Irony because you claim the muslim world hasn't done enough to speak out against terrorism? What specifically do you expect them to do?

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Irony because of all the posts here saying Muslims shouldn't have to say anything about terrorists since they can't control thier actions. The same poster then says we should be speaking out about the actions of a few extremists in out own country.

Don't read into it more than that. Should I post a 10th time that I agree that 99.99% of Muslims do not support terrorists? Recognizing a double standard does not mean you agree with either leg of it.

I don't see the irony. I also never said that Muslims shouldn't say anything about terrorists. Not sure where you found that quote. It's important that the Muslim community as a whole speak out when certain people claim to represent them and then do terrible things.

There's no disconnect or irony there.

I also never claimed that those extremists represent the United States. But it's also important that we don't stay silent and let people like Bin Laden play interpreter for potential recruits and say that our silence is proof of our "War Against Islam".

I'd wager our escalated presence in Afghanistan is more of a cause celebre for al Qaeda than the mosque. But you don't seem too worked up over real issues.

Yeah, because we didn't raise a huge stink over Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time or anything, we all just ignored it. You're totally right. Durrrr.

Afghanistan is less urgent now than it was before? It's less important than the mosque issue? I'm uncertain what your point is.

People can't be mindful of more than one topic at a time? People have discussed a 10-year-old issue up and down and maybe don't need to discuss it 15 more times? I'm uncertain what your point is.

It's also worth noting that our image in high profile domestic issues like this can be every bit as important as bullets that we fire overseas.

Our involvement with Israel is a lot more than 10 years old. By your logic I take it that issue is also below the dreaded mosque controversy in significance to al Qaeda's recruiting.

This thread is turning into a circle jerk. I'm on your side on this but it's getting a bit silly slapping yourselves on the back for what great moralists you are. Try being a little more consistent.

Who said anything about any order of significance? You just made that up too, eh?



Seriously? You're putting words in people's mouths and then acting superior by berating them for not talking about things that are important enough. Who's slapping themselves on the back?

Did you bother to read what he posted? How is a tendency to not re-hash an issue when it's already been re-hashed to death placing less significance on an issue? It doesn't mean anyone here is any less concerned about it, nor does it mean there's anything interesting to say about it without repeating what's been said over and over.

Easily one of the dumbest claims of inconsistency I've read in a while.

Really no need to re-spark this, but after reading an article a couple of days I need to. I was about 60% against it... basically thinking it's a bad idea, but not necessarily something that the government needs to curtail.

Then, I watched the interview with the Iman where he says our national security depends on not moving the mosque. I don't think he meant it as a veiled threat as some people portrayed. In fact, I think he sorta let it slip and exposed just how dangerous Islam has become.

Think about it. What if Rush Limbaugh said, "you know - if they build that mosque, I just hope a bunch of radicals don't firebomb it." He would be crucified. But, when an Iman says it, we all shrug and say, "yeah, those crazy fucking Muslims, we better watch out."

It all really comes back to South Park. The writers get death threats for putting Mohammed in a bear suit. But, they can have Jesus Christ murdered and covered in shit.

I'm not sure really what I think about this other than the fact I found myself almost in support the whole Quaran burning thing. What is it that makes Islam "more sacred" than the Bible, Jesus, the American flag, etc? Why are those symbols OK to desecrate, but the Quaran is not?

When HW Bush wanted to pass the anti-flag burning ammendment, the opposition claim was that by allowing people to burn the flag, we demonstrate just how awesome our democracy is. So, why not burn a bunch of Quarans and let everyone say, "see - that is a religion of peace, they turned the other cheek." On a side note, there was one guy who did that - basically saying he would distribute 5 free quarans for every 1 burned, or something like that.

Anyhoo... I might go get a match.

I'm sorry, but when you listen to the entire interview and keep it all in context, you'd have to be on crack to think that he was making a "threat" or anything of any sort.



Oh wait, there it is. Yep, on crack.

No one is suggesting that we make an anti-Quaran burning amendment. That makes your comparision fail.

Because if a rabbi held an event making a bonfire with copies of the King James Bible, it'd be all good in the hood, right?

I'm cool with flag burning, quran burning, bible burning, etc.

The first amendment gives the freedom of expression to all US citizens, right? Even if that expression is distasteful and/or offensive, they still have it. It's one of the reasons I dislike "hate speech" legislation -- let them spout their nonsense, it just lets people know who to avoid.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

What he said.

My comment was in regard to the "what makes those OK to desecrate" remark, but yeah, you're both right. It should be easier to step back and realize that we have to acknowledge the pyromaniac's first amendment rights. The fact that it's not as easy as it should be is hard to come to terms with.

I corrected your quote above just slightly. Free speech is countered by free speech, and not always in equal portions. This is why you see the whole "Christian oppressed" sentiment of late. It's not because they're actually being oppressed, it's because their weight (if not their volume :/) in the public discourse has been SIGNIFICANTLY reduced, and subsequently countered, with opposing speech. This is why they're all up in arms when they spew nonsense, and they're called idiots - it's never really happened to them before to this degree.

That's the genius of the First Amendment - it keeps the government out of progressive society's discourse. Well, not entirely out of it, but it keeps them from restricting it.

That said, the threat of violence as a consequence (obviously excluding speech with the direct intent to incite violence, fire in a theatre, etc.) to speech is NEVER EVER EVER EVER a valid reason to restrict speech. The men who founded this country were ready, and willing, to die for their right to free speech. And so am I. Consider it my own cause for jihad - except I don't get any virgins on the .0000001% off chance a terrorist ACTUALLY kills me.

I meant to add, that while I'm against censoring speech for the threat of violence, I'm NOT against countering speech to protest it. People calling the pastor an idiot, for example, is more than acceptable - it's how the system was designed to work. I just meant to point out I'm against anyone considering prevent him from his actions just as much as I'm against anyone attempting to circumvent right speech/religion in this whole mosque nonsense.

yep yep

But at the same time -- people are also free to practice their religion, regardless of what you or I may think of that faith, so the Muslims have as much a right to build their mosque as you do to say "I don't like it"

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

"Mosque" -- since it's really just the Muslim equivalent of a YMCA.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I agree with this. And despite how distateful people may feel about protesting the mosque's location (which I really don't care about, and should be protected)... the system is WORKING.

It's working because at the end of the day, if the imam really wants to build there, he can. It's also working because the community is exercising its right to protest and express their opposition to it. The views expressed by the anti-mosque group may be repellant to me (for the most part), but it's a GOOD thing that a community can exercise its prerogative to oppose the building of this - so long as, at the end of the day, if the imam decides to build, it's his right to do so. As soon as you take away the right to build it, or the right to protest against it, that's where I start to get freaked out.

The thing is, I don't think anyone here disagrees with these statements, but Orme's post implied that someone here would.

Yeah, if the guy really wants to burn it, then let him burn it. That's his right.

It's also my right to say that he's pretty much just an asshole.

It all works out!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opini ... .html?_r=2

a very good editorial piece on this subject that I think is worth the time to read

_________________

An "Iman"? Did Fox News have an interview with the Imam that I wasn't aware of?

Anyway, we've already covered this. You may see a disproportionate response of violence because Muslims live, by and large, in much more poverty stricken areas in the world(Africa, some parts of the Middle East where wealth is distributed primarily to one area while the rest suffer, parts of Indonesia etc). Despite the fact that we had all the Quran burning threats right here in America, we actually didn't see much violence or even threats of violence from Muslims here. It should be noted that a lot of concern was over whether our troops would be put into harm's way over this - a valid one, because people in that part of the world don't share the same level of tolerance that we do here(not to mention other countries with even higher tolerance than we do). That's partly because of we are still head and shoulders above most areas in terms of standard of living, but also because we have a couple centuries worth of culture, laws, and the Constitution which influenced us from the getgo.

So yea, I really don't think too many people were concerned about violence right here from American Muslims. Which is why it's not a question of religion, it's a question of what (usually economic, sometimes cultural)situations drive one to terrorism and violence. It might have happened, but we're talking about a minority that - despite where the influx of Muslims originate - still represents a portion of the American Muslim population that is on par with the minority of Christians that would participate in abortion bombings.

One of the problems I see is that people keep trying to compare extremist Muslims to extremist Christian groups. They are not on the same level of risk in the modern world, not even remotely close. There seems to be a fear that admitting that this is true somehow is a slight to the entire (and vastly peaceful) Islamic religion, but I disagree.

Oops, posted too quickly.

That leads to the real question we should be addressing, which is how do we curtail extremist Muslims without causing harm or prejudice to moderates? And how do we do it in a peaceful way that doesn't create even more extremists?

I actually think that comparison is pretty fair. The main difference is that America hasn't made itself a sworn enemy of extremist Christians. The level of risk is roughly the same, regardless what group of extremists we're talking about. The difference is their circumstances.

Extremism is difficult to erase, even if not completely. It takes time, patience, a combination of good PR and education, and an awful lot of flexibility on a personal level. Some people will never give up their extreme beliefs. All we can do about that is peacefully prevent the next generation from following the same path.

The comparison is particularly fair when we're talking about American Muslims and Christians, which happens to be precisely where I made the comparison. You don't see a lot of violence from either side in this country(At least compared to what you see in other regions). Things shift when we talk about both religions and their representation on a global scale. As I said, the contributing factors to this are pretty obvious when you look at it from a global perspective.

South Park wants to show Mohammed... covered by a bear suit.
Call it self-censorship or whatever, but the scene was pulled due to death threats against the creators.

South Park shows blood exploding from a statue of the Virgin Mary.
South Park shows Jesus being murdered by a replacement Pope.
South Park shows Jesus being shit on by George Bush.

I think there is a difference between an extensive letter writing campaign and threatening to kill. No?

Don't have time to read the whole thing, but the quote at the top is intersting... Written by Martin Peretz, the magazine’s editor in chief, it asserted: “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.”

That's really where all the tensions come from, and a reflection of the great tragedy of Iraq. When they were over there killing each other (and the occasional Jew), nobody really cared. Now that they brought it on our soil we're pissed.

Oh well... will have to read the rest of that later.

Orme, of course there's a difference. But we're not living in a closed system where those are the only inputs.

Unless you're an abortion doctor that is.

Plus I'm not convinced that a massive group of 10 people that made the "death threat"(posting a picture of Theo Van Gogh and saying it will "probably" happen to them and then giving out their office address) against the South Park creators represents some kind of epidemic of Muslim violence that is out of proportion with what you'd expect worldwide given economic and cultural circumstances.

Bolded the line I want to address. It appears you are claiming that extremist muslims and extremist christians both pose a similar risk level to the world (and USA) today. Am I reading your post correctly before I respond?

Venen, your post made me think of that point, but I was not directly addressing it. I believe the vast majority of muslims in the world are moderates (I feel compelled to continue making that point so words are not put in my mouth) and on top of that the vast majority of the small percentage that are actually extremists are not in America. So that leaves American extremist muslims as a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Based on that I would agree that american muslims and american christians are very similar.

The difference between Global Muslim Extremists and Global Christian Extremists is fairly easy to see, I think.

Separation of Church and State. Very simply no group of GCEs have state backing or protection (although they're trying damned hard to turn the US into a state that sponsors Christian idealogy). GMEs, on the other hand have both state protection and backing.

How to resolve it? I dunno, maybe stop being supportive of countries that have state-backed religions of all kinds (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel,...)?

The thing about Americans and Christian violence is that we're so quick to say, "Oh, no no no. Those guys don't represent God. Not really. I mean, they say they do, but nah." or their religion is totally ignored or glossed over.

But when anything happens with anyone with brown skin and possible middle-eastern descent or any connection to something Islamic, it becomes "ISLAMIC VIOLENCE" and the entire group gets painted.

For example?

Are you serious?

No shit. What a stupid fucking question.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what I suspect is just flat out rampant exaggeration.

But what I'm really curious about is how you guys can live with so much guilt, and at the same time, contempt.

And I'm really curious why you're so scared of brown people.

(I love this game teehee).

PS - On a serious note, you'll have to explain the guilt part to me, I'm missing that one. I'll grant you contempt, but it's far more accurate to say a general condescension as I'm actually more of a functioning narcissist.

I love how every time someone suggests that maybe - just maybe - we're a tad hypocritical and biased, someone has to bust out the "guilt" or "self-loathing" stuff. =D

Deep down, Tali and Bov are really just angry at themselves for rejecting God's love.

I don't know about you guys, but I flog myself at night to relieve my guilt!

Well, on this at least it sounds like we can agree then, and it's an important point. I really wish more people understood the economic and cultural disparities instead of just looking at the difference with Muslim violence and concluding that the religion itself is inherently more corrupt than others.

DON'T YOU JUDGE ME!