Hacker News Reader

Comment by intopieces | Hacker News Reader

>where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you must hold Ideas X, Y, and Z because those must be the views you hold as a member of those groups.

This was never more obvious to me than when I was in college. As an out gay guy who studied Arabic, this seemed to short-circuit the expectations of my peers; being in awe of Islamic art, and wanting deeply to travel to Iran and see the mosques of the world was something that, for some reason, didn't compute to them. "But don't they hate your kind over there?" was not an uncommon reaction. I get it, I really do, but sometimes it felt like I wasn't allowed, in their eyes, to have access to those beautiful things in the world, or else I was considered "brave" for trying to access them. But to me they have been wholly distinct interests from the start, and only incidental that they happen to coexist in me as a individual person.

View on HN

And then there's the converse - when e.g. Iranian and Arab immigrants are shamed for legitimately criticizing religious-based oppression in their societies, because their criticism - with extra weight lent to it by their background - supposedly fuels Islamophobia in the West; and is thus a form of cultural imperialism that they're expected to not partake in, regardless of the reality of oppression that they talk about, or their own personal experience in that regard.

The most famous example is probably Maajid Nawaz - a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir who renounced his extremist views, and since then has been actively criticizing political Islamism (of both violent and non-violent variety), while remaining a practicing Muslim. Despite that last fact, he was identified as an "anti-Muslim extremist" by SPLC - and they only retracted this after a massive outcry.

Contrast that with the utter fragmentation of Christianity in the West. Pope Francis needs a Sgt. Hulka to encourage him to lighten up[1].

Lord have mercy on anyone who takes temporal leaders more seriously than those absolute truths to which those leaders (purportedly) point.

[1] Reference to the movie "Stripes".

You are trying to portray ISLAM as religion of peace. It is not. ISLAM is incompatible with democracy. I understand all types of people exist given the amount of population. With ISLAM it is followed very strongly and that's why even physics majors don't question the existence of god in the open even when they are non in the Islamic state.

I could say the same of every monotheistic religion. For example, one of the most famous Church Fathers, one still recognized as a saint by most Christian denominations, wrote as early as 4th century:

"Should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them, and when the judge ... calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!"

But we don't judge all Christians based on that. Neither should all Muslims be judged on the basis of a particular interpretation of their scriptures, especially when the vast majority of them do not subscribe to it at all.

I know a lot of Christians and other religions where people can openly say they are atheist openly and their family(and society in general) is okay with that. The problem with ISLAM is it is so dogmatic, no one can oppose it irrespective of education, in fact they double down when questioned or shown facts and preach tolerance to others or point other religions quotes. This is what i hate about ISLAM. There is some thing deeply wrong with it, they can not take criticism even if you are in the STEM field.

I know of a lot of Muslims to whom people can openly say that they're atheist.

For example, my grandfather was a Muslim. His wife was Christian. His son - my father - is an atheist, and so am I.

It sounds like your problem isn't with Islam, but rather with a strawman that you have constructed.

I think the reason it short-circuits their expectations is that what they're actually trying to do is "cancel" Islam on your behalf. Like: "wait a minute, I'm trying to defend/protect you here, isn't that what you want from a majority, to stand up for you?" And what you're doing, ignoring their protective effort, becomes a kind of betrayal. Which has got to be so frustrating -- the idea that you're not qualified to have your own opinion, that you have to conform to what the majority says simply because they're "helping" you.

Interesting, but I'm not sure this qualifies to the point, in this case they are worried for your safety for valid reasons.. not trying to force you an opinion on something.

There is absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran. There isn't some magic gaydar they can scan you with to discover your nature. I'd recommend not trying to find hookup partners while you're in Iran, but that is different than them just figuring out you're gay and deciding to harm you. Being an American in Iran is a far bigger burden IMHO, because of the required government minders.

"absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran" doesn't exactly align with having to conceal "your nature"

Being gay isn't the only thing on that list when you go to Iran, sadly enough :(

What about when they find out when researching social media? You know, as the US does? (For other reasons)

And plenty of other countries, too.

Also, is being gay the issue? or committing homosexual acts?

Not sure, but possibly, not much? Foreigners are given a pass on many issues. For example, you can easily rent a hotel room with your unmarried partner without a marriage certificate.

I'd imagine you are right, at least today. Worth the risk?

That's a personal decision, but I would say yes. Iran is a great place to visit, but a bit complicated as a UK/US citizen.

"There is absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran. ", yeah as long as you no one know you are gay. So it's a valid concern because you have to watch what you say / do if you are gay in Iran.

And anyway, that had nothing to do with the original discussion of the having someone to force an opinion on something.

I think their concern was well-founded and the reason identity and politics have become so intertwined is because "the personal is political".

In Iran, homosexuality has been punished by imprisonment, torture, and execution. People who are gay in Iran do not have the luxury of being able to go and visit, they live under that threat every day. And many countries in the Middle East have similar policies and their gay population - rarely out - live under similar threat.

Wanting to go study the beautiful works of art in Iran is brave. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to do so as well, and yet the Islamic scientific and cultural golden age is still quite interesting to me.

But yet, it's still true that many, perhaps most of them "hate my kind" over there. Atheism is also punishable by execution in several countries in the Arabic speaking world. If I told friends I wanted to go study and live in Iran and they were concerned and asked me that question, I don't think it'd be disproportionate. If they said it was brave, I don't think I'd dispute it.

(Though in all fairness and perhaps you find this cringeworthy, I am fortunate and privileged in that being a straight atheist in these countries is a lot easier than being gay, and being gay and Muslim might actually exacerbate the threat.)

I studied in Iran for a couple of months and travelled a lot around the country as an anglophone atheist (that happens to speak Farsi). I don't think anyone ever asked me about religion. Everyone was nice.

In a handful of countries around the world, including Iran, being non-religious is considered blasphemous and can be punished by death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10...

There's the law, and then there's the law's practical application. These rarely line up, especially for foreigners. Iran isn't really interested in making world news by executing foreigners.

Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed, and not to preemptively seek out violators. That's not necessarily morally any better, but at least it removes the spectre of "I'm going to get killed the instant I land at the airport" feeling that seems to be so common.

> Exactly, and it's also worth mentioning that alot of these types of laws exist to create criminals when one is needed,

How on Earth does that make it better in any way? That is the hallmark of any fascist or authoritarian state. That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.

I feel like I'm the upside down here, why are people in any way defending actual thought crime laws in countries like Iran? In what universe is it acceptable for the state to make not believing in something a crime punishable by death?

> How on Earth does that make it better in any way? [...] That these type of laws exist to punish cultural outliers does not make them just or right.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that GP was saying that? Did you read sentence 2 of 2, in which he clarifies he was not making a moral comparison? If you feel you’re in the upside down, it’s because you’re reading something that isn’t there. Not everything you encounter must be immediately classified as ‘for’ or ‘against’ whatever moral issue you currently feel passionate about. Nuance exists.

Thank you!

cough might want to read the second sentence.

I have non-religious Iranian friends, living in Iran, that will share their views with others and certainly do not live in fear of their lives. It is a complex topic however. Much of what a western person might associate with 'religion' is better attributed to 'culture'. Openly rejecting all cultural norms, unlikely to go well, foreigner or local, Iran or elsewhere. Your comment does not provide meaningful understanding and rather misleads.

I have met people from middle eastern countries who are apostates, a crime punishable by death. They fear for their life and the history of executions in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name two of several, is clear.

It is undeniably true that in Iran and several other countries, blasphemy and apostasy is a crime. A real, actual thought crime which the state punishes with violence.

So it's the state you are concerned about? Not common Iranians?

>> Wanting to go study the beautiful works of art in Iran is brave. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to do so... But yet, it's still true that many, perhaps most of them [Iranians] "hate my kind" over there.

In practical terms, for your trip to Iran, US citizenship is a more likely source of potential issues than your religious beliefs.

Yes, I am more concerned about authoritarian states than individuals generally.

And yes, my passport would pose a bigger problem for me on first blush. But even for a European in Iran. Or an Iranian in Iran, apostasy is a crime and one that can be severely punished. We should decry that as a threat to freedom of thought and religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com