patrick.net

Rew says

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking the sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

Rew says

I don't think anyone is denying a radicalization issue in Islam.

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam. Except for the mainstream media, that relay these thoughts exactly.
Except the numerous liberals who are so afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims. etc, etc...

Heraclitusstudent says

Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Even more bizarre, she proposed paying to import more of it, while acknowledging that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," and proposing more mass surveillance and support for her Saudi sponsors.

Heraclit says

No Christian or Jews are asking for theocracy.

They are out there, on the fringe.
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/#sthash.iFbBpkoW.dpbs
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm

Heraclit says

Our culture has, through centuries of criticizing faith, managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?
Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

Heraclit says

Comparing Islam to other religions is clearly an attempt to distort the problem we face, which is clearly unique to Islam.

No denying problems. They are problems faced before and common to religions in general. This is not an attempt to obscure, merely something you don't agree with.

Heraclit says

Moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for a text that is literally inciting violence and discrimination against non-Muslims are contributing to the problem. You can't say this is a sacred text written by God, and at the same time claim it doesn't mean what it says when you read it.

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

Fundamentalism must appeal to you. ;)

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Rew says

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam. Just denouncing acts like killing someone for apostasy will get Muslims up in arms.

Rew says

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Sharia laws are Islam. And Islam is sharia laws. There is no difference. You cannot be a Muslim without first believing in sharia laws.

Rew says

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?

Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

You compare this to theocracy? You can't be serious. We have separation of church and state. That some voters blocks within a democracy are influenced by their religious philosophy is not theocracy.
I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Islam itself, no. Radicalization in Islam, yes.

Heraclitusstudent says

afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims.

False attack line of the right. The counter side, and proponent of freedoms, is afraid that people will be biased against Islam overall.

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

Rew says

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

The sharia laws are unique to Islam and Islam only. No one else practices such human rights abuses to this extent as does Islam. If sharia laws are not part and parcel of Islam, as you claim, why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Rew says

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

To have a different interpretation you just need to hold contradictory beliefs: (1) that the legitimacy of the text comes from being written by god (not inspired or spelled but directly written) (2) then believe something else than what is written. Then pray over it 5 times a day.

It's not impossible but clearly this is not what the stable intellectual position is.

Heraclitusstudent says

I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Oh no. I'm very clear of what it looks like. The fall of the Shaw in Iran is the model to watch. Amazing today that Iran is more progressive on some things than other nations considered to be far less theocratic and progressive than it. Guess that is that whole 'things cannot change and are always strictly interpreted' point you are making. (wink)

Heraclitusstudent says

We have separation of church and state.

Except where we don't, and the fact that Christianity's influence in politics is enormous.
I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

There is no "ban" from influence on government ... as you previously stated.

Heraclitusstudent says

... managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

That reduction in influence also seems to be making a last ditch swing the other way as of late.

How many terrorist attacks in the US or Europe are assigned to Dominionists or Superfrum Hassidim?

It's not people with long sideburns or 50s men's haircuts plowing trucks into Xmas markets or random pedestrians.

Frankly I would take Rafael Cruz in a heartbeat over Grand Sheik Abdulrahman Al Alsanad. By the way, the Saudi Religious Police were the model for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - aka the Taliban's- own version of Saudi's PVPV.

Strategist says

why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Do you know how many activists movements there are in Islam now?

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/women-islam-and-the-push-for-reform-in-the-muslim-world/

Strategist says

No one else practices such human rights abuses to this extent as does Islam.

Source? I can think of massive atrocities being committed in the name of Christianity as well as just general world governments that are atrocious.

Rew says

Source? I can think of massive atrocities being committed in the name of Christianity as well as just general world governments that are atrocious.

Over the past few decades?

By the way, if Colonialism is oppression, then Europeans can take back Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, and Constantinople from Islamic Colonialist Imperialists, right?

Rew says

Except where we don't, and the fact that Christianity's influence in politics is enormous.

I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

You are right on this, but it's minuscule compared to the influence Islam has on politics in Muslim countries. The influence there is 100%.

Rew says

Strategist says

why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Do you know how many activists movements there are in Islam now?

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/women-islam-and-the-push-for-reform-in-the-muslim-world/

LOL. It's the tenets of Islam that need to be booted out. No one alive is working towards that.

"Middle East—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—to reveal how activists are working within the tenets of Islam to create economic, political, and educational opportunities for women."

By the way, anybody who has a modicum of respect for basic human rights and is anti-slavery ought to be boycotting the hosting of the World Cup in Qatar.

Heraclitusstudent says

They are saying: Muslim ==> not (terrorist)

you are saying: not(muslim ==> terrorist)

You are right, they are not the same. But these are also not the same.

Muslim ==>Peace

Muslim ==>not terrorist

Actually neither of these are true if interpreted in the absolute sense. That's where this breaks down. You can't accurately generalize that Islam is peaceful or that it's violent. But if we are going to generalize one way or the other we are going to generalize that it's peaceful. Not just because a majority are peaceful, but also becasue a super super majority of American Muslims in America are peaceful, and we don't want to incite hatred against all Muslims. Call it PR or call it PC. Common sense should tell you that it's necessary.

Again, how is this not easy to understand ?

The politicians are saying Muslims are for peace, becasue this is what they want the world and Islam to believe about Islam. If they were to generalize and say Islam is all about violence, then that is a false generalization, and importantly it's also a small step from declaring war on Islam. It would be perceived as the U.S. condemning Islam.

Can you honestly say that you don't think that defining Islam as violent, evil and maybe even our enemy isn't exactly what the radical jihadists want ? Or that it would not cause an increase in the number of Islamists ?

What's going on is the politicians are playing chess and you think it's a game of checkers.

Heraclitusstudent says

To have a different interpretation you just need to hold contradictory beliefs: (1) that the legitimacy of the text comes from being written by god (not inspired or spelled but directly written) (2) then believe something else than what is written. Then pray over it 5 times a day.

It's not impossible but clearly this is not what the stable intellectual position is.

So you believe one must have a fundamental and literal following of a religious text to be a practitioner? (cough fundamentalism cough)
A hunch the world is very "black and white" for you. ;)

T L Lipsovich says

Over the past few decades?

Right now. The LRA. You can argue degrees, but the point is this is a Christian idealogical practice committing atrocities.

Gotta admire Rew's guts and debating ability on a topic he is so obviously wrong.
Marcus would just get frustrated and put everyone on ignore.

Strategist says

the influence Islam has on politics in Muslim countries. The influence there is 100%.

Nothing is 100%. The world is far more open these days than any autocratic strongman or zealot would like.

Rew says

Oh no. I'm very clear of what it looks like. ...Amazing today that Iran is more progressive on some things than other nations considered to be far less theocratic and progressive than it. Guess that is that whole 'things cannot change and are always strictly interpreted' point you are making. (wink)

So you consider an Islamic republic like Iran an acceptable form of government?

Rew says

I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

There is no "ban" from influence on government ... as you previously stated.

We are not clean of religious influence, but we are order of magnitude better than Muslims.
And there is a legal separation between Church and state.

Rew says

Heraclitusstudent says

... managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

That reduction in influence also seems to be making a last ditch swing the other way as of late.

I don't think so. The evangelicals influence under Bush all but collapse under Trump. Christianity has been boxed and lost any durable control of worldly matter.
This is not the case for Islam. The best proof is that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Christians and their religions. But try it for Muslims and (1) you are immediately categorized as an islamophobic nazi, (2) herds of liberals immediately jump to defend that faith, (3) Muslims are offended and, depending on the offense, may find appropriate to kill you.

Strategist says

Gotta admire Rew's guts and debating ability on a topic he is so obviously wrong.

Thank you and calling someone wrong isn't much of an argument ... but I guess it's a start. ;)

marcus says

You can't accurately generalize that Islam is peaceful or that it's violent. But if we are going to generalize one way or the other we are going to generalize that it's peaceful.

Really? Can you name even one other religion that is more violent in today's world?

Strategist says

LOL. It's the tenets of Islam that need to be booted out. No one alive is working towards that.

Reformers reform what they have ... they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(Watch the "repeal and replace ACA movement closely. My bet is at the end of the day it will be far more reform of Obamacare than an outright appeal.)

Rew says

LRA

1. LRA doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes.
2. It was largely funded by the Sudanese Muslim Government (!!! TRUE !!!!) In fact the US just now lifted sanctions for that very reason.
http://citizen.co.za/news/news-africa/1398605/us-explains-decision-to-lift-sudan-sanctions/
3. LRA started as a Ethnic Minority Rights party, was hijacked by a Cult Leader, does not represent any strain of Christianity

Whereas:

1. ISIS and Al Qaeda represent at least 150M Muslims from Indonesia to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Morocco
2. Have been and still are funded by Gulf State Governments and Veeps and have official collusion, most recently with Turkey.
3. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not ethnically based, never minority advocacy groups, and has and had no single living religious figure they hold as infallible. It represents a strain of Islam which is currently the official religion in many states, including Saudi Arabia, which just opened up a Special Witchcraft Unit in 2009..

marcus says

Can you honestly say that you don't think that defining Islam as violent, evil and maybe even our enemy isn't exactly what the radical jihadists want ? Or that it would not cause an increase in the number of Islamists ?

That's like saying calling criminals "criminals" is what causes crime. Total nonsense.

Strategist says

Really? Can you name even one other religion that is more violent in today's world?

Which is the most violent race? Shall we kill them all?
Which soccer team commits the most fouls? Shall we expel them from the league?

The point is there will always be a 'most violent'. Radical Islam, for sure, is that today. It doesn't mean you war against Islam itself and destroy it altogether.

Rew says

Strategist says

LOL. It's the tenets of Islam that need to be booted out. No one alive is working towards that.

Reformers reform what they have ... they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The sharia baby must be killed and thrown out. It's a fucking devil.

Heraclitusstudent says

Like Marcus you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?

What is wrong with you?

I take this statement to mean that you know you are wrong. When your argument consists of lying and misrepresenting me and being totally unable to consider why politicians say what they do about Islam, it means you know you are on thin ice.

It must be nice to be a blind armchair quarterback and totally uncaring about whether some Americans start committing violence against American Muslims.

marcus says

Can you honestly say that you don't think that defining Islam as violent, evil and maybe even our enemy isn't exactly what the radical jihadists want ? Or that it would not cause an increase in the number of Islamists ?

T L Lipsovich says

1. LRA doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes.

https://www.lracrisistracker.com

Oops! Darn those radical Christians abducting people!

Rew says

The point is there will always be a 'most violent'. Radical Islam, for sure, is that today. It doesn't mean you war against Islam itself and destroy it altogether.

You can't quite answer the question, can you?

Strategist says

The sharia baby must be killed and thrown out. It's a fucking devil.

There ya go. Now you are talking like a, slightly obstreperous, reformer.

Strategist says

That's like saying calling criminals "criminals" is what causes crime. Total nonsense.

Really ? I guess if there were millions of criminals that are good peace loving law abiding citizens of this country deserving to not be hated becasue of their religion, then yeah, it would almost be a little bit like that.

Strategist says

That's like saying calling criminals "criminals" is what causes crime

I think it's probably closer to saying that if you take a person that's not a criminal, and you call them a criminal and treat them as a criminal by not giving them a job and ostracizing them. Yeah, that would make them far more likely to become criminal.

Strategist says

You can't quite answer the question, can you?

Check the above. Didn't I say Radical Islam, is?
If you prefer: Islam is giving rise to the most violence committed in the name of a religion, today.

Strategist says

Marcus would just get frustrated and put everyone on ignore

I usually wait until you start being an asshole. But good though job being consistent with your inability to listen, understand an argument or respond to an argument with reason.

marcus says

When your argument consists of lying and misrepresenting me and being totally unable to consider why politicians say what they do about Islam, it means you know you are on thin ice.

First, whatever the reasons, politicians are in fact lying about the role of Islam in causing terror attack. I'm not distorting it, you are.
Second, I understand the reasons but I consider them specious. To consider that moderate Muslims cannot bear criticism of their ideas, or that such criticism would alienate them rather than pull them closer, is specious. To think many of them would turn violent just by being exposed to other, critical ways of thinking is an insult to the spirit of mankind.
Third, what they are doing simply doesn't work. While it may be a minor issue in the US for the time being, it is a huge issue in Europe with civilization defining consequences that will in turn have huge impact on the US.

What US authorities are doing with Islam is comparable to what Daladier and Chamberlain were doing with the Munich Pact in 1938 with Nazi Germany.

Heraclitusstudent says

politicians are in fact lying about the role of Islam in causing terror attack.

Where?

Heraclitusstudent says

To consider that moderate Muslims cannot bear criticism of their ideas, or that such criticism would alienate them rather than pull them closer, is specious. To think many of them would turn violent just by being exposed to other, critical ways of thinking is an insult to the spirit of mankind.

I think they are far more worried about the US population turning against over 3 million American Muslims, and giving rise to elevated unfounded fear, than trying to protect/foster/help Muslim reformation or moderates.