The soft bigotry of low expectations

[vy65]

Starts around minute 58.

c0jPryEaR3w

[vy65]

I'll double down. The tl;dr is that the refusal to call out radical Islam is what enables the rise of figures like Trump.

DcmbRPSEbw4

[boutons_deux]

I'll double down. The tl;dr is that the refusal to call out radical Islam is what enables the rise of figures like Trump.


:lol You stupid fucks

the USA and West invading, occupying, destabilizing Muslim countries and slaughtering Muslims for BigOil caused the rise of militant Islam

[Th'Pusher]

The real question is what does Joe Rogan have to say about it :lol

The Armenian MMA layer.

[DarrinS]

:lol You stupid fucks

the USA and West invading, occupying, destabilizing Muslim countries and slaughtering Muslims for BigOil caused the rise of militant Islam

Well, that explains all the killings of Muslims by fellow Muslims.

[vy65]

What's Joe Rogan got to do with anything in this thread?

[spurraider21]

What's Joe Rogan got to do with anything in this thread?
yeah im sure thats a fallacy or somethin. maybe fuzzy can wiki it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yeah im sure thats a fallacy or somethin. maybe fuzzy can wiki it

petulant because you were wrong. it's okay.

[DarrinS]

yeah im sure thats a fallacy or somethin. maybe fuzzy can wiki it

:lol

[Th'Pusher]

What's Joe Rogan got to do with anything in this thread?

The OP is a super fan.

[vy65]

The OP is a super fan.

So what?

[Th'Pusher]

So what?

What do you like most about Joe Rogan?

[vy65]

What do you like most about Joe Rogan?

Why do you care?

[Th'Pusher]

Why do you care?
just interested. He interviewed an artist I like so I tuned in to listen to the interview. It was one of the worst interviews I've ever heard. He was completely inept. So I'm legitimately interested in what a self-proclaimed super-fan sees in him.

[vy65]

just interested. He interviewed an artist I like so I tuned in to listen to the interview. It was one of the worst interviews I've ever heard. He was completely inept. So I'm legitimately interested in what a self-proclaimed super-fan sees in him.

No, why are you interested in my opinion?

Lol super fan

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol talking about low expectations.

[vy65]

just interested. He interviewed an artist I like so I tuned in to listen to the interview. It was one of the worst interviews I've ever heard. He was completely inept. So I'm legitimately interested in what a self-proclaimed super-fan sees in him.

I'll bite. He has had interesting people on, whether they be comedians like Marc Maron or scientists like Sam Harris. He's not the brightest person in the world but the interviews are interesting nonetheless.

Which artist?

[vy65]

:lol talking about low expectations.

True. You're here.

[Th'Pusher]

What's Joe Rogan got to do with anything in this thread?


The OP is a super fan.


So what?


No, why are you interested in my opinion?

Lol super fan

You acknowledged you were a super-fan of a person I find to be an inept interviewer. I was interested in your opinion so that I might understand what you find interesting in someone I find completely amateurish. If you're unable to explain, I may just assume I have a more refined appreciation for the art of the interview.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's likely to do with Rogan's views concerning circumcision.

[vy65]

You acknowledged you were a super-fan of a person I find to be an inept interviewer. I was interested in your opinion so that I might understand what you find interesting in someone find completely amateurish. If you're unable to explain, I may just assume I have a more refined appreciation for the art of the interview.

link?

[vy65]

It's likely to do with Rogan's views concerning circumcision.

Lol I don't even know what those are. Seems we got more than one super fan in here

[FuzzyLumpkins]

link?

Why does he need that? You already accepted the question where it was included in the premise.

You've already laid out part of what you like about him.

Distancing yourself to avoid ridicule. Such bravery.

[vy65]

Why does he need that? You already accepted the question where it was included in the premise.

You've already laid out part of what you like about him.

Distancing yourself to avoid ridicule. Such bravery.

What? It's his assertion -- and one that isn't true. That's why I asked him for a link.

Look up "burden of proof" on reason-wiki

[Th'Pusher]

link?


The OP is a super fan.


So what?

You are the OP of this thread, are you not?

[vy65]

You are the OP of this thread, are you not?

Do you have a link to "super fan" or not? It's a simple yes or no.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you have a link to "super fan" or not? It's a simple yes or no.

Are you a super fan or not? It's a simple yes or no?

[Th'Pusher]

Do you have a link to "super fan" or not? It's a simple yes or no.

I said the OP is a super fan of Joe Rogan and you replied, "so what". Is that not an admission that you are a super fan of Joe Rogan?

[spurraider21]

You are the OP of this thread, are you not?
What does him being the op here have to do with Joe rogan

[vy65]

Are you a super fan or not? It's a simple yes or no?

Why do you care?

[Th'Pusher]

What does him being the op here have to do with Joe rogan

See above.

[vy65]

Are you a super fan or not? It's a simple yes or no?

And what is that relevant to? And why does that matter?

I didn't know I was so important that people like Reason-Wiki.com/platform of bluster and slurped wanted to know my opinions on podcasters. Thanks guys!

[vy65]

See above.

It's not above. Try again.

[vy65]

Speaking of the OP, why are certain posters so scared of discussing it?

[Th'Pusher]

And what is that relevant to? And why does that matter?

I didn't know I was so important that people like Reason-Wiki.com/platform of bluster and slurped wanted to know my opinions on podcasters. Thanks guys!

You're not important. I honestly just wanted to know why you're a super-fan of Joe Rogan. I personally appreciate a good interview. You apparently don't know what good interview is.

I'll admit I'm making my judgment on a limited data set, but it really was a bad interview. Tell me the best Joe Rogan interview in your opinion. I'll listen to it and let you know what I think.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do you care?

I care because you do.

[Th'Pusher]

Speaking of the OP, why are certain posters so scared of discussing it?

When you said "so what" to my statement that the OP was a Joe Rogan Superfan, what did you mean?

[vy65]

You're not important. I honestly just wanted to know why you're a super-fan of Joe Rogan. I personally appreciate a good interview. You apparently don't know what good interview is.

I'll admit I'm making my judgment on a limited data set, but it really was a bad interview. Tell me the best Joe Rogan interview in your opinion. I'll listen to it and let you know what I think.

Why can't you give me a link to where I said I'm a super fan? Should be pretty simple if true. Why can't you do it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And what is that relevant to? And why does that matter?

I didn't know I was so important that people like Reason-Wiki.com/platform of bluster and slurped wanted to know my opinions on podcasters. Thanks guys!

Was the bluster comment intentional irony or are you just clueless to it?

You dodged questions in that thread too, Crayola.

[Spurminator]

Rogan's been shit since after News Radio, IMHO.

[vy65]

When you said "so what" to my statement that the OP was a Joe Rogan Superfan, what did you mean?

Why don't you want to discuss the OP?

[vy65]

When you said "so what" to my statement that the OP was a Joe Rogan Superfan, what did you mean?

Do you think that's an admission?

[Th'Pusher]

Why can't you give me a link to where I said I'm a super fan? Should be pretty simple if true. Why can't you do it?


When you said "so what" to my statement that the OP was a Joe Rogan Superfan, what did you mean?

[vy65]

Do you think that's an admission?

[vy65]

Anyways, I'm not going on with the deflection bit. If you wanna act like an adult and discuss the op, great. If not, you're gonna have to play soggy biscuit with Fuzzy

[Th'Pusher]

Do you think that's an admission?

Yes.

I said OP [read vy65] is a superfan.

vy65 responds "so what"?

I take that as an admission.

[Th'Pusher]

Anyways, I'm not going on with the deflection bit. If you wanna act like an adult and discuss the op, great. If not, you're gonna have to play soggy biscuit with Fuzzy

Super. I don't give a fuck about your OP, as, based on the lack of responses and the need for your to double down, nobody else does either.

The fact that you're a Joe Rogan super-fan is way more interesting to me.

[vy65]

Super. I don't give a fuck about your OP, as, based on the lack of responses and the need for your to double down, nobody else does either.

The fact that you're a Joe Rogan super-fan is way more interesting to me.

That's pretty sad.

[vy65]

Super. I don't give a fuck about your OP, as, based on the lack of responses and the need for your to double down, nobody else does either.

The fact that you're a Joe Rogan super-fan is way more interesting to me.

Do you think you proved a point?

[Th'Pusher]

That's pretty sad.

I think you're super-fandom for Joe Rogan is not only sad, but wildly embarrassing.

[Th'Pusher]

Do you think you proved a point?

Kind of.

[vy65]

Kind of.

And what would that be? Other than you have nothing of substance to say?

[vy65]

I think you're super-fandom for Joe Rogan is not only sad, but wildly embarrassing.

Your*

And your obsession of me isn't super sad and wildly embarrassing?

[DarrinS]

What's with all this Joe Rogan shit?


The real question is why do regressive liberals freak out over people like Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, etc, who criticize Islam?

[Th'Pusher]

And what would that be? Other than you have nothing of substance to say?

It's should be obvious to anyone who reads this tread that you have no ability discern a talented interviewer.

[vy65]

What's with all this Joe Rogan shit?


The real question is why do regressive liberals freak out over people like Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, etc, who criticize Islam?

They have no answer to their criticism. So they resort to personal attacks (lol Joe Rogan) because they're exposed.

[vy65]

It's should be obvious to anyone who reads this tread that you have no ability discern a talented interviewer.

Crofl is that supposed to be an insult? Why would anyone care about my opinions on that?

[Th'Pusher]

What's with all this Joe Rogan shit?


The real question is why do regressive liberals freak out over people like Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, etc, who criticize Islam?

I'm a liberal and I like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and I find it refreshing they have the freedom to and openly criticize Islam.

[vy65]

It's should be obvious to anyone who reads this tread that you have no ability discern a talented interviewer.

Is this the point you've made? Vy has shitty taste in podcasts?

[Th'Pusher]

Crofl is that supposed to be an insult? Why would anyone care about my opinions on that?

Again, I was just tying to understand what made you a superfan. That's all.

[vy65]

Again, I was just tying to understand what made you a superfan. That's all.

I'm not a super fan. Saying "so what" was to say you were focused on stupidity. But that's pretty much par for the course for you so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Th'Pusher]

Is this the point you've made? Vy has shitty taste in podcasts?

Yeah man. Joe Rogan sucks. Stop listening to him.

[vy65]

Yeah man. Joe Rogan sucks. Stop listening to him.

Cool bro, thanks for the hot tip

[Th'Pusher]

Cool bro, thanks for the hot tip

:tu

[Spurminator]

I also have no problem with Sam Harris or Bill Maher criticizing Islam.

To my knowledge, neither has ever implied that all Muslims are complicit or should be suspected of involvement with terrorism. Correct me if the 2+ hour video says otherwise, I didn't watch it.

But the idea that Obama not using the magic words "radical Islam" is what led to Trump's nomination is ludicrous. As if using the magic words would have sufficed to conservatives and made them feel that Obama's foreign policy was satisfactory, and as if Trump's rise to the top wasn't a result of dozens of other factors.

[Spurminator]

Trump's rise was enabled by Republican leadership and conservative media that have, for the last 20+ years, been implying through innuendo everything Trump is currently saying more directly and in a way that is easily digested by the lowest common denominator.

[DarrinS]

I'm a liberal and I like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and I find it refreshing they have the freedom to and openly criticize Islam.

Ok. Cool

[vy65]

But the idea that Obama not using the magic words "radical Islam" is what led to Trump's nomination is ludicrous. As if using the magic words would have sufficed to conservatives and made them feel that Obama's foreign policy was satisfactory, and as if Trump's rise to the top wasn't a result of dozens of other factors.

If that were the argument (you didn't use the magic words), then I'd agree with you. But I don't think that's the argument. I think the point is that politicians do not draw a connection between Islam and terrorism out of a concern of offending moderate Muslims, being pc, etc... for example, Obama's reluctance to identify the role Islam had in the Orlando attacks.

What people like Harris see is that the failure to identify Islam as a cause of terrorism alienates voters and can drive them to demagogues like Trump because the connection between Islam and terror can be obvious and Trump is the "tough on terror candidate" (at least he postures that way). The way I understand it, people feel like reasonable leaders are being unreasonable in not attributing terror to Islam (ie, Obama saying ISIS isn't Islamic) and that creates a vacuum for morons like Trump to point the finger at Islam. And that resonates with voters.

I agree that trumps rise is attributable to a number of other factors. But I think people like Harris has a point and it's not just "you didn't use the magic words."

[Spurminator]

If that were the argument (you didn't use the magic words), then I'd agree with you. But I don't think that's the argument. I think the point is that politicians do not draw a connection between Islam and terrorism out of a concern of offending moderate Muslims, being pc, etc... for example, Obama's reluctance to identify the role Islam had in the Orlando attacks.

Semantics have been the crux of the argument. Try to find an example of any Republican politician who has pointed out Obama's avoidance of the magic words, and then try to find where they offer any tangible alternative to fighting terrorism that isn't currently being employed.


What people like Harris see is that the failure to identify Islam as a cause of terrorism alienates voters and can drive them to demagogues like Trump because the connection between Islam and terror can be obvious and Trump is the "tough on terror candidate" (at least he postures that way). The way I understand it, people feel like reasonable leaders are being unreasonable in not attributing terror to Islam (ie, Obama saying ISIS isn't Islamic) and that creates a vacuum for morons like Trump to point the finger at Islam. And that resonates with voters.

I agree that trumps rise is attributable to a number of other factors. But I think people like Harris has a point and it's not just "you didn't use the magic words."

I'm not sure I understand the inherent need for people to hear the President say that ISIS is Islamic. It's a very superficial identifier and probably not the most important. I don't think identifying it as such would have any real impact on what people think about his approach to terrorism. He identifies it as Islamic terrorism, the next question from those people is "What are you going to do about Muslims?" That vacuum would still be there as evidenced by the insane number of people who still think Obama is a Muslim.

Meanwhile, continued focus on Muslims as the source of terrorism continues to draw a divide between Muslims and the westernized world and gives sociopathic outcasts a reason to draw inspiration from radical Islamic terrorism and carry out attacks on us. That's ISIS' real strategy for infiltrating America.

[vy65]

I'm not sure I understand the inherent need for people to hear the President say that ISIS is Islamic. It's a very superficial identifier and probably not the most important. I don't think identifying it as such would have any real impact on what people think about his approach to terrorism. He identifies it as Islamic terrorism, the next question from those people is "What are you going to do about Muslims?" That vacuum would still be there as evidenced by the insane number of people who still think Obama is a Muslim.

I think the reason why people need to hear the President say those words is for the assurance that he's correctly identified the problem. Otherwise, you're left with situations like the response to Orlando, where Obama's position seemed to be that this was solely an issue of gun control and Islam had no role whatsoever. This is why the point isn't solely one of semantics -- it's about correctly identifying a problem. It's like having a rowboat with two leaks; plugging one hole while ignoring the other isn't going to stop you from sinking.

I do think that your point about the words the President uses not having an influence on his actions has merit. But it's equally true that the President sets the tone for, or at least has a strong influence on, policy. Again with Orlando, if the issue is teed up as one of gun control, you will never appropriately address the problem because you're ignoring one of the causes. If Obama had identified radical Islam, along with lax gun control, as the problem, the policy debate, and the resulting policy, would be different.

The point is that our leaders, like Obama, are not being honest with us about the causes of terrorism. And that is a legitimate problem.


Meanwhile, continued focus on Muslims as the source of terrorism continues to draw a divide between Muslims and the westernized world and gives sociopathic outcasts a reason to draw inspiration from radical Islamic terrorism and carry out attacks on us. That's ISIS' real strategy for infiltrating America.

That's why it's important to focus on the ideology and not the actor. The issue isn't the Muslim, it's the doctrine that radicalized the Muslim. I think that knee-jerk reactions like Trumps ban Muslims! are pretty alienating and counterproductive.

But on the flip side, what does it say about so-called moderate Muslims that the suggestion that their religious belief can be and has been used for terrorism would radicalize them? I don't think that a moderate Muslim engineer is going to all of a sudden become radicalized, quit his job, move to Syria and join Isis just because I criticize Islam. And the fact that the bogey-man of Muslim alienation is raised here is the point -- criticizing Islam isn't going to radicalize moderate Muslims.

[Spurminator]

I think the reason why people need to hear the President say those words is for the assurance that he's correctly identified the problem. Otherwise, you're left with situations like the response to Orlando, where Obama's position seemed to be that this was solely an issue of gun control and Islam had no role whatsoever. This is why the point isn't solely one of semantics -- it's about correctly identifying a problem. It's like having a rowboat with two leaks; plugging one hole while ignoring the other isn't going to stop you from sinking.

I do think that your point about the words the President uses not having an influence on his actions has merit. But it's equally true that the President sets the tone for, or at least has a strong influence on, policy. Again with Orlando, if the issue is teed up as one of gun control, you will never appropriately address the problem because you're ignoring one of the causes. If Obama had identified radical Islam, along with lax gun control, as the problem, the policy debate, and the resulting policy, would be different.

The point is that our leaders, like Obama, are not being honest with us about the causes of terrorism. And that is a legitimate problem.

Fair enough. I don't fully agree but this is well said.


That's why it's important to focus on the ideology and not the actor. The issue isn't the Muslim, it's the doctrine that radicalized the Muslim. I think that knee-jerk reactions like Trumps ban Muslims! are pretty alienating and counterproductive.

But on the flip side, what does it say about so-called moderate Muslims that the suggestion that their religious belief can be and has been used for terrorism would radicalize them? I don't think that a moderate Muslim engineer is going to all of a sudden become radicalized, quit his job, move to Syria and join Isis just because I criticize Islam. And the fact that the bogey-man of Muslim alienation is raised here is the point -- criticizing Islam isn't going to radicalize moderate Muslims.

I don't think a moderate devout Muslim in America would be radicalized in that way either, and I think we've seen that it's the less devout ones who have carried out the attacks on American soil. They are outcasts who see their Middle Eastern / Muslim heritage as their identity, and they have drawn inspiration from terrorism abroad as a way to get back at a world that has rejected them. Muslims with a secure sense of community, especially within their mosques, are not at all likely to radicalize. ISIS' hope is that they can draw division between these Muslims and America, but they will fail because they don't understand the POV of American Muslims and how good they have it here (relatively speaking).

[spankadelphia]

#NotAllMuslims are created equal.

Shiite's/Levanites/Iranians who came here in the 70's = cool for the most part

Sunni/Wahabist/Salafists = like pouring cyanide into the melting pot. Letting them into the country is complete and utter lunacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

#NotAllMuslims are created equal.

Shiite's/Levanites/Iranians who came here in the 70's = cool for the most part

Sunni/Wahabist/Salafists = like pouring cyanide into the melting pot. Letting them into the country is complete and utter lunacy.

Agreed. The 70's Lebanese and Iranians for the most part are kick ass entrepreneurs that embraced their new American life.

It is the Sharia believing assholes that don't belong here under any condition.

Anyone that supports importing hard core Muslims that believe in Sharia inescapably and undeniably support discriminating against LBGTQ's and women.

[spurraider21]

Agreed. The 70's Lebanese and Iranians for the most part are kick ass entrepreneurs that embraced their new American life.

It is the Sharia believing assholes that don't belong here under any condition.

Anyone that supports importing hard core Muslims that believe in Sharia inescapably and undeniably support discriminating against LBGTQ's and women.
disagree. people are allowed to believe whatever they want in this country. as long as they aren't practicing sharia, i have no problem with them.

just like people are free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong, etc. as long as you don't impose that belief on others, nobody should have an issue with it

[Clipper Nation]

What's with all this Joe Rogan shit?
Libshits grasping at any excuse to avoid discussing the topic (radical Islam), per par.

[RandomGuy]

I'll double down. The tl;dr is that the refusal to call out radical Islam is what enables the rise of figures like Trump.



Not really. That is some bullshit propaganda schtick, made up by people who don't really understand the problem, to create some meme to criticize a political party that sounds good to people too ignorant to recognize the schtick for what it is.

Hook.
Line.
Sinker.

"if only we called out radical islam" :lmao

All that said without watching the videos. I guess I can watch it, but doubt I am going to see anything substantive.

[boutons_deux]

Libshits grasping at any excuse to avoid discussing the topic (radical Islam), per par.

You Lie

Islamic extremists are no more acceptable than Christian Taliban, Phelps church, abortionist-murderers-for-Christ, etc, etc.

[CosmicCowboy]

disagree. people are allowed to believe whatever they want in this country. as long as they aren't practicing sharia, i have no problem with them.

just like people are free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong, etc. as long as you don't impose that belief on others, nobody should have an issue with it

I will agree to disagree. Anyone that believes in Sharia law is NEVER going to accept American values and assimilate into American society and if they don't do that they damn well need to go back to wherever the fuck they came from..

[RandomGuy]

Libshits grasping at any excuse to avoid discussing the topic (radical Islam), per par.

(shrugs)

I am happy to discuss radical Islam.

I think the charge that somehow liberals are afraid to "call a spade a spade" is bullshit. I'm not sure what "calling out" even means. It is one of those stupid, vague terms that people use when they aren't really thinking, but want to be emotional about something.

Islam, like the other abrahamic religions, is inherently violent, if you really read the holy books in any literal way.

I just don't draw any distinction between islam and christianity, or judaism that way. Most muslims, like most christians tend to ignore the parts of the books that are particularly violent.

I am, however, happy to accede that some religions, based on underlying doctrine are more violent than others. The problem is how that is really determined. What metric does one use?

[RandomGuy]

I will agree to disagree. Anyone that believes in Sharia law is NEVER going to accept American values and assimilate into American society and if they don't do that they damn well need to go back to wherever the fuck they came from..

What about practicing bible law?

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

What about the catholic church forbidding divorce?

Define "sharia", specifically, then explain how that differs from the things that Christians live by, as specifically as possible.

[boutons_deux]

I will agree to disagree. Anyone that believes in Sharia law is NEVER going to accept American values and assimilate into American society and if they don't do that they damn well need to go back to wherever the fuck they came from..

what about Jews and Christians who voluntarily submit to Jewish and Christian "law", should they "go back to wherever the fuck they came from" ?

[RandomGuy]

https://www.quora.com/For-what-reasons-can-Mormons-LDS-get-divorced

Mormon approval for divorce/remarriage is:


Approval must be obtained from the First Presidency of the Church.

Is that OK?

[RandomGuy]

Southern Baptists forced all sorts of Blue laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law


In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has held blue laws as constitutional numerous times, citing secular basis, even though the origin of the blue laws was for religious purposes. Blue laws are technically classed as "mala prohibita" or "wrong [as or because] prohibited" (as opposed to "mala in se" or "wrong or evil in itself"). Most blue laws have been repealed in the United States, although many states still ban the sale of alcoholic beverages or cars on Sundays. Bergen County, New Jersey is notable for their blue laws banning the sale of clothing, shoes, furniture, home supplies and appliances on Sundays kept through county-wide referendum.[1]

Where do we really draw the line between religious practice that tends to be informal, and giving the force of laws to something ultimately, solely, religious?

[RandomGuy]

I personally don't want any kind of purely religious bullshit forced into law, "sharia" or otherwise.

Obvious harm is obvious harm. Murder = bad.

We can all agree on that, and we don't need some made-up holy book to tell us that.

[spurraider21]

(shrugs)

I am happy to discuss radical Islam.

I think the charge that somehow liberals are afraid to "call a spade a spade" is bullshit. I'm not sure what "calling out" even means. It is one of those stupid, vague terms that people use when they aren't really thinking, but want to be emotional about something.

Islam, like the other abrahamic religions, is inherently violent, if you really read the holy books in any literal way.

I just don't draw any distinction between islam and christianity, or judaism that way. Most muslims, like most christians tend to ignore the parts of the books that are particularly violent.

I am, however, happy to accede that some religions, based on underlying doctrine are more violent than others. The problem is how that is really determined. What metric does one use?
I think the distinction is that there really is no current parallel to orginazations like ISIS in the name of other religions. At least not one of comparable size or influence. And I'm not aware of any government that endorses an actual Christian version of sharia, despite boutons and his hysteria.

What about practicing bible law?

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

What about the catholic church forbidding divorce?

Define "sharia", specifically, then explain how that differs from the things that Christians live by, as specifically as possible.
Sharia is Islamic law, but the "belief" in Sharia is the belief that a government or legal system needs to work exactly in concert with the canonical Islamic beiefs. It would be the same as a country demanding it's law be exactly like the Bible, including death penalty for striking a parent, making it legal to sell a daughter into slavery, etc. I'm not aware of any such group (a notable one) demanding that to be the law of the land.

[CosmicCowboy]

what about Jews and Christians who voluntarily submit to Jewish and Christian "law", should they "go back to wherever the fuck they came from" ?

That is an especially ignorant argument, but I would expect no less from you.

We aren't talking about self imposed dietary restrictions or other self imposed behavioral modifications based on conscience.

Sharia is a total rejection of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and US Legal system. It calls for arbritary death to LBGTQ's and treats women as slaves/property, promotes "honor" killings, etc.. It is totally irreconcilable with US societal values.

[boutons_deux]

"government or legal system needs to work exactly in concert with the canonical Islamic beiefs"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

There are Christians who want the entire legal system replaced with the Ten Commandments and the Bible.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png

[RandomGuy]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png

Sure. Happy to accede that.

I noticed you dodged the other questions.

Should we make Christianity the official state religion here?

[CosmicCowboy]

We aren't talking about a few nut jobs Boo...


The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”

[RandomGuy]

I think the distinction is that there really is no current parallel to orginazations like ISIS in the name of other religions. At least not one of comparable size or influence. And I'm not aware of any government that endorses an actual Christian version of sharia, despite boutons and his hysteria.

Sharia is Islamic law, but the "belief" in Sharia is the belief that a government or legal system needs to work exactly in concert with the canonical Islamic beiefs. It would be the same as a country demanding it's law be exactly like the Bible, including death penalty for striking a parent, making it legal to sell a daughter into slavery, etc. I'm not aware of any such group (a notable one) demanding that to be the law of the land.

You aren't paying attention. Selling daughters into slavery is not something any sane christian zealot would advocate, but there are plenty that would go a lot farther down the biblical law route than you would be comfortable with.

Setting aside, for a moment, the morality of any God that thinks slavery is ok in the first place, which the God of the bible clearly does not. That is a whole other can of worms, you might not want to open.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure. Happy to accede that.

I noticed you dodged the other questions.

Should we make Christianity the official state religion here?

No. I personally, like you, want religion out of our legal system. I could give a shit about abortion or LBGTQ's one way or another. Obviously some religious commandments that apply to civil safety like murder, theft, rape, etc. should cross over.

[spurraider21]

You aren't paying attention. Selling daughters into slavery is not something any sane christian zealot would advocate, but there are plenty that would go a lot farther down the biblical law route than you would be comfortable with.

Setting aside, for a moment, the morality of any God that thinks slavery is ok in the first place, which the God of the bible clearly does not. That is a whole other can of worms, you might not want to open.
Yeah well devout believers of sharia law don't hold the same reservations that you claim "even the most zealous Christians" would. They'd gladly enforce every tenant in the quran

[vy65]

Not really. That is some bullshit propaganda schtick, made up by people who don't really understand the problem, to create some meme to criticize a political party that sounds good to people too ignorant to recognize the schtick for what it is.

Hook.
Line.
Sinker.

"if only we called out radical islam" :lmao

All that said without watching the videos. I guess I can watch it, but doubt I am going to see anything substantive.

I already explained the argument above, but you're too lazy to see that apparently. How about you watch the videos, understand the argument, educate yourself, and then comment rather than use emojis?

[vy65]

(shrugs)

I am happy to discuss radical Islam.

I think the charge that somehow liberals are afraid to "call a spade a spade" is bullshit. I'm not sure what "calling out" even means. It is one of those stupid, vague terms that people use when they aren't really thinking, but want to be emotional about something.

That's a fair question. I think call out can mean any number of things, including: empowering moderate muslims to speak out against those who cling to sharia law, holding our leaders accountable when radical islam is clearly a cause in mass shootings, like Orlando, and being willing to identify the differences between Islam and other religions as they are practiced today to criticize beliefs like the penalty for apostasy is death.


Islam, like the other abrahamic religions, is inherently violent, if you really read the holy books in any literal way.

Also true, but the numbers of those who take the Koran literally vs. those who take the Talmud or the New Testament literally are staggering. See the chart you acceded to below for an example.


I just don't draw any distinction between islam and christianity, or judaism that way. Most muslims, like most christians tend to ignore the parts of the books that are particularly violent.

I am, however, happy to accede that some religions, based on underlying doctrine are more violent than others. The problem is how that is really determined. What metric does one use?

But there are very real differences. Ask a muslim, a christian, or a jew if they think there isn't a very real distinction between the three religions and you'll have a very different answer. And there are historical differences in both religions that make them very different as well. There have been essentially two reformations of Christianity, along with historical events like the inquisition that have had a liberalizing effect at least as evaluated today that simply aren't present for Islam.

Also, I don't know where you're getting the fact that many muslims ignore parts of the book that are particularly violent. Which muslims and what is "most" (that's a very vague word)? Are they devout or moderate? Sunni or Shia? American or Egyptian? Etc. etc.

I'm not defending Christianity. I'll concede that it a violent past and is a pretty fucked up set of beliefs. I'm like CC, religion has no place in politics. I'll go further and say that it has no place anywhere except a place of worship or your home. Period. But these concessions don't exonerate Islam. In fact, they're all the more reason why Islam is so fucked.

[vy65]

I think the distinction is that there really is no current parallel to orginazations like ISIS in the name of other religions. At least not one of comparable size or influence. And I'm not aware of any government that endorses an actual Christian version of sharia, despite boutons and his hysteria.

I agree with this, but I don't think it's limited to ISIS. ISIS isn't representative of all muslims abroad. That being said, the number of muslims who could be considered "fundamentalist" (i.e., who want Sharia) are staggering -- it's a much larger subset than, but which also includes, ISIS.