The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Coyote]

What? I was speaking to the definition of the term. I ignored nothing.

So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?

They're confused about the meaning of Islam.

These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.

What ISIS Really Wants

They are Islamic end timers.

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses

It sure is when you do it.

I would say it goes well beyond excuses, however, and enters the territory of approval, such as when you ask why Islamists who mass murder Jews shouldn't be nominated for Nobel peace prizes for their work.

 

[American_Jihad]

it's the Christians causing the problems, not the Muslims.

...

 

[flacaltenn]

So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?

They're confused about the meaning of Islam.

These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.

What ISIS Really Wants

They are Islamic end timers.

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

 

[Coyote]

They're confused about the meaning of Islam.

These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.

What ISIS Really Wants

They are Islamic end timers.

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread premise has failed on two points: that ‘the left’ are ‘apologists’ for Muslims who have committed acts of terror – that this is false and a lie is beyond dispute.

And that Islam is somehow ‘different’ from other religions, inherently ‘evil’ and ‘malevolent,’ where the religion neither warrants the respect afforded other faiths nor entitled to First Amendment protections.

Indeed, the idiocy of the thread premise is self-evident, where liberals have always been staunch advocates and defenders of Establishment Clause jurisprudence safeguarding the rights of citizens from religious extremism and bigotry, prohibiting subjective religious dogma from being codified into secular law, consistent with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

Given liberals’ warranted and justified wariness of religious extremism – regardless the religion – the notion that liberals would somehow ‘overlook’ Islamic extremism and violence is as idiotic and it is wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

Comparison to Christianity is not necessarily making excuses, it's also pointing out that the average Muslim is not that different than the average Christian despite the almost maniacal attempts of the right to make them inhuman and their faith into something akin to Nazi ideology. What purpose does that serve or solve?

There are no "average" advocates of any religion really. Christians in the Mid East are fighting for their very existence right now because there are an abundance of active radical groups that wish to commit genocide on them. Certainly -- their view of religion versus "authority and power" is a lot different than fat and lazy Western Christians.

IF you practice Islam in most Arab countries (or less than free countries like Indonesia) you are infused with the belief that power and authority FLOWS from Islam. Indeed the govt laws ACCOMMODATE Islam. So you are conditioned to not even THINK about things like liberty and tolerance that Muslims in Western settings are immersed into. There is a HUGE native cultural difference depending on WHERE you practice that religion..

Culture does make a huge difference.

What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...

And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.

It IS a threat.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thread premise has failed on two points: that ‘the left’ are ‘apologists’ for Muslims who have committed acts of terror – that this is false and a lie is beyond dispute.

And that Islam is somehow ‘different’ from other religions, inherently ‘evil’ and ‘malevolent,’ where the religion neither warrants the respect afforded other faiths nor entitled to First Amendment protections.

Indeed, the idiocy of the thread premise is self-evident, where liberals have always been staunch advocates and defenders of Establishment Clause jurisprudence safeguarding the rights of citizens from religious extremism and bigotry, prohibiting subjective religious dogma from being codified into secular law, consistent with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

Given liberals’ warranted and justified wariness of religious extremism – regardless the religion – the notion that liberals would somehow ‘overlook’ Islamic extremism and violence is as idiotic and it is wrong.

Hand out the participation trophies and just declare it solved --- I guess.. Is that what's happening in your post? I just explained why a majority of Americans have a righteous concern that leftist politicians in America will make some of the same "cultural concessions" that lead to European ghettos of unassimilated Muslims where the law doesn't reach. The same new immigrants who have never ever considered (for the most part) HOW to practice their religion in a culture that doesn't ENDORSE it and doesn't PROTECT it from offensive acts and speech.

Your "opposition" just want to know that your "left" will go after Muslim suppositions that their religious law is a practice which is protected by government. If we all acknowledge this cultural adjustment issue, and recognized the opportunities for extremists to flourish in the midst of those SHOCKED by Western culture and this "separation" that you speak of --- then there'd be no quarrel here.

But throughout this thread, YOUR folks have tried to compare this problem to WESTERNIZED Christianity, minimized the differences between religions and their cultural view of authority, and argued the meaning of Jihad. Doesn't sound like you got the troops signed up for the task General Jones..

We should ALL be agreeing that there are large dangers of flooding the country with folks of ANY type who don't have a CLUE what liberty and democracy and tolerance is about.

 

[flacaltenn]

Before anyone claims there is no tendency for the left to bow to accommodations in the Muslim case and be hypocritical when the same issue crops up with the Christian case. Compare these 2 stories.

Accommodating Muslims in public school: where to draw the line? | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

That’s why Muslim students in public schools are often reluctant to ask school officials for accommodation for required prayers or other religious needs. Who can blame them for keeping silent and hoping that the surge in Islam-bashing will eventually recede?

But some things can’t wait. When required daily prayers fall within the school day, for example, Muslim students need a place to pray. And when Muslim girls wearing head scarves arrive at a school with a “no head coverings” policy, they need an exemption on grounds of conscience.
Some school officials take a hard line — as when the Muskogee, Okla., school district suspended a Muslim girl last year for refusing to remove her scarf. Fortunately, most educators instinctively do the right thing and accommodate these requests. Even when they may not have to do so, they want to find some way to allow students to follow the requirements of their faith.

It’s true that students in a public school are free to pray — alone or in groups — as long as they aren’t disruptive and don’t interfere with others’ rights. If students want to pray between classes or at lunch in informal settings such as hallways or the cafeteria, they are free to do so. And there’s no problem with allowing students to use a section of the library or a free classroom for brief prayers, as long as safety and discipline are maintained — and students don’t miss much class.
But if schools get involved in releasing students from classes to attend a prayer service in the school building, that looks like a First Amendment violation to me. Under the establishment clause, administrators may not organize, sponsor, or otherwise entangle themselves in religious activities during the school day.

Michigan High School Bans Football Team From Praying On Field

There will be no more post-game praying for this Michigan high school football team.

After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lahser High School has banned football players from engaging in prayer on the field. The team had previously made a ritual of kneeling in prayer after big games, according to local outlet WDIV-TV.

While the original complaint from the ACLU alleged that the team’s coach, Dan Loria, had led the team in prayer, the school determined after an investigation that Loria had merely been present for the prayer. Still, when he received word that the practice was in violation of the Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause of the First Amendment, the coach took responsibility for the occurrence, reports The Oakland Press.

And sports events for school are not even subject to worries about missing class time, providing a special place and dont even occur during regular school hours.

Seems like all that vigorous defense of "separation" that you think is in the Constitution needs a little consistency on Team Leftist. Either you need to ease up on your blood vendetta against ALL people of faith in this country or you ARE gonna get accused of bending over to accommodate religious/cultural differences selectively..

Might be a serving of crow in your future as regards "the war on religion" that is specific to the left.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Before anyone claims there is no tendency for the left to bow to accommodations in the Muslim case and be hypocritical when the same issue crops up with the Christian case. Compare these 2 stories.

Accommodating Muslims in public school: where to draw the line? | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

That’s why Muslim students in public schools are often reluctant to ask school officials for accommodation for required prayers or other religious needs. Who can blame them for keeping silent and hoping that the surge in Islam-bashing will eventually recede?

But some things can’t wait. When required daily prayers fall within the school day, for example, Muslim students need a place to pray. And when Muslim girls wearing head scarves arrive at a school with a “no head coverings” policy, they need an exemption on grounds of conscience.
Some school officials take a hard line — as when the Muskogee, Okla., school district suspended a Muslim girl last year for refusing to remove her scarf. Fortunately, most educators instinctively do the right thing and accommodate these requests. Even when they may not have to do so, they want to find some way to allow students to follow the requirements of their faith.

It’s true that students in a public school are free to pray — alone or in groups — as long as they aren’t disruptive and don’t interfere with others’ rights. If students want to pray between classes or at lunch in informal settings such as hallways or the cafeteria, they are free to do so. And there’s no problem with allowing students to use a section of the library or a free classroom for brief prayers, as long as safety and discipline are maintained — and students don’t miss much class.
But if schools get involved in releasing students from classes to attend a prayer service in the school building, that looks like a First Amendment violation to me. Under the establishment clause, administrators may not organize, sponsor, or otherwise entangle themselves in religious activities during the school day.

Michigan High School Bans Football Team From Praying On Field

There will be no more post-game praying for this Michigan high school football team.

After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lahser High School has banned football players from engaging in prayer on the field. The team had previously made a ritual of kneeling in prayer after big games, according to local outlet WDIV-TV.

While the original complaint from the ACLU alleged that the team’s coach, Dan Loria, had led the team in prayer, the school determined after an investigation that Loria had merely been present for the prayer. Still, when he received word that the practice was in violation of the Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause of the First Amendment, the coach took responsibility for the occurrence, reports The Oakland Press.

And sports events for school are not even subject to worries about missing class time, providing a special place and dont even occur during regular school hours.

Seems like all that vigorous defense of "separation" that you think is in the Constitution needs a little consistency on Team Leftist. Either you need to ease up on your blood vendetta against ALL people of faith in this country or you ARE gonna get accused of bending over to accommodate religious/cultural differences selectively..

Might be a serving of crow in your future as regards "the war on religion" that is specific to the left.

You've mastered the tactic of presenting false equivalencies. Congrats. Next lesson....how to literally bore intelligent people to death. You are ready.

 

[Jack4jill]

it's the Christians causing the problems, not the Muslims.

...

Quote out of context, not in full, and reported.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What? I was speaking to the definition of the term. I ignored nothing.

So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?

They're confused about the meaning of Islam.

These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.

What ISIS Really Wants

They are Islamic end timers.

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

There is a difference between having a beef with extremism and its state sponsors and hating all Islam and its followers.

Some people are intelligent enough to recognize that, and advocate for strategies that do not demonize an entire group of innocent people such as is being done by many here. Who are the real regressive? Because I'm not so sure it's not those throwing the label around.

It IS true tho that Left doesn't confront the problem as it actually exists. As in the refusal to call it "radical Islamic terrorism".. And only by recognizing and studying HOW it generates are you ever gonna separate the threat from the religion. Making excuses for the daily global bloodshed by comparing this to an American Christian problem is just dumb.. NOTHING gets resolved that way. And we end up not being able to discriminate between the perverse actions of the radicals and the Westernized populations of Islam that dont pose any threat.

The people who insist that the term 'Islamic terrorism' are most often the very people who do in fact want to advance that argument that Islam itself is to blame for the terrorism,

specifically, the argument that somehow Islam is fatally flawed by its own nature.

Christianity was the primary source of religious violence in Europe and to some extent other places for practically a thousand years,
but Christianity, eventually, mostly through secularization,

evolved out of it. There is no reason to believe that Islam can never do the same. The world is widely populated by moderate secularized Muslims. They are not a threat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, there's a broad swath of American conservatism that simply doesn't want America to be religiously diverse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Was not the best part of this thread today when Macnut finally found himself inextricably cornered and started screaming

Off topic! Off topic! Mommy, they're off topic!!

OMG I nearly lost it.

Let me behave like Mac for a moment.

The best part of this thread were the two posts that I made which explained the behavior that Mac asked about in the OP....which Mac decided not to acknowledge.

Ever since then, Mac has turned this thread into "a heckuva psychology experiment" with scores of claims that he is in our heads.

What's funny is that he and PoliticalChic are mortal enemies, but he has mastered her debating style of deliberate obfuscation to perfection. Peas in a pod.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[jillian]

What? I was speaking to the definition of the term. I ignored nothing.

So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?

They're confused about the meaning of Islam.

These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.

What ISIS Really Wants

They are Islamic end timers.

Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.

And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.

We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.

Why is that????

again, i'm no supporter of terrorists. i kind of have a zero tolerance when it comes to blowing up stuff in the name of allah.

in this country? more people have been killed by christian terrorists than muslim terrorists. i think radical religionists are dangerous.

That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.

Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..

we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.

reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.

i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.

see a problem there? with both responses?

i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.

 

[Seawytch]

So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?

They are answering the question "What would Mohammad do?".

Ignorant people love to compare Islam and Christianity, but they never seem to notice the difference between the lives of the two prophets at all or in the nature of their teachings.

ISIS/AlQaeda/Hamas/Martyrs Brigade/Boko Haram etc aren't "perversions" of Islam, but Islam at it's most true since they are following both the teachings and the M.O. of Mohammad, himself.

Incorrect. They are political entities. Many of their members aren't even devout.

Ever hear of a guy named Dean Obeidallah?

Love him...

Bill Maher's Muslim Problem

 

[Kondor3]

Keep in mind, there's a broad swath of American conservatism that simply doesn't want America to be religiously diverse.

This isn't about 'religious diversity'.

We get along just fine with various and widely diverse flavors of Christianity.

We get along just fine with Buddhism.

We get along just fine with Sikhism.

We get along just fine with Judaism.

We get along just fine with Animism.

We get along just fine with Shamanism.

We get along just fine with Atheism.

We just don't get along so well with Warrior Religions whose calls for death to Infidels remain operative centuries after others set aside such Neanderthalism.

Not to mention fierce intolerance of other religious beliefs, misogyny, theocracy and interference with secular governance, whenever it attains majority numbers.

Well... most of us don't get get along with such Neanderthals... those who aren't delusional, anyway... those who haven't swallowed the Liberal Kool Aid.

 

[Mac1958]

This really has been amazing, all the effort the Regressive Left has put into this. Flattering.

Despite the best efforts of the Regressive Left to lie and deflect from the point here, this thread is about one (1) issue and (1) question only:

When Islam (or any tiny part of it) is referenced or criticized in any way, what is the psychological need for Regressive Lefties -- the same people who are so quick to criticize Christianity, so quick to paint it with a broad and nasty and hateful brush -- so tolerant of Islam, so open-minded, so fair, so reasonable, so likely to react like the following?

Oh, and by the way, as I pointed out in the OP, I don't expect any kind of honest response from that group. I expected exactly what I predicted.

Oh, and also, some of the theories I have posted by honest liberals have been very enlightening.

they say the same thing as many far right christians say... which is that if women dress a certain way they're "asking for it"..

Good thing no Catholic priest has ever tried commiting a sex crime, huh?

Radical con gangs are taking over government buildings, wild life refuges, and committing massacres in Planned Parenthood offices and black churches. There is no difference between radical evangelical cons and radical Muslims.

What kind of degenerate 'hopes' that any woman would get raped. If your politics has you that f#$ked up in the head I only pity you.

"This is what's coming to America" What's already in America is this sort of ignorance and hate common to many on the right, posing a much greater threat than 'Muslims.'

oh no another christ stained martyr

Like the whit Christian pro life terrorists? Most Muslims aren't liking anyone. And anyone who actually knows anything about fighting that type of terrorism knows that you can't marginalize all Muslims.

Gee another cross humping cracka shitting in his pants thread!!!

There is no way for enough Muslims to reach us to have any voting power Assuming dumbass Christians don't manage to enshrine their own religion into our governance. And by extension Muslims, Jews, Satanists, and Hindus.

"See! We're not quite as bad as ISIS, so that makes us okay!" --- This thread, and the cry of American conservatives in general.

Plainly, the military setbacks suffered by ISIS have driven their conservative ideological twins here to serious levels of desperation.

We knew all along that RWrs had a much closer connection to ISIS than any liberal did.

Maybe now they'll realize that Christians and they are on the same side of restoring morality, instead of chopping the heads off of their allies, they might want to find some common ground.

Republicans must be so upset they can't do that here.

Why do right wingers think gays are so irresistible?

Are fundamentalist Christians jealous of their ISIS counterparts?

Which group in the US is rooting for 'god' to toss gays into a lake of fire? Is there a difference?

Allie is a prime example of christers and moooslims being two sides of the same coin.

Funny, these Republicans so much like Isis in their hatred for gays. But they think they are good and Isis is bad.

Islam isn't guilty. People are. You and the OP who condemn a religion for the acts of individuals are no different than Hitler and his condemnation of the Jews.

Your basic 'fact' is that there are no innocent Muslims.

Sounds like the Christian nazis in action.

Christians are no worse and no better than Muslims. Christian nazis and ISIL acid vat executioners are bad, too.

This is the truth: "It seems to me that authoritarian [reactionary righties] operate under the principle that as long as they stand little probability of being a victim, other people's deaths really don't matter at all. The important issue is conforming to the authoritarian [far right rectionary] group think."

Your ideology has much common with the pre-Nazi fascists who waged their culture war with anti-(insert hated group du jour) propoganda and demonized entire groups of people. Makes it far easier to get rid of them when you don't see them as individuals doesn't it?

Source: The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
Source: This is what's coming to America
Source: ISIS Resumes Throwing Gays Off Rooftops

 

[Mac1958]

Oh, and for those of you who are going to claim that you don't know what the Regressive Left is, or that I'm making it up, here are some honest liberals to explain it to you: