Is it Islamophobic to ask moderate Muslims to condemn terrorism?

Hey Dom.

Yes, it is Islamophobic. Responses like this have never made sense to me. I wasn’t aware of the attack; thanks for directing my attention to it.

Hi :)

Additionally, there are Muslims condemning this attack; I’ve already seen a few articles about groups speaking out against them. But you have to look for these articles. It’s not an interesting story; it’s far more sensational to talk about the “silence” of moderate Muslims.

I think it is. I’ve never been asked as a Jew to condemn some of the terrorist actions of radical Israelis. And if you do condemn some of their acts, you are more likely to be criticized by the American Jewish community as unsupportive of Israel. Ironic.

There are a lot of legitimate questions in the details of your question. But I can’t get past the “Islamophobic” sensationalism in the title. That word is a modern conversation stopper. If we can work around that, we could discuss whether there is hypocrisy involved, whether or not the extreme nature of the acts is supported by a large number of people, whether or not the actions are consistent with doctrine, and how the media is handling this. But to start the conversation off with the concept of “Islamophobia” is like asking us to discuss the complexity of Israel and Palestine while asking if it’s anti-semitic to oppose a particular Israeli action.

@hominid Well, ignore it then. I’m not a “PC thug” or anything; I put that in there because it was in that particular article, but I’m not here to enforce its usage. I’m more interested in the issues you just referenced.

There is no person or body that can act as spokesman for moderate Islam. Muslims have been condemning terrorist acts since 2001, but it’s not the same as if the Vatican were to issue a statement on behalf of Catholics. Such a central, authoritative voice might register in the western consciousness, but who pays attention when this or that imam, or this or that little Islamic organization speaks out against terrorism? Yet that’s the form in which the condemnation is offered. It must be terribly frustrating to moderate Muslims to keep hearing that they’re tacitly approving terrorism.

Relevant?

I think @janbb makes an excellent point. Moderate Jews are not asked to condemn radical Israeli actions because it’s assumed that they deplore them as much as any other sane person. Of course, it helps that the government of Israel would immediately and loudly condemn the acts. Something that, as @thorninmud, points out, can be lacking in the Muslim community at times.

I blame most of it on ignorance. Shiite vs. Sunni and ICIL. For the most part Christians and Jews have gotten the bloody infighting out of their systems.

Well it’s a sensationalistic word to use, but yeah, of course it is.

Disclaimer: I didn’t read the article you posted.

I don’t see the point in clamouring for anyone to “denounce” anything. This always seems to take the form of someone putting their face in front of a camera and uttering something they don’t feel strongly about, just so that others will leave them in peace.

Additionally, who needs to “denounce terrorism”, particularly? The whole point of terrorism is that it makes happen what most people are afraid could happen. If terrorism is something people are giving a tacit thumbs-up to, they’re not terrorized – that isn’t terrorism anymore. It’s like asking someone to denounce killing puppies.
Obviously, nobody needs to do that. Same thing with terrorism.

So, I think it’s dumb to ask others to denounce terrorism, but I don’t think it’s particularly racist. We’ve seen this sort of thing in American politics over and over, that a particular group is criticized for not denouncing something – often a thing they don’t actually support anyway. As a political example, Obama was told to denounce remarks by reverend Wright about the nature of patriotism. Here’s a religious example, in which Christian pastors are told to denounce gay marriage. It happens in groups of all kinds, not just within one race or religion or political belief – and we don’t usually call out the group making the accusation for anything except wasting everyone’s time. Maybe we should just have a moratorium on asking people to denounce anything.

I do understand why people would call for a greater exchange of ideas about the practice of Islam, and I do think that there is a need for Muslim voices in particular in that discussion – both because non-Muslims will discover that most Muslims are not extremists (though the definition of “extremist” could be a whole other discussion) and because if Islamists are going to listen to anyone, it will be other Muslims. Is it racist for me to say that? No, I don’t think so.

It should be assumed that moderate everyones hate terrorism unless explicitly stated otherwise. Not the other way around.

Relevant data concerning beliefs of Muslims. Be sure to check out the table of contents on the right. There are plenty of relevant questions here, like suicide bombing.

No, not as a peace loving individual.

Moderate Conservatives don’t condemn their radical brethren. Nor do you hear many moderate Christians condemning the overzealous members of their ranks. So long as there is little/no backlash against those like the Tea Party and WBC from the less radical followers, I think asking Muslims to condemn terrorism would be a bit discriminatory at best.

Now, if we called on all Moderates to denounce the extremists in their ranks, and did so across the board, then it’d be different, but I can’t get behind singling one group out and giving other, more insidiously dangerous groups a free pass.

The hidden assumption in the question is that Muslims support terrorism by default and that is Islamophobic.

These days it is some type of “phobic” to disagree with anything unless it is murdering terrorist, molesters, or lawyers…(maybe liberals, but I won’t go that far)

I tend to be a moderate Conservative @jerv, and I have denounced the radical Tea Partiers over and over again. I feel like it’s my duty to point out that they are not representative of me. Although, I, too, feel like that should be self evident. It’s the radicals I’m targeting, not the general populace. Radicals tend to believe that they are working against odds to ‘restore’ some ‘order’ that they fervently believe in.
I would ask that other moderate Conservatives lend their voices in denouncing the radical right. Does that make me a Conservativephobe? No. It makes me a citizen willing to raise my voice against what the vast majority condemn. Is it wrong to ask for that?

“The hidden assumption in the question is that Conservatives support The Tea Party by default and that is Conservativephobic.”

In truth, I think a lot of moderate Conservatives think that the left keeps the right in check, but that The Tea Party has done a decent job of making the government more conservative. I do not share that view, and I’m vocal about it.

Were I a Muslim I’d be screaming, pardon the expression, bloody murder.

@ibstubro That willingness to break party unity could get you labelled as a Liberal though. And that illustrates another danger of radicalization; over time, it tends to polarize the masses and demonize those that decline to become radicals themselves. We’re facing a little bit of that here in politics due to an unwillingness to just abandon the two-party system. At least religion tends to just form new sects, which is why we pave Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shiite, and I think that that is the one area where secular government should be a bit more like religion.
But humans in general tend to have a bit of a herd mentality, just as dogs prefer to run in packs, and many are willing to compromise their principles for the sake of conformity. Not all, but enough to cause problems.

Label me a Liberal, @jerv. I support Roe wholeheartedly.

I just do not believe that asking someone to lend their voice to a cause implies that the person asking the question is necessarily a “phobe”

@ibstubro Does that make you a Phobophobe? :D

Nah, we’re all individuals. I just feel bad for the moderates that will obviously be targeted by revenge driven individuals now, just like after 9/11.

No, it isn’t even remotely Islamophobic. It is a statistical fact that the majority of such attacks are by people professing to adhere to one or another form of Islam. It is perfectly reasonable to encourage Muslims who don’t belong to these sects to distance themselves from it. That is how you promote understanding. Islamophobia would be to deny Muslims an arena in which to voice their opinions.

I think you’re all missing the point here. I am not familiar with Islam, I’ve never read the Koran. We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace. That Islam does not condone the use of terrorism. If that is true, It seems that the regular, rank and file Muslims should be saying that. They should be teaching that in their Mosques.

I don’t need Muslims to tell me they don’t support terrorism, I need them to tell each other. The ones that have already been radicalized are lost but young or moderate Muslims should be hearing from their own ranks that this is not the road to travel, that killing infidels won’t really get you 72 virgins. If they choose to stand silent while this is going on, it is passive approval. If they know of radicals or even plots to assassinate and stand silent, more will and the carnage will continue.

Islam is either a peaceful religion or its not. It seems the only ones telling us that it is peaceful are non Muslims. Maybe it’s time hear directly from the horses mouth. If this is all Islamophobic, so be it.

Just a side note, I find the discussion of the Tea Parties amusing. What activities do you want disavowed? Hell they don’t eb\ven litter. Should we condemn them for voicing their opinion? Maybe we should condemn them for getting involved in the political process. equating the Tea Parties to these terrorists is an example of someone that doesn’t have a clue what’s going on.

^^
Great answer! You hit it out of the ball park.

@Jaxk “It seems the only ones telling us that it is peaceful are non Muslims. Maybe it’s time hear directly from the horses mouth.”

Last night I watched a clip from the French national TV news in which “regular, rank and file Muslims” were saying exactly that. I’ve heard exactly the same thing in the past on American news. Maybe the problem is not that the “horse” isn’t speaking, but that we don’t believe horses.

@thorninmud – You may be right but the problem is not whether we believe the horse but whether the other horses believe it. Since the radicals continue to spread, young men continue to be radicalized (in many cases in the Mosque), I suspect the message is not being internalized. The Muslims need to police their own if they want to join the rest of the world society. They aren’t, and that’s the problem.

And who is Laura Dern?

Already, grenades were thrown at a mosque outside of Paris: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150108/1016662647.html

Won’t be surprised if retaliation like that continues…

@Jaxk I am not familiar with Islam, I’ve never read the Koran. We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace. That Islam does not condone the use of terrorism. If that is true, It seems that the regular, rank and file Muslims should be saying that. They should be teaching that in their Mosques.
I have read part of the Koran, and it doesn’t say for people to conduct themselves the way terrorist do; at least not in the part I read. As with many things I believe it is misinterpretation, or ignorance of one’s faith. Here in the US at one time you had supposedly good-natured folk who would go burn out a Black community, string a couple of Black men up by the neck then sit in a pew in Sunday believing they were following the teaching of our good Lord to near perfection. People on the outside looking in could say the same of us, were we as a nation following the teachings of Christ and why were the people in Oregon and Arizona not denouncing it more strongly? Many Islamic followers I have met, do not share the vbiew of those whacking off heads, and planting bombs,

Relevant 20/20 article on violence in Islam.

@Hypocrisy_Central – I know many of you want to blame Christianity for all evil in the world. It simply isn’t so. Neither slavery, reconstruction, nor segregation were religious issues. They were racial issues. Black vs white stuff. If you look back at how this changed, it was a result of whites policing themselves. Hell the civil war was primarily white vs white to win freedom for Blacks. During the civil rights era there were more whites standing up every day until it changed. It changed due to whites voting in civil rights.

That’s what I expect from Muslims. Make it known that you are against the indiscriminate killing and help to shut down those that do it. If not you are the same as those that supported the KKK even though they may not actually be a member. Turn a blind eye and you are as guilty as those that actively participate.

@Jaxk I will agree when you publicly denounce the current, radical incarnation of the Republican party.

Republicans claim to want smaller, less-intrusive government, and yet they want government interfering in the doctor’s office. They want fiscal responsibility, but are willing to spend millions to save thousands. They want lower taxes, but those millions they waste are often taxpayer dollars. You are smart enough to see the parallels, so I don’t think I need to continue there.

We have tax-and-spend Republicans that wish to turn our Democracy into either a Theocracy or a Corporate State, yet you haven’t spoken out against them. So how can you turn around and expect Muslims to do something you yourself refuse todo?

As for the Tea Party, my major beef with them is actually their hijacking the GOP and depriving moderate Conservatives of a party instead of forming a true third party and allowing the free market (or rather, the electorate) to speak. You may argue that the takeover is a sign from the electorate, but looking at the Conservatives that have been disenfranchised by the radicalization, I see it as proof that free markets have shortcomings, and evidence of why we need to watch for monopolies. But that is a separate discussion we can get into later.

@jerv – This is way off topic but you obviously believe you can drag me into another name calling match which I won’t do. If you believe that I am supporting the tea party by not denouncing them, you’re right. In fact I am supporting them actively. I disagree with your characterization of all your talking points so there is little room for discussion.

It’s a beautiful day in my neighborhood, a wonderful day in my neighborhood, will you be my, won’t you be my, please won’t you be my neighbor Let all the love begin… ~~

We could go for a walk in the park @Hypocrisy_Central? I’ll make us some lunch.

@Hypocrisy_Central – Are you really Mister Rogers? I’m unsure because that is way past my time. Heck Captain Kangaroo was way past my time. I am more of a Mickey Mouse or Soupy Sales kind of guy.

@Jaxk I’m not here for name-calling, and if you consider it offensive that I underestimated how conservative you are and mistook you for a right-leaning Moderate, then I apologize. I am merely pointing out a parallel and a double standard while forgetting that you are more conservative than traditional, mainstream Republicans. My point about double standards and inconsistency still stands though.

If you disagree with me so strongly that you would rather walk away with another of your trademark misunderstandings of my intent than engage in any sort of dialog, then that’s your right. I was merely hoping to illustrate my point by showing the similarities, and point out what I see as a flaw in your argument with the hopes that you will explain the inconsistency.

In fact, I am rather glad you outed yourself as a Tea Party supporter (you don’t actually hold office, so in this context, I consider you a supporter rather than a participant) since you shine a spotlight on another group; the real sympathizers who, while not actually part of the group, support the extremists rather than ignore or oppose them.

The reason I think that shining a spotlight on that segment is important here is to segregate them from the neutral and the silent opposition. Modern-day America has a real black/white view on many things, which means that all those who don’t actively oppose something are considered supporters when the fact is that things just aren’t that simple.

There was an interesting dicussion in NPR yesterday about a correlation between blacks in America and Muslims in Europe.
The commenter said that the majority of Muslims in Europe were brought in to be menial labor. That they were never properly educated and their wages were low enough that there was little opportunity to better themselves, say, housing wise. Muslims were never fully integrated into European society.
IF that is true (no one refuted it and I have no reason to), then there may be a direct parallel between internal terrorist attacks in Europe and the looting/protest in Ferguson Missouri.

Relevant

@ibstubro “there may be a direct parallel between internal terrorist attacks in Europe and the looting/protest in Ferguson Missouri”

Good. Grief. You can’t possibly think that.

Tea party. Ferguson. Would it be a stretch to say that it has something to do with… Islam?

@jerv I can’t for the life of me figure out what you think you’re shining a spotlight on. This is not the first time I have said I supported the Tea Parties nor will it likely be the last (although I have not renewed my membership). You have thrown out a lot of generalities with little definition for me to respond. As usual they are all intended to inflame rather than inform and designed to shut down discussion. You wield the word extremism like a weapon to attack anyone you disagree with. For instance you say:

“We have tax-and-spend Republicans that wish to turn our Democracy into either a Theocracy”

Where the hell did you get that idea. I’ve never heard anyone in the Republican party say or even insinuate that they want a Theocracy. You simply made that up to try and start a flame war. You accuse Republicans of interfering in the doctors office (a little specificity would help here) while the biggest foray into the doctors office in our history was the passing of ObamaCare. A distinctly liberal push.

I walk away because you make no sense. You throw out a bunch of inflammatory talking points with no particular issue and expect me to respond to whatever the hell you’re talking about.

Here’s the funniest part. You say:

” I will agree when you publicly denounce the current, radical incarnation of the Republican party.

You will agree with what? And why would my saying anything about the current incarnation of the Republican party change you position on radical Muslims? Again it makes no sense. And just for the sake of honesty, I wouldn’t change my position on anything simply to get you to agree with me. I don’t care enough. If you want me to change my mind on something, you need to make intelligent arguments.

You two should take your act on the road.

@Jaxk Most anti-abortion legislation comes from the Right, not the Left, so there is the medical interference. Same with pushing prayer and the teaching of Creationism in schools, so there is your theocratic angle. I’m not saying all Conservatives are like that (most aren’t), merely that that sort of stuff comes only from your side of the fence.

That should’ve read “I will agree with you when…”, but my mind got ahead of my fingers. Mea culpa. But you say things like, “The Muslims need to police their own if they want to join the rest of the world society.”. That’s a sentiment I agree with, but feel that that applies to ALL groups; Muslims, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, corporations…. basically everyone. On that one, you’re talking the talk but not walking the walk; you refuse to have your own accountability there.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. I do expect you to make a bit of sense though. You’re an intelligent person, but you seem blind in so many ways that you confuse me at times. If you can’t see how denouncing radicals is the same as denouncing radicals, and feel that my use of “extremist” is an attack, then how can I take your arguments seriously?

ex·trem·ist (ĭk-strē′mĭst)
n. A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition

extremist (ɪkˈstriːmɪst)
n 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged

@janbb I think that Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly do it better than @Jaxk and I could.

Perhaps this is it, @dappled_leaves. I don’t have the connectivity to download.

I didn’t think that, it was a point made on the radio. On NPR. If that’s not the correct link, I can search further.

Again.

@dappled_leaves There is enough stuff like that that I feel it safe to say that there are at least a few million people who do think that. Otherwise, it wouldn’t get so much coverage; the audience would be too smal to make it worthwhile.

@jerv – The abortion issue is not a medical issue. There are good arguments on both sides. Personally I fall in the middle on that one but wouldn’t condemn either view. In fact the polls show that 50% of the population would want abortion only under certain circumstances. Only 28% would allow abortion under any circumstance. I guess that means your side are the extremists on this one. Are you willing to condemn them for that? Are you a hypocrite if you don’t.

The prayer thing is a red herring. All they’ve ever said is they should be allowed to pray not that everyone should have to pray. Hell I don’t care if they pray if they want to. Do You? Creationism is another exaggeration. I’ve never seen a curriculum for creationism but I can’t imagine how you would teach history, especially world history, without talking about religion. The only time I’ve heard it brought up is as an elective class. And to be honest, there is nothing in science that prohibits the existence of some godlike entity. Why you all are so deathly afraid of religion is beyond me. If you are that scared of it, it seems you should focus on Islam more than Christianity, that’s the one that can kill you. As for extremist, 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. That means they believe in some sort of intelligent design. I guess that makes your side the extremist again. When oh when, pray tell, will you denounce these extremists in your midst?

That’s what I mean when I say you make things up and declare them as facts. Not everyone agrees with you and just because they don’t doesn’t make them stupid or bad or even extremists. Just different opinions. I don’t agree with every thing Republicans say noir do I always agree with the Tea Parties. I don’t feel any obligation to denounce them just because I take a different stand on some things. What I don’t do is publicly say I believe one thing while privately supporting the opposite. That’s all I’m saying about the Muslims. if they don’t support terrorism say they don’t and say it to their fellow Muslims.

See that’s not so hard.

@Jaxk If abortion isn’t a medical issue, then why is it something that’s discussed with and performed by only doctors? (I’m talking actual doctors with many years of medical school, a degree, and certification from the appropriate authorities to legally practice medicine.) Regardless of one’s opinions on abortion, I think that anything involving a HIPAA-protected patient-doctor relationship, billed to health insurance, etcetera is “medical”.

Also, I think when the 20% who oppose abortion outweigh the 80% who support it (with or without conditions) there is an issue. Some may call it “Tyranny of the minority”. But if you took a closer look, you’d realize that many people actually support restrictions. And if the law conformed with the will of the majority of the people, there would still be some fuss, but it’d be a lot less contentious.

“All they’ve ever said is they should be allowed to pray not that everyone should have to pray.”

You’re only partly correct there. According to SCOTUS, students are currently allowed to pray in school anyways… but unlike the past, they are also allowed to not pray. What is legally prohibited is to disrupt the school, preach to a captive audience, compel others to participate, or for the school to endorse (rather than merely allow) any such thing. Oh, and they can’t ban private prayer either, though they are likewise restricted from allowing the use of school resources for group prayer. But so far, yes, you are correct… if we are talking about the Supreme Court and the moderate Christians.

Where you are wrong is that there are some that are pushing for re-introducing compulsory prayer in school, while others are trying to be nice but still wind up breaking the SCOTUS’ rules. Some of those efforts have actually made it through state legislature and been signed into law. Take a look at this South Carolina legislation. While mostly benign and innocuous, the Law of Unintended Consequences means it’s actually exclude a sizable of the students. Sure, allowing them to leave the room sounds great, but making them want to leave the room in the first place is disruptive at best. Florida’s laws on “inspirational messages” at school events (like mandatory assemblies) is a captive audience, so likewise problematic.

Personally, while I’d like to see an even-handed, non-discriminatory approach to school prayer for those with faith (Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian…) to practice and give the unaffiliated some free time to keep it fair, I think that in practical terms there is no way to even touch the issue at all without it landing in the courts (again). The current situation is probably the best, least contentious compromise, and I’m all for reducing the case-load of the courts that our tax dollars pay for.

” Creationism is another exaggeration. I’ve never seen a curriculum for creationism but I can’t imagine how you would teach history, especially world history, without talking about religion. The only time I’ve heard it brought up is as an elective class. And to be honest, there is nothing in science that prohibits the existence of some godlike entity.”

First, let me call Edwards v. Aguillard to your attention. That will be relevant again later, but I’m citing it here as it also shows that Creationism has made it into the curriculum. In fact, Louisiana and Tennessee are the most likely places to see it, as both have state laws allowing “supplementary texts” in order to “promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussions of scientific theories such as evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”. The repeal efforts have been amazing, with many Nobel Laureates, AAAS, and a huge portion of the international scientific community, but as you might expect, and the whole thing in LA has caused a legal uproar that has had some ripple effect.

Creationism in public schools is often taught as part of science, not as a separate class. If it were an elective, then I would have no issues with it either. Or English, since nobody can deny that the Bible is at a minimum classical literature. It’s a book, it’s the best-selling book in history, and has greatly influenced billions of people for centuries, so I think the Bible is something that actually should be studied, or at least allowed to be studied as an elective. Or History/Social Studies.

Of course, the Quran has enough followers to also qualify for the same reasons as, worldwide, 20–25% of humanity follows the teachings of Muhammad rather than Jesus, so if we want to get into world history after the early 7th century, it’s as unavoidable as the Bible. Those two groups account for over half of humanity; the third largest group is “Unaffiliated”(there are about as many Atheists/Agnostics as there are Catholics), and other religious groups really haven’t shaped history the way Christianity and Islam have, so those two texts are really the two most significant.

However, Edwards v Aguillard set the precedent for Webster v. New Lenox School District where it was determined that the teaching of “Creation science” even as part of Social Sciences violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, so I don’t see either text being taught in public schools.

The irony there is that Atheists and Agnostics as a whole know more about the Bible than Catholics or non-evangelical Protestants, so maybe it’d educate some people about their faith. Then again, most of the Atheists and many of the Wiccans I know converted specifically because they studied the Bible, so maybe allowing Bible study in schools would be bad for Christians!

“If you are that scared of it, it seems you should focus on Islam more than Christianity, that’s the one that can kill you.”

Really? Lets look at the FBI list of terrorist attacks on US soil from 1980 to 2005. Looks like Muslims are largely absent there. Sure, they killed a few people here, but Timothy McVeigh took out nearly three times as many people in one blast as Muslim terrorists did in 25 years. Similar trends hold worldwide, actually; remember Anders Behring Breivik? Look up David Leach and the Army of God too. Or the Lord’s Resistance Movement. Though, in truth, most such attacks worldwide are motivated by politics than religion; separatist movements especially. I go where the evidence leads me, and my own experience matches the statistics; of all the Muslims I’ve met, not one has been militant, but I cannot say the same for Christians. Therefore, I see Christian extremists as at least as big a threat as Muslims based on the weight of evidence.

“As for extremist, 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. That means they believe in some sort of intelligent design. I guess that makes your side the extremist again.”

Funny, since you don’t seem to know what my beliefs (political or religious) actually are, but since you hit a topic near and dear to my heart, I’ll bite.

I see 78% and dropping, which is close enough to your number that we’ll call it “margin of error”. But when you consider how many people are afraid to admit to not having a faith due to the social stigma against Atheism (worse than Muslims), I’m going to have to say that there is a little stat-padding there. I know too much about statistics to not have a little skepticism. I’m not outright refuting it as I am aware of our own history, demographics, etcetera, but I am saying that we have more non-Christians than your source claims.

Given how much of a fuss was made over JFK being Catholic instead of Protestant though, I’m not even sure if I would count Christianity as one religion or not. Still, I would be surprised if the number were below 65% and is likely in the low-70s, assuming you count all of the many sects of divergent beliefs under a single heading, something I am not really sure is statistically valid.

But even many Christians are against things like compulsory prayer in school, or are otherwise morally opposed to forcing their faith on others. In fact, I would dare to guess that that group outnumbers all forms of non-Christians, though I would really like to see actual studies to test that theory. Okay, so now instead of just Christian vs non-Christian, we have a divide over whether or not to proselytize, and how to do it if it’s allowed. In short, we have a FAR more divided opinion than your simple “83% vs 17%” citation implies.

Yet we still have a red herring. I myself am an Agnostic who doesn’t discredit the possibility of Intelligent Design (science cannot disprove the existence of some higher power) only the ability of the human mind to grasp the complexity of The Total Truth of the matter. (I also think that there is some merit to the LSEA, at least insofar as I actually agree with the stated intent of promoting critical thinking.) And I know of other Agnostics who are more deistic, so I have to conclude that religious affiliation (actual or professed) has less bearing on one’s view of ID than you would think.

Lastly, anyone placing a car-bomb or spraying into a crowd with an assault rifle is dangerous regardless of their religious or political views.

” What I don’t do is publicly say I believe one thing while privately supporting the opposite…. if they don’t support terrorism say they don’t and say it to their fellow Muslims.”

That assumes that Muslims actually do privately support terrorism. And given how little of my life I actually spend denouncing the evils perpetrated by heterosexual white men, I can easily see how it’s entirely possible for the average Muslim to privately condemn terrorism but publicly just remain silent on the issue.

@jerv Oh, I put nothing past the conservative right-wing media in your country. I just question whether anyone sane would recognize such a connection.

@jerv – Wow, I thought we were tackling the issue of extremism. Nothing in your post indicates any extreme views as far as I can tell. I’ll grant that you’ve desparately tried to manipulate the numbers but even then nothing substantial sticks out. For instance, you say:

“Also, I think when the 20% who oppose abortion outweigh the 80% who support it (with or without conditions) there is an issue. Some may call it “Tyranny of the minority”

I could just as easily say that 72% of the population favors some restrictions. I don’t know if you heard about it but Roe v Wade has been decided. Abortion IS legal. The 20% you say are the “Tyranny of the minority”, they lost. The winner in Roe v Wade was the 50% (legal with some restrictions). Seems like the system worked as designed and the majority won. I don’t know what you problem is with this but there is certainly NO TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. And it was decided 40 years ago, let it go.

I’m not sure what you point is on the S. Carolina law. It hasn’t passed, It was introduced and sponsored by Democrats, and it allows students to leave the room prior to the “minute of silence”. If you want to disavow your guys on this one, that’s fine with me.

You say: “Where you are wrong is that there are some that are pushing for re-introducing compulsory prayer in school” You provide no evidence of that and in fact the evidence you do provide shows just the opposite.

I don’t know what to make of your argument on creationism since the law you cite was shot down 30 years ago. I’m surprised you haven’t brought up the Scopes Monkey Trial.

You seem to take offense to my 83% Christian number yet come up with 78% yourself. The difference is probably because your number is from 2007. Personally I’ll stick to the numbers created by Gallup or even Pew, I suspect they know how to do polling better than you. And then you drift right back into this forced prayer thing. There is no forced prayer, let it go.

I love your citation of Timothy McVeigh. Sounds like the old ‘Mashed Potato Theory’. In case you haven’t heard of it, I’ll cite it. They did a poll in one of our large prisons of how many had eaten mashed potatoes in their life. The poll came out close to 100%. The obvious conclusion is that Mashed potatoes cause crime. That’s the mashed potatoes theory. We live in a country with 83% Christian population. If you start assigning crimes by religious affiliation of the perpetrator, you will inevitably see a large number of Christians. That does make them religious crimes nor even Christian crimes. Timothy McVeigh didn’t set his bombs for religious purposes, they were political. The World Trade Center was brought down for religious purposes. You’ve presented a false equivalency. Correlation is not causation.

As for Kennedy (my god we’re going all the way back to 1960) the issue was the Pope. Cathol;ics are one of the few (I would say the only but I don’t want to get into an argument over the influence of the Dali Lama) sects with a political as well as religious leader. The Pope has and does influence political leaders and events. People were worried that the Pope could have a direct affect on the President. BTW, it didn’t happen.

As for the Muslims, I don’t assume they do or do not support terrorism. I can only judge what they say and do.

Finally, the abortion ‘ISSUE’ is not a medical one. There’s no controversy on how to perform an abortion. There is an issue on whether it should be performed. It’s an ethical issue. Doctors that decline to perform an abortion are not reluctant because they don’t know how. They just aren’t comfortable injecting poison into the fetus then dragging the carcass out with a meat hook. Opponents of abortion have the same trepidation.

If I’ve missed any of your arguments, it was not intentional. Maybe next time we could limit our act to just a couple of issues.

@Jaxk Given how many people seek to overturn Roe v Wade, some going to the extremes Scott Roeder did (I think we can both agree that assassination is rather extreme, can’t we?) while others (like the Texas legislature) doing an end run that turns a de jure right into a de facto ban, I would argue that is is not been settled.

“My guys”? If you haven’t figured it out yet, then you never will, so I won’t bother refuting that lie. And once again, you kind of miss the point, though in this case I probably didn’t state it all that well. Tell me again how making the non-believers even want to leave the room isn’t disruptive? The “problem” that is more often cited is the captive audience prayer before certain events such as graduation, though Alabama HB318 would include the beginning of each school day as well. I’m not so sure that the fact that people are not chained to their seats and the doors are not locked truly gets around that issue. While I personally have no issues with the “moment of silence” in principle, there are enough that consider it “government endorsement of religion” that it’s disruptive enough that I just can’t abide by it in practice.

And how do you explain this, this, this, and other such things and then tell me that there isn’t still an effort to get a particular religion back onto schools? I am thankful that current legislators are generally savvy enough to avoid it, though Huckabee’s comments after the Sandy Hook shooting show that there are still a minority of specific people who haven’t got the memo, as did Dennis Kruse who propsed this gem. It got shot down, of course, but the effort was still made pretty recently.

I said right off the bat that 78% vs 83% was close enough to consider “margin of error”, which is generally, +/- 3%. And given how many Muslim terrorist attacks have been political/separatist rather than religiously motivated, I’m still not convinced anyways, but I can raise a derogatory smokescreen full of bullshit too. How about we agree to try not doing that to each other? I will do what I can to control my often-flippant impulses if you stop trying to feed me red herring, deal?

Most accounts I’ve read attribute 9/11 to Bin Laden’s opposition to US policy in the Middle East, especially Israel. While it could still be argued that that is religious as we are talking a predominantly Muslim region and a Jewish state, I think that the religion angle in this case is a bit more coincidental; correlation is not causation.

Regarding JFK, similar arguments have been brought up about both Bushs and Mitt Romney as well, only from the other side (non-Protestants). I think the same uproar would happen if we elect an Atheist, Pagan, Buddhist, or Discordian. My point in mentioning JFK was simply to question whether or not Christianity can truly be considered one religion. Given the events of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as the founding of our nation, I think that it’s legitimate to question whether the followers of Christ are unified enough to be considered a single demographic and question the validity of statistics that assert an unresolved question as a concrete fact. Ireland may also offer a little insight there, depending on whether one considers it coincidence or causation that the two factions are pretty much split along Catholic/Protestant lines.

If you wish to judge by what they say, let’s go here, here, here… well, you get the point.

Ethics is an integral part of medicine. On the patient side, medicine and ethics come together quite a bit. Some are opposed to drugs, some against transfusions… even patients make ethics-based medical decisions, and doctors do it even more. Personally, I would be rather disturbed if a doctor wasn’t reluctant to perform an abortion as it would imply that they don’t give much thought to the value of human life, or at least not enough to ponder the issue of when it begins. I want my doctors to be a bit deep that way as they are in a position of trust and people live or die by their actions.

But so long as the patient is of sound mind, doctors are pretty much bound by the wishes of the patient rather than their own desires, though I think it fair for them to “tag team” and recuse themselves from certain situations they find morally objectionable so long as adequate, competent care that complies with the patient’s wishes are readily available. If they can’t handle those challenges to their conscience and beliefs, maybe they deserve a pay cut. Doctors don’t get paid so much just for having a degree; they get the big bucks because their job is hard, often in ways that weren’t really covered in med school.

Many pro-choice people are actually against abortion but still pro-choice as they feel it wrong to impose their beliefs on others. Besides, those whose opinions on abortion are largely inline with the findings of Roe v Wade consider abortion not much different from a tooth extraction; something that is purely medical. All pro-choice people really want is for that decision to be made by the mother/patient, not by the state, the doctor, or (given the economic realities of life) their insurance company or employer.

@jerv – Most of what you post I don’t see much point in continuing to argue. If you don’t believe the Islamic terrorists are religious fanatics, I see no point in arguing that with you (or Howard Dean for that matter). If you want to argue that religious leaders are extremists for saying that prayer is good, I won’t argue that one either even though I think your a bit unrealistic.

As for Kennedy I remember that election quite well and the Catholic argument was nothing like Bush closer to Romney but not there. The biggest difference was that Kennedy was a Democrat. Democrats always scream about Republicans but it has to be something big for them to do it to a Democrat. Either way it’s all academic since I never argued that all Christians wer of the same ilk, only that they had At least one thing in common, a divine being. If you want to try and tear that apart, go ahead.

Finally, I don’t quite understand your position on the Doctors that won’t perform abortions. You seem to think that all doctors perform (or should) abortions. They don’t. Ninety-seven percent of obstetrician-gynecologists have encountered patients wanting an abortion, but only 14 percent performed them, according to a study published today in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.. Abortions are elective in almost all cases and a doctor has no obligation to perform any procedure that has no medical benefit. It is not like pulling a tooth. They are not bound by the wishes of the patient. Where did you get that idea?

I think you are also confused about the Roe v Wade decision. According to the SCOTUS the state does have an interest in the potentiality of human life. Here is the relevant ruling.

The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

WOT? Anyone?

@jerv

This is a speech given by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi The new President of Egypt on New Years Day. He is speaking to a large group of Imams and asking them to promote a new way of thinking about Islam. Read the speech, it is exactly what I think the Leaders of Islam should be doing.

@Jaxk I am arguing that not all Muslims are terrorists, that religious fanaticism isn’t solely the province of Islam, and that much of the violence that is attributed to Islamists is driven more by politics than religion.

Elective… considering what pregnancy and childbirth involve, I’m just going to leave it at whether or not there is “medical benefit” is debatable enough that it won’t be settled any time soon.

As for so few doctors actually performing abortions, I can see how a lot would rather not, and if they manage to convince the abortion-seeker to change their mind then fine, so long as it’s still strictly between doctor and patient, and (this is the part that has struck down many state laws) non-coercive. Then there are things like Texas’ recent (and currently hotly contested) abortion laws that shows the type of de facto ban that may be either “unintended consequences”, or a malicious end-run around Roe v Wade. It’s a bit too recent/breaking for me to tell which.

“Potentiality” involves going far enough beyond science that it become largely an issue of which systems of morality are allowed to be legislated against. However, there is a lot of agreement regarding third-trimester pregnancies, the ones not protected by Roe v Wade and left open the rights of states to legislate as they see fit. And note that the state isn’t able to touch first-trimester abortions, leaving that decision between the patient and doctor.

As an aside, I pretty much agree with Roe v Wade. While I see first-trimester abortions about the same as birth control, I see no valid reason, aside from the health of the mother, to even consider terminating a life that can exist independent of the mother. As for second-trimester, that’s a big grey area that I am undecided/conflicted enough about that I see little problem leaving that open to legislation by individual states.

But enough on that derailment.

It’s a pity that your link is bad; I’ll have to look it up later.

From what I’ve seen, I think that speech is a little redundant. We already have a lot of Imams calling for de-radicalization, not that much is needed as a lot of Muslims aren’t that radical in the first place.

That said, I’ve been wondering when Islam would have it’s Reformation, and it seems I’m not the only one whio thinks al-Sisi may be the spark that sets it off

Then again, the difference between a terrorist and your average Muslim is the same reason I am a bit wary of Christians too; Fundamentalists seem to cause all sorts of issues regardless of faith.

I am betting that if @Jaxk and @jerv ever met in real life, they might actually like each other more than they realize here.

Opposite sides of the debate team, @jca?

so many words!

The words crawl in, the words crawl out. In your eyes and out your mouth, @Dutchess_III.

@jca Actually, the few times we’ve dealt with each other outside of a political/economic discussion have been amicable, and we do share more common ground than you’d guess even on some of those issues.

Since political and religious leaders are often less influential than celebrities, let’s see what Kareem Abdul-Jabar has to say

For those disinclined to follow links, I think this is the most relevant paragraph;

“When the Ku Klux Klan burn a cross in a black family’s yard, prominent Christians aren’t required to explain how these aren’t really Christian acts. Most people already realize that the KKK doesn’t represent Christian teachings. That’s what I and other Muslims long for—the day when these terrorists praising Mohammed or Allah’s name as they debase their actual teachings are instantly recognized as thugs disguising themselves as Muslims. It’s like bank robbers wearing masks of presidents; we don’t really think Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush hit the Bank of America during their down time.”

* * *

Something many (myself included) ponder regarding violence and crime in general; why is it that when a Muslim does it the entire religion is guilty, when a black man does it the entire race is guilty, but when a white guy does it they’re “mentally disturbed lone wolf” or just a delinquent individual? Is it because our nation is still over ⅔ White? I might polish this up and ask this as a separate question later…

Capitalism currently rules, @jerv. Caucasians largely rule capitalistic governments.

“Because they can” blame everyone else.

Where is it different?

@jerv I can’t address the black/white divide, because I don’t understand the cultural issues in the US as well as a local would. But I think there is good reason for all of Islam to be questioned over terrorist activity.

In November 2014 alone, jihadist groups killed more than 5000 people. That’s over 160 per day. The top seven countries where these attacks occurred were Islamic majority countries. Following the so called “Arab Spring”, Libya, Syria, and to a lesser extent Egypt, fractured along sectarian divides. When ISIL declared the Caliphate, groups from Islamic majority countries from Pakistan to the Philippines declared allegiance. The link between Islam and violence is such that Australian outlaw biker groups have had (successful) recruitment drives specifically aimed at the Islamic community, including patches modified to include Islamic symbolism.

I recognise that the vast majority of Muslims are good people. But remember that in Nazi Germany, only 7–10% of citizens were actually Nazis. The majority must continue to speak out, or else the powerful minority can and will dictate the trajectory of the community.

@FireMadeFlesh ISIS accounted for nearly half of that, and I don’t think anyone here would deny that ISIS and the Taliban are terrorists. But the estimates I’ve seen place ISIS’ strength at ~40–60,000 and the Muslim population of Earth at nearly 1.6 billion. If we assume the high side of the estimate, do the math and we’re talking 0.003822%. Even if there are one hundred times as many ISIS members as intelligence, we’re still under one-half of one percent.

Of course, Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti seems to agree, as does their king Think about that for a moment. Saudi Arabia isn’t exactly the most liberal place, so when those ruling the church and state (often the same thing in many Muslim places) of a nation widely regarded as a bit extreme say you’ve gone too far, maybe you’re just not representing the average person of your demographic.

But yes, the majority must continue to speak out. I just find it disheartening that those who are speaking out are being ignored.

@jerv ISIL is the terrorist group of the moment, but they’re far from alone. Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, and AQAP are just as active and just as deadly. The last figures I saw (which unfortunately I cannot locate right now) indicated that there were close to 1000 Islamist groups across the globe. But I don’t think it is correct to limit our judgement of the numbers of radicals to membership of terrorist groups. The Canadian parliament attackers, and the Sydney siege attacker did not have formal links with terrorist groups. The gangs trying to establish Sharia zones in suburbs of London largely don’t have formal links either. About two months ago we had a wave of arrests here, where over 100 suspected terrorists were taken into custody. Only two were charged. The rest are considered dangerous, but evidently are also not official members of a terrorist organisation.

Of course raw numbers aren’t enough to demonstrate one way or another the effect of extremists on the whole religion. But the fact that there is such a strong correlation between Islam and such activity means that the rest of us are going to need continued reassurance from those that aren’t that way inclined. Because otherwise we may make assumptions about the whole community based on the correlation.

@FireMadeFlesh In that case, I should be more frightened of my fellow Americans. I’m looking at the odds of dying due to terrorism versus a non-terrorism-related violent death, and the math doesn’t look good. I need the same constant reassurances from other groups but it seems that the servants of Allah are the only one being called to task.

Maybe I just have too broad a view and take in more information than just the headlines and sound bites the media blasts 30 hours a day, 9 days a week. The world is a big place, and there are plenty of other nasty groups that aren’t in the spotlight even if they should be. Not all of the stuff going on in Africa is Muslim terrorism, yet it’s still horrifically violent. Central/South America may not be an organized thing, but it still enough to color perceptions.

@jerv Yeah, there’s other violence in the world. Some of it is unbelievable brutal. But of those threats, Jihadism is the only one that has systematically threatened the West for 1400 years. The non-Islamic violence in Africa and the Central and South American violence is largely aimed at shifts in the balance of power within a country or region. But Islamist ideology is all about conquest, particularly of the West.

@FireMadeFlesh A look at history says the same of the West threatening others; we’ve just become a bit more subtle about it. And the Crusades are still fresh in the minds of those with long memories, as are the various Inquisitions.

Just curious… wasn’t Britain all about conquest until relatively recently?

@jerv How does “we did it too” make it any better for them? I’m not going to defend Colonialism, or other Western projections of power. The countries that fell under Western conquest have good reason to resent us. But that doesn’t mean we should get complacent about Jihadism.

I completely dispute the account of history that demonises the Crusades. They were counter-attacks against Islamic invasions. The land they was fought on belonged to the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire long before Islam even existed. Meanwhile Islamic armies were attacking Sicily, Spain, Greece, Egypt – basically the whole of the Mediterranean coast, which was largely Christian at the time.

@FireMadeFlesh I don’t think we should get complacent period. I just dispute singling Islam out. If nothing else, it distracts us from other threats.