• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conflating Hatred of People and Hatred of Ideas/Beliefs

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
In a recent thread here about the question of whether the media manipulates people into hating Muslims and Islam, I couldn't help but notice a problematic trend: the conflation of hatred of Muslims with the hatred of Islam. This seems to me to be a potentially dangerous conflation, because it effectively extends the respect to which people are entitled to Islam and ideas in general.

When we talk of Muslims, we talk of nearly a billion and a half people. When we talk of Islam, we talk of a religion whose mainstream version, at least in the Middle East, consists of things like homophobia, sexism, and outdated laws—such as lashing and cutting off hands. It is my opinion that Muslims and people in general, no matter how fundamentalist or "radical" they are, are entitled to at least a certain degree of respect as long as they don't engage in violence or persecution of anyone or actively support it. Ideas, on the other hand, are not entitled to respect by default. Respect for ideas is an earned quality, not a given.

I find it unfortunate at best that so many people engage in this conflation of hatred of people as opposed to hatred or strong rejection of certain ideas. Something I find especially ironic about this is that almost every single Muslim I know "hates" atheism too, but some of them keep reiterating that they don't hate all atheists, the people. It's a "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing. Despite strongly disagreeing with them on what constitutes "sin" and the concept of "sin" itself, I fully give credit to the people who can separate hatred of the "sin" from hatred of the "sinner."

This is one of the main reasons I have great respect for my Muslim friends who believe that atheism is a major sin that qualifies a person to be in Hell for eternity and are still friends with me. Why? Because they actually realize the difference between hating an idea or belief and hating a person.

Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, an ex-Muslim who actually lived in a Muslim country as opposed to being someone who speaks from an ivory tower without much first-hand experience living in Muslim-majority societies (like many far-left liberals who attack critics of religion) that embrace mainstream Islam, had the following to say about the rights of people versus the rights of ideas (his main point regarding that is near the end of the video):


It seems to me that entitling ideas to the same level of respect as people results in one of two things:

1) Giving ideas too much respect, thereby hindering legitimate discussion about them and criticism thereof

2) Giving people too little respect by saying that ideas should be entitled to the same level of respect as people or that criticizing ideas amounts to criticizing people.

Out of many common religious concepts, I think that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the most spot-on ones in principle. Similarly, I see a need for a secular counterpart along the lines of "criticize/'hate' the idea, love/respect people."

What are your thoughts on this subject? Agree or disagree, and why?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I don't see any video, DS. *sniffle*

Facepalm? Is there another link, perhaps?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah, it is from FacePalm.... for some reason they just appear blank to me... sort of like Facebook itself. :)

That sucks. I just searched for the interview on YouTube, and I only found longer videos (20+ and 50+ minutes long). This one contains a synopsis of his opinion on the subject of criticizing ideas, basically.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
In a recent thread here about the question of whether the media manipulates people into hating Muslims and Islam, I couldn't help but notice a problematic trend: the conflation of hatred of Muslims with the hatred of Islam. This seems to me to be a potentially dangerous conflation, because it effectively extends the respect to which people are entitled to Islam and ideas in general.

When we talk of Muslims, we talk of nearly a billion and a half people. When we talk of Islam, we talk of a religion whose mainstream version, at least in the Middle East, consists of things like homophobia, sexism, and outdated laws—such as lashing and cutting off hands. It is my opinion that Muslims and people in general, no matter how fundamentalist or "radical" they are, are entitled to at least a certain degree of respect as long as they don't engage in violence or persecution of anyone or actively support it. Ideas, on the other hand, are not entitled to respect by default. Respect for ideas is an earned quality, not a given.

I find it unfortunate at best that so many people engage in this conflation of hatred of people as opposed to hatred or strong rejection of certain ideas. Something I find especially ironic about this is that almost every single Muslim I know "hates" atheism too, but some of them keep reiterating that they don't hate all atheists, the people. It's a "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing. Despite strongly disagreeing with them on what constitutes "sin" and the concept of "sin" itself, I fully give credit to the people who can separate hatred of the "sin" from hatred of the "sinner."

This is one of the main reasons I have great respect for my Muslim friends who believe that atheism is a major sin that qualifies a person to be in Hell for eternity and are still friends with me. Why? Because they actually realize the difference between hating an idea or belief and hating a person.

Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, an ex-Muslim who actually lived in a Muslim country as opposed to being someone who speaks from an ivory tower without much first-hand experience living in Muslim-majority societies (like many far-left liberals who attack critics of religion) that embrace mainstream Islam, had the following to say about the rights of people versus the rights of ideas (his main point regarding that is near the end of the video):


It seems to me that entitling ideas to the same level of respect as people results in one of two things:

1) Giving ideas too much respect, thereby hindering legitimate discussion about them and criticism thereof

2) Giving people too little respect by saying that ideas should be entitled to the same level of respect as people or that criticizing ideas amounts to criticizing people.

Out of many common religious concepts, I think that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the most spot-on ones in principle. Similarly, I see a need for a secular counterpart along the lines of "criticize/'hate' the idea, love/respect people."

What are your thoughts on this subject? Agree or disagree, and why?

I watched the video , I used VPN as many Algerians right now :)

I believe "hate" is not the correct word. because it's generalazing and not fair.

I believe sometimes hating Islam is lead to hating Muslims.,it's would be like someone said "I hate Nazism ,but I don't hate Nazis!"

I don't trust every someone claims in youtube.

I don't know why some non-Muslims could not accept the fact, that we "Muslims" whom fighting terrorists on ground! and these soldiers are Muslims died everyday for you and me by hundreds in Syria,and Egypt and Algeria and Tunisia and Libya ...etc




 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
It is my opinion that Muslims and people in general, no matter how fundamentalist or "radical" they are, are entitled to at least a certain degree of respect as long as they don't engage in violence or persecution of anyone or actively support it. Ideas, on the other hand, are not entitled to respect by default. Respect for ideas is an earned quality, not a given.
Interesting, so you are arguing in favor of respect of the person (so long as they meet the criteria you listed), but not the ideas they might have? If so, I would agree with that.

I find it unfortunate at best that so many people engage in this conflation of hatred of people as opposed to hatred or strong rejection of certain ideas.
Pretty much answers my above question. I would even expand a bit, speaking from a US perspective. Many Muslims that I am friends with are moderate. That is, they do not subscribe to some of the more troubling aspects of Islam. And yet, people apply that same hatred to them by default because they are Muslim. I do not agree with that, at all.

What are your thoughts on this subject? Agree or disagree, and why?
We are in agreement, from what I can see. You are talking about principles and ideas that should be applied to all folks, not just Muslims. I like it! :)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
In a recent thread here about the question of whether the media manipulates people into hating Muslims and Islam, I couldn't help but notice a problematic trend: the conflation of hatred of Muslims with the hatred of Islam. This seems to me to be a potentially dangerous conflation, because it effectively extends the respect to which people are entitled to Islam and ideas in general.

When we talk of Muslims, we talk of nearly a billion and a half people. When we talk of Islam, we talk of a religion whose mainstream version, at least in the Middle East, consists of things like homophobia, sexism, and outdated laws—such as lashing and cutting off hands. It is my opinion that Muslims and people in general, no matter how fundamentalist or "radical" they are, are entitled to at least a certain degree of respect as long as they don't engage in violence or persecution of anyone or actively support it. Ideas, on the other hand, are not entitled to respect by default. Respect for ideas is an earned quality, not a given.

I find it unfortunate at best that so many people engage in this conflation of hatred of people as opposed to hatred or strong rejection of certain ideas. Something I find especially ironic about this is that almost every single Muslim I know "hates" atheism too, but some of them keep reiterating that they don't hate all atheists, the people. It's a "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing. Despite strongly disagreeing with them on what constitutes "sin" and the concept of "sin" itself, I fully give credit to the people who can separate hatred of the "sin" from hatred of the "sinner."

This is one of the main reasons I have great respect for my Muslim friends who believe that atheism is a major sin that qualifies a person to be in Hell for eternity and are still friends with me. Why? Because they actually realize the difference between hating an idea or belief and hating a person.

Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, an ex-Muslim who actually lived in a Muslim country as opposed to being someone who speaks from an ivory tower without much first-hand experience living in Muslim-majority societies (like many far-left liberals who attack critics of religion) that embrace mainstream Islam, had the following to say about the rights of people versus the rights of ideas (his main point regarding that is near the end of the video):


It seems to me that entitling ideas to the same level of respect as people results in one of two things:

1) Giving ideas too much respect, thereby hindering legitimate discussion about them and criticism thereof

2) Giving people too little respect by saying that ideas should be entitled to the same level of respect as people or that criticizing ideas amounts to criticizing people.

Out of many common religious concepts, I think that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the most spot-on ones in principle. Similarly, I see a need for a secular counterpart along the lines of "criticize/'hate' the idea, love/respect people."

What are your thoughts on this subject? Agree or disagree, and why?
I've had this type of conversation with some folks it generally comes out that respect is given when the person is being true to the religious scripts. What I've seen that to mean is not having contradictory beliefs.

Similar to your example of atheists going to hell, I give the same respect for doctrines where the believer believes a baby will go to hell, mainly because of the sheer consistency of their doctrines and beliefs.

Now I am someone who knows too much about the bible and can find consistency with anyone based on certain interpretations and it can and will remain consistent depending on denominations but there is a certain honesty when the texts are just taken more straight forward. Thats where I tend to agree on this subject.

That being said, this hate the sin not the sinner, I am not sure if this works for babies going to hell. There is this an unbiblical age of accountability that Christians use, what does your friend say of baby atheists, or is that more a choice thing?

Certainly a baby didn't make the blasphemous choice an adult atheists makes. ;)
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
What are your thoughts on this subject? Agree or disagree, and why?

Partially disagree. I go with 'forgive the sin, love the forgiven.'

The thing with hate and specifically 'hating others' is that it seems easy to do that as if that will (magically) put everything on the person seen as deserving the hate. Golden Rule doesn't work like that. You hate another and in Reality you are hating aspect of own self, but scapegoating in a way that is discernible to anyone paying acute attention. The so-called other is not impacted by such emotion, of if they are, it is residual energy that is greatly lessened compared to the one holding onto such energy and in Reality reserved for (strictly) their perception of another. Their perception. Their's. Need a whole lot of ignorance to realize hatred isn't mostly to entirely on the person who is holding onto that.

Forgiveness replaces the hatred with opportunity for Love. Also not (strictly) for the other. Not how it works. In essence, forgiveness purifies the perception, restoring it to a default state (of opportunity). Essentially reseting of the Golden Rule. Actively loving the forgiven, I find, can be challenging. May be awhile before it is genuinely felt and consistently applied. At the same time, it really is about own perception and not about another. Really about own perception of Self.

The visible perception of violence that stems from the hatred, does make for a greater challenge. As long as violence is pre-determined to be the extreme of 'something' and that actions speak louder than words/ideas, the challenge may be seen as insurmountable. But if truly able/willing to forgive, and understanding of how perception works, then the choice becomes how vigilant are you for Peace? If in first few weeks or few months of practicing actual forgiveness, it may appear like 'not ready to be vigilant' and more prone to past thinking patterns where violence is deserving of counter violence, hatred and/or fear. All par for the course that is this world (where separation from God is seen as 'reality.')

Forgiveness can lead to miracles. Maximal instances of Love.
When a miracle does not occur, something has gone wrong.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't see the video either, but then I also deliberately block all $#@%book content and will not do otherwise for the foreseeable future. A couple points of contention based on the text alone:
  • On Ideas. I think one needs to be careful in suggesting that there's a significant distinction between addressing ideas a human holds versus the human itself, particularly when it comes to religion. Religion done right - or rather, if one is actually religious about one's religion and it isn't a superficial label - is a person's way of life. It impacts how they see themselves, how they see other persons (human or otherwise), how they go about relationships, various practices they hold to, and then some. Addressing that person's way of life is perhaps the deepest way of addressing who and what they are.
  • On Respect. The manner in which respect is granted is a personal decision that varies by individual. Some believe respect is something that has to be earned, and others do not. Furthermore, what "respect" entails is interpreted differently by different humans. Some seem to think "respect" means agreeing with or condoning something. Others regard it as a basic extension of common civil decency, or as a way of valuing diversity and respecting the right of differences to exist in the world.
I can't agree because I don't agree with aspects of these two points. Disrespecting my religion - my way of life - is no different from disrespecting me. That said, I don't much care about the respect others may or may not grant. Actions are what matter - respectfulness. And if you act like a little $#@% towards people, expect a lot of that returned in kind. It is in part for this reason that respect never has to be earned with me - it is automatic. It's granted, a given, to everything, every human person, every non-human person. Someone has to earn disrespect - they have to earn the privilege of being treated like a $#@%. Peace is a given - it is war that must be declared.
 
Top