[lit-ideas] Re: Muslim Prejudice
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:39:01 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Tue, 25/1/11, Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> so, it depends what Warsi was talking about.
Quite.
> Did she have
> in mind criticism of Muslim hospital staff who refuse, on
> religious grounds, to obey hygiene rules?
> 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.
It might be justified but I didn't say so, preferring the (to me) more
straightforward example of 'honour-killing', which should not only be
criticised but opposed by force wherever necessary. As to hygiene, well if
someone was a health hazard as a result of their religious beliefs they should
arguably be excluded from health work; but if they simply smelt unpleasant, the
argument would be different again.
> 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 -
Afair I didn't suggest it was "simply" (as in 'merely') a matter of this; and
(of course) I agree that opposition to honour-killing ought not to be confined
to only Muslim honour-killing. This doesn't contradict what I'd written, which
did not suggest adherents of "Western secular values" are pitted _only against
Muslims_ but that they are "pitted against Muslims who are pitted against these
values", and then did not say "only" them - perhaps I should have made clear
that they are pitted against non-Muslims who are pitted against these values as
well, rather than leave open the possibility of someone thinking it is only if
their opponents are Muslim that adherents of "Western secular values" are
bothered by opposition to their values?
Perhaps I should add that I adopt the shorthand phrase "Western secular values"
only for convenience - it is used by me to encompass values that are based on
religious principles as well secular and that are not uniquely Western. We
could discuss these values at length but might agree that they tend to be
against Robespierre's view that we should stamp out corruption by beheading
people and stuff like that.
Just as there are versions of Christianity that are compatible with "Western
secular values" as I use the term, so there are versions of Islam and other
religions that are compatible: and there are versions of all these religions,
including Christianity, that are not compatible. Perhaps instead of "Western
secular" we might use the term "liberal", in the English rather than American
sense. What we ought to do, as liberals in this sense, is encourage and protect
those versions of religion that are
compatible with liberal values.
--- On Tue, 25/1/11, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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'?
>
> Prejudice is NOT by definition "a form of unjustified and
> false belief." It is rather a blanket judgment about a group
> or class of people or things that has developed as a result
> of the experiences of the prejudiced person. What is false
> about prejudice is the assumption that a prejudiced judgment
> applies to ALL cases rather than to most, some, a few, or
> many cases.
Definitions can be as we want them, but it seems to me it is quite possible to
express and have a "prejudice" that uses a quantifier other than "ALL" e.g.
most Jewish people secretly want Jewish people running the world, some members
of the Royal Family were responsible for the murder of Diana, a few Irish
people are not alcoholic, and in many cases black people in America go out and
murder white people just for kicks.
The assumption that something is true of "ALL cases rather..most, some, a few,
or many" also raises the problem(s) of induction. Shudder.
The following claims strike me as somewhat specious
> After all, a prejudice against eating at cheap restaurants
> may be justified in the case of food poisoning. A prejudice
> about friend X's taste in music may be surprised or
> justified by accepting that invite to a concert.
but unpacking this now would involve detours into issues like 'JTB' and
'induction' and the importance of the distinction between true and justified.
A single case of food poisoning in a cheap restaurant would, for example, not
justify a prejudice that food poisoning is more likely there than in more
expensive restaurants if the overall statistics did not support this belief;
and holding this belief commensurate with critically assessed statistical
evidence is not being prejudiced. Conversely, what prejudiced people think
justifies their prejudice is symptomatic of their being prejudiced.
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
