a few people were curious about who i wa …
a few people were curious about who i was mocking in my post, Richard Dawkins – Islamophobe?.
primarily i was mocking militant atheists who revel in their bigotry toward white christians, especially lower class ones. i don’t use the word bigotry to cast extreme aspersions, i actually think that discrimination is pretty natural, and we have likes and dislikes, and they’re normal. granted, there are lines (e.g., violence) that shouldn’t be crossed, and civility that must be maintained (e.g., i assume most “public” individuals should hold back their contempt for inbred rednecks for the sake of decorum). rather, a particular type of atheist truly glories in their ability to accuse lower class conservative christians of being basically subhuman.
i’m not really opposed to this prima facie; i’ve never made bones about my low opinion of the unintelligent (those who i term ‘tards’). but, i do think that this sort of contempt and bigotry is best appreciated when evenhandedly applied. the reality that is that cousin marriage rates even among lower class appalachian whites is far lower than among british pakistanis, who claim that the practice is part and parcel of their religion. this of course makes them a great test case for linkage studies on deleterious recessive diseases! if one accepts the rule of thumb that you can remove 5 IQ points from expectation for first cousin marriages, it is also quite literally turn them into tards through pedigree collapse (no worry about a british muslims becoming the majority if they go samaritan).
as it is, atheists of the dawkinsian variety tend to hold their most extreme fire from muslims and other non-christians. the main reason is that they’re colored by and large (or, if jews, obviously there are other valences at work). white people have a bad history of accusing non-whites of being subhuman, so even if the rationale is aracial, it “looks bad.” this is one reason i like to point out that black americans are far more religious than white americans; syllogistic logic would imply that if the religious are more subhuman, black americans are more subhuman than white americans. this is not a logical inference that many militant atheists are quite excited about shouting from the rooftops. if so, i would perhaps wonder if a little reflection might be warranted in regards to their militancy toward religion qua religion and their dismissal of the humanity of the religious.
secondarily, i was poking some fun at some western educated muslim activists who i am rather sure are quite consciously using the master’s tools to tear down the master’s house. e.g., CAIR activists who are peddling the discourse of mckinnon and dworkin in other contexts.
Sy, 
razib, and 
thabet are discussing.
thabet 5:31 am on August 23, 2008 Permalink
I have dislike Muslims who peddle ‘leftist’ philosophy in order to ‘deconstruct’ The West under the belief the vacuum will be filled by their own beliefs.
They don’t seem to realise that a. their own beliefs can be subjected to the same analysis and scrutiny; b. there is nothing which says their beliefs will fill the vacuum; and c. it is just blatantly intellectually dishonest.
razib 11:03 am on August 23, 2008 Permalink
some conservative xtians do the same. philip johnson, the founder of the ID movement, is a big fan of critical theory.
Sy 3:47 pm on August 23, 2008 Permalink
I’m curious if you’ve found any studies or any more data than simple armchair speculation on this? I ask, not to be argumentative, but these sorts of “realities” about muslims are posited all the time by many non-muslims about muslims (and of course vice-versa) and I feel far more caution is in order.