Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door

[rockmom]

The best person deserves the job, white, black, green, gay, straight.

My arguement is yes Gays do have special protection, straight people dont. That is not fair. If you want fair rights, then why push for stuff like Gay rights

 

They do not have any more special protection than those of us who are covered under the same laws are afforded.

 

As to the "best person", the laws protect people from being judged on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc in making the deicison about whether they are the "best person".

[jericho]

They do not have any more special protection than those of us who are covered under the same laws are afforded.

 

As to the "best person", the laws protect people from being judged on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc in making the deicison about whether they are the "best person".

 

Yes they are protected more. A hate crime carries more punishment in court.

[Getslow]

If I beat up a gay guy it is a hate crime. If a gay guy beats me up, big deal. HATE CRIME RULE.

 

Wrong.

 

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html

 

The law doesn't protect gay people, it enhances punishments for crimes based on sexual orientation. It doesn't protect women, it enhances punishments for crimes based on gender. It doesn't protect black people, it enhances punishments for crimes based on race. It covers straight people, men and white people just the same, but let's be honest, those crimes simply aren't significant issues, which is why you don't hear much about them. The numbers in the FBI statistics above would seem to bear that out.

 

The law is designed so that you can't beat a person up for being gay any more than he can beat you up for being straight.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Getslow

[jericho]

Wrong

 

. J. Henry and Felicia Pratto assert that whilst certain hate crimes (that they do not specify) against white people are a valid category, that one can "speak sensibly of", and that whilst such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, they do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior cannot be racist. The concept of racism as understood by social scientists and others, they assert, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people does not have.

[Alabama Larry]

The discipes thought Jesus was only for them, but Jesus/Paul taught that it was also for the Gentiles/Samaritians, and if the Muslims were around they would also be included. Humans are to be treated equaly.

[Getslow]

Wrong

 

. J. Henry and Felicia Pratto assert that whilst certain hate crimes (that they do not specify) against white people are a valid category, that one can "speak sensibly of", and that whilst such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, they do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior cannot be racist. The concept of racism as understood by social scientists and others, they assert, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people does not have.

 

That's interesting. I didn't know Felicia Pratto was on the federal bench or with the FBI. I thought she was just a professor at the University of Connecticut whose opinions do not comprise a binding legal precedent.

[Fastbreak]

I'm a bit reluctant to break up a hearty gay rights debate in a thread entitled, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door" to discuss Muslim issues, but here goes... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Habib, I again split up your post to address your points…

You said that I have put words in your mouth, but then write a lengthy post saying that I have correctly construed your position on this point. And I do disagree with it. They have largely spoken out against terrorism, so I see the incessant claims that they do not as either an impossible litmus test or an unwillingness to listen. I also find the notion that any group must pass such a litmus test to avoid hostile treatment to indeed be intolerant.

As long as there are Muslims capturing headlines and dominating coverage in the 24/7 news cycle by perpetrating violence in the name of Allah, “peace loving” Muslims need to point out and keep pointing out how the actions of these so called “extremists” are out of line with what they believe are the authentic teachings of the prophet.

 

Not to suit me…

 

…not to meet some stringent “litmus test”…

 

…but for the benefit of their own faith and image.

 

This is simple public relations.

 

I have not once in this thread said, “There are no Muslims speaking out against terrorism” nor have I demanded they do so as some sort of “litmus test”.

 

The fact that you were so readily able to produce a 9Mb PDF file containing letters from Muslim individuals and groups denouncing the acts of terrorists acting in the name of their faith tells me THEY felt this was necessary and potentially beneficial.

 

Good P.R. IMO. They need to keep it up until their message gets out to enough people—especially those within their own faith—to turn the tide against those they assert are misappropriating their faith.

 

I certainly do not see how it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that “peace loving” Muslims would do themselves and their faith a tremendous favor to continue these denouncements… not as a “litmus test” but as a platform for moving their “peaceful and gentle” interpretation of the faith into a position of better understanding and acceptance on the world stage… and to help eliminate misunderstandings with potential neighbors in communities across the U.S.

 

If you find fault with this position, we will simply have to agree to disagree. :thumb:

[Fastbreak]

Again, it appears I have correctly construed your position. Though, you both say that violence is a component of Islam and that not all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers. This is confusing.

I was stunned when I first read the Koran in its entirety in 1983 with all the instructions for violence by the prophet. These occur consistently throughout the text. They are not random exceptions, but a recurring theme for dealing with infidels and transgressors of the law as presented by Muhammad.

 

I am NOT asserting that “peace loving” Muslims or “violent jihadists” are more or less faithful to the teachings of the prophet. What I AM SAYING is that those on both sides have ample justification in the Koran to support their viewpoints as being faithful. This is an internal struggle within Islam, based upon differing perspectives and selective emphasis on certain themes within the text.

 

It is important to understand that neither side is amplifying a few scant verses here or there out of context to essentially build a mountain out of a molehill. Both peaceful and violent verses/teachings are in the Koran. Neither POV requires a magnifying glass and narrow scrutiny to reveal. Those who deny this are either ignorant of the facts and/or disingenuous.

 

Personally, I would prefer to see the “peace loving” Muslims win the debate, but having read the book, I genuinely do not think it is possible for them to defuse those leaning toward violent means… and certainly not by denying that violence is clearly instructed by Muhammad in the Koran.

[Zoot Soup]

I would love some, but I doubt we are allowed, since no one is allowed anything in America anymore.

 

Actually good point. Mormons aren't allowed to drink coffee, but do you cry that their oppressed because of their religion?

[UKMustangFan]

If I beat up a gay guy it is a hate crime. If a gay guy beats me up, big deal. HATE CRIME RULE.

 

 

Wrong yet again, but that's nothing new.

 

If you beat up a gay guy for being a jerk, that's not a hate crime. If you go find a random gay guy and beat them up for the simple fact that they're homosexual, then it's a hate crime. If a gay guy beats you up for simply being straight, that's also a hate crime.

 

Again, it's an incredibly simple concept.

[Zoot Soup]

The discipes thought Jesus was only for them, but Jesus/Paul taught that it was also for the Gentiles/Samaritians, and if the Muslims were around they would also be included. Humans are to be treated equaly.

 

Larry, this is why I like you. You are probably the most outspoken Christian man on this board but you don't get caught up in bickering about this. You keep it simple- Jesus loved everyone, we should love everyone.

[UKMustangFan]

Larry, this is why I like you. You are probably the most outspoken Christian man on this board but you don't get caught up in bickering about this. You keep it simple- Jesus loved everyone, we should love everyone.

 

It's crazy when you think about it. Larry is a very outspoken Christian who feels everyone should be shown love (and I agree with your sentiments Zoot). Moutain Ref on the other hand, is supposedly a Christian, yet he spews hate about anyone who is different than him. How can they both be Christian, yet have polar opposite beliefs?

[Alabama Larry]

Zoot, what a very special thing to say..I will not forget it. Thank you.

[Fastbreak]

I also disagree that Saudi Arabia is among the “liberal” states in the Middle East. You would be hard pressed to find a country more hard pressed for a liberal society, democracy, and, coincidentally, education in the world. They are also a country with the highest concentration of Wahhabis in the world, who certainly do have a violent interpretation of Islam. If the West didn’t glad-hand it to get its oil the kingdom would have likely collapsed. The corollary of your complaint is that the West is propping this backward society up. .

You have so predetermined my viewpoint and are prepared to be against what you “think” I’m trying to say, you’re not providing any “benefit of the doubt” to my actual words. I never said that “I” claim the Saudis are “liberal”. How could any sensible Westerner reading about people being beheaded, beaten and imprisoned for believing in Jesus Christ suggest this culture is “liberal”? Come on man…

 

I said, “Many Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt due to their general friendliness with the West.” The intent was that the Saudis are viewed as being too “liberal” by many of their own hard line Muslim brethren. You are welcome to agree or disagree, but please understand my intent as you do.

 

Your original post said that those “in the know” consider peaceful Muslims to be secular apostates. I understood that to mean that objective outside observers, such as you consider yourself, believe the terrorists to be truest followers of the faith. Yet, here you merely say that there are violent strains of Islam being taught and practiced and that those who practice peace are also faithful Muslims. Which part have I mistaken? .

I was not referring to myself, or even “objective outside observers” but former Muslim jihadists who at one time were on the “inside” of violence against the West. They have since fled to escape the brutal conditions in the lands of their youth. As they have come to see the bigger picture, they have turned from violence and elected to reveal what is being taught, believed and practiced by growing numbers of their former countrymen.

 

THEY CLAIM that “peace loving” Muslims content with making nice with infidels are considered to be weak apostates by hard line adherents. This is not a surmise or opinion on my part, but the words and opinions of former Islamic jihadists, based upon THEIR UNDERSTANDING (not mine) of the writings of the prophet.

 

I do not believe anyone in the world denies that there is violence being taught.

Nor does anyone who has ever actually read the Koran in its entirety been able to truthfully deny Muhammad’s writings (specifically regarding violence and jihad against infidels) that are used to support such interpretations. This is a big challenge for the proponents of a “peaceful” Islam. I genuinely wish them well. :thumb:

[Fastbreak]

I believe I have your position correct, again. I happen to agree with this, personally, as it is by belief, though I often find myself in the minority. I’ve heard plenty of preachers and Christians invoke the Old Testament. It was thoroughly taught to me, and I’m confident it is still thoroughly taught in Sunday schools across the US today. You even say that you do not deny the entirety of the Bible. How, then, can you say only the New Testament matters to Christians? My point is if you want to compare the Christian bible to the Quran in terms of violence, you have to selectively edit to say that only the Quran contains violence, which is my point. I do not think it is reasonable to say that you believe in the entirety of the bible and also say only half of it is valid for comparison, especially when Christians today study and invoke the Old Testament as part of their faith.

Habib, I am not suggesting we toss out over half of the Bible. Paul instructs us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

 

I am merely saying that the New Testament is the collection of letters/books that deal exclusively with Christianity. As a Christian, the words, actions and teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament are our preeminent authority. His is the ultimate teaching for me to follow. None of this abolishes the good teachings, wisdom and history found in the Old Testament. The N.T. merely supersedes the O.T. in authority for me as a Christian.

 

Paul said, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” He is speaking of our ability to understand and perceive here and now versus our ability to do so in God’s full presence. IMO, the time Jesus walked the earth and spoke directly to us was one of those moments of razor sharp clarity Paul speaks of… a time of unambiguous lucidity unencumbered by the filter of human interpretation. The words He spoke, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the most loving, inspired and challenging in the entire Bible. Everything else, is as Paul says in the KJV is “through a glass darkly”.

 

I’ve been slapped by Hatz for hyperbole, but it is my genuine belief that the entire Old Testament, in one way or another, points to the need for, and pending arrival of a Messiah. From original sin; to the hopeless prospect of more than 500 laws no human could ever fulfill to the letter; to the hundreds of prophecies describing the who, what, when, where, why and how of His arrival.

 

You don’t have to agree with me, (…really… I’m okay with that… lol) but If Muhammad is the singular standard for representing the Muslim faith, Jesus Christ is the only reasonable/fair option for representing Christianity. Muhammad is the sole author of the Koran. It seems correct to compare his words and teaching with those of Jesus.

 

You will find nowhere in the words of Jesus (or any of His disciples, or in the entire New Testament for that matter) where he instructs us to take up the sword in the name of God. He instructs us to love God and love our neighbor (and to even love our enemies.) There is no ambiguity in His teaching. There is no room for waging violent jihad against non-believers in the name of His faith.

 

Pulling out things recorded in the O.T. and trying to hang them on Jesus is a reach in this regard. Feel free to do so if you deem it necessary. It's just a reach IMO.