American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?

[IBCoupe]

Aud = Matt? I don't know; I just assumed that's who Greg was talking about. Because that's who I was talking about when saying, "It's a bit more complicated than that..."

[audtatious]

Sure, it's lame that the pastor out in Florida is a complete a-hole. The fact that he is encouraging a book burning says enough about the guy. I wish he would just be a peaceful Christian.

He's stupid but with all the crap going on I somewhat understand his point.

My expectation of them is that they won't change their ways.

I'm sure they feel the same way towards you. But, I'm sure you feel that's part of the problem as well. They are questioning you and you know you are right.

[mattblancarte]

Aud = Matt? I don't know; I just assumed that's who Greg was talking about. Because that's who I was talking about when saying, "It's a bit more complicated than that..."

Whoops my bad. I was confused. My apologies!

I'm sure they feel the same way towards you. But, I'm sure you feel that's part of the problem as well. They are questioning you and you know you are right.

It's in their nature to aggressively proselytize, which is what I'd like to see changed. They want me to give in and convert, which is what they want changed. A small distinction, no doubt, but notable.

Know I'm right about what? Faith? I don't claim to know any ultimate truths. I don't mind if people peacefully and privately practice religion. No problems there.

[IBCoupe]

No worries. When there's multiple thoughts floating around, it's easy to get caught in the crossfire of a drive-by.

[audtatious]

It's in their nature to aggressively proselytize, which is what I'd like to see changed. They want me to give in and convert, which is what they want changed. A small distinction, no doubt, but notable.

I have had two little old ladies vising my house in 12 years about Jehovah. Otherwise I have nobody trying to change anything. I lived in the bible belt for most my life and rarely ran into anyone trying to "convert" me or get me to be active in the church. Now, from a non-religious perspective I do run into those more often who want to get into some argument about God or religion. I simply don't get into the discussion because it's not worth my time.

You on the other hand seem to have it happen quite often for some reason and have grouped anyone who may be religious under one single bundle with a label that reads "Proselytizing nut job that must be ignored". Maybe you should move to an area filled with more atheists in which you will feel more welcome and protected from crazy religious nut jobs? Then again, why should you move, the nut jobs need to be caged away and locked up for their lunacy.

Oh well, it is what it is.

[szh]

I have had two little old ladies vising my house in 12 years about Jehovah. Otherwise I have nobody trying to change anything.

We get them about once every month to two months. They usually take one look at my wife or I and move on fairly quickly - although some do try to get some kind of conversation going for a bit.

Z

[szh]

I should have said "Islamic fanatics" or those who can be swayed for whatever reason. I agree, there is no clear-cut answer.

Ah, but fanatics (whichever religion they belong to) will, almost by definition, be strongly on one side or the other ... regardless of how the majority "centrists" might perceive the issue to be!

Z

[mattblancarte]

If I may correct your assumptions...

1. I've personally had a pastor from a local church come to my door and ask me, "How do you feel about going to hell?" This is obviously not representative of all Christians, and you've incorrectly inferred that I feel that it is.

2. If you feel that proselytizing is not part of the Christian doctrine, you haven't read (or absorbed) the New Testament.

3. Your anecdotal evidence regarding a lack of interaction with evangelists is not representative of the issue as a whole. Sure, evangelists may not be knocking on your door, but they're knocking on the door of government 24/7. 700 Club? CBN? Let's not forget them.

4. I am the only non-Christian in my family, and if you think religion doesn't come up within a religious family... well, you're wrong.

5. I avoid religious discussion, given the chance.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, Aud. Not sure what part of my responses gave you the impression that I think jailing evangelists is a good idea, but it's a pretty pathetic passive-aggressive piece of sarcasm you've written out there.

I think if you've read enough of my posts on NICO you'll find that I am not even close to the character that you're attempting to paint me as.

[audtatious]

I should have said "Islamic fanatics" or those who can be swayed for whatever reason. I agree, there is no clear-cut answer.

Ah, but fanatics (whichever religion they belong to) will, almost by definition, be strongly on one side or the other ... regardless of how the majority "centrists" might perceive the issue to be!

Z

No argument there. Seem to hear more about one side than the other at this point.

[audtatious]

If I may correct your assumptions...

1. I've personally had a pastor from a local church come to my door and ask me, "How do you feel about going to hell?" This is obviously not representative of all Christians, and you've incorrectly inferred that I feel that it is.

2. If you feel that proselytizing is not part of the Christian doctrine, you haven't read (or absorbed) the New Testament.

As I stated, I have different experiences. As far as the pastor I would have said something whitty and let it go from there. No, I've not read the New Testament, I have my own views which is my business. Of course, I tend to get lumped in with the "bible thumpers". That's fine, I really don't care.

3. Your anecdotal evidence regarding a lack of interaction with evangelists is not representative of the issue as a whole. Sure, evangelists may not be knocking on your door, but they're knocking on the door of government 24/7. 700 Club? CBN? Let's not forget them.

I have a little leniency with religious organizations because a lot of them do a lot of good for the community as a whole (food banks, shelters, helping with home issues, counseling, daycare, etc). Now, those who build up huge crystal cathedrals and such are a waste, IMO. 700 Club, CBN, etc? seems wasteful but if they ARE using "profits" to support worldwide outreach to those in need I would give them leniency as well. Same as with most organizations unless they are using it to make obscene amounts of money to do very little.

4. I am the only non-Christian in my family, and if you think religion doesn't come up within a religious family... well, you're wrong.

ok. You are right and I'm wrong....again...as normal.

5. I avoid religious discussion, given the chance.

Does not stop you from making sweeping generalizations. No issues, we all do it. I'm just pointing it out.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, Aud. Not sure what part of my responses gave you the impression that I think jailing evangelists is a good idea, but it's a pretty pathetic passive-aggressive piece of sarcasm you've written out there.

I think if you've read enough of my posts on NICO you'll find that I am not even close to the character that you're attempting to paint me as.

My feelings hurt? I'm sitting here chuckling about it.

[mattblancarte]

As far as the pastor I would have said something whitty and let it go from there. No, I've not read the New Testament, I have my own views which is my business. Of course, I tend to get lumped in with the "bible thumpers". That's fine, I really don't care.

I didn't even go as far as to say something whitty. Just gave the look and closed the door. Fair enough in regards to your views.

I have a little leniency with religious organizations because a lot of them do a lot of good for the community as a whole (food banks, shelters, helping with home issues, counseling, daycare, etc). Now, those who build up huge crystal cathedrals and such are a waste, IMO. 700 Club, CBN, etc? seems wasteful but if they ARE using "profits" to support worldwide outreach to those in need I would give them leniency as well. Same as with most organizations unless they are using it to make obscene amounts of money to do very little.

Not only am I lenient of religious organizations, I'm for defending each and every one of their rights under the law. You're right, a huge number of them benefit society in tangible ways.

In no way have a proposed "coming down" on any of them at all. I just said I would like to see less proselytizing in the public sphere. Not gonna do anything about it.

ok. You are right and I'm wrong....again...as normal.

Oh c'mon now. I've read plenty of things you post on this forum that I agree with. I just like to engage in debate when I see the chance. This is my little "a la carte" intellectual battle arena hehe. My apologies if I come off like an a-hole.

Does not stop you from making sweeping generalizations. No issues, we all do it. I'm just pointing it out.

That's fair. I may have stepped over the line. I tried to stay within the sweeping generalization that I actually thought swept across the whole group. I agree that not everyone practices Christianity "by the book."

My feelings hurt? I'm sitting here chuckling about it.

Good. I was hoping you weren't that sensitive.

[audtatious]

A lot of what I write back is to get people to think. Usually, does not happen but occasionally it does. I use sweeping generalizations about Liberals all the time but I know the Liberals I despise are in reality only a portion. Same goes with the far right republicans, I dislike their approach and methodology as well. I know you don't really think all Christians are huge proselytizers, but that's the way it can seem based on comments.

That leads to this threads topic, which is acceptance of Muslims. IMO, while there is bound to be some "racism" and anti-religious nut jobs out there the Muslim population is accepted in this country. What some people seem to have is a inability to separate "Muslim" from "radicalism". As unfortunate as that is, others sensationalize it into "islamaphobia" for the whole which is total BS. The general population simply don't care as they want to go about their lives the way they see fit and are willing to let others do the same. Sure, a Muslim woman wearing a burka may get some funny looks here but as that's not the "norm" it's expected. Hell, kids with nose rings and pink hair will get just as much of a look.

Lot's of BS going on that's being promoted and it needs to stop. I don't see it starting to happen until after this Nov election as there is a whole bunch of politicizing and positioning going on and things like this are part of it.

[IBCoupe]

What some people seem to have is a inability to separate "Muslim" from "radicalism". As unfortunate as that is, others sensationalize it into "islamaphobia" for the whole which is total BS. The general population simply don't care as they want to go about their lives the way they see fit and are willing to let others do the same. Sure, a Muslim woman wearing a burka may get some funny looks here but as that's not the "norm" it's expected. Hell, kids with nose rings and pink hair will get just as much of a look.

QFT

Lot's of BS going on that's being promoted and it needs to stop. I don't see it starting to happen until after this Nov election as there is a whole bunch of politicizing and positioning going on and things like this are part of it.

Doubly so.

[heliochrome85]

http://tv.gawker.com/5634468/jon-stewar ... m-fox-news

[AZhitman]

Matt simplifies the situation so far as to make a caricature of it. When I said, "It's more complicated than that," I wasn't pointing to the Muslims that don't blow s*** up, I'm pointing to the other factors that contribute to the the relationship between Muhammed cartoons and death threats against cartoonist is not as straightforward as it was made out to be. The implication that it's a simple cause-and-effect, if it's known not to be the case, is intellectual dishonesty. Okay?

Sooooo, you only have a problem with his oversimplification of the "offensive to Muslims" actions?

Other factors?

Not as straightforward as it's made out to be?

Sooooo, it's justifiable? Or there are mitigating factors?

I mean, let's apply the same test to all of those instances. THAT would be "intellectually honest".

Or am I just too much of a mouthbreather to think on your lofty level? You know, the level that sees the "complexity" of a bunch of illiterate, black-hooded pieces of s*** in front of a rolling camera cutting some journalist's head off....

My question to you, Captain Overreaction, was: "What the hell made you think that any of that is applicable to me?"

It was directed more generically, but I didn't make that real clear (and for that, I apologize). I should have said, "Why should ANYONE think that Mulsims should be the only un-persecuted group in the US?"

...but, since you took the ball and ran with it (the wrong way - your goal line is back there) ...my answer to you, Captain Obfuscation (working part-time as Deputy Missedapoint), was clear:

See, persecution and offensiveness pervades our culture. For example: You can type "Zombie Jesus" without thinking anything of it. It's offensive to me, but I'd hazard a guess you're not going to be drawing caricatures of Mohammed. Why is that? Are you more respectful of one faith than another? Or are you scared that Tariq and Z will show up on your doorstep with a black hood and scimitar, whilst I simply turn the other cheek?

Or does some s*** perhaps need to get "blowed up"?

Now, if any of that isn't applicable to you, feel free to explain why. Why is it so easy for you to be offhandedly offensive to one group, yet tiptoe around another? Why is the topic of the offensive creation of images of one deity supposedly "complex", while the other is simply dismissed out of hand?

Educate me - remember, I'm just a Master's level bumpkin in a flyover state. Feel free to enlist the assistance of the others, and make sure you draft some Muslims on your team.

p.s. If I was overreacting, you'd know it. Intense people communicate in an intense manner.

[szh]

Lot's of BS going on that's being promoted and it needs to stop. I don't see it starting to happen until after this Nov election as there is a whole bunch of politicizing and positioning going on and things like this are part of it.

Exactly right.

And the media is, as usual, sensationalizing it much too much.

Z

[AZhitman]

http://tv.gawker.com/5634468/jon-stewar ... m-fox-news

OMG.

THAT was spectacular. FINALLY someone else agrees with me that Sanchez is a dilrod.

[IBCoupe]

Sooooo, you only have a problem with his oversimplification of the "offensive to Muslims" actions?

Other factors?

Not as straightforward as it's made out to be?

Sooooo, it's justifiable? Or there are mitigating factors?

I mean, let's apply the same test to all of those instances. THAT would be "intellectually honest".

Or am I just too much of a mouthbreather to think on your lofty level? You know, the level that sees the "complexity" of a bunch of illiterate, black-hooded pieces of s*** in front of a rolling camera cutting some journalist's head off....

Chill the f*** out, dude.

I don't have only a problem with the oversimplification of only the "offensive to Muslims" actions. Once again: Aud's depiction of "irrationality" implies that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between insulting Muslims and Muslim riots, when, in fact, there's any number of filters that's between your actions (or statement) and your hearing about their reponse.

First, there's the way your actions are disseminated overseas - how they hear you. Second, there's the way their reception is distributed - who's telling them what about the meaning of your actions and how they're doing it. Third, and this is a very important set of filters, there's the context within which they process what they've heard of your actions - their socioeconomic class, the status of their individual rights, their education level, their opinions of America and the War on Terror. Fourth, there's their actual response, which is going to flow through a similar set of filters on our side of the world.

Here's a couple of illustrations to point out the importance of understanding the complexity of the issue:
Up until a couple of months ago, non-extreme Muslims in the Arab world were turning against the al-Qaeda propaganda that the U.S. is at war with Islam in general, rather than just being at war with al-Qaeda. With the rise of the hub-bub and fiery rhetoric about Manhattan Islamic community centers and holy-book-burning preachers, those Muslims have been given pause to wonder if they've been wrong.

And have you heard of many riots happening in those Islamic countries like Indonesia, whose populace isn't nearly as poor, nearly as occupied, and nearly as suppressed?

Like I said, it's more complicated than "Muslims riot and Christians don't," which is all that Aud posted.

See, persecution and offensiveness pervades our culture. For example: You can type "Zombie Jesus" without thinking anything of it. It's offensive to me, but I'd hazard a guess you're not going to be drawing caricatures of Mohammed. Why is that? Are you more respectful of one faith than another? Or are you scared that Tariq and Z will show up on your doorstep with a black hood and scimitar, whilst I simply turn the other cheek?

Now, if any of that isn't applicable to you, feel free to explain why. Why is it so easy for you to be offhandedly offensive to one group, yet tiptoe around another? Why is the topic of the offensive creation of images of one deity supposedly "complex", while the other is simply dismissed out of hand?

Because it's not simply the topic of creation of images that's complex, it's the interpretation and reaction to those images that's complex. The reason I don't make Muhammed jokes is because I don't know enough about Muhammed or his story in order to make those jokes (or at least to make them well).

This is why it's not applicable to me: nowhere have I been critical of people for creating offensive images. I'm being critical of the simple way in which we're looking at the responses to those images. Have I been clear enough this time?

Educate me - remember, I'm just a Master's level bumpkin in a flyover state.

You know I don't care about personal background. Come on, cut the crap.

[stebo0728]

<tangent>

Anyone following this deal with the 3 people being held for espionage in Iran? Does anyone else see any humor in the fact that one of the guys has the last name Bauer?

</tangent>

[IBCoupe]

I hadn't actually heard their names. I expect that they'll be released, I just don't know for what. I don't think they're a big enough bargaining chip for the nuclear issue.

[stebo0728]

Oh me either, and to play devils advocate, we hold people we think are terrorists so we cant get too upset when another nations holds people they think are spies I guess, as long as they follow the Geneva convention and play by the rules of common decency. Now - the girl is being released, what are the chances that we would even allow her to be sent back over there for any reason at all?

[IBCoupe]

Actually, if anybody was going to be released for no reason at all, I'd say it would be the girl. An interview I heard with her mother revealed that she's got health issues, and without regular medication, she will die. Maybe it was a showing of good faith, maybe it was just an effort to minimize the risk of a backlash-inspiring PR blunder.

[stebo0728]

Yah but Im meaning, in the event that they want her to come back for like a trial or whatnot, what are the chances that we would even make her go?

[IBCoupe]

I don't think we've got any extradition treaties with Iran. If she comes here, she'll never be sent back.

[AZhitman]

Chill the f*** out, dude.

That's a tad absurd. Are you in the habit of perceiving anger / panic / irritation where there is none?

Again, you can attribute all manner of "mitigating factors" to the situation. To do so, however, is to ascribe "special treatment" to the s***bags who issue death threats against someone for offending their poor precious sensibilities, while ignoring the millenia of persecution that has been visited upon Christians worldwide (which you well know).

The reason I don't make Muhammed jokes is because I don't know enough about Muhammed or his story in order to make those jokes (or at least to make them well).

Don't make ANY deity jokes, then. You're not enough of a Biblical scholar to be making offensive characterizations.

This is why it's not applicable to me: nowhere have I been critical of people for creating offensive images. I'm being critical of the simple way in which we're looking at the responses to those images. Have I been clear enough this time?

I never intimated any such thing. And honestly, I don't care about "offensive images". I think the response from the Muslim community worldwide is one of weakness, panic and insecurity.

What I *DID* do: I pointed out that it's real easy for you to offer up mitigation when someone offends the Muslim population, yet you have no problem flippantly issuing a comment that's patently offensive to Christians - a point you've conveniently either avoided or missed several times now.

And you've been perfectly clear as to what you're being critical of - Which brings me right back to my initial statement: You (and others) are behaving as apologists. The response by Muslims to these perceived "slights" (lopping off heads) is no less absurd than me burning your house down for your "slights". You CHOOSE to attribute "complexity" based upon current world affairs, and that's fine.... but by doing so, you present as an apologist, or defensive of the behavior of these wackos.

I hope that makes sense... We *DO* communicate quite differently.

[IBCoupe]

Don't make ANY deity jokes, then. You're not enough of a Biblical scholar to be making offensive characterizations.

...

I pointed out that it's real easy for you to offer up mitigation when someone offends the Muslim population, yet you have no problem flippantly issuing a comment that's patently offensive to Christians.

I haven't missed it. You're still not getting it. You're conflating two completely different issues. I have no problem with people offending Muslims, but I'm not about to accept that the reason these Muslims act outrageously is entirely religious.

I'm all equal opportunity, dude: I'm okay with mocking any religion, and I'm perfectly happy to look for alternative explanations when any religious people freak out. You see me mitigating Muslim overreaction because that's what you guys are pointing to. Start ditching your biases, and you'll see my responses follow suit - there's no opportunity for me to respond to the criticisms that aren't being made.

I'm not apologizing for anything that they're doing. I'm not excusing anything they're doing. I'm disarming the retarded simplification of the issue that you're defending.

Get it yet?

[WDRacing]

Deputy Missedapoint

I miss the software option to create custom titles That is a priceless gem.

[AZhitman]

...I'm not about to accept that the reason these Muslims act outrageously is entirely religious.

SO WHAT? I don't give a damn what their other issues are! I don't give a s*** if every time one is born, the entire village shows up to poke a finger in their hindparts, their mothers fed them curdled milk, and their fathers wouldn't buy them nice shoes to wear. I DON'T CARE about what other reasons there might be.

Any chance you've considered that the reasons the Christians in Matt's example didn't "act out" was (or maybe wasn't) "entirely religious"?

Who's to say that "oversimpliication" is "retarded"? Maybe making something more complicated than it needs to be is "retarded".

Bias? What bias? I'm asking that you throw all the human beings in the same pile. I don't give a flying carpet whether the target is Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Sikh. If that person / group cannot maintain some semblance of self-control, and is so completely and thoroughly ignorant that their response to a perceived slight is the taking of human life, then call me biased.

I'm biased against people who don't value human life, and I oppose any negotiation, mitigation or attempts to even TRY to legitimize or explain away their abhorrent behavior.

Get it yet?

p.s. No more Jesus jokes until you quit being a puss and start living up to your self-proclaimed position of equal-opportunity mocker.

[IBCoupe]

SO WHAT? I don't give a damn what their other issues are! I don't give a s*** if every time one is born, the entire village shows up to poke a finger in their hindparts, their mothers fed them curdled milk, and their fathers wouldn't buy them nice shoes to wear. I DON'T CARE about what other reasons there might be.

I'm not asking you to care. I'm not asking you to identify. I'm asking you to acknowledge that there are other issues, and not be satisfied with the simplest answer until it's been justified.

Any chance you've considered that the reasons the Christians in Matt's example didn't "act out" was (or maybe wasn't) "entirely religious"?

Absolutely. The factors I think of are that the West (where we'd look for that non-reaction) is composed of far more secular societies, with almost no centralized control of information to speak of, much better records (at least in the last quarter-century or so, I mean - no point in looking past the births of the people who are actually rioting) on human rights, and so on and so forth.

Who's to say that "oversimpliication" is "retarded"? Maybe making something more complicated than it needs to be is "retarded".

First, I didn't use the non-word "oversimplification." Second: when a simplification of a situation logically leads one to the retarded conclusions "That book makes you crazy," or "Only crazy people read that book," it's a fair bet that the simplification itself is retarded.

Bias? What bias? I'm asking that you throw all the human beings in the same pile. I don't give a flying carpet whether the target is Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Sikh. If that person / group cannot maintain some semblance of self-control, and is so completely and thoroughly ignorant that their response to a perceived slight is the taking of human life, then call me biased.

That was intended to be the more rhetorical "you;" my bad. I meant when you guys start complaining about groups other than Muslims in a simplistic way, you'll see me start to remind you of the complexity of the world as it relates to those other groups, too.

I'm biased against people who don't value human life, and I oppose any negotiation, mitigation or attempts to even TRY to legitimize or explain away their abhorrent behavior.

And I can understand that. But here's where I'm concerned: suppose we take on your opinion as a whole, and then head on to make policy about it. When the situation is presented to us as "Muslims riot when insulted and Christians don't," what course of action do we take? Forced conversion? Genocide? Being really really nice to Muslims? Making sure that we go out and insult everyone else more?

p.s. No more Jesus jokes until you quit being a puss and start living up to your self-proclaimed position of equal-opportunity mocker.

Give me an opportunity to do it, and I will. And is that a promise of ban or just a lighthearted "No more?"

[stebo0728]

Im reminded of the Van Gogh incident. Shortly after, the makers of South Park started a controversy over whether they were going to actually be so brazen as to show Muhammad on an episode. They kept it secret, and ran the tension right up till the end of the episode, then popped a quick pic of him in, and that was that. But what was funny was the whole discourse that surrounded the episode, more than the episode itself.

Question for T and Z, does an accurate portrait of Muhammad actually even exist, or is he given the same sort of generic "robed beardy" look. Theres no portrait of Jesus, and its funny to see the portraits you see in different churches, some have him white as a ghost as if he were an englishman.