We have to assume that the criminal is the exception to the belief
When there is a logical connection from a belief to criminal behavior, and when the evidence is overwhelming that certain beliefs and certain behaviors are directly linked, then would you advocate willful ignorance? Seems somewhat irresponsible.
And whatever your answer to that question, the separation of the criminal from his or her religious encouragements, or ethnic genetic predispositions, or physical/emotional strains of sex, is the principle of The Civil Rights Act of 1964; that law makes it illegal for a southern businessperson to declare, "A man with darker skin once burned down my shop; therefore, those with darker skin are hereby banned from doing business with me."
Yes, it would. However, it would not be illegal to arrest, try, and punish the actual arsonist; the arsonist would not be able to complain that his rights were being violated. Which is why there's been such a controversy over Guantanamo. We can lock up violent criminal conspirators (i.e. terrorists), but we can't lock up people just because they're Muslims.
But the long and short of it is that violence is a crime, whether or not that violence is religiously motivated, and conspiracy to commit violence is also a crime, whether or not that conspiracy is religious speech. So a religious sect that actively encourages its members to kill nonbelievers is not protected by the First Amendment, and in fact is a criminal organization.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, it would. However, it would not be illegal to arrest, try, and punish the actual arsonist; the arsonist would not be able to complain that his rights were being violated. Which is why there's been such a controversy over Guantanamo. We can lock up violent criminal conspirators (i.e. terrorists), but we can't lock up people just because they're Muslims.
But the long and short of it is that violence is a crime, whether or not that violence is religiously motivated, and conspiracy to commit violence is also a crime, whether or not that conspiracy is religious speech. So a religious sect that actively encourages its members to kill nonbelievers is not protected by the First Amendment, and in fact is a criminal organization.
This has already been covered in case law a thousand times over, such as if a child was exposed to "faith healing" and "died because of God's will." The parents get charged with a crime, no matter how much they believed God didn't want to take them to the doctor.
There's even some limits on animal sacrifice and specific rituals, but for the most part people can do them to their heart's content. Human sacrifice isn't covered under the First Amendment, though.
Gay marriage is going to be made a right, but polygamy on the other hand has such a bad wrap that it'd take a number of generations really for us to become that liberal. Polygamy also has yet to show a lot of large cultural benefits with the exception of smaller regions with a small population. Polygamy is just a baby factory strategy, and within the framework of our culture seems to allow for some large scale abuses. Homosexuality, however is healthy minus the increased rates for certain STD's but that's more because of population than actually being a "gay curse" or some other voodoo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
when we talk about Islam, it always seems it comes down to israel-palestinian conflict, and taliban, and other extremist of course, so I think the main world-view about muslim is from there.... this is a fact i think
first of all i'm an Indonesian muslim, a practicing that one, just to give my background before I start giving my opinion...
So i'm really eager to know where the "muslim want to eradicate all jews" idea come from, the idea that make Israel and maybe the west uneasy, Im sorry but what I know is anti-semitism idea comes from Europe, the negative stereotype of the jews, and then the idea, which not really strong in any muslim, come to middle east, let say the 2nd coming of anti-semitism, and is "worsen" by the creation of Israel, which by that time many Arab think as a colonization from the ashkenazi jews, and yes hate arises high, but do muslim really want to kill all the jews? I dont think so, all of my muslim friend dont think so, its more an imperialistic sentiment, that some people robbing some people land, claiming its their 2000 years ago heritage and forcing the palestinian there to get out of it, back to their "arab" country, whatever that is... So most of muslim sentiment start from there and they start to find justification on Koran...
but really, do you guys think we, muslim, want to do what hitler do? because I dont see any rhetoric on it, yes I see the "zionist evil regime" rhetoric, the "injustice and imperialism" rhetoric, but not overgeneralization of the people.....
I see The Tribe documentary on youtube about jewish people and see the history of their massacre, i dont see any even of those done by muslim and by "islamic" reason, what im worried is if you feed your kids with "the muslim are trying to get you", so pre-emptive strike is justifiable i dont know where the conflict will end
***This is not intended to be about the Cordoba House issue [specifically]***
Alrighty... so, the consensus in the United States would seem to be racism is bad. Common sense, right? Well... if you look at the Cordoba Initiative issue, and in general the common attitude towards Muslims, why is Islamophobia looked upon any differently then other forms of negative racially charged sentiments? Yes, a phobia is a fear of something but fear is many times a driving force in racial hatred. I'm not saying Islamophobes should be necessarily punished-as long as they express themselves peacefully, it's their right and I wouldn't dispute that-the thing is though, when a Neo Nazi group, the WBC or a KKK stages a protest, everyone is up in arms about what they're saying, when Don Imus uses racial epithets on the air he is reprimanded and yet at the same time people are not awarded a healthy amount of criticism for making Islamophobic or anti-Islam remarks? I don't see how Don Imus's remarks are too different from half the stuff you hear from Ann Coulter (minus a few more colorful bits of vocabulary here and there).
Simply put, I don't see the reasoning that goes on when any other form of racism is condemned or looked down upon but Islamophobia goes largely uncriticized... what do you guys think?
I apologize. I haven't read the thread because 300+ posts is too much right now...
Islamaphobia is accepted because it is pushed onto us from every media source available and the government itself propagates it. So is racism, though instead of being negative, hateful racism (like name calling, hate crimes, etc.), it is pushed on us through stereotype reinforcement. For instance, I was watching Sports Center on ESPN and the ticker at the bottom was showing a poll about LeBron James and how americans viewed him after he signed with Miami. It seemed an awful lot like a presidential approval rating poll to me. After it gave the percentage breakdowns of LeBron's approval, then it specified how "blacks" and "whites" voted and how different that was. This had absolutely nothing to do with the point of the poll, but it conveniently pushed the idea that "blacks" and "whites" are "different", which is how racism is pushed upon us today. I figure if you want to get racist, we are all part of one race: the Human Race.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Keep in mind just one thing when you argue with idiots- they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Well, good luck on being one of those who won't die in a global war against one and a half billion people spread over a couple of continents. Luck will certainly be needed.
I cant speak for anyone else but given the alternitives I for one dont mind taking my chances as an individual given the potential for humanity at large to advance.
Man, Russia won't even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Granted, Putin tried to get Hamas to at least recognize that Israel has a right to exist (though he knows they'd never so he probably just did this as a rhetorical maneuver). But in general Russia has always been more supportive of Palestine -- I mean the USSR pretty much put Arafat into power in the PLO once they decided he'd be "their guy." Maybe things are changing but I've always been pretty cynical when it comes to the political games Russia plays.
They're oil games. America supports Israel because of Oil, the USSR supported the Palestinians because of the same.
Control of the Middle East is critical to the oil supply at the moment, don't read much more into it than that.
Unfortunately it makes an outdated, barbaric culture far more relevant than it really should be.
P.S. I have a problem opposing a religion because of religious beliefs. I have no problem opposing a religion because of secular beliefs. If you believe that every object has a spirit and that we should commune with the spirits of those objects and respect their role in the world and make little shrines devoted to different types of objects, knock yourself out. If you believe that you need to kill a person every week because God wants you to, well, we have a little problem. If Islam and Christianity would stop giving a ☺☺☺☺ about the real world and start spending their time debating what color underwear their sky fairy wears, I wouldn't give two ☺☺☺☺s about their role in the world.
If this forum had Greasers, Phoenix, Commons and Semantics would be the leaders of the gang and every time they commented on something they would do a synchronized finger snap then smoke a cigarette.
A huge part of the problem seems to me to be in the horrendous confusion amongst American media sources (and, lets be fair, British ones too - just not nearly to the same extent) about what "Islam" is and who "they" are. I know picking on George Bush for his catastrophic public speaking is beating a dead horse, but when you have the elected leader of a quarter of a billion people addressing his subjects on national television and referring to "the war on Islamia" it's hardly surprising that people haven't got a bloody clue.
Obviously, that was a... misstep. But I think it's telling that that and other missteps are what found resonance among so many Americans (and, like you said, non-Americans as well), while Bush's other speech, the one right after 9/11 where he very explicitly drew a distinction between the Islamic faith and international terrorism, didn't. To continue jumping metaphors, the seeds have to fall on fertile soil.
Also, the UK has "subjects". The US has "citizens".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
P.S. I have a problem opposing a religion because of religious beliefs. I have no problem opposing a religion because of secular beliefs.
and even more importantly, the fact that this culture is not only prone to spreading, but actively encourages it. I'm totally fine with any country being Islamic if it wishes, but attempting to spread your religion/culture through any means besides diffusion and hands-off persuasion is oppressive to other cultures.
Now that said, I realize that a large percentage of muslims are not actively trying to spread their religion and culture. But, they cannot deny that there are many muslims who interpret the religion this way (usually violently), and that those interpretations are both influential on the world stage and really are valid interpretations of the religion as it is presented in their holy books.
Because of that, Islamophobia in the terms of stopping the spread of Islam (and opposing extremists in any way) is totally fine by me. However, most of America (at least most of it in the media) takes it too far.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
As far as i am concerned, i can't wait for 2012 world war 3, Islam will be defeated and the NWO will be completed. One world currency, one world government, one world ideology without barbaric middle age reasoning! Freedom for all! Finally humanity can start advancing and our species might even achieve something on a universal scale.
Mind Game: A breakdown of comments and questions:
Quote from "Mind Game" »
As far as i am concerned, i can't wait for 2012 world war 3
Quote from "William Tecumseh Sherman once" »
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded
who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
War is hell."
Quote from "Mind Game" »
Islam will be defeated
How does one defeat a religion short of genocidal purging? I'm praying that's not what you're suggesting.
Quote from "Mind Game" »
No, not the muslims, the Islamic Governments. 50% of the muslims around the world are forced to be Muslim and live under Islamic Law. 45% has never experienced any other way of life so they don't know better (aka dark age) and the other 5% who actually believe in the religion are there aswell.
Something like that seems like it'd be very difficult to prove/collect data on.
Quote from "Mind Game" »
NWO will be completed. One world currency, one world government, one world ideology without barbaric middle age reasoning! Freedom for all!
How does having one world ideology fit with freedom for all. That sounds contradictory.
Quote from "Mind Game" »
Finally humanity can start advancing and our species might even achieve something on a universal scale.
No offense, but what does that even mean?
Quote from "Mind Game" »
A phobia is an irrational fear of something, however fearing Islam is not irrational. Take a look at Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... do you want to live there? Fearing and rejecting the barbaric ideology of Islam is a rational act of anyone who wants to live in a free world.
I understand what you're saying, but just because there are extreme sects of a religion doesn't mean that it's rational to fear everyone who partakes in that belief. That would be tantamount to fearing Americans because some of our population is composed of neo-nazis or KKK members. Fear is almost never a positive approach to an issue anyway. Fear kills the mind and limits your options and opinions. Knowledge and critical thinking are far more productive and less antagonistic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
I'm not really sure (and I talk about that sort of thing all the time), but he sure doesn't seem to be talking about any other varieties of people that are holding us back...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
I think the issue is that islamic extremists have a greater impact globally than the extremists of any other major religion. Additionally, this extremism is met with less public condemnation by the islamic church, people, and leaders of the arab world than similar extremism would be by the christian/english world or by the jewish world.
For example. that one church that wanted to protest homosexuality right near the funeral of a US soldier was condemned by other christian churches. And that was less globaly newsworthy than say, an act of terrorism that killed a number of people.
There, paradox solved. That was easy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you serious?
Yes, it would. However, it would not be illegal to arrest, try, and punish the actual arsonist; the arsonist would not be able to complain that his rights were being violated. Which is why there's been such a controversy over Guantanamo. We can lock up violent criminal conspirators (i.e. terrorists), but we can't lock up people just because they're Muslims.
But the long and short of it is that violence is a crime, whether or not that violence is religiously motivated, and conspiracy to commit violence is also a crime, whether or not that conspiracy is religious speech. So a religious sect that actively encourages its members to kill nonbelievers is not protected by the First Amendment, and in fact is a criminal organization.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This has already been covered in case law a thousand times over, such as if a child was exposed to "faith healing" and "died because of God's will." The parents get charged with a crime, no matter how much they believed God didn't want to take them to the doctor.
There's even some limits on animal sacrifice and specific rituals, but for the most part people can do them to their heart's content. Human sacrifice isn't covered under the First Amendment, though.
Gay marriage is going to be made a right, but polygamy on the other hand has such a bad wrap that it'd take a number of generations really for us to become that liberal. Polygamy also has yet to show a lot of large cultural benefits with the exception of smaller regions with a small population. Polygamy is just a baby factory strategy, and within the framework of our culture seems to allow for some large scale abuses. Homosexuality, however is healthy minus the increased rates for certain STD's but that's more because of population than actually being a "gay curse" or some other voodoo.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
first of all i'm an Indonesian muslim, a practicing that one, just to give my background before I start giving my opinion...
So i'm really eager to know where the "muslim want to eradicate all jews" idea come from, the idea that make Israel and maybe the west uneasy, Im sorry but what I know is anti-semitism idea comes from Europe, the negative stereotype of the jews, and then the idea, which not really strong in any muslim, come to middle east, let say the 2nd coming of anti-semitism, and is "worsen" by the creation of Israel, which by that time many Arab think as a colonization from the ashkenazi jews, and yes hate arises high, but do muslim really want to kill all the jews? I dont think so, all of my muslim friend dont think so, its more an imperialistic sentiment, that some people robbing some people land, claiming its their 2000 years ago heritage and forcing the palestinian there to get out of it, back to their "arab" country, whatever that is... So most of muslim sentiment start from there and they start to find justification on Koran...
but really, do you guys think we, muslim, want to do what hitler do? because I dont see any rhetoric on it, yes I see the "zionist evil regime" rhetoric, the "injustice and imperialism" rhetoric, but not overgeneralization of the people.....
I see The Tribe documentary on youtube about jewish people and see the history of their massacre, i dont see any even of those done by muslim and by "islamic" reason, what im worried is if you feed your kids with "the muslim are trying to get you", so pre-emptive strike is justifiable i dont know where the conflict will end
I apologize. I haven't read the thread because 300+ posts is too much right now...
Islamaphobia is accepted because it is pushed onto us from every media source available and the government itself propagates it. So is racism, though instead of being negative, hateful racism (like name calling, hate crimes, etc.), it is pushed on us through stereotype reinforcement. For instance, I was watching Sports Center on ESPN and the ticker at the bottom was showing a poll about LeBron James and how americans viewed him after he signed with Miami. It seemed an awful lot like a presidential approval rating poll to me. After it gave the percentage breakdowns of LeBron's approval, then it specified how "blacks" and "whites" voted and how different that was. This had absolutely nothing to do with the point of the poll, but it conveniently pushed the idea that "blacks" and "whites" are "different", which is how racism is pushed upon us today. I figure if you want to get racist, we are all part of one race: the Human Race.
BS is BS, any way you look at it!!!
I cant speak for anyone else but given the alternitives I for one dont mind taking my chances as an individual given the potential for humanity at large to advance.
Currently looking to buy miscut Homelands, (my wife thinks I'm crazy too).
Semper Gumby (Always Flexible)
They're oil games. America supports Israel because of Oil, the USSR supported the Palestinians because of the same.
Control of the Middle East is critical to the oil supply at the moment, don't read much more into it than that.
Unfortunately it makes an outdated, barbaric culture far more relevant than it really should be.
P.S. I have a problem opposing a religion because of religious beliefs. I have no problem opposing a religion because of secular beliefs. If you believe that every object has a spirit and that we should commune with the spirits of those objects and respect their role in the world and make little shrines devoted to different types of objects, knock yourself out. If you believe that you need to kill a person every week because God wants you to, well, we have a little problem. If Islam and Christianity would stop giving a ☺☺☺☺ about the real world and start spending their time debating what color underwear their sky fairy wears, I wouldn't give two ☺☺☺☺s about their role in the world.
Obviously, that was a... misstep. But I think it's telling that that and other missteps are what found resonance among so many Americans (and, like you said, non-Americans as well), while Bush's other speech, the one right after 9/11 where he very explicitly drew a distinction between the Islamic faith and international terrorism, didn't. To continue jumping metaphors, the seeds have to fall on fertile soil.
Also, the UK has "subjects". The US has "citizens".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
and even more importantly, the fact that this culture is not only prone to spreading, but actively encourages it. I'm totally fine with any country being Islamic if it wishes, but attempting to spread your religion/culture through any means besides diffusion and hands-off persuasion is oppressive to other cultures.
Now that said, I realize that a large percentage of muslims are not actively trying to spread their religion and culture. But, they cannot deny that there are many muslims who interpret the religion this way (usually violently), and that those interpretations are both influential on the world stage and really are valid interpretations of the religion as it is presented in their holy books.
Because of that, Islamophobia in the terms of stopping the spread of Islam (and opposing extremists in any way) is totally fine by me. However, most of America (at least most of it in the media) takes it too far.
Mind Game: A breakdown of comments and questions:
How does one defeat a religion short of genocidal purging? I'm praying that's not what you're suggesting.
Something like that seems like it'd be very difficult to prove/collect data on.
How does having one world ideology fit with freedom for all. That sounds contradictory.
No offense, but what does that even mean?
I understand what you're saying, but just because there are extreme sects of a religion doesn't mean that it's rational to fear everyone who partakes in that belief. That would be tantamount to fearing Americans because some of our population is composed of neo-nazis or KKK members. Fear is almost never a positive approach to an issue anyway. Fear kills the mind and limits your options and opinions. Knowledge and critical thinking are far more productive and less antagonistic.
I'm not really sure (and I talk about that sort of thing all the time), but he sure doesn't seem to be talking about any other varieties of people that are holding us back...
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
For example. that one church that wanted to protest homosexuality right near the funeral of a US soldier was condemned by other christian churches. And that was less globaly newsworthy than say, an act of terrorism that killed a number of people.
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios