Lessons Learned: Anti-Muslim Bias Goes Mainstream (Farhana Khera & Aziz Huq)

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

With this I agree, but the mere fact that religion goes through belief and not reasoning makes it potentially very dangerous. Not every religion makes a nuisance out of itself. On the other hand, Islam makes a nuisance out of itself from Dearborn to Dover, through Thailand and the Philippines to Japan.

Yes, the irrationality of religion (all religions) is potentially dangerous. It calls for obedience to a higher power. It promotes hatred for other groups which don't follow the same religious dogmas.

Obviously. However, I also disagree with your (apparent) claim that there is zero relation between the teachings of Islam and the actions of Muslims.

I didn't say there's zero relation. Is there zero relation between Christian homophobia and the Bible? Is there zero relation between killing doctors who perform abortions and Christian beliefs?

Why is Islamic fundamentalism a corruption of Islam? It is closer to the version of Islam Muhammad followed than to the version of peaceful Muslims. Did Muhammad follow a corrupted version of Islam?

Fundamentalists take the most violent and intolerant versions of all possible interpretations of their religious texts. They feed from the evil (as you defined it before) found in those texts.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Amen to that, brother. Here, it isn't quite the same topic, but this TNC post ought to make you feel better:

Right.

I just watched This Is England last night, which I highly recommend to those who have not seen it. It's the story of a young, poor English kid who loses his Dad in the Falkland Islands war, and finds support in a group of non-racist skin head misfits. However, a schism in the group develops when a racialized skin-head comes back from prison, and begins agitating for far-right English Nationalism, and to lead the skin heads in racial violence against the"Pakis", the Muslims, and generally the foreign, brown-skinned invaders.

It occurred to me during one particularly brutal scene where he's ranting against foreigners and the threat they pose against English sovereignty, that were you to merely remove the racist nouns, it wouldn't be a far cry at all from what is becoming more and more mainstream in American political rhetoric.

It is the same exact paranoid, conspiratorial, fuzzy logic bullshit that has always motivated right-wing nationalist hatred. There are obviously degrees, and certain people have their particular bogeymen, whether it is the "illegals" or Muslims, or various forms of non-"real" Americans. But that seed still lurks, and its scary. This board is filled with evidence of the kind of thinking that follows. (And these are supposedly the "reasonable ones"!)

I'm not sure what to call it. I'm not even sure what it is. Is it a feeling that then creates false-cognitions? Is it false thinking that creates these feelings, which then lead to even worse logic? With Muslims, people who should know better, liberals who understand quite well things like racism and patterns of cognitive bias, get caught up in Islamophobic Muslim-bashing. Heck, I just finished Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape, and he seriously raised the possibility of Europe falling to a new Caliphate. His desire to attack religion overwhelmed his ability to reason, in a freaking book about the ways in which reason gets blindsided by emotion!

[sugarkang]

Foreign Policy - The Dis-Integration of Europe.

At least some people are willing to be adults.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

It is the same exact paranoid, conspiratorial, fuzzy logic bullshit that has always motivated right-wing nationalist hatred. There are obviously degrees, and certain people have their particular bogeymen, whether it is the "illegals" or Muslims, or various forms of non-"real" Americans. But that seed still lurks, and its scary. This board is filled with evidence of the kind of thinking that follows. (And these are supposedly the "reasonable ones"!)

Again, do you want to be specific? I don't see how your reasoning is any different from apple's unfounded generalizations.

[Ocean]

I think some of Islamophobic sentiment originates in fear. 9/11 awakened a sense of vulnerability to an invisible enemy that seems to stimulate very primitive fears.

But that fear is magnified by intolerance. There's a combination of "otherness" factors: religion, culture, laws, even physical features.

For some liberals it's a very conflictual topic. On the one hand, there's a desire for tolerance and freedom of religion, and being careful with discrimination and bigotry. But on the other hand, there's the danger of religious fundamentalism. Its regressive nature and repugnant practices of the most radical groups are set in contrast with liberalism and secularism.

[Wonderment]

I noticed that in your lengthy quoting of Ocean, you skipped over this part:

"Have you ever met a Muslim?"

Perhaps there are opportunities in your community to get to know some real-life Muslims. Often recovery from xenophobia comes from actual contact and friendship with members of the group that's the target or victim of the xenophobe. Therapists or community leaders (eg. clergy) can facilitate such encounters.

Here's a short basic article on the causes, symptoms and treatment of xenophobia.

Don't get discouraged. Change is possible.

[Hal Morris]

[QUOTE=Ocean;217927]
Religious texts have a lot of crazy stuff. They also have some good teachings. It's up to those who choose those religions (any of the religions) to figure out the good from the bad. Don't blame the religion or the texts but the intentions of those who created the texts and those who follow them.
/QUOTE]

At some level, both Christianity and Islam share a vision of God who says:

"I'm not going to present you with overwhelming proof that I exist, and will allow many things to exist in the world that reasonable people will say contradicts my scriptures, but you have to believe in me anyway, and you should, like me, insist that nonbelievers are and abomination, and those who don't believe in me will spend eternity experiencing tortures beyond what any mere human torturer could come up with (after a tiny mortal instant that you won't even be able to remember after a few million years of torture).

Now the mainstream of American protestantism was more or less Unitarian/Universalist-ized by the late 19th century (I think any biography of Horace Bushnell would help illuminate this claim) in a way that greatly de-emphasized the idea of Hell, such that growing up in a genteel Methodist church in the 1950s and 1960s it seemed to me very few people took it seriously.

But we now have a fundamentalist subculture that seems to adore the hateful book of Revelations, and has made the "Left Behind" series an enormous bestseller.

In much of the West, Christianity has been moderated by the Enlightenment that came on the heels of decades of Protestant-Catholic wars including the Thirty Years War which killed 15-30% of the Germanic states, and since this time there has been a lasting horror of religious wars (which are only the logical consequence of thinking of God in the way I described above). Where Christianity persisted, we managed to put it in a fuzzy part of our brains which had much less ability to inspire paroxysms of violence.

There is a lot of strangeness about how people hold their religious beliefs, and in many cases I say "More power to it". Does Apple think our adorably naive Farhana and Aziz are secretly straining at their leashes to slaughter infidels?

If the 1.5 billion nominal Muslims in the world congeal into a mass of fanatics, then civilization is almost surely headed for at least a Dark Age. I think it's highly unlikely, but if you want to increase the possibility of it happening, treat Muslims like they are all crazed (and Farhana used the world "evil") terrorists.

If that is how you see Muslims, then Muslims like that are the only ones you will see, and the others, whom we need unless you think we can make 1.5 billion people just disappear, will be invisible to you.

[Wonderment]

Primary source of anti muslims bias = CRAZY MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, over and above the background crazy levels of other groups.

I mean jesus, even freaking Norway was attacked.

Yes, Jesus, over 80 murdered at last count:

After the shooting the police seized a 32-year-old Norwegian man on the island, according to the police and Justice Minister Knut Storberget. He was later identified as Anders Behring Breivik and was characterized by officials as a right-wing extremist.

The acting chief of police, Sveinung Sponheim, said Mr. Breivik, who is not known to have any ties to Islamic extremists, had also been seen in Oslo before the explosions. The police and other authorities declined to say what the suspect’s motivations might have been, but many speculated that the target was Mr. Stoltenberg’s liberal government.

[sugarkang]

U.S. Muslims - view of al Qaeda
58% very unfavorable
10% somewhat unfavorable
5% favorable
27% don't know / refused

Homosexuality should be
27% accepted
61% discouraged

Do liberals think that it's reasonable for 27% of U.S. Muslim to "not know" about their feelings for al Qaeda? And is there a single liberal willing to challenge Muslims for their homophobia? Don't let me interrupt your circle jerk!

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Right.

I just watched This Is England last night, which I highly recommend to those who have not seen it. It's the story of a young, poor English kid who loses his Dad in the Falkland Islands war, and finds support in a group of non-racist skin head misfits. However, a schism in the group develops when a racialized skin-head comes back from prison, and begins agitating for far-right English Nationalism, and to lead the skin heads in racial violence against the"Pakis", the Muslims, and generally the foreign, brown-skinned invaders.

It occurred to me during one particularly brutal scene where he's ranting against foreigners and the threat they pose against English sovereignty, that were you to merely remove the racist nouns, it wouldn't be a far cry at all from what is becoming more and more mainstream in American political rhetoric.

It is the same exact paranoid, conspiratorial, fuzzy logic bullshit that has always motivated right-wing nationalist hatred. There are obviously degrees, and certain people have their particular bogeymen, whether it is the "illegals" or Muslims, or various forms of non-"real" Americans. But that seed still lurks, and its scary. This board is filled with evidence of the kind of thinking that follows. (And these are supposedly the "reasonable ones"!)

I'm not sure what to call it. I'm not even sure what it is. Is it a feeling that then creates false-cognitions? Is it false thinking that creates these feelings, which then lead to even worse logic? With Muslims, people who should know better, liberals who understand quite well things like racism and patterns of cognitive bias, get caught up in Islamophobic Muslim-bashing. Heck, I just finished Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape, and he seriously raised the possibility of Europe falling to a new Caliphate. His desire to attack religion overwhelmed his ability to reason, in a freaking book about the ways in which reason gets blindsided by emotion!

I, Like Sugarkang, would really like to know who are these Really Scary mainstream Americans who are not far from being the equivalant of British skinhead paki stompers? Maybe I should be afraid as well.

At least apple is straightforward enough to come right out with what it is he is paranoid about.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, Jesus, over 80 murdered at last count:

Funny how waiting for evidence instead of simply initiating a core dump from your id tends to work to one's advantage.

[Ocean]

Yes, and JonI's post contained this comment:

now there is not solid confirmation it was muslim terrorists that carried out that particular event, but who would be surprised if it was? My guess is only the lefties, this is their reaction to the obvious

Followed by the proverbial ostrich burying its head.

Is there a proverbial "opening one's mouth too soon"?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I, Like Sugarkang, would really like to know who are these Really Scary mainstream Americans who are not far from being the equivalant of British skinhead paki stompers? Maybe I should be afraid as well.

At least apple is straightforward enough to come right out with what it is he is paranoid about.

You haven't really fairly characterized what he said, have you? And "right-wing nationalist hatred" doesn't conjure any concrete images for you? You can't think of any people with "particular bogeymen, whether it is the 'illegals' or Muslims, or various forms of non-'real' Americans" whose rhetoric "is becoming more and more mainstream" here in America? No Arizona sheriffs, National Review contributors, Republican Presidential hopefuls, skinheads, White Nationalists, militia members, Koran burning pastors, or AM radio hosts come to mind?

[Hal Morris]

(Apple) Why is Islamic fundamentalism a corruption of Islam? It is closer to the version of Islam Muhammad followed than to the version of peaceful Muslims. Did Muhammad follow a corrupted version of Islam?

That's what they're going to say if they have a different more humane version of Islam. They will think that their version is the correct one, and will go around quoting parts of the Koran that say not to kill people and not dwell much on passages that contradict that idea, just as few Christians or Jews have even heard of the death penalty for seeing your parents naked that is mentioned in Leviticus.

Most people who live and flourish in what we'd see as a normal economic environment with schools for children that teach skills for economic productivity rather than hating infidels -- most people if they really get to experience that become attached to it.

Maybe an official schismatic version of Islam will develop that says Mohammad got it wrong and there's yet another revelation. Such strange things have happened. Consider Mormonism (its very development, as well as the church elders having a new revelation about polygamy that made it possible for Utah to become an integral part of the U.S.). Maybe people's ideas will just get fuzzier. As Benjamin Franklin said, it's wonderful being a rational creature; one can think of a reason for anything.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

You haven't really fairly characterized what he said, have you? And "right-wing nationalist hatred" doesn't conjure any concrete images for you? You can't think of any people with "particular bogeymen, whether it is the 'illegals' or Muslims, or various forms of non-'real' Americans" whose rhetoric "is becoming more and more mainstream" here in America? No Arizona sheriffs, National Review contributors, Republican Presidential hopefuls, skinheads, White Nationalists, militia members, Koran burning pastors, or AM radio hosts come to mind?

Eli wrote this about a scene from a movie about British skinhead paki stompers:

It occurred to me during one particularly brutal scene where he's ranting against foreigners and the threat they pose against English sovereignty, that were you to merely remove the racist nouns, it wouldn't be a far cry at all from what is becoming more and more mainstream in American political rhetoric.

And in reply I wrote this:

I would really like to know who are these Really Scary mainstream Americans who are not far from being the equivalant of British skinhead paki stompers? Maybe I should be afraid as well.

How, exactly, did I unfairly characterize what he said?


Also, what Arizona sheriff is like this? Or national review contributors? Herman Cain is not far from being a skin head paki stomper? Really?

I disagree strongly with Cain's rhetoric.
I even disagree strongly with calling illegals 'criminals'.
But to say these people are not far removed from skinheads who beat up people because of their race?
The koran burning pastor is mainstream?
Is this really your perspective?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Eli wrote this about a scene from a movie about British skinhead paki stompers:



And in reply I wrote this:



How, exactly, did I unfairly characterize what he said?


Also, what Arizona sheriff is like this? Or national review contributors? Herman Cain is not far from being a skin head paki stomper? Really?

I disagree strongly with Cain's rhetoric.
I even disagree strongly with calling illegals 'criminals'.
But to say these people are not far removed from skinheads who beat up people because of their race?
Is this really your perspective?

Joe Arpaio, Mark Krikorian, Herman Cain, ..., it's easy to name people whose hateful rhetoric (and worse in Arpaio's case) is consistent with the point here. (Which is about language.)

Who (but you) has said any of them were "not far from being a skin head paki stomper" or "not far removed from skinheads who beat up people because of their race"? What all of these folks have in common is the use of the language of hate; and the point of naming people like the three above is that their use of the such language is contributing to the mainstreaming of that kind of speech.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Joe Arpaio, Mark Krikorian, Herman Cain, ..., it's easy to name people whose hateful rhetoric (and worse in Arpaio's case) is consistent with the point here. (Which is about language.)

Who (but you) has said any of them were "not far from being a skin head paki stomper" or "not far removed from skinheads who beat up people because of their race"? What all of these folks have in common is the use of the language of hate; and the point of naming people like the three above is that their use of the such language is contributing to the mainstreaming of that kind of speech.

Ok, so you think saying the rhetoric of Herman Cain is not far removed from the rhetoric of Skin heads who beat up Pakistanis -- is not the same as saying that Herman Cain is not far removed from a skin head Paki stomper.

Is the rhetoric only incidentally not far removed, but the people speaking the rhetoric are actually quite far apart in comparison? But what would be the point in bringing it up if the only thing that they have in common is a purely incidental use of language?

What if I said that when Obama or some mainstream liberal talks about policy, they don't sound much different then socialists and communists?
Would you think it unfair if someone assumed I was implying that Obama is close to being a communist or socialist?

Would you think such rhetoric was helpful in political discussion?

[piscivorous]

If I knew someone was going to commit a murder and I took no action to stop would I not be criminally implicated in that murder? Do many in the vast majority not know those who are among them that composes this "tiny minority" and provide financing for this "tiny minority"; many of the the agitators, for this ideology, proudly proclaim it from their pulpits and in their writings. When the vast majority begin to remove these ideologues from there place in the hierarchy of the religion and decry them for the barbarians they are this vast majority is as complicit in these acts of terrorism as the "tiny minority", that preform the acts, as I would be in a murder I knew was going to occur and took no action to prevent it.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Ok, so you think saying the rhetoric of Herman Cain is not far removed from the rhetoric of Skin heads who beat up Pakistanis is not the same as saying that Herman Cain is not far removed from a skin head Paki stomper.

Is the rhetoric only incidentally not far removed, but the people speaking the rhetoric are actually quite far apart in comparison? But what would be the point in bringing it up if the only thing that they have in common is a purely incidental use of language?

What if I said that when Obama or some mainstream liberal talks about policy, they don't sound much different then socialists and communists?
Would you think it unfair if someone assumed I was implying that Obama is close to being a communist or socialist?

Would you think such rhetoric was helpful in political discussion?

I think you imperfectly paraphrase what other people say to you, and that makes it difficult to have a conversation, because you seem not to be talking to me, but to straw-Jeff.

The point of "bringing it up" is that the mainstreaming of the rhetoric of hate is a terrible thing. That someone like Cain says things that aren't only hateful, but are also deeply stupid (he either doesn't understand the definition of "religion" or he's mistaken about the breadth and fundamental importance of the First Amendment - either way it's embarrassing) and is taken seriously (and defended!) either despite or because of those things makes me want to weep.

Political discussions can't be helpful if they don't have a basis in the use of language. Hate speech coarsens our political culture and diminishes our political culture.

[graz]

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

now there is not solid confirmation it was muslim terrorists that carried out that particular event, but who would be surprised if it was? My guess is only the lefties, this is their reaction to the obvious

The Norwegian murderer:

A Twitter account for Breivik has surfaced, though it only has one post, this quote from philosopher John Stuart Mill: “One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests.” The tweet was posted on July 17.

On a Facebook account that Norwegian media outlets have attributed to Breivik, he describes himself as having conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.


Hey Jon, if we sub out Oslo for Los Angeles, it seems that you and the shooter have much in common.
1- Obsessive and visceral disdain for liberals.
2- Enjoyment of first person shooter video games.
3- Political analysis.

Citizens beware.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

If I knew someone was going to commit a murder and I took no action to stop would I not be criminally implicated in that murder? Do many in the vast majority not know those who are among them that composes this "tiny minority" and provide financing for this "tiny minority"; many of the the agitators, for this ideology, proudly proclaim it from their pulpits and in their writings. When the vast majority begin to remove these ideologues from there place in the hierarchy of the religion and decry them for the barbarians they are this vast majority is as complicit in these acts of terrorism as the "tiny minority", that preform the acts, as I would be in a murder I knew was going to occur and took no action to prevent it.

So easy to say, isn't it?

There have been many actions that have had nefarious consequences, with thousands of people killed and no one tried to stop them. No, I'm not talking about terrorist or Muslims. I'm talking about this country starting wars or violent actions in other parts of the world, and Americans not doing anything to stop it.

It's always easy to imagine scenarios that are in reality quite impossible. What do you think a common citizen in a Muslim country could do to stop terrorists in a different part of the world? Or do you think that all 1.5 billion Muslims are being briefed and consulted on terrorists activities and plans? Let's say that someone suspects that their neighbors may be involved in terrorist activities. What do you suppose they could do? Imagine someone in Afghanistan in the year 2000. What could they have done? Go report to the Taliban?

What actions did you take to prevent the Oklahoma massacre? Is it possible that the vast majority of the American people didn't have any idea that there would be such an attack? Perhaps you can conceive of a similar situation in the Muslim world.

I think that we will be seeing more intra-Islam resistance against terrorism and fundamentalism. It's incubating. Let's not add fuel to the fire by condemning and alienating a quarter of the world's population.

[Ocean]

Don't forget your smilies/winkies at the end.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

If I knew someone was going to commit a murder and I took no action to stop would I not be criminally implicated in that murder? Do many in the vast majority not know those who are among them that composes this "tiny minority" and provide financing for this "tiny minority"; many of the the agitators, for this ideology, proudly proclaim it from their pulpits and in their writings. When the vast majority begin to remove these ideologues from there place in the hierarchy of the religion and decry them for the barbarians they are this vast majority is as complicit in these acts of terrorism as the "tiny minority", that preform the acts, as I would be in a murder I knew was going to occur and took no action to prevent it.

What are you talking about pisc? Are you saying Muslims are secret psychics who just inherently understand who the psychopaths are?

Should Christians have turned in George Tiller's murderer ahead of time? Maybe we should remove Randall Terry from the "pro-life" hierarchy and decry him for the barbarian he is, obviously complicit in the acts of terrorism - bombing clinics and killing doctors - performed by a "tiny minority" in the movement, as we should since we "know" more murders are going to occur and we should take action to prevent it?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I, Like Sugarkang, would really like to know who are these Really Scary mainstream Americans who are not far from being the equivalant of British skinhead paki stompers? Maybe I should be afraid as well.

At least apple is straightforward enough to come right out with what it is he is paranoid about.

I've said on a number of occasions that Apple goes too far. I even denounced Herman Cain for his stance on mosque building. Though, the liberal hypocrisy and circle jerk continues. I'm not sure there's a point to continuing with people who refuse to see what's in front of their faces. After all, these statists just ignore anything that doesn't comport with their worldview. I mean they tell you ahead of time that they're going to do so!

Is this not exactly the same as creationist logic?

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Political discussions can't be helpful if they don't have a basis in the use of language. Hate speech coarsens our political culture and diminishes our political culture.

I agree with this. I would add that vague use of inflammatory rhetoric also coarsens our political culture.. I think suggesting Obama is a socialist coarsens political debate. I think suggesting that Herman Cain or people who want to stop illegal immigration are haters or are not far from being skin heads coarsens political culture.

This is not a defense of Cain. He lost me completely with his rhetoric; it coarsens our political culture. Before he said what he did I would have voted for him over Obama. After saying it, if he were nominated, I'd vote for Obama over him. But he's not a skin head, he shouldn't be compared with skinheads.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by whburgess

... But he's not a skin head, he shouldn't be compared with skinheads.

This is what I mean when I say you're arguing with straw-men. He wasn't compared with skinheads. The only time his name has come up in this exchange in a sentence that also mentioned skinheads, language usage was the issue under discussion, not some direct comparison between individuals.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yes, and JonI's post contained this comment:



Followed by the proverbial ostrich burying its head.

Is there a proverbial "opening one's mouth too soon"?

Nope, this particular case may not pan out that way, but that is a case of man bites dog with these types of public attacks in the world.


plus, anytime I get the tiniest excuse to post that ostrich picture, it's worth it.

[Wonderment]

but that is a case of man bites dog with these types of public attacks in the world.

Yes, Jon. Man bites dog. Black is white. Up is down. And you were right about the Norwegian Jihadi all along.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by graz

What's your plan for "drying it up"?

Time.

Time only works though if the beliefs begin to die out and lose transmission rates to the next generation. It is happening with the christian social conservatives, but the social muslim population? Not sure how that is going there. If the transmission rates remain high, it will be a problem for a long time to come.

So that begs the question, how can you speed the process of tempering a groups beliefs?

No clue, at a minimum though we should just make our own standards clear and defend them. What kinds of standards would those be?

EX:

Years ago on bill mahers old show politically incorrect, there was a special religion show where bill maher was flanked by a christian minister, a rabbi, and a muslim. They were there to sort of intervene on Bill's behalf, save his poor rotting soul.

During the course of this show the christian guy started making a hard case for christianity, edging towards the fire and brimstone talk, that if people did not accept jesus as their lord and savior they would burn in hell. It got a bit heated with the christian guy passing judgments on the proper beliefs people ought to hold and then the rabbi blurted out something to this effect.

Rabbi: you can believe what you want, and I'll do the same.


The entire studio audience burst into cheers. That christian guy stepped on an american taboo, he crossed a line drawn centuries ago, don't effing tell others how they ought to worship or not worship. The christian guy crossed that line, and got a public rebuke.


So what's the point of this story? The point is that not all groups of people hold that standard, and numerous others in the same regard. And this is key. Just like that studio audience, we need to remain intolerant towards the ideas/beliefs that go against the kinds of american standards most of us hold to. The good news for us is that MOST American muslims go along with that sort of standard more or less. But when people don't, even IF they are part of a minority group "under siege," don't you dare give a pass to the kinds of beliefs and standards that would ROT the nation if we adopted them.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

Nope, this particular case may not pan out that way, but that is a case of man bites dog with these types of public attacks in the world.


plus, anytime I get the tiniest excuse to post that ostrich picture, it's worth it.

Confirmation bias in action.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Yes, Jon. Man bites dog. Black is white. Up is down. And you were right about the Norwegian Jihadi all along.

shorter wonderment:

"JonIrenicus: X is a problem because of a/b/c/d/e/f/g examples"

You were WRONG about the case of g !!!!!!!

entire argument nullified


mass number of examples that support his larger point ignored/irrelevant.

This is not a thought process that is concerned about the truth, it's one that cares more that ones beliefs are correct.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

This is what I mean when I say you're arguing with straw-men. He wasn't compared with skinheads. The only time his name has come up in this exchange in a sentence that also mentioned skinheads, language usage was the issue under discussion, not some direct comparison between individuals.

Ok, Jeff. Fair enough.

[whburgess]

Aziz, When you said this

Are you talking about this?

Romney replied immediately..quite well I think.

And the media didn't respond? Really?

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by apple

The pilgrims: anyone who knows anything of history knows that they did not come to America to have religious freedom, but rather, to force their religion on everyone else. E.g. Annie Hutchison, Roger Williams, the Quaker controversy in Massachusetts.

Without even arguing whether your history is correct or not, the fact is that Americans are taught and believe that this country was settled by folks escaping persecution from state established religions, and that this was a large factor in establishing freedom of religion in the constitution.

See..what matters is not actual history in this case, but what people think.

This is similar to your ridiculous insistence that Mohammed was an evil pedophile. It doesn't matter who Mohammed really was or what the Quran really says. What matters is what American Muslims say and who they really are based on their understandings of Mohammed and the Quran.

Christians and Jews have long abandoned the War God of the O.T. that says stone homosexuals and disobedient children and bash the brains of the Amalakite children against the wall. Their God is nothing like this. They are reformed from this barbarism. So why don't you let each Muslim, especially your fellow Americans who are Muslims, speak for themselves as to what their God and their Prophet is like? The only hope we have to combat the militant muslims is the reformed ones. Your dreams of eradicating the religion of 1.6 billion people is shameful. I really question if you are serious on these boards.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

Nope, this particular case may not pan out that way, but that is a case of man bites dog with these types of public attacks in the world.


plus, anytime I get the tiniest excuse to post that ostrich picture, it's worth it.

It would have been a great opportunity for you to acknowledge your mistake, the fact that you spoke too soon, that you speculated with bias and assigned blame on the imagined reaction of liberals.

But, no, you choose to hold on to your recalcitrant bias. Missed opportunity.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

What do you know about my ideology?

About as much as you know about Islam as practiced by most Muslim Americans.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Who are these others who fear Islam in this thread? Are any and all critics of Islam doing so out in tolerance, hatred and flawed logic? Is there a single liberal here that's willing to separate wheat from chaff instead of being reactionary?

Dude, you acknowledge that apple goes way too far, but people aren't allowed to criticize him?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I've said on a number of occasions that Apple goes too far. I even denounced Herman Cain for his stance on mosque building. Though, the liberal hypocrisy and circle jerk continues.

What, exactly, are you upset about? Is anyone accusing you of anything on this thread?

In the words of Flavor Flav, if it don;t apply, let it fly.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Dude, you acknowledge that apple goes way too far, but people aren't allowed to criticize him?

Of course people are allowed to criticize him. I criticized him for christsakes. I'm objecting to accusations of all of the right wingers guilty of whatever -isms and -phobias. Not all Republicans are in the Tea Party. Not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

Criticize the part that needs to be criticized, absolutely. But don't shut out valid criticism. And still, nobody has even responded to the actual data posted. Nobody has responded to whether it's acceptable for 27% of American Muslims (not Middle Easterners) to "not know" if al Qaeda is a malevolent organization. And liberals are only intent on criticizing the homophobia of the GOP, but not of Islam?

Where is the consistency?

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Norway, btw, was apparently attacked by a Norwegian.

That was my point, AemJeff, when I said "jumping to unfortunate conclusions". Was I being obtuse?

I'm not trying to discredit every point apple has made. But it's as if he is so wrapped up in his anger that he can't follow a conversation.