With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[*michaelsean*]

(04-27-2017, 12:58 AM)Dill Wrote:  
 


That demographics and political groups famous for their persecution of gays and opposition to women’s rights suddenly hold up progressive liberal/leftist ideals of equality as the essence of Western civilization passes unremarked, even as those groups retain the logic of minority scapegoating and turn it upon a new religious group.

 

Well if you don't like that the right is saying it, then listen to    Maher and Harris.  Two very liberal atheists who have nothing nice to say about Christianity or Judaism either.  Except that they won't try to kill you if you say bad things about them or draw a picture of their prophet.  You can dunk the Christians most holy figure in piss and people will get mad, but they won't put out a hit on you. Look at Dino's link on post 69.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote:

If only people would care about the poor persecuted Christians!

All seriousness aside who really cares?

Muslims are vocal about their beliefs. Christians are vocal about their beliefs. Jews are vocal about their beliefs.

Muslims are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs. Christians are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs. Jews are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.

If your faith is shaken because non-believers have questions then you have poor faith.

If you have a problem with another religion than your own then don't follow it.

And, lastly, why are we discussing "Muslims and the people who love them" in a thread about Germans rejecting the Trump Trend?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-27-2017, 11:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: If only people would care about the poor persecuted Christians!

All seriousness aside who really cares?

Muslims are vocal about their beliefs.  Christians are vocal about their beliefs.  Jews are vocal about their beliefs.

Muslims are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.  Christians are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.  Jews are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.

If your faith is shaken because non-believers have questions then you have poor faith.

If you have a problem with another religion than your own then don't follow it.

And, lastly, why are we discussing "Muslims and the people who love them" in a thread about Germans rejecting the Trump Trend?

That really wasn't the point.  Nobody will criticize you for being sensitive about your faith.  It's when your sensitivity leads to you killing people.  Like I said earlier, there are no Mormon hit squads out there due to The Book of Mormon.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 11:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: If only people would care about the poor persecuted Christians!

No one has mentioned this but you.  Obfuscation and petty sarcasm are about all you seem to be good for.

Quote:All seriousness aside who really cares?

Probably all the women treated as chattel, getting acid thrown in their face and being stoned to death for the crime of being raped.  Oh, the homosexuals being tortured and killed probably care too.

Quote:Muslims are vocal about their beliefs.  Christians are vocal about their beliefs.  Jews are vocal about their beliefs.

Muslims are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.  Christians are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.  Jews are sensitive to criticism of their beliefs.

Yup, and only one group out of those three will try and kill you for said criticism.

Quote:If your faith is shaken because non-believers have questions then you have poor faith.

You finally made a valid point.

Quote:If you have a problem with another religion than your own then don't follow it.

A inane point when followers of one religion routinely engage in daily acts of barbarism which affect those who do not follow this faith.

Quote:And, lastly, why are we discussing "Muslims and the people who love them" in a thread about Germans rejecting the Trump Trend?

Read the thread genius, the progression was rather straightforward.  GMDabo starts caring about the thread topic now that he's on his heels.  

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 11:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That really wasn't the point.  Nobody will criticize you for being sensitive about your faith.  It's when your sensitivity leads to you killing people.  Like I said earlier, there are no Mormon hit squads out there due to The Book of Mormon.  

No, and I'm not downplaying the fringe people who actually kill over their faith.

It stupid and it's horrible.

That's why we end up in the endless loop of posting stories about a Christian who raped someone, or killed someone because their "faith".

The mind-numbingly incessant posting that because the "left" isn't always critical on Muslims, or a celebrity who said something stupid is as much mental masturbation as we have around here.  And it constantly comes from the usual suspects who are NOT racist at all...they simply choose to focus on people different from "them".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, and I'm not downplaying the fringe people who actually kill over their faith.

Except it's been shown that these aren't fringe beliefs for one religion. So, yes, you are downplaying it.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-27-2017, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, and I'm not downplaying the fringe people who actually kill over their faith.

It stupid and it's horrible.

That's why we end up in the endless loop of posting stories about a Christian who raped someone, or killed someone because their "faith".

The mind-numbingly incessant posting that because the "left" isn't always critical on Muslims, or a celebrity who said something stupid is as much mental masturbation as we have around here.  And it constantly comes from the usual suspects who are NOT racist at all...they simply choose to focus on people different from "them".

Jews are different than me.  Mormons are different than me.  Hindus are different than me.  Buddhists are different than me, and yet I don't say a word about them.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 12:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Jews are different than me.  Mormons are different than me.  Hindus are different than me.  Buddhists are different than me, and yet I don't say a word about them.

But why not?

The Jews feel killing Palestinians is the right thing to do because of "their land".

Mormons got to cemeteries and baptize the dead into their own religion.

Each religion has its awful parts.  

Christians think all US laws should be based on their holy book.

What we choose to focus on (now) are the Muslims because of the violent ones.



Buddhists are different...they just want us to be nice to each other. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, and I'm not downplaying the fringe people who actually kill over their faith.

It stupid and it's horrible.

So you're suggesting it is the "fringe" Muslim that believe in Sharia Law?

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-27-2017, 12:58 AM)Dill Wrote: You seem like a reasonable enough guy, Masterp. But how would you respond to this counter-assessment of the current Islam debate.


When non-Muslim Westerners critics of Islam speak out on internet forums, there is a tendency to essentialize the religion. It is discussed as a monolithic whole, whose truest representatives are those whose practices are farthest from US norms. If one knows what Muslims in Afghanistan do, then one has seen the true face of the religion. And seen enough. One country bans women from driving, so it makes perfect sense to ask why “they”—world Muslims—do that.  The Islamic State kills homosexuals. Why do “they” do that? If Christians cut female genitals they are only fringe groups in backward places distorting Christianity. But if some Muslims do that, why must ask why their religion condones the practice. As Western armies continue their occupation of Muslim lands, we must question their claim Islam is a religion of peace.

When this tendency to generalize to the whole based on actions of some is criticized for what it is—a hasty generalization of the sort people always protest when applied to their own religion—then Pew polls and the like are trotted out. X% of Muslims living in Britain or Egypt think stoning adulterers is ok.  The gap is closed and we are quickly back to the monolith. If you know what the Islamic State or a Mullah in Iran says Islam is, then you know Islam. Obvious questions—how many women are actually stoned in Britain or Egypt or any Muslim country, how many homosexuals executed, etc?—are not asked.

 We hear that Muslims won’t step forward to criticize their religion, and that some group called “leftists” hypocritically criticize Christianity for misogyny and homophobia while “defending” Islam on the same counts, or simply remaining “silent.”  Some are puzzled that "leftists" will turn out by the thousands to protest the election of a sexual assaulter to the highest office in their own country, but don’t turn out crowds to protest religious practices in other countries like Saudi Arabia  or Afghanistan (where? Before an embassy? Every day?). They have in some sense “latched on” to Islam to defend this monolith.  But repeated invitations to provide examples of leftist “support” for Islam, when not met with silence, turn out to be ordinary defenses of the right to freedom of religion, and/or a refusal of the invitation to scapegoat based on religion and ethnicity.


That demographics and political groups famous for their persecution of gays and opposition to women’s rights suddenly hold up progressive liberal/leftist ideals of equality as the essence of Western civilization passes unremarked, even as those groups retain the logic of minority scapegoating and turn it upon a new religious group.

A hypothesis—there are in fact a great many liberals, “leftists” and liberal, leftist Muslims criticizing misogyny everywhere in the world, including the US and Muslim countries, often de-coupling misogyny from religion, but that dialogue and struggle over women’s rights gets little coverage in the US mass media—some in the MSM, almost none on Fox and the myriad right wing websites now emerging to warn us of cultural suicide.  It would not be very difficult in a forum like this to link to a wide variety of source evidence, but I am guessing the initial response would be that a list of links would have to be very long and detailed to escape the reverse of hasty generalization—the charge those many sources were marginal, a small percentage of worldwide debate on these matters.  

I will refer you back to my post earlier ( and other posts on this matter), to show exactly that I speak of nuanced discussion in this subject matter instead of the broad brush generalization (on both "sides").  In the past I have corrected posters who've ascribed cultural practices (genital mutilation being foremost) to the whole of a religion of more than one billion people, where these practices are localized to certain regions of the world and can also be found in Christianity in that part of the world.  I've also pointed out the errors of judging a whole religion by a miniscule fraction of a percentage which is dedicated to violent extremism and the terrorization of innocents.  You could say that this is a criticism of the "right".  I would point out how this would be unfair if the same approach was taken towards Christianity based on the practices of a fraction of its adherents.  

However, the point of SSF, if I may speak for him and upon which I would like to expand, is that polls/surveys of Muslim populations indicating their support of behaviors and beliefs that would be abhorrent to your "average" Westerner, are at the very least concerning and warrant further discussion.  While not necessarily acting on these beliefs, the implicit support/ private harboring of such beliefs is inimical to Western values, and the eradication of such beliefs both organically and via foreign policies (such as trying to understand what % of a population of certain Islamic countries, and I emphasize this has to be done on a nation by nation basis for accurately cataloging the ethos of specific populations, so as to not paint wrongly with a broad brush) so values that are foremost to the West are preserved within Western nations is an existential necessity.  I will repeat this requires nuance.  However, to have this nuanced policy approach and discussion, we must be able to speak freely and fearlessly based on an understanding of facts, which doesn't occur when the "left" is defensive of the "minority" to the point that frank discussion of such policy implications and the basis upon which they're reached never even sees the light of day.  It's fully possible that such conversations can enlighten the understanding of these issues in a different way possibly swaying people to a different position than they would expect, which is the natural outcome of an open and honest discussion.  Who knows, maybe it could lead to an understanding of both the West in terms of their "ignorance" and possibly to the Muslim moderates of issues within which must be more urgently vocalized.  I feel that a reasonable criticism of certain behaviors and possibly values of Islam such as those made by a man of Sam Harris' intellect and rational thought, do not warrant a defensiveness as if it is the argument for another crusade.  Even as a reasonable person inimical to persecution of minorities, I still feel it's correct to wonder what sort of incubation of thoughts is taking place when so many populations of Western muslims hold values (based on polls) that are inimical to our society.  What would happen if they reach majority status in the future?  An open conversation also needs to involve eradication of the prejudices of ignorant Westerners who ascribe qualities to the whole which are only seen in a smaller subset.  

So, to summarize, I have been arguing against wrong facts being presented by xenophobic arguments, while simultaneously arguing for discussions of ideas in the Islamic world which should warrant concerns of every reasonable Westerner.  

In my support of SSF's argument, I'm questioning why "leftist" protesters seem to be blind to resisting certain values of Islam which are plain as day to see.  I appreciate the groups which have high esteem of freedoms that we espouse in the Western world, but why is it not even a consideration when questions are raised about other groups (read certain Muslims), who hold values so contrary so as to flip completely the foundation of the western nations?  Even if this is not the case, is it at least not worth an open and honest discussion, instead of an instinctive "you said that because you hate Muslims"?.  And I'm sure if the hatred is there, it will become apparent during such a discussion.  The danger of not even having this discussion is that we could potentially allow such thoughts (I suppose on both sides) to incubate unhindered and away from the light of day, until it reaches a point where we're unable to simply "nip it in the bud".

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-27-2017, 01:08 AM)Dill Wrote: Where do you remember that from, Matt? 

I don't think I have ever heard that version of the Crusades before.

I might have taken a little creative license.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 11:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said earlier, there are no Mormon hit squads out there due to The Book of Mormon.  

But there have been Christians that shot abortion providers and bombed abortion clinics.

And when I was growing up the center of terrorist activity was inNorthern Ireland where protestants and Catholics were killing each other.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 02:07 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: However, to have this nuanced policy approach and discussion, we must be able to speak freely and fearlessly based on an understanding of facts, which doesn't occur when the "left" is defensive of the "minority" to the point that frank discussion of such policy implications and the basis upon which they're reached never even sees the light of day.

This is total BS.  This discussion has been had all across the country.  It has been all over the news.  How can you claim this discussion has "not even seen the lioght of day".

And here is what it boils down to.  A certain group wants to treat Muslims differently than other religious groups.  They want them subject to registration and public surveillance that would not be allowed on other religions.  You want to violate their right to wroship freely despite the fact that they are breaking absolutely no laws of our country.

Every religious person places his religious beliefs above the "law of man", and every religious person who breaks the "law of the land" should be punished.  But we have millions of Muslims living peacefully in this country.  They should not have their rights violated because of their religious beliefs.

Should every Christian who objected to gay marriage based on religious beliefs be subject to registration and heightened surveillance?

Acting like any discussion has been silenced is disingenuous.  The discussion has been had and not one person from the left supported the objectionable aspects of radical Islam.  The only thing the left objected to was violating the rights of millions of law abiding Muslims living peacefully in this country.  You are free to discuss all of the nest elements of Islam that you want.  No one will object to that.  But you will get plenty of protest when you try to violate the rights of innocent people who do not live or abide by those principles.

[fredtoast]

So lets have a disussion on the bad elements of radical Islam.

Who here thinks gentile mtuilation is a good thing?

How about honor killings?

C'mon, lets have that debate that the mainstream media has refused to do.

So who wants to take the side of Pro-genitile mutilation and Pro-honor killing?

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 02:19 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I might have taken a little creative license.

lol, Well it was good drama!

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So lets have a disussion on the bad elements of radical Islam.

Who here thinks gentile mtuilation is a good thing?

How about honor killings?

C'mon, lets have that debate that the mainstream media has refused to do.

So who wants to take the side of Pro-genitile mutilation and Pro-honor killing?

Start of discussion:

Do you consider Muslims that believe in the implementation of Sharia Law to be radical?

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well if you don't like that the right is saying it, then listen to    Maher and Harris.  Two very liberal atheists who have nothing nice to say about Christianity or Judaism either.  Except that they won't try to kill you if you say bad things about them or draw a picture of their prophet.  You can dunk the Christians most holy figure in piss and people will get mad, but they won't put out a hit on you.  Look at Dino's link on post 69.

Are there, somewhere in the world, Muslims who won't try to kill you if you say bad things about them or draw a picture of their prophet?   If so, then "tolerating" Muslims who do not kill people for cartoons, as do leftists, should not be conflated with tolerating people who do.

My point was not that I don't like the rights' criticism of Islam because they are rightists. My point is that the criticism is contradictory. On the one it upholds "liberal" values of tolerance which conservatives have not themselves practiced in order to scapegoat an entire religion.   You can't preen yourself for the civil tolerance won over hundreds of years by others while at the same time practicing intolerance in a new direction.

This does not become suddenly ok when Maher and Harris do it. My primary objection to those two is that they actually know very little about Islam or other cultures in general. They don't know the origin/development of current conflicts and the beliefs which drive them. They read news accounts and polls, and then extrapolate "what must be" from them. They draw support for others similarly ill-informed. The less you know, the more sense they make.

[fredtoast]

Just to make it clear. . .

This is the lefts position on Islam. You are free to worship as long as none of your religious principles violate the law. You can be against homosexuals and womens rights as long as those beliefs to not violate any one else's rights.

This is the lefts position on Christianity. You are free to worship as long as none of your religious principles violate the law. You can be against homosexuals and womens rights as long as those beliefs to not violate any one else's rights.


So who wants to discuss THIS instead oif the lies some people are posting here regarding the lefts support of Islam.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Start of discussion:

Do you consider Muslims that believe in the implementation of Sharia Law to be radical?

This is a loaded question.  Lots of Muslims answer that they want to follow Sharia law but they are not willing to violate the law of the land in order to do so.

It is like asking if every Christian who opposed same sex marriage is a "radical".

So, "No", I do not believe that every Muslims who claims he wants to follow Sharia Law is a radical.  But obviously any Muslim who is willing to violently overthrow the government to instill Sharia Law is a radical.

Do you think every Christian that opposed same sex marriage was a radical?  How about anyone who is opposed to legal abortion?

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-27-2017, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is total BS.  This discussion has been had all across the country.  It has been all over the news.  How can you claim this discussion has "not even seen the lioght of day".

And here is what it boils down to.  A certain group wants to treat Muslims differently than other religious groups.  They want them subject to registration and public surveillance that would not be allowed on other religions.  You want to violate their right to wroship freely despite the fact that they are breaking absolutely no laws of our country.

Every religious person places his religious beliefs above the "law of man", and every religious person who breaks the "law of the land" should be punished.  But we have millions of Muslims living peacefully in this country.  They should not have their rights violated because of their religious beliefs.

Should every Christian who objected to gay marriage based on religious beliefs be subject to registration and heightened surveillance?

Acting like any discussion has been silenced is disingenuous.  The discussion has been had and not one person from the left supported the objectionable aspects of radical Islam.  The only thing the left objected to was violating the rights of millions of law abiding Muslims living peacefully in this country.  You are free to discuss all of the nest elements of Islam that you want.  No one will object to that.  But you will get plenty of protest when you try to violate the rights of innocent people who do not live or abide by those principles.

I can see why you may have misunderstood the point of my post.  The discussion that you refer to is "why are we banning immigration from Libya, Egypt, ...." with the EO put forth by Trump.  The discussion I'm referring to is "what do Muslims in different parts of the world believe", and how do those beliefs affect the Western world, and should we have these beliefs hibernating in the West?  Should we criticize these beliefs or should we pretend that they do not exist, i.e. if they actually exist?  


The rest of your post about violating rights of Muslims in this country is completely irrelevant to my post once you understand the context of what the above paragraph states.  Nowhere in my posts was the violation or restriction of religious freedom of U.S. citizens discussed so I'm just not going to reply to that part of the post.  

Just so you understand my position: it's not persecution of Muslims to ask if certain aspects of their belief system (and I mean individual cultures and nations, not the religion as a whole), are compatible with the foundation of the west and to take a nuanced approach to whether we should allow those beliefs into the country or not? This is not the same as subjecting any group to registration and surveillance.