|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2010 : 21:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Yes, extremism is contradictory to the Constitution. There seems to be the misconception that extreme Islam is representative of Islam. You can't paint all Muslims with the same brush.
|
That's why you look to the dogma. What does the dogma say?
If the dogma itself is extreme and it prescribes extremism, on what basis is this distinction between islam and extreme islam being made?
Are you claiming that the dogma is not extremist?
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2010 : 22:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Well, sit bolt upright in that straight-back chair, button that top button, and try again. Sorry, a little Laurie Anderson is good for one. ;)
If I were to critique the concept of sin and the prescribed beliefs that accompany that, including the detrimental effects like self-loathing and fear it may have on people, you would understand that as a critique of ideas. In that case you would be perfectly capable of distinguishing the ideas from the people who hold them.
If I were to critique the idea of faith-healing or prayer as a substitute for medical care, you would understand that it was a critique of ideas. In that case you would be perfectly capable of distinguishing the ideas from the people who hold them.
The list could go infinitely on.
The real question is: Why is it so hard in the case of islam?
Is it because you've been told that to critique the ideas is to conduct personal attacks? Who told you that? People from all religions with a "self-identifying with the philosophy mentality" will tell you they are being personally attacked if you dare question their beliefs.
When I say that an prescribed idea is contradictory to some portion of the Constitution, how in the world can anyone possibly shoe-horn that into the concept of bigotry? It is a simple statement of fact. These two ideas are contradictory. Why is this hard?
|
dglas, no one is saying you can't criticize the tenets of the religion of Islam. I highly doubt anyone here has a very high opinion of that faith. But that has absolutely nothing to do with allowing Muslim-Americans to worship peacefully in a location they've legally purchased and paid for. Your insistence that this constitutes the first step on the slippery slope of Islam taking over America is nothing more than hysterical paranoia fueled by right wing demagoguery.
I don't like religion, especially. But I understand that the U.S. constitution and the laws governing both the rights and limits of religious expression are the reason I don't live in a Christian theocracy right now. Freedom of conscience is an essential right and integral to maintaining a strict separation between government and religion. Ben Franklin said "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Only spineless simpletons easily manipulated by their own fears and prejudices would seriously suggest impinging on someone else's religious freedom and expect to maintain their own.
And don't expect to be considered anything but a bigot until you start making a distinction between the ideas held by those wishing to build the community center and the ideas held by the people responsible for 9-11. Not all Muslims are terrorists out to overthrow the government of the United States. Many immigrants came here to escape religious fundamentalism in their countries of origin. There's no surer way of radicalizing Muslim Americans than by demonstrating that our laws won't protect them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2010 23:21:07 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2010 : 22:19:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dave W.
Funniest analogy ever: John Oliver on The Daily Show:There is a difference between what you can do, and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you?
|
If opposing the mosque is bigoted then how is this not as well?
|
Well, it's not bigoted if you can follow an analogy, Robb. See, Oliver was saying that if all Muslim Americans are morally responsible for the events of 9-11 and therefore shouldn't build a mosque near ground zero, then all Christians should be held morally responsible for the clerical abuse scandals and therefore shouldn't build churches near playgrounds. It's an argument for treating everyone equally. Of course, if you think it's absurd for all Christians to bear the stigma and moral responsibility for the actions of pedophilic Catholic priests, then you're beginning to understand why so many find it offensive and objectionable that these Muslim Americans are being held to a different standard. Get it now?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2010 22:37:13 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2010 : 22:32:01 [Permalink]
|
I had a WTF moment when I read your first post.
You will have to make a choice between islam and your Constitution. The question is when do you make it.
You are going to have to face this, like it or not, because islam will force you to. Your "live and let live" principle will be be broken, by islam's "convert or die" absolutism. The only choice you get is whether most of the principle will remain. You will either suspend your Constitution, or limit its application, or you will see it utterly decimated. Those are your choices; if you think otherwise, you are living in a dream world. You had better get acclimated to that and started thinking with some clarity.
|
This is the fear and insanity of political cynicism that I am growing so tired of. You have a total lack of confidence in our civil society and secular legal system to imagine that building a community center with 2 floors of prayer space in south Manhattan will be its undoing. Yours is the type of extremism that bleeds intolerance. Get a fucking grip.
Originally posted by dglas
Originally posted by podcat
Yes, extremism is contradictory to the Constitution. There seems to be the misconception that extreme Islam is representative of Islam. You can't paint all Muslims with the same brush.
|
That's why you look to the dogma. What does the dogma say?
If the dogma itself is extreme and it prescribes extremism, on what basis is this distinction between islam and extreme islam being made?
Are you claiming that the dogma is not extremist?
|
No what is being claimed is that extremist are taking their religion to an extreme position. Very few muslims are extremists. JFC, take a look at Christians in this country, they run the gamit, from professionals doing meaningful work in biology to YECs. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2010 : 23:08:07 [Permalink]
|
dglas still refuses to state what "dogma" he is speaking about. If he had anything but an argument from vague fears and slippery slopes, he would explicitly quote the Koran, explain the contemporary meaning of the quoted verses to the Muslims in question, provide us with solid statistics on how many American Muslims actually hold those verses dogmatically, and a trend line, at the very least. It would still be a slippery-slope argument, but at least it would be one with empirical foundations.
In other words, to demonstrate a threat, dglas needs to actually demonstrate a threat. His referral to the threat as nothing but "the dogma" is his admission that he doesn't actually know what the threat is, or how threatening it is. He wants us to think the threat is dire, but he cannot show how immanent or dangerous it is, and so he is limited to vague and evasive expressions of FUD. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 09:02:42 [Permalink]
|
Quoth Dave:
"dglas still refuses to state what "dogma" he is speaking about. If he had anything but an argument from vague fears and slippery slopes, he would explicitly quote the Koran, explain the contemporary meaning of the quoted verses to the Muslims in question, provide us with solid statistics on how many American Muslims actually hold those verses dogmatically, and a trend line, at the very least. It would still be a slippery-slope argument, but at least it would be one with empirical foundations."
"Contemporary meanings? Mind reading? Limiting the range in order to get desired results?" Dave is actually appealing to interpretation and vagueness as a defense. Will he cherry-pick his Koran references, too?
Evasions noted.
No, Dave, the onus is upon you to prove that every possible discussion about islamic dogma is bigotry. All those stringent requirements apply to you. Tell me, Dave, do you, for some inexplicable reason, believe that islam in America somehow intrinsically different from all the rest of islam in the world? On what do you base this belief? Do you somehow believe that the experiences of Europe will somehow magically not be repeated here? You sound like someone saying that cyanide won't hurt "me" even if it kills everyone else who drinks it because (fill in the blank). And, yes, I noticed how you tried to change the subject matter from islam to muslims - from ideas to people - exposing your determination to confuse of the two.
First, Dave, I have to try, just as Sam Harris does, to get through the noise of people like Dude who mindlessly squeal "bigotry" with arms folded and fingers firmly in ears and in lieu of actually talking about the subject matter. This requires baby steps, apparently. Look how emotionally charged Dude's opening post was - "how any democrat can fail to see the obvious position" (the "obvious" position) doesn't leave a lot (any, actually) room for discussion. Aren't you embarrassed by this person calling himself a "skeptic?"
Now Dude is just being Dude, which is to say, generally nonsensical, oblivious and worthless, aggressive, abusive and ridiculous. His opening post might be a warning sign to any rational person that what follows is emotional, vitriolic garbage, which it is. Now, as rational, thinking people, we have to rise above Dude's tantrum-attempts to use force of will to forbid any discussion or thought and actually consider arguments based on merit rather that plastering a label on them and trying to pretend they don't exist. I class Dude in the same category as Dennis Markuze, but with a different "message." Is this a board for ranting, or a board for thinking?
I have just had to spend several posts trying to defend examining ideas - among self-professed skeptics! How incredibly pathetic is that?
Quote moakley:
"dglas, no one is saying you can't criticize the tenets of the religion of Islam."
Actually, whenever the word "bigotry" is used when someone tries, that is exactly what is being said. It is a classic attempt to equate the dogma with the people such that any critique of the ideas becomes a personal attack. We see this in all three of the Abrahamic religions; you'd think we would have understood and come to terms with this disingenuous nonsense. By the way, don't you think the words "hysterical paranoia" are just a wee bit over the top? No? That might tell you something, if you let it.
Honestly, I see little in this thread but a mob-mentality, rallying behind a word. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 09:27:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Quote moakley:
"dglas, no one is saying you can't criticize the tenets of the religion of Islam."
|
That would be H.Humbert. But it was you who in their opening comment emphatically stated that we can either kiss the Islamist butts now or we can kiss the Islamist butts later, but we will be kissing Islamist butts. Do you still hold to that idea or are you backing away from it? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 09:28:45 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| First, Dave, I have to try, just as Sam Harris does, to get through the noise of people like Dude who mindlessly squeal "bigotry" with arms folded and fingers firmly in ears and in lieu of actually talking about the subject matter. |
That noise, it's your own stupidity preventing you from engaging in rational thought. You are so blinded by your own overinflated sense of self worth, ignorance, and arrogance that you can't even understand what my OP was about. I'm complaining that democrats are incapable of politically engaging this topic in a way that lets them capture the argument and set the tone, and that this should be something easily done.
And seriously, you retarded little douchebag, go find the fucking word "bigot" in my OP in this thread. Oh, what's that? I didn't use that word, not even once, in my OP? No shit.
You are so delusional, and so wrong, that you are left making up lies about what I've said. You are pathetic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 09:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Tell me, Dave, do you, for some inexplicable reason, believe that islam in America somehow intrinsically different from all the rest of islam in the world? |
You think Islam is practiced the same all over the world?
| On what do you base this belief? Do you somehow believe that the experiences of Europe will somehow magically not be repeated here? |
If you bothered to read the post addressed to you in this thread, you would know the answer to this question. America has different laws than Europe. The Constitution has strict limits on the influence religion can wield through government. Do you think those laws will magically stop working? Do you really think America is in imminent danger of allowing itself to be governed by sharia law? On what basis are you making these claims?
| You sound like someone saying that cyanide won't hurt "me" even if it kills everyone else who drinks it because (fill in the blank). And, yes, I noticed how you tried to change the subject matter from islam to muslims - from ideas to people - exposing your determination to confuse of the two. |
As soon as you want to begin criticizing Islam, dglas, feel free. So far you've done nothing but insinuate that all Muslim Americas embrace the most violent interpretation of their religion, a position you haven't begun to justify. Your fear is not a rational argument.
| Actually, whenever the word "bigotry" is used when someone tries, that is exactly what is being said. It is a classic attempt to equate the dogma with the people such that any critique of the ideas becomes a personal attack. We see this in all three of the Abrahamic religions; you'd think we would have understood and come to terms with this disingenuous nonsense. |
Then what word should we use when people, like you for instance, display actual bigotry?
| By the way, don't you think the words "hysterical paranoia" are just a wee bit over the top? No? That might tell you something, if you let it. |
The general reaction here to your statements on the subject might tell you something about the reasonableness of your position if you let it. No? Easier to think every single one of us somehow lost our ability to think rationally than to admit you're painting with way too broad a brush, isn't it?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 10:19:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dglas said:
| First, Dave, I have to try, just as Sam Harris does, to get through the noise of people like Dude who mindlessly squeal "bigotry" with arms folded and fingers firmly in ears and in lieu of actually talking about the subject matter. |
That noise, it's your own stupidity preventing you from engaging in rational thought. You are so blinded by your own overinflated sense of self worth, ignorance, and arrogance that you can't even understand what my OP was about. I'm complaining that democrats are incapable of politically engaging this topic in a way that lets them capture the argument and set the tone, and that this should be something easily done.
And seriously, you retarded little douchebag, go find the fucking word "bigot" in my OP in this thread. Oh, what's that? I didn't use that word, not even once, in my OP? No shit.
You are so delusional, and so wrong, that you are left making up lies about what I've said. You are pathetic.
|
 |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 10:34:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dave W.
Funniest analogy ever: John Oliver on The Daily Show:There is a difference between what you can do, and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you?
|
If opposing the mosque is bigoted then how is this not as well?
|
Well, it's not bigoted if you can follow an analogy, Robb. See, Oliver was saying that if all Muslim Americans are morally responsible for the events of 9-11 and therefore shouldn't build a mosque near ground zero, then all Christians should be held morally responsible for the clerical abuse scandals and therefore shouldn't build churches near playgrounds. It's an argument for treating everyone equally. Of course, if you think it's absurd for all Christians to bear the stigma and moral responsibility for the actions of pedophilic Catholic priests, then you're beginning to understand why so many find it offensive and objectionable that these Muslim Americans are being held to a different standard. Get it now?
|
Yes, I have always gotten this. I don't agree that all Christians are responsible for Catholic priests behavior as well as I don't believe all Muslims are responsible for terrorism. As I stated before I do not oppose the construction, my point is that people that oppose the construction are not all bigots. They have concerns that may be worth discussing. Just as most Nazis were German, most terrorists today are Muslim.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 10:38:33 [Permalink]
|
I think it's high time dglas stops pontificating in generalities and addresses some specifics.
1) What's the clear and present danger of allowing Muslim Americans to built a community center on Park Avenue?
2) Do fears that Muslims are out to destroy America's laws and values justify preemptively destroying America's laws and values?
3) If all Muslims are members of a violent religion, how should we handle the Muslims who are already legally in America? Should Muslims be barred from entering the country until they renounce Islam? What solutions and course of action are actually being proposed?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 10:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
As I stated before I do not oppose the construction, my point is that people that oppose the construction are not all bigots. They have concerns that may be worth discussing. Just as most Nazis were German, most terrorists today are Muslim.
|
No, not all bigots but it amazes me how uninformed the general public is. www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41248.html
www.foxnews.com/.../nearly-americans-thinks-obama-muslim-survey-shows/
I know the percentages that these surveys represent are probably inaccurate but no matter what it's way too many people who make decisions based on emotion rather than sense.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 10:52:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Yes, I have always gotten this. |
Then why did you ask how the statement could be interpreted as anything other than bigoted?
| They have concerns that may be worth discussing. |
Yes, we're discussing those concerns right now and concluding that they are vague and unfounded. What specific concerns do you feel still need to be addressed?
Just as most Nazis were German, most terrorists today are Muslim.
|
And most kamikazes were Japanese. Did that justify imprisoning Japanese Americans in interment camps for the duration of the war? Should Muslim Americans be happy to get off with only being treated like second class citizens?
There seems to be this fallacious idea floating around that the only path to bigotry is via racism. That's wrong. The easiest path to bigotry is through fear. I understand that people have "concerns," Robb, (i.e. irrational fears drummed up by right wing demagogues). The bigotry we are witnessing is a direct result of that fear. The question that needs to be answered is "are these fears justified?" Well?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 11:09:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I think it's high time dglas stops pontificating in generalities and addresses some specifics.
1) What's the clear and present danger of allowing Muslim Americans to built a community center on Park Avenue?
2) Do fears that Muslims are out to destroy America's laws and values justify preemptively destroying America's laws and values?
3) If all Muslims are members of a violent religion, how should we handle the Muslims who are already legally in America? Should Muslims be barred from entering the country until they renounce Islam? What solutions and course of action are actually being proposed?
|
I think everyone is completely missing dglas's (and Sam Harris's) point.
1) The community center can and most likely will be built. They have every legal right to build there.....but it does send a bad message to those who would do us harm....and the moderates are failing to see this point.
2) Not all Muslims of course but too many for comfort (which is approximately 1%) Religion in general needs to be treated/addressed based upon it's core tenants.....not what "most followers" actually believe.
3) Religious moderates are a BIG part of the problem. Religious tolerance needs to go bye bye. Not all religions are created equal and therefore they should not be treated equally. No one needs to renounce Islam.....but the tenants of Islam do need to change. It needs to evolve toward modern ethical/moral standards and it needs to to it quickly. This of course will not happen.
We are very quickly reaching a point where a very small minority could literally bring modern civilization to a screeching halt......or worse. Where a single individual could destroy an entire city.....not today......but too soon for comfort.
Of the three major religions Islam is CLEARLY the most dangerous and the moderates screaming for tolerance may be the primary avenue to our demise. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
