Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

The main thrust of your argument seems to rest on these parts of your answer:

So, just to be clear on what we are now talking about, do the following five paragraphs represent an accurate description of your views?

They are my responses to highly contextualized questions , not my views. My view is nothing is just like anything. My views are empirically, based , pragmatic and case by case. I am not going to take something like Islam as some sort of abstraction
in any category like "religion". I do not view immigrants in the abstract either. No different than the superstitions of a cannibal being covered by religion in the abstract.

And I must say by my apprehensions, we approach things very differently so we could be in a very rough ride....

If not, please help me express your view on these points in a way that is both clear, and fair. One way to do so would be to re-post the same text, showing additions and {redactions}, so that it is very clear what part of my characterization you disagree with. We can reserve commentary for afterwards, so we're sure what we're discussing.

This response appears to be saying that you disagree with the founding fathers, and believe that there is NO threat from what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority," as long as that majority is christian, and not muslim.

Obviously his arguments where aimed at the existing 13 colonies, contextually. Again, many people would prefer to take this in the abstract. Christianity was clearly what he had in mind when addressing this audience, so he had to design something that could fit under the Constitutional government. Christianity could not fit under any government, like Rome for example because Rome insisted upon the "God exchange program". Christianity was allowed to be intolerant so long as it did not violate the law of the land, like using force or using government institutions to force it. From his "Tyranny o the Majority" Federalist paper:

The Federalist No. 10

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

Now here he says religious faction is a threat. We see him designing an insurance against it. His design was meant as insurance and protections against it, not as a policy to tolerate as many goof ball mythologies as possible. It is also sobering to see, whether for or against , other "wicked projects" prevailed. Since we have paper money, the abolition of debts, he has not entirely succeeded in his design. Bring in enough communists and the equal division of property will be as assure as well as a tyrannical religious majority will find away around the institutions he helped create. He certainly did not think they were all equal.

You express concern over christian influence in schools, saying "want more Christians who want an hour of bible study in public schools?"

Yes and no. We have unfortunately taxed people to create a public instituion in the first place. So we have already usurped the 1st Amendment principle. School may be required but should be privately fulfilled. If people want t go to Catholic church so be it, so long as it does not become a political faction trying to overthrow the Constitutional authority. . So people should be able to any kind of school they want. I bet many people wouldn't want a school designed by Christian fundamentalists.

The response seems to require the implication that the Bill of Rights, which was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, is ineffective at doing so (since muslims, once in a majority, could impose "Sharia law") in the long run.

See above.

To solve this problem, you want to weaken or remove a portion of the Bill of Rights, the first amendment's establishment clause. (This would be required to create a religious test for entry to the US.)

Crap. The Constitution does not apply to non citizens. There is no Bill of Rights for them.

You also propose to ensure Muslims never gain influence in the first place, by banning their entry, to protect a space where American values can thrive.

I propose that its a religious sect that inherently degenerates into a political faction completely at odds with The Bill of Rights.


Oh and by starting over......

"Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?"

This was what I meant. Not sure how this thread became the application of the Bill of Rights.

So I guess I will start over again.

No, its different. The difference is the medieval church was built upon an adulterated version of Christianity that gave supreme authority to the clergy at the expense of the founding documents. It was debunked by the continuous and evolutionary process of the laity that observed the fundamental texts of Christianity did not support empire and conquest. Thus a "reformation" was in inevitable. Islam however requires the opposite. The fundamental texts support holy war and specific authorities are required to create interpretations that avoid this concept. Unfortunately every time destabilization occurs , reformations to the inevitable fundamentals occur. as we see over and over again every time Muslim countries destabilize. It promotes authoritarianism or chaos.

The by products of Christan fundamentalism are also obvious in time of stress. We do see the spontaneous formation of separatist movements. Occasionally these can be come radicalized, but only after severe modification. Constantine's Christianity is still not allowed. We tolerate religion it. We do not encourage it...


That was OP and those are the facts.

Now if you want change the subject and apply the Bill of Right to these facts, I would really like to see proof that the founders encouraged testing their institutions they created with all buffoonery, and that they intended to import those that explicitly deny the Bill of Rights in their religious sects. I believe I have provided evidence that he wanted to prevent fire, not sling flaming arrows to prove how impervious to fire his political cathedral was.

I mean why not explicitly important cannibals and present them the Bill of Rights as if its made of magic? Again, its just like debating religious fundamentalism that applies magic to our founding documents. They have as much power such that people believe in them. And when we important people that do not believe in them so goes its power.

And its so unlikely anything like this could occur...Surely the founder spoke very highly of Barbary.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise"

[santafe2]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

No he thinks your silly,
This Abrahamic religion is less violent than that one and forgetting over a thousand years of human history.

Not sure I'd agree. You don't need 100 years. The Third Reich, as declared by Hitler, was Christian. The Third Reich was supported by the Catholic Church as the church supported the Reich's attempt to expunge not only the Jews but the Jewish roots of Christianity. Not directed at you but arguing with Christo-Fascists is a fools game. They will forever search for evil without mirror.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Not sure I'd agree. You don't need 100 years. The Third Reich, as declared by Hitler, was Christian. The Third Reich was supported by the Catholic Church as the church supported the Reich's attempt to expunge not only the Jews but the Jewish roots of Christianity. Not directed at you but arguing with Christo-Fascists is a fools game. They will forever search for evil without mirror.

Talk about a fools game.

You never answered the question if you considered the Church of Israel, Israel , because it would exposes your simple method of selectively deciding to choose who or what has to claim responsibly for anyone using a company trademark. Hey the important thing is your mom never knew the Gucci bag was fake and why abandon a methodology that works?

I also find it curious to hold Catholics as the most responsible Christian sect for Nazi complicity. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you either that no institutions opposed to the Nazi party were allowed to exist. Hence the Catholic presence in Germany was as Nazi as any door knob.

The Catholics were simply another out of favor minority looking for its own position with problems of its own . If any Christians should be held reprehensible for Nazis ,I think it might make more sense to , ya know, talk about the Protestant majority? Here are some facts again so that way you know its me:

http://westerncivguides.umwblogs.org...tholic-church/

The conflict began in July 1871, when Bismarck, supported by the liberals, abolished the Roman Catholic bureau in the Prussian Ministry of Culture (i.e., ministry of education and ecclesiastical affairs) and in November forbade priests from voicing political opinions from the pulpit. In March 1872 all religious schools became subject to state inspection; in June all religious teachers were excluded from state schools, and the Jesuit order was dissolved in Germany; and in December diplomatic relations with the Vatican were severed.

http://americamagazine.org/issue/448...-hitlers-reich

Cardinal Pacelli said as much in August 1933 to Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British minister to the Vatican: The spiritual welfare of 20 million Catholic souls in Germany was at stake, and that was the first and, indeed, only consideration in agreeing to the concordat. The Holy See had to choose between an agreement on [Nazi] lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich.

I just don't know what alternate reality you live in. Knowing the fate of the Jews in 1933 was like asking someone in 1989 about the Internet. The Catholics more or less were trying to look out for themselves since they were in a constant defensive position for years.

This of course doesn't have much to do the actual religion other than the usual rampant hypocrisy associated with it. I'd agree with what ever happened to the principle of the ideology? well that is why we have Protestants of Protestants of Protestants of non nondenominational non affiliated Christan sects that keep breaking off every time the fundamentals are tampered with. I am just glad those fundamentals are passive which does help cut down on the violence. Again the main problem in all of this is humans. Can't change that anymore than one can prove Christianity isn't pacifist ideology.


Allah help us if the fundamentals of a faith do condone violence, but in that case Allah isn't going to help now is he?

[santafe2]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Talk about a fools game.

You never answered the question if you considered the Church of Israel, Israel , because it would exposes your simple method of selectively deciding to choose who or what has to claim responsibly for anyone using a company trademark. Hey the important thing is your mom never knew the Gucci bag was fake and why abandon a methodology that works?

I also find it curious to hold Catholics as the most responsible Christian sect for Nazi complicity. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you either that no institutions opposed to the Nazi party were allowed to exist. Hence the Catholic presence in Germany was as Nazi as any door knob.

The Catholics were simply another out of favor minority looking for its own position with problems of its own . If any Christians should be held reprehensible for Nazis ,I think it might make more sense to , ya know, talk about the Protestant majority? Here are some facts again so that way you know its me:

http://westerncivguides.umwblogs.org...tholic-church/

The conflict began in July 1871, when Bismarck, supported by the liberals, abolished the Roman Catholic bureau in the Prussian Ministry of Culture (i.e., ministry of education and ecclesiastical affairs) and in November forbade priests from voicing political opinions from the pulpit. In March 1872 all religious schools became subject to state inspection; in June all religious teachers were excluded from state schools, and the Jesuit order was dissolved in Germany; and in December diplomatic relations with the Vatican were severed.

http://americamagazine.org/issue/448...-hitlers-reich

Cardinal Pacelli said as much in August 1933 to Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British minister to the Vatican: The spiritual welfare of 20 million Catholic souls in Germany was at stake, and that was the first and, indeed, only consideration in agreeing to the concordat. The Holy See had to choose between an agreement on [Nazi] lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich.

I just don't know what alternate reality you live in. Knowing the fate of the Jews in 1933 was like asking someone in 1989 about the Internet. The Catholics more or less were trying to look out for themselves since they were in a constant defensive position for years.

This of course doesn't have much to do the actual religion other than the usual rampant hypocrisy associated with it. I'd agree with what ever happened to the principle of the ideology? well that is why we have Protestants of Protestants of Protestants of non nondenominational non affiliated Christan sects that keep breaking off every time the fundamentals are tampered with. I am just glad those fundamentals are passive which does help cut down on the violence. Again the main problem in all of this is humans. Can't change that anymore than one can prove Christianity isn't pacifist ideology.


Allah help us if the fundamentals of a faith do condone violence, but in that case Allah isn't going to help now is he?

Well played junior fascist. Now you can add apologist for Nazi sympathizers to your credentials. I'm sure your family is proud. I'll do the board a favor and add you to my ignore list so I don't read and won't be attempted to respond to your version of Christian-idiocracy.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Well played junior fascist. Now you can add apologist for Nazi sympathizers to your credentials. I'm sure your family is proud. I'll do the board a favor and add you to my ignore list so I don't read and won't be attempted to respond to your version of Christian-idiocracy.

I am not a Christan. I was a Christian and I left it by becoming intimately aware of what it is. I said so, and like apparently like anything else, ya didn't read it. If I don't much care for Christianity as a whole anymore, why the hell do I want another one even worse?


You try to pass off slovenly indolence and ignorance of the facts as moral position. Then like a fascist spreading propaganda, you attempt a smear campaign like a humiliated Weimar republic bankrupt of any supporting facts or coherent arguments in a fetish mythology all your own. I may have lost the stomach to gently engage your sniping one line retorts, but I offered an argument which you pusillanimously have avoided.

You simply can't read. You can't read my posts. You can't read the bible text. You can't read the Quran. All you can do is post pithy one liners and wallow in whatever it is that you dream to belief .

[DSpencer]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

To solve this problem, you want to weaken or remove a portion of the Bill of Rights, the first amendment's establishment clause. (This would be required to create a religious test for entry to the US.)

You also propose to ensure Muslims never gain influence in the first place, by banning their entry, to protect a space where American values can thrive.

I agree that religious testing is not the answer. What about just not letting anyone in? Or at least greatly limiting it. Why do we need more people here? What is the benefit?

I know that some people think it's hypocritical given America's history of accepting immigrants. But don't we have the right to decide that at a certain population density we don't want more people immigrating here? If two billion people want to live in America, do they have the unlimited right to simply move here because that's our tradition?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

...You simply can't read. You can't read my posts. You can't read the bible text. You can't read the Quran. All you can do is post pithy one liners and wallow in whatever it is that you dream to belief .

Life has that wonderful quality of ensuring that pride goes before a fall.

You should carefully proofread any screed centered on reading and writing skills before you post it to avoid typos that might make you look a bit foolish.
At least that's what I "belief".

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Life has that wonderful quality of ensuring that pride goes before a fall.

You should carefully proofread any screed centered on reading and writing skills before you post it to avoid typos that might make you look a bit foolish.
At least that's what I "belief".

So you are interested in me and my pride .....but not the argument. That I pointed a stick at complete BS is now considered prideful...


I don't have time to play nursemaid to those who think I am submitting material to an editor for syndication. I am often busy having to cite my sources while the likes of you budget your time by not citing or proving your arguments. Drive around in your waxed vehicle and take pride when your engine seizes from lack of essential maintenance. However, I do thank you for the minimal effort you put into your perfectly punctuated, banal posts.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

So you are interested in me and my pride .....but not the argument. That I pointed a stick at complete BS is now considered prideful...


I don't have time to play nursemaid to those who think I am submitting material to an editor for syndication. I am often busy having to cite my sources while the likes of you budget your time by not citing or proving your arguments. Drive around in your waxed vehicle and take pride when your engine seizes from lack of essential maintenance. However, I do thank you for the minimal effort you put into your perfectly punctuated, banal posts.

You are most welcome, it was my pleasure to do it.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I agree that religious testing is not the answer. What about just not letting anyone in? Or at least greatly limiting it. Why do we need more people here? What is the benefit?

I know that some people think it's hypocritical given America's history of accepting immigrants. But don't we have the right to decide that at a certain population density we don't want more people immigrating here? If two billion people want to live in America, do they have the unlimited right to simply move here because that's our tradition?

Well now here we agree. The idea that we must immigrate everyone from everywhere or become an isolationist , nationalist society with minority concentration camps is a hysterical. Its also not our tradition. We throttled it long enough for assimilation to occur until the 60s..

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

You are most welcome, it was my pleasure to do it.

It was your pleasure to use a comma between two independent clauses as a self appointed grammarian?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

It was your pleasure to use a comma between two independent clauses as a self appointed grammarian?

Yes it was, thank you for asking.

[astonas]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I agree that religious testing is not the answer. What about just not letting anyone in? Or at least greatly limiting it. Why do we need more people here? What is the benefit?

I know that some people think it's hypocritical given America's history of accepting immigrants. But don't we have the right to decide that at a certain population density we don't want more people immigrating here? If two billion people want to live in America, do they have the unlimited right to simply move here because that's our tradition?

Thanks for chiming in again, DSpencer. It's nice to have rational conversation again for a change, instead of incoherent insults mixed with disjointed quotations, that never actually succeed in connecting one point to another. I've given up trying to get a sensible position statement from others here. (Unless you'd like to continue further, this will be my last post in this thread).

Well, we already DO limit immigration, and quite a lot, so the "total numbers" concern wouldn't actually change our immigration policy in any way. (The department modifies the numbers periodically, and one can have different opinions on that, but there is no principle at stake in doing so, such as in the religious test.) The ratio of immigrants from different parts of the world is also already rationed as well. So there aren't "open doors" and no one is proposing that there be open doors. We're quite safe from a horde of 2 billion mouths-to-feed with existing policies.

We're really talking exclusively about placing an additional religious test into the process, of the sort that Trump has proposed.

On that question, we have the constitutional right to do it, but that still doesn't make it a good idea. And it's not just about hypocrisy, or tradition, or even the ideal of an inclusive society. (I mean, to some people that may be the main point, and I agree that the demand for a test qualifies as hypocrisy, but since that isn't the basis for my own thought process, for me it's sufficient for that to be treated as an aesthetic concern for the moment.)

Instead, I see it as about acting in our self-interest. It doesn't make rational sense to define a religious group as "other" and try to keep them out. It's just a bad way to calculate the risk vs. return of the situation, to base it on irrationally overblown fears of rare events, instead of reasonable assessments of risk.

There is a risk associated with having and deepening divisions of society, whether they be religious or otherwise. When one allows oneself to think of others as less than oneself, one falls into the trap described by Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

He was a protestant pastor in Nazi Germany. He was talking about a mistake one can easily make when one feels safely in the majority. Once a society grants that some people are less than others, and suppressable, there is always another line that can be found to subdivide it further. Niemoeller simply didn't imagine that the line would one day include him - he was as mainstream as they come, and supported the rise of Hitler, before realizing his mistake.

Note that the point is that the author first thought the struggle was about ideology and religion, but found out later - too late - that there was a pragmatic issue as well. Not speaking up for others can eventually bite you in your OWN ass. Even when in what appears to be a solid majority!

That was of course written about Nazi Germany, but the passage has been reworked for the current times (though hasn't been updated for Trump's latest rant on banning Muslim immigrants):

You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government, because you're not one.

And you might not care if Donald Trump says he's going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you're not one.

And you might not care if Donald Trump says it's OK to rough up black protesters, because you're not one.

And you might not care that Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you're not one.

But think about this.

If he keeps going and he actually becomes president,

he might just get around to you,

and you better hope that there's someone left to help you.

--Retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe, a prisoner of war in Vietnam

So no, one does not just protect "the other" because one likes it. Or because one agrees with it. Or even because one gets along with it. None of that is required, for speaking out to be the best strategic move.

One protects the other because in doing so, one protects one's own right to be different from the surrounding society. Because it is a smart move that in the long run protects oneself and one's kin.

So EVEN WHEN we are frightened (in this case, irrationally) of another religion, protecting the right to hold it, even among immigrants, STILL makes sense.

Strictly speaking, we are all minorities in some respect. Even the most white/male/middle-class/average person is in at least one respect. (For starters, there are more women in the country than men.)

So if we begin to allow the principle that whoever is in the majority at the moment gets to call all the shots, and do whatever it takes to preserve and expand their influence (for example, selectively limiting immigration with a new religious criterion) then we are opening the door to a threat far more dangerous than mere terrorism. It is the very essence of the "tyranny of the majority" which was the basis for establishing a permanent set of rights in the first place. Do the actual rights, strictly constructed, apply to immigrants? Of course not. But the same reason for establishing those rights informs us that where possible, it is the smart move to extend the principle.

Allowing our society be driven by the most irrational and craven cowardice of any given moment, and entirely steered by whoever is in the majority at any given moment, is a really bad idea. Not just for the immediately visible first victims, but for EVERYONE (since no one knows who the second and third wave might include).

If there's any set of principles that can be said to be central to "American Values" the principles behind the establishment of the Bill of Rights are pretty good candidates for the job. We need to think very clearly before turning them in, motivated by the pretense that one is "defending" America from an exaggerated threat.



Here's one such thought process, which is particularly free of the oft-reviled liberalism:

Look, even assuming zero immigration, based on birthrates alone, demographics are shifting. White people are already not in the majority, and won't even be in the plurality for very long.

Do we REALLY want our society to move into this next phase, having recently re-enforced mob-rule precedents, so that whoever becomes the NEW plurality, can more easily do whatever they see fit to preserve and expand that plurality into a majority?

You see the point? Even if one is motivated purely by hate for, and fear of, "the other," it's STILL dumb to create systems like selective tests, since these would later be used against ONESELF. A more effective way to protect oneself in the long run is to strive for equality. See how "liberalism" or "altruism" or "liking the other" is not needed to go along with this?

No matter what happens with immigration, the day will come when we or our descendants will be in a minority in some manner that is electorally significant. How do we want them, our kin treated? Would we want the newly dominant block to stop immigration of people like us, so that it can remain in the majority going forward? If religious influence continues to decline, would we want everyone with a religion to be registered and tracked by religion? That sounds like a horrible future to me, and I don't even have a religion. Then again, perhaps it is that very fact that will be used against me? The point is that we don't know.

OR do we want to have a society that does NOT treat minorities of various types as though they needed to be suppressed, whenever the majority gets irrationally spooked? One that has a commitment to keeping a cool head in times of crisis? On that follows American values?


A key component in all of this is also the nature of terrorism itself. Terrorism is an attempt to alter the behavior of its enemy (us) by inspiring a fear that is GREATER THAN THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL THREAT ITSELF. That's the whole point of the tactic. To make us over-react, and thereby fall into a worse strategic situation than initially.

Here, ISIS wants us to be afraid, in excess of its ability to actually hit us. It is HELPED whenever we over-react. Our marginalization of muslims here and abroad makes it easier for them to isolate, recruit, and radicalize, extremists. The way to combat that is by remaining coldly rational and objective in our decision-making. On the other hand, the way to surrender to ISIS is to allow ourselves to panic, and agree to fight a massive cultural war. That's the front it thinks it can most easily WIN on.

Why would we let them dictate such terms to us? The very NAME of the tactic "terrorism" tells us what they want, and we embrace and further their desires? We allow terror to influence our decisions? Are we THAT stupid?


It is just bad strategy to do so. Even if one is of the opinion that there ALREADY IS a full-blown cultural war, it's STILL a bad strategy to fight it in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of their tactics. Since they've picked terrorism, the one thing we shouldn't do is act on irrational fears.

So my argument isn't chiefly a moral one at all. It is a practical one.

Giving in to terrorism -- allowing oneself to be afraid in excess of the actual risk -- is not (just) morally wrong.

It's stupid. It's how to LOSE whatever struggles are coming, not WIN them. And the people who insist that we act on irrational fears are the unwitting allies of ISIS.

I've already decided to stop responding to the one I've found on these pages. Even with the most patient coaching, he can't seem to string together a coherent case that connects from his random grab-bag of quotes and vitriol to his conclusion. Sorry gwenedd1, you're on ignore.

[vt]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

What about Yazidis refugees fleeing ISIS? What about Christians fleeing ISIS? They have seen families heads cut off, and wives and daughters kidnapped and raped. These are the real victims of religious discrimination.

If there is no religious test where are they in the refugees coming?

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28686607

"3,000–5,000 Yazidi men had been killed by ISIS"

"Hundreds' of Yazidi women killing themselves in ISIS captivity"

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/29/report-isis-crucified-tortured-thousands-christians-iraq-syria/

Thousands of Christians have been tortured and killed.

By the way Trump is an idiot and rightfully condemned. I respect and know many religious and moderate moslems.

Also that chart you posted is one of the most misleading I've ever seen. It is outrageous to leave out since 2000, instead of the cherry picked "since 9/11".

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Thanks for chiming in again, DSpencer. It's nice to have rational conversation again for a change, instead of incoherent insults mixed with disjointed quotations, that never actually succeed in connecting one point to another. I've given up trying to get a sensible position statement from others here. (Unless you'd like to continue further, this will be my last post in this thread).

Oh poor baby. Looks like you are pretty good at insulting as well, albeit in wet nosed, passive aggressive style. . Not as good as one who calls people Nazis for telling the actual facts and context of Catholics and Nazis.

See what you did is reply to me after I responded to an arrogant insult which came with an apology immediately followed by an insult. Then you went back to the well " The essential problem here is not the text.", words don't mean anything argument which is worthy only of ridicule. Then you proved your method by not paying attention to what I was posting by assuming I must be preaching Christianity. Then you are shocked, shocked I tell you this was not the case. Then you decided to "start over", in which case you were not happy I stuck to the OP. I warned you that I thought your approach to problems was the typical bulbous headed intellectual style with one assumed premise after another. Your ridiculous epic of long and winding poem on the analysis of argument was truly incoherent. This post is no exception. You deal with every principle in the purely abstract as if a religion that calls for human sacrifice, does not cause a Constitutional conflict in application.

Well, we already DO limit immigration, and quite a lot, so the "total numbers" concern wouldn't actually change our immigration policy in any way. (The department modifies the numbers periodically, and one can have different opinions on that, but there is no principle at stake in doing so, such as in the religious test.) The ratio of immigrants from different parts of the world is also already rationed as well. So there aren't "open doors" and no one is proposing that there be open doors. We're quite safe from a horde of 2 billion mouths-to-feed with existing policies.

See here we go. "Quite a lot". WTF does quite a lot mean? Quite a lot to some mythological place in your head? Either one compares the US to other countries or to its own history. Here is another "confusing" fact.

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-im...on-before-1965

In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which did away with quotas based on nationality and allowed Americans to sponsor relatives from their countries of origin. As a result of this act and subsequent legislation, the nation experienced a shift in immigration patterns. Today, the majority of U.S. immigrants come from Asia and Latin America rather than Europe.

In other words we limit it the least we have ever done, quite the opposite of your day dreamt mythologies. Rome allowed quite a lot of Goths into their empire....How'd that work out, Valens?

We're really talking exclusively about placing an additional religious test into the process, of the sort that Trump has proposed.

On that question, we have the constitutional right to do it, but that still doesn't make it a good idea. And it's not just about hypocrisy, or tradition, or even the ideal of an inclusive society. (I mean, to some people that may be the main point, and I agree that the demand for a test qualifies as hypocrisy, but since that isn't the basis for my own thought process, for me it's sufficient for that to be treated as an aesthetic concern for the moment.)

Instead, I see it as about acting in our self-interest. It doesn't make rational sense to define a religious group as "other" and try to keep them out. It's just a bad way to calculate the risk vs. return of the situation, to base it on irrationally overblown fears of rare events, instead of reasonable assessments of risk.

Ya see no we are not. We are talking about actual things that violate civil rights. All you want to do all day long is deal with the abstractions instead of the real world of application. You cannot have honor killing and the Bill of Rights.

There is a risk associated with having and deepening divisions of society, whether they be religious or otherwise. When one allows oneself to think of others as less than oneself, one falls into the trap described by Martin Niemoeller:

Here we go again. What risk? The one in your head?

Mass immigration is associated with conflict

The influx of newcomers resulted in anti-immigrant sentiment among certain factions of America’s native-born, predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. The new arrivals were often seen as unwanted competition for jobs, while many Catholics–especially the Irish–experienced discrimination for their religious beliefs. In the 1850s, the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Party (also called the Know-Nothings) tried to severely curb immigration, and even ran a candidate, former U.S. president Millard Fillmore (1800-1874), in the presidential election of 1956.

He was a protestant pastor in Nazi Germany. He was talking about a mistake one can easily make when one feels safely in the majority. Once a society grants that some people are less than others, and suppressable, there is always another line that can be found to subdivide it further. Niemoeller simply didn't imagine that the line would one day include him - he was as mainstream as they come, and supported the rise of Hitler, before realizing his mistake.

Note that the point is that the author first thought the struggle was about ideology and religion, but found out later - too late - that there was a pragmatic issue as well. Not speaking up for others can eventually bite you in your OWN ass. Even when in what appears to be a solid majority!

In other words he is saying the inability to identity with another is the risk. He is warning of a divided society which lack of an assimilated melting pot promotes, and your inability to process basic information is evident once again.

That was of course written about Nazi Germany, but the passage has been reworked for the current times (though hasn't been updated for Trump's latest rant on banning Muslim immigrants):

So no, one does not just protect "the other" because one likes it. Or because one agrees with it. Or even because one gets along with it. None of that is required, for speaking out to be the best strategic move.

One protects the other because in doing so, one protects one's own right to be different from the surrounding society. Because it is a smart move that in the long run protects oneself and one's kin.

So EVEN WHEN we are frightened (in this case, irrationally) of another religion, protecting the right to hold it, even among immigrants, STILL makes sense.

Strictly speaking, we are all minorities in some respect. Even the most white/male/middle-class/average person is in at least one respect. (For starters, there are more women in the country than men.)

So if we begin to allow the principle that whoever is in the majority at the moment gets to call all the shots, and do whatever it takes to preserve and expand their influence (for example, selectively limiting immigration with a new religious criterion) then we are opening the door to a threat far more dangerous than mere terrorism. It is the very essence of the "tyranny of the majority" which was the basis for establishing a permanent set of rights in the first place. Do the actual rights, strictly constructed, apply to immigrants? Of course not. But the same reason for establishing those rights informs us that where possible, it is the smart move to extend the principle.

Allowing our society be driven by the most irrational and craven cowardice of any given moment, and entirely steered by whoever is in the majority at any given moment, is a really bad idea. Not just for the immediately visible first victims, but for EVERYONE (since no one knows who the second and third wave might include).

If there's any set of principles that can be said to be central to "American Values" the principles behind the establishment of the Bill of Rights are pretty good candidates for the job. We need to think very clearly before turning them in, motivated by the pretense that one is "defending" America from an exaggerated threat.

The problem is when it become a volatile mix where a faction can become a threat. So there is your gradualism argument again. Its analogous to an exploive mix. A handful of Goths would have been lost in history.

Here's one such thought process, which is particularly free of the oft-reviled liberalism:

Look, even assuming zero immigration, based on birthrates alone, demographics are shifting. White people are already not in the majority, and won't even be in the plurality for very long.

Here we go again. We are talking about assimilated Americans , not whites. Islam is an ideology not a race.

Do we REALLY want our society to move into this next phase, having recently re-enforced mob-rule precedents, so that whoever becomes the NEW plurality, can more easily do whatever they see fit to preserve and expand that plurality into a majority?

We all died between 1920 and 1960? Do we really want move the US into a country that has time to consolidate and consider themselves as Americans ?

You see the point? Even if one is motivated purely by hate for, and fear of, "the other," it's STILL dumb to create systems like selective tests, since these would later be used against ONESELF. A more effective way to protect oneself in the long run is to strive for equality. See how "liberalism" or "altruism" or "liking the other" is not needed to go along with this?

No matter what happens with immigration, the day will come when we or our descendants will be in a minority in some manner that is electorally significant. How do we want them, our kin treated? Would we want the newly dominant block to stop immigration of people like us, so that it can remain in the majority going forward? If religious influence continues to decline, would we want everyone with a religion to be registered and tracked by religion? That sounds like a horrible future to me, and I don't even have a religion. Then again, perhaps it is that very fact that will be used against me? The point is that we don't know.

Another abstraction way into the future , arguing we may as well live in a tent now since eventually a strong wind will blow the house down. Speak for yourself.

OR do we want to have a society that does NOT treat minorities of various types as though they needed to be suppressed, whenever the majority gets irrationally spooked? One that has a commitment to keeping a cool head in times of crisis? On that follows American values?

Not a minority issue...unless killing gays

004.016
YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

The New Testament denounces it as a sin, and merely has them leave the congregation, still consistent with freedom of association in private life.

The Hadith and the basis of Sharia law are of course worse:

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."


Surely no one would actually read that and take it seriously....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...uality-charges

A key component in all of this is also the nature of terrorism itself. Terrorism is an attempt to alter the behavior of its enemy (us) by inspiring a fear that is GREATER THAN THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL THREAT ITSELF. That's the whole point of the tactic. To make us over-react, and thereby fall into a worse strategic situation than initially.

Here, ISIS wants us to be afraid, in excess of its ability to actually hit us. It is HELPED whenever we over-react. Our marginalization of muslims here and abroad makes it easier for them to isolate, recruit, and radicalize, extremists. The way to combat that is by remaining coldly rational and objective in our decision-making. On the other hand, the way to surrender to ISIS is to allow ourselves to panic, and agree to fight a massive cultural war. That's the front it thinks it can most easily WIN on.

hmm yeah like having an immigration policy to be a bit more selective is just crazy...just like we had in the past. Bring us your sick and criminal.......Who is the one being hysterical here? What makes you fear of what we have already done anymore rational. Again, you have this half baked inconsistent approach and foreboding doom of not implementing random immigration all while accusing others of hysteria.

Why would we let them dictate such terms to us? The very NAME of the tactic "terrorism" tells us what they want, and we embrace and further their desires? We allow terror to influence our decisions? Are we THAT stupid?


It is just bad strategy to do so. Even if one is of the opinion that there ALREADY IS a full-blown cultural war, it's STILL a bad strategy to fight it in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of their tactics. Since they've picked terrorism, the one thing we shouldn't do is act on irrational fears.

So my argument isn't chiefly a moral one at all. It is a practical one.

Giving in to terrorism -- allowing oneself to be afraid in excess of the actual risk -- is not (just) morally wrong.

It's stupid. It's how to LOSE whatever struggles are coming, not WIN them. And the people who insist that we act on irrational fears are the unwitting allies of ISIS.

I've already decided to stop responding to the one I've found on these pages. Even with the most patient coaching, he can't seem to string together a coherent case that connects from his random grab-bag of quotes and vitriol to his conclusion. Sorry gwenedd1, you're on ignore.

Oh no, I've been ignored. Saves me the roll of duck tape.