Jump to content

U.S. Politics, 5


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Yes, because it was the imam who is responsible for the controversy and not Republican politicians and ideologues trying to frame a pointless debate so they don't have to debate actual issues.

Clearly it's because the project is funded by terrorist money. :angry2:

Well at least that's what the wingnuts are screaming about in yet another idiotic attempt to move the goalpost again ............ never mind the fact that

The group has not yet begun fundraising for the $100 million proposed Park51 Islamic center, and in 2008 reported a paltry $18,255 in funds,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100819/pl_yblog_upshot/do-islamic-center-developers-have-the-funds-to-build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we be so lucky to see the death of the current Endorsement Test in the near future?

In today’s American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, a Tenth Circuit panel struck down the Utah Highway Patrol’s practice of allowing twelve-foot-high crosses as roadside memorials for fallen troopers. The practice, the panel held, violated the Establishment Clause because it had the effect of endorsing Christianity. (For pictures of the crosses, which included the names of the troopers, as well as the date of death and the Utah Highway Patrol beehive symbol, see the last three pages of the opinion.)

The circuit has 7 Republican appointees and 3 Democratic appointees among its active judges, but the panel consisted of three Republican appointees, including two in active service. It thus seems quite unlikely that the case will be reheard en banc. But five of the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine members seem likely to disapprove of the endorsement test — Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are on the record as opposing the test, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito seem likely to take the same view. So that might be a reason for the Justices to take the case, which doesn’t have the procedural complexities of this year’s Mojave cross case (Salazar v. Buono). [uPDATE: Note that Justice Kennedy, who has long been on the record as opposing the endorsement test, wrote in Salazar that “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsementdoes not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined that opinion.]

http://volokh.com/2010/08/18/a-possible-endorsement-test-case-for-the-u-s-supreme-court/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think what Obama said makes sense. He states that of course they have the right to build a COMMUNITY CENTER (there already is a mosque nearby) wherever they wish. Whether its a good location, he's leaving up to the people of New York and their local government.

I see nothing wrong with that. I think the whole thing is an absolutely idiotic phantom issue that has been drummed up into some kind holy crusade to sell papers and play politics. Let the people of NYC decide this one and everyone else stay the fuck out of it.

He can let people decide and still have a viewpoint.

Wow.

Well, you know that's true. It has caused untold destruction over the years, its crusaders nearly destroying the cradles of civilization several times, wiping out nearly two continents worth of indigenous peoples and being a catalyst for dozens of major wars. Even now its factions promotes legislation that denies rights to US citizens, denies third world countries aid if they don't follow their ideology, represses women's rights, and engages in terrorist tactics on medical facilities they disagree with.

Oh wait, that's Christianity. ;) Silly me.

Way to own up to your bigotry, Commodore. No, seriously. It's refreshing to see the bigotry out in the open instead of hidden behind code words and sham arguments.

Here's a question, though... Since we're condemning Islam based on Turkey's government, which is supposed to be the most progressive Muslim country, what conclusions about Judaism can we draw from Israel's decades-long and increasingly brutal repression of Palestinians? What about the judgments we can make about the nature of Christianity, based on the Vatican's (it is a country after all) sexism, homophobia, and cover-up of child abuse?

I wouldn't call it bigotry. I tolerate Muslims, I just don't want to live in a country that has any semblance to today's majority Muslim countries. So it's in my (and anyone who believes in liberal democracy) interest to condemn Islam. I've read Ayan Hirsi Ali's book, and would not want to endure a fraction of what she has been through.

Plus bigotry implies hating some kind of innate quality about a person, rather than a set of beliefs.

As for Judaism and Catholicism, while I don't care for any religion, I don't see them as a threat to liberal democracy.

Oh, you gunna get it now, Commodore. Papa FLoW is coming to criticize your sweeping generalization about one group based on a few samples, as he did with people who criticized the Mormon Church's role in Prop8 and about the tea party people.

I make no judgment about people, only beliefs. People are not black and white. Calling a person good or bad is silly, people aren't static. It's their particular actions and beliefs that are good/bad.

I don't agree with the suppression of islam. People have the right to worship as they please. In the west, at least, if not in the islamic world.

If their belief system prevails, you might not have that right. You can respect their right to worship and also actively work to marginalize their beliefs, through persuasion and condemnation. That's what free expression is all about.

As of Commodore's last post, there was none, if you had not noticed. He offered a blanket condemnation of the entire religion.

The nature of most religion is that it's an all or nothing proposition. How can you have faith in one belief but not in another, when they derive from the same source? So a blanket condemnation is appropriate, since the bad parts of Islam come with whatever redeeming qualities it might have. The nature of today's majority Muslim countries validates this.

If white southerners practiced Islam it would be rightly maligned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nature of most religion is that it's an all or nothing proposition. How can you have faith in one belief but not in another, when they derive from the same source? So a blanket condemnation is appropriate, since the bad parts of Islam come with whatever redeeming qualities it might have. The nature of today's majority Muslim countries validates this.

Speaking of blanket statements, I present this one, courtesy of Commodore, circa December 2008:

Most people interested in politics either want to meddle in the affairs of others, or want something from other people. Asians that I have known want neither.

At some point, the meddling does become unbearable and the leave me alone crowd takes an interest in politics, as a matter of self preservation. But I imagine Asians look at it as another obstacle to be dealt with, rather than an injustice to complain about. That mindset is just ingrained in their culture.

You hear that, TerraPrime? Opposition to gay marriage to you is just an obstacle and not an injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while we're on the topic of bigotry, looks like Ms. Coulter has gotten the cold shoulder from conservatives because she is too friendly with the gays.

What's really choice about this is that she manages to backhand gays even while defending her right to speak to them:

"I don't know why all gays aren't Republican," she once said. "I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."

It's true; we gays have lots of money. Why, the other day I said to my partner (with whom I often have gay, gay sex), "Same-sex partner," I said, "I think now is the time to buy that stone lion we have always wanted for our Majorca estate. That is, assuming one of us is not victimized in a crime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't want to live in a country that has any semblance to today's majority Muslim countries.... I've read Ayan Hirsi Ali's book, and would not want to endure a fraction of what she has been through.

I think that's an interesting point. And given that the current form of islam that dominates in most of the world hasn't yet solved how to mix religion with classic western liberalism, I'd agree with you. Let them fuck up their own countries, not mine.

I'm not comfortable with banning or restricting a religion. But Europe in particular needs to better assimilate it's rapidly growing moslem populations, or there is a significant demographic risk of a major and malignant cultural shift. The whole car-burning thing in France is just bizarre, and if something isn't done, in 30 years the French might start looking for the second coming of Charles Martel.

In the U.S., assimilation seems to be happening rapidly enough given the size of the moslem population that the risk just doesn't seem the same.

If their belief system prevails, you might not have that right. You can respect their right to worship and also actively work to marginalize their beliefs, through persuasion and condemnation. That's what free expression is all about.

If your point is limited to that, I personally don't disagree with it.

As of Commodore's last post, there was none, if you had not noticed. He offered a blanket condemnation of the entire religion.

I wouldn't condemn the entire religion or all it's practitioners. However, the reality is that islam as it is currently practiced hasn't yet gotten over the hump of how to integrate freedom of religion and other western values. Some individual moslems have, and some groups in some countries have, but until we see a few majority moslem countries go democratic, with legitimate religious freedom and respect for basic human rights, it's a problem. One tough issue is sharia law, and whether that is compatible with basic human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not think there is a problem, but Theo van Gogh might disagree.

Yeah, and you might want to consider that of the very few acts of terrorism involving Muslims in the United States since 9/11 were committed against Muslims.

There were more than 500 attacks against Muslims between 9/11 and May, 2004. How many cases of Muslim terrorists attacking people in Europe or the US has their been since?

The thing about straw men, FLoW, is that they catch on fire rather easily. Very flimsy protection for a shite argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, we come full circle. So, FLOW, are all Muslims responsible for what happened to Theo Van Gogh?

No, it's just that all Europeans are on the hook for the failure to protect Theo Van Gogh. Amiright, amiright?

But it's still not cool to say the Tea Parties are based on racism, because that's just an insupportable level of generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, we come full circle. So, FLOW, are all Muslims responsible for what happened to Theo Van Gogh?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I explicitly said that there are individuals moslems and groups that have managed to figure it out, but the reality is that islam as an overall institution has not.

Or are you saying that what happened Theo van Gogh was a complete anomoly, and that there aren't moslems who think that free speech doesn't extend to depictions of Mohammed? Or check this out, and page down to the part about cartoon depictions. Follow the links if you don't like wikipedia as a secondary source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

Also, I suspect these guys might disagree with you:

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/south-park-creators-chastized-depictions-muhammad-04-22-2010

The next day the “South Park” episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site, revolutionmuslim.com. The post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode “outright insulted” the prophet, adding: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Mr. van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and a critic of religions including Islam, was killed by an Islamic militant in Amsterdam in 2004 after he made a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Younus Abdullah Muhammad, a member of Revolution Muslim, repeated the group’s assertion that the post was a prediction rather than a threat. He said the post on the group’s blog “was intended in a principle that’s deeply rooted in the Islamic religion, which is called commanding the good and forbidding the evil.” He tied the group’s complaints about “South Park” to larger frustrations about American support for Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or maybe just conduct your own experiment -- buy a t-shirt depicting Mohammed, and try walking through the streets of any city in a majority moslem country for a day. You know, just see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe just conduct your own experiment -- buy a t-shirt depicting Mohammed, and try walking through the streets of any city in a majority moslem country for a day. You know, just see what happens.

You know, my avatar picture is from an actual episode of Jackass where Chris Pontius dressed up in a cheap devil suit and walked around Los Angeles with that sign. He was assault by a "Christian." Guess we have some problems with Christianity here, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I explicitly said that there are individuals moslems and groups that have managed to figure it out, but the reality is that islam as an overall institution has not.

Or are you saying that what happened Theo van Gogh was a complete anomoly, and that there aren't moslems who think that free speech doesn't extend to depictions of Mohammed? Or check this out, and page down to the part about cartoon depictions. Follow the links if you don't like wikipedia as a secondary source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

Also, I suspect these guys might disagree with you:

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/south-park-creators-chastized-depictions-muhammad-04-22-2010

The next day the “South Park” episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site, revolutionmuslim.com. The post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode “outright insulted” the prophet, adding: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Mr. van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and a critic of religions including Islam, was killed by an Islamic militant in Amsterdam in 2004 after he made a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Younus Abdullah Muhammad, a member of Revolution Muslim, repeated the group’s assertion that the post was a prediction rather than a threat. He said the post on the group’s blog “was intended in a principle that’s deeply rooted in the Islamic religion, which is called commanding the good and forbidding the evil.” He tied the group’s complaints about “South Park” to larger frustrations about American support for Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or maybe just conduct your own experiment -- buy a t-shirt depicting Mohammed, and try walking through the streets of any city in a majority moslem country for a day. You know, just see what happens.

Ah, how hysterically funny that you should ask/accuse me of being intentionally obtuse. The rest of your post is mindless bullshit that, once again, supports nothing but your bigotry. I challenge you to tell me how one can blame the "institution of Islam" for atrocities while simultaneously not engaging in rank bigotry toward it's members? Then, after you've finished doing your completely irrational, illogical mental gymnastics on that then bring it full circle and apply it to the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some individual moslems have, and some groups in some countries have, but until we see a few majority moslem countries go democratic, with legitimate religious freedom and respect for basic human rights, it's a problem. One tough issue is sharia law, and whether that is compatible with basic human rights.

There's Turkey, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, all three of which are democracies as well as majority-muslim. Malaysia sort of counts, since there's democratic government, but a weird partition between the laws for muslims and non-muslims (the non-muslims have more legal freedoms). Between them, those countries count for about 470 million of the world's muslim population.

I suspect you're confusing "Muslim" with "Arab". There aren't any Muslim Arab Democracies except Lebanon, which isn't exactly a paragon of government functionality.

The next day the “South Park” episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site, revolutionmuslim.com

A whackjob internet group making threats? Say it ain't so!

Why should I care what some random website group says about this stuff? The internet is full of Wannabe Tough Guys and Whackjobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam is not an institution. It's a range of beliefs shared to various extents and interpreted a myriad of ways by a billion and a half people.

Exactly! Perhaps it's more accurate to simply say "Islam" than "Institution of Islam"? Anyway, my point still stands: It's impossible to simultaneously blame Islam for something while not including all of its members in said blame. This is what's happening with the opposition to the propsed mosque near Ground Zero. And, as such, it should be called exactly what it is - bigotry. No one can simultaneously be "sensitive" to the building of the mosque there while not blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...