patrick.net

rando says

Lol, perfect analogy!

Lol, indeed.

rando says

And like it or not, it has already declared religious war on the rest of the world.

That doesn't change the fact that it's it's going to take Islam to change Islam, which is why that's an extremely stupid analogy. But I think on some level you know your wrong.

Was it going to take Naziism to change Naziism?

I'm sure lots of Nazis were very nice people too.

marcus says

rando says

And like it or not, it has already declared religious war on the rest of the world.

That doesn't change the fact that it's it's going to take Islam to change Islam

We can't wait hundreds or thousands of years for them to change when they already have nuclear weapons.
We must control them, until we destroy them. Our lives are more important than their sick ideology.
The greatest threat we face within us are those who share your bizarre PC beliefs.

rando says

Was it going to take Naziism to change Naziism?

Again, such a stupid comparison. Not calling you stupid, just your point. Nazism ended. IT didn't evolve. You think anyone is going to end Islam without a lot of centuries going by first ? You make my argument for me. Islam obviously has to evolve. Fundamentalists don't suddenly become atheists. They or their children have to first become moderates, maybe later generations become atheists. Look at Christianity. Many people agree that Islam is where Christianity was many centuries ago. and Christianity is still here, and unfortunately the fundamentalist part has been growing, as people leave the more sophisticated and moderate versions, which is distressing, but I digress.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/islams-time-tested-weapon-testosterone/

Muhammad could not allow a female’s allure to distract males from their role as warriors for Islam. The solution involved sought to prevent it while still satisfying the warrior’s testosteronic needs.

This demanded Muslim males not view Muslim women as equals. For this reason, women were made subservient to them. The wife’s obligation was to meet the husband’s sexual demands, as well as to field a future warrior army. To diffuse any one female’s allure, Allah allowed males multiple wives.

Undoubtedly, the rationale for multiple wives was a belief the more mares available in the husband’s marital stable, the less clingy he would become to one in particular. Enjoying each, husbands, unburdened by familial ties, were less likely to be distracted from their warrior role. This prompted Muhammad to equate Muslim wives to domestic animals. As the highly revered 13th century Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi noted, Muhammad’s teachings likened a woman “to a sheep—even a cow or a camel—for all are ridden.”

Strategist says

The greatest threat we face within us are those who share your bizarre PC beliefs.

MY beliefs are based on logic and non-emotion far more than yours. Your beliefs sound a lot like hate to me.

marcus says

Strategist says

The greatest threat we face within us are those who share your bizarre PC beliefs.

MY beliefs are based on logic and non-emotion far more than yours. Your beliefs sound a lot like hate to me.

They are hate. Hate to Islam.
Why does your beliefs sound like love to Islam?

Strategist says

Why does your beliefs sound like love to Islam?

Because you're lying. Not hating is not the same as loving, except in the, love thy neighbor, brotherly love, sense of the word.

marcus says

Strategist says

Why does your beliefs sound like love to Islam?

Because you're lying. Not hating is not the same as loving, except in the love thy neighbor brotherly love sense of the word.

So you do not hate the sharia laws, and Islamic pedophilia. Disgusting, isn't it?

marcus says

"I would be interested in arguments for the merits of...." blah blah blah.
Red herring.

Look Marcus I really want to know the defense of Islam. What are the merits of Islam and why would anyone be better off to have more Moslems in their town or neighborhood.

It's not a red herring at all. America is about freedom, including freedom of religion. The whole point is that we don't have to approve, endorse or defend the beliefs of someone we allow in to America. That freedom is what always made America great.

PeopleUnited says

why would anyone be better off to have more Moslems in their town or neighborhood

Why would people be better off to have arrogant right wingers in their neighborhood ? Or Italians ? Or Catholics, OR Jews, Or WASPS ? If you're asking the question, then there's something intrinsic to America that you don't get.

Rashomon says

curious2 says

Anyway, secret confession without providing evidence doesn't show much courage on your part. Can you buy Dawkins or Hitchens books in the country where you live? Try buying one, get your fingerprints on it, and give it to one of your Muslim "friends". See how they handle physical evidence.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, 'secret confession.'

And we live in the age of the internet. Anyone can get hold of those books simply by going to Amazon. I have Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris on my Kindle. Nothing stopping others from doing the same if they so wish.

It means you told someone privately, secretly, and with deniability.

Do they have bookstores and libraries in the country that you serve? If so, do they have Dawkins and Hitchens on the shelves? You can probably find a Koran in almost every house, and locally for sale. Why not be brave and generous and buy a printed copy of a Dawkins or Hitchens book? Books make excellent gifts. Why are you so afraid to test the claims you make about your Muslim "friends"? If you don't feel safe, if you wouldn't bet your life on what you say, then you can't expect other people to bet their own lives and the lives of their families.

Islam says what it says, and in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. That would require executing you. Maybe you can fool yourself with your "no true Scotsman" fallacy, pretending that "no true Muslim" would do to you what Islam says to do to you, but you don't fool anyone other than yourself.

The OP asks who would think it is a good thing for more Muslims living in a neighborhood. To me, that's not the right question. The first question is should we legislate actions or ideas. We have always legislated actions and allowed freedom of speech and religion. We ought to treat people as people and legislate actions, regardless of religion.

https://patrick.net/1303440/2017-02-27-free-speech-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-today-s-world

As far as immigration is concerned, we are somewhat vulnerable in a democracy to being overrun by people with vastly different viewpoints. OTOH, Muslims represent such a small percentage of our country, that letting small amounts of Muslims immigrate is not a threat for voting purposes. If the Republican party starts a war against Islam, then of course, they will want to limit Muslim immigration to help win elections at the margins. I like Persian food, so having a few enterprising Iranians is a great benefit IMO, which is realized in most major cities in the US.

curious2 says

It means you told someone privately, secretly, and with deniability.

Good grief, there isn't some kind of religious contract you have to sign before being allowed into the country.

curious2 says

Do they have bookstores and libraries in the country that you serve?

You mean the country I work in. Yes, they have bookstores. And yes, things are censored, which is almost irrelevant in this day and age when what you can't get by actually leaving the house, you can get by turning on your computer.

curious2 says

Why not be brave and generous and buy a printed copy of a Dawkins or Hitchens book? Books make excellent gifts. Why are you so afraid to test the claims you make about your Muslim "friends"?

Sigh. Just as I wouldn't buy a Christian a book on atheism in the UK or US, I wouldn't buy one for my Muslim friends either. They don't try and convert me to Islam. I don't argue with them simply for being Muslim. I couldn't think of anything more pointless to do.

curious2 says

Islam in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. That would require executing you.

I suspect you have little real understanding of what Sharia is let alone how it is actually implemented (or not) around the Muslim world. And of course some Muslims are very anti non-believers and atheists. Others aren't. There are also plenty of Americans who are hostile towards atheists - just look at how few of your politicians are willing to admit they're atheists.

Actually The original question is what are the merits of Islam? I would like to hear the defense of Islam. It is an honest question and if it can't be defended it begs the second question as to whether a neighborhood or town is better with or without Islam. So far there has been no true defense of Islam on this thread. Put it another way, how is Islam good for non-Muslims? When we as non-Moslims do the math is Islam a net positive for us or a net negative? YesYNot says

The OP asks who would think it is a good thing for more Muslims living in a neighborhood. To me, that's not the right question. The first question is should we legislate actions or ideas. We have always legislated actions and allowed freedom of speech and religion. We ought to treat people as people and legislate actions, regardless of religion.

https://patrick.net/1303440/2017-02-27-free-speech-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-today-s-world

As far as immigration is concerned, we are somewhat vulnerable in a democracy to being overrun by people with vastly different viewpoints. OTOH, Muslims represent such a small percentage of our country, that letting small amounts of Muslims immigrate is not a threat for voting purposes. If the Republican party starts a war against Islam, then of course, they will want to limit Muslim ...

YesYNot says

Muslims represent such a small percentage of our country, that letting small amounts of Muslims immigrate is not a threat for voting purposes

But cause the majority of fatalities from terrorism, even though they are less than 2% of the entire population, more than ALL other causes combined. And hundreds, if not thousands, volunteered for ISIS.

Once you reach a certain portion - sociologists suggest over 15% - in an area, or worse, a country, Muslims get rambunctious about taking over and moving the place into the Dar al-Islam with the original residents becoming second class citizens over time. True to tradition, this isn't done by law but by things like Sharia Patrols and attacks on girls who don't conform to dress code and men who have beers in public. Many Muslims believe Welfare is their Jizya.

In any case a welfare state is not compatible with mass immigration.

PeopleUnited says

Actually The original question is what are the merits of Islam? I would like to hear the defense of Islam. It is an honest question and if it can't be defended it begs the second question as to whether a neighborhood or town is better with or without Islam. So far there has been no true defense of Islam on this thread. Put it another way, how is Islam good for non-Muslims? When we as non-Moslims do the math is Islam a net positive for us or a net negative?

The truth is Islam is not defendable. There is nothing good about Islam that you can't get elsewhere, but there are loads of bad things only Islam can provide.
That makes Islam 100% useless.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

But cause the majority of fatalities from terrorism, even though they are less than 2% of the entire population, more than ALL other causes combined.

Clearly, nowhere near 15%. To get to 15%, we would need to import 40 million Muslims. No one is talking about doing anything like that.WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

In any case a welfare state is not compatible with mass immigration.

I sort of agree with this. It depends on what you mean by a 'welfare state' and 'mass immigration.' Our current state provides some basic welfare payments and has some immigration. I wouldn't call it mass immigration and welfare payments are not exorbitant. Most of it is medicaid and snap payments.

Strategist says

The truth is Islam is not defendable. There is nothing good about Islam that you can't get elsewhere, but there are loads of bad things only Islam can provide.

Nearly the same could be said about Christianity, IMO. The real problem we have with Islam is that there are a huge number of Muslims running around preaching a horrible, violent, intolerant form of religion. That form has no place in the US (or anywhere for that matter). The extent that there are more peaceful interpretations is the issue that is up for debate.

YesYNot says

Muslims running around preaching a horrible, violent, intolerant form of religion

They're both preaching and practicing the core of their religion.

Marcus said "Why would people be better off to have arrogant right wingers in their neighborhood ? Or Italians ? Or Catholics, OR Jews, Or WASPS ?"

Which is still Red herring.

But if you will, we would love to hear why you think Islam is intrinsic to America. This ought to be good.

PeopleUnited says

But if you will, we would love to hear why you think Islam is intrinsic to America. This ought to be good.

It's diversity and being accepting and tolerant of others who are different us that is intrinsic to America. But it's true that we've always had haters and authoritarians too. But they've always been a minority, and they've almost always lost.

marcus says

being accepting and tolerant of others

The question is how much you should be accepting and tolerant of a religion that is absolutely the opposite of that.

YesYNot says

I sort of agree with this. It depends on what you mean by a 'welfare state' and 'mass immigration.'

A fascinating aspect of this whole thing is that the mass immigration is ending, and net migration is going back to Mexico.

rando says

The question is how much you should be accepting and tolerant of a religion that is absolutely the opposite of that.

And yet the millions of Muslims here so far don't really give evidence supporting your claim.

marcus says

rando says

The question is how much you should be accepting and tolerant of a religion that is absolutely the opposite of that.

And yet the millions of Muslims here so far don't really give evidence supporting your claim.

The evidence is that acts of Islamic terrorism are growing in frequency, and growing geographically as adherents of this religion have grown and spread worldwide. Islamic leaders are calling on Moslems to enact violence and terror. Do we need to republish the list for you?

YesYNot says

Strategist says

The truth is Islam is not defendable. There is nothing good about Islam that you can't get elsewhere, but there are loads of bad things only Islam can provide.

Nearly the same could be said about Christianity, IMO. The real problem we have with Islam is that there are a huge number of Muslims running around preaching a horrible, violent, intolerant form of religion.

The whole of Islam is a horrible, violent, intolerant religion. The rotten sharia laws apply to all of Islam.

YesYNot says

That form has no place in the US (or anywhere for that matter).

True. That is why Islam must be destroyed.

marcus says

rando says

The question is how much you should be accepting and tolerant of a religion that is absolutely the opposite of that.

And yet the millions of Muslims here so far don't really give evidence supporting your claim.

Radical Islamic Terrorism is all the evidence we need.

PeopleUnited says

Do we need to republish the list for you?

Who are we ?

I agree that Islamists and raicdal fundamentalist Muslims are a big problem. I just disagree about the solution. I don't claim to be a world class chess player, but I like games and understand some game theory. That's my perspective. I don't see that aggression or hate will be helpful right now, other than surgical strikes from our end aimed at terrorists, with the objective of terrorizing specific terrorists. That's taking their game to them. Where as blaming all of Islam, is actually what the terrorists want.

Marcus said: "I agree that Islamists and raicdal fundamentalist Muslims are a big problem. I just disagree about the solution. I don't claim to be a world class chess player, but I like games and understand some game theory. That's my perspective. I don't see that aggression or hate will be helpful right now, other than surgical strikes from our end aimed at terrorists, with the objective of terrorizing specific terrorists. That's taking their game to them. Where as blaming all of Islam, is actually what the terrorists want."

Marcus, I am glad that you are willing to share your belief that Islamic and radical Moslims are a big problem.

However I have not proposed a solution. We must recognize a problem before we can begin to solve it. I started this thread to promote a discussion of Islam as a net positive or net negative influence in America and by extrapolation the world. I don't have all the answers either but I think it is time to develop some before it is too late and the liberty we enjoy as free people is eroded away.

As far as what the terrorists want, I think it is clear. The Islamic terrorists are willing to die in order to achieve their end goal which is to either murder or convert to Islam every human being on the planet.

What I won't do that you will is generalize the worst attributes of terrorists on to Islamic folk in general.

PeopleUnited says

They are willing to die in order to achieve their end goal which is to either murder or convert to Islam every human being on the planet.

But they are a small segment of the Islamic world. And their existence is threatened more every time they act. Our battle needs to be directed towards terrorists, not towards the Islamic world in general. The latter is what the terrorists want.

marcus says

What I won't do that you will is generalize the worst attributes of terrorists on to Islamic folk in general.

PeopleUnited says

Islamic terrorists are willing to die in order to achieve their end goal which is to either murder or convert to Islam every human being on the planet.

But they are a small segment of the Islamic world. And their existence is threatened more every time they act. Our battle needs to be directed towards terrorists, not towards the Islamic world in general. The latter is what the terrorists want.

I disagree, what Islamic terrorists want is to kill or convert every human being on the planet and to bring every nation under their dominion.

I also disagree that their existence is threatened the more they act. Quite the opposite, the terrorist movement is growing because it is glamorizing terror, actively recruiting more terrorists, and every action taken to kill terrorists is used by terrorists to recruit more terrorists from the vast reservoir of Islamic youth around the world who are ripe for radicalization.

PeopleUnited says

I disagree, what Islamic terrorists want is to kill or convert every human being on the planet and to bring every nation under their dominion.

Marcus's point is that there is much benefit to Islamic terrorist movements in the US portraying the conflict as Islam vs the West/Christianity/America. Example : Iran's moderates are finding they are agreeing with their current theocratic hardliners over their common dislike of Trump. That's NOT good, and that dynamic is taking place on other levels across the entire Islamic world, especially for those in the terrorism business.

PeopleUnited says

the terrorist movement is growing because it is glamorizing terror, actively recruiting more terrorists, and every action taken to kill terrorists is used by terrorists to recruit more terrorists from the vast reservoir of Islamic youth around the world who are ripe for radicalization.

But the things that make them susceptible to committing terrorism/violence, are no different than youth susceptible to gang recruitment or any other radical movement affiliation. It's not uniquely Muslim or Islam. It is human.

When Trump/our government start commenting on the threat of our own American domestic terrorism along with the current focus on Islamic terrorism/ISIS, I'll believe they actually care about terrorism as a whole. Until then, Islamic terrorism is a rallying cry and political talking point for them.

Rew, I appreciate your perspective. I understand the arguments.

However from my perspective the portrayal of Islam vs. the free world is potentially the most accurate way to describe the goal of radical Islamic terrorists and the quasi nation of ISIS. Do you have a better way to describe the goal of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists?

rando says

Lol, perfect analogy!

Except for the fact that Germany was a militarized nation state, with the most advanced military capabilities in the world at the time (far eclipsing any IS movement), they had a massive Navy, and their entire national population with other nation state allies in support of the effort ... sure ... perfect analogy. (You could combine all Islamic terror groups today, into some 'super cell' and they still wouldn't reach a WWI or WWII German capability and economic power.)

Islam is not some uniform practice uniting all muslims across the globe in an identity powerful enough to be something like the Nazis were. At least not yet. If we try and exterminate Islam, wholesale, the counter reaction may be far more unifying than we expect.

What happened to that whole, let Milo speak, debate will win out, attitude?

What appears to actually be fast becoming a nation of radical ideology, with the most advanced military capabilities in the world, unified by nationalism, and a vilification of 'others' ... all sparked by economic hardship ... gosh, good thing there are no examples like that today.

PeopleUnited says

However from my perspective the portrayal of Islam vs. the free world is potentially the most accurate way to describe the goal of radical Islamic terrorists and the quasi nation of ISIS. Do you have a better way to describe the goal of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists?

They want a large radical caliphate practicing a very narrow and warped version of fundamentalist Islam. Many are just after power and money: such common human motivators.
Yes, they very much like the Islam vs the world narrative. Plays right to their strengths. Nothing swells the ranks like a tough talking enemy, except maybe one shooting.

I disagree with the "Defend Islam" phrasing of your OP title, and what I perceive as your propensity to characterize IS as being the common Islamic practice, and by extension the desire of IS then applies to all Muslims worldwide. It doesn't.

Edit: and as to the motivations of the IS teenage grunt ... energy drinks, porn/women, trucks, belonging to a group, a purpose. Essentially almost zero difference than any other young military enlistee anywhere in the world. Crazy talk, right?!

I just don't know how warped this version of Islam is? The terrorists believe that their religion is true Islam. The terrorists have radicalized Islamic youth. What is the net benefit of Islam in this scenario?

PeopleUnited says

Marcus said: "I agree that Islamists and raicdal fundamentalist Muslims are a big problem. I just disagree about the solution. I don't claim to be a world class chess player, but I like games and understand some game theory. That's my perspective. I don't see that aggression or hate will be helpful right now, other than surgical strikes from our end aimed at terrorists, with the objective of terrorizing specific terrorists. That's taking their game to them. Where as blaming all of Islam, is actually what the terrorists want."

Marcus, I am glad that you are willing to share your belief that Islamic and radical Moslims are a big problem.

However I have not proposed a solution. We must recognize a problem before we can begin to solve it.

Marcus's solution to Islamic terrorism is simple.......Do nothing.

Rew says

Edit: and as to the motivations of the IS teenage grunt ... energy drinks, porn/women, trucks, belonging to a group, a purpose. Essentially almost zero difference than any other young military enlistee anywhere in the world. Crazy talk, right?!

Wrong. Only Islam can convince perfectly normal humans into being suicide bombers.