Islamism and the Regressive Left

[Coriolis]

This is the Democrat position: we can't stop them from entering the country because that goes against our values and we can't monitor them because that violates their civil rights, lol.

Really? I thought preservation of individual liberty was an American position, going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Yet FDR interned the Japanese......

Exactly. Are you intent on playing all-or-nothing with FDR as with Muslims? A person who does bad things can also do good things. We can and should learn from both, and evaluate each on its own merits.

The problem you might be having us that Islam is diverse. Many adherents are good, humble, loving people.

And Wahabism isn't a political movement, but a political tool, and the source of much of the discord. The Saudis have always been in a precarious position. The royal family isn't part of the larger population, so needed a tool for control. They knew having Mecca that needed to present the veneer of religiosity. Wahabism was the tool, but it is a religious tool being used for a secular purpose.

The Iranians have also aggressively used religion to expand political control. They use it extensively since they are not Arabs and so can't use Arab nationalism.

The Spanish Inquisition was horrible government sponsored violence largely designed to assert political control. It wasn't independent acts of terrorism, but explicit legal process, however how vile and despicable.

ISIS isn't equivalent.

Why not? It is just as valid to see the ISIS "caliphate" as a political tool. For centuries Christianity was a political tool in western monarchies. Judging by modern US political campaigns, some candidates are still trying to use it as such.

Again, historical Islam is very bloody and aggressive through most v of its history. They were periods of enlightenment, but those were exceptions, not the rule. But it isn't unified. There is no one official Islam.

Again, same with Christianity. There has not been one official Christianity for centuries. The single establishment that did exist was created through force and coercion. Since finally succumbing to schism and reformation, there have been many sectarian conflicts, most recently in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.

Islam expanded due to war mostly, not peaceful conversion, except in few locations. The various sects are violently opposed to each other. I don't see Catholics killing Baptists today, but Sunnis and Shias are very violent and bloody today

Christianity expanded through war and bloodshed in many places as well.

Again, why do you feel so tied into Islam that you can't see the truth about the entirety of the culture, bad with the good? Why defend it so?

Why do you see Islam as so different from Christianity? Every criticism levelled against Islam has been true of Christianity. The only difference is that Christianity seems to have outgrown or worked through the most destructive of these tendencies, while Islam has not yet done so. In a practical sense, this means that right now, more of the world's violent extremists might claim affiliation with Islam than with Christianity (however many peaceable Muslims decry them for doing so). It says nothing about the tenets or inherent nature of the religions as belief systems. It also does not justify discriminating on the basis of belief. The only justifiable basis for treating one person differently from another remains behavior.

Yet no fatwa for terrorists. Mosques remain great recruiting grounds.

Yes, there is no single central Muslim authority to issue a religion-wide fatwa, but some groups are doing so. Interesting that this comes from Muslims in a nation that rivals the US for religious diversity.

And we could bring in millions and still leave the majority outside. It is a drop in the bucket. The major push for increased immigration comes from corporations that want cheap labor, and demagogues thst want it as a tool for power. Every one else is just being taken for a ride.....

I am not commenting on the benefits of immigration as a whole, though Americans would be completely hypocritical to turn isolationist suddenly, when the vast majority of our population is derived from immigrants. There are many criteria we can use in deciding whom to allow into the US. We can exclude criminals, or people with no relatives here to sponsor them. We can seek out people with certain skills to fill needed jobs. We can make exceptions for children, or refugees, etc. We can even give extra scrutiny to people coming from certain parts of the world. My point is that religious faith itself is not a valid criterion here, and claims that Islam as a religion is any worse than Christianity or other faiths do not hold up to objective scrutiny.

 

[Tellenbach]

Really? I thought preservation of individual liberty was an American position, going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Not foreigners who aren't even on American soil. The monitoring of potential foreign terrorists is standard operating procedure; that's what spies do. The Customs and Border Patrol agent was prevented from investigating the female jihadist before she set foot on US soil.

I would oppose snooping of Americans but not foreign visitors; foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution, nor should they be.

 

[geedoenfj]

I was responding to the global criticism of Islam, not any local criticisms.

But are you saying that no Muslim has ever migrated to the West without problems in their home country leading them to leave?

I'm not saying that (no Muslim has ever immigrated unless they have troubles in their countries) but in most of the cases yes they immigrate because of situations in the countries, specially countries of Middle East, and specially in the last decade, reasons could be political or economical etc.

 

[gromit]

There are certainly violent and dangerous factions within Islam.

There are also a lot of good, kind, hardworking people.

I think it can be hard to separate though, and there are non-Muslims who lump everyone together and dont give people a chance.


Pragmatically, we should want to make allies of those people (the kind people, the good citizens) vs enemies. That includes being respectful of their beliefs.

 

[Coriolis]

Not foreigners who aren't even on American soil. The monitoring of potential foreign terrorists is standard operating procedure; that's what spies do. The Customs and Border Patrol agent was prevented from investigating the female jihadist before she set foot on US soil.

I would oppose snooping of Americans but not foreign visitors; foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution, nor should they be.

Why not? What protections would you accord foreigners visiting in the US? Should they enjoy freedom of speech, religion, and association? How about freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment? If arrested, do they get counsel and a jury trial? Can they be forced to incriminate themselves? Should all this apply to all foreign visitors, or would we exempt certain ones, say visiting heads of state? I see this attitude as a very slippery slope that could have serious adverse consequences for Americans visiting other nations.

As for monitoring terrorist suspects, all well and good as long as there is reasonable cause to believe they are associated with a terrorist group. If Customs had no reasonable cause to investigate the female shooter, then all we are doing now is benefitting from hindsight. I don't know enough about her specific case to know whether indications were present but ignored, as in the case of the 9/11 hijackers.

 

[Tellenbach]

Why not?

They don't pay taxes; their allegiance is not to the USA; they are guests, not citizens. The guests to any place usually don't have the same protections and rights as the citizens in any country. Do you think the Americans held hostage in Iran are given due process? or what about that Marine who accidentally entered Mexico with a firearm and was chained to a bed for 100 days?

What protections would you accord foreigners visiting in the US?

Protection from criminal theft and violence; that's bad for tourism if guests get murdered or harrassed.

Should they enjoy freedom of speech, religion, and association?

I'd have no problem with anyone exercising those rights, but they shouldn't be extended to foreigners. Basically, I think Americans should be allowed to kick anyone out or refuse entry for any reason. Being in the USA is not a right for foreigners; it's a privilege.

If a muslim visitor started burning an American flag, I'd deport him and have on the next flight back to his home nation.

If arrested, do they get counsel and a jury trial? Can they be forced to incriminate themselves? Should all this apply to all foreign visitors, or would we exempt certain ones, say visiting heads of state?

All criminals get legal counsel except for enemy combatants. I don't think Miranda rights should be extended to foreign criminals. Visiting heads of state already have diplomatic immunity, but I'd make exceptions for violence against Americans.

I see this attitude as a very slippery slope that could have serious adverse consequences for Americans visiting other nations.

I think all American tourists should expect to be screwed if they visit another nation.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Really? I thought preservation of individual liberty was an American position, going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

For Americans..... not for non Americans.....

Exactly. Are you intent on playing all-or-nothing with FDR as with Muslims? A person who does bad things can also do good things. We can and should learn from both, and evaluate each on its own merits.

But we don't need any more imported, do we? Why not try to assimilate those we have.... the Germans, Irish, and Italians all got to assimilate, as we closed borders at various times. Even the founders were not in favor of non assimilated immigrants. Multiculturalism is not a goal of the nation. Diversity is not our goal.

But nothing you write of explains why leftists support Islam.....

Why not? It is just as valid to see the ISIS "caliphate" as a political tool. For centuries Christianity was a political tool in western monarchies. Judging by modern US political campaigns, some candidates are still trying to use it as such.

ISIS is a non state actor. The Spanish Inquisition was a joint venture between the Spanish crown and the Vatican, both states at the times.

Again, same with Christianity. There has not been one official Christianity for centuries. The single establishment that did exist was created through force and coercion. Since finally succumbing to schism and reformation, there have been many sectarian conflicts, most recently in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.

My point is that just like any one can say they are Christian, anyone can claim to be Muslim. Claims that ISIS isn't Islam are false, especially given the parts of the Koran they reference.

And no Christian is going to stone an adulterer today. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God by inspiration to the various authors, which is different than how Muslims view the Koran. So comparing historical religious practices is not just irrelevant, but illogical. One faith has its members still engaging in medieval barbarism and the other doesn't.

And we are not having wide scale murders of Baptists by Methodists today on the basis of religion, are we?

Christianity expanded through war and bloodshed in many places as well.

Her claim was it was the most bloodless conquest ever...... I did say not that Christians were better.... plus the initial expansion was far different, unless Paul went conquering Roman provinces.....

Why do you see Islam as so different from Christianity? Every criticism levelled against Islam has been true of Christianity. The only difference is that Christianity seems to have outgrown or worked through the most destructive of these tendencies, while Islam has not yet done so. In a practical sense, this means that right now, more of the world's violent extremists might claim affiliation with Islam than with Christianity (however many peaceable Muslims decry them for doing so). It says nothing about the tenets or inherent nature of the religions as belief systems. It also does not justify discriminating on the basis of belief. The only justifiable basis for treating one person differently from another remains behavior.

Haven't they had enough time to get civilized? Isn't it indicative of the inherent problems with the religion that the violence is embedded in its foundation? Did Jesus and his Apostles wage warfare against Rome and conduct terrorist activities or foment revolution? Nope. Christianity grew while being repressed (unlike Islam) until Constantine the Great. That was 300 years.....a huge difference.

Then it became a political tool....

Some argue that Islam is more of an ideology than a religion. I don't go that far.... But I wonder...

As to treating them differently, I believe we can. If people belong to a class that has determined to attack our society, why can't we say we don't want them? It is our country, our rules. We don't need to bestow upon them any privileges to enter our country.... there is no right to immigrate to America, after all.... And we have no obligation to take a single person....

I am not commenting on the benefits of immigration as a whole, though Americans would be completely hypocritical to turn isolationist suddenly, when the vast majority of our population is derived from immigrants. There are many criteria we can use in deciding whom to allow into the US. We can exclude criminals, or people with no relatives here to sponsor them. We can seek out people with certain skills to fill needed jobs. We can make exceptions for children, or refugees, etc. We can even give extra scrutiny to people coming from certain parts of the world. My point is that religious faith itself is not a valid criterion here, and claims that Islam as a religion is any worse than Christianity or other faiths do not hold up to objective scrutiny.

Lol. Hmmm, members of one faith like to kill people in acts of terrorism, but hey, to you they are all the same?????? Silly.. your so-called objectivity is showing your extremely subjective values.

Most of our society was born here. And stopping immigration isn't isolationist or hypocritical, but again, that is a values position, not a logic one you put forth.

And we don't need anyone, at all. There are no job needs that can't be filled from the 95 million or so not on the workforce. If someone can add real value, unlike the scheme Harry Reid and his son did about investing in an overpriced hotel, then maybe let them in. If you want a few people to get the golden ticket every year and get in, I guess you could have a very small lottery.

But the US isn't Germany or Japan, both of which are in demographic collapse. We don't need people, except to give Democrats votes and keep wages down for the corporate masters.

 

[Avocado]

There are certainly violent and dangerous factions within Islam.

There are also a lot of good, kind, hardworking people.

I think it can be hard to separate though, and there are non-Muslims who lump everyone together and dont give people a chance.


Pragmatically, we should want to make allies of those people (the kind people, the good citizens) vs enemies. That includes being respectful of their beliefs.

I've met some people so regressive left, they don't even acknowledge dangerous factions of Islam. Its either "Islam is a religion of peace. Terrorist aren't Muslim" or "Bomb all the Muslims! Kick them out!"

Nobody is in the middle.

 

[Oaky]

I've met some people so regressive left, they don't even acknowledge dangerous factions of Islam. Its either "Islam is a religion of peace. Terrorist aren't Muslim" or "Bomb all the Muslims! Kick them out!"

Nobody is in the middle.

There are many in the middle. The one's people focus on are the ones that stand out which tends to be the abnormal.

 

[Avocado]

In that instance, I was talking specifically about people I've met in person and spoke to about the topic. The violent bombing comment seems much more prevalent where I live.

 

[Coriolis]

They don't pay taxes; their allegiance is not to the USA; they are guests, not citizens. The guests to any place usually don't have the same protections and rights as the citizens in any country. Do you think the Americans held hostage in Iran are given due process? or what about that Marine who accidentally entered Mexico with a firearm and was chained to a bed for 100 days?

I'd have no problem with anyone exercising those rights, but they shouldn't be extended to foreigners. Basically, I think Americans should be allowed to kick anyone out or refuse entry for any reason. Being in the USA is not a right for foreigners; it's a privilege.

I think all American tourists should expect to be screwed if they visit another nation.

In many cultures, guests are accorded even greater privileges than the host. Of course, even there there will be bad hosts who show aggression rather than hospitality. It all comes down to what sort of nation we want to be. Having the right to do something doesn't always make it the right thing to do. I would prefer to treat our guests well and have reasonable expectation of good treatment while travelling, especially since I do a fair amount of travelling.

For Americans..... not for non Americans.....

Go read the Declaration of Independence again. It states quite clearly the American position that these rights are inalienable, given by the Creator.

But we don't need any more imported, do we? Why not try to assimilate those we have.... the Germans, Irish, and Italians all got to assimilate, as we closed borders at various times. Even the founders were not in favor of non assimilated immigrants. Multiculturalism is not a goal of the nation. Diversity is not our goal.

Then these groups have not assimilated very well. Growing up I was well aware of which families were Irish or Italian or German in background. Our area was filled with foods, music, language, and art forms of cultures not indigenous to the US. It was quite enjoyable, really. Then I moved to another part of the country where most people were white middle class American, with little remaining of any imported culture. It was like a dimension had fallen out of my world. Over a decade later, and I can see the difference, as more Indians, Africans, and others move into the area. I enjoy it, and we have few diversity-related problems other than the usual black/white conflicts that seem to involve the blacks who have been here for generations, forced to immigrate as slaves, rather than those who came from Afica in their lifetimes.

But nothing you write of explains why leftists support Islam.....

I don't know of any "leftists" (whatever you consider that to be) who support Islam. I know many who oppose religious bias. See the difference?

ISIS is a non state actor. The Spanish Inquisition was a joint venture between the Spanish crown and the Vatican, both states at the times.

My point is that just like any one can say they are Christian, anyone can claim to be Muslim. Claims that ISIS isn't Islam are false, especially given the parts of the Koran they reference.

And no Christian is going to stone an adulterer today. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God by inspiration to the various authors, which is different than how Muslims view the Koran. So comparing historical religious practices is not just irrelevant, but illogical. One faith has its members still engaging in medieval barbarism and the other doesn't.

And we are not having wide scale murders of Baptists by Methodists today on the basis of religion, are we?

You are pointing at irrelevant differences. Is the violence of one group OK because it happened more than a few years ago, or because more or fewer political entities acknowledged its statehood? ISIS claims to be a caliphate, after all, and the first "S" stands for "state". I also know far too many Christians who still view the Bible as the literal "Word of God", perhaps like some of the Muslims you had in mind. On the other hand, many Christians nowadays rightfully denounce people like the recent shooter at the Planned Parenthood clinic as not representing true Christianity. Muslims can similarly denounce groups like ISIS as not representing true Islam. In fact, many in the west criticise Muslims for not doing enough of this.

You raise an interesting point about anyone being able to claim to be Christian, or Muslim. This alone shows the imnpossibility of enforcing a religious litmus test for entry to the US, by any means.

Oh, and about Christians stoning adulterers, I haven't seen that lately, but apparently they are still going after witches in some areas, targeting even young children.

Haven't they had enough time to get civilized? Isn't it indicative of the inherent problems with the religion that the violence is embedded in its foundation? Did Jesus and his Apostles wage warfare against Rome and conduct terrorist activities or foment revolution? Nope. Christianity grew while being repressed (unlike Islam) until Constantine the Great. That was 300 years.....a huge difference.

Apparently not. The growth of religions is not like the growth of crystals, predictable based on scientific principles, and even controllable by one who understands them. Culture seems to be a strong influence. I don't know about the habits of the early Jesus groups, but from the time of Constantine, the church became closely tied to the state, with all the coercive means of an autocratic government at its disposal. It is tempting to see the advent of more democratic political institutions as tempering the extremism of the church, and there is probably much truth in that. The Muslim democracies that do exist suggest a similar connection. We would do well to encourage progress on both fronts by engaging with the majority of Muslims who do not use or condone violence rather than lumping them in with the small but violent minority who claim the same faith.

Lol. Hmmm, members of one faith like to kill people in acts of terrorism, but hey, to you they are all the same?????? Silly.. your so-called objectivity is showing your extremely subjective values.

Most of our society was born here. And stopping immigration isn't isolationist or hypocritical, but again, that is a values position, not a logic one you put forth.

And we don't need anyone, at all. There are no job needs that can't be filled from the 95 million or so not on the workforce.

You seem to have a strong emotional investment in a very black and white version of reality. It is you who say "they are all the same", not me: all Muslims should be considered evil and suspect; all Christians are OK because the sins of their faith are all in the past. It is not subjective to recognize that most Muslims are peaceful and commit no crimes at all, just like Most Christians. That isn't my opinion or wishful thinking, it is a fact. Yes, I do prefer to judge people for their own actions, rather than to consider them guilty by association, especially when there hasn't even been any association. I suppose you could consider this a value rather than a fact, but it has been an American value since the founding of our nation. I for one think we should stay what way.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Then these groups have not assimilated very well.

They have assimilated into the civic values of the country. They share common ideals. Minor cultural differences are colorful.

I don't of any "leftists" (whatever you consider that to be) who support Islam. I know many who oppose religious bias. See the difference?

Actually, many leftists oppose Christianity.....and are dogmatic in that. All those with the need to try and shut down Christmas displays and ban Christmas carols (and don't call Winter break Christmas break, oh, no). Communists generally have opposed religion over the last hundred years.

You are pointing at irrelevant differences.

We generally put the actions of nations, especially with regards to legal process, into a very different category than terrorism. Executing criminals is generally viewed as a power of the state. You might disagree with the crimes, but even today countries have very different standards for punishment and crimes.

You raise an interesting point about anyone being able to claim to be Christian, or Muslim. This alone shows the imnpossibility of enforcing a religious litmus test for entry to the US, by any means.

Muslims are not allowed to deny being Muslim by their creed.

Oh, and about Christians stoning adulterers, I haven't seen that lately, but apparently they are still going after witches in some areas, targeting even young children.

Nigeria is a modern Western country, right? Lol....

The growth of religions is not like the growth of crystals, predictable based on scientific principles, and even controllable by one who understands them. Culture seems to be a strong influence. I don't know about the habits of the early Jesus groups, but from the time of Constantine, the church became closely tied to the state, with all the coercive means of an autocratic government at its disposal.

You don't know about mass persecution of Christians by Rome, feeding them to lions and such??

Better to say Christianity was corrupted by state control. In Islam's early days, there was no separation of church and state.

You seem to have a strong emotional investment in a very black and white version of reality.

Nope. I leave that to you and your worship of diversity.

It is not subjective to recognize that most Muslims are peaceful and commit no crimes at all, just like Most Christians.

We have seen repeatedly that radicalizing Muslims is pretty easy. We have case after case of "normal" people becoming terrorists.

We have surveys showing widespread support among Muslims for terrorist groups.

I don't condemn a entire population to mass extermination, but to refuse to actually look at the reality of which group is producing terrorists is ridiculous. Reasonable precautions should be made.

It is the folk tale of the old snake and the boy. The snake promised him he wouldn't bite if he carried him to water. Then he bit him. The boy asked why. The snake said, "you knew I was a snake."

Again, the topic isn't about what we should do about refugees or ISIS or the problems of Christianity in medieval times. No, it is why leftists who hate Christianity, so-called patriarchy, and barbarity feel the need to support Muslim extremist groups.

Here is something I saw today
feminist-academics-join-destroy-israel-movement.

The National Women’s Studies Association has voted by a huge majority to join the worldwide Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Their annual conference passed the measure by a 653-86 vote, and their full membership of 12,000 will vote on it in the next two months.

That means the NWSA is on the verge of becoming the fifth American academic association to boycott Israel since April 2013. It began then with the Association for Asian American Studies, and since that time the American Studies Association, the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, the American Anthropological Association, and now the NWSA have joined in.

The BDS movement is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and other radical and terror-supporting groups. Its aim is to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by putting an end to Israel. Its leader are quite explicit about that.

For example, As’ad Abu Khalil: “Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel.” Or Ahmed Moor: “OK, fine. So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…. In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.”

These academic groups all joined to support a Muslim Brotherhood related organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel.....sounds about right. Fits the profile of regressive leftists.

 

[Coriolis]

They have assimilated into the civic values of the country. They share common ideals. Minor cultural differences are colorful.

So is wearing a headscarf a "minor cultural difference"? How about importing organized crime from "home"? Or raising children like a "tiger mom"? Or disowning your child for marrying outside the faith? I have seen all of these things from Americans, and not even first-generation Americans, and only the first was by Muslims. Civic values are indeed important, and anyone wishing to live in the US should be prepared to abide by them. This still leaves substantial aspects of most cultural backgrounds free for retention, by Muslims and others.

Actually, many leftists oppose Christianity.....and are dogmatic in that. All those with the need to try and shut down Christmas displays and ban Christmas carols (and don't call Winter break Christmas break, oh, no). Communists generally have opposed religion over the last hundred years.

Most leftists - indeed, most reasonable people - oppose oppressive Christianity, the people who are in-your-face about it and think everyone should believe and conduct themselves exactly as they do. Even other Christians aren't good enough for these Christians. Usually when more tolerant folks oppose the Creche on the town square, it is after the town council has refused permission for a menorah, or Yule log, or something else to be placed there as well. There is a difference between opposing a religion, and opposing its imposition on everyone. The latter is not one of our civic values.

We generally put the actions of nations, especially with regards to legal process, into a very different category than terrorism.

So if we were to learn that the government of Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks, they would no longer qualify as terrorism? I'm sure that would be a comfort to the families of the deceased. Violence committed to incite fear is terrorism, whoever is responsible. If the law makes exceptions for government perpetrators, that is morally wrong, but perhaps an unfortunate aspect of realpolitik.

Muslims are not allowed to deny being Muslim by their creed.

I'm sure some justification could be found in the name of some "higher goal" supported by the same creed. Terrorists identifying as Muslim are already violating many injunctions of the Quran, as many Muslim clerics have been quick to point out. It's about power, not faith, just like rape is about power, not sex.

Nigeria is a modern Western country, right? Lol....

You didn't specify where, you just mentioned "Christians". This example illustrates that these backward and violent tendencies are symptomatic of the culture rather than faith.

I don't condemn a entire population to mass extermination, but to refuse to actually look at the reality of which group is producing terrorists is ridiculous. Reasonable precautions should be made.

There is nothing wrong with looking, only with assuming. I prefer to target our scrutiny using more meaningful and verifiable measures, though. For instance, we should scrutinize anyone coming from certain parts of the world, such as anywhere that ISIS is active. This includes Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Persians, Europeans, even American citizens. Of course we don't deprive our citizens of due process, but I would be very curious as to what an American is doing in that part of the world, unless a reporter or part of a relief mission.

Again, the topic isn't about what we should do about refugees or ISIS or the problems of Christianity in medieval times. No, it is why leftists who hate Christianity, so-called patriarchy, and barbarity feel the need to support Muslim extremist groups.

Again, the problem isn't with the Muslim faith, any more than with the Christian faith. That is the purpose of revisiting the history of Christian violence. It shows how both faiths can be used equally to justify violence and to promote peace. Which interpretation is used depends on the people involved, whether Muslim or Christian. The fact that there are more Muslims right now than Christians following a violent faith interpretation does not change the fact that both are small minorities. In other words, in a vast majority of cases, peaceful interpretations of Islam are followed. Better to ask therefore: why are certain groups today continuing to promote a violent interpretation of Islam (while most are not), and how can we encourage them, or at least their supporters, to abandon this interpretation in favor of more peaceful interpretations?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Civic values are indeed important, and anyone wishing to live in the US should be prepared to abide by them. This still leaves substantial aspects of most cultural backgrounds free for retention, by Muslims and others.

And so we should require acceptance of the values and exclude those who refuse...... but leftists have attacked these civic values.....

Most leftists - indeed, most reasonable people - oppose oppressive Christianity, the people who are in-your-face about it and think everyone should believe and conduct themselves exactly as they do.

Oppressive Christianity????? Oh, what an evil sight! Of, course, given we have so many different sects believing differently. You throw up a ridiculous straw man argument. Oh, if you support Christianity you are not reasonable, oh, no! But the head chopping, women repressing, honor killing, terrorist producing religion is just fine, lol....

Usually when more tolerant folks oppose the Creche on the town square, it is after the town council has refused permission for a menorah, or Yule log, or something else to be placed there as well.

A complete lie. Anti-Christian activists have targeted even those types. And generic prayers. And monents of silence. And "in God we trust". And a many more. Your pagan prejudice is showing.

So if we were to learn that the government of Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks, they would no longer qualify as terrorism?

Yes, they would be an act of war. Like Pearl Harbor. Covert attacks are acts of war.

Violence committed to incite fear is terrorism, whoever is responsible. If the law makes exceptions for government perpetrators, that is morally wrong, but perhaps an unfortunate aspect of realpolitik.

War is morally wrong unless you are defending yourself. But that standard is extremely loose. GWB justified invading Iraq as a defensive measure....

You didn't specify where, you just mentioned "Christians". This example illustrates that these backward and violent tendencies are symptomatic of the culture rather than faith.

So let's condemn all barbarians and exclude them.

There is nothing wrong with looking, only with assuming. I prefer to target our scrutiny using more meaningful and verifiable measures, though. For instance, we should scrutinize anyone coming from certain parts of the world, such as anywhere that ISIS is active. This includes Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Persians, Europeans, even American citizens. Of course we don't deprive our citizens of due process, but I would be very curious as to what an American is doing in that part of the world, unless a reporter or part of a relief mission.

We need to apply strict investigation, but we are not.

Again, the problem isn't with the Muslim faith, any more than with the Christian faith. That is the purpose of revisiting the history of Christian violence. It shows how both faiths can be used equally to justify violence and to promote peace. Which interpretation is used depends on the people involved, whether Muslim or Christian. The fact that there are more Muslims right now than Christians following a violent faith interpretation does not change the fact that both are small minorities. In other words, in a vast majority of cases, peaceful interpretations of Islam are followed. Better to ask therefore: why are certain groups today continuing to promote a violent interpretation of Islam (while most are not), and how can we encourage them, or at least their supporters, to abandon this interpretation in favor of more peaceful interpretations?

The pagans killed millions long ago, should we look at them, too? Ancient history is ancient history, but contemporary practice is what matters. And we know what group needs extra scrutiny, don't we? We know what group has easily radicalized members, don't we? If Hindus were conducting world wide terrorists acts, we would look at them more carefully.....

 

[21%]

I would like to point out that given the correct circumstances, it's very easy to turn any group of people extremist. In any conflict, what you really want to avoid is creating that us-against-them mentality that taps into something tribal in the human instinct. Anger fuels anger. Hatred fuels hatred. Suddenly you have angry mobs on both sides going at each other's throats. It can get really, really ugly.

I speak from first-hand experience: we had a political situation that divided the nation. People were angry. Emotions were high on both sides. Then someone in the midst of an angry crowd threw a rock. The next thing we knew, people were dying. And you'd be shocked at the number of normal, respectable good people who said "Well, they deserved it." A few voices of reason spoke up and reminded us not to abandon our humanity, but were quickly ridiculed for their rose-tinted glasses and drowned out by angry shouts. The violence continued, and more people died, and people got angrier and angrier. Then even more people died. I saw it happen, and it taught me a valuable lesson: when you're afraid, you're angry, and when you're angry, you cannot listen to reason.

I think the best thing to do right now is to not propel anymore of this us-against-them atmosphere that is going on. I think it's more important to stand united with non-violent sects and work with them against the violence. Throwing out blanket criticism of Islam as a whole is not going to achieve that.

 

[geedoenfj]

I would like to point out that given the correct circumstances, it's very easy to turn any group of people extremist. In any conflict, what you really want to avoid is creating that us-against-them mentality that taps into something tribal in the human instinct. Anger fuels anger. Hatred fuels hatred. Suddenly you have angry mobs on both sides going at each other's throats. It can get really, really ugly.

Well thank you very much for pointing that out, this is crucial..
We better focus on possible solutions than to have pointless argument about who is better than who, and full ourselves with that prejudice that destroys rather than build anything, that's why I basically dropped out of the discussion in this post on the first place..

I speak from first-hand experience: we had a political situation that divided the nation. People were angry. Emotions were high on both sides. Then someone in the midst of an angry crowd threw a rock. The next thing we knew, people were dying. And you'd be shocked at the number of normal, respectable good people who said "Well, they deserved it." A few voices of reason spoke up and reminded us not to abandon our humanity, but were quickly ridiculed for their rose-tinted glasses and drowned out by angry shouts. The violence continued, and more people died, and people got angrier and angrier. Then even more people died. I saw it happen, and it taught me a valuable lesson: when you're afraid, you're angry, and when you're angry, you cannot listen to reason.

This happened in every where in the world, WE ARE PEOPLE that's what people do, they conflict fight then learn a lesson then make peace.. And extreme troops have appeared everywhere in most of the religions, and the fact that Islamic troops gain so much power is because there are many circumstances aside from the religion and culture etc. that helped in that, and these factors are what we should work on..

I think the best thing to do right now is to not propel anymore of this us-against-them atmosphere that is going on. I think it's more important to stand united with non-violent sects and work with them against the violence. Throwing out blanket criticism of Islam as a whole is not going to achieve that.

I'm 28, I live in the Middle East, I've never been out of the Middle East in any point of my life, ( I wish I would never have to) I survived 3 wars and hoping to survive this 4th one, at least I'm in a better situation than those who live in the core of conflict..
I never met any terrorist or people with mass killing ideas in my whole life! I think many people outside Middle East are not understanding what's going on (neither do I to be honest)
But I can tell you from my experience from what I was taught and what I was brought up to believe, so we can make a better idea of what's going on, we never been taught at school that Islam is about killing others, never in school never at home, never in the Mosque, never at the media;
We were taught that we should respect other peoples' religion and they should respect our religion,I remember memorizing that chapter when I was at 1st grade
We were taught that a non Muslim living in our country is a citizen and to be protected, and we are all responsible for their safety because they fall under the minority's rights (ahl aldhimma)
We were taught that Abu Talib Mohammed's uncle never became a Muslim but we have a deep respect for him because he's a wise and generous man and with high ethical standards, I remember being taught that when I was 7th grade
We were taught that human beings are equal in humanity whether they're male or female, no matter what tribe they are from or ethnicity, and God created diversity so we could get to know one another, and the best of us is the closest to God (only God can decide that)
We should believe in Moses and Jesus as much as we believe in Mohammed..
We've been taught that different opinions within the religion is a mercy that God put upon us, because it enriches the society and should not been taken into a conflict or violate the main teachings of the religion..
We've been taught that killing is one of the seven biggest trespass
We were taught that smiling is the least good you could do to others..
We were taught that Muslims were refugees under a Christian African king who Mohammed told his fellow Muslims to go to him because he's a man that no one will be treated inequity under his terms, and those Muslims stayed there without making troubles..
We were taught that Jihad had specific limitations, and the biggest Jihad is fighting your inner evilness, and we should always avoid harming a life of any man or cause him a fear, because if you're killing a human being is killing the humankind, and if you give a life to a human being, you're giving a life to humankind, I remember exactly when I taught that at school at age 14 in the 8th grade..

Given that I'm a pretty good reader specially before I got married, but until I was 17 I've never heard of the idea of bloody Islamic history until some atheists and other non Muslim extremists minority's members brought up the subject on some websites and forums, and their stories is a complete opposite of what I've been and most average Muslims has been taught all their life, I of course started a journey of searching and reading and questioning my belief and arguing with my family who never heard about it and occasionally Islamic scholars until I was able to come to conclusions that made up my belief system..
Anyway the bottom line, I can comfortably say that I'm sure if I argue with the next Muslim sitting beside me about it he would have absolutely no idea what the hell I'm talking about, thus bringing those issues up specially that these are not from trusted sources is actually what popularize the aggression and spreading the ideas of violence and revenge etc. and if these Non Muslim people who are claiming Islam to be violent is just stop bringing that up, probably no one would ever have known about them..
And let's say the history is full of blood, OK? Now what's the best possible way to keep people away from it evilness? The best way is focusing only on good aspects and that's what we are doing at schools and society (though it seems to be not enough since there are 0.004% something of Muslim population are terrorists) and that's what some Islamophobics keep destroying by keep insulting the religion and bringing so much anger and racism on the surface..

 

[Avocado]

Well, both positions argued here have good points. I'll take the average and say its important to treat everybody well, even if there are serious issues with whatever dogma is in a book they claim to venerate. Its the true believers that worry me the most, as casual believers can still be reasoned with. That said, I've seen people get attacked physically in my area just for "looking" muslim. This is unacceptable and I got the cops out there.