Islamists aim to build a "parallel society" in Canada

[Mr Skeptic]

So are you saying that Muslims are dangerous too, but you say that they're not dangerous because their numbers are smaller? Did I read that right?

 

Nope, but you twisted it so that it sounds evil and nasty. Here, let me give you an example:

The Republicans by and large aren't terrified of nor have expressed much disagreement with, the United States Pirate Party. Now tell me, is that because they agree with them, or because they are no danger due to their small numbers? And suppose that some politicians were to suggest banning the members of the United States Pirate Party from having guns, what do you think the Republicans would think of that? Would they not support their rights to own guns even though they disagree with them? Would they not see that as a Constitutional issue?

 

The left are standing up for discriminated minorities, yes, but that doesn't mean that they agree with them nor that they'd allow said minorities to pass laws that violate other people's rights.

 

Meanwhile, the Christian right is complaining about the First Amendment, cause it gets in the way of them getting their way, of legislating their morality and having their stuff taught in public schools as the truth. They have and will continue to vote for and actually pass things that the left disapprove of.

 

---

 

To put it another way, are you complaining that the left won't stand up for the poor and downtrodden when such become the majority and start trampling on everyone else?

[padren]

Is that what they want a isolated community or Islamic court? Why is Sharai Law less in direct conflict ?

What is causing this movement ? Are Western Islamic struggling with a moderate Western way of life .

Sharai Law just like Biblical law or Scientology principles can be interpreted as being above "worldly laws" or not, it depends on the specific practitioners. Some will always be extreme and many will not be. As for Western Islam struggling in the West, I haven't seen any evidence of that aside from the reactionaries loosing their heads over the odd community center - but that isn't an issue with Islamic integration, it's "Real America" that is having trouble adopting a moderate Western way of life.

 

What groups of same issue? The religious nature in the US and Canada is very complex has it is saying you can believe in any religione.So religious law would conflit if you have other belief system.That say you 14 or 22 years old in religious community and your parents and family are very religious you not or believe in other religione would the Amendment of the constitution be in conflit .

Any group that believes they should have distinct laws separate and above state and federal laws will have a conflict.

 

It works like this: If a law interferes with your practice of religion, you can challenge the law. If the law exists to protect the rights of others, and granting the challenge would violate the Constitutional Rights of other people, the challenge will fail - you can't use a constitutional religious rights to trump another person's constitutional rights. If the law does not protect the rights of others, then the challenge will probably succeed.

 

Even the first Amendment of the constitution would be in conflit ?

 

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.[/b]

 

Read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

So is it time for the constitution to be change to make easer?

The First Amendment is fine as it is, I don't understand what needs to be "easier" or changed. You cannot use the First Amendment to justify that you have a right to obstruct other people's first, second, third - or any Amendment rights.

My view is law on the freedom of speech makes it illegal for the state to do any thing.In such way in courts Scientology would say this is freedom of speech .

Not when it extends to liable, trespassing, breaking and entering, breaches anti-stalking laws, wire-tapping laws, or any other law that protects people from harassment. No religious group has special privileges to harass others above and beyond the amount already protected via freedom of speech.

That is the confict of seporation of curch and state law and religious law .And every group that wants own law .

 

But the problem is these people do not want to live in seporation of church and state law but under a religious law .Look at the gays, lesbians, abortion and sex and there is major conflit here.They view seporation of church and state is very evile .

 

And still have killings over gays, lesbians and abortion .Even the Islamic leaders are in confict with other Islamic leaders if women is person and if should be coverd or not .There are Islamic sects that say a women is not person but low life .Such Islamic confict with other Islamic confict .

First, when someone kills a homosexual person they are charged with murder, and quite likely a hate crime if they were targeted for their sexuality. We have people murdering people over those issues, but we also have people murdering over money and romantic jealousy, along with every other possible motive. People who commit murder go on trial for murder, regardless of their faith or reasons. As for women - in this country at least, any women can refuse to wear face coverings and even walk away from her entire religion if she wants to. A Jehovah's Witness may insist that his wife not be given a blood transfusion in a hospital - but his wife can still legally say "Screw that, I want the transfusion" and no amount of church doctrine on "respecting your husband" or "blood transfusions are wrong" beliefs can override her decision if she makes it.

 

Wanting own community is different than own court.If non Muslims goes into a Muslims community they must do want the community is saying is right or wrong/

That is true in any community to the extent that their local laws do not conflict with state or federal laws. If any community (religious or otherwise) enacts a local law that violates constitutional protections against search and seizure for instance, a person can refuse and will ultimately win in court. Even if the community found evidence of criminal activity - if it was an illegal search that evidence cannot be used against the person.

[Pangloss]

The religious right has actually done things, e.g. creationism in schools, despite court rulings that it's unconstitutional. Is it fear-mongering (or at the same level) to point out things that have actually taken place?

 

Yes, it is. It's fear-mongering to imply that the law has not been followed by the religious right. Why, hiring a good lawyer and special interest group to rally your cause and attempt to find loopholes and ways around regulations is the American way, swansont! Just as NOW, the ACLU, labor unions, environmental groups, peace activists, etc.

 

So as far as I can tell the comparison with Muslims asking for exceptions to the law is accurate.

 

 

Is the left claiming that the religious right has attacked the country, and is planning to do so again? If an attempt at passing something contained in Sharia law which had no secular purpose actually happened, the left would fight it as a first amendment issue.

 

Yes, I believe that. After finding a way to make it the fault of conservatives, of course.

 

 

The Republicans by and large aren't terrified of nor have expressed much disagreement with, the United States Pirate Party. Now tell me, is that because they agree with them, or because they are no danger due to their small numbers? And suppose that some politicians were to suggest banning the members of the United States Pirate Party from having guns, what do you think the Republicans would think of that? Would they not support their rights to own guns even though they disagree with them? Would they not see that as a Constitutional issue?

 

What I think is that comparing the nation's 2.5 million Muslims with a weird political splinter group is invalid. As far as I know we haven't been attacked by any terrorists claiming affiliation with that group, nor does its presence in the politial landscape (or the ideologies behind it) cause a rift in the larger body of conservatives, the way Muslim extremists are causing a rift within the body of mainstream Muslims.

 

 

Meanwhile, the Christian right is complaining about the First Amendment, cause it gets in the way of them getting their way, of legislating their morality and having their stuff taught in public schools as the truth. They have and will continue to vote for and actually pass things that the left disapprove of.

 

True, and the secular/atheist left does the exact same thing. Beyond the logical folks who just want biology teachers left alone, there are those who want to push a secular-progressive agenda onto school children so they can win their little hearts and minds and make an end run around their knuckleheaded parents. But you're right, it's true that the Christian right does that too. And I can understand why you see that as more of a threat, since there are more of them.

 

What I don't understand is why, in order to deal with the Christian right, we have to embrace the secular-progressive left. We're constantly fed an ideological merry-go-'round, a choice between one extreme and another. As opposed to a solution involving what used to be normal people and normal behavior.

[padren]

So are you saying that Muslims are dangerous too, but you say that they're not dangerous because their numbers are smaller? Did I read that right?

 

If that's representative of liberal opinion it's pretty fascinating. It seems contrary to what the left says, which is that it's standing up for downtrodden, scapegoated western Muslims. Apparently what that really means is "until they acquire as much political power as Christians". I wonder, then, why Whoopi Goldberg walked out on Bill O'Reilly when he said we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11. I mean, if the only difference between what the left thinks of western Muslims and what the right thinks of western Muslims is a matter of relative political power, then I wonder why she was so offended.

 

Pangloss, the Christian Right has been trying to argue that America is a Christian nation in one manner or another since the Pilgrims ran out of beer off Plymouth Rock. You are also making poor generalizations: the "downtrodden, scapegoated western Muslims" are not the Muslims wanting to create a set of laws above State or Federal law. In case you missed that: the Muslims the left stands up for are not the Muslims wanting to create a set of laws above State or Federal law.

 

I think you'll find the Left stands up for any Christian that is having their rights violated or is being unfairly scapegoated as well - regardless of the actions of the Religious Right. That's simply called a rational approach where people are not bunched into unfair generalized stereotypes but instead are judged on their actions and unique characteristics.

 

I'll say for the record that any Muslim that wants to pass a law that gives Muslims special rights is equally condemnable by the left as any Christian doing the same thing (random fruitcakes aside of course). It's just that (outside of the right wing wharrgarbl machine) it is obvious Muslims are not getting special treatment. Seriously, they can't even build a community center in NY without getting a wave of wharrgarbl, which interestingly enough no one in NY even cared about until the Wharrgarbl Machine started screaming "EVERYONE IS ANGRY THEY WERE INTENSIVE BY BUILDING THERE!" and people decided "Well if they made everyone angry, I guess that's kinda insensitive..."

 

 

Before you try to make these comparisons, could you maybe come up with... perhaps a single shred of evidence that Muslims are trying to get their own special laws?

The only evidence I've found so far is your bad judge reference and that woman that wanted her face covered in her driver's license photo - both failed miserably and were not representative of any larger Muslim community.

 

 

PS: Would you please let me know how you came to that apparently debunked idea that the TSA was considering special privileges for Muslims getting on planes? I'd like to know if there is some truth to that which is just really hard to find, or if you decided to concede it was just misinformation from the Wharrgarbl Machine.

Edited November 19, 2010 by padren

[ydoaPs]

Yes, it is. It's fear-mongering to imply that the law has not been followed by the religious right.

I'm not sure whether or not that is sarcasm. There's a load of difference between repeatedly doing something that has been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and trying to build a church, community centre, or gated community. It's not as though the Left is attempting to get the Koran used as a science textbook.

 

The Left stands up for the reasonable things that Muslims do, because they are attempting to exercise their rights that Christians get, but they get protested. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but the Left actually cares about letting the minority groups have the same rights that the majority have-you know, the ones that are guaranteed by the Constitution that the Right loves so much yet doesn't seem to have actually read.

 

It's not the Left that tried to remove the right of Habeas Corpus from American an American Citizen. It's not the Left that incessantly tries to violate the Establishment Clause. It's not the Left that wants to violate the 14th amendment with regard to marriage.

 

And we don't need to imply that the law has not been followed by the Right; there are SEVERAL cases where they have attempted teaching Creationism AFTER it has been declared unconstitutional to do so.

 

What I think is that comparing the nation's 2.5 million Muslims with a weird political splinter group is invalid. As far as I know we haven't been attacked by any terrorists claiming affiliation with that group, nor does its presence in the politial landscape (or the ideologies behind it) cause a rift in the larger body of conservatives, the way Muslim extremists are causing a rift within the body of mainstream Muslims.

Should we rather compare them to the religious majority with a weird political splinter group having been claimed to had affiliation with several terrorist attacks within our country?

 

there are those who want to push a secular-progressive agenda onto school children so they can win their little hearts and minds and make an end run around their knuckleheaded parents.

Really? Like?

 

As opposed to a solution involving what used to be normal people and normal behavior.

What's so good about 'normal'?

 

 

As for the OP, there is no difference between these Muslims setting up a gated community in which there are rules more strict than the local, state, and federal laws and the Amish or the Mennonites doing the same thing. They still wouldn't be able to violate the local, state, and federal laws; they would just hold themselves to what they feel is a higher standard.

 

The government report even explicitly stated that this group is nonviolent, so what's the big deal?

Edited November 19, 2010 by ydoaPs

[swansont]

Yes, it is. It's fear-mongering to imply that the law has not been followed by the religious right. Why, hiring a good lawyer and special interest group to rally your cause and attempt to find loopholes and ways around regulations is the American way, swansont! Just as NOW, the ACLU, labor unions, environmental groups, peace activists, etc.

 

So as far as I can tell the comparison with Muslims asking for exceptions to the law is accurate.

 

1. Imply? It has actually happened. No implication necessary. People had to bring lawsuits to get the situation corrected. However, if it's the American way, why so much pushback from the right?

 

2. Have you an example of "Muslims asking for exceptions to the law" ? (not a Muslim. Muslims, plural, as in a concerted effort to have a different set of laws applied to them)

 

The main difference I see here is actual vs hypothetical. Fact vs fiction.

 

Yes, I believe that. After finding a way to make it the fault of conservatives, of course.

 

 

Of course. Just as the converse would hold.

 

 

What I think is that comparing the nation's 2.5 million Muslims with a weird political splinter group is invalid. As far as I know we haven't been attacked by any terrorists claiming affiliation with that group, nor does its presence in the politial landscape (or the ideologies behind it) cause a rift in the larger body of conservatives, the way Muslim extremists are causing a rift within the body of mainstream Muslims.

 

 

But that's the point — it's the splinter group that's causing the rift, and that's the group you need to be focusing on, not the larger group.

[nec209]

Is the left claiming that the religious right has attacked the country, and is planning to do so again? If an attempt at passing something contained in Sharia law which had no secular purpose actually happened, the left would fight it as a first amendment issue.

 

 

My understanding the left will attack religious right has they are anti-religious and fear the growth of it.So will fight Sharia law if it going to teach god in school and have church and state all one.

 

 

 

As for Western Islam struggling in the West, I haven't seen any evidence of that aside from the reactionaries loosing their heads over the odd community center

 

Not sure , I thought it was Islam saying the west is evile and having hard time to live in state that is secular.

 

 

but that isn't an issue with Islamic integration, it's "Real America™" that is having trouble adopting a moderate Western way of life.

 

Not sure what you mean but not all think the US is evile and secular law has to go.It sort of Islamophobia to say all think the US is evile and secular law has to go.

 

As for the OP, there is no difference between these Muslims setting up a gated community in which there are rules more strict than the local, state, and federal laws and the Amish or the Mennonites doing the same thing. They still wouldn't be able to violate the local, state, and federal laws; they would just hold themselves to what they feel is a higher standard.

 

My view is the problem is some Muslims view secular has evile and thus want a community or court that is not secular but church and state all one.Well such laws women will not be allowed to work and have to be covered from head to toe among no drinking and porn illegal..

 

there are those who want to push a secular-progressive agenda onto school children so they can win their little hearts and minds and make an end run around their knuckleheaded parents.

 

 

It is the left who are trying to do that.

 

 

 

What I don't understand is why, in order to deal with the Christian right, we have to embrace the secular-progressive left. We're constantly fed an ideological merry-go-'round, a choice between one extreme and another. As opposed to a solution involving what used to be normal people and normal behavior.

 

It is the left who want a secular-progressive very ver very bad has they are anti-religious and will attack religious right .

[swansont]

Any group that believes they should have distinct laws separate and above state and federal laws will have a conflict.

 

It works like this: If a law interferes with your practice of religion, you can challenge the law. If the law exists to protect the rights of others, and granting the challenge would violate the Constitutional Rights of other people, the challenge will fail - you can't use a constitutional religious rights to trump another person's constitutional rights. If the law does not protect the rights of others, then the challenge will probably succeed.

 

True for beliefs, but I don't think it's that expansive for actions (in the US). If the state has a valid secular reason (I believe the term is "compelling interest") to outlaw some action— that is, the law is not there for the express purpose of restricting a religion — the first amendment is not a guarantee that the action can take place . The government has the power to accommodate the action, but are not required to do so. It would not allow for human sacrifice, for example. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, it was ruled that the state can outlaw peyote, even though it is used in religious ceremonies.

 

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [494 U.S. 872, 879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872

 

The notion dates back to Reynolds v. U.S., in 1878, which upheld a bigamy law

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145#165

[ydoaPs]

My understanding the left will attack religious right has they are anti-religious and fear the growth of it.

 

That is rediculous in the face of the facts. The Left supports religious freedom. It is the Right that flips out every time Muslims want to build a church, community centre, or gated community.

 

So will fight Sharia law if it going to teach god in school and have church and state all one.

 

Not really. If they are having God in government funded schools or have government mandated religion, then yes. That, however, is not what is going on here; they have the same religious freedom as the Mennonites or the Amish to form religious gated communities so long as they also obey the local, state, and federal laws. There's a world of difference between being anti-religion and supporting rights.

 

Note that, as we are talking about Canada, we need to take into account Canada's law. They have no equivalent to the Establishment Clause of the US Bill of Rights, they do have constitutionally guaranteed(Section 2) Freedom of Religion and, in 1955, the Canadian ruled that all religions have equal rights in Chaput v. Romain. This seems to indicate that, according to Canadian legislature, there is no reason to deny this group the right to a gated community when Mennonites and Amish have the same.

 

Not sure , I thought it was Islam saying the west is evile and having hard time to live in state that is secular

 

So all Christians are Mormons and all mortals are Socrates?

Edited November 19, 2010 by ydoaPs

[jackson33]

Some things I don't think any of you are considering, but generally speaking, IMO and with the regards to the Canadian problems, nec is more correct than most here, on this issue...

 

 

The MAC appears to be one of the only organizations in the world that acknowledges its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the MAC website:

 

MAC’s roots are deeply enshrined in the message of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Its modern roots can be traced to the Islamic revival of the early twentieth century, culminating in the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. This movement influenced Islamic activities, trends and intellectual discourse throughout the world including those of Muslims who came to Canada in search of freedom, education and better opportunities. MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam, as embodied in the Qur’an, and the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAC regards this ideology as the best representation of Islam as delivered by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).[/Quote]

 

http://globalmbreport.org/?p=3185

 

Canada under a Parliamentary System, is different than the US and our Constitution. That is the Constitution sets the path for law and law must conform to the Constitution, where Canada law is set directly be the people and which party hold the majority of seats. Technically, the Head of State for Canada is currently the Queen of England, Elizabeth II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Canadian_Royal_Family

 

The OP link, is an article mentioning a report, but I believe a "report" can be simply another article and in the past few years the "Islamic Brotherhood" has come to light in many of there activities in Canada. Your welcome to 'google' Canada+Islamic+Brotherhood, which will get you many articles to read. including several over an Edmonton, Ontario School (Considered a Western Province).

 

The Islamic Brotherhood however has ties to many terrorist groups, directly or indirectly, openly or covertly supporting many activities, believed by many, yet claims to no longer support terrorism. IMO, they are as Radical as anything could be...

 

The Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badi, who was elected only months ago, has "endorsed anti-American Jihad and pretty much every element in the al-Qaida ideology book," writes Barry Rubin, author and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. [/Quote]

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=214245

 

While forced to limit its violent activity, the Muslim Brotherhood continues to have a large following throughout the Muslim world, where many of its supporters are politically active. The group has influenced many terrorist leaders – including Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri – and many of its members have engaged in terrorist activities.[/Quote]

 

http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/muslim_brotherhood_1.asp

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, the Christian Right has been trying to argue that America is a Christian nation in one manner or another since the Pilgrims ran out of beer off Plymouth Rock.

 

True. But whether that means "as a nation we embrace christian values of peace and love and let's all sing kumbaya!" or "as a nation you must worship god or we will destroy you" is a matter of interpretation. Suggesting that it must be the latter is fear mongering, and part of what's wrong with this country right now. In my humble opinion.

 

 

You are also making poor generalizations: the "downtrodden, scapegoated western Muslims" are not the Muslims wanting to create a set of laws above State or Federal law. In case you missed that: the Muslims the left stands up for are not the Muslims wanting to create a set of laws above State or Federal law.

 

Uh, okay, what's your evidence for that?

 

I think CAIR (one of the groups asking for this) is very MUCH in the tank with the left at the moment. It's the left-leaning blogosphere that supports and defends CAIR, and the right-leaning blogosphere that attacks it (largely unfairly) on a daily basis. CAIR is also in bed with the mainstream media. From their Wikipedia article (with sources listed on that page):

 

CAIR officials are often interviewed by major national, local, and international media on news programs involving Muslims in America. In five years CAIR officials were cited over 11,000 times by media, including CNN, MSNBC, BBC, ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Times. Editorials written by CAIR officials are published nationwide.[6][11]

 

Not to mention the government.

 

CAIR officials have met or regularly meet with current and former US Presidents, members of their respective administrations, members of the United States Congress, governors, mayors, members of state legislatures, and county commissioners. Several CAIR affiliates have received proclamations and citations from mayors and county commissioners.[75] The organization itself has received praise from congressmen and women to top military officials such as General Wesley Clark, who “applaud[ed] its efforts to ensure that all Americans…are treated equally and given the same constitutional rights.”[76] CAIR also regularly meets with national, state, and local law enforcement officials including the Department of Homeland Security.[11] [77]

 

And the ACLU. When Barbara Boxer, one of the few Democrats who have bucked the trend here, first raised questions about CAIR, she was immediately denounced by the ACLU and many outspoken liberals.

 

So I think the Muslims the left stands up for ARE (generally) the same Muslims who want to create a set of laws above state or federal law. I don't really think they're out to create a completely separate Sharia Law, but they want exceptions, and they're getting support from the left (in general, if not in specific to that end).

 

 

I think you'll find the Left stands up for any Christian that is having their rights violated or is being unfairly scapegoated as well - regardless of the actions of the Religious Right. That's simply called a rational approach where people are not bunched into unfair generalized stereotypes but instead are judged on their actions and unique characteristics.

 

Oh sure, I believe that. On the small scale that's undoubtedly true, and of the right too, not just the left (as you might agree). But we're talking about self-generated stereotypes created by large groups to chastise other large groups. It's not rational individuals we're discussing. It's irrational mass groupings -- both those who make the crass judgments, and those being crassly judged.

 

Let me give an example to show how the stereotypes in question were created by people themselves: The View, on ABC, with Barbara Walters, Whoppi Goldberg and Joy Behar, et al -- it's very much like Fox News and MSNBC in that its dynamic is base populism, but it's much more immediate and even more superficial than those networks are. It deliberately reaches out for the clumsiest, almost deliberately sub-sentient emotional reactions possible, farming the roots of feminism, while always being OH SO CAREFUL not to define it as such, presumably because even overly reactive and emotional women don't like being told that that's what they are.

 

I had a female friend many years ago who was a coworker, a charming young southern woman with the most outrageous southern accent you ever heard. She grew up on a farm in rural Georgia, and had many amusing anecdotes about her upbringing. One day a group of women executives was brought through our department, and they seemed like they might have hit the wine a bit hard during the luncheon they'd just gotten back from. They were so busy chatting with each other that they didn't even notice us employees in the room. They made a ton of noise, and were talking about the most inane and trivial things you could imagine. In short, they sounded like the ladies from The View.

 

After they left my friend looked at us in relief, and said, "My my, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to throw down some feed!"

 

That's The View in a nutshell right there. And that's why Whoppi Goldberg and Joy Behar got angry at Bill O'Reilly. He tripped a trigger word or phrase that was on their PeeWee Herman-like list for the day, and they got all high and mighty about it, and next thing you know the two of them are stumbling off the set looking like a couple of aging pigs waddling up to the trough. And every woman in the audience was going "woo! woo! woo!" like they'd just had an Oprah sighting. But I'll bet if you'd ask them to define the exact nature of their disagreement, they couldn't have really done so in a coherent fashion.

 

In short, I thought I was going to have to throw down some feed.

 

Point is, people stereotype themselves. And I'm more than happy to reflect their stereotypes back upon them.

 

 

Seriously, they can't even build a community center in NY without getting a wave of wharrgarbl, which interestingly enough no one in NY even cared about until the Wharrgarbl Machine started screaming "EVERYONE IS ANGRY THEY WERE INTENSIVE BY BUILDING THERE!" and people decided "Well if they made everyone angry, I guess that's kinda insensitive..."

 

I understand, and you're right. Similarly, we can't even celebrate ANYTHING anymore because we're so busy making each other wrong. No accomplishment can be achieved, no goal can be reached, no project can be completed. Nothing. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

My only complaint is when people here "Wharrgarbl" about it being the right's fault.

 

=======

 

ydoaPs I think I addressed most of your questions with my reply to padren, but there are a few loose ends.

 

And we don't need to imply that the law has not been followed by the Right; there are SEVERAL cases where they have attempted teaching Creationism AFTER it has been declared unconstitutional to do so.

 

Why is it okay for you to equate law-breakers with the entire conservative movement, and then challenge me for generalizing about the entire liberal movement?

 

 

It's not as though the Left is attempting to get the Koran used as a science textbook.

 

Most conservatives I know don't want this. I've met a few who raise the question of teaching creationism alongside evolution, but even that tentative footing is largely defunct in the mainstream conservative community at the moment. The extremists certainly keep it alive, of course, but not the moderates, at least in my experience.

 

 

The government report even explicitly stated that this group is nonviolent, so what's the big deal?

 

Well for example it's a big deal if Muslim women don't have to undergo the same security procedures that I do because of their religion. That's not fair.

 

-----------

 

2. Have you an example of "Muslims asking for exceptions to the law" ? (not a Muslim. Muslims, plural, as in a concerted effort to have a different set of laws applied to them)

 

I posted a link earlier that CAIR and other Muslim groups were asking for an exception to airport screening on religious grounds.

 

 

The main difference I see here is actual vs hypothetical. Fact vs fiction.

 

Hypothetical != fictitious. Hypothetical = unobserved.

 

 

But that's the point — it's the splinter group that's causing the rift, and that's the group you need to be focusing on, not the larger group.

 

Or we can recognize that there are two different (if distantly related) problems under consideration, and give some time debating both of them, instead of saying that anybody who believes position X about the one debate is actually just conflating it with another debate.

 

Put more clearly, the mainstream Muslim world is in a time of high turmoil right now internally. There's a serious schism over the degree to which the religion should bend itself in its effort to be compatible with modern western civilization. That schism has lead to conflicts with western governments that have nothing to do with the war on terror, such as the burqa ban in France, the conflicts between Muslims and the governments of France and Great Britain, and the so-called "ground zero mosque" conflict in the US (yes, much of that may be fueled by thoughtless extremist conservatives, but at least SOME of it is fueled by a reluctance within the Muslim community to take actions that might be viewed as compliance and compromise).

 

And right now, in my opinion, in American politics, conservatives are talking about that issue (with some eggregiously inflating the issue in acts of fear mongering, while others discuss the matter rationally and with considerable intelligence), and liberals are (by and large) desperately trying to ignore the issue lest they be seen as being politically incorrect.

 

=======

 

The Left supports religious freedom. It is the Right that flips out every time Muslims want to build a church, community centre, or gated community.

 

I agree with you that the left generally supports religious freedom.

 

But let's be fair: Not everyone on the right "flips out" every time Muslims want to build a mosque, etc. It's just a vocal minority that gets a sad amount of media attention and a lot of outrage from the Rachel Maddow types.

 

BTW, Fox News reporterd the Carolina mosque and Koran-burning stories from a NEGATIVE perspective. Not a positive one. Their conservative analysts say how bad that is, giving conservatives a bad name, etc. MSNBC analysts gloat about how it shows all conservatives to be ridiculous and evil.

 

Fox News did report the GZM story from a positive perspective, but their angle was sensitivity to the dead, which I think is a valid point. They split a hair there, but there is common ground.

 

 

(MAN you guys covered a lot of ground today. I think this may be the longest post I've ever made!)

[CaptainPanic]

There is a clear threat from fundamentalist religions who wish to segregate themselves completely, and who therefore undermine our free and democratic world.

But it is important to realize that the large majority of religious people (regardless of which religion we talk about) are moderate people.

By continuously pointing out (especially) Muslims as threats, we actually alienate these people from us...

 

So, by constantly mentioning the problems between Muslim minorities and the majorities, the problems only grow larger. By not accepting these people as one of us (no matter how alien they seem to us), we push them away. And that gives them the possibility to become more fundamentalistic.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, I respond only to the opening post, so I apologise if this goes off topic.

[swansont]

 

I posted a link earlier that CAIR and other Muslim groups were asking for an exception to airport screening on religious grounds.

 

Your USA Today article did not say that anyone is petitioning the government to set aside any security protocols. It was a story about telling Muslims not to use the body scanners and opt instead for the pat-down. Just like everyone else can do.

 

 

Hypothetical != fictitious. Hypothetical = unobserved.

 

hypothetical = supposed but not necessarily real or true

[Pangloss]

Well whether they asked for an exception or not, they clearly don't want it to apply to them because of their faith. Which supports the conjecture of desiring a parallel society with its own rules.

 

Here's another Muslim group upset on religious grounds: http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/

 

------------------

 

There is a clear threat from fundamentalist religions who wish to segregate themselves completely, and who therefore undermine our free and democratic world.

But it is important to realize that the large majority of religious people (regardless of which religion we talk about) are moderate people.

By continuously pointing out (especially) Muslims as threats, we actually alienate these people from us...

 

So, by constantly mentioning the problems between Muslim minorities and the majorities, the problems only grow larger. By not accepting these people as one of us (no matter how alien they seem to us), we push them away. And that gives them the possibility to become more fundamentalistic.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, I respond only to the opening post, so I apologise if this goes off topic.

 

It's not about fundamentalists, it's about mainstream Muslims living in the West. Conflating objections to mainstream Muslims and their requests for exceptions to Western law with objections to terrorism is a way of dismissing those objections without arguing their merits. Saying that people who object are "constantly mentioning the problems" and making things worse is another way of dismissing those objections without arguing their merits.

 

If Christian fundamentalists were asking for exceptions to laws, or even just broadly hinting that it would like to have such exceptions, most of you who are objecting to this thread would be up in arms and screaming from the rafters about the imminent doom of society as we know it.

[CaptainPanic]

It's not about fundamentalists, it's about mainstream Muslims living in the West. Conflating objections to mainstream Muslims and their requests for exceptions to Western law with objections to terrorism is a way of dismissing those objections without arguing their merits. Saying that people who object are "constantly mentioning the problems" and making things worse is another way of dismissing those objections without arguing their merits.

I live in a society with over a million Muslims. The thought that someone even wants to discuss "mainstream Muslims living in the West" has never occurred to me, and it shocks me that you state it so casually.

 

I am also clueless where you found the idea that "mainstream Muslims in the West" would be asking for exceptions to Western law... and that confusion starts at the notion of "Western law" (what's that?) to the concept of "all Muslims in the West" (since when are you an expert on Muslims living in Europe? Or do I misunderstand your definition of "the West"?).

 

Muslims are here, in the Netherlands, and they have Dutch passports, speak the Dutch language, work for the Dutch economy, and even serve in the Dutch army, for example in Afghanistan. They are among my friends. They are among my colleagues. I meet Muslims on a daily basis... and I have never had any problems in my life with any of them... so, I kindly ask you to stop talking about them as a single minded group that apparently tries to change our Western laws - because first of all, we don't have unified western laws, and second of all, you have no clue about the majority of the Muslims in the West, because they live in Europe, and you clearly do not.

 

If Christian fundamentalists were asking for exceptions to laws, or even just broadly hinting that it would like to have such exceptions, most of you who are objecting to this thread would be up in arms and screaming from the rafters about the imminent doom of society as we know it.

You exaggerate and mislead.

 

First of all, you compare the Christian fundamentalists with "mainstream Muslims". It is true that most people would object to demands that can be expected from Christian fundamentalists - but certainly not from mainstream Christians (the government of the USA is for a large part made up of "mainstream Christians"). Your comparison therefore is flawed.

 

Secondly, you cannot possibly have any foundation for the claim that the mainstream Muslims in the West require exceptions to Western laws... you wrongly extrapolate some cases into a generalized rule for a very large group.

But even if they did wish changes to the laws... All Western countries are free democracies, and any group of people is free to form its own political party and try to gain political influence... Christians have political influence - especially so in several of the states in the USA, but also in some European countries. Christian political parties exert their power all the time. Why should Muslims not be allowed a chance to play a role in the same political arena?

 

I stand my ground that one of the main problems is still that some people do not distinguish between the large majority of Muslims who adapt and integrate, and a few Muslims who are very strict on their beliefs and are like missionaries who try to convert everyone they encounter. This lack of distinguishment alienates the entire group, and is not helpful to the integration of Muslims (note that I have made the assumption here that all people involved in this discussion wish to improve integration).

[swansont]

Well whether they asked for an exception or not, they clearly don't want it to apply to them because of their faith. Which supports the conjecture of desiring a parallel society with its own rules.

 

Yes, and it's a right everyone in the US has. People of all faiths get upset over situations, and reasonable accommodation is the law. Neither example you have given is an example of asking that the law not apply to them. On the contrary, they are advocating staying within the law, and opting for the pat-down.

 

FCNA appreciates the alternate provision of pat-down search (when needed) and therefore recommend to Muslims to avail this option over the nude body scanners.

 

 

Anybody can opt for the pat-down. For any reason whatsoever, including a religious one. Not providing an existing reasonable alternative would be against the law.

[Pangloss]

The thought that someone even wants to discuss "mainstream Muslims living in the West" has never occurred to me, and it shocks me that you state it so casually.

 

We frequently discuss Christians and their associated groups. That's like saying you're shocked that I would want to talk about white people living in the United States.

 

 

I am also clueless where you found the idea that "mainstream Muslims in the West" would be asking for exceptions to Western law... and that confusion starts at the notion of "Western law" (what's that?) to the concept of "all Muslims in the West" (since when are you an expert on Muslims living in Europe? Or do I misunderstand your definition of "the West"?).

 

I'm clueless why you all think it perfectly acceptable to criticize the history of Christians asking for exceptions to the law, but think it racism to suggest that Muslims might want to do the same.

 

 

you wrongly extrapolate some cases into a generalized rule for a very large group.

 

Mainstream Christians have established the boundaries of their religion, so for all but the fundamentalists it doesn't clash with Western culture. What I'm suggesting is that mainstream Muslims are struggling with this, for various reasons probably having more to do with tough economic times than true jihadist extremism. But as sometimes happens with Christianity, tough times has produced tough preaching from the pulpit. Just as Obama about the phrase "Not god bless America, god DAMN America."

 

Examples of Western society reacting to this mainstream struggle within the Western Muslim community include the new anti-burka law in France, ongoing clashes between unemployed Muslims and the police in Europe (they think they're being discriminated against because of their religion), and outrage in the American Muslim community over invasive body searches by the TSA.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We frequently discuss Christians and their associated groups. That's like saying you're shocked that I would want to talk about white people living in the United States.

 

I'm clueless why you all think it perfectly acceptable to criticize the history of Christians asking for exceptions to the law, but think it racism to suggest that Muslims might want to do the same.

Ad hominem tu quoque.

 

Regardless, the problem is not criticizing a religion; the problem is when you extend those criticisms to all members of that religion and commit the composition fallacy.

 

Examples of Western society reacting to this mainstream struggle within the Western Muslim community include the new anti-burka law in France, ongoing clashes between unemployed Muslims and the police in Europe (they think they're being discriminated against because of their religion), and outrage in the American Muslim community over invasive body searches by the TSA.

I wasn't aware burqas were "mainstream," and I wasn't aware that outrage over body searches was limited to Muslims.

 

You still have not demonstrated that Muslims want an exception to any law, because of their faith or any other reason. To reiterate: they wish to opt out of body scanners, as everyone is legally permitted to do, and instead get full-body pat-downs. This is not an exception to any rule. It is a mechanism already allowed for all passengers.

i.e. Muslim leaders suggest Muslims take advantage of an option already available. What is so controversial about this? How can it be classified with the other "mainstream struggles" you list? How does it support the claim that they advocate a separate society with separate rules?

 

(Although the notion of a "Muslim leader" is rather silly, since there's no organized church structure like in Catholicism or the various Protestant churches. Which is why it's so hard to lump Muslims together into one group.)

[Pangloss]

I'm not criticizing all members of a religion. I'm pointing out that there appears to be a struggle under way.

[nec209]

Mainstream Christians have established the boundaries of their religion, so for all but the fundamentalists it doesn't clash with Western culture. What I'm suggesting is that mainstream Muslims are struggling with this

 

Not true you cannot be atheist and get in government no one will vote for you .Look at the abortion and separation of church and state debate !! The teaching of god in school and prayer in school.Also gays and lesbians and the evolution debate in schools.The nedia use of god we trust and other quotes so on and so on like god bless America

 

It like that in Canada and the US.No Christians are not happy to leave it at home and the church.

 

Examples of Western society reacting to this mainstream struggle within the Western Muslim community include the new anti-burka law in France, ongoing clashes between unemployed Muslims and the police in Europe (they think they're being discriminated against because of their religion), and outrage in the American Muslim community over invasive body searches by the TSA.

 

They are the fundamentalists not the 90% of Muslim .

 

 

What I'm saying is all religion is like that and clash with separation of church and state .You seem to paint that Christians are the only people that do not clash and this is not true.