Thousands of Facebook bigots and racists organize to deny rape victim the right to marry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7947458.stm
J-Wrote -
And even more people from facebook oppose the ones you describe, I’m sure. Facebook is a social networking site. It can be used as a tool for anything.
B-Wrote-
So you both agree that organizing and promoting racism and bigotry is an appropriate use of facebook’s terms of service?
B-Wrote-
Creative use of logic there.
I-Wrote
Thanks B.
And yes, I did quite well in a formal logic class and a critical thinking class or two.
Do we agree that a creative use of logic in this instance is also a correct use of logic?
J-Wrote
It is as long as it’s not violating the terms of service.
I-Wrote-
And you both agree that this facebook group is by its definition and objectives in addition to being racist and bigoted, it is also anti-Islam? – meaning you object to marriage even in cases of rape when it is male and female Muslims getting married.
Just curious. We are all friends here, right?
S-Wrote
I believe facebook is for everyone whether they are bigots or not.
You can’t discriminate people based on their views. That’s as bad as being racist.
I-Wrote-
People may believe as they see fit. Fair enough. I would suggest that everyone can and should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their views. The whole point of this group on facebook is to defend the claimed sanctity of traditional marriage, between one man and one women, even though in the bible, the basis for this argument, there are hero men with multiple wives. So why doesn’t polygamy count as “traditional marriage?”
In the United States we accept certain rights of association and assembly. However, the issue is, facebook is a private company and is it contractually obligated to tolerate bigots and racists on its service.
You seem to agree that facebook can and should support the bigoted and racist world view of some of its participants and is obligated to provide a public forum to advance that agenda. Further, questioning this assumption that facebook is obligated to provide a gathering place for racists and bigots, makes the questioner no different and bad as the bigots and racists he is questioning.
Fair enough, so we agree this group is fundamentally racist and bigoted and everyone agrees, facebook included, this is a good thing that should be encouraged. Because to do otherwise would make us no better than bigoted racists.
Using two examples from my own life, I want to be sure we are in agreement and I understand your argument.
I came upon a man who was about to smash his wife’s head in with a lamp. I asked him to stop and he did. Therefore I am no different than the man who attempted to murderer his wife.
As a child, I played in bomb craters left by German bombs. Therefore, I am a Nazi.
Is this the idea you are trying to convey?
J-Wrote
“And you both agree that this facebook group is by its definition and objectives in addition to being racist and bigoted, it is also anti-Islam?”
This group? Racist? And anti-Islam? How does that work?
I-Wrote-
Thanks for asking.
You don’t have to read a newspaper to know Islamic marriage is polygamous and this group defines marriage as one man and one woman only. Therefore it is anti-Islam. You will agree this group makes no exception for polygamist marriage in the case of rape and incest, yes?
Be my guest and come out in favor of polygamist marriage.
The racism comes in by way of the special creation, basically, embracing the genesis story as opposed to the evolution story, makes all Abrahamic religions racist. It’s a fun, but rather long and involved argument. That being said, when Cain had to go live with those other not-quite humans – Afganies, get it?
What is interesting to me is, two of the three organizers are from outside the United States. This is obviously an international group with no tolerance for anything other than a very limited Christian definition of marriage on the world stage.
Feel free to disagree. So far everyone seems to be defending facebook’s right to spread bigotry and racism.
J-Wrote
“You don’t have to read a newspaper to know Islamic marriage is polygamous and this group defines marriage as one man and one woman only.”
I somehow doubt that Islam marriage is always polygamous.
“Therefore it is anti-Islam.”
Either that, or anti-polygamy. You can just as easily say that this group is anti-Utah.
“You will agree this group makes no exception for polygamist marriage in the case of rape and incest, yes?”
The issue was never brought up. This group is clearly anti-gay marriage. I doubt its creators thought as far ahead as you are thinking.
“Be my guest and come out in favor of polygamist marriage. ”
Why? Do you want me to, or something?
“The racism comes in by way of the special creation, basically, embracing the genesis story as opposed to the evolution story, makes all Abrahamic religions racist.”
How? And wow, are you seriously calling the Jews, of all people, racist? That’s a good one.
“That being said, when Cain had to go live with those other not-quite humans – Afganies, get it?”
Wait, what?
“What is interesting to me is, two of the three organizers are from outside the United States. ”
It’s possible to be homophobic outside of the United States.
“This is obviously an international group with no tolerance for anything other than a very limited Christian definition of marriage on the world stage.”
Finally, something I can totally agree with you about.
“So far everyone seems to be defending facebook’s right to spread bigotry and racism.”
Yeah, it’s called the freedom of speech. As much as I dislike bigotry and racism, I’d still rather allow people the freedom to express it than to censor absolutely everything that comes my way. Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, one of the reasons that comes up on the drop-down menu if you report someone is “attacks individual or group,” so the offender(s) can be dealt with.
I-Wrote
- I somehow doubt that Islam marriage is always polygamous.
I didn’t say it was. Polygamy is both more common and more rare than monogamy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy. As a member of this group, I provided one very specific example and asked this group to take a position.
- Either that, or anti-polygamy. You can just as easily say that this group is anti-Utah.
Utah is a state that has outlawed polygamy and the practice of plural marriage was banned by the Mormon Church. Whether or not polygamists should be imprisoned for violating laws within the United States is another discussion.
I am attempting to get this group to take a position on one vary specific issue.
- The issue was never brought up.
It is being brought up now.
-This group is clearly anti-gay marriage. I doubt its creators thought as far ahead as you are thinking.
Fair enough. Then lets clarify our position, shall we? A member of this group is pointing out its one man one woman marriage law is also anti-Islam. Assuming this group’s focus is anti-gay marriage, a pro-polygamous Islamic marriage statement by the group would easily correct this problem. Obviously there are other religions that practice polygamy.
However, we here in the United States happen to be in two wars right now with Muslim religious extremists. One of the battle grounds happens to be in Afghanistan. The United States along with its allies invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack, remember? Now I am asking this group to take a position on one specific woman who lives in Afghanistan today as a second wife. This group was formed before this particular woman was married. It is possible to remain anti-gay marriage, while embracing Afghanistan’s Islamic-based polygamous marriage laws. In this particular example I am asking this group to make an exception to the one man, one woman rule, in a specific case of gang rape.
- Why? Do you want me to, or something?
Yes. I am asking this group to make a distinction between anti-gay marriage and Islam. It’s not that hard to do, once it is brought to your attention. There is a certain absurdity to this question once it, don’t you agree?
- How?
Basically, in the United States, after the American civil war, many southern states established, “separate but equal” laws which were largely based on the book of genesis. The idea goes that god created all human beings in their current form. The problem is, according to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in God’s image and not all people look alike. Cain went to live with somebody. So, by this argument, some people are created more in God’s image than others. These “separate but equal” ultimately led to the civil rights movement which over-turned the biblically derived, “separate but equal” laws as racist. It’s a long argument, that is barely a synopsis.
- And wow, are you seriously calling the Jews, of all people, racist? That’s a good one.
Thanks, but I did not say “the Jews” are racist. Nor did I state there is a special magical creature called “the Jews.” This gets back to the special creation, “separate but equal” argument, which I reject. I think all human beings have the same set of common ancestors. But, so what. This has nothing to do with anti-gay marriage, or my question, what is this facebook’s group, which I joined of my own free will, position on polygamous marriage in one very specific example of gang rape.
-Wait, what?
The United States allows religious conversion, meaning in this country all religions are based on the right of association. Anyone in the United States can convert to Judaism if they so choose. Allowing conversion somewhat defeats the argument of “the Jews” as a single ethnic group. There are those who argue, ‘”the Jews,” as a statement is racist.
Judaism’s public tolerance, private racism is discussed in detail in Scott Atran’s, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.
Again we are talking about a religious philosophy, not individual human beings. I think human beings are kind to one another despite their religion.
It is possible for facebook as company to tolerate, encourage, and empower, bigots and racists, without actual individual human members of the company being racist and bigots. My post title is exactly right.
As far as the Afghani people are concerned, given the way the National Institution of Health’s current human race classification has been turned into a religious tool largely thanks to the previous administration, it is debatable if the NIH currently recognizes the people of Afghanistan as members of the human races or not. (For the record, I think human beings are all members of the same human race. This depends on how you define race, of course.) But that too, is neither here nor there.
My question remains, is this group tolerant of Muslim polygamous marriage in cases of rape, or not? This should be a no-brainer answer. Countries based on Islamic law are hardly noted for their acceptance of gay marriage. There is no “slippery-slope” on this issue.
It seems to me, opposition to gay marriage is something all Abrahamic religions should be able to agree on.
This group’s mission statement seems to step on the toes of Allah, however unintended. I’m asking for a clarification, that’s all.
- It’s possible to be homophobic outside of the United States.
Inside too. And on the pages of facebook. I have joined exactly two facebook groups on the subject of gay marriage, one group in favor of gay marriage, one group (this) opposed.
Are you saying that homophobia and being opposed to gay marriage are the same thing? I live in California and as a voter, this was not how the argument against gay marriage was presented to me. Just the opposite, in fact. I think it is possible to be opposed to gay marriage without being homophobic or anti-Islam. Do you disagree?
-Finally, something I can totally agree with you about.
And do we agree that Islam must conform to a Christian definition of marriage? – Meaning one man and one woman only, even in cases of rape. Even in Muslim countries where polygamy is legal, such as the example of the Muslim woman who became the second wife in Afghanistan.
-Yeah, it’s called the freedom of speech.
Finally, something I can totally agree with you about. We agree, Facebook is in the business of organizing, racists, bigots, and, religious extremists. I guess that is why facebook is worth so much money.
- As much as I dislike bigotry and racism
Me too!
- Oh, and in case you didn’t notice
I did. We agree that facebook is in the business of protecting, bigots, racists, and religious extremists from attacks. This is obviously a brilliant and highly profitable business model.
- the drop-down menu
Ah, yes, that. I don’t feel like I’m being attacked by you. I am questioning how my group’s policy, which we agree is about banning gay marriage where ever it is legal – South Africa comes to mind, affects Islamic marriage in one specific instance. We agree that it is entirely possible that the Russian founders (they may only live there, granted) of this group may only be interested in passing anti-gay marriage laws in California. However, the group itself has taken an international stance which contradicts Islamic law and tradition.
In Jerusalem, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, were able to cooperate to protest a gay parade. Some Rabbi’s offered to pay Muslims to kill the gay marchers. See, Abrahamics can all get along given the right issue.
I’m just asking my group to clarify one little position which in no way seeks to refute or challenge anyone’s opposition to gay marriage.
So does my group support a one man, two women exception in cases of rape in Afghanistan for Muslims, where polygamy is legal, and consent with all parties is given, and are we are fighting a war?
Most Christians will tolerate an abortion in the instance of rape, I’m asking within this group, should Islamic marriage be tolerated by the exact same standard as most Christians tolerate an abortion.
Or does my group support a one man, one woman, no rape exception rule, and believe Islam must submit in all countries, including Afghanistan, to “a very limited Christian definition of marriage.”
