Islamophobia

[ydoaPs]

ydops, I simply don't understand how a person with your intellect and who has honorably served his country as you have, can be so benevolent to a system that you obviously know little or nothing about. The internet!. Go there and read just a small portion of what the radicalism of Sharia Law might bring to America, and the fact it is already here. I don't hate Muslims!. But if another religon, including Atheism tried to dominate our free system of faiths, believe me; I would be just as pissed.

That's actually the opposite of a fact.

[Phi for All]

That's an example that I particularly like, because most of us will be familiar with a group or even a specific person who our society accepts and allows, but who would approve of a terrorist act. It is of course a whole continuum;

1) denounce killing of abortion doctors

2) remain silent about the killing of abortion doctors

3) quietly rejoice about the killing of abortion doctors or think they had it coming or might have deserved it

4) publicly praise the killing of abortion doctors or the people who did it (possibly with careful wording)

5) materially support/donate to groups that promote among other things the killing of abortion doctors

6) materially support/donate to groups that kill abortion doctors

7) actually killing of abortion doctors oneself

 

At what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? And what if you replace "killing abortion doctors" with "killing infidels"? Now at what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? Do the answers match?

I'd have to say that, at least in the US, you move into shaky ground at #4, depending on how much your careful wording skirts your intention to incite a riot, and into full-blown illegality at #6. And being an infidel, I would hope that my answer matches that of my muslim counterpart.

 

And that is the problem I have with Islam... I don't think they're doing enough to actively oppose terrorism in their own ranks. But to be honest, neither is our country doing enough to actively oppose killing abortion doctors or homophobia or a lot of other things (including Islamophobia). Nor honestly do I think it could be done, not via the legal system anyhow, and via social pressure it might be done but would require a generation to die out to complete this (as racism is today despite both social and legal opposition). And worse, we're part of the problem by treating Islam with hostility, what can we expect but hostility right back, and lets not be a kid and argue about who started it. And even more, our policies also mean less interaction between us and Muslims, and so we don't get together and see that we're actually very much alike and not scary or evil like some might have told us.

I agree that both sides need to do more to oppose the problem. It takes courage to stand up against a popular trend, especially when your patriotism or faith are challenged at every turn.

 

I have to say that I admire the many African countries that are standing up to their oppressive leadership these days. It shows a lot of courage we should take example from. But when I think about how we in the US let Wall Street throw our economy (indeed the global economy) in the toilet, and rather than demand conviction of the perpetrators we actually helped bail their companies out, I fear we won't soon muster the courage necessary to do what is right with regard to Islamaphobia.

[Marat]

Any society which governs its policies and orients its reasoning according to objective facts and rational inferences based on those facts respects everyone in the society, since no one is forced to agree to anything that cannot be proved to him by empirical evidence he can see or rational arguments he can agree with. This is why predominantly secular societies are liberal and tolerant. In contrast, societies governed by religion or religous reasoning insist on truths of revelation which cannot win the free assent of everyone by empirical demonstration or rational argument, but instead rape the intellects of other people by forcing them to accept the predominant but inexplicable and arational beliefs of the majority. Thus intolerance for others and religiousity tend to go together.

 

The advantage of the modern West over Islam is that our society is strongly secular, even in its remaining religious aspects. After our long history, dating since the Renaissance, of historicism, cultural relativism, and existentialism, and scientism, we have learned to believe and endorse everything in a highly tentative way, since our society trains us to doubt, to shift perspectives, to cultivate a certain fluidity of thought and willingness to change in response to new data and better arguments. But Islamic societies are too self-certain in their religious beliefs, and it is this self-certainty, rather than Islam per se, which makes them intolerant and dangerous. No one will strap dynamite to his back to crush those who adopt the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, since we appreciate how deeper insight can transform established positions and force us to regard every position as tentative, but Islam lacks this lightness of touch.

[ydoaPs]

I'd have to say that, at least in the US, you move into shaky ground at #4, depending on how much your careful wording skirts your intention to incite a riot, and into full-blown illegality at #6. And being an infidel, I would hope that my answer matches that of my muslim counterpart.

 

 

I agree that both sides need to do more to oppose the problem. It takes courage to stand up against a popular trend, especially when your patriotism or faith are challenged at every turn.

 

I have to say that I admire the many African countries that are standing up to their oppressive leadership these days. It shows a lot of courage we should take example from. But when I think about how we in the US let Wall Street throw our economy (indeed the global economy) in the toilet, and rather than demand conviction of the perpetrators we actually helped bail their companies out, I fear we won't soon muster the courage necessary to do what is right with regard to Islamaphobia.

Wasn't there recent state legislation that made it legal to kill abortion doctors?

[Phi for All]

Wasn't there recent state legislation that made it legal to kill abortion doctors?

Off-topic, but if your wife, or even an employee of yours, runs off to South Dakota and tries to get an abortion, if HB 1171 passes there, you may be able to get away with defending the unborn child or its mother from imminent lethal danger by killing the doctor. It would be considered a justifiable homicide.

[jackson33]

I guess you all are talking about Scott Roader, who was sentenced to 50 years, without parole, he is 50 yo, by his own peers. I'm not sure how this relates to Radical Muslims in conjunction with at least 60+ different terrorist organizations (on US Terrorist list), unless your calling all anti-abortion folks equal to those terrorist, but I hardly think terrorist are interested in saving anything. That's kind of like calling all Conservatives terrorist, because one person killed a Liberal (pick out a reason)...there not related.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/01/Abortion-doctor-killer-gets-Hard-50-term/UPI-90691270123404/

 

In one poll, twenty percent of Muslims feel suicide bombing of CIVILIANS (emphasized for another thread), 25% of Muslims under 30 years old agree is justifiable and this group is IN THE US.

 

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010044.php

 

 

 

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:

 

22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being.[/Quote]

 

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bills/HB1171HJU.pdf

 

Interesting, but since Abortion of a fetus (third trimester) is already illegal and since the specific person protecting the fetus would have to do this in advance (pre-meditated), while other remedies would have served, it's not enforceable IMO. I don't think this will bill will go anywhere....

[lemur]

lemur; What Bush said in 2001, was premature to the eventual outcomes of his future efforts and has been used by everyone, later denouncing both his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I took it then and remain convinced, he was pleading with Muslim Societies around the World to help stop these minor elements in THEIR societies from creating further havoc on the world, less than 2 weeks after 911 and to a US Congress. In changing the course of American Policy, from criminal acts, to acts of war and a sincere effort to get the Afghan Government to apprehend and extradite "the Taliban leaders". If the Afghan Government, had simply complied, no less than the US would have if the circumstances had been reversed, a whole lot of things would be different today.

I think the whole our/their government language leads to the false conclusion that intergovernmental dissent regarding democracy and freedom would be tolerated. What you hear today, that the U.S. shouldn't impose its culture/values/system on "other sovereign people's" was the voice of dissent during the Bush war on terror. Bush made it very clear (unpopularly so) that there were many different ways to govern freedom and democracy but ultimately the conflict between democracy and terrorism was as important as the conflict between democracy and Nazism (he said this in a speech to congress). This is why he also said that other governments were either "with or against" those who love and support democracy. In essence, he viewed all governments as cooperative in maintaining a democratic world order. I.e., he did not want to tolerate anti-democratic dissent although he was willing to accept wide variety within global democracy and free economics. I still find this reasonable and I question the argument for cultural relativism where freedom and democracy is challenged. After all, how can you support anyone's sovereign right to oppress others?

 

Personally I really don't like getting involved in these discussions, since I honestly feel Muslims could get along within other societies and do feel the polls are somewhat disingenuous being only males in many place are even allowed to speak. In Israel for instance Muslims and the JEWISH, in the State seem to get along just fine. About a quarter of Israel's Citizens are of Arab decent. Did you know there are Mosque in Israel, but in most Muslim States there are no Synagogue's or Temples....

I think this comparison falsely attributes social-economic activities to the religions viewed as dominant in the respect territories. I think Bush would have said that if you dislike the fact that there is no synagogue somewhere, you should work democratically to achieve it and where you encounter barriers to democracy, you would find an ally with him (that's what I THINK he would say, anyway). I think the idea of having a war on terror was to separate terror from its attribution to certain religions or nationalities/ethnicities by those who seek to demonize people in that way and stimulate fear and aggression toward people on those bases. I think, however, that this ideological aspect of the war on terror couldn't be totally successful because too many sources continued to propagate the logic of fearing and (promoting) attack of 'the Other.' Still, you could say that there's more talk and less direct aggression (maybe), which could indicate some ground gained for democracy. Still, it's always a tense balance when people are using democracy to spread information that stimulates fear and aggression (and of course when people indeed react with that fear and aggression).

Edited April 5, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

And that is the problem I have with Islam... I don't think they're doing enough to actively oppose terrorism in their own ranks.

Do you actually know any Muslims yourselves, or do you just pick this up on FOX News? Is there any statistical analysis behind this remark, or is it just your opinion?

 

Mind you, I quote you, but quite a few other people in this thread might as well answer the question too (it's not personal)... I just cannot be bothered to list everybody that I disagree with.

 

And anyway, why should Muslims oppose terrorism in their ranks, and why shouldn't Americans oppose things in their ranks, like being the most polluting society in the world, which also costs millions of lives?

 

I suggest that you guys make a list of priorities... be objective about it... and note that "Islam" probably won't even be in your top-10 of threats to the USA.

[rigney]

Do you actually know any Muslims yourselves, or do you just pick this up on FOX News? Is there any statistical analysis behind this remark, or is it just your opinion?

 

While not many of each, yes, I do know Muslims, Sieks, Eskimos, Hindus and many other etnic and religious groups. And the link you find so controversial may have came from FOX, or MSNBC? I really don't know or care.

 

And anyway, why should Muslims oppose terrorism in their ranks, and why shouldn't Americans oppose things in their ranks, like being the most polluting society in the world, which also costs millions of lives?

 

But as Americans, we do oppose many things in our multi-cultural society. Such as, Religious Holidays. Why!, we have some folks, including the A.C.L.U. who would love nothing more than to see them "ALL GONE". Then, there is; Fetel Murder of the Unborn. You can hardly knock that though since there are so mny illigitimate pregnancies. But then, what's another bastard or two? Some even believe that those committing murder, (Premeditated), in any form should be executed. Of cource there is also, Rape, Beheadings, Stonings and many other sundry items we disagree on, that some nations simply overlook. Sadly it seems nobody in America can be satisfied with the status quo.

And yes, America as well as many other nations; should be ashamed of the pollution heaped on this earth. Nature will eventually have her revenge though.

 

I suggest that you guys make a list of priorities... be objective about it... and note that "Islam" probably won't even be in your top-10 of threats to the USA.

 

You're right, Islam itself isn't on my top ten list and doesn't pose more of a threat to America than any of our religons. But I do oppose its laws trying to be filtered into our judicial system. There are far more attorneys and politicians in America right now than we need.

Edited April 6, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

While not many of each, yes, I do know Muslims, Sieks, Eskimos, Hindus and many other etnic and religious groups. And the link you find so controversial may have came from FOX, or MSNBC? I really don't know or care.

Didn't racially isolated whites used to say the same thing about blacks from watching TV reporting that focussed on negative stories involving blacks like gangs, drugs, poverty, etc.? Still, aren't there plenty of positive representations of Muslims on TV as well?

[swansont]

You're right, Islam itself isn't on my top ten list and doesn't pose more of a threat to America than any of our religons. But I do oppose its laws trying to be filtered into our judicial system. There are far more attorneys and politicians in America right now than we need.

 

But this is a phantom threat, as others have already indicated. A religious law, i.e. one with no secular purpose, is unconstitutional, regardless of the religion from which it is drawn.

[rigney]

But this is a phantom threat, as others have already indicated. A religious law, i.e. one with no secular purpose, is unconstitutional, regardless of the religion from which it is drawn.

 

I hope you're right and the whole thing is a bugaboo. But I believe it is an opportunity to introduce Sharia Law into our system. My hope is that it's "only an issue", a phantom if you will, that will go away quietly and not leave us with a bitter taste. The "IDIOT" (judge) holding these hearings should be debarred.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-shariah-law-just-work-its-way-into-a-florida-court/

Edited April 6, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Read the article. Other forms of dispute resolution are agreeable by parties to an agreement - the US and English courts (for hundreds of years) have stood by these alternative dispute resolution methods and enforced the results of the arbitration/mediation/tribunal.

[rigney]

Read the article. Other forms of dispute resolution are agreeable by parties to an agreement - the US and English courts (for hundreds of years) have stood by these alternative dispute resolution methods and enforced the results of the arbitration/mediation/tribunal.

 

We can go back to Jamestown, VA. in the 1700s, if that's far enough for you? No wrongs have ever made a single right. We, as Americans have come to assimilate every nationality into our country. Yet, as a nation we are still in a learning process 4 hundred years later. Can I make it any more clear than that? Can I assure you that my philosophy is the only one that is right, or counts? Hell no! But you best not come here 350 years later telling me that yours is the only way? "SHIT". But the whole idea of trying to do so, pisses me off to no end. Edited April 6, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

While I personally believe it is an opportunity to introduce Sharia Law into our system, my hope is that it is "only an issue" that will go away quietly and not leave us with a bitter taste in our mouth.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-shariah-law-just-work-its-way-into-a-florida-court/

 

This is a civil dispute and they agreed to arbitration, rather than a judge deciding — on his own — to invoke sharia law. AFAICT "Emergency motion to enforce arbitrator’s award" means he's enforcing something they already agreed to do.

 

You can resolve a dispute with rock/paper/scissors if both parties agree to it. And if you legally agree to that but back out when it doesn't go your way, I'd expect a court to rule that the resolution was legal and to enforce it. This sounds like they were trying to argue that rock doesn't beat scissors and contested the decision.

[rigney]

This is a civil dispute and they agreed to arbitration, rather than a judge deciding on his own to invoke sharia law. AFAICT "Emergency motion to enforce arbitrators award" means he's enforcing something they already agreed to do.

 

You can resolve a dispute with rock/paper/scissors if both parties agree to it. And if you legally agree to that but back out when it doesn't go your way, I'd expect a court to rule that the resolution was legal and to enforce it. This sounds like they were trying to argue that rock doesn't beat scissors and contested the decision.

 

I preferred "hot hands". It usually didn't take all day to determine a winner. But this is a simple case of judicial efficency going, "paper, rock and scissors'. It's "wacko". Someone, or ones; will be making a living from this case for years to come. Bet on it!. Edited April 6, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

I preferred "hot hands". It usually didn't take all day to determine a winner. But this is a simple case of judicial efficency going, "paper, rock and scissors'. It's "wacko". Someone, or ones; will be making a living from this case for years to come. Bet on it!.

 

The whole point of alternative dispute resolution is that lawyers get less money and the case takes less time. I know personally and academically that this is the case and that the ADR system works - I have known a case of two gentile parties using jewish law because both their experiences in the past were very positive. Courts will support an panel's decision if both parties had previously agreed to those terms, it was not irrational, and provided that the decision was not at complete variance to the law of the land. If you are interested Wikipedia has a page.

[rigney]

The whole point of alternative dispute resolution is that lawyers get less money and the case takes less time. I know personally and academically that this is the case and that the ADR system works - I have known a case of two gentile parties using jewish law because both their experiences in the past were very positive. Courts will support an panel's decision if both parties had previously agreed to those terms, it was not irrational, and provided that the decision was not at complete variance to the law of the land. If you are interested Wikipedia has a page.

 

My worst fault is gullibility when not fully aware of a situation. Heck! I'll believe just about anything until I find that it isn't the truth. As I read it from some quarters, Sharai Law is not a problem. Yet, many states have seen fit to pass laws prohibiting it and international law from being used in their court systems. My concern is, why have these states passed such laws? Are many of us missing an undercurrent of meaning, or simply being hornswoggled again? Edited April 7, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

My worst fault is gullibility when not fully aware of a situation. Heck! I'll believe just about anything until I find that it isn't the truth. As I read it from some quarters, Sharai Law is not a problem. Yet, many states have seen fit to pass laws prohibiting it and international law from being used in their court systems. My concern is, why have these states passed such laws? Are many of us missing an undercurrent of meaning, or simply being hornswoggled again?

 

Option b. Making you afraid of something that isn't a danger is a distraction from the other things that are going on. It lets you dismiss or demonize those that point out that it's not a problem and a waste of time/effort.

[rigney]

Option b. Making you afraid of something that isn't a danger is a distraction from the other things that are going on. It lets you dismiss or demonize those that point out that it's not a problem and a waste of time/effort.

 

Not afraid, just gullible. Hell of it is, today demonizing and dismissal comes from such a circular pattern, it's hard to find the truth.

[Phi for All]

My worst fault is gullibility when not fully aware of a situation. Heck! I'll believe just about anything until I find that it isn't the truth. As I read it from some quarters, Sharai Law is not a problem. Yet, many states have seen fit to pass laws prohibiting it and international law from being used in their court systems. My concern is, why have these states passed such laws? Are many of us missing an undercurrent of meaning, or simply being hornswoggled again?

Politicians often try to enact legislation which is meaningless or redundant because it makes them look proactive. It's a win-win situation for them because the most they can be accused of is being an alarmist, and they can easily spin that into being prepared.

 

Your "gullibility" is shared by many. It fits into preconceived notions about religion in general having an agenda of conversion and intolerance towards non-believers. And in the case of literalists from any religion, such notions may not be unfounded. The Old and New Testaments and the Koran are full of "laws" which can be horrific if interpreted literally.