Quote from: topside on February 22, 2017, 10:13:09 AM
Boo Man: I'm not a Muslim and believe it to be a false religion. But your comment offends even me. The article was about someone who took a stand not to cow down to political pressure and cover herself. Not a call for Boo Man Jihad against the entire Muslim community. You might have strong reasons for your bigotry, but we're trying to get behind our republic, aren't we?

Freedom of Religion ... I think that was somewhere in the Constitution / First Amendment / Bill of Rights that this site and our republic supports:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

But I agree that there are some followers of Islam that act as though their religion is of arson and genitals. There are bad actors in all religions - bad actors in all groups that I've witnessed that mean well for that matter. But most are peaceful in their beliefs.

You come to the wrong place if you are offended by this. BTW Boo man has a RIGHT to speak his mind no matter who it offends. You might consider that the next time you try to council someone on the bill of rights.

And since we are talking about what offend people I'M offended by the asinine posters of Women wearing a Hijab with the outline of an American flag. OUR FLAG IS NOT TO BE USED AS A GARMENT, and most certainly a Hijab, which is a symbol of female repression, subsuveince should not be used to convey the ideals OUR FLAG represents. Liberty and justice for all.

Quote from: Bronx on February 22, 2017, 04:52:04 PM
Someone needs to kick the crap out of your math teacher or your history teacher. Better yet both.

If the muslims cult came 700 years after the Christians and Christianity is only about 2000 years old how the hell do you come up with 8000 years...?

The muslim cult was created in the 7th century.

This is how people fall for the global warming scam. They don't do their homework and listen to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Yes - showing my ignorance of the religious history. That wasn't the point but thanks for the lesson.

Quote from: topside on February 22, 2017, 10:13:09 AM
Boo Man: I'm not a Muslim and believe it to be a false religion. But your comment offends even me. The article was about someone who took a stand not to cow down to political pressure and cover herself. Not a call for Boo Man Jihad against the entire Muslim community. You might have strong reasons for your bigotry, but we're trying to get behind our republic, aren't we?

Freedom of Religion ... I think that was somewhere in the Constitution / First Amendment / Bill of Rights that this site and our republic supports:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

But I agree that there are some followers of Islam that act as though their religion is of arson and genitals. There are bad actors in all religions - bad actors in all groups that I've witnessed that mean well for that matter. But most are peaceful in their beliefs.

Have you read the Koran?

The problem with Islam is Islam. The only people that can truly stop the Muslim extremists are the moderate Muslims but they choose not to stand up. Aside from that a large percentage of so called moderate Muslims support Sharia and they may not commit acts of terror they empathize with the terrorists.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 22, 2017, 06:12:04 PM
Have you read the Koran?

The problem with Islam is Islam. The only people that can truly stop the Muslim extremists are the moderate Muslims but they choose not to stand up. Aside from that a large percentage of so called moderate Muslims support Sharia and they may not commit acts of terror they empathize with the terrorists.

No, I haven't read the Koran yet - admitted that earlier. Your statement asks a great question and I can't support it either way. Here are three categories to examine:

1) Moderate Muslims under tyrannical rule of radicals who don't react for fear of retaliation?

Or ...

2) Moderate who, as you said, support Sharia and empathize with those who do but don't commit acts of terror themselves. 

Or ...

3) Moderates who neither fear radicals nor empathize or commit acts of terror.

I'll bet it's a mix of categories 1) and 2) for the moderates who don't live in the US with the exception of those who have stood to fight against the extreme Islamists and a mix of all three categories for those living in the US.

But I wonder what the mix is? Seems like a Conservative group would attempt to find a way to estimate this across the US. It should be used to help shape policy if the leadership would take it seriously. Trump is trying to take a minor step to address it and has met great resistance from the Dims and media in his attempt - but I think he's going to win this first victory. But it seems like an obvious step - but way too small.

One way to fix the problem is to deport all of the Muslims. But, as mentioned earlier, that's not aligned with our Republic. So we need to find a way to get the Muslim population in the US to identify the radicals so we can get rid of them. And if they don't we need to do something severe to the whole group so they fear the punishment more than the radicals. I don't know what else you can do? Open to other suggestions for the sake of discussion.

Quote from: topside on February 22, 2017, 06:37:20 PM
No, I haven't read the Koran yet - admitted that earlier. Your statement asks a great question and I can't support it either way. Here are three categories to examine:

How did you come up with these three categories?

Quote1) Moderate Muslims under tyrannical rule of radicals who don't react for fear of retaliation?

Examples?

Quote2) Moderate who, as you said, support Sharia and empathize with those who do but don't commit acts of terror themselves. 

Examples?

Quote3) Moderates who neither fear radicals nor empathize or commit acts of terror.

Again examples? Name countries.

QuoteI'll bet it's a mix of categories 1) and 2) for the moderates who don't live in the US with the exception of those who have stood to fight against the extHave a look at Saudi Arabia. They are moderate. Look at how they treat their women.

But I wonder what the mix is? Seems like a Conservative group would attempt to find a way to estimate this across the US. It should be used to help shape policy if the leadership would take it seriously. Trump is trying to take a minor step to address it and has met great resistance from the Dims and media in his attempt - but I think he's going to win this first victory. But it seems like an obvious step - but way too small.

I have no idea what any of this means.

QuoteOne way to fix the problem is to deport all of the Muslims.

This is one of the dumbest things I have read since during a filibuster John Kerry read "How to Read Portuguese" in Portuguese.

QuoteBut, as mentioned earlier, that's not aligned with our Republic. So we need to find a way to get the Muslim population in the US to identify the radicals so we can get rid of them. And if they don't we need to do something severe to the whole group so they fear the punishment more than the radicals. I don't know what else you can do? Open to other suggestions for the sake of discussion.

You just made my point and I am still trying to figure out how I triggered you.

Quote from: topside on February 22, 2017, 02:05:38 PM
Or at least you should think about what you say before it flies out of your ass. I meant that most respectfully.

The hell you did, Mussie-lover.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 22, 2017, 11:20:29 PM
I have no idea what any of this means.

Neither does he, so you're even....   

Quote from: topside on February 22, 2017, 03:11:15 PM
Ok. Let me try another angle.

Our Constitution / Bill of Rights / First Amendment provides for freedom of religion.

We have Muslims that live in our country legally as citizens.

I read some of the posts to say that, somehow, Islam is NOT a religion. That we should disqualify it as a religion and identify Muslims as enemies of our nation. That we should not allow Muslims live in our country based on the horrendous events that we've witnessed by some.

That's the implication of some of the posts. How do you defend that position based on an understanding of our awesome US Republic?

Matthew 22:20-22King James Version (KJV)

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Mohammed was first and foremost a political leader, giving political decisions; according to the "religion" that he had "received". Sharia covers far more that religious observance and rules; but also social, political and economic rules. Our First Amendment on religion presupposes that in return for religious freedom, any given religion will allow other religions ro peacefully practice theirs. Islam can't abide by that belief.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 22, 2017, 11:20:29 PM
How did you come up with these three categories?

Examples?


Examples?



Again examples? Name countries.

I have no idea what any of this means.

This is one of the dumbest things I have read since during a filibuster John Kerry read "How to Read Portuguese" in Portuguese.

You just made my point and I am still trying to figure out how I triggered you.

I was trying to partition the category of Muslims into classes that supported important distinctions. Then to analyze mostly those in the US that likely partition into all three categories. In invented it ... not always just copying others. Maybe you have better partitions. Your original post had a single partition but I think there are more distinctions that matter. That the whole point of this thread.

Quote from: quiller on February 23, 2017, 12:56:00 AM
The hell you did, Mussie-lover.

Sticks and stones - name calling can be effective but is a child's defense. It just makes it more difficult to reason.

Yes, just to illustrate a point I resorted to it too and used profanity in this instance just to show inflating emotion is meaningless and not helpful - it's the content that matters. And yes, I support the First Amendment - I expected it to be used for emphasis sometimes but not to deride others - I was wrong about that.

I said it before and will say it again - I believe that Islam is a false religion but, if practiced peaceably, it is protected under the First Amendment. I guess that makes me a Republic Bigot - opposed / biased against anyone against our republic foundation. 

Calm down Boo Man. There's a lot of common ground between us. You probably disagree but I'm certainly willing to see what comes over time.

Solar posted this in another thread and I wanted to address it in this one:

" Therein lies the problem. Case in point, you were offended by something Boo said, (no judgment here, just a descriptor), then suddenly the forum is on you. Not because they necessarily agree with Boo, but rather his right to express his opinion (most agreed with anyway).
But the point is, your claim of offense is a form of censorship in guilting one into submission, as the left does daily.
For example, when Pamela Geller decided to promote a "Draw Muhamed Day' in Texas, the left called it inflammatory and an "exercise in bigotry". "

So, I was NOT trying to stop Boo from stating his opinion - that would be counterproductive. The point was that I didn't agree with it and wanted it not to represent me for someone looking at the site. It's up to Boo to decide if he wants to change his position. So it wasn't intended as an attempt at censorship but rather to offer another viewpoint.

When anyone makes a strong statement like Boo did and others disagree, shouldn't we call it? The forum certainly held nothing back in coming at me when they disagreed.

Your point is well taken - it seems many don't disagree with Boo but many do agree with the approach I took.  I'll certainly attempt to improve ... the next time.

Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 08:13:36 AM
Solar posted this in another thread and I wanted to address it in this one:

" Therein lies the problem. Case in point, you were offended by something Boo said, (no judgment here, just a descriptor), then suddenly the forum is on you. Not because they necessarily agree with Boo, but rather his right to express his opinion (most agreed with anyway).
But the point is, your claim of offense is a form of censorship in guilting one into submission, as the left does daily.
For example, when Pamela Geller decided to promote a "Draw Muhamed Day' in Texas, the left called it inflammatory and an "exercise in bigotry". "

So, I was NOT trying to stop Boo from stating his opinion - that would be counterproductive. The point was that I didn't agree with it and wanted it not to represent me for someone looking at the site. It's up to Boo to decide if he wants to change his position. So it wasn't intended as an attempt at censorship but rather to offer another viewpoint.

When anyone makes a strong statement like Boo did and others disagree, shouldn't we call it? The forum certainly held nothing back in coming at me when they disagreed.

Your point is well taken - it seems many don't disagree with Boo but many do agree with the approach I took.  I'll certainly attempt to improve ... the next time.

Regardless of your intent, that was the end result. Just as I demonstrated with the NY Times article in qualifying certain speech as bigoted hate speech.
It's one thing to disagree, but another to claim one is bigoted in their views, when it's your very own bigotry making judgments.

Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 08:13:36 AM
Solar posted this in another thread and I wanted to address it in this one:

" Therein lies the problem. Case in point, you were offended by something Boo said, (no judgment here, just a descriptor), then suddenly the forum is on you. Not because they necessarily agree with Boo, but rather his right to express his opinion (most agreed with anyway).
But the point is, your claim of offense is a form of censorship in guilting one into submission, as the left does daily.
For example, when Pamela Geller decided to promote a "Draw Muhamed Day' in Texas, the left called it inflammatory and an "exercise in bigotry". "

So, I was NOT trying to stop Boo from stating his opinion - that would be counterproductive. The point was that I didn't agree with it and wanted it not to represent me for someone looking at the site. It's up to Boo to decide if he wants to change his position. So it wasn't intended as an attempt at censorship but rather to offer another viewpoint.

When anyone makes a strong statement like Boo did and others disagree, shouldn't we call it? The forum certainly held nothing back in coming at me when they disagreed.

Your point is well taken - it seems many don't disagree with Boo but many do agree with the approach I took. I'll certainly attempt to improve ... the next time.

I myself did not see that in the thread.   I find saying "many do" is liken to saying we in hopes of getting a pass.

Quote from: walkstall on February 23, 2017, 08:38:53 AM

I myself did not see that in the thread.   I find saying "many do" is liken to saying we in hopes of getting a pass.

Ahhh ... that was a miss-type. What I meant (updated) was, "Your point is well taken - it seems many agree with Boo and many do disagree with the approach I took. I'll certainly attempt to improve ... the next time. "

Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 07:52:40 AM

Calm down Boo Man. There's a lot of common ground between us. You probably disagree but I'm certainly willing to see what comes over time.

Free with advice for people not present in the post you reply to. Har, har, har.......