CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[Coyote]

This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?

Sharia is not a "practice" and, you would need to clearly define it. Then, you would probably need to look at other religious laws that groups adhere to and ask the same questions. Since it's so broad, and is interpreted in many different ways I don't see how you could ban Sharia.

 

[saveliberty]

The word I would use is "rational"

It's interesting how those who defend this one, particular ideology do not use the word "phobia" to describe the opposition to any other ideology.

Are you conservaphobic?" Are you fascistaphobic?

It is the extreme selectivity of the use of a disparaging term that reveals the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who use it.

Why people lack the ability to distinguish between bigotry aimed at things beyond somebody's control and vehement disagreement with a belief or ideology is beyond me, but the authoritarian left sure doesn't have that ability.

A person can be irrational, but not harm a soul. Someone with a phobia is usually harming themselves and possibly others. Parsing terms is not really addressing the OP.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought I'd addressed the OP. You stated an opinion. I asked you what it was based on. You reiterated your opinion and asked for mine. I gave you mine. I said nothing about Islamophobes, because I'm not certain what the term means.

It means people that fear Muslims, hope that helps.

 

[Two Thumbs]

pretty sure I'm within the rules

report me if you need to, but not going to edit the truth.

You called a poster a liar, that is a violation. Trying to make this work for both sides buddy, your help is appreciated.

I stand with the truth.

that line was a lie, it was a bait set of questions, typical of someone that hates America and supports those that will saw off his head.

I'll leave the thread, not that big a deal

 

[saveliberty]

This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?

Sharia is not a "practice" and, you would need to clearly define it. Then, you would probably need to look at other religious laws that groups adhere to and ask the same questions. Since it's so broad, and is interpreted in many different ways I don't see how you could ban Sharia.

I am guessing it would be extremely hard at a minimum.

 

[GaryDog]

pretty sure I'm within the rules

report me if you need to, but not going to edit the truth.

You called a poster a liar, that is a violation. Trying to make this work for both sides buddy, your help is appreciated.

I stand with the truth.

that line was a lie, it was a bait set of questions, typical of someone that hates America and supports those that will saw off his head.

I'll leave the thread, not that big a deal

That's really all that needed to be said.

 

[saveliberty]

Got no problem whacking both sides in the head on rules here. Beware.

 

[pillars]

Like I said, go ask a few Muslims if they'd prefer the US be under sharia, you'll have your answer. The fact is, you won't find a Muslim who wouldn't prefer sharia over anything else, it's a central core element of their faith. Now you know. Glad I could help.

What percentage of Christians would prefer Biblical law to secular law? This desire is not unique to muslims.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Got no problem whacking both sides in the head on rules here. Beware.

I WILL NEVER PHEAR YOU!!!

OK, now I'm out

 

[Coyote]

What would be a better term? Anti-Muslim?

The word I would use is "rational"

It's interesting how those who defend this one, particular ideology do not use the word "phobia" to describe the opposition to any other ideology.

Are you conservaphobic?" Are you fascistaphobic?

I actually agree - the "phobia" part is inaccurate, though fear and ignorance can play a big part in it. Anti-Muslim or Anti-Islam is more accurate. "Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

It is the extreme selectivity of the use of a disparaging term that reveals the hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who use it.

Why people lack the ability to distinguish between bigotry aimed at things beyond somebody's control and vehement disagreement with a belief or ideology is beyond me, but the authoritarian left sure doesn't have that ability.

If a person applies the same standards to all beliefs, I'd agree, but these reactions are often not simple "vehement disagreement with a belief or ideology". For example going through the Koran and picking out all the examples of calls for violence as "proof" that an entire faith is flawed or illegitimate, but refusing to apply the same standards to other religions. Applying differing standards to demonize an entire faith - as a whole - is not the same as attacking extremists or certain tenants of the faith that need to adapt to the modern age.

 

[pillars]

Feel free to express your opinion, mine has been given. You are free to disagree.

But, what is the basis for your opinion? It's a fair question.

 

[pillars]

This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?

Snake handling is legal. Hate to break it to you.

 

[oldsoul]

If reality had any place in America and especially on the right / conservative side, and the statistics of your likelihood to die from violence in America mattered, then you have turn your head to our armed society in which more have died from guns than all the terrorist acts combined. But fear of the other is a bogeyman and thus it must have a suit in which it can be called out and hated. Name it whatever it changes often in history.

"A viral image says the number of Americans killed by terrorism in the last decade is 24, while the number of Americans killed by guns in the last decade is 280,024." Fact-checking a comparison of gun deaths and terrorism deaths

And first of the third kind of hate refered to in the OP, rears it's ugly head. This is not, I repeat, not, a "right" vs. "left" thing. This is a survival thing. Jihadists want to eraticate the western world, I really don't understand why we even need to say that anymore, but there are still people that believe that Jihadists can be reasoned with. They cannot, it is their way or the grave.

To equate "terror attacks" with "gun deaths' is, at best, divisive. We need to come to gether, if you are incapable of that, then YOU are part of the problem, and therefore, cannot be part of the solution.

 

[saveliberty]

This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?

Snake handling is legal. Hate to break it to you.

I don't want to digress, but my understanding is it is illegal, but rarely prosecuted.

Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

 

[saveliberty]

Feel free to express your opinion, mine has been given. You are free to disagree.

But, what is the basis for your opinion? It's a fair question.

Fifteen years of watching various solutions, watching thousands of news reports, talking to Muslims, stuff like that.

Btw, my opinion was not in the OP, it was in the post after the OP.

 

[Coyote]

barring entry is a western value

protecting ones own is a normal reaction to violence.

When a group of people see members going over the edge, they have the responsibility to bring them to heel before things get out of hand. Or at the very least, sign up to fight them in droves.

but they refuse, out and out refuse.

Muslims murder people throughout the ME, in the EU, Africa, asia, russia, USA and even in the Philippines.

We no longer have any reason to be polite to the group, b/c that group has done nothing of any merit to stop the world wide violence.

I disagree with that because it assumes they have any control over other people's actions for one. For another, why should they "sign up in droves" to go fight in some godforsaken country with a bunch of people that may share their religion but not their values? I don't recall Christians being told they should sign up to fight the LRA in Africa and bring them to heel.

If I were Muslim, I'd be more concerned about preventing radicalization in my own country and protecting my family and children from it's insiduous propaganda.

the last line is what I meant with your bolding.

bring them to heel, show them another way.

I'm unfamiliar with the LRA, but as you know muslims are mass murdering people there now, and have been for many years.

moderate muslims need to do something or be group with the radicals as enablers.

Religions like Christianity and Islam are huge and world encompassing. They also do not speak with one voice or one leader. Islamic leaders, clerics and individual muslims have repeatedy condemned the actions of radicals. This is also where I see two different standards applied. When Christian violence was going on: the Troubles in Ireland, the LRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army); or any of the home grown Christian extremist attacks there was no call for a universal Christian action, movement or even simple condemnations. There was no demand of a shared responsibility either.

Two different standards.

 

[saveliberty]

Debating the title? It is a limited space, you need to attract posters and adhere to the rules. Relax and discuss the OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

This should be interesting........

Hello Sunni, yes we are walking the tightrope today. Trying to balance the Constitution, safety/security and fear. Can you add a topic comment, in order to follow CDZ rules? TIA

So tolerant. .

Mac, this is not helpful, nor a topic enhancing post. Please edit for more content please.

Sure!

I notice that certain people are far, far more tolerant of and defensive of one religion (Islam) than another (Christianity).

But I'm sure I really didn't need to say that.
.

In a very broad sense, I think this is the key to the problem.

First EVERY person admitted to the USA on any form of Visa or as a new immigrant MUST be properly vetted to ensure they are not criminals, terrorists, and are not associated with terrorists or any other unwelcome organizations. If we want to help large numbers of refugees that cannot be vetted in that way, then we need to arrange to protect them where they are, not here.

We need to return to an America that has dumped all vestiges of political correctness and allow everybody to be who and what they are. Muslim people as all other people will be welcome here and welcome to be a Muslim or whatever they are as they wish to be without fear of harrassment or interference by others. . .

. . .BUT. . .

They and everybody else are expected to be Americans first and whatever else they are second.

They will be expected to obey all existing laws.

They will be expected to learn and use English in public. (And yes, this is a matter of public security as well as ensuring that the newcomers have the best chance to be economically successful here.)

They will be expected to respect the customs and culture of wherever they choose to live, and the place where they choose to live can choose to, but will not be required to accommodate the preferences of the newcomers in any way.

How would this not solve the problem?

 

[Coyote]

This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?

Sharia is not a "practice" and, you would need to clearly define it. Then, you would probably need to look at other religious laws that groups adhere to and ask the same questions. Since it's so broad, and is interpreted in many different ways I don't see how you could ban Sharia.

I am guessing it would be extremely hard at a minimum.

If it could be done, it would have to be as addressing the a specific act - for example stoning a woman for adultry, something widespread in ancient days, and still practiced in some cultures, but illegal under our laws. The thing is - many of these things are already illegal (and not even religiously unique to Islam) so...there would little sense in inacting further legislation.

 

[saveliberty]

Other influences are our culture too. Everything is a sound bite and then we are off to the next crisis. Also, we expect solutions to be immediate, complete and without any negative side effects. We are going to have to work long and hard on this one.