Because you're making a bullshit false equivalence.
Nobody denies that Islamic terrorism has a faith-based element. What's refuted is that the religion itself is contributing to terrorism, or radicalizing members. It's denied for the same reason making the same argument with regards to Christianity, while pointing at the IRA or Lord's Resistance Army, would be wrongheaded. Because it's naked prejudice, and has no bearing on the actual facts, and does not help you understand anything; it's an attempt to attack billions of innocent people for the crimes of terrorists which they had absolutely no part in whatsoever.
And it's nothing like white nationalism, which is attacked for the specific elements all members share, the inherent racism and prejudice that you necessarily must profess, to profess white nationalism. The same way you can freely condemn a Nazi for "being a Nazi"; being a Nazi is an awful thing, in and of itself.
What you folks are trying to do is shift "being a Muslim" into that same kind of category, and that is hateful and baseless prejudice.
- - - Updated - - -
Feel free to pull up cases where, in the aftermath of McVeigh's bombing, people were calling for banning Christian immigration to the USA because it was "dangerous".
Nobody pretended those people weren't Christian. They just acknowledged the simple truth that they did not speak for nor represent other Christians. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're pushing a prejudiced agenda.
Ok first of all, there's no hateful emotion coming from me. We're having a disagreement and you can't engage with the subject without ad hominem and hypocrisy. Maybe stop and actually read people's statements instead of "making up shit" as you said.
It seems pretty obvious that Islamic terrorism having a faith based element is the same as the religion being a part of it. Someone could really only deny such a self-truth if they had some political agenda that needs to ignore facts presented against it.
You wouldn't care because you have the same ignorance you accuse others of, but white nationalists are simply people who want to live in a country of white people. There's no "necessary" hatred of other races.
More deflection, okay. You weren't claiming christian fundies were acting out just because of geopolitics. Mental illness? Would be pretty funny at this point.Feel free to pull up cases where, in the aftermath of McVeigh's bombing, people were calling for banning Christian immigration to the USA because it was "dangerous".
Nobody pretended those people weren't Christian. They just acknowledged the simple truth that they did not speak for nor represent other Christians. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're pushing a prejudiced agenda.
No, it is religion. You can't discount religion just because some people don't enact the murder that said book asks their practitioners to take part in.
- - - Updated - - -
Except that racism is not a broad definition. It is a succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You can not misappropriate a word because it suits your narrative. If someone were to say they dislike religion, but even if they did not tie religion to race, by your definition, the person is racist.
Stop labelling people who dislike religion racists.
- - - Updated - - -
So by your definition all atheists are racists?
Do you have a point?
People find something they dislike and then overuse it, e.g. fascism, racism, nazis, etc.
Those words then lose their original meaning - and just become throw-away words that no-one pays any real attention to.
If your argument is based on diluting the language you don't have any argument.
Let me know when you realize that being an athiest doesn't mean you hate and discriminate against people who aren't.
- - - Updated - - -
My argument is that "hating muslims isn't racist" is something ignorant people say when they don't have a justification for their xenophobia.
The part where this new "umbrella term" you're claiming is actually accepted by the people, I guess.
Because no, you don't get to misuse terms far and wide and then just use that prolonged misuse as proof of a new "language drift".
You're just a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and has been wrong for a long time.
But you don't get to decide when those happen. I might go and pretend that the new name for apples is "cheese" and keep calling apples "cheese" for years, but that wouldn't be proof of a language drift, that's just me not knowing what the heck I'm talking about.
Prolonged ignorance isn't a justification to make that ignorance as the new rule.
You are diluting the language by mixing so many different things in a non-nuanced view.
Stating the most deaths by terrorism (as the ones in the Netherlands that are the subject of this thread) are caused by muslims is a fact, and doesn't imply a hatred of muslims. When a shia muslim speak of fear of being attacked by IS it doesn't make sense to describe it as "hatred of muslims".
And using xenophobia to describe hate of muslims is inaccurate. Xenophobia can just mean fear or distrust of others; and if someone is against muslims it doesn't necessarily imply that they are against others; or even that muslims are "foreign" to them.