(Which is what, exactly??)

Or a "liberal right"? (can only exist in Dr. DoolittleLand, me thinks........)

I've only heard the term "liberal left" as a pejorative expression from Freeper-types trying to impress their fellow Freeps how right they are. We ain't them.

eom

Good-bye.

It is marvelous what people can read into three paragraphs on framing the debate over Islam.

though I'm not necessarily saying they have different attitudes on this particular subject.

I probably should have left it at just plain "left", but then people get all huffy over being called commies.

Neither, of course, is a wholly rigorous term, but they have slightly different connotations.

But broadly speaking, "liberal" has stronger connotations of individual freedom, and "left" of state responsibility. Those are positively correlated, but they're not the same thing.

I'd hold up Christopher Hitchens as someone I'd categorise as liberal in many senses of the word, but right-wing, and Stalin as an extreme example of an illiberal leftist.

Satisfy the moron-brigade?

It is a simplistic, stupid, and patently false argument.

It definitely is the truth, and the truth behind that statement is far more nuanced. I do agree with the main points of your post though.

the left. A lot of people making this argument actually believe it is true, which is just, to me, sad. But go ahead and make your nuanced case for how jihadist warriors are not "true muslims".

the cast of characters. The members of the KKK believe they are christians. On what basis have you drummed them out of christianity?

That's ridiculous.

Saudi Arabia thinks they are when it comes to Islam. And they kill, torture and imprison people for being critical of Islam.

Yeesh, good luck with that!!

Perception is everything and David Duke perceives himself to be a "true Christian".

The same is true for Islamic extremists who claim their acts are either in defense of Islam, or motivated by it.

make me a Soverign citizen? Because I say so?

Logic, folks, try some.

Today He goes by the name Charlie. In 2007, when "Allison" came out of the closet, I posted about it right here. "My Daughter is Gay" was pretty much the gist of what I posted, along with the transcript of our texts the evening it all came to pass. I made it clear I had no problem with it whatsoever and that the way my Child saw Herself was the way I would perceiver Her as well.

Well it's funny how things work out, isn't it? After years of introspection and soul searching, "Allison" decided "she" wasn't gay; HE was a man trapped in a woman's body. "Charlie" is now undergoing testosterone therapy in preparation for sexual reassignment surgery.

Why don't you tell me and the REST OF DU how fucked up in the head "Charlie" is... tell us how Charlie's perception that he's a male trapped in a female body defies your logic and cannot be true and should simply be disregarded out-of-hand.

Come on, Fred: Show us some of that "logic" you're wearing. Wear it loud and proud.

Tell me, Charlie, and DU that Charlie's perceptions are somehow illogical and that we're fools for not wearing your "logic" like a badge of honor.

You slay me. I guess I should call Charlie and tell Him how fucked up in the head He is, and that from now on, we're going back to Allison.

that call. These were self described Muslims, the kkk are self described Christians. That you don't think they live up to the tenets of their respective religions is completely irrelevant. The OP was right on target.

a "true" Wiccan, for that matter? Who is the arbiter of whether someone is a true adherent to the religion they profess to belong to?

Do you understand why it's problematic?

of them. Do you not see there is no problem at all.

Evil.

and killing is espoused by both the Bible and the Koran.

The question is who is the arbiter of such things? There are people who are just as firm in their beliefs and just as convinced that they have the real "truth" as you.

It's dangerous. I do hate to fall back on poor old over quoted W.B. but.... "the worst are filled with passionate intensity".

Zealots almost invariably fail to see their own zealotry.

Btw, evil is a word I use very carefully- unlike you who fling it around with reckless abandon.

Their claim to be muslim is as valid as anyone else's.

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 03:36 AM - Edit history (1)

His point that the Paris terrorists' actions were contrary to average, peaceful Muslims is a valid one. But he makes himself look ridiculous by demanding we willfully ignore the fact that the terrorists did what they did specifically in the name of Islam. They were radical Islamist terrorists, but Dean is being too stupidly PC to acknowledge that.

Those idiots didn't do what they did in Islam's name. They did what they did because of their warped view of what they thought "Islam" was, a view that is not held by most Muslims.

That's rather like saying that because a few priest pedophiles think it's OK to abuse altar boys, that all Catholics, or even better, all Christians, should be held responsible and accountable for their behavior.

Self-declared jihadists who committed terrorist acts in the name of Islam.

The end.

Is popular in a number of countries.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Shiite likewise have their own issues like stoning women to death for adultery.

These movements have millions of followers and are not marginal or unreal.

It would be like saying Orthodox Jews are not really Jews or fundy Christians not Christian.

You're lumping.

It would be like saying (so long as we're playing that game) that most Jews are Orthodox Jews--or even observant, conservative Jews.

See how that works?

Here's a fun fact for you--most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East!

How progressive!

The fact you have to qualify that with a "most" is what folks are trying to talk about.

Why don't you step back and chew on that sentence and rethink your intemperate remark?

You do know that your comment to me was a bit--what's the word? Bigoted? Yeah, that's it.

"Most folks" here aren't on your wavelength, dear. I think you took a wrong turn.

and nobody thinks you're a "racist" for acknowledging a couple have.

Maybe a snarky fact-- the most annoying facts of all.

Your "FWIW" isn't news to me-- there's a crap-ton of folks on DU that don't seem to understand the distinction though.

Have a nice day.

Do enlighten me, for no one can possibly know me better than you.

Especially since your research is so thorough, you thought you needed to correct me on the religion/racism deal-- my last 40 or so posts say just that!

YOU'VE GOT MY NUMBER ALRIGHT!

which murder was urged on by no less a prominent christian right media celebrity than Bill O'Reilly.

Never once on DU did I see a post saying "Someone ought to shoot that guy."

Links to that guy "Name Removed" don't count.

Bill O'Reilly is not a DUer and everyone knows he's a lunatic asshole who trolls the airwaves for mouth breathers. He didn't "urge on" murder but he expressed a view that what Dr. Tiller was doing was wrong, and that "God" would punish him on "Judgment Day." If you're going to play the game that these kinds of comments are all that a nutty asshole with a gun "needs" to go out and shoot someone, then you are an advocate of censorship of speech--even hateful, stupid, and noxious speech (which is something we don't censor here in America, though it is censored and punished in Europe).

See how that shit works?

Here's a summation of Dildo Really's actual comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Negative_publicity:_The_O.27Reilly_Factor

That's my POV, anyway.

I can express personal disgust at a comment (my right to speech) without needing to censor the person making the comment.

A person often proves their own stupidity when one lets them run their hateful mouths--Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy come to mind on that score.

The majority of shiites live in Iran or Pakistan both which practice sharia either enforced by the state or widely practiced in rural communities.

It's a MUSLIM thing.

All it is, is a melding of the religious with the system of laws. It happens at the national level--it's not just a tribal/local affectation.

In that neck of the woods they do not do "separation of church and state." They think that morality comes from the religious traditions and that the two cannot be separate.

I did a little reading. I was under the impression most shiia lived in Iran and you are correct in my (lumping) taking Iranian Shiia as representative of the whole.

Those people are not "typical" Persians but there are a lot of 'em like that in USA. The ones that aren't Jews are Shi'a.

Most people don't realize that Persians invented beer (ab-e-jo) and that "Loaf of bread, jug of wine" guy was theirs as well.

And Dearborn, Michigan--home to the largest mosque in all of North America--is the heart of shi'ism in USA. American shi'ites (many of Iraqi/Arab extraction) built this thing:


"Islamic Center of America" by Dane Hillard - originally uploaded to Flickr as Islamic Center of America. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Center_of_America.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Islamic_Center_of_America.jpg

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_America

The "other side of the coin" if you will. Obverse and reverse.

What some people hear (read) when you say (type) " ...jihadists who committed terrorist acts in the name of Islam." is "Christians don't do this".

"Do it" or "did it" doesn't matter. The blood of another is difficult to remove from your hands.

Those who have committed atrocities and claim those atrocities are due to their Christian beliefs are indeed "Christians".

The Other Side of the Coin demands the same consideration for anyone who commits atrocities in the name of Islam.

Call it what it is: Terrorism, Inspired by Religion. Make it generic that way, and it doesn't matter whether the perpetrators of bad acts are Christian, or Muslim.

Christianity. That does not make the "self-declared" Christian 'jihadist' (whatever the term is for that) a 'true Christian'.

republicans are certainly better at "simplifying" complex issues to appeal to the fear and emotions of voters. That does not make what they do 'good'.

then they are, surely, a 'true' Christian, along with all other Christians?

'"Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."

Howard spoke first. I agreed with him then and I still agree with him. Nothing's changed, save a few know-it-alls want to weigh in about what Islam is and isn't, when they've probably never seen the inside of a masjid or celebrated an Eid in their lives.

The argument is simplistic and stupid and misguided and patently false, and as a consequence it has the opposite effect of what was intended.

differences."

PLEASE.

By their conduct we know them. An obtuse perspective doesn't serve your argument.

There's more to "twisted and warped" than just mass-murder. There's misogyny, homophobia, pedophilia...the list goes on and on and on.

We're talking, quite specifically, about the act of shooting people for saying and drawing things that the shooters don't like.

"Look over there" doesn't cut it. "The list goes on and on" is not the issue, either.

We've got some warped loonies who picked up guns and shot a bunch of people. They were so motivated that they went and got training and funding to do this. That's not a simple expression of disapproval about speech--that's warped, twisted, "not normal" conduct. It's a lot stronger an expression of disapproval than, say, a strongly worded letter.

And I'm calling out the people who actually DID it, not saying "Look over there, at this other, unrelated person who might have done this OTHER bad thing..." When you pull out the broad brush and start waving that stink around, some of it will get on you.

he claimed the Democratic Platform had a plank in opposition to marriage equality, which it did not. The interviewer challenged his 'fact' and he insisted. Choices are he did not know our own platform while being Chairman or that he lied about it for expediency.
That's who we are talking about. When confronted, Dean was the single most slimy character free piece of duplicity I have ever spoken to.
I've always distrusted him since then, for obvious reasons.

At least, not from an actual Liberal.

We say these guys are like the Klan. They're RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS who have cherry-picked ancient text to justify their hate.

To the right.

Liberals have been critical of Judaism for many years - and in fact that criticism has led to the growth of the Reform movement in the United States.

Bigotry against Muslims? You can say that with a straight face?

But I also think that Islam, Judaism, Christianity ought to be be subject to the same critical reasoning as any other ideologies or philosophies and should not be given special protection from same for fear of being accused of bigotry.

As jihadists have throughout the world for the past 20 or so years?

Where is this comparison coming from?

How is this analogous? I've seen a lot of criticism of Jews here at DU and Christians. And yes, criticism of Jews, not Israelis. Criticism of Christians not just right wing Christians. Just yesterday there were two threads about how ultra orthodox Jews photo shopped pics of the leaders marching in Paris to x out the women. I didn't see anyone saying they weren't really Jewish.

Islam is as deserving of criticism as any other religion without everyone piling on and screeching.

and anything but clever. And I have a lot of respect for that poster.

mass slaughter of innocents?

Censorship by an ultraothrodox Jewish group still makes them......not Jewish....???

So, no, no one is saying they are not Jewish because a small group of them with a website censored one picture........

Was your comment sarcasm???

So criticizing a religion is analogous in your uh, mind with slaughtering people? How bizarre. Let me put it very simple for you:

There are a number of people denying that the attacks in Paris had anything to do with Islam; that the perpetrators aren't really Muslims. In the threads criticizing Jews about the phot op, no one says "oh, this has nothing to do with religion and they aren't real Jews".

I made no equivalency between mass slaughter of innocents and photoshopping. No way anyone but someone who is intent on indulging in the despicable practice of putting words in someone's mouth, could think that.

disgusting to make such false, dog shit claim.

I agree with Armstrong that it is vital not to ignore the role violence has played in our own western societies, but that does not and should not preclude all criticism and discussion of violence that flows, in part, from religious ideology. You appear to be equating all criticism of Islam with hate speech. Yes, far too much of it is, but I believe it's dangerous and dishonest to use that to shut down reasoned criticism.

every post I made about Islamic organizations, leaders and countries condemning the attacks in Paris was met with scorn and ridicule

been met respectfully and with people agreeing with you- but we see what we want to see. Armstrong admitted to that in her piece and it's always something I keep in mind. We are all too often unaware of the prisms through which we view things and few of us make an honest attempt to view things through the eyes of others.

But that is a whole other issue.

and it excuses religion of virtually everything. She cherry picks, she skirts questions and she makes some downright untrue and rather bizarre claims. Here's a rather good comment:

Sam Harris is a fascist and Richard Dawkins is a sexist. As personalities, I'm not a huge fan of either man. But Armstrong is an apologist for religion, despite her discomfort with that term, and she routinely ignores or downplays the dangers of faith. She states that it is best to hold rational beliefs wherever possible, then immediately backtracks on the basis that we can't ever be perfectly rational in order to give religious claims a free pass.

I can sympathize with her desire to avoid demonizing or overly disparaging religious believers, but she goes too far the other way and ignores the real harm caused by belief in superstition. Religion may not be the cause of all the world's problems, but it is a big one. As a psychological coping mechanism, faith fails to properly teach people to address problems in their lives with actual solutions, and so leaves people in a state of desperate anxiety. This perpetual fear causes people to cling neurotically to the comfort of ritual and the certainty of religious dogma.

Obviously, this type of religious dependance cannot be "purged" from society, but it is the kind of thing which can be reduced through education and economic assistance. People turn to religion when they have nowhere else to go. If we want to live in a healthy, rational society, then it behooves us all to elimin

day they certainly put forward a case that convinced a major portion of Europe that they were. Hostile language directed against a frequently alienated minority is very dangerous. I once recall a Polish person who told me when I had asked about anti-Semitism in Poland, "Oh we don't hate the Jews. We just hate what they did to Poland." Talk directed broadly against the Islamic religion without even attempting to separate the more reasonable from the more extreme produces that same sort of logic. A woman I work with just told me that her mother said to her just the other day, "Did you hear what the Muslims did over in Paris?" This is he real effect that cashes out when popular media lets lose in ways where words are not going to separate a people from a broad category they are associated with.

Yes, there are a lot of false or exaggerated criticisms aimed as Islam.

But there are also an awful lot of entirely true and fair attacks that can be made on it - for example, Islam as practised by a large majority of Muslims (by no means all) teaches that women should have an inferior social status. By contrast, very few of the criticisms aimed at Judaism in the 30s were true or fair.

investment money was held by Jewish owned firms which made them a convenient scapegoat for Germany's economic problems. Instead of being able to see the normal reactions of market forces to war and upheaval - it was turned into by the Nazis "the Jews are doing it." Either way uncareful language during unstable times directed against minorities is extremely dangerous.

Your post makes no fucking sense at all, except that you claim something happened in the 1930's. What?

Like you said, I have never seen a DUer imply or say that ALL Muslims are violent or responsible.

Good post, Warren.

Not all, just most.

One recent example is where a DUer pointed out that there's a difference between Islamic extremists and most Muslims, the latter being like most folk, sane and rational people. The DUer who objected to that claimed they saw no evidence of that and as far as they were concerned it was a 'feel good' statement. There's one where an OP was posted about one of PERGIDA's marches and someone responded saying they reap what they sow and copying and pasting a list of attacks by Islamic extremists. I did ask them what European Muslims had sown, but they never replied. There's more, including one or two low post ones MIRT has shown the door, but they're a good start.

One thing about DU is it's never a good idea to claim no-one at DU ever expresses a specific view because it's far too absolutist and it's more than likely that one or two DUers have indeed done what is claimed never happens...

The rapidly growing part of Islam thanks to the Saudis. https://m.

Former Sunni started a thread:

[–]Yep_its_true 7 points8 points9 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

The Sunni community needs to admit that there is NO universally agreed upon code of conduct in their version of Islam, and they must admit that this is causing problems.

They can't confront the law breakers, when they haven't clearly defined what the laws actually are.

Sunni Muslims hang on to this idea of the 'perfection' of Sharia law, and then they won't admit that it's not even a real thing.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it. Sunni Muslim leaders haven't admitted that they have a problem, they just say things like 'foreign policy' and 'Wahabis are bad.'

(full disclosure: former Sunni Muslim. Love my friends and family, but I can say without a doubt that they are in denial...)

Replies, excuse me because I'm not signed in, don't see all of their format, and don't see it can't be posted elsewhere, so here goes:

[–]toastymow -1 points0 points1 point 10 hours ago (1 child)

And terrorism is just the most visible manifestation of what is wrong with the system.

I'd like to think the abject poverty and horrible corruption help too. But terrorism is certainly more "in the face" of the West.

[–]Yep_its_true 0 points1 point2 points 10 hours ago (0 children)

Exactly!!!

I live in the Middle East, in Muslim country.

The corruption and frankly, Un-Islamic distribution of wealth are causing horrid problems here, and I am sure that this part of the world will take 100 years to 'catch up' to the west.

As I have worked and lived here, I am shocked to see how often vague and nebulous 'Islamic' ideas are used by Muslims to oppress and harm other Muslims!

The non Muslim world can't really be expected to monitor or even be aware of these types of issues, though.

[–]frmmtl 1 point2 points3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I still think this is new for a lot of people. When people get upset at Islam or Muslims, they're more often then not aware that where they should be directing their legitimate anger is towards Salafism and Wahabism. There are still many people in the west who couldn't tell you the difference between Shia vs Sunni beliefs nor could they enunciate the complexities within these communities of interpretation. I think education has to be at the heart of it but the media is doing a horrible job at it and our schools simply don't engage in what is a really important and worthwhile education around the diversity of religious beliefs, and education necessary to good democracies...

http://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/2s90pz/reza_aslan_muslims_must_confront_wahhabism/

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5717157

for the actions of these few. If one believed that we would be better off without Islam or, indeed, without religion, one would exaggerate the religious angle, in order to leverage the argument that religion is best left to the dustbin of history.

Bryant

Be they Muslim or otherwise.

The reaction to the newest Charlie Hebdo magazine cover, a respectful cartoon of Mohammed, will be quite informative.

Are there any people who are going to say that such an action deserves punishment? Even death? Will those people be using any particular holy text or religious tradition to make that argument?

penis with balls - not sure if that is actually respectful.

Could just be happenstance.

Bryant

that once it's pointed out and you see it, it's hard to not see it. Thanks for the link.

Bryant