You Can Tape It Onto Your Hijab!

If a substantial chunk of Americans have their way, Muslims would have a lot more to worry about than dumping their Tab cans out before they board planes:

A new Gallup poll finds that many Americans -- what it calls "substantial minorities" -- harbor "negative feelings or prejudices against people of the Muslim faith" in this country. Nearly one in four Americans, 22%, say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.
…
Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."

On second thought, maybe a Muslim ID card would protect a few hundred Sikh cab drivers from getting beaten up. No harm there.

The ID card idea was a weird question to include - it's not even something I hear bandied about on "The Savage Nation." But I'm really curious about what result Gallup would have found if they asked people if they favored a special line in airport security for Muslims and Arabs.

UPDATE: If it's not clear, I'm kidding about the "no harm there" comment. Gallows humor. Or maybe gas chamber humor?

Comments

[Pi Guy]

Is it possible to issue ID cards to Fundamental Christians, too? Their religious views are just too extreme...

[mediageek]

I'm not terribly surprised by this.

And after the international riots on the parts of Muslims as a result of the Dutch cartoons depicting Muhammad, I can't say that I feel particularly inclined to speak up in their defense.

Yeah. I know what that makes me look like. 🙁

[henry]

Time for the little yellow crecents!

Allah bless America.

[Josh]

How's this different from Tagging Jews in Nazi Germany??

I mean Hitler's government told the German citizenery they needed to bus Jews to "vacation camps" to protect the German citizens and the Jews. I'm sure that was thought to be temporary measure. And besides, Governemnt has the good of the people on its mind always.

So to protect people's freedom we must limit their freedom by tagging them.

The fact that a liberatarian blogger is actually treating this idea as 'well, it's not such a bad idea' [On second thought, maybe a Muslim ID card would protect a few hundred Sikh cab drivers from getting beaten up. No harm there.]is most chilling.

If it only takes three destoyed buildings and less than 3000 dead civilians on 9/11 and less than 3000 dead soldiers for Americans to start dismantling the ideals that made America the great country that it has become. Then we must be more cowardly than we realize.

[MUTT]

you mean year after year of crackpot propaganda actually has an effect?
Can we force Crapture Republicans to wear devils horns? That would be nice.....

[Patriot]

They killed 3,000 people on 9/11, of course people hate them. 90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second! With attitudes like that, they are inviting things like this.

[thoreau]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second! With attitudes like that, they are inviting things like this.

I have a hunch that you could get a sizable portion of religious believers around the world to describe themselves as "[insert religion here] first and [insert nationality here] second."

And before anybody draws too many frightening conclusions from that, ask yourself whether you'd really want people to put the state first.

[stubby]

This is not good news, but to be surprised at the responses is to be ignorant, or feign ignorance, of human nature. I'm not defending religious intolerance, but you have to admit that the Muslim religion does have a PR problem right now. Every other day we see a Pew report or some other opinion poll from all around the world showing that vast swaths of the globe's population are not fond of Americans and we're told - well, Americans do mean things, and they keep electing mean people, and we're hated all over the world cos of all the awful stuff we do and you can't blame people for holding Americans reponsible for what their government does.....so basically, I'm not feeling sympathetic to the plight of American Muslims.

Am I whining? Yes, I am. But the whiny part of my brain is saying that I'm tired of Muslims insisting on a level of tolerance and respect and sensitivity that many of them - MANY of them - are not willing to extend to others in return.

And of course, I don't want to see ANYONE carrying ID cards. It's stupid and unconstitutional and totalitarian.

[kwais]

I wonder what the percentage of christians that are christian first and Americans second is.

[Josh]

Thanks for clarifying the satirical nature of "no harm done"

First i've seen "conservatives" out spend liberal democrats in congress in pork spending and advocate nation building in the middle east [think twilight zone] so I'm a little edgy...

If Reason were to turn crazy on me too, I wouldn't know where to turn!!

my last bastion of sanity in today's world. 🙂

[Shannon Love]

Given Gallup's recent history I wouldn't place much confidence on this poll until I see the actual questions and the actual breakdown in responses. Gallup has a history of creative interpretation when making the executive summaries of their polls.

[Josh]

Thanks for clarifying the satirical nature of "no harm done"

First i've seen "conservatives" out spend liberal democrats in congress in pork spending and advocate nation building in the middle east [think twilight zone] so I'm a little edgy...

If Reason were to turn crazy on me too, I wouldn't know where to turn!!

my last bastion of sanity in today's world. 🙂

[Al]

That's CAIR at work!

[highnumber]

They killed 3,000 people on 9/11, of course people hate them. 90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second! With attitudes like that, they are inviting things like this.

Yes. I too hate monolithic groups.

[ChicagoTom]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second!

Uhmm...

I know quite a few Europeans immigrants who have become nationalized who feel the same way. In fact, I would venture that this feeling is very prominent among many immigrants, esp. those who left their country because of economic hardship.

Just because someone leaves their country for whatever reason and emigrates here doesn't mean they are required to become "American first", or else they are inviting attacks upon them.

With attitudes like yours, things like Josh mentioned upthread occur.

[Patriot]

"I wonder what the percentage of chris
tians that are christian first and Americans second is."

American Christians didn't kill 3,000 people on 9/11, or blow up London subways. I dislike whacky Christiasn as much as anyone, but the worst they do is off an abortion doctor.

[madpad]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second! With attitudes like that, they are inviting things like this.

So what. Most U.S. Christians - of any stripe - would most likely identify themselves as Christian first and Ameican second.

[henry]

"I wonder what the percentage of christians that are christian first and Americans second is."

Fundamentalist Christians routine assert Faith, Family and Country, in that order. They are Americans third.

[Will]

So are athiests finally getting beat out?

[Patriot]

Its not about putting the state first, its about putting western values and western attitudes first. Soemthing many immigrants in Eurabia dont do.

[kevrob]

I was included in a similar poll a few days ago, not from Gallup. The survey gave me the choice between "positive" and "negative" attitudes towards Arabs. There was no choice allowed for "neutral." Idiots.

I quite like some Arabs and Muslims. Others, not so much. Just like any other groups, right?

Kevin

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Wow. Incredible. One group of people hates another. I can't believe this sort of thing just started after 6200 years of recorded history.

[carrick]

Its not about putting the state first, its about putting western values and western attitudes first. Soemthing many immigrants in Eurabia dont do.

Let make things clear, in France 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants are not "french" in the eyes of the establishment.

In many ways they fail to integrate into the mainstream because they are discouraged from integrating.

[Jamie Kelly]

I have a big problem with the Muslim faith. A BIG problem. Does that make me a bigot?
I have a big problem with right-wing, activist Christians. A BIG problem. Does that make me a bigot?
I have a big problem with FAITH. A BIG problem. So, tell me what a bigot I am.

[sam]

isn't it funny that here in america, we have large groups of relatively marginalized resident aliens, and yet, they just all get jobs and their kids speak english as a first language. i wonder if that has anything to do with our liberalized employment market. huh.

-sam

[henry]

I hope people see what foundation is being laid here. People toss around the word "fascist", etc., lightly regarding some elements of the Right in this country, but what they are pushing for less and less subtly is the idea that "we" might have to wage a genocidal conflict with Islam.

The first people to raise this topic were just the batshit crazies like MIchael Savage, and at least Ann Coulter can be somewhat forgiven for her nutty piece right after 9/11 that got her dropped from the National Review--she is a broad (I think), and you know how crazy they can get at times. But then you had that hideous little brownskirt Michelle Malkin defending WW2 "internment camps" (gee, Michelle, what caused you to think of that?).

Now, just recently, as reported here in Hit & Run, it was the utterly disgusting John Podhoretz (do women really sleeep with him?) telling us we just haven't killed enough young Muslim young men indiscriminately.

And then there was this, from John Derbyshire just two days ago--where he references the possiblity of the "g-word" becoming necessary:

http://tinyurl.com/pyznx

Oh yeah, it would be horrible if we have to do that, he says! But then proceeds to explain why it might soon become perfectly rational (you MUST read his link to "The Belmont Club"):

http://tinyurl.com/qfwce

Yes, the right wing crazies have the "g-word" on their minds, and agendas. And pushing the public into batshit fear and loathing is only phase one.

[TrickyVic]

Patriot,
What are Western values these days?

I would argue for the rule of law, innocent till proven guilty, rights to face your accuser and to see the evidence against you, and the concept of if your found not guilty at trial you must be set free.

Western values seems to be so pre-9/11.

[Patriot]

Maybe it has something to do with them being Catholics.

[Shannon Love]

Some of the actual poll is available here (you might have to sit through a short ad to see it.

The upshot seems to be that anyone that doesn't hold with the faux multiculturalism popular with academics is a bigot. For example, people that feel that Muslims are not respectful towards women or are to religiously extreme get dinged.

[Patriot]

We have suicide bombings in western nations for the first time in history, and private terrorist armies roaming europe for the firs time since the Middle Ages. No one thinks an increased Muslim presence has anything to do with it?

[highnumber]

Maybe it has something to do with them being Catholics.

I don't get it, but I still think that's the funny of the day. Catholics. Ha ha ha!!

[Jason Ligon]

When I say that I'm a libertarian, I immediately have to launch into a defense of a what I see as a reasonable position so as to distinguish my views from those of the raving gold standard obsessed destroy the IRS today people in the LP. It is annoying to always have to clarify and to go the extra mile to make clear certain differences, but I'd be lying if I claimed not to understand why people make assumptions about my views being similar.

Maybe we need little "m" muslims.

[Pro Libertate]

For example, people that feel that Muslims are not respectful towards women or are too religiously extreme get dinged.

Uh, oh, Jennifer. Apparently it's culturally insensitive for you not to bend over and take the abuse like a woman.

Now that's offensive.

[Thinking Being]

I wonder if the golbalization is the cause for people to identify themselves with their religion first and then nationality. As one might be Asian, Caucsian, African, which usually is easy to figure out for people (depending on feature or skin color). But it is religion (Marriam Webster definition of Religion 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ) that one may carry wherever he/she was to move, hence that might be one reason people assert religion over the nationality.
Probably it is something a human holds more close to as an individual, and that would vary from place to place or situation to situation. For instance a American/British Muslim was traveling, and was to ask outside of US/Britain who he/she is or where he/she is from, then he/she would reply to be American/Britian. But the reply might change if they were to be asked the same question in US/Britian.

Just a thought, I hope all races, religions, countries, cultures,.... can live in peace and harmony like animals 🙂

[JParker]

They should have asked if moslems should be allowed to fly. probably be 70 yes 30 no
If you just made it moslem men it would probably drop to 55 yes 45 no.

[jtuf]

The World Values Survey sampled 70 something countries with many questions. It has it's critics, but the results are OK for rough estimates. It asked, "On this list are various groups of people. Could you please sort out any that you would not like to have as neighbors?"

Some groups identified in 2000 along with the percentages that identified them.

Drug addicts 68%
People with a criminal record 55%
Homosexuals 43%
Emotionally unstable people 42%
Gypsies 38%
People who have AIDS 37%
Muslims 19%
People with large families 10%

In 1990, 14% of Americans listed Muslims. In 2000, 11% of Americans listed Muslims.

1) The 3% difference between the current US and the year 2000 world is within sampling error for most surveys. I can't say for sure without looking at the raw data, but it seems like the US is following the lead of the rest of the world here. More tolerance would help the situation, but efforts towards tolerance need to grow in many countries.

[dpotts]

rule of law, innocent till proven guilty, rights to face your accuser and to see the evidence against you, and the concept of if your found not guilty at trial you must be set free.

Unfortunately, to many in the Muslim world and elsewhere, "western values" means puppet regimes, unquestioning support for all of Israel's actions, and a KFC in downtown Karachi. I do wonder though, what it will take for Muslims around the world to decide that while they may not be entirely responsible for the actions of the violent minority within their ranks, they can step up and be more of a force for putting an end to this crap.

[joe]

"I have a big problem with the Muslim faith. A BIG problem. Does that make me a bigot?"

Yes.

"I have a big problem with right-wing, activist Christians. A BIG problem. Does that make me a bigot?"

No.

I think it's interesting that you deliberately tried to write these two sentences in parallel, and this is what you came up with.

"...the muslim faith..."
"...right wing, activist Christians..."

You see the difference, right? One of these describes a group, and one of them describes particular individuals who act a certain way.

The fact that you are able to differentiate between Christians based on their individual actions, but not Muslims, is why you are a bigot.

[matthew hogan]

"they can step up and be more of a force for putting an end to this crap."

According to news reports, a Muslim informed on the terrorists and the Islamic government of Pakistan did a fair share of the investigating and rounding up.

But I guess a bunch of passive third worlders have to do what no other group of passive third worlders do, namely collectively and massively and consistently step up to something, in order not to have to be locked in detention camps en masse.

[dlc]

"American Christians didn't kill 3,000 people on 9/11, or blow up London subways. I dislike whacky Christiasn as much as anyone, but the worst they do is off an abortion doctor."

Of all the phenomenally stupid and unpatriotic shit "Patriot" posted to this thread, this takes the cake.

Yo, fuckhead, American Muslims didn't kill 3,000 people either, nor did they blow up the London Subway. But of course we should make them carry ID's, 'cause, you know, 20 9/11 hijackers are representative of every single Muslim in the world, n' stuff...

[Ron Hardin]

W.F.Buckley still sometimes gets off a good line, like this one :

``The moment has not come, but it is around the corner, when non-Muslims will reasonably demand to have evidence that the Muslim faith can operate within boundaries in which Christians and Jews (and many non-believers) live and work without unconstitutional distraction.''

The moment may have come now.

[alan]

Of course American Muslims didn't blow up anything and it would be a crime against all that America stands for to make them carry ID cards as many have pointed out.

The average poll respondent may not be sophisticated in their analysis and may tend to answer emotionally. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the poll numbers are noteworthy and indicative (as someone pointed out) that Muslims are facing a big PR crisis.

I would argue that any group, defined by whatever criteria would start to feel a backlash (however unwarranted by facts) if some faction who identified with the larger group was in the news day in and day out (however fair or unfairly) for blowing people up.

This is both a problem for those holding the prejudicial generalized view and for the majority of affected larger group which ultimately has to make some effort to control or distance themselves from the troublemakers. It may not be fair, but that is the way the world works.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
Overall, the Germans and Spanish express much more negative views of both Muslims and Arabs than do the French, British or Americans. Just 36% in Germany, and 29% in Spain, express favorable opinions of Muslims; comparable numbers in the two countries have positive impressions of Arabs (39% and 33%, respectively). In France, Great Britain and the U.S., solid majorities say they have favorable opinions of Muslims, and about the same numbers have positive views of Arabs.

The same URL indicates that that about 15% to 25% of Euro muslims, depending on how you want to read it, support violence against civilians in defense of their goofy religion. That's a pretty BIG percentage of primitive barbarians.

Gallup has a history of creative interpretation when making the executive summaries of their polls.
Yup. Which is why I tried to find the actual questions; the Gallup website has the poll, but it's not something I'd pay for.

[Jennifer]

Uh, oh, Jennifer. Apparently it's culturally insensitive for you not to bend over and take the abuse like a woman.

Nope. The victim card for being a Young Muslim Male is worth 20 Poor Me points, but the victim card for being a little tiny woman who spent years and years (sob) working in bad-neighborhood bars just to pay for college and make ends meet is 150 Poor Me points, so once I play that victim card (which of course I do every time) I win.

And to hell with anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of the rules of the game. Y'all need to stop oppressin' me.

[Jennifer]

That being said, the idea of a special identity card for Muslims or anyone else is garbage.

[Pro Libertate]

Ah, I understand now. You are the greater victim; therefore, your total Victim Quotient is higher than a Muslim male's. After analyzing your various posts here, I deem your Victim Quotient (?), measured in units called paynz, to be 7.14.

My ? is ridiculously low as a white, male, Protestant, southern, American lawyer: 0.0016. So I may only receive abuse. I must not give it.

[alan]

In France, Great Britain and the U.S., solid majorities say they have favorable opinions of Muslims, and about the same numbers have positive views of Arabs.

Has anyone told Al Qaeda about this? Like maybe it will take the heat off of the U.S. and G.B.

[Pro Libertate]

Oh, I forgot to factor in my northern European descent. My ? is 0.00002.

[StupendousMan]

Look, all religion is ridiculous. But I don't think Muslims or any other religious person should be required to carry a special ID- I think they should be treated for mental illness.

But I will say anecdotally I've never met a Muslim who didn't hold batshit crazy ideas about women.

[mediageek]

Christ.

I typed "Dutch."

I meant "Danish."

*smacks forehead*

[anon]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second!

care to provide a link?

[Jennifer]

Pro Libertate, I don't mean to quibble with your calculations but you also forgot to factor in the historical weight that YMMs have been victims for maybe a hundred years now, whereas we women have been oppressed since forever.

[highnumber]

But I will say anecdotally I've never met a Muslim who didn't hold batshit crazy ideas about women.

Key word: Anecdotally

Among the Muslims that I have met:
- Women who were students.
- Young men who loved and respected their mothers & sisters.

I feel very bad for all the liberal (not using the word in the political sense, but in the social sense) religious types in our world today. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all get maligned by the whackjobs who claim to be of the same faith. I like to verbally bash Christians, because they are the majority in our country, but really, I have met many good Christians. I refrain from bashing Muslims and have a tendency to defend them when ignoramuses speak of them, because they are a minority here (the Muslims, unfortunately not the ignoramuses). I'll bet the ratio of good people to whackjobs is really about the same in every religion that has risen above a cult. The differences we perceive almost certainly derive from our cultures. Christians in our country aren't fighting oppressive regimes and civil wars, but if they were, I'd bet that we'd see certain groups of Christians calling for a holy war.
Yes, religion gives batshit insane people an excuse to act, but it didn't make them that way.

[Petunia Picklehead]

Apropos StupendousMan

The *only* people I have met who have had the nerve to ask me "Are you a jew?" before responding to my question or comment (both in this country and outside of it) have been arabic men . . .

(Invariably followed by, "I have nothing against jews, you see, I just want to know if I am speaking to one . .)

[Now That You've Brought It Up]

Petunia Picklehead,

Well, are you?

[Pro Libertate]

It's a logarithmic scale, Jennifer. You'd have scored higher, but you live with an evil man thing. And you've implied that men shouldn't be exterminated out of hand. And you have European blood. Oppressor.

[MainstreamMan]

Some groups identified in 2000 along with the percentages that identified them.

Drug addicts 68%
People with a criminal record 55%
Homosexuals 43%
Emotionally unstable people 42%
Gypsies 38%
People who have AIDS 37%"

What about the ID badges for the Gay,Drug addicted, ex-con, Mentally-Ill Gypsies with AIDS (GDAMIGAs)? The GDAMIGA is more hated than the Muslim...

[Jennifer]

You'd have scored higher, but you live with an evil man thing.

Which is why I deserve extra points, because he oppresses me all the time. Like the way he sighs when he says things like "I'd better do the laundry" or "I'm going to run the dishwasher now." I call it the Sigh Of Infinite Patience. I hate the Sigh Of Infinite Patience.

And you've implied that men shouldn't be exterminated out of hand.

You lie. Any such pro-male statements were taken completely out of context.

And you have European blood.

It's mostly Slavic, and we Slavs have been so oppressed our name is actually the root of the word "slave." Bonus points for me!

[W E White]

If it's bigotry to dislike Islam, is it bigotry to dislike communism? And if not, why does blaming it on god make what you do ok? Another comparison- if we can recognize that liberal democrats have some umpleasant tendencies, ones they share, to some degree with communists, while still releasing that they're not nearly so dangerous, why can't we make the same distinction between muslims (dangerous) and Christians (irritating, mostly.) Note the lack of the word fundamentalist, an irrelevant distinction.

[Ken Shultz]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second!

What percentage of Baptists say they're Christians first and Americans second?

...Should we be keeping an eye on the Baptists?

[w.e. white]

To be clear: my reference to liberal Democrats should have had the capitalisation

[Grand Chalupa]

The fact that you are able to differentiate between Christians based on their individual actions, but not Muslims, is why you are a bigot.

Being "Muslim" means holding a certain belief. Hating muslims doesn't make you a bigot any more than hating anarchists or fascists.

[Petunia Picklehead]

NTYBIU,

No, just just a Franco-Irish Catholic with a big nose.

[Petunia Picklehead]

Ken,

Only when they start flying planes into buildings . . .

[Petunia Picklehead]

Jennifer,

I should think you have enough points now to cash them in for something cool . . .

[highnumber]

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

-Wikipedia (I think we trust them on this definition.)

If you prejudge people and hate them for their beliefs, you are a bigot by definition. If you hate anarchy as a belief system, it does not follow that you must hate the anarchists. You may simply disagree with them. I hate communism, but I don't hate Cubans, even the ones who like Castro.

[Ken Shultz]

Being "Muslim" means holding a certain belief. Hating muslims doesn't make you a bigot any more than hating anarchists or fascists.

Religion certainly speaks to ethnicity. ...and religious bigotry is as ugly as any other kind.

...but I'd be interested to hear what belief Muslims hold that somehow means this hatred isn't bigotry.

[Ken Shultz]

...but I'd be interested to hear what belief Muslims hold that somehow means this hatred isn't bigotry.

Let's see--it must be the praying five times a day! ...No, I know some Christians, who, though not in the same way, pray more often than that. Maybe it's the refusal to eat pork or drink alcohol? Once again, we've got a lot of people of different faiths who believe those things too. I'd guess the goin' on pilgrimage thing, but how can you hate someone for goin' to Mecca? Maybe it's the belief that there's no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger?

...What's the belief that Muslims hold that makes hating them somehow not bigotry?

[StupendousMan]

"If you prejudge people and hate them for their beliefs, you are a bigot by definition"

So people's beliefs don't define them? They don't influence how they act?

We hear them profess to a belief system. We think the belief system is irrational(dangerous even). Is it bigotry to take them at their word? Or is it bigotry to denouce a belief system?

[Ken Shultz]

*crickets*

[Petunia Picklehead]

Ken,
sigh
Ok, I'll bite.

Perhaps it's the inherent intolerance for other faiths that manifests itself through violence against any non-muslims that makes hating "Islam" not bigotry?

By the same token, I would hate Cromwell's interpretation of whatever-flavor-of-protestant Christianity he espoused (I forget which one it was) if it were still around and being effectively used as a tool to motivate losers to kill "non-believers".

[Ruthless]

I'm coming in late here and haven't even skimmed the above.
When has a government ever said: "All you need is love"? Or "Imagine," or a whole host of songs? (Songs are mostly about love.)
The purpose of governments is war, not love.
War on poverty.
War on drugs.
War on terror.
War on ______.

It is government propaganda that war ever made anything better.

Government is a strain for those of us who believe in love to love.
The majority is addicted to government.
It needs intervention. A tall order.
Government is the "dark side."

Meanwhile, we lovers enjoy R&R in the Temple of the Vestals here at H&R.

[Patriot]

Link? I saw that poll on John Gibson the other day, I think the most watched news channel in America is a reputable source.

We are at WAR with Islamofascists, and we must steele our resolve, as we did in World War II and the Cold War.

[Chad]

I hate Islam, and feel sorry for anyone who has been brain-washed into that culture and religion. I do not have similar feelings about other religions, which in general have either neutral or positive effects (in total) upon believers.

For some reason, Islam and the associated Muslim culture turns its many of its followers into some of the most violent, racist, sexist, hypocritical, intolerant, beings on earth. I have ever right and obligation to hate such an idealogy.

Something is wrong with Islam - there is virtually no place where Muslims AREN'T fighting with their neighbors or among themselves. Until the Muslim world looks in the mirror and realize that it is not that everyone is against them, but rather that they are against everyone welse ill there be any progress on the matter.

[The Real Bill : (]

I hate communism, but I don't hate Cubans, even the ones who like Castro.

I hate everyone that likes Fidel Castro. They deserve to die, as do all people who like oppressive dictators.

[Ken Shultz]

Perhaps it's the inherent intolerance for other faiths that manifests itself through violence against any non-muslims that makes hating "Islam" not bigotry?

I don't think anyone here would fault you for saying you hated intolerance, but I defy you to show that Islam is inherently intolerant.

[irony]

muslims drink tab?
i thought only chicks drink tab, and muslim chicks arent allowed to eat or drink as we all know. damn women opressors.

[Don Coyote]

Ken, Does Islam tolerate infidels (an unbeliever)?
Can you provide any empirical evidence? Any Sura will do.

[highnumber]

It may be easier to justify hating groups of people, but it is far more rewarding to look beyond your prejudices.

Something is wrong with Islam - there is virtually no place where Muslims AREN'T fighting with their neighbors or among themselves. Until the Muslim world looks in the mirror and realize that it is not that everyone is against them, but rather that they are against everyone welse ill there be any progress on the matter.

There are Muslims in my town. There are probably Muslims in your town. How many suicide bombings has your town had?

Just as there are liberal Christians that don't want to see our culture downgraded into the middle ages, there are liberal Muslims in our country. Why don't some of you self-professed haters get your heads out of your asses and talk to these people?

[Patriot]

Highnumber, when will you and other liberals understand? We are at WAR! At war with an enemy that may not only be among us, they may very well be us.

We have to fight this enemy, as a past generation did in World War II. Islamofascism is Nazism in our time.

[Don Coyote]

highnumber,

There were good Japanese in Cali in WWII (treated unfairly) but the masses were supporting/torturing/murdering millions. Don't cut your countrymen to short. Not our first time in a bar.

And to be fair, many of the Japanese that were "supporting" the war probably had little option and were caught up in the moment.

[highnumber]

Liberal?
Is Patriot a joke? A regular in masquerade?

[Patriot]

Im sorry highnumber, libertarian. I have a habit of those I disagree with being liberals.

[APL]

Patriot:
Im sorry highnumber, libertarian. I have a habit of those I disagree with being liberals.

That's not the problem. The problem is that you have a habit of disagreeing with people who are right.

[Don Coyote]

APL,

True or not, that was funny!

[highnumber]

There were good Japanese in Cali in WWII (treated unfairly) but the masses were supporting/torturing/murdering millions. Don't cut your countrymen to short. Not our first time in a bar.

And to be fair, many of the Japanese that were "supporting" the war probably had little option and were caught up in the moment.

Ohmygod! Ladies & Gentlemen, we have a celebrity in our midst.
May I introduce...
Michelle Malkin! Give her a big hand.

[Werewolf]

The Muslims are savages. Reason magazine supports them and runs interference for them when they do things such as kill that Jewish woman in Seattle, because they're like the New Left hippies with a few Rightwing bounces and the New Left (now today's Left) wants Israel destroyed.

Probably, sexual perversion a la Ernst Rhoem fuels their eliminationist anti-Semitism, too. Islam is to be the vehicle that eliminates the state that the Libertarians hate most, Israel.

[Werewolf]

Gee.... Sometimes I think you clowns don't like me (as if I really care).

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here!"

[highnumber]

Boy, you're really upset that you never had your chance with a nazi, eh?
Don't worry, place a personal ad, be very specific:

Neo-con Arab-hating bigot bottom seeks dominant Jew-hating top. Must like uniforms and long knives.

[Chad]

Ken Shultz: Read the Koran. My one sentence summary would be "All the tedium, war, rigidity, intolerance and Wrath of God of the Old Testament, without the New Testament's messages of forgiveness, tolerence and love to offset it".

Of all the religious works I have read, it is the only one which I think is negative in such a way. The rest I find either benign or (at times) enlightening.

[APL]

Ken Shultz: Read the Koran. My one sentence summary would be "All the tedium, war, rigidity, intolerance and Wrath of God of the Old Testament, without the New Testament's messages of forgiveness, tolerence and love to offset it".

So you're saying that Judaism is a religous of tedium, violence, wrath and intolerance?

[wingnutx]

Am I a bigot if I have a low opinion of everyone in the Christian Identity movement?

I have a few good friends who happen to be Muslim, but to be fair they are self-described "bad muslims," ie. fairly secular.

They live in Iraq, anyway. They have bigger problems right now.

[joshua corning]

Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D.

so we have that and we have 30% who belive the US had somehting to do with 9/11

presuming that these two groups are mutually exclusive becouse if there are poeple who belive both they would have to be bat shit insane and mind blowingly stupid then that leaves only 31% for normal poeple.

For democracies sake lets hope there is a large contingiant of bat shit insane and mind blowingly stupid.

[Robert]

Why is the Sikh comment a joke? The point is not to identify Muslims, but to identify non-Muslims, from whom we seem to be safe from terror. Trouble is, how to get Muslim terrorists to identify themselves as Muslim? Does no good to identify only the non-terrorist Muslims. Can't use appearance, because the shoe bomber wasn't an Arab.

Security screening would go a lot faster if the overwhelming majority of people could be bypassed. And it does seem we can bypass all non-Muslims, and be as safe as we used to be before this jihad.

[joshua corning]

90% of muslims in britain say they are muslim first and British second! With attitudes like that, they are inviting things like this.

what!?!?!

who gives a shit?? I am a libertarian first, a washingtoian second...oh wait i am also a corning so that would probabably come first...fuck man being american comes at most like 6th or 7th and that would drop off in inportance if I really thought about it.

I sure hope muslims think they are muslims before they think of themselves as americans or british or what the fuck.

[joshua corning]

Its not about putting the state first, its about putting western values and western attitudes first. Soemthing many immigrants in Eurabia dont do.

It is almost perfect in its self contradiction.

Hey i know lets save our values and attitudes by completely abandoning them...BRILLIANT!!

Why does this guy remind me of joe?

[Grand Chalupa]

If you prejudge people and hate them for their beliefs, you are a bigot by definition.

Actually, I also looked up the definition of bigot, and you're right. From the yahoo dictionary...

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I think by that definition though everybody's a bigot. I only go by my definition of right and wrong. To be against someone for something they can't control (skin color, nationality, etc) is bigotry to me. Hating communtists or Muslims or Christians or whatever probably isn't a positive thing but doesn't make you the scum that a racist is.

Anyways, I hate Islam because anybody who has the least bit of common sense doesn't believe in God. And some religions are worse than others as far as increasing misery and denying life. That's why I spend a lot of time attacking Muslims but not Budhists. I hate misery and irrationality. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it.

[jtuf]

mainstreamman

I was just addressing the question about neighbors. I'm definitely against IDs that single out one group.

[Mo]

Why are we looking at Muslims in Europe as a guide for how to treat American Muslims. American Muslims are better educated, more affluent* and I haven't read are any more crime prone. There were no violent protests to the cartoons here in the US.

American Muslims integrate and become normal neighbors just like everyone else. Huzzah for the American way.

* According to a Zogby poll well over 2/3s of Muslims have more than median salary. The fact that they are more affluent, even though they are younger (on average) makes the numbers even stronger.

[battle sheep]

Can we please retire the 'bat shit' modifier or at least think of a few other alternatives? Okay, I'm drinking now.

I'm an internet surfer geek first, a Klingon hater second, a creature of habit who lacks color coordination third...

Okay, another drink...

[Don Coyote]

Can we say this "war" (Iraq, Afgan, Israel, Leb, etc.) is resulting from root religious beliefs & ideas?

Without this religion as a background would this "war" be waged?

If it has a religious background, is it balanced (all sides using religion equally)?

[thoreau]

Trouble is, how to get Muslim terrorists to identify themselves as Muslim? Does no good to identify only the non-terrorist Muslims. Can't use appearance, because the shoe bomber wasn't an Arab.

Security screening would go a lot faster if the overwhelming majority of people could be bypassed. And it does seem we can bypass all non-Muslims, and be as safe as we used to be before this jihad.

What if somebody from a Muslim background identifies himself as an atheist? Does he still have to carry an ID card?

What if somebody from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or some other Arab country with a sizeable Christian population insists that he's really a Christian?

What if an Iranian insists that he's a Zoroastrian?

What if somebody who looks Pakistani says that he's a Hindu?

What if a Kurd says that he practices the Yadzidi faith?

What if a guy who looks Chechen insists that he's Armenian or Georgian or some other group that's mostly Christian?

What if a guy who looks Indonesian insists that he's Thai or Vietnamese or Filipino or whatever? (Given that Indonesia is a pretty diverse place, most of them could probably pass as some other ethnicity that you wouldn't associate with Islam.)

Would everybody need to somehow prove his or her faith (or lack thereof) before getting a special ID card that says "non-Muslim"?

[joe]

"Being "Muslim" means holding a certain belief. Hating muslims doesn't make you a bigot any more than hating anarchists or fascists."

Am I bigot if I hate all atheists? Of course I am - I prejudging an entire group negatively based on their inclusion in a group.

One's inclusion in a religious group is not the equivalent of one's political beliefs, but more like being a speaker of a language. It is an important part of your identity.

There is a huge difference between rejecting certain specific beliefs or actions, and imputing these beliefs and actions to a billion people you've never met for the purpose of hating them.

[Don Coyote]

Joe said: "There is a huge difference between rejecting certain specific beliefs or actions, and imputing these beliefs and actions to a billion people you've never met for the purpose of hating them.'

So why did Mohammed do that to the infidels?

[Don Coyote]

Thoreau, what tools would you use? Or do we need any tools? Most employers do some background checking. Most people will fill out a resume/job application and spill their life out for a job, to make money. Hell, they provide this to someone they don't even know. Seems it would be logical to use similar tools for our nations security which has meant death. That might be apples and oranges to some.

There are those that do not trust our government. And who knows how people define that?

[MainstreamMan]

jtuf

I wasn't trying to place you in the pro-ID bin.
I just found the numbers you posted astounding.

Free the GDAMIGA!
GDAMIGA rights now!

[anon]

Link? I saw that poll on John Gibson the other day, I think the most watched news channel in America is a reputable source.

Yeah, just like Pravda.

[joe]

"So why did Mohammed do that to the infidels?"

Because he lived in the 7th century, when such attitudes were considered acceptable and civilized.

You're so keyed up in your eagerness to fight terrorists and medieval bigots. Why are you also so eager to emulate them, Don?

[highnumber]

Chad,

I had a very different response.

The Old Testament: So much history (much of the older stuff really just myth according to the archeological record), so many archaic obscure laws, then a bunch of different prophets each ranting about some very specific political crisis, but in code.

The New Testament: An interesting, sad story about a really nice guy with lots of great powers, but then he dies and these these wackos start telling everybody to do as they say, or else. Top that off with what we ended the first book with.

Al-Qur'an: A very specific outline for a certain people to set up a stable society that was a fair as could be in that time and place, interspersed with mysticism.

Of course the Old Testament has some great stuff: the Psalms, the Song of Solomon, the Book of Job, among other things.
The New Testament becomes more interesting when you start looking deeper into Jesus' life. The Muslims even give him a special place as one who was born enlightened.
Al-Qur'an was so specific to time and place that many of the stories and advice sound ridiculous when people try to apply them today without viewing it through the context that they were written. I find it to be the easiest to read, however, because of its specificness.

[Don Coyote]

joe, Have these attitudes and civilized behavior of the 7th century dissipated? You don't have a clue. Neither do I. A simple indicator may be the effigies that we all witness in the region. Like the bible, teachings of Mohammed remain active in the koran. It would be sacrilege to remove any portion of them. The Taliban would frown on it.

And why did they hit the twin towers joe?

[highnumber]

To clarify, my last comment was in response to this:

Ken Shultz: Read the Koran. My one sentence summary would be "All the tedium, war, rigidity, intolerance and Wrath of God of the Old Testament, without the New Testament's messages of forgiveness, tolerence and love to offset it".

Of all the religious works I have read, it is the only one which I think is negative in such a way. The rest I find either benign or (at times) enlightening.

[Don Coyote]

highnumber, Tell me about the context in which the Koran was written? Enlighten me. If I send a couple of sura's will you translate them for me?

BTW: If the Koran is translated beyond its native tounge, it's filth. What version is easy reading for you?

[kwais]

Dr T,
Remember the inquisition where they made people eat pork and stuff like that?

Joe,
you are abslutely right. How weird is the convesatione on politics when you and me are in total agreement.

As Mo said, and he would know. American moslems are as much Americans as anyone else. This actually makes me angry that people argue against about everyone from the religion being bad. I remember in National Review an article where it lambasted people for questioning whether American Jews allegance was with Israel, or the US. Why is it different for Moslems?

I don't know why this angers me so.

I mean yeah we are at war, and yeah bad people and awefull people and such. But we still have freedom of religion.

[Robert]

If you could reliably identify non-Muslims it'd make things so much easier. Trouble is, no screen will work against terrorists, because I think their beliefs include doing un-Muslim things (like getting lap dnaces) to appear un-Muslim, so making everybody pet a pig (or refuse to) wouldn't work. So ID is not a bad thought, just unrealistic.

[KLT]

The point is not to identify Muslims, but to identify non-Muslims, from whom we seem to be safe from terror.

Christ, does anyone remember the Oklahoma City bombing, or do have you forgotten everything that happened before 9/11/01?

[Ken Shultz]

Ken, Does Islam tolerate infidels (an unbeliever)? Can you provide any empirical evidence? Any Sura will do.

If you're asking for evidence that those who reject God won't be punished, you won't find it. ...I don't think you'll find it in the New or Old Testaments or the Avestan literature or the Bhagavad Gita either. But surely the following shows something of tolerance:

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

----Surah al Baqarah (The Cow), 2:62

Regardless, I defy anyone to show that Islam is inherently intolerant.

...and the bigger question is whether Muslims themselves are inherently intolerant, whether hating people for their religion is bigoted and whether it's okay to discriminate against people because of their religion.

Quite frankly, the answers to those questions are obvious to me, and I'm a bit embarrassed to be in this discussion. I feel like I'm arguing with someone about whether World War II era propaganda posters accurately reflected the murderousness inherent within the Japanese people. That there's something inherently murderous about Japanese people--it's such a ridiculous suggestion. Arguing the point would just seem to lend that silly argument some legitimacy.

...How often do we see brilliant counters to poor arguments? I've argued here before that sometimes simple ridicule is the best response to a ridiculous argument. ...and I think this may be one of those cases.

[el loco diablo]

This is my first post here. So I'm gonna jump right in. . .It seems that some people in this thread make the assumption that Islam plays by the same set of rules that the western world plays by. I think its very commendable that we all want to be fair. However, I think its very naive. The reason we have the freedom to even discuss this issue and many others is because we and most democracies either currently have or had some type of Judeo-Christian foundation. Now I'm not some bible thumper, I'm just stating fact. All the love thy neighbor and ten commandment "stuff" is ingrained to a degree that most people don't even recognize it. We, as americans, for the most part, believe in doing the "right thing" and being "fair" and "just", regardless of political viewpoint or ethnic affiliation. My point is this. Islam is a belief system that views itself as the rightful ruler of the world. Muslims, of all ilk, believe EVERYONE should be Muslim. Why? Because Allah told Mohammed to tell YOU that you should be Muslim. That's why. End of discussion. That includes America and the rest of the world. A serious open-minded study of the Koran, the hadiths, and the surrahs will tell you all that's needed about Islam. Couple this with reference books such as The Sword of the Prophet, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam or any other modern analysis and you'll the answers you seek. Personally, I don't like what Islam offers. I've studied the faith for the past 5 years, immersing myself in my local Muslim community, to the extent that an "infidel" can. I believe it to be a manifestation of a pagan cult, which has very few redeeming qualities, in the modern world. I honestly believe that even the most moderate muslim longs for a global caliphate. You see it in the news every day where moderate muslims in the US demonstrate against free speech (Memphis 2006) but not against 9-11(Dearborn 2001) or any of the other terrorist acts around the world. Many moderate muslims are aiding-and-abetting terrorism on a daily basis either directly or indirectly. Recently several American born Muslim youths were apprehended with HUNDREDS of cell phones. These phones are sent to the middle east and used to ignite IEDs. This recently happened in Ohio and Michigan. Read the Koran. . .Infidels are to be offered the chance of conversion or they are to be killed. The President of Iran made this offer to Pres. Bush in his rambling May 2006 letter. It will be interesting to see what the Iranian president has in store for the world on Aug. 22, the day he said he would give his answer to the world, regarding his nuclear program. According to Islam, Jews are monkeys and pigs and are to be killed. . .why is this? It's because the Jews personally rejected Mohammeds teachings, while he was still alive. So this is a vendetta that has been carried for 500+ years. I mean what kind of mentality is that in 2006. These assertions and teaching have such a negative impact on the human psyche,especially when instilled during childhood. Islam is a cult of WAR. . . either overt or covert. This war will go on as long the west continues to capitulate and retreat. I challenge the right-wingers who frequent this blog to read some of the lefts blogs, such as Kos, and I also challenge the left-wingers to check out Drudge and LGF. One final comment on Islam. . .do a google search for "cult checklist", and see how many of the questions apply to Islam as opposed to ANY other "religion". It all boils down to freedom, choice, liberty and independence, of which Islam offers NONE! Peace out, el Loco Diablo

[Grand Chalupa]

This is my first post here. So I'm gonna jump right in. .

Welcome, though I usually don't read the ideas of people who don't break their posts up into paragraphs. By the definition of some people here, I'm a bigot.

[el loco diablo]

I have a very simple, man in-the-street "Tolerence Test" for KenSchultz. Get on a plane, fly to the Iran, and see how long you're tolerated. You better wake up to the Islamic tidal wave that's attempting to sweep the west. It's here and it's real.

[Grand Chalupa]

Regardless, I defy anyone to show that Islam is inherently intolerant.

...and the bigger question is whether Muslims themselves are inherently intolerant,

Maybe Muslims in Bosnia aren't but you're telling me those in Saudi Arabia aren't either? Look at their penal code, newspapers, etc. I'd be willing to bet my life that the majority of Muslims think it should be illegal to draw cartoons of their religious figures. What to you is intolerant?

whether hating people for their religion is bigoted

Depends on your definition of bigoted. Seems to me by your definition anybody who hates anybody for any reason is bigoted. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their belief in Islam, although besides that they may be very nice people, albeit a little confused. Still, I hate the pious part of them. Ok, this argument is getting ridiculous.

and whether it's okay to discriminate against people because of their religion.

Depends on the situation. I personally trust secular people more because I trust their judegment better but I wouldn't pass any laws that discriminate.

[el loco diablo]

Apologies to the Grand Chalupa. . .I didn't know you were such a stickler. I'll be more careful in future posts.

[Don Coyote]

Ken, Your last comment was just blowing sugar up your own brillant ass. But if it feels good, go for it.

I can't speak for Muslims or know them, so I do not know and neither do you. It's one of those "safe" agnostic type discussions you purpose.

I do believe there is adequate evidence from Islamic writings/suras and leaders (those in opposition) that suggest that the religion is, at a minimum, intolerant of infidels, especially on their sacred ground. Hassan Nasrallah has clearly stated his position on the occupying forces in all of Palestine. Do all Muslims believe this? Not even all Christians believe the complete Bible.

Not sure of the point of the Sura your posted?
Afterlife with "their Lord". Implying us with ours?

[Pro Libertate]

Okay, Jennifer, I can move you up to a full 9.0 if you watch 25 hours of Lifetime, Television for Women who Hate Men. And make Jeff watch it, too.

You go, girl!

[Ken Shultz]

It seems that some people in this thread make the assumption that Islam plays by the same set of rules that the western world plays by.

Isn't North Africa part of the Western World?

My point is this. Islam is a belief system that views itself as the rightful ruler of the world.

How often do you listen to echo chamber radio?

Muslims, of all ilk, believe EVERYONE should be Muslim.

...which is why, historically, there's never been any tension between different brands of Islam. ...except for between Sufis and Sunnis, Sunnis and Wahabis, Sunni and Shia, between secularists and liberals--with each other and everybody else--and just about ever flavor of Islam in between with every other flavor of Islam. ...but, other than that, you're right, Islam is truly monolithic.

By the way, I come from a long line of missionaries and preachers. People in my family have gone to Nepal, India, Africa, China and Boston--all of 'em pretty much convinced that EVERYONE should be Christian. ...I think everyone should be a Libertarian. So what?

A serious open-minded study of the Koran, the hadiths, and the surrahs will tell you all that's needed about Islam.

After considering the rest of your post, and it's almost perfect regurgitation of garden variety propaganda, are we supposed to believe that you've done a "serious open-minded study of the" Qu'ran, etc?

I've studied the faith for the past 5 years, immersing myself in my local Muslim community, to the extent that an "infidel" can. I believe it to be a manifestation of a pagan cult, which has very few redeeming qualities, in the modern world.

I'd be interested to know, just for kicks, if anyone else believes this.

I honestly believe that even the most moderate muslim longs for a global caliphate.

I don't doubt that you believe that.

Recently several American born Muslim youths were apprehended with HUNDREDS of cell phones.

Let's keep our facts straight. I think by "several" you mean two. ...and having hundreds of cell phones isn't a crime. The airport papers are said to have belonged to relative who worked at the airport. ...The jury's still out on them.

Even if they were laundering money for Hezbollah, that doesn't mean American Muslims in general are inherently dangerous any more than American financial support of the IRA means that Christians are inherently dangerous. Indeed, does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? ...Now that guy was dangerous!

These phones are sent to the middle east and used to ignite IEDs.

Do you have a reference for that? I suspect most of the phones used to ignite IEDs in Iraq are purchased elsewhere--somewhere closer to Iraq. Logistically, smuggling cell phones out of America and into Iraq just sounds--what's the word?--silly.

Read the Koran. . .Infidels are to be offered the chance of conversion or they are to be killed. The President of Iran made this offer to Pres. Bush in his rambling May 2006 letter.

As I recall, very generally, infidels are to be offered the chance of conversion--or they are to pay taxes.

If you could isolate that part of the document where the President of Iran offers President Bush (or America) the opportunity for conversion or death, that'd be great. Not that I'm a fan of the President of Iran; it's just that I think you're a blow hard and you're makin' stuff up.

Here's a link.

According to Islam, Jews are monkeys and pigs and are to be killed. . .why is this? It's because the Jews personally rejected Mohammeds teachings, while he was still alive. So this is a vendetta that has been carried for 500+ years.

This directly contradicts the Surah I quoted above as well as history. ...you should try to differentiate between Islam and individuals who call themselves Muslim. Islam is not monolithic.

I mean what kind of mentality is that in 2006.

It's the mentality of a straw man.

[Ken Shultz]

I can't speak for Muslims or know them, so I do not know and neither do you. It's one of those "safe" agnostic type discussions you purpose.

I do believe there is adequate evidence from Islamic writings/suras and leaders (those in opposition) that suggest that the religion is, at a minimum, intolerant of infidels, especially on their sacred ground.

That's great. So, I see a couple of options here--maybe there's more?

Either your belief in adequate evidence is supposed to be enough for the rest of us--enough to influence policy that is and mean that hatred of Muslims isn't really bigotry. ...or you can't show that Islam is inherently intolerant.

Ken, Your last comment was just blowing sugar up your own brillant ass. But if it feels good, go for it.

Is this what passes for persuasive with you?

[Ken Shultz]

In response to my comment, as quoted...

whether hating people for their religion is bigoted

...you wrote:

Depends on your definition of bigoted. Seems to me by your definition anybody who hates anybody for any reason is bigoted. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their belief in Islam, although besides that they may be very nice people, albeit a little confused. Still, I hate the pious part of them. Ok, this argument is getting ridiculous.

You should get a prize for that. I mean that's a real standout.

[joe]

"joe, Have these attitudes and civilized behavior of the 7th century dissipated?"

That depends on who we're talking about. For 99.9% of the Muslims in America, yes, they have, to roughly the same degree as the have dissipated among Chirstians and Jews.

Why did "they" hit the Twin Towers? You are referring to the hundred of so specific people involved in the plot, and not all Muslims, right? Tell me, Mr. Gun Rights Anti-Government Activists, why did you people hit the Murrah Building?

[Les]

el loco diablo,

The reason we have the freedom to even discuss this issue and many others is because we and most democracies either currently have or had some type of Judeo-Christian foundation.

There is no evidence that our government has any Judeo-Christian foundation. Indeed, the people who threatened our founding fathers with Satan's hellfire for not stating that our democracy was based on Christian beliefs, were Christians. Our freedoms remain specifically because the document in which they are described is overtly secular.

Now I'm not some bible thumper, I'm just stating fact. All the love thy neighbor and ten commandment "stuff" is ingrained to a degree that most people don't even recognize it.

The Ten Commandments are, by their nature, un-American and totalitarian. "Thou shalt have no God before me" is un-American. Prohibitions against working on the Sabbath are un-American. Prohibitions against taking "the" lord's name in vain are un-American. Like most Americans, you've assumed that the Ten Commandments are benign things and you've forgotten what they really say and that the penalty laid out for breaking any of the them is death in every case.

And the New Testament is hardly a love-fest. Jesus says he wants to fulfill the barbaric laws of the Old Testament. He says that those who don't hear the word of his disciples will suffer the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (and that's just for not listening). He says that anyone who loves their mother or father more than they love Christ will go to Hell.

We, as americans, for the most part, believe in doing the "right thing" and being "fair" and "just", regardless of political viewpoint or ethnic affiliation.

I think this is a baseless statement. There is a lot of evidence to suggest a lot of bigotry and approved injustice in this country. It's not as bad as some and it's probably a little worse than others, but we have a long history of approved injustice and bigotry (a lot that continues to this day).

My point is this. Islam is a belief system that views itself as the rightful ruler of the world.

That's no different than Christianity. It says so over and over in the Bible.

Muslims, of all ilk, believe EVERYONE should be Muslim. Why? Because Allah told Mohammed to tell YOU that you should be Muslim. That's why. End of discussion.

This is a blatantly and demonstrably false statement. God tells everyone (and so does Jesus) that YOU should be a Christian. That's why. End of discussion. No, wait...no it's not. It's a profoundly ignorant argument.

There are many Muslim organizations fighting terrorism. If you'd take the small amount of time it takes to do a Google search for "Muslims against terrorism," you'd see that.

The bottom line is that anyone who suggests that the Koran is inherently more violent than the Bible hasn't read the Bible. If there are Christians and Jews who can ignore the many barbaric parts of the Bible (or, actually, be completely ignorant of them), it's fair to assume that there are Muslims who can ignore the barbaric parts of the Koran. And the fact is that most do.

[Ken Shultz]

I've studied the faith for the past 5 years, immersing myself in my local Muslim community, to the extent that an "infidel" can. I believe it to be a manifestation of a pagan cult, which has very few redeeming qualities, in the modern world.

My bullshit detector is off the hook.

[Ken Shultz]

Tell me, Mr. Gun Rights Anti-Government Activists, why did you people hit the Murrah Building?

I've studied Mr. Gun Rights Anti-Government Activists for the past 5 years, immersing myself in my local Mr. Gun Rights Anti-Government Activist community, to the extent that an "infidel" can. I believe it to be a manifestation of a pagan cult, which has very few redeeming qualities, in the modern world.

[joe]

Mine, too.

I would pay good money to see that guy trying to be "down" with the Muslims in his community.

[highnumber]

I've studied the faith for the past 5 years, immersing myself in my local Muslim community, to the extent that an "infidel" can. I believe it to be a manifestation of a pagan cult, which has very few redeeming qualities, in the modern world.

Yes, they seem to like to commerce in games of chance and smokable plants. They are firm believers in numerology and even tend to name their hang-outs with powerful number combinations like "7-11".

I took that crash course too.

[Don Coyote]

joe, "For 99.9% of the Muslims in America, yes, they have..."

I'm not sure about the exactness of 99.9% but I'll stipulate it is close to that. I also believe that what has really happened is that they do not follow pure Islam in the US. They have adapted it to fit into the society they live and function.

Yes, those involved in the plot, joe. Never mind.

[Don Coyote]

Joe, Ken I think you are republican plants trying to make libertarians look like fools. You're both doing a damn good job.

[Les]

I also believe that what has really happened is that they do not follow pure Islam in the US. They have adapted it to fit into the society they live and function.

Couldn't you say the same thing about Christians and Jews? I mean, most of them don't believe in killing homosexuals or kids who curse their parents or even following all of the ten commandments.

[MainstreamMan]

"There is no evidence that our government has any Judeo-Christian foundation. Indeed, the people who threatened our founding fathers with Satan's hellfire for not stating that our democracy was based on Christian beliefs, were Christians. Our freedoms remain specifically because the document in which they are described is overtly secular."

Try these out

Benjamin Franklin:
? God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel? ?Constitutional Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamiliton
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

John Hancock:
? ?In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, ?at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness? Resolved; ?Thursday the 11th of May?to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation ?and a Blessing on the ? Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]?That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation?for the redress of America?s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry
"?It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.? [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]"

Thomas Jefferson:
? The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.?

?Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.?

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

?God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.? (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson?s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

James Madison
? We?ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.?

?We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We?ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity?to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.? [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

George Washington:
The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." | photo of Farewell address original manuscript

? It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.?

?What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.? [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words ?So help me God!? to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

It is a nation founded on freedom of religion, but not, necessarily, on secular values. IMHO.

[Chad]

Les: If .1% of Muslims are against terrorism, and .10% of those people make web pages, you would have more than 1000 anti-terrorism web-pages written by Muslims.

Pointing out that a few westernized Muslims are against terror hardly makes your point. You can find a few people in any group that large that believe just about anything you wish.

What scares me when I read quotes by Muslims (in the BBCs interviews of British Muslims, for example) it is clear that few of them accept any responsibility of Muslims for anything. They deny 9/11 was caused my Muslims, they think the people pulled in for this new plot are innocent, and for that matter, just about any Muslim imprisoned by any non-Muslim anywhere is innocent. It is all a big conspiracy to them.

This sick mindset is hard to combat. I am not sure what the best tactic is. How do you reason with someone who beliefs all evidence to the contrary of their beliefs is a Jewish plant?

[anon]

Nasrallah has clearly stated his position on the occupying forces in all of Palestine.

Occupying forces are not the same as "non-Muslims". Nasrallah never advocated kicking the Lebanese Christians from Lebanon or forcing them out.

[Les]

Mainstream man,
If I didn't know better, I might think you were trying to tell me that Jefferson and Franklin were Christians.

[Les]

Mainstream Man,

Your quotes are wasted, I'm afraid, as I never claimed our founding fathers didn't have spiritual or Christian beliefs. I said there is no evidence that our government has a Judeo-Christian foundation. The foundation of our government is, inarguably, described in our Constitution. No where in the Constitution are the words "Jesus," "Christ," or even "God" to be found. That makes it a secular document and that is precisely why it was condemned by religious leaders of the time.

The Judeo-Christian text is filled to overflowing with warnings and reminders to worship that one particular God. If our government was Judeo-Christian in its origins one would expect to find similar warnings. Instead, we find a document that allows for all beliefs. That excludes it from being Judeo-Christian, a tradition that explicitly states over and over, "Thou shalt have no gods before Me," often under threat of death and eternal damnation.

The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states that "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," and it was passed unanimously by the Senate.

You can quote the Founding Fathers to put forth an argument that they were deists or Christians (except Paine, of course, his opinion was quite clear), but what matters is the Constitution, the basis of our government. I will provide one quote, which sums up the attitude in creating a wall between church and state.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

[Les]

I did NOT write the post at 7:34pm.

[Les]

Chad,

I was responding to el loco diablo's assertion that all Muslims were ignoring terrorism or supporting it, which is blatantly false. I wasn't trying to demonstrate any hard numbers as to what percentage of American Muslims support terrorism as a tactic. I don't know of any information regarding that.

I agree with you regarding the mindset of fundamentalists. It seems impossible to reason with someone who ignores all evidence to the contrary of positions they hold so dear, whether it be in Jewish conspiracies or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[Grand Chalups]

Try these out

Benjamin Franklin:
? God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel? ?Constitutional Convention of 1787

Can someone tell me if the founding fathers wanted this country based on a Judeo-Christian foundation why is their not a single mention of God, Christianity, "Judeo-Christian" roots, Jesus or getting saved anywhere in the constitution? The Decleration of Independence has one refrence to a "creator" and besides that is a completly secular document.

You can take all the quotes you want, but the fact is the document that they knew would leave their footprints on history had no mention of "Judeo-Christian" roots.

And am I the only one that finds it funny that after being a sworn enemy of the Enlightenment Christianity now claims its values as its own?

[Les]

I did NOT write the post at 7:34pm.

Nope, I did. Didn't even know there was another one around.

[joe]

Don sez: "I also believe that what has really happened is that they do not follow pure Islam in the US."

How many Christians in this country do you think follow "pure Christianity?" Do you see a lot of "fundamentalists" quitting their jobs to let God provide for them, like the birds of the field? Do you see very many stonings among Jews?

BTW, I am a liberal, here of my own accord, making no one but myself look bad.

[Don Coyote]

Grand Chalups,

Would you agree that a gun cannot be fired, a missle launched, an earthquake shake the ground, a hurricane blow or a suicide bomber act for the same reason you give?

Not trying to be tricky. Many just post the good view of God. Does he not controll it all?

[rick]

I always thought that a Christian turned the other cheek. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Given that: I would rather be claimed to be a Christian than an amerikan; lately

spread luv

[Don Coyote]

Joe: "How many Christians in this country do you think follow "pure Christianity?"

None. Now we both know that is a can of worms as is pure Islam. From snake charmers, one cuppers, sprinkle or full immersion, baptize for the dead, speaking in tongues, musical instrument or not, saturday or sunday sabbath, heaven on earth or other, there is no end. Of course there is the universal church it's just that all don't realize they are members yet.

[Les]

Nope, I did. Didn't even know there was another one around.

Oh, good. You're a real Les. I was worried there might be an imposter about.

[Les]

Though what the advantage would be in pretending to be me is a mystery. I don't even like doing it!

[well, actually]

If Islam were inherently intolerant, it would be so in all places and times. A cursory look at Islamic history should disprove any notion that it is inherntly violent (or peaceful.) One could argue that modern Islamic culture tends to be less tolerant than other religions, but I have more hope that Islam will reform and grow than hope that all those Muslims will adopt a more "acceptable" faith. I may be disapointed with aspects of Islamic culture, but I am more disapointed with those Americans who said ID-ing all Muslims was a good idea.

[grrrr]

"Tell me, Mr. Gun Rights Anti-Government Activists, why did you people hit the Murrah Building?"

A good point. We could probably do this with any identity group - private or government, secular or religious:

"Tell me, Mr. Control Freak, busy body liberal, why did you burn those children alive at Waco?"

or

"Tell me, Mr. Radical, why did you kidnap Patty Hearst, take provocative photos astride Ho Chi Minh tanks, and refuse to bathe?"

"Tell me, Mr. Gay man, why did you turn my place of recreation into a cheesy song that I can't get out of my head.....and those weren't PILLOWS!"

[kwais]

Of the many many moslems that I have dealt with. I have found there to be perhaps a higher percentage of intolerant christians, than intolerant moslems.

Is is anecdotal, and may not mean anything.

[highnumber]

MainstreamMan,

Track down those quotes. You will see that either they are fabrications or that they are horribly out of context. You CAN say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals if you mean that our country was founded by men who grew up amongst Christians, but not if you posit that our nation's founders were themselves Christians. Even the Christians among them tended to be Unitarians and Universalists. Our nation's founders were not majority Christian in any modern sense.

[Dave]

If Muslims were banned from flying, that would become the new retroactive justification. "We blow up your airliners because you have banned Muslims from flying". In the mind of seemingly the majority of the Muslim world, history always starts over at the re-action to Muslim violence, thereby erasing the terror acts which started it.

[Rick H.]

If Muslims were banned from flying, that would become the new retroactive justification. "We blow up your airliners because you have banned Muslims from flying". In the mind of seemingly the majority of the Muslim world, history always starts over at the re-action to Muslim violence, thereby erasing the terror acts which started it.

Yeah, what ingrates! I'll bet they won't even report for their prisoner tattoos without grumbling about it. I mean, historically, every other group of people responds to government-imposed collective punishment and dehumanization with a wistful shrug, a wry grin and a cheery whistle.

[viscera]

I don't doubt that there are more intolerant Christians than intolerant Muslims. Yet, when Christians express intolerance (in this day and age) it mostly amounts to separating into private communities or saying stupid and annoying things in public or private or trying to keep pornography out of the hands of children. A few have taken out a few doctors who would peform abortions. Exactly zero have planned and carried out terrorism on a massive scale. As annoying as fundamentalistic and intolerant Christians can be they simply are not the threat that fundamentalistic and intolerant Muslims are.

That doesn't mean I favor any sort of discriminatory policy, though admittedly, in my heart of hearts - or maybe in my gut, I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to require every passenger to stamp on a copy of the Koran before boarding. I know I know. Unfair discrimination (yet, you have to admit, no other religious groups are blowing up planes).

[Jennifer]

As annoying as fundamentalistic and intolerant Christians can be they simply are not the threat that fundamentalistic and intolerant Muslims are.

Probably because the fundamentalist Christians, despite their best efforts, haven't been able to get much in the way of state power. If the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell actually acquired the power they crave, do you think they'd still be as moderate as they are now? No, because these men are not moderate. They're powerless. Big difference.

[yerwrong]

The fundamentalistic Muslims blowing up planes are politicians? News to me, I didn't know they had acquired state power.

No, the big difference is that Jerry and Pat say a lot of stupid and annoying things and try to get people to rally to their ideas, but they don't blow up buildings or planes or commit murder on a mass scale, unlike their counter parts in the fundamentalist Muslim world who are also non-state actors.

[MainstreamMan]

To all regarding Christianity and the founding fathers...

The US constitution is a secular document.

But to claim that "no evidence that our government has any Judeo-Christian foundation" ignores the cultural context in which it was written. I was simply providing some readily available evidence that there might be some Judeo-Christian morals and values held by the men who created the document while living in a very clearly Judeo-Christian culture...

[Jennifer]

but they don't blow up buildings or planes or commit murder on a mass scale

They don't blow up buildings? Are abortion clinics in tents? The difference is only one of degree, not kind.

[whump]

'but they don't blow up buildings or planes or commit murder on a mass scale'

"They don't blow up buildings? Are abortion clinics in tents? The difference is only one of degree, not kind."

But a very very large degree. I think any of these fundamentalistic attacks are attrocious, but to imply Muslim and Christian terrorists pose an equivalent threat to the general population is obviously false. No one need fear to get on a plane if a Christian extremist is on board - one only need fear the Christian extremist if (s)he is a doctor and plans to perform an abortion or a woman planning to have one. Christian extremists target that particular act only, and in the last 20 years have attempted murder, with not all being successful, 20 times. The Muslim extremist targets anyone who happens to be born in the U.S., Europe, or Israel, or any non-Muslim. And in the last 20 years, this particular form of terrorism has taken the lives of people in the 10s of thousands. Big big difference.

[Robert]

"That doesn't mean I favor any sort of discriminatory policy,"

Why wouldn't you? Say you can search only 1% of persons entering some place. 1% of the people will be thusly inconvenienced. What's wrong with choosing that 1% based on some characteristic that can be quickly detected and not easily obscured, if it looks like that improves the efficiency of the search?

"They don't blow up buildings? Are abortion clinics in tents? The difference is only one of degree, not kind."

And degree matters a hell of a lot! Total safety never being an option, it's better to live with less danger than with more danger.

[Don Coyote]

MainstreamMan: ..."Judeo-Christian foundation..."

Are you now saying that the Jews as well as Christians had something to do with the foundation of our government?

[MikeT]

MainstreamMan,

The United States was indeed not founded as a "Christian Nation," however one cannot help but notice that a lot of reformed protestant ideas went into its foundation. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, there is a bias in reformed protestant theology toward liberty because of the belief in predestination and election. It's simply not possible to justify using the state to "clean up society" from a reformed POV, and there were many Presbyterians among our founders, since the doctrine of election negates any salvific impact of secular law.

What we need is more "theocracy" (rule by God), not moralizing. Theocracy in its practical implementation would be people living as though they really did believe that there was a God that will punish them for the evil they do, and that the state is not God. What a lot of the religious right wants, and wants to repaint our history as, is a rule by clerics, not God.

[MainstreamMan]

A further point.

One of the reasons for the separation of church and state is that it is good for the state. But the primary motivation for that separation being included by men who held minority interpretations of spirituality (mostly within the realm of Judeo-Christianity) was a religious one.

Heck, it's even in the new testament (give unto caesar...).

Don't pretend that there isn't some debate regarding the degree to which Judeo-Christian values influenced various founding fathers. I am always skeptical of statements that start from the premise that there is "no evidence" to support position X. Sometimes it pans out that way, but I don't think that is the case here. Evidence is available on both sides of the argument.

[MainstreamMan]

Don Coyote,

Apparently you have trouble keeping straight how concepts were introduced into this thread.

Judeo-Christian was the term used by el loco diablo and picked up by Les.

It is also the commonly used term to indicate the direct link between the two religions. And, by the way, would more accurately include Islam (the religions of Abraham).

[wug]

werent most of the founding fathers deists? many of the firebrands of the revolution definitely were athiests, though they werent directly involved with the drafting of the articles of confederation nor the constituion.

[Don Coyote]

MikeT: "Theocracy in its practical implementation would be people living as though they really did believe that there was a God"

And who would the high priest of that organization be?

[trill]

the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian for the most part.
Saudi Arabia funds terror, Pakistan trains terror...funny how they are both our supposed "allies".
I think the best place to look for the roots of the "muslim problem" is not in the USA, but in India where Islamic terrorism is widespread but there is also a substantial population of Muslims in the country.

[Jennifer]

And degree matters a hell of a lot!

Not when the question is, "is there one particular religion with the unique tendency to turn its adherents into murderous terrorists?"

[Don Coyote]

I just think the Judeo term doesn't fit. I know that Christians believe there is seemless thread between the old and new. But seems if we are going to go back we could call it the Adam-Eve/Shem.../Abraham/Issac/Judah (Judeo/Jew)/...Mary/Jesus/Paul/Christian foundation. I'm just doing a poor job of being a smartass. I just don't want the Judeo name attached to everything American.

[MainstreamMan]

Wug,

From Wikipedia

"Deism was championed by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and some, but by no means a majority, of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are among the most well-known of the American founding deists. There is debate as to whether George Washington was a deist or not.Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe. Paine wrote that deism represented the application of reason to religion. Deists like Paine hoped to settle religious questions permanently and scientifically by reason alone, without revelation."

There is no contradiction/conflict between deism and Judeo-Christian values (c.f. Thomas Jefferson)

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

[MainstreamMan]

"I just don't want the Judeo name attached to everything American."

Why?
Seriously, I would like to know.

[MainstreamMan]

I mean free will is an axiomatic concept in the Jewish world view, it the the source of the free will central to (much) Christian thought, and even (arguably) the source of the free will that is central to Islam ("to submit to allah" requires free will), if you consider that the three religions are reformulations of each other.

What's not American about Free Will?

[Don Coyote]

Mainstream:

For the very reason the CINC of Central Command does not have Israel in his AOR. It allows the commander to work with the Arab world. As a world leader we need not attach ourselves to titles that can bring interference.

That in no way implies that Israel is not a good friend and ally as are many other countries of the world. If Christianity was associated with a specific country I would also want it detached from any government involvement.

From the story of creation to Paul, Christianity has give much to what we call civilization.

[Don Coyote]

I submit that when one uses free will to join any organization, the edicts/commandments/rules limit free will. Some things we are born with. The rest we allow.

[MainstreamMan]

"From the story of creation to Paul, Christianity "

That creatopm story comes from the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian... just saying.

To be clear, I firmly believe that government needs to stay secular, and don't think the government should attach any religious prefix to any action, rule, or law.

But I do believe it would be disingenuous to claim that Judeo-Christian thought is not central to the American world view (if it is at all meaningful to posit such an overly homogenous abstract entity).

[whump]

And degree matters a hell of a lot!

Not when the question is, "is there one particular religion with the unique tendency to turn its adherents into murderous terrorists?"

But when the question is, "is there any danger at all from Christian extremists for simply being a non-Christian, being born in Western country, stepping aboard an airplane or walking into any building that isn't an abortion clinic?" When that's the question then degree and careful analysis as well, matters quite a bit.

[Jennifer]

But when the question is, "is there any danger at all from Christian extremists for simply being a non-Christian, being born in Western country, stepping aboard an airplane or walking into any building that isn't an abortion clinic?"

Abortion clinic or the 1996 Olympics. But now that Rudolph's in jail, we'll never, ever have to face a Christian fanatic again, right? Muslims are the only religious people we need to worry about, so by all means let's lump all one billion of them together and pat ourselves on the back for our firm commitment to the principles of freedom.

[well, actually]

Don Coyote-
I submit that when one uses free will to join any organization, the edicts/commandments/rules limit free will.

So freedom of association is a trap?

Some people like to belong to a group that tells them what to think or do. They continually reassert their free will when they choose to follow the group's expectations. To say that people are inherently less free because they choose to join an organization is to prejudice the definition of freedom.

For the record, I don't believe in an objective Free Will anyway, but I do believe people make decisions.

[Les]

The US constitution is a secular document.

But to claim that "no evidence that our government has any Judeo-Christian foundation" ignores the cultural context in which it was written.

My argument is that the U.S. constitution IS the foundation of our government. If we agree on that (and I honestly don't see how we can't, though I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong), and we agree that there is no reference to any god whatsoever in the constitution (the foundation of our government), then I think it logically follows that there is "no evidence that our government (the constitution) has any Judeo-Christian foundation."

I was simply providing some readily available evidence that there might be some Judeo-Christian morals and values held by the men who created the document while living in a very clearly Judeo-Christian culture...

I absolutely agree with you about that. But what they were very clear about was that their religious culture and their religious upbringing should have nothing to do with the government they were attempting to create. I think it could be argued that one of the reasons for that was so that Judeo-Christians (and every other type of spiritual believer) of every stripe should never fear for being persecuted for worshipping as they saw fit. But that kind of tolerance was certainly NOT a tradition of Judeo-Christian thought.

[Don Coyote]

well, actually

Married, wife, three kids, relatives, salaried job, church, active environmental club member. Yet, he still has free will. To either shave or not shave, mow the grass, wash the cars, watch football, ride a bike, golf or pound a key board. He has the ability to dream of how nice it would be to have the freewill to... but it usually falls back to one of the above.

Now vacation time is different. He will walk the hills of Ireland for 2 weeks after he hauls the family and luggage, rents the car, joey has to pee, a friend called because his dog bit some kid and the family will sue. And he can't even think the word "damnit" much less say it, bla, bla, bla, Free at last, free at last.

Just kidding, life is good.

[Ken Shultz]

I agree with you on what I understand to be your larger point, Les--that although the founders were influenced by Christianity and lived in a largely Christian culture, they did not intend to infuse our government with Christianity. ...Indeed, I think they went out of their way to avoid doing that.

My argument is that the U.S. constitution IS the foundation of our government. If we agree on that (and I honestly don't see how we can't, though I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong), and we agree that there is no reference to any god whatsoever in the constitution (the foundation of our government), then I think it logically follows that there is "no evidence that our government (the constitution) has any Judeo-Christian foundation."

I'd throw out there that it could be argued that the Declaration of Independence is part of the foundation of our government, and it contains references to God.

I think it could be argued that one of the reasons for that was so that Judeo-Christians (and every other type of spiritual believer) of every stripe should never fear for being persecuted for worshipping as they saw fit. But that kind of tolerance was certainly NOT a tradition of Judeo-Christian thought.

Not being persecuted for worshiping as one sees fit was the very basis of the famous Protest of the Princes, from which Protestantism takes its name. The Diet of Worms and its aftermath, The First and Second Diets of Speyer in 1526 and 1529 and their aftermaths--this is most certainly the tradition of Judeo-Christian thought.

...and I see a direct line from that tradition to both the establishment clause and free exercise.

[whumpout]

"Muslims are the only religious people we need to worry about, so by all means let's lump all one billion of them together and pat ourselves on the back for our firm commitment to the principles of freedom."

And it appears you prefer having arguments with fictional creatures in your head instead of real people. Notice, I didn't mention anything at all about all Muslims. I mentioned Christian extremists who I was comparing to Muslim *extremists*. And I wouldn't say you don't have to worry about the dangers of other religious groups. I was just trying to point out the very very large gap between dangers posed by Christian fundamentalistic extremists (who yes, are dangerous but not even in the same league as fundamentalistic Muslims who have killed exponentially more people for no other reason than they were born in the wrong country or were in the wrong place at the wrong time) and Muslim fundamentalistic extremists. Look, Mormon fundamentalists are not going to blow up your plane. They might want to marry a lot more young women, and I'm not too crazy about that, but the dangers to the greater populace truly cannot be said to be comparable.

I'm just trying to get people to face the reality of the situation rather than succumb to emotional blather about no one is any more dangerous than anyone else. Sorry, it's just not true. Facing that reality doesn't necessarily mean we need to curtail civil liberties, it just means we need to start out from a reality based vision.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm just trying to get people to face the reality of the situation rather than succumb to emotional blather about no one is any more dangerous than anyone else. Sorry, it's just not true. Facing that reality doesn't necessarily mean we need to curtail civil liberties, it just means we need to start out from a reality based vision.

The reality is that whether it's the IRA, the Unionists, Nagaland Rebels, the Lord's Resistance Army, Timothy McVeigh types, the Army of God, Tamils, Sikhs, orthodox Serbians, BJP extremists or Hezbollah and Hamas, their actions have more to do with circumstances than dogma.

...The reality is that if Islamic terrorists present more of a threat at the moment, it's not because of anything inherent within Islam.

[Les]

Thanks, Ken. That's important information I'm woefully ignorant of and it helps me understand the point that mainstream man is making (I see your point, MM!). I must read some more about it. It's a shame, though, that in spite of those intellectual traditions (as opposed to practiced ones), in spite of the fact that the pilgrims left England for religious freedom, that the dominant religions in the U.S. practiced the same kind of intolerance, once they settled here, that they were fleeing in the first place.

[Don Coyote]

What does the constitution have to do with anything religious, no matter the religion? Show me something religious in it?

A bunch of guys got together, gave themselves plenipentiary power, extreme law of the land, and then decided how they would run the corporation, raise revenue and spend it. Then they wave flags all around it, people worship it (like the bible) few read it after testing in school.

A few years later they decide to include rules for the people. Oh how wonderful we get some say (vote) in how they run stuff. Kinda

The preamble sounds interesting but it is fluff and some contend it is not applibable to the workings of the constitution.

I love this country and the corporation works pretty good. I wish they had a dividend. I will do what is required to keep it secure but that piece of paper amuses me. Odd people are like that.

[Ken Shultz]

Joe, Ken I think you are republican plants trying to make libertarians look like fools. You're both doing a damn good job.

I wish joe could bring himself to be called a libertarian--I'm not sure he'd even accept being called a civil libertarian. Still, I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'd have joe as President rather than George W. Bush.

...and if denouncing bald-faced bigotry makes libertarians look like fools, than I'd rather look like a fool.

[Jumbie]

"I'm an internet surfer geek first, a Klingon hater second, a creature of habit who lacks color coordination third..."

Comment by: battle sheep at August 12, 2006 07:48 AM
============================
Dirty anti-Klingon Bigot!

=====================================

But seriously... any discussion of how intolerant MUSLIMS are (in Europe, In Iran or privately) is IRRELEVANT to the discussion of how AMERICANS should treat muslims, especially when it comes to living by American values.

People like Patriot miss the point which is, "is it justifiable to 'tag' all muslims, for the actions of some?

I also find that those who point to "christian" values being so much better than islamic ones and saying things like "christians don;'t bomb airliners" are forgetting that modern christianity is extremely different from the christianity that used to exist, because of ENLIGHTENMENT values that have creeped into it.

In other words, any religion can be hijacked by extremist interpretations or toned down by civilization.

But to return to the crux of the matter: I feel that the practical matters of 'tagging' muslims negate the idea immediately (How do you define a a muslim? What of muslim terrorists who pass themselves off quite convincingly as non-muslims?

Even so, the moralness of the idea has to be confronted.

Publicly singling out the members of a large, diverse group, based on the actions and interpretations of belief of even a some, is morally repugnant.

Anyone who supports the principle of such an idea is not only an enemy of freedom, but unAmerican and, I daresay, uncivilized.

[whumped]

"...The reality is that if Islamic terrorists present more of a threat at the moment, it's not because of anything inherent within Islam."

Didn't say it necessarily did. Just pointing out that zero Christian extremists are blowing up planes or targeting people for simply being non-Christian or being born in a Western country. The only religious group that is blowing up planes are Muslim extremists and the net of people they are sweeping in as targets is exponentially larger than any of the other groups mentioned. Raise your hand if you honestly fear stepping on a plane, visiting the Statue of Liberty, the New York Stock Exchange, or just about any major U.S. city, with a Christian extremist walking next to you as much as you fear doing any of those things with a Muslim extremist walking next to you. If you really honestly don't see there is anything more to fear from one to the other in the performance of just basic functions like travel or work, then I guess there's nothing more to say.

[APL]

But when the question is, "is there any danger at all from Christian extremists for simply being a non-Christian, being born in Western country, stepping aboard an airplane or walking into any building that isn't an abortion clinic?" When that's the question then degree and careful analysis as well, matters quite a bit.

Well, that depends. There was the Provisional IRA campaign from 69-97. If I recall, they killed or injured around 25,000 people for things like being protestant, or living in London. Not that you would remember any of that, of course, since it occurred before September of 2001.

Lost in all of this is the fact that terrorism is political in origin, not religous. Ethnicity and religion are just proxy identifiers for a group that is attempting to achieve political means through violence.

[Don Coyote]

Ken,

Terrorist are terrorist, Muslims are a people, Islam is a belief.

If one keeps those compartmentalized do you agree with that?

[APL]

Raise your hand if you honestly fear stepping on a plane, visiting the Statue of Liberty, the New York Stock Exchange, or just about any major U.S. city, with a Christian extremist walking next to you as much as you fear doing any of those things with a Muslim extremist walking next to you.

I don't know. Would you let a Catholic priest take your son on a trip to see those sites? You're right about one thing, though, it's hard to talk to people who don't share your biases.

[Don Coyote]

APL: "You're right about one thing, though, it's hard to talk to people who don't share your biases.

But we can make each other think.

[Don Coyote]

APL: "Lost in all of this is the fact that terrorism is political in origin, not religous. Ethnicity and religion are just proxy identifiers for a group that is attempting to achieve political means through violence."

I would agree with that. Do you think the Taliban, Bin Laden, the Ayatollah would admit that?

[APL]

I would agree with that. Do you think the Taliban, Bin Laden, the Ayatollah would admit that?

Of course not, since itss to their advantage to paint the situation as a broader conflict in an attempt to enlist more support, just as the Bush administration attempts to do the same by saying that we are in a war with people who "hate our freedom."
However much political figures on both sides used lots of broad rhetoric, the reality on the ground is simply that a number of nations and political groups are jockying for power in the vaccuum that was left by the fall of the Ottoman empire and retreat of the European colonial powers. This would have no more relevance or effect on us in the US than similar struggles have in Africa if oil or Israel were not involved.

[Don Coyote]

So Israel is protecting itself from some power source or is Israel jockying to gain more ground/power? Or do I have this wrong? I am aware that Israel is post Ottoman Empire and retreated from by the English.

Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah has stated he does not want to participate with the running of Lebanon. Yes he could be a tool of, say, Iran,trying to rebuild the Persian Empire but if that is the case a cease fire will be short lived. Maybe until Iran has mutually assured destruction with Israel. Just babel. Not much thought.

[highnumber]

Just babel. Not much thought.

Funny. er, punny.

200!

[whumpedagin]

APL,
Yes, the IRA was at one time a great threat to our safety if we happened to be traveling in or to London. At one point I would say the risk would be highest from an attack from the IRA than any other group. Would that make me biased or bigoted, simply noting that the IRA was responsible for the majority of public attacks in London?

At this point in time though, they don't pose this same danger. And note that for the most part it is mostly Britain where they needed to be feared, not Bali, or Seattle, or Australia, New York, or any other major city in the world.

Who would I would I fear leaving my kid alone in a room for a very long time more - a Catholic Priest or an Iman? Well, in America, since the record of Catholic priest abuse of young boys appears to be significantly higher than Imans then I'd say, the Catholic priest. Does that make me biased against Catholics? Or Catholic priests? Bigoted? How about if I changed it to just Catholic priests who are known abusers or who, if under interrogation, admit that they have or would like to abuse young boys? (please note again I have been careful to pinpoint only Muslim extremists/terrorists - not all Muslims).

And let's see, if I were working at an abortion clinic in the Bible Belt, I would guess my greatest threat would come from Christian extremists - not Muslim extremists. As far as I know, no Muslim extremists have targeted abortion clinics in America (they dislike the whole package, not just those who would perform abortions). Does that make me biased or bigoted against all Christians or am I just assessing the risk factor coming from various extremist groups?

Jumbie said,
"I also find that those who point to "christian" values being so much better than islamic ones and saying things like "christians don;'t bomb airliners" are forgetting that modern christianity is extremely different from the christianity that used to exist, because of ENLIGHTENMENT values that have creeped into it."

Yes and no. Enlightenment values have creeped into Christianity - but not enough to prevent extremists from attacking abortion clinics or trying to halt stem cell research, etc. And the bulk of Muslims out there,especially in America, are not committing or planning to commit any acts of terror. But I don't see what that has to do with assessing the risk factors coming from various *fanatical* religious groups. I have nothing at all against Islam or Christians. But I do have something against Jihadists or abortion doctor killers. But frankly the latter group, as repugnant as they are, are not the threat to my general safety comparable to the threat posed by the first group.

"In other words, any religion can be hijacked by extremist interpretations or toned down by civilization."

Sure, so as I've said all along, I am only comparing the terrorist wings of any of these groups, not the religious groups or religions themselves.

[APL]

Would that make me biased or bigoted, simply noting that the IRA was responsible for the majority of public attacks in London?

No, but its important at this juncture to differentiate between Catholics and Irish terrorists who are Catholic. Likewise, between muslims and members of violent political groups who are muslim. People who would advocate ID cards for muslims have fallen prey to this confusion. And that's the end of that.

[New Balance 996 shoesfeast]

Nearly one in four Americans, 22%, say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.