of the lifetime of the universe. Furthermore, most light from far-away parts of the universe hasn't even arrived yet. Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible. Sure, there might be 10^-100 probability of physical constants permitting stars to form, but there might be 10^200 universes being created every second, so... And, there were many planets found since that could potentially harbour life.
Second, even if we somehow assume that the authors are right (i.e. that their, completely unsubstantiated, estimates of the relevant probabilities are, miraculously, quite close), we cannot assume that "intelligent design", yet alone any specific religion, are right; simply, disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment; that's quite far removed from the description of "intelligent design" as usually propagated by religious people.
Absolutists in the other direction frequently display a certain inability to wedge in ideas that run counter to scientific dogma. This, even to the outright dismissal of evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, this adherence to dogma becomes a religion unto itself, complete with all of its faith-based articles.
It seems that you missed the entire tone of the article, and got stuck on the numbers (and your analysis there is partially incorrect, by the way).
Did you notice the evolution in science? What was initially supposed has since evolved dramatically. Sagan had a view that was widely accepted in scientific circles. Then, the narrowness of that view became increasingly apparent until the original assumption was rendered scientifically meaninglessness. Are you saying that didn't happen? If it has, then does it have any bearing on your strict adherence to scientific evidence or absolute certainty? Or, are you saying that we now have it 100% correct?
Did you also happen to notice quotes from Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, John Lennox or any of the rest of it?
But, here's one of your comment's biggest flaws:
>Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible
No one is talking about the search for life in other universes or even the search for other universes. You're confusing the relevant terms in your equation. Let's just stick to the one universe we know. It's the premise of the article, the search, the assumptions made by Sagan, etc.
I don't really want to refute each point. The bottom line, again, is that there's been an evolution in science that continues to this day.
>disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment
Sure, but it's pretty amazing that you are so selectively willing to allow for such "extreme" possibilities, but not ones for which thousands of years of history and some evidence exists. Wasn't that you who just invoked Occam's Razor?
First, you're dubbing religious people insane. Now, you're saying we might be living in an artificial experiment. You're willing to allow that there's some sort of "intelligent design", as long as it's not the one "propagated by religious people".
All totaled, it just seems that you have a bone to pick with religion, as much as a simple adherence to "science".
But, I'll leave you with this quote from Sagan, which sums up what I've been trying to express with far more eloquence:
"To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
Heard of the anthropic principle?
>> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.
That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it.
I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
>> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it.
Are these the same too?
Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :)
>sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do
There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it.
>I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs.
Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.
>taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases.
EDIT: You may find this interesting:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...
/EDIT
>Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?
Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.
"Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.
Well, I think, practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to think someone an idiot or outright insane, yet not have that impact the way we treat them.
And, it would be hard to separate a belief to which someone adheres his/her life from that person; and instead just judge that belief insane without judging the person the same.
More specifically, I think the degree to which we can separate the two are based on people's apparent adherence to their beliefs. So, the more they veil their beliefs, the more acceptable they are in the eyes of others who don't share them and would otherwise think them insane.
So, again, I don't think this is true tolerance.
And I agree that in many cases it is appropriate to go beyond tolerance to acceptance, but tolerance is more broadly warranted, even in some cases where acceptance is not.
And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"? It brings to mind the difference between granting certain rights vs. recognizing that they are truly inalienable and exist naturally.
With that in mind, I can't think of a case wherein acceptance is not "warranted", unless it involves harm to others or infringement on their rights. So, I'm not sure that acceptance is the right term, though, to your point, there may yet be one better than "true tolerance".
Of course, everyone is free to not accept or be tolerant or whatever we want to call it. I'm just arguing that is healthier to truly coexist and that there are implications to our choices that, at least in part, serve to define the world in which we live.
Its more something one individual bestows on other individuals. That a group can be said to be doing it or not is simply an aggregate description of the actions of individuals in the group.
> And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"?
Whether acceptance, tolerance, or intolerance or the default state, there is still utility in all three distinct terms to describe states that exist in the world.
If your religion falls apart because of a silly cartoon written by "some guy"...
> faggots
Not the word you meant.
If you identify as a Muslim you identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts that these Terrorists support.
It's hard to respect a religion that to all outsiders seems so completely insane.
I don't believe there are many modern christians that would say that the unchaste daughters of priests should be burnt alive [0], yet by your logic if someone "identifies" as a christian they "identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts".
Modern Islam is no more "completely insane" than any other religion (or sect of people, religious or not) and it is incredibly prejudiced to claim that it is any different. While terrorism and oppression is carried out in it's name, the same has been true for many religions and ideologies over time, (take Female Genital Mutilation in parts of africa, where 55% of christian women have experienced it[1], more than their muslim counterparts. It should be noted that this does happen in some muslim communities as well). To categorize a faith as "completely insane" based on the actions of violent extremists is unfair.