That’s rather the whole point isn’t it? You talk as if quantity doesn’t count or something, as if there’s no real difference between a bee and a swarm, or a cow and a stampeding herd.
Fred the Anti-Semitic Murderer might have been just as evil as Hitler in his heart; but since Fred didn’t have thousands of followers we can just deal with him as a criminal, not as a mortal threat to western civilization.
For purposes of discussion, I’ll concede that Pat Robertson, deep down in his heart, is just as full of hate and violence the mideast’s worst Imams. So what? If he starts actually saying those things, he will lose the large majority of his audience. There may be some psuedo-Christian nutters out there that support gay-bashing; but even they know that if they hope to have a significant number of followers, they need to moderate their message greatly. Hence, Pat Robertson and his ilk, whatever lurks in their souls, are not a mortal threat to the heritage of the Enlightenment.
With Islam, on the other hand, we have millions and millions of people who buy into a medieval set of values, who can and do call advocate violence. Thousands who, had they opportunity, would gladly walk into a church in London or a shopping mall in Sheboygan and blow themselves up. It is those numbers that move them out of the “disturbed persons” category and into “threat to western civilization.”
No problem if you guys (brush is applied to the conservative poster in this thread) take into consideration that the war on terror (and I do see the burning of the embassies as part of that war) is being lead by a president of the USA that is more willing to defend the constitution of the “united states of Saudi Arabia”.
Point being that this is just another example that we are fighting this war not only with a hand tied behind our backs, but a war that is twisted to other purposes (Iraq)
I just feel the administration bending to this cartoon violence (pun intended) undermines the war that was supposed to involve “freedom on the march” and the “forces of democracy”. Protesting is good, but taking, bombing or burning embassies is not the moment to say they have a point.
So the administration got involved when it was not needed. Well, when they said those words in favor of censorship the embassies had not burned yet. Now that the administration is needed I did notice a condemnation to the burnings but no reassessment to strongly defend the freedom of the press. Must we always demand from this administration to do what they swore to do? To defend the constitution of the United States? I’m convinced one of the reason the cartoons did not appear in mainstream newspapers was that they got another of those calls:
We are not showing any backbone to any non-fundamentalist groups that know what freedom of the press is all about.
Yes, there’s no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance–and they have now done so, in abundance. The West’s principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.
Also:
Non-Jews slander non-Jewish prophets and then come to hang the Jews, one could say of the latest, ugly twist in the Danish cartoon controversy, paraphrasing one of Menachem Begin’s most famous lines.
A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization, the Arab European League, posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site on Saturday in response to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in Danish papers last year and offended many Muslims, unleashing violent demonstrations around the Islamic world.
One of the AEL cartoons reportedly displayed an image of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, the party’s founder and best-known figure, defended the action on the Dutch television program Nova Saturday.
“Europe has its sacred cows, even if they’re not religious sacred cows,” he told the program.
Abou Jahjah is a very dangerous man, imo.
Muslims in our country adore him.
Why the fuck he got the Jewish people involved in this, I can’t imagine.
Maybe he’s one of the victims of inbreeding, that occurs in 30% of our muslim-population.
I understand that inbreeding can damage the brains.
Rune, I’m with you.
Fuck them, let them eat shit - and if they try to hurt me, or mine, I’ll make sure they don’t have to worry about the issue of inbreeding again.
Ever.
Oh, come on. I know lots of fundamentalist Christians. I don’t know a single one who wants to kill homosexuals or go back to cutting the hands off of thieves. Christianity went through an enlightenment. Sure there may be very, very tiny groups of extremists, but then, there are lots of non-religious extremist groups as well.
Here’s the difference: our fundamentalists want intelligent design in schools, oppose abortion, and don’t want gay people to marry. Their fundamentalists beat women, murder gays, and stone people who attempt to leave the faith.
Show me a Christian fundamentalist who wants to make homosexuality even a misdemeanor, never mind killing all the homosexuals.
Statements like this are wildly off the mark. Saying that we need to ‘clean our own house’ while criticising them is like saying, “Sure, Jeffrey Dahmer eats people. But if we’re going to criticise him, we’d better look at our own faults, such as eating too many potato chips.”
Is that so? Seen any violence from fundamentalist Buddhists lately? That Dali Lama sure is a firebrand. And how about those militant Hindus? With their sacred animals and passive non-resistance. The bastards.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You equate MILLIONS of Muslims who beleive in violence and oppression with American fundies who want laws against abortion. And the ‘some who murder abortion doctors’ is a VERY tiny group. A group which is shunned by pretty much all other Christians everywhere.
YES. Israel is a religious country. There are plenty of fundamentalists there. Do you see homosexuals being put to death? Or other religions being crushed? Or violent marches in the streets every time someone disses Judaism?
There are plenty of countries on this planet that have highly religious populations. Even theocracies. We don’t see the same problems with them that we’re seeing many Muslim majority countries.
And why do you think that is? Because we have rule of law, constitutions, and we don’t allow religious fundamentalists to dictate the parameters of them. It’s not an accident. Our societies are not driven by fundamentalists because we don’t allow it, and because our brand of fundamentalism really doesn’t want to do all that much anyway. Certainly not enough to strap on bombs or shoot ‘heretics’.
Pat Robertson is nuts. I will not dare to guess what he’d do if he had the power. The point is, HE DOESN’T. He doesn’t, because even within Christianity almost everyone thinks he’s a loon and doesn’t listen to him.
In fact, the religious leaders we respect the most are the ones who preach love, compassion, and tolerance. Pat Robertson was marginalized because he started spouting the kind of hateful gibberish that we hear from respected Muslim leaders. Christians reject it because they have long evolved away from such nonsense.
And yes, some Christians still listen to him. He clearly has a following. But note that they aren’t actually doing anything. He makes nutty statements, but he doesn’t call on his followers to stone homosexuals. If he did, he’d be preaching to two nutty old cat ladies or something.
But numbers are everything. They tell us how acceptable the extremes are within a society. At the risk of being Godwinized, I could make the analogy that the U.S. was just like Nazi Germany, because after all, there were some people in the U.S. who agreed with the Nazi position. The only difference was numbers, right?
When? Hundreds of years ago? What are the rights of women, minorities, and homosexuals like in Vatican City? Or in Israel?
Look, something like 90% of our populations in North America claim to believe in God, and a very large percentage are regular church goers. If we wanted to elect religious fundies, we could do so. We don’t, because that’s really not what most Christians want. Our faith is enlightened, and we believe in the rights of all.
Can you not see the difference between a boycott and violence? Is PETA wrong for advocating boycotts of stores that use animals for experimentation on their products? There’s nothing wrong with peacefully organizing and choosing to spend your money on products that match your values.
By whom? In the name of Christianity? With the sanction of authority figures in the church?
The Promise Keepers sound a little wacky to me, but to equate them with the treatment of women by fundamentalist Muslims is ridiculous. First, the ‘promise’ they both say they’ll keep as a whole bunch of proscriptions on the husband, including the agreement that he will never hit or physically intimidate his wife. Second, the women enter into the contract voluntarily, and can leave it at any time. It’s not a legal contract, and it doesn’t bind them to servitude. It’s just a statement by both parties that this is the way they choose to set up their marriage. There are plenty of ex-Promise Keepers around who decided they didn’t like the agreement and left. They aren’t hunted down and killed in ‘honor killings’.
And I disagree. My grandparents were very, very religious. Fundamentalist, you could say. They were Mennonites. Do you know what their fundamentalism drove them to? Pacifism. Rejection of materialism. The belief that Jesus teaches you to love your neighbor, not covet what they have, to turn the other cheek when slighted, to be faithful, honest, and to work hard within your community. They were the best people I ever knew. I went to their fundamentalist Mennonite church with them for years, and I never heard a single word of intolerance or hatred that entire time.
Again, you’re making ridiculous comparisons. The systematic enslavement of women being compared to a flunky in a science organization shilling for ID? Please.
Yes… the potential means that there’s an equivelancy. And it has nothing to do with “christian” misbehavior, but fundamentalist behavior. The danger is of fundamentalist rule.
Need any more straw, you seem to have used a lot.
But if you think that groups like the Dominionists are any less scary because they haven’t gained power yet…
Except it’s not totally different, as you want to pretend. Abortion doctors and homosexuals have been murdered. Do you have a thing for obfuscation? It is a question of degree, not total absence. It would be like saying “The cruise I went on hit several small icebergs, so it’s totally different than the titanic and you’re weird if you say otherwise.”
Not necessarily. The intention is what’s at issue. The numbers are just the means of mobilizing the intention.
:rolleyes:
You seem to have a problem understing the concept of dynamic. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that people like Robertson would like to gain control of the nation, it’s just numbers that stop them from doing so.
Yes, and no. Single bees and single cows are not dangerous on their own. Single fundamentalists are. The point is that rule by religion, in and of itself, is dangerous. That there are more fundies in other countries means that the basic threat is magnified, but it’s still the same threat. And “it can happen here”.
Agreed. But if our society tollerates the various Freds then it’s a problem, even if foreign powers do the same thing to a greater degree.
I can find cites for you if you’d like, but one of Robertson’s organizations receives millions in federal dollars, and they refuse to hire non-christians. I’m all for cracking down and not giving ground to terrorists, and I do believe that we shoudl oppose foreign religious fundamentalism, but I’d also like to make sure that we do the same at home.
Yes and no. They do have influence over public policy, including scientific and legal policy. While, Muslim fundamentalism is worse, that doesn’t mean our own brand isn’t bad. I’d just like to see a consistent commitment to secular society across the board, not just when the Muslims go nuts at us.
I wouldn’t disagree, at all. I don’t mean to downplay the Muslim idiocy, but I would like to see a consistent pattern of behavior on our government’s part which stated that theocracy was wrong. I’d like to see our government accept homosexuality, genetic research, etc…
I figure this is a pretty golden time for theocracy to be seen, in any of its forms as wrong.
Finn, I’m fine with the notion of making theocracy unacceptable, but ordinary people can and likely will draw the distinction between the traits of Christian fundamentalism and those of its Islamic counterpart. Yes, I think you’re right that the basic intolerant mindset of fundamentalism is the same - whether it’s Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. But the difference in real-world effect of the expression of fundamentalist idiocy between the two is hard to deny.
When Pat Robertson opens his yap, sure, he’s being a judgmental, backward, intolerant asshole. But he’s not breaking the law or advocating violence to attempt to achieve what he wants*. The same can’t be said for those asshole imams who stirred all this up, nor can the same be said for the actual effect those imams had vs. the effect Robertson or Phelps has when they spew their verbal diarrhea.
Furthermore, if we’re trying to make theocracy unacceptable, I think it’s self defeating for rationalists to waste precious political capital attempting to strike a moral equivalency between the two for the sake of intellectual purity. It’s just too easy to lose credibility.
Better to make the honest admission that yes, what’s going on in the Islamic world is far more sinister than what happens here, and let’s make sure that that degree of stupidity - a result of an excess of religious influence in the Islamic world - does not happen here.
But this is purely hypothetical. What’s going on now in Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, is not.
But Pat Robertson does not have the size following and legislative support that Muslim fundamentalists have. Robertson and his goons don’t have their way. And the “root cause” they don’t have their way is because of culture: in the Christian sphere (the West), skepticism of dogma has been a widely accepted virtue for hundreds of years. Meanwhile in the Islamic world, skepticism of dogma is a vice.
Again, it just doesn’t compare. I’ll grant you that those department store owners may cave in to the theocrat Christians because they fear the financial effect standing up to them may have. But I really doubt the department store owners lost any sleep worrying if his store was going to be burned down or blown up by masses of angry Christian hordes. Big difference.
with the exception of advocating the assassination of Chavez, but that doesn’t pertain to the discussion at hand.
That’s an enormously illogical leap. Every person or group has the potential to do almost anything. That does not create an equivalency with those who actually engage in the activity. You’re being silly. Now stop it.
You’re dancing around the major point. They haven’t gained power and aren’t likely to because our society does not permit the horrible actions those darn Dominionists engage in (whatever that is).
No, I am not pretending they are totally different. Only that they are different in a very important way. Perhaps your cruise experiences have been different than mine.
Thanks for emphasizing my point. Degree is certainly an important qualifier in drawing a comparison.
No, sparky, what you’re asserting is like saying, “All ocean cruises ever launched were really the same, since they all had the potential to sink in the middle of the voyage.”
Does that make it something that should be tollerated?
Some of ours do the same. Read some of the Dominoinist positions on women, or look to the history of religious motivated gay bashing. Yes, it’s not as common, but it’s somewhat odd to oppose it if it’s overseas but not if it’s in our backyard.
The Dominionists, by the way, have a lot of sway with our government.
Want me to provide links between the government and the Dominionist movement? If you don’t know about them, perhaps you should read up a bit before talking about how I’m off the mark?
The Dali Lama isn’t a fundamentalist.
Do you really want cites for occurances in India/Pakistan?
Does it matter how many there are? Again, it’s a problem no matter how many people are doing it, and the governmental support for the religious right is, in many respects, troubling.
No.
Israel is a country where there has been a long standing battle between the Orthodox and secular Jews. You should look into groups like ARZA and IRAC. And yes, you do indeed see violence against people in Israel. Ultra-orthodox Jews have been known to throw stones at people who work on the Sabbath, for example. Rabin was murdered for violating religious dictates about a Greater Israel.
You sure? You’ve just handwaved away Hindu violence.
Again… the relationship between factions of the religious right and the government contradicts your claim.
So that somehow proves that fundamentalism isn’t dangerous?
But, again, just because it’s a lesser threat than Muslim terrorism does that mean we shouldn’t deal with it?
No, they’re not. Principles are everything.
You’d be the first one making such an equivelancy. I’ve never said that we are “just like” the Muslim terrorists, merely that we have similar dynamics within our own society that need to be dealt with.
KKK memembers routinely murdered Jews and blacks much more recently than 100 years ago. But I guess they don’t matter, since they don’t have as many numbers behind them as the Muslims?
Moreoever, progress made in Israel is precisely because people have opposed the fundamentalists.
Can you see the similiarity? If someone wants to drive you out of business because you don’t do things their religious way, that’s not bad? No, it’s not as bad as Muslim terrorists, but your desire to handwave it away is just odd.
This seems to be a tactic that comes up all the time when someone criticizes America, someone is sure to point out that there’s someone worse. As if that changes things.
And yet I seem to remember quite a bit of indignation even when it was ‘just’ a boycott of the entire country where the cartoons appeared.
Ah, so now we’re shifting the goalposts. Fundies acting on their beliefs and murdering people won’t be counted unless they were acting with the sanction of authority figures? Even if that’s the case, how about the fact that there have been continuing sermons on the inhumanity and evilness of homosexuals? Incitement takes many forms.
Again this odd tu quoque. Yes, many Muslims are worse. Does that make the Promise Keepers good?
Yes, again, someone else is worse. So? This is around the point where O’Reilly asks if you would be happier if Sadaam was President of the United States.
What’s the old saw about the plural of anecodote and evidence?
Every example I’ve given you of fundamentalists who have used their religion to harass or intimidate others has been handwaved away .Why? Because it’s not as bad as what some Muslims are doing? Fine, it’s not as bad. So?
Please, yourself. I said that they were wrong things, not that they had ‘equal scores on the wrong-O-meter’.
What, you want a pat on the back that our fundies are bad but not as bad as Muslim fundies? That’s worth a prize?
Yo, yojimbo, the only one racist here is that xenophobic, homophobic, anti-semite, female oppressing, conservative, RIGHT-WING, religion called: Islam.
You pathetic little man.
In other news: Italian priest in Turkey murdered. The Killer shouted Allah Akbar!
And I haven’t and wouldn’t deny it. Muslim fundamentalism is the most likely factor to cause a third world war. I just wish that as long as we’re decrying fundamentalism, we get it the heck out of our own government.
You are correct that the Muslim fanatics have been worse. But that doesn’t mean that our fanatics should be ignored.
I don’t see it the same way, at all. Muslim fanatics are certainly worse than our brand. But that doesn’t mean that our brand should be ignored, especially when they gain influence in the government.
I’d certainly agree. What’s happening in the Muslim world is: worse, worse, worse, worse. No question. But as long as we’re getting on the principle that fundamentalism is wrong, we might as well go all the way.
Correct. The Muslim fanastics are an immediate threat. But I don’t think we should ignore the future threats either. And in some cases like the Dominionists, it’s an immediate threat.
Agreed, but our government has been edging closer and closer to endorsing fundie positions. And that’s a problem.
Again, yes, the Muslim fundies are worse. But that doesn’t mean our fundies aren’t bad.
You might want to check a dictionary. “Logical” is, in fact, not the same word as “illogical”. But, of course, you’re going to continue to obfuscate the issue.
Yay! Obfuscation! And a fallacy of equivocation! Wheeeeeeee!
Fundamentalism often demands that others live by your religious laws. You can pretend that this potential exists in secular folks, but you’ll just be making an absolutely absurd claim.
You’re being obfuscatory and wilfully ignorant. Now stop it.
Militant ignorance, eh? I take it you’re 100% unaware of the Dominionist position or their influence on the government? “whatever that is”, indeed.
And no, you’re yet again obfuscating, I’m not ‘dancing’ around anything, at all. You’re ignorant of the situation so you’re babbling at me. The issue is that Dominionists and their ilk are dangerous, even if they haven’t gained power yet, and they are trying to.
Again, you’re obfuscating. Since the issue is one of degree then you’d have to be saying that your cruises routinely run into smaller icebergs.
It’s like someone says “icebergs are inherently dangerous” and you respond by saying “hey sparky, you’re illogical, other things are dangerous too, and not every iceberg is as big as those that sunk the Titanic.”
What… you want to play both sides of the argument now? You’re claiming that my statement that they were both wrong but there was a difference of degree somehow invalidates my position that they’re both wrong but there’s a matter of degree?
No, deliberately inflamatory and wilfully ignorant fellow. You’re either tremendously foolish or deliberately baiting me. I haven’t said that everybody is the same, but that fundamentalism has certain dangers associated with that. You have responded with evasion and obfuscation.
I have also never said anything was ‘the same’ except the dynamic. You want to debate in good faith any time soon, or merely continue with the strawmen and obfuscation?
I know there are xenophobic, homophobic, anti-semitic and female oppressing muslims. I don’t however jump to the conclusion that they all are. I treat them as individual bastards not as a entity defined by their religion. You however do.
There’s a lot of good thinking in this and the other threads on the subject, from people whose political opinions I normally disagree with. A lot of common ground between us, and the same goals.
But not from you.
You’re just a plain fucking racist - and no I don’t care that “Muslim” isn’t a race; you’re using the same tactics. You are attempting to dehumanise your perceived enemy. And we all know where that leads.
You need to take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You’re becoming what you claim to despise.
Let’s see… You’re the one picking out tiny extremist groups and using them to claim that ‘all fundamentalism’ is dangerous. I give you an example of an entire fundamentalist community that believes in nothing worse than peace and tolerance, and you handwave it away as a mere anecdote?
You’re the one making the sweeping generalization. If I can provide counter-examples, doesn’t it kind of destroy your sweeping generalization? Do you know how many pacifist fundamentalist sects of various religions there are? How about the Quakers? Are they dangerous too? If we ‘tolerate’ them, are we running a risk that they will suddenly discover the joys of executing homosexuals and strapping on suicide belts?
Because the examples you gave are extreme outliers and very tiny groups, or not the result of fundamentalism at all (the India/Pakistan thing is territorial, and the KKK didn’t string up blacks because their religion told them to, but because they were racist assholes. They could have been athiests and they would still have been stringing up blacks).
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all do, huh.
the Netherlands does
Denmark does
France does
England does
We’re ALL racists, correct?
Has anyone ever thought about the fact that not one of these countries had problems before?
Denmark and the Netherlands were famous for their tolerance.
I dare to say we are STILL a very welcoming and tolerant nation. I am still a fighter for the underdog.
The racists are the ones that despise the ‘unbelievers’.
The racists are the ones that - through violence - want to impose their religion on me and my fellow countryman.
It’s going to be the cause, it’s going to start over something stupid like this, it’s going to escalate out of control, and it’s going to be very, very bloody. Europe is going to pay the price for decades of foreign workers and uncontrolled minority factions within their borders. The moderate Muslims will unfortunately be swept along with the fanatics, and the world will see genocide that will make Mao look like a Cub Scout leader. The only thing that will prevent it is a total crackdown by Islamic governments on the extremists within their borders, and they will fall if they try to do that. Get used to riding your bikes, kids, because the oil taps are going to shut off real soon, and we will be forced to open them with a sledgehammer. Only this time Europe will be on the front lines.
If someone can see a rosier scenario for the next decade or so, please elaborate, because the future I see is dismal.
Why the fuck would the governments of these countries shut off their major source of income? They’re not THAT fanatical, and they’re not THAT stupid. Many of them are backwards-ass morons, sure, but I think most of them are two-faced fanatics. They’ll say anything to stir up and distract their own people, but as long as the West’s money is green…
The unbeareable thing is: It’s our own fault.
It’s MY own fault.
WHY was I so naïve?
Standing on the barricades for the poor muslims.
Trying to get the women out of their isolation?
Working in a moslim-women shelter [all voluntary]
