It seems to me that this argument could be aimed right back at you, and with much greater power.
Yeah, well, she’s got issues cuz they mutiliated her cooch, no doubt.
Yes, all 3 were victims of Christian extremists, vs. 3,000 victims of Islamist extremists on 9/11 alone. :rolleyes: yourself.
Obviously, there is no precise numerical criteria, but where do you draw the line? If 1% of adherents of a particular religion are murderous fundamentalists, is that ok? What about 5, or 10, or 20%? 50%? When do people of good will stand up and say “No, this fundamentalism is wrong and must be stopped.”?
I don’t see much standing up to the evil of Islamic fundamentalism, it’s seemingly all about “acceptance” and “cultural diversity” and other assorted nonsense. Make no mistake, I also include President Bush’s lack of “standing up” to Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalists as being cowardly and wrong, oil and airbases nonwithstanding.
That would be enough for me to hold a grudge Stoid.
And back to the OP…don’t move stephi. Have lots of loud parties.
Back to the OP. Personally, I’m with Kiki, and Monty, and kitfox
Welcome, KF!!!
Stephi, One thing that may not have occurred to you or your…co-tenant, is that there just might be more than 1 ignorant peckerwood in the world, and moving offers no guarantee that something like this (or worse) won’t happen again.
Better the Devil you know, and all that.
You now have the measure of this…this…thing, and can have countless hours of fun letting everyone in your co-op know just who and what they are living with. KitFox has already given you some good material to work with.
She should move, not you.
DR replied to me: Well, from the very top of that link you provide: “Notably absent has been a corresponding statement by an organization of moderate Muslim religious leaders.”
Um, if you had read beyond the very top of the link, you would have seen a collection of corresponding statements from many individual moderate Muslim religious leaders. What, if they’re not organized you can’t hear them?
milroyj: *If 1% of adherents of a particular religion are murderous fundamentalists, is that ok? *
No, of course it wouldn’t be okay, and nobody is claiming that it would! All I’m claiming is that it wouldn’t mean that the religion itself is intrinsically bad.
What about 5, or 10, or 20%? 50%?
No, of course it wouldn’t be okay, and nobody is claiming that it would! All I’m claiming is that it wouldn’t mean that the religion itself is intrinsically bad.
When do people of good will stand up and say “No, this fundamentalism is wrong and must be stopped.”?
Im-fucking-mediately, of course! And my point is, as I’ve been telling DR, that many Muslims of good will are saying exactly that, as are many of the rest of us who aren’t anti-Muslim.
I don’t see much standing up to the evil of Islamic fundamentalism, it’s seemingly all about “acceptance” and “cultural diversity” and other assorted nonsense.
Who on earth is saying that we can’t oppose extremist Islamic fundamentalism, or point out and condemn its evils, just as we should do with the extremist fundamentalism of any other religion?!? Not me, and I never have!
All I’ve been saying is that I don’t believe that any religion as a whole should be condemned as intrinsically evil because of the evils done by extremist fundamentalists in that religion’s name. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Hinduism, not any religion as a whole.
Shit, milroyj, if your real point is simply that people should condemn the evils of fundamentalist bigotry and violence, then there’s no actual disagreement here, and I’ve wasted a lot of time I could have put to better uses. Bye.
OK, I hesitate to bring up this example since it’s so hackneyed BUT . . .
A religion is akin to a very specific type of ideology, right?
And all ideologies have extremist factions and moderate factions among their members, right?
And if I understand your argument correctly, you can never issue a wholesale condemnation of a particular religion, and by extension any other general ideology, because there will always be extremists who would unfairly smear the position of the moderates.
OK then, what if (deep breath) you went back to 1938 and found that there were actually there were some fairly moderate Nazis in Germany before the war? Would you say that Naziism as a whole could not be fairly condemned since the concentration camps and all that were not fully endorsed by all members of the party, and indeed some would have spoken out against it (if, of course, they wouldn’t have been immediately shot).
Or take any other extreme example of religious or ideological kookiness. Was the religion of the Aztecs beyond reproof because not all Aztecs approved of ripping the still beating hearts out of sacrificial victims? Should MacArthur refrained from dismantling the rituals of State Shintoism in Japan since not all WWII era Japanese were kamikaze pilots?
Your most fundamental argument seems to boil down to an assertion that no religion can ever be criticized as a religion. It looks like we’re just one more step from slipping into the abyss of moral relativism where nothing can ever be asserted at all.
DR: Your most fundamental argument seems to boil down to an assertion that no religion can ever be criticized as a religion.
No, not at all. Plenty of people criticize religions whose teachings violate their own principles: e.g., Hindus might criticize Christianity or Judaism or Islam for permitting animal slaughter. Or some might criticize a charismatic cult for not permitting any questioning of the teachings of the Leader. Or we might–and I for one certainly do—criticize certain groups within the Wahhabi and certain other sects of Islam for promoting violence against non-Muslims.
As I’ve been saying, though, there are some caveats:
(a) don’t use a double standard—if you blame Islam for the homophobic bigotry of a Muslim, you have to blame Christianity for the homophobic bigotry of a Christian; and
(b) don’t be sloppy about the designations you’re using—don’t condemn “Catholicism” as a whole if you’re upset about Opus Dei, or “Protestantism” as a whole if you’re really just complaining about Christian Reconstruction theocrats, or “Islam” as a whole if what’s bothering you is some particular Nigerian group of Sunni fundamentalists.
Adding to what milroyj wrote, the Arab population is less than .5%. Close to 100% are Muslim.
The attempts on this thread to justify ordinary bigotry with a semblance of rational argument are disgusting.
Am I permitted to blame Islam for explicitly endorsing violence against non-Muslims, both in its sacred texts (which AFAIK the New Testament has never done) and in the speeches of its mainstream leaders (which hasn’t been the case for at least a couple of hundred years, again AFAIK)?
What’s “bothering” me is the deaths of 3,000 Americans and other nationalities in New York and Washington, 200+ Australians and others in Bali, whoever knows how many dozens or scores in Nigeria, numerous schoolkids and other deliberately targeted noncombatants in Israel, at least of couple of rape victims sentenced to stoning in Sudan, untold hundreds or thousands of women and homosexuals persecuted in the theocracies of Iran and Taliban Afghanistan . . . good Lord, what does it take for us to acknowledge a backward, autocratic, and implicitly or explicity murderous ideology for what it is? Yes, there are many moderate Muslims out there who offer some hope for Islam to bring itself out of the Middle Ages as Christianity–and the larger Western culture–did a couple of centuries ago, and more power to them. But in the meantime, what are we supposed to think?
DOPEFEST AT STEPHI’S PLACE ! 
DR: Am I permitted to blame Islam for explicitly endorsing violence against non-Muslims, both in its sacred texts
I’d say that falls into the “sloppy designations” category. Most Muslims don’t recognize those passages of the Qur’an as endorsing violence against non-Muslims just for being non-Muslims, but rather against the non-Muslims of Muhammad’s time who tried to violently suppress Islam.
*(which AFAIK the New Testament has never done) *
Isn’t that a bit of a weasel? Christians accept the Old Testament as a sacred text, you know, and of course so do Jews. The Old Testament is plenty explicit about endorsing violence against non-believers, but most Christians and Jews do not interpret that as an endorsement of violence against non-believers in general nowadays.
and in the speeches of its mainstream leaders (which hasn’t been the case for at least a couple of hundred years, again AFAIK)?
It hasn’t? I just cited popular evangelist Pat Robertson’s endorsement of the Christian Reconstructionist ideal that would include capital punishment for pagans and homosexuals.
But in the meantime, what are we supposed to think?
It appears that what you want to think is that Islamic extremist violence and bigotry are representative of Islam as a whole. What do you know about any other aspects of Islam, other than what I’ve just told you? Have you ever talked to actual Muslims about what they believe Islam teaches?
What you seem to know is that there are lots of fundamentalist Muslims in poor and unstable countries, and that some of them commit violent acts in the name of Islam. (The fact that Hindus and Christians commit religious violence in India and Northern Ireland doesn’t seem to get as much of your attention.) And you know that some of the Islamic fundamentalists even form terrorist groups that have committed horrible mass murders.
And that upsets you, and you want it to change. And so do I. And I don’t think your insistence on using it to justify a blanket condemnation of Islam as a whole is going to help it change.
Your “blaming Islam”, without qualifications, for Islamic-extremist violence and bigotry just lends legitimacy to the declarations of the violent fundamentalists who want their views to be seen as “mainstream” Islam. And it upsets the moderates who see it as ignorant Islam-bashing.
Ignorance and animosity and sweeping condemnations, IMHO, just further the aims of violent extremists whose ideologies thrive on misunderstanding and demonization.
But if being able to “blame Islam” as a whole is more important to you than furthering the mutual understanding between peaceful people of good will that will help moderates change the evils within Islam today—well, there’s not really anything I or anyone else can do to change that. You seem to be saying “Hey, I can call them a backward, autocratic, and implicitly or explicitly murderous ideology until they fix the bad stuff.” Whatever. Have fun.
Sure, Kimstu, there are Muslim moderates, but their silence is quite deafening.
Yes, we shouldn’t condemn a religion outright, but what happens when the adherents of said religion become the majority of the evil-doers?
If only 38.2% of Nazis took part in the concentration camps, or supported those who did, would that have been ok?
Does this go up to … eleven?
Let’s pretend that Islam is an inherently bad religion that advocates violence. It still does not follow that every bad act committed by a Muslim is motivated by his religion. Only a bigot would jump to the conclusion that there is a connection between the two. There is no way you can provide any rational support for your position. Trying to engage in a debate on this issue is no different than trying to convince a white supremacist that all races are equal.
After saying that here I go engaging in a debate…
For those who have made comparisons with Nazis: Would you assume that an individual German who commits a crime is motivated by Nazism?
I admit that I’ve never read more than a few passages of the Koran, and I am relying on the reports of others. All the same, I’m told that the passages are there, whether they’re “recognized” or not. Would you concede that the New Testament–which, and correct me if I’m wrong, is largely held by among Christians to supersede the strictures of the Old Testament–differs in that it doesn’t specifically recommend that individual believers take it upon themselves to kill anyone?
Oh, please–weasel yourself much? The links you threw out said nothing about Pat Robertson endorsing this supposed conspiratorial agenda. And even if he did, can you produce any quote by Robertson, Falwell, or whoever you most like to vilify, explicitly endorsing and encouraging murderers? Something on the order of this quote, for example?
And finally,
Well, if I had lived in Europe in the Middle Ages I hope I would have condemned the actions of the Church back then just as strongly. The difference seems to lie in the fact that Christianity and Western civilization underwent a self-correction in the form of Reformation and subsequent evolution. If Christianity and the West hadn’t fixed the “bad stuff”, they would indeed merit condemnation as a dysfunctional civilization–if indeed it hadn’t collapsed by now.
No, but–and note that I did NOT say that Islam is inherently evil like Naziism–wouldn’t it be easier for an individually rotten individual to carry out his schemes if they aligned with the goals of of a generally rotten ideology?
Jeez, what a trainwreck. As fascinating as the racial and religious makeup of Somalia is, could y’all get back to the OP?
Unfortunately, I’ve got very little SDMB time these days, but I had to respond to this. Stephi, you and your co-tenants ought to stay right were you are and deal with the situation head-on. You need to get the co-op manager involved and have a co-op wide meeting, at which Ms. Somalia is required to attend. At this meeting, you need to have a presentation of the basic rules of decent behavior, an outline of the required level of tolerance and a discussion of her comments. If she is unwilling to conform her behavior to the minimum standards, then y’all need to invite her to find a new place to live.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh, but if you and your co-tenants can’t confront these outrageous attitudes in the supportive environment of a co-op, you’re not going to be able to deal with them anywhere.
You’d probably be doing her a favour as well. Let’s face it, Somalian refugees are not exactly on the cutting edge of modern liberal multiculturalism. Western – especially North American – ideas of tolerance aren’t something anyone’s is born with, they have to be learned – and you guys get the job of starting her education.
It seems you have not understood the analogy.
Germans are to Muslims as
Nazis are to violent, extremist Muslims as
a German jerk is to a Muslim jerk
Truthseeker, I totally agree with you. They should not move out. And the rest of this thread has nothing to do with the OP.