Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[Clifford]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.

I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

Why should we stop them from offending anyone?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

Why should we stop them from offending anyone?

See the comment above mine, that's my question.

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

Why should we stop them from offending anyone?

See the comment above mine, that's my question.

You ask as though someone wants to stop them... ?

 

[Apple Jack]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

I would just broaden the scope to not provoking homicidally deranged lunatics looking for a host to martyr themselves on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

I would just broaden the scope to not offending homicidally deranged lunatics looking for a host to martyr themselves on.

So let's not show Taxi Driver or Batman.

<Maybe check the Twitter Isis feeds to see what's on their menu of objectionable material today.

 

[Sinn Fein]

No reason to stop speech like that - better to know who you are dealing with than to speculate.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

I would just broaden the scope to not provoking homicidally deranged lunatics looking for a host to martyr themselves on.

I would never place a burden of stopping stupid people from being stupid.

I would like to change people's reactions and interpretations to the consequences of stupid people being stupid.

 

[Apple Jack]

So let's not show Taxi Driver or Batman.
<Maybe check the Twitter Isis feeds to see what's on their menu of objectionable material today.

Nah, that's all you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.

I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

The deck is stacked. If a gun wielding maniac breaks into a house, steals all the money, and kills the family in the process, and says he did it for drug money, nobody questions it. It's only when the maniac claims he killed someone in the name of religion that people demand that we search for other motivations. It's a no-win situation, meant to protect the religious from being called on their stupid beliefs.

 

[timschochet]

boots11234 is crude and unnecessarily insulting, but in his argument he is also right. There is no extremist Christisn analogy to Islam. First off the percentage of extremist Christians is far smaller than the percentage of extremist Muslims. Second, most extremist Christians don't resort to violence; the ones that do are a very small handful- nowhere close to the 1% of radical Muslims who are committed to violence.

If you keep saying it, it still doesn't mean anybody takes that statistic seriously, nor by not answering does anyone acquiesce in your passing it off as accurate.

I was very specific this time; I used the phrase "committed to violence". I'm talking about terrorists here and suggesting that there are 9 million of them in the world is not a conservative figure. If you think there are more show your work.

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So let's not show Taxi Driver or Batman.
<Maybe check the Twitter Isis feeds to see what's on their menu of objectionable material today.

Nah, that's all you.

Yeah pretty much an unsupportable rule you created there, that was my point. 1. There is a host of material that is so broad you can never prevent "lunatics"of any stripe from going off (like Hinkley, Holmes). 2. Even if you tailor your speech to assuage islamist lunatics in particular their laundry list of forbidden speech will just move on to the next objection, especially now that it's worked once.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

I'm trying to see the objection of a first group of people who object to religion to an event that mocks a particular element of one religion which is a prime example that the first group likes to point to as what's wrong with religion.

(eta - kudos on Galatians but I don't know it so it would have been over my head, but if so impressive).

 

[timschochet]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

Tim, then you don''t know Isis or fascists very well. They are consciously extremist. They are out to change the world.

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

I'm trying to see the objection of a first group of people who object to religion to an event that mocks a particular element of one religion which is a prime example that the first group likes to point to as what's wrong with religion.

(eta - kudos on Galatians but I don't know it so it would have been over my head, but if so impressive).

I don't know what objection you are referring to? You have a habit of confounding simple discussions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

I'm trying to see the objection of a first group of people who object to religion to an event that mocks a particular element of one religion which is a prime example that the first group likes to point to as what's wrong with religion.

(eta - kudos on Galatians but I don't know it so it would have been over my head, but if so impressive).

I don't know what objection you are referring to? You have a habit of confounding simple discussions.

I guess I was under the impression that you and Clavin believe religion is "stupid" and were also suggesting the event was "stupid" because it invited "consequences" by mocking one element of one religion, and that element is also a pretty prime example of why religion itself is stupid.

 

[RCon]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion.

However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Using your own logic here... How many Muslims? How many are in utter poverty? How many become extremists? If the answer to the last question is much smaller than the answer to the previous, doesn't that disprove your assertion?

 

[RCon]

Any thoughts on the fact that Simpson was an American who converted to islam? He's not Arab, not raised muslim, he had a job. He's the son of a dentist, pretty much from a good background and good family.

My thoughts: Poverty and hopelessness, not Islam, is the reason young men become extremists, is utter horse####.

I disagree.

There are always going to be middle class and wealthy people who become attracted to extremist movements. Often that's due to romantic idealism. In my thread I'm narrating the Russian Revolution and it's striking just how many of the leading Communists were from either the lower or upper middle class. It was the same with the Nazis. It was the same with many of the 9/11 hijackers, and of course the mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Ladin, was a wealthy man. So people are always going to be able to point at these examples and call the poverty and hopelessness theory "utter horse####", as Clifford does here.

But- in all 3 movements- the Communists, the Nazis, and the radical Islamists- the MASS of the movement is made up of people who faced poverty and economic despair. The vast majority of those who join up in each case faced economic calamity and no hope: it's the same pattern over and over. The romantic idealists from better circumstances are outliers in each example (though due to their better education and leadership abilities, they often rise to leadership roles and become the "face" of the movement.) It's not horse####; for the vast majority it's true.

Isn't it possible that the reason "the vast majority of those who join up in each case faced economic calamity and no hope" is because "the vast majority of people faced economic calamity and no hope"? That is, poverty doesn't cause people to become extremists; it's just that there are more poor people, so more of the extremists are poor?

 

[General Tso]

When your fellow countrymen disparage you and assign blame to you for engaging in a noncriminal act while defending the sensibilities of would be mass murderers, it a certain sign that the nation you live in has reached a tipping point. We no longer have each other's back. I've known this for awhile but as the left's mask continues to slip during the reign of Obama and its fascistic tendencies are revealed, more and more people are seeing it. Homicidal Islamic extremists are simply fellow travelers in their hatred of all things within what used to be traditional Judeo-Christian American culture.

On a related note, apparently the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are not interested in investigating the shooting or the death threats issued against the event organizers.

I think that's a little overstated, especially the fascistic tendencies part, but I am troubled by the reactions to Pamela Geller and this event, especially from quarters that ought to know better about the sanctity of speech and the utter deplorableness of those who would use violence to silence it. It's a reaction that at best lacks an understanding of how our republic works and at worst is fueled by cowardice and acquiescence.

You guys both nailed it here. There has been very little talk about the real story here - that ISIS is now officially operating in the United States, and Islamic fundamentalists are willing to comment acts of mass murder on American soil for the crime of satirizing the horrible intolerance coming from the radical arm of the "religion of peace".I'm not sure how many people here can remember, but back in the early to mid 80's there was a big debate in this country about flag burning. Leftist radicals rejected the Right's objections and sensitivity on the issue and did exactly what Geller did here. They intentionally burned more flags at more rallies to prove the point that free speech is an inalienable right, non-negotiable, and worth fighting for. I supported those Leftists back then, as well as the Right's response - peaceful counter protests.

And for those who think from the practical side here that you should pick and choose your battles more carefully, I think the point you are missing is that the battle has been brought to us, not the other way around. Charlie Hebdo was an attack on freedom everywhere. I said earlier that loss of freedom comes in many forms, and the loss of freedom through intimidation is perhaps the most insidious. It slowly happens over a period of time and can be imperceptible. But if you look hard enough you'll already see it happening. People are less apt after Charlie Hebdo to criticize Muslim hypersensitivity on blasphemy, or the horrible scourge of Sharia Law. Even people on the right have backed down on the harshness of their criticisms. The other night I heard Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingram agreeing that we shouldn't incite Muslims. And the fact that nobody is talking about the attempted murders here by the terrorists, or calling out the aspects of Islamic fundamentalism that gave them the motivation and support, is really telling. We can't run and hide from this problem. It reminds me a lot of Chamberlain's early response to Hitler in the 1930's. Evil is not transformed through acts of understanding and appeasement, it is emboldened and strengthened by such acts.

 

[timschochet]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

Tim, then you don''t know Isis or fascists very well. They are consciously extremist. They are out to change the world.

Of course they are aware that they are extremist. I wrote they are not aware why. There are lots of books on this subject, the psychology of extremism. Hannah Ahrendt was especially influential.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

Tim, then you don''t know Isis or fascists very well. They are consciously extremist. They are out to change the world.

Of course they are aware that they are extremist. I wrote they are not aware why.There are lots of books on this subject, the psychology of extremism. Hannah Ahrendt was especially influential.

Yeah, there are a lot of books on fascism and communism and islamism, and they are pretty frank about the point that destroying the "old" ways (what communism called the bourgeoisie) is absolutely necessary. They are very conscious of the where and the how and the why. Making the mainstream too scared to speak in the face of brutality by a very small cadre of committed is on Page 1.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think the biggest challenge for most people here, myself included, is understanding why a picture of Muhammed is offensive - to the point of a violent reaction. Intellectually many of us understand that the drawing is offensive to others, but struggle to truly identify with that type of outrage. Most of us did not grow up in an environment where religious depictions are taboo.

I do think we have to accept that certain people can be violently offended by the depictions, instead of relying on the notion, that "most americans" would not be offended.

Would we be surprised if a white man walked through a rough black neighborhood shouting "God hates N.......s" and that white man was attacked? Its free speech, yet most of us understand that to be offensive, and the reactions, even violent, would be understood (even if not condoned).

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I think the biggest challenge for most people here, myself included, is understanding why a picture of Muhammed is offensive - to the point of a violent reaction. Intellectually many of us understand that the drawing is offensive to others, but struggle to truly identify with that type of outrage. Most of us did not grow up in an environment where religious depictions are taboo.

I do think we have to accept that certain people can be violently offended by the depictions, instead of relying on the notion, that "most americans" would not be offended.

Would we be surprised if a white man walked through a rough black neighborhood shouting "God hates N.......s" and that white man was attacked? Its free speech, yet most of us understand that to be offensive, and the reactions, even violent, would be understood (even if not condoned).

No tougher to understand than all the other stuff religious folk believe.

 

[Rove!]

When your fellow countrymen disparage you and assign blame to you for engaging in a noncriminal act while defending the sensibilities of would be mass murderers, it a certain sign that the nation you live in has reached a tipping point. We no longer have each other's back. I've known this for awhile but as the left's mask continues to slip during the reign of Obama and its fascistic tendencies are revealed, more and more people are seeing it. Homicidal Islamic extremists are simply fellow travelers in their hatred of all things within what used to be traditional Judeo-Christian American culture.

On a related note, apparently the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are not interested in investigating the shooting or the death threats issued against the event organizers.

I think that's a little overstated, especially the fascistic tendencies part, but I am troubled by the reactions to Pamela Geller and this event, especially from quarters that ought to know better about the sanctity of speech and the utter deplorableness of those who would use violence to silence it. It's a reaction that at best lacks an understanding of how our republic works and at worst is fueled by cowardice and acquiescence.

predictable response by a slightly less radicalized group within our own borders that puts their own tribalism above the welfare of their fellow countrymen and the principle of freedom...

 

[timschochet]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

This is why I, and others, have pointed to the Pew study that shows a shockingly large number of Muslims believe some really messed up stuff - what I would call "radical" stuff. I'm not saying that they're all terrorists, but their beliefs are dangerous. Even if they don't act on these beliefs, we have every right, and in fact a responsibility, to criticize those beliefs.

 

[The Commish]

I think the biggest challenge for most people here, myself included, is understanding why a picture of Muhammed is offensive - to the point of a violent reaction. Intellectually many of us understand that the drawing is offensive to others, but struggle to truly identify with that type of outrage. Most of us did not grow up in an environment where religious depictions are taboo.

I do think we have to accept that certain people can be violently offended by the depictions, instead of relying on the notion, that "most americans" would not be offended.

Would we be surprised if a white man walked through a rough black neighborhood shouting "God hates N.......s" and that white man was attacked? Its free speech, yet most of us understand that to be offensive, and the reactions, even violent, would be understood (even if not condoned).

There are lots of factors at play in situations like this. One needs to understand the theology first. Then they need to understand the socioeconomic environments this theology is studied under. The first part is the toughest because few have any interest in studying the theology. You can look at the FFA and those who say "it's no different than...." or "it's just like when......" right on down the line. The reality is, it's not any of those things.

I've sorta been digging into the Koran a little bit lately based on comments made by cstu (I believe) and one thing's clear to me. It has more political nuance to it than any other religion I've run across. It's not even close. And a lot of that political fodder gets in the way of the messages being taught. There's a "last line of defense" command of violence to those who are in opposition to Islam as a result. That's very different than most of the other religions out there.

This is why we typically question people who use the explanation of religion as the motives for their actions. We don't understand the religion. We see a small segment of that religion's supposed followers saying they are commanded to do X, but it's a small segment. The natural question becomes "if this religion commands them to do these things, why aren't more followers doing it?"

 

[RCon]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

What's more offensive?

A. Preaching that women should be raped and stoned

B. Drawing insulting pictures of someone's revered religious figure

Both are vile and disgusting, and should be publicly criticized by all rational human beings. But both should also be protected speech. Unfortunately, criticizing A. and/or participating in B. can both get you killed these days. That needs to be fixed. Period.

Perhaps the cartoon contest was the wrong approach, I'm certain that avoiding it or silencing speech about it is NOT the right approach.

 

[Clifford]

It would have been more correct for Muhammad to say, "You shouldn't draw me, because if you do it will offend millions of the Islamic religion, and a small but significant minority might cause violence."

And then the artist could have written, "That's why I draw you, because I want to insult those millions, and I'm hoping some of them act in a violent way because that will serve to justify my bigotry against the entire religion."

This would have been far more accurate, if a little less succinct.

Nope. It's pretty clearly directly targeted at those who would cause violence and advocate violent reprisals against those who would practice freedom of speech and expression.

An excellent editorial cartoon, and perfectly defiant.

Yep. Completely reasonable political statement. Your threats of violence will not stop me, and because you threaten me I defy you. Tim, you need to do some deep soul searching on this because you are obviously conflicted. You are drawing razor thin lines on what constitutes speech vs mindless offensive material and you are being incredibly inconsistent. Thus far in this thread you have picked and chosen at random what you consider worthwhile and worthless.

 

[matuski]

And everyone agrees that people are going to do things that maybe even many to most would never do themselves. But no one is trying to stop that from happening in the future, right?

Nope.

Nope, as in no, no one is trying to stop such events, or nope some believe others should be stopped from offending Isis types?

Or is it just we should stop offending the religious in general?

You can offend who you want. Just know that there could be consequences. Its pretty simple

Yes, fine, good, let people with views that outrage political lunatics deal with the consequences. But don't try to stop free people from speaking those views. Where's the debate?

The stupid people crying foul when they reap what they sow.

See how I wove Galatians in there? Pretty slick, right?

I'm trying to see the objection of a first group of people who object to religion to an event that mocks a particular element of one religion which is a prime example that the first group likes to point to as what's wrong with religion.

(eta - kudos on Galatians but I don't know it so it would have been over my head, but if so impressive).

I don't know what objection you are referring to? You have a habit of confounding simple discussions.

I guess I was under the impression that you and Clavin believe religion is "stupid" and were also suggesting the event was "stupid" because it invited "consequences" by mocking one element of one religion, and that element is also a pretty prime example of why religion itself is stupid.

(Religion + Stupid) x 2 = people dying over cartoons.

 

[rockaction]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

I'm actually always very careful about this. However, when somebody argues with me about the current state of Islam in the world, I've often pointed out those Pew studies and noted that there seems to be constant religious violence coming from from several areas of the world, largely or almost entirely populated by Muslims, and that the violence is done in Islam's name. It seems hard to ignore that.

As for Geller, I don't get too hung up on her motives. Motive is always the most difficult thing to establish. What I look at are the facts of this incident, and that a "Draw Muhammad Day" lines up quite nicely with those on the agnostic/atheistic left who were the first people murdered as civilians, had fatwas issued, etc for depicting Mohammad, I'm not as concerned about her role. In addition, I'd wager very few people in this thread have started hating Islam broadly because of Geller. Geller is an Infowars kind of woman, and her brand of ideology doesn't generally work with people that think about things. Most people get what she is. In this instance, she happens to have done a public service.

 

[timschochet]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

Fair point. Actually what I wrote, or at least what I meant to wrote, is that poverty and despair were IMO the biggest factor in causing extremist attitudes.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

 

[Clifford]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

Why not?

 

[timschochet]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Tim, you're making up numbers. I know this has been out there for awhile, and I'm sure you've probably seen it:http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

There's some scary stuff in that report. Stuff that leads me to believe that radical, non-liberal, barbaric beliefs are not as marginalized within the Muslim world as you make it seem.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not making up any numbers. That poll refers to people's opinions. I'm speaking of the ones who actually join up. I don't believe in linking them all together though some people do.I agree that the report is scary. I generally also agree that liberals are too defensive about the Islamic religion in general. I tend to agree with Bill Maher and Sam Harris on this subject. But I also don't believe that religion, any religion, is in itself the source of most extremism.

Why not? I mean, the extremists themselves state as plainly as possible that absolutely everything they do is in the name of their religion. They shout "God is great" as their dying breath before blowing themselves up. The entire ISIS and Al Qaida movements recruit and act along religious lines and because of religious principles. The stated ultimate goal of all these groups has to do with religious rewards or events. How much more evidence do you need to see that these people join, kill, and die all because of religion?

I don't believe that, in most cases, extremists are able to correctly define why they are extremists.

Why not?

Kh I dont know. Lots of reasons. Let's start with because they're ####### crazy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

Easily getting rid of poverty and despair.

Without those, radical ideas will never take root. Give people a reason to value their lives, and they won't want to risk those lives.

 

[The Commish]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

IMO, neither because at the end of the day, with human nature being what it is, the "power over you" approach isn't conducive to any long term positivity.

 

[timschochet]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

 

[RCon]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

Fair point. Actually what I wrote, or at least what I meant to wrote, is that poverty and despair were IMO the biggest factor in causing extremist attitudes.

Of course, your own logic again betrays you. If the percentage of poor Muslims who become extremists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor XXX who become extremists, then that suggests the defining factor isn't poverty, but belief in Islam versus belief in XXX. Obviously, none of this is so simple as that, but you're attempting to use logic and statistics, and completely misinterpreting your own data.

 

[Clifford]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

I'm actually always very careful about this. However, when somebody argues with me about the current state of Islam in the world, I've often pointed out those Pew studies and noted that there seems to be constant religious violence coming from from several areas of the world, largely or almost entirely populated by Muslims, and that the violence is done in Islam's name. It seems hard to ignore that.

As for Geller, I don't get too hung up on her motives. Motive is always the most difficult thing to establish. What I look at are the facts of this incident, and that a "Draw Muhammad Day" lines up quite nicely with those on the agnostic/atheistic left who were the first people murdered as civilians, had fatwas issued, etc for depicting Mohammad, I'm not as concerned about her role. In addition, I'd wager very few people in this thread have started hating Islam broadly because of Geller. Geller is an Infowars kind of woman, and her brand of ideology doesn't generally work with people that think about things. Most people get what she is. In this instance, she happens to have done a public service.

Tim, the only way you get to your small minority is by defining radical as tightly as you can, those that actually join and fight. That's what I asked if you did not consider Streicher radical.

Streicher believed all Jews should die. That belief is radical and violent.

The truth you so desperately try to ignore is that in the countries where Islam rules, there is a majority of Muslims who hold radical, violent beliefs, and the system of laws that are essentially determined by the religion are horribly violent and repressive.

You choose to narrow your definition to fit your numbers. It's obvious selection bias that ignores plain evidence to the contrary.

 

[timschochet]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

Fair point. Actually what I wrote, or at least what I meant to wrote, is that poverty and despair were IMO the biggest factor in causing extremist attitudes.

Of course, your own logic again betrays you. If the percentage of poor Muslims who become extremists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor XXX who become extremists, then that suggests the defining factor isn't poverty, but belief in Islam. Obviously, none of this is so simple as that, but you're attempting to use logic and statistics, and completely misinterpreting your own data.

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

 

[rockaction]

Public service? Wow rockaction.

In terms of the First Amendment. I blame the shooters, and only the shooters, for their shooting. I don't think she's complicit at all. We disagree very strongly on that, and I've been a bit wowed by your utilitarian approach to safety regarding this event.

 

[Clifford]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

Fair point. Actually what I wrote, or at least what I meant to wrote, is that poverty and despair were IMO the biggest factor in causing extremist attitudes.

Of course, your own logic again betrays you. If the percentage of poor Muslims who become extremists is significantly higher than the percentage of poor XXX who become extremists, then that suggests the defining factor isn't poverty, but belief in Islam. Obviously, none of this is so simple as that, but you're attempting to use logic and statistics, and completely misinterpreting your own data.

No I'm trying to look at larger data. Because if Islam itself was such an important factor, we would encounter Islamic extremism all throughout its history instead of just the last few hundred years. But we don't. Prior to the Reformation, Christianity had roughly the same amount of extremism as Islam. What then separated the two religions from that point forward, allowing Christianity to accept Enlightenment ideas but Islam to reject them? Lots of reasons, but poverty is a huge factor.

Look up the percentage of European population that lived below current poverty standards immediately prior to the reformation please.

 

[Clifford]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

You're suggesting that: there are a huge number of Muslims, but only a tiny percentage that become terrorists, therefore belief in Islam does not cause terrrorism. While this is correct, your argument that poverty and despair causes terrorism should be obviously false for the same reason. There are a huge number of people in poverty and despair, but only a tiny percentage become terrorists, therefore povery and despair do not cause terrorism.

What do you all think would be a more effective approach to eliminating terrorism? Getting rid of poverty and despair or getting rid of radical ideas?

(Complete hypothetical, since I don't think it's possible to do either.)

Easily getting rid of poverty and despair.

Without those, radical ideas will never take root. Give people a reason to value their lives, and they won't want to risk those lives.

And so the fact that the ultra-rich lead these movements, why do they choose to become terrorists instead of bankers or oil barons?