Not hard to grasp at all. However you made that clarification concerning your meaning in post #95, not previously.

In your original post that disclaimer was absent. Instead, in a paragraph referring to a current debate over the extension of limits to free speech, you supported an argument used by those who support extending restrictions on free speech. I don’t think it’s a strained reading to have interpreted that as your taking the side in that debate that your argument supported. Anyway, since you deny that that’s what you meant, then I guess we must agree, at least about extending restrictions on free speech. Excellent!

Laon

To say that something is a bad argument for P, is not to advance an argument for not-P.

Is that so hard to grasp Laon?

You did not use those words. But you did put up an argument that, read in a natural and unstrained manner, has that logical consequence.

You wrote:
“This rhetorical move is often made in blog debates by people who want to deny Muslims in European societies the kinds of protections that are afforded to some other groups. But it is a move without merit.”

I took the words “the protections that are afforded to some other groups” to refer to restrictions on speech criticising people on the ground of their race. In context that seems to me to be the most natural reading of those words.

Then I took the words “people who want to deny Muslims in European societies the kinds of protections that are afforded to some other groups” to refer to the current argument about whether restrictions on some kinds of speech about race should be extended to cover speech about religion. That seems to me to be the most natural, unstrained, reading of those words.

Then I took the words “but it is a move without merit” to take a side in that argument. It seemed to reject the position of those who hold that restrictions on free speech that currently apply to race should not be extended to religion as well.

The logical consequence of rejecting that position is that people would indeed be banned from saying some things that they are currently free to say. I pointed out that logical consequence, which seems to derive from an accurate reading of your words.

If you don’t like or accept the logical consequence of what you said, then you could re-phrase what you said, or I suppose you could deny that what you said has that logical consequence.

abb1:
The main reasons why there are laws that sanction abusive speech about race, but not about religion or politics, are:
1. People are born into a race. They can’t choose it; this is different from holding religuious or political beliefs.
2. In general freedom of speech is considered desirable, especially about ideas. Religious beliefs are ideas, as are political philosophies; this is why it is considered good not to restrict critical remarks about people’s ideas. I know this seems elementary, but you did ask.

Moreover, people can and do speak hurtfully about people who hold certain opinions, when discussing religion or politics. They say things like, “Democrats, or Republicans, are treacherous, cowardly morons”, or, “supporters of the Family First Party stink.” Or “Scientologists are either crooks or incredibly stupid.” Or, “Scientologists stink.” Or, “Christians, atheists, or Muslims, stink.” Or, “fuck Nazis.”

These are statements about ideas or about the people who hold those ideas. They are different in kind from statements abusing people because of race, even though they may also be hurtful statements. Happy to discuss the distinction further, if need be.

People are – rightly – allowed to say hurtful things when discussing ideas, even if it may degenerate into silly name-calling, as when calling someone “stupid” or “obtuse” because you disagree with them. (That was chris, I should say, and not you, abb1.)

Laon

(Chris) No. Because whether or not a person is a member of the bourgeoisie is a matter of whether or not they own the means of production rather than of what anyone’s opinion is about which group they belong to.

Couldn’t that response be similarly used to answer the question “Are muslims an ethnic group?”

For example, no. Whether or not a person is a member of the muslim community is a matter of whether they were born into or profess belief in or practice the tenants of islam rather than what anyone’s opinion is about which group they belong to.

Religion may serve as a marker for an ethnic group. It is only very rarely, however, that such a marker is specific enough to cosegregate with an ethnic minority.

Since religion is but one marker, and an ethnic group may have several markers, I don’t suppose Chris is suggesting that one individual may be a member of several different ethnic minorities at once.

The practice of codifying a religious group as an ethnic minority based on religion only seems untenable.

Oh Puhleeeeze. Nowhere in the above do I say that anyone should be banned from saying anything.

In the original post, chris wrote:

“This rhetorical move is often made in blog debates by people who want to deny Muslims in European societies the kinds of protections that are afforded to some other groups. But it is a move without merit, since, depending on the social and cultural context, religion, like anything else, can function as the marker that denotes the insider-outsider boundary.”

chris was right in saying that this is essentially about rhetorical moves, with a very practical political agenda.

The political agenda concerns whether criticism of Islam should be sanctioned (ie subject to penalties) in the same way that racist abuse is sanctioned. That’s the real issue here.

In fact it is a very different thing, to say, “Lebanese stink” (which I think should attract court appearances and fines) and to say “Christianity, or animism, or Islam, is complete bollocks”, which should clearly be protected free speech.

chris was indulging in, or supporting, a piece of political sleight of hand with a nasty authoritarian agenda. That’s why it was worth challenging.

Past my bedtime. Maybe tomorrow.

Laon

(Though that’s not an argument, or rhetorical device I’d resort to, myself. But it’s up to you.)

You said that the Serbian or Protestant executioner, in killing someone based on a false equivalence between ethnicity and religion, is not necessarily “making a mistake”.

If, by the words “is not necessarily making a mistake” you mean that “they will not be censured by insane murderous bigots”, then I agree with you. But that is not what the words “is not necessarily making a mistake” mean.

Your example would only be only useful if we were agreed that we should take our definitions in this regard from the prejudices of insane murderous bigots.

But the point surely is that we should be a little clearer in our use of words than that. Serbian executioners are not really a good guide to “truth” in his area.

I realise that you may be advancing cogent arguments that are not actually contained in the words you are using.

My feeling is, however, that I have understood the partial equivalence you asserted between religion and ethnicity, and argued with examples and reasoning that this even partial equivalence is false.

However, it may be possible for you to express it in so qualified and limited a way that it has little real meaning, in which case, as with the Anglican’s god, I don’t need to argue with it.

Laon

This isn’t an argument about whether characteristics overlap, it is about whether religion sometimes functions as the boundary that demarcates ethnic groups.

Saying that it does doesn’t commit anyone to saying that religion=ethnicity.

Aha, but didn’t Chris say “To which the short answer is, in some cases, since forever.”

Yes I did. But a direct response to the rhetorical question I was responding to was what was called for in that sentence. Anyone versed in the normal ways of human dialogue and communication would have read the entire paragraph for elucidation, the third sentence of which states my view perfectly clearly.

I would argue, further, that to conflate ethnicity and religion is an act of bigotry that we ought to avoid. This is the case whether a mob does it, or when the conflation is advanced as a rhetorical reason to ward off criticism of religion.

“Nuances” (such as preserving the distinctions between different concepts) are worth preserving, inconvenient though they may sometimes be. We may even be agreed on that.

Laon