Led by Georgian Orthodox priests at the instigation of the head of the GOC, no less. You want stonings? You got stonings. Here’s another one:
The same site also points out that 51% of Russians surveyed “would not under any circumstance want a gay neighbour or work colleague”.
But I’m sure none of them were Christians. Or take sugar on their porridge.
Kindly dispose of your empty well poison bottles in the appropriate receptable when you’re finished.
I’m not a person who “lies” about this, but I’ll explain why I, personally, push back against kneejerk Islamophobia where I find it:
I hold no illusions about influencing the radical fringe (and I’m certainly not “assuaging” anyone). It’s the hundreds of millions of non-radical Muslims who can be influenced - or are already on the right side of the debate - that I’m concerned about. Every time someone declares that all Muslims are either terrorists or support terror (and if they say they don’t support terror they’re lying because “taqiyya!”) it tells those liberal and moderate Muslims - of whom there are many - that no matter how “liberal” or “enlightened” or “Western” or “assimilated” they are, they will always be treated as an enemy. And not only does this behavior facilitate the radicalization process for those who may be on the fence, it alienates those within Islam who would be our greatest allies in dragging the unenlightened amongst them into the 21st century. It’s entirely counterproductive to mitigating the problem.
The “us vs them” narrative also facilitates more violence against innocent Muslims. When two extremist wannabes murdered a British soldier in London a few years old, the months afterwards saw over 160 acts of anti-Muslim violence or vandalism by right-wing assholes (hello, EDL) as “reprisals” against people who had nothing to do with the attack. Right-wing assholes being the cowards they are, many of these attacks were on Muslim women who were doing nothing more than shopping and minding their children. The aftermath of 9/11 similarly saw not jsut Muslims but various other vaguely-Middle-Eastern-looking people subjected to assaults and harassment. This is the fallout of the “We must oppose Islam!” mentality, and it’s this sort of bullshit I’m also trying to prevent.
Yes, radical Islam is a horrible violent thing, and even the non-violent but conservative forms of the religion can be and often are guilty of great injustices and injuries. In this, however, they have more in common with religious extremists of all ilks than with their liberal brethren in Islam. And if at the moment radical Islam is the source of a significant threat to decent, freedom-loving people everywhere - and it is - it seems disingenuous to say that this is intrinsic to Islam when Christianity and other religions are not far ahead (and, even then, largely due to secular efforts). Have a little fucking perspective.
I can’t do any whitewashing - somebody’s borrowed my broad brush to tar something and it’s all gummed up now.
Significant (but probably smaller) minorities in America hold these views as well. I’m fine with vetting prospective immigrants, including questioning them on these views.
Then we’re not in particularly significant disagreement.
I’ll bear that in mind for the next gun debate. One person says “That street is perfectly safe!”. People who shoot other people are a tiny minority! Gun violence is extremely rare!
Another person tells you, “Don’t walk down that street! Everyone who lives there is a gun owner!”
So you get shot. Repeatedly. Who would you feel came closer to telling you the truth?
The same holds true of Christians, you know.
I take it you’ve never been to Oklahoma.
Plenty of ethno-religious enclaves in the US already - but we ignore them because they’re not Muslim.
I’m betting that “better” in this case means “I don’t know what we have but it will never be good enough for my purposes”. Unless you have specific improvements you’d like to suggest to the current system?
What prevents incidents like Cologne or the proliferation of extremist mosques growing terror cells in Western countries. As has been pointed out, that is not a problem here. Let’s not let it ever become one.
It is. RIGHT NOW it is. I’m not denying it. But denying that Christians don’t do anything like that - and weren’t doing even more of them within living memory - is a pretty heavy spin too.
On a positive note, while I was looking up examples I found a couple of articles suggesting that Jamaica - once considered one of the most homophobic countries in the world - has made major inroads into dealing with homophobic attitudes in recent years. Early research suggests that this is in part because religion is such a minor driver of anti-gay views in Jamaica, and that instead they have been driven by dance hall culture (which is more easily changed) and traditional views of masculinity (less easily changed, but a lot easier than religion). Not that it’s a gay paradise yet, but the needle is definitely moving in the right direction.
**Adaher **has made some dubious “recommendations” that made me roll my eyes, but s/he’s being pretty straight here. If one side acknowledges the problem with Islam and proposes fascist solutions, and the other side pretends there *is *no problem, that is an unnecessary unforced error on our side that endangers our country.
No. There are some vague portions of scripture, but others that are not vague in the least. You do point out a problem with Judeo-Christianity, though: the moderates and liberals are mostly in control, but their interpretations are bullshit. They can never win a debate over theology with a fundamentalist (this is particularly true for Jews, since they can’t argue that the New Testament trumps the Old). For example, try telling me the different ways to interpret the following Bible verses. Please, I’m really curious! Deuteronomy in particular has commandments that seem designed to have no ambiguity, no wiggle room.
From Deut. 13:
Hmmm…I’m not totally sure, but I *think *that might be saying that if a friend or family member worships a different god or gods, you have to personally kill them, backed up by a mob if possible.
Deut. 21 has a couple of peachy sections:
Just not seeing any possible metaphor here.
Nice.
But maybe my favorite is these rules, which taken together establish quite nicely the economics of marriage according to Yahweh and Moses:
So apparently there’s a loophole by which any man with fifty shekels of silver to his name can have his pick of women to marry, as long as he gets to them before anyone else does. :rolleyes:
Now, it’s true that basically no one lives by these rules any more (though a few ultra-Orthodox Jews and hardcore Christians probably wish they could). But that’s not because there’s any other reasonable interpretation of the text than the very clear, straightforward meaning. It’s simply because modern secular society can’t abide this kind of abomination, so Judeo-Christians pretend they still consider the whole Bible a holy text written by God, and try their best to ignore the really awful parts.
But Muslims haven’t gotten that far. Their texts (the Quran and the hadith) have, for instance, more abundant and less ambiguous denunciations of homosexuality than are found in the Bible. So the best you’re going to get from a devout Muslim is going to be an attitude roughly akin to the Westboro Baptists. And the worst…well, we just saw it in Orlando. Maybe one day that spectrum will shift, and the majority of Muslims will be as disingenuous or willfully blind about their religious doctrines as most Judeo-Christians are now. But I don’t expect that to be in my lifetime, and in the meanwhile, I’d rather they sort it out among themselves rather than as my neighbors.
And let’s not forget we’re talking about electoral politics. At some point, if this shit continues, we’re going to have to either give a certain amount of ground on the Democratic side without going fully into *Kristallnacht *mode, or stand firm on (dubious) principle, and be swept away by a fascist electoral tide. What good would that do for anyone?
I won’t go into it case by case, but there are later portions, especially in the New Testament, that directly contradict these instructions to execute people. And there are other portions that contradict those contradictions. Whether they understand that they are interpreting the text or not, every believer is doing so. There is no way to literally interpret text when parts of it contradict other parts.
I partially agree – society’s advancement has pulled along most Jews and Christians. But they’re still interpreting, in my view, and no better or no worse than others.
They’re already your neighbors, if perhaps not adjacent to your abode. But interpretations do indeed vary widely within Islam, and just like Christian and Jewish texts there are portions of the Quran and hadith that contradict other portions.
I’m not sure it’s (terrorist attacks around the world) getting worse. Whether it is or not, I think the best way to keep it from getting worse (or reverse the trend) is to make sure that the Muslims not directly conducting or materially supporting terrorist operations are not our enemies. And this means using nuanced language.
As far as domestic politics, the nuance is important to prevent Kristallnacht-ish things from happening in the future. It doesn’t mean that Muslims can’t be criticized – just that broad-brush statements are avoided; criticism can be pointed but must be specific; and the like.
A process that takes-- at minimum 18 months-- and looks like this isn’t good enough for you? Syrian refugees can expect a process that takes two to three years, or even more. Ninety-nine percent of refugees worldwide don’t even make it past the initial interviews. Then they get screened by NCCIC, FBI, Homeland Security and State. The get fingerprinted, eyeball scanned, medically screened, culturally oriented, they get screened by border patrol and TSA. Again, all of this is spread out over a two (or more) year period. Then upon arrival, most (and perhaps even all) of them get partnered with a federally-approved organization for their first six months to help them assimilate and get accustomed to our country.
If terror cells wanted to get into the United States, I can think of much more efficient ways than going through the refugee resettlement process.
But here’s where I actually agree in part with my debate opponents. ISIS would love nothing more than to get someone through the refugee process, because it would so deeply undermine the American government and its assurances to its people. Not to mention that they don’t want refugees to peacefully settle here and be integrated into society.
And how do you square your ringing endorsement of the vetting process, including namechecking the FBI, with the fact that the FBI Director testified before Congress that its efficacy was highly suspect?
Here’s the thing: As a gay person, I know that most Muslims, worldwide, are not terribly sympathetic to my situation. Many would actively harm me, and many will still have the attitude that gay sex is fine on the down low, but gay identity is an abomination. Muslims in North America often hold those same attitudes.
But you know what? Christians are exactly the same. Sure, there’s a handful of progressive churches that have embraced the gay community, and that number is growing. But it’s still a drop in the bucket. The reason I can’t hold hands with my husband on the street anywhere except a few gay neighbourhoods isn’t Muslims, it’s Christians.
The reason I grew up ashamed of who I am, the reason I didn’t date as a teenager, the reason it was difficult to come out to my family—all because of Christians. The reason my more distant relatives are STILL saying hateful things about gay people? The church.
So you’ll excuse me if I don’t worry too much about Muslims. People who are fleeing a war and starting a new life while learning a new language are going to be a little bit too busy to shoot me. Their conflicted bicultural children might, but then again, that cute guy from Iowa might be just as conflicted and angry and is probably better trained to use firearms.
That quote doesn’t say what you think it does. Comey says there are people that we can’t find anything about in the databases. You are assuming that those people get a free pass into the country. They do not.
I can understand where you’re coming from, but think about this; do you want 40k+ likely homophobes joining our electorate and citizenry? Aren’t they more likely to keep their mass backwards views when they enclave with each other? And aren’t their elected representatives more likely to represent that?
Also, a lot of gay Muslims who flee the Muslim world feel the mirror of you, but with Islam and Christianity switched.
Where are the “enclaves” in the USA? I don’t give a fuck about what’s supposedly happening in Europe.
Ted Cruz will offer to “save” your party with his true conservative values (after Hilary destroys The Donald). What about hislinks with a homophobic preacher?
For me, I’d rather deal with the lightning-striking chance of being caught in a terrorist attack than promote institutional bigotry and police-state tactics. One of my favorite quotes:
[QUOTE=Benjamin Franklin]
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
[/QUOTE]
(Yes, I know that’s not the situation he was describing, but he also didn’t live in the 21st century and the sentiment is highly appropriate.)
You can claim until you’re blue in the face that there are bogeymen out there, and that that justifies blanket discrimination, but it’s against the very philosophical basis of this country. That doesn’t mean that vigilance should be relaxed, but this kind of stuff is an appeal to kneejerk reactionism. Funny how it always seems to crop up right after a terrorist attack.