chansen's picture

chansen

image

Stephen Fry writes, "Am I an Islamophobe?"

Thought this was worth sharing. Stephen just posted it.

 

Am I an Islamophobe?

There was a right old Twitter barney last week. It started with me defending Richard Dawkins –– always a difficult thing to do since he seems to be everyone’s least favourite atheist. Even atheists often express the wish that he’d “tone it down a bit”.

The usual hail of insults at Richard (and some at me) came down from the holier side of the twittersphere, followed by the inevitable “Ah, but Dawkins and you and your type never dare attack Islam, do you?”

They think this proves that we are cowards because Christians only meekly turn the other cheek, whereas Muslims put bombs on trains, in cars and go around shrieking ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as they detonate themselves and busloads of innocent men, women and children. If we atheists really had the courage of our convictions so far as as the irrationality and in some cases noxious detriment caused to mankind by religion went, we would give Islam as much as we gave Christianity.

Actually I am simply not interested in laying into one religion or another. To me they are all as UNTRUE as the next, which is the point and the only point of being an atheist. It’s not even an interesting point. It’s just that I don’t believe in God. I certainly don’t want to found groups, or persuade others into my way of thinking. Nor am I in the least unhappy in the company of the faithful. I find Unitarians, Quakers and the Liberal Reform wing of Judaism very easy to get along with since they are not concerned  with conversion, with proving themselves better or righter than anyone else, nor with splitting up into factions (or sects as they are known in religion) and destroying each other. Muslims kill other Muslims much more than they kill us, just as Christians used to do for centuries.

Anyway, I made the fundamental mistake of tweeting (just to show I wasn’t the coward they assumed I was) that of course I was against those Muslims who slaughtered, bombed and treated women in such charming ways.

Now the entire seesaw tilted and I was bombarded with tweets saying mostly stuff like”:-

"Disappointed that you are an Islamophobe, Stephen. Thought better of you."

Huh?

Sometimes it’s just a reflex tweet from someone who hasn’t put any thought into it, on other occasions the tweet claims that my saying a single word against any kind of Muslim is Islamophobia of the kind that feeds the vilely racist bigots of the EDL and BNP.

The squeezed liberal finds himself in the position that he cannot criticise Islamofascism because it’s somehow “racist” (although Islam encompasses many many races) or because it encourages acts of violence against innocent law-abiding honourable Muslims, which I would never for a second endorse. It is a topsy-turvy smothering of debate and an Orwellian denial of free-speech to declare that speaking out against violence will cause violence. I’m all for insult, as it happens, as long as it’s funny. But I have no time for assault. Only a few letters’ difference, but the two are a world away.

Naturally, like anyone interested in history, I have nothing but admiration for the breathtaking advances in chemistry, algebra, calculus, astronomy, optics, botany, general physics and chemistry not to mention poetry and philosophy made by Islamic scholars in its Golden Age in the late 13th century, especially in and around the Iberian city of Cordoba. Their talent and wide-ranging curiosity was not matched until 400 years later and the ages of Galileo, Newton and Pascal. What is more, they worked and lived happily alongside Christians and Jews.

Sadly we live in more worrying times. Phobos is the Greek for fear. Am I afraid of certain fanatical Christians, Muslims, Lord’s Resistance Army fighters or any other group like that? You bet your cute keister I’m afraid. I am afraid of anyone who hates me and everything I stand for and wants me and the civilisation I grew up in destroyed. I am afraid of any state or religious endorsed brute squad that suddenly smashes my door down at three in the morning and drags me to the wall to be shot. I am afraid of any group of people wherever they’re from and whomever they do or don’t worship who see justification for explosions that cause human blood to run like rivers down the streets.

Ah, but do I believe that all Muslims want to see my civilisation destroyed? That they are all bombers in the making? Of course I don’t.

The fact that I need to go through this absurd liberal court of inquisition in which I have to repeat these mantras is what, as Peter Griffin would say, really grinds my gears: 

"I promise I do not think all Muslims are fanatics.”

"I go out of my way to smile at them when sitting opposite them on the tube."

"I think it is terrible the way a whole community is distrusted because a fanatical few."

Do I hate Muslims? Absolutely not. Any more than I hate Christians. Or Jews, or Hindus, or anyone on account of their beliefs, or lack of them. I just hate, really, really hate the idea of being hated. Of being in someone’s black book. And there may be only a fanatical few Muslims, just as there only a fanatical few Christians, but boy - the damage they can do. The hatred they can foment.

So it comes down to this.

I am not an Islamophobe:

I am a violentsuicidallyfanatichatefilledkillerofpeopletheyhaventevenmet-ophobe. And that group might easily include Americans, Russians or Britons, come to that.

There. I hope that’s clear.

 

 

http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/59775876379/am-i-an-islamophobe

 

Share this

Comments

Neo's picture

Neo

image

That was well written, anyone who quotes Peter Griffin can't be that bad, right?

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Sounds reasonable. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...have been irked by this stereotyping for years. Perhaps from experience will come empathy.

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

the minions of Greyface still exist and, it seems, still exert influence

 

who knew that a lack of a sense of humour could be so deadly and popular?

 

or that BS addictionTM has consequences?

 

sheesh...

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

waterfall wrote:

Sounds reasonable. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...have been irked by this stereotyping for years. Perhaps from experience will come empathy.

 

you bet Stephen Fry, as a homosexual, Jew, atheist & a person with a mental illness probably has experienced his share of stereotyping and 'hate'...

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi "chansen" and all...

 

I am sympathetic to and supportive of the author's basic insight.

Stephen Fry wrote:
If we atheists really had the courage of our convictions so far as as the irrationality and in some cases noxious detriment caused to mankind by religion...

I am not able to accept this premise. As I have noted elsewhere, religion is incapable of causing anything. I suspect Stephen would acknowledge this. Reading his article I notice that he is open to persons professing diverse religious leanings and commitments.

 

Stephen also notices that persons professing religious insight have made valuable contributions in various areas of endeavour. What he objects to, if I read him well, is those persons and groups who make use of religion to work iniquity.

Stephen Fry wrote:
I just hate, really, really hate the idea of being hated.

I wonder why hate is admitted as an appropriate response to those who hate. By "really, really hating are we not part of the problem? Do we not have other ways of expressing our disagreement with those who hate?

 

I resist those who hate, believing that the inclination to hate is detrimental to their human identity and purpose. I resist them by doing all that I am able to demonstrate the inadequacy of hate as a response to difference.

 

This is not to suggest that I have any illusions about overcoming hate by care. I am persuaded that the preference of care over hate brings benefit to my own human growth and development.

 

With Stephen, I am deeply concerned with  resort to hate by persons and groups in any place and of any persuasion.

 

George

 

 

 

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

George,

 

by your particular tack there, since religion can't cause anything, then religion also isn't the thing that is helping people, uplifting people, caring for the sick, etc etc etc?

 

(which could then fit ostensibly with the atheist 'cause'; that it is people who cause the change in the world, not religion, g_d, jesus, etc?)

 

(perhaps Stephen Fry is meaning 'belief in a supernatural g_d'? which some of the nonatheists here have professed problems with...)

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Agreed. Religion is one of multiplied means available to human being. As with all such means, religion may be used (bringing benefit), misused (bringing harm) or abused ( bringing threat).
.
George

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Post script: Whether factual or fictional, Jesus is present to our understanding as a person.
.
George

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

I have been thinking of the theist versus atheist tension for the past couple of days. I do not identify as either. In fact, I find it hard to think of myself as anything more or less than a person in relationship with persons.

 

Among both theists and atheists I have encountered persons of exemplary character. On the other hand, among both theists and atheists I have encountered persons of deplorable character. Based on this I take it that thinking in terms of category labels is not at all helpful.

 

George

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

GeoFee wrote:

Hi "chansen" and all...

 

I am sympathetic to and supportive of the author's basic insight.

Stephen Fry wrote:
If we atheists really had the courage of our convictions so far as as the irrationality and in some cases noxious detriment caused to mankind by religion...

I am not able to accept this premise. As I have noted elsewhere, religion is incapable of causing anything. I suspect Stephen would acknowledge this. Reading his article I notice that he is open to persons professing diverse religious leanings and commitments.

I'm not so convinced Mr. Fry would agree. Indeed, he seems to contradict what you're attempting to say he would agree with.

 

GeoFee wrote:

Stephen also notices that persons professing religious insight have made valuable contributions in various areas of endeavour. What he objects to, if I read him well, is those persons and groups who make use of religion to work iniquity.

Stephen Fry wrote:
I just hate, really, really hate the idea of being hated.

I wonder why hate is admitted as an appropriate response to those who hate. By "really, really hating are we not part of the problem? Do we not have other ways of expressing our disagreement with those who hate?

 

I resist those who hate, believing that the inclination to hate is detrimental to their human identity and purpose. I resist them by doing all that I am able to demonstrate the inadequacy of hate as a response to difference.

 

This is not to suggest that I have any illusions about overcoming hate by care. I am persuaded that the preference of care over hate brings benefit to my own human growth and development.

 

With Stephen, I am deeply concerned with  resort to hate by persons and groups in any place and of any persuasion.

 

George

Where did Stephen Fry say he hated anyone in this piece? He hates being hated. He has a severe dislike of the idea that someone out there hates him for no good reason, but his response is to explain himself, not hate the other person.

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi chansen...

chansen wrote:
I'm not so convinced Mr. Fry would agree. Indeed, he seems to contradict what you're attempting to say he would agree with.

Reading the article I noticed that Mr. Fry admits being on good terms with persons having various religious interests. He also acknowledges that persons with religious commitments have made valuable contributions to our common experience.

 

What he objects to is persons and groups who make use of religion to justify acts of hatred. He is specially concerned where religion is employed by fanatics.

 

Even if this does not support my suggestion that Mr. Fry is not wholly averse to religion, it does modify his stance to the tolerance side. He seems to be well aware that persons and not religions are the determining indicator.

 

So I wonder, how does Mr. Fry's stated position contradict my suggestion that persons and not religion bring either harm or benefit?

 

George

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi "chansen, and perhaps others as well...

 

My premise has it that there is common ground between the insights expressed by Stephen Fry above and my own insights.

 

This said, there are also significant points of difference. Were we to have opportunity, I would be glad to explore those differences with Stephen.

Stephen Fry wrote:
...our convictions so far as as the irrationality and in some cases noxious detriment caused to mankind by religion....

This is an unclear sentence. Does Stephen intend to say that irrationality has been caused by religion? I suspect he intends to assert that religion is irrational. If you know differently, or if you think differently, please let me know.

 

Atheism, in a general sense, has a bias for rationality (reason). It is the empirical, the measurable, that matters. Further, there seems to be a sense that there is nothing before, beside, or behind rationality.

 

What about intuition? It is a very real and necessary aspect of being human in nature. By it we gain insight and understanding to compliment and enhance our rationality.

 

Intuition is close to the very heart of all scientific endeavours. A problem in physics or medicine persists. Research by all available means fails to provide the key link by which the problem may be undone. One among the researches has an intriguing dream. That dream offers signs and symbols by which the researcher discovers a new approach to the problem. The annals are filled with examples of this intuitive opening of a way for reason to reframe the problem.

 

Science has noticed, explored and documented the human brain's morphology. There is substantial knowledge regarding the ways in which the brain is formed and how it functions.

 

A basic characteristic of the brain is that it comprises two halves. Each half, considered statistically, functions in a distinctive manner. Most generally, the one half tends to rational processes while the other tends to intuitive processes.

 

I would like to know what you would say if we were two reasonable persons in conversation. As I have said, I am neither theist nor atheist. Such distinctions have lost their attraction for me. We meet here as inquiring minds. Some of us are eager to find common cause (as in cause and effect). With Plato's Socrates, I take it that this common cause (as in cause and effect) can be achieved only where we refuse resort to abstraction.

 

A second premise comes to mind. Assessing religion as irrational in no way demonstrates that religion is unnecessary and undesirable.

 

I would be pleased to hear your challenge of either premise.

 

George

 

Related Link

 

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

chansen wrote:
Indeed, he seems to contradict what you're attempting to say he would agree with.

I am not convinced that Stephen "contradicts" my first premise above. Will you take a moment to make the "contradiction" apparent?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory if you read Stephen's piece, but let me point it out for you.

 

First, for context:

chansen wrote:

GeoFee wrote:

Hi "chansen" and all...

 

I am sympathetic to and supportive of the author's basic insight.

Stephen Fry wrote:
If we atheists really had the courage of our convictions so far as as the irrationality and in some cases noxious detriment caused to mankind by religion...

I am not able to accept this premise. As I have noted elsewhere, religion is incapable of causing anything. I suspect Stephen would acknowledge this. Reading his article I notice that he is open to persons professing diverse religious leanings and commitments.

I'm not so convinced Mr. Fry would agree. Indeed, he seems to contradict what you're attempting to say he would agree with.

 

The part that seems to contradict your humble idea that Mr. Fry agrees with your contention that "religion is incapable of causing anything," is this paragraph:

Stephen Fry wrote:

Sadly we live in more worrying times. Phobos is the Greek for fear. Am I afraid of certain fanatical Christians, Muslims, Lord’s Resistance Army fighters or any other group like that? You bet your cute keister I’m afraid. I am afraid of anyone who hates me and everything I stand for and wants me and the civilisation I grew up in destroyed. I am afraid of any state or religious endorsed brute squad that suddenly smashes my door down at three in the morning and drags me to the wall to be shot. I am afraid of any group of people wherever they’re from and whomever they do or don’t worship who see justification for explosions that cause human blood to run like rivers down the streets.

I take that to mean that religion can cause people to do very scary things. I can say that I agree with Mr. Fry on this point. You came here to tell us that you have a different idea of what religion is capable of, and that Mr. Fry agrees with you. I'd rather hear that from Mr. Fry.

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi "chansen",

 

Thank you for the challenge. As you know, the work of inquiry is a patient work. We will not get to the point of agreement quickly or easily. You are right to make plain that Mr. Frye is absent.

 

Above, I define two premises. The first states: "My premise has it that there is common ground between the insights expressed by Stephen Fry above and my own insights." I am not attempting to suggest that Mr. Frye agrees with my suggestion that religion causes nothing.

 

Perhaps we can discuss this from our own points of view? Do you take it that religion, without the agency of persons, is able to accomplish purposes?

chansen wrote:
I take that to mean that religion can cause people to do very scary things. I can say that I agree with Mr. Fry on this point.

Here you seem to be saying that religion can cause persons to act. I would agree to the point of admitting religions as explanations (pre and post) for why persons and groups think and act as they do. I would draw the line at admitting religion as the cause of anything. Persons make good use of religion to bring benefit. Persons misuse religon and bring harm. Persons abuse religion and cause "scary things".

 

I understand that persons are animated by certain adaptive instincts. These express the motive energy by which persons are shaped for survival and flourishing. Religion is nothing more or less than one of multiple social structures available to adaptive instinct. It is in no way different from science considered in this light.

 

To be convinced otherwise I would need to see some evidence indicating religion as the cause of some "scary thing". Are you able to produce such evidence?

 

George

 

 

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

After reading that three times, I think the key paragraph is here:

GeoFee wrote:

Here you seem to be saying that religion can cause persons to act. I would agree to the point of admitting religions as explanations (pre and post) for why persons and groups think and act as they do. I would draw the line at admitting religion as the cause of anything. Persons make good use of religion to bring benefit. Persons misuse religon and bring harm. Persons abuse religion and cause "scary things".

So, you agree that religion is an explanation for why people act, but it is not the cause of why people act.

 

This is possibly the thinnest hair anyone has ever attempted to split.

 

GeoFee wrote:

I understand that persons are animated by certain adaptive instincts. These express the motive energy by which persons are shaped for survival and flourishing. Religion is nothing more or less than one of multiple social structures available to adaptive instinct. It is in no way different from science considered in this light.

I think that was an attempt to bring science down to religion's level. Fortunately for science, I think the vast majority of WC members will have no idea what you're trying to say here. Anyone?

 

GeoFee wrote:

To be convinced otherwise I would need to see some evidence indicating religion as the cause of some "scary thing". Are you able to produce such evidence?

No, because you're out of your gourd with the first paragraph I quoted above, and I don't care to rehash humanity's history with religion, just to have you insist, once again, that religion was an explanation, not a cause. As if that actually means something in your favour.

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi "chansen"

 

chansen wrote:
So, you agree that religion is an explanation for why people act, but it is not the cause of why people act.

 

You suggest that noting a difference between "explanation" and "cause" is splitting hairs. Here is a simple statement: "I am going to burn that woman at the stake because my religion instructs me to do so." If the woman is indeed burned, who or what is the cause? I would attribute cause to the speaker (who) and identify religion (what) as the explanation.

 

I maintain that wherever religion is exercised to accomplish a purpose it is exercised by persons. Further, I will propose that religion is nothing more or less than a social structure by which persons organize themselves in the face of life's ambiguity and threat. Religion is a means by which persons determine purposes. Some determine peace and others determine violence. Can you give evidence to the contrary?

above, GeoFee wrote:
I understand that persons are animated by certain adaptive instincts. These express the motive energy by which persons are shaped for survival and flourishing. Religion is nothing more or less than one of multiple social structures available to adaptive instinct. It is in no way different from science considered in this light.

in response, chansen wrote:
I think the vast majority of WC members will have no idea what you're trying to say here.

What about you? Do you have some idea of what I have tried to say in the quoted paragraph? Is there perhaps a glimmer of comprehension, which might allow you to frame a question or two seeking clarification? I am clear that a failure to understand any statement is not convincing as evidence that the statement is false or irrelevant.

 

I will, of course, be pleased to address any questions seeking to discover what I intend in the quoted paragraph. Also, I will add an extensive quote from Carl Jung, who says such things with greater clarity than I am capable of, at the end of my post.

above, GeoFee wrote:
To be convinced otherwise I would need to see some evidence indicating religion as the cause of some "scary thing". Are you able to produce such evidence?

in response, chansen wrote:
No, because you're out of your gourd with the first paragraph I quoted above, and I don't care to rehash humanity's history with religion, just to have you insist, once again, that religion was an explanation, not a cause.

While I enjoy the colloquial dismissal of my premise, I can not consider it credible as evidence that the premise is false. I also do not think a "rehash (of) humanity's history with religion" is required for you to prove the error of my premise. Simply, humanity's history reveals the use, misuse and abuse of religion by persons and associations of persons. 

 

Let me put the question a little differently. Can you produce evidence of religion producing any effect, whether good or ill,  without human agency? 

 

George

 

Carl Jung, in his essay "The Undiscovered Self", wrote:

 

Nothing estranges man from the ground plan of his instincts than his learning capacity, which turns out to be a genuine drive towards progressive transformation of human modes of behavior. It, more than anything else, is responsible for the altered conditions of our existence and the need for new adaptations which civilization brings.

It is also the source of numerous psychic disturbances and difficulties occasioned by man's progressive alienation from his instinctual foundation, i.e., by his uprootedness and identification with his consciousness at the expense of the unconscious.

The result is that modern man can know himself only in so far as he can become conscious of himself - a capacity largely dependent on environmental conditions, the drive for knowledge and control of which necessitated or suggested certain modifications of his original instinctive tendencies. His consciousness therefore orients itself chiefly be observing and investigating the world around him, and it is to its peculiarities that he must adapt his psychic and technical resources.

This task is so exacting, and its fulfillment so advantageous, that he forgets himself in the process, losing sight of his instinctual nature and putting his own conception of himself in place of his real being. In this way he slips imperceptibly into a purely conceptual world where the products of his conscious activity progressively replace reality.

 

 

 

 

 

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

chansen,

 

i will try an attempt at 'translation' of a bit by GeoFee that you had trouble with

 

hang on

 

GeoFee wrote:
I understand that persons are animated by certain adaptive instincts. These express the motive energy by which persons are shaped for survival and flourishing. Religion is nothing more or less than one of multiple social structures available to adaptive instinct. It is in no way different from science considered in this light.

 

Humanity has behaviours that are unconscious and/or are instincts.  Like hunger, thirst, fairness, social status, in-group/out-group, various human universals...

 

and I think that GeoFee is positing that Religion is but one of many social structures that has been 'built' to guide these impulses and that science is similar in that respect..

 

i hope that meets with your approval, GeoFee?

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Thanks Inanna... A good read of what I have in mind.
.
George

chansen's picture

chansen

image

It's like I'm the only person in this thread writing in English.

 

Okay, so you're saying science and religion are "social structures" built to guide our natural impulses to not freeze to death or be eaten by large cats.

 

First, what the hell is a "social structure"? I tried reading Wikipedia, but I think you edited the entry before I got there. I did note that religion is listed as an example. "Science", outside of "social science", is not.

 

So no, it couldn't have been you editing Wikipedia. Whoever it was, you should be penpals.

 

If you have some reason to say science is a social structure....wait....nope, I don't even care any more.

 

As for the rest of the stuff I imagine you had great fun typing, about how religion itself does nothing, and it's all the human agents who do the bad stuff? This is also true of nuclear weapons. A bible, like a nuclear warhead, pretty much just sits there when no one is around. The warhead may be phallically-shaped and draw the ire of the bible, but the bible, being simple pieces of paper bound in a cover, is hardly in a position to do anything about it.

 

Your argument is the same as the NRA's: Guns don't kill people, people kill people! You're like the Charlton Heston of apologetics.

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi "chansen",

 

chansen wrote:
First, what the hell is a "social structure"?

Social structures are visible in the natural world. Find a bee colony somewhere. Watch carefully for as long as you can manage. What at first seems random is soon discovered to represent a complex structure of relations and functions. You will notice the same concept at work in a pride of lions, a school of fish, or planetary bodies.

Jane Goodall wrote:
Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans have been living for hundreds of thousands of years in their forest, living fantastic lives, never overpopulating, never destroying the forest. I would say that they have been in a way more successful than us as far as being in harmony with the environment.

So what about us? Where do we stand as a species? 

 

Premise three: Science and religion, offer means by which we may discover and express our human being in and through the natural order. Science will inform our desire to comprehend the what of our experience. Religion will inform our desire to discover the who of our experience.

 

Are you able to demonstrate the contrary by presenting evidence? Cheeky dodges are welcome but do not count as evidence.

 

George

 

 

 

 

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chansen,

 

Sorry for being so late coming to the thread.  I'm not familiar with Stephen Fry or his work or even the grounds for the allegation to be made so Fry's defence of himself was a puzzler.

 

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Am I an Islamophobe?

 

 

I presume we will move forward on the grounds that Islamophobia is defined as anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

They think this proves that we are cowards because Christians only meekly turn the other cheek, whereas Muslims put bombs on trains, in cars and go around shrieking 'Allahu Akbar!' as the detonate themselves and busloads of innocent men, women and children.

 

I find the above passage problematic simply because I do not know how much of it is Stephen's thought and how much of it is the thoughts of others he is describing.

 

The statement, "Muslims put bombs on trains, in cars and go around shrieking 'Allahu Akbar!'" reads, very simply as a description of all Muslims and not some Muslims.  It is also fairly clear from the writing that none of this activity is being lifted up as admirable.

 

Which leads to the question, "Should I beware all Muslims because they all put bombs on trains and in cars?"

 

If I rework the statement so that it reads, "Quebecers put bombs in mailboxes, kidnap and kill politicians" am I making an accurate statement about all Quebecers or not.

 

Is my making such a statement proof of anti-Quebecois sentiment or is it proof that I need to pay closer attention to what I say.  And if I am challenged on the matter of anti-Quebecois sentiment should I clarify what I meant at the time of the challenge or wait until some-time later?

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Muslims kill other Muslims much more than they kill us, just as Christians used to do for centuries.

 

Ownership of this particular statement appears to be less ambiguous.  This appears to be Fry's own thought.  

 

What is Fry saying here?  Is he saying all Muslims kill or that some Muslims kill?  I have no idea of what he intends to communicate I know what my mind is filling in.  What I do not know is if my mind is being far more generous than Fry's is at the moment.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Anyway, I made the fundamental mistake of tweeting (just to show I wasn't the coward they assumed I was) that of course I was against those Muslims who slaughtered, bombed and treated women in such charming ways.

 

Lifted from the context of the blog this reads as a pretty reasonable statement and there is some attempt at distinction being made "those Muslims" and then all the evil things "those Muslims" do.

 

The only problem is that in the context of the blog up to this point I have no idea how Fry is using "those Muslims."  Is it in opposition to "these Muslims" which at the very least shows Fry distinguishing between types of Muslims (at minimum the violent and non-violent camps) or is it in opposition to "we thinking people" which would be those in agreement with him.

 

I can see it being read either way.  Because I do not know Stephen Fry I do not know how he intends for it to be read

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

on other occasions the tweet claims that my saying a single word against any kind of Muslim is Islamaphobia of the kind that feeds the vilely racist bigots of the EDL and BNP

 

This carries a lot of rhetorical weight.

 

First apart from what the tweet claims there are definitions of Islamaphobia and most do not define Islamaphobia as a single word against any kind of Muslim.  So lets not even consider single words against a kind of Muslim Islamophobia.

 

Fry muddies the picture somewhat by extreme example.  Is there an acceptable level of Islamophobia?  Something lighter than what the EDL and BNP are known for?

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

The squeezed liberal finds himself in the position that he cannot criticise Islamofacism because it's somehow "racist" (although Islam encompasses many races).

 

Does Fry distinguish between Islam and Islamofacism or are they elements of the same entity?  The rhetoric around race is a red-herring since Islamophobia is anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

or because it encourages acts of violence against innocent law-abiding honourable Muslims, which I would never for a second endorse.

 

Another employment of extreme.  Violence is not a necessary component of Islamophobia.  Aversion to Islam is, I think, the minimum of anti-Muslim sentiment required for Islamophobia to be considered.

 

That Fry is able to think of Muslims in terms of innocent, law abiding and honourable would appear to speak against his being an Islamophobe.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Naturally like anyone interested in history, I have nothing but admiration for the breathdaking advances in chemisty, algebra, calculus, astronomy, optics, botany, general physics and chemistry not to mention poetry and philosophy made by Islamic scholars in its Golden Age

 

While a very complimentary section of text Fry, perhaps unfortunately, introduces the term Golden Age and invokes the "these Muslims/those Muslims" position.  With perhaps a chronological separation.  Were those Muslims law-abiding and honourable back then?  What about Muslims now?

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Sadly we live in more worrying times.  Phobos is the Greek for fear.  Am I afraid of certain fanatical Christians, Muslims, Lord's Resistance Army fighters or any other group like that?  you bet your cute keister I'm afraid.  I am afrain of anyone who hates me and everyting I stand for and wants me and the civilization I grew up in destroyed.

 

More rhetorical freight.

 

I find Fry's "literal" turn on fear as a defence as convincing as the alleged homophobe who claims they aren't afraid of gays and lesbians, they just don't like them to be something of a smokesceen.  Admittedly that might be an unfortunate association between the homophobia I have been exposed to.

 

While Fry is making distinctions here the earlier portions of the blog does not make distinction.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

Ah, but do I believe that all Muslims want to see my civilisation destroyed?  That they are all bombers in the making?  Of course I don't.

 

Those with a greater familiarity with Fry have a better grasp on how obvious it is that he carefully distinguishes between violent and non-violent Muslims.  As I have pointed out already this is the first piece of writing I have read by Fry and he starts off not being obvious in his distinction.

 

Stephen Fry wrote:

The fact that I need to go through this absurd liberal court of inquisition in which I have to repeat these mantras is what , as Peter Griffin would say, really grinds my gears.

 

I can imagine how difficult it is to be thought of in a negative light.  I remember be on the recieving end of a very dismissive post shortly after WonderCafe.ca opened up.  In that post it was presumed that because I was a Calvinist that I was also antigay, antiabortion, anti everything the poster believes in and that I had nothing to say to a post modern society nor would I ever have.

 

I would guess that my gears were being sufficiently ground.

 

Fortunately another came to my defence and I was not put into the position of having to defend the charges.  Not that I think such a defence would have been difficult.  Frankly, I think that most would read that particular post and be surprised that the poster arrived at the conclusions they did.

 

And yet Fry feels the need to defend himself.  By the end of the piece I think he manages to make enough claims to immunize himself successfully against being found to be an Islamophobe.  He will not likely succeed in being able to immunize himself against ever being charged with it in the future.

 

I personally found the start to the blog to be a little shaky.  I also find the repeated red-herring of whether or not he hates Muslims to lean towards the disingenuous (methinks the author doth protest overly much) but I wouldn't condemn a man who stood on a corner repeating that he didn't hate somebody for hating that somebody.

 

Quite frankly, I would have liked to see more of the actual dialogue reporduced in the piece rather than alluded to.  I mean if we are going to be asked to ajudicate over a he said/I said discussion should we not have the actual words before us?

 

So in answer to Fry's own question, "Am I an Islamophobe?

 

The most honest answer I can give is "maybe not."  There are times when Fry does make distinctions between violent and non-violent Islam and then there are times where no such distinction appears.

 

Not knowing Fry at all I have a puzzle to solve.  Does Fry alway distinguish between these two simplified facets of Islam or does the distinction only appear when pushed or questioned about generalized statements?

 

Dawkins is on record as describing Islam as "the greatest force of evil today" which is a generalized statement and not a critique solely of the Islamofacist element.  Whether Dawkins is an Islamophobe or not the statement smells of Islamophobia as defined above.

 

That may simply be a result of the imprecision of neologisms.

 

Or it may be the result of an unchecked prejudice.

 

I don't know enough about either Dawkins of Fry to make a declaration one way or the other.

 

Since this particular allegation against Fry comes in the context of his defending Dawkins it may be that the allegation is more of a guilt by association thing.

 

So I don't know that Fry is not an Islamophobe.  I'll hope he isn't.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Today I saw a Muslim woman fully covered including her face, stop to give change to a street person. It made me think about stereotypes. Interestingly, checking my own stereotypes- had it been a woman in Western dress I wouldn't have been thinking about stereotypes.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I have a stereotype. I realized I rarely see Muslim women, fully covered, alone, interacting with non-Muslim westerners, especially not men. I always see them in pairs or groups of other mostly covered Muslim women or with their husbands. That's been my experience. I've also never seen a Muslim woman fully covered stop to give money to a guy on the streetcorner. So, it surprised me a little. It shouldn't. I have never thought that they can't be giving and compassionate- but I've never seen it shown publicly in that manner.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

GeoFee wrote:

I have been thinking of the theist versus atheist tension for the past couple of days. I do not identify as either. In fact, I find it hard to think of myself as anything more or less than a person in relationship with persons.

 

Among both theists and atheists I have encountered persons of exemplary character. On the other hand, among both theists and atheists I have encountered persons of deplorable character. Based on this I take it that thinking in terms of category labels is not at all helpful.

 

George

 

As usual, a great post.

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe