Jump to content

U.S. Politics, 5


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

See my point above about Pakistan. Anyway, isn't there just a touch of religious violence in India?

Yes. Mostly directed by fundamentalist Hindus against Muslims (and Christians). Please don't thread-drift to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except India isn't a majority moslem country, is it? That version of India is now called Pakistan, and you can try the Mohammed t-shirt experiment in Islamabad if you wish as well.

Depends on the T-shirt. Depends on where in Islamabad. There's a long Shia Islam tradition of depicting the prophet actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hereward,

Isn't that the truth. I'm arguing with fellow parishoners from my parish on my facebook page right now. The best they can come up with to oppose the Cordoba Center is that "it just doesn't feel right".

Arguing politics and religion on a Facebook page? Gutsier than I am.

Depends on the T-shirt. Depends on where in Islamabad. There's a long Shia Islam tradition of depicting the prophet actually.

Nice. FLoW, it's a pleasure to watch you trip repeatedly over your own ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I see nothing wrong with harassing the shit out of the guy, calling him the scumbag that he is, and doing everything legal to dissuade him from doing that. So that may be where we differ.

See my point above about Pakistan. Anyway, isn't there just a touch of religious violence in India?

Yeah, there sure is. In fact there's a lot of violence in India of all sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

If you review my post history over the last 7 years you may notice I'm not all that fond of resorts to mobs to enforce their will as an alternative to people exercising their Constitutionally and legally protected rights. Even when I don't like what that person (Fred Phelps) is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLoW

I think I'm losing track of your argument here. We started with discussion of mosques in the US, a functional democracy of long standing, and your concern that Muslim beliefs might be fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. You're now discounting the apparent ability of Muslims to live perfectly normally in functional democracies of long standing like India because they aren't in a majority. I'm confused. What was your point again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall ever linking this point to the argument over the mosque. This is a separate issue/discussion regarding islam as a whole based on the comments that Commodore made. Some of which I disagree with and think were over the top, but others that I think have some validity. Interestingly, people only focus on the portion of his comments with which they disagree, while avoiding the uncomfortable realities contained in the particular parts of his post I quoted.

Care to wear a Mohammed shirt walking the streets of Islamabad?

My bad here then. I was refering to and am still stuck on the opponents of building the mosque near Ground Zero trying to have it both ways, so to speak, when they say that while those wanting to build it have the legal right they still shouldn't do it because it would be insensitive to those who don't want it there. This, of course, is mealy-mouthed and completely glosses over the fact that those who would be offended to have this mosque built are blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few (i.e. engaging in bigotry).

As to your question about wearing a Mohammed shirt in Islamabad I certainly acknowledge that there are Islamic extremists who would kill and have killed for creating images of Mohammed among many other things. I also believe Islamic extremists were responsible for the attacks of 9/11. I just don't think all of Islam is to blame for the actions of Islamic extremists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

? You are hurting my head with bad history.

The Brits partitioned the dominion of India into India and Pakistan, based largely on the religious divide. So when I was discussing moslem majority nations and someone mentioned India, I referred to Pakistan part as Moslem India for that reason. Still not going to wear that Mohammed t-shirt in Islamabad either way.

Yes. Mostly directed by fundamentalist Hindus against Muslims (and Christians). Please don't thread-drift to this.

It's both sides, but the point is made so I'll drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no he didn't... Franklin Graham says Obama may profess to be a Christian, and sure he's prayed with me and my father, but he was born a Muslim! He has the Muslim seed!

Yes, that's right, someone just busted out the "seed is strong" argument in American politics.

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Graham told John King. "Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed and he has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said."

For the record, Obama's father was Barack Hussein Obama, who gave the future president his own name. President Obama has written that his father, who he rarely ever saw, was raised a Muslim but was in practice an atheist.

This line of discussion came about due to a Pew national poll showing that 18% of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim -- nearly twice the number from last year.

Graham further explained: "The confusion is, is because his father was a Muslim, he was born a Muslim. The Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs. That's why Gaddafi calls him 'my son.' They see him as a Muslim. But of course the President says he is a Christian, and we just have to accept it as that."

King noted that Graham and his father have met Obama, and prayed with him. With this context, King asked, does Graham believe Obama when he says he is a Christian?

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/franklin-graham-i-think-the-presidents-problem-is-that-he-was-born-a-muslim-video.php?ref=fpa

Can we please get the fucking theocrats out of political commentary already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

Scot, in the other thread, you said you found Fred Phelps "objectionable", but wouldn't try to silence him. Why is he "objectionable" if all he is doing is hurting people's feelings?

And while I understand that you wouldn't want to silence him -- just as I don't want the government to force this mosque to move -- would you nevertheless urge him not to conduct his protests at those locations? Or do you think even that would be improper?

The problem with your comparison between Fred Phelp's conduct and the Cordoba Centre is that Fred Phelps and his ilk are committing the objectionable conduct themselves, whereas the people who want to set up the Cordoba Centre have done nothing wrong. They have committed no objectionable acts. They simply happen to share a religion with a few terrorists have claim to have acted in said religion's name.

So again, a better comparison would be to blame all Christians for the objectionable acts committed by Fred Phelps. I think you'd agree that that would be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLoW

I think I'm losing track of your argument here. We started with discussion of mosques in the US, a functional democracy of long standing, and your concern that Muslim beliefs might be fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy.

Doctrinally, they may be. I know some of the issues (sharia, etc.), but not how they would be resolved theologically. But that doesn't mean they can't be compatible in practice, and I specifically noted that assimilation in the U.S. seemed to be working rapidly enough.

You're now discounting the apparent ability of Muslims to live perfectly normally in functional democracies of long standing like India because they aren't in a majority.

No, that wasn't the point at all. Commodore made a point earlier on in discussing Islam that he wouldn't want to live in any moslem majority state because of rights concerns. I commented then that I thought that was probably a fair observation. Rebutting that point by pointing to moslems living as a minority in other nations doesn't work, because it begs the question of whether things would be different if they were in the majority. For example, if moslems were the majority, would India have the same democracy, or would it look more like Pakistan? To me, the real measure of tolerance is how you treat other people when you're in the majority.

Again, there isn't any disagreemeent over the existence of moderate moslems willing to live in peace and tolerance, and there is no reason to believe that such folks can't one day be a sufficiently powerful majority to keep whatever radicals remain in check in those countries where moslems are a majority. One day, Christians may be able to live openly throughout moslem-majority countries, wear and say what they want, and not be fearful of violence or repressions. But this is not that day. Those who deny the existence of a significant radical minority within islam are fooling themselves. Now, if moslems who are a minority in some countries assimilate well, and reconcile their religious beliefs with basic rights, that's great. But if not, then it can become a significant problem even in countries where they are a minority.

I'm confused. What was your point again?

The discussion has moved from focusing solely on the mosque to more general points made by Commodore. Sorry if that's not clear. Do you think any of Commodore's points I quoted have any validity?

It gets old going in circles sometimes. There was a point a couple of weeks ago where someone on the left commented that Christianity had its growing pains too, that islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, and so that should be taken into account in judging Islam. I've got no problem with that point, but implicit in the comment is an acknowledgement that islam has some problems right now. Yet, most folks here seem to want to pretend that those problems don't exist. Because acknowledging those problems could make you look untrendy, may lead someone to call you a bigot, and well, we wouldn't want to appear less than progressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scot, in the other thread, you said you found Fred Phelps "objectionable", but wouldn't try to silence him. Why is he "objectionable" if all he is doing is hurting people's feelings?

There are objections and objections. While I find Phelps himself ridiculous and his message despicable, I have zero desire to harass him or use legal means to shut him down. And that's how your hypothetical is different from the mosque issue. I don't think Ser Scot is going to turn a visit from Phelps into a media circus that elected officials rush to politicize and tars an entire demographic. See the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I apparently differ from Commodore is that I don't think that islam is inherently incompatible with democracy. Christianity adjusted over time to religious freedom, and I think islam can as well. People are people.

Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. I'm just going to keep repeating those until you acknowledge them, FLOW.

Would anyone else like to join in, and see if we can break through FLOW's Wall of Ignorance?

One day, Christians may be able to live openly throughout moslem-majority countries, wear and say what they want, and not be fearful of violence or repressions. But this is not that day.

They do, and not just in the three democracies I mentioned above. Christians live openly in Malaysia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the real measure of tolerance is how you treat other people when you're in the majority.

:blink:

Omg, isn't that what this whole not-a-mosque thread about? It's amazing that one could make that statement with a straight face while vocalizing the most odious expressions against the right for Muslims in Manhattan to practice their faith.

Lol, surely there's an irony emoticon for this board?

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...