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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 11:46 PM)Dill Wrote: "Outrage over outrages" is best left to the celebrity culture which apparently grounds your understanding of Islam.


In virtually every Muslim country there is a battle going on within/among Muslims over women’s rights. They are supported by leftist (no scare quotes) and liberal organizations in the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, and France. Change, not expressing outrage, is the goal.


Back in 1999, liberal philosopher Susan Moller Orkin wrote an essay arguing that multiculturalism could be bad for women. Laws originally intended to protect native American customs, when applied to some Muslim groups in the US, would allow child marriage, polygamy, and female genital mutilation on religious grounds. The essay fronts a collection of responses from other liberals and leftists (no scare quotes, real leftists) some of whom agree and some who disagree with her framing of the problem. One can find the book on Amazon.https://www.amazon.com/Multiculturalism-Women-Susan-Moller-Okin/dp/0691004323/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493251601&sr=1-3&keywords=susan+moller+okin

I mention that particular book, with many respondents, to indicate how even before 9/11 this was an issue for legal scholars and philosophers and feminists in the US.

One of the respondents is Aziza Y. al-Hibri, a Muslim and a legal scholar of Muslim jurisprudence, president of an organization called KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, which advocates for women’s rights in Muslim countries. Here is a link to their website, http://karamah.org/.

From there you can find a link to Al-Jazeerah, currently running a story on how a women’s rights group in Jordan is on the verge of abolishing a law protecting rapists who marry their victims. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/jordan-abolish-law-protects-rapists-170426114305294.html.   There is also this great article on Jordanian women learning martial arts.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/02/women-jordan-fight-rights-160205105852464.html. 

I just put a link to the Turkish Muslim group Violence Is not Our Culture in the post to Belsnickel above.

A host of international organizations are also focused womens and human rights issues in Muslim countries--Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women takes up these issues as well, getting flack from both Christian and Muslim countries.

I can go on with lists of books and conferences and forums in which these matters are debated, largely under the radar of the celebrity/youtube crowd.  This link is to Looking for that Other Face, by Frank van Lierde, a book in PDF form which tells the story of 6 Indonesian Muslim women who have organized to challenge Islamism in their region. It was financed by Dutch leftists and liberals in an organization called Human Security Collective.
https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/04/Cordaid_Other_Face_-LRtotaal_gecorrigeerd.pdf 

Egypt has a number of Arab language sites challenging patriarchal orthodoxy there, but here is one in English http://nazra.org/en. And feminist challenges are news reported frequently on sites like Middle East Eye, http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/egypts-embattled-feminism-2085551274. This British based news organization helps to publicize progressive Muslim activism and helps link efforts in Middle Easter countries to supporters in the US.

There may be "silence" about Muslim "outrages" in some Western internet forums and talk shows, where we are told "the left" supposedly "turns a blind eye to daily outrages." But the din is very loud in leftist (no scare quotes) organizations and websites.
https://www.thenation.com/article/rise-islamic-feminists/. 

Muslims for Progressive Values has articles and arguments and disucssions of Sharia for gay Muslims.http://www.mpvusa.org/lgbtqi-resources/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrYbIBRCgnY-OluOk89EBEiQAZER58mDbLPVUK2UilawK49257zomeNCzaoJdkRIhL9Xhwz4aAvmy8P8HAQ

I close with an interesting mainstream source about Muslim women who must combat BOTH Muslim misogyny AND Islamophobia--http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/news/unstereotyped-muslim-feminists/

First off, I'm going to give you a lot of credit for all the work you put into this post.

Allow me to address a few of your links though;

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/news/unstereotyped-muslim-feminists

I read this one.  It's about 95% on "islamaphobia".  The majority of the remaining five seems focused on the assertion that muslim women don't need "western" feminists to come to their aid.  Not a single effing word about the misogynist teaching if islam.  The fact that this is on CNN and the following are not is telling.

http://www.mpvusa.org/lgbtqi-resources/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrYbIBRCgnY-OluOk89EBEiQAZER58mDbLPVUK2UilawK49257zomeNCzaoJdkRIhL9Xhwz4aAvmy8P8HAQ


I'll give this one credit.  It's not exactly critical of islam, but it does try and make an argument for the inclusion of homosexuals within it.


http://www.mpvusa.org/lgbtqi-resources/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrYbIBRCgnY-OluOk89EBEiQAZER58mDbLPVUK2UilawK49257zomeNCzaoJdkRIhL9Xhwz4aAvmy8P8HAQ



This one is great, these are the kind of muslims that deserve support and hope to moderate the excesses of their religion.


I could go on, but I think the point is made.  Of course there are muslims fighting against the daily evils committed in the name of their religion.  Here's a telling question, has anyone ever heard of any of these prior to your post?  Why do you think this is?  I'm sure your answer is that positive stories on muslims don't get published.  I'd counter that perhaps these stories detail such a minority viewpoint that it takes some real effort to find them.  If that is the case, why?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 11:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Whereas Christians who will renounce the Gospels are a dime of dozen.

I am wondering how many Muslims you've discussed the Hadith with?

Many.  Varying degrees of importance were applied to it, but no one stated it was unimportant.  In fact, no one went so far as to say it was only moderately important.  Interpretation was a key word, but isn't it always with religion?

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: You understand that there are four different legal traditions in Sunni Islam, right, and that some are stricter than others, and that Sharia would be different for each?

And you understand that since in the 19th century, especially in Muslim countries under British or French rule, legal systems have developed which partially or wholly incorporate Sharia, often by breaking precedent and mixing and matching among the traditions, syncretising British, French and Sharia law? 

"Implementation of Sharia" would therefore mean many different things to many different Muslims, everything from lip service to the Koran to Saudi style regulation of dress and daily life, along with criminal, commercial and family law.  In Great Britain, for example, there are two very different "Sharia" court systems set up for Muslims there.

The mixture among Muslim countries is rather astounding. For some Sharia means ignoring things like lashing, stoning, and removing hands of thieves. For others it means putting laws on the books, but never carrying them out. For still others (a few) it means actually carrying them out. But even in these countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Nigeria) they are contested by other Muslims.

If a Muslim would "like" to implement Sharia that could mean anything from "I would like to live under a system I feel is just" to "I would like to live under the system I am comfortable in the country from which I came (Indonesia, Jordan, etc.)" to a Hanabli/Wahabist "I would like this society to be remade into society at the time of the prophet."

So Sharia is not one thing.

I also understand there is a large population of Muslims that would tell you what just posted was horseshit as they view Sharia as the divine word not the interpretation.

Let's just say that implantation of Sharia means they would prefer it over the law of man.

BTW, why didn't you ask Fred what he meant about radical? Not curious about that anymore?

[Dill]

(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.  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. 
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? 

Masterp, if you look at the post above addressed to SSF, you will see links and references to a number of people and organizations "speaking freely and fearlessly" to those values you suggest they are blind to. Much of what you say reminds me of Sam Harris'--the assumption leftists ignore Islam, dissociate violence from religion, etc. He thinks that knowing Muslim "beliefs" which are unalterably anchored in unchanging, univocal religious texts, is a key to understanding suicide bombers, not "war and repression."  So there needs to be a "conversation" about these beliefs and Muslims need to understand what is wrong with their religion. In short, he does not know very much about the history of Islam or religion in general, nor about culture and cultural change in general. 

By the way, The link below should give you an idea of what produces leftist "defensiveness."

http://muslimgirl.com/17012/crisis-safety-manual/

Do you think there is any connection between people who treat Islam as a monolith, so that whatever you read in today's paper or hear in a Youtube presentation is what Islam "is", and the fear that so many Muslims feel while living in the US. Who are the people generating that fear? What are their beliefs about Islam? 

Why anyone suppose that defending Muslims from US bigotry means leftists are "blind" to "outrages" elsewhere.

[Dill]

(04-28-2017, 12:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I also understand there is a large population of Muslims that would tell you what just posted was horseshit as they view Sharia as the divine word not the interpretation.

Let's just say that implantation of Sharia means they would prefer it over the law of man.

BTW, why didn't you ask Fred what he meant about radical? Not curious about that anymore?

No I am not curious about what Fred meant. My concern was with how you understood the term.

Let's say that implementation of Shia means nothing if no one can define what they "prefer."

Where does your knowledge of this large population of Muslims come from? You said you knew more Muslims than anyone in the forum. Which Muslims? Where? Which legal tradition were they following?  Would they tell me that there is not 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence interpreting the divine word?

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-28-2017, 12:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Masterp, if you look at the post above addressed to SSF, you will see links and references to a number of people and organizations "speaking freely and fearlessly" to those values you suggest they are blind to. Much of what you say reminds me of Sam Harris'--the assumption leftists ignore Islam, dissociate violence from religion, etc. He thinks that knowing Muslim "beliefs" which are unalterably anchored in unchanging, univocal religious texts, is a key to understanding suicide bombers, not "war and repression."  So there needs to be a "conversation" about these beliefs and Muslims need to understand what is wrong with their religion. In short, he does not know very much about the history of Islam or religion in general, nor about culture and cultural change in general. 

By the way, The link below should give you an idea of what produces leftist "defensiveness."

http://muslimgirl.com/17012/crisis-safety-manual/

Do you think there is any connection between people who treat Islam as a monolith, so that whatever you read in today's paper or hear in a Youtube presentation is what Islam "is", and the fear that so many Muslims feel while living in the US. Who are the people generating that fear? What are their beliefs about Islam? 

Why anyone suppose that defending Muslims from US bigotry means leftists are "blind" to "outrages" elsewhere.

Dill, kudos to your effort.  I may follow up tomorrow with a better response, but suffice to say for now that I have always argued against treating Islam as a monolith.  But I think the level of work from leftist orgs if you will, genuinely surprised me.

[*bfine32*]

(04-28-2017, 01:06 AM)Dill Wrote: 1) No I am not curious about what Fred meant. My concern was with how you understood the term.

2) Let's say that implementation of Shia means nothing if no one can define what they "prefer."

Where does your knowledge of this large population of Muslims come from? You said you knew more Muslims than anyone in the forum. Which Muslims? Where? Which legal tradition were they following?  Would they tell me that there is not 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence interpreting the divine word?

1) Dude look at the post. I asked him what he meant by radical. I suppose I don't understand the impetus behind your concern of what I meant when I was asking Fred what he meant, but I'm sure you have your reasons. You are literally asking me what I meant when I asked him what he meant.

2) Okey Doke, we'll go with your assertion that the implementation of Sharia means nothing if we cannot define what they prefer. Makes sense to you I suppose

3) Actually I didn't say I knew more Muslims than anyone in this forum; I said I have interacted with more. I don't propose to know them as they are an enigma. You escort a doctor into their community for the first time many have seen one, he treats many that have never been treated, and then they establish an ambush for you when you leave. But you roll with what you know

 

[Dill]

(04-28-2017, 12:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I could go on, but I think the point is made.  Of course there are muslims fighting against the daily evils committed in the name of their religion.  Here's a telling question, has anyone ever heard of any of these prior to your post?  Why do you think this is?  I'm sure your answer is that positive stories on muslims don't get published.  I'd counter that perhaps these stories detail such a minority viewpoint that it takes some real effort to find them.  If that is the case, why?

I am not sure altogether what your point is. Some of those links are intended to show believing Muslims challenging religious interpretations and misogyny. They don't understand themselves to be challenging Islam because they don't think Misogyny is essential to Islam.  My point is they are not blind to practices that liberals find abhorrent. They are working to change them, often at great risk, and with some success.

But has anyone ever heard of any of these prior to my post?  Of course. Millions. The Americans Al Hibri and Orkin do appear in the news and on talk shows on occasion.

I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps to Masterp, that the rebuttal of the "leftists are blind to . . ." position will be subject to the objection these people, orgainzations etc. must be small in number.  One can only squeeze so much evidence in a post. I chose sources that tended to be interlinked with organizations and news outlets to convey they were news to larger audiences--elsewhere if not in the US.

You imply there would more press if the numbers were larger.  I would say that we live in a media environment in which  there is some variety, if one is willing to work for it, but most are not.   Many have not heard of the people and organizations above because they are not on Bill Maher and Talk shows, certainly not on fox. They do appear in left wing news sources like Altnet, Mother Jones, the Progressive, and the Nation.  Who one hears about depends, in part, on one's news sources.  If you lived in Egypt or Jordan or Qatar you would also hear much about them.

So in a sense you are right that it takes effort to find them, but that is not because we are dealing with an uninfluential minority. It is because for Americans the subject is specialized in a way that it is not in the Middle East, where feminist (male and female) challenges to patriarchy are daily news. To scholars of Islam and the Middle East, my list would seem skimpy, overlooking some more obvious choices.

The CNN article was intended to show also the fear felt by Muslim women in the US--fear not of horrible Islamists, but of ordinary Americans who are sure Muslims are a danger to the nation.

[Dill]

(04-28-2017, 01:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) Dude look at the post. I asked him what he meant by radical. I suppose I don't understand the impetus behind your concern of what I meant when I was asking Fred what he meant, but I'm sure you have your reasons. You are literally asking me what I meant when I asked him what he meant.

2) Okey Doke, we'll go with your assertion that the implementation of Sharia means nothing if we cannot define what they prefer. Makes sense to you I suppose

3) Actually I didn't say I knew more Muslims than anyone in this forum; I said I have interacted with more. I don't propose to know them as they are an enigma. You escort a doctor into their community for the first time many have seen one, he treats many that have never been treated, and then they establish an ambush for you when you leave. But you roll with what you know

Sorry Bfine, You're right. I should have been more careful about the "radical" question.

And I guess you have "interacted" with Muslims. LOL.  When you said "enigma." I got a flashback of angry men with black beards staring at me while they cleaned my office--under guard. Can't say a word to them but I know they hate me. Is it possible that the people ambushing you are not from the people you were helping?  You never spoke with translators?

[Belsnickel]

(04-27-2017, 11:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Matt, you know this is not remotely the case.  Good luck finding a muslim who will renounce the Hadith.  They may apply more importance to certain sections or less to others but it is viewed as far more important than the writings of the popes.

Actually, I know several. One is a leader in the Muslim community here (and a fellow bean counter, it's how I first got to know him). We've had many discussions about Islam, the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and all of that. I obviously haven't discussed this with every Muslim in the local community, but every one that I have talked about faith with has said they don't follow the Hadith. I actually don't know any Muslim's personally that put a lot of stock in them and I have gotten to know a wide swath of the community here because of my work within the interfaith groups, refugee resettlement, and the charity I am on the board for. Most of them view them only as, essentially, opinions written by religious leaders. They will tell you that, as Mohammed said, only the Qu'ran should be taken as the word of God, all the rest are the words of men, even Mohammed himself.

[*michaelsean*]

To the above posts, to use Catholicism as an example, there are absolutely things you must believe, or you are not a Catholic. The virgin birth. Jesus is God and man. The Immaculate Conception. Transubstantiation. To name a few. There are also things you must accept. Homosexual acts are sinful. Abortion is a mortal sin. Contraception is sinful. etc. you can disagree with these things in your heart, but you still have to abide by them.

[Belsnickel]

(04-28-2017, 09:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: To the above posts, to use Catholicism as an example, there are absolutely things you must believe, or you are not a Catholic. The virgin birth. Jesus is God and man. The Immaculate Conception. Transubstantiation. To name a few.

I'm aware, but that's to be a Catholic, not a Christian, right? The Hadith are a large set of writings whose composition is dependent upon which Muslim denomination (for lack of a better word) you belong to.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-28-2017, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm aware, but that's to be a Catholic, not a Christian, right? The Hadith are a large set of writings whose composition is dependent upon which Muslim denomination (for lack of a better word) you belong to.

Yes just a Catholic. (And since all the other Christians are going to hell I didn't think they mattered.)  I also edited and added a different set of rules.

[Belsnickel]

(04-28-2017, 09:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes just a Catholic.  I also edited and added a different set of rules.

So that's kind of a point I was making, was that to say "if they don't believe in x, they aren't a true Muslim" is like trying to say "if they don't believe in Transubstantiation they aren't a true Christian" (for an example). Islam is a large and diverse religion that is made up of many individuals that have form ideological groups that are also very diverse. Trying to lump them all in together is disingenuous. Hell, even when talking about Sharia, like Dill pointed out earlier, you can't just really broadly discuss adherence in Sharia as this negative thing because the differences in the way it exists are many.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-28-2017, 09:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, I know several. One is a leader in the Muslim community here (and a fellow bean counter, it's how I first got to know him). We've had many discussions about Islam, the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and all of that. I obviously haven't discussed this with every Muslim in the local community, but every one that I have talked about faith with has said they don't follow the Hadith. I actually don't know any Muslim's personally that put a lot of stock in them and I have gotten to know a wide swath of the community here because of my work within the interfaith groups, refugee resettlement, and the charity I am on the board for. Most of them view them only as, essentially, opinions written by religious leaders. They will tell you that, as Mohammed said, only the Qu'ran should be taken as the word of God, all the rest are the words of men, even Mohammed himself.

That's good to hear.  Even so, the Quran has plenty of objectionable things in it as well.  Yes, so does the Bible (especially the old testament) but, as has been pointed out in links I posted, there's a huge intrinsic difference between islam and christianity.  Jesus, was a peaceful "hippy" who was willingly crucified.  Mohammad was a warlord who conquered people, converted them at sword point and took slaves.  As I said, it's good that these people are out there, they're just woefully outnumbered and in many ways swimming upstream as their faith gives their opponents a lot of ammunition.

[GMDino]

Now we're deciding which set of rules from thousands of years ago, given to people by people who claimed to be gods and prophets, is better.  and if we can treat al believers of such rules as one large group.

Good times.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-28-2017, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Now we're deciding which set of rules from thousands of years ago, given to people by people who claimed to be gods and prophets, is better.  and if we can treat al believers of such rules as one large group.

Good times.

Aww man, you were making progress in the other thread.  It's not a debate over which one is "better".  What is being pointed out is that a religion whose founder, and foundation, is steeped in slavery, rape, forced conversion and murder is likely going to engender followers who think that slavery, rape, forced conversion and murder are ok.

Now, here's a pop quiz, which of the three monotheism am I talking about.  There's only one and you have a 33% even if you're just guessing.  C'mon, you can do it!

[*bfine32*]

(04-28-2017, 02:03 AM)Dill Wrote: Sorry Bfine, You're right. I should have been more careful about the "radical" question.

And I guess you have "interacted" with Muslims. LOL.  When you said "enigma." I got a flashback of angry men with black beards staring at me while they cleaned my office--under guard. Can't say a word to them but I know they hate me. Is it possible that the people ambushing you are not from the people you were helping?  You never spoke with translators?

Hell, I'm pretty sure we saw our field dressing on one of them; however, the point is valid. I have been to villages where they are just afraid to help. Of course I've spoken with translators; some are better than others. The locals usually don't like the "good" ones.

[Belsnickel]

(04-28-2017, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's good to hear.  Even so, the Quran has plenty of objectionable things in it as well.  Yes, so does the Bible (especially the old testament) but, as has been pointed out in links I posted, there's a huge intrinsic difference between islam and christianity.  Jesus, was a peaceful "hippy" who was willingly crucified.  Mohammad was a warlord who conquered people, converted them at sword point and took slaves.  As I said, it's good that these people are out there, they're just woefully outnumbered and in many ways swimming upstream as their faith gives their opponents a lot of ammunition.

Well, I could get into arguments about Jesus and not being the peaceful hippy people consider him to be today, but I will leave that for another time.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-28-2017, 12:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Masterp, if you look at the post above addressed to SSF, you will see links and references to a number of people and organizations "speaking freely and fearlessly" to those values you suggest they are blind to. Much of what you say reminds me of Sam Harris'--the assumption leftists ignore Islam, dissociate violence from religion, etc. He thinks that knowing Muslim "beliefs" which are unalterably anchored in unchanging, univocal religious texts, is a key to understanding suicide bombers, not "war and repression."  So there needs to be a "conversation" about these beliefs and Muslims need to understand what is wrong with their religion. In short, he does not know very much about the history of Islam or religion in general, nor about culture and cultural change in general. 

By the way, The link below should give you an idea of what produces leftist "defensiveness."

http://muslimgirl.com/17012/crisis-safety-manual/

Do you think there is any connection between people who treat Islam as a monolith, so that whatever you read in today's paper or hear in a Youtube presentation is what Islam "is", and the fear that so many Muslims feel while living in the US. Who are the people generating that fear? What are their beliefs about Islam? 

Why anyone suppose that defending Muslims from US bigotry means leftists are "blind" to "outrages" elsewhere.

I understand the challenges that the various Muslim communities are facing in the U.S.  I also understand that there is a political and colonial era influence in much of the politics of Middle Eastern nation states/ communities.  These are complex factors which require nuance (I hope at least you will understand the usage of this word in the right intent unlike the resident misrepresenter bar none).  Yet there is (or potentially could be) some aspect of the lure to terrorism from certain components within the "religious" texts (I put them in quotes simply because I'm not well versed in the differences between Hadiths and the Q'uran and the way different groups may interpret and value them).  A significant part of the terrorism is perpetrated by those who many would consider to be successful in life (doctors, engineers etc. at different levels of the terrorist organizational hierarchy).  Now what I'm attempting to inquire on is - what level of such behaviors is somewhat embedded in the interpretation of the religious texts, not just in the context of terrorism, but also many cultural aspects which if not anathemic are antithetical to the values of the civilized parts of the world? 

It seems I need to repeat this (not necessarily for you), but I am the same person who has argued that there is a wide variety of differences in the muslim world and to hold monolithical views are both ignorant and dangerous in many ways than one.  I do understand that given the current political context a question such as the one I posed above will be met with an instinctive defensiveness which I only deem natural.  However, is it not prudent that while acknowledging that the above mentioned differences exist in the Muslim world, that we delve deeper to understand the differences say between  Indonesia and Libya, or Saudia Arabia and Kosovo in terms of their Islamic beliefs and their impact on the cultural ethos?  And to further delve into why maybe we as a nation could judge the merits of the value systems of different countries before we just import them into our cultural fabric?  

When I speak of nuanced discussion, I'm talking about also including the views of our own Muslim citizens (whom in posts going back to last year, I've generally praised, just to provide some context), and to validate how they've (i.e. if they've) decided to extol certain values we hold.  This kind of talk would also address some of the ignorant prejudices faced by many of these citizens.  And again, given the lack of eloquence from the political establishment, I can understand a certain hesitation to delve deep into this kind of discussion from say the "left" or anyone more moderate if you will, but if nothing else this discussion would strengthen the understanding of citizens in the U.S and help us forge bonds within the nation.  If there are weaknesses, we must address them.  If there are strengths we must acknowledge them.  The simple fact of this inquiry at least lead me to learn a bit more in the form of the links that you shared, although I still feel they're not as well represented within the U.S.  But part of the problem is that even when "moderate" people of intellectual curiosity and an eye on overall security for our nation, can't even ask these questions before being labeled as violators of religious rights or bigoted fools, how do we truly understand how the impacts of certain ideas (the stuff that was surveyed in say U.K. and elsewhere) will be felt in our society now and going forward?  

The approach I'm talking about is not limited to just certain countries with Muslim majorities.  I think it's only fair to ask these questions of parts of Africa where Christian populations practice genital mutilation or violence against gays.  Or any other religion or ideology for that matter.