Not content with a burden of proof fallacy, you’re now trying to validate your position by claiming a particular IQ.
You really are something special.
And Ian “these dinosaurs laid their eggs on the run from Noah’s Flood” Juby is a member of MENSA.
Good to know that the Qur’an is a lot more liberal than the Bible! …
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. * Leviticus 20:10*
If bowing is a sign of weakness, what is slipping a little tongue?
That’s a pretty poor photoshop job. I’m embarrassed for you whether you knew it was fake or not.
Eh, at worst it is Granny Smith apples and Red Delicious apples. In both cases we’re talking about a physical punishment due to a victimless exercise in human rights that merely violates social norms. A death sentence is obviously worse than a prison term, but the latter is no trifling thing.
And to be fair, tolerance of apostasy isn’t an exact proxy for tolerance of other religions, either.
As for how many Americans want gay people put to death, I found no polls that asked that question, but I can assure you the answer is not “zero”. I’ve met people with that view, and a preacher with that view was mainstream enough to host three presidential candidates at an event.
Probably so. The numbers are objective, but the significance of the numbers is subjective.
No problem. I formally learned of the concept in The Better Angels of Our Nature, after informally learning about it in a P.J. O’Rourke piece about the Nicarauguan election of 1990. Polls showed incumbent strongman Daniel Ortega to be a huge favorite, but on election day, opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro won by a comfortable margin. It turns out that polls in unfree societies have to be taken with a grain of salt - give the wrong answer to a stranger asking questions, and there can be real consequences. So, people default to a safe, conservative answer.
As an aside, I suspect this is the reason Egypt came out as being so radical in the Pew poll, despite being a relatively cosmopolitan middle income country - the poll was conducted during the period when the Muslim Brotherhood held political power.
I don’t have such specific numbers at hand, but I haven’t looked very hard. What I do have – and it’s far from a hijack – is evidence that, for whatever reason, British Muslims have tended to be outliers in relative number of extremists. I’ve twice now repeated the survey findings on European Muslims.
So we have what appears to be a generally liberal and westernized Muslim community in most of western Europe. Moving now to America, this is what the polls show:
Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.
Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.
… When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%). As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.
This seems to reflect the same social inclusion and trust of social institutions that we see in Europe. It sure doesn’t sound to me like violent extremists who will kill you in cold blood if you aren’t a Muslim, but maybe it sounds that way to you. As a matter of fact, just as a side note, I’d venture to say the US would be better off with a more inclusive society and more trust in government, the kind that Muslims seem to favor and Republicans detest.
Look closer. I was referring to the latter poll that you cited in this thread. Not that it’s a matter of great significance, but the poll wasn’t done by the BBC, it was done by a group called Policy Exchange which the BBC describes as a “centre-right think tank” in your own cite, right in the headline, no less.
Well, now, this is interesting, because what I said – which is reflected above – is (and I quote) “western Muslims are genuinely more modern and more moderate, and relatively integrated into western culture”.
If you believe this, then it’s hard to argue that Islam is inherently the problem, since extremism is invariably linked to backward cultures in relatively primitive countries. Indeed if you believe this, it’s hard to know why you’ve been making all these strident anti-Muslim arguments throughout this and other threads. If you believe this, it’s hard to know why in that very post you used a term like “murderous displays of religious fanaticism” (your exact words) as being some inherent characteristic of Muslims. If you agree with what I said, it’s hard to know why you’ve been strenuously arguing with everyone trying to say the same thing, and what point you could possibly be trying to make.
Here’s my point, and here’s why it matters. A couple of terrorists were just captured in Belgium, and this is a quote from a companion article about how it’s affected the social dynamics there. Pay attention to the bolded sentences at the end:
Espace Poincare opened little more than a year ago, with the goal of promoting a peaceful and productive blend of European and Islamic values. But the center’s director said the recent reports of a suspected homegrown Belgian terror cell – emerging so soon after French jihadis massacred cartoonists in the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had threatened this vision of moderation and integration.
“We condemn what’s happened. This is not our vision, our understanding of our religion,” said director Hajib El Hajjaji.
In French-accented English, **he explained how Belgium’s Muslim community was finding itself increasingly trapped between two ideological extremes.
“We face [Islamist] radicalization. But we also face the increase of Islamophobia in Belgium,” El Hajjaji said.
“We know that stigmatization, Islamophobia, discrimination help this radicalization of young Muslim people here in Belgium.”**
Do I need to spell it out? Islamophobia discriminates against innocent people, it inflames public opinion to the point of sometimes even putting women and children at risk of physical violence; it influences discriminatory immigration policies that are not just unethical and inhumane but detrimental to a nation’s own interests; and it encourages a culture of hate and further radicalization in what becomes an escalating and unwinnable war against religion and culture.
Also making it hard to argue that Islam is inherently the problem: that the radicals are the ones who know the least about Islam.
The New Yorker: Journey to Jihad
The Atlantic: ISIS and the Foreign-Fighter Phenomenon
See also the study tom linked to about mosques discouraging radicalization.
OK. no tongue.
Your argument seems to be that Islamophobia causes radicalization, but isn’t the reverse also true: that radicalized Muslims cause Islamophobia?
No, my argument encompasses all the points I stated. The argument against Islamophobia is that it promotes a misdirected culture of hate that directly impacts large numbers of innocent and completely blameless people, just like any other form of prejudice and bigotry. I don’t think it “causes” radicalization, but it understandably helps to promote it.
Quick stat lesson. This error rate of 2-4% only takes into account sampling error and don’t take into account such systemic errors as sampling bias, mess with the pollster bias, I’d better answer in the most Islamic way possible or may be seen as an enemy of the state bias, America just bombed my homeland and so I’m pissed and will say anything against them bias, etc.
I think polling Americans with the question “should we nuke Mecca?” would give similar results.
http://boards.fool.com/poll-nuke-mecca-16728082.aspx?view=results
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-america-nuke-the-middle-east
Just out of curiosity what was your opinion, say 20 years ago, regarding people of Irish extraction being allowed to walk around unmolested in the UK.
Calling someone a bigot in GD is not permitted.
This is a Warning to refrain from doing that.
EVERYONE, refrain from name-calling in this thread and this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
On other issues:
The whole grammar issue is not pertinent to this thread.
Everyone drop it.
[ /Moderating ]
If you need to discuss this sort of topic, open a new thread to so so.
Wandering into a thread to post off-topic partisan rhetoric that has nothing to do with the discussion is bad form.
[ /Moderating ]
Speaking as an Irish American…
In 1972, if a bomb went off in London, EVERYONE would have assumed it was planted by Irish terrorist, and EVERYONE would have said so publicly, without fear of being called “Celtophobes.”
Every prominent Irish American politician would have condemned the IRA unreservedly. No one would have prefaced that condemnation with disclaimers like “The men who planted this bomb were not truly Irish” or “We must guard against a backlash against innocent Irish.”
It’s only with Muslim terrorists that people use subverted words.
I don’t know how you could read this and think it is somehow positive. Of course more Muslims in America will befriend non-Muslims than those in places with much higher percentages of Muslims. The fact that half of Muslims surveyed have few or no close Muslim friends is a giant clue as to the troublesome insularity of Muslim communities in America.
And here is another clue. Political tribalism is one reason that supposedly liberal politicians will cozy up with Islamist groups when they would never team up with the Islamist’s native religious-right counterparts.
This question misses an important distinction. In my experience, many of these Muslims who say that “homosexuality should be accepted by society” mean that it should be accepted by the society at large, which they are taught is hopelessly immoral anyway. I have asked Muslims who expressed this same opinion about gay people in their own community, which is made up of many hundreds of people, and been told that no one in their community is homosexual.
If you examine particular Muslim communities or movements that do accept open homosexuals, you will find that they are a minuscule minority that is actively opposed and vilified by the mainstream communities and groups.
A more telling question would be “should the homosexuals who reside in Mecca and Medina be allowed to openly proclaim and practice their sexuality”.
Most white supremacists go their entire lives without physically attacking a black, Jewish, or gay person, and their groups often condemn violent acts. That doesn’t mean that the white supremacy that they espouse isn’t a contributing factor in violent acts against those groups when they do occur, though.
In other words, they make convenient political allies, despite the prevalence of unquestioning reverence for historical figures that had gay people thrown off of buildings. Do what you will, but I choose principal over political tribalism.
This is completely wrong. There are so very many examples of people who are inspired to murder by Islam, that do not in any way fit this description. The San Bernadino shooter was born in America and had a decent home and job. There was recently a report about groups of upper class Karachi women raising money for ISISand even offereing their daughters as brides to ISIS fighters. The 9-11 hijackers were well educated. The Boston marathon bombers grew up in America. The London subway bombers were born and raised in Britain. The list of counter-examples to your claim goes on and on and on…
You seem to be very confused about this statement. What was proposed was that exposure to secular societies has the potential to mitigate “murderous displays of religious fanaticism”.
Islam is a set of ideas. Criticism of ideas is not bigotry and does not demonstrate a “phobia”. This narrative that you have bought into is one of the most potent tools of Islamists. When criticisms of Islamic dogma are lumped into the same category as racism or bigotry against people, it plays right into the hands of those who try to control Muslims and de-legitimize Muslim reformers. Islamists have a chorus of cooperators, in the media and academia, who parrot their message that the only reason anyone would ever criticize (the Islamist’s version of) Islam is because of racism and bigotry. This gives them an incredibly powerful tool which they use to dismiss or attack those, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who seek to challenge the religious orthodoxy that drives so much violence and oppression.
When simple stick-figure cartoons lampooning religious figures bring death threats, and the authors of other satirical cartoons are murdered in retribution, and Muslim communities most vocal response is to protestthe cartoons, we are far far past a point where an appropriate response is to walk on eggshells in deference to Muslim sensitivities.
Yes. They would have condemned the IRA.
They would not, as many here prefer to do, have condemned the Irish.
Unless you can support this assertion with examples of many condemnations of ethnic groups, one can only conclude that you are, once again, confusing criticism of a set of ideas, ie Islam, with bigotry.
You’re joking, right? If not, the irony is almost too perfect. Let me introduce you to Peter King, IRA fundraiser and prominent Irish American politician. Still sitting in Congress after 20 years without a fucking word of condemnation of the IRA (much less an apology for raising its bomb-and-guns money).
Lest you question, I can assure you that several IRA bombs went off in London. They were slightly more civilized than Al Quaeda/Daesh etc. in that they usually phoned in warnings.