Federal Agents Investigate Mosque Arson

Carol said:
We have Christian terrorism in this country.

Yet the nation as a whole seems to be willing to delineate between Christian terrorists and Christian non-terrorists when the terror victims are gynecologists and/or their assistants....even when the terrorists go on to bomb Olympic parks.
Click to expand...

Many people here were also deeply offended when the current administration revealed that they considered militias as possible threats to national security. Probably bigger threats than terrorists from abroad. Grossly unfair despite some militias acting against the government in the past. (Especially during Democratic administrations.)
 
Marginal said:
Many people here were also deeply offended when the current administration revealed that they considered militias as possible threats to national security. Probably bigger threats than terrorists from abroad. Grossly unfair despite some militias acting against the government in the past. (Especially during Democratic administrations.)
Click to expand...
Like these guys:
The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement after the war. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstruction by attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white conservative Democrats' regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
Click to expand...
 
The Republican Party of Reconstruction is nothing like today's Republican Party. 140 years or so will do that. Lee Atwater. Nixon. Southern Strategy. Dixiecrats. Loop it over and over and over again until it penetrates some thick ****ing skulls. Even then RNC chairman Mehlman apologized for the Republican party's use of the Southern Strategy...oh of course, just a RINO ******.

History, ignorance, doomed to repeat, yadda yadda yadda.
 
I don't think racism, bigotry, hatred or stupidity are limited to a political party.

http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx

While 31% of Republicans think President Obama is a Muslim, 10% of Democrats do too. A lower percentage, but clearly the lunatics are not limited to a single political party - or any political party at all (18% of Independents say President Obama is a Muslim).

Note: An aside to those who post 'facts' explaining that President Obama's father was a Muslim, even if he declared himself an atheist, and that therefore Obama himself is a Muslim by Islamic rules. Yes, yes, of course. If it so happens that you discover yourself to be related on your mother's side to Jewish relatives, but you are a Christian, will you immediately disavow your Christianity and begin studying the Torah? Didn't think so. So no, President Obama is not a Muslim - because he says he is not - unless you can successfully make the argument that he is lying. I don't care what Islamic rules say about children of Muslim fathers being Muslims. He doesn't think himself a Muslim, but a Christian. By your 'rules', he could never become a Christian, but is restricted to always being a Muslim, just as a Jew could never convert to Christianity, etc. Please. A thin excuse for hatred.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
I don't think racism, bigotry, hatred or stupidity are limited to a political party.

http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx

While 31% of Republicans think President Obama is a Muslim, 10% of Democrats do too. A lower percentage, but clearly the lunatics are not limited to a single political party - or any political party at all (18% of Independents say President Obama is a Muslim).

Note: An aside to those who post 'facts' explaining that President Obama's father was a Muslim, even if he declared himself an atheist, and that therefore Obama himself is a Muslim by Islamic rules. Yes, yes, of course. If it so happens that you discover yourself to be related on your mother's side to Jewish relatives, but you are a Christian, will you immediately disavow your Christianity and begin studying the Torah? Didn't think so. So no, President Obama is not a Muslim - because he says he is not - unless you can successfully make the argument that he is lying. I don't care what Islamic rules say about children of Muslim fathers being Muslims. He doesn't think himself a Muslim, but a Christian. By your 'rules', he could never become a Christian, but is restricted to always being a Muslim, just as a Jew could never convert to Christianity, etc. Please. A thin excuse for hatred.
Click to expand...


In the UK being born Jewish means that when asked your race you say you are Jewish, your religous belief is something else, you can be a Jewish Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. Due to having Jewish mothers however converts will usually be found in the higher ranks of any clergy (even better if one can become a saint), just being a convert isn't enough for Jewish mums, one has to have ambition! You have to give your mother something to boast about and 'my son, the Cardinal' has a certain ring to it! it says, 'well, he may have become a Christian but what a Christian'! Mark my words we'll have a Jewish Pope one day :)
 
Tez3 said:
In the UK being born Jewish means that when asked your race you say you are Jewish, your religous belief is something else, you can be a Jewish Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. Due to having Jewish mothers however converts will usually be found in the higher ranks of any clergy (even better if one can become a saint), just being a convert isn't enough for Jewish mums, one has to have ambition! You have to give your mother something to boast about and 'my son, the Cardinal' has a certain ring to it! it says, 'well, he may have become a Christian but what a Christian'! Mark my words we'll have a Jewish Pope one day :)
Click to expand...

"Jewish" certainly has racial connotations as well as cultural and religious, as the Jews are still, to a certain extent, a distinct ethnic group. No argument there. However, in the USA, "Jewish" is not an answer to any government surveys on race.

In any case, there is no typical Muslim, even though many think of Middle Easterners when they think of Muslims. Islam is no more a race than Christian is. Religion, unlike ethnicity, is a choice and not a physical or even genetic identifier.

One can say that one is a 'Christian' if born of Christian parents, but no one questions that such a child can choose to become anything they wish. I was born Catholic, but for a time I called myself a Pagan or a Wiccan. Does that mean I was lying, because I was stuck being a Catholic, having been so baptized? Is the claim of Roman Catholicism on me permanent and against my will? So who would claim that I was forced to be Catholic because my parents were?

By the same token, President Obama's father was admittedly Muslim, but he had apparently forsworn all religion and become atheist. Was he 'stuck' being a Muslim no matter what? Yes, some might well have considered him a Muslim, but does that judgment mean anything to him or to the world at large? Does Islam have some ability to brand a person for life, and their children and children's children forever? That's some power for a religion that many claim is a false one anyway.

So I have a lot of problems with that whole line of reasoning that says his father was a Muslim whether or not he became an atheist, and therefore President Obama is a Muslim whether he wants to be one or not. Some Muslims may believe this too, but it doesn't make it true.

Just as there is no 'race' descriptor in the US for 'Jewish', there is also none for 'Muslim' or 'Christian'.
 
Ken Morgan said:
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/multiculturalism-and-its-discontents
Click to expand...

I wish you'd do more than post a link. I read it. I agree with parts of it. I find the author a bit disingenuous on others.

For example, the practice of female circumcision or genital mutilation, is not Islamic. The author mish-mashes it in with her criticism of Islam without stating that it is not actually an Islamic practice. It is certainly practised, in the few places where it is practiced, in areas that are also Muslim. However, in places like Somalia, it is frequently practiced by Animists, who are neither Muslim nor Christian.

I always have trouble with articles like this, as well as links to stories where the person posting the link isn't interested in stating their own beliefs, because it makes me post an argument without being able to argue against the person who made the innuendo - the article author. Drag Susan here and we can discuss this.

As regards her assertion that not all cultures and religions are equal, that's something I can absolutely agree with. However, she is conflating legal rights with personal beliefs.

I dislike Satanists (the real kind, not the disaffected kids moping around in malls with too much makeup on). I'm no fan of fundamentalist branches within Christianity, Islam, or other religions. I don't think much of certain religions that sacrifice live animals or practice 'evil magic' to pray for harm to another person. I don't think they're worthy, I don't think they are equally deserving of my respect.

However, I do believe that they are equally deserving of legal protection, to the extent that they do not infringe anyone else's rights. And that, to me, means they are equally deserving of my toleration. I don't care for snake handlers speaking in tongues, I really dislike members of certain churches who protest at military funerals and hold up signs that say "God Hate Fags" and so on. I think little of them, I do not think they are worthy of any respect at all. But as a defender of the Constitution, I must grit my teeth and defend their right to believe what they will. If they don't have rights, then neither do I.

As to the author's statements about arranged marriages - I am even less in agreement with her. Not only on the basis of religion, but on the basis of non-government intervention within the family, I think it is none of my business. That does not mean I do not have sympathy for the woman who did not want an arranged marriage. I would absolutely support her right to refuse to follow her parent's demands. But intrude by law into how her family runs their family? No. Demand that her religion stop creating arranged marriages? Nope. That's not a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' viewpoint. That's a viewpoint that supports the rights of the individual, the family, the limited role of government, and the rights to freedom of religion and tolerance for religion. Multiculturalism run amok? Hardly - I don't approve of arranged marriages, I think they're a bad idea. But it's not my business.

NOTE: Not sure what any of the items on the link has to do with the topic, either.
 
It's a legal definition here that gives us protection under various laws, the one below is for employment. There's similiar for protection against harrassment etc. The Human Rights Act is to give protection against discrimination and harrassment for religious people, all religions. We don't have a Constitution so have to enact laws allowing protection and freedoms.

The Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976

The RRA covers discrimination before, during and following employment on the following grounds:
  • Race;
  • Colour;
  • Nationality;
  • Ethnic origin (groups with a long shared history and culture including Romany gypsies, Sikhs, Jews);
  • National origin. This is determined by the nationality of a personÂ’s parents.
The burden of proof is on employers to show that no discrimination has taken place when a case is brought against them on the grounds of race or ethnic or nation


These Acts cover just about everyone.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
As to the author's statements about arranged marriages - I am even less in agreement with her. Not only on the basis of religion, but on the basis of non-government intervention within the family, I think it is none of my business. That does not mean I do not have sympathy for the woman who did not want an arranged marriage. I would absolutely support her right to refuse to follow her parent's demands. But intrude by law into how her family runs their family? No. Demand that her religion stop creating arranged marriages? Nope. That's not a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' viewpoint. That's a viewpoint that supports the rights of the individual, the family, the limited role of government, and the rights to freedom of religion and tolerance for religion. Multiculturalism run amok? Hardly - I don't approve of arranged marriages, I think they're a bad idea. But it's not my business.
Click to expand...

What about the woman whose life was in danger because she refuses a forced arranged marriage? would you like if someone stepped in to save her even if it is, horrors, those governments you hate? Would you just prefer to let her die because you believe in these 'rights of the parents' 'rights of the family' 'individual rights' 'its none of my business' etc etc?
 
For some reason, possibly movies and media, there are many folks in the West that seem to think that Asian parents loathe their children and want to doom them to a life of unhappiness.

Asian parents love their children. Asian children love their parents. Most arranged marriages are voluntary from each side and have divorce rates low enough to put us westerners to shame.

Personally I don't support banning the practice of arranged marriages. I don't support a woman being killed, either....but a woman doesn't have to be Asian nor in an arranged marriage situation to risk death from a domestic situation.
 
Blade96 said:
What about the woman whose life was in danger because she refuses a forced arranged marriage? would you like if someone stepped in to save her even if it is, horrors, those governments you hate? Would you just prefer to let her die because you believe in these 'rights of the parents' 'rights of the family' 'individual rights' 'its none of my business' etc etc?
Click to expand...

I believe my previous statement covers it. "However, I do believe that they are equally deserving of legal protection, to the extent that they do not infringe anyone else's rights."

I support the model that intrudes least into the rights of the family and into freedom of religion. However, when one's life is in danger, that is a clear violation of that person's civil rights. I feel the same way about parents who refuse to allow their child to receive medical care when it becomes a life-threatening emergency and so on.

I do not hate government. I believe that the government governs best which governs least, to a large extent. Government is necessary for society to exist, and I enjoy the benefits of society. Freedom, though unnecessary for life or society, is a condition which I prefer. Individual liberties are the foundation of freedom. I prefer as little intrusion onto individual liberties as possible.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
So no, President Obama is not a Muslim - because he says he is not - unless you can successfully make the argument that he is lying.
Click to expand...

Oh Bill, that's easy.

He's a politician. Proof enough of the fact he's lying to me.

;)

(And no, I don't think he's Muslim and wouldn't care if he was... my issues are with his politics)
 
Marginal said:
It is kinda funny.

"Islam is a religion which enables violence. We oppose Mosques for that reason. Nothing personal tho."

This is apparently a perfectly valid generalization.

"People who assume all members of a group are terrorists are bigots."

The response?

"How dare you paint ME with a broad brush? Shame on you for assuming anything about me!"

Wacky mental static.
Click to expand...

Your point being? You quoted what I said in response to Bill, and then posted something that had absoultley nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making... was it a mistake, or are you trying to be an ***?

Oh wait... typical Democrat misdirection. Carry on.
 
Cryozombie said:
Your point being? You quoted what I said in response to Bill, and then posted something that had absoultley nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making...
Click to expand...

Your comment tripped a thought, so I quoted the relevant text, then posted my thought. I wasn't expecting you to respond to it personally. It was just a good jumping off point for a more general comment.

I wasn't especially interested in you trying to psychoanalyze Bill (though I don't think he has issues because he's not a fan of pigeonholing large groups unfairly) so I didn't speak to the broader post. I don't think there's a Democratic strategy to apply to such a discussion. Er... Free* mental health care for all? (Is there a treatment for Obama Derangement Syndrome?) Does that give you traction? Happy now? :angel:
 
Marginal said:
By that demented reasoning, the Democratic party never was racist either.
Click to expand...

Once again you totally miss the point.

No one said that those racist Democrats who entered the party stopped being racist.

What I and others deny is that somehow those racist Democrats entering the party were able to exert those magical powers you talk about to convert tens of millions of previously non-racist Republicans into racists, especially in only two generations.

As far as the Southern Strategy is concerned, it was just that, a strategy. Doesn't mean that the majority of the Republican party is racist, or even the person that used it.

If that's the case, then I could point to Obama's attending of a church for 20 years who's core philosophy was driven by a pastor who espoused racist views, and say that he is racist.

Or could it be that he attended it because it was the politically advantageous thing to do?

As far as the Southern Stategy goes, everything ends up being "code word" for something. Yeah, ok. And we call Glenn Beck a nutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Australian school apologises for Hitler costume prize

Previous Thread

Attack Leaves Inmate In Coma

Next Thread

Similar threads

Big Don
Plot to blow up Dearborn mosque foiled by tip to police
Replies
16
Views
2K
crushing
C
Bill Mattocks
Terror Plot Broken Up, Washington Saved: Really?
Replies
5
Views
882
Bill Mattocks
Bill Mattocks
Bob Hubbard
US Domestic Terrorism, Organizations and Events.
Replies
18
Views
3K
granfire
granfire
Bob Hubbard
"Dominate. Intimidate. Control." - The sorry record of the Transport. Security Admin.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Ping898
Ping898
lklawson
Request for Comments: Newbies Guide to Self Defense
Replies
9
Views
14K
lklawson
lklawson

Latest Discussions

Back
Top