Inventing Moderate Islam

[shagdrum]

Such as nearly all.

in other words, you can't name any.

I do consider religion to be only a coincidental factor in the middle east. Any religion in the area would likely have been twisted in the same manner. Take world history for an example. Now insert any region with the same problems as you see in the middle east. What happens?

What may explain certain problems in one culture doesn't explain problems in another culture. You have to analyze things on the specifics of the culture, or you take it out of context. Religion in this area of the world is the defining factor and to down play it is to distort the history of a region; to take it out of context to fit into one's worldview.

The multicultural lens through which you are looking at things (though you are probably unaware of it) is a naive ideological viewpoint that reaches conclusion before any examination of the facts (a priori) and any examination of the facts and history is simply aimed at rationalizing that view. That is why your view of the history of this area is so distorted and next to impossible to defend. It essentially takes the Marxist exploitation narrative used to justify egalitarianism and applies it other cultures and internationally. Hence, income gaps, class struggle, etc are what define the problems in other cultures. Never mind the fact, that the history of many cultures, objectively observed shows those factors to be minor at best.


The best you can do is appeal to what seems to you to be "self-evident" truths. But considering that many don't share that ideological lens you are looking through, those "truths" are only self-evident, come across as baseless assertions to you and don't convince anyone.

 

[foxpaws]

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of <insert religious rite here> food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for <insert religious group here>. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- <> 8%
Philippines -- <> 5%
Sweden -- <> 5%
Switzerland -- <> 4. 3%
The Netherlands -- <> 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- <> 5.8%

Oh my god 04 - I never knew the Kosher food industry was so awful.

You can insert many things in my <> and use it to scare others - how many Jews in this country follow their dietary laws - very few - as a percentage of the population, less than 1%, yet in almost every grocery store I go into there is a kosher food section... Securing jobs for Jews... because you know there has to be a priest present during preparation, et al for it to be considered kosher. The company has to have correct ownership, follow certain religious decrees, etc.

I have never denied that Islam can be a violent, hateful religion, but we aren't going to wipe it out. So, what can we do - we can encourage moderates, deal with the moderate Islamic countries, reinforce ties with moderate Muslim leaders. There is no way we can fight it, can we help change it, perhaps.

Plus, unless you really want to toss the constitution out the window, we will allow muslims into this country, we will allow them to worship, hold jobs, have families, own property. Otherwise we will be no different than Iran and other muslim extremist countries.

But, perhaps that is what you want - exclusion at this point instead of inclusion. So, what is different about you - are you Jewish, are you old, are you infirm, are you female - where does the exclusion road lead us?

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, when all else fails, put your head in the sand and deny that it's a religious war, even if it is to THEM.

Besides, 'they' won't use the weapon against us. It will be handed off to and delivered by terrorists who can easily sneak across the open Mexican border in a truck, and never be traced to the Iranian government. So, you advocate attacking countries without provocation?

The United States cannot fight a religious war - even if the other side claims that it is. We cannot fight Muslims when we have Muslims living in this country. We cannot claim that they are all evil. Or are we going to round them up like FDR did in WWII - that was wrong, do we repeat the mistake?

I don't advocate attacking countries without provocation - How do you know that is how the bomb will be deployed? Iran is showing off their drone delivery systems - I think they are going that route - drone/bomb into Israel. But that is just an opinion as well -just as yours is Foss.

And the radioactive material within a nuclear device can easily be traced - it has a fingerprint that is as distinctive as any human's.

 

[fossten]

The United States cannot fight a religious war - even if the other side claims that it is. We cannot fight Muslims when we have Muslims living in this country.

Absolutely false.

We cannot claim that they are all evil. Or are we going to round them up like FDR did in WWII - that was wrong, do we repeat the mistake?

Clearly we should do as you suggest, and try to convince them we mean them no harm and surrender, eh fox? Maybe you can afford the jizya and will be content. Again, we take lessons from Jefferson and meet them head on at the seat of their governments. If they have no funding, they'll be less effective. No, you can't stamp out Islam completely, but you can - like cancer - send it into remission. If they want to be 7th Century, then we bomb them back into it.

I don't advocate attacking countries without provocation - How do you know that is how the bomb will be deployed? Iran is showing off their drone delivery systems - I think they are going that route - drone/bomb into Israel. But that is just an opinion as well -just as yours is Foss.

Common sense dictates that Iran would have deniability in such a scenario. This theory isn't mine, it's been gamed out by our military experts. Iran will never detonate a nuke in Israel, but they might do it to the US. And you haven't answered my question - IF my scenario plays out, how do you know which country to punish?

And the radioactive material within a nuclear device can easily be traced - it has a fingerprint that is as distinctive as any human's.

After it's been detonated? Really? A fingerprint? :bowrofl: Yeah it's been talked about, but it isn't a reality yet and it certainly isn't EASY.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[foxpaws]

Absolutely false.
Clearly we should do as you suggest, and try to convince them we mean them no harm and surrender, eh fox? Maybe you can afford the jizya and will be content. Again, we take lessons from Jefferson and meet them head on at the seat of their governments. If they have no funding, they'll be less effective. No, you can't stamp out Islam completely, but you can - like cancer - send it into remission. If they want to be 7th Century, then we bomb them back into it.

And what makes you think they won't get backing from others who want to topple the US? They can be the pawn in someone's bigger game. World domination - it isn't going to be Muslims that will fund their operation necessarily - you have to look at a slightly bigger picture foss. Who else has to gain if the US is stressed in a holy war.

Common sense dictates that Iran would have deniability in such a scenario. This theory isn't mine, it's been gamed out by our military experts. Iran will never detonate a nuke in Israel, but they might do it to the US. And you haven't answered my question - IF my scenario plays out, how do you know which country to punish?


After it's been detonated? Really? A fingerprint? :bowrofl: Yeah it's been talked about, but it isn't a reality yet and it certainly isn't EASY.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

It isn't easy, but it can and would be done. The radioactive Isotopes have very distinct features, and you can track both origin and age. ESA in the UK is doing it right now. They have already developed the device... my link is from 2008 - yours is from 2004 - a lot can happen in 4 years foss - I am not sure what has happened in these last 2 years...

 

[04SCTLS]

Oh my god 04 - I never knew the Kosher food industry was so awful.

You can insert many things in my <> and use it to scare others - how many Jews in this country follow their dietary laws - very few - as a percentage of the population, less than 1%, yet in almost every grocery store I go into there is a kosher food section... Securing jobs for Jews... because you know there has to be a priest present during preparation, et al for it to be considered kosher. The company has to have correct ownership, follow certain religious decrees, etc.

I have never denied that Islam can be a violent, hateful religion, but we aren't going to wipe it out. So, what can we do - we can encourage moderates, deal with the moderate Islamic countries, reinforce ties with moderate Muslim leaders. There is no way we can fight it, can we help change it, perhaps.

Plus, unless you really want to toss the constitution out the window, we will allow muslims into this country, we will allow them to worship, hold jobs, have families, own property. Otherwise we will be no different than Iran and other muslim extremist countries.

But, perhaps that is what you want - exclusion at this point instead of inclusion. So, what is different about you - are you Jewish, are you old, are you infirm, are you female - where does the exclusion road lead us?

Well this is from WND originally so take it with a grain of salt.
We can't crush Islam so we have to live with it.
We've managed for 500 years so far.
We can keep it from becoming a problem in this country
which the government is doing by premptively making it difficult to immigrate here legally especially from Muslim countries since 9/11.
I don't hate these people(or any others)( no one asks to be born) but that doesn't mean we should throw our arms open and entice them to come here.
What do they have to offer this country that you would find desirable.
Us and the British built and run their whole industrial infrastructure.
They couldn't do it by themselves.
If Stalin had conquered Europe in WWII he would have killed and run all these people out and siezed the oil fields.
They're lucky we're the US and not another power at another time in history.
A bunch of lumpen Nomads get the greatest treasure on earth by dumb luck.
Out of 1.2 billion muslims there are perhaps 4 or 5 nobel prize winners
vs 150 for 12 million Jews.
I'm not fond of organized religion but these people think too much of themselves.
Islam is a very heavyhanded lifestyle that treats women worse than livestock and won't live and let live like other religions when in the majority.
The only thing some american women like about Islam is that they didn't come from Adam's Rib.
Small consolation for all the rest of it.

 

[shagdrum]

The United States cannot fight a religious war

This is a false choice that you have been pedaling.

We are fighting a political war with a religion that is as much a political ideology as it is a religion. You are looking at this from a decidedly western view, assuming a separation of church and state that simply DOES NOT EXIST in the muslim world, in no small part due to shariah law. So, in fighting a political war with them, we are also fighting a religious war. However, we are not the ones making it a religious war. We are not looking to impose a religion on a people, simply aiming to keep religious views from being imposed on us.

What we have is a religion based on a doctrine of warfare against non-believer that is leading to it's adherents attacking and subverting those "non-believing" societies. To ignore that fact is the kind of foolish naivety on the level of Neville Chamberlain. To take no action in light of that fact is to abrogate the religious freedom this country was founded on.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
-verse 9:29

Slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush
-verse 9:5​

 

[foxpaws]

This is a false choice that you have been pedaling.

We are fighting a political war with a religion that is as much an ideology as it is a religion. You are looking at this from a decidedly western view, assuming a separation of church and state that simply DOES NOT EXIST in the muslim world, due to shariah law.

So, we will go to war with Islam. How do you propose to take out the 25% of the Pacific Rim and Asian populations that are Muslim? The biggest population (in sheer numbers) reside there. Sure, you can clean the slate in the middle east - right - a few well place bombs, you get lucky, you get the leaders. Now, you have removed 300,000,000 Muslims. So, explain to me how you are going to solve the problem in Asia and the Pacific where almost a billion Muslims live.

Since it appears to many on this site all muslims are the same - how do you fight this war - and it will be a holy war. Only about 1/5 of the world's Muslims live in the Middle East - you have to account for the other 4/5s somehow Shag.

That is your false choice - you believe that by cutting off the 'head' the snake won't survive. This was proven wrong in the time of the Crusades, it wouldn't be any different today.

 

[shagdrum]

So, we will go to war with Islam.

What do you mean go to war? War was declared on us long before 9/11. Just because admitting so may offend your sensibilities doesn't change that fact.

How do you propose to take out the 25% of the Pacific Rim and Asian populations that are Muslim?

That is not the goal. we are in a defensive war; a war to protect our way of life.

Maybe you should consider the actual points being made instead of exaggerating and setting up straw men and making disingenuous comparisons to the Crusades in order to marginalize and turn the focus to the people making the argument.

Your constant attempts to subvert honest, productive discourse are tiresome.

 

[foxpaws]

What do you mean go to war? War was declared on us long before 9/11. Just because admitting so may offend your sensibilities doesn't change that fact.

So, we are at war with Islam shag? When did we declare war on Islam?

Extremists may have declared war on us - but I have yet to see that we have gone to war against Islam or that all of Islam has gone to war against us. Countries that are Islamic-yes, extremists-yes, Islam itself, no.

That is not the goal. we are in a defensive war; a war to protect our way of life.

Maybe you should consider the actual points being made instead of exaggerating and setting up straw men and making disingenuous comparisons to the Crusades in order to marginalize and turn the focus to the people making the argument.

What is the goal than shag - I would really like to know. Remove muslims so they are no longer even 5% in any one country - apparently that is some sort of high water point according to some. Sound a little like past history there Shag? Remove them from countries where the populace likes Muslim rule - seems a little like nation building to me. Maybe if you explain the end game here I might have a better understanding of what this little 'defensive' war against Islam would entail.

Your constant attempts to subvert honest, productive discourse are tiresome.

And your inability to look beyond your own ivory tower is tiresome as well shag. The US cannot engage in a holy war, defensive, offensive, it makes no difference. We can engage in a war against terrorists - that is totally different, but we cannot go to war against Islam.

 

[shagdrum]

So, we are at war with Islam shag? When did we declare war on Islam?

Instead of the posturing, how about you focus on what I said. Stop taking me out of context. At this point, it simply looks desperate; another attempt to reframe the debate into a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

I would prefer to get away from that.

What is the goal than shag - I would really like to know.

That is something there needs to be a national dialog about.

However, the first step is in diagnosing the problem accurately and objectively instead of through rose colored, ideological glasses.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - first, lets check on what you know regarding Shari’ah -

Shariah law comes primarily from the Holy Quran and the Sunnah (the practices of Muhammad). It is incompatible with Natural Law, which is the closest analogy in Christianity and is the idea from which all our freedoms are derives as well as most of the political ideas unique to the founding of America and to Western Civilization.

 

[fossten]

Fox, the goal is to persuade the nations that teach and fund terrorism against the West and Israel to stop.

The method is whatever it takes, up to and including force.

Muslims who live here can still live here.

See? I can articulate a solid position in three sentences. I now await your multi-paragraphed reply that in no way will address what I've said.

 

[fossten]

And your inability to look beyond your own ivory tower is tiresome as well shag.

Ivory tower? How ironic. Tsk tsk, fox, nobody talks down to people here more than you.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[fossten]

Oh, and if you believe that the Bible isn't the mind and exact word of God, speak to many Christians - including Foss (currently banned) on this site (especially the KJV).

Quoted as a classic example of how foxpaws seeks to divide through subtle means. Create divisions by appearing friendly and 'warning' new people about other 'bad' posters and bringing up irrelevant distinctions in an effort to sow discord. (See the Delphi Technique) Never mind that she's poisoning the well.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

 

[shagdrum]

The US cannot engage in a holy war, defensive, offensive, it makes no difference.

why?

First, the idea of a "holy war" may be rhetorically impressive and emotionally appealing but is ultimately meaningless because it is an ill-defined concept. Under some views, our "war on terror" is a holy war. The standard of a "holy war" is useless because it is ultimately a subjective standard.

Second, what is so bad about engaging in a "holy war"? Is it simply because the notion offends your multicultural sensibilities? We are not looking to to impose religion on anyone and are not looking to force someone to give up their religion so long as it doesn't subvert our culture and the principles it was founded on.

You are treating this as some sort of self-evident moral truth when it is not. The idea of a "holy war" is vacuous and worthless as a standard by which to judge wars. Should we simple avoid anything that could possibly, in any way, be construed as a holy war? That would be an absurd standard simply to assuage some vague ideological sensibility while ignoring a very real and dangerous threat.

Much as you disparage me for not looking "beyond [my] ivory tower", your viewpoint here is the one putting abstract ideals over real world considerations; the ultimate sin of ivory tower elitism.

 

[Marcus]

Quoted as a classic example of how foxpaws seeks to divide through subtle means. Create divisions by appearing friendly and 'warning' new people about other 'bad' posters and bringing up irrelevant distinctions in an effort to sow discord. (See the Delphi Technique) Never mind that she's poisoning the well.

...which is exactly what you're doing right now. And how many times have you and the others gone out of your way to "warn" others about Fox? I'm pretty sure I remember you all "warning" FIND about her when he first came onboard. Oh I know, it's different because you're correct, right? My God you're such a hypocrite.

 

[shagdrum]

...which is exactly what you're doing right now. And how many times have you and the others gone out of your way to "warn" others about Fox? I'm pretty sure I remember you all "warning" FIND about her when he first came onboard. Oh I know, it's different because you're correct, right? My God you're such a hypocrite.

Are you saying that fossten is employing the Delphi technique? You might want reread what the Delphi technique is.

 

[Marcus]

Are you saying that fossten is employing the Delphi technique? You might want reread what the Delphi technique is.

I was referring to the "Create divisions by appearing friendly and 'warning' new people about other 'bad' posters and bringing up irrelevant distinctions in an effort to sow discord.", although I will admit that neither Foss nor you have ever been "friendly" about it. Nor am I the least bit interested in the "Delphi Technique", so I guess I should have left that out of the quote too.

Poisoning the well definitely fits though, which you both excel in.

You guys love to classify and put things into neat little piles don't you? You don't like her style of argument, therefore the only explanation is that she's a sinister, well trained student of Cloward, Piven and... Delphi. On the other hand, it makes her more difficult to dismiss if you have to admit that she has the ability to think on her own.

 

[fossten]

...which is exactly what you're doing right now. And how many times have you and the others gone out of your way to "warn" others about Fox? I'm pretty sure I remember you all "warning" FIND about her when he first came onboard. Oh I know, it's different because you're correct, right? My God you're such a hypocrite.

Link or slink, sport. Show me where I've ever brought foxpaws up to a new person and warned that person about her. Good luck with that. You forgot to prove your accusation before congratulating yourself. But while you're wallowing in your own private circle jerk, thanks for acknowledging the truth in my statement - that that is precisely what she is doing.

 

[shagdrum]

Poisoning the well definitely fits though, which you both excel in.

Of course, there can be no truth in what we say.

...there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.​

 

[FIND]

Link or slink, sport. Show me where I've ever brought foxpaws up to a new person and warned that person about her. Good luck with that. You forgot to prove your accusation before congratulating yourself. But while you're wallowing in your own private circle jerk, thanks for acknowledging the truth in my statement - that that is precisely what she is doing.

What he was saying sounds pretty accurate to me. Are you going to deny you and shag have "warned" me about foxpaws when I first came on, and the fact that you "warn" others about me?

Sounds like you are just trying to make busy work for Marcus and clutter up this thread to hide where you are wrong.

 

[FIND]

Of course, there can be no truth in what we say.

...there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.​

Yeah yeah, you are OBVIOUSLY right because you copied someones speech about why liberals can't be trusted and why liberals are only out to destroy any communication, therefore it is pointless to talk to anyone who isn't a good decent conservative american patriot. Everyone else HATES america and our way of life anyways, so no sense talking to them right?

 

[Federali Aundy]

Foxpaws,

There's been a tons of new posts on here so sorry if I sould like a blast from the past! I'll just hop right back into what we were talking about and hope I can get back into the discussion.

I just wish people had more to bring up when they attack the Catholic Church besides "Galileo, the Inquisition, and the Crusades" - when it comes down to it, there is very little to attack the Church over. First of all, there is often times the mistaken notion that the Catholic Church ran the worst aspects of the Inquisition when in fact it was typically secular authorities who were acting alone. Look at St. Joan of Arc who was killed through an Inquisition-process - she was canonized! Furthermore, the actual Inquisition usually gave punishments that amounted to a few prayers or a small fine - in fact, the Inquisition helped protect people from secular authorities which sought to kill people in the name of God but without any evidence to support their action. It should also be noted that the Inquisition is still around; it's name has just been changed to the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" and it was lead by Cardinal Ratzinger until he became Pope Benedict XXI!

Priests and bishops were certainly not all "puppets of the Lords" as you say. There may have been some who were but that certainly doesn't amount to the generalization you are making. Back in the fourth century, nearly 90% of the Catholic bishops supported heresy - but we can still look to the Pope as a figure who supported orthodoxy even though his actions were sometimes lacking. There have been many civil leaders who sought to manipulate the Church, but the Church has always fought against that and it has never been the rule that the Church was controlled by state - when it is, then it is no longer the Church (as is the case with the "Church of England").

Speaking of the Church of England, bringing it up as the example of Christianity is probably not a very good idea. Sure it may have had it's "consistory courts" but Anglicanism went down the dark path you described when it broke from Rome. Now they have gay bishops, embrace abortion, and all sorts of immoral activity. It's a crumbling mess and thousands of them are returning to Catholic orthodoxy. So really, I think if you're going to make a point here, you should try to stick with years dating prior to the Reformation (~1521ish).

I don't particularly want to get into a theological discussion of the Bible with you - but if you stick to the pre-Reformation era in this discussion you will find no KJV or fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. I will say, however, that I believe the Bible is fully the Word of God - but I can believe so without taking an overly-simplistic view of the Bible. In fact, my view dates in its clarity to 13th century Catholic theologians. As far as Muslims who "discount large parts of the Koran" - I'd like to see some real data on that claim.

You mention fighting among Christians in Ireland and England. They may claim religious purposes, but we both know that is a ruse to further political ends. Furthermore, the early years of Christianity may have had theological disputes, but not bloody ones. Bloody wars are at the historic roots of Islam, not Christianity.

Lastly, you make Luther sound like a good thing. I don't think there was a sadder period in the history of Christianity than the Reformation. The Catholic Church can't be reduced or labled as "rites and strictures, prejudices and silencing" - these words are degrading, oversimplifications, and give the scent of historical, philosophical, and theological ignorance. Oh but I will agree with you that the Church has supported violence. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church sets down the criteria for just wars.

Lastly, my apologies for the lack of quote boxes - I'm still trying to figure this board out a bit..

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah yeah, you are OBVIOUSLY right because you copied someones speech about why liberals can't be trusted and why liberals are only out to destroy any communication, therefore it is pointless to talk to anyone who isn't a good decent conservative american patriot. Everyone else HATES america and our way of life anyways, so no sense talking to them right?

Is politics anything more to you then an excuse to ratify and defensively protect your smug sense of superiority?