SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
White Americans may view diversity and multiculturalism more negatively as the U.S. moves toward becoming a minority-majority nation, UCLA psychologists report.
As part of their study, the researchers divided 98 white Americans from all regions of the country — half male, half female, with an average age of 37 — randomly into two groups. One group was told that whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S. by 2050; in fact, this is likely to be true as soon as 2043, according to some projections. The second group was told that whites would retain their majority status in the U.S. through at least 2050. All participants were then asked a series of questions about their views on diversity.
“Whites feel lukewarm about diversity when they are told that they are about to lose their majority status in the United States for the first time,” said Yuen Huo, UCLA professor of psychology and the study’s senior author.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/soon-to-become-a-minority-in-the-u-s-whites-express-declining-support-for-diversity-ucla-psychology-study-finds
[PAPER]: No Longer “All-American”? Whites’ Defensive Reactions to Their Numerical Decline:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/13/1948550614546355
(Score: 4, Interesting) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:15AM
The road humanity is on has a ditch on both sides. There's an admirable quality, hard won and painstakingly nurtured these last few hundred years, to avoid the vileness and depravity of racism and xenophobia. Yet in our efforts to guide the vehicle of civilization, we should be wise to the danger of overcorrection; of jerking the wheel hard to one side to avoid disaster, only to find ourselves in an equally miserable state just in a ditch with a different flavor of mud.
Tolerance and pluralism are admirable qualities among groups willing to reciprocate to each other the same courtesies. It's suicidal and masochistic to pretend that all groups, cultures, religions, are the same. Some don't play nice with others. And this is a human fault. We all have it. Accidents of history and geography have dialed it up in certain places, times, and among certain people. You have the Jains [wikipedia.org] on one side, who refuse to even kill insects, and you have Indonesian tribes who (until recently) lived in a state of perpetual war of all against all and practiced ritual executions as a passage into manhood (for the executioner, that is).
And extremism isn't the problem either. An extremist Jain walks around barefoot with his eyes on the ground, avoiding stepping on ants. He would let himself be murdered rather than fight back in self defense. If your fundamentals are truly non-violent, I don't have to worry about your groups' fundamentalists. I'm just never going to have to worry about being harmed by a Jain. It'll never happen. If it did, you'd cease to be able to make sense of their actions based on their religion, and this is the crucial part, they wouldn't be able to make sense of them either. There are plenty of other religions that mandate I be killed simply for criticizing the faith, and promise reward if someone dies in the act of killing me.
This is my main problem, and departure, from modern liberalism. I can't get on board with this project of flattening the real differences between every group and pretending no one wishes anyone ill will. It just doesn't track with what I see around me. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:29AM
Christ taught pacifism and love, yet there are plenty of violent, hateful christians, now and throughout history. saying they aren't christians when its what they self-proclaim to be would be a "no true scotsman" (even though they aren't Christians, as in "follows of the teachings of Jesus"); what do we call them?
most religious fundie extremists are simply using religion as an excuse and are about as far off from being actual followers of it as you can get. if you need some proof, look at literally any religious fundie/extremist group.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:49AM
Christ taught pacifism and love
He also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Let's not play this game. There's enough in the bible to interpret it any way you want. It's a diverse document. The Quran is more coherent (toward violence). The doctrines of Jainism are even more coherent (toward non-violence). So, again, if your fundamentals are non-violent and unalloyed, then I don't need to worry about the fundamentalists that your community produces. If your fundamentals are violent, or send mixed-messages, I will need to worry about at least some of them.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:07AM
> The Quran is more coherent (toward violence).
Pretend you just heard a deprecating snort.
Its good to know that you, someone who has never been a muslim is qualified to tell muslims about their religion.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:28AM
I'm afraid I can't form an argument against nasal grunts so I'll tell a parable instead. An obese man came to his physician, short of breath and clutching at the pain behind his sternum. The man in white began to speak but was interrupted, "It's good to know that you, doctor, someone who has never had a heart attack, is qualified to tell a patient about this condition." The doctor didn't have an argument against that either. Some ideas are so stupid that merely repeating them back suffices.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:51AM
So you are an expert on islam. You've got a PhD in middle eastern religion.
That's kind of funny you should hold such opinions then because literally no one else with such a degree agrees with you.
Not a single fucking one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @11:43AM
Different AC.
People who devote the time and effort required to become an expert on something generally don't think that something is bullshit, bad for society, etc. -- even if it is. So if you base your opinion on Islam from people who have devoted their lives to it ... you might come away with a slanted view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:56PM
And all those scholars of nazi germany are pining for der fuher to return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:58AM
Different AC here. Your comparison of a heart attack to being a Muslim is very telling, but it is a false equivalency.
Please provide quotes from the Quran supporting this just as you quoted from the bible. That should be argument enough.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:20AM
I can do better than giving a few examples. There's an absolutely fantastic resource that catalogs all of these things in the Bible and the Quran. Here's the relevant link to violence and cruelty section.
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran - Cruelty in the Quran [skepticsannotatedbible.com]
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:31AM
Hey, you surprised me!
I haven't seen that one before.
A cruel god is the same thing as promoting violence.
eyeroll
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:43AM
Cruelty and violence are practically synonyms, yes. There's plenty of both in this context. I'm not sure what you're even trying to defend at this point. Your incredulity is approaching self-parody, so this will have to be my last comment in this thread because you're not actually contributing anything of substance.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:57AM
> Cruelty and violence are practically synonyms, yes.
Cruelty by God is not even close to advocating that his adherents practice violence.
> Your incredulity is approaching self-parody,
And your credulity in the kind of spittle-spraying lunacy of sites like thereligionofpeace.com while implying that you have a doctorate level understanding of the religion is a parody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:25AM
That's a rabbit hole that is pointless to go down. I've done it too many times.
The guy will quote the "sword verse" and a couple of others.
You can point out the context was limited to a specific conflict, he'll deny that it is limited.
You can point out all the other verses that do not have a limited context and preach peace, he'll cite some obscure verse that says you can ignore all of the parts about peace.
You can point out that no serious scholar of islam agrees with his interpretation of that obscure verse, he'll insist that he's still right.
You'll come away convinced that all the stuff about islam being a religion of violence really is just crazytown paranoia, he'll think you are a libtard.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:40AM
Well, as a "libtard" (Social Democrat, usually vote Green Party USA), I probably wouldn't automatically reach for that sort of attack--or an attack at all for that matter. I'll just point out that these are some very poorly formed ideas you've mentioned that don't map onto reality with much accuracy.
It's worth pointing out that most of the calls for violence in the Quran are both open-ended and aggressive [thereligionofpeace.com]. That means to say that they are not limited in time or to a specific historical grievance. Calls to violence are usually directed to go on for as long as non-Muslims and criminals exist, and are not meant to be strictly defensive in nature. Apostates (Muslims who become atheists or convert to a different religion) are also explicitly targeted for violence. Please, just read the Quran yourself.
no serious scholar of islam
Most serious scholars of Islam are Muslims themselves, so not the best source of unbiased analysis. I'd never look to a devout Christian for an accurate account of the Bible, especially not when these materials are so readily available for any literate person to make their own judgements.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:51AM
Dude, you are citing the thereligionofpeace.com -- its game over right there.
If looking at the front page of that website doesn't convince you that they are a bunch of bigots with zero academic qualifications, then hope is lost for you.
> Most serious scholars of Islam are Muslims themselves
While the idea that the people who practice a religion can't have an informed opinion of their own religion is circular reasoning on the level of drowning a witch to prove she isn't a witch, all of the non-muslims with PhD's in middle eastern religion also disagree with you.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:09AM
It's mostly just a collection of links to other sites. But stay off the front page as the commentary is rather tactless and unfiltered by any restraint of decency. I'm very critical of Islam, as I am with all religions, but I do not hate anyone. I also am very explicit that one should not fall into the trap of conflating Islam (the religion) with any ethnic group. Anyway, It's a decent compilation of actual quotes from the Quran on the page to which I linked. So there's not a criticism of any substance there.
It's really illustrative of how tuned up political correctness is about this subject. You simply can't speak ill of Islam on the left. It's frustrating, as a liberal, when the only people willing to speak candidly with me about this topic also have some rather frightening political baggage that I of which I want no part. Then I turn around and say there's a disturbing amount of depravity and violence in the Christian Bible too, and I'm left standing alone. Well I'm not going to pull punches from either side just to gain friends.
the people who practice a religion can't have an informed opinion of their own religion is circular reasoning
What do you call someone so open-minded and critical of their own religion that they are willing to leave it? Can you find me one? I'm sorry, but you're appealing to authority and it just doesn't work for me. It's white noise. If you're a true believe, you are too biased to participate in this specific conversation. There are other topics they'd be value contributors to, but a critical analysis of religion's struggle with secularism isn't one.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:18AM
> It's a decent compilation of actual quotes from the Quran on the page to which I linked. So there's not a criticism of any substance there.
Yeah, like the sword verse. Been down that rabbit hole before. You with your doctorate level understanding of islam should know the context of those quotes and the interpretations put on them by non-crazy people. But you don't, you take TROP's bullshit at face value because you have precisely zero cultural literacy in islam.
> What do you call someone so open-minded and critical of their own religion that they are willing to leave it?
Yeah, the only good muslim is a former muslim. Heard that line of bullshit all the time on sites like TROP.
> I'm sorry, but you're appealing to authority and it just doesn't work for me.
So if the people who are experts on the topic are out, what does that leave?
> Then I turn around and say there's a disturbing amount of depravity and violence in the Christian Bible too, and I'm left standing alone.
So what? No one is attacking Christians here, that's just cover for you to attack muslims. Don't give me that "I hate all religions equally" bullshit.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:21AM
I guess we have to stop talking then, if you simply refuse to believe me when I plainly state what I actually believe and just assume I'm acting in bad faith. That's usually how this sort of thing ends and it is very disappointing to me.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:37AM
> I guess we have to stop talking then, if you simply refuse to believe me when I plainly state what I actually believe and just assume I'm acting in bad faith.
Words and actions man.
You take TROP at face value, what am I supposed to think?
You deny that anyone with a PhD in islamic studies whether they are muslim or not, could know better than you, what am I supposed to think?
How about this. You do what I've done. Run through each one of those citations from TROP. Google the verse number and the word "quran" and read the interpretations from people who aren't bigots. Yes, I have done that. Once upon a time, about a decade ago, I thought maybe there was something to all this hate for muslims. You know, where there is smoke there is fire. But in every single case, every ... single ... case, the interpretation from those assholes was that of extremists, not the mainstream.
The quran is like any other popular religion - when you read the quran, it reads you. If you want to find advocacy for hate and violence in it, that is what you will find. Not because it is there, but because it is in you and that's what you chose to see, it is the lens you wear.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:30AM
Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett, religious scholarship is like stamp collecting: very few people do it, and they have little influence. A sophisticated and liberal scholar might have a nuanced and tempered understanding of their religion compatible with contemporary secular society, but he doesn't have any authority or influence on the vast majority of believers who are more than willing to take on board the unsophisticated version of the faith. Those are the people I'm concerned with. What the PhDs say is essentially irrelevant, because it just hasn't gained much currency. If all Muslims were like that, accepted those interpretations, then we could call it a day.
I don't know what your background is, but you sound like you've done at least as much reading as I have so share with me what you've found. Let's start with a simple topic. Apostasy. Educate me on what Islam's position is on that. Give me the most charitable interpretation. From what I've read, the Quran specifies that it is a serious crime (16:106) that must be punished, it doesn't specify how or to what extent. The Hadith reaffirms that it is a crime, and adds that the proper punishment is death (Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:260). There are over 20 Muslim countries that actively punish apostates in some way, including with death. You just don't see this sort of thing with other religions today. So what am I missing about apostasy?
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:11PM
or influence on the vast majority of believers who are more than willing to take on board the unsophisticated version of the faith. Those are the people I'm concerned with. What the PhDs say is essentially irrelevant, because it just hasn't gained much currency.
I will hold you to that. What the vast unwashed masses of muslims actually do is what matters. Not what a small minority of extremists do. Not what their books say. Not what their scholars say. Not what other scholars say about their books.
With respect to apostasy then, all the verses in the quran that say there is no compulsion in religion don't really count. [themodernreligion.com] Nor does it count when the quranic scholars says that it isn't apostasy that uniquely requires punishment in this life, [blogspot.co.uk] but apostasy combined with their version of treason against the state. [fiqhcouncil.org]
What matters to you is how it is actually practised. So to that I say the actual number of people executed for apostasy by any recognized government is vanishingly small and it only happens in the most extremist of theocracies like Iran and Saudi where they execute people for things like drug trafficking at a rate at that are couple of orders of magnitude higher. Sure, a lot of people are casually in favor of the concept, but they don't care so much about it that they are willing to actually make it happen. Same thing with treason laws in the USA, technically a capital offence, but no one has been executed for it in generations.
That's not to say all is good and fine with how these conservative societies handle basic human rights that we take for granted, only that the western definition of apostasy isn't their definition of apostasy. There are a lot bigger problems that those countries have with respect to free speech in general, just like basically every 3rd world country and some 1st world countries. [volokh.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:34AM
This thread is not about whether all Abrahamic faiths are intrinsically violent, nor about whether all religions are toxic to secular society. This thread is about the claim that there is only one religion, Islam, that specifically and unequivocally demands that non-believers be converted or killed. That claim is not true.
There surely are Islamic cults that latch on to particular verses of the Quran and follow them manically, but that same phenomenon gives the Christians Jonestown and the 1996 Olympics bomber. Christians, as a group, seem to have worked themselves around to disclaiming their more radical and extremist factions over the past 50 or so years, but it's been much easier for them to see and communicate the abuses in the name of their faith than relatively isolated Muslims. Maybe that's something the Christians should thank Martin Luther for: the notion that there can be many disparate forms of Christianity, so each sect can distance itself from offensive practices of Christianity, where we still seem to think all Muslims are either Sunni or Shia and "all the same."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:49PM
I wouldn't put it on Martin Luther - Islam has more religious diversity than christianity, its just the western eye that barely even notices shia and sunni much less alawites, qutbists, whabbis, sufis, and thousands of others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I'd give much more credit to the magna carta for its part in reducing dictatorship. Religion is a favorite tool of despots, the saudi royal family just love to promote the salafis because it simultaneously gives them cover to be casually brutal to their own subjects and to distract from their own failings -- that political rabble rouser is blaspheming, kill them! (and ignore what they had to say about government).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:14AM
Different AC here. Your comparison of a heart attack to being a Muslim is very telling, but it is a false equivalency.
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
and
The Quran is more coherent (toward violence).
Please provide quotes from the Quran supporting this just as you quoted from the bible. That should be argument enough.
A different different AC here, just saying that while the Pope is supposedly infallible, only the Ummah in Islam is authoritative, and this can take some time to settle, especially when certain monarchies are funding Wahabis to corrupt the very nature of the one true religion, the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, but mostly I just want to say, one AC to another who is not the same AC, but quite possibly gweg, that AC debates over the fundamentals of religion are about as good as virgins discussing investment options.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:20PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:34AM
The problem you have, as it always is with people who can only see what's right in front of them, is confusing the uniform with the person.
You see the uniform of a particular group and think it means that the people who wear that uniform aren't actually people, that they are something less human than yourself. You cite jainism's non-violence as proof that extremism isn't a problem without realizing that people prone to violence simply self-select out of jainism. Unless you believe that every person is capable of living as a jain, your example is simply yet another case of confusing the uniform for the person.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:59AM
people prone to violence simply self-select out of jainism
The biggest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. It's passed on the same way language is. There's some conversion, but in general, religion grows from childhood indoctrination. We are highly social animals. If you grow up in a culture or under a religion that promotes violence and hatred of others, you are likely to exhibit those traits more often than someone in a different culture.
And again, a violent Jain simply couldn't justify their violence using their religion. He'd either admit he was acting inconsistent with his religion, or he'd be too delusional to notice--which is to say, too delusional to be considered sane.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:04AM
> The biggest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents.
You seem to be arguing that it is entirely possible for all people to be jains.
I have no response to that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:31AM
You seem to be arguing that it is entirely possible for all people to be jains. I have no response to that.
I will not intentionally step on a spider unless I have a problem with it. At the same time I do some varmint hunting to help ranchers keep their pastures relatively safe for cattle. Does it break the template?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:54AM
No it does not.
I'm sure that inside your head it is incredibly meaningful.
But for the rest of us who don't live in paranoid town it literally means nothing at all.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:30PM
This is my main problem, and departure, from modern liberalism.
Yep, modern liberalism is going down the tubes. They've turned their backs on important issues like equal rights for women and homosexuals because they think it's more important that we be friendly with, and import as many ultra-conservative Muslims into our society as possible, even though Islam is utterly opposed to these issues. Basically, modern liberalism has turned into a hate platform, hating Christianity and western culture, and in turn being friendly with everything that's opposed to those things, namely ultra-conservative, ultra-religious middle eastern culture. It's really a shame, because we were making great progress in getting away from loony religious ideas (Christian or otherwise), and making society equal for and tolerant of women and homosexuals, but now the liberals want to destroy it all in their quest to ally themselves with conservative Muslims.
Hint: when a Muslim rapes a woman and a western judge lets him off saying "he couldn't help himself because our culture is too different", that's modern liberalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:09PM
Holy shit dude, you're the victim of some pretty serious brainwashing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:46PM
Hint: when a Muslim rapes a woman and a western judge lets him off saying "he couldn't help himself because our culture is too different", that's modern liberalism.
Wow. That you think that has actually happened suggests mental illness on your part.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:00PM
No, he's right. That totally happened. [guardianlv.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:29PM
There's nothing in that link that even suggests a Muslim raped a woman and got off scot-free due to a liberal judge saying,
Victim blaming does happen, but its primarily, if not exclusively, a conservative thing. To suggest that the actions of conservatives are due to liberals is just lies and propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:30PM
Woooosh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:38PM
Double Whooosh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:53PM
Hhhm. I guess my ability to detect obviously contradictory statements in a post is not up to the task.
Could you help me with that by pointing out where the post is internally inconsistent?