Anonymous wrote:Peaceful religion

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

And this is why we will continue to see beheadings and worse. What the hell do you think "radical" refers to? Eventually people will get it. But we obviously we have a long way to go. Let's just hope our we can elect a President capable of recognizing and responding to the threat. I don't care if we elect a democrat, republican, or Martian. We need someone with the balls to call radical Islam what is it - a cancer that needs to be cut from the planet.

jsteele wrote: I agree that IS and Algerians living in Paris don't read DCUM. I said as much in an earlier post. I don't write for their benefit. Rather, I try to discuss things with the mostly US residents that read this forum. I am not going to rehash all of our earlier discussions -- feel free to go read the earlier threads if you have forgotten. If you believe that criticizing an entire religion is beneficial for achieving your goals -- whatever they are -- then by all means do it. I have never prevented you from doing it. IS has made clear that they welcome your doing exactly that. For myself, I advocate a smarter strategy. Instead of dividing Muslims from the West, we should divide Muslims from IS. I don't believe that you do that by insulting them.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this hate theology was preached in mosques in the west - a lot of Isis was recruited from the west - is there some educating to be done in these communities by their own community members?

There would be things like people calling you “terrorist,” or mistreating you for how you were dressed or being racially profiled by the police. Those happened to me and people around me. You start to feel like you don’t fit in, and the only way you can fit in is by maybe going away somewhere else, like maybe the country your parents came from, or maybe an “Islamic State” somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:Martyrs of Libya - rest in peace!

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

I think there are a fee layers of discussions under way - one, what to call radical.Muslims ( your point above well taken, so what's the term?).
2) what to call a faith that is operationalozed in many places in a not very human rights friendly way ( Isis caliohate, Sa, Iran, Pakistan to name a few) and that teaches ita youngsters a very stern and infidel unfriendly world view?
3) what to call a religion which imposes restrictions on non believers with regard to its faith. Does the average Muslim feel there is a right, or no right, for non believers to draw muhammed? Can someone in the faith do it and suffer no more than a religious repercussion such as excommunication?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

You really are the master of twisting arguments. You always come back to the KKK and refuse to address head on issues like multiple Quranic verses calling for killing people who stand in God's way or taking female war captives as your slaves. Your refrain of "Christians are just as bad!", even though I willingly agree that the KKK is just as bad, isn't even an answer to the problem before us. You will undoubtedly say once again that scriptire is irrelevant. Tell that to ISIS and the rest. As long as these verses retain their standing as God's own words that He still wants us to follow in the 21st century, groups like ISIS WILL continue to use them.

Do you really think ISIS or even Algerians living in Paris banlieus read DCUM? Also, let's be clear: nobody is calling for a president or prime minister to criticize specific suras. But freer discourse in the press and, for Pete's sake, podunk places like DCUM, might actually help reform along. This certainly has a better chance of advancing discussion and reform than cringing because we think ISIS is right about provoking massive uprisings in Europe.

I agree that IS and Algerians living in Paris don't read DCUM. I said as much in an earlier post. I don't write for their benefit. Rather, I try to discuss things with the mostly US residents that read this forum. I am not going to rehash all of our earlier discussions -- feel free to go read the earlier threads if you have forgotten. If you believe that criticizing an entire religion is beneficial for achieving your goals -- whatever they are -- then by all means do it. I have never prevented you from doing it. IS has made clear that they welcome your doing exactly that. For myself, I advocate a smarter strategy. Instead of dividing Muslims from the West, we should divide Muslims from IS. I don't believe that you do that by insulting them.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

You really are the master of twisting arguments. You always come back to the KKK and refuse to address head on issues like multiple Quranic verses calling for killing people who stand in God's way or taking female war captives as your slaves. Your refrain of "Christians are just as bad!", even though I willingly agree that the KKK is just as bad, isn't even an answer to the problem before us. You will undoubtedly say once again that scriptire is irrelevant. Tell that to ISIS and the rest. As long as these verses retain their standing as God's own words that He still wants us to follow in the 21st century, groups like ISIS WILL continue to use them.

Do you really think ISIS or even Algerians living in Paris banlieus read DCUM? Also, let's be clear: nobody is calling for a president or prime minister to criticize specific suras. But freer discourse in the press and, for Pete's sake, podunk places like DCUM, might actually help reform along. This certainly has a better chance of advancing discussion and reform than cringing because we think ISIS is right about provoking massive uprisings in Europe.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

I think there are a fee layers of discussions under way - one, what to call radical.Muslims ( your point above well taken, so what's the term?).
2) what to call a faith that is operationalozed in many places in a not very human rights friendly way ( Isis caliohate, Sa, Iran, Pakistan to name a few) and that teaches ita youngsters a very stern and infidel unfriendly world view?
3) what to call a religion which imposes restrictions on non believers with regard to its faith. Does the average Muslim feel there is a right, or no right, for non believers to draw muhammed? Can someone in the faith do it and suffer no more than a religious repercussion such as excommunication?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe Europe's Muslims are so fragile? I don't see mass Muslim insurrection in Europe ever happening on a mass scale. I've lived in Europe, I've been back several times in the past few years, I have relatives there, I read two of the languages fluently and a third somewhat, heck I even dated a few Algerians living in Europe (admittedly a while ago). Maybe a few thousand more might be turned to ISIS, maybe a few more terrorist attacks here and in Europe. But no way tens of thousands of Muslims in Europe are going to launch mass insurrection against their European states. That's ISIS' pipe dream but we don't need to buy into it.

Meanwhile, dissidents within Arab and Islamic countries are in jail or fear for their lives. Our silence hurts them rather than helping them.

It's like Chamberlain, always conciliating and missing the bigger picture. Are we really that scared? Are we really that impotent? Do we really see no way to handle alienation besides silence and winking at the anti-immigration folks? Like, I dunno, economic and social measures to reduce alienation? Is our silence really the only possible response? I'm sure you'll find the comparison to Chamberlain flattering, you're welcome.

Based on your logic, all Christianity should be criticized because of groups like the LRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist. Those groups prove that Christianity is clearly a religion of hate. If you suggest otherwise, you are clearly appeasing the extremists.

Do you believe that the best way to support moderate voices within Islam is to insult their religion?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying radical Christian or radical.Muslim to me differentiates from the peace lovers. Its just different ways of looking at it. But neither attacks the entire group.

I am not complaining about saying "radical Muslim". The post that I criticized said "Islam" which refers to the entire religion. I think we should be even more specific than simply saying "radical". We are really concerned with those that resort to violence and oppression. They can be as radical as they want if they don't engage in violence and oppression.