Meet those criteria?

Or singling out Allah.

Often I find myself saying to friends, "I don't think your god is real.", and I do single out their god. Coming from a non-religious perspective, I see no hypocrisy in saying that one god or another doesn't exist.

Thanks Dad.

Stop killing people.

Muslims all over the world have condemned the Charlie Hebdo attack, btw.

Stop celebrating when radicals kill people.

Stop killing gays.

Stop oppressing women.

I'm sure I could come up with many more if I was so inclined...

BTW, what would your solution be? Restoring the colonial order in the Arab/Muslim world?

is that they are geared toward rational, sane people.

These are not rational, sane people we're dealing with. No amount of appeasement is going to deter them from their mission.

The sooner everyone understands that the better.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

are rational, sane people.

The distinction between "all Muslims" and "a tiny handful of crazyheads" has to be made.

And I'm not talking about "appeasement"-a term that should be retired now that Naziism is extinct-I'm talking about basic human respect.

Crazy people killing people for no reason. Here on DU, I have constantly seen people trying to point out that the west is the reason these and other killings happen. To me that is all BS. The west did not force anyone to pull a trigger. Did the cartoonist hurt them so badly that revenge was mandated? We all have a choices in life, and the killers chose to be evil.

is one way of seeing it. It's a very simplistic view. The Creek Indians in Alabama and Georgia in the late 1700s, early 1800s clashed with, and were ultimately destroyed by the United States. Many factors led to the Creek's disastrous confrontation with the U.S. military, but what arguably drove the conflict most of all was the Creek cultural practice of blood revenge.

It was revenge, but it was also much more than revenge. The practice of blood revenge was deeply tied up in Creek religious beliefs about balance and reciprocity. Death or injury had to be repaid to restore balance (Balance could also be restored in other ways, but here we'll keep it simple.) It didn't matter if the person who caused the injury was the one who paid, but someone from the clan had to pay. If a white person killed an Indian, then a white person had to be killed. It obviously caused problems.

Islamic fundamentalists aren't Creek Indians, but there are some similarities.

We reject the principle of retaliation based on kinship or "clan". We're okay with killing for other reasons.

"...killing people for no reason" is not exactly true.

An inconvienient truth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/

By Max Fisher
May 1, 2013

That's a mighty massive call. Folk like Pamela Geller are into that line of thought, though...

of religion. And this is happening frequently. Those attacks must be stopped

Don't want to talk about it anymore? I don't blame you.

Singling out Islam and Muslims for particular demonization serves no purpose. This is a bloody age, and blood is being spilled plentifully by Christians, Muslims, and Hindus(among others).

The point is to fight the extremists and deal with the causes of extremism...not just to say "You guys are worse than anybody else".

Hezbollah has denounced these people, for God's sakes. That should be more than proof that this is not something Islam, or even all Islamists(not that I have any sympathy for Islamism)are collectively responsible for.

And listen, we were ALL horrified by what happened in France this week-those feelings aren't the exclusive property of the "Je Suis Charlie" crowd.

such a distinction, and it's apparent here at DU.

the ones causing all the problems. It's almost like they are two entirely separate groups. The radicalized Islamists are a problem and cannot be reasoned with.

the condemnation is something like we disagree with killing people but we understand that they were radicalized by something or other.

this is not acceptable.

What matters is that the action is condemned. The condemnation doesn't have to take the tone of old-style imperialist jingoism to be valid.

is justifying the murder.

that should have been the focus of this ridiculous threat that i've gotten myself into

It's about learning how to prevent more such acts in the future.

It's pointless to say it doesn't matter why they did it.

they did it because there are vocal leaders and preachers inciting violence in the name of religion and a small number of people are willing to kill in answer to these calls.

understanding is important to solve the problem. the issue i have is when i hear someone say 'i don't support the killing of innocents but i appreciate the motivations of the terrorists'.

this is not clear condemnation of a terrorist act and allows complicit support of the terrorist networks.

"Appreciate" doesn't mean "endorse".

It serves no purpose just to condemn for the sake of condemning. Doing that brings us no closer to finding a way to prevent these things.

It also assumes that those you are condemning actually CARE that they are being condemned.

Stop bombing the shit out of innocent Muslims, based on lies.

We need to stop pretending everyone is the same or shares our values. We need to mind our damn business.

we should ignore that?

But shaking our fists with rage for the sheer thrill of it(as a lot of those expressing "outrage" about this have been doing, in France, in the rest of Europe, in the UK and here in North America)is no solution, especially when the fist-shaking is accompanied by the kind of sanctimonious, bellicose rhetoric that always grows into a demand for war(as the justified grief we all felt over 9/11 was manipulated, temporarily, into a consensus for going to war with a country that had had nothing to do with 9/11).

Stop killing people that haven't done shit to you. Like the Yazidi people.

See it works both ways. Murder is murder. Tell me what did the Yazidi do to deserve murder? Did they bomb the shit out of innocent people with war planes?

And nobody here is cool with what happened to the Yazidi.

Perhaps I was being an ass. I'm just saying we can not rationalize murder. Whether its the US or terrorist doing it. At the end of the day we all have a choice. A simple choice really. To be good people or to be bad people.

I can not come to terms with well if we weren't assholes to them they wouldn't be the way they are. I don't know everything about French culture but suspect they enjoy many of the same freedoms we do. So thats why I can't understand how the killers became radicalized.

Definition of good gets twisted due to circumstances.

is the first step towards stopping these killings.

Are there any other restrictions you want to put on things so you can make it appear that religious violence is solely restricted to Muslim extremists?

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Pastor Scott Lively’s petition to have a crimes against humanity lawsuit against him dropped.

The anti-gay pastor will stand trial in a federal court in Massachusetts for his part in crafting Uganda’s notorious Anti-Homosexuality Act, popularly known as the “Kill the Gays” bill. The bill was largely the product of a workshop held in Uganda by Lively and two other american anti-gay activists, focused on “how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how ‘the gay movement is an evil institution’ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/232101/american-who-helped-craft-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-to-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/

(in fact, some of the most outspoken Hutu advocates of genocidal violence against the Tutsis were Catholic priests).

And that's what's going to happen in Uganda now that the "kill the gays" bill has apparently become law WITHOUT the death penalty provisions being removed from it.

And that's essentially what's occurring now in Ukraine...where pro-Russian Orthodox Christians and pro-Ukrainian Orthodox Christians are killing each other as I post this.

And there was the slave trade...and the Native American genocide...and the Inquisition...among just a few.

Do condone violence: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

This should not be downplayed.

that we are supposed to be ignoring.

is the introductory sentence on page 29 of your PEW study.

It continues to say that in 'some' countries, the proportion of those who agreed that suicide bombings are 'sometimes' justified is significant. Which countries are these? Surprise, surprise:

Palestinian Territories
Afghanistan
Egypt

Do you think it is possible that some factors other than the majority religion in these places might play a role here?

From looking at the survey results, it looks like hundreds of million of Muslims support suicide bombing against civilians in defense of Islam.

With that being the case, it's hard to say "the vast majority of Muslims do not condone violence".

I think there are many factors, and Islam is one of those factors.

It is indeed the vast majority that does NOT condone suicide bombings under any circumstances.

I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that 'hundreds of million' Muslims support violence. That support or acceptance of (counter-)violence is significantly higher among inhabitants of war zones, constantly under attack by overpowering forces, may have very little to do with their religion.

I just read an enlightening article about 'Who Should be Blamed for Muslim Terrorism?' and posted it in Good Reads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016111013

It's in the middle of a paragraph, and does not say that the vast majority dont condone violence, because as its says in the same section, a substantial minority do.

Look at page 70, thats where the millions that condone violence comes from.

a "substantial minority" does (e.g. 7 percent in Indonesia) is very much in line with "the vast majority" (e.g. 90 percent in Indonesia) doesn't.

And how do we determine what these replies saying 'attacks against civilans "can" - not always, but "sometimes" - be justified' are based on? How do we know it has anything to do with religious teachings, rather than with living in war zones as the selection of countries would indicate?

The numbers in the graph on page 70 'Is Suicide Bombing Justified?' are the same as those on page 29 'Majorities Say Suicide Bombing Not Justified', only in opposite order. There are no "hundreds of millions" condoning violence, which is what you were saying, Mr Honesty.

Saying that it was the main point. That's what is dishonest.

7 percent of Indonesia advocating violence against innocents is huge. A vast majority is 99.9 percent IMHO.

Well over 100 million Muslims condone violence in just the 21 countries where the question was asked, according to the populations of those countries. That doesn't include a whole lot of other countries.

Hard to say the vast majority are against it when hundreds of millions are for it.

And just look at all the questions on morality. Muslims are mostly incredibly conservative, bigoted, and misogynistic according to this study.

and "saying that it was the main point" is your invention.

Your "opinion" about what constitutes a "vast majority" seems not to be shared by the vast majority of people wondering what the expression means, as this random discussion indicates:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid

Again, your study does not say that there are "hundreds of millions for" violence. The overwhelming, vast majority of Muslims is strictly against it, whereas significant percentages of those living in war zones and under repressive dictatorships say, according to your study, that violence such as suicide attacks may be justifiable sometimes.

How many hundreds of millions Americans feel that drone strikes (against Muslims) are necessary? Let alone justifiable? Americans are mostly incredibly conservative and bigoted, so let's not even get into percentages and compare them to those in your study.

This study points to definite problems with the idea of Islam. Some of the countries with the higher percentages aren't in a repressive dictatorship, and some are in war zones.

And the vast majority are extremely bigoted, misogynistic, and homophobic in their views. Looking at Islam, it's understandable why. It's a belief system that very explicitly condones and encourages bigotry and misogyny in its texts.

Compared to Americans, their views are much more conservative overall. Compared to American conservatives, it may be more in line, but that's not saying much. The vast majority of their views are to the right of many conservatives.

This study shows well over one hundred million Muslims condone suicide bombings against civilians in only 21 countiries surveyed. That's an incredibly extreme view. I think it would be conservative to say there would be 200 million if they surveyed all countries. That's not a fringe. That's a significant group. And it's disconcerting when the vast majority of Muslism have extremist views on so many other issues.

And that's not adding in the Muslims who favor stoning adulterers to death, or the death penalty for leaving Islam, then it becomes hundreds of millions easily. I would consider that violence against the innocents.

rules 1 thru 4 are irrelevant when criticizing the religion

The difficulty is that, in too many Western minds, the cultural practices(most of which are pre-Islamic, and which exist in other cultures as well)are intertwined with the religion itself.

There is nothing in the Koran that actually calls for "honor killings" or FGM(which is illegal in many Muslim countries and against which many Muslims campaign), among other things.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Sad to see...but we had to find out sometime.

Thanks for your support.

(on edit...it was inflammatory of me to use the term "Crusaders", and I apologize for using it).

I guess DU can be as jingoistic and intolerant as anywhere else. How are things in Juneau?

Not bad for early January.

based on the actions of a tiny few among them.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And all-out war against the Arab/Muslim world, both of which would be fascist and unforgiveable.

that for muslims in india before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024965848

who staged it. I'd be open to the idea of asylum for French Jews if this continued.

And while the attack on the grocery is evil, the extremists who staged it aren't running the entire French government, so your comparison is invalid.

That's who needs our protection, IMO.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

(It would not make sense to have them move to Israel, because, thanks to the actions of Netanyahu, moving there would mean moving to a place where they'd be in even GREATER danger than in France).

I'm sure they could find sponsors in the LGBTQ community here, as well as among many other people of good will.

But, again, a lot of people will use things like that to push for further U.S. military involvement in the Arab/Muslim world. Since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars proved that outsiders cannot win in such conflicts, and since wars in general are no longer winnable, we need to come up with with some alternative to that.

Not saying YOU were calling for war, but that's what a lot of these issues get used to push for.

One man standing alone. And on self-appointed authority giving people rules how they should speak. Because people always need rules how they should speak, lest they say something that may be unpopular, thus lowering their social rank.

And this has nothing to do with anybody's social rank.

Is there a pension with that?

I have had it up to my tits with people telling me what I can say to whom. I am an adult and I can judge that myself. As it happens I happen to endorse your prohibitions personally, but anyone who tries to control the speech of others can fuck right off.

Islam itself is not the problem. But the people who live in parts of the world where Islam is prevelent have different ideas how to live life than most people in the west. And that is ok. That is why there are different countries and cultures. But as I would not tell the Saudis how to live, they should not tell us how to live.

Equally, those who want dialogue instead of shouting matches, pogroms, and wars also have a right to express the idea that expression of views can happen without demagoguery or incitement to violence.

I didn't impose anything...just made some suggestions.

of you seem pretty united in your anti-muslim ranting

screaming "what about Belgium?" to justify continuing and expanding what was always going to be senseless, unwinnable conflict, even though ALL sides in that war were equally to blame for the war having happened and all were using equally horrific "rules of engagement".

(IIRC, most armies in that conflict were also using rape as a military tactic, too).

Jingoism then...jingoism now.

But the unforgivable acts were committed by a tiny handful of extremists...most of whom, as I understand it, are either dead now or in custody.

That wasn't the entire French Muslim community. That wasn't the global Muslim community. It wasn't Islam as a religion.

What needs to be stopped is the collective baying for Muslim blood. That baying is real, and it has been extended to collectively demonizing an entire immigrant group in a country and essentially all their coreligionists throughout the world.

Talk like that leads to pogroms and to war...which, can only lead to more extremism and...larger numbers of terrorists.

You strung three statements together, two of which were true:

1. That wasn't the entire French Muslim community.

This is true, and I've seen not statements here that it was, and if somebody did say that, they were wrong.

2. That wasn't the global Muslim community.

This is true, and I've seen not statements here that it was, and if somebody did say that, they were wrong.

3. It wasn't Islam as a religion.

Well no, that is not true. Islam is not a monolithic religion with a single authority determining what is Islam and what isn't Islam. There are, and you know very well that this is true, significant Islamic leaders and Islamic sects, and Islamic movements, and Islamic schools, and large numbers of devout muslims who believe that jihad against the west is part of their religion, that acts of violence are appropriate, that this is part of their understanding of Islam. It is not all of Islam, it is not a majority belief, but it is very much a part of the Islam of today and pretending it isn't, or pretending that all of this has nothing to do with this religion is dishonest.

or had even acknowledged the safety concerns of the Parisian Jewish population. They are the ones reportedly leaving the city in droves in fear, not the Muslim population.

(note: when I started this thread, I hadn't actually heard about the hostage-taking situation at the kosher grocery, an act I've condemned in this thread. It appears that what happened in the grocery was about creating a diversion so that the Charlie Hebdo killers could escape, and I think it may have been happenstance that the grocery was kosher. Nonetheless, it shouldn't have happened, as the Charlie Hebdo killings shouldn't have happened).

What I've said and how I've said it about the kosher grocery attack has been driven by not wanting to look like I'm more concerned with trying to out-condemn the other condemners-that would just be self-serving-not about lack of concern.

Sorry that I haven't communicated that better.

Is there a way that they can avoid being targets for Islamic terror attacks?

(I hadn't heard of it until you posted that link-I've had the tv off here today).

That attack was vile and indefensible, and the group of extremists(apparently the same group as the people who staged the Charlie Hebdo killings)who staged it must be apprehended.

My point in starting this thread was to try to argue for a way of discussing these issues that doesn't incite pogroms and war. A lot of people are blaming every Muslim on the planet for these attacks, and baying for Muslim blood. That's just as wrong as baying for Jewish blood ever was, or baying for anyone's blood.

This? ' A lot of people are blaming every Muslim on the planet for these attacks, and baying for Muslim blood.'

Because if so, he's not just making stuff up.

you're putting words in my mouth at least

You don't have to "make up" anything to try to stop legitimate condemnation of the violent acts of a few from degenerating into the collective demonization of 1.6 billion people.

That is happening. There are people trying to spin this something that ALL Muslims are to blame for...that Islam as a faith called for(if that was the case, wouldn't there be 1.6 billion terrorists?)...that only collective punishment can remedy.

That's what all the opportunistic rhetoric this week(mostly uttered by people who normally never would have given a damn about the lives of cartoonists on a small "satirical" paper or about anyone in that kosher grocery)is about...trying to take these events and build them into a consensus of vindictive rage against every Muslim on the planet.

It's exactly the kind of thing that is used to whip up war fever, over and over again, throughout history.

The killings were despicable...but only the killers themselves are responsible. And, as I understand it, they're now dead.