Protesters rally against Islamic law in dozens of U.S. cities

[Thakkar]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I believe references to to protests representing supposed right wing Islamophobia, and tying it to other right wing "causes" appeared on your previous posts in the topic. No problems with that, not even disagreeing. Just that if one was to sample the counter protestors its pretty likely they'll be "representative" of opposing political agendas.

 

 

Indeed. No doubt there would be overlaps. But correlation is not necessarily causation, or something like that.

 

T

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

On the topic of this thread, we don't disagree.

 

The other stuff is a different topic. I mentioned the other religious issues to illustrate that proselytizing wasn't the issue at hand. Religious interference in law-making was the issue. This is what the protest was ostensibly about, but really wasn't.

 

T

 

 

Errr no. More correctly, it would be religious interference in host countries. Generally speaking, the presence of Buddhists and Hindus in non Buddhist/Hindu dominant countries does not raise debate over their respective religion effecting laws. Its a none-starter. When it comes to Islam it does seem to be a  something talked about. Just Islamophobia? Perhaps. But then you get such views aired rather regularly by Muslims (even if these voices are the proverbial "tiny minority").

 

 

[Thakkar]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Errr no. More correctly, it would be religious interference in host countries. Generally speaking, the presence of Buddhists and Hindus in non Buddhist/Hindu dominant countries does not raise debate over their respective religion effecting laws. Its a none-starter. When it comes to Islam it does seem to be a  something talked about. Just Islamophobia? Perhaps. But then you get such views aired rather regularly by Muslims (even if these voices are the proverbial "tiny minority").

 

 

I wonder. I postulate that it's a question of scale.

If there were 1.4 billion Buddists and if colonialism had affected Buddhist-dominant countries the way it did Muslim dominant countries, or if Hinduism were more homogeneous, would the story be that different? I don't know.

 

T

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I wonder. I postulate that it's a question of scale.

If there were 1.4 billion Buddists and if colonialism had affected Buddhist-dominant countries the way it did Muslim dominant countries, or if Hinduism were more homogeneous, would the story be that different? I don't know.

 

T

 

That would depend on just how much blame can be placed on colonialism before the premise breaks down. Then there's demonstrating that colonialism affected other countries differently, rather than them reacting differently. But hey - I'm not into supposed collective guilt trips, historical or otherwise.

 

Things are what they are. Buddhism and Buddhists, Hinduism and Hindus are a non-issue in Western societies. Turning to explanations resting on Islamophobia, colonialism, bigotry, and right wing politics doesn't quite explain that.

[Thakkar]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would depend on just how much blame can be placed on colonialism before the premise breaks down. Then there's demonstrating that colonialism affected other countries differently, rather than them reacting differently. But hey - I'm not into supposed collective guilt trips, historical or otherwise.

 

Things are what they are. Buddhism and Buddhists, Hinduism and Hindus are a non-issue in Western societies. Turning to explanations resting on Islamophobia, colonialism, bigotry, and right wing politics doesn't quite explain that.

We are veering way off topic, but your question is too interesting to ignore.

 

I think you are asking whether Islam is inherently more assertive.

 

It could be, but I don't know enough to answer that. Also, it's a huge endeavor ( as you allude) to parse the various affects of colonialism, CIA mischief in training the Mujehadeen and financing the fanatic Zia Ul Haq, Saudi Wahabi well-financed shenanigans and a host of other things.

 

T

 

edit: Also, if we carry on along this line, it could easily end up looking like I'm an apologist for terrorism and you a proponent of islamophobia even though neither of us are either of those.

 

cheers.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Thakkar

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

We are veering way off topic, but your question is too interesting to ignore.

 

I think you are asking whether Islam is inherently more assertive.

 

It could be, but I don't know enough to answer that. Also, it's a huge endeavor ( as you allude) to parse the various affects of colonialism, CIA mischief in training the Mujehadeen and financing the fanatic Zia Ul Haq, Saudi Wahabi well-financed shenanigans and a host of other things.

 

T

 

Oh, I'm not asking, really. It's pretty much out there.

Got to love the "host of other things" bit, as opposed to the list of supposed Western sins.

But as you say, out of this topic's scope.

 

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, I'm not asking, really. It's pretty much out there.

Got to love the "host of other things" bit, as opposed to the list of supposed Western sins.

But as you say, out of this topic's scope.

 

There's no question the Islam is assertive today. But whether it is inherently so, or whether it became that way is a topic worth parsing. Elsewhere.

 

T

[YetAnother]

saria law: dont kill but ok if woman infidel' 

[iReason]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Got to love the "host of other things" bit, as opposed to the list of supposed Western sins.

 

"Supposed"?

 

 

Did you really say that?

 

Just a rhetorical question.

So please, no need to answer it.

Because it's glaringly apparent, you have no grasp of history.

 

And there will be nothing of substance to come from a debate based on such an ignorant assumption.

[simple1]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That would depend on just how much blame can be placed on colonialism before the premise breaks down. Then there's demonstrating that colonialism affected other countries differently, rather than them reacting differently. But hey - I'm not into supposed collective guilt trips, historical or otherwise.

 

Things are what they are. Buddhism and Buddhists, Hinduism and Hindus are a non-issue in Western societies. Turning to explanations resting on Islamophobia, colonialism, bigotry, and right wing politics doesn't quite explain that.

Just as a comment. Hindu cultural practices contrary to Western countries legislation is fairly well known to law enforcement / NGOs, but under reported in the media thereby mostly avoiding attention by the general public. Of course you are correct in that Hindu groups do not lobby in Western countries for changes to enacted law to support their illegal practices.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, iReason said:

 

"Supposed"?

 

 

Did you really say that?

 

Just a rhetorical question.

So please, no need to answer it.

Because it's glaringly apparent, you have no grasp of history.

 

And there will be nothing of substance to come from a debate based on such an ignorant assumption.

 

Supposed. Just so.

Not with regard to events taking place, but with applied moral interpretations and  judgements, hence "sins".

If you need an easy to comprehend reference look up what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

Now eat your nothingburger like a good boy and try to calm down, or at least remember your manners.

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Just as a comment. Hindu cultural practices contrary to Western countries legislation is fairly well known to law enforcement / NGOs, but under reported in the media thereby mostly avoiding attention by the general public. Of course you are correct in that Hindu groups do not lobby in Western countries for changes to enacted law to support their illegal practices.

 

I was under the impression we're dealing with the latter bit, not the former. Having lived and worked in India, I'm aware how things are. As posted elsewhere, people may disapprove of things happening in other countries, a whole different level of magnitude when the same seem to be imported to their backyard.

 

Not a suggestion that this applied to the US, not the hyperbolic nonsense about Europe's upcoming Islamification. Just acknowledging that compared to other religious groups, Islam pushes harder. Some may say it's a matter of biased/misguided perceptions, I'd say that living in mixed communities in a few countries might provide another point of view.  

[iReason]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

Supposed. Just so.

Not with regard to events taking place, but with applied moral interpretations and  judgements, hence "sins".

If you need an easy to comprehend reference look up what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

Now eat your nothingburger like a good boy and try to calm down, or at least remember your manners.

 

Patronizing gibberish...

[Morch]

16 hours ago, iReason said:

 

"Supposed"?

 

 

Did you really say that?

 

Just a rhetorical question.

So please, no need to answer it.

Because it's glaringly apparent, you have no grasp of history.

 

And there will be nothing of substance to come from a debate based on such an ignorant assumption.

 

1 minute ago, iReason said:

 

Patronizing gibberish...

 

Indeed.

[crankshaft]

On 6/11/2017 at 2:50 AM, Jingthing said:

That's not the point. 

The xenophobic protesters were suggesting this is a threat in the U.S.

It is NOT. 

It is a threat. To ignore evidence in other countries that have sharia law is to live in ignorance. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, crankshaft said:

It is a threat. To ignore evidence in other countries that have sharia law is to live in ignorance. 

Why not protest against the Chinese legal system? Or the Russian legal system? If they were instituted in the USA, that would be really bad, too. But there's no more likelihood of that happening than there is of Sharia law being instituted in the USA.

[Jingthing]

It is a threat. To ignore evidence in other countries that have sharia law is to live in ignorance. 

Not a threat in the USA.

Next ...

[Thakkar]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Why not protest against the Chinese legal system? Or the Russian legal system? If they were instituted in the USA, that would be really bad, too. But there's no more likelihood of that happening than there is of Sharia law being instituted in the USA.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Russian legal system...

 

?

 

T

[Orton Rd]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Not a threat in the USA.

Next ...

But a threat to gays, several Muslim countries with sharia still have the death penalty practicing homosexuals. I would say that is a threat.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

But a threat to gays, several Muslim countries with sharia still have the death penalty practicing homosexuals. I would say that is a threat.

Yes, but it was a USA protest about the imaginary threat of Sharia law in the USA.

Back to reality, in the USA, right wing extremist fundamentalist CHRISTIAN Vice President Pence is a much greater threat to gays in the USA than Sharia law. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Jingthing

[rijb]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, but it was a USA protest about the imaginary threat of Sharia law in the USA.

Back to reality, in the USA, right wing extremist fundamentalist CHRISTIAN Vice President Pence is a much greater threat to gays in the USA than Sharia law. 

Speaking of "imaginary threats" ...   

[Jingthing]

Just now, rijb said:

Speaking of "imaginary threats" ...   

No. 

Very real.

The U.S. government has been taken over by a crew of virulently anti-gay politicians mostly justified with Christian fundamentalism. 

They don't throw off buildings, but they're against equal civil rights. 

[rijb]

38 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. 

Very real.

The U.S. government has been taken over by a crew of virulently anti-gay politicians mostly justified with Christian fundamentalism. 

They don't throw off buildings, but they're against equal civil rights. 

Being against gay civil rights isn't the same as violating gay civil rights.  For blacks, the shit is real...not imaginary.

[Smarter Than You]

The Oath Keepers are far right nutters (as are the rest of those in these mobs).

 

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

 

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, rijb said:

Being against gay civil rights isn't the same as violating gay civil rights.  For blacks, the shit is real...not imaginary.

The shit is real for gays too.

If you really want to discuss this, open a thread on the gay forum.

 

[Thakkar]

10 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

<snip>

 

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

 

 

I love that line.

[Smarter Than You]

Just now, Thakkar said:

 

I love that line.

Eric Hoffer - True Believer

 

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, rijb said:

You deduced all that because I won't follow your orders to open a thread?!  

Have fun with your games. I'm familiar with your tactics. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Many would but American Muslims are among the most liberal  Muslims on social issues in the world. 

Also, they are only a teeny tiny percentage of the population in the USA. 

Again, my point on this is that this was about a protest in the USA protesting something that is not a real threat in the USA.

actually, the Pew foundation did a huge survey a while ago about the attitudes of various religious groups in the USA. American Muslims were more accepting of gay marriage than evangelicals.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.   Please stay on topic.