Black lives matter!

[Formaldehyde]

You said Islam specifically prohibits killing civilians, but now there's no such thing as Islam's treatment of civilians?

Did you already completely forget the context of my statement, even after you apologized for not understanding it the first time?

We were discussing the tenets of Islam, not the varied beliefs of "all Muslims". Thats another strawman Form, obviously some Muslims believe apostates should be executed and some dont. What does Islam say about it?

No, what you are "discussing" is the blatantly Islamophobic notion that modern Islam is anything like the original "tenets". Again, the Bible makes the same sort of statements. Again, many Christians and Jews still believe every single word. But it would be completely ludicrous to claim it still is a "tenet" of modern Judaism or Christianity.

And, no, it isn't a strawman to continue to point out the blatant fallacies of continuing to do so.

"Right. Like Christians or Jews committing brutal terrorist attacks is a similarly serious issue that threatens the welfare and safety of [some number of] Muslims every day.

Only I wasn't claiming they were in any way of the same magnitude. Now was I?

Not really, it just can't look like an intentional red herring, in order to downplay or divert.

Indeed.

 

[brennan]

"Let me tell you something, for hundreds of years, this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have, or those like us would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley face ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much more ground and because we know so much more. But you've got no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong,and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."

 

[Formaldehyde]

You really should provide attribution to quotes.

And I couldn't agree more with Christopher Hitchens except that many still believe they have a god on their side. They haven't really changed much at all from when they were the vast majority who persecuted others for having different beliefs.

 

[Berzerker]

Did you already completely forget the context of my statement, even after you apologized for not understanding it the first time?

You said "there is no such thing as Islam's treatment of civilians". And you offered that after telling us about Islam's treatment of civilians. How does the context change your flip flop?

No, what you are "discussing" is the blatantly Islamophobic notion that modern Islam is anything like the original "tenets".

You said Islam specifically prohibits killing civilians (in war), you never said that assertion is based on "modern" Islam as opposed to the "original tenets".

Again, the Bible makes the same sort of statements. Again, many Christians and Jews still believe every single word. But it would be completely ludicrous to claim it still is a "tenet" of modern Judaism or Christianity.

I dont think Christians and Jews are killing apostates, but if they do and thats what their religion tells them, they're in the same boat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You said "there is no such thing as Islam's treatment of civilians". And you offered that after telling us about Islam's treatment of civilians. How does the context change your flip flop?

I was obviously referring to your sweeping generalizations. I even made that quite clear. You had to quote mine the context out of my statement to even be able to post it:

Again, there is no such thing as "Islam's treatment of civilians". It obviously depends on the particular sect, the culture, and the location of the group. You are still painting with far too broad of a brush trying to condemn all of Islam.

You said Islam specifically prohibits killing civilians (in war), you never said that assertion is based on "modern" Islam as opposed to the "original tenets".

That is because that restriction has always been there. It is actually a part of the "tenets of Islam" which were practiced when it was originally written as it still is today. The only real parts that have been superceded with time are the same aspects which have been eventually phased out of modern Judaism and Christianity as well. All three religions have been revised with time as morals and knowledge of the world changed.

You can certainly argue that there continues to be a disturbingly large group in the more backward parts of the world who believe every single word in every single religious scripture, just as there still are some fundamentalist Christians and Jews who do the same even today. But you can't argue that it is a part of the modern religion as practiced in the Western world anymore except by a similarly small group of fundamentalists in all three religions.

Furthermore, there are places in Africa where Christians are now trying to enact laws to execute any practicing homosexuals. But hardly anybody would suggest it is still now a "tenet of Christianity" as it once was, and it would suffer from the same issue of credibility if they did.

I dont think Christians and Jews are killing apostates, but if they do and thats what their religion tells them, they're in the same boat.

I was referring to blasphemers. What do you think Christian and Jewish religious fanatics are doing bombing abortion clinics, murdering abortion doctors, bombing the Olympics, harassing and murdering Muslims in the occupied territories, and even persecuting Christians and Muslims in Israel itself?

Apostasy is largely a major issue in some of the more backward Muslim countries due to proselytizing by Christian missionaries. They resent any foreign intervention in their own affairs.

 

[brennan]

...the blatantly Islamophobic notion that modern Islam is anything like the original "tenets".

Waitwaitwait ... it's Islamophobic to compare Islam now with what it says in the Koran? Now that's some serious doublethink.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you actually think it wouldn't be "Christianophobic" and "Judaiphobic" to claim that modern Christianity and Judaism still calls for blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who disrespect their parents to be stoned to death? That this would be "doublethink" merely because fundamentalists in incredibly backward parts of the world still believe it?

 

[Berzerker]

I was obviously referring to your sweeping generalizations. I even made that quite clear. You even had to quote mine the context out of my statement:

What sweeping generalizations? And I didn't "quote mine", I never said all Muslims believe apostates should be executed or anything else so why would I respond to the rest of your strawman? That sweeping generalization is yours, not mine.

You said Islam specifically prohibits killing civilians (in war) but when I referred to Islam's treatment of civilians you declared there is no Islamic treatment of civilians and proceeded to explain that Muslims dont all agree (no kidding).

Well, if they dont all agree and some are killing civilians who are you to say they aint really Muslims? Kinda depends on what Islam says, right? So when does Islam approve of killing civilians? When they're apostates? Blasphemers? When they refuse to cooperate? Yes, Islam has plenty of rules regarding "ethical" warfare. How many did Jesus have to offer?

That is because that restriction has always been there. It is actually a part of the "tenets of Islam" which were practiced when it was originally written as it still is today.

Has someone removed the "death to apostates" original tenet of the Koran? When I say "Islam" wants apostates punished I'm referring to the religion, not the moderate views of Muslims who disagree.

You can certainly argue that there continues to be a disturbingly large group in the more backward parts of the world who believe every single word, just as there still are some fundamentalist Christians and Jews who do the same even today. But you can't argue that it is a part of the modern religion as practiced in the Western world anymore except by a similarly small group of fundamentalists in all three religions.

About how many Christians, Jews and Muslims believe people should be killed or jailed (or whipped, or whatever) for leaving their respective religions?

Furthermore, there are places in Africa where Christians are now trying to enact laws to execute any practicing homosexuals. But hardly anybody would suggest it is still now a "tenet of Christianity" as it once was, and it would suffer from the same issue of credibility if they did.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuals, but Islam does mention apostates.

I was referring to blasphemers.

If they're killing blasphemers they're in the same boat, they just dont have Jesus to blame.

 

[Berzerker]

So you actually think it wouldn't be "Christianophobic" and "Judaiphobic" to claim that modern Christianity and Judaism still calls for blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who disrespect their parents to be stoned to death?

Jesus defended an adulterer, I'd be hard pressed to argue the war on sin is his fault - he supposedly died for our sins

 

[brennan]

So you actually think it wouldn't be "Christianophobic" and "Judaiphobic" to claim that modern Christianity and Judaism still calls for blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who disrespect their parents to be stoned to death? That this would be "doublethink" merely because fundamentalists in incredibly backward parts of the world still believe it?

No I don't. I'd think it meant awareness of what it actually says in those revolting books.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What sweeping generalizations?

You don't seem to be getting the point that there are few generalizations, if any, which can be made in the controversial matters regarding Islam. Just take a look at the statistics I have posted in this thread. Muslim opinion in these matter is all over the place. So you can't really even say "Islam's treatment of civilians", or its "treatment" of anything or anybody for that matter where there is no broad consensus.

Well, if they dont all agree and some are killing civilians who are you to say they aint really Muslims?

Are Christian and Jewish terrorists "really Christians and Jews"? Or are they clearly violating the basic tenets of their religion?

Kinda depends on what Islam says, right? So when does Islam approve of killing civilians?

First, the word "civilian" implies that we are discussing some sort of state of war or terrorism activity, and we are differentiating these people from combatants.

Second, Islam forbids killing them under any such circumstances.

When they're apostates? Blasphemers? When they refuse to cooperate?

Well, now I hope you are discussing all Muslims, not just civilians. And, again, the opinion is all over the place. For instance, only 1% of Muslims who live in Albania think that an apostate to Islam should be killed. OTOH 70% of the Muslims who live in Afghanistan think he should be put to death.

So, what does the religion of Islam have to say about that incredible discrepancy in opinions besides nothing at all?

Yes, Islam has plenty of rules regarding "ethical" warfare. How many did Jesus have to offer?

Ironically, Jesus was a pacifist who would not have condoned any warfare. But what percentage of Christians share that view? So is that a tenet of modern Christianity? Apparently not...

Has someone removed the "death to apostates" original tenet of the Koran?

Has someone removed it from the Bible? No. Is it still a tenet of Christianity? Not according to Christians living in the modern world except for some fundamentalists. Is it still a tenet of Islam? Not according to Muslims living in the modern world except for some fundamentalists.

When I say "Islam" wants apostates punished I'm referring to the religion, not the moderate views of Muslims who disagree.

A religion in and of itself is not capable of punishing anybody.

About how many Christians, Jews and Muslims believe people should be killed or jailed (or whipped, or whatever) for leaving their respective religions?

I have no idea. But I do know that the mere notion is reprehensible to most anybody in the Western world who is not a fundamentalist. That holds for all 3 religions.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuals, but Islam does mention apostates.

The Bible mentions both. It commands they all be stoned to death. And that is what some Christians still want to do even today.

Final exam question: Is it a tenet of Christianity?

No I don't. I'd think it meant awareness of what it actually says in those revolting books.

Well, the obvious problem is that not everybody still believes what it says "in those revolting books". That all 3 religions have become significantly less "revolting" over time, at least if you don't consider some African Christians, some fundamentalist Jews, and some fundamentalist Muslims as being representative of their respective religions. That they are actually now just the opposite. They are the exceptions which will hopefully soon all die out.

 

[illram]

So Muslims are mostly crazy and black people don't really care about crime in their own communities. Let's assume all of that is true. What's the solution? Does it change the analysis of other problems in a significant way? E.g. police brutality, systemic inequality, or in the case of those crazy muslims, aggressive bombing/invasions?

 

[Sommerswerd]

In fairness, a lot of victims of state violence in the US barely "step out of line" in any meaningful sense.

You're right Sommerswerd. It's pretty difficult to say there is even that difference between some of the worst parts of the Islamic world and our own society.

The above two statements are really key for me in illustrating the issue, because we have three distinct but still very important issues going on.

1. The police treat black people worse than others / the police treat white people better than others.

2. The police treat everyone (who isn't rich and/or famous) like crap.

3. America has criminal justice problems that involve race, ethnicity, culture, community and socioeconomic status.

So then we get the tangents that emerge because of the three issues being conflated.

A. Since the police treat everyone badly, complaining only about how they treat black people is racist and just as bad the KKK, etc, and all the ensuing related arguments

B. Since the police treat white people better, white people who don't condemn the police are clearly taking their side and therefore racist etc, and all the ensuing related arguments

C. America isn't as bad as other places. So criticizing America's police/justice system, culture, religion etc is unpatriotic and wrong... you should focus more on how other places are just as bad or worse rather than criticizing America or American related stuff... In fact, criticizing anything about American systems is pretty much the same as terrorism and radical extremism... and all the ensuing related arguments

D. America isn't special, in fact America is just as bad as everywhere else. In fact since America is so rich and powerful and privileged America is worse for behaving as badly as other countries. So you should be criticizing America and American stuff, not other countries/cultures etc., and if you don't you're just racist and biased... and all ensuing related arguments.

I'm trying to see if there is anything that I am missing, but it seems like that is pretty much the sum of it. The problem, is all of this misses the point, which is, how do we create a system where it is less likely that these police shootings keep occurring?

I have a 3 solution proposal, that I posted in another thread (that has nothing to do with radical islam, the KKK, god or racism). Rather than freestyle it I will see if I can find it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So Muslims are mostly crazy and black people don't really care about crime in their own communities. Let's assume all of that is true. What's the solution? Does it change the analysis of other problems in a significant way? E.g. police brutality, systemic inequality, or in the case of those crazy muslims, aggressive bombing/invasions?

Someone should ask that question at the next Republican presidential debate because I think they would all agree with those two premises.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The best (most likely to succeed) proposal I have heard is the "shoot someone, get another job" policy. No debates about justification, just an acknowledgement that if you can't get the job done without shooting people you need to find a line of work better suited to your aptitudes.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The best (most likely to succeed) proposal I have heard is the "shoot someone, get another job" policy. No debates about justification, just an acknowledgement that if you can't get the job done without shooting people you need to find a line of work better suited to your aptitudes.

Found it in the Ferguson thread post #1344

I would like to see States choose (or the Fed govt force them to choose) one of the following, to substantially reduce these incidents:

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work. Either move to the precinct where you work, or if you dont want to move, then transfer to your home-precinct. Or quit and make room for locals to get the jobs. Many of these inner city neighborhoods could use the local high paying jobs for the economy. Plus cops will care much more about improving their own neighborhood. Also police will treat their neighbors much more considerately and carefully, and the neighbors will respond much better to cops that they know. As far as the effect on officer safety goes, I say public safety has to outweigh officer safety. Be a valuable, helpful member of your community, don't be a jerk and you won't have to worry about people knowing where you live.

2. No guns or tazers for regular officers. Nightstick, mace, radio, flashlight, maybe even dogs in the cruisers if they want (plenty of shelter dogs needing homes). If a situation calls for guns then you have to call for a Captain or a SWAT team who will have special training and authority to use firearms/tazers. That way everything is documented on video and the suspect will be more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming armed force. You also get rid of the "his word against mine." Less deaths all around.

3. No more "self defense" or "I was in fear" justification for deadly force by police. Police can use deadly force only to protect members of the public from imminent death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is never justified to protect only the officer and/or other officers. This way, if a guy is waving a gun around or shooting in public there will be plenty of witnesses, and we avoid these self-serving police reports where the only two witnesses are the shooting-officer and the dead guy. Again, public safety is more important than officer safety. If you want to keep your "right to self defense" then fine, get a new job. There are plenty of people that need a good government job.

Again, pick one. Any one of these will acheive the desired effect, and every state can pick the one that tailors best to their needs.

To option #3 I would just add Tim's clause "You shoot, you fired" If you can't do your job without shooting people dead you need to find a new line of work.

 

[Berzerker]

You don't seem to be getting the point that there are few generalizations, if any, which can be made in the controversial matters regarding Islam. Just take a look at the statistics I have posted in this thread. Muslim opinion in these matter is all over the place. So you can't really even say "Islam's treatment of civilians", or its "treatment" of anything or anybody for that matter where there is no broad consensus.

You accused me of making sweeping generalizations, where are they?

You said "Islam specifically prohibits the killing of civilians" and I mentioned "Islam's treatment of civilians" in reference to apostasy and blasphemy and now you're telling me "Islam" doesn't really treat civilians because Muslims dont all agree. They dont all agree about not killing civilians either or even how to identify them - seems like open season on civilians lately.

Islam is a religion with dos and donts and among the donts is dont leave the religion and dont blaspheme it. If you leave the religion you risk being treated a certain way based on what "Islam" says. If its the law of the land, you may killed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You accused me of making sweeping generalizations, where are they?

You said "Islam specifically prohibits the killing of civilians" and I mentioned "Islam's treatment of civilians" in reference to apostasy and blasphemy and now you're telling me "Islam" doesn't really treat civilians because Muslims dont all agree. They dont all agree about not killing civilians either or even how to identify them - seems like open season on civilians lately.

Islam is a religion with dos and donts and among the donts is dont leave the religion and dont blaspheme it. If you leave the religion you risk being treated a certain way based on what "Islam" says. If its the law of the land, you may killed.

So I think this statement is an example of

C. America isn't as bad as other places...etc

And Formy's response will be an example of

D. ... America is just as bad as everywhere else ... So you should be criticizing America and American stuff, not other countries/cultures ....

Both arguments conflating the "America has problems" point with the "police treat black people worse/white people better" point.

 

[Berzerker]

First, the word "civilian" implies that we are discussing some sort of state of war or terrorism activity, and we are differentiating these people from combatants.

Second, Islam forbids killing them under any such circumstances.

What if they're apostates, blasphemers, or a variety of other sinners?

only 1% of Muslims who live in Albania think that an apostate to Islam should be killed. OTOH 70% of the Muslims who live in Afghanistan think he should be put to death.

So, what does the religion of Islam have to say about that incredible discrepancy in opinions besides nothing at all?

Does Islam have anything to say about punishing apostates?

Has someone removed it from the Bible? No. Is it still a tenet of Christianity? Not according to Christians living in the modern world except for some fundamentalists. Is it still a tenet of Islam? Not according to Muslims living in the modern world except for some fundamentalists.

I dont think the Bible advocates death to apostates, but it sure aint in the teachings of Jesus.

A religion in and of itself is not capable of punishing anybody.

You said Islam prohibits killing civilians, but now its not capable of anything?

The Bible mentions both. It commands they all be stoned to death. And that is what some Christians still want to do even today.

Final exam question: Is it a tenet of Christianity?

No, not if tenets of Christianity are based on the teachings of Jesus. What does Islam have to say on the subject? So what happens to gays in Muslim countries where Islam is the law of the land?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Deserves its own thread.

I don't think so. I think its related... like this:

If we blame the West whites for problems inherent to Islam blacks, we whites will never solve these problems that blacks have... If we recognize and talk openly about Islam black culture having a political element to it which is detrimental to society and which must be eliminated, we can apply conversational pressure to those who speak of a benign "religion of peace" social justice. We can start supporting those Muslims blacks who have acknowledged the problem. There is evidence that there are large numbers of people in the Muslim world black community who disagree with the mainstream of Islamic orthodoxy black urban culture, yet remain silent for fear of their lives and their families being labled as sellouts...

I think the reason that the conversation has turned so sharply is not necessarily because we are discussing something different, conceptually, but because it is easier to use this topic as a proxy. Whether you want to talk about "victim blaming" or "white guilt" or "blame America first" or some other hot-button phrase, it seems like its the same concepts being applied, but with less personal risk, because the original topic carries alot more localized racial baggage whereas the proxy topic has more remote, abstract baggage (at least for Americans).