[lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:01:46 +0000 (GMT)
> The semantic problem is that if prejudice is by definition
> a form of unjustified and false belief then how can it be
> "earned", where this suggests it can be justified,
> presumably because of its 'truth-likeness'?
Yes.
> That there is a conflict of values here is inescapable and
> that it gives rise to opposition to those Muslims who pit
> themselves against "Western secular values" is inevitable
> and hardly merely a "prejudice against Muslims" in the sense
> of an unjustified and irrational hostility.
so, it depends what Warsi was talking about. Did she have in mind criticism of
Muslim hospital staff who refuse, on religious grounds, to obey hygiene rules?
The reporting of this stirred up a lot of righteous Daily Mail reader rage.
But, it wasn't true. One Muslim staff member at the hospital named asked a
question about the clothing "bare below the elbow" rule and accepted the reply.
This is just one of the stories certain of our mass media either misreport or
simply make up. (They make up and misreport stories about travellers and
immigrants, too.)
But if it had been true, you say, criticism would have been justified. Yes. But
it wasn't simply criticism of the Muslim or Muslims alleged to have done this
that ensued.
So, it is not simply a matter of
and that adherents of "Western
> secular values" (such as not murdering your daughter because
> her relationship with someone else does not meet with your
> approval, in fact shames you as you see it) therefore see
> themselves as pitted against Muslims who are pitted against
> these values -
and even if it were, it would behove all proclaimed opponents of honour
killings to see themselves pitted against Sikhs and Hindus who are pitted
against these values (and, of course, see themselves as not pitted against
Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who are not pitted against these values...).
(NB, the Hindu community has said there have been no Hindu honour killings in
the UK in many years.)
- and in particular are very much concerned to
> oppose such antithetical Muslim values being allowed to take
> effect within their own largely non-Muslim societies.
well, you know, honour killing is murder. I can't see any sign anyone who's
concerned about prejudice against Muslims wants even to allow defences of
provocation or "culture" in such cases. So I don't see the problem -- as you
articulate it here, that is. There certainly is a problem.
As this began with
> "The one I liked the best was the man who said that she
> ought not to have spoken about anti-Muslim prejudice.
> Given her position, she ought to have spoken out about how
> one of the causes of prejudice against Muslims is their
> refusal to except Western secular values."
I'll inflict Warsi on you again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PC SENSITIVITIES must not block efforts to protect women from forced marriage
and violence, a leading Muslim peer said yesterday.
Sayeeda Warsi believes “white liberalism” – the belief people cannot talk about
such matters because there are sensitive religious and minority group issues
involved – has stopped politicians from making it clear that it is unacceptable
to force women into marriage.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Mon, 24/1/11, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Monday, 24 January, 2011, 20:45
> Acknowledging, first, that Judy's
> priority claim in respect of url-giving has more foundation
> than Lakatos' in his Schilpp article; and some of the bare
> bones contentions Warsi makes are more persuasive when
> filleted as Judy has done.
>
> --- On Mon, 24/1/11, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Seldom does one hear discussions about the way
> prejudice
> > is
> > earned. Such discussions, if they could remain civil,
> > might
> > point the way to easier assimilation and
> > understanding.
>
> I feel I am in sympathy with this partly because I am out
> of sympathy with those who rebut criticism as "prejudice"
> without acknowledging their is much that needs to be done to
> put their house in order.
>
> Nor would I wish to criticise Eric's position on a merely
> semantic basis: but there is a semantic problem here - and
> perhaps a more substantive problem behind that.
>
> The semantic problem is that if prejudice is by definition
> a form of unjustified and false belief then how can it be
> "earned", where this suggests it can be justified,
> presumably because of its 'truth-likeness'?
>
> Of course, we might admit that the content of a belief
> might be at once in part justified and in part unjustified,
> or at once partly 'truth-like' and partly 'false-like': but
> insofar as the content is truth-like and justified it is
> hardly a prejudice.
>
> It might be better to use some term that is more
> epistemically neutral than 'prejudice': we could speak of
> anti-Muslim opinion or sentiment without these terms seeming
> to prejudge the extent to which that opinion or sentiment
> was justified.
>
> Consider the comment:
> "The one I liked the best was the man who said that she
> ought not to have spoken about anti-Muslim prejudice.
> Given her position, she ought to have spoken out about how
> one of the causes of prejudice against Muslims is their
> refusal to except Western secular values."
>
> Is this use of "prejudice" the best way to put the issue?
> Might it not be more to the point to assert that there is an
> apparent conflict between the values of some Muslims and
> "Western secular values"; and that adherents of "Western
> secular values" (such as not murdering your daughter because
> her relationship with someone else does not meet with your
> approval, in fact shames you as you see it) therefore see
> themselves as pitted against Muslims who are pitted against
> these values - and in particular are very much concerned to
> oppose such antithetical Muslim values being allowed to take
> effect within their own largely non-Muslim societies.
>
> That there is a conflict of values here is inescapable and
> that it gives rise to opposition to those Muslims who pit
> themselves against "Western secular values" is inevitable
> and hardly merely a "prejudice against Muslims" in the sense
> of an unjustified and irrational hostility.
>
> On a lighter note, a British comic was pondering the
> strangeness of the 'radical' Muslim cleric who has two hooks
> instead of hands, since for him he thinks he would find it
> more useful to have a knife and fork. On further reflection,
> he realises this 'strangeness' could be just prejudice on
> his part - perhaps the cleric simply prefers a diet of corn
> on the cob.
>
> Donal
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
