Muslim world Hypocrisy

[Michael Hardner]

So, on this forum it's expected that no poster use the term "many" or any word other than an exact number that is accounted for by a reputable cite.

Feel free to use whatever words you like, following the rules and guidelines.

Do that or it's not real. Is that what you are meaning to say?

Please don't be offended but I am getting tired of people who drape their assertions in uncertainty, presumably so that they can have an 'out'.

Everything in the world has a cite or it's not real?

No, but my neighbour Elvis Presley told me to tell you not to believe everything people say....

I'm just curious here as I'm new.

Ok - read the Rules and Guidelines and you should be caught up.

[cybercoma]

So, on this forum it's expected that no poster use the term "many" or any word other than an exact number that is accounted for by a reputable cite. Do that or it's not real. Is that what you are meaning to say? Everything in the world has a cite or it's not real? How can one be expected to find a cite for every single thing they ever say on a forum? Wouldn't that practice make the forum move really slowly? I'm just curious here as I'm new.

Thanks in advance. Ciao.

These are guidelines for creating credible posts that are persuasive. If you just want to rant and rave with unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, then uninformed ideologues may nod their heads with approval, but any rational thinker is just going to dismiss your arguments. The guidelines are there to help posters have a little more credibility. Citing official sources is part of that. It's not necessary, but don't complain when people don't give your arguments much weight when they're not supported by facts that can be corroborated.

[Rue]

Michael H you are engaging as what on this thread-a moderator or participant? When you start quoting rules do you do so as a moderator or thread participant. As a thread participant you should not-that is a moderator's role not yours. You again show a conflict in your switching back and forth between moderator and participant and it gives you an unfair advantage.

Please correct me if I am wrong and I will accept it. My perception is you are a participant on this thread, not moderator which is the basis of my entire comment.

I am trying to state it with respect by the way not as an insult. I might disagree with some of your moderator rulings but I respect anyone crazy enough to do that thankless task including you. I am the first to admit any of us do not have clear perspective as to our own comments and so its crucial we get neutral refereeing at times from someone with no vested interest stated in the debate. That is my point.

As for Cyber's comments, Cyber, Canada 1 did not rave or rant he stated his opinion which is his clear right and asked questions. Your decision to say he raved and ranted is in my opinion an attempt to attack him personally and try portray him as not being rational.

I think you are dead wrong in that exercise and should have been called out on it but I am not sure who the moderator on this thread is Michael H or someone else so I leave my comment out in the open for now and ask you not to refer to his opinion as a rave or rant.

It was not. Yes this thread can if not expressed properly engage in negative stereotypes against all Muslims however Canada was trying to point out that it is not anti Muslim to express criticism of extreme Islamic beliefs that support terrorism and violence. That was his point. His point is Muslim terrorists hide behind the word Muslim as a shield to avoid criticism and when their extreme views are criticized, they portray themselves as victims of anti Muslim hatred. Its not their being Muslim that is criticized, its their using Islam to be terrorist and justify terrorists that is criticized and that is the right of members on this forum to do.

If you think someone is crapping on Muslims simply because they are Muslim point out the words you think did that. You have not, you have chosen instead just to insult Canada. I stand by his comments.

Get it from me directly as I will repeat what he and I and many others state-Muslim extremism is problematic-if you want to suggest we can't state the extremist is Muslim in nature because it insults all Muslims you are wrong and you insult Muslims who are against the extremism done in the name of their religion as well. Muslim terrorists don't get to pull the Muslim card to avoid criticism.

You want to criticize me for being a Zionist-go ahead but don't inter-mix it with the word Jew and say I am not allowed to express my Jewishness as a nationality. If you think I support terrorism or hatred of Palestinians because I believe Jews have a right to a state no different than Muslims have sharia law states or Anglicans a state, back it up. Show me how that makes me hate Palestinians when I want the exact same thing for them. Show me.

Show me one post where I have stated I hate Palestinians and do not want them to have state and think they should all be driven into the sea.

Show me where I call for a world wide Jewish state and demand non Jews convert or be killed. Show me my charter that calls for that. Show me my fellow Zionists demanding a worldwide Jewish state and call the West an infidel abomination in need of wiping out.

Show me the bomb attacks across Europe I engage in. Show me-because that is what is being criticized.

You know what Cyber-\I have stated many times, I denounce any Jew who in the name of Judaism believes our religion gives him the right to force conversion on others, kill when it is not in self defence, and who believes he should have 4 wives, and does not have to treat others as he himself demands to be treated. Show me where I support a Jew who would take our religion and twist and spin it otherwise.

I like most Zionists detest the death of Palestinians and their inability to break free of terrorism and Muslim extremism and find a way to live side by side us. I hate it and I hate extremists not Palestinians.

Canada 1's argument holds me to the same standard. He has the perfect right to criticizemy Jewish beliefs if I believe I can kill him in the name of God and impose my religion on him.

For God's sake what has happened in these posts. We see people try engage in lilberal knee jerk reaction like you to criticism of Muslim extremism, but when have you ever come on this board and expressed a concern for the bashing that has gone on against Jews and for that matter Christians?

Change the word from Muslim to Christian or Jew-are you really that concerned?

Your point would have some semblance of credibility if it was consistent-its not, its selective who you become outraged over.

[marcus]

Muslim extremism is problematic

Thank you for the short story about Muslim extremism. Looks like you missed the thread name and the original poster's first post. You are the only one talking about Muslim extremists.

[sharkman]

Feel free to use whatever words you like, following the rules and guidelines.

Ok - read the Rules and Guidelines and you should be caught up.

That comes off sounding a little glib. You're the "Forum Facilitator" here and you can probably do better than to merely suggest one read the rules since they are applied so tightly concerning the Muslim faith and on the other hand, a 68 page thread making fun of Christianity is rolling right along.

Edited June 10, 2015 by sharkman

[msj]

Hmmm, seems that someone is forgetting the myriad of anti Muslim threads throughout the forum.

A 55 page one where I have been particularly active and called "this week in Islam" has produced lots of fodder for those of us who pee on all superstitious belief systems and their strange ideas resulting in strange behaviours.

I have also created threads about fundamentalist sexist Jews who want airlines to move women around airplanes.

IOW, one can be critical of the ideas of religion for the ideas are often stupid.

Religious people, however, are mostly fine and should not be mocked.

Once again: people should not be mocked but ideas can and should be.

I think understanding this distinction will help people navigate these forums better.

[Michael Hardner]

...are applied so tightly concerning the Muslim faith and on the other hand, a 68 page thread making fun of Christianity is rolling right along.

I feel the same way about criticism of Christians as Muslims - msj captured the objective view very well in their post above IMO.

[Rue]

MSJ I appreciate you and Michael feel you are on a higher moral ground than others. Thus you made the statement religious people are mostly fine and should not be mocked. But that last statement was an absolute crock and steamy pile of dung.

I am not sure who that pronouncement was for but let me make this clear, on this thread you and Michael are participants so couch your opinion as such no as an edict. It comes across pompous an arrogant.

Yes people criticize certain practices in Islam or terrorists who claim its Islam that justifies their right to engage in it. If you think the Sharia law advocated in Iraq, Iran, Isil, Saudi Arabia can't be criticized because as MSJ pronounces its "mostly fine" I say oh get real- off your moral high horse because its a toilet seat as far as I am concerned.

I also state it again-Michael and MSJ your concern about Muslims being falsely stereotyped sounds wonderful but you are selective when you get concerned as to who is being stereotyped.

When I hear the two of you come on this forum and say stop stereotype in all Jews, Zionists, Israelis, Westerners, Americans, the same way you do Muslims, I might take you more seriously. You don't. You select when you are outraged and who you feel is an unfair victim and that makes your comments for me just things you should flush before you get off the throne you put yourself on.

[Michael Hardner]

If you think the Sharia law advocated in Iraq, Iran, Isil, Saudi Arabia can't be criticized because as MSJ pronounces its "mostly fine" I say oh get real- off your moral high horse because its a toilet seat as far as I am concerned.

Sorry - you misunderstood. MSJ said "Religious people are mostly fine."

Read it again and maybe we'll be ok.

you are selective when you get concerned as to who is being stereotyped.

I challenge you to come up with a single example of a negative stereotype I have stated towards another group. I have no such opinion. I think that challenge will probably end this idea that I harbour stereotypes towards groups.

[msj]

Um, of course Sharia law should be criticized: it's an idea.

But if I were a supporter of such law (I'm an atheist so guess what my views are) and you called me names because of that (say you called me crazy as I have been called in another thread) then you are playing the player and not the ball. Show me all the reasons why Sharia law itself is bad then you have no problem. In this case it is easy to show how bad that type of law is.

I have not made any specific arguments that Muslims have been attacked for being Muslim though I'm sure it has happened somewhere at sometime. Just as I'm sure people have said mean things towards Jews and Christians etc.

Once again: the ideas and resulting behaviour can be criticized but to attack a person or group of people themselves should not be.

I think believing in religion is mostly bad. But I also believe a person has a right to believe in fairy tales even if I think such beliefs and fairy tales are stupid. That does not mean the person is stupid, or, even if I think it does, it is not helpful to point out the person's stupidity when all you have to do is criticize the ideas. And if those ideas are stupid it should be easy to pick on them while not picking on the person.

I don't see how/why this concept should be considered controversial or pompous.

The latter being an ad hominem attack and a fine example of attacking the person rather than the ideas.

[Argus]

Religious people, however, are mostly fine and should not be mocked.

Once again: people should not be mocked but ideas can and should be.

If a devoutly religious person is expressing a stupid idea about how women should all be covered in bedsheets and infidels should die, well, it's not just the idea that's going to get mocked. The same for a religious person who won't sit next to women, or who spits on women (literally) for not being conservatively dressed enough to suit him.

Do you think these people are 'fine' and should be respected?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/8-year-old-israeli-girl-face-clash-moderates-ultra-orthodox-jews-article-1.997389

Edited June 10, 2015 by Argus

[msj]

These people in particular do not get respect.

And yes, they deserve to be mocked/criticized to the extent that bad ideas leads to such abhorrent behaviours.

I will not, however, go on a tirade about Orthodox Jews as a group being the "evil" of the world and this is just another example of how evil those "dirty" etc etc [make up your own bigoted statements here] Jews are.

So, at the individual level, yes people can be mocked/criticized for the bad ideas and/or poor behaviour they exhibit.

But, once again, the focus should be on the ideas and resulting behaviour.

That's really all that I'm trying to get across.

[Argus]

These people in particular do not get respect.

And yes, they deserve to be mocked/criticized to the extent that bad ideas leads to such abhorrent behaviours.

I will not, however, go on a tirade about Orthodox Jews as a group being the "evil" of the world and this is just another example of how evil those "dirty" etc etc [make up your own bigoted statements here] Jews are.

So, at the individual level, yes people can be mocked/criticized for the bad ideas and/or poor behaviour they exhibit.

And that is reasonable. Yet what if the behaviour is something which is widespread among a community? Does that not indicate a problem with the community as a whole? Especially when it continues unimpeded and unabated for decades? If there is a problem with a community which is unduly affecting other communities and that community refuses to address it, cannot the entire community be considered worthy of criticism?

Father Samuel Aghoyan, a senior Armenian Orthodox cleric in Jerusalem's Old City, says he's been spat at by young haredi and national Orthodox Jews "about 15 to 20 times" in the past decade. The last time it happened, he said, was earlier this month. "I was walking back from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and I saw this boy in a yarmulke and ritual fringes coming back from the Western Wall, and he spat at me two or three times." Wearing a dark-blue robe, sitting in St. James's Church, the main Armenian church in the Old City, Aghoyan said, "Every single priest in this church has been spat on. It happens day and night." Father Athanasius, a Texas-born Franciscan monk who heads the Christian Information Center inside the Jaffa Gate, said he's been spat at by haredi and national Orthodox Jews "about 15 times in the last six months" - not only in the Old City, but also on Rehov Agron near the Franciscan friary. "One time a bunch of kids spat at me, another time a little girl spat at me," said the brown-robed monk near the Jaffa Gate. "All 15 monks at our friary have been spat at," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Mouths-filled-with-hatred

Edited June 10, 2015 by Argus

[msj]

And that is reasonable. Yet what if the behaviour is something which is widespread among a community? Does that not indicate a problem with the community as a whole? Especially when it continues unimpeded and unabated for decades? If there is a problem with a community which is unduly affecting other communities and that community refuses to address it, cannot the entire community be considered worthy of criticism?

This is starting to sound like the Bible.

Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah - to paraphrase: oh Lord, what if there is one just man living there? Lets send down your Angels, I [Lot] will offer up my daughters for rape by the wicked townsfolk in lieu of raping the Angels and then smite them good!

But really, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

Once again, the focus should be on the bad ideas resulting in the poor behaviour rather than the group of people who have those ideas. Anyone can hold bad ideas and behave poorly so what point is there to dwell on this group or that group?

Sure, I realize we will use general terms at times about groups etc but as long as the focus shifts to the ideas/behaviours rather than the people themselves then all should be fine.

This is why my thread about Orthodox Jews is fine - it was meant to focus on the issues of religious freedom and bigotry having real world effects on people (such as delaying flights).

It was not meant in any way to focus on Jews or to bash Jews in particular.

The same can probably be said about the thread "This week in Islam" which shows the bad ideas and bad behaviours resulting from Islam by some Muslims.

So a person who is too general about groups and focusses on the group to bash that group is going to get moderation action.

The person who is interested in discussing the issues raised by said group is not.

[Michael Hardner]

Once again, the focus should be on the bad ideas resulting in the poor behaviour rather than the group of people who have those ideas. Anyone can hold bad ideas and behave poorly so what point is there to dwell on this group or that group?

The point is that you can make yourself feel GREAT by defining a group, of course of people different from you, then generalizing that group as having a negative attribute that you don't share.

The fun part is - they do it too !

Do you know what prejudiced anti-American anti-Canadian types say about us ?

That we're fat, lazy, stupid porn addicts.

Hard to argue.

[msj]

Do you know what prejudiced anti-American anti-Canadian types say about us ?

That we're fat, lazy, stupid porn addicts.

Hard to argue.

Hard to disagree.

Although I'm not fat, I work quite hard (but not as hard as I have seen people work in Vietnam, for example) and may have seen porn in my day (caught with Hustler magazines when I was 9 and I know what youporn/pornhub is).

So yeah, some truth to the stereotype.

But so what?

That's the part that I no longer get.

Why focus on the group when it is the ideas/behaviours that should be the focus?

Not to say that the group should not be mentioned - although carefully and in proper context.

Once that is out of the way lets get down to "why" and leave the "who" in the background.

[Michael Hardner]

But so what?

That's the part that I no longer get.

I think people *like* to do it, maybe as a way to create an identity. It builds confidence in those who aren't confident maybe ? There are many possible reasons.

I definitely did things like this when I was younger, maybe not to religions and races but to 'groups' that I felt should be 'blamed' for 'problems'.

It was/is an unevolved social reaction.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Do you know what prejudiced anti-American anti-Canadian types say about us ?

Interesting CanAm linkage for a "Canadian forum"...must be automatic.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting CanAm linkage for a "Canadian forum"...must be automatic.

Go to Europe and tell people you're from Canada. I did and they just called me "l'americain"

[bush_cheney2004]

Go to Europe and tell people you're from Canada. I did and they just called me "l'americain"

Very well....just confirming the mind set....consistent as always, unlike Muslim hypocrisy.

[Michael Hardner]

Very well....just confirming the mind set....consistent as always, unlike Muslim hypocrisy.

Choosing of 'groups', choosing of 'state' tends to be done to confirm biases. Canadians and Americans are the two most similar peoples I can think of.

[cybercoma]

Interesting CanAm linkage for a "Canadian forum"...must be automatic.

You know Canada is part of The Americas too, right?

[Rue]

MSJ gave me a strong and well provided response. Appreciated.As for you Michael H as well as MSJ I am debating your positions if they went over board and attack you as people, I apologize. I respect both of you and simply disagree with the positions you state not you as people. You Michael H get blasts from me but over your positions I do not mean to ever suggest you are hateful or MSJ is. You are both respected its the positions I mean to blast away at not you 2. MSJ has points as do you being excellently defended. Please continue to debate and challenge me and understand I mean no personal attack. Thank you.

Are you serious Michael H....Canadians and Americans are two most similar people Michael Harder you can think of. .Oh wait let me guess we have the same shaped noses.

Mr.Harder you just provided your own unsubstantiated subjective bias by stating that while making he illogical pronouncement that choosing a group or state during discussion automatically must engage in bias?

No. I would argue context determines whether a statement is bias, not the mere choosing of a group or state.

Furthermore you are playing a weak card. Each and every discussion between humans has generalization or calls on others to use generalized categories, otherwise no conversation could take place. Using your standard no one should ever discuss anything.

Our very cognitive processes generalize and are selective and therefore bias to discern patterns from what would otherwise appear chaos.

The point is not we are all bias despite your insistence you are not-get off that morally righteous horse.

Biases, or generalizations, even discrimination, provided its not negative, i.e., it does not hurt, abuse people is not the issue, negative bias is and that is when we challenge it-that is the point. If you try pose yourself as a model of moral righteousness and neutrality of course my making that personal, I then respond to it and mock it. Don't then say I am getting personal but please, don\t pose yourself as a saint. In my life, those who pose as being holy and righteous usually get caught in public bathrooms doing nasty things that make stains.

Again can we get real. Michael/MSJ In your world it would appear you are arguing any attempt to use the word Muslim is negative and necessarily bias and so you have been challenged on that and you have yet to be able to mount a logical rebuttal other than to make comments expressing your own subjective biases and asking people to assume your biases are better ones.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

No, it means none of those things.

[Michael Hardner]

Also the last paragraph is a gross mischaracterization.