Burn the Qu'ran day?

[Saltmeister]

So? So our cultures are different, so what? We have to respect theirs while they are free to denigrate ours? What coexistence is there in that? Assimilation and conquest, yes...peaceful coexistence?, nah.

You burn a Bible, you burn the message of G-d, you insult a Christian, Christians take it personally...where's the peaceful coexistence?

Salty! You can't have it both ways. You just got done saying Muslims don't have freedom of expression, and then use freedom of expression to defend them! That is precisely how they are using our own laws to undermine our culture and society. And it doesn't take much to realize the goal and purpose.

I wish I could agree...there aren't any Christians to speak of in Sharia nations...people are killed, executed by the state with the blessing of the Mosque, for converting.

Again, so what? I must be culturally sensitive and they don't?

I thought the cultural relativity argument would be enough ..... obviously not.

How about I approach this from another angle? Just because Muslims in the Middle Eastern like getting angry about things like drawing Mohammed, Salman Rushdie and Quran burning, showing intolerance to Christians and making Christians into second-class citizens, does not mean the Western world should apply the same standard.

I think it's a cynical attitude to say that "we will do X because you do it in your country" or "we won't do Y because you don't do it in your country." By saying you won't respect someone because they don't respect you it makes you no better than that person. I am not suggesting you always have to be better than someone. There is a limit to what we can do. My point is that when people are capable of not offending/humiliating Muslims, they should do whatever they can to prevent Muslims from being/feeling humiliated. Freedom of speech should not go so far as allowing someone to antagonise a whole group of people.

When it comes to Christians, there is an additional perspective and way of seeing things. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world." This means that Christians should not concern themselves with the maintenance and integrity of the present world order, which is subject to continual and persistent change. Christians cannot rely on the present world order remaining the same. They should set their minds on the kingdom of heaven, not the kingdoms of the world.

Irrelevent. Muslims are free to worship without reprisal or recrimination in Christian nations...Christians are not afforded the same DIGNITY within Sharia nations. And L-rd help the Jews!

As far as I am concerned, there are no Christian nations, and there never were any. The so-called, nominally-labelled "Christian" nations of the past were responsible for atrocities against various groups of people. Christianity is not a political system. It is not about statecraft or a state apparatus. The Western world of today is not "Christian." It is secular.

I would oppose any attempt at "Islamisation" of the political system and would like to see it remain secular for as long as possible. But calling Muslims enemies of state when they are quite capable of fitting in with a secular framework is the other extreme that I would also oppose. I would prefer to convince Muslims that a secular society benefits all of us.

I do so hope you are not speaking of me? I have not said Islam is evil, and I have no intention of doing so. That is part of what I am getting at, the jump to conclusion that disagreement is "hate." That's bullsh!t, that's a dodge to avoid facing the subject.

No, not about you. I was speaking in third person.

I personally think it is extreme to call something "hate" when it is anger, fear or concern about worrying trends. I would like to say the same about racism, bigotry, genocide, intolerance and propaganda. Too many people use these terms when there are better ways to make their point and when they don't even bother to understand what is really happening. Too many people use these terms out of a knee-jerk reaction.

Juantoo, I have a hammer and would like to tap your knee cap to see how you respond.

Oh one more thing. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I am accusing them of hatred.

Another tap of the hammer.

 

[iBrian]

"Whether true or not, remaining silent implies the moderates agree with the radicals."

We certainly get small news items about Muslim groups in the UK condemning violence, especially by radical Muslims. However, Muslims condemning violence is not headling grabbing news. It happens, but if there's silence, it's because the media does not consider it newsworthy.

However, after the recent furore over 9/11 building plans and the Koran Burning, I can see why some Muslims would be especially concerned to raise their heads above the trenches being built against them. The media love an easy target.

After all, a dozen terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon, yet somehow in the American psyche this is all representative of Islam.

It's like calling the Lords Army in the Congo representative of Christianity, and declaing all Christians must be aligned with them unless they actively -in a media reported way - distance themselves from their reign of terror across West Africa.

 

[17th Angel]

It isn't just 9/11... You seriously believe so so many people (not just yanks) oppose it and any progress it attempts, just because of 9/11?

 

[juantoo3]

Have you never heard of assassinations, kidnappings, and beheadings?

Are you in agreement with the others that suggested the Muslim world is barbaric?

Where is the logic in this statement?

"silence equals complicity" ?

Using a gun to solve a disagreement is logical?

Got, what?

You are an intelligent person. If you follow our conversation, it is easy to figure out.

Please explain "silence equals complicity" in terms which don't equal "with us or against us"

"Tacit agreement," (whether true or not) is what I actually said. Look again.

So do the anti-Muslim hate websites.

They all pretend as if they are willing to change their minds and have a real dialogue.

Are you accusing me of hate?

So if you don't care about people who are against you,

then what's the point of your whole diatribe on this thread?

Because this is a teaching moment, and a perfect time for reflection on all sides.

Are we ready yet to stop using ad hominems and false accusations of hate to avoid discussing the issues?

 

[juantoo3]

The American moderate Muslim who has been most active in travelling the Middle East, denouncing the radicals to their faces and putting them in their place as you put it, is Imam Rauf.

Bob, you know I respect your opinion. For this I will need proof. I saw nothing in the reading I've done over the last couple of days that even hints in this direction.

 

[Quahom1]

"Whether true or not, remaining silent implies the moderates agree with the radicals."

We certainly get small news items about Muslim groups in the UK condemning violence, especially by radical Muslims. However, Muslims condemning violence is not headling grabbing news. It happens, but if there's silence, it's because the media does not consider it newsworthy.

However, after the recent furore over 9/11 building plans and the Koran Burning, I can see why some Muslims would be especially concerned to raise their heads above the trenches being built against them. The media love an easy target.

After all, a dozen terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon, yet somehow in the American psyche this is all representative of Islam.

It's like calling the Lords Army in the Congo representative of Christianity, and declaing all Christians must be aligned with them unless they actively -in a media reported way - distance themselves from their reign of terror across West Africa.

Sometimes, we have to go the extra mile in order to give the king the truth, first hand...

 

[juantoo3]

I thought the cultural relativity argument would be enough ..... obviously not.

No it wasn't and I'll tell you why. This POV implies "lower class or status." It is institutional prejudice, subtle, but there.

Just because Muslims in the Middle Eastern (sic) like getting angry about things like drawing Mohammed, Salman Rushdie and Quran burning, showing intolerance to Christians and making Christians into second-class citizens, does not mean the Western world should apply the same standard.

I'm not. I'm treating the Muslim world with respect, by demanding they live up to the standard. Looking down our first-world noses and saying in our minds, "oh you poor dears, you don't know any better" is what instills the attitude that the Muslim world is inferior. Worse, it allows them to live *down* to the expectation!

I think it's a cynical attitude to say that "we will do X because you do it in your country" or "we won't do Y because you don't do it in your country." By saying you won't respect someone because they don't respect you it makes you no better than that person. I am not suggesting you always have to be better than someone. There is a limit to what we can do. My point is that when people are capable of not offending/humiliating Muslims, they should do whatever they can to prevent Muslims from being/feeling humiliated. Freedom of speech should not go so far as allowing someone to antagonise a whole group of people.

The cynicism really lies in the double standard!

When it comes to Christians, there is an additional perspective and way of seeing things. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world." This means that Christians should not concern themselves with the maintenance and integrity of the present world order, which is subject to continual and persistent change. Christians cannot rely on the present world order remaining the same. They should set their minds on the kingdom of heaven, not the kingdoms of the world.

With all due respect, if you are one who is critical of and has distanced from Christianity...who are you to tell a Christian what to believe?

I am a Christian, and I can agree my way of seeing Christianity and applying the lessons of Christianity are not *normative* or *officially sanctioned,* but I am just the same a long time disciple of the teachings of the Christian Bible. Among other lessons I come away with, is that Christians are *not* doormats! Tough it up!

As far as I am concerned, there are no Christian nations, and there never were any. The so-called, nominally-labelled "Christian" nations of the past were responsible for atrocities against various groups of people. Christianity is not a political system. It is not about statecraft or a state apparatus. The Western world of today is not "Christian." It is secular.

The Muslim world doesn't see us that way.

I can agree that where the Muslim world has secular government, it appears there is considerable headway towards tolerance...and that is a good thing. The focus needs to include getting Sharia nations to see, understand and change.

I would oppose any attempt at "Islamisation" of the political system and would like to see it remain secular for as long as possible. But calling Muslims enemies of state when they are quite capable of fitting in with a secular framework is the other extreme that I would also oppose. I would prefer to convince Muslims that a secular society benefits all of us.

When have I called Muslims "enemies of state?" There you go again, , why can't this discussion ever take place without ad hominems and false accusations of hatred???

I personally think it is extreme to call something "hate" when it is anger, fear or concern about worrying trends. I would like to say the same about racism, bigotry, genocide, intolerance and propaganda. Too many people use these terms when there are better ways to make their point and when they don't even bother to understand what is really happening. Too many people use these terms out of a knee-jerk reaction.

But Salty, you just got done putting words in my mouth to make me seem hateful!

Juantoo, I have a hammer and would like to tap your knee cap to see how you respond.

Oh one more thing. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I am accusing them of hatred.

Another tap of the hammer.

I trust you, I will allow you to do so. If you hurt me, I will never allow you that opportunity again. And I might, depending how the spirit leads, do unto you what you have shown me you want done.

 

[juantoo3]

"Whether true or not, remaining silent implies the moderates agree with the radicals."

We certainly get small news items about Muslim groups in the UK condemning violence, especially by radical Muslims. However, Muslims condemning violence is not headling grabbing news. It happens, but if there's silence, it's because the media does not consider it newsworthy.

However, after the recent furore over 9/11 building plans and the Koran Burning, I can see why some Muslims would be especially concerned to raise their heads above the trenches being built against them. The media love an easy target.

After all, a dozen terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon, yet somehow in the American psyche this is all representative of Islam.

It's like calling the Lords Army in the Congo representative of Christianity, and declaing all Christians must be aligned with them unless they actively -in a media reported way - distance themselves from their reign of terror across West Africa.

Is that not the fault of the leftist media?

As for "a dozen terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon, yet somehow in the American psyche this is all representative of Islam," that too is misrepresentation by the media. People around here have bent over backwards to accommodate and be sensitive to Islamic issues...doubly so in the wake of the book burning fiasco...so that is simply incorrect.

Perhaps the media should change its focus...but as long as sensational headlines pay the bills and earn fortunes (and further state propaganda), it will never happen.

 

[juantoo3]

It isn't just 9/11... You seriously believe so so many people (not just yanks) oppose it and any progress it attempts, just because of 9/11?

Bingo! Give that man the door prize!

 

[Dogbrain]

How about I approach this from another angle? Just because Muslims in the Middle Eastern like getting angry about things like drawing Mohammed, Salman Rushdie and Quran burning, showing intolerance to Christians and making Christians into second-class citizens, does not mean the Western world should apply the same standard.

As I have said many times: If we are no better than they are, if we are as barbaric, savage, and animalistic as they are, then we ought to behave as they behave. However, if we are not barbarians, if we are not savages who can't be expected to know any better, then we are behooved to act in a civilized fashion. We are to hold ourselves to a higher standard because we are fundamentally better than they are. If we are not fundamentally better than they are, we are morally free to do whatever they to. It's really that simple.

By saying you won't respect someone because they don't respect you it makes you no better than that person.

Exactly! If you are fundamentally superior to that person, then you extend respect even if they don't extend it to you. Are we civilized and they savage? Then we will bear their savagery in good grace, as much as safety permits. If we are both savages, then we do what they do. If they are savages and we are civilized, then we do not do as they do.

As far as I am concerned, there are no Christian nations, and there never were any.

I completely agree with this. There has never been a Christian nation in this world. There may be nations of Christians, but the only Christian Nation will come on the Day of the Lord, and not a moment sooner.

I would oppose any attempt at "Islamisation" of the political system and would like to see it remain secular for as long as possible.

As long as possible? How about NEVER AT ALL FOR THE REST OF HISTORY, and I'll use whatever means are available to civilization to defend civilized law against the imposition of barbarity. When pushed to the wall, a civilized nation is justified in using catastrophic force to defend its existence.

But calling Muslims enemies of state

If they demand Shari'a, they are enemies of civilized law.

when they are quite capable of fitting in with a secular framework is the other extreme that I would also oppose. I would prefer to convince Muslims that a secular society benefits all of us.

I personally think it is extreme to call something "hate" when it is anger, fear or concern about worrying trends. I would like to say the same about racism, bigotry, genocide, intolerance and propaganda.

You're quite right, but the people (it's usually leftists) who hurl these terms around are not interested in discussion or healing. They want extermination. Thus, they dehumanize anyone who disagrees with them by hurling words like "hate", "racism", etc. They do not want understanding. They want absolute rulership and thought countrol. Otherwise, they would not use these terms so freely.

 

[Dogbrain]

As for "a dozen terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon, yet somehow in the American psyche this is all representative of Islam," that too is misrepresentation by the media. People around here have bent over backwards to accommodate and be sensitive to Islamic issues...doubly so in the wake of the book burning fiasco...so that is simply incorrect.

As far as most people who go into the media are concerned, the American people would probably best serve the world by committing mass suicide. "Why should I talk to people in flyover country? I already know what they think, and they don't have anything worthwhile to say." Yes, I heard crap like that while I worked at Cornell University.

 

[Dogbrain]

It's like calling the Lords Army in the Congo representative of Christianity, and declaing all Christians must be aligned with them unless they actively -in a media reported way - distance themselves from their reign of terror across West Africa.

You mean, it's like calling some fringe idiot minister in Florida representative of Christianity and declaring that all Christians must be aligned with him unless they actively -in a media reported way - distance themselves from his stupid antics.

If I fail to track down and publicly denounce any and all stupid Christian tricks, I am deemed to be complicit in them. I've seen that over and over on this very forum, and elsewhere.

However, no moderator comes down on that, it's only the Muslims who get special protection from moderators.

 

[c0de]

Are you in agreement with the others that suggested the Muslim world is barbaric?

It's a tough neighborhood, but your use of the word "barbaric" goes beyond the limits of polite discourse (and clearly contradicts your own stated aims of "teaching" and "reflection" without the use of ad hominems)

Using a gun to solve a disagreement is logical?

???

What gun am I holding to your head?

I asked you to show me where is the logic in the statement that you made.

"silence = complicity" Where is the logic here?

"Tacit agreement," (whether true or not) is what I actually said. Look again.

Tacit agreement = complicity.

Now, explain your statement in terms that do not equal

"with us or against us"

Are you accusing me of hate?

I don't have to bother, you're statements on this thread are enough.

Because this is a teaching moment....

As long as you are the one doing the teaching (from the point of view of "innocent" America) and the rest of the world listens to your diatribe (which completely ignores all sense of history) right?

 

[bob x]

Bob, you know I respect your opinion. For this I will need proof. I saw nothing in the reading I've done over the last couple of days that even hints in this direction.

Then apparently you are only reading very biased sources.
From this short bio of Rauf: "Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.
In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush."

 

[juantoo3]

It's a tough neighborhood, but your use of the word "barbaric" goes beyond the limits of polite discourse (and clearly contradicts your own stated aims of "teaching" and "reflection" without the use of ad hominems)

Clearly you have no intent of addressing issues, you are too full of avoidance.

Clearly you cannot read, either that or cannot comprehend what you read. You have implied Muslims (at least some) are barbaric, as have others here. It is I who have defended them against being considered barbaric. It is lies such as yours that perpetuate these matters instead of trying to find ways to work through them. Typical behavior for someone who has nothing constructive to contribute. Our conversation is concluded.

 

[juantoo3]

As far as most people who go into the media are concerned, the American people would probably best serve the world by committing mass suicide. "Why should I talk to people in flyover country? I already know what they think, and they don't have anything worthwhile to say." Yes, I heard crap like that while I worked at Cornell University.

They sure don't seem to mind the handouts, or the disaster assistance, or food giveaways, or military aid and support, or financial assistance, or medical assistance, or technology, or ...

Yes, the world would be so much better off without America,

But you are correct...Americans *do* have an attitude of superiority about them, an attitude that is an obstacle to actually communicating with other cultures on an elemental level.

It certainly doesn't help when other cultures have similar attitudes, and then arm their own kooks with automatic weapons.

 

[juantoo3]

Then apparently you are only reading very biased sources.

Just mainstream media...they couldn't possibly be biased in any way, could they?

From this short bio of Rauf: "Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.
In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush."

Thank you Bob, that goes far.

 

[c0de]

Clearly you have no intent of addressing issues, you are too full of avoidance.

Clearly you cannot read, either that or cannot comprehend what you read.

So much for your claim to be avoiding ad hominems.
+
You have failed to answer the objections.

Technically, both of these together mean you have
already lost this argument. But, I'll ask you again:

I asked you to show me where is the logic in the statement that you made.

"silence = complicity" Where is the logic here?

+

Tacit agreement = complicity.

Now, explain your statement in terms that do not equal

"with us or against us"

What happened to the "bring it" attitude?
Can you answer or not?

You have implied Muslims (at least some) are barbaric, as have others here. It is I who have defended them against being considered barbaric. It is lies such as yours that perpetuate these matters instead of trying to find ways to work through them. Typical behavior for someone who has nothing constructive to contribute. .

By admitting that Muslims have a lot of problems in their societies, I am lying? On the other hand, you're the one who has been carrying on lecturing us as if you're side is morally superior.

Our conversation is concluded

In other words, you have sounded a retreat.

See ya.

(well, at least this time you managed to control yourself
enough to not abuse your moderating privilleges and
attempt to lock the thread, like last time. I'd say you're
making progress. Good for you.)

 

[Paladin]

You are the master of sarcasm! I love it!

Perhaps...but one day you and I shall dance THE MAMUSHKA!

 

[Dogbrain]

They sure don't seem to mind the handouts, or the disaster assistance, or food giveaways, or military aid and support, or financial assistance, or medical assistance, or technology, or ...

Yes, the world would be so much better off without America,

But you are correct...Americans *do* have an attitude of superiority about them

Gee, could it be that the world continuing to run to the USA for handouts, disaster assistance, food giveaways, military aid and support, financial assistance, etc. might have something to do with that?