I’ve thought that the coining of the term homophobic was a masterstroke of propaganda.
Are you suggesting that there is not a difference between the US and a typical Muslim-majority country?
I do not agree with your premise that “Trump’s America” is equivalent to a typical Muslim-majority nation. You have simply invented de novo what you think it would be, and pretended it would be the same.
The fact is, this nation is not the same, by culture or law, and while you may think it would be if “Trump supporters” got their way, that’s just an idle supposition on your part.
It’s pretty easy to find broad themes within the vast majority of Muslim-majority nations:
- Support for Sharia
- Oppression of free thought and independent thinking wherever that free thought and independent thinking are in opposition to Islam
- Homophobia and oppression of women, where those groups have a much higher hill to climb to find equality
- Separation of church and state
- A practical approach that Islamic ideals and not secular ideals, should be taught and executed as prime values, and that all other considerations, including secular governance, should be considered subject to Islam
Maybe liberals are capable of understanding things conservatives aren’t capable of understanding.
And what would the people who don’t agree with these themes do? Try to leave and go to a country which does believe in these things.
We welcomed refugees fleeing from oppressive regimes like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, and North Korea. Why shouldn’t we accept refugees fleeing from oppressive Islamic regimes?
As compared to the number of Americans who are firmly convinced that all American laws, especially the Constitution, are based on the Bible?
And those “Evolution is just a theory/Teach the debate/Creation Science/Intelligent Design” stickers required on science textbooks in some places in the United States don’t have a blame thing to do with stifling ideas in opposition to what their proponents consider to be in opposition to Christianity?
Glass ceiling. No women in combat. A woman’s place is in the home. Any of that ring a bell with you? And those are just a few of the comments I’ve heard recently, comments which should have been outdated well before the 1950s.
And all those evangelicals in the US who are touting “SOCAS is not in the Constitution” aren’t saying that for a hypothetical in a school debate. They’re doing it because they want the government to force their religion on everyone else.
Repeat that entire sentence but change “Islamic” to “Christian” and “Islam” to “Christianity”. That’s pretty much what a fair portion of the US population wants. And those idiots got a man who promised that, basically, into the White House.
Look, I’m not worried about Islamic Sharia gaining ground in the US. What worries me is how far Christian Sharia has already gotten and how much further it will get in the very near future.
Soviet Union: Didn’t appear to be that many refugees from there. Geographical concerns, you know. Also, those refugees who managed to get out were, well, white folks.
Nazi Germany: Those refugees who managed to get in before the gates were shuttered were, well, white folks.
Red China: Again, not all that many. Geographical concerns, you know.
Cuba: Geography was a two-edged sword for those fleeing this country. And there was already a large community in the US to assist them. Oh, and not all of the refugees were non-white Cubans.
North Korea: Refugees from that country are basically a trickle compared to any other wave of refugees.
Finally: People don’t look at folks who fled the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, and North Korea as Muslims. Look “like a Muslim” and you’re screwed, evidently.
Forgot to mention something: Refugees from Vietnam (“boat people”) were welcomed by the government, not so welcomed by quite a portion of the people in the US. And they sure as hell didn’t “look Muslim”.
The parents are in the main not fundamentalist, I agree, but paradoxically it’s the children of those parents that often become radicalized even though they may have spent much of their lives in the West. It’s difficult to see a reason for this as despite the constant cries of Islamophobia it’s still uncommon in the US and most American Muslims lead happy and productive lives in the country.
That, right there is the whole problem, you see people on an opposite side of your ideological spectrum agreeing with you on something and instead of seizing the opportunity of using this common ground to make something positive the political calculations take precedence.
That’s how people lose the plot and end up doing and supporting things that directly, or indirectly work against what the ideals they espouse, for example this case:
Now that’s what I call losing the plot in the name of “political expediency”, bad enough in and of itself as an individual case, but as it’s pointed further down in the article:
“The behavior of concealing the truth about such incidents or not revealing the true identity of the attackers “in fact is precisely what provokes public indignation,” Christian Pfeiffer, the former head of the Lower Saxony Criminology Research Institute in Hannover, told Germany’s Die Welt after the wave of Cologne sex attacks on New Year’s Eve.”
Luckily, I didn’t say any of the things that in your opinion would make me a hypocrite.
But the people who are pilloried for being Islamophobes did. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t try squishing your feet in there so hard.
The children of Muslim immigrants to the USA follow a stricter version of Islam than their parents? I am very curious about rhis particular question. Where did you get this information from?
There are a lot of reasons why people emigrate. The notion that people who emigrate from Islamic countries do so primarily because they disagree with the aspects of that county’s culture that are antithetical to Western values needs actual support and shouldn’t just be assumed.
Threads like this are depressing because they highlight how many unwitting allies ISIS can rely on to support them in the West. Time and time again when Islam is discussed you’ll see a procession of well-meaning innocents line up to trot out the same hoary propaganda without any consideration for the hard practicalities. It would be better if people could worry less about their emotional reaction to the debate and focus instead on simple facts and rationality. Instead, people seem to fall over themselves to lend aid to the extremists.
Chief Pedant, Fotheringay-Phipps, and a few others seem to have taken it on themselves to broadcast ISIS propaganda, presumably in support of their shared worldview. The first rule of a propaganda war is “Don’t agree with the enemy” and yet this thread is full of people falling over themselves to do so. A quick Agree/Disagree test
“Islam and Western values are fundamentally opposed”
“Only extreme Islam is true Islam”
“All Muslims must be political Islamists”
“All Muslims must live under Sharia Law”
“Islam must drive out free thought”
“Moderate Muslims are not true Muslims”
If you agree with these statements, you agree with the extremists. You are nodding along with ISIS. They have an *existential *need to frame the world as a hardline us vs them struggle in which compromise is doctrinally impossible. You are submitting to this framework without apparent thought. If they are treated as a fringe group of deluded fantasists their power shrinks. If they are treated as the standard bearers of purest Islam their power grows. Why are you ceding so much ground to them? Why are you acting in their interests? Why are you siding with them against the Muslims who think the above statements are a load of bollocks? You are handing the people you claim to oppose a major propaganda victory in a conflict where propaganda plays a major role. Why are you letting yourselves be suckered in to their bullshit?
I was discussing religion with a couple of ex-muslim friends a few days ago, they agree that Islam in particular (and other religions in general) are backward… an opinion which in their home country could have them convicted for blasphemy which carries a maximum penalty of death; in that case I wouldn’t qualify it as neither healthy or wholesome. :eek:
Yes. The important conflict isn’t between West and East, or Islam and Christianity/the-West, but rather those who want a global religious/ideological war, and those who do not. Frank Gaffney/Pam Gellar/David Duke/Steve Bannon are on the same side as ISIS and Al Qaeda – they want a big giant conflict to sort everything out once and for all.
We should oppose those folks, and be on the “no global conflict/war” side. Emphasizing that it’s entirely possible (and is demonstrated in many communities in the US like Dearborn, MI) to be Muslim and both welcome in America and patriotic and completely simpatico with American ideals and values.
How do you know we’re “unwitting” allies of ISIS? Maybe we’re witting allies, secret ISIS supporters, cleverly undermining the West and moderate Muslims with our carefully crafted propaganda.
Of course, there are always a few exceptionally perceptive observers such as yourself who can see through and appreciate what we’re really doing. But most people are not as intelligent as you are and the tactic is very successful.
Hahaha … Death to the Infidels!
Well, I considered that option of course. Then I realised that as long as you were running around spewing extremist propaganda, it didn’t really matter what your motives were. But sure, humour me and work me through it:
ISIS tell everyone that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. You tell everyone that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. ISIS tell everyone that anything less than absolutist, fundamentalist, theocratic Islam is false Islam. You tell everyone that anything less than absolutist, fundamentalist, theocratic Islam is false Islam. ISIS tell western Muslims that they’ll never be trusted or accepted. You tell western Muslims that they’ll never be trusted or accepted. And then…?
I’m not sure how much interest I have in discussing this as a serious topic, as I think it’s a completely specious argument.
In brief, for purposes of this discussion I - unlike ISIS - have zero interest in whether “Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy” or any of your other points. The only thing that interests me is whether a lot of Muslims think “Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy” etc. etc.
IOW, this discussion is not about Islamic theology and how it relates to these various issues, but what the practical ramifications are of having many people who believe these things in the country.
It works the other way too, I think – if most Americans think Islam is fundamentally incompatible with America, then I think we’re in big trouble and on our way to a major and likely violent conflict (within our borders and elsewhere) – therefore we should very reasonably be interested in combating this idea.