Is it racist to hate Muslim extremists?

[Canadian Blue]

I don't see why Christians and Muslims on the right can't join hands, and then with their other hands stone gays and feminists.

It's interesting that many of those most opposed to Islamic extremism seem to concur with the extremists on many basic principles. Intolerance of "foreign" cultural influences? Check. Disdain, if not outright hatred, for women and homosexuals? Check. Love of "traditional values" (read: ethno-religious chauvanism)? Check. The belief in the utility of violence? Checkaroonie. Hatrded of "weakness," "softeness" and othe r"

feminie" attributes? Check-o-rama. I really wonder why they can't just get along.

Black Dog, people on the right have supported Islamic fundamentalism. Many believe the "cultural left" is to blame for 9/11.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=80900

[ScottSA]

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=80900

No wonder you're an intellectual lightweigtht. Hint: citing comedy central is not viewed as scholarly.

[Black Dog]

No wonder you're an intellectual lightweigtht. Hint: citing comedy central is not viewed as scholarly.

Way to stay above the fray of personal attacks, champ.

CB: D'Souza's aplogia to Islamic fundamentalism was discussed here.

[Black Dog]

Yeah, excellent strawman. Unfortunately most of my colleagues on the right are far more tolerant than I am, although I don't think anyone on the right is anti-women. That's just silly. As is traditional values...I don't know anyone on the right who thinks stoning homosexuals and women is a good traditional value.

It's simply a matter of degrees, really. So you don't want to actually stone gays or women who don't conform to your expectations to death: but I'm sure you'd like to see soem legal and social restrictions on them. It's not a testament to moderation as it is to the limits we've managed to put on nutty expressions of belief.

What I find incredibly ironic is that the so-called 'progressives', the ones who will be up against the wall first, are the ones preaching tolerance for a religion that is against everything they believe to be good.

It's called consistency. Tolerance sometimes requires tolerating the existence of abhorrant ideas in the name of personal freedom.

Fortunately, there's no danger of any of us being up against the wall for our beliefs anytime soon. If there were though, I know who'd be ratting us out.

[Canadian Blue]

No wonder you're an intellectual lightweigtht. Hint: citing comedy central is not viewed as scholarly.

No, I think you'll agree with alot of what Dinesh says since he believes that gays and feminists are destroying us.

What I find incredibly ironic is that the so-called 'progressives', the ones who will be up against the wall first, are the ones preaching tolerance for a religion that is against everything they believe to be good.

I'm sure that the ones who will be the first to rat out the so-called progressives are the ones who have a rabid intolerance of them. So basically anyone of the far right of the political spectrum. After all, I believe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed gays and feminists for 9/11.

[Canadian Blue]

Yeah, excellent strawman. Unfortunately most of my colleagues on the right are far more tolerant than I am, although I don't think anyone on the right is anti-women.

No, people on the far right just think that some women want to turn us into fem-bots.

I don't know anyone on the right who thinks stoning homosexuals and women is a good traditional value.

The far right just wants gays to be jailed for it. Which is much better.

[Figleaf]

...you're an intellectual lightweigtht. ...

Reported.

[Peter F]

It's disturbing and polemical, but it's true. What's far worse than that, before the progressive brigade trots out medieval counterexamples, is that while Christianity has moved on from its Cathar heresies and Holy Land Crusades, Islam never did. Islam today is identical to Islam in the 6th century. You may know Muslims who don't fit my "bigoted" stereotype, but you obviously don't know Islam.

True, I wouldn't want to drag out any references to Medieval Christian behaviour - since they (unlike your example of the taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453) are hopelessy out of date.

Hows about the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims? or European Jews? Fairly recent examples of mans inhumanity towards Man - and not perpretrated by Muslims.

We are as much a bunch of pricks as they are.

[ScottSA]

Yeah, excellent strawman. Unfortunately most of my colleagues on the right are far more tolerant than I am, although I don't think anyone on the right is anti-women. That's just silly. As is traditional values...I don't know anyone on the right who thinks stoning homosexuals and women is a good traditional value.

It's simply a matter of degrees, really. So you don't want to actually stone gays or women who don't conform to your expectations to death: but I'm sure you'd like to see soem legal and social restrictions on them. It's not a testament to moderation as it is to the limits we've managed to put on nutty expressions of belief.

No, its simply a matter of strawmanship. It's a common tactic among your compatriots on the left to take the most radical form of fundamentalist social conservatism and paint it as representative of the mainstream rightwing. It's a silly tactic, but certainly in keeping with the left, who has been enamored of reductionist bumper sticker slogans since Lenin first discovered their utility. Most of the rightwing are if anything social libertarians and economic individualists. Individualism is an interesting concept, juxtaposed as it is against collectivism. Collectivism defines the left perhaps better than any other concept, from the 'class' of Marx to the 'volk' of Hitler. It's not surprising that Islam is also based upon collectivism, viewing its adherents as the 'Ummah'. You see, just because someone doesn't think homosexuals and women need special priviledges in society, doesn't mean they "Hate" homosexuals or women. Many women and homosexuals feel that special protections and priviledges tend to hurt them more than help them. So really, your argument is pointless because your premise is faulty. If you want to frame issues out of all semblence to reality, go ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

[ScottSA]

It's disturbing and polemical, but it's true. What's far worse than that, before the progressive brigade trots out medieval counterexamples, is that while Christianity has moved on from its Cathar heresies and Holy Land Crusades, Islam never did. Islam today is identical to Islam in the 6th century. You may know Muslims who don't fit my "bigoted" stereotype, but you obviously don't know Islam.

True, I wouldn't want to drag out any references to Medieval Christian behaviour - since they (unlike your example of the taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453) are hopelessy out of date.

Hows about the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims? or European Jews? Fairly recent examples of mans inhumanity towards Man - and not perpretrated by Muslims.

We are as much a bunch of pricks as they are.

But that's not the point, is it? Collectivist Nazism killed Jews. Serbians killed Bosnian Muslims with approximately the same gusto that Bosnian Muslims killed Serbians. You may have noticed that "we" didn't jump up and down and cheer it on across the globe either. You may have noticed that Christians are not blowing up things in Islamic lands in the name of Christ.

[ScottSA]

...you're an intellectual lightweigtht. ...

Reported.

I'll keep that in mind and report any slips by you in the future.

[Canadian Blue]

No, its simply a matter of strawmanship. It's a common tactic among your compatriots on the left to take the most radical form of fundamentalist social conservatism and paint it as representative of the mainstream rightwing. It's a silly tactic, but certainly in keeping with the left, who has been enamored of reductionist bumber sticker slogans since Lenin first discovered their utility.

Many find those on the right wing to be intolerant, and you are living proof of that. I'm not a big fan of Lenin, but I always liked FDR and Tommy Douglas.

Most of the rightwing are if anything social libertarians and economic individualists. Individualism is an interesting concept, juxtaposed as it is against collectivism.

Libertarianism means full support of gay rights and abortion rights. Which would mean that what your describing isn't right wing conservatism, but libertarianism.

You see, just because someone doesn't think homosexuals and women need special priviledges in society, doesn't mean they "Hate" homosexuals or women.

What special privilidges, do you mean equal rights???

Many women and homosexuals feel that special protections and priviledges tend to hurt them more than help them.

I haven't found many homosexuals opposed to gay marriage. For that matter I haven't found many women who are opposed to equality in the workplace.

[Canadian Blue]

But that's not the point, is it? Collectivist Nazism killed Jews.

Adolf Hitler was right wing. As well many churches went along with the fascists in the early 20th century.

You may have noticed that Christians are not blowing up things in Islamic lands in the name of Christ.

No, we just blow things up in Islamic lands in the name of freedom and democracy.

[ScottSA]

Once again, your startling inability to grasp basic facts renders your posts...well, suffice it to say that while libertarians, and I, couldn't care less what homosexuals do, libertarians are certainly not for collective special priviledges for homosexuals, or women, or anyone else. The left has tried to frame this as "anti", but it's clearly not.

As usual, you use the particular-general fallacy: ["I haven't found any"...therefore there must not be any. ] There are. There are lots...it's just that they don't stand on streetcorners and holler slogans like the special priviledges groups do.

[ScottSA]

But that's not the point, is it? Collectivist Nazism killed Jews.

Adolf Hitler was right wing. As well many churches went along with the fascists in the early 20th century.

This discussion has been had. Nazism had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with Christianity. You're wrong, but I don't have time to educate you about it. Anyway, it's a red herring to direct attention away from Islam and its fundamental celebration of violence.

[Canadian Blue]

Once again, your startling inability to grasp basic facts renders your posts...well, suffice it to say that while libertarians, and I, couldn't care less what homosexuals do, libertarians are certainly not for collective special priviledges for homosexuals, or women, or anyone else. The left has tried to frame this as "anti", but it's clearly not.

What are these "collective" special privileges for homosexuals and women? Gays just got the right to marry. As for women, what privileges have they recieved that we should be so worried about?

Your inability to present anything to counter the argument shows that you can't grasp basic facts yourself.

As usual, you use the particular-general fallacy: ["I haven't found any"...therefore there must not be any. ] There are. There are lots...it's just that they don't stand on streetcorners and holler slogans like the special priviledges groups do.

Special privileges groups, who are these special privilege groups?

[Canadian Blue]

This discussion has been had. Nazism had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with Christianity. You're wrong, but I don't have time to educate you about it. Anyway, it's a red herring to direct attention away from Islam and its fundamental celebration of violence.

Here you go...

http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_role_church.asp

The role of anti-Judaism in Germany's Churches during the Nazi era was a complicated one. Throughout the 1930s, there was ample evidence of anti-Semitism in many of the sermons and articles that appeared in the German Churches' publications. Some German Church leaders proudly announced that they were anti-Semites. Others, who weren't anti-Semitic, nevertheless warned their colleagues against any public show of support for the Jewish victims of the Nazi regime. Christian anti-Semitism often complemented other factors -- notably, the strong nationalism in the German Protestant Churches. The most extreme example of this combination of anti-Semitism and nationalism was the so-called German Christian Movement, a Protestant group that embraced Nazism and tried to Nazify Christianity by suppressing the Old Testament, revising liturgies and hymns, and promoting Jesus as an Aryan hero who embodied the ideals of the new Germany.

From your quote...

This discussion has been had. Nazism had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with Christianity. You're wrong, but I don't have time to educate you about it. Anyway, it's a red herring to direct attention away from Islam and its fundamental celebration of violence.

Does anybody else think it odd that someone who celebrated violence as being a "masculine" attribute to be proud of is now denouncing Islamic violence simply because of the scary Muslims.

[M.Dancer]

Finding Christian churches that were anti semetic is not the same as finding christain churches that were pro nazi. Something like the argument from Foucault's pendulem

All Great apes evolved from lower life forms, man evolved from lower life forms, therefore man is a great ape

The german Christian Movement was a fringe group that attaracted less than 2% of protestant germans. On top of that, despite their name, they weren't a christian group.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...704/ai_n8765828

[Charles Anthony]

What kind of an asinine question is that?

My asinine question is of the kind that is more worthy of debate than yours.

Of course they are "free" to rat out extremists.

Fine. How about you identify the following:

1) who you are talking about

2) to whom should they rat out extremists

3) are they as "free" as you?

You also, in a previous post, used the usual fallacious counterargument used by the 'progressive' brigade; from the particular to the general: "I know Muslims who don't fit your definition..." (whatever you think that definition is), thereby implying that most Muslims do not fit my definition.

Stop right there.

You never defined your ambiguous term. Unless you do, your objection is invalid.

Let me explain something to you: given that the Koran,

Whatever!

Let me explain something to you: given that the Bible tells Christians to throw menstruating women in jail and homosexuals to the wolves and fornicators over cliffs, your appeal to the Koran to justify bigotry is a joke.

Nice try.

[Jerry Galinda]

No - because Muslim extremits have many kinds of skin colour. !

[Canadian Blue]

Finding Christian churches that were anti semetic is not the same as finding christain churches that were pro nazi. Something like the argument from Foucault's pendulem

My point being that the Churches didn't really impede Nazism, and in some cases supported it. To say that Christians had absolutely nothing to do with Nazism is false.

[M.Dancer]

Finding Christian churches that were anti semetic is not the same as finding christain churches that were pro nazi. Something like the argument from Foucault's pendulem

My point being that the Churches didn't really impede Nazism, and in some cases supported it. To say that Christians had absolutely nothing to do with Nazism is false.

I think the argument is that Nazism has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is irrelevant to Nazism. On the other hand, muslim extremists......

[DogOnPorch]

Didn't Naziism draw more from the prehistoric Hunter/Earth Mother religions/societies of Europe? You know...the brooding outcast matched against nature...Wagner's Seigfried...Nietzsche's Zarathustra...Weber's Lone Hunter et al... I know the church more or less coluded and/or turned a blind eye up to a point but that was more for self-interest than actually being part-n-parcel w/ Naziism.

For example...Tannhäuser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnECK5OGg2Q

------------------------------------------------------------

Do you call yourself free? I want to hear your ruling idea, and not that you have escaped from a yoke... Free from what? Zarathustra does not care about that! But your eye should clearly tell me: free for what?

---Thus Spake Zarathustra

[ScottSA]

I won't even get into this Nazi = Christianity debate, It's at best specious, and entirely based on the occasional thing Hitler said for public consumption long before reaching power, or on academic reaching. The fact is Nazism has nothing to do with Christianity, nor did it claim to. Islamic fundamentalism is exactly that; Islamic and fundamentally Islamic, and it claims to be. It's also a widespread intepretation of Islam, and is fast growing throughout the world. There simply isn't any way to equivocate about it, and any attempt to is silly.

[Black Dog]

No, its simply a matter of strawmanship. It's a common tactic among your compatriots on the rightto take the most radical form of left-liberalism and paint it as representative of the mainstream left wing. It's a silly tactic, but certainly in keeping with the right, who has been enamored of reductionist bumper sticker slogans since Bernays first discovered their utility.

Corrected.

Most of the rightwing are if anything social libertarians and economic individualists. Individualism is an interesting concept, juxtaposed as it is against collectivism. Collectivism defines the left perhaps better than any other concept, from the 'class' of Marx to the 'volk' of Hitler.It's not surprising that Islam is also based upon collectivism, viewing its adherents as the 'Ummah'.

Uh huh. So when people like you bang on about the "west" and how "we" are at war with Islam, you're really talking about it from the standpoint that, as individuals, we are each at war with Islam. No? Then you're trading in a collective identity (the west, the Anglosphere, or even nationalist identities).

So, care to re-boot?

You see, just because someone doesn't think homosexuals and women need special priviledges in society, doesn't mean they "Hate" homosexuals or women.

Funny that you'd employ a strawman against an alleged strawman.

Many women and homosexuals feel that special protections and priviledges tend to hurt them more than help them.

And some might. So what?

If you want to frame issues out of all semblence to reality, go ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Back to you.