Orange-Haired Orangutan Dominating Republican Party

[EquALLity]

Was Hitler dead at this point in history?

I think so, because I'm pretty sure that it happened after the Holocaust was over and the Nazis were fleeing to avoid being brought to justice.

Do you consider violence and terrorism to be the same thing? It was my understanding terrorism is the concern of this discussion?

I don't think that they are the same thing, but they are bad for the same reason (because they cause harm).

If Muslims have caused more terrorism (as a result of Islamic doctrine), and Christians have caused more violence (as a result of Christian doctrine), and the violence ended up causing more harm than the terrorism, Christianity would be more harmful.
And overall harm should be focused on, not terrorism alone.

If Muslims and Christians are equally easy to offend and there are more Christians than there are Muslims, then, due to the lower sample size of Muslims, the amount of Muslims who are easily offended may appear to be higher, since that statistic will likely be less accurate.

Well, ok. Not really sure what point you're making?
Or are you just saying?

You don't have to look at his motives, just just look at the circumstances of the event to determine if things were handled correctly. From what I have read, teachers in the US need to report suspicious activities to the police as part of this "zero tolerance policy", or they risk getting fired -- they don't have a choice.

The circumstances of events didn't seem to indicate that the teenager was at fault.

Source about the police and teacher thing?

Yes, but they don't turn into the mafia when you joke about them!

Yeah, I'm just saying.

Abstaining from saying it would be a half-truth, but flat out denying any link is different -- it's an outright lie. When he says "no realigion condones the killing of innocents" he's also lying, unless he thinks infidels are guilty and therefore OK to kill

Well, ok, I guess that blatantly denying it is worse.
But they're really similar. They're advocating for the same mindset.

He could use any terminology that would be correct and won't piss off allies; "Islamists", "radical Islam", etc..

Before, you acknowledged that it'd piss of our allies.

The reason why it'd upset them is because calling it radical Islam implies that Islam is at fault, and is in fact connected.
Of course, it is, but it's not good to start shit with our allies about it.

People didn't jump through the same hoops when describing e.g. Anders Breivik or the RAF.. They were called right/left-wing terrorists or extremists. This is just a case where people, yet again, give special treatment to Islam because they know how sensitive and violent the members of that religion are, but it's quite demeaning to hold people to so different standards.

That's not why individual people don't say Islamic terrorism. It's not because they're afraid that some Muslims will come after them or something. It's because they don't want to offend peace-loving Muslims.
I don't agree that what they're doing is right, but it's not because they're afraid they'll be harmed.

As for the President, and other politicians, it's simply because they don't want to destroy relations with our allies in the middle east.

Presumably because they don't want to be associated with terrorists or want their religion smeared. Denying that ISIS is Islamic is worse than doing nothing (and this seems to be what the majority of Muslim voices are doing), because most people already know ISIS follow a very plausible interpretation of the Qu'ran. Until they start to actively report radical members of their community, work towards reforming the religion or simply just leave Islam, people can't be faulted for associating them with all the bad things ISIS stands for.

Not that I think about it, Muslims denying that ISIS is Islamic is implying that ISIS is immoral anyway (it's protesting ISIS).

And they do work towards reforming the religion, by spreading the idea that it's about peace.
Where are you getting that they don't report radicals?

I don't see good evidence for that. In fact it seems like the opposite is the case. Some of the most PC countries where Muslims have faced very little responsibility, like the UK and Sweden, have had high rates of Muslims leaving for ISIS.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, and a lot of those European countries (like France) have a very anti-Muslim sentiment.

Do you really think that isolating Muslims isn't going to push them towards groups like ISIS?
If they felt accepted in American society, why would they join a group that wants to destroy America?

We can't demonize all Muslims because of the actions of Islamic terrorists.

The government can't avoid taking sides indirectly. It's automatically going to favor certain religions by the nature of what their holy books prescribe. Religions with less bad science and dangerous ideas are going to fare better. Islam is the worst of the worst religions, and therefore continues to collide with secular society in disasterous ways on a daily basis. Where I live we have Islamists (basically same mindset as ISIS, just no terrorism/violence) who are complaning about being discriminated against by the government because they aren't allowed to stone gay people. I kid you not

Indirectly taking sides isn't something I was arguing against.

I'm arguing against the government literally campaigning against Islam, like you are suggesting, because it's discriminatory and further isolates Muslims.

Should we stop teaching evolution then? Physics? Such subjects indirectly tell students that their religions are false. Religions have special rights and privilege today, and for no good reason. Teachers should stop pulling punches and just call religion out for the bullshit it is

You're arguing against a straw-man. I never said that schools should avoid teaching students things that might indirectly conflict with their religious beliefs.

Teaching evolution is extremely different from telling students that religion is bullshit.

What you're advocating for is the reverse of theocracy... Atheocracy.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Well, ok. Not really sure what point you're making?
Or are you just saying?

I didn't state this, but I was trying to justify why knot might think that Muslims are more easily offended even if Muslims and Christians were equally easy to offend. I'll elaborate next time!

[EquALLity]

^Oh, ok!

I figured, I was just checking.

[knot]

Before, you acknowledged that it'd piss of our allies.

The reason why it'd upset them is because calling it radical Islam implies that Islam is at fault, and is in fact connected.
Of course, it is, but it's not good to start shit with our allies about it.

Ultimately, I don't care how they react (as long as they don't have too many WMDs). We should tell the truth and they should be able to handle it. Muslims are intellectually crippled by their religion, and the cure is not to continue enabling their infantile mindset.

And they do work towards reforming the religion, by spreading the idea that it's about peace.

It's debatable if what they're doing is helpful or the opposite. Reforming Islam is complicated and seems almost impossible. There's a good audiobook available for free on audibletrial: "Islam and the Future of Tolerance"

Do you really think that isolating Muslims isn't going to push them towards groups like ISIS?
If they felt accepted in American society, why would they join a group that wants to destroy America?

I'm pro-assimilation, which basically means forcing them to abandon their abhorrent ideas and cultural norms or go back to where they came from. Europe has instead tried to integrate them, which has ended horribly. It seems to be much more dangerous to not address their core beliefs than not doing so out of fear that it will push them into the arms of ISIS. US Muslims are better assimilated and have less insane/dangerous views (only slightly less, unfortunately).

Indirectly taking sides isn't something I was arguing against.

I'm arguing against the government literally campaigning against Islam, like you are suggesting, because it's discriminatory and further isolates Muslims.

The problem is that very reasonable laws constantly collide with Islam. See the bans on burqas and halal meat. Muslims interpret this as unfair discrimination when in reality it's a matter of moral progress.

Teaching evolution is extremely different from telling students that religion is bullshit.

It's the same. Evolution completely undermines the foundation of religion. It's no coincidence that religious parents try and pull their kids out of biology clas, or demand that the books are changed

[EquALLity]

Ultimately, I don't care how they react (as long as they don't have too many WMDs). We should tell the truth and they should be able to handle it. Muslims are intellectually crippled by their religion, and the cure is not to continue enabling their infantile mindset.

What should happen is not what is likely to happen in that situation. We can't base our actions off of what we wish the results will be.

You don't care if it hurts our relationships with countries that we have vital relationships with?
We need these countries to fight ISIS.

It's debatable if what they're doing is helpful or the opposite. Reforming Islam is complicated and seems almost impossible. There's a good audiobook available for free on audibletrial: "Islam and the Future of Tolerance"

How about you just explain why you believe this?

I'm pro-assimilation, which basically means forcing them to abandon their abhorrent ideas and cultural norms or go back to where they came from. Europe has instead tried to integrate them, which has ended horribly. It seems to be much more dangerous to not address their core beliefs than not doing so out of fear that it will push them into the arms of ISIS. US Muslims are better assimilated and have less insane/dangerous views (only slightly less, unfortunately).

Assimilation is accepting them into society, not isolating them. I agree that that's what we should do.
Isolation leads to them identifying more as Muslim than American, and that makes them more likely to join groups like ISIS.

The problem is that very reasonable laws constantly collide with Islam. See the bans on burqas and halal meat. Muslims interpret this as unfair discrimination when in reality it's a matter of moral progress.

It's not 'very reasonable' to ban people from wearing certain types of robes.
Halal meat is obviously horrible, but it's really not that much worse than regular meat, so I question a lot of the outrage I hear about it. It's no different from Kosher, also.

It's fine if reasonable laws go against Islam, of course, because we have separation of church and state (which is why we cannot discriminate against Muslims by actively campaigning against Islam like you are suggesting we do).

It's the same. Evolution completely undermines the foundation of religion. It's no coincidence that religious parents try and pull their kids out of biology clas, or demand that the books are changed

There's a huge difference between not letting religion dictate class and actively dictating class against religion.

[knot]

What should happen is not what is likely to happen in that situation. We can't base our actions off of what we wish the results will be.

You don't care if it hurts our relationships with countries that we have vital relationships with?
We need these countries to fight ISIS.

How does one predict the reaction of oversensitive religous lunatics? I'm not against using terminology that sounds nicer, but all democrats (Obama, Sanders, Hillary) are so PC with Islam that they distort reality by pretending there is no link. If Trump wins the election I'm sure this will be a big part of it. This reality-bending PC stuff is driving people towards politicians who will at least call a spade a spade. Also I don't think the whole Muslim world would be in uproar if the president said there is a problem with Islamic extremism/Islamism or something similar.

How about you just explain why you believe this?

1. The Quran is described as god's final revelation
2. There is no seperation between religion and state in the Quran

Assimilation is accepting them into society, not isolating them. I agree that that's what we should do.
Isolation leads to them identifying more as Muslim than American, and that makes them more likely to join groups like ISIS.

Assimilation means adopting the cultural values of the host country, which is something Muslims tend to avoid doing if there is little pressure to do so. The US has been better at assimilating Muslims than Europe, but only slightly. If you look at the PEW polls you'll see that a significant percentage of American Muslims still have insane views on suicide bombings, Sharia, etc. And yeah, Europe has


When you say "accepting them into society" that sounds more like integration (which is different from assimilation). Google search on "integration":

Code: Select all

The important thing about integration is that the individual cultures, and members of cultural communities, are welcomed and accepted for what they are. There is respect for the practices, beliefs and values of that culture.  

That's what Europe has been doing, and the result has been a disaster. Now we have Muslim ghettos where a lot of radicalization takes place and the police won't even go there anymore. An example is Molenbeek, Belgium where most of the Paris terrorists came from. I say good luck & have fun to the future generation who will have to deal with this mess

It's not 'very reasonable' to ban people from wearing certain types of robes.
Halal meat is obviously horrible, but it's really not that much worse than regular meat, so I question a lot of the outrage I hear about it. It's no different from Kosher, also.

There are valid security reasons to ban things like the burqa from public places.

It's fine if reasonable laws go against Islam, of course, because we have separation of church and state (which is why we cannot discriminate against Muslims by actively campaigning against Islam like you are suggesting we do).

Muslims already feel "actively" discriminated against just by living in a secular, liberal society. They are pissed off daily because they have to live under man-made laws

There's a huge difference between not letting religion dictate class and actively dictating class against religion.

I don't really see it. Religion is bad science. Now we have better science -- taught in school. They both contradict each other.

[EquALLity]

How does one predict the reaction of oversensitive religous lunatics? I'm not against using terminology that sounds nicer, but all democrats (Obama, Sanders, Hillary) are so PC with Islam that they distort reality by pretending there is no link. If Trump wins the election I'm sure this will be a big part of it. This reality-bending PC stuff is driving people towards politicians who will at least call a spade a spade. Also I don't think the whole Muslim world would be in uproar if the president said there is a problem with Islamic extremism/Islamism or something similar.

Before, you acknowledged that it would upset the Muslim world. Now you seem to be saying we have no idea if it would upset the Muslim world to insinuate actions they find evil are apart of their religion as an official position of our country.

Do you have any evidence that that is the case with Trump? I haven't heard many people give that reason who are otherwise liberals.

1. The Quran is described as god's final revelation
2. There is no seperation between religion and state in the Quran

The Bible has a lot of horrible things too. If Christianity can be reformed, so can Islam.

Assimilation means adopting the cultural values of the host country, which is something Muslims tend to avoid doing if there is little pressure to do so. The US has been better at assimilating Muslims than Europe, but only slightly. If you look at the PEW polls you'll see that a significant percentage of American Muslims still have insane views on suicide bombings, Sharia, etc. And yeah, Europe has


When you say "accepting them into society" that sounds more like integration (which is different from assimilation). Google search on "integration":

I'm definitely pro-assimilation. We should try to make Muslim-Americans adopt western values more, and we should accept them into society more by not treating them like 'the other'.

Do you agree with that?
It sounded like, before, that you were suggesting we isolate Muslims.

There are valid security reasons to ban things like the burqa from public places.

That's actually a very good point, and the only reason I think there is to ban the burqa in public places.

That's not the reason why it's banned in France though, from my understanding.

Muslims already feel "actively" discriminated against just by living in a secular, liberal society. They are pissed off daily because they have to live under man-made laws

And your solution is to make it worse by giving them a legitimate reason to be upset?

I don't really see it. Religion is bad science. Now we have better science -- taught in school. They both contradict each other.

It's the difference between teaching science, which doesn't violate the establishment clause, and anti-religion education, which does.

The government being anti-religion is discriminatory towards religious people, just like the government endorsing religion is discriminatory towards atheists.

[seitan_forker]

As sad as it is that the superdelegate process will keep Bernie Sanders from the Democratic candidacy, it's a relief that the same process will keep Trump from the other half of the ticket. At least Bernie has two endorsements from sitting politicians. Trump has none. Trump has the support of the type of people who still answer landline phone calls from numbers they don't recognize. 40% of support means there's still 60% of people waiting to coalesce behind an alternative. It won't be Cruz since he's Canadian. Jeb! is trying his damndest to buy the thing, but it'll probably be Rubio.

[knot]

Before, you acknowledged that it would upset the Muslim world. Now you seem to be saying we have no idea if it would upset the Muslim world to insinuate actions they find evil are apart of their religion as an official position of our country.

Are you sure I did? I don't remember anymore, lol. Anyway I don't think there's any way to predict how they react. Calling out the terrorism as Islamic might as well spark a Muslim version of the Enlightenment for all we know.

Do you have any evidence that that is the case with Trump? I haven't heard many people give that reason who are otherwise liberals.

Look what's happened all over Europe. The far-right parties are starting to win all the elections, and it's almost exclusively because of how poorly the left has dealt with Islam and immigration from Muslim countries.

The Bible has a lot of horrible things too. If Christianity can be reformed, so can Islam.

Hopefully, but entanglement of religion and state in Islamic countries makes it quite hard

I'm definitely pro-assimilation. We should try to make Muslim-Americans adopt western values more, and we should accept them into society more by not treating them like 'the other'.

First of all Islamic immigration needs to be halted almost completely before the European welfare states collapse. We're taking in tons of people with no education, and there aren't jobs for them since all the unskilled jobs have already been relocated to China, India, Indonesia, etc. I'm in favor of immigration policies similar to those of Japan, where you need to be well-educated and extremely committed to the country before you're even considered for citizenship.

But yes, after that we need to assimilate Muslims that already live here. Second and even third generation Muslims are very poorly assimilated and display the same regressive views towards women and gays you find in any Muslim majority country . Just check out this documentary from Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKo ... pp=desktop
This problem will take decades and tons of resources to fix

It sounded like, before, that you were suggesting we isolate Muslims.

That's what they will do themselves if given the chance, and it's what's been happening so far. Not sure what the solution is, possible more coercion/stricter laws

That's actually a very good point, and the only reason I think there is to ban the burqa in public places.

That's not the reason why it's banned in France though, from my understanding.

Ya, I think Sarkozy just banned it because he didn't like it. That's probably true for most people, but not a great reason to ban it. It's a symbol of religious stupidity, subjugation and gender inequality though, and often the women are forced to wear it against their will. That might be a good argument to ban it. I can't really come up with a good non-dogmatic reason it should still be legal anyway

And your solution is to make it worse by giving them a legitimate reason to be upset?

I'm not sure what the answer is. Even my professors working on the psychology of anti-radicalization still don't really have any good solutions. But I'm pretty sure the answer is not to pretend that Islam is as unproblematic as Buddhism, Hinduism or modern day Christianity. It does require special attention

[EquALLity]

Are you sure I did? I don't remember anymore, lol. Anyway I don't think there's any way to predict how they react. Calling out the terrorism as Islamic might as well spark a Muslim version of the Enlightenment for all we know.

I said, "And how does not saying 'Islamic terrorism' do anything but help the President? It would hurt our relationship with our allies in the middle east (many that are fighting ISIS) if the President used that kind of rhetoric.
What good do you think it'd do for him to use the term 'Islamic terrorism', anyway?"
You replied, "Sure, those countries will really be pissed when their backwards ideology and medieval societies finally get called out, but this clash of cultures is pretty much unavoidable, so we might as well just get on with it now."

I think it's reasonable to suggest it would offend them to insinuate ISIS accurately interprets their religion.
And that wouldn't be an issue, except we need them on our side to fight ISIS.

Look what's happened all over Europe. The far-right parties are starting to win all the elections, and it's almost exclusively because of how poorly the left has dealt with Islam and immigration from Muslim countries.

Like you said, Europe doesn't assimilate Muslims as well as the United States.

Hopefully, but entanglement of religion and state in Islamic countries makes it quite hard

I agree it'll be difficult, but nothing is beyond reformation.

First of all Islamic immigration needs to be halted almost completely before the European welfare states collapse. We're taking in tons of people with no education, and there aren't jobs for them since all the unskilled jobs have already been relocated to China, India, Indonesia, etc. I'm in favor of immigration policies similar to those of Japan, where you need to be well-educated and extremely committed to the country before you're even considered for citizenship.

Why should Muslim immigration be halted in general, as opposed to immigration with uneducated people etc.?

I don't think you should ban people from entering the country because they aren't educated. I think you should educate them, giving them better lives (the reason why people immigrate), and helping society.
You're closing the door to potentially great people by requiring they be well-educated before entering the country. And what about minors?

But yes, after that we need to assimilate Muslims that already live here. Second and even third generation Muslims are very poorly assimilated and display the same regressive views towards women and gays you find in any Muslim majority country . Just check out this documentary from Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKo ... pp=desktop
This problem will take decades and tons of resources to fix

Ok, great, so assimilate (not isolate) them. I'll check out that documentary later and tell you what I think.

That's what they will do themselves if given the chance, and it's what's been happening so far. Not sure what the solution is, possible more coercion/stricter laws

Perhaps it's because they are seen as 'the other' and don't feel welcomed into western society.
It's our job to welcome them.

Ya, I think Sarkozy just banned it because he didn't like it. That's probably true for most people, but not a great reason to ban it. It's a symbol of religious stupidity, subjugation and gender inequality though, and often the women are forced to wear it against their will. That might be a good argument to ban it. I can't really come up with a good non-dogmatic reason it should still be legal anyway

The cross is a symbol of religious stupidity, torture, and death, but I wouldn't ban that either. Things shouldn't be banned unless they are actually harmful, even if they are disgusting symbols.

I would argue it should be legal because of freedom of choice.
The security threat is real, though, so I would still say it should be illegal.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Even my professors working on the psychology of anti-radicalization still don't really have any good solutions. But I'm pretty sure the answer is not to pretend that Islam is as unproblematic as Buddhism, Hinduism or modern day Christianity. It does require special attention

I'm pretty sure it's not trying to use government power to discriminate against Muslims.