More demands from Islam

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nowhere today do Christian fundamentalists or any other sort of fundamentalists exist in such numbers and employ such tactics as extremist Muslims you'll find in Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in the U.S. When the radical Christianists blow up a major building or commit a really bad act in the name of Jesus, I might change my opinion.

Not religious, but there has been governments, in the name of fighting terrorism, squashing rights. Killing indiscriminately, arresting people left and right for their religious believe and holding people for being in the wrong place and the wrong time, while exporting them to nations where they can be tortured. Find that as wrong, even more wrong then what Al-Qaeda have done. Whereas Al-Qaeda can and will be destroyed, these governments and their allies will only create another Al-Qaeda in the future.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

Not religious, but there has been governments, in the name of fighting terrorism, squashing rights. Killing indiscriminately, arresting people left and right for their religious believe and holding people for being in the wrong place and the wrong time, while exporting them to nations where they can be tortured. Find that as wrong, even more wrong then what Al-Qaeda have done. Whereas Al-Qaeda can and will be destroyed, these governments and their allies will only create another Al-Qaeda in the future.

You find it more wrong that Al-Quada? or just as wrong and worse because you imagine it to be less easy to destroy?

If, as I suspect you do, you mean the US, I think you're claims are somewhat exaggerated and misrepresented. (I'm afraid that being at war does sometimes result in less discriminate killing than would be ideal, but while the actions of the US have been deeply flawed in individual cases, a perfect fight against terrorism is going to be tough to pull off.) I'd like the US to be more cautious and I'd like the US always to be making the case for a better way of life and doing things by not stooping to the methods used by our opponents. I'm pretty disgusted by some of our actions, and yet, I don't think that we'd be better off not doing anything at all. We've just got to be really careful about what we do.

I have conflicted attitudes about how much "tolerance" we should show to any religious believers. I don't think state funds should generally be spent on promoting the interest on one faith, and yet, I think our tradition of religious tolerance is a good one. I think we should try to honor matters of conscious as much as we can.

I think that a pharmacy chain that is willing to advertise that they will not carry certain forms of birth control or a taxi cab company that is willing to advertise that they won't accept passengers who are carrying alcohol are fine in the general marketplace. But I don't think that they should be able to seek state contracts that involve service to all customers (like an airport taxi line). I'm still working out what I think about catholic charity hospitals receiving state funds for some services like ER services but refusing to provide birth control or abortion services. (remember some of the charges against Joe Lieberman being "rape gurney Joe?")

I think we may lately be getting kind of confused about having "rights" to things simply because they aren't illegal. Should you have a legal expectation that you can get birth control at any pharmacy or can people who don't believe in certain forms of birth control have a legal expectation of working at and supporting business who share their values?

All that said, I think that it's going to be imperative that we resist any efforts to have separate legal systems or to allow certain churches to limit the civil rights of non-members generally out of a goofy effort to be "sensitive" to beliefs.

[shinerbock]

Man, that Westboro Baptist Church, always killing folks and such...They're disgusting, but they don't walk into crowded places and detonate bombs.

The idea that we should avoid labeling the terrorism we face "islamic extremism" is ridiculous. That is precisely where the threat comes from. Acknowledging a threat isn't prejudiced.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I guess there's you too.



All your posts in this thread are just speculation. And not even valid speculation. "Well maybe capitalism is bad, maybe Christianity is a terrible religion too, maybe we should all smoke pot, hold hands, and do an interpretive dance to express our feelings."

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is the matter with you. Why can't you just recognize the facts?
No one on here has stated that they are anti muslim. Everyone except for you can honestly say that "Yes, radical muslims are more likely to be terrorists." It's not supposed to be an attack on the religion, it's just the plain truth. So quit trying to rationalize the radicals that end up breeding terrorists.

And please don't take my post to be a personal insult. I have a couple liberal friends, but no one has ever compared to you.

Exalt

[Drolefille]

Some people are acting like Christians never blow things up in the name of their religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Some people are acting like Christians never blow things up in the name of their religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Nobody is acting like that.

I just cannot comprehend why people go to such lengths to avoid saying who is responsible for the the threats we face. Unbelievable.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Nobody is acting like that.

I just cannot comprehend why people go to such lengths to avoid saying who is responsible for the the threats we face. Unbelievable.

Fair enough, but I won't associate a whole religion with terrorism because of it. Every Catholic does not support child molestors, AND it's not what the religion stands for. Same with Islam, not only does every Muslim not support terrorism, but it's NOT what Islam stands for and that's the problem I have when people try to pinpoint terror.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Fair enough, but I won't associate a whole religion with terrorism because of it. Every Catholic does not support child molestors, AND it's not what the religion stands for. Same with Islam, not only does every Muslim not support terrorism, but it's NOT what Islam stands for and that's the problem I have when people try to pinpoint terror.

You're right, but Islamic fundamentalism is the the biggest source of terrorism with regard to the United States. The huge majority of people acknowledge that most Muslims are the same as the rest of us, but certain entities still refuse to acknowledge the threat.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right, but Islamic fundamentalism is the the biggest source of terrorism with regard to the United States. The huge majority of people acknowledge that most Muslims are the same as the rest of us, but certain entities still refuse to acknowledge the threat.

I agree. My only complaint is titles like "More demands from Islam" and the idea that we're in a war on Islam. And we have to understand that to Joe Muslim in the Middle East when we say "War on Islamic Terrorism" that sounds like a "War on Islam." Those are the situations when "political correctness" is actually warranted because we have political allies who we can ostracize if we're not careful.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

All your posts in this thread are just speculation. And not even valid speculation. "Well maybe capitalism is bad, maybe Christianity is a terrible religion too"

Not really speculation though is it? - Christianity HAS done terrible and horrifying things, Capitalism HAS done terrible and horrifying things - it's all a matter of keeping perspective and looking objectively at a larger picture that takes in the whole of an ideology or belief system. So while Christianity, Islam, Communism, Capitalism, etc. have all done horrible and terrible things (and continue to do so) they have also contributed positively to the greater whole of humanity either directly or indirectly, so it's silly or indicative of a personal bias to single one out as overtly evil because of the actions of a minority.

maybe we should all smoke pot, hold hands, and do an interpretive dance to express our feelings."

Umm... sure but only if you do it in the middle of the highway.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is the matter with you.

I think for myself, and consider more than one perspective?

Why can't you just recognize the facts?

Sorry but opinion doesn't equal fact.

No one on here has stated that they are anti muslim.

Not directly no, but the tone and ignorance displayed by some all but spell it out...

Everyone except for you can honestly say that "Yes, radical muslims are more likely to be terrorists."

Well at least you qualified it with the important term radical, others haven't bothered to use that which to is again indicative of at the very least an anti-Muslim attitude or bias - you on the other hand have at least realized that there are differences in the ideologies of Muslims, with some being radical or extremists.

It's not supposed to be an attack on the religion, it's just the plain truth. So quit trying to rationalize the radicals that end up breeding terrorists.

Again opinion doesn't equal fact, or the truth - and as you pointed out it's the radicals not the whole, something that many posters here seem to forget... I guess many of them equate Muslim and radical as the same thing unfortunately.

And please don't take my post to be a personal insult. I have a couple liberal friends, but no one has ever compared to you.

Calling me a liberal is a personal insult actually - I'm a old school Red Tory, which I know must be confusing since it's a conservative tradition pro-intellectual and pro-pluralism so I don't tend to spout the "required" conservative dogma of the new conservatives and republicans (small 'r' for a reason).

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I think, and hope, that most posters realize that the crazies bombing everyone aren't representative of the entire religion. And I wasn't denying that all those groups have done terrible things. I just find myself at a loss as to why you wanted to bring Christianity and capitalism and communism to this discussion instead of addressing the issue- RADICAL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST THREATS! That's it. The end. There can be no discussion about that.

Sure there can be discussion, since as long as people continue going off that "itz teh muzlimz!!!" they are oversimplifying the issue and/or exercising a bit of self delusion in thinking that it's only the fanatics of one ideology that are a threat. One, it means your missing out on other threats, and two by simplifying so you turn it into the "Muslims are a threat" not "fanatical extremists are a threat".

I don't care about every other group mentioned because you know what? They haven't annihilated thousands of Americans recently.

Really now? I'd beg to differ there given the murder-by-neglect of tens of thousands of Americans each year because of a health service and industry devoted fanatically to capitalism... but hey why quibble when there's a handy different looking and thinking person to play the only threat to American lives

If you think all of this is just my opinion, then we will have to agree to disagree. Of course I am bias. Radical muslims murdered thousands of innocent citizens and now we have to spend our time and our resources on kicking their asses half a world away.

Ironically created scads more willing recruits in the process... self delusion and over simplification of a threat can be a dangerous thing because it can create a bigger mess - but again that's just my opinion.

And being a Red Tory? If I'm not mistaken, you're similar to the republicans here that have loved John McCain from day one. Canadian conservatives are American liberals.

Well McCain is the lesser of the conservative "evils" in the running for the US prez - I think most Red Tories would support him happily over Huckabee (social conservative and evangelical) or Ron Paul (bat crazy Libertarian - pretty much the opposite of Red Tory)... but in the end most Red Tories would rather see Obama elected I think since he'd be easier to deal with given his distance from certain lobby groups, and it'd hopefully mean a crash and burn for the Republican party - the ripple effect of which my purge the republican, neo-con, and libertarian taints infesting the Conservative party up here.

[UGAalum94]

RACooper,

You really thing the US health care system equals murder by neglect rather than suicide by fried food and ignorance?

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

RACooper,

You really thing the US health care system equals murder by neglect rather than suicide by fried food and ignorance?

At best I think it's that - at worst I'd argue willful murder for a profit really when you look at the whole drug and insurance debacle you've all got going on down there.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RACooper

At best I think it's that - at worst I'd argue willful murder for a profit really when you look at the whole drug and insurance debacle you've all got going on down there.

For what it's worth, I think it's a real hard argument to actually make well. How loosely do you have to define murder to even start making it?

Of course I have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on, but I think your perception of the actual effects of our "whole drug and insurance debacle" might be a little overblown if you are going to equate it with willful murder.