Writing in the Groan’s talk is cheap (yeah, I know, I know, I should know better, but it’s like picking at a scab) Jonathan Birdwell talks of an experiment that reveals the hidden Islamophobia lurking in the dark recesses of our minds.
A recent experiment, soon to be published in the journal of experimental social psychology, offers provocative evidence that Islamophobia operates in the dark recesses of our unconscious. In the experiment, participants played a computer simulation and were asked to shoot individuals carrying weapons and to spare those unarmed. Participants were more likely to shoot unarmed individuals who were wearing turbans or hijabs. More interestingly, they were unaware and incredulous that they were doing so. The author of the experiment, Christian Unkelbach, a visiting scholar at Australia’s University of New South Wales, has called this “the turban effect” and blames one-sided media reports.
Oh, well, that’s conclusive, then. The “turban effect” Ye Gods, is there no end to the bullshit these people will come up with?
A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred. Arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders. It is irrational because a spider in your bath is not going to do you any harm. A fear of something that may do you harm is not irrational. A dislike of someone’s religious beliefs and convictions is neither irrational nor is it a fear, necessarily. I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it: I dislike Islam. The “religion of peace” is nothing of the sort. It is a proselytising religion that has in the past used conversion by sword-point to conquer the Middle East and parts of Europe. Disliking this is not irrational. Disliking the cultural baggage that goes with it; the misogyny, the treatment of homosexuals and apostates, the brutal treatment of adulterers while supporting so called honour killing – all in the name of Islam – is not irrational. It is perfectly reasonable. People who dislike this religion are not Islamophobic, they are, for the most part, reasonable, rational people.
Of course, there are many Muslims in this country who came here to escape the kind of things I’ve just mentioned. More power to their elbow. And, I have no qualms with them indulging in their religious ceremonies if that is what they choose. But, do not label me as islamophobic because I find the religion distasteful and puhleese, lay off the pseudo-scientific psycho-babble and stupid “experiments” to confirm your prejudices and support your silly assertions.
Yup. All seems fair enough to me. I could add a thousand things to that list of why Islam is the shittest of all religions.
The true Islamophobes are those, like the ZanuLab multiculti lot and the Archbish of Cant, who are so petrified that they daren’t say “boo” to the most outrageous Muslim demands for ‘respect’, special privileges, and more public space.
These cowards are the best recruiting agents the BNP has got.
It’s interesting that in your piece on Islam you criticise the religion but not the people, but when it comes to the catholic article below you not only insult the people who participate in this religion, you also refer to their “imaginary friend”and insult the leaders of the church.
Whilst I admire you outspoken style, perhaps a little more consistency in your approach may be in order.
Allah is as much an imaginary friend as Krishna, Yaweh or any of the other gods man has invented. I am more than happy to insult the leaders of Islam – it’s just that on this occasion, they were not the subject under discussion.
There is nothing inconsistent with accepting that people should be left alone to practice whatever religion they so please. The articles were different simply because the context was different. Had it been, say, Imams getting their knickers in a knot over whether the Sunnis wanted to allow women to preach in Mosques and the Shias were against it, my comments would have been the same; i.e. a bunch of silly old men in frocks arguing about their imaginary friend and who can join their club.
I despise religion and I despise the leaders of these religions (all of them) as they are nothing more than charlatans – I do not despise the ordinary people who believe in it. Contempt for their imaginary friend is just that. If people believe in it, that is none of my concern and I do not seek to de-convert them. My approach, therefore is entirely consistent.
BTW LR, on a tangential but connected subject, there was an interesting discussion on Oliver Kamm’s blog concerning the notions of “respect” and “civility”. For my part there is no problem: I’m happy to be civil – even polite – to Muslims (or any other religious nutters) when discussing religion: what I do not have is any respect for their religion or them as believers in Islam. “Respect” is earned (something religious nutters conveniently forget); “civility” is exactly what it says on the tin – something without which civil society is unworkable.
Longrider,
It is telling the choice of words the NuLeft use to describe their contrived idea about racism and prejudice – Islamophobia describes a fear of Islam; I for one have never been afraid of it nor the lawless behaviour or contempt it shows for Kaffirs like me.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
Umbongo, precisely. This is a bit like that story recently regarding children being criticised for being “disrespectful”. If we are to have freedom of speech, then that includes the freedom to be disrespectful.
I am happy enough to tolerate religious people indulging in their religion. Indeed, I would actively defend their right to do so. I am happy enough to be civil with them in discourse. But… I don’t respect it and I certainly don’t respect religious leaders who talk to the sky and pass on the reply to their followers. Charlatans and snake oil salesmen, the lot of ’em.
Thom, Islamophobia falls into the same disingenuous use of language as “denier”. It is used to demonise and stifle dissent.
I am not happy to tolerate religious people indulging in their religion if it is a religion which teaches them that they are superior to believers of other faiths and non-believers, and that God, or Allah, tells them they are entitled to religious and social dominance.
It took took 150 years, from the Reformation to the glorious Revolution of 1688, to rid England of the pretensions of the Pope. Are we now mad enough to submit to the pretensions of the followers of ‘Allah’?
My tolerance and acceptance is based on religion being a private matter. I start to object when practitioners seek to impose their beliefs on me – or others. That’s where my line is drawn.
I would hope that Islam will at some point in the near future experience an enlightenment.
The answer to your final question – on a personal note, at least – mirrors that old scrote Ian Paisley; Never, Never, Never!
Alas, there is no such thing as religion being a purely private matter. Religion is by its nature inherently political. Over the past 60 years I have known and worked with, or opposed, many religious people. I have never known one who did not believe that their faith entitled – indeed, obligated – them to endeavour to mould society more into their own image of ‘godliness’. They did not always do it as stridently as is the case today, but it is an unavoidable consequence of ‘faith’.
Have a look at Tom Freeman’s latest post on ‘Freemania’.
True, but I am prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt until they betray it. If they leave me alone, then I’ll reciprocate. If they cross the line, then I’ll object.
Freedom of religion is one of the basic civil liberties, so I support peoples’ right to believe what they want to believe and to worship whatever imaginary deity they want to worship. The reality is, as you say, an attempt to convert the rest of us (particularly from the Abrahamic religions). Then they are treading on my civil liberty of freedom from religion.
Good comment from Tom Freeman. I concur absolutely with him.
Anticant,
Religion certainly is like this – relationship with God is entirely different and (in the bible in any case) is what is taught as being the only way to get to heaven.
Faith is inherently personal; God deals with us on the individual level first, which empowers us to do great things for him – anything else is just superstition and woo.
Longrider,
A Christians main duty is to preach the gospel; if the people they are preaching to do not accept it then we are told to move on (Luke 9:5) – I freely admit there are people to this day who have got this so very wrong as to want to force or coerce people to convert; you cannot change a man’s heart, only God can do that, and the man first has to want it changing.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
Here, I’m very much with Anticant. If I really, really wanted to return to the fold, I know where to find a church. What I do not want, is someone preaching the gospel at me – I don’t want to have to tell them to move on – I don’t want them to even start. On the few occasions that it has occurred, they have been rather too persistent for my liking (one spent about half an hour going on and on and on despite the negative vibes and requests to desist), so the Gospel according to St Luke clearly bypassed them 😉
Turbans are the preserve of Sikhism so how can shooting someone wearing one be in any way Islamophobic? Sikhaphobic surely? 🙂
When flying back from Oz, I was sitting near to a Muslim chap and we talked for the entirety of the journey. He told me that Islam had been misjudged and then told me a great deal about the more positive aspects.
I asked him about specific passages in the Koran where it talks about killing those who aren’t of the Book meaning not one of the three Abrahamic faiths and of course of the subjugation of women and many other things. His reply was that these passages had been taken out of context when to be frank, there’s no way when you read them you could take them to mean anything else.
Anyhow, he handled my questioning well but I was shaken when he said out of the blue “of course, killing atheists is no bad thing. Atheism is one thing God cannot tolerate.” I said “you’re joking surely?” He wasn’t, he said it like it was nothing.
Jonathans last blog post..Sky Blue & Black
One thing all religions are able to agree on is their contempt for those of us who do not share their belief. Doncha just luvvem?
So something that doesn’t exist condones the killing of those who don’t believe in something that doesn’t exist. How rational is that?
I do not feel contempt for you, only sadness; from previous postings (and please correct me if I’m wrong; I frequently am) it sounds like you have been badly burnt by religion or religious people – you are not the first and I doubt you will be the last.
A close friend once invited me to a philosophy department Christmas party; amongst our chosen table guests were several atheists, a satanist and 3 Christians (me, my friend and another). One of the atheists seemed particularly keen on debating religion in general (one of the reasons my friend invited me was that he wasn’t overcome with questions and criticisms that he himself felt hard to answer); we talked about many concerns and qualms that people have with Christianity, the apparent contradictions and the actions of Christians themselves – we then turned the debating round to why the person themselves was an atheist and came to a startling discovery.
She had been, prior to entering university, a devout Christian; she had made the conscious decision to be baptised as an adult, had frequented bible studies, prayer meetings, had the decoder ring and lunch box..the works. Her pastor, however, had been a very bad person; she had robbed the church of vital funds and ran off with an elder to the US talking a sizeable portion of the church’s resources and faith in the process. This itself was I felt the reason for this persons disbelief in God and I believe that this is frequently the cause of so much resentment of Christianity (and in a slightly darker way, Islam) today.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
You would be wrong, I’m afraid. I simply reached a point where I realised that I didn’t believe. You either do or you don’t. I’m not into Pascal’s wager.
It is as simple as that. For the most part, I’m happy to live and let live. I only get angry when religious groups seek to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. Or, worse, attempt to hijack the law to get their way.
Longrider,
Fair enough.
(*rushes off to google Pascals wager*: fascinating wiki page, but I dont believe in “the probability of God” – we cannot see the wind and yet know it exists through its effects; knowing which signs to look for in both cases is all that is required. Also you need only read about the history of the Jewish people in both biblical and modern times to realise just how serious God takes people who “hedge their bets”; it isn’t faith its superstition.)
I too get very angry about this as I mentioned before, and as before it is reciprocated with such nonsenses like forcing Christian adoption agencies to cater to homosexuals like Children were toys in some massive sociological engineering study.
Nuff from me on the subject; happy non-believing! 😉
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice