CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[Coyote]

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.

And a side effect of that is we can't be bothered to look deeper than surface of complex problems. These are the sort of things that need a long long view, particularly as it involves social and cultural changes.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet.

Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.

What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

 

[Mac1958]

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet. Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot. What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

The strategy, of course, is to equate "the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric", with others, especially with ONE other.

Intellectually dishonest, transparent, but that's the plan.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet. Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot. What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

The strategy, of course, is to equate "the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric", with others, especially with ONE other.

Intellectually dishonest, transparent, but that's the plan.
.

Yep.

It's like claiming there is no difference between a pebble and a Boeing 767.

After all -- they can both fly through the air and can deliver some damage when they hit something , so they must be the same. This is especially useful when one wishes to defend the 767s hitting the twin towers.

"Bu, but, but American kids throw pebbles all the time!!".

 

[Coyote]

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet.

Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.

What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

 

[Mudda]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

 

[Coyote]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

 

[Mudda]

barring entry is a western value

The West lets in more different kinds of people than China, Saudi Arabia and all the other non-Western countries who let virtually no one in.

Mudda, we are talking about Western values, not ME values.

And the West's values are that we let in waaaaayyyyy more refugees of all kinds then any non-Western bunch of countries.

More than 4.5 million refugees from Syria are in just five countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

They didn't "let" them in, they all piled in from a neighbouring destroyed country. Very BIG difference.

 

[Mudda]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

The koran. Sharia is a central part of being a Muslim.

 

[Mudda]

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.

Who doesn't prefer the comfort of home? Things is, as the left has mentioned, most of the Muslim immigrants here get up and go to work, then pay their taxes like all other Americans. Is the possibility of one going off justify removing them all or preventing any from migrating?

At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.

 

[Coyote]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

The koran. Sharia is a central part of being a Muslim.

Ok...but I don't think a religious text is a public opinion poll and it certainly doesn't reflect what today's Muslims prefer.

 

[Mudda]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

The koran. Sharia is a central part of being a Muslim.

Ok...but I don't think a religious text is a public opinion poll and it certainly doesn't reflect what today's Muslims prefer.

If a Muslim rejects sharia, then he's rejecting the koran, which means he's not really a Muslim, is he?

 

[Mudda]

barring entry is a western value

The West lets in more different kinds of people than China, Saudi Arabia and all the other non-Western countries who let virtually no one in.

Mudda, we are talking about Western values, not ME values.

And the West's values are that we let in waaaaayyyyy more refugees of all kinds then any non-Western bunch of countries.

So, an effective Constitutionally defensible method would be a good thing.

Is that a Trumpism?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

Rational people recognize that any so-called religion constructed by a person who ordered his men to rape women in front of their husbands (despite their hesitation) is not built around the notion of tolerance.

That would tend to fall more on the one who instructed His followers to turn the other cheek.

 

[Mudda]

The word Islamophobia is a ridiculous misnomer, IMHO. A phobia is an extremely irrational dislike or fear of something. To dislike or be critical and concerned over the beliefs and ideas that make up Islam, or any religion for that matter, is not irrational, nor is it extremely fearful or hateful. It is no more phobic to dislike and criticise a religious set of beliefs, than it is any other set of beliefs.

And, as someone (NOT Christopher Hitchens, apparently) once said: Islamophobia: a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

What would be a better term? Anti-Muslim?

How about simply people who dislike backwards Muslim ideology? Why does it have to be some hate-sounding catchphrase that demonizes for no logical reason the very people it defines ?

people who proclaim that there are no innocent muslims, should not complain about demonization.

So stating a fact that all Muslims want the whole world to be under sharia is demonizing them? Ask a Muslim in the US if he or she would prefer to live under sharia than under the US Constitution. If anyone chooses the latter, then they aren't Muslim to start with.

that is not a fact. and you are not the one to judge who is a muslim and who is not.

It's a fact that to be a Muslim, you MUST follow the koran, which explains how to do sharia law. Anyone who doesn't follow the Koran isn't a Muslim. See how easy that was?

 

[Coyote]

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.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

The koran. Sharia is a central part of being a Muslim.

Following Halakha is a central part of being Jewish. Does that mean that 100% of Jews prefer Halakha over the Constitution?

Like Sharia, Halakha was compilated in another era, and calls for such punishments as stoning for adultry, even though that is no longer practiced.

Most religious people have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs to the ethics of a modern society.

 

[saveliberty]

At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.

But they cannot, unless we let them.

 

[Coyote]

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

Rational people recognize that any so-called religion constructed by a person who ordered his men to rape women in front of their husbands (despite their hesitation) is not built around the notion of tolerance.

That would tend to fall more on the one who instructed His followers to turn the other cheek.

The founding of Islam is a lot more complex then that and it needs to be taken in historical context. The OT, for example, was full of extortions for rape, murder of unbelievers etc and some of that carried into the NT. They all have "an eye for an eye" and they all have versions of "turn the other cheek" which is not only turn the other cheek, but if that person steals your boots, you go further and give him your cloak. In Islam:

Quran 41:34
The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better then verily he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend.

You're comparing the worst of one religion with the best of another. Instead, what I'm seeing in all these religions is the potential for much evil (if you choose certain messages) or much good (if you choose certain messages) - how do religions based on ancient societies that are in many ways alien to today's world evolve to fit today's world? One way is by choosing which messages to emphasize. Another is by finding the means to interpret a message in a different more spiritual (less literal) light - for example, is Jihad a literal physical war or is it a personal spiritual journey? (both represent extremes of how one can look at what is a complex religious concept).

The problem is, these kind of comparisons do nothing to help create a policy that ultimately balances religious freedoms with a need for security. If you believe that all Muslims prefer to live under Sharia (and I am assuming the one who said that means the entire civil and penal code) - then there is NO way to reconcile that with the values of a modern society. Going further, that means that Muslims currently living in those societies - regardless of their beliefs or actions - ultimately represent a "fifth column" that can't be trusted. What kind of policy would you craft out of that belief?

 

[saveliberty]

Is that a Trumpism?

No idea, is he quoting me now? Damn.

 

[Coyote]

At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.

But they cannot, unless we let them.

And, before that - they would have to want to and the evidence is sorely lacking.