Has Islamophobia become a conversation stopper?

[Tamhansen]

Let me preface this by saying I don't want this to turn into a discussion about Islam as a religious or political force.

in recent years, several major news stories have come up, where Muslims have shouted Islamophobia at anything bad happening to them. A rather comical one was the easyjet passenger who had been on the airplane toilet for twenty minutes, and didn't respond when staff asked if he was okay. Fearing there was an issue, staff followed protocol and opened the door to see if he was alright. He yells Islamophobia. They only came into the bathroom to harass him because he's Muslim.

Another one is Parents in Birmingham (the original one) protesting a new LGBT+ inclusive social studies curriculum. Not just a few fundamentalists, but several hundreds of parents picketing the school, being incredibly hostile, and in one case violent towards the staff, because teaching their kids gay people exist is 'Islamophobia'


I'm not denying Islamophobia exists. Events in Christchurch made that clear. But it seems that in Western Europe, shouting Islamophobia has become a way to get what you want, to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

We had similar issues in the Netherlands a few years back when we wanted to ban unstunned slaughter of animals. Suddenly animal welfare was Islamophobic.

In my opinion this blatant abuse of the word has two negative effects.

1) It diminishes real cases of Islamophobia, as they'll be taken less serious due to all the nonsense invocation of the term
2) It increases anti muslim sentiment as people see muslims as crying foul every time they don't get their way. And this feeds alt right politicians as evidenced by the elections in the Netherlands yesterday.

[Tolvo]

I don't think it has become a conversation stopper. Do people misuse it? Yes they do. Islamophobia is still very rampant and is politically accepted and supported in much of the West. There are people who do abuse it, but in most cases I see it is being justly used. And even when it is justly used it rarely stops a conversation. Since a lot of people who get called that don't believe it to be true. Even liberals who get called Islamophobic don't tend to stop because they think "What? I'm a Democrat I'm good the Republicans are the Islamophobes so I know what I'm saying isn't wrong!" In general calling someone prejudiced doesn't halt conversations too often like this because they and their supporters don't often self reflect and consider themselves to hold a prejudice. They just see it as being insulted. More often they want to shut down conversations about prejudices or just deflect to "No you're the real racist!" and similar things. It'd only be a conversation stopper, right or wrong, if Muslims were in majority power and the public was largely against Islamophobia. That isn't happening.

[Formless]

I think part of the problem comes from the term itself.

When you say that someone has a phobia of sorts, then usually its a crippling form of fear.

So are those who are 'Islamophobic' are so fearful of Islam and Muslims that they're cowering back and shivering? Not from how I observe.

So calling someone Islamophobic is the start of this entire ... misunderstanding.

What an islamophobic exhibits is prejudice. I mean, someone whose afraid of heights wouldn't try to harm a mountain to feel better, now would he? Or someone whose afraid of insects wouldn't stomp and kill on every bug he seems, on the contrary one little instinct could put them in a condition that they cannot help themselves.

So it is best to call things as they are. Muslim-haters ... or whatever it is. And I could make a similar case to the term 'Transphobic'. These people aren't afraid of trans people. They just think they're better than them, that trans are less than them. Its purely prejudice and calling them phobic is wrong.

But in line with the original query of the thread, I would agree with Tolvo. The term is being thrown around at any chance possible.

Its not islamophobic to add an inclusive rule to your school. What's islamophobic is when you put students from Islamic origins in one class, or when you provide them with less resources for education based on their belief.

Its not Islamic to dictate a specific dress code in a private institution. Its Islamophobic when you target one single attire because its Islamist.

So yes, the term is misused as it is sometimes used correctly.

However, I do return to my initial point that the term itself is wrong.

[Silk]

As with all words that have power, people exploit it for their own gain. Which sadly then leads to the diminishment of that power. It's one of the big issues I have with the other plethora of buzzwords like mysoginist/homophobe/racist/bigot/etc. If people keep overreaching it and putting people who don't belong there, it's only going to reinforce the viewpoints of those who genuinely are and push more people towards them. I get called Islamophobic for pointing out there is Islamic countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality (and by extention, means I can never visit said countries because I would be killed for going there) I can't help but take other claims of being Islamophobic less seriously as a result. Same goes for a lot of cases in the metoo movement, I have 8 close male friends, 6 of them were falsely acused of sexual harassment. (Some being really obvious like a claim that he did it when he showed he wasn't even in the country at the time, another was when I was present the whole time and it was brought up because he wasn't reciprocating her advances) So now whenever I hear other sexual assault claims, I can't help but be skeptical.

So while it can be a conversation stopper, there is a even more concerning trend resulting from it.

[RedRose]

I agree the term is wrong, except for that French celeb whose name I can't remember who said she is phobic because she is afraid of Islam (taking over).

[Tamhansen]

As with all words that have power, people exploit it for their own gain. Which sadly then leads to the diminishment of that power. It's one of the big issues I have with the other plethora of buzzwords like mysoginist/homophobe/racist/bigot/etc. If people keep overreaching it and putting people who don't belong there, it's only going to reinforce the viewpoints of those who genuinely are and push more people towards them. I get called Islamophobic for pointing out there is Islamic countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality (and by extention, means I can never visit said countries because I would be killed for going there) I can't help but take other claims of being Islamophobic less seriously as a result.

Good point. But this is the issue really. It seems that certain people just love being able to play the victim card.

Same goes for a lot of cases in the metoo movement, I have 8 close male friends, 6 of them were falsely acused of sexual harassment. (Some being really obvious like a claim that he did it when he showed he wasn't even in the country at the time, another was when I was present the whole time and it was brought up because he wasn't reciprocating her advances) So now whenever I hear other sexual assault claims, I can't help but be skeptical.

So while it can be a conversation stopper, there is a even more concerning trend resulting from it.

Wow. that's a lot. Was this like one woman going on a serial accusing spree, or is there something in the water over there?

I used to have a black colleague. He was undereducated, unmotivated and really just a pain. But everytime he was confronted with his shortcomings he yelled racism. When he was eventually fired, he even brought it before a tribunal where it was summarilly laughed out of court. But the issue was that my then boss suddenly had reservations about accepting reports of racism, because every time they reminded him of that colleague, as well as another minority employee who tried to pull the racism card after being caught stealing. My boss once confided in me that he wished he didn't have to hire minorities as that would be less problematic. Luckily I was able to reassure him by pointing out I was a minority and that there were several minority employees who were doing excellent work, and that two bad eggs shouldn't ruin his faith.

[TheGlyphstone]

Good point. But this is the issue really. It seems that certain people just love being able to play the victim card.

Yeah, that's a problem that long predates Islamaphobia or anything else. I can't count the number of Retail Hell/Not Always Right-esque stories I've read where someone claims racism/discrimination as the reason why they can't get the sale price a week late, or why they can't return damaged merchandise, or why they're getting a ticket for parking in a fire lane. As long as there is such a thing as a minority, there will be individuals who try to play their minority card to advantage, but thankfully they are a rare percentage of the aggregate.

[Suiko]

It has, in a literal sense, been used as a conversation stopper at my university. There was going to be a debate in the religious/social studies department about... I can't remember specifically, I think something along the lines of 'where do old religious doctrine finds their place in more modern society?'. No specific religions were mentioned and it was open for anyone to take part in.

No details were given about the complaint itself, but the debate was shut down because of concerns over promotion of hostile ideas including Islamaphobia. This really left a bitter taste in my mouth, and honestly I can't help but inwardly roll my eyes whenever it comes up.

[Humble Scribe]

Good point. But this is the issue really. It seems that certain people just love being able to play the victim card.

Especially President Trump. We've somehow elevated victimhood to a kind of secular sainthood, and as a result it has become the goal of everyone to prove they are the victim. I think that it's good that we recognise that minorities have been treated badly, but the cult of victimhood has started to degrade our political discourse.

[Vekseid]

It seems to be dying down? Might just be me, but I see fewer people putting up with it.

Germanophobe was a term for awhile, and the concep was even invoked during WWII with caution against Nazi opponents so as to not risk overly dehumanizing the enemy.

Islamophobe has its place as a term, and should be reserved for acts and words veering towards dehumanization in my view. I am intensely critical of Islam, but I don't think of Formless or the other Muslims here as less than people for following it.

It does not help that many 'Islamophobes' are in fact racist. We had one as a member here who believed the solution was full on genocide, and automatically lumped 'the left' in with the groups deserving of death because obviously they defend them because that's what the left does and that's the definition of the left because only the left defends Islam and everyone on the left defends Islam don't you know they are all NPCs who only think the same thoughts.

...

You can't converse with that sort of person. In many discussions you try to find common ground, but they aren't having a discussion. They are pushing their ideology, in an attempt to convince what must be done with two billion people.

So I've tended to shy away from my harsher criticisms of Islam mostly because it naturally associates with that sort of person.

Especially President Trump. We've somehow elevated victimhood to a kind of secular sainthood, and as a result it has become the goal of everyone to prove they are the victim. I think that it's good that we recognise that minorities have been treated badly, but the cult of victimhood has started to degrade our political discourse.

There was a guy on IRC who went off on one of our mods, claiming that we only did 'X' because he was black.

...said mod was himself black.

There is a racist guy on BMR who sometimes comes around and throws the race card when he's told to behave. It's always a bit weird.

[Twisted Crow]

I was lead to believe that 'Phobia' referred to an irrational fear. But it could also simply mean intense fear?

[karkas132]

This is always what happens when people come up with certain buzz words that turn out to be effective. White Male Privilege, Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Islamophobe are all turning out to be extremely effective buzz words to shut people down when someone is either
A. Losing an Argument
or
B. Not getting their way in some way shape or form

Thats not to say that these things dont exist however they absolutely do and are things that deserve to have conversations about them, the problem is that when certain kinds of people find out they can use these buzzwords to bully people they do something they do not like or disagree with they will use them all the time and maliciously.

[Silk]

Good point. But this is the issue really. It seems that certain people just love being able to play the victim card.

Wow. that's a lot. Was this like one woman going on a serial accusing spree, or is there something in the water over there?

I used to have a black colleague. He was undereducated, unmotivated and really just a pain. But everytime he was confronted with his shortcomings he yelled racism. When he was eventually fired, he even brought it before a tribunal where it was summarilly laughed out of court. But the issue was that my then boss suddenly had reservations about accepting reports of racism, because every time they reminded him of that colleague, as well as another minority employee who tried to pull the racism card after being caught stealing. My boss once confided in me that he wished he didn't have to hire minorities as that would be less problematic. Luckily I was able to reassure him by pointing out I was a minority and that there were several minority employees who were doing excellent work, and that two bad eggs shouldn't ruin his faith.

It tends to be surprisingly common, the main thing to keep in mind though is rarely does the accusation actually reach the police in a lot of cases. It remains in social circles as a means to try and stigmatize the individual for some reason. I've had some really strange examples from friends back in school who used to do it and when they grew up regretted the action. Including.

Revenge for saying no to not wanting to have sex with her at a party.

To get a guy she liked to notice her.

Because he broke up with her.

Because her parents found out she had sex with him.

It doesn't help that I live in a Island community (The Isle of Wight is like 15 by 25 miles in size) so when word spreads, it spreads fast. Point being that the social stigma of the accusation is often enough to do damage to the accused without it ever having to formerly go to the police. It's a terrifying amount of power for almost no consequence to the action. Same goes with the usual buzzword listing (Islamophobia etc)

It's damaging their own cause though. It's the boy who cried wolf, the more baseless accusations happen, the more words you attribute falsely to someone. Eventually they're going to lose it's impact and power, where in real victims suffer from not being taken seriously. It infuriates me because I'm traditionally center left leaning politically, but I'm feeling pushed more to the right every day as the political partisanship fly's off into the sunset.

[Tolvo]

Phobia is attached because it is an irrational fear. And people who are bigots tend to have deep seated fears of what people represent about the world, and themselves. But a lot of this and their rationalizations are just to smokescreen that they hate others, and often want them to no longer exist, and die. And not everyone uses terms with phobia, it's a bit of a discussion among disability and mental health activists and communities as to whether it is treating bigotry as a disorder or mental health issue when it isn't in most cases(Very rarely there are people who do have it as a result of a disorder but that's very rare).

Islamaphobia is also used because it is specific to the targeting of Muslims but also intersects with racism, since Islam and Arabic people are deeply linked even though it's practiced across Asia and Africa now and historically and in the modern day Muslims exist in every country(Like the practitioners of most religions). This is on top of other groups being targeted due to this association, like Sikhs who are often confused for Muslims and are attacked and murdered, because Sikhs often have brown skin and wear turbans. Because the turban is both desert garb and the Sikh religious garb. It can be treated in a similar sense to anti-Semitism which is a combination of religious and ethnic persecution since Jewish people are recognized as belonging to a religious group and to an ethnic group and one can be targeted for belonging to one or both.

Now organized Islam can have problems, it usually varies by country. Some are progressive some are regressive, the same goes for any country with a major religion like Christianity or Judaism. I research Azuchi-Momoyama Japanese history and they had this with Buddhism where conservative Buddhists dominated the country while ruling with corrupt officials and took everything they could from the peasants. Which was where a lot of anti-Buddhist sentiment at the time came from then with the rise of Nobunaga who hated Buddhism came uprisings and further civil wars, which was complicated by the introduction of Christianity to Japan before they purged the Christians under Tokugawa Ieyasu with few surviving thanks to people like Date Masamune.

In the USA hatred of Muslims is very rampant in media and in our politics. There is also a lot of hatred and fighting between Jewish people and Muslims, with the Israel-Palestine occupation and conflict. Though a lot of those communities mostly get along just fine in the political discourse there is great animosity not even necessarily by people from either group. And regarding what "Shuts down conversation" it depends on what is actually accepted. Anti-Semitism in the USA is absolutely rampant with the rise of the far right, but at the same time criticism of Israel for example is very taboo. It's okay to use a lot of dog whistles that are for Jewish people but directly speaking out against Jewish people is usually frowned upon. This isn't really true for hatred towards Muslims, people say the term "Islamists" all the time just fine. People can say nearly anything they want about Islam as long as they don't directly call for genocide, and even that isn't a hard line rule with people like Ben Shapiro still having popularity and being interviewed and having success despite openly calling for the genocide of Palestinian Arabic Muslims.

People can misuse claims of others being bigots, it happens. People do need to have care with it, and know when to say they know someone has a prejudice and make that distinct from when they think something might be rooted in prejudice but it is not confirmed. And people can just not realize what they were saying was offensive because they don't understand the implications or were repeating something they heard a lot, which happens quite commonly. I don't tend to see conversations where claiming something was Islamaphobic shut the conversation down or stopped anyone, usually the person accused just digs in deeper. In general it's something you don't see much outside of left wing and liberal spaces that a conversation is shut down by an accuse of bigotry because other spaces don't really care about that sort of thing, it doesn't matter to them. A lot of people don't even believe these things exist, to them they just consider it an insult and see it as nothing more than that or as you attempting to "Play the victim card" or something along those lines which is them trying to shut down the conversation as to whether what they said is rooted in prejudice.

Something important is also "How?" "How is this prejudiced?" Not everyone is owed an explanation, but generally there are at least some people in a conversation willing to explain their view. It can also be important to ask why someone made the statement that is allegedly prejudiced. People can end up saying a term as well that is used differently in different contexts and communities. Globalist can be a left wing critique of imperialism, to some people it means imperialist. But often if you hear that what the person means is "Jews." So if someone calls for instance George Soros a globalist but doesn't know the dog whistle to mean "Jew." They could end up saying something that comes off very anti-Semitic without realizing it but a conversation could reveal why they used that term and how they didn't know its other uses and they'd probably not use the term globalist anymore.

Some people might also end up saying things that are ignorant because they don't have the full picture. People can end up saying something Islamaphobic such as that Islam is responsible for female genital(I hate this term so much) mutilation. And that is why they oppose it. Now it's good to oppose that practice, but it also is practice in many Christian countries. So they ended up focusing on the wrong thing, a lot of people need to focus more on a specific issue or root of the problem(Such as misogyny) than to attack a group of people based on a perceived issue with that group of people. There are Muslim countries that are very misogynistic, but as well there are Christian ones as well. And many have various mixes, Iran in ways has greater laws for trans people than the USA does, but also homosexuality is illegal there. Iran has religious leaders(Not all of them mind you) who are trans allies and have been working to change the system to protect trans people more. Though it still has a lot of problems with this(Changing laws doesn't always change the culture). Nearly everything people criticize Islam for there is a Christian country that also does it, so it's more often important to criticize that specific form of Islam, that specific country, what it is they are doing(Whether it's homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist, etc). Or to at least be fair, if you speak out against radical Islam but don't speak out against radical Christianity(Which is currently far more dangerous) it shows to many people.

Perhaps this was a bit long and got lost in details, I apologize for that, it's just some stuff that has been on my mind and I consider it important to recognize problems, their roots, and also how to solve them and how to discuss them as well as recognizing where someone may be coming from or why though perhaps they're speaking in ignorance at times educating them can help them understand.

[karkas132]

Tolvo brings up a lot of fantastic points, people who call out radical islam but don't call out radical Christianity are some of the people that grind my gears the most because if you oppose radical religious violence it should be ALL radical religious violence and not just one particular form of it. However Tolvo I would really like some sources on Radical Christian violence being more active and dangerous than Radical Islamic violence because I can't think of off the top of my head any Radical Christian Groups that have actively held territory and been in direct conflict, the damage ISIS has caused in the middle east and abroad is fairly prevalent and they still do actively hold territory and oppress communities in certain areas (at least last I checked its been a bit since ive checked the Middle East Live maps for updates on the war). Please note i'm not disagreeing with you I would just like some good sources if you have any.

But I happen to agree with Tolvo heavily here, if someone is going to oppose radical Islam morally its only right if they oppose radical religious violence of all stripes whether it be Christianity, Judaism, and some of the disgusting white supremacist groups who try to use Pagan religions like Norse Paganism as a validity for their white supremacist ideology, its disgusting.

But as stated before there will always be people who use buzzwords just to shut down conversations with people who don't agree with them, this isn't always the case but it has become more and more prevalent.

[Tolvo]

It's honestly hard to get good stats on it, because everyone defines this differently. For instance radical Christian terrorists are not often recognized as such. It also has to do with the weakening of certain groups like ISIS. And whether you go globally, terrorist attacks, or even include state violence because in that case it would include damage done broadly by the US military which would very much skew things. Which for the US military it is more based on Imperialism rather than Christianity while far right terrorists are better examples of radical Christians.

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/283097.pdf

This helps to illustrate trends of less Islamic terrorist attacks which is in part due to ISIS weakening. Though there are still other groups, last I checked Boko Haram(ISWA, which are allied with ISIS) is still around. In general deaths due to terrorism though are down.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download

For domestic terrorism the far right in the USA for instance is doing most of the damage currently. And they are a lot of things, including radical Christians. It gets complicated looking at certain areas. Like looking at African countries since a lot of mob killing and state violence is done in the name of Christianity after various countries became heavily influenced by American Christian Evangelists like Glenn Beck. And including state violence would include also the genocides of Muslims going on in Asia for instance. Myanmar being a prime example(A place which the CEO of Twitter Jack went to on vacation recently and said it was lovely and safe and everyone should visit while Americans were told to not fly there due to the ongoing genocide and executions of journalists documenting it). Though that one is actually being carried out by a majority Buddhist country.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/investigator-myanmar-genocide-rohingya-ongoing-181025035804009.html

And this is not including many who are indeed terrorists but who get labelled "Lone wolves." Which is applied differently to white christian men than it is too others. Neo Nazis are on the rise and they tend to be radical Christians(Though they've been also focusing on recruiting atheists from movement atheism groups).

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/documenting-hate-new-american-nazis/

As well for dangers presented here is a look into Neo Nazis in the USA and their attempts to infiltrate the US Military and get access to training, weaponry, and set up targets such as Nuclear Power Plants. Which the training and weaponry part has been successful. Thankfully in the incident focused on the mass shooting and possible attack on a nuclear power plant with explosives was thwarted. This is also compounded as mentioned by the US government not caring too much about this and it being prevented by local law enforcement(Thank goodness for that).

[karkas132]

Thank you for all the helpful sources even if it still leaves a lot of questions and doesn't truly paint an accurate picture I will go over these in detail.

I was once one of those people who had my eyes shut to the threat of ring wing violence because I live in an area where left-wing violence is more prominent, though nothing of the terrorist threat sort of thing like a lot of the right-wing violence is and more so of the antifa showing up to free speech rallies and beating up anyone with a dissenting opinion of them, here the ring-wing opposition came later and the antifa riots started first so it was easy to see them as an antagonistic force who gave violent alt-righters a reason to take up arms. I dont think there were any deaths but there was lots of violence and these were often like, a handful of blocks away from my house to the point that I was locking my doors and grabbing my firearms should the worst come to pass.

However over the past year and some change i've done more research into right wing violence however I do still have trouble seeing it as a bigger threat than say ISIS, which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of right wing violence since Islamism, as in the actual political ideology associated with ISIS and similar groups, is very alt-right-y in nature what with the oppression of women and anyone who is not arabic or a muslim of a same mind.

And I was aware of Christian extremism in Africa but it is exceedingly difficult to accurate statistics from Africa for the most part.

Oh yeah reading stuff about Myanmar is always a trip, I think its funny listening to Western Buddhists who say things like "Im a buddhist so i practice non violence peace love etc" and its kind of like...you really dont know a whole lot about Buddhism do you?"

As for neo-nazis planning on attack on nuclear power plants, that is very concerning and I would like to see that dealt with more harshly.

I don't use political labels often because I often have trouble finding where I fit, I don't fit in well with the new liberal left in America but I certainly don't fit in well with conservatives in America either and while socially I fit in well with libertarians as in I really don't care what people do or believe as long as it doesn't cause harmful effect on me or others and im very pro-free speech and pro 2nd amendment I also dont think unregulated capitalism is a good thing. I used to identify as centrist but people have this view of centrists as always having to compromise between extremes and while I don't think that is true that is unfortunately the label they are stuck with.

[Tolvo]

Well a part of the rise of the danger proportionally is the lowering of danger proportionally. If it were still at its height ISIS would still present a major danger. While it is still dangerous they are pretty scattered and weakened. Though of course in time they could come back, especially given Imperial powers and what they do to the Middle East/West Asia and the rise of right wing extremism, with ISIS being very right wing and Christian extremism and Islamaphobia driving more to join groups like ISIS.

Left wing terrorism isn't really a big threat, it's theoretically possible, but the left wing is heavily watched and hated by law enforcement and the government. Which is why we end up with instances like this where Neo Nazis stab antifascists then the FBI and police defend the Neo Nazis and arrest the antifascists(While claiming Neo Nazis were the KKK and that the KKK isn't racist and is just misunderstood, in FBI documents).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/05/antifa-charges-california-activists-stabbing

There is anger and rage though in parts of the left wing and people who do have a revolutionary mindset, and those who are authoritarian and accelerationists(Wanting things to get to the point of genocide by the government so that the people will rise up) who could get violent if they had any power.

[TheGlyphstone]

I just call myself Independent, rather than centrist. I'm socially liberally inclined but financially/economically conservative, so neither party really fits me perfectly.

As far as Christian terrorism, my first thought is always the Irish Troubles. While that was primarily a nationalistic conflict, there was a very prominent Protestant/Catholic element to the violence as well.

Africa is probably a better example, it brings to mind people like Joseph Kony ( remember Kony 2012?) and his militia army. Theres a lot of factional violence there that goes under the Western radar.

[karkas132]

Well a part of the rise of the danger proportionally is the lowering of danger proportionally. If it were still at its height ISIS would still present a major danger. While it is still dangerous they are pretty scattered and weakened. Though of course in time they could come back, especially given Imperial powers and what they do to the Middle East/West Asia and the rise of right wing extremism, with ISIS being very right wing and Christian extremism and Islamaphobia driving more to join groups like ISIS.

Left wing terrorism isn't really a big threat, it's theoretically possible, but the left wing is heavily watched and hated by law enforcement and the government. Which is why we end up with instances like this where Neo Nazis stab antifascists then the FBI and police defend the Neo Nazis and arrest the antifascists(While claiming Neo Nazis were the KKK and that the KKK isn't racist and is just misunderstood, in FBI documents).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/05/antifa-charges-california-activists-stabbing

There is anger and rage though in parts of the left wing and people who do have a revolutionary mindset, and those who are authoritarian and accelerationists(Wanting things to get to the point of genocide by the government so that the people will rise up) who could get violent if they had any power.

Yeah things were kind of the opposite here in Portland which is why many Oregonians have a skewed view of left-wing extremism. Here the Police blatantly favored Antifa even when Antifa was launching fireworks at them, the police were actively confiscating weapons from the pro-free speech protesters while the antifa protesters still had shields, clubs, trench clubs, small flag poles used as weapons and shields used as weapons to great effect.

However the things with groups like ISIS is they may be losing the ground war but these sorts of groups are used to operating in the shadows and the underground as well, so even if they don't hold territory that doesn't preclude them from being in the background plotting further but I agree with your assessment that they are on the decline and hopefully it stays that way, I love that video of Kurdish Militia Girls dancing in the market square where ISIS used to sell women as slaves, it was such a wholesome and heartwarming sight.
https://twitter.com/gaylelemmon/status/1030260502578880512
great video.

Honestly religious extremism is so counter intuitive to the points of most of these religions its sort of sad.

[Twisted Crow]

I never had a strong religious upbringing in my little chaotic childhood. There was one time where my mom studied with JW's and then there is my father who claims to believe and talk to God all the time, but he never goes to church or claims any particular branch of Christianity.

But with that experience, I have been shaped into seeing the honest goods and bads with organized religion. Sure, it is easy to pick at religion for holy wars... when in my opinion, almost all war is simply about resources or land; either obtaining or protecting them. It is my opinion that 'Because God', unfortunately, can be a very good excuse to hide a bloodthirsty warmonger's greed and ambition. This is not to let religion off the hook, entirely, mind you... but I feel bad seeing good pious people getting a bad shake when some either go too far with it (and maybe even miss the point) and/or use said faith as a weapon of influence.

I am not even religious, really. Spiritual maybe, but I can't get into organized religion. I claim I'm agnostic, typically. But anyway, I still don't feel that it is my privilege or right to "take their hope away," if that makes any sense to anybody. 

[Regina Minx]

I am not even religious, really. Spiritual maybe, but I can't get into organized religion. I claim I'm agnostic, typically. But anyway, I still don't feel that it is my privilege or right to "take their hope away," if that makes any sense to anybody. 

Yeah, but what kind of hope is false hope? I'm not out to steal people's beliefs or abolish religion. But would I prefer that people relinquish superstition and religious-based worldviews? You betcha.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, but what kind of hope is false hope? I'm not out to steal people's beliefs or abolish religion. But would I prefer that people relinquish superstition and religious-based worldviews? You betcha.

I know I'm going to regret engaging you on this, but from a consequentialist perspective, what good does changing that worldview accomplish beyond the selfish personal satisfaction of 'converting' someone?

Even if taken as a given that Belief X - in this case, the existence of a deity/afterlife - is false, that falsity cannot become incontrovertible to the believer until the moment of death. At such time, the reveal of its falsity cannot do harm because the believer by definition is dead and incapable of suffering harm of any kind, nor can they gain any benefit. Whereas if they are alive, it must be evaluated on an individual basis on the potential for harm or gain.

-Does holding that belief result in tangible positive benefit to them or other people? If it does, then removing that belief could do harm and should be avoided unless it can be guaranteed that harm will not result. Example - a person who regularly donates to charity because they believe God demands that. While this reflects poorly on the individual if they would not donate without said belief imperative, and positively if they would, its existence is still a net positive and at worst a null change.

-Does holding that belief result in intangible positive benefit to them without harm to others? If it does, removing that belief might or might not do harm and should be avoided unless it can be guaranteed to not cause harm as previously noted. Example - a person dying of an incurable illness, but comforted by the belief in a pain-free and utopian afterlife that awaits when it's finally over. Without a firm understanding of that person's psychology and how this would impact their quality of life to have that belief removed or replaced, tampering with their belief structure is inadvisable.

-Does holding that belief result in tangible negative benefit to themselves or other people? If it does, removing that belief would help and should be encouraged, subject to circumstances. Examples - a person being gay and believing in the Christian God as a homophobic entity results in psychological trauma and depression. Whether that person is convinced that their God is a false construct entirely, or simply convinced to view their God from a different theological perspective, they are better off than they would have been prior to intervention. This last point can become sticky depending on if you consider a belief system to be one immutable package deal or a set of discrete values capable of being approached separately.

[TheGlyphstone]

That got wordier than I expected. The TLDR version:

A false belief and a harmful belief are not automatically synonymous, but neither is a false belief and a helpful one. The specific circumstances involved with a specific person should be taken into account before tampering with someone else's worldview, and to do otherwise is irresponsible.

[Tolvo]

Perhaps a bit off topic but still in relation to the matter in regards to religions and desire to engage with them on some level.

For the above, I am an atheist, a full term for me would be irreligious agnostic atheist without any spiritual beliefs. I have no doctrine or mandate to recruit people. Nothing actually bad in my world view happens to someone due to them believing something other than my belief like for certain religions where disbelief leads to negative outcomes for people(Hell being a prime example). So I really have no desire or need in converting anyone. I don't care if someone believes "Deity made the universe." It doesn't effect me. If they say "Science proves deity made the universe" then yes that is a false statement, because science does not prove that and I can engage with that. There's really only reason to if it is something that causes harm in some way such as spreading ignorance and lies like that one example. Otherwise other people's religious beliefs don't really matter if they don't hurt anyone else.