Yakaru, just as you don’t see anyone saying that religion causes behavior, I don’t see anyone saying that religious beliefs doesn’t affect their behavior. People’s behavior almost always derives from a complex mix of motives and causes (see UN report). But people often choose from religion what justifies their desires and ignore what doesn’t. And within any one religion, people have such a wide variety of environments, experiences and backgrounds, that it clarifies little to identify if they are Islamic, Christian, or Buddhist. (again, see the report).

To simply seize on religion as a cause of anything, be it rape, violence, charity, generosity, in-group loyalty, out-group hostility, etc is simplistic in the extreme.”

It would indeed be simplistic, and I would disagree with anyone who suggested it. I don’t see anyone here saying that though.

I see no problem, however, in criticizing overt religious doctrine and to assume that those who act both hold the doctrine to be true, and whose behavior clearly reflects this doctrine, then I think it is reasonable to
a) surmise the doctrine had an influence, and
b) to open up public debate about the doctrine itself, among other measures.

I disagree with your assertion that people’s religious beliefs doesn’t affect their behavior.

I agree completely that ” when young men are brought up to see women as lesser creatures, there to serve them, and immoral if not covered, that has an effect on their behaviour towards them.” and I don’t think I’ve ever implied otherwise. I’m just saying that such an attitude is by no means unique to Islam. It was nearly universal among human cultures in the past and is still very widespread.

Once again the United Nations Multi-Country Study
on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific, cited in the OP is informative. The single greatest motivation cited by men who had raped in all countries studied was a sense of sexual entitlement. This was true of Islamic, Buddhist, and Christian countries but highest in atheist/Maoist China.

When looking deeper into the experiences of men who raped (non-partner), the study identified additional factors (in order of importance): Childhood emotional abuse or neglect, Childhood sexual abuse and sexual victimization, alcohol and drug use, fights, gang involvement, depression, current food insecurity.

Religion can be a factor in any of these things, but to generalize about the influence of one religion versus another is fraught with difficulties. There is more variation of behavior and social circumstances within any religion than there is between the means of these measures of different religions. To say a perpetrator is a Muslim (or Christian or Buddhist, or atheist) tells us little. Was he brought up rich or poor, abusive parents, first born or not, sexually abused as a child, urban or rural, dominant subgroup or subordinate subgroup? To simply seize on religion as a cause of anything, be it rape, violence, charity, generosity, in-group loyalty, out-group hostility, etc is simplistic in the extreme. In the case of rape, both the UN study and the data cited in the Wikipedia article suggest that to claim that Islam is any more associated with rape than other religions and cultures is simple false. I suggest that the burden is on those who claim Islam is uniquely dangerous, to present evidence for that argument, rather than simply stating it as a premise. Not to do so is to enable those who have ulterior motives for vilifying Islam. But that is the reading of the evidence by someone labelled as deliberately obtuse. I encourage readers to look at the UN report themselves and draw their own conclusions. http://www.partners4prevention.org/sites/default/files/resources/p4p-report-summary.pdf

The facts that you relate about the wars the US has been involved don’t mean that I can’t criticize Islam or anything else. Besides, I’m just as entitled to my opinion as yours, and I think that when young men are brought up to see women as lesser creatures, there to serve them, and immoral if not covered, that has an effect on their behaviour towards them. To say otherwise is, imo, deliberately obtuse.

I knew Paxton would notice that I’d used Muslimophobia instead of Islamophobia – it was a bit of a dig, and I was making a point by doing that.

As we’ve both said elsewhere, bad ideas need to be criticized wherever they come from, and religion is no exception. Specifically, Islam is no exception.

It often seems like you are attacking myself and others here because of the way you express yourself. I’ve come to learn that you don’t mean it personally, but it certainly sounds personal and unless I call you out on it, it’s not going to change.

My title doesn’t imply that the rape is religiously driven – that title would be something like “Islam Causes Rape” or something equally outrageous. The title is a direct quote from the imam in the film and the title the right-wing group used when they spread the clip.

The main thing I say about the relation between Islam and bad behaviour (including rape and terrorism etc) is not so much that Islam causes it, but that Islam gives them an excuse for it. That is exactly what the imam in the clip does, and exactly what the rules for women’s dress do. The rules for women’s dress make a point of saying that she is keeping herself safe from attack by covering herself. Therefore, if she is attacked, it’s her fault. This imam and many others reinforce that idea. Further, I’m sure you understand the idea that a man who grows up not respecting women as equals treats them less well than one who has. You’re old enough to remember how women were routinely treated in the West fifty years ago and to have noticed the improvements in that time.

Your comment could provide a sort of addendum to what I wrote if you’d expressed it differently but it read more like an attack on me, which is what gets people’s backs up.

I “have a chip on my shoulders” about US military interference in the affairs of other countries because of 70 years of experience with US foreign policy. When I was young the US assumed France’s role in a colonial war to suppress an independence struggle in Vietnam. The government fanned fear and loathing of Communism, together with some implicit racism to induce the people to support the war. They fabricated an event (Gulf of Tonkin) to make it appear the other side was the aggressor. The result was over 2 million killed, including 58,000 Americans. And we achieved nothing except to create chaos in the whole region, giving rise to, among other things, the murderous regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia (which we bombed extensively in spite of government lies that we weren’t).

Did we learn from this fiasco? With the collapse of the Soviet Union we no longer had to project force around the world to resist the inexorable spread of international communism (as we had been told). But the neocons proposed this idea that we are the “indispensable nation”, and that only we could preserve world order by intervening wherever we felt necessary. (I don’t believe Hitchens and Harris were part of the original neocon group, and I don’t think I have ever called them that, though I have claimed that their anti-Islam rhetoric forwarded the neocon agenda.)

I have still not heard a convincing explanation of why we invaded Iraq, but Bush2 et al thought it was necessary. They capitalized on the fear invoked in the populace by the 9/11 attacks, insinuated that Iraq was involved in that attack, although they knew differently, and fabricated evidence to make Saddam Hussein appear much more dangerous than he was. Although Bush and other leaders claimed that we were not attacking Islam, anti-Islamic rhetoric became more and more fashionable. You know the results: a couple hundred thousand killed in the initial Iraq war, but also a chain of destabling events that still has the region in chaos 13 years after the invasion.

Anyone who thinks that the same influential sector of American society, war-profiteers, bullies, neocons, that dragged us into Vietnam and Iraq, are not still actively looking for opportunities to deploy the American military, is in deep denial.

I think you have mischarcterized my thinking at the end of your comment. I am keenly aware of the damage religion has done throughout history, including the role of Christians in the US supporting the military adventures I mentioned above. I accept that religion has an influence, both bad and good on people’s behavior, but I reject simplistic explanations that claim that religion “caused” the Charlie Hebdo attacks, for example. To say that jihadism is due to Islam is as if I bullied someone repeatedly and when they struck back I attributed it to their poor upbringing. And I can’t recall ever in these discussions, attributing positive behavior to religion.

It’s rather frustrating that when I provide substantial data and arguments to a discussion, as I believe I did in my original comment here, the responses don’t address the evidence but instead my motives. Does Islam promote a rape culture? Heather’s post implied yes. I claimed that the evidence does not support that assertion. I was not attacking Heather, but her argument, or thesis. Now you accuse me of willful ignorance and triple standards without ever addressing the question at hand. Well, I’ve been called a lot of things, including some by you I believe. But I have also found you to be a sincere and thoughtful participant in our conversations, so I try to not let personal pique stand in the way of reasoned discussion.

I must correct you on a minor point, Heather — as far as I’ve seen, Paxton uses the term “Islamophobia” rather than the more sensible “Muslimophobia”, as you too generously attribute to him!

Personally, I have never understood why he has such a chip on his shoulders about this. He is quick to attribute supposed misbehavior of people like Hitchens or Harris to their supposed neo-con ideology — a relatively shallow ideology compared to religion; but then refuses to accept that deeply held beliefs imbibed from birth, reinforced daily through youth and adulthood, and entrenched in cultures for thousands of years can have any effect on people’s behavior at all….unless it’s a “positive” behavior, then it’s immediately ascribed to their religion.

I can only call it willful ignorance and double, or rather triple standards.

Thank you, Heather. I did not mean to attack you personally. I meant to question the thesis of your post, that tied Islam to rape, by providing some contrary evidence. I know there is no good answer to the problem of rape. The urge to have sexual intercourse is our deepest ingrained instinct, next to that for survival. There seems to be a certain portion of men who will take advantage of women for sex if the opportunity is available. Laws and social norms (or religious rules) will only constrain a certain number of them in certain situations. It’s a problem everywhere and I just don’t see it so driven by religion as your title implies. I refer to you personally in my comments, because I am replying to your post, and because I regard you as a friend and a worthy adversary. Perhaps your post, combined with my reply, (minus any personal references) would give the best summary of the situation? Yin and yang?