Disinviting Islam

[ford nut]

Shag~
Instead if cutting and pasting Andrew C. McCarty's from national review.
Why don't you give me your opinion?
In this country your free to choose your religion.
We shouldn't discriminate a whole group based on behavior a few.


Have you ever spent time with a Muslim?

 

[fossten]

Shag~
Instead if cutting and pasting Andrew C. McCarty's from national review.
Why don't you give me your opinion?
In this country your free to choose your religion.
We shouldn't discriminate a whole group based on behavior a few.


Have you ever spent time with a Muslim?

Actually, Shag did give his opinion.

What does spending time with a muslim have anything to do with the topic of this thread? So now you have to personally meet a muslim in order to comment intelligently on the topic?

Okay:

Hey Ford Nut, have you ever read the Koran? Until you do, you aren't informed enough to comment.

Signed,

Me.

See how that works?

 

[shagdrum]

Why don't you give me your opinion?

I've tried.

Have you ever spent time with a Muslim?

Actually, my family took in a muslim woman who was here for school. A male Muslim (who carried an illegal firearm with him, I might add) from her home village had been raping her continuously and, because of their repressive culture, she was to scared to go to the police and get him deported for what it would mean for both her and her family. We took her in to get her away from all that.

In addition to that, my sister recently took a trip to Jerusalem this summer and got to see the Muslim culture at it's most authentic. It was hardly the "enlightened, peaceful" culture many want to portray it as.

 

[fossten]

I've tried.



Actually, my family took in a muslim woman who was here for school. A male Muslim (who carried an illegal firearm with him, I might add) from her home village had been raping her continuously and, because of their repressive culture, she was to scared to go to the police and get him deported for what it would mean for both her and her family. We took her in to get her away from all that.

In addition to that, my sister recently took a trip to Jerusalem this summer and got to see the Muslim culture at it's most authentic. It was hardly the "enlightened, peaceful" culture many want to portray it as.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Ford nut, you say that extremist muslims are in the minority?

Check this out:

latimes.com

Majority of Muslims want Islam in politics, poll says
They have mixed feelings about the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, the survey shows.
By Meris Lutz, Los Angeles Times

December 6, 2010

Reporting from Beirut


A majority of Muslims around the world welcome a significant role for Islam in their countries' political life, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, but have mixed feelings toward militant religious groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace.

Muslims in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan were among the most enthusiastic, with more than three-quarters of poll respondents in those countries reporting positive views of Islam's influence in politics: either that Islam had a large role in politics, and that was a good thing, or that it played a small role, and that was bad.

Turkish Muslims were the most conflicted, with just more than half reporting positive views of Islam's influence in politics. Turkey has struggled in recent years to balance a secular political system with an increasingly fervent Muslim population.

Many Muslims described a struggle in their country between fundamentalists and modernizers, especially those who may have felt threatened by the rising tides of conservatism. Among those respondents who identified a struggle, most tended to side with the modernizers. This was especially true in Lebanon and Turkey, where 84% and 74%, respectively, identified themselves as modernizers as opposed to fundamentalists.

In Egypt and Nigeria, however, more people were pulling in the other direction. According to the poll, 59% in Egypt and 58% in Nigeria who said there was a struggle identified with the fundamentalists.

Despite an overall positive view of Islam's growing role in politics, militant religious organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah spurred mixed reactions. Both groups enjoyed fairly strong support in Jordan, home to many Palestinians, and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is based. Muslim countries that do not share strong cultural, historical and political ties to the Palestinian cause, such as Pakistan and Turkey, tended to view Hezbollah and Hamas negatively.

Al Qaeda was rejected by strong majorities in every Muslim country except Nigeria, which gave the group a 49% approval rating.

The poll was conducted April 12 to May 7 in seven countries with large Muslim populations. About 8,000 people were interviewed face to face, and the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for Pakistan and 4 percentage points for the other countries.

Lutz is a special correspondent.

 

[cammerfe]

Christianity=Peace and Love

Christianity is not just a religion but an entire way of life.

Correct?

It can be.
The influence exerted by Christianity on its adherents is toward peace and love and it's not coerced, by death threats, as an official position.

The official position, for Muslims, is spelled out, by quotation, in other posts, above.

KS

 

[ford nut]

You mean here?

Based solely on religion, no. But "right" and "necessary" are two different things. What do you do when they conflict in such stark and potentially life threatening ways?

We have common ground here.
The main point I am trying to make is " we don't discriminate base solely on religion".

That is what I dislike about the first post.

Actually, my family took in a muslim woman who was here for school. A male Muslim (who carried an illegal firearm with him, I might add) from her home village had been raping her continuously and, because of their repressive culture, she was to scared to go to the police and get him deported for what it would mean for both her and her family. We took her in to get her away from all that.

In addition to that, my sister recently took a trip to Jerusalem this summer and got to see the Muslim culture at it's most authentic. It was hardly the "enlightened, peaceful" culture many want to portray it as.

I can understand your view points after an experience like that.
I on the other hand have had a different experience dealing with Muslims.

If they come here they have to mold into the culture.

I will go back to what I posted earlier.

You cant dis-invite one group because of religion.
You cant have specific policies set because of religion.

Behavior...that is a different story.

Behavior is the key.

 

[ford nut]

*owned*

Answer my question troll.
Not giving an answer is telling.
You just don't have the spine to stand up for your twisted view.

Shag is a grown man, he can stand on his own so put the pom poms down.

 

[fossten]

Answer my question troll.
Not giving an answer is telling.
You just don't have the spine to stand up for your twisted view.

Shag is a grown man, he can stand on his own so put the pom poms down.

The only question I saw you ask was to Shag, and he answered it, and owned you.

 

[fossten]

You cant dis-invite one group because of religion.
You cant have specific policies set because of religion.

Behavior...that is a different story.

Behavior is the key.

Muslims in general disagree with you. See the article I posted.

 

[ford nut]

Muslims in general disagree with you. See the article I posted.

What ever Ron Luce.
As usual,you ruin any meaningful discussion.

 

[fossten]

What ever Ron Luce.
As usual,you ruin any meaningful discussion.

As usual, you start crying and make personal attacks when you start to lose the argument.

Want some cheese with that whine? I'm sorry that my facts are getting in the way of your pacifistic, appeasement argument.

 

[ford nut]

See post 12 troll.

 

[shagdrum]

If they come here they have to mold into the culture.

Social cohesion is necessary for any civil society to last very long. That means that any immigrant must assimilate to American culture when coming here.

However, jihad looks to actively subvert that.

You cant dis-invite one group because of religion.
You cant have specific policies set because of religion.

on both these statements; why?

I am not simply trying to be contentious. This is the very issue that needs to be critically examined and not simply uncritically asserted and assumed, especially in light of the unique problems we face with regards to Islam.

Behavior...that is a different story.

Behavior is the key.

Isn't subscribing to a certain religious/ideological view a behavior as well?

 

[ford nut]

Social cohesion is necessary for any civil society to last very long. That means that any immigrant must assimilate to American culture when coming here.

I agree.

However, jihad looks to actively subvert that.

Jihad meaning is a gray area, there is more then one definition of Jihad in the Muslim world.

on both these statements; why?

Freedom of choice.
Religion is irrelevant when it comes to immigration. All immigrants need assimilate to society.

I am not simply trying to be contentious. This is the very issue that needs to be critically examined and not simply uncritically asserted and assumed, especially in light of the unique problems we face with regards to Islam.

Or am I.
I agree immigration needs to be critically examined, it has become a political issue.
Its about time something is done.

Isn't subscribing to a certain religious/ideological view a behavior as well?

Subscribing to a view of violence is intolerable in this society.
Religious violence cannot be tolerated.
Religious violence is not isolated to Muslims.

Religious tolerance is a big problem in my opinion.

 

[fossten]

Religious violence is not isolated to Muslims.

What other religions are represented by our enemies in the War on Terror?

 

[shagdrum]

Jihad meaning is a gray area, there is more then one definition of Jihad in the Muslim world.

Essentially, you have two types of Jihads. One is the violent Jihad of Bin Laden and Al Queda which looks to kill non-believers and bully the world into submission. The other is the more subtle, slow moving Jihad that seeks to undermine a nation from within. This second type of jihad is coming to fruition in many European countries.

Freedom of choice.

"Freedom of choice" is another of those axiomatic assertions which we need to get away from.

The problem with these axiomatic assertions is that they stifle discourse by implying that there is no trade off allowed with these principles for under ANY circumstances (while it is a bit of an aside, it is worth pointing out that this is the inherent flaw in ALL ideology as well). Basically, one principle or a certain set of principles are accepted as always overriding and dominant. When ANY other value or concern comes into conflict with these "axioms", it is accepted, a priori, that the "axiomatic" value should take priority and cannot, in any way, be sacrificed in favor of another principle or concern.

In addition to being an unrealistic and dogmatic viewpoint, these assertions of moral principles leverage verbal verbosity to avoid any critical examination precisely when those values need to be critically examined in light of the specific context involved.

While there can be any list of universal moral principles and interests that may conflict with the notion of "disinviting Islam" (as well as those supporting it), continually asserting them only implicitly insults anyone who questions them, creates resentment and gets the two opposing viewpoints shouting past each other. Nothing productive can come of it.

We certainly share the value of religious tolerance, but the application of any value is ALWAYS context dependent. Clearly that value is in conflict with the value of social cohesion and of national security in the unique predicament we find ourselves in with Islamic jihad. Why should the value of religious tolerance (or of freedom of choice) override those other values/concerns?

We need a critical examination of those conflicting values and a dialog to look at the trade offs of various solutions to the problem. The first step in that is realizing that reality forces trade offs between these values. If that basic fact of trade offs is not accepted as common ground, no productive dialog is possible.

 

[ford nut]

Essentially, you have two types of Jihads. One is the violent Jihad of Bin Laden and Al Queda. The other is the more subtle, slow moving Jihad that seeks to undermine a nation from within. This is coming to fruition in many European countries.

There is more to Jihad then that, but I wont get into a cut and paste battle with you.

"Freedom of choice" is another of those axiomatic assertions which we need to get away from. .

Couldn’t disagree with you more.

The problem with these axiomatic assertions is that they stifle discourse by implying that there is no trade off allowed with these principles; that they can NEVER be compromised for ANY reason. .

Freedom of choice is one thing that cannot be compromised, or taken for granted.

While it is a bit of an aside, it is worth pointing out that this is the inherent flaw in ALL ideology as well. Basically, one view or a certain set of views are accepted as always overriding and dominant. When ANY value or concern comes into conflict with these "axioms", it is accepted, a priori, that the "axiom" should take priority and cannot, in any way, be sacrificed for any reason.

Again…. I disagree with you.

In addition to being an unrealistic and dogmatic viewpoint, these assertions of moral principles use verbal verbosity to avoid any critical examination precisely when those values need to be critically examined in light of the specific context.

I don’t see it that way.
Its not ones values that should be examined but behavior.
Trying to limit immigration by values is impossible.

While there can be any list of moral principles and interests conflict with the notion of "disinviting Islam" (as well as those supporting it), continually asserting them only gets the two opposing viewpoints shouting past each other and nothing productive can come of it.

I have no interest going down that road.
Freedom of choice is one thing that makes this country the best in the world.
It floats my valves when it is threatened.
That is the road we would be going down if we have one set rules for a given group.

We certainly share the general value of not discriminating based on religion, but the application of any value is ALWAYS context dependent. Clearly that value is in conflict with the value of social cohesion and of national security in the unique predicament we find ourselves in with Islamic jihad. Why should the value of religious tolerance (or of freedom of choice) override those other values?

We need a critical examination of those conflicting values and a dialog to look at the trade offs of various solutions to the problem The first step in that is realizing that reality forces trade offs between these values. If that basic fact is not accepted as common ground, no productive dialog is possible.

Knowing a mans vales based on religion again is impossible.
We can’t allow the violence.

We are free to believe what we want in this country
Violence is not tolerable, also not predictable by religion.
History teaches us every religion has its zealots.

 

[cammerfe]

Don't put your head in the sand

...nope, nope, nopey-nope, nope, nope, nope...
Violence is not...predictable by religion.
History teaches us every religion has its zealots.

And then throw in a few more nopes. I'm impressed by you 'discussion' ability.

I'd postulate that when the imams all seem to be saying, in their own language, where we're not supposed to be able to understand, that a jihadist attitude and actions are REQUIRED, that it doesn't take much of a leap in understanding to come to the conclusion that they have made themselves our enemies, and should be treated as such. Muslims come in two 'flavors', those who are zealots and those who don't pay much attention to what they are being taught. Not all zealots are determined to violence, but Muslims are.

KS

 

[fossten]

And then throw in a few more nopes. I'm impressed by you 'discussion' ability.

I'd postulate that when the imams all seem to be saying, in their own language, where we're not supposed to be able to understand, that a jihadist attitude and actions are REQUIRED, that it doesn't take much of a leap in understanding to come to the conclusion that they have made themselves our enemies, and should be treated as such. Muslims come in two 'flavors', those who are zealots and those who don't pay much attention to what they are being taught. Not all zealots are determined to violence, but Muslims are.

KS

:lol:

But he said this:

As usual,you ruin any meaningful discussion.

 

[ford nut]

And then throw in a few more nopes. I'm impressed by you 'discussion' ability.

I'd postulate that when the imams all seem to be saying, in their own language, where we're not supposed to be able to understand, that a jihadist attitude and actions are REQUIRED, that it doesn't take much of a leap in understanding to come to the conclusion that they have made themselves our enemies, and should be treated as such. Muslims come in two 'flavors', those who are zealots and those who don't pay much attention to what they are being taught. Not all zealots are determined to violence, but Muslims are.

KS

Does that include Keith Ellison Ken?
Why don't you goggle Jihad and learn something today.

 

[shagdrum]

Freedom of choice is one thing that cannot be compromised, or taken for granted.

If the reality of certain values, principles and concerns conflicting with each other in certain circumstances cannot be accepted, there is no basis for dialog. If the fact that reality dictates certain trade-offs is not accepted by all sides, there is no common ground from which to discuss things. If certain principles are held, a priori, as being above scrutiny and compromise in ANY circumstance, then it is impossible to understand opposing views that don't share those same uncompromising priority of values. All that will result is that the various points of view end up shouting past each other. Personally, I am tired of engaging in that.

 

[fossten]

Does that include Keith Ellison Ken?
Why don't you goggle Jihad and learn something today.

Awfully condescending from the Arbiter of What is Meaningful Discussion.

Why not actually explain your position for once instead of just snottily dismissing the arguments of others.

 

[ford nut]

If the reality of certain values, principles and concerns conflicting with each other in certain circumstances cannot be accepted, there is no basis for dialog. If the fact that reality dictates certain trade-offs is not accepted by all sides, there is no common ground from which to discuss things. If certain principles are held, a priori, as being above scrutiny and compromise in ANY circumstance, then it is impossible to understand opposing views that don't share those same uncompromising priority of values. All that will result is that the various points of view end up shouting past each other. Personally, I am tired of engaging in that.

So am I, its pointless.

I understand your point of view, just don't agree with it.

I do think we have some common ground concerning discrimination and religion.

I am also sure you have principles that you won't compromise.