mil observer,

"As fear based irrationalism entrenches..............", You really are a postmodernist! What in the name of reason does that drivel mean,really. The text is everything, reality is nothing? You are caught in a loop of textual analysis, I could say you are projecting your fears on those whom disagree with,and creating straw men, however I don't resort to ad hominem arguments.(Google the "Sokal Hoax") it will be enlightening. I think you admit that minorities in Islamic nations are fearful, why are they fearful, is their fear irrational? They are fearful because they are murdered ,oppressed and robbed in the name of Islam, that is an external reality, beneath your consideration it appears,since it would undermine your thesis. You fail entirely to grasp the proposition that accusations of "Islamophobia" can be cynical manipulations of Western fear of the "racist" label. I and some of the "rabble" are shrewd enough to realize this,we also understand. the menace of theocracy.

A thought experiment for you- you are in a market square in an Islamic country and you wander about shouting( clearly, in the vernacular)
" Mohammmad is a lying bastard and a murderer".................

that's your lesson in politics, ethics and manners for today, Grasshopper.

I've found the last few posts to be quite interesting. I think we have quite a productive topic for discussion if we don't end up descending too far into ad-hominem commentary.
(I realise my last post had a fair amount of ad-hominem commentary, however in my defence I was directing it toward examples of poorly directed vitriol rather than any given posters in particular.)

I see both sides of the coin, but I think you're actually making different arguments against each other.

In relation to the posts on the validity of fear, mil-observer, GZ-tan and mac, you're all right, but it's because you're not actually debating the same specific thesis.

Fear is indeed a valid reaction, like anything else. It's not something we can control. So if you're arguing that fear is a valid reaction to certain circumstances, then of course - your point is duly noted and it can't really be refuted.
I think anyone who wouldn't feel a certain degree of fear in something like a dangerous, brutal wartime situation, would not be
a psychologically sound individual.

However, the point mil-observer makes is what interests me more as it has a few more layers to it - is fear a rational base on which to build a society?

On one level, I don't see how we can pretend there isn't an element of fear in the development of policy.
Taking it back to brutally simplistic levels, why else do we keep a defence force, if not to defend against threats? And what is a threat if not something we harbor a kind of fear of?

Now that being said, using emotional input when judging our policy tends to have a hidden assumption that we are in some way, reducing 'pragmatism' as the driving force of our society. Ultimately, pragmatism should be the paramount decider.

So we are stuck in a loop. Does fear cloud pragmatism, or do we accept that fear is inherent in any decision that can have negative outcomes?

It's a bit of a quandary, because clearly, the answer to both questions are 'yes.'

Cont'd.

Cont'd

When you think about it further, the question becomes murkier - are we discussing emotional 'input' into developing our society, or are we discussing results?

Aside from generically using the term 'happy' to describe the goals of society, I don't think we can really aim for an 'emotional' result for society. We can only discuss pragmatic outcomes.

So, when I consider the simplest pragmatics of this situation, I can't help but note these simple points I've already pointed out:

1. We DO have the ability to shun and combat extremist groups.
2. We DON'T have the ability to shun Islam in its entirety for the following reasons:
- the spread of Islam and the fact that it's already embedded within society.
- the majority peaceful muslims who would be victims.
- the likelihood that this would empower the more violent fringe movements, who could use this to their advantage and recruitment, thus increasing the violence.
- the fact that in vilifying a major religion, we turn our back on the universal principles of equality which I believe are really the only thing which we have that gives us any kind of moral high ground.

I really believe that such hostile commentary about Islam really harms us more than it helps.

I'm not making these comments from a warm and fuzzy far leftist position.
I'm being brutally pragmatic - answer me this, do you really think that consistently reinforcing the message that all muslims are evil helps or hinders us, given that we CAN'T simply wage an old fashioned war here?
Wouldn't it be better to reinforce the peaceful interpretations?

I don't give a damn which is the 'right' interpretation. I don't believe there is such a thing. Hell, I don't think any religion is more than tarot voodoo which allows the practitioner to create a reflection of themselves they want and can impress upon others.

But if you do believe Islam is evil, then shouldn't you help us 'subvert' it into a peaceful religion, instead of making it a hostile one and handing power to the most hostile elements?

On the other hand TRTL muslims can do a lot to help themselves and gain very significant credibility by doing so.

Here is what one commentator suggests:

"If Muslims want to end "Islamophobia" instantaneously, here's how they can do it:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will vanish."

Now an article by a muslim commentator on this would make a very interesting OLO piece.

Check this out: ‘Islam is incompatible with democracy’

Radio National IQ2 debate: http://abc.com.au/rn/summer/2008/talk/IQ2/

This will be broadcast next Monday evening, but you can listen to the whole debate now.

TRTL,

I agree with you arguments, up to a point- It's our right to utter hostile comments in reference to Islam, Christianity or any superstition we choose, if believers are offended, it's their problem not ours, these liberties cost thousands of innocent lives to secure. Hare-brained notions of multi-cultural harmony should not be allowed to subvert our freedoms. Moslems come to Australia because it offers a superior living standard, which is the result of a secular democratic state, the rule of law and the benefits of science, these are usually non existent in their homelands.Why? Haslam only briefly referred to the use of accusations of "Isalmophobia" as efforts to shut dissenters up. Islam is just one religion amongst many in a liberal democratic state, many Moslems just cannot understand this. There are plenty of websites that claim that Islam is a uniquely violent belief system,I won't comment on this aspect, that's best left to the experts, however you should read bigmal's comments carefully

bigmal,

Exactly!