patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah ISIS is not the enemy. We are.

ISIS isn't Islam.

People who would trade away freedoms for a belief in security are absolutely the enemy of a free nation.

You think the Patriot Act, and the rise of hate crimes and persecution of Muslims in America, is really what America aspires to be? Is this what the nation was founded on? It's not even a Christian ideal, let alone an American one.

Rew says

primary tenants of the constitution.

Our constitution is not an apartment building.

Rew says

I'm defending (poorly, on the internet) people's rights to believe as they wish and not be persecuted for a religion.

I believe we should stop importing Islam and we should oppose it. I have a right to believe that.

Muslims, by definition, believe in Islam, which is a hateful fraud. You can say they have a right to believe in a hateful fraud, but they don't have a right to do what it says. Calling it a religion makes no difference. Their religion says to cut off your head, but we have every right to prohibit them from doing that. The fact their religion says to kill you doesn't give them a right to kill you.

curious2 says

Islam commands all believers to go to Mecca. As I have written previously on PatNet, the solution is to offer everyone free one-way tickets to go there, while also saying that anyone who chooses to go to a territory that is at war against America is thereby choosing to renounce citizenship.

Of which Islam says that if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family, you don't have to go. Magical. There is a clause for that.

Rew says

if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family,

It wouldn't though: free airfare, safe airplane, in flight movies, AOK. Really, if you love Islam so much, enjoy the flight.

Rew says

ISIS isn't Islam.

ISIS is founded around a literal interpretation of the core of Islam, and as such represents the purest form of Islam on the planet maybe with the Saudis.
What are they doing that Mohamed hasn't done? Nothing. Mass murder, sex slaves and forced marriages? Been there, done that.

Rew says

People who would trade away freedoms for a belief in security are absolutely the enemy of a free nation.

Like Marcus you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?
What is wrong with you?

curious2 says

Of which Islam says that if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family, you don't have to go. Magical. There is a clause for that.

You absolutely do. You can believe that, right up to the point you try and have your beliefs infringe on another rights as outlined by civic laws of the land.

Do you see how you and a member of ISIS now share things in common?

curious2 says

Muslims, by definition, believe in Islam, which is a hateful fraud.

Inquisators around the world tip their caps to you.

curious2 says

It wouldn't though: free airfare, safe airplane, in flight movies, AOK. Really, if you love Islam so much, enjoy the flight.

But now my family/or I an an enemy of America, and that itself causes great harm if I'm a Muslim American.

Silly hypothetical anyway.

Heraclitusstudent says

Like Marcus you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?

Heraclitusstudent says

ISIS is founded around a literal interpretation of the core of Islam

Right, it matters how it is interpreted and practiced by an individual, and that practice is NOT universal or uniform in practitioners today. It is also true that literal interpretations of Christianity and Judaism would also be unconstitutional.

Edit: Point being Islam and ISIS are not equivocal or equal.

Rew says

You think the Patriot Act, and the rise of hate crimes and persecution of Muslims in America, is really what America aspires to be?

This is not what we are talking about.
I'm not asking for security. I'm asking for a war of ideas.
I'm not asking for persecutions. I'm asking for rational discussions.
I'm not asking for hate crimes. I'm asking for recognizing the reality of a problem.

You operate under the false assumption that any recognizing the problem and criticizing ideas is the same as hatred and bigotry. It is not.
BUT if you persist enough in your obfuscation, people will indeed rally around people like Trump, because they at least have the merit of recognizing the problem.

Rew says

(a) stop celebrating, financing, and empowering Islam;


(b) denounce and isolate it. Sharia violates human rights, and countries that impose it should be sanctioned.

... which of course is completely anti-constitutional

It's not unconstitutional.

Heraclitusstudent says

BUT if you persist enough in your obfuscation, people will indeed rally around people like Trump, because they at least have the merit of recognizing the problem.

I don't think anyone is denying a radicalization issue in Islam.

Heraclitusstudent says

you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?

I'm asking for a war of ideas.

But you and many others equate Islam, entirely and wholly, as something to be vilified and destroyed. If that isn't persecution, I don't know what is.

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Rew says

Point being Islam and ISIS are not equivocal or equal.

The head of ISIL/Daesh is a Muslim born to a Muslim family, in a majority Muslim country. He has a PhD in Islamic studies. He justifies everything the Islamic State does by reading from texts that most Muslims hold sacred. Many of the rules he imposes would be imposed in KSA and many other countries with Muslim majorities, including Pakistan.

You seem terribly worried about offending Muslims, but you don't seem to care at all about Asiaa Bibi on death row. Instead, you make excuses for her impending execution. This is how you remind me of The Manchurian Candidate: somehow, you have internalized the perspective of Islam, where any denunciation of Islam requires you to defend it, no matter how many it kills.

Rew says

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Not necessarily. Read the cases about teaching evolution, and the prior cases on Moronic polygamy. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from contradicting a religion, nor from denouncing a doctrine that says to kill us all, even if that doctrine hides behind the word "religion."

Rew says

Right, it matters how it is interpreted and practiced by an individual, and that practice is NOT universal or uniform in practitioners today. It is also true that literal interpretations of Christianity and Judaism would also be unconstitutional.

No Christian or Jews are asking for theocracy. Our culture has, through centuries of criticizing faith, managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.
This is not the case for Islam. Muslims, even many moderates, are asking for direct meddling of religion in public life.

Comparing Islam to other religions is clearly an attempt to distort the problem we face, which is clearly unique to Islam.

Moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for a text that is literally inciting violence and discrimination against non-Muslims are contributing to the problem. You can't say this is a sacred text written by God, and at the same time claim it doesn't mean what it says when you read it.

curious2 says

The head of ISIL/Daesh is a Muslim born to a Muslim family, in a majority Muslim country.

Are all Christians then the same? They believe the same, come from the same countries, believe the same things?

Christian radicals are prevalent. Shall we war against Christianity too?

curious2 says

You seem terribly worried about offending Muslims

Not worried in the least.

curious2 says

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from denouncing a doctrine that says to kill us all, even if that doctrine hides behind the word "religion."

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

Rew says

Islam isn't the enemy. Our reaction to terrorism is.

Exactly how are we supposed to react to Islamic terrorism?

Rew says

In the end, enemies typically become friends, once major conflict has run its course. (Time heals all wounds ... etc. etc.)

Islam never becomes anyone's friend. Those barbarians haven't even stopped killing each other.

Rew says

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

I denounce Nazis and Islam equally, because of their inherent similarities and historic axis in Europe (100k Muslims joined the Nazi SS at the behest of their Grand Mufti), and the KKK. You embrace KKKlansmen, Nazis, and/or Muslims, claiming that some of them seem really nice to you.

Rew says

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking the sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

Rew says

I don't think anyone is denying a radicalization issue in Islam.

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam. Except for the mainstream media, that relay these thoughts exactly.
Except the numerous liberals who are so afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims. etc, etc...

Heraclitusstudent says

Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Even more bizarre, she proposed paying to import more of it, while acknowledging that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," and proposing more mass surveillance and support for her Saudi sponsors.

Heraclit says

No Christian or Jews are asking for theocracy.

They are out there, on the fringe.
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/#sthash.iFbBpkoW.dpbs
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm

Heraclit says

Our culture has, through centuries of criticizing faith, managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?
Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

Heraclit says

Comparing Islam to other religions is clearly an attempt to distort the problem we face, which is clearly unique to Islam.

No denying problems. They are problems faced before and common to religions in general. This is not an attempt to obscure, merely something you don't agree with.

Heraclit says

Moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for a text that is literally inciting violence and discrimination against non-Muslims are contributing to the problem. You can't say this is a sacred text written by God, and at the same time claim it doesn't mean what it says when you read it.

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

Fundamentalism must appeal to you. ;)

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Rew says

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam. Just denouncing acts like killing someone for apostasy will get Muslims up in arms.

Rew says

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Sharia laws are Islam. And Islam is sharia laws. There is no difference. You cannot be a Muslim without first believing in sharia laws.

Rew says

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?

Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

You compare this to theocracy? You can't be serious. We have separation of church and state. That some voters blocks within a democracy are influenced by their religious philosophy is not theocracy.
I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Islam itself, no. Radicalization in Islam, yes.

Heraclitusstudent says

afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims.

False attack line of the right. The counter side, and proponent of freedoms, is afraid that people will be biased against Islam overall.

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

Rew says

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

The sharia laws are unique to Islam and Islam only. No one else practices such human rights abuses to this extent as does Islam. If sharia laws are not part and parcel of Islam, as you claim, why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Rew says

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

To have a different interpretation you just need to hold contradictory beliefs: (1) that the legitimacy of the text comes from being written by god (not inspired or spelled but directly written) (2) then believe something else than what is written. Then pray over it 5 times a day.

It's not impossible but clearly this is not what the stable intellectual position is.

Heraclitusstudent says

I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Oh no. I'm very clear of what it looks like. The fall of the Shaw in Iran is the model to watch. Amazing today that Iran is more progressive on some things than other nations considered to be far less theocratic and progressive than it. Guess that is that whole 'things cannot change and are always strictly interpreted' point you are making. (wink)

Heraclitusstudent says

We have separation of church and state.

Except where we don't, and the fact that Christianity's influence in politics is enormous.
I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

There is no "ban" from influence on government ... as you previously stated.

Heraclitusstudent says

... managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

That reduction in influence also seems to be making a last ditch swing the other way as of late.

How many terrorist attacks in the US or Europe are assigned to Dominionists or Superfrum Hassidim?

It's not people with long sideburns or 50s men's haircuts plowing trucks into Xmas markets or random pedestrians.

Frankly I would take Rafael Cruz in a heartbeat over Grand Sheik Abdulrahman Al Alsanad. By the way, the Saudi Religious Police were the model for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - aka the Taliban's- own version of Saudi's PVPV.

Strategist says

why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Do you know how many activists movements there are in Islam now?

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/women-islam-and-the-push-for-reform-in-the-muslim-world/

Strategist says

No one else practices such human rights abuses to this extent as does Islam.

Source? I can think of massive atrocities being committed in the name of Christianity as well as just general world governments that are atrocious.

Rew says

Source? I can think of massive atrocities being committed in the name of Christianity as well as just general world governments that are atrocious.

Over the past few decades?

By the way, if Colonialism is oppression, then Europeans can take back Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, and Constantinople from Islamic Colonialist Imperialists, right?

Rew says

Except where we don't, and the fact that Christianity's influence in politics is enormous.

I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

You are right on this, but it's minuscule compared to the influence Islam has on politics in Muslim countries. The influence there is 100%.

Rew says

Strategist says

why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Do you know how many activists movements there are in Islam now?

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/women-islam-and-the-push-for-reform-in-the-muslim-world/

LOL. It's the tenets of Islam that need to be booted out. No one alive is working towards that.

"Middle East—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—to reveal how activists are working within the tenets of Islam to create economic, political, and educational opportunities for women."

By the way, anybody who has a modicum of respect for basic human rights and is anti-slavery ought to be boycotting the hosting of the World Cup in Qatar.

Heraclitusstudent says

They are saying: Muslim ==> not (terrorist)

you are saying: not(muslim ==> terrorist)

You are right, they are not the same. But these are also not the same.

Muslim ==>Peace

Muslim ==>not terrorist

Actually neither of these are true if interpreted in the absolute sense. That's where this breaks down. You can't accurately generalize that Islam is peaceful or that it's violent. But if we are going to generalize one way or the other we are going to generalize that it's peaceful. Not just because a majority are peaceful, but also becasue a super super majority of American Muslims in America are peaceful, and we don't want to incite hatred against all Muslims. Call it PR or call it PC. Common sense should tell you that it's necessary.

Again, how is this not easy to understand ?

The politicians are saying Muslims are for peace, becasue this is what they want the world and Islam to believe about Islam. If they were to generalize and say Islam is all about violence, then that is a false generalization, and importantly it's also a small step from declaring war on Islam. It would be perceived as the U.S. condemning Islam.

Can you honestly say that you don't think that defining Islam as violent, evil and maybe even our enemy isn't exactly what the radical jihadists want ? Or that it would not cause an increase in the number of Islamists ?

What's going on is the politicians are playing chess and you think it's a game of checkers.

Heraclitusstudent says

To have a different interpretation you just need to hold contradictory beliefs: (1) that the legitimacy of the text comes from being written by god (not inspired or spelled but directly written) (2) then believe something else than what is written. Then pray over it 5 times a day.

It's not impossible but clearly this is not what the stable intellectual position is.

So you believe one must have a fundamental and literal following of a religious text to be a practitioner? (cough fundamentalism cough)
A hunch the world is very "black and white" for you. ;)

T L Lipsovich says

Over the past few decades?

Right now. The LRA. You can argue degrees, but the point is this is a Christian idealogical practice committing atrocities.

Gotta admire Rew's guts and debating ability on a topic he is so obviously wrong.
Marcus would just get frustrated and put everyone on ignore.

Strategist says

the influence Islam has on politics in Muslim countries. The influence there is 100%.

Nothing is 100%. The world is far more open these days than any autocratic strongman or zealot would like.

Rew says

Oh no. I'm very clear of what it looks like. ...Amazing today that Iran is more progressive on some things than other nations considered to be far less theocratic and progressive than it. Guess that is that whole 'things cannot change and are always strictly interpreted' point you are making. (wink)

So you consider an Islamic republic like Iran an acceptable form of government?

Rew says

I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

There is no "ban" from influence on government ... as you previously stated.

We are not clean of religious influence, but we are order of magnitude better than Muslims.
And there is a legal separation between Church and state.

Rew says

Heraclitusstudent says

... managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

That reduction in influence also seems to be making a last ditch swing the other way as of late.

I don't think so. The evangelicals influence under Bush all but collapse under Trump. Christianity has been boxed and lost any durable control of worldly matter.
This is not the case for Islam. The best proof is that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Christians and their religions. But try it for Muslims and (1) you are immediately categorized as an islamophobic nazi, (2) herds of liberals immediately jump to defend that faith, (3) Muslims are offended and, depending on the offense, may find appropriate to kill you.

Strategist says

Gotta admire Rew's guts and debating ability on a topic he is so obviously wrong.

Thank you and calling someone wrong isn't much of an argument ... but I guess it's a start. ;)