Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Beskargam on March 28, 2011, 05:56:02 pm
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/herman-cain-assailed-as-bigoted-over-muslim-remarks-2/#more-151825
so is this guy just being prejudiced or no? and what does he mean about Europe and letting it come in a bit at a time? i mighta heard smthing about about France on NPR . . .or i could just be crazy who knows
-
Cain told a reporter- if he became president – he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge.
No, totally not prejudiced at all? (EDIT: sarcastic)
Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
See definition 2. I generally think religion, by in large, is dangerous to believe. At the same time, their specific beleif may vary, to not hire a more qualified person, who might even hold less destructive beliefs, because their particular god is named Allah, is silly. Especially considering that there are plenty of Republicans right now with dangerous beliefs, and only some of those are religious.
-
I don't know about Europe. All news I've heard in the past few years has been of governments banning spinnerets or face covering. It seems to me that this guy is manufacturing fear.
The ironic thing is that countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are a good representative of the bogeyman he's trying to bring up, are oppressive to women. Conservatives, however much they may bash Islam, are also eroding women rights. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
EDIT: Also, I think he is a bigot
-
All news I've heard in the past few years has been of governments banning spinnerets or face covering.
You mean Minarets. Banning Spinnerets would mean banning spiders. Unless there is some secret to Persian silk rug weaving I'm not privy to. :D
And she addressed CAIR's criticism of Cain, an African-American.
"The claim that he is bigoted – when he himself has lived the majority of his childhood and young adult life under segregation – is pretty baseless."
The claim that he can't be bigoted because he's black is inherently racist in and of itself. :p
-
"I was asked, 'What is the role of Islam in America?' I thought it was an odd question. I said, 'The role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country - some of them – try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
Seems pretty good to me. I don't think he really meant to be against muslims, but against muslimhood in politics and justice. Some people have difficulty making the distinction but this paragraph is as good as it gets.
-
I don't know about Europe. All news I've heard in the past few years has been of governments banning spinnerets or face covering. It seems to me that this guy is manufacturing fear.
.... which just shows your ignorance on the subject. If you "don't know about Europe", then dissuade yourself from commenting on the subject.
There's one thing in Europe called "France" and there is another one called "Great Britain". They are massively different. Just as any other european country you can name about. Some have the exact issue the man was talking about, some do not. GB has this problem and it is a *serious* problem, while France, for instance, has banned the burka.
[qutoe]The ironic thing is that countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are a good representative of the bogeyman he's trying to bring up, are oppressive to women. Conservatives, however much they may bash Islam, are also eroding women rights. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.[/quote]
I'm no republican, but to make that kind of comparison is very silly on your part. I refrained myself from saying "bigoted", since this word has been abused here.
EDIT: Also, I think he is a bigot
That I do not know. Nor care.
-
All news I've heard in the past few years has been of governments banning spinnerets or face covering.
You mean Minarets. Banning Spinnerets would mean banning spiders. Unless there is some secret to Persian silk rug weaving I'm not privy to. :D
****, americans are completely ignorant of what's going on rofl. France has banned the burka. Do you know what a burka is? Switzerland is the country that has banned minarets. GB approved of sharia law to be applicated between muslisms.
The claim that he can't be bigoted because he's black is inherently racist in and of itself. :p
It's more of a reference, not a logical necessity, and I thought it was a good reference of actual experience on the subject. And on top of that, you call them racists for pointing that out!
I mean, wow.
-
The ironic thing is that countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are a good representative of the bogeyman he's trying to bring up, are oppressive to women. Conservatives, however much they may bash Islam, are also eroding women rights. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm no republican, but to make that kind of comparison is very silly on your part. I refrained myself from saying "bigoted", since this word has been abused here.
I don't see how. Yes, Middle Eastern oppression of women is unquestionably worse, but we're talking about a party that has, out and out, attempted to ban abortions and redefine rape to exclude drug rapes, etc.
****, americans are completely ignorant of what's going on rofl. France has banned the burka. Do you know what a burka is? Switzerland is the country that has banned minarets. GB approved of sharia law to be applicated between muslisms.
Why? Why are you American baiting? I knew this stuff, and I'm a yank, I bet there are a fair number of Europeans who don't know everything there is to know about racism in the United States, and you know what? It's not worth trolling them over.
The claim that he can't be bigoted because he's black is inherently racist in and of itself. :p
It's more of a reference, not a logical necessity, and I thought it was a good reference of actual experience on the subject. And on top of that, you call them racists for pointing that out!
I mean, wow.
It was a joke, I'm pretty sure. EDIT: As for that though the idea that someone who's experienced something unpleasant can't then proceed to practice the same thing is, I think, patently false.
EDIT: Just realized there were 3
"I was asked, 'What is the role of Islam in America?' I thought it was an odd question. I said, 'The role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country - some of them – try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
Seems pretty good to me. I don't think he really meant to be against muslims, but against muslimhood in politics and justice. Some people have difficulty making the distinction but this paragraph is as good as it gets.
Please read my initial post
Cain told a reporter- if he became president – he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge.
No, totally not prejudiced at all?
Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
See definition 2. I generally think religion, by in large, is dangerous to believe. At the same time, their specific beleif may vary, to not hire a more qualified person, who might even hold less destructive beliefs, because their particular god is named Allah, is silly. Especially considering that there are plenty of Republicans right now with dangerous beliefs, and only some of those are religious.
-
Oops double post, sorry!
-
The ironic thing is that countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are a good representative of the bogeyman he's trying to bring up, are oppressive to women. Conservatives, however much they may bash Islam, are also eroding women rights. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm no republican, but to make that kind of comparison is very silly on your part. I refrained myself from saying "bigoted", since this word has been abused here.
I don't see how. Yes, Middle Eastern oppression of women is unquestionably worse, but we're talking about a party that has, out and out, attempted to ban abortions and redefine rape to exclude drug rapes, etc.
Again, to compare the issue of abortion, that quite frankly is completely debatable indepedently of whether you and I and many people "sit" on it, to the misogynistic practices in Afghanistan is outright insulting. Not. Even. Wrong.
****, americans are completely ignorant of what's going on rofl. France has banned the burka. Do you know what a burka is? Switzerland is the country that has banned minarets. GB approved of sharia law to be applicated between muslisms.
Why? Why are you American baiting? I knew this stuff, and I'm a yank, I bet there are a fair number of Europeans who don't know everything there is to know about racism in the United States, and you know what? It's not worth trolling them over.
I was joking there. And yeah, many europeans do not know the backstory of racism in america.
The claim that he can't be bigoted because he's black is inherently racist in and of itself. :p
It's more of a reference, not a logical necessity, and I thought it was a good reference of actual experience on the subject. And on top of that, you call them racists for pointing that out!
I mean, wow.
It was a joke, I'm pretty sure.
Mkay.
EDIT: Just realized there were 3
"I was asked, 'What is the role of Islam in America?' I thought it was an odd question. I said, 'The role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country - some of them – try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
Seems pretty good to me. I don't think he really meant to be against muslims, but against muslimhood in politics and justice. Some people have difficulty making the distinction but this paragraph is as good as it gets.
Please read my initial post
Did he now? I did read the quotes, but I do know how reporters often go for the soundbytes, etc. The whole gist of his message didn't seem to be "fking muslisms no WAY they gonna get over ma arse". It was more like "religion doesn't step in justice while I have a word about it". The reference of christianity as an example was also very clear. I seriously doubt he would not "appoint" a christian dude per se. But he would if said dude would see the bible as his own "justice" reference point.
No, totally not prejudiced at all?
Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
It depends on the actual quote. I am quite skeptical of the reporter's accuracy there, and even if he expressed what he meant the right rigorous way. Again, his fears were not about people, but about specific beliefs that run counter to his notions of what justice in America means. He should be discriminatory against all of those from which he disagrees on those terms. Obviously. To call that "prejudice" or "bigotry" is profoundly idiotic.
Now you seem to be sticking with this only small quotation from him to reach the whole conclusion that he's bigoted, prejudiced, etc. Sorry, I don't think people are defined by soundbytes, specially typos.
See definition 2. I generally think religion, by in large, is dangerous to believe. At the same time, their specific beleif may vary, to not hire a more qualified person, who might even hold less destructive beliefs, because their particular god is named Allah, is silly. Especially considering that there are plenty of Republicans right now with dangerous beliefs, and only some of those are religious.
It has nothing to do with "Religion" per se, but with its inherent contradiction with the first Amendment and justice policies overall. Again, in this kind of situation it is pretty difficult to separate the man from his "beliefs", but if you see a religion affiliation as a political affiliation (which is what it is, really), then why on earth should he be criticized for discriminating against muslims?
Try to substitute "muslim" for "democratic" to get the point. Would he get such a bad reporting against him were he to say that he would never appoint a "dem judge"? Of COURSE not. And yet, dems are way more similar to reps than muslims are. So all this fuss is just political correctedness gone berserk.
-
Again, to compare the issue of abortion, that quite frankly is completely debatable indepedently of whether you and I and many people "sit" on it, to the misogynistic practices in Afghanistan is outright insulting. Not. Even. Wrong.
I don't know where you get your ethics from, but in my book, it's just as bad to try to control the innards of a woman and the outer clothes she wears. I don't think late term abortion should be the norm, but that is something that has been established here, in laws. There are some seriously bad things that go on in some parts of the Middle East, but unless you have some sort of ethical position, they're just as "debatable."
I was joking there. And yeah, many europeans do not know the backstory of racism in america.
Many do, many don't.
Did he now? I did read the quotes, but I do know how reporters often go for the soundbytes, etc. The whole gist of his message didn't seem to be "fking muslisms no WAY they gonna get over ma arse". It was more like "religion doesn't step in justice while I have a word about it". The reference of christianity as an example was also very clear. I seriously doubt he would not "appoint" a christian dude per se. But he would if said dude would see the bible as his own "justice" reference point.
It depends on the actual quote. I am quite skeptical of the reporter's accuracy there, and even if he expressed what he meant the right rigorous way. Again, his fears were not about people, but about specific beliefs that run counter to his notions of what justice in America means. He should be discriminatory against all of those from which he disagrees on those terms. Obviously. To call that "prejudice" or "bigotry" is profoundly idiotic.
Why not watch? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o&feature=player_embedded)
Now you seem to be sticking with this only small quotation from him to reach the whole conclusion that he's bigoted, prejudiced, etc. Sorry, I don't think people are defined by soundbytes, specially typos.
No, he's taking a bunch of examples of Musilims trying to gain political power for Islam and Sharia law, and saying that it means that ALL Musilims will do the same thing.
It has nothing to do with "Religion" per se, but with its inherent contradiction with the first Amendment and justice policies overall. Again, in this kind of situation it is pretty difficult to separate the man from his "beliefs", but if you see a religion affiliation as a political affiliation (which is what it is, really), then why on earth should he be criticized for discriminating against muslims?
In that case, according to you there should be no Christians nor Buddhists nor anyone else with a religion in power - if having a religion necessitates political affiliation, then any religious person in power is a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
Try to substitute "muslim" for "democratic" to get the point. Would he get such a bad reporting against him were he to say that he would never appoint a "dem judge"? Of COURSE not. And yet, dems are way more similar to reps than muslims are. So all this fuss is just political correctedness gone berserk.
Substitute Musilim for Christian, or for atheists, or for anything else. And even "Democratic" is a problem. Cabinets are supposed to be bi-partisan typically. The last three - I know, had members from both political parties.
-
Again, to compare the issue of abortion, that quite frankly is completely debatable indepedently of whether you and I and many people "sit" on it, to the misogynistic practices in Afghanistan is outright insulting. Not. Even. Wrong.
I don't know where you get your ethics from, but in my book, it's just as bad to try to control the innards of a woman and the outer clothes she wears. I don't think late term abortion should be the norm, but that is something that has been established here, in laws. There are some seriously bad things that go on in some parts of the Middle East, but unless you have some sort of ethical position, they're just as "debatable."
Ok, so I just think your "ethics" on this matter are ridiculous, but hey. As a matter of fact I am in favour of women's choice to abort, but I fully understand the opposite point and to compare it with the mysogenistic ethics that pervade many barbaric traditions out there is ... wow. I am lost at words.
I was joking there. And yeah, many europeans do not know the backstory of racism in america.
Many do, many don't.
Did he now? I did read the quotes, but I do know how reporters often go for the soundbytes, etc. The whole gist of his message didn't seem to be "fking muslisms no WAY they gonna get over ma arse". It was more like "religion doesn't step in justice while I have a word about it". The reference of christianity as an example was also very clear. I seriously doubt he would not "appoint" a christian dude per se. But he would if said dude would see the bible as his own "justice" reference point.
It depends on the actual quote. I am quite skeptical of the reporter's accuracy there, and even if he expressed what he meant the right rigorous way. Again, his fears were not about people, but about specific beliefs that run counter to his notions of what justice in America means. He should be discriminatory against all of those from which he disagrees on those terms. Obviously. To call that "prejudice" or "bigotry" is profoundly idiotic.
Why not watch? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o&feature=player_embedded)[/quote]
Yeah, thanks about that. Now I am a fan of that man. He's 100% correct, and I find appalling that left-wingers get to criticize him for his bluntness, and side with this notion that the constitution is to be played around and fiddled whenever the "racist card" gets base. I mean wtf? The left-wing? Are they so desperate to take on right-wingers that they forget their own values? I'll be damned.
No, he's taking a bunch of examples of Musilims trying to gain political power for Islam and Sharia law, and saying that it means that ALL Musilims will do the same thing.
Did he say "All muslims will do the same thing"? Where? I missed that part. Or are you making it up?
In that case, according to you there should be no Christians nor Buddhists nor anyone else with a religion in power - if having a religion necessitates political affiliation, then any religious person in power is a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
It's not according to "me", it's according to "him". And he *did* say exactly that. So there.
Substitute Musilim for Christian, or for atheists, or for anything else. And even "Democratic" is a problem. Cabinets are supposed to be bi-partisan typically. The last three - I know, had members from both political parties.
I'm not saying I'd "vote" him if he would say that, for instance, he would not appoint an "atheist" judge. If however he based this judgement upon principles of the constitution with specific examples on why atheists would probably "**** up" the constitution I would at least respect the call. Frankly and specifically I can't see how the hell can an atheist "**** up" the constitution of the USA for being an atheist, since it's probably one of the most atheistic constitutions in the world, but we are speaking academically here.
Now to your point about bigotry, yes, I see the difference between a person "saying" he's a muslim and effectually behaving like a Sharia Law enforcer. So he is probably wrong on that account. But I have no statistics on this issue. He could well be right that a muslim judge is to be distrusted a priori.
-
Hint: imagine that he would have been asked whether he would appoint a scientologist judge. And then he would reply in the same vein.
Would that be bigoted?
-
God, watching that guy talk made me puke.
If he's afraid of Muslims enforcing Sharia law on Americans (which, by and large, they're not) then I'd love to know his position on blue laws, anti-abortion legislation, and same sex marriage bans.
This man's a bigot, plain and simple, because he claims every Muslim in America (including ones who are eligible to sit on the bench) is attempting to enforce Sharia law on the US. He doesn't say he will look at the individual's record or beliefs, but instead he will simply disqualify him because he's a Muslim.
Hint: imagine that he would have been asked whether he would appoint a scientologist judge. And then he would reply in the same vein.
Would that be bigoted?
In the same vein, yes it would. Not all Muslims are the same, not all Jews are the same, not all Christians are the same, and not all Scientologists are the same.
This whole debate is as stupid as saying a Catholic who runs for President who would be a servant of the Pope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK) It's stupid bigotry at its finest, coming from the mouths of a politician from the Grand Old Stupid Bigotry Party.
Again, to compare the issue of abortion, that quite frankly is completely debatable indepedently of whether you and I and many people "sit" on it, to the misogynistic practices in Afghanistan is outright insulting. Not. Even. Wrong.
The driving force behind the anti-abortion crowd in the US is religiously-driven suppression of women's rights, under the guise of protecting lives.
If the same anti-abortion activists cared about that child's life, why do they cut education and welfare, make healthcare for that baby so damned expensive, and squander that child's future through defense spending?
-
GB approved of sharia law to be applicated between muslisms.
Okay, I've been out of the country a couple of years so I'm gonna need a link on that one.
I will point out that Jewish courts have existed for a long time. Is this guy going to say he wouldn't appoint a Jew? Would you think he was right to say that?
It's more of a reference, not a logical necessity, and I thought it was a good reference of actual experience on the subject. And on top of that, you call them racists for pointing that out!
I mean, wow.
I pointed out the ridiculousness of acting like he couldn't be racist because he was old and black. There are plenty of people who are old, black and racist. It doesn't give him a pass. He needs to defend his claims based on what he actually said and what it means. Unfortunately he's said he'd not hire a Muslim because they would ALL try to pass Sharia law. How is that NOT a bigoted comment?
And yet, dems are way more similar to reps than muslims are. So all this fuss is just political correctedness gone berserk.
[Brass Eye]I can't prove it, but that's a scientific fact![/Brass Eye]
Seriously? You're going to make a ridiculous comment like that and then claim political correctness? You don't think there are Muslim Republicans and Muslim Democrats?
Dems are not more similar. Your comment betrays that you hold the same bigoted views we've been having a go at him for. You've assumed that all Muslims hold the same political views. That's exactly what this discussion is about!
-
Cain told a reporter- if he became president – he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge.
No, totally not prejudiced at all?
Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
See definition 2. I generally think religion, by in large, is dangerous to believe. At the same time, their specific beleif may vary, to not hire a more qualified person, who might even hold less destructive beliefs, because their particular god is named Allah, is silly. Especially considering that there are plenty of Republicans right now with dangerous beliefs, and only some of those are religious.
Is it OK to hire a Christian? Whether or not they're practicing, many people in Europe consider themselves some form of "Christian".
What if the individual in question has identified himself as Muslim on the census, but isn't any more Muslim than a Christian who only celebrates Christmas and who likewise wrote down "Christian" on the census?
-
And yet, dems are way more similar to reps than muslims are. So all this fuss is just political correctedness gone berserk.
No, no it's not.
It's blatantly wrong and a gross misrepresentation of a very large group of people in the US. It's as dumb as the following:
"I wouldn't appoint Christian judges because they'd all be sympathetic to abortion doctor murderers."
"I wouldn't appoint a Jewish judge because they'd all rule unfairly against Muslims."
or, a classic: "All Muslims are potential terrorists."
It's taking the worst aspect of an entire group of people and branding them all with it, rather than considering each candidate on an individual basis.
-
Unknown Target, I think you took my sarcasm seriously. Not sure.
Karajorma got most of what I wanted to say down, but lets have a look at this too:
Now to your point about bigotry, yes, I see the difference between a person "saying" he's a muslim and effectually behaving like a Sharia Law enforcer. So he is probably wrong on that account. But I have no statistics on this issue. He could well be right that a muslim judge is to be distrusted a priori.
Now read it like this.
Now to your point about bigotry, yes, I see the difference between a person "saying" he's a muslim and effectually behaving like a Sharia Law enforcer. So he is probably wrong on that account. But I have no statistics on this issue. He could well be right that a Christian judge is to be distrusted a priori.
Do you realize how absurd that is in this country? Or this:
Now to your point about bigotry, yes, I see the difference between a person "saying" he's a muslim and effectually behaving like a Sharia Law enforcer. So he is probably wrong on that account. But I have no statistics on this issue. He could well be right that a judge with any quirky, unprovable beliefs is to be distrusted a priori.
-
Apologies, I thought you were being serious with your original post.
-
Apologies, I thought you were being serious with your original post.
No worries, it was rather unclear, I should have used tags XD
-
This article is just proof that our current politicians have as much hold on reality as a properly lubed pig at a country fair during the hog grabbing contest.
At this current rate, we might as well elect hamsters to fill political positions.
-
There was a horse that once held an important political office. He apperently did quite well...
-
Yes I see the error in my ways, I stand corrected.
The judge is wrong in saying he would not appoint someone for the sake of "being" muslim, and is being bigoted on that account. Had he simply said that he would not "care" for the religion of the person in question, "as long as" said person would never try to enforce sharia law over US law, he would have been fine.
As it is, he's probably even being anti-constitutional by saying that, which is somewhat funny and sad.
All the other things he is saying are real, though, and cause for concern.
About the sharia law in UK, I think you should have simply googled, as I did, and you'll find in the first links all the data you required. Why do people keep doing this? Here, I hope the times online is a good source for you:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
-
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.
Exactly the point I made earlier.
How is this any different?
I will point out that I'm not particularly in favour of the Sharia courts. It's just that I'm not in favour of the Jewish ones either. What I'm against is the singling out of Muslims for doing what Jews have been doing for ages.
-
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.
Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?
-
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.
Explain. Especially the Jewish court part, which apperently allow the use of white phosperous, bulldozers, 5.56 and 7.62 bullets, and various other painfull punishments on palestinians which might potentially have a possible connection to the missile launch that did or did not happen and did or did not caused an undetermined amount of potential damage.
-
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.
Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?
If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?
-
Sharia Law doesn't simply cover the religious aspects of law, it also covers things like Financial agreements, Contract law and Litigation.
In the UK Sharia Law in those respects can be used, on the provision it doesn't break the law of the land, but the religious aspects are illegal, you cannot stone a woman to death for adultery etc. Exactly the same rules are applied to Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or any other relgious group.
With regards to this man's statements, is he then admitting that the opinion of the majority no longer count for anything? That a single person in authority can push through laws against the will of the majority of the country? Seems to me that if America is truly a Democracy, the fact that someone has an opinion of America's future that is different to other people (assuming this is even the case) shouldn't even be an issue, the Majority will decide.
Edit: I also consider it ironic to hear a Right Wing Politican in America concerned about someone putting their Church ahead of the Constitution...
-
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.
Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?
If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?
So you're saying that it's okay for the sharia law to be inforced in the UK, because it won't be?
Sincerely sometimes I don't understand people's points.
-
No, he's saying that the Sharia's punishment for apostasy won't be carried out in the UK.
-
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.
Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?
If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?
So you're saying that it's okay for the sharia law to be inforced in the UK, because it won't be?
Sincerely sometimes I don't understand people's points.
Because you're using the barbarism of sharia law as a reason to be more concerned about sharia law in the UK than the jewish courts, then that can only mean that you believe that sharia law in the UK includes the obviously barbaric aspects of sharia law (like killing apostates). If you don't believe that then you wouldn't have brought up apostasy in the first place, because it wouldn't be relevant. And quite obviously if you think that sharia law in the UK in this context means that killing of apostates is going to be sanctioned then you must be very misguided or have a pretty blinkered view of the world. Right?
-
The example exists to show you the level of barbarism that is embebbed in the spirit of said law. If your point is that the tamer these laws are abided the better, then you are making the assymptotic point that they shouldn't be at all. I think this is logically obvious.
This also is very clear when people debate about the "evilnessness" of islam. I often say, "islam is bad, period", and people reply to me, "but look not all the people take their own religion that seriously", and I just have my point proven. Consider someone saying "But look not all the people take not-being-racist that seriously". Why is the former point made so often and the latter point is utterly ridiculous?
About the "majority" issue, I kind of agree with the notion that the majority *should not* make all the rules we have, for the obvious reason of minority issues being stampeded due to the majority's carelessness. All of the "american founders" agreed to this, and that's why the US even has a constitution.
-
Well, strictly speaking under Abrahamic law you can be stoned to death for growing different crops in adjacent fields, obviously, that wouldn't be tolerated in these countries either. Like Sharia Law, it's down to the people implementing those rules and deciding which are compatible with the society it is used in and which are not. People throw stones at abortion doctors or homosexuals in certain areas of America, God says that's ok (at least according to them), Federal Law not so much.
It's the same in the UK, Sharia Law is a vast body of law, and only that which is compatible with the current British Law can be enforced, the Law of the Land takes precedence.
-
... governments banning spinnerets or face covering...
Woops, my bad, I was banging my head against the wall when I realized my mistake. :) But seriously, the guy is referring to Europe, which is lumping France and Switzerland into a single group, along with the UK.
@Luis Dias The problem with what the guy is saying, in my view, is that he's excluding the possibility that a Muslim can hold simply because of who they are. Whether or not one religion's law is worse than the other is besides the point. We allow Christians into power without worrying too much about them putting some sort of religious law into effect. This guy presumes that a Christian, presumably because of the religion, is safer than putting a Muslim because one would impose his religion on others, while the other would not.
-
Well, strictly speaking under Abrahamic law you can be stoned to death for growing different crops in adjacent fields, obviously, that wouldn't be tolerated in these countries either. Like Sharia Law, it's down to the people implementing those rules and deciding which are compatible with the society it is used in and which are not. People throw stones at abortion doctors or homosexuals in certain areas of America, God says that's ok (at least according to them), Federal Law not so much.
Exactly the point I was going to make.
So why are Muslims being singled out as being barbaric unless it's for bigoted reasons?
-
Yeah, Bob I conceded and agreed with that point too.
So why are Muslims being singled out as being barbaric unless it's for bigoted reasons?
I've yet to be convinced that muslimhood is just as "tamed" as christianity. All the evidence I've been reading for the last ten years points pretty much to the contrary.
-
The reason you think Islam isn't 'tamed' is because the majority of its followers live in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, regions not exactly known for their stability.
Western Christianity can afford to be 'tame' because the majority of its followers live in relative comfort, and have no real need to be savage. But even at that, Christians still kill abortion doctors and Christians still commit hate crimes against Muslims in the West.
In other words, it's not the religion that's savage, it's the followers.
-
The reason you think Islam isn't 'tamed' is because the majority of its followers live in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, regions not exactly known for their stability.
No. It's because immigrants (and keep in mind that I have no personal immigrancy issues, I am a portuguese who knows damned well how it is like to be an emigrant) do not exactly "conform" to the vision of a secular democracy with human rights meaning that women shouldn't be degraded, etc., and constitute "islands" of muslimhood right inside secular countries.
A priori, I think this is an excelent idea, since it exposes these people to other points of view, almost necessarily, and that confrontation will "tame their barbaric views", at least to tolerable levels, until new generations come, etc.
Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.
In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.
And it should be no surprise that this actually works.
Western Christianity can afford to be 'tame' because the majority of its followers live in relative comfort, and have no real need to be savage. But even at that, Christians still kill abortion doctors and Christians still commit hate crimes against Muslims in the West.
This is an exclusively american problem. It exists, but I don't think saying "christianity" solves it per se.
In other words, it's not the religion that's savage, it's the followers.
What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.
-
I do think that Islam generally promotes violence, but I think Christianity, by in large, does too.
The fact is, portions of both religions promote everything up to and including genocide, and utter control of women. They have no place in the civilized world, but here's the thing - there's nothing that says that's what believers of these religions believe. It's hard to completely discriminate against literally billions of people on that basis. Instead you need to look at the individual.
Group judging very rarely works. The larger the population you're trying to judge, the less accurate it will be.
-
No. It's because immigrants (and keep in mind that I have no personal immigrancy issues, I am a portuguese who knows damned well how it is like to be an emigrant) do not exactly "conform" to the vision of a secular democracy with human rights meaning that women shouldn't be degraded, etc., and constitute "islands" of muslimhood right inside secular countries.
The immigrant problem, we've had this problem in the West before.
First it was the Catholics, then the Irish, then the Chinese...children of immigrants do become part of society.
Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.
Private Christian schools exist that do the same thing. You just explained the entire problem behind fundamentalist Christianity in America.
The way you solve this problem is expose that group to secular ideas that counter the backwards beliefs of a Young Earth. The way the Republicans like to do it with Muslims though, is to deride them all as backwards extremists who can't contribute to society, and make no effort to integrate them peacefully.
And don't you think labeling an entire group as savage or disruptive does much for merging that group into society? If anything, it forces that group to isolate themselves and defend themselves against what they view as a hostile society.
In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.
Tyrannical measures, like, say, racially profiling Muslims and assuming that every Muslim is in favor of enforcing Sharia law on the rest of their countrymen.
What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.
Alright, so tell me, who's more prone to extremism, a poor unemployed young man from Riyadh, or an accounting major from Dearborn?
Demagoguery is a major factor in fomenting extremism among religious groups. For the most part, that doesn't exist in a significant way among American Muslims. If it does exist, it exists as a defensive mechanism against society's persecution of Muslims. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more you isolate a group of people, the more likely they are to turn to extreme measures to defend themselves.
Besides, if you have a stable and comfortable lifestyle, and you don't feel like you're being singled-out for who you are, you're less likely to feel resentment against the people doing it.
-
First it was the Catholics, then the Irish, then the Chinese...children of immigrants do become part of society.
Yeah, and I honestly hope so. But the past is no guarantee of the future.
Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.
Private Christian schools exist that do the same thing. You just explained the entire problem behind fundamentalist Christianity in America.
The way you solve this problem is expose that group to secular ideas that counter the backwards beliefs of a Young Earth. The way the Republicans like to do it with Muslims though, is to deride them all as backwards extremists who can't contribute to society, and make no effort to integrate them peacefully.
And I agree that's a stupid thing to do.
[uote]And don't you think labeling an entire group as savage or disruptive does much for merging that group into society? If anything, it forces that group to isolate themselves and defend themselves against what they view as a hostile society.[/quote]
You are conflating an ideology with its membership. I can say that scientology is a ridiculous monstruosity, which it is, and not view scientologists as "monsters". Actually I see them as victims. Still, would you be at ease if you knew a very adept scientologist would go to a supreme court, or something, knowing what we know about scientology's practices? Will you lie to me and say "yeah why not"?
You get the point? Do you understand where I am going at?
In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.
Tyrannical measures, like, say, racially profiling Muslims and assuming that every Muslim is in favor of enforcing Sharia law on the rest of their countrymen.
I already admitted that such a thing is wrong, so go on bang on me like if I didn't say anything about it.
What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.
Alright, so tell me, who's more prone to extremism, a poor unemployed young man from Riyadh, or an accounting major from Dearborn?
Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?
Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.
Something you would learn, if you searched a bit about the history of religious fundamentalism, at least since the second world war.
Demagoguery is a major factor in fomenting extremism among religious groups. For the most part, that doesn't exist in a significant way among American Muslims. If it does exist, it exists as a defensive mechanism against society's persecution of Muslims. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more you isolate a group of people, the more likely they are to turn to extreme measures to defend themselves.
I might believe you. Hell, I wanna believe you. It's just that nagging feeling that you are just, you know, inventing statistical **** up while we speak.
Besides, if you have a stable and comfortable lifestyle, and you don't feel like you're being singled-out for who you are, you're less likely to feel resentment against the people doing it.
This is tautologically true. And relevant. But it doesn't solve the issue.
-
Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.
The most extremist people are gasp, not extremistic at all. They use extremism as a leverage to gain more power, nothing more.
Note that you are using a few fallacies in your last post, as of the "You would know this if you had the knowledge of the subject I had" type. Be wary that that may have undesirable consequences.
-
Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.
The most extremist people are gasp, not extremistic at all.
Thanks for stating something completely contradictory.
They use extremism as a leverage to gain more power, nothing more.
Nor I nor anyone else here was speaking of "non-extremist bastards".
Note that you are using a few fallacies in your last post, as of the "You would know this if you had the knowledge of the subject I had" type. Be wary that that may have undesirable consequences.
I know. It's also true.
-
You are conflating an ideology with its membership. I can say that scientology is a ridiculous monstruosity, which it is, and not view scientologists as "monsters". Actually I see them as victims. Still, would you be at ease if you knew a very adept scientologist would go to a supreme court, or something, knowing what we know about scientology's practices? Will you lie to me and say "yeah why not"?
You get the point? Do you understand where I am going at?
I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits. What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it. I'm willing to say that if they've reached the credentials in America to be nominated for the highest court that they've had the experience and the education to be more moderate in their beliefs, or at least to separate their religious beliefs from their duties as a judge.
Besides, all federal judgeship appointees have to be confirmed by Congress, and the hearings are usually highly-publicized and come under extreme scrutiny.
Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?
9/11 was an unusual event. It was one of the most complicated terrorist attacks ever carried out, simply because it required people with some education to be able to fly massive passenger airliners.
A hotel bombing, kidnapping, market bombing, or vehicular homicide doesn't require the same expertise or education. There are enough unemployed, disheartened youths in the Middle East to be recruited to blow themselves up for the promise of salvation. Poor, uneducated, and disheartened people tend to be easier prey for religious extremism than the rich.
The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.
Hence my point about demagogues. Osama was the son of a rich Saudi construction magnate and many TV evangelists in the US are obscenely rich. They have the resources to recruit and organize extremist groups.
But their efforts mean nothing if we can develop a society where the factors that lead young people to terrorism no longer exist.
Something you would learn, if you searched a bit about the history of religious fundamentalism, at least since the second world war.
United States Air Force Cryptologist Linguist, specialized in Arabic, primarily focused on anti-terrorism, especially Islamic extremism.
And I gotta say, most of what you're saying goes against everything I've learned about religious extremism.
-
This is tautologically true. And relevant. But it doesn't solve the issue.
On the contrary; it solves everything. It's buy-in. Terrorist groups can only exist due to perceived oppression. If someone looks around and is content with their lot in life, then there is no motivation for them to lash out. You can't get them to buy into the concept of some great evil if they cannot detect it.
Terrorism is a hobby of the poor because they are demonstrably not doing well, and of the rich because they have room to explore and find more evil and the means to exercise their ambitions to destroy all evils. It does not belong to the middle class, and it is most effectively fought through expanding that category.
Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.
-
Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.
Exactly.
See: Greece and Turkey under the Marshall Plan.
-
On the contrary; it solves everything. It's buy-in. Terrorist groups can only exist due to perceived oppression. If someone looks around and is content with their lot in life, then there is no motivation for them to lash out. You can't get them to buy into the concept of some great evil if they cannot detect it.
Terrorism is a hobby of the poor because they are demonstrably not doing well, and of the rich because they have room to explore and find more evil and the means to exercise their ambitions to destroy all evils. It does not belong to the middle class, and it is most effectively fought through expanding that category.
Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.
For my U.S. military history class, I've been writing a paper on the insurgency in Iraq, and I've seen this in several sources. Whether it's terrorists, insurgents, or revolutionaries, their primary reason for fighting is some sort of perceived oppression or neglection of basic needs. If the government is able to correct the problems, the reason for fighting disappears, and the movement shrivels up and dies. From my research, in insurgencies like Iraq, the insurgents need the support (whether passive or active) of the people. The people will only support them if they are not happy with the current government. One of the big reasons for the drop in violence in Iraq in 2007, besides the troop surge, was American and Iraqi efforts finally succeeded in winning over the support of the people. Once the people turned their backs on the insurgents, the insurgents completely lost momentum.
The most effective method of fighting extremists is not on the battlefield, but by eliminating the reasons people follow the extremists in the first place.
-
Hmmm. Does that mean that a "War Against Terrorism" is futile? An army marching in and conquering would, I presume, be seen as an oppressor. Terrorism only starts dying off when non-fighting measures are taken?
-
You need both. It's really difficult to implement the measures you need to create a peaceful society when there's open conflict. You have to work a balancing act of ensuring security but not being seen as an oppressor. By maintaining security you can allow the society around you to reform itself to ensure that the root causes of terrorism can't manifest themselves in the country in question.
Military measures are just bandages in the grand scheme of things. If used right, they'll prevent the wounds of a collapsed society from spreading or getting worse, but if the country can't treat the problems already in its own country, it won't be able to become a healthy society in the long run. Economic stability and a fair justice system (among other things) essentially work as the country's antibodies against extremism.
-
I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits. What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it.
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
The example is an "extreme" one so you get the core concept of what I am talking about, I am not comparing nazism with islam (I actually think they are very different, evil in different ways).
If you tell me, well he might not be an extreme muslim, that is equivalent of saying "he might not be a full muslim, he might only be a *slight* muslim".
And that is still, of course, true, and the reason why I conceded that point before.
I'm willing to say that if they've reached the credentials in America to be nominated for the highest court that they've had the experience and the education to be more moderate in their beliefs, or at least to separate their religious beliefs from their duties as a judge.
Quite the presumption, but you convince me to take the chance, what the hell, what's the worse that can happen.
Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?
9/11 was an unusual event. It was one of the most complicated terrorist attacks ever carried out, simply because it required people with some education to be able to fly massive passenger airliners.
A hotel bombing, kidnapping, market bombing, or vehicular homicide doesn't require the same expertise or education. There are enough unemployed, disheartened youths in the Middle East to be recruited to blow themselves up for the promise of salvation. Poor, uneducated, and disheartened people tend to be easier prey for religious extremism than the rich.
Of course, but then don't tell me this is a "poor phenomena". It isn't. It's an extremism phenomena.
Hence my point about demagogues. Osama was the son of a rich Saudi construction magnate and many TV evangelists in the US are obscenely rich. They have the resources to recruit and organize extremist groups.
But their efforts mean nothing if we can develop a society where the factors that lead young people to terrorism no longer exist.
You should consider what these "young" people really abhor about our society. They do not speak about their own poverty. They speak about the lack of moral values, the disgusting lack of leashes we have over women, the whorization of the entire society, the consumerism, etc. IOW, they abhor our society and western values themselves.
United States Air Force Cryptologist Linguist, specialized in Arabic, primarily focused on anti-terrorism, especially Islamic extremism.
And I gotta say, most of what you're saying goes against everything I've learned about religious extremism.
Are you really? That's awesome. About the contradiction between your beliefs and mine, well if what you say is true, I recognize your authority over mine. I still remain unconvinced of what you say.
-
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
I will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.
-
Moustaches?
I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits. What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it.
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
So if someone says: "I am a socialist", then you automatically assume that he does like the ideology, but also the most absurd and extreme forms of that ideology, say, The Soviet Union (which, if you look at the core, didn't quite 'get it')?
-
aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument
i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen
-
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
I will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.
Uh, what? A moderate nazi believes in all the nice-sounding tenets of the party but isn't for gassing gays and starting wars as such. Taking whatever they're comfortable with and ignoring the rest.
- An economy where community interests would be upheld: nazi.
- A national state for all those of german origin: nazi.
- Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural: nazi.
- Sometimes it's more humane to euthanize: nazi.
- Starting a war? Of course war is always a tragedy, but sometimes it's simply necessary for a nation to do whatever it takes to defend itself.
- Persecuting jews? Well surely there can be an occasional good jew, but look, it's either the german people or them. You'd rather hand out the nation to a parasitic race, would you, huh, would you?
- Political executions? Oh come on. Suppressing treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State. You think you could hide a conspiracy involving hundreds of people killing your own citizens for something other than a really good reason a secret? Maybe you should watch less tv.
Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.
-
Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.
Do we call people who follow something due to fear of prosecution or simple lack of better alternatives (we are talking about the greatest financial crisis in history) a genuine follower?
aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument
i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen
You mean stuff like this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNOku6QP4UM)
EDIT: Edited link because it was the wrong one last time.
(By the way, since when did you start doing hte Aaaaaaahahahahahaa stuff? It's not very... authoritylike.)
-
We can't have Sharia Courts in the US, EVER!
-
Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.
Do we call people who follow something due to fear of prosecution or simple lack of better alternatives (we are talking about the greatest financial crisis in history) a genuine follower?
Well, a nazi doesn't need to be a follower, just a member of the party. With "genuine" I was referring to actual members, not to the people who fully bought into the ideology, and in that 8.5 million there still has to be thousands of people who subscribed to the non-extreme ideas of the party but didn't want any of the really nasty stuff to happen and/or simply didn't believe that it really would: moderate nazis. But yes, within the actual nazists the number of moderates must have been considerably lower; I don't believe they were non-existant since it's still entirely possible to believe in the core nazi principles without any desire for genocide, for example.
-
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
This...I don't know what to do with this.
I assume by bringing up Nazis you want to evoke the racial purity aspect that really made Nazis evil evil...but that argument is still...odd. Racial purity is a cornerstone of National Socialism, and without it, you're following just another form of fascism.
Sharia law, on the other hand, isn't a major cornerstone of Islam. In fact, it's something most moderate Muslims go without even mentioning (at least in the US), and the only reason it's such a big deal is because the right wing took a few token extremists in the country and turned Sharia law into the next bogeyman. And again, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; extremist Muslims want to enact Sharia law as a reactionary measure against what they perceive as a hostile society, and society becomes hostile against them because of Sharia law.
-
I totally agree that religion is generally stupid, but that does not mean that all Muslims are anything like Nazis. You clearly need more diverse friends.
I've had Christian friends, I've had Hindi friends, I've had Musilim friends, and all of them believed some seriously stupid things. It didn't make them bad, or dangerous people.
Don't go around comparing things to Nazism unless you really have a good comparison.
-
Maybe I was fortunate that I had friends who followed Islam before 9/11 and knew some of their practices and beliefs both post- and pre- attack. The sad fact is that this 'hardening' of Islam in the West is mainly a self-defence mechanism, and could even be considered to be a response to a similar reaction on the part of Christianity.
Islam has been with us for years, and before 9/11 and all this territorial pissing that took place between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, Western Islam was much like Western Christianity, they went to church, listened to the sermon, obeyed the rules if they thought it was important enough (I knew quite a Muslims who liked a pint and a joint) and generally got on with their lives. Most Muslims would be perfectly happy if that trend had continued, but the situation in the Middle East spread over here and everything changed.
I walked past Muslims for years and didn't know they were followers of Islam, because it didn't matter, but a lot of the post 9/11 change has been in ourselves, we notice Muslims more and distrust them, and in defence of that Muslims become more withdrawn and defensive, and the cycle continues.
-
Uh, what? A moderate nazi believes in all the nice-sounding tenets of the party but isn't for gassing gays and starting wars as such. Taking whatever they're comfortable with and ignoring the rest.
- An economy where community interests would be upheld: nazi.
- A national state for all those of german origin: nazi.
- Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural: nazi.
- Sometimes it's more humane to euthanize: nazi.
- Starting a war? Of course war is always a tragedy, but sometimes it's simply necessary for a nation to do whatever it takes to defend itself.
- Persecuting jews? Well surely there can be an occasional good jew, but look, it's either the german people or them. You'd rather hand out the nation to a parasitic race, would you, huh, would you?
- Political executions? Oh come on. Suppressing treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State. You think you could hide a conspiracy involving hundreds of people killing your own citizens for something other than a really good reason a secret? Maybe you should watch less tv.
Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.
Great job missing the point completely. :rolleyes:
Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.
Now draw up a list for a moderate Muslim and see if you can see anything on there which would prevent someone being suitable?
-
im not gonna bother reading this beast. but i think prejudice is not the same as hate. hate (at least in this context) entails a violent application of prejudice, or whatever applicable isms you can come up with. i think that xenophobia is a natural element of human nature, its been there since we were monkeys, you can redirect it or renounce it but its always there. so if you have a prejudice but dont actively try to discriminate, then its not hate. however if you take that prejudice and go out stomping skulls because of it, thats what makes it hate.
in the case of this politician, i wouldn't call it hate. he has legitimate reasons for not wanting muslims in his cabinet. its probibly not politically correct (and probably political suicide) and is most certainly prejudice. for it to be hate he would have had to say something like "all muslims should be deported/arrested/murdered/put in concentration camps/whatever". cain merely does not want someone in his cabinet who serves some outside interest which conflict against american interests. at least thats what i draw from the article in the opening post.
-
Great job missing the point completely. :rolleyes:
Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.
Oh, right. I thought you were dissolving his point by saying that there are no moderate nazis. Nevermind then, although I do suspect that a large part of people (maybe even the majority) would subscribe to the moderate nazi ideals just fine and wouldn't mind a supreme court member holding such views as long as you change the references to jews and Germany to, say, islamists and the US.
-
I'm sure they would.
And it's exactly that which put the Nazis in a position of power in the first place and points to why that sort of prejudice needs to be pointed out and prevented from ever holding power.
-
The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."
I will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.
On top of being a Godwin, thanks for missing the point entirely. Do you think there are no "moderate nazis" out there? Fine. So question yourself how on earth the nazi party got hold of the parliament in Germany. Or do you believe that at least 20% of the germans in the 30s were "full blown nazis"?
I *warned* against the *extremity* of the example, but I guess that didn't stop people to cry "Godwin's LAW I WIN PWNED ROFLMAO".
aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument
i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen
Really missing the point, thanks for failing GB. Happy zookeper got it.
I totally agree that religion is generally stupid, but that does not mean that all Muslims are anything like Nazis. You clearly need more diverse friends
I mean what the hell. Do you even read what I wrote? I mean, wtf? I wasn't comparing islam with nazism, but drawing the distinction between ideology and followers, who may or may not indulge wholeheartedly in all of the ideology's tenets.
Mind you, even with all the Godwinnesssness of it all, even most nazis were terrified when they learned about the "final solution" and learned to be utterly ashamed of their "political choice". This means that perhaps "moderate nazis" isn't such a ridiculous term.
Look at your list and tell me you think someone holding those views would be suitable for the supreme court.
And yet why do I get the sense that perhaps some of them do?
Now draw up a list for a moderate Muslim and see if you can see anything on there which would prevent someone being suitable?
I don't know, you are so knowledgeable, so you tell me. What do "moderate muslims" think of women's rights, marriage, abortion, divortion, testimony, etc?
Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.
-
Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.
judge not lest ye be judged.
Personally, I prefer to judge people as individuals rather than going for the group.
-
On top of being a Godwin, thanks for missing the point entirely. Do you think there are no "moderate nazis" out there? Fine. So question yourself how on earth the nazi party got hold of the parliament in Germany. Or do you believe that at least 20% of the germans in the 30s were "full blown nazis"?
I *warned* against the *extremity* of the example, but I guess that didn't stop people to cry "Godwin's LAW I WIN PWNED ROFLMAO".
As I pointed out already it doesn't matter cause no one would elect even the moderate Nazis to the supreme court.
Really missing the point, thanks for failing GB. Happy zookeper got it.
So am I. Notice he got the point I was making. You didn't.
I don't know, you are so knowledgeable, so you tell me. What do "moderate muslims" think of women's rights, marriage, abortion, divortion, testimony, etc?
Because the view I have of moderate muslims on that front is anything but rosy.
Which is why I've already pointed out that I think you are a bigot too. I've already proved why once on this thread for that matter.
But since you bring it up, the point of view of the moderate Muslim on those matters isn't actually any different from the point of view of the moderate Christian.
-
Which is why I've already pointed out that I think you are a bigot too. I've already proved why once on this thread for that matter.
But since you bring it up, the point of view of the moderate Muslim on those matters isn't actually any different from the point of view of the moderate Christian.
I am open to the possibility that I am being bigoted.
-
I'm not saying it's a Godwin, I'm saying it's a bad analogy.
National Socialism is essentially fascism wrapped around the belief in Aryan supremacy. You can't be a follower of National Socialism and not believe in that racial ideology. You take the supremacy aspect out of Naziism, and you just have run-of-the-mill fascism. So even moderate Nazis would believe that the Aryan race is the master race.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians on the other hand, don't revolve around hatred of homosexuality, or in Sharia law, or in dietary restrictions. You view Sharia law as backwards and barbaric and still be a Muslim, you can drink beer and still be a Jew, and you can be pro-gay marriage and still be a Christian. Islam, at its core, is the belief in one God, that Mohammed was his prophet, fasting for one month out of the year, praying towards Mecca, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to Mecca (if it's within the Muslim's means).
In other words, Sharia law isn't the central aspect of Islam in the way that Aryan supremacy is for Naziism. I think that's the point that karajorma and Battuta were trying to make.
I don't think you're a bigot, I just think you don't fully understand Islam or the beliefs of most moderate Muslims in Western societies.
-
There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.
When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parts of the brain invisible to introspection.
No rational examination of Islam. No consideration of the society or beliefs. Just a slurry of heuristics bubbling over the things you hear on the news and your panicked fears of the outgroup.
I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying. And it's a pretty simple world out there. Most people's opinions on Islam have nothing to do with Islam as a belief, or the people that believe it; they're a complex of fears and hates and statistical distortions coming out of the parts of the brain that actually govern our behavior, not the little self-obsessed conscious bit we wholeheartedly believe we are.
-
I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying.
This belief could end up cause you a great deal of trouble.
-
There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.
When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parT of the brain invisible to introspection.
Thanks. All this discussion needed was a little of pseudo-psychoanalysis babble towards other members of the discussion.
Why don't you psychoanalyse your own brain while I try to make my own analogies, be they fortunate or not?
I no longer feel like I read people's arguments. I feel like I read the things they're actually saying. And it's a pretty simple world out there. Most people's opinions on Islam have nothing to do with Islam as a belief, or the people that believe it; they're a complex of fears and hates and statistical distortions coming out of the parts of the brain that actually govern our behavior, not the little self-obsessed conscious bit we wholeheartedly believe we are.
Wow. Talk about self-irony.
-
I'm not saying it's a Godwin, I'm saying it's a bad analogy.
National Socialism is essentially fascism wrapped around the belief in Aryan supremacy.
And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.
For instance, while I am not a christian, I like it a lot more. I could even give theological "rational" reasons for it.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians on the other hand, don't revolve around hatred of homosexuality, or in Sharia law, or in dietary restrictions. You view Sharia law as backwards and barbaric and still be a Muslim, you can drink beer and still be a Jew, and you can be pro-gay marriage and still be a Christian. Islam, at its core, is the belief in one God, that Mohammed was his prophet, fasting for one month out of the year, praying towards Mecca, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to Mecca (if it's within the Muslim's means).
Sure, I know that that's how most people behave, they just follow "common sense" and try to live their own lives as best they can, without being some sort of zombies trying to ruin the world.
In other words, Sharia law isn't the central aspect of Islam in the way that Aryan supremacy is for Naziism. I think that's the point that karajorma and Battuta were trying to make.
No, sharia law is islamic morals, it is not islamic theology. IOW, it is how they do about things, not how they think about things. And of course, it's prone to change and "reinterpretations".
I don't think you're a bigot, I just think you don't fully understand Islam or the beliefs of most moderate Muslims in Western societies.
Yeah that may well be the case too.
-
There are all these polite fictions like 'I can compare Islam to Nazi Germany but it's just an intellectual exercise'.
When you get down to it, when you do the science, when you put people in front of computers with sensors in their brains and make them do millisecond-level reaction time tests to find out how they really feel, making an analogy like that is pretty generally a superficial manifestation of a subrational attitude that operates in parT of the brain invisible to introspection.
Thanks. All this discussion needed was a little of pseudo-psychoanalysis babble towards other members of the discussion.
Have fun reading about science (http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Senior/BLINK%20replication/IAT.pdf) while those of us actually familiar with human cognition lounge about in smoking jackets and bet on horse races. This is the science of attitudes, if you want to play in the sandbox you'll need some data.
Why don't you psychoanalyse your own brain while I try to make my own analogies, be they fortunate or not?
Ahahaha I ****ing love it when people talk about 'psychoanalysis' as if it's something that has meant anything in 50 years. It's like asking physicists why they don't go measure waves in the luminiferous aether, it was never science and never made predictions and never meant **** to anyone.
When you make analogies like that you reveal information about yourself that you're not aware you're revealing. People are blind to themselves, it's called the introspection illusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion) and it applies to everyone except me.
Human cognition works backwards. First you're scared of Muslims. That attitude probably didn't even have actual conscious backing until you had reason to pull it up. Now you're recruiting reasoning for it. It's how everyone thinks.
-
And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.
Are you... joking? Islam, when translated means "submission to GOD." It's not totalitarianism.
Actually, pop quiz. Describe, in as much detail as you can muster yourself, exactly what problem you have with Sharia Law, and we'll see how wrong you are?
-
Luis Dias; answer me this. How are your beliefs any less dangerous than those you believe "Musilim's" have?
Because they aren't. Nothing less than methodical, case by case judgment is safe. Nothing less than continuous self observation and realizing the possibility that you MIGHT BE WRONG.
YES I think that Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism, have the potential to be TERRIBLE. It's right there in the books; child sacrifice, genocide. Blind faith is a dangerous thing; yet when I look at your arguments, it's the same blind faith I see in many Christian preachers, and the same blind conviction I see in Osama Bin Laden's manifesto. You believe.
What if there's a Muslim, or a Scientoligist out there who's more rational than you?
EDIT:
This is not a personal criticism, but an appeal to you to examine your belief and apply evidence.
-
And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.
Submission to the will of God, not man.
It's just a name; Islam, in practice, demands no more submission than Christianity and Judaism.
For instance, while I am not a christian, I like it a lot more. I could even give theological "rational" reasons for it.
I'll address why this seems so hypocritical later.
No, sharia law is islamic morals, it is not islamic theology. IOW, it is how they do about things, not how they think about things. And of course, it's prone to change and "reinterpretations".
Sharia is a set of guidelines and a moral code set down by the followers of Mohammad. If you hate Sharia, then you have to hate Christianity and Judaism for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
Sharia demands hands cut off for thievery. Christianity and Judaism demand the death penalty for growing different crops in adjacent fields. Sharia advocates the submission of women. Paul says women need to remain 'quiet' and 'subservient' in the epistles.
On the other hand, the Ten Commandments say that murder is abhorrent, that Christians and Jews should honor their parents, and not to lie about your neighbor. Not only does Islam recognize the Ten Commandments as the word of God (just spoken through an earlier prophet), but they have their own condemnations of murder, of false testimony, and respect for elders.
If Christianity and Judaism were widely practiced in societies that face the same levels of corruption, poverty, and authoritarianism as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia, then they would be just as savagely interpreted. Western Muslims, by and large, don't advocate the submission of women to that extent, mostly because they live in developed societies where women hold high standing. They don't advocate chopping off hands for thievery for the same reasons American Christians and Jews don't want people killed for growing corn and wheat next to each other; because the Western justice system is more fair and modern.
And you're right, people do live by common sense and just want to live their lives. Sharia, just like the Pentateuch and the Epistles, is open to interpretation and adaption; it has many good principles to live by, but it has many 7th century principles that no longer apply. If we get back to the original topic, you have to consider judicial appointees on a case-by-case basis.
-
Have fun reading about science (http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Senior/BLINK%20replication/IAT.pdf) while those of us actually familiar with human cognition lounge about in smoking jackets and bet on horse races. This is the science of attitudes, if you want to play in the sandbox you'll need some data.
Your link doesn't work. And is snobbyism some form of meta-attitude?
Ahahaha I ****ing love it when people talk about 'psychoanalysis' as if it's something that has meant anything in 50 years. It's like asking physicists why they don't go measure waves in the luminiferous aether, it was never science and never made predictions and never meant **** to anyone.
Sarcasm lost to a writer. Now that's something. At least you are half-way to my point, uh.
When you make analogies like that you reveal information about yourself that you're not aware you're revealing. People are blind to themselves, it's called the introspection illusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion) and it applies to everyone except me.
At least you are aware of your attitude.
Human cognition works backwards. First you're scared of Muslims. That attitude probably didn't even have actual conscious backing until you had reason to pull it up. Now you're recruiting reasoning for it. It's how everyone thinks.
I'm not scared of muslims. I'm more scared of your attitude against me right now that I was ever of muslims. There are almost no muslims in my country, it is completely "uninteresting" to any imaginable "conspiracy attack" and all the discussions I see on this issue are completely academic to me.
Anyways, irony is not lost on me. When I first began to discuss religion in this forum, you rightfully put me in place for daring to utter the expression "Translation:" , as outright rude and condescending, as if the person on the otherside was saying something that he/she didn't mean, and as if I had the power to read minds, etc. You do give good advices. Why not take them time to time, instead of playing god? Or is that some kind of inferiority complex?
-
And I think that Islam is an ancient form of totalitarianism, to which the very word "Islam", when translated, means "Submission". I don't like it. So sue me.
Are you... joking? Islam, when translated means "submission to GOD." It's not totalitarianism.
That's exactly what totalitarianism is. You're seeing things differently, I would say outright wrong. Totalitarianism is a form of politics where everything about the world you inhabitted is defined and judged by a higher power, submission is total, you are a slave to the machine. Human totalitarianism, i.e., Stalinism, Nazism, etc., are attempts of humans to this kind of godly government. But make no mistake, the original form is the theological one. God knows what you think and will judge you for that. In 1984 there were thought polices doing such a job.
Perhaps you do think that submitting yourself to a higher power is something to be. Something to aspire to. That such a thing is not "totalitarian". I don't.
Actually, pop quiz. Describe, in as much detail as you can muster yourself, exactly what problem you have with Sharia Law, and we'll see how wrong you are?
I'm not your monkey.
It's just a name; Islam, in practice, demands no more submission than Christianity and Judaism.
Did you quantify this? I am not sure about christianity and islam, but judaism? One of the mildest forms of religiosity, founders of secularism and outright religious cynicism? Yes, they do suffer from the same central mistake, but they are not equal to each other.
Sharia is a set of guidelines and a moral code set down by the followers of Mohammad. If you hate Sharia, then you have to hate Christianity and Judaism for the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
And I do. There is a reason why some christian morons go around pissing people of at their own funerals about how god hates their own nature. I did not say that I endorse christianity. But christianity at least suffers an interesting schizofrenia, between the old testament and the new, and most christians do not abide to the old and feel ashamed by it. Personally, I like the idea of God hung on the cross, dying for us and leaving our lives for ourselves to figure it out. It's as if god said one time "I'm done with this ****, now you take hold of it and try to make the best of it". The remaining "holy spirit" is just the spirit of companionship and friendship between mortals. I like this "crucial" bit about it, it doesn't mean that I endorse it.
If we get back to the original topic, you have to consider judicial appointees on a case-by-case basis.
But I already did, almost back at the beggining. You're still punishing me for something that I conceded long ago.
-
Did you quantify this? I am not sure about christianity and islam, but judaism? One of the mildest forms of religiosity, founders of secularism and outright religious cynicism? Yes, they do suffer from the same central mistake, but they are not equal to each other.
Israel. Go live in it for a few years before you sing the praises of the Judaic traditions. Most of the country's problems can be attributed to its continued insistence upon being a Jewish state. If they'd given that bit up and tried to integrate the Palestinians we'd have been over with this a long time ago. But even the supposedly minor dividing line is an unbridgeable gulf in practice.
Secularism as you know it was born of the Enlightenment, not the destruction of the Temple. And Judaic secularism and the form of moderate Jewish practice that exists in most of the Western world can be traced directly to the fact that the Jewish religion's organizing machinery and visible symbols were put to the sword by Titus Flavius; the original strain is nothing like what you'd depict the religion as. Should we then, as well, destroy the holy sites and holy objects of other religions? It will not help, unless you also scatter their adherents to the winds as well.
Atrocity does not breed better people. It simply makes them quieter and more careful.
-
*Snip*
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and refuse to answer any of the questions or statements directed at you with arguments other than outright bigotry or misinformation.
I'm done with this thread.