You believe Muslims are scary, dangerous people
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 17:06
VIEWED: 9833
PAGE 6 of 14
Separation of church and state is a necessary ideal for true expression of freedom, no matter what country you are in. Lack of demonstration of that ideal is indicitive of intent to obsessively dominate others, which I associate with mental illness...
Ultimately, their society can run however it runs, but only an idiot wants to be told how and what to believe...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
You cannot legislate what a person will believe; the most you can do is attempt to brainwash them.
I feel the Middle East would have more peace and unity with separation of church and state. They are familiar with
the concept, but it is hard for most of them to conceive of such a change as harmonious with their faith.
I think we should get out of there and let the idea percolate.
It works for the Turks.
It must be terribly hard to export our notions of freedom and human rights when we do not practice it there.
What's your answer, MD?
I don't really have any answers. I have beliefs, and most of those are pretty contradictory.
One of the biggest mistakes that America and other western nations makes is that it assumes that other cultures think the same way and want the same thing, ie others want what we want. I don't think just think this is not true, I think it is dangerous thinking on our behalf.
Truthfully, I don't think America gives a fat rats arse about democracy, freedom,equality or any other ideal commonly espoused when it comes to other countries. It cares about being rich and powerful. It wants compliance in other countries so that it can continue to be rich and powerful. In this way, it is like any other power. In the grand scheme of things I'd rather see the US the world power rather than China, but I also recognise that power doesn't get achieved by niceness.
so what I would like to see happen is that our respective countries both follow paths of separation of religion and state, that we practice tolerance of other cultures so long as those cultural practises do not clash with the law. I'd like to see trade relations and international relations consider treatment of citizens of a particular country when considering market viability. I'd like to see countries and individuals support organisations that foster good treatment of citizens, such as amnesty internation, medicine san frontiers, equality now and other international organisations that lobby and intervene when horrondeous acts are carried out by governments. I'd support international pressure being placed upon countries that have do not treat citizens humanely, and most of all I'd like my country to treat people fleeing tryanny with compassion and welcome them rather than the shocking treatment they currently receive.
Apart from that, I'd like to encourage people to separate out the people who carry out fanatical acts from the general ideology/religion and not condemn wholesale groups of people unless they support said acts.
eg if someone shoots a doctor, then I don't criticise all Christians. I condemn the act, and I condemn those who support and encourage such actions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I belive your beliefs are well thought out. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote WishImay: "Ultimately, their society can run however it runs, but only an idiot wants to be told how and what to believe..."
My US History teacher would disagree. (It's been over 50 years, so this may not be exactly what he said.)
It was the Korean War (1952?). North Korea had some American prisoners. They used brainwashing techniques on them.
They separated out the men who had leadership ability and/or were capable of reasoning. The remaining men were simply
taught a lot of US History that isn't taught in Our high schools ... all the bad stuff: scandals, lynchings, robber barons,
suppression, injustices, etc. They systematically undermined the men's pride in the USA. It worked, too.
There was a lot more to it, but here is my point. How many men had to be removed from "general population" in order
for this to work? Only 10%.
Perhaps most of us are Idiots.
Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What do you all think of these comments? These were from a high-level Clinton administration official regarding Iraq, our former significant threat at about the time that sanctions were imposed:
Quote:
Today, I had a chance to meet with a number of key partners and allies in preparation for tomorrow’s conference. This meeting comes on the heels of the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly, which condemned the Saddam regime’s widespread and systematic violations of human rights...
Iraq will be an important opportunity to begin turning international consensus into action. We look forward to concrete progress on three fronts: providing humanitarian relief, increasing pressure on the regime, and preparing for a democratic transition. To that end, we hope to see new pledges of emergency assistance for Iraqis caught in Saddam's stranglehold and international coordination and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad to convince it to allow humanitarian aid to those who need it most. We also expect additional nations to impose effective sanctions against the regime, and we look to all countries to aggressively implement the measures they have already adopted.
Finally, we hope to hear from the Iraqi opposition about their vision for a post-Saddam Iraq that is governed by the rule of law and respects and protects the universal rights of every citizen regardless of religion, ethnicity, sect, or gender, because, after all, we must never lose sight of what this is about: a regime making war on its own people, families suffering in cities under siege, a nation brought to the brink of chaos. And that is what we will discuss tomorrow.
...
as I’ve said, the efforts that we are undertaking with the international community are intended to demonstrate Saddam's deepening isolation and the resolve of a vast majority of nations to support the Iraqi people in their demand that the violence end, that the suffering be addressed, that the democratic transition begin.
So tomorrow, we will be discussing a range of options, from tightening sanctions to increasing humanitarian relief to helping the opposition – to be able to strengthen their position as the voice of so many Iraqis whose voices cannot be heard right now. But this takes time and it takes a lot of diplomacy, old-fashioned outreach, dialogue, planning that we’ve been doing now for several weeks which we continued in meetings today. But I think there is a great resolve and commitment and there is an openness to exploring what can work.
I would like you to read the above statement closely, as it provides the justification of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States committed a great deal of violence against ordinary Iraqi people, from the implementation of sanctions to the Shock and Awe campaign which initiated the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that our violence against Iraqi people vastly overwhelms the violence of Muslims against the West, with hundreds of thousands dead on our side of the ledger versus tens of thousands on theirs. And our violence is to proselytize OUR religion, albeit a secular one, which is a belief in capitalistic democracy. A belief which, despite the best efforts of rappy, geezer et al had never been shown to further the interests of MOST of the participants in the system, but which grossly benefits a very small and select few.
So, what do you think of the statement?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to sidestep the question that I asked in the previous post... give it a little time to marinade... and continue along another line of questioning:
What is it, exactly, that "we" find so threatening about a Muslim government?
Imagine that our nation is now under Sharia law. Muslims hold power, and our laws follow the Q'uran.
For most women, I suppose the downside is pretty clear: Having grown up in a society in which women are (in theory, anyway) the legal equal of men... with a vote, the right to drive and hold a job, to own property and get educated, to choose a husband and control fertility... having that level of control over one's personal future taken away would be a devastating reversal of fortune. Underlying that response are a number of assumptions: people should be able to control their future, everyone should have an equal chance in a competitive society, and so forth. However, there are STILL many critical aspects of one's life which are NOT under control: the assurance that one can keep a decent-paying job if one is performing satisfactorily, the right not to get ripped off by the company that you work for, the control over the work pace and stress in one's life, the assurance that illness will be covered... so while there are certain areas of control that women would be loathe to give up (and rightly so) there are STILL critical areas... areas on which one's survival depends... where one is dominated and controlled by others which are accepted as "normal". Because this kind of domination is so much unnoticed, it doesn't rankle. Why not?
For most Christians (which is most people in the USA) this would be a religious problem... the inability to worship the religion of one's upbringing, and the imposition of a foreign god (no matter IMHO that all gods are foreign) and foreign theocracy.
But then we have these secular males... rappy and geezer... who theoretically have NO beef with Islam. As males, the religion protects them. As atheists... or at least agnostics... the assumption that one religion (Islam) rules versus the assumption that another religion (Xtianity) rules should be about as meaningless as a conflict between Zeus and Jove.
So, what IS the problem, really?
I'm not asking this rhetorically- I really want to know.
Does the thought of bowing to Mecca five times a day trouble you? If you don't believe in religion, it should bother you no more than saying "one nation under God..." or seeing "in God We Trust" on our money, or hearing every speech end with "... and God bless America".
Is it the thought of having automatic authority over women which pegs the needle at "intolerable"? Or the raw homophobia of Sharia law?
Is it the sense of nationalism? That our nation should belong to us, and our traditions and our history? Or would it be the new way of doing business, the overturning of one hierarchy for another... a hierarchy in which one might not have much chance of success? Or the demolishing of capitalism altogether?
This issue seems like a bad toothache... it's unbearable SOMEWHERE, but exactly where, I don't know. I can think of lots of possibilities, but I'm most especially curious about the people who speak out the most strongly against Islam... I would appreciate it greatly if you could probe around where it hurts the most, and let me know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But then we have these secular males... rappy and geezer... who theoretically have NO beef with Islam. As males, the religion protects them. As atheists... or at least agnostics... the assumption that one religion (Islam) rules versus the assumption that another religion (Xtianity) rules should be about as meaningless as a conflict between Zeus and Jove.
So, what IS the problem, really?
I'll skip the false equivalency portion of the question and just answer this.
Also, I'm going to assume you mean a full-blown, medieval-on-your-ass, ultra-fundamentalist, hand-chopping, honor-killing, adulteress-stoning, "If you're not our sect, you're an un-clean infidel" version of Sharia law, since in trying to develop your false equivalence between Sharia law and the U.S., you'd use the worst version of Sharia possible.
First, I'd have a problem with the treatment of women under Sharia law. The fact that it might not affect me personally is no reason to accept it.
Second, I'd have a problem with the treatment of Christians and Jews (and other faiths) under Sharia law. Just because I don't follow their faiths is no reason for me to wish them to be persecuted.
Third, I doubt that adherents of Sharia law, it being religious law, would look favorably on athiests and agnostics. Probably less favorably (if that's possible) than on infidels of other beliefs.
I'd probably also miss little things like freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom to read or watch what I want, some form of democracy (no matter how imperfect), and stuff like that.
And bacon. And pork chops. And booze.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Perhaps most of us are Idiots.
And THAT is the single best argument against allowing anyone to impose anything on anyone else...
As to the brainwashings, I find most people are unequal to the task of regulating what goes on in their own heads...don't mean people WANT to be brainwashed- they are just too vacant to help it.
Hmm. Bacon,boobs,booze! I could see that being a good battlecry
(Hubbs doesn't like pork chops 
)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Select to view spoiler:
I believe in God, and call myself a Christian. However, under the rules of Islam, I could probably be prosecuted for many of the opinions I've posted on this site. The lack of freedom of speech would be the first and worst casualty of Islamic law.
I'd probably not have a job, and neither would my wife. I'm fairly sure that the business we work for is not compliant with Islamic law.
Even if I had a job, even if the business I work for was allowed to function somehow, it seems doubtful that my wife would have her job and position. This would be a problem, because she is the smarter, more ambitious person in this marriage. She has the drive to succeed and improve herself, whereas I merely want to survive. This has made her the high-income earner and most educated person, the most likely to succeed.
Under Islamic law, she would be held back by customs regarding women and men. If she could still work doing something similar to what she does now, it would be in a position of less authority and consequently less pay. Her ambition and talents would be wasted, and my family would suffer.
If I survived prosecution for the things I say, I have friends, valued friends, who would most certainly be executed for their crimes of speech. These are people who do not have the capacity to contain their true feelings because they feel them so strongly. Such people, and their opinions, could not be tolerated.
So I'd have a ruined financial situation, I'd have to see a loved one hobbled due to societal custom, a personal threat of incarceration for speaking my mind, and the loss of valued friends.
I don't drink, but I'd definitely miss pork products (as another poster above me) because eating pigs is practically as much a Cuban custom as speaking Spanish. Actually moreso in my case.
Of course, this fun little intellectual game of 'what if we were under Sharia Law' is interesting, but I'm not sure how it applies to the question at hand.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME