Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, Muslims and specifically Secular Muslims have had a history of adapting in this country as well as any other group. Conservative Muslims and Muslims wanting to bring Sharia to this country are a detriment to our society and are not needed. We see what happens to all Muslim controlled countries in the world. Turkey is a good example of a country that was moving in the right direction as a Secular country and now heading back in the other direction.
Orthodox Jews and the Roman Catholic Church have their own law within this country and nobody has ever cared about that enough to say it should not be allowed. Have you noticed it has never overcome our own justice system?
If only the hysterics would stop listening to the fear mongers who apparently have nothing to worry about other than the absurd notion that Sharia law will come to the US.
Frankly those religious nuts in OK who are trying to disallow anyone from getting a marriage license unless it is blessed by a Christian minister are a lot more threatening to freedom in the US than any conservative Muslims.
Geez--chill out--Sharia law will never take over here.
Since there has been a lot of comments on this topic, I am adding a poll to see where CDers are on this topic.
Personally, I think think it makes Obama look foolish by him not identifying Radical elements in Islam as 'Radicals' or the Coptic Christians that were killed as 'Christian'.
Refer to them as radical Muslims, not radicals. Anyone can take any religion to a radical extreme.
I don't support withholding information. Identify the terrorists clearly by as much information as is had on them, especially when it pertains to their motives.
I think the President is doing the right thing by them by not continually linking all Islamic people to the terrorist thugs, which is what would happen if he qualified ISIS as Muslims every time he spoke of them. .
By that logic, we never should have linked all Nazis to Hitler and all racists to Nazi power. After all, it was only extremist Nazis who engaged in WWII, right?
Both Nazism and Islam are ideologies. When the ideology is repeatedly murderous, it is moral to call it out as being such. Ignoring or apologizing for it, because "not all xyz are violent", leaves the door open for future violence inherent in the ideology. Islam has well proven itself to be as intolerant and extremist as ISIS throughout history when given the chance. How much more does the world have to take before the repeated and historical victims of Islam are given consideration over than adherents of the violent ideology? Do they get a pass because they aren't white? If white people had a hypothetical caliphate in the Middle East and were continuously executing Muslim civilians by the most vicious means and releasing the video worldwide, I assure you that liberals, the press, and the President would not avoid naming the enemy or its ideology. Quit the racist double standard and name the enemy and its ideology.
By that logic, we never should have linked all Nazis to Hitler and all racists to Nazi power. After all, it was only extremist Nazis who engaged in WWII, right?
Both Nazism and Islam are ideologies. When the ideology is repeatedly murderous, it is moral to call it out as being such. Ignoring or apologizing for it, because "not all xyz are violent", leaves the door open for future violence inherent in the ideology. Islam has well proven itself to be as intolerant and extremist as ISIS throughout history when given the chance. How much more does the world have to take before the repeated and historical victims of Islam are given consideration over than adherents of the violent ideology? Do they get a pass because they aren't white? If white people had a hypothetical caliphate in the Middle East and were continuously executing Muslim civilians by the most vicious means and releasing the video worldwide, I assure you that liberals, the press, and the President would not avoid naming the enemy or its ideology. Quit the racist double standard and name the enemy and its ideology.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Sorry.
What you advocate for ultimately is mass murder of innocent people on a huge scale. I hate the violent extremists and their stupid, disgusting rationalization of using their religion as cause for their descent into primitive, uncivilized, unspeakable barbarity. I have zero love for Islam as either a religion or an ideology.
I can't get behind exterminating millions of people who will never, ever be a threat. The reality is that you can't abolish the religion/whatever you want to call it without killing of all the people that practice it. And even that won't work. But by dehumanizing all Muslims, by continually naming them in conjunction with the radical extremist faction, it's much easier to justify your means.
I don't give a crap if all the Muslim terrorists are eradicated. I do give a crap that we know the difference.
President Busch said same identical thing!!
(BEGIN TAPE)
BARACK OBAMA:
The parents do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology. GEORGE W. BUSH:
All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true face of Islam.
BARACK OBAMA:
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. DICK CHENEY:
This is, by no means, a war against Islam.
BARACK OBAMA:
I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified. GEORGE W. BUSH:
The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.
(END TAPE)
see for yourself today's recording on Meet the Press-- how do you all reconcile truth?
I don't think anyone finds it surprising that partisans hold Bush & Cheney to different standards than Obama.
So you believe we should sink to the ISIS level of propaganda and semantics to deal with this? Isn't that just giving them what they want? They call it a religious war. Other countries with Islamic citizens call it a perversion of Islam and a war against radical barbarians. Jordan and Egypt claim these people are not religious at all--that they are simply violent barbarians.
Do people think it is a coincidence that George Bush and Obama both avoid making this about Islam? Nobody accused Bush of being a secret Muslim when he reiterated over and over that Islam was a religion of peace.
We need allies in the Mideast (and not only Israel) to help wipe these guys out. Making this a religious war does not really help the situation. Telling Jordanian Muslims that they should kill Muslims because they are Muslims is not going to make this happen. Why people care so much about the semantics of this conflict is beyond me. Isn't the end goal to defeat these guys--in fact obliterate them? We need Muslim countries to help make that happen.
When Serbian Christians decided to go commando and start massacring people in Europe, who were in fact Muslims--what did we call it? An 'ethnic conflict.' Nobody was screaming about extremist Christians. They would say exactly what the peaceful Muslims are saying. This is a violent perversion of guys who were not acting like Christians at all.
ISIL is using Islam as an excuse because they had no land to fight over.
Terrific. You use Bush as an example for Obama to follow ?
D Rep Gabbard got it right:
“This is clearly a war against this very specific faction of radical Islamic ideology. I think it’s important… that this identification of their motivation of this radical Islamic ideology is made very distinctly."
You'll find crackpots on message boards who want a religious war against Islam or the nuke 'em crowd. U.S. policy should be to tell the truth about ISIL, or at least stop pretending that ISIL is not Islamic.
Terrific. You use Bush as an example for Obama to follow ?
D Rep Gabbard got it right:
“This is clearly a war against this very specific faction of radical Islamic ideology. I think it’s important… that this identification of their motivation of this radical Islamic ideology is made very distinctly."
You'll find crackpots on message boards who want a religious war against Islam or the nuke 'em crowd. U.S. policy should be to tell the truth about ISIL, or at least stop pretending that ISIL is not Islamic.
It's kind of interesting that it is some how implied that when some of us say 'Radical Islam' that Apologist jump in and respond as if we said or meant 'Islam'.
Call them what they are. If they are a muslim terrorist, make it known. Same if they are christian terrorist or follower of any other mythology and use it as a basis for their terrorism. Make it known. The more the world sees religion as the pariah it is the better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
