patrick.net

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.

Heraclitusstudent says

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.

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

Rew says

Where?

Read previous quotes above. How many times do I need to quote it?
Or read a newspaper. Denial is everywhere.

Rew says

I think they are far more worried about the US population turning against over 3 million American Muslims

Why would the US population turn against Muslims just because you start insisting on things like women rights or defending separation of church and state?
This doesn't make sense. The US population already sees Muslims as different. What would change for Americans? Nothing.
In fact it's the opposite: doing nothing irritates regular Americans and push them into the arms of more extremist politicians like Trump, who are at least seen thinking about the issue.

Rew says

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation, with the obvious and bizarre hope that the problem will somehow go away by itself.
That's the same thing.

Heraclitusstudent says

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation

No. We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam. The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

The specious argument here has at it's core the idea that you can criticize Islam to be fatally flawed and inherently evil without causing many people to think they are justified in hating random good Muslims for the acts that Muslim terrorist commit.

You fail to take human nature in to account or how many ignorant assholes there are out there.

We have had violence against Muslims in response to terrorism even without promoting the idea that all of Islam is to blame.

marcus says

The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

By that standard the idea of changing the culture in a country like imperial Japan by bombing it is silly. Yet it happened.
Or the idea of changing the catholic church by proving it wrong again and again is silly. Yet it happened.
Some ideas are fragile and can be changed - as long as you don't give up from the start.

marcus says

We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam.

Make no mistake, among these 2 the later represent the biggest danger to civilization.
Some people are afraid of terrorists getting their hands on a nuke. Even that would do nothing to our civilization except galvanize it.

But you see the proportion of Muslims rising in Europe. They will eventually ask their due, leading to civil war or Islamic states in some regions, which would represent the death of civilization.
This is in the long term a far bigger threat than terrorists. (Not for the US but for Europe.)
Those who promote immigration as a way to foster economic growth should consider the cost of a civil war.

marcus says

The specious argument here has at it's core the idea that you can criticize Islam to be fatally flawed and inherently evil without causing many people to think they are justified in hating random good Muslims for the acts that Muslim terrorist commit.

Marcus, you are dreaming. Many people to think they are justified in hating random Muslims because Muslims keep attacking us.
If you want to consider human nature, start with that basic fact.

I'm not even saying that Islam is "inherently evil", but it can be shown to be fatally flawed.

marcus says

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.

Yeah, but what about the real criminals? Are they gonna stop being criminals if you don't call them criminals.

Rew says

I don't see us placating or giving land to terrorists anywhere. That's a pretty weird analogy.

Palestinians? Russia China India all have terrorism because Islamists think everything belongs to them.

marcus says

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.

I say the same thing about you. Exactly the same.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

I see us conceding a huge ideological pass to avoid any confrontation

No. We simply choose to distinguish between Islamic terrorists, and practitioners of Islam. The idea that we could change an entire religion by telling them what we think of Islam, is even more arrogant and silly than the idea that we were going to help Iraq build a modern secular country after taking out Saddam.

We did it with Christianity. Why not Islam?

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm not even saying that Islam is "inherently evil", but it can be shown to be fatally flawed.

Islam is inherently evil.

Rew says

Oops! Darn those radical Christians abducting people!

Sorry, Rew. There are only a few hundred LRA members at best - there used to be 10,000 or more when they got Muslim Money from the Sudan via Saudi Arabia (to terrorize South Sudan, ironically mostly Christian themselves).

Islamic Terror is widespread, and even if LRA IS a "Christian" Group - and I would characterize it mostly as a Ethnic Insurgency taken over by a Charismatic - it's the exception that proves the rule.

Number of Terrorist Attacks in the World (2015-2016) U Chicago.

http://cpostdata.uchicago.edu/search_new.php?clear=1

Interestingly, Population of Islam by State.

Finally, is Suicide Bombing acceptable?

Note the net column does not report "Rarely" as part of the sum. Also, WTF is "Rarely"? People can creatively interpret that in their mind to mean "If India does not acknowledge Islam as Supreme" or "If they continue to insult the Prophet."

How do you think self-identifying Christians polled in the US, Australia, Ireland, Poland, etc. would answer this one?

T L Lipsovich says

Note the net column does not report "Rarely" as part of the sum. Also, WTF is "Rarely"?

It means a "Yes"

T L Lipsovich says

Look closely at the map. More Muslims is directly proportional to more terrorism.

T L Lipsovich says

The interesting point is that most victims of Islam are in fact Muslims.
In particular with regard to the conflict Sunny shiits.

People who defend Islam are anti-Muslims.