Amid rising anti-Muslim attacks across the United States, many from within targeted communities are calling on U.S. society to address the root causes of this violence by examining deep and "structural" Islamophobia, manifested in modern U.S. history—from the War on Terror to the 2016 presidential race.
America's national Islamophobia undermines its claims of legitimacy with the well documented history of American violence and terrorism.
America's national Islamophobia, disconnected from any evidence to support Muslim persecution, is further undermined by America's failure to direct security enforcement towards the much more violent and deadly Christian fundamentalists and white supremacists.
As usual in America, no factual counter-evidence will slow the traditions of ignorance and hate.
It is shameful that fundamentalists are given such leeway to engage in rabble rousing and hate speech. Right wing politics dearly loves the manipulation of issues to favor the conservative viewpoint by these fundamentalist preachers.
I don't know what religion they think they are professing but Christ was a progressive who came for the poor and the oppressed. They make of the Christ of love, a hater and intolerant oppressor. They reject the message of Christ and they fool no one of faith. So they may have their Rolls Royces and multi million dollar ministries but Christ will not know them when the day comes because of the hatred they preached and the sins they condoned.
Fundamentalists are a big problem in this world... both over there and over here too.
Isn't all that view a bit fundamentalist? No offence but you sound just like them to me, a mostly atheist agnostic, just another religious 'believer' with very fixed opinions based on a total lack of evidence. Also France is pretty secular so who do you mean by 'over there?'
With all due respect if a person considers all faith in a deity as illegitimate then of course people of faith would all sound the same to them.
This one size condemns all can be applied to almost any diversity by giving them all an overriding label.
Thus republicans and democrats as well as independents and third party advocates are all the same because they all believe in participating in the political process.
Therefore if you simply write off everybody...then to you there will be no differences between them.
A simplistic affectation which dismisses the individual and subsumes their beliefs into a one size fits all grouping. A chili pepper is the same as a cucumber because they are both vegetables.
Those who oppose married priests being the same as those who are in favor. Those who disapprove of abortion being no different than those who affirm a woman's right to choose.
Or say you espousing some political view on CD as being in the same category as a tea party member commenting about politics on one of their blogs.
To apply a false simplicity to everything may make things simpler for you but they are an embarrassing way to try discussing things don't you think?
About as valid as saying all forums are the same because they are all online.
What someone else wears at the beach is nevertheless their business. You may not agree with it but if that is what SHE prefers (and it was not coerced) then simply put >>> it is not up to you what someone else wears.
I amazed by many modern Christians who berate those who meditate/pray intensively. Christ spent 40 days and 40 nights in the desert. What do Christians think he was doing? In mainstream, popular Christian parlance, the solo meditator/prayer is just some fringe hippy wacko who's lost touch with reality. Most of Christianity wouldn't recognize the Christ described by the bible. Instead he would be shot/incarcerated/tortured,/berated and ignored. Oops, sounds familiar. One nation under God? Not the God of Christ to be sure.
I appreciated your comment.
The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of their day. They were the self righteous hypocrites who followed strict religious law and opposed Christ's progressive views. The religious authorities who collaborated with the Romans were fundamentalists. Jesus was the progressive revolutionary.
It surprises me how throughout the ages there are those who use religion to oppress others and at the same time there are those with faith who struggle against them in support of the poor and the oppressed.
Jesus came for the poor by His own words. That makes him a progressive...lol. The fundamentalists use faith but do not have faith in my opinion. They believe in their own religion not the teachings of Christ. Love others is not the fundamentalist view but it was Christ's.
The fundamentalist browbeat and intimidate but they are actually the heretics. They are our Pharisees.
Much of this "Islamophobia" is the product of appalling ignorance. I have lived in Muslim countries, and lived for some time with a Muslim family. I observed Ramadan and celebrated Hari Raya. I studied the Holy Qur'an. Yet, when I hear ignorance and hatred being spewed by someone and try to have a discussion on Islam, it quickly becomes apparent that they have no knowledge of Islam, or of Mohammad (pbuh). Further, they usually have no interest in learning anything about it and spout the same stuff that they listen to on the MSM and when attending hate groups.
* What is really necessary is education, the teaching of open-mindedness and empathy. Some way of ending this arrogance that is programmed into people these days, especially in the
US Fourth Reich.
* One need not become a Muslim to appreciate Islam; one only needs to open his/her mind to something different, perhaps to find that it is not that different at all.
* Islam considers Jews, Christians and Muslims as "People of the Book". Islam reveres the same prophets and teachers that the Bible and the Torah do. Mary and Christ are revered as prophets and teachers.
* Much of the Holy Qur'an is devoted to teaching love, charity, consideration, help.
* Part of the meaning of Ramadan is to teach you, at least to a degree, what it is like to be without, to have no food or water; to teach you that, should you find another in want, hungry and thirsty, perhaps clothed in rags, that you will help him or her, not spurn them.
* The Holy Qur'an forbids aggressive war. It forbids making war on women, children, the elderly. One does not destroy villages, crops, trees. The Holy Qur'an does allow defensive war.
* I could write for an hour, far more than you are willing to read, but it all boils down to learning before you speak. Get to know Muslims. read about the culture, Open your minds!
No, not really. If you deconstruct most religions they all have the same principles in common the chief one of which is they believe something, often rather fanatically, without any real rational evidence (and have a great deal of their personal emotional energy and existential well-being invested in those beliefs) and feel those irrational opinions are empowered by the Will of some supreme diety or univeral authority which tends to distort normal human rational and moral behaviour and make them act in often dangerous and intolerant ways. Religious atrocties are not the preserve of fundamentalists, just 'believers' in general,
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
"The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. Denis Diderot 1713-1784
You did exactly what I wished to avoid. You went right back to religions whereas I talked about faith not religions. You choose to take the simplistic easy route which is fine but useless to me. I was willing to engage you but you ran out of ammo before you got started by aiming at the wrong target. Yours is in fact a reverse Sunday School argument about religion.
Therefore I waste my time trying to discuss faith with someone who wants to berate religions. As you can see from my responses to you and others in this thread that I am a man of faith but not one of religion.
In effect I would say ...you have to have courage to believe what you truly believe especially in the face of those who struggle so hard to fit their modern minds to the mold of more primitive outlooks thousands of years ago.
Some insist (fundamentalists) that there is nothing new to be learned about God. That doesn't make sense to me. However if you are unable to debate or discuss God and faith in any other terms than those used by absolutists and fundamentalists than please join them with your own atheist fundamentalism.
Both you and they need each other to argue with but I don't.
Thanks anyway and have faith in a God that created a quantum universe...lol. Both atheist fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists need to challenge your preconceived notions a little. It's good for you to do so. Improves circulation and gets the brain cells working. More interesting conversation too!
Thanks for all the patronising insults, as a follower Jesus, I think you might be falling short of the teachings to a noticeable degree.
No, I can see you're a man whose confused and also rather emotional in the way I mentioned in the previous post in that you seem to be getting offended by my points whilst hiding behind a mask of consdescending intellectual superiority. Faith and religion are inseperable in that the former is the spirit of the latter, its cornerstone.
No, you have to have courage to give up your props and spiritual water-wings and look into the difficult face of the existential void. I know someone who 'truly believes' UFO's are gonna come and save us all. I suppose you think you need courage for that, too.
I'm not an 'aetheist fundamentalist' just because I am rational enough to see through, and refuse to believe in absurd fairy tales. I have an open mind and I said in the my first post, if you would have read it properly, I was a 'mostly atheist agnostic' yet you apparently, have decided to ignore that and claim I am something else. It's YOU who has the closed mind as faith cannot be reasoned with, it being irrational in its essence. You can believe anything you want on the basis of faith from Santa Claus through to the a man spending weeks of his life living in the body of a whale and no amount of evidence will change your mind. In short, you're a PRISONER in a cage of your own making. And troublemakers for the rest of humanity who are decidely more sane.
No, I'd just rather they didn't exist. In fact, I am feeling at this very moment as I sit here wasting MY time tapping this keyboard, the futility of such arguments considering you're all impervious to reason.
Why? And I see here you're probably one of those who uses the present obscurity in our understanding quantam mechanics to conveniently excuse belief in any sort of new-agey nonsense. It's a new phenomenon Scientists are already sick of. A scientist says 'here's something we don't quite understand' and you folks gather round and throw all your previously irrational belief systems into the mystery like it was a crank's vault or something.
It's good for you to do so. Improves circulation and gets the brain cells working. More interesting conversation too!
No, I'm arguing with you who show himself to have fundamentalist views with each new post and its not improving my circulation at all, more sort of making me lose the will to live and, no, it's not a very interesting conversation.
Yes well for all your hyperbolic drama the fact remains that you have no ability to debate the issue without recourse to the same old same old atheist fundamentalism which is to insist that organized religions and their dogma are the same thing as faith.
That makes you as much a fundamentalist (with your own unquestioned dogma) as they. Is it truly possible that you think that no one could have faith unless they belonged to an organized religion? Or that your anti-Sunday School atheism is sufficiently comprehensive in scope and depth to incorporate all faith of whatever nature.
Guess what. Even though you may not have considered the possibility but some people believe in God and don't really have religion or dogma either.
What about believing in God without having a religion? Just God. You have a standard dismissal on hand of course calling that new age stuff as if that is an intellectualism. No need to define that obvious generality btw.
You practice what I call that Old Time Atheism which goes hand in hand with that Old Time Religion. They say the same things and people like you say the same things in response as you have for centuries.
You are mentally as hidebound as any religionist although you think that you are an advanced thinker because you don't hold the bible inerrant etc.
Well neither do I but that doesn't fit in with your view so even though I tell you that I don't you still insist that I do. Most of your post you argued with one of them not me nor what I wrote. You argued against a fundamentalist which I am not but I told you that you are and you proved it.
You gave me some of that Old Time Atheism ... and its boring.
God created evolution...God created the quantum universe and the big bang (yes the universe had a creation moment! Odd that huh?). God is not only as described by men for men.
But hey... believe what you need to. Simple as that.
What hyperbolic drama? Where was that, then? And I thought I debated it very well, point by point to make it simpler for you, whereas you just tend to waffle vaguely.
Hmmm, obviously when I suggested you read my first post properly in which I state as plain as day that I am (sigh) a 'mostly atheist agnostic' (the clue being in the inclusion of the word agnostic) that I was asking much too much of you for you seem determined to ignore that point and tell me lots of information about who I am, what I think and how my mind works that has nothing to do with me but a lot to do with your own bigoted projections which you can then rant at and your seeming belief in your own powers of telepathy.
What unquestioned dogma. I don't have any unquestioned dogma? You mean the 'unquestioned dogma' your amazing powers of telepathy told you I had?
So now, realising you don't have a leg to stand on, you try and revise your argument and original point from being about religion to 'organised religion' which wasn't what you first said or implied and which is a subtle but important semantic shift. Suddenly you're now all Krishnamurti, (who, incidentally, didn't think much of faith) but still a very confused man. Tidy your mind up a little is my advice to you. Still, despite your clumsy attempts to wriggle out of it, the point still stands, that religions are based on faith. Indeed, religions are known as 'faiths.' As in, 'what faith are you?' If you have faith in an unseen power what you are doing is cultivating what will become classed as a religion.
Well of course, I'd say that covers many people these days especially when speaking of the pick and mix fickle idiocy of American society with its a moronic consumer culture where people think they can have anything they want even in the realm of choosing a God that suits them best. Sure, but in what way is any of this relevant to your orginal post in which you betray fundamentalist tendencies by electing yourself as a spokesperson for Jesus based on dogma as its found in the Bible, telling us all what Christ thinks and what he will do based on that? So are you now changing your mind again and saying you don't believe that extrapulation of dogma because you have a free-flowing, non-attached faith in which nothing is certain, that therefore there isn't any relgious authority in what you said? Or are you gonna stick to your channeling of said authority and therefore dogma? See the point here? If you DO believe what you said what do you base it on then? If not dogma, meaning what is said in the Bible? Hmmm, let me guess, is it that you've elected yourself the supreme authority on what you accept in the Bible and what you will reject in true American consumerist fashion? Hey maybe you're even a messiah sent here to teach us all, eh? With your free-floating-don't-believe-in anything-dogmatic-unless-I-spout-it kind of 21st century US faith. Well, if you're really an exponenet of a free floating faith stop referencing Jesus because by your own admission you don't know that's the right way. As said, you're confused.
Well actually, no, the universe didn't have any moments before the big band. Try reading Hawkins regarding that matter. The Universe seems to be a self-contained time-space framework, probably. The key word being probably. See, I have an open mind and can be persuaded. You on the other hand seem to know, personally it seems, what God has or has not done with no recourse to any explantion why or evidence, just your faith.
Spoken like a true atomised American living the American 'dream.'.Unfortunately, the mental wards are full of people who also have your free-floating, faith.
i remember doing this with you before and i don't see the point of engaging you with this dorm room debate. Whatever it is you are saying you are perfectly right in saying it. Sorry I couldn't maintain interest enough in the discussion such as it is.
don't be discouraged though... someone out there might engage with you. I suggest reddit maybe. they are sites more suitable for this... whatever this is.
I'm sorry but this is infantile and not very interesting.
Apologies getting back to you, I was interupted by Jul and Tomten.
Not as infantile as your final post. You can't even back down gracefully without sandwiching it between a bunch of condescending insults. What an arrogant twit you are. You must be hell to live with.
Yet I'll accept your admission you were cornered and unable to find a way out.
Well I did tell you that ages back, but you would persist.....
If you want to debate religion then go to a religion's site first off. Secondly you tried this before with me and you were abusive. Do you find it surprising that I remembered that (eventually). What is needed by you anyway? Do you seek validation of your beliefs? Or do you think other people are held in some magic spell that prevents them from becoming an atheist? Give people a break. Your views are hardly new or even interesting except maybe to you though. Great so you don't go to church or temple or mosque or whatever. So what? Don't you get it? So what if you do or if you don't! That is up to you.
This is a political site and sometimes a bit of religious debate sneaks in but you want the whole enchilada! I did that with you once and you were abusive. When I finally recollected (I remembered the wording) that we had, I totally lost interest in rehashing your inflexible position again. You want to convert me I suppose... but you'd need a sharper sword I'm afraid ...for that to happen.
I've never debated with you before as far as I am aware. You're relatively new to this site I've only seen you around a year or maybe two and I have no recollection of debating with you on anything. You must be confusing me with someone else.
You were the one who brought up religion, not me, and in a way that seemed to me to be as doctrine based as the fundamentalists you were decrying. You quoted 'fire and brimstone' type comments on what Jesus would do based on the doctrinal precepts of Christianty, yet then went on to claim you were religious without any interest in the doctrines of Christianity or any religion which seemed paradoxical and confused.
This isn't strictly a political site it covers a wide range of subjects including religion and this particular article was framed in a religious context and at any rate religion and politics often intertwine. Relatively few of my comments on this site have been about religion, yet it is something I will criticise should I see a need to, especially when someone else brings it up. If you don't want to debate it, don't bring it up yourself.
I have nothing against churches, I actually quite love them.
I see no point in engaging with someone who makes stuff up. I responded to a comment edmundo made and agreed with about how christian fundamentalists are a problem because they are given such leeway as regards to hate speech etc.
What bullshit you throw. You claim I made statements of fire and brimstone? You are a liar plain and simple. I said Christ was a progressive and that they reject his message with their hatreds and greed.
You could simply quote where I made a fire and brimstone comment. Until you do grow up and try being honest and less of a jerk.
Till you post that quote that you accuse me of... go away!
That is the quote, to which I replied rather inoffensively:
And to which you responded with some condescending patronising crap in which you assumed a smug superior intellectually elevated air, talking down to me, based on a lot of gaseous sophistic nonsense.
So if you don't believe in any doctrine as you claim, how do you know what Jesus would or would not do and therefore qualify yourself as able to spout this deeply judgemental little sermon? My point stands that it sounds to me not much different from the judgemental stuff spouted by your common or garden fundamentalist. Now, are you 'grown up' enough to accept that incongruity or are you going to continue to try and wriggle your way out of it?
I am not a liar, am grown up enough and not a jerk.