PDA

View Full Version : Question For Debate


Davian93
08-12-2010, 09:30 AM
What is the difference between the current Anti-Islamic/Anti-Mosque building movement in the United States and the push for anti-semitism in Post WWI Germany?

I mean, both seem to have similar goals in the long run...that being the removal by whatever means possible of what is perceived as an undesirable group in the respective societies. Honestly, how are the current Anti-Muslim groups any different than the Nazi Party?

Its not just the inaccurately named "Ground Zero Mosque"...its all accross the United States that the construction of new mosques is being protested by "Real Americans".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/08/away-raw-emotions-ground-zero-mosques-face-strong-opposition/?cmpid=prn_baynote_Far_From_Ground_Zero,_New_Mosqu es_Face_Opposition#content

Read the comments section of this article (one plucked from dozens of others) to see the hatred that I'm talking about. Wrapping it up in Patriotism and the American Flag is even scarier. This could very well turn into a American fascist movement if it hasn't already. The Nazis were a small regional splinter party in 1923...ten years later they ruled one of the economic powerhouses of the world.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 09:35 AM
What is the difference between the current Anti-Islamic/Anti-Mosque building movement in the United States and the push for anti-semitism in Post WWI Germany?The first is done by Geert Wilders*, the second was obviously evil.

Apart from that, I have to admit that I don't know.

* And some others, but they don't count.

Kimon
08-12-2010, 10:21 AM
We mostly tend to remember the good when we recall the origin of the Republican Party in America- the abolitionist movement. Yet, the Republicans also had their more nefarious origins, with roots extending from the infamous Know Nothing Party, with their hatred and suspicion of foreigners, and especially of Catholics. Indeed the Prohibition Movement owed much to these sentiments, as the Irish (and other foreigners) were characterized as drunken wife and child beaters.

This is hardly a new thread of thought for America. Indeed you might add to your comment about the rising intolerance of Muslims in America, also the antagonism against Mexican immigrants, and the calls by some on the right for a rewriting, or outright repeal, of the 14th Amendment so as to deny citizenship to autochthonous Americans if one or both of their parents happened to have arrived here from Mexico or other points south.

The Republicans, Fox, and especially the Tea Party are all disturbing, but I don't think we yet have a Kristallnacht looming in the immediate future. Is that just me channeling Neville Chamberlain?

Davian93
08-12-2010, 10:40 AM
We mostly tend to remember the good when we recall the origin of the Republican Party in America- the abolitionist movement. Yet, the Republicans also had their more nefarious origins, with roots extending from the infamous Know Nothing Party, with their hatred and suspicion of foreigners, and especially of Catholics. Indeed the Prohibition Movement owed much to these sentiments, as the Irish (and other foreigners) were characterized as drunken wife and child beaters.

This is hardly a new thread of thought for America. Indeed you might add to your comment about the rising intolerance of Muslims in America, also the antagonism against Mexican immigrants, and the calls by some on the right for a rewriting, or outright repeal, of the 14th Amendment so as to deny citizenship to autochthonous Americans if one or both of their parents happened to have arrived here from Mexico or other points south.

The Republicans, Fox, and especially the Tea Party are all disturbing, but I don't think we yet have a Kristallnacht looming in the immediate future. Is that just me channeling Neville Chamberlain?


I dont think we have a Kristallnacht anytime soon either...unless the economic situation takes a serious downturn similar to that of the Weimer Republic when they defaulted on their war debt. The anti-Them movement is probably the strongest its been in decades and its starting to spark violent acts. The scary part is the seeming legitimacy and traction this movement has gained on the Far Right. I simply dont see them as being any better than the early Nazis.

Ivhon
08-12-2010, 11:08 AM
Its very simple, Dav.

This is one nation under God. Therefore, it cannot be like Nazis. Besides. We all know that Obama and the democrats are Nazis, so it logically follows that those who oppose him cannot be.

Islam isnt really a religion, anyway. Its more of a lifestyle.

Finally. We are a Christian nation. Things done here are good. The red white and blue means we are doing God's work.

Surely you aren't going to sit there and defame the flag of the United States of Jesus Christ are you?

Sinistrum
08-12-2010, 11:38 AM
Is this really a topic for debate or a rhetocial question? I mean, I think the obvious generalized answer is that there isn't a lot of difference.

That said, most of Islam isn't really doing themselves any favors with their ostrich head in the sand reaction to the radicals. They've allowed the radicals to become the public face of their religion through their fear and inaction. The only way the current public perception of Islam will change is if they get off their duffs, find some courage and start fighting (and I mean actually physically fighting in a lot of instances) back against those who would hijack their religion for nefarious purposes. The longer they sit on the sidelines in the war over what their faith means, the more the anti-Islam sentiment will grow.

Davian93
08-12-2010, 11:57 AM
No, I wanted to have a serious debate. I'm not trying to just bash the Right here. Xenophobia is very troubling.


Sini, why do you say "Muslims" are sitting on the sidelines. There are plenty of American Muslims in the military that volunteered...plenty of them have died heroes. Most American Muslims are fully integrated members of society no different than you or me. You can't paint them with the same brush as Wahhabi extremists. I agree that most Muslim majority nations pretty much turn a blind eye to the violence that the extreme elements of their society is perpetrating. I find that behaviour quite similar to the blind eye that American Irish in Boston and other cities turn towards the Troubles and the IRA funding that took place in the U.S. prior to the FBI crackdown on ALL extremist funding.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 12:03 PM
Islam isnt really a religion, anyway. Its more of a lifestyle.A political ideology, according to Wilders. He's probably busy getting the Protocols Of The Elders Of Medina ready for publication.

And Sinistrum is right: "the" Muslims are sitting on the sidelines, just as "the" Christians aren't taking any action at all to curb the atrocities of the LRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army). Some Christians and some Muslims do act, admittedly, but most do not seem to disapprove of what is being done in the name of their respective religions.

Davian93
08-12-2010, 12:19 PM
A political ideology, according to Wilders. He's probably busy getting the Protocols Of The Elders Of Medina ready for publication.

And Sinistrum is right: "the" Muslims are sitting on the sidelines, just as "the" Christians aren't taking any action at all to curb the atrocities of the LRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army). Some Christians and some Muslims do act, admittedly, but most do not seem to disapprove of what is being done in the name of their respective religions.


In our defense, the Muslims stole our churches in the East and its our Holy mission to retrieve them along with all our missing Relics there. We will not rest until the Cross sits atop the Hagia Sophia once again!

Ivhon
08-12-2010, 12:22 PM
In our defense, the Muslims stole our churches in the East and its our Holy mission to retrieve them along with all our missing Relics there. We will not rest until the Cross sits atop the Hagia Sophia once again!

Once holy ground, always holy ground. Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we ditched all three western religions and all became buddhists.

Davian93
08-12-2010, 12:30 PM
Once holy ground, always holy ground. Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we ditched all three western religions and all became buddhists.

First we need to seize Constantonople as a staging ground for the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre...then we can look into the Buddhist thing.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 12:35 PM
First we need to seize Constantonople as a staging ground for the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre...then we can look into the Buddhist thing.To get into the spirit of the thing: we could possibly finance it by first plundering Rome. Which, curiously enough, does not seem to be part of Wilders' agenda.

Davian93
08-12-2010, 12:38 PM
To get into the spirit of the thing: we could possibly finance it by first plundering Rome. Which, curiously enough, does not seem to be part of Wilders' agenda.

I was thinking of plundering Venice and Genoa first...they are both still economic superpowers, right?

Weird Harold
08-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Xenophobia is very troubling.

I don't think the current anti-islam is as much "xenophobia" as it is 'demonization.' It is very similar to the attitudes behind the internment of (west coast) Japanese Americans in WWII. The only real difference here is that the anti-islam and anti-mexican push isn't coming fromt he US government.

Sini, why do you say "Muslims" are sitting on the sidelines. There are plenty of American Muslims in the military that volunteered...plenty of them have died heroes. Most American Muslims are fully integrated members of society no different than you or me. You can't paint them with the same brush as Wahhabi extremists.

I think the point is that there is no repudation of extremism by (american) muslims as a religious organization. Individual muslims volunteering to fight extremist and terrorists isn't the same as a mullah or ten issuing fatwahs against exremism and terrorism.

I haven't heard much from Louis Farahkan and the Nation of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam). The rhetoric from that direction scared WASP conservatives spitless during the 1980's and doesn't differ a great deal from some of the current islamic extremist rhetoric as I recall.

Brita
08-12-2010, 12:49 PM
Western Muslims are trying to push back against extremism (I heard an interview of a Muslim swoman who sits on the Muslim Council in Canada, and she said "no one understands the magnistude of the war we are fighting against extremists for own religion). But the push back must come from the Muslim nations themselves for it to have any traction. And in this, I agree with Sini, until the Islamic people from the Muslim nations begin to fight for their religion themselves, then this divide will only worsen.

And Dav- our countries are young. Really young. We think we are now immune to war and atrocity within our borders, but (sadly) history has proven it will most certainly come. Whether this Muslim-hate is the beginning or whether it is something yet unforseen, North America cannot remain a Camelot forever.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 01:02 PM
I think the point is that there is no repudation of extremism by (american) muslims as a religious organization.A very nitpicky person might point out that there is no "muslims as a religious organization", which may explain (in theory, at least) why there is no such repudiation.

A somewhat less nitpicky person would of course conclude "all Muslims are evil".

Crispin's Crispian
08-12-2010, 01:34 PM
I do find it interesting that at Theoryland (and elsewhere) there appears to be more criticism of Catholicism (as a whole) for not responding appropriately to sex abuse than there is of the lack of Muslim response to Islamic extremism. I suppose part of it goes back to Gonzo's point that Islam doesn't have a central governing body, whereas the RCC has the Vatican.

But that's only part of it.

Sinistrum
08-12-2010, 01:43 PM
I think another part is that we as a culture are more familiar with the demons that Christianity has than we are of those with Islam. Furthermore, I think its also become very taboo thanks to Political Correctness to criticize anything who's majority membership consists of people with brown skin, even for legitimate reasons. We are more comfortable criticizing religions like Catholocism because the majority of their membership is white.

Ivhon
08-12-2010, 01:52 PM
As one who is outspoken on the Catholic Church issue, my self-reflection is that a very big part of that outspoken-ness stems from the difference in hierarchy.

Its a much easier thing to solve. All it takes is a commitment from ONE person (maybe two...it will take some time and Ratzenraper might not last long enough) to change that culture. That is a huge part of the frustration and outrage. All it would take is for the Pope to truly put his foot down and the RCC is well on its way to fixing that issue.

Islam? Not so easy for obvious reasons. Boy it sure would be nice if the Aga Khan, for example, would step up.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 04:33 PM
I do find it interesting that at Theoryland (and elsewhere) there appears to be more criticism of Catholicism (as a whole) for not responding appropriately to sex abuse than there is of the lack of Muslim response to Islamic extremism. I suppose part of it goes back to Gonzo's point that Islam doesn't have a central governing body, whereas the RCC has the Vatican.

But that's only part of it.It is an important part, of course.

But another part could be that we are actually trying to follow the instruction which is supposed to be such an important part of Christianity:
Matthew|7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Which, if true, would suggest that we do not consider Islam to be a real part of our own culture. Never thought about it from that angle before, to be honest.

Crispin's Crispian
08-12-2010, 04:41 PM
It is an important part, of course.

But another part could be that we are actually trying to follow the instruction which is supposed to be such an important part of Christianity:
Matthew|7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Which, if true, would suggest that we do not consider Islam to be a real part of our own culture. Never thought about it from that angle before, to be honest.

At least in the U.S., Islam is definitely not considered to be a real part of our culture. I'm also not sure if the Vatican is considered such an integral part of our culture that we examine their flaws as our own...out of some consideration for Scripture. If that were true, I can think of a lot of other things the West could be doing to fix itself.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2010, 04:46 PM
At least in the U.S., Islam is definitely not considered to be a real part of our culture. I'm also not sure if the Vatican is considered such an integral part of our culture that we examine their flaws as our own...out of some consideration for Scripture. If that were true, I can think of a lot of other things the West could be doing to fix itself.Hey, I'm not saying you lot are perfect, am I?

Basel Gill
08-12-2010, 05:17 PM
On my way out, so didn't read all replies. Pardon if I repeat.

1st and foremost, I have said in another thread that despite my misgivings, there is no legal reason that they should be prevented from building. Right land, right price, to first buyer for whatever purpose...very American.

However, in response to your question, I think the answer is very simple in most American's minds and I would bet MANY others. The Jews did not attack Germany. Islamists were the aggressors in the WTC attack and whether or not THESE muslims agree with the principles of those muslims, many Americans lump them all together, right or wrong.

Weird Harold
08-12-2010, 07:07 PM
I think another part is that we as a culture are more familiar with the demons that Christianity has than we are of those with Islam. Furthermore, I think its also become very taboo thanks to Political Correctness to criticize anything who's majority membership consists of people with brown skin, even for legitimate reasons. We are more comfortable criticizing religions like Catholocism because the majority of their membership is white.
:confused:

Most of the membership of the Catholic Church -- especially within the US -- is "Hispanic" and as dark, or darker, skinned than the arabs and persians who are the face of Islam to most americans. The outrage against illegal immigrants in the southwest is as much an anti-catholic bigotry as it is color-based racism.

Most of the radical groups that would form the seeds of any national socialist or fascist movement in the US already hate Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Asians, Muslims (and "other ay-rabs") -- and any other "non-aryan," in the most obvious seed for a "fourth reich," The Aryan Brotherhood or American Nazi Party.

Weird Harold
08-12-2010, 07:23 PM
I do find it interesting that at Theoryland (and elsewhere) there appears to be more criticism of Catholicism (as a whole) for not responding appropriately to sex abuse than there is of the lack of Muslim response to Islamic extremism. I suppose part of it goes back to Gonzo's point that Islam doesn't have a central governing body, whereas the RCC has the Vatican.

But that's only part of it.

I think the heart of the difference in outrage is that the Catholic sex abuse problem is the Church not enforcing its own rules on the Clergy while the muslim fundamentalist sects are simply enforcing elements of the basic tenets of islam.

IOW, the catholic Church is seen as corrupt while the Islamic Extremists are just over-zealous.

I suspect that some lack of outrage -- or in some cases extremes of faux-outrage -- regarding muslim fundamentalists is that many of the groups most opposed to muslims are jealous of the degree of secular control Islamic States have over the personal lives of those under their control. :rolleyes:

Sukoto
08-12-2010, 07:29 PM
As has been pointed out already, the anti-muslim sentiment in the U.S. is largely not perpetrated by the government, and it is not always motivated by politics. As I see it, the reason why the "Ground Zero Mosque" stirs so much drama is because, in most Americans' minds, you just can't separate the Sept. 11th attacks from Islam. Most people understand that not all Muslims are terrorists, but they are not blind to the fact that a large number of terrorists are Muslim.

In the Ground Zero situation, I don't think it is real hatred of Muslims or Islam that has stirred the drama as much as the feeling that the builders of the mosque are being insensitive or stepping on the toes of those who suffered as a result of the 9-11 attacks. If you think about psychological suffering, this could include a significant chunk of the population.

Sinistrum
08-12-2010, 08:40 PM
A poll by The Barna Group in 2004 found Catholic ethnicity to be 60% non-Hispanic white (mostly Irish, Italian, Polish), 31% Hispanic of any race, 4% Black, and 5% other ethnicity (mostly Filipinos and other Asian Americans, and American Indians).

Between 1990 and 2008, there were 11 million additional Catholics. Immigration of Latinos accounted for 9 million of these. They comprised 32% of all American Catholics in 2008 as opposed to 20% in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Weird Harold
08-12-2010, 09:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Demographics


The northeastern quadrant of the US (i.e., New England, Mid-Atlantic, East North Central, and West North Central) has seen a decline in the number of parishes since 1970, but parish numbers are up in the other five regions (i.e., South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Pacific, and Mountain regions).[21] Catholics in the US are about 6% of the church's total worldwide 1.1 billion membership.

I was not referring to just US Catholics. As the paragraph you quoted shows, 81% of the most recent increase in US Catholics were latino immigrants, so the 6% of all catholics is slowly started to resemble the demographics of ALL Catholics.

The influence of the Spanish Inquisition on the half of the world ruled by Spain in the sixteenth century made Roman Catholicism the dominant religion in the westerm hemisphere. I think only Budhism has a larger claim on world population and Islam is possibly larger than Roman Catholicism, but still lagging behind Christianity in all denominations.

Probably two-thirds of the world are "brown-skinned" (or "yellow-skinned" or otherwise "colored") and practice a religion offensive to those inclined to WASP fascism; maybe three-quarters. A good percentage of those are also communists. :rolleyes:

Muslims just happen to top the list at the moment because some of them practice "convert or die" evangelism.

Neilbert
08-12-2010, 10:20 PM
In the Ground Zero situation, I don't think it is real hatred of Muslims or Islam that has stirred the drama as much as the feeling that the builders of the mosque are being insensitive or stepping on the toes of those who suffered as a result of the 9-11 attacks. If you think about psychological suffering, this could include a significant chunk of the population.

Yeah maybe a little, but I guarantee that hatred of Muslims plays a large role. It was news, then it was old news, then Sarah Palin said something about it and suddenly it's a big deal again. The whole thing is quite frankly disgusting, that Sarah Palin is determining the national discourse one reason among many.

nameless
08-12-2010, 10:34 PM
It's not really meaningful to compare Islam or Buddhism to Catholicism in that the first two are umbrella terms covering numerous sects and the last is a single sect of a larger religion, albeit the oldest of those sects. It would make more sense to compare, say, Sunni Islam or Mahayana Buddhism to Catholic Christianity. And IIRC Mormonism is the fastest-growing religion in the world at the moment, though I don't know whether or not that growth includes posthumous conversions or if it only counts living converts.

I think a big part of the backlash against the RCC's sex abuse scandal is that the Catholic Church espouses a standard of sexual purity that is already seen as harmful or out of touch (ie telling impoverished developing nations that condoms are evil in the middle of an HIV epidemic). To actively promote that message and simultaneously fail to police their own ranks of the most egregious form of sexual misconduct imaginable is seen as insulting as well as hypocritical. Child molesters are pretty much the only group of people 100% guarenteed to go to hell according to the Bible (though ever since King James the verse tends to be translated as "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven," even though the original Greek word means "men who have sex with young boys"). Harboring child rapists for any reason is absolutely abominable but it seems particularly egregious behavior when it comes from an organization that promotes itself as the final arbitrator of what sort of sexual conduct is or is not acceptable.

Basel Gill
08-12-2010, 10:59 PM
As has been pointed out already, the anti-muslim sentiment in the U.S. is largely not perpetrated by the government, and it is not always motivated by politics. As I see it, the reason why the "Ground Zero Mosque" stirs so much drama is because, in most Americans' minds, you just can't separate the Sept. 11th attacks from Islam. Most people understand that not all Muslims are terrorists, but they are not blind to the fact that a large number of terrorists are Muslim.

In the Ground Zero situation, I don't think it is real hatred of Muslims or Islam that has stirred the drama as much as the feeling that the builders of the mosque are being insensitive or stepping on the toes of those who suffered as a result of the 9-11 attacks. If you think about psychological suffering, this could include a significant chunk of the population.

That makes an astonishing amount of sense, so don't expect it to go over well. If you don't bleed for the perceived oppressed from every pore on your body, you are a racist asswipe and should know that by now. ;)

Weird Harold
08-12-2010, 11:46 PM
It's not really meaningful to compare Islam or Buddhism to Catholicism in that the first two are umbrella terms covering numerous sects and the last is a single sect of a larger religion, albeit the oldest of those sects. It would make more sense to compare, say, Sunni Islam or Mahayana Buddhism to Catholic Christianity.

It would indeed make more sense, but the kind of bigotry that targets jews, catholics, muslims and budhists along with blacks, asians, homosexuals, et al, isn't about "making sense" it's about them not being the right kind of white anglo-saxon protestant or pure enough "aryan heritage" or being a "real amurkan" -- IOW, not being the same as, and agreeing with, the bigot.

Crispin's Crispian
08-13-2010, 11:11 AM
Hey, I'm not saying you lot are perfect, am I?

If you were, I think time would stop and the world would end.

I think the heart of the difference in outrage is that the Catholic sex abuse problem is the Church not enforcing its own rules on the Clergy while the muslim fundamentalist sects are simply enforcing elements of the basic tenets of islam.

IOW, the catholic Church is seen as corrupt while the Islamic Extremists are just over-zealous.
I think that's a really big part of it, too. I also think that more people can relate to victims of sexual assault than can relate to people killed in terrorist attacks. For most Americans, real terrorism is something you see on the news, and maybe something one of your relatives is fighting in the wars. But a lot of people know kids who were raised Catholic, and they know priests personally.

GonzoTheGreat
08-13-2010, 11:24 AM
If you were, I think time would stop and the world would end.EVEN I CANNOT STEP OUTSIDE OF TIME.

Neilbert
08-13-2010, 11:30 AM
I think that's a really big part of it, too. I also think that more people can relate to victims of sexual assault than can relate to people killed in terrorist attacks.

25% of American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (I don't know numbers for men, and if women is underreported then men is way underreported)

An American has a greater chance of being killed by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack.

Given that context, worrying about terrorism over sexual abuse is downright idiotic.

GonzoTheGreat
08-13-2010, 12:25 PM
Yeah, but what is your point?

Crispin's Crispian
08-13-2010, 01:08 PM
25% of American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (I don't know numbers for men, and if women is underreported then men is way underreported)

An American has a greater chance of being killed by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack.

Given that context, worrying about terrorism over sexual abuse is downright idiotic.

OK, but this just further illustrates why Americans, at least, might be more deeply impacted by the Catholic sex abuse atrocities than they are by terrorism. As such, they are more likely to rise up in anger at the Vatican for not stopping the abuse than they are to rise up against a nebulous Islamic populous for not fighting terrorism.

Here's something to ponder. If a Catholic diocese wanted to build a church next door to a rape victims' clinic or an orphanage for abused children, would there be outrage?

Sei'taer
08-13-2010, 01:11 PM
25% of American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (I don't know numbers for men, and if women is underreported then men is way underreported)

An American has a greater chance of being killed by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack.

Given that context, worrying about terrorism over sexual abuse is downright idiotic.

The problem with this is coverage. I was on my way to work when they announced that a plane had hit one of towers. When I got in to work, we were all watching the coverage on NBC when the second plane slammed into the other tower. We watched all day, when people were jumping out of the towers, when the fire and police were going in and out and trying to help people, when the tower fell and the huge dustcloud blew out and covered everything and people were running, bleeding and screaming down the streets and there was a general all over feeling of OMG and I wish I could do something to help those people and all of us that knew anything about structural engineering were screaming for the people to just get the fuck out of the building because it was going to fall and why didn't they move on it earlier.

When a woman or man or child is abused, sexually or otherwise, there isn't a huge TV audience for it, there aren't usually many witnesses and all you hear are the aftermath descriptions of the abuse.

It makes for a totally different feeling. In one, you are there, in the other you are hearing about it from another source. It makes for two totally different perceptions of the act. It's like being in a car wreck and hearing about the car wreck your buddy's friend had.

That's why there is a difference.

GonzoTheGreat
08-13-2010, 01:37 PM
OK, but this just further illustrates why Americans, at least, might be more deeply impacted by the Catholic sex abuse atrocities than they are by terrorism.Being an American doesn't single out a Catholic in this regard. There are plenty of other countries where the exact same thing also was going on.

Crispin's Crispian
08-13-2010, 06:25 PM
Being an American doesn't single out a Catholic in this regard. There are plenty of other countries where the exact same thing also was going on.

Not living in another country, I can't speak to the general attitudes of another country. Nothing about my post implies that my, or any other American's, point-of-view on the matter is the final one.

Davian93
08-13-2010, 11:30 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/13/agree-obama-mosque-near-ground-zero-nyc/#content

Read the comments on the linked argument and tell me there isn't a very scary element present in our country.

I wonder if the far right is aware of what exactly they're sowing here...

Ozymandias
08-13-2010, 11:49 PM
Is this really a topic for debate or a rhetocial question? I mean, I think the obvious generalized answer is that there isn't a lot of difference.

That said, most of Islam isn't really doing themselves any favors with their ostrich head in the sand reaction to the radicals. They've allowed the radicals to become the public face of their religion through their fear and inaction. The only way the current public perception of Islam will change is if they get off their duffs, find some courage and start fighting (and I mean actually physically fighting in a lot of instances) back against those who would hijack their religion for nefarious purposes. The longer they sit on the sidelines in the war over what their faith means, the more the anti-Islam sentiment will grow.

This is exactly right, but I'll take it a step further. The difference between Jews pre-1945 and Muslims today is one of end goals. Jews were persecuted for being who they were, and not much else; they were an easy scapegoat despite never having done much for about 2000 years, and whatever original crime they committed being of dubious authenticity anyways.

The threat from Islam is far greater. I don't refer to terrorists or radicals, because while that is indeed a pressing problem, I couldn't say any better than Sini has all the problems that have arisen due to the perception of Islam as a radical religion due to the inaction of its moderate faction (in direct contrast to a long istory of toleration, I might add).

The problem is that Islam, of the major religions in the world today, is the most assertive of its own rights, even among moderates. Its a direct threat to free speech, as the whole issue with the Mohammed depiction proved a few years back. I'm all for living and letting live, even in the face of radical, violent opposition. Its not worth vilifying billions because of the actions of a few thousand. But the outrage to that particular incident was so universal, so widespread among the Muslim population, that it became utterly clear that in this instance, submitting to the will of one segment of the population meant forever putting the power of the press in the world in their hands.

Understand, I think Western media is a despicable and money grubbing kind of institution in the worst way, but however crappy it becomes it represents the single MOST important part of secular culture; freedom of ideas and speech. And watching the worldwide reaction against Denmark and that particular publisher made it painfully obvious that the principles of free speech, and ultimately self determination, are completely incompatible with Muslim thought. Even fairly moderate Muslim thought. That the Islamic community worldwide was interested in asserting its political, social, and religious authority on a completely seperate, sovereign authority merely proves the fact.

There is a reason the Koran divides the world into the Dar al'Islam and the Dar al'Harb (House of Islam, and House of War, or people to be ruthlessly subjugated, respectively). LIke the other major prosletyzing religion with which I have a well publicized issue, pure, by the book Islam is incompatible with the freedom and prosperity we now enjoy in this country. In fact, economic, cultural, social, and religious advancement are completely contradictory to the ideals of organized religion, especially the Big Two.

And to answer the question, I think that putting a mosque near the WTC site is fine, as far as our current attitudes and systems go. I merely object to the existence of mosques, churches, temples, pagodas, etc.. in general.

Neilbert
08-14-2010, 02:54 AM
Catholic Demographics

And how do these demographics change when you just look at the clergy? :)

GonzoTheGreat
08-14-2010, 05:18 AM
Not living in another country, I can't speak to the general attitudes of another country. Nothing about my post implies that my, or any other American's, point-of-view on the matter is the final one.I was not referring to the attitudes in other countries towards the abuse by Roman Catholic priests (and such) in the USA. Rather, I was referring to the abuse (and cover up of it) by RCC clergy in Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and other countries.
The abuse and the Church's reaction (lack of reaction, rather) is a world wide phenomenon, not something that is in any way limited to the USA. In some cases, abusing priests were even send to other other countries, where they usually continued the abuse, but no one knew them at first, so that the RCC wasn't "discredited" by it.

I do have to admit that the American "sue them first, then see whether you've got a case" attitude meant that your country was the first where the scandal really broke through the attempts to hush things up. In that, a hearty "well done" to you your lawyers.

Weird Harold
08-14-2010, 08:36 AM
And how do these demographics change when you just look at the clergy? :)
I would guess, "not as much as you seem to think."

Crispin's Crispian
08-16-2010, 01:27 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/13/agree-obama-mosque-near-ground-zero-nyc/#content

Read the comments on the linked argument and tell me there isn't a very scary element present in our country.

I wonder if the far right is aware of what exactly they're sowing here...
I'm quite sure they know exactly what they're doing.

Davian93
08-16-2010, 04:06 PM
I'm quite sure they know exactly what they're doing.

So am I...and that scares the sh!t out of me.


Every time I read anything on Muslims or Mosques these days, I stop, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and "Mosque" with "Synagogue" and see how healthy it sounds.

Most of the time, I could put "-Adolf Hitler, 1934" at the end of it and 99% of people would assume it was a real quote.

Sei'taer
08-16-2010, 04:42 PM
Fitna? (http://www.pointdebasculecanada.ca/breve/2279-muslim-canadian-congress-urges-new-yorks-ground-zero-mosque-imam-to-abandon-project.php)

They'd probably know. (http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20100809.html)


I can't wait to take over Canadia.

Davian93
08-16-2010, 04:53 PM
Fitna? (http://www.pointdebasculecanada.ca/breve/2279-muslim-canadian-congress-urges-new-yorks-ground-zero-mosque-imam-to-abandon-project.php)

They'd probably know. (http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20100809.html)


I can't wait to take over Canadia.

They should take it one step further, no mosques whatsoever in Manhattan. We can never be too sensitive.


ITS NOT AT GROUND ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Sei'taer
08-16-2010, 05:08 PM
They should take it one step further, no mosques whatsoever in Manhattan. We can never be too sensitive.


ITS NOT AT GROUND ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Apparently, from the interview I saw with Raheel Raza (and the reason i was able to find this letter), a fitna is unacceptable to the (normal) Islamic faith. She and the others in her group that put the letter together were very concerned about what this Imam was doing. She also said that parts of the plane that struck tower 2 landed on and in this building making it "hallowed ground" for New Yorkers in general and for the people who lost loved ones in the tragedy, in particular. Unfortunately, I can't find anything to verify that this building was struck with debris so it's really a moot point...probably doesn't matter one way or the other if it was struck anyway.

My personal opinion is that it's the owners to lease or sell to whoever he wants. I can see why it's an emotional issue though, so I wouldn't put anyone down for their feelings. I don't have a lot of class, but I do have some.

Sei'taer
08-16-2010, 05:20 PM
I think that it's funny how minds of politicians change when they are in tight elections. It doesn't seem to matter which party either.

Reid: Build mosque elsewhere

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's top Democrat says a mosque should not be built near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada on Monday became the highest profile Democrat to break with President Barack Obama, who on Friday backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero.

In a statement, Reid said the first amendment protects freedom of religion and he respects that, but the mosque should be built somewhere else.

Critics have said the location of the mosque is insensitive because the terrorists who struck were Islamic extremists.

Reid is in a tight campaign for re-election in Nevada. His opponent, Republican Sharron Angle, earlier in the day called for Reid to say whether he agreed with Obama.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sinistrum
08-16-2010, 06:58 PM
ITS NOT AT GROUND ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

So?

As I posted last time this came up.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1

They should take it one step further, no mosques whatsoever in Manhattan. We can never be too sensitive.

So if a Hindu group wanted to build a swastica monument next to Auschwitz, would that be ok? Or how about this. Lets say your wife gets stabbed to death Davian and a knife enthusiast decides to move in next door to you and erect a giant monument to knives. Are we supposed to expect you not to get upset or tell you to get over it? I know you said that last bit tongue in cheek, but honestly, when it comes to the families of people who have been murdered, IMHO, that should be precisely the attitude people should take. But then again, maybe that is because I actually deal with victims of violent crime on a daily basis, see first hand the kind of pain and suffering they go through, and can't just rationalize them away as statistics that don't impact my life.

Ivhon
08-16-2010, 07:38 PM
So?

As I posted last time this came up.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1



So if a Hindu group wanted to build a swastica monument next to Auschwitz, would that be ok? Or how about this. Lets say your wife gets stabbed to death Davian and a knife enthusiast decides to move in next door to you and erect a giant monument to knives. Are we supposed to expect you not to get upset or tell you to get over it? I know you said that last bit tongue in cheek, but honestly, when it comes to the families of people who have been murdered, IMHO, that should be precisely the attitude people should take. But then again, maybe that is because I actually deal with victims of violent crime on a daily basis, see first hand the kind of pain and suffering they go through, and can't just rationalize them away as statistics that don't impact my life.

Sure you can. You do it all the time when it suits your argument. In fact, the suffering martyr bit (bolded) is what doesn't fit your typical M.O.

Very melodramatic. I like it! <--- not being sarcastic, I really do.

GonzoTheGreat
08-17-2010, 04:35 AM
So if a Hindu group wanted to build a swastica monument next to Auschwitz, would that be ok?Why not?
The swastica was stolen by the Nazis, and taking it back with its original meaning wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?

Let me use another example: suppose that someone objects to the use of the Israeli flag, or the Star of David in general, anywhere in the neighbourhood of Auschwitz, on the grounds that the Nazis used that symbol there (and elsewhere) in their racist policies, would that be a valid reason for banning said Star of David, and hence the Israeli flag?
If not, then what's the difference?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-17-2010, 06:31 AM
However, in response to your question, I think the answer is very simple in most American's minds and I would bet MANY others. The Jews did not attack Germany. Islamists were the aggressors in the WTC attack and whether or not THESE muslims agree with the principles of those muslims, many Americans lump them all together, right or wrong.

yeah... it really isn't just a certain group of people attacking another group of people because their God tells them to. Sad as it may be, it's just human nature rather than the nature of a religious group. Just because Jews didn't attack Germany doesn't mean that they wouldn't have if given the motivation and chance. After all, even though the Nazis later magnified the fact for their own ends - the fact remains: a proportionately huge part of early Bolsheviks were Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism). In the same vein, just because some Jews turned their backs on their traditions and beliefs in favour of a horrible violent monstrocity that killed millions of people, does not mean that all Jews are bad or that the Holocaust - or, to remain in the Communist example, the Great Purge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) - never happened or that it happened with good cause!

Replace "Jews" with "Muslims" and past tense for present/future for this discussion

actually, speaking of religion and extremism, I've never heard of a Jehovah's Witness serial killer/terrorist bloodbath. I'm sure there are some, if I'd google it hard enough but... it is rather astonishing, really, that a religon that is so vilified by others has not turned to violent measures in a (more) noticeable way.

GonzoTheGreat
08-17-2010, 06:40 AM
However, in response to your question, I think the answer is very simple in most American's minds and I would bet MANY others. The Jews did not attack Germany. Islamists were the aggressors in the WTC attack and whether or not THESE muslims agree with the principles of those muslims, many Americans lump them all together, right or wrong.But is the bad knowledge of history of "most Americans" sufficient justification for those Americans to be bigots?

I mean, the Germans were actually 'responding' to Jewish terrorism too. The Kristallnacht, for instance, was triggered by the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew.

And, on the other hand, a part of the justification given for 9/11 was the (quite correct) claim that the USA has been supporting despotic regimes in oppressing Muslims.

Sinistrum
08-17-2010, 12:13 PM
Why not?
The swastica was stolen by the Nazis, and taking it back with its original meaning wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?

Well let me ask you this then, since Jews seem to be the litmus test to decide if something is proper or not. Would you expect that a good portion or majority of Jews would be upset or offended by a Hindu group putting a Swastica up next to Auschwitz? And would you really blame them if they were upset? I'm pretty sure it would be difficult if not impossible to pull a Clerks 2 on the swastica's meaning in Western culture but you are free to try. I'm sure you'll get a positive reception for the attempt. ;)

I mean, the Germans were actually 'responding' to Jewish terrorism too. The Kristallnacht, for instance, was triggered by the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew.

Are you kidding with this statement? I hope to god you are. First off the assassination was nothing more than a pretext. It didn't really "trigger" anything. Secondly, the assassination was a direct response to the German explusion of foreign born Jews and their tug of war with Poland over accepting them back that led to refugee camps that were little better the concentration camps and several hundred dead.

GonzoTheGreat
08-17-2010, 01:06 PM
Are you kidding with this statement? I hope to god you are. First off the assassination was nothing more than a pretext. It didn't really "trigger" anything. Secondly, the assassination was a direct response to the German explusion of foreign born Jews and their tug of war with Poland over accepting them back that led to refugee camps that were little better the concentration camps and several hundred dead.On the one hand, yes, I am kidding with it.
On the other hand, I think that it is just as stupid to blame "the Muslims" for the actions of a few, as it is to blame "the Jews" for what some allegedly did long ago. So anti-Muslim prejudice is indeed just as unjustified as anti-Jewish prejudice.

Of course, if all of them grew up and said farewell to their invisible friend*, and thus ceased being Jews and Muslims, that would be a good thing.

* Or should that be Invisible Friend? I'm not sure of the actual rules in this case.

nameless
08-17-2010, 07:22 PM
Technically, It's visible, but looking at Its face will make your head explode. And you're profoundly naive if you believe that worldwide conversion to atheism would actually change human nature. Inequalities cause religion, not the other way around.

Kimon
08-17-2010, 07:31 PM
Inequalities cause religion, not the other way around.

Inequalities do not cause religion. Religion is the result of an attempt to explain the inexplicable. It may, at times, have been misappropriated to enforce and to justify inequality. That does not mean that religion is the cause of inequality, only that inequality is a potential effect of religion.

nameless
08-18-2010, 04:04 AM
You're misunderstanding me. I absolutely agree that religion is not the cause of social inequality. I was referring to a statistical correlation between inequality and religiosity that suggests social injustices cause people to turn to religion for comfort. It's gonna take me a while to find links to all the statistical evidence, so I'll probably post those in an edit later on, but the gist of it is:

1) Positive correlation between social equality in a given nation and atheism in that nation. Countries that routinely rate at the top of various global racial and gender equality indexes have the least religious citizenry.
2) Positive correlation between social inequities such as large gaps between the rich and poor, differential access to education, differential access to political office, and disenfranchisement of a particular group or class and religious expression such that a) the poor, less educated, less represented, disenfranchised class will be significantly more religious than their upper-class counterparts and b) the entire country will be more religious than neighboring countries that do not have such pronounced inequalities. The obvious example from US history to support this would be the famed spirituality of the slaves, who found in God their only solace from the pains of slavery. This is the trend being acknowledged in the Bible verse "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven."
3) Evidence from psychological studies that animals are more likely to engage in "superstitious" behavior during times of stress. Note that it's not just humans who do this. Skinner famously trained a test group of pigeons to enact a number of bizarre rituals that they believed would cause food to appear in their cages when the food was in fact being released at random intervals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

4) Abnormal psych research indicating that OCD is at its core a disorder of hyperactive anxiety. When subjected to this anxiety the sufferers typically becomes obsessed with the concept of their own cleanliness, the cleanliness of their food, the manner in which they enter or exit buildings, and tend to attach special significance to certain numbers. Repeating their private rituals is their way to diffuse this anxiety. Religious rituals often place similar importance on personal cleanliness (ablutions), the cleanliness of food (kosher/Halal/etc), "magical" numbers (numerology/Kabalah) and repetition of arbitrary rituals as a way to acheive cleanliness (say 7"Hail Mary"s).

Animals use ritualistic behavior as a stress valve to help cope with events outside of their control. People occupying the lower rungs of an inequitable society often have a great deal of stress and very little control of their lives. Ergo, they will use ritualistic behavior to cope with the stress society has placed on them. Organised religions provide a ready-made amalgamation of rituals to use.

edit: after tooling around online for a while all I've been able to come up with are statistical analyses designed to prove that religion causes inequalities. I guess seminary schools aren't emphasizing statistics as much as they used to. Until I can find a copy of the original article I read and browse their "works cited" section you're just gonna have to take my word for it that the correlations I mentioned in point 1 and 2 really do exist. The article was really thorough and looked at things like how often people go to church and what percent of their income they're likely to donate to religiously affiliated charities, not just how likely they were to identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion. Pity I can't find it.

Also, I'm gonna have to revise my stance to "religion does not cause economic or racial inequality," because I've come across some really convincing arguments that it causes gender inequality out the wazoo.

GonzoTheGreat
08-18-2010, 04:39 AM
Technically, It's visible, but looking at Its face will make your head explode. And you're profoundly naive if you believe that worldwide conversion to atheism would actually change human nature. Inequalities cause religion, not the other way around.Of course such a conversion to atheism wouldn't change human nature. But it would make it a lot more difficult for extremists to gather support.

With a religion, a simple "God wants you to do this" may be enough to make people follow you.(Wouldn't work for me, but there are lots of people who do manage to gather followings with no more 'arguments' to support their cause than that.)
Without religion, you have to come up with other arguments if you want others to support you. That can still be done, of course, but it will require at least a little bit of thinking. Which, I hope, would deprive at least some loonies from getting the henchmen they need.

Ivhon
08-18-2010, 08:43 AM
Of course such a conversion to atheism wouldn't change human nature. But it would make it a lot more difficult for extremists to gather support.

With a religion, a simple "God wants you to do this" may be enough to make people follow you.(Wouldn't work for me, but there are lots of people who do manage to gather followings with no more 'arguments' to support their cause than that.)
Without religion, you have to come up with other arguments if you want others to support you. That can still be done, of course, but it will require at least a little bit of thinking. Which, I hope, would deprive at least some loonies from getting the henchmen they need.

Hmmm....without religion?

OBAMA IS A NAZI COMMUNIST NON-AMERICAN WHO WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY FROM YOU.

Not hard at all...

Sei'taer
08-18-2010, 09:22 AM
Hmmm....without religion?

OBAMA IS A NAZI COMMUNIST NON-AMERICAN WHO WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY FROM YOU.

Not hard at all...

I would be interesting, since there has never really been a large society that didn't have religion. Most every culture has worshipped some god or other at some point.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-18-2010, 09:54 AM
I would be interesting, since there has never really been a large society that voluntarily didn't have religion. Most every culture has worshipped some god or other at some point.

Fixed it for you. Big difference, btw. When people are forcefully made to give up their beliefs and instead believe in something radically different, things go... wrong. Often religion will then become a form of resistance and *even more* a fosterer of violent acts against the regime that's enfocing the no religion policy.

then the regime will put all the people suspected of being religious in the loonybin and administer electric shock therapy. But that won't help much either because the whole society will be scitzophrenic and paranoid, no one will believe anything coming from the official channels and conspiracy theories and various semi-religious cults will run rampant.

end result: not that different from a society where one religion is strongly enforced, except that the no-religion society will probably self-destruct while the big-religion society is more prone to try to destroy other societies. then again, there haven't been that many examples of no-religion societies to make that into a solid rule.

GonzoTheGreat
08-18-2010, 10:46 AM
Hmmm....without religion?

OBAMA IS A NAZI COMMUNIST NON-AMERICAN WHO WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY FROM YOU.

Not hard at all...But that's an argument. Not a good argument, granted, nor a believable one, but still, it requires some thinking to put these words into the proper order.

PS Did you leave out the "Obama is a Muslim" meme on purpose? I admit that that one might run into trouble if you want to use a "religion good, no religion bad" approach.

Ivhon
08-18-2010, 11:13 AM
But that's an argument. Not a good argument, granted, nor a believable one, but still, it requires some thinking to put these words into the proper order.

PS Did you leave out the "Obama is a Muslim" meme on purpose? I admit that that one might run into trouble if you want to use a "religion good, no religion bad" approach.

Yes I left the "obama is a muslim" thing out on purpose, since the hypothetical is in a world without religions.

It takes little more thought to say "X is a Nazi" than it does to say "God said to do X"

And the anti-Obama extremists are quite zealous in spouting some of the non-sensical crap that they spew.

Sei'taer
08-18-2010, 12:44 PM
Fixed it for you. Big difference, btw. When people are forcefully made to give up their beliefs and instead believe in something radically different, things go... wrong. Often religion will then become a form of resistance and *even more* a fosterer of violent acts against the regime that's enfocing the no religion policy.

then the regime will put all the people suspected of being religious in the loonybin and administer electric shock therapy. But that won't help much either because the whole society will be scitzophrenic and paranoid, no one will believe anything coming from the official channels and conspiracy theories and various semi-religious cults will run rampant.

end result: not that different from a society where one religion is strongly enforced, except that the no-religion society will probably self-destruct while the big-religion society is more prone to try to destroy other societies. then again, there haven't been that many examples of no-religion societies to make that into a solid rule.

But, you are assuming that because the people running the society changed the religion that there was no religion. Take the USSR for instance and say they had wiped out all religion...essentially, the religion then becomes the worship of the state. You have to do such and such for the good of the community, is a religion in and of itself. You are "worshipping" either the state or the community. Buddhism is a fantastic example of a religion without a deity. Buddhists don't worship Buddha as some people assume and yet, they are classified as a religion because there isn't really any other name that makes sense.

If you choose to look at it from all sides, then even atheism is a religion of sorts, even though that will probably work Gonzo into a frenzy (should I say frenzy...might be a poor choice of words there, but I'll let it stick) but it is very easy to argue against on several points. Scientific learning and understanding does require some faith though, even if people don't like to admit it.

GonzoTheGreat
08-18-2010, 12:51 PM
If you choose to look at it from all sides, then even atheism is a religion of sorts, even though that will probably work Gonzo into a frenzy (should I say frenzy...might be a poor choice of words there, but I'll let it stick) but it is very easy to argue against on several points.Why should I be bothered by this? I'll just return to my hobby of not collecting stamps, or engage in the sport of not jogging.
Atheism is almost as much a religion as not collecting stamps is an interesting hobby, after all.

Sei'taer
08-18-2010, 01:24 PM
Why should I be bothered by this? I'll just return to my hobby of not collecting stamps, or engage in the sport of not jogging.
Atheism is almost as much a religion as not collecting stamps is an interesting hobby, after all.

lol, like I said, it's very easy to argue. One question I've always wondered about though, do you have faith in there not being a deity?

Remember, I am on almost the same system you are as far as religion goes. A deity doesn't necessarily equal a religion and lack of a deity doesn't make the opposite true either.

I need to remember to add "not collecting stamps" to my list of hobbies on facebook.

nameless
08-18-2010, 04:55 PM
Why should I be bothered by this? I'll just return to my hobby of not collecting stamps, or engage in the sport of not jogging.
Atheism is almost as much a religion as not collecting stamps is an interesting hobby, after all.

Atheism is absolutely a religion, if by religion you mean "system of beliefs based on faith over empirical evidence". I don't have any proof of the absense of higher powers to be worshipped, but I nevertheless believe them to be nonexistent. Much as I hate to say it, a lot of the modern attitude towards science is based on faith as well. The scientists themselves practice a rigorous system of verification and transparency, but how many laypeople actually bother to repeat all the experiments we read about in the newspaper before deciding to believe in the results? Or even read the original articles they published instead of a "for the layman" summary? Our "confirmation" is that the gadgets they develop work as claimed, just like Mayan peasants found confirmation of their faith every time their priests predicted an eclipse.

Sei'taer
08-18-2010, 05:26 PM
Atheism is absolutely a religion, if by religion you mean "system of beliefs based on faith over empirical evidence". I don't have any proof of the absense of higher powers to be worshipped, but I nevertheless believe them to be nonexistent. Much as I hate to say it, a lot of the modern attitude towards science is based on faith as well. The scientists themselves practice a rigorous system of verification and transparency, but how many laypeople actually bother to repeat all the experiments we read about in the newspaper before deciding to believe in the results? Or even read the original articles they published instead of a "for the layman" summary? Our "confirmation" is that the gadgets they develop work as claimed, just like Mayan peasants found confirmation of their faith every time their priests predicted an eclipse.

The problem, though, is semantics. Atheism has stuck as a catch all term for what should be called secular humanism and/or rational inquiry (or somethign else, maybe we can come up with a name here or maybe there is a name and I just don't know it). Atheism ,the word, is more easily understood in lay terms, kind of like Buddhism. Essentially, it means "those without religious credulity." The problem is that you can tie people like me, who are agnostic, to the same set of standards. It makes for a kind of muddled line to have to work with and through.

In the past decade or so (or longer), I think atheist has come to mean "someone who actively campaigns against religious intrusion into secular politics and culture" even though I wouldn't consider all these people to be atheists. I figure a lot of them are christians or other religions who want the gov't to stay out of their business. Anyway, this is kind of what Gonzo does, but I don't think Gonzo would really call himself an atheist, in the true sense of the word.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't pretend to be an authority on religion, but I find it interesting to discuss...especially when all we have to talk about in politics is how stupid one side is and how great the other side is. Might as well get in deep on religion rather than fighting the other fight.

nameless
08-18-2010, 07:06 PM
I have problems with the term "secular humanism," just because the act of creating a specific label for non-theists who believe in treating people decently implies that there's something special about that state of affairs and regular non-theists do not share that belief. If I coined the term "platonic equestrian" to refer to someone who enjoys horseback riding but thinks it's wrong to have sex with horses, you'd probably say I was wasting my time because the anti-bestiality stance is considered to be the default and it's understood that any given group will be against sex with animals unless they're specifically labeled as for it. I think the same consideration should be given to atheists and agnostics with regards to their having a moral compass by default. Obviously there are and will continue to be those who, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that religious instruction is the source of all morality, but to pander to their irrational fears by creating a new label for yourself that reassures them you're one of the good guys seems kind of, I dunno, Uncle Tom-ish, for lack of a better analogy.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't pretend to be an authority on religion, but I find it interesting to discuss...especially when all we have to talk about in politics is how stupid one side is and how great the other side is. Might as well get in deep on religion rather than fighting the other fight.

I couldn't agree more. The taboo in America against speaking critically about someone's religious beliefs is a huge source of frustration for me. If there's no criticism, how can there be critical discussion? If there's no critical discussion, how can your beliefs be refined? Faith that's never tested is no true faith at all. The end result of this taboo is widespread ignorance. The vast majority of American Christians believe in things that never appear anywhere in the Bible. I saw a survey in Christian Science Monitor estimating something like 60% of Americans believe in things that have been declared outright heresy by their respective churches. Poor understanding of the tenets of their own faiths just make people easy marks for sleazy televangelists and the like.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-19-2010, 03:13 AM
But, you are assuming that because the people running the society changed the religion that there was no religion. Take the USSR for instance and say they had wiped out all religion...essentially, the religion then becomes the worship of the state. You have to do such and such for the good of the community, is a religion in and of itself. You are "worshipping" either the state or the community. Buddhism is a fantastic example of a religion without a deity. Buddhists don't worship Buddha as some people assume and yet, they are classified as a religion because there isn't really any other name that makes sense.

If you choose to look at it from all sides, then even atheism is a religion of sorts, even though that will probably work Gonzo into a frenzy (should I say frenzy...might be a poor choice of words there, but I'll let it stick) but it is very easy to argue against on several points. Scientific learning and understanding does require some faith though, even if people don't like to admit it.

lol, that's exactly why I'm an agnostic. I don't believe that humans can (or should, for that matter) define God or Gods if he/she/they exist. Humans are fallible, therefore, all religions are wrong, including atheism.

I was referring to the soviet state enforcing atheism as a state "religion" and all the pressures that brought - since people didn't want to become atheists. but you are right. If you twist this thought process a bit you'd probably come to the conclusion that all political inclinations are a sort of religion. Believe in democracy? or dictatorship? or a dual-party republic? a panthenon of deities vs. One God vs. Yin and Yang (or, if you wish, Saidin and Saidar). Likewise the particular "party-deity" one worships: the god of prosperity? or of war? or of charity? or of knowledge? and so on and so forth. Although... maybe not "gods" in the personified sense but rather "ideas" or "ideals" to aspire to.

but, as nameless pointed out, it is not only human but common to all... let's limit it to vertebrae... to develop a system of superstition. If everyone was to interact with the world based only on what that one person *knows* then we couldn't function as individuals, much less a society. Descartesian Human wouldn't even be able to feed him/herself without first experimenting on how to grow grain and bake bread and trying to find out which berries are edible...

Jokeslayer
08-19-2010, 04:10 AM
So if a Hindu group wanted to build a swastica monument next to Auschwitz, would that be ok?

Wouldn't it depend on why they wanted to build there? Hindus and Auschwitz are unconnected (as far as I know, I could be wrong), Muslims and ground zero are not.

GonzoTheGreat
08-19-2010, 04:57 AM
Anyway, this is kind of what Gonzo does, but I don't think Gonzo would really call himself an atheist, in the true sense of the word.Yes, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of any gods, so by definition I am an atheist. That lack of belief is actually all there is to atheism, all the rest which is often stuck to it (like the objections to religious impositions, or secular humanism) is not part of atheism, just something that may go along with it.

To be a bit more precise about myself: I am an atheistic agnost.
Logic shows quite clearly that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. (Some trivial exceptions exist, but no one takes those seriously anymore, as they have been disproven long ago. Or they aren't worthy of the title "god", even though their existence is not in doubt. Julius Caesar was an example of the last category.) This means, of course, that the only logically solid stance is agnosticism. However, once you're there, you are still left with the question of "believing in gods or not". If you do believe, then there is added question of which gods, and since that is totally unanswerable using reason, all you could do was randomly pick and choose. That's not sensible, so the only rational approach is not believing in any, which means atheism. Hence, atheistic agnosticism is the only sane option.

Of course, humans aren't reasonable, but I choose to be unreasonable in other ways. Such as insisting that Britney Spears is a great philosopher.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-19-2010, 06:41 AM
Yes, I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of any gods, so by definition I am an atheist. That lack of belief is actually all there is to atheism, all the rest which is often stuck to it (like the objections to religious impositions, or secular humanism) is not part of atheism, just something that may go along with it.

To be a bit more precise about myself: I am an atheistic agnost.
Logic shows quite clearly that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. (Some trivial exceptions exist, but no one takes those seriously anymore, as they have been disproven long ago. Or they aren't worthy of the title "god", even though their existence is not in doubt. Julius Caesar was an example of the last category.) This means, of course, that the only logically solid stance is agnosticism. However, once you're there, you are still left with the question of "believing in gods or not". If you do believe, then there is added question of which gods, and since that is totally unanswerable using reason, all you could do was randomly pick and choose. That's not sensible, so the only rational approach is not believing in any, which means atheism. Hence, atheistic agnosticism is the only sane option.

Of course, humans aren't reasonable, but I choose to be unreasonable in other ways. Such as insisting that Britney Spears is a great philosopher.

I suppose that makes me an idealistic agnost - I believe in certain ideals rather than a god or the lack of a god. I also believe (and I think lots of people would agree) that ideals are what God(s) is/are made of in religions.

Logically speaking, as I said, it is impossible to not believe anything other than empirical evidence as personally collected. Well, not impossible... it would reduce a human to the existence level of a caterpillar.

GonzoTheGreat
08-19-2010, 07:44 AM
Logically speaking, as I said, it is impossible to not believe anything other than empirical evidence as personally collected. Well, not impossible... it would reduce a human to the existence level of a caterpillar.So, that means that the majority of people does not believe anything other than empirical evidence they have personally collected, doesn't it?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-19-2010, 08:20 AM
So, that means that the majority of people does not believe anything other than empirical evidence they have personally collected, doesn't it?

yeah... I used a triple-negative. so sue me!

also, if all non-believers are oranges then that does not mean that all oranges are non-believers. i.e. not all caterpillars are actually humans who won't believe anything besides self-collected empirical evidence. Some of them are just regular old caterpillars :p

GonzoTheGreat
08-19-2010, 08:33 AM
Still leaves open the possibility that most people are simply rather weird caterpillars, though. Now I'm wondering what kind of butterfly will hatch from Sarah Palin.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-19-2010, 09:01 AM
http://dirtysexybooks.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/moth-to-flame.jpg

just a guess...

nameless
08-19-2010, 08:10 PM
One thing changing into another thing? That sounds like evolution. Clearly the Palin-caterpillar would have nothing to do with it.

Ozymandias
08-22-2010, 11:54 AM
O
On the other hand, I think that it is just as stupid to blame "the Muslims" for the actions of a few, as it is to blame "the Jews" for what some allegedly did long ago. So anti-Muslim prejudice is indeed just as unjustified as anti-Jewish prejudice.


Many Muslims do deserve the blame. For not pressuring their leaders to not tacitly and actively support terrorism. For not lashing back against radical and violent ayatollahs. For not being more united and consistent in their denunciations of violence of all sorts perpetrated in the name of their religion. A few voices in the dark, or some weak willed muttering in the face of religious extremity, may as well be considered approval for all I care. The same as they (rightly) consider most Americans responsible for the Iraq War. Our response wasn't great enough to stymy it. That some of us may have vocally opposed it means nothing put against our failure to effect action (or in this case, inaction).

The difference between Jews in the Holocaust and Muslims today is that Jews were persecuted as a means of bind together and enriching the German state. Jews weren't a divisive element, most of them considered themselves Germans before Jews and as such refused to leave even when given the chance. I think the general opinion of the Holocaust would be MUCH different if it were thought the Jewish people were agitators or a rebellious faction within the nation that pushed an intolerant group to its limits.

GonzoTheGreat
08-22-2010, 12:03 PM
True, but most Muslims do not consider the terrorists to be representative of them either.

As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda is a bunch of conservatives. I don't think anyone is seriously willing to claim that that bunch of bigots is liberal, so this would not seem to be contentious. But then, would it be reasonable to hold all conservatives responsible for 9/11?

PS Perhaps it would, but then at least in part because it was conservatives who shaped US foreign policy for so long, which led directly to a situation where in most Muslim countries people have the choice between slavish obedience to dictators or supporting a fundamentalistic revolutionary group. For decades, the USA has been busy destroying liberal opposition groups all over the world, just in case they might turn communist if they had no other choice.

StrangePackage
08-22-2010, 01:51 PM
I just love any situation that causes the conservative wing of the Republican Party to come out against free exercise of religion AND property rights simultaneously.

Hypocrisy is delicious.

Ivhon
08-22-2010, 02:04 PM
I just love any situation that causes the conservative wing of the Republican Party to come out against free exercise of religion AND property rights simultaneously.

Hypocrisy is delicious.

Isnt it though? I have yet to hear a coherent answer to the trampling of the Constitution that would be required for the government to intervene.

Personally, I think it is yet another damned if you do, damned if you don't ploy. On the one hand, Obama is a non-American muslim nazi terrorist if he does not forbid the building of the "mosque" On the other, Obama is an anti-American, nazi communist who wants nothing more than to shred the Constitution if he does.

Of course, in taking the stance that he has - i.e. defending the constitutional right to build the community center but pointing out that it might be insensitive to do so he is a spineless weak-willed panderer.

No wonder nobody wants to be President

Kimon
08-22-2010, 02:56 PM
I just love any situation that causes the conservative wing of the Republican Party to come out against free exercise of religion AND property rights simultaneously.

Hypocrisy is delicious.

This might just be my liberal bias speaking, but the Republicans have long since ceased to give the impression of having a non-conservative wing. Certainly, at least, it seems that at some point they started labelling the old Rockerfeller-Republicans (i.e. socially progressive Republicans, mostly northerners, go fig...) RINOs, and then pushed them either completely out of the party, or else marginalized them and/or ran ultra-conservatives against them in their districts in the north, thus losing those seats to Democrats. Honestly, can you even think of any moderate Republicans, besides Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, that are still holding public office on the national level?

Sei'taer
08-22-2010, 06:50 PM
This might just be my liberal bias speaking, but the Republicans have long since ceased to give the impression of having a non-conservative wing. Certainly, at least, it seems that at some point they started labelling the old Rockerfeller-Republicans (i.e. socially progressive Republicans, mostly northerners, go fig...) RINOs, and then pushed them either completely out of the party, or else marginalized them and/or ran ultra-conservatives against them in their districts in the north, thus losing those seats to Democrats. Honestly, can you even think of any moderate Republicans, besides Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, that are still holding public office on the national level?

To be honest with you, I can't think of a republican that isn't a moderate right off the top of my head. There's not one fiscally conservative member of the group. I'd have to think about it.

My problem is that I don't match any party well at all. I am most comfortable with the tea party because of the anti-incumbency they are talking, but then I don't really agree with a lot of what they say. I'm also in for the americans for tax reform side, the americans for gay marriage side, the americans for less gov't side, americans for less religion in gov't side and many many others.

I'm really, really fiscally conservative and sort of socially liberal and in some instance, libertarian although I have problems with all of them though. It's why I get so pissed when people call me a republican, because I'm not. I'm in a group of my own. I hate what our gov't has become and think a total turn-over of the whole thing is what is needed. I have a whole forum I have put together, if I ever got to be in charge.

And unlike some others here, I'd be more than happy to be president...I have a feeling that most people here would despise me if I was though.

Sei'taer
08-22-2010, 06:56 PM
I just love any situation that causes the conservative wing of the Republican Party to come out against free exercise of religion AND property rights simultaneously.

Hypocrisy is delicious.

Your talking about the religious wing of the republican party, not the conservatives. Conservatives make a difference between the two, libs don't.

StrangePackage
08-22-2010, 07:44 PM
Your talking about the religious wing of the republican party, not the conservatives. Conservatives make a difference between the two, libs don't.

... sure.

The conservative wing of the conservative party is dominated and driven by religious conservatives.

But you obviously know something I don't.

Terez
08-22-2010, 07:59 PM
Ah, 'fiscal conservatism'. Favorite cop-out for voting Republican since the civil rights movement. Before then, the South was smart enough to see which party supported its needs. Funny how priorities can shift like that.

Sei'taer
08-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Ah, 'fiscal conservatism'. Favorite cop-out for voting Republican since the civil rights movement. Before then, the South was smart enough to see which party supported its needs. Funny how priorities can shift like that.


Pretty funny, since I (and many others) haven't voted republican since 2000. I hate throwing away my votes though and want someone to come along that I can actually vote for that has a chance in hell of winning.

But you obviously know something I don't.

And the liberal wing of the conservative party is dominated by reaganites/rockefeller republicans/romney republicans.

Terez
08-22-2010, 09:10 PM
Pretty funny, since I (and many others) haven't voted republican since 2000. I hate throwing away my votes though and want someone to come along that I can actually vote for that has a chance in hell of winning.
If all of the independents you vote for are like Two Feathers, then it makes little difference as far as I'm concerned.

Ivhon
08-22-2010, 09:12 PM
Pretty funny, since I (and many others) haven't voted republican since 2000. I hate throwing away my votes though and want someone to come along that I can actually vote for that has a chance in hell of winning.



And the liberal wing of the conservative party is dominated by reaganites/rockefeller republicans/romney republicans.

Thats where it becomes difficult. Is there any difference on issues between Palin and Romney? At least when it comes to campaign time? The only way I seem to be able to differentiate the 2 is by IQ. What was liberal or moderate about Reagan?

Terez
08-22-2010, 09:18 PM
Reagan expanded the size of the government. Therefore he is a liberal.

Sei'taer
08-22-2010, 09:36 PM
Thats where it becomes difficult. Is there any difference on issues between Palin and Romney? At least when it comes to campaign time? The only way I seem to be able to differentiate the 2 is by IQ. What was liberal or moderate about Reagan?

Romney and Palin are both republicans. Romney is a liberal republican, Palin is a party line republican. Neither are conservatives. If you start asking them questions Palin will toe the republican party line, Romney will wishywash along the same lines as a Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe.

Terez, I voted libertarian for pres last time. This time, I don't know how I'll vote until I actually pull the curtain on the booth...more than likely it will be anti-incumbent so I may vote for a few republicans and a few democrats.

ETA: Reagan was an expansionist. He wasn't a liberal, he pulled a lot of dems over to the republican party to win the election. He was a party line republican and since he had a lot of dems on his side, the media coined the term Reagan democrat.

StrangePackage
08-22-2010, 10:02 PM
Romney and Palin are both republicans. Romney is a liberal republican, Palin is a party line republican. Neither are conservatives. If you start asking them questions Palin will toe the republican party line, Romney will wishywash along the same lines as a Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe.

Terez, I voted libertarian for pres last time. This time, I don't know how I'll vote until I actually pull the curtain on the booth...more than likely it will be anti-incumbent so I may vote for a few republicans and a few democrats.

ETA: Reagan was an expansionist. He wasn't a liberal, he pulled a lot of dems over to the republican party to win the election. He was a party line republican and since he had a lot of dems on his side, the media coined the term Reagan democrat.

Palin isn't a conservative?...

Well okay then.

Kimon
08-22-2010, 10:24 PM
Romney and Palin are both republicans. Romney is a liberal republican, Palin is a party line republican. Neither are conservatives. If you start asking them questions Palin will toe the republican party line, Romney will wishywash along the same lines as a Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe.

Terez, I voted libertarian for pres last time. This time, I don't know how I'll vote until I actually pull the curtain on the booth...more than likely it will be anti-incumbent so I may vote for a few republicans and a few democrats.

ETA: Reagan was an expansionist. He wasn't a liberal, he pulled a lot of dems over to the republican party to win the election. He was a party line republican and since he had a lot of dems on his side, the media coined the term Reagan democrat.

Romney seems more pragmatic than liberal, by which I mean that he doesn't seem to take positions so much upon philosophical conviction as upon tactical expediency.

Reagan's appeal to some Dems was mostly a factor of personal charisma, and, of course, that appeal was limited to more conservative, and centrist Democrats.

Davian93
08-23-2010, 07:58 AM
Reagan expanded the size of the government. Therefore he is a liberal.

He also talked with the Commies...and even tried to make deals with them. Therefore, he is a Commie Liberal too!!!

Davian93
08-23-2010, 08:01 AM
Palin isn't a conservative?...

Well okay then.

Well, she's a moron who really isn't anything other than a Right Wing Religious nut...she's no fiscal conservative in the traditional sense of the word when it was applied to Republicans.

Governor Douglas (VT-R) is a fiscal conservative...and a true NE Republican in every sense of the word. Palin is just a "conservative" when it suits her ghostwriter during Facebook posts.


Romney is a slimy snake who blows whichever way he needs to (or whoever he needs to) to get votes. He was TERRIBLE for Massachusetts and I hated him as my governor when I lived there.

Ivhon
08-23-2010, 08:41 AM
Well, she's a moron who really isn't anything other than a Right Wing Religious nut...she's no fiscal conservative in the traditional sense of the word when it was applied to Republicans.

Governor Douglas (VT-R) is a fiscal conservative...and a true NE Republican in every sense of the word. Palin is just a "conservative" when it suits her ghostwriter during Facebook posts.


Romney is a slimy snake who blows whichever way he needs to (or whoever he needs to) to get votes. He was TERRIBLE for Massachusetts and I hated him as my governor when I lived there.

That's kindof my point. He will do whatever he needs to do to get votes. As a Republican, that means toeing the same line as Palin and the rest of the nutjobs. Its a race to the right over there. Isnt there still some movement within the party to pressure all candidates to sign a statement of "Real American Values" or somesuch in order to get party support?

What major republican right now is going to:

1. Stand up for the constitution re: the community center
2. Stand against discriminatory (and unconstitutional) anti-brown laws in AZ (mr. maverick won't...total about face)
3. Obviously all of them are standing for unconstitutionally banning gay marriage
4. Not one of them would dare suggest that the way out of the economic crisis is to cut spending AND increase taxes.
5. Any of them talking anything substantive about financial regulation?
6. Lindsey Graham just bailed on environmental regulation. He was the last major figure on the Right to even mutter about it.
7. Any of them paying more than lip service to working WITH rather than defeating Democrats?

The only substantive difference I can see are little things like Perry standing by his guns and not taking federal dollars and Jindal talking a big storm but running for the money first chance he gets.

Sei'taer
08-23-2010, 09:27 AM
That's kindof my point. He will do whatever he needs to do to get votes. As a Republican, that means toeing the same line as Palin and the rest of the nutjobs. Its a race to the right over there. Isnt there still some movement within the party to pressure all candidates to sign a statement of "Real American Values" or somesuch in order to get party support?

What major republican right now is going to:

1. Stand up for the constitution re: the community center
2. Stand against discriminatory (and unconstitutional) anti-brown laws in AZ (mr. maverick won't...total about face)
3. Obviously all of them are standing for unconstitutionally banning gay marriage
4. Not one of them would dare suggest that the way out of the economic crisis is to cut spending AND increase taxes.
5. Any of them talking anything substantive about financial regulation?
6. Lindsey Graham just bailed on environmental regulation. He was the last major figure on the Right to even mutter about it.
7. Any of them paying more than lip service to working WITH rather than defeating Democrats?

The only substantive difference I can see are little things like Perry standing by his guns and not taking federal dollars and Jindal talking a big storm but running for the money first chance he gets.

I don't agree

ETA let me explain a little better. I'm ok with 1, not ok with 2 (I don't think you've read the AZ law and compared it to federal law). 3, not all of them, just most of them. 4 don't agree, don't agree, don't agree. Keynes is being disproven as we speak. 5. I'd say minimal financial regulation. 6. Enviromental regulation is needed, but it should also be minimal. This bill being cooked up is going to SUCK. 7. Depends of the definition of working with and what bills they are working on.

Davian93
08-23-2010, 09:54 AM
Its almost as if Immigration is a FEDERAL issue and not a STATE one...if only we had settled the whole Fed vs. State thing at some point previously and we could use that precedent on who is right in the AZ case.


The Right really has no platform right now other than "NO on anything that Obama pushes". Add in the blatant bigoted hypocrisy that is demonstrated everyday by the base of their party and its a pretty pathetic and scary sight.


EDITED FOR GRAMMAR

GonzoTheGreat
08-23-2010, 10:11 AM
The Right really has no platform right now other than "NO on anything that Obama pushes". Add in the blatant bigoted hypocrisy that is demonstrated everyday by the base of their party and its a pretty pathetic and scary site.Be honest: being right wing is about being conservative, and in the past it was soo much less stressful to be a hypocritic bigot. The poor right wingers don't have it easy, nowadays.

Sei'taer
08-23-2010, 05:29 PM
Its almost as if Immigration is a FEDERAL issue and not a STATE one...if only we had settled the whole Fed vs. State thing at some point previously and we could use that precedent on who is right in the AZ case.


The Right really has no platform right now other than "NO on anything that Obama pushes". Add in the blatant bigoted hypocrisy that is demonstrated everyday by the base of their party and its a pretty pathetic and scary sight.


EDITED FOR GRAMMAR

I wasn't going to reply because it's really not worth it to argue when you are obviously pissed off and misinformed. Changed my mind.

Just want to point out a few things and let you be even madderer about them and spew some more. then maybe you'll start doing some looking and see what you are missing.

First of all, Rhode Island (http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/?page=2). They are enforcing federal law. In the city where I work, which is a municipality, not a state system, we report illegals to ICE. So the issue can go down below the state. I think if you want to focius on someone breaking federal law, then you should probably be voincing your problems to sanctuary cities and states. AS you can see from the article, MA is one of these states. The feds should be suing them.

Also, you need to look up the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton. One of the parts you'll like is

Section 287(g) is a program of the act that deputizes state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters

This is the act enforced where I work.

Secondly, and you need to remember your words here,
The Right really has no platform right now other than "NO on anything that Obama pushes".

Solutions for America (http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/solutions-for-america), where 128 specific policy recommendations have been made to congress, many of which are being debated now. Just because your media doesn't report it and it doesn't pop up on yahoo news doesn't mean it isn't happening. And regardless of whether you like it or not, They do have a platform, so it kind of pulls the bullshit rug over your argument.

It also took me about 5 seconds to google tea party and then see their platform spelled (http://www.thecontract.org/)out in easy to understand english, again you don't have to agree with it, but there is a platform. So another rug and another bullshit.

And finally, if you go to the GOP website (http://www.gop.com/), surprise, there are several platforms listed.

I know you like to spew, I do it too sometimes. I've tried lately to moderate myself and instead of being so in your face, I have decided to go easy and not let stuff like this bother me. I honestly don't care which side of the fence you are on with most issues, I'd rather have discussions than spews.

Davian93
08-23-2010, 08:02 PM
Taer, you're misunderstanding...I'm more mad at the Feds for not fixing it than AZ. Either way, change needs to come from the top not piecemeal from the bottom.


Either way, its not AZ's place to pass Immigration laws...its Congress's job.

Sei'taer
08-23-2010, 08:12 PM
Taer, you're misunderstanding...I'm more mad at the Feds for not fixing it than AZ. Either way, change needs to come from the top not piecemeal from the bottom.


Either way, its not AZ's place to pass Immigration laws...its Congress's job.

That's not even the problem. The laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Since Reagan gave amnesty to all the illegals (and for quite a while before that), no president has enforced the laws currently on the books. Believe it or not, deportations have actually gone down with this administration, which is bad because Bush wasn't exactly an enforcement guru.

I don't mind people being here. I life is much better on this side of the border than on that side of the border. I work with them every day. I eat with them, laugh with them, make fun of them, try to learn their language and help them learn ours. I just want them here legally...it's really not that hard. If you think we are bad, you should see the legals tearing up the illegals.

Davian93
08-23-2010, 08:23 PM
That's not even the problem. The laws are there, they just aren't enforced. Since Reagan gave amnesty to all the illegals (and for quite a while before that), no president has enforced the laws currently on the books. Believe it or not, deportations have actually gone down with this administration, which is bad because Bush wasn't exactly an enforcement guru.

I don't mind people being here. I life is much better on this side of the border than on that side of the border. I work with them every day. I eat with them, laugh with them, make fun of them, try to learn their language and help them learn ours. I just want them here legally...it's really not that hard. If you think we are bad, you should see the legals tearing up the illegals.

From what I vaguely recollect, a big reason deportations are down are due to the sucky economy diminishing demand for illegals crossing.

I agree with you on legalization. I dont think another blanket amnesty is the solution but there needs to be some path to legal status.

Any type of reform will make my job busier than ever so its nice job security to say the least.

Working for the Man and watching nothing get done is annoying as all hell at times.

Ahumm
08-23-2010, 08:56 PM
Keith Olbermann did a segment on this the other day (here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38731398#38731398)) that touched on some good points.

Ozymandias
08-23-2010, 09:42 PM
Either way, its not AZ's place to pass Immigration laws...its Congress's job.

Got to agree with this one. Whether you like the eroding of state's power over the last few centuries or not, it is the place of the Federal Government and not the states to regulate immigration.

I don't give a damn that Arizona wants stricter enforcement. They have every right. Have the police be instructed to be more vigilant and demanding of identification or whatever is within their legal rights. But don't pander to your voters by doing something blatantly unConstitutional.

And 'taer, maybe this is the east coast liberal speaking, but calling the Tea Party movement a "platform" is an outrage

Sei'taer
08-23-2010, 10:46 PM
And 'taer, maybe this is the east coast liberal speaking, but calling the Tea Party movement a "platform" is an outrage

Davian said there was no platform on the right. A platform is a platform in that instance. I know that what I linked is barely discernible as one, but it is one and it is on the right (sort of, because a lot of the tea party people are dems).

And the thing about the AZ law is that I don't think it is unconstitutional. If it turns out that it is, then the feds should (and I know I'm living a pipe dream) go after the sanctuary cities also, because what they do is definitely unconstitutional.

Also, just for debate sake, have you seen the new plan for pre-existing conditions? You can find it here www.pciplan.com under the FAQ section. (http://www.pciplan.com/customerservice/faqs.html) Notice:

Eligible individuals must:

•Be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident
•Have a pre-existing medical condition
•Not have been covered under creditable health coverage (as defined by Section 201(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act) for the previous six months before applying for coverage

The rates for TN are really bad. As a matter of fact, the whole deal seems pretty shitty. My plan for my daughter, which is paid by donations from an anonymous individual, is actually cheaper than this crap.

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: Tennessee

PCIP will cover a broad range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs. All covered benefits are available for you, beginning on your coverage effective date, even if it’s to treat a pre-existing condition - there are no waiting periods.
The monthly premiums for your state are:
Age 00-34 35-44 45-54 55+
$286 $343 $438 $609

In addition to your monthly premium, you will pay other costs. Covered in-network services are subject to a $2,500 annual deductible (except for preventive services) before the plan starts to pay benefits. Once you’ve met the deductible, you will pay a $25 copayment for doctor visits, $4 to $30 for most drugs at a retail pharmacy for the first two prescriptions and 50% of the cost of the prescriptions after that. If you use mail order, you will pay $10 for generic drugs or $75 for brand drugs on the plan formulary for a 90 day supply. You will pay 20% of the cost of any other covered benefits received from a network provider. Your out-of-pocket costs cannot be more than $5,950 per year. However, your out-of-pocket costs may be higher if you go outside the plan’s network.
If you apply for PCIP coverage, you will be billed for the premium once your application is approved. You will need to send in your payment in order for your coverage to be effective. Please do not send in the premium before you are billed. Note that your premium may increase in January 2011 if you age into a higher rate tier, or if PCIP adjusts its premiums to any changes in the commercial market.

My deductible, for her, is less, my copayment is less, and the monthly payments, which I don't make, are less.

nameless
08-23-2010, 11:16 PM
I'm not 100% sold on the AZ law being unconstitutional, though you could make a pretty good case that it violates the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause of the 14th amendment by creating a system in which ethnic minorities are subjected to demands to prove their legal status at a far greater rate than their white counterparts. I know the law's proponents claim there are non-racial criteria to establish suspicion of illegality, but I don't believe them, mostly because of a TV interview I saw with the law's creator in which he responded to a question of what those criteria would be by listing three different examples that all involved the suspect spontaneously confessing to being an illegal immigrant and no examples that didn't.

Constitutional or not, the law is still a horrible idea. In your municipality, for example, you say police report illegals to ICE, which is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to force LEOs to drop everything they're doing and play ICE agent every time they talk to a brown person. Under the new law police no longer have any discretion to ignore suspected immigration offenses and concentrate on crimes they consider to be more important. They are essentially being given extra work but not extra resources, which means the man-hours being diverted into dealing with illegals are no longer being spent solving murders and rapes and robberies. And of course there's the issue of community cooperation. Crimes don't get solved unless citizens are willing to call 911 or make witness statements. The new law will make it harder for police to do their jobs and result in more unsolved murders, robberies, arsons, etc. The thing that really scares me is that more that 50% of the country thinks that's a fair price to pay in exchange for fewer Mexicans.

Ozymandias
08-24-2010, 07:58 AM
The thing that really scares me is that more that 50% of the country thinks that's a fair price to pay in exchange for fewer Mexicans.

While its a valid point, I think the reasoning behind those Arizonans who support the law is that the Mexicans are bringing most of the violent crime to the table, and that reducing their number, on its own, will reduce violent crime. Which may or may not be a valid point, I think you'd have to see how the whole thing played out before making that judgement one way or another.

The racial profiling issue is another huge case. Perhaps, to my mind, the biggest reason to be against this bill. Plenty of hispanics are in this country legally. And while my guess is many of them are the hardest line, anti-illegal alien proponents there are, you know they will be profiled like no one's business.

Oh and the economic argument has to be mentioned, here. Illegals do a ton of the dirty, menial work no one else wants to do. I've spoken to lots of right wingers and other sympathetic individuals who believe that the departure of cheap labor will force companies to pay better wages to Americans, but I have to say that seems patently untrue. Those are jobs citizens don't want to do and haven't wanted to do in a good long while, and my money is on the fact that people still aren't going to want to pick strawberries in the blazing sun for 8 hours a day, even if they're getting paid minimum wage. Something to consider. Reminds me a funny article/rant I read the other day on people who are sh*tting on bankers not realizing that those are the guys who will take their jobs.

Davian93
08-24-2010, 08:07 AM
I'm not 100% sold on the AZ law being unconstitutional, though you could make a pretty good case that it violates the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause of the 14th amendment by creating a system in which ethnic minorities are subjected to demands to prove their legal status at a far greater rate than their white counterparts. I know the law's proponents claim there are non-racial criteria to establish suspicion of illegality, but I don't believe them, mostly because of a TV interview I saw with the law's creator in which he responded to a question of what those criteria would be by listing three different examples that all involved the suspect spontaneously confessing to being an illegal immigrant and no examples that didn't.

Constitutional or not, the law is still a horrible idea. In your municipality, for example, you say police report illegals to ICE, which is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to force LEOs to drop everything they're doing and play ICE agent every time they talk to a brown person. Under the new law police no longer have any discretion to ignore suspected immigration offenses and concentrate on crimes they consider to be more important. They are essentially being given extra work but not extra resources, which means the man-hours being diverted into dealing with illegals are no longer being spent solving murders and rapes and robberies. And of course there's the issue of community cooperation. Crimes don't get solved unless citizens are willing to call 911 or make witness statements. The new law will make it harder for police to do their jobs and result in more unsolved murders, robberies, arsons, etc. The thing that really scares me is that more that 50% of the country thinks that's a fair price to pay in exchange for fewer Mexicans.

Most Germans thought it was a really good idea to make Jews (and other undesirables) wear a distinguishing mark in 1930s Germany...odd how the majority is sometimes dangerously wrong.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-24-2010, 08:53 AM
throwback to earlier in this thread when somone raised the point (and I'm paraphrasing) "but the muslims don't publicly disapprove of extremists in their own religion"

looky here, an Islamic facebook has been opened to propagate moderate Islamic views within the community - linky (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11064326)


Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood launches 'Islamic Facebook' By Jon Leyne

BBC News, Cairo


The site has been operating on a trial basis for a few months Egypt's opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, has launched its own Facebook-style social networking site.

A senior member of the banned Islamist group says the aim is to spread awareness of moderate Islamic values.

The Brotherhood's version - Ikhwanbook - looks similar to Facebook, but users say it respects Islamic values better.

It has more reserved use of photographs, less intrusion in the personal lives of members, and a different attitude to homosexuality.

The launch of the website is part of a wider attempt to increase the Islamic group's presence on the internet.

Trial basis

The Muslim Brotherhood says they are using the internet, partly because it is one of the few channels of communication left open to them in Egypt.

The group is banned, so they have no TV channel, and no permission to publish a newspaper.

The Brotherhood insists it does not want to isolate itself from the world, nor to compete with Facebook.

However, some Muslims have criticised Facebook for not shutting down anti-Islamic sites, not to mention their unease about the more liberal attitudes and opinions that can be exchanged on Facebook.

Because the group is banned, some members have concerns that the government will identify them through their membership of Ikhwanbook.

So far the site has only been operating on a trial basis for a few months, but the organisers say there will be a full launch at a later date, when they expect the number of members to increase.


note: the Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) is a somewhat controversial entity. It is the biggest Islamic (semi-)political organisation and it has branches in many counties, mostly as opposition to the ruling party/coalition. In Egypt it is banned from political activities.

However, most importantly for this particular debate, non-violence is one of the most important points that they advocate. And, as they point out on the article, there are good reasons why for example Facebook use is... not wise for a Good Muslim. So with this new portal they'd get the message of moderation out to more an more Muslims, thus lessening the number of people who would consider violence a good option for solving problems. Ideally.

Methinks this is a Good Idea, now only depends on how it takes off and if it gets corrupted...

Sei'taer
08-24-2010, 09:29 AM
I'm not 100% sold on the AZ law being unconstitutional, though you could make a pretty good case that it violates the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause of the 14th amendment by creating a system in which ethnic minorities are subjected to demands to prove their legal status at a far greater rate than their white counterparts. I know the law's proponents claim there are non-racial criteria to establish suspicion of illegality, but I don't believe them, mostly because of a TV interview I saw with the law's creator in which he responded to a question of what those criteria would be by listing three different examples that all involved the suspect spontaneously confessing to being an illegal immigrant and no examples that didn't.

Constitutional or not, the law is still a horrible idea. In your municipality, for example, you say police report illegals to ICE, which is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to force LEOs to drop everything they're doing and play ICE agent every time they talk to a brown person. Under the new law police no longer have any discretion to ignore suspected immigration offenses and concentrate on crimes they consider to be more important. They are essentially being given extra work but not extra resources, which means the man-hours being diverted into dealing with illegals are no longer being spent solving murders and rapes and robberies. And of course there's the issue of community cooperation. Crimes don't get solved unless citizens are willing to call 911 or make witness statements. The new law will make it harder for police to do their jobs and result in more unsolved murders, robberies, arsons, etc. The thing that really scares me is that more that 50% of the country thinks that's a fair price to pay in exchange for fewer Mexicans.

For Nameless, Ozy, and Davian,

Here's how it works in my city (I called and asked a buddy of mine, that's why it has taken a little while for me to reply). If you get pulled over, I ask you for your drivers license. If you have one, you go on your way with a ticket. If you don't have one, then I get your name and look it up in the computer. If it comes up that you are possibly here illegally or that you are not a citizen and here legally, then I go back and ask you for your papers. If you have them (which, by federal law you are supposed to) then you go on your way. If you don't, but the computer says you are here legally, you get a warning and go on your way. This usually takes about the same amount of time as getting a ticket does.

If you can't prove you are here legally, or the computer shows you don't exist, or you have been picked up in the past as being here illegally, then you are detained while a call is made to ICE.

Something else I learned. He said there is a law that if you are here legally, but you commit certain crimes, you are subject to deportation also. He has seen this a few times too. He picked up one guy for his 3rd DUI and after processing him and reporting it to ICE, they sent back notice that an agent was coming to pick him up and he was to go to federal court to determine his status in the US and whether the crimes committed required the revocation of his legal status and deportation back to his country of origin (which was not Mexico, btw). The way I understood it, it's similar to getting points on your DL for speeding tickets and such, but I don't think a speeding ticket is enough of a crime to put you out of the country. He seemed to mean crimes like theft and repeat offenses like DUI.

Davian93
08-24-2010, 11:45 AM
An immigrant that is here legally that committs a felony (or misdemeanor in certain cases...typically drug cases) is pretty much automatically deported after conviction.

As it should be.

Ozymandias
08-24-2010, 11:28 PM
However, most importantly for this particular debate, non-violence is one of the most important points that they advocate. And, as they point out on the article, there are good reasons why for example Facebook use is... not wise for a Good Muslim. So with this new portal they'd get the message of moderation out to more an more Muslims, thus lessening the number of people who would consider violence a good option for solving problems. Ideally.

Methinks this is a Good Idea, now only depends on how it takes off and if it gets corrupted...

It was me who said it. Of course, no one is claiming that Muslims are lining up in droves to off themselves and a few Jews/Americans in the process, but the outrage isn't there. Advocating a moderate Islamic view via facebook is exactly the kind of crap attitude that allows radical extremism to flourish. They're not even outright denouncing radical extremist clerics/groups/terrorists... they're asking to be disassociated from them. And I say, no. I won't. You align with them and they align with you in the most important cultural and self-identifying part of your life.

Firstly, Islam, like Christianity, and in a lesser sense Judaism, is an inherently violent religion. Do not sit there and preach to me, because the Koran adamantly divides the world into Islam and other people, terming them people to be converted or exterminated. In many ways, the true Muslims are the extremists. Much as the homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-everything Christians are really the true Christians.

Muslims have a DUTY to denounce violence committed on their behalf, not to sit on the sidelines and wash their hands of the matter and claim thats not "their" religion.

And plus, read the freaking article! They didn't found their own Facebook to promote moderate Islam, thats a crock of shit. They founded it because they were uncomfortable with the pro-homosexual content, didn't like giving users the freedom to post uncensored pictures, and were offended by the liberal content. Read between the lines. The whole thing was started because they don't want to give the kind of freedom of expression to their users that normal Facebook provides. If anything, the site is a mockery of the goals it claims to espouse, because whatever they claim it is meant to be, it functions in the exact ways a fundamentalist radical would want it to. At least compared to the original.

The major proselytizing religions will NEVER be peaceful because there will always be people who take the words in the magic book seriously, and the magic book says Convert or Die. And there will always be someone as gullible... sorry, as fervently faithful, as to listen to the magic book and do what is says. The only shocking thing is that we all still pretend to be confused when it happens. We just don't want to see the bad in ourselves... we denounce violent Christianity/Judaism as motivated by something other than religion, or call them extremists, while still harboring that latent bigotry that Muslims secretly support terrorism and radicalism. And they feel the same about us, I am sure. With good reason

yks 6nnetu hing
08-25-2010, 03:43 AM
And plus, read the freaking article! They didn't found their own Facebook to promote moderate Islam, thats a crock of shit. They founded it because they were uncomfortable with the pro-homosexual content, didn't like giving users the freedom to post uncensored pictures, and were offended by the liberal content. Read between the lines. The whole thing was started because they don't want to give the kind of freedom of expression to their users that normal Facebook provides. If anything, the site is a mockery of the goals it claims to espouse, because whatever they claim it is meant to be, it functions in the exact ways a fundamentalist radical would want it to. At least compared to the original.

yeah. see, I don't have a Stalkbook or MyEgo account and the main reason is that I don't want random people to find out personal details about me, post pictures of me and overall shit all over my life on an online cesspool of "hey baby, your pic is hot, wanna be friends?" And I'm not even remotely religious, much less a follower of a religion where distance in interpersonal relations is important (as it... theoretically... is in Christianity).

I'm not saying this would be the solution that will win the War on Terrorism (TM), I'm not even saying that this will work like the founders claim in the article. There are certainly plenty of ways it could be used instead as a communication area for would-be terrorists. What I'm saying is that currently a lot of the more strict Muslims are completely shut out from online social networking with their more liberal counterparts because the stricter ones refuse to even hook up to the current which already flouts all of their core beliefs. Which means that if the stricter Muslims are online at all, they're probably talking to even more strict Muslims. And yes, I realise that Facebook can be awesome for keeping in touch with your family and friends, and not everyone on it is a creepy perv or advertising for "free tattoos for everyone", but the most prevalent image that is projected from Facebook is... not exactly adcovating clean living and no alcohol.

Of course I would love for all religious nuts to be more tolerant but as I've pointed out previously in this thread, trying to radically change people's beliefs usually backfires horribly. You need patience and baby steps not an ultimatum. This, by the way works the other way around too: baby steps on the Muslim's part to get the Christians to accept them. Because, frankly - right now I think it's worse being a Muslim than it is being a gay person in most of the Western World. But then, maybe my view is skewed, I do live in Amsterdam :rolleyes:

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2010, 04:46 AM
Here's how it works in my city (I called and asked a buddy of mine, that's why it has taken a little while for me to reply). If you get pulled over, I ask you for your drivers license. If you have one, you go on your way with a ticket. If you don't have one, then I get your name and look it up in the computer. If it comes up that you are possibly here illegally or that you are not a citizen and here legally, then I go back and ask you for your papers. If you have them (which, by federal law you are supposed to) then you go on your way. If you don't, but the computer says you are here legally, you get a warning and go on your way. This usually takes about the same amount of time as getting a ticket does.All of which already assumes one is driving a car, which in turn already requires having valid identification (a driver's license) which can then be easily used to prove you are a US citizen.

Now take another scenario:
You are standing somewhere on a street corner. (Possibly you're waiting for your girlfriend, or you are hoping to accidentally meet the woman (man) of your dreams, whatever.) You do not need a driver's license or any other type of official permit for using the pavement for this particular purpose. Then a police officer comes up to you, and demands to see proof that you are legally in the country. You don't have anything, so now you are a suspected illegal alien.
Is that really the kind of situation you want people (well, all right, spics) to get into twice a month?

Sei'taer
08-25-2010, 07:46 AM
Is that really the kind of situation you want people (well, all right, spics) to get into twice a month?


Yes, as a matter of fact it is. And using a racial word because you think I use it and you want to prove to everyone I'm a bigot is just stupid.

The much easier way to do it is to raid all the companies where these people work and fine the holy living hell out of the company owner. I'm not talking about $1000 an employee, I'd say more like $10,000 an employee. If nobody will hire them, then they will leave. While all that is happening, we fix the legal immigration process and make it easier for workers to get in here.

I know you let anyone and everyone walk into dutchland, no questions asked, (http://www.workpermit.com/netherlands/employer.htm) but that's very rare for most countries and the US needs to fix it so it works better.

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2010, 07:56 AM
Yes, as a matter of fact it is. And using a racial word because you think I use it and you want to prove to everyone I'm a bigot is just stupid.I don't think you are a bigot. If I thought that, then I would have no argument with which I might hope to convince you in this case.

What I do think is that at least some police officers are bigots. And even the ones who aren't will be focusing on the "usual suspects", in this case anyone who looks to be "loitering while Hispanic".
If the voters thought that it might mean their children would get thrown into lock up until their identities could be proven, then they would not vote for it. But since that will only happen to others, there is no incentive to think things through.

The much easier way to do it is to raid all the companies where these people work and fine the holy living hell out of the company owner. I'm not talking about $1000 an employee, I'd say more like $10,000 an employee. If nobody will hire them, then they will leave. While all that is happening, we fix the legal immigration process and make it easier for workers to get in here.Easier and more dependable from the point of view of what would actually work. But of course totally impossible to implement, as those companies can use their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech to buy politicians to prevent such a scheme from being implemented.

But yes, going after the actual lawbreakers from your own country would be better than targetting the poor dupes who just try to make a living. But doing so is not the American Way, so it won't happen.
Of course, as you may know, it is not the Dutch Way either, so a somewhat different version of this issue plays here too. On the other hand, in order to prevent big terrorist attacks here, we have a legal obligation to be able to identify ourselves in many circumstances already. It has worked, too: no one has ever tried to build any Twin Towers here, let alone crash airplanes into them.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-25-2010, 08:49 AM
I know you let anyone and everyone walk into dutchland, no questions asked, (http://www.workpermit.com/netherlands/employer.htm) but that's very rare for most countries and the US needs to fix it so it works better.

lol, it's not that easy, no how, no way. Not even when you're from a country with the more relaxed rules - such as a fellow EU country, US, Canada, Australia etc. For all but 2 EU countries it is very simple indeed: all you need to do is get registered and you can stay and work no questions asked. For Romania and Bulgaria (and you might have seen the hooplah France is having with the Roma at the moment) it is as it used to be for all of the "new members": you can stay for 3 months, after that you need to be legally registered. the legal registration is a very simple process: all you need is a permission to be entered as living in an apartment/house from the person who owns the place and a proof of citizenship of a EU country. However, if you're Romanian or Bulgarian, to work you need 2 things: in addition to being a legal resident, a company must apply for a work permit for you for the first year of your stay. can be several companies, one for the first two months, the next for the next 4 months etc. but you get my point. It takes about 6-8 weeks for the permit to be issued and there are some fees that the employer needs to pay.

While the work permit solution seems easy in theory I can tell you from experience: good luck! it's a bit similar as it is with euthanasia here - while it is legal, finding the doctor to administer it is a serious challenge, most doctors simply will not do it.

becoming a legal resident if you're not a EU citizen is quite a lot harder than described above, the level of difficulty varies of course, depending on whether you come from Canada, Suriname (a former colony of the Netherlands) or Nigeria.

ETA: well, technically you don't need to get registered in order to stay here if you're a EU citizen. But to work, you need a... sort of a social security number. Everyone needs that to work, open a bank account, register for a phone contract or rent an apartment. the Dutch get one at birth.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 08:54 AM
Hey Gonzo...I know you can't help but be an ass and use racial slurs but some of us find them extremely offensive. I dont know if the dutch language has the equivalent and if they mean the same thing there (I'm assuming yes on both counts) but either way...SHUT THE FVCK UP AND STOP USING THEM.

Its a stupid ignorant way to try and make a point and all you do is make yourself look even dumber when you continue to do it.

You'd think after a freaking decade here you could curb some of your trollish tendencies.

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2010, 09:00 AM
Davian, in this case they seem appropriate because they would be precisely the thing which decided whether or not someone got harrassed by the cops: if they think he fits the racial slur, they ask him to prove his "right to be where he is", if he does not fit it (because he is white, black or clearly a drunken indian, whatever) then they won't bother checking credentials.

If you can show me something other than mere racist characteristics (combined possibly with where someone is) which would determine that someone has to prove his or her right to be there, then that might be an actual reason to accept this.

But so far, we've only heard a variation on the SCOTUS rule for porn: you knows it when you sees it. That would be a lot less prejudicial for printed porn than for actual humans, though, which is exactly the problem here.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 09:03 AM
Regardless of the racial overtones of the law, there is no reason to use those words. Not that that will stop you as you seem to think it is just so so clever to use a racial slur as if its making some sort of great point. If you're ever in VT, I'll invite you over to meet my fiancee's family and you can use that word all you want. I'd give you about 10 sec (maybe 20 if you're a fast runner) before unconsciousness sets in).

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2010, 09:08 AM
They think that physical violence is an appropiate way of responding when they can't use words to make their point? I've met people like that before, I do not think I am eager to repeat the experience. I do thank you for the offer though; you might not have known that even over here in civilisation there are folk like that.

Now, back to my point: do you want to claim that no police officers are racist?
If you can substantiate that claim, then my use of the term would indeed have been inappropriate, and in that case I would apologise for it.
If, however, a significant (10% would already qualify) of the police force would think things like that word, then using it seems entirely warranted.

Sei'taer
08-25-2010, 09:20 AM
What I do think is that at least some police officers are bigots. And even the ones who aren't will be focusing on the "usual suspects", in this case anyone who looks to be "loitering while Hispanic".
If the voters thought that it might mean their children would get thrown into lock up until their identities could be proven, then they would not vote for it. But since that will only happen to others, there is no incentive to think things through.



I think it's amazing that people believe there will be racial profiling in this instance and this instance only. Believe it or not, it happens all the time and it doesn't matter whether you are black, white, latino, asian, whatever. Ask Davian if he has more of a chance of getting pulled over in TN based solely on the state his car is tagged in. If I was up north, then I would be more likely to be pulled over just because of my TN or even just out-of-state tag.

If I go down to Orange Mound in Memphis, then I am very likely to get pulled over and searched and questioned. Why? Because Orange Mound is a high drug area and white people only go down there for one thing...drugs. I was involved in a 2 hour ordeal a few years back when all I did was take a buddy of mine home and the easiest way to get him there was to cut through Orange Mound. Was it a pain in the ass? Yes it was, but it was understandable and I was glad that the cops were watching the area and trying to clean it up. So was my friend who happens to live on the outskirts of Orange Mound and is trying to make a better life for himself. Same goes for the area down around Airways BLVD in Memphis. It is the area that most of the illegal immigrants live. White people and black people down there are suspected of doing all kinds of things. I've been pulled over in that area a few times in the last few years.

If you do what the federal law says then you don't have a problem. I have to carry a drivers license with me and have a car that has current tags and is in good working condition to drive. I can't loiter where there are no loitering signs, I can't jaywalk, I can't panhandle work or money. If you are over here on a VISA, and I figure it's this way in every country, then I have to, by law, carry the proper paperwork. It's not that hard. I carry the proper paperwork everyday. I have a drivers license, they have a little credit card looking thing with their picture on it. Wow...tough to keep that handy in your wallet.

The people who I work with that are here legally are proud to pull out there work VISA and proud to tell you the story of how they are applying to be an american citizen and proud to tell you the things they are learning in the classes they take and how good their kids are doing in school. They don't hide and worry about being checked because they have what they need to keep themselves here legally. They are not proud of the illegals who come over the border and give them a bad name.

Sei'taer
08-25-2010, 09:25 AM
They think that physical violence is an appropiate way of responding when they can't use words to make their point? I've met people like that before, I do not think I am eager to repeat the experience. I do thank you for the offer though; you might not have known that even over here in civilisation there are folk like that.

Now, back to my point: do you want to claim that no police officers are racist?
If you can substantiate that claim, then my use of the term would indeed have been inappropriate, and in that case I would apologise for it.
If, however, a significant (10% would already qualify) of the police force would think things like that word, then using it seems entirely warranted.

They are as racist as you are, Gonzo. Probably less racist because I've never heard them use some of the words you use. That's not to say that some aren't racist, but then, I believe racism goes all ways. Blacks can be just as racist as whites can be just as racist as latinos can be just as racist as indians, etc, etc. I imagine that the racism in the police world is probably the same in the Netherlands as it is here. Prbably the same worldwide for that matter.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 09:31 AM
They think that physical violence is an appropiate way of responding when they can't use words to make their point? I've met people like that before, I do not think I am eager to repeat the experience. I do thank you for the offer though; you might not have known that even over here in civilisation there are folk like that.

Now, back to my point: do you want to claim that no police officers are racist?
If you can substantiate that claim, then my use of the term would indeed have been inappropriate, and in that case I would apologise for it.
If, however, a significant (10% would already qualify) of the police force would think things like that word, then using it seems entirely warranted.


If you call someone a racial slur like that, you deserve to get the sh!t kicked out of you...maybe then you'll learn to shut your damn mouth.

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2010, 09:34 AM
I was not calling anyone such a thing, I was pointing out that the slur (the prejudice from which it stems, rather) would be used as deciding method for whether or not to ask someone to prove his right to be where he is.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 09:35 AM
Ask Davian if he has more of a chance of getting pulled over in TN based solely on the state his car is tagged in. If I was up north, then I would be more likely to be pulled over just because of my TN or even just out-of-state tag.



In a heartbeat. I've actually had it happen in VT where I blew by a State Trooper going a good 30 over the posted limit only to have him pull off the shoulder and pull over the out of state car who was cruising along with me. I assume and expect the same type of treatment if I'm in a different state or country.

I was just down in Virginia for a week on business and I took my POV. You better believe I drove much more conservatively down there with VT plates on my car. I was in a small town in the Shenandoah valley (think rural)...any small town cop would be begging to pull me over as they know I wont fight the ticket.

PSA: Upstate NY cops and troopers LOVE to pull over out of staters...something to consider if you're ever traveling up 87 North towards Montreal/Quebec. Its a huge revenue maker for them and the state of NY.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 09:37 AM
I was not calling anyone such a thing, I was pointing out that the slur (the prejudice from which it stems, rather) would be used as deciding method for whether or not to ask someone to prove his right to be where he is.

Fine...then use the word "racism" or "prejudice"...not the slur itself. I'll be honest, its offensive even to use it in that context if you're having a discussion with the group its used to insult/denigrate.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 06:53 PM
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/08/25/1406531/proposed-mosque-in-western-ky.html?commentSort=TimeStampAscending&pageNum=1


In their defense, western Kentucky is awfully close to Ground Zero...its best to be extra sensitive and prevent this mosque from getting off the ground.

Ivhon
08-25-2010, 07:20 PM
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/08/25/1406531/proposed-mosque-in-western-ky.html?commentSort=TimeStampAscending&pageNum=1


In their defense, western Kentucky is awfully close to Ground Zero...its best to be extra sensitive and prevent this mosque from getting off the ground.

Well yannow....it was those Somali Islamists that flew planes into the WTC.

nowait. that was the Saudi islamists funded by that guy who owns FOX news. Nevermind.

Davian93
08-25-2010, 07:33 PM
Well yannow....it was those Somali Islamists that flew planes into the WTC.

nowait. that was the Saudi islamists funded by that guy who owns FOX news. Nevermind.


I love how they use the excuse of "parking" to deny it...despite there being several Christian churches in the same area but those darn Muslims go to mosque too often.

And I'm sure its routine for 250 people to show up and cheer a permitting decision based on "parking concerns". Traffic there must suck for them to be so excited.

Davian93
08-26-2010, 12:04 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38863919/ns/us_news-life/


Good to see the hate mongering isn't manifesting itself in acts of violence...

nameless
08-26-2010, 06:39 PM
They think that physical violence is an appropiate way of responding when they can't use words to make their point? I've met people like that before, I do not think I am eager to repeat the experience. I do thank you for the offer though; you might not have known that even over here in civilisation there are folk like that.

Now, back to my point: do you want to claim that no police officers are racist?
If you can substantiate that claim, then my use of the term would indeed have been inappropriate, and in that case I would apologise for it.
If, however, a significant (10% would already qualify) of the police force would think things like that word, then using it seems entirely warranted.

Really? You think it's "warranted" to insult and entire race of people in order to make sarcastic jibes about racist police officers? Cause that seems to me like a lot of collateral damage for a very little payoff. And while it's true that most Hispanic people I know would not actually knock your teeth out for saying that, most of them would probably fantasize about it.

And don't try to pretend you weren't really insulting anybody. That word is an insult. To use it is insulting. QED.

Ivhon
08-26-2010, 07:49 PM
Really? You think it's "warranted" to insult and entire race of people in order to make sarcastic jibes about racist police officers? Cause that seems to me like a lot of collateral damage for a very little payoff. And while it's true that most Hispanic people I know would not actually knock your teeth out for saying that, most of them would probably fantasize about it.

And don't try to pretend you weren't really insulting anybody. That word is an insult. To use it is insulting. QED.

Brick wall. Gonzo is indiscriminate in his joy in tweaking people over the internet. He does this to get a rise out of people who get offended by his language. And while he has a point - why is it that symbolic language is offensive - he values the intellectual purity of his argument over consideration for the - yes, irrational, perhaps - feelings of the people in this community.

Its the troll gene. Only partially expressed in him, but there nonetheless.

nameless
08-26-2010, 11:03 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38863919/ns/us_news-life/


Good to see the hate mongering isn't manifesting itself in acts of violence...

WSJ is reporting that the guy who stabbed the cab driver told the investigating detectives he was Jewish, even though he is not now, nor ever has been, Jewish.

Ah, the ol' "fake Jew" defense. Classic.

Ivhon
08-26-2010, 11:23 PM
WSJ is reporting that the guy who stabbed the cab driver told the investigating detectives he was Jewish, even though he is not now, nor ever has been, Jewish.

Ah, the ol' "fake Jew" defense. Classic.

Hmm...if we can start a big enough war in the middle east, we can hasten the Rapture (which of course I will be part of, since Jesus told me Im Saved)! What to do...what to do...

I know! Ill stab some Muslim cab driver and then say I did it because Im Jewish!


BRILLIANT!!!

Davian93
08-29-2010, 11:19 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/national/main6814690.shtml

I guess this construction equipment wasn't being sensitive enough to the memory of 9/11...and thus it HAD to be burned.

nameless
08-30-2010, 04:18 PM
I think they've got the right idea. After all, mosques can be used to indoctrinate militant terrorists. While they're at it, they should outlaw churches, cause those can be used to indoctrinate clinic bombers. And no more Greenpeace either, cause that's disrespectful to all the loggers who've been hurt by ELF.

Friggin' morons.

Sinistrum
08-31-2010, 11:25 AM
I think this article is a pretty good summation of the NYC Mosque debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/27/avlon.islamic.center.protest/index.html?iref=allsearch

Davian93
08-31-2010, 11:41 AM
I think this article is a pretty good summation of the NYC Mosque debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/27/avlon.islamic.center.protest/index.html?iref=allsearch

Good article Sini.

The Right is playing with fire...I wonder how many will get burned before this thing sorts itself out.

GonzoTheGreat
08-31-2010, 12:43 PM
The Right is playing with fire...I wonder how many will get burned before this thing sorts itself out.Assuming that it gets no worse than say the wars in former Yugoslavia, but now all across the continental USA, or should we factor in nukes? Might influence the body count (as well as how many bodies are still discernable enough to be counted), you know.

Sinistrum
08-31-2010, 01:02 PM
Dav the point is that BOTH sides are playing with fire, not just the right. The Left is doing just as bad by offhandedly dismissing every opponent as just a "hateful bigot." Some quotes of particular note.

But the vast majority of the signs I saw were sobering: "It's Not About Freedom of Religion, its about Respect for the (3000) Dead;" "The mosque is salt in the wound of 9/11;" "It's my first amendment right to protest this travesty...just because you have the right doesn't mean you should."

These are not signs of so-called "Islamophobia," let alone hatred of all Muslims, as the wife of the Imam, Daisy Kahn, sweepingly asserted this week. They are instead common sense and easily anticipated concerns in a community that lost so many lives to Islamist (not Islamic) terrorism less than a decade ago. If the goal of the center is really to promote healing, the reaction so far is evidence of failure. A genuinely inter-faith center on that site would better accomplish those aims.

Attempts to paint all opponents of the center's location as bigots are wrong. Attacks on the center's organizers as a fifth column flank for Osama bin Laden are ignorant. The majority of people I spoke to seemed clear on the constitutional right to build an Islamic cultural center/mosque, as President Obama asserted. The real issue is what the president later called "the wisdom" of the site's selection.

GonzoTheGreat
08-31-2010, 01:11 PM
"It's Not About Freedom of Religion, its about Respect for the (3000) Dead;"Is that like "I'm not an anti-semite, but you can't trust those Jews"?

If they really do make a clear distinction between the terrorists and the (Muslim) people who are planning to build a place of worship, then the whole matter of "respect for those dead" would not even exist. Unless of course they would just as strenously object to having a church or synagogue build in that location.
However, if they do equate every Muslim with 9/11, then the accusation of Islamophobia is thoroughly warranted.
Attempts to paint all opponents of the center's location as bigots are wrong.For what reason?
I find it rather hard to come up with an unbigoted reason against a mosque there that would not just as strongly apply against other houses of worship.

Sinistrum
08-31-2010, 01:18 PM
For the same reason most Jews would oppose a Hindu group building a swastica monument next to Auschwitz and nobody would dare call them "bigoted" for it. Many acts have symbolic significance outside of the intent behind them.

Neilbert
08-31-2010, 01:49 PM
Depending on the specific intent of the monument I might call them reactionary idiots. Depending on the pattern of behavior I might call them bigots, but I am unaware of any underlying animosity between Hindus and Jews.

In the case of the 9/11 Mosque bigot is entirely appropriate. The people crying about terrorist training centers, and the people who suggest we should surrender the first amendment (while claiming to be a constitutional defender) to possibly soothe some hurt feelings are bigots. 100%

Why is denial of bigotry relevant? Every racist denies it until it's found they are the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK.

Where do KKK titles come from? They sound like some guy with a D&D handbook made them up.

Davian93
08-31-2010, 01:51 PM
Sini, your argument fails to address all the additional anti-mosque sentiment that has swept the U.S. and is demonstrated in the articles I keep posting that are about issues that are far far away from the "Sacred Ground of Ground Zero".

Sinistrum
08-31-2010, 03:17 PM
The people crying about terrorist training centers, and the people who suggest we should surrender the first amendment (while claiming to be a constitutional defender) to possibly soothe some hurt feelings are bigots. 100%

Really? Ok, explain to me how someone exercising their First Amendment right to free speech by expressing moral but not legal opposition to the Mosque being built is somehow surrendering the 1st Amendment? Having the 1st Amendment right to believe and worship how you choose does not mean you have a right to be insulated from criticism in the ways you choose to do so. The right to criticize is at the very heart of each and every aspect of the 1st Amendment. This is something that your own Savior of a President is articulating as relates to the building of this thing. Guess that makes Obama bigoted too.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that attempting to be sensitive to the emotional wellbeing of the families of murder victims constituted "bigotry." But hey, most of them weren't brown so I guess its ok to run rough shod over their feelings. After all, tolerance and diversity only applies to brown people.

The people crying about terrorist training centers,

Sini, your argument fails to address all the additional anti-mosque sentiment that has swept the U.S. and is demonstrated in the articles I keep posting that are about issues that are far far away from the "Sacred Ground of Ground Zero".

In this I agree, and you'll never find a quote of mine stating to the contrary. That was a good portion of the focus of the article I posted and attitudes like that were rightly condemned in it. But honestly, I couldn't give a shit about the opinion of people like this. Its not important or relevant to the stance of those, like me, who dislike the idea of needlessly upsetting the victims of 9-11.

Neilbert
08-31-2010, 04:43 PM
Really? Ok, explain to me how someone exercising their First Amendment right to free speech by expressing moral but not legal opposition to the Mosque being built is somehow surrendering the 1st Amendment?

Ok:

I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds.

When it involves gay people and a white church religion is sacrosanct.
When it involves white people and a muslim church, suddenly religion shouldn't be allowed to offend people.

Very consistent, but not with being a constitutional defender...

nameless
08-31-2010, 05:08 PM
Furthermore, I wasn't aware that attempting to be sensitive to the emotional wellbeing of the families of murder victims constituted "bigotry." But hey, most of them weren't brown so I guess its ok to run rough shod over their feelings. After all, tolerance and diversity only applies to brown people.

Sini, are you honestly claiming to believe that people supporting the right to free worship in this instance are doing so because the worshippers are "brown people?" Because first of all, more Muslim Americans are white than any other ethnicity. Take a look at the pie chart under "demographics:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics
Secondly, imagine a scenario in which some group tries to block a Christian church from being built by citing proximity to an atrocity commited in the name of Christ and concern for the victims of said atrocity. (It doesn't matter what atrocity; it could be a clinic bombing or those LRA psychos out of Utah who thought God wanted them to kill cops or what have you). As a result of the efforts to block the church's construction, some protesters come out to support the church and some protesters come out to support the victims' right to object to the church. Which group of protesters do you think would be bigger? According to the article you cited, there were rougly 2,000 protesters at the mosque site, and of them only a few dozen supported the right to build the mosque. Obviously America is bending over backwards to accomodate those "brown" people, right? If it had been a "white person" church built near a "white person" terrorist act, do you honestly believe even 10% of the protesters would oppose its construction? Or would the overwhelming majority be there to support free exercise of religion, just as the overwhelming majority of protesters at the mosque site are there to object to its presence?

It's easy to cry "reverse racism," but in my experience these complaints are always based on anecdotal evidence and never on facts or numbers.

Sinistrum
08-31-2010, 06:33 PM
Sini, are you honestly claiming to believe that people supporting the right to free worship in this instance are doing so because the worshippers are "brown people?"

No I'm claiming that people like Neil have an idea of "tolerance and diversity" in which they set a double standard with regards to the the feelings and proclivities of minorities as opposed to someone who is in the "majority." Minorities get their feelings and desires catered too, no matter what they are or who they end up offending. The same is certainly not true for white people.

Taking your reverse hypo into consideration, I don't think he'd particularly care if this was people protesting against a Christian Church. He'd probably be amongst their supporters simply because it would be a minority complaining about a majority group. As to the case at bar, I think Neil, specifically, doesn't care about the families of the victims of 9-11 that are complaining about this simply because most of them are white and what they are complaining about are the actions of a minority. That is not to say anyone else is doing it or that this is an overriding theme to the general debate going on. It was specifically targeted at Neil (though its probably just as applicable to someone like Gonzo too).

When it involves gay people and a white church religion is sacrosanct.
When it involves white people and a muslim church, suddenly religion shouldn't be allowed to offend people.

Here let me fix that for you to accurately reflect what I'm arguing.

When it involves government action against a church, religion is sacrosanct because of the constitution.
When it involves the private exercise of free speech and a muslim church being insensitive, people on all sides should have the right to speak their minds and do as they wish, up to and including condemning the Muslims, as long as government doesn't get involved.

Ivhon
08-31-2010, 11:08 PM
Except that people who are crying foul on the Muslim thing are precisely trying to get the government involved in a way that violates the Constitution. So Nameless' point about white protest against a Muslim church stands, as far as I can see.

The ground is NOT sacred. The families of the 9/11 victims should have precisely NO more say than anyone else - which is none.

The group has the money to buy the property. End of story.

nameless
08-31-2010, 11:23 PM
I'd certainly expect to see a large amount of overlap between the "no Sharia in the US" crowd and the "we should be allowed to display the 10 commandments outside the courthouse" crowd, but that might be a reflection of my own prejudices more than anything else since to the best of my knowledge no one's conducted any studies comparing the two platforms. It's a tenet of basic human nature that separation of church and state always seems less important when it's your church that's infringing on the government and most important when it's your church that's being infringed upon.

As Sini and his article both mention, the majority of the anti-mosque protesters are taking the same position as the President: to whit, they have the constitutional right to build the thing but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. (Though I take exception to his use of the phrase "Savior of a President," since Obama is mediocre at best and his biggest virtues in the election were A) not having been in the Senate long enough to piss anyone off and B) not being John McCain). Both sides are making unfair generalizations about their opponents, though I wouldn't say that they're both "playing with fire," seeing as one side is at risk of having their feelings hurt and one side is at risk of having their mosques burnt down. You know, with fire.

edit: to head off any misunderstanding, I'm fully aware Sinistrum was being sarcastic about that "savior" bit. My objection is the implication that everyone who supports Obama must be enamored of him. Our system remains a long ways away from anything other than a choice between the lesser of two evils and I think most Americans understand that regardless of political affiliation.

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2010, 04:48 AM
When it involves government action against a church, religion is sacrosanct because of the constitution.
When it involves the private exercise of free speech and a muslim church being insensitive, people on all sides should have the right to speak their minds and do as they wish, up to and including condemning the Muslims, as long as government doesn't get involved.Let me get this straight:
When it comes to a religion wanting to build a house of worship, then you fully support their right to do so, because issuing building permits is a government function.
When it comes to two people wanting to marry each other, then you are willing to deny them this right, if one of them is divorced, since some religions do not acknowledge (unsanctioned*) divorce, and marriage should be a religion only thing.

Is that about it?

And the issue is not just that of people speaking their minds. It has already gone past that, into actual violence and the threat of more violence.

* If you're friends with the Pope things are different, of course.

Sei'taer
09-01-2010, 07:48 AM
Except that people who are crying foul on the Muslim thing are precisely trying to get the government involved in a way that violates the Constitution. So Nameless' point about white protest against a Muslim church stands, as far as I can see.

The ground is NOT sacred. The families of the 9/11 victims should have precisely NO more say than anyone else - which is none.

The group has the money to buy the property. End of story.

So if one person of color is protesting, it's no longer bigotry?

Ivhon
09-01-2010, 08:25 AM
So if one person of color is protesting, it's no longer bigotry?

Umm...not sure how this relates to what I said, but for the sake of argument:

No. For one thing, this is not about color, it is about religion. I would fully expect that certain portions of the Black and Hispanic commmunities would be as anti-muslim as the segment of White communities that is up in arms about this.

To address the follow up question "if one muslim protests..." again, no. That paves the way to a very simple end-run of having Glen Beck using some of his $143m/year to pay some non-practicing muslim to protest just so he can put him on camera and say "Hey, look, its not biggotted, see?" I rather suspect that Messirs Beck and or Limbaugh have already done this. But then Im a cynic.

But this is tangential to the points made. I absolutely cannot fathom how people who typically cling dogmatically to anti-government, literal Constitutional interpretation positions can advocate for the government to trample on every clause of the (typically most sacred) 1st Amendment by intervening in any fashion whatsoever to determine what can or cannot be built in a public area. The only way I can reconcile this is that there is cultural bias (aka bigotry) causing these people to make exceptions in their stance on this particular matter.

For example, I don't think I have ever heard anyone here (anywhere else) say that the families of dead marines should be polled to determine if Fred Phelps will be allowed to demonstrate at funerals.

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2010, 08:26 AM
So if one person of color is protesting, it's no longer bigotry?Of course not. People of color can't be bigots.

Sei'taer
09-01-2010, 09:28 AM
Of course not. People of color can't be bigots.

Forgot about those rules.

What do you call it when mexican gangs go hunting for blacks to beat up to prove that they are cool enough to be in the gang? Or even the other way around?

We have a huge problem with black on latino crime here in Memphis. Is it only racist when a latino attacks a black because he is the lighter of the two?

Just trying to understand how y'all decide who to call a bigot.

Ivhon
09-01-2010, 09:43 AM
Forgot about those rules.

What do you call it when mexican gangs go hunting for blacks to beat up to prove that they are cool enough to be in the gang? Or even the other way around?

We have a huge problem with black on latino crime here in Memphis. Is it only racist when a latino attacks a black because he is the lighter of the two?

Just trying to understand how y'all decide who to call a bigot.

Any individual person - no matter color, creed, orientation...whatever - can be bigoted. One of the tougher realizations I have had is that pretty much everyone is bigoted (its tough because I have had to confront my own biases and bigotry). We all have some degree of bias against some other group - be it blacks, whites, christians, jews, gays, women, men, whatever.

That said. Institutional bias in the laws and culture of this country favors ONE set of people (VERY IMPORTANT: This does NOT apply at the individual level). That set of people is:

White
Male
Straight
Christian (particularly WASP)
Wealthy
Mentally and Physically fit (and attractive)
Not Elderly

Again, this does not mean that INDIVIDUAL people in minority status are worse off than ALL majority status people...clearly that is not the case. It means that all else being equal, it is "better" to be in the majority population.

Sei'taer
09-01-2010, 09:53 AM
White
Male
Straight
Christian (particularly WASP)
Wealthy
Mentally and Physically fit (and attractive)
Not Elderly



So I am fucking AWESOME!! Except for for the christian, wealthy, mentally and physically fit part.

Ivhon
09-01-2010, 10:00 AM
So I am fucking AWESOME!! Except for for the christian, wealthy, mentally and physically fit part.

Well....like I said. It does not necessarily apply at the individual level.

So, no. You still suck.

Sei'taer
09-01-2010, 10:01 AM
Well....like I said. It does not necessarily apply at the individual level.

So, no. You still suck.

You caqn kiss your $50 buh bye.

Davian93
09-01-2010, 10:12 AM
All the "Christians" protesting for "No Sharia Law" should go read Leviticus and then shove their head of their own arse.

Sei'taer
09-01-2010, 10:42 AM
All the "Christians" protesting for "No Sharia Law" should go read Leviticus and then shove their head of their own arse..
Read the NEW testament. Moral narcissism my friend. You have it in a bad way.

Davian93
09-01-2010, 10:44 AM
.
Read the NEW testament. Moral narcissism my friend. You have it in a bad way.

But the 10 commandments are from Levitcus...are you saying its okay for me to focus on those 10 and then pick and choose or ignore the other 620+ commandments in Levitcus?


Likewise, would it be okay for me as a Christian to pick and choose which passages from both halves of the Book upon which to base my objections to things in the United States? I suppose I could even use passages out of context as well.

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2010, 11:16 AM
Likewise, would it be okay for me as a Christian to pick and choose which passages from both halves of the Book upon which to base my objections to things in the United States? I suppose I could even use passages out of context as well.Obviously, that would only be acceptable if you picked the right out of context passages.

Neilbert
09-01-2010, 12:26 PM
No I'm claiming that people like Neil have an idea of "tolerance and diversity" in which they set a double standard with regards to the the feelings and proclivities of minorities as opposed to someone who is in the "majority." Minorities get their feelings and desires catered too, no matter what they are or who they end up offending. The same is certainly not true for white people.

When you actually find me out in a double standard, feel free to present it. You have continually failed to do so. You also wine so much that if we had to cater to your feelings and desires we would have no time to do anything else.

As to the case at bar, I think Neil, specifically, doesn't care about the families of the victims of 9-11 that are complaining about this simply because most of them are white and what they are complaining about are the actions of a minority.

Referring to the families of the victims of 9-11 as a homogeneous group with a single opinion is about as idiotic as letting them determine whether a mosque should be built. You do that a lot. It's like you are incapable of recognizing any group as being anything other than homogeneous.

You are an idiot if you think I, or anyone else, would care about a white church being built. Nobody would care, just like nobody should care about the mosque. My whole argument from the beginning of this whole thing is that there are only two reasons to care: Ignorance and Bigotry. Which are you? :)

It's easy to cry "reverse racism," but in my experience these complaints are always based on anecdotal evidence and never on facts or numbers.

There is a reason for this. Everybody experiences racism, racism permeates our culture. However, institutionalized racism favors certain groups. So while anecdotally people like Sini and Sei'tear can say "I've experienced racism" the truth will undeniably be that if they were black, they would have experienced much more.

However, it's really all a bit of a red herring. No warfare but class warfare!

Sinistrum
09-01-2010, 03:09 PM
When it comes to a religion wanting to build a house of worship, then you fully support their right to do so, because issuing building permits is a government function.
When it comes to two people wanting to marry each other, then you are willing to deny them this right, if one of them is divorced, since some religions do not acknowledge (unsanctioned*) divorce, and marriage should be a religion only thing.

As long as the religious definition of marriage and the government definition of it are separate and the religious actions in your hypo have no impact on the government one, yes, that is precisely what I want. But then again, if my caveat is taken into account, then no actual "rights" are being denied by anyone.

To address the follow up question "if one muslim protests..." again, no.

What about the Canadian Muslim group that Sei posted an article about earlier in the thread? They've condemned the plans to build a Mosque there. Or hell, you still haven't acknowledged that even Obama has questioned the decision to build there. I don't see how you can stick to the line that everyone who opposes this is a bigot unless you're willing to lump Obama and Canadian Muslim's into the group of bigots. Or perhaps the President and Canada's Muslims have been paid off by Glenn Beck. :rolleyes:

Institutional bias in the laws and culture of this country favors ONE set of people

And what, exactly, does "institutional bias" mean? I've heard this term tossed around a lot (along with a lot of garbage talk about privilege that this amorphous institution supposedly grants), but nobody seems to be able to give a concrete definition of which main stream governmental, social, or religious institutions this applies to.

When you actually find me out in a double standard, feel free to present it. You have continually failed to do so. You also wine so much that if we had to cater to your feelings and desires we would have no time to do anything else.

First off, its not my feelings I think should be catered too. I didn't have any loved ones die in the 9-11 attacks. Second off, I'm not that big of a fan of wine. I prefer beer actually. ;) Thirdly...

So you are stuck with two realistic choices:

1. Gay people are denied a plethora of legal rights because they can't marry.
2. Religious people have to listen to some other people they don't like using 'their' word.

(of course all of this ignores the fact that there are churches which are perfectly happy to marry gay couples...)

If you struggle with this choice, you aren't a decent human being.

Ask and you shall receive. You are clearly ok with violating the rights of the majority in this instance in order to cater to the wants and desires of the minority. That is a clear double standard.

Referring to the families of the victims of 9-11 as a homogeneous group with a single opinion is about as idiotic as letting them determine whether a mosque should be built.

Yeah except I'm not treating them as homogeneous. The quote from me that you yourself quoted proves this. Or did you "miss" (and by miss I mean intentionally overlooked because it was inconvenient to your point) the bolded part.

As to the case at bar, I think Neil, specifically, doesn't care about the families of the victims of 9-11 that are complaining about this simply because most of them are white and what they are complaining about are the actions of a minority.

My whole argument from the beginning of this whole thing is that there are only two reasons to care: Ignorance and Bigotry. Which are you?

Yup I agree. Your entire argument boils down to a false dichotomy that allows you to use name calling against those who oppose.

nameless
09-01-2010, 03:56 PM
But the 10 commandments are from Levitcus...are you saying its okay for me to focus on those 10 and then pick and choose or ignore the other 620+ commandments in Levitcus?


Close, but no cigar. The 10 commandments are from Exodus, and get repeated in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy also contains a laundry list of prohibitions related to food and hygiene, and Leviticus contains even more prohibitions that mostly relate to sexual behavior and kinship laws. The English translations of these rules are some of the most egregious evidence of translator bias in the entire scripture: the original Hebrew word that roughly means "sinful" is presented as "unclean" when it refers to something like eating shellfish that the translators think really ought to be OK and "abomination in the eyes of God" when it refers to behavior the translators don't approve of like homosexuality.

However, Christians don't follow the Dueteronomy prohibitions for the same reason they don't keep kosher or freak out about tattoos. Jesus said that how clean you are in the eyes of God is a result of thoughts and actions and not what you do with your body or what you eat. I personally believe that same logic should be applied to the Levitican commandments, but I seem to be in the minority in that regard.

I believe what Sei'tar was referring to was the instance in the New Testament when someone asks Jesus which of the 600+ rules are the most important and he lists 2 specifically: the first commandment (thou shalt have no other God before me) and "love thy neighbor as thyself," which serves as kind of a catch-all for the rules against killing, stealing, coveting, and providing false testimony.

Likewise, would it be okay for me as a Christian to pick and choose which passages from both halves of the Book upon which to base my objections to things in the United States? I suppose I could even use passages out of context as well

Yep, that's pretty much how it works here. Abolitionists and slave owners both quoted the Bible, as do people on either side of pretty much every debate even tangentially related to scripture. It's a valuable skill to have. I don't much like the death-grip that the Christian hegemony has on our nation's psyche, but it's a fact of life, so I figure if I'm gonna live here I might as well learn to speak the language.

Davian93
09-01-2010, 04:07 PM
However, Christians don't follow the Dueteronomy prohibitions for the same reason they don't keep kosher or freak out about tattoos. Jesus said that how clean you are in the eyes of God is a result of thoughts and actions and not what you do with your body or what you eat. I personally believe that same logic should be applied to the Levitican commandments, but I seem to be in the minority in that regard.

Yeah I know...yet anytime anyone mentions the Ten Commandments, the entire Right wing goes up in flames about its sacredness.

Neilbert
09-01-2010, 04:38 PM
And what, exactly, does "institutional bias" mean? I've heard this term tossed around a lot (along with a lot of garbage talk about privilege that this amorphous institution supposedly grants), but nobody seems to be able to give a concrete definition of which main stream governmental, social, or religious institutions this applies to.

Wow, fifteen seconds of googling finds:

Well off blacks being denied loans more often than poor whites in Dayton Ohio. (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/well-off-blacks-denied-loans-more-than-low-income-whites-646413.html) Either institutional bias is a figment of my imagination (and googles) or your head is buried in the sand.

From the article:

"More than four decades after racial discrimination in home lending was outlawed, lenders in the Dayton area deny a much higher percentage of loans to blacks than whites, even when income levels are comparable."

So Black grandpa couldn't buy a home, while White grandpa got a sweet loan from the government and something similar is still going on today and institutional bias against minorities doesn't exist.

Ooooor

Black sounding names get you less responses to a resume. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml)

Ooooor from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1)

Today, a clearer picture is emerging, and it is an equally ugly one, including white vigilante violence, police killings, official cover-ups and a suffering population far more brutalized than many were willing to believe. Several police officers and a white civilian accused of racially motivated violence have recently been indicted in various cases, and more incidents are coming to light as the Justice Department has started several investigations into civil rights violations after the storm.

The highest-profile case involving the police is the Danziger Bridge shooting in eastern New Orleans, where six days after Katrina, a group of police officers wielding assault rifles and automatic weapons fired on a group of unarmed civilians, wounding a family of four and killing two, including a teenager and a mentally disabled man. The man, Ronald Madison, 40, was shot in the back with a shotgun and then stomped and kicked as he lay dying, according to court papers.

On Sunday, September 4, six days after the hurricane, nineteen-year-old James Brissette and forty-year-old Ronald Madison, both African American, were killed in the gunfire, and four other civilians were wounded. All victims were unarmed.

Unarmed black men murdered by police. No institutional bias against black people. No sir.

Ask and you shall receive. You are clearly ok with violating the rights of the majority in this instance in order to cater to the wants and desires of the minority. That is a clear double standard.

I continue to not see how allowing gay people to marry violates the rights of any religious group. This is not a point I have conceded to you, so stop acting like I have.

Sinistrum
09-01-2010, 07:27 PM
"More than four decades after racial discrimination in home lending was outlawed, lenders in the Dayton area deny a much higher percentage of loans to blacks than whites, even when income levels are comparable."

So Black grandpa couldn't buy a home, while White grandpa got a sweet loan from the government and something similar is still going on today and institutional bias against minorities doesn't exist.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. This was a "study" done by the same media organization without any reporting being done on their methodology or any indication that more than income level, race, and whether they applied for a loan were considered in the study. No other possible factors for being turned down were considered such as credit rating, criminal history, lending history, job stability, or the purpose of the loan. Furthermore, what is the "institution" at issue here? Banking as a whole? Notice only one bank was mentioned by name here. Furthermore, its one city. If that is the institution at question, I fail to see how that constitutes a broad indictment against the entire banking industry. The argument that anecdotal evidence and isolated incidents don't support broad claims of racism is just as applicable here as it is to reverse racism.

As for the second link, you conveniently neglected to mention a companion study that was reported in the article that showed no detriment in having a "black sounding name" (whatever that means).

As for the NY Times article, want to know one thing all of those cases cited had in common? They're all being either actively investigated or have resulted in indictments. That to me says that this isn't an issue of institutional racism because its the criminal justice institution that is coming in to take these scumbags down.

Davian93
09-02-2010, 08:00 AM
Sini, you really dont think that Minorities are descriminated against still? Or are you arguing that its not a centralized organized thing?

GonzoTheGreat
09-02-2010, 08:12 AM
Sini, you really dont think that Minorities are descriminated against still? Or are you arguing that its not a centralized organized thing?Perhaps he just thinks that it is not a bad thing? :D

Sinistrum
09-02-2010, 04:25 PM
Sini, you really dont think that Minorities are descriminated against still? Or are you arguing that its not a centralized organized thing?

Of course I think minorities get discriminated against. I just don't currently buy the idea of "institutional" discrimination along broad swaths of society. Its just another cheap and whiney excuse for people to blame society for their problems. The white man as a homogenous and monolithic entity is not out to get anyone.

I think most discrimination against minorities has always been about individuals hating individuals and while there were legal and social regimes set up in the past (a la Jim Crow), those regimes were dismanteled fifty some odd years ago. In point of fact, the only institutionalized discrimination I do see is against white straight men, as is the case with affirmative action policies in universities and jobs.

Davian93
09-03-2010, 12:12 PM
Thanks for the clarification Sini...that's pretty much what I thought you were saying.


On another note, this pastor plans to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/03/rev-john-rankin-pastor-terry-jones-dove-world-outreach-center-burning-koran/

You know who else liked to burn books...


Thoughts? Personally I think he should be allowed to as long as he has the proper permits (burn permit, etc) but its still pretty stupid, ignorant, inflammatory and everything else that I'd expect from a southern baptist pastor...

GonzoTheGreat
09-03-2010, 12:22 PM
You know who else liked to burn books...The Inquisition, which is a Christian organisaton with a lot of tradition behind it. Are you against tradition, or merely anti-Christian?

Neilbert
09-03-2010, 12:30 PM
Furthermore, its one city. If that is the institution at question, I fail to see how that constitutes a broad indictment against the entire banking industry.

I'm sorry my fifteen seconds of google research wasn't sufficient for you. :rolleyes: What do you expect, a fucking thesis?

Do you honestly think this was the only bank to have these rules and practices?

As for the NY Times article, want to know one thing all of those cases cited had in common? They're all being either actively investigated or have resulted in indictments. That to me says that this isn't an issue of institutional racism because its the criminal justice institution that is coming in to take these scumbags down.

Traditional tactic.
If it involves going to trial and convictions then the problem has been solved.
If it doesn't, then the problem doesn't exist, or isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be.

Sinistrum
09-03-2010, 12:51 PM
I'm sorry my fifteen seconds of google research wasn't sufficient for you. What do you expect, a fucking thesis?

When an accusation such as "society is institutionally racist" is levied, I expect proof, not inuendo, anecdotes, and your own ad lib on articles to distort and inflate their importance or conclusions.

Do you honestly think this was the only bank to have these rules and practices?

That's a question I can't answer. First off, you've only provided information as to those specific banks. Second off, you have yet to demonstrate why those practices are racist and therefore blameworthy.

Traditional tactic.
If it involves going to trial and convictions then the problem has been solved.
If it doesn't, then the problem doesn't exist, or isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be.

You indicted aspects (and by aspects I really mean a few select individuals) of the criminal justice system for racism. I showed you aspects of the justice system that are lawfully and harshly responding to that racism. What more do you want? Once again, your story is nothing but anecdotes and isolated incidents, evidence that you have already dismissed as non-impactful. Just because a few cops during Katrina acted in a racist manner doesn't mean every cop across the country, or even a majority of them, are racist. That is especially true in light of the fact that other aspects of the same justice system are dealing with them.