Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

[Tambora]

No, of course not dimbo. I that what you think I meant?

The questions were to see if you had a good reason for not understanding the first thing about western Muslim culture. Or whether you are just blinded by the Fox News, alt-right hysterical bigotry.

Which is it? Have you made the effort to read past the manipulative TV bubble you watch to find the reality? Have you, at all, tried to engage with the real people you are demonizing? The Muslim American moms, dads, uncles and teenage grand children having their Sunday BBQs and going to work for American companies and paying their tax dollars?

How many do I need to talk to in order for it to be an acceptable number to you?
opcorn:

 

[Tambora]

And too many on these threads apparantly like to think of themselves as the third of those three.

There is...no reasoning with such.

So true.
But I still have a little hope for them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Much hysteria over nothing.

Famous last words.

So Chicken Little said.

 

[gcthomas]

How many do I need to talk to in order for it to be an acceptable number to you?
opcorn:

I've already moved on given your avoidance.

Have you made the effort to read past the manipulative TV bubble you watch to find the reality? Have you, at all, tried to engage with the real people you are demonizing? The Muslim American moms, dads, uncles and teenage grand children having their Sunday BBQs and going to work for American companies and paying their tax dollars?

 

[Tambora]

I've already moved on given your avoidance.

You mean because of the mootness of what you ask.

the manipulative TV bubble you watch to find the reality?

More assumption.

Have you, at all, tried to engage with the real people you are demonizing?

Yes.
Now what?

 

[Town Heretic]

YAY!
That wasn't so hard after all.

It shouldn't have been necessary. You knew the response you did give to the point wasn't to me and I'm not in the habit of monitoring every other conversation you're having on a point.

 

[gcthomas]

You mean because of the mootness of what you ask.

More assumption.


Yes.
Now what?

Did those Muslim women wear Burkas? Did the men escort their female relatives? What I mean, is were they Wahabbi Muslims from Saudi Arabia?

Or were they the normal, peaceful, local Muslims who mind their own business (and run them) like all those I know?

 

[exminister]

But it's not only MY way of thinking.
It's a whole lot of people thinking that way.

So you are for MOB RULE?

Why should you be allowed to tell me and all those others that we can't think this way?
Why are you trying to suppress us by turning against us, and telling us that it us that needs to change?

You are allowed to think the way you want. How does it feel to be suppressed? You don't like it,right?

The founding fathers set it up so that one had to confess a belief in GOD to hold any public office.

You know about the part there isn't a religious test to hold office, right? If MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, then your faith could be disqualified to hold office. Is that where you want it to go?

All you are doing is saying your thinking is correct and mine is wrong.
How is that any different from what I am doing?

I am not saying that. I am speaking for freedom of thought. It is how the Founding Fathers set up this great nation. I am sure you would have been angry with Thomas Jefferson who cut out all the Bible texts related to miracles. I expect you would have him locked up for it. Believing someone should be stoned or locked up because they don't think like you is wrong. And the reverse is true. The Founding Father's were revolutionary in this. It is so easy to individually think our way is the only way and all other ways of thinking should be persecuted. God established freedom first. Otherwise he would have made us all robots. It certainly would have been simpler.

Why is it wrong for me not to include your way of thinking, but it's right for you not to include my way of thinking?
You are doing the very thing you are complaining about me doing.

I am not excluding your way of thinking. I am embracing yours and mine. I see you selectively quote mined my previous post to make your point, so I will include it again.

What goes around comes around. If we don't allow freedom then yours can be taken away just as easily. It is hatred to only allow your way of thinking, which evolves into MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That is why the Europeans left and came to American. The bloody wars with Christian fighting Christian over points of doctrine. The founding fathers got sick of that and set up a free society to allow you to believe as you chose. I expect you to not get this as I played off your pie eating, baseball reference.

But what goes around comes around. How much do you love your faith/church? Want it to be outlawed?

 

[Tambora]

It shouldn't have been necessary. You knew the response you did give to the point wasn't to me and I'm not in the habit of monitoring every other conversation you're having on a point.

Well, next time, if I feel like it, I'll hold your hand so you don't get lost.

 

[exminister]

I got behind on this thread.

Muslim's who want to implement Sharia Law and take away rights of women (even their own) and nonbelievers is simply wrong. I don't know how trust-worthy Islam is to keep on the right side of following the laws of the U.S. They have not matured like Christianity who's history was not unlike what Islam is today. I don't like the Burka. It is demeaning. Beating wives for not submitting is vile. Theocracy is the wrong wherever it comes from. And many parts of Islam want that to be everywhere.

 

[Tambora]

So you are for MOB RULE?

Am I ???

You are allowed to think the way you want. How does it feel to be suppressed? You don't like it,right?

I'm not going to go out and start mob looting stores, wreaking personal property, shooting cops, crying all over facebook, jamming traffic with lame protest.

You know about the part there isn't a religious test to hold office, right? If MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, then your faith could be disqualified to hold office. Is that where you want it to go?

Do I ?

I am sure you would have been angry with Thomas Jefferson who cut out all the Bible texts related to miracles.

You're sure, huh?

I expect you would have him locked up for it.

Here it comes, get it all out.

Believing someone should be stoned or locked up because they don't think like you is wrong.

Well I'll be.

And the reverse is true. The Founding Father's were revolutionary in this. It is so easy to individually think our way is the only way and all other ways of thinking should be persecuted. God established freedom first. Otherwise he would have made us all robots. It certainly would have been simpler.

I have a pretty good suspicion that they would not approve of homo marriage or a flood of muslims or the murder of babies in the womb, etc.

I am not excluding your way of thinking. I am embracing yours and mine.

Sure, sure.
Me too.

I see you selectively quote mined my previous post to make your point, so I will include it again.

You do like to hear yourself.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, next time, if I feel like it, I'll hold your hand so you don't get lost.

I knew right where our conversation was, Tam. You appear to expect me to read every answer you make to anyone else as part of it. That's...daft.

So when you know you haven't answered a thing in ours, it's really on you to reference where you have if you're too tired to write what could be accomplished in a sentence.

I got behind on this thread.

Talking to Tam then.

Muslim's who want to implement Sharia Law and take away rights of women (even their own) and nonbelievers is simply wrong.

Noted, though there are Western Muslims who might argue against the inevitability of that being the case in every expression.

I don't know how trust-worthy Islam is to keep on the right side of following the laws of the U.S.

What's the track record? We've had Muslims here for a very long time. As a population, what's the general impression?

They have not matured like Christianity who's history was not unlike what Islam is today.

Is it possible that your impression rests on a limited exposure, that you're considering Islam on the whole by a knowledge rooted in media driven impressions of it in third world and non-western contexts?

I don't like the Burka.

:idunno: I'm not a fan of cowboy boots, but some people seem to like them. Look, I understand your reticence. We're a strongly individualistic culture and uniformity (outside of political beliefs) tends to make us suspicious and uncomfortable. But that's us. And it's really us in a more recent sense, as there have been fairly strong and uniform practices here as well for generations. A woman wearing pants would have caused a stir for much of our history and without religious belief attached, by way of illustration.

It is demeaning.

Not inherently. It's simply different.

Beating wives for not submitting is vile.

Agreed. Have you seen The Quiet Man? We are't long removed from that practice ourselves. Do you believe that's a common practice among Western Muslims?

Theocracy is the wrong wherever it comes from. And many parts of Islam want that to be everywhere.

Many to be sure, though the data among Westernized Muslims is encouraging.

 

[Tambora]

I don't know how trust-worthy Islam is to keep on the right side of following the laws of the U.S.

I would say next to nil.

I don't like the Burka. It is demeaning.

It is.
And it's impractical as all get out, and ridiculous looking to boot.
Not to mention downright ugly.

Beating wives for not submitting is vile.

Yep.
But at least you could get over a beating.
So they crank it up to slice and dice on ya, throwing acid on ya, or snuffing out your life in a painful horrid way.

Theocracy is the wrong wherever it comes from. And many parts of Islam want that to be everywhere.

That is the direction they have in mind.
Smiling at ya till they get there.


I mean, it's ISLAM for crying out loud!
Founded by one of the most vile creatures you could imagine ---- a murdering, deranged hallucinogenic drug user, child predator and rapist.
And then brainwashed his people to actually believe all that was noble and Godly.
Don't know why anyone would want that filth anywhere near them.

You know right away who has their head in the sand when you hear them say "Islam isn't so bad".

Don't give that filth any consideration, support, or approval.
Shun it at all cost.

 

[exminister]

Noted, though there are Western Muslims who might argue against the inevitability of that being the case in every expression.


What's the track record? We've had Muslims here for a very long time. As a population, what's the general impression?


Is it possible that your impression rests on a limited exposure, that you're considering Islam on the whole by a knowledge rooted in media driven impressions of it in third world and non-western contexts?


:idunno: I'm not a fan of cowboy boots, but some people seem to like them. Look, I understand your reticence. We're a strongly individualistic culture and uniformity (outside of political beliefs) tends to make us suspicious and uncomfortable. But that's us. And it's really us in a more recent sense, as there have been fairly strong and uniform practices here as well for generations. A woman wearing pants would have caused a stir for much of our history and without religious belief attached, by way of illustration.


Not inherently. It's simply different.


Agreed. Have you seen The Quiet Man? We are't long removed from that practice ourselves. Do you believe that's a common practice among Western Muslims?


Many to be sure, though the data among Westernized Muslims is encouraging.

The full burka is demeaning. I don't see it as a style choice. It shows that women are property. It makes them quite unapproachable and that's how their men like it. It takes away their personality and allows zero room for personal expression. One woman is the same as all the rest.

I personally know a few muslims and like them, but they are quite westernized. Their wives are not wearing burkas but westernized clothes. That is fine. But if they come saying we want to change the US to be under full sharia law then I cannot stand for that because it inflicts harm on others. If they have a tradition that isn't harmful then there would be no law against that.

The Koran is really violent. While the Old Testament has the same elements (Mo copied it) it doesn't have the temperament and enlightenment of the New Testament. So they are immature and barbaric the closer they follow their scriptures.

Haven't seen the Quiet Man, but its on the list now.

I have seen enough to know that while Muslims can act like they are all right, far too many are supportive of suicide bombers, explicitly and implicitly. They wouldn't do it themselves, but they wouldn't call it out. There are anecdotal cases where a few have called out family members but certainly not enough. That is the maturity process I expect. The more they publicly call out violence the more Americans can get comfortable with them and come to trust them. The more they stay to themselves and not criticize violence the less they will be trusted. The onus really is on them. Humans give trust to others as the others earn it. Don't you think that is natural and not wrong?

 

[Town Heretic]

The full burka is demeaning.

Not inherently, no. In some parts of the world they'd say that about a woman's pantsuit. It's a largely cultural thing. Now if a woman is forced to wear any particular it can be demeaning (I use can considering we're all forced to wear clothing by convention and law).

I don't see it as a style choice.

I don't think it is. Neither is a head covering for some religions, or beards. It's something more important to them than style.

It shows that women are property.

Not necessarily, no. Which is why many Western Muslim women choose the practice.

It makes them quite unapproachable and that's how their men like it. It takes away their personality and allows zero room for personal expression. One woman is the same as all the rest.

So like Amish clothing on men and women. Or maybe more like beards in a number of religions.

I personally know a few muslims and like them, but they are quite westernized. Their wives are not wearing burkas but westernized clothes. That is fine.

Wait. You're saying it's fine so long as they practice their religion in a way you approve? But it's not fine if they don't because your subjective valuations and read-ins on what that means should control the point? I think you have some good ideas, but these aren't among them.

But if they come saying we want to change the US to be under full sharia law then I cannot stand for that because it inflicts harm on others.

Mostly you'll find the people who would say that are recent immigrants from a non-Westernized background. Westernized Muslims don't tend to hold anything like that view. You should take a gander at the link I dropped for glass. There are more than a couple of variations on the approach. I've set out some Pew data on attitudes about criminal application (not that popular) as opposed to personal matters, like marriage and property (much more popular) and how in the West those who desire it mostly do so in the same way Orthodox Jews do their own counsels, which is to say for themselves and not for everyone else.

If they have a tradition that isn't harmful then there would be no law against that.

I'd say if they have a tradition that is lawful then it should be left alone. Harmful can be a lot like beauty.

The Koran is really violent. While the Old Testament has the same elements (Mo copied it) it doesn't have the temperament and enlightenment of the New Testament.

And yet Christianity has a fairly barbaric past in relation to other religions when Islam was much kinder to both Christian and Jew. I suspect it's because those early Muslim societies were more civilized in other ways. Once the West caught and passed them, especially with secularization and the mixing that invariably caused, the tolerance it demanded, our secular governments became more open and enlightened than the purely religious competition.

So they are immature and barbaric the closer they follow their scriptures.

I'll let you argue that with Islamic scholars, who'd doubtless take issue.

Haven't seen the Quiet Man, but its on the list now.

Great John Wayne film with O'Hara as his costar. It's about an American who was born in Ireland but grew up in the states, became a great heavyweight fighter, then accidentally killed a man in the ring. He flees to Ireland to find peace and purchases his family home, setting off all sorts of interesting conflicts. Despite the description it's lighter than that and a very enjoyable film.

At one point an Irish woman gives Wayne's character a stick "To beat the lovely lady with" in line with the rule of thumb. Our Western traditions once treated women like property. They were denied higher education, property rights, could be forceably taken by their husbands and even beaten, within bounds. Women waited until 1920 to vote here.

I have seen enough to know that while Muslims can act like they are all right, far too many are supportive of suicide bombers, explicitly and implicitly.

I suspect people are largely people and most of us don't wish most of the rest harm, but there is an element in every culture out for power and blood. Give them a tool and they'll use it. When Christianity had that sort of power there were always men to use it like a weapon. The real problem with a lot of Islam is that it hasn't been subjugated by a secular state the way our faith was, moving most religious power and impulse within the parameters of conscience and outside of the force of law.

They wouldn't do it themselves, but they wouldn't call it out.

Or maybe it's a lot like Germany in the old days for many. First you develop an us/them feeling, fueled and supported by the palpable suspicion, contempt, and even mistreatment by the other (see: what the West did to the Arab world after WWII) until it's ingrained in the culture. That limits the voices being listened to. Then you add the most restrictive and limiting elements of a theocracy the way the brown shirts limited philosophical opposition. And then you process the whole thing with fear and fanaticism. Easy way to keep a population in check and thinking the way you want them to think.

There are anecdotal cases where a few have called out family members but certainly not enough.

I don't think either of us really know what's going on in the communities. How many people are or aren't clandestinely helping keep our larger body count low in relation to fanatics. I know a lot of Muslims have been very vocal in opposing terrorism in the name of their God. And I know that most of the people fighting and dying in the war against ISIS were and are Muslim.

That is the maturity process I expect. The more they publicly call out violence the more Americans can get comfortable with them and come to trust them. The more they stay to themselves and not criticize violence the less they will be trusted. The onus really is on them. Humans give trust to others as the others earn it. Don't you think that is natural and not wrong?

Probably, but I also recognize that I kept hearing, "Where is Muslim outrage???" after 9/11 while all sorts of Muslims, from scholars to laymen, were decrying murder in the name of God and simply not getting a lot of coverage or attention.

 

[The Barbarian]

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

This kind of thread often reminds me of the three kinds of people often depicted in those old, "strange visitor from another planet" movies.

There is the fool Liberal; who would rush in with open arms.

And the fool Religionist Rightist; who immediately wants to do away with the strange visitor.

Turns out, there's a biological basis for those reactions:
http://factmyth.com/factoids/liberals-and-conservatives-brains-are-different-on-average/

The old saying:

Liberals are open and friendly because they think everyone is pretty much like they are. Conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason.

Is an exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth in it.

 

[Tambora]

The full burka is demeaning. I don't see it as a style choice. It shows that women are property. It makes them quite unapproachable and that's how their men like it. It takes away their personality and allows zero room for personal expression. One woman is the same as all the rest.

I agree.
It takes away their identity.
It takes away their femininity
Makes them all cookie-cutter objects..

I have seen enough to know that while Muslims can act like they are all right, far too many are supportive of suicide bombers, explicitly and implicitly. They wouldn't do it themselves, but they wouldn't call it out.

I agree with that too.

It's equivalent of thinking most all KKK members are "not so bad" because only a few hung a black man, and most of them just go to work, have a backyard bar-b-q, play with their kids and grandkids.
But they are all bad, they are all sick in their ideology.
They should be shunned and not supported.

Same with Islam.
They are a scourge and should not be looked upon with sympathetic eyes.

 

[Tambora]

The old saying:

Liberals are open and friendly because they think everyone is pretty much like they are. Conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason.

Is an exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth in it.

The difference between fantasy and reality.

 

[exminister]

Not inherently, no. In some parts of the world they'd say that about a woman's pantsuit. It's a largely cultural thing. Now if a woman is forced to wear any particular it can be demeaning (I use can considering we're all forced to wear clothing by convention and law).

I don't think it is. Neither is a head covering for some religions, or beards. It's something more important to them than style.

Not necessarily, no. Which is why many Western Muslim women choose the practice.

So like Amish clothing on men and women. Or maybe more like beards in a number of religions.

This is beyond pants or bonnets on Amish women. How do you tell your kids, the one in the middle is your great grandmother. No wait, it is the one on the left. You really look just like her. It really turns them into nobodies.

Wait. You're saying it's fine so long as they practice their religion in a way you approve? But it's not fine if they don't because your subjective valuations and read-ins on what that means should control the point? I think you have some good ideas, but these aren't among them.

If their practice is to abuse or diminish women, if they practice and support killing nonbelievers then I don't approve. You can practice your religion as long as it doesn't inflict harm on others. Our society cannot tolerate violence because it is someone's personal belief.

Mostly you'll find the people who would say that are recent immigrants from a non-Westernized background. Westernized Muslims don't tend to hold anything like that view. You should take a gander at the link I dropped for glass. There are more than a couple of variations on the approach. I've set out some Pew data on attitudes about criminal application (not that popular) as opposed to personal matters, like marriage and property (much more popular) and how in the West those who desire it mostly do so in the same way Orthodox Jews do their own counsels, which is to say for themselves and not for everyone else.

I'd say if they have a tradition that is lawful then it should be left alone. Harmful can be a lot like beauty.

Will look at the link.
What is an example of something harmful but also lawful? Could you mean refusal of blood like the JW or faith based fundamental Christians who refuse to take their sick kids to the doctors and believe in prayer alone? While I have problems with it I could see that. Maybe lawful is a better way to state it. But you know laws - here today, changed tomorrow.

And yet Christianity has a fairly barbaric past in relation to other religions when Islam was much kinder to both Christian and Jew. I suspect it's because those early Muslim societies were more civilized in other ways. Once the West caught and passed them, especially with secularization and the mixing that invariably caused, the tolerance it demanded, our secular governments became more open and enlightened than the purely religious competition.

It was wrong when Christianity forced people to conform with violence and it is wrong now when Islam does the same. Two wrongs don't do something.

I'll let you argue that with Islamic scholars, who'd doubtless take issue.

They can say Islam is a religion of peace, but actions speak louder than words. Perhaps they have qualified peace. If everyone converted to Islam there would be peace. :idunno:

Great John Wayne film with O'Hara as his costar. It's about an American who was born in Ireland but grew up in the states, became a great heavyweight fighter, then accidentally killed a man in the ring. He flees to Ireland to find peace and purchases his family home, setting off all sorts of interesting conflicts. Despite the description it's lighter than that and a very enjoyable film.

At one point an Irish woman gives Wayne's character a stick "To beat the lovely lady with" in line with the rule of thumb. Our Western traditions once treated women like property. They were denied higher education, property rights, could be forceably taken by their husbands and even beaten, within bounds. Women waited until 1920 to vote here.

I will be on the lookout for it on TCM. Great channel. Thank you Mr. Turner.
What would be your one line movie review for Quiet Man? I like that thread which I think you started.

I suspect people are largely people and most of us don't wish most of the rest harm, but there is an element in every culture out for power and blood. Give them a tool and they'll use it. When Christianity had that sort of power there were always men to use it like a weapon. The real problem with a lot of Islam is that it hasn't been subjugated by a secular state the way our faith was, moving most religious power and impulse within the parameters of conscience and outside of the force of law.

Or maybe it's a lot like Germany in the old days for many. First you develop an us/them feeling, fueled and supported by the palpable suspicion, contempt, and even mistreatment by the other (see: what the West did to the Arab world after WWII) until it's ingrained in the culture. That limits the voices being listened to. Then you add the most restrictive and limiting elements of a theocracy the way the brown shirts limited philosophical opposition. And then you process the whole thing with fear and fanaticism. Easy way to keep a population in check and thinking the way you want them to think.

I have an optimistic view of humanity. There are bad apples that muck it up for the rest of us. A secular government is better. Diversity is an important ingredient. The US is lucky to have so many viewpoints. It, while painful, can lead to better understanding and compassion for others. Diversity in the US is being obliterated because of news isolation. Fake News mantras, Facebook, no common truths - bleech.

I don't think either of us really know what's going on in the communities. How many people are or aren't clandestinely helping keep our larger body count low in relation to fanatics. I know a lot of Muslims have been very vocal in opposing terrorism in the name of their God. And I know that most of the people fighting and dying in the war against ISIS were and are Muslim.

Probably, but I also recognize that I kept hearing, "Where is Muslim outrage???" after 9/11 while all sorts of Muslims, from scholars to laymen, were decrying murder in the name of God and simply not getting a lot of coverage or attention.

Fair point.


EDIT: Well, Town I cannot find that link you gave to glass. If you could be so kind.

 

[Danoh]

Some might do well to read 1 Corinthians 11.

Especially the so called Paul followers on here.

By the way, Trumpers - that's 1st Corinthians, not One Corinthians :chuckle:

Acts 17:11,12