I can find a list longer than your arm of scary websites set up by people claiming to be Christian or claiming to speak for all right-minded Christian Americans. In the past year in America out of about 350 mass shootings perhaps four were perpetrated by Muslims. (I think Muslims have a little edge in world-wide amateur bombings [as opposed to professional military bombings] so I will give you that.)
It is very easy to find stories on line that reinforce your bigotry or fear of foreigners. When you start to treat all 'X" as if they were all the “violent assholes who claim to be X” then you are the problem.
You do know that one of the aims of Daesh is to convince the moderate, “Westernized” Muslims that the gringos hate and distrust them, right? The want to foster the feeling of persecution among the moderates. You are working for Daesh in your intolerance.
Support for Sharia is not accurately described as “some codes of conduct that some Muslims observe.”
I recommend reviewing the Pew data more carefully.
First, it’s not a Mafia-type code. It is widely (typically, well over 50%) held that Sharia is either literally God’s code, or man’s reasonable extension of God’s wishes. As such, it stands above laws invented de novo by secular reasoning.
Second, it is widely held (very often over 50%) that Sharia should be the law of the land, applying to all Muslims in the land (and for many responders, even non-Muslims).
Third, it is very specific about the personal behavior in the daily lives of those perceived to be covered by it. It is not a code of behavior in any sense similar to whatever the Mafia code of behavior is.
None of these critical points are remotely applicable to the Mafia code of behavior.
We don’t have to prove you wrong, you know. If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove it to be true. In the absence of your proof, there is no reason to assume what you say is true.
A self confessed bigot how come, I live in a country that has good reason to be alert to terrorist threats Two Islamist terrorist were imprisoned today for planning to bomb a large shopping centre that if successful would have resulted in hundreds of deaths. the police have warned us to be vigilant against attacks outside of London over the next few days as the security levels are so high. I know the religion of those who wish me harm so why should I trust them
That’s obviously appalling, but these issues aren’t comparable to the apostasy issue. Remember, we’re not talking about the percentage of Muslim who simply oppose apostasy. We’re talking about Muslims who support killing people for apostasy. If 28% of Americans believed that gays should be put to death, then we’d be comparing apples to apples.
I’m not trying to excuse the 28% of Americans who say homosexuality should be illegal or anything. Indeed, I find that statistic quite shocking, and I certainly wouldn’t say that the “vast majority” of Americans are tolerant of gay people. Similarly, I wouldn’t say the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant of other religions. I clearly believe that the phrase “vast majority” is more subjective, and its meaning more dependent on context, than you do. It might be that we just have to agree to disagree on that.
That said…
That’s actually genuinely fascinating. I had no idea that such a phenomenon existed. Thanks for the link, sincerely. I’m definitely going to make some time to learn more about this, and I might well end up changing my mind on the veracity of the Pew survey.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
It’s hard to fathom why you keep harping away on British Muslims in particular when I’ve already shown you in a previous discussion that those stats are a statistical outlier compared to other western countries. I frankly don’t know if this is a polling problem (this one was done by a right-leaning think tank) or some cultural phenomenon in Britain but it’s very clear that some of the numbers being quoted for British Muslims aren’t at all representative of Muslims across western societies.
[/quote]
(i) I’m British. I work in the Whitechapel area of Central London which has a very high Muslim population. I work with lots of Muslims, both moderate and fundamentalist. I probably see more women in niqabs in a day than the average American would see in ten years, and I even know a couple of genuine firebrand preachers. Two weeks after the July 7th bombings, four more Islamic extremists tried to set off another round of homemade explosives on the London Underground, including on the specific line I use to get to work. Also, I don’t speak French or German, so finding information on the beliefs of British Muslims is just easier.
(ii) In the previous thread, we were discussing Muslim attitudes to other social issues, namely homosexuality, abortion, and pornography. The articles you cited make no reference to Muslim attitudes to apostasy, in Britain or anywhere else. Unless you can provide links to polls showing French and German Muslims en masse have casual attitudes toward apostasy, your post is little more than a hijack. As I’ve shown, approximately 18% of British Muslims believe apostates should be killed. If the figures for French and German Muslims are less than, say, 10%, I’ll happily acknowledge that British Muslims are an outlier on the issue of apostasy. Unfortunately, despite my spending a not inconsiderable amount of time looking, I’ve not been able to find any polls one way or the other.
(iii) I’ve only cited two polls, one by Pew and one by the BBC. I’ve never seen any evidence that either of them are “right-leaning”, or left-leaning for that matter.
What’s odder still is that you’ve basically just rephrased what I’ve said, yet you’ve managed to convince yourself you’re making a completely different argument.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. It adds to it by letting the other poster know that they’re doing something annoying and asking them to stop. It adds by making what they say easier to read. It can even serve as a bit of a knowledge check to see if they can even handle doing what is asked, thus dictating the intelligence level of the appropriate response. It can serve as a bit of a motivation check or to see how well they play with others–both of which can help at a meta level.
Not that any of that matters. It’s a single sentence in a post, expressing genuine frustration. You’re talking to real human beings, not robots that calculate how every single thing they say adds to the debate. I doubt that even crossed his mind.
It’s not as if he completely dismissed him for it. IT’s one sentence in a longer response–a bit of a personal aside. How do you think this detracts from the debate?
You’ve stated that it’s OK to get upset at people and distrust them if they wear Islamic dress.
If you don’t understand why it’s bigoted to be prejudiced against people if they appear to be of a particular religion, you may want to read up on what bigotry is.
Splendid. So now all you have to do is bring some sort of cite or quote from any of those sources that support your position. Because that’s what burden of proof is all about.
Imagine if I said I have it on excellent authority that you’ve had sex with farm animals. Do you think people should believe this as fact until you prove that you’ve never done such a thing, or do you think people should require me to produce evidence before believing my claim.
Insulting another poster is inappropriate, although in some contexts I certainly try to indulge myself in it.
But insulting a poster for grammar use and style in the context of a debate involving ideas is not just rude. It’s an effort to substitute reasoned response with silencing them by mocking their ability to communicate.
Ridiculing an individual’s effort at language is not quite the helpful motivation you make it out to be. It does not serve as a knowledge check; does not assist their intelligence; does not help their motivation; does not help them play with others.
It is a personal, inflammatory effort to degrade the person instead of degrading their argument.
There are also plenty of other posters on these boards whose grasp of grammar is just as bad, if not worse than TM’s. Their opinions tend to go with the grain, rather than against it, however, so they tend to get a pass.
Yep, forty years ahead (in the timescale of 2000 years) in terms of domestic rape - USA1 USA!
Unfortunately, also 40 years behind in terms of a female national leader. I believe those Muslins with their Sharia law everywhere have had maybe 7 now …
It’s almost like … it could be a bit more nuanced than cowboys and injuns.
Hey, we have a president who thinks that bowing and scraping to Arab despot leaders somehow will make the USA “friends” with these regimes. in fact, the Arab despots see this (correctly) as a sign of weakness, and enthusiastically move in to exploit this weakness. Somebody like Assad sees the US president trying to “make nice”-this just results in contempt.
Obama had better reread Machiavelli -“it is better to be feared than loved” (CF “The Prince”).
