It seems like the shooters actions were for relgious purposes, but we can't be sure of that yet.
I would just like to say that for all those who are singing the praises of FDR and Truman in regards to locking people away who fit the mold are so grossly wrong.
I have no problem with the logic that all religion is flawed and has the ability to be dangerous but you've done nothing to convince me that christianity currently poses anywhere near the threat to western values or safety as does islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
Special interest groups do not hold more "sway" than the majority here. That's a gigantic generalization based out of alarmist rhetoric that holds no basis in reality. Minorities getting scraps of concessions doesn't somehow magically wrest the power from the majority. Nobody was seriously talking about implementing widespread Sharia law: the discussions primarily centered around the idea of allowing aspects of it to be used in Muslim communities in regards to things like minor interpersonal financial and propery disputes with the idea that any "local" rulings or decisions would not actually supersede the actual law. Nobody was ever seirously considering implementing actual old school Sharia law.
We're not going to see eye to eye on much of this. Special interest groups be it faith, sexuality or environmental based are doing more to drive political and policy direction. To their credit its because they've figured out that by being vocal the lawmakers will listen. I'm not concerned about widespread sharia law, I'm concerned about ANY implementation of sharia law in western society since its fundamentally rooted in religion and IMO has no place in our courts. I know its a hacky comment but I believe its a slippery slope; today you're allowed to use sharia law to settle a contractual dispute and tomorrow its being dictated I have to have a beard the length of my hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
How can you say this definitively? If this was the result of a sick person acting of their own accord, how is it all that different than the people that say they did something awful because of something they saw in a movie? Are you saying that you think this occured only because of his Islamic faith and that if he wasn't a Muslim there's no way this would have happened?
At this point nothing is definitive but given Hasan's actions prior to the shooting (giving away personal items, paying for someone to clean his apartment, wearing culturally specific clothing...all out of character for his normal behavior) I think its safe to say this wasn't just random. Its not different then any external influence and to use your example of a movie thats why we have MPAA ratings. No I'm not saying that he wouldn't have done this if he wasn't a muslim. What I'm saying is that when given to radical interpretation the islamic faith is fraught with seeding violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
Which is true, but it's still intellectually dishonest to imply or extrapolate from that statement that we should then in turn fear, hate or distrust all or a majority of Muslims. Despite the laundry list of attacks it's still a very tiny relative few responsible for such actions. Nobody is saying we're not supposed to "hate" the extremists: some of us are just pointing out the difference between that and hating a gigantic group of people for the actions and rhetoric of a relative few. I'm not saying you're preaching such things, but you seem to be at least condoning this train of thought from others.
Read, or re-read, this. When blond haired blue eyed Sweeds start flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up en masse then I say start profiling them as well. Until then I think its fair the focus remains elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
There are many different sects and variations of Islam.
Thats a major part of the problem. Too many imams or clerics who are open to perverting a belief system into a dangerous cult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
They'll kill you for not calling them "Trekkers."
Oh no....what are they going to do....set their phasers to "annoy"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
It sounds like ultimately we're not too far off in our opinions. I have no love for people that twist the teachings of Islam to fit their extremist agendas. Nobody feels that here. Some of us are simply arguing against the idea that events like the shooting at Fort Hood means we should fear and hate Muslims in general. As you know from your own experiences, that's simply not a reasonable standpoint to take.
Hating entire groups isn't a healthy way to go through life. Distrusting based on a demonstrable trend however is completely justifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRESTLINGFAN
Any religion that bans bacon, booze, and shellfish isnt a group I want to be affiliated with
Amen or Allahu Akbar to that brother!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate1000
Hold the phone one god damned minute here. You're canadian?
Couldn't you tell by they way I say oooout and aboooout? And as long as I'm getting rid of Canuck stereotypes....
-blue is marginally better to drink then piss
-XM broadcasts in Canada (although we don't get all the channels and the CRTC (our version of the FCC) forces XM to include some bullshit french channels) so here I am
-we don't all play hockey and I couldn't skate to save my life
-only people from Toronto can't tip
But yes, our money does look kind of foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Katja~
though men with receding hairlines often have too much testosterone and you know what that means
Big balls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willmore
Can't we all just agree that organized religion is evil?
Zero argument on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penelope
I'm wiccan
Pagan freak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpico1103
But, the news has told you the enemy is Islam, so you believe it.
Can't speak for anyone else but the ease at which islam can be radicalized concerned me long before 9/11 and had nothing to do with the media.
No, that handsome son of a bitch is not my imam(a pregnant denial, implying that I do have an imam).
So- I am not Islamic, I was raised catholic, and when I reached maturity, instead of looking for another parental figure to comfort me, I became an atheist.
By the way, over 86% of whites are killed by whites.
So, if you are white, guess who you should be afraid of?
White men murder around 10K people every year in the US.
Now I am scared.
I have no problem with the logic that all religion is flawed and has the ability to be dangerous but you've done nothing to convince me that christianity currently poses anywhere near the threat to western values or safety as does islam.
Christianity is about a thousand times more likely to directly negatively effect my life than Islam will.
In addition to the victims and families, I feel bad for the other Muslims in the armed forces who serve this country so well with distinction and pride. They're probably getting the hairy eyeball as we speak for no good reason. But this asswipe who did this makes me despise extremists the world over even more. And at the moment, based on alleged information on the actions he took, Islamic extremists more so.
Rude and rude! He he, you guys are funny. Seriously though, I think some of the bad feelings some people have about Muslims might change if they just hung out with a few. There are cool Muslims, and some are assholes, like anybody else.
I'm not one of these wishy-washy mods that can't make decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 46,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpico1103
I think Greece has the most terror incidents, again nothing to do with Islam.
Greece? That's unexpected. Can you back that up?
__________________
"It ain't like it used to be...but it'll do." << EAMUS CATULI >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
I'm not one of these wishy-washy mods that can't make decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 46,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithy_19
It seems like the shooters actions were for relgious purposes, but we can't be sure of that yet.
I would just like to say that for all those who are singing the praises of FDR and Truman in regards to locking people away who fit the mold are so grossly wrong.
And not just for the obvious reasons. Dude keeps going on about "German-Americans," yet they weren't locked away like the Japanese were during WW2. The majority of American did not want to go to war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor and only did so because Hitler inexplicably declared war on the U.S. several days after the attack. On top of that, the prison camps here for German POWs were typically as minimum security as you can get, with the soldiers often allowed to freely go into the local towns. Nazi prisoners in America actually had more freedom than American citizens with Japanese ancestry.
__________________
"It ain't like it used to be...but it'll do." << EAMUS CATULI >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
I have a toaster that pops and a toaster oven that dings. I rule.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winchester, Vagina
Posts: 18,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
On top of that, the prison camps here for German POWs were typically as minimum security as you can get, with the soldiers often allowed to freely go into the local towns. Nazi prisoners in America actually had more freedom than American citizens with Japanese ancestry.
This is true. There was a POW camp here in my town with German and Russian prisoners (the Russians were soldiers that had been captured by Germany and forced to fight for them). They were allowed to leave the camp every day to walk to the apple packing plant to work. Many of the Germans stayed after the war, because the area was so much like the part of Germany where they came from. The local women would gather every day to watch them play soccer.
I'm not one of these wishy-washy mods that can't make decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 46,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie's twisted balls
We're not going to see eye to eye on much of this. Special interest groups be it faith, sexuality or environmental based are doing more to drive political and policy direction. To their credit its because they've figured out that by being vocal the lawmakers will listen. I'm not concerned about widespread sharia law, I'm concerned about ANY implementation of sharia law in western society since its fundamentally rooted in religion and IMO has no place in our courts. I know its a hacky comment but I believe its a slippery slope; today you're allowed to use sharia law to settle a contractual dispute and tomorrow its being dictated I have to have a beard the length of my hand.
Well, that's just paranoia on your part because it would take an impossible shift in the demographics and power structure of this country for it to take place. Again, nobody who mattered was seriously considering adding any aspect of Sharia law to our legal system. The idea was effectively along the lines of neighborhood or block charters. Nothing would have been allowed that actually conflicted with or overruled our legal system.
It's ridiculous to think that Sharia law has any chance of of being implemented here.
Quote:
At this point nothing is definitive but given Hasan's actions prior to the shooting (giving away personal items, paying for someone to clean his apartment, wearing culturally specific clothing...all out of character for his normal behavior) I think its safe to say this wasn't just random. Its not different then any external influence and to use your example of a movie thats why we have MPAA ratings. No I'm not saying that he wouldn't have done this if he wasn't a muslim. What I'm saying is that when given to radical interpretation the islamic faith is fraught with seeding violence.
The last part is just common sense: that's why they're radicals. I say "random" because there's nothing to indicate that this guy had anything to do with anyone else. "Random" doesn't mean somebody doing something totally spur of the moment: most workplace and school shootings are committed by people who plan ahead somehow, yet they are considered "random" due to the unusual and unexpected nature of their occurance. Despite the actions of radical Islam, an American born and raised man from seemingly a rather unorthodox Muslim family going to medical school and becoming an officer and a psychiatrist in the US Army mass-killing a bunch of his fellow soldiers is about as unusual and unexpected as you can get. This could be the work of a profundly damaged person who broke down and used their faith as an excuse to justify their actions themselves.
Quote:
Read, or re-read, this. When blond haired blue eyed Sweeds start flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up en masse then I say start profiling them as well. Until then I think its fair the focus remains elsewhere.
Nobody is saying that those that display aspects of extremist Islam shouldn't be profiled or investigated. It's simply not realistic to profile or suspect all or most Muslims. It's a waste of time that's simply not feasable to carry out.
Quote:
Thats a major part of the problem. Too many imams or clerics who are open to perverting a belief system into a dangerous cult.
But that's every religion except for Catholicism. The Catholics are the only ones with a singular "leader" in their Pope.
Quote:
Hating entire groups isn't a healthy way to go through life. Distrusting based on a demonstrable trend however is completely justifiable.
Distrusting a massive group of people is futile. I'm assuming you're not actually wary of every Muslim you meet.
__________________
"It ain't like it used to be...but it'll do." << EAMUS CATULI >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
This is true. There was a POW camp here in my town with German and Russian prisoners (the Russians were soldiers that had been captured by Germany and forced to fight for them). They were allowed to leave the camp every day to walk to the apple packing plant to work. Many of the Germans stayed after the war, because the area was so much like the part of Germany where they came from. The local women would gather every day to watch them play soccer.
Ditto in Canada (another similarity between our countries.....see, we're really not that different despite our silly currency). My grandfather fought for the Germans (he was Austrian) and it wasn't because he agreed with their ideology....it was because he didn't want to get shot. During the war he was taken prisoner by Canadians and was treated wonderfully. Fed well, given medical treatment, given a job to utilize his trade, etc. Once the war was over he made tracks ASAP across the Atlantic to set up shop here. The HUGE difference between post WWII European immigration to the US and Canada and what we're experiencing now is that there was a sense of wanting to be part of your new homeland. Yes you still cooked the same bratwurst and spatzel and likely remained friends with people from your birth country but first and foremost you were a proud new American or Canadian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
It's ridiculous to think that Sharia law has any chance of of being implemented here.
Look beyond your own borders. The implementation of sharia law has gained discernible traction in both Canada and Great Britain:
Quote:
Why have Shariah law in Canada?
Many Muslims believe that because Canada is a secular country, its secular legal system makes it difficult for them to govern themselves by the personal laws of their own religion. For instance, Canada's marriage and divorce laws differ from Muslim law.
It can be important for a Muslim to be granted a divorce under Muslim law, especially if he or she intends to move to a Muslim country in the future and remarry.
Another concern for some is that if a Muslim dies without a will in Ontario, the estate would be divided according to Ontario law as opposed to Muslim law.
Sharia courts operating in Britain
Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
While granted Great Britain has more diverse cultural demographic the either the US or Canada its still a predominantly christian society with and obviously the foundation of our collective English Common Law. To suggest that sharia law wouldn't take hold in America, or Canada, is foolishly naive. As for "no one who mattered" supporting sharia, again look to Great Britain and Rowan William (The Archbishop of Canterbury).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
Despite the actions of radical Islam, an American born and raised man from seemingly a rather unorthodox Muslim family going to medical school and becoming an officer and a psychiatrist in the US Army mass-killing a bunch of his fellow soldiers is about as unusual and unexpected as you can get.
I don't disagree that he doesn't fit the stereotypical profile of a suicide bomber but then neither did some of the 9/11 hijackers. Until all the facts are in I think its perfectly fair to treat Hasan, and all of his background including his culture, with appropriate suspicion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
Nobody is saying that those that display aspects of extremist Islam shouldn't be profiled or investigated. It's simply not realistic to profile or suspect all or most Muslims. It's a waste of time that's simply not feasable to carry out.
My problem with only limiting to the extremists within the islamic faith is the same as limiting any other criminal investigation. If local, state or federal law enforcement only kept their scope to known and radical criminals we'd still be living in the Wild West. The reality is that for every fruitful criminal investigation there are countless ones that end up with nothing nefarious. Because of political correctness and the fear of offending special interests our police and courts have been restricted to only pursue any religious based criminal once there's no shadow of doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
But that's every religion except for Catholicism. The Catholics are the only ones with a singular "leader" in their Pope.
I'm not one of these wishy-washy mods that can't make decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 46,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie's twisted balls
Look beyond your own borders. The implementation of sharia law has gained discernible traction in both Canada and Great Britain:
While granted Great Britain has more diverse cultural demographic the either the US or Canada its still a predominantly christian society with and obviously the foundation of our collective English Common Law. To suggest that sharia law wouldn't take hold in America, or Canada, is foolishly naive. As for "no one who mattered" supporting sharia, again look to Great Britain and Rowan William (The Archbishop of Canterbury).
I don't see how this counters my assertions about Sharia taking root here in America. You're still requiring huge leaps in logic or just sidestepping that tract of discussion altogether to respond to my points. Any attempts at implementing Sharia law in the U.S. did not amount to anything more than block contracts/covenants over interpersonal financial and property issues (a variaiton of the waqf school of Islamic law) and could not supersede our legal system.
On top of that, you're using "Sharia law" as term to imply that Sharia is only something negative. While it is true that very extreme and barbaric strands of Sharia exist and are practiced, the term itself covers a wide variation of the interpretations of Islamic law. There are many schools of thought that believe the English common law system was actually modeled on versions of classic Islamic law.
Sharia/Islamic law covers a huge scope of philosophies and ideas. I certainly agree that if you're looking at the extremist or self-proclaimed "traditionalist" views of Sharia it's absurd and has no place in modern society, but then you also have the reformers and the secular scholars and practitioners. Sharia is not only the legal boogeyman you seem to think it is. It's a complicated issue.
Quote:
I don't disagree that he doesn't fit the stereotypical profile of a suicide bomber but then neither did some of the 9/11 hijackers. Until all the facts are in I think its perfectly fair to treat Hasan, and all of his background including his culture, with appropriate suspicion.
My problem with only limiting to the extremists within the islamic faith is the same as limiting any other criminal investigation. If local, state or federal law enforcement only kept their scope to known and radical criminals we'd still be living in the Wild West. The reality is that for every fruitful criminal investigation there are countless ones that end up with nothing nefarious. Because of political correctness and the fear of offending special interests our police and courts have been restricted to only pursue any religious based criminal once there's no shadow of doubt.
What you're talking about simply is not realistic, and it has nothing to do with political correctness. We simply do not have the manpower or the resources or the need to suspect, investigate or profile every Muslim in this country.
I should have clarified: I meant the "big five" of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaica and Islam. Tibetan Buddhism is only one of many variations of Buddhism, and Jigdal Dagchen Sakya is one of several "leader" figures throughout the religion, none of whom are really comparable to the singular authority that the Pope has over such a huge group of people and his church. That said, it's a fruitless hope to long for some kind of "singular" leader to take hold in Islam. There's too many different sects, and it wouldn't be some kind of "cure-all" to do away with fanatacism. As we've seen with the Pope, if people don't like the boss they just go off and do their own thing.
Quote:
I'm wary of EVERYONE until they prove themselves to not be a threat.
That's a pretty fearful way to go through life since odds almost everyone you ever encounter is not a threat to you as you seem to be implying.
__________________
"It ain't like it used to be...but it'll do." << EAMUS CATULI >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
On top of that, you're using "Sharia law" as term to imply that Sharia is only something negative. While it is true that very extreme and barbaric strands of Sharia exist and are practiced, the term itself covers a wide variation of the interpretations of Islamic law. There are many schools of thought that believe the English common law system was actually modeled on versions of classic Islamic law.
Sharia/Islamic law covers a huge scope of philosophies and ideas. I certainly agree that if you're looking at the extremist or self-proclaimed "traditionalist" views of Sharia it's absurd and has no place in modern society, but then you also have the reformers and the secular scholars and practitioners. Sharia is not only the legal boogeyman you seem to think it is. It's a complicated issue.
i am amazed at the lengths
you always go to
to appear to be 'understanding'
ask your girlfriend (if you have one)
if she would like to live under
ANY version or interpretation
of sharia law
or ask your boyfriend
if he would like to live under
ANY version or interpretation
of sharia law
we knock ourselves out here
with discussions over things
like abortion and gay marriage
imagine that...we can talk about things
no such discussions under ANY version
of sharia law...bye bye abortion
and bye bye gays
you really need to stop thinking
that just because other 'cultures'
do things, that we must respect them
i do not respect the way islamic cultures
treat women and i do not respect the way
they treat gays
And as long as I'm getting rid of Canuck stereotypes....
Linear Mode
