Skip to main content

Jeff Goldblum, Islam, and Ru Paul's Drag race

Jeff Goldblum is being criticised for asking whether Islam is anti-gay and anti-women. See e.g. this article in The Independent. Stats suggest e.g. the Muslim population in the UK for example does have a problem with homophobia (according to a survey a third of all UK Muslims think a wife should be forced to obey her husband, and 0% of UK Muslims think homosexuality is acceptable). And certainly that religion traditionally does (but then so does Christianity).

At the same time I think Islamophobia is real and pernicious and probably much more of a problem than e.g. antisemitism in the UK (again, surveys bear this out). Perhaps we simply shouldn't ask such questions about Islam for fear of stoking such prejudice. On the other hand, perhaps liberals self-censoring - deliberately avoiding mentioning such facts or asking such questions - actually stokes Islamophobia by, in effect, stifling free speech re Islam and also feeding the 'double standard' narrative (that Christianity/Christians, on the other hand, can be called anti-gay with impunity [but then Christians aren't being discriminated against or vilified in the way Muslims are]).

Personally, at this point, I don't think Goldblum did anything wrong - though you might yet persuade me I'm mistaken about that.

What annoys me most, actually, is the hysterical witch-finder finger pointing being directed against him. Even if he was wrong, I think he's probably a good person and had good intentions (he may even have been inviting the contestant to challenge that view), and attempting to smear him as a bigot probably helps no one in the long run (though it may give his accusers a little short-term holier-then-thou rush).
Labels:

Comments

James said…
Got a citation for “ 0% of UK Muslims think homosexuality is acceptable”? https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2018-03/a-review-of-survey-research-on-muslims-in-great-britain-ipsos-mori_0.pdf has about 50% thinking it should be illegal, which isn’t great, but also isn’t 100%.
April 25, 2020 at 11:58 AM
Paul Braterman said…
A suggestion, not new and not my own; drop the term "Islamophobia", which creates an inherent confusion between prejudice against individuals and criticism of a religion, and replace it with "Muslimphobia"
April 25, 2020 at 3:38 PM
Chris said…
I'm more inclined to ask is the wealth and spectacle on display, that has been accumulated by exploitation and alienating economic conditions, by the aforementioned people, also acceptable?
April 28, 2020 at 8:08 PM
Martin Freedman said…
"Islamophobia is real and pernicious and probably much more of a problem than e.g. antisemitism in the UK (again, surveys bear this out). "

"probably" and what have surveys to do with anything when we have hard evidence? Home Office statistics shows that an average of over three hate crimes are directed at Jews every single day in England and Wales, with Jews almost four times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other faith group.

Further why even bring this up in this post since it is incidental to the thrust of your argument?
May 18, 2020 at 10:28 AM
stephen law said…
All the surveys I have seen consistently show that attitudes towards Muslims are less favourable than attitudes towards Jews. See these surveys for example:

https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-work/avaaz-islamophobia-anti-semitism-poll/
https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39293/1_bsa36_religion.pdf
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/01/qa-measuring-attitudes-toward-muslims-and-jews-in-western-europe/

Hate crimes are also important indicators of course. Last year The Jewish Chronicle reported the following which flatly contradicts what you claim:

'Jews were the targetted in 18 per cent of the total number of hate crimes – while 47 per cent, or 3,530 offences were committed against Muslim people.'

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/hate-crimes-against-jews-more-than-double-in-a-year-1.490103

What's your source?
May 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM
stephen law said…
As to why I made the comparison, antisemitism has been front page news for a couple of years, while Islamophobia has not. What I am implying is that Islamophobia should have received should be taken much more seriously.
May 18, 2020 at 12:48 PM
stephen law said…
James - the 0% came from a poll that's pretty old now tbh. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
May 18, 2020 at 1:01 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more