[QUOTE=Miller]
Am I exagerating it? You’re the one drawing comparisons between Ellison and Muslim terrorists. You’re the one who keeps saying we can’t be sure what Ellison’s beliefs really are, or how much of an extremist he is, or how he feels about killing Americans. If what I wrote is a gross exageration of your fears, what exactly are your fears? What is your worst-case scenario in electing Ellison to Congress?
[/QUOTE]
That we are loosing yet one more aspect of the common denominator that helps define the American culture. The more pluralistic we become, the fewer and fewer of these things we have and the more important each of them become. Holding onto the ones tied to our own history seem to be important, and, to me, the* least *controversial.
[QUOTE=Miller]
No, that’s not ever going to happen. Not if we let people like you get your way. If your attitude became the standard for Americans, what Muslim in his right mind would want to be a part of this country?
[/QUOTE]
Those who see that, for whatever reason (and I’m not sure we can isolate it, or them) the American experiment is the best society the world has yet seen. It certainly is the best one today, by my estimation anyway. I think that is why most people come here. They can live better than they can anywhere else. We have a history of welcoming people, and a foundation of religious tolerance. Taking advantage of that while recognizing that America, too, has a distinct culture, and respecting it, doesn’t seem like a lot to ask.
[QUOTE=Miller]
You know, that’s not altogether a bad point. I made pretty much exactly that point to you not long ago, in that thread about electing atheists to political office. At the time, you insisted that having religious faith - any religious faith, as I recall - was better than having none, because someone who believes in God is less likely to break their word, as they have to worry about God’s retribution for being a liar, as well as the secular repurcussions. I made exactly the same argument you’ve made here: electing people who believe in God is more dangerous than electing atheists, because of the danger of split loyalties. Glad to see that you’ve come around on that issue, at least.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, well done, Miller, but it’s not quite the same, for two reasons: 1) The other debate had nothing to do with oaths or tradition or symbolism, if I recall correctly. It dealt purely with personal convictions. My main point, which I relegated to strong atheism, had to do with not having to answer to a higher power. 2) the religion I am giving a pass to here is not something being injected, or added. It is part of the culture, so much so that it often goes unnoticed.
Now, would barring religion from the discussion make things cleaner? Absolutely. But that is not the only yardstick to consider.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Okay, so this was an advertisment. What do you think Ellison was trying to sell us?
[/QUOTE]
I think he was trying to degrade our sense of self by redefining our political culture as embracing the Koran. It as as anathema to the founding (which the pomp and circumstance he appropriated stems from) as Dianetics. And as I’ve stated numerous times, the fact that Jefferson owned the book does not support his position one iota. If anything, based on the problems Jefferson had with the “Musselmen” who terroized America in his day and he went to war with, I’d say that Jefferson had great problems with the Koran. I mean, he had problems with the bible to the point that he excised large portions of it. I can only imagine the esteem he had for Islam. I searched for Jefferson’s actual views on Islam but was unsuccessful. There was one quote from the book I mention below, but it seemed to be out of context. I just ordered it,Jefferson’s War, by Joseph Wheelan, to see if it sheds any light.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Do we want to win Muslims over to the Enlightment ideals of democracy and a pluralistic society?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. But a pluralistic society needn’t forfeit their history or traditions. I’d argue that the more pluralistic the soiciety the more necessary that shared history, heritage, and tradition become. Now maybe we have different ideas of a pluralistic society. I’d venture to say that mine would encourage/require more assimilation than yours.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Or do we just try and wipe them all out? Because I’m not really seeing a middle path in this particular issue, and since I’m not really up to killing over a billion people, I’d much prefer the former strategy. I’m assuming you agree, so perhaps you can show me how telling Muslims, “We don’t want your fucking holy book in our government,” advances assimilation, and not extremism?
[/QUOTE]
Have them understand that this is America. It’s not some anonymous piece of real estate for somone to come squat on. It’s a country with a history and a heritage that we (most of us) are quite prooud of. And for good reason. If you’d like to come be part of it, come. But you should not expect us to dispense with our own identity simply to make you, and the next immigrant group, and the next, and the next, feel more like you’re liviing in your own country. I cannot for the life of me see what is unreasonable with that. I also find it extremely ironic that the those who are most embracing of every other culture on the globe—never mind their respective merits—are the ones that are so blind or disrepectful of our own.
[QUOTE=Miller]
No, he’s advancing his own interpretation of Jefferson’s life and writings, just as you do below. What you’re doing here is exactly what you complain about liberals doing to you on these boards: attacking a person’s character because he has a different opinion about something that is, ultimatly, not verfiable fact.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But I think the case for Ellison’s divination of Jefferson’s relationship to the Koran is ridiculous. As I mentioned, based on his experience with Muslims and his problems with the bible, I doubt he held the book in high esteem. But you are correct, I do not know. But I am looking into the matter.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Those are pretty piss-poor comparisons. We all drive on the right side of the road and pay income tax because if we didn’t, we’d have immediate slaughter on the roadways, and social collapse as the infrastructure of the country disintegrated from lack of funds.
[/QUOTE]
That’s why they are good examples. They show the advantage of degree of conformity. Just because that ther results wouldn’t be “immediate” as in traffic laws, doesn’t mean that the result wouldn’t be harmful to soiciety. Let’s say you’re driving an M5 on 280 on an empty road doing 90mph. You get pulled over and get a ticket, right? Not necessarily because you are endangering anyone at that particular time. You’re car can easily handle it, the road can handle it, you’re sober so you can handle it. Yet, society makes you conform because not ticketing you would encourage you to do it more and eventually, something bad may happen.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Claiming that Jefferson stood for religious tolerance taints his reputation? That’s a pretty telling comment.
[/QUOTE]
Nice. Obvioulsy I meant claiming that he read a book that contains such anti-enlightenment ideals and he embraced it as he would Aristotle, Locke, Hume, etc.
[QUOTE=Miller]
In other words, he’s not allowed to be both a Muslim and a congressman, which means that you were lying earlier when you said you didn’t have a problem with having Muslims elected to high office.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
Isn’t that at odds with your demand that he keep his religion out of government?
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Why can’t he be a congressman by day and a Muslim by night. Isn’t that precidely your position whan it comes to any office holder and their religion? Again, wariness of a religion that is responsible for the violence against us—especially when those responsible hold up the Koran as the reason for said violence—seems to be wise.
Now there really are two different issues here and I think it benefits us to be aware of that. One is whatever benefit there would be to everyone swearing on a bible as far as the continuance of tradition. The other is the degree of scrutiny a book other than the bible (default) merits. In this regard, someone wanting to swear on a Hindu or Buddhist holy book would cause much less of a flap than the Koran. And rightly so. Now if another religion pops up and starts killing thousands and uses their holy book as rationale, they’d move to the top of the list, too.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Since he’s correct in both of those stances, I’d say that those would both be bad moves for him to make.
[/QUOTE]
We’ll just let this attempt at a joke pass. 
[QUOTE=Miller]
How do you feel about the Japanese internment during WWII? I ask, because it seems there’s a certain degree of similarity in the two situations. We were at war with Japan, Japan had killed thousands of Americans, and planned to kill more. Were we right, in your view, to suspect everyone American of Japanese ancestry as potential traitors? Does the fact that no Japanese American traitors were ever found alter your view at all?
[/QUOTE]
First, let’s clarify. Not all Japanese were interred. The oones that were were from the west coast, where the governement feared the Japenese might assist the enemy. They were first asked if they had people they could go to in the midwest or east coast. Second, they were not looking only to potential traitors. Some Japanese did hold an allegiance to Japan and not America, so I wouldn’t call them traitors. Third, when the piliot of a downed plane in Hawaii was captured by a local, two Japanese immigrants living on the island freed him at gun point. So, it was not without cause that the idea was even floated. Also, and I add this because it is left out of most discussions on the subject, there were also thousands of Germans and Italians interred, as well, but from the east coast, where the threat was greatest (German submarines, etc.)
Now, I’ve thought about this quite a lot and do not know where I come out. I know that anything but condemming Roosevelt’s order is very unpopular. But I see why he did it. I see what was at stake. I see that, perhaps, Roosevelt, decided to err on the side of prudence. That said, I’ve read about the Japanese that were interred and my heart goes out to them. Having to uproot, sell everything off (for pennies on the dollar), and live in the camps was a nasty affair. But I’ve been unable to come to a conclusion for myself. I do not know what night have transpirted if that was not done.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Seriously, the guy ran on a platform as a liberal democrat, and your chief worry is that he’s a conservative Muslim? That’s not stupid, magellan. That’s flat out fucking insane.
[/QUOTE]
You use here the same false rationale here that he uses in the cite discussing gay marriage. Not once does he offer a moral argument in support of your position. He merely claims that that there are other issues more important to blacks. You may want to reread that article. And you may want to nail him down on what he actually believes concerning the issue itself. But back to your point here, just because there may be myriad other reasons one might oppose Ellison as a representative—much more important ones—that doesn’t mean one must remain mum on any issue that isn’t in the top 3, or 5, or 10. Especially when one is participating in a thread with the title that this one has.
Miller, I’ve noticed that you and others have gone back and edited your own posts. How do you do that?