Pianist Sentenced For Insulting Islam

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks, Charles. There's been a lot of straw manning going on here lately; especially in the religious forum. Seems people can't offer a logical opinion on a topic so they go all over the place hoping to unnerve the OP. It's really frustrating at times.

reply to post by charles1952

You weren't referring to yourself, were you? Anyway, I'm glad I could help. Come back any time you need more information.

is it required to take the 1st one, what about 2nd?

1: a person who puts on a false
appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction
to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

did you felt offended because i am criticizing your country? Correct me if i said anything that is not true.

Here's another word for you to learn:
"strawman" as in strawman fallacy.

i know the word and the meaning.
I only put forth questions, i'l be happy if they are answered and refuted. You see the way of talking of Jiggerj is giving that picture and i want to clear it.
Let me just summarise it in one and you are also free to respond but its for Jiggerj.
"Will you be fine if in america more people praise Islam and accept it out of their own choice? If not why?"

reply to post by charles1952


I do need your help,
tell me does the term strawman and strawman fallacy only apply to an individual being misrepresented or it could apply to a religion, say Islam? Can the same word be used?

It will be a real help. When anyone misrepresents the values of my faith, i'l just say "strawman!"

reply to post by logical7

Dear logical7,

Thanks for clearing things up for me. Allow me to read down your post and supply some responses.

Definition 2 is fine. I didn't see jiggerj acting "in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." I didn't think he met any of the definitions. That's a small point though.

No, I didn't feel offended. I don't remember right now if your statements were true, false, or marginal, but I wasn't offended.

Let me just summarise it in one and you are also free to respond but its for Jiggerj.
"Will you be fine if in america more people praise Islam and accept it out of their own choice? If not why?"

I'm perfectly fine if more people want to become Moslems. I do want them to be good American citizens, but I want that of everyone. That would include following the laws of the country, supporting the Constitution, and even, dare I say it, becoming proficient in English. There are probably other goals that should be met that I can't think of right now. Now if they all wanted to become Unitarian Universalists I might have to rethink my position.

Muslims! Come to the US! Do it legally and don't try to change us into something we're not. Be as tolerant as we are. Have your own beliefs as you wish.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I didn't see jiggerj acting "in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." I didn't think he met any of the definitions. That's a small point though.

i saw it and i commented
here,
this is what i had asked him

What happened to freedom of
religion? If you are given power in
government, will you make it illegal to
be a practicing muslim?

and his reply was

YES YES YES! I would make it so that
Islam is not recognized as a religion.
This way we can refuse the members
of this sick organization from entering
our country.

now if he is rooting for freedom of expression in his OP while showing the opposite attitude when it comes to Islam and muslims, then what will you call it? Maybe 'hypocrite' is not the best word, can you suggest any other?

I'm perfectly fine if more people want
to become Moslems. I do want them to
be good American citizens, but I want
that of everyone. That would include
following the laws of the country,
supporting the Constitution, and even, dare I say it, becoming proficient in
English.

Thanks for your opinion. I hope Jiggerj also has a similar view.
I agree, they should become proficient in english.
Btw if you dint knew, english has loads of words derived from arabic,
interestingly a word like alcohol - al-koh'l.
Wouldnt it be ironic if someone curses arabs/muslims while having al-koh'l

Hey Charles!
reply to post by charles1952

Not wanting to step into the minefield of insults and attacks, just a small point:

Originally posted by charles1952
That would include following the laws of the country, supporting the Constitution, and even, dare I say it, becoming proficient in English. There are probably other goals that should be met that I can't think of right now.

Putting aside the insinuation that somehow American muslims would not support the constitution, you'll be interested to know that English is NOT the national language of the USA. The USA DOESN'T HAVE any national, or even official languages. While basic understanding of english is sometimes part of the naturalisation process for immigrants, even that is often waived for longtime residents, as can be evidenced by the strong spanish speaking community.

Anyhow, I echo and support part of your sentiment. Tolerance! Acceptance! After all, the United States is a nation of immigrants. A "melting pot of cultures" I believe the expression is. No one race or outside culture owns the rights to what "American culture" is, it is what Americans make it! Diversity is the name of the game!

...or perhaps you'd like to be like Turkey and jail anyone who embraces...errr...I mean insults islam.

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

Hi, right back at you. Good to see you again. Thanks for asking me to clarify, I see I didn't do a very good job (again). Oh, and I hope you don't think I'd insult or attack you? Not the famous and beloved babloyi.

I'm sorry I implied that Muslims would not support the Constitution. I simply think it's important for all citizens to do so, Muslim or not.

You're right, English is not the official language. But it is the commonly spoken one and I have no problems recommending that everyone living here learns to speak it. I'm not suggesting jail for any non-English speaker. E Pluribus Unum and all that.

A "melting pot of cultures" I believe the expression is. No one race or outside culture owns the rights to what "American culture" is, it is what Americans make it! Diversity is the name of the game!

Ahhh, babloyi, you're behind the times. Multiculturalism has gotten rid of the melting pot metaphor and replaced it with "salad bowl." The idea is to encourage less uniformity among the people. "Chunks" of Muslims, "slices" of Hispanics, that's the new theme.

I don't much care for (fill in the blank)-American as a concept. There are things about this country that shouldn't be changed, even by Constitutional Amendments. You know the list: free speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. I believe there are things that, if changed, would change America into a completely different country. It could become something not recognizable to the Founders, or the soldiers that fought for it. Yes, I know I'm being vague, but you must have some feeling for it. I don't want to have to show official permission to cross state lines. I want to be able to swear at elected officials. Here, from the film Demolition Man:

Edgar Friendly: You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

America is different. I don't want anybody messing with it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by charles1952

 

You weren't referring to yourself, were you? Anyway, I'm glad I could help. Come back any time you need more information.

is it required to take the 1st one, what about 2nd?

1: a person who puts on a false
appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction
to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

did you felt offended because i am criticizing your country? Correct me if i said anything that is not true.

Here's another word for you to learn:
"strawman" as in strawman fallacy.

i know the word and the meaning.
I only put forth questions, i'l be happy if they are answered and refuted. You see the way of talking of Jiggerj is giving that picture and i want to clear it.
Let me just summarise it in one and you are also free to respond but its for Jiggerj.
"Will you be fine if in america more people praise Islam and accept it out of their own choice? If not why?"

The bold i highlighted...
IF you can guarantee THIS..AND if their belief DOES NOT interfer with
NON belivers...I atleast, am fine with whatever religion you put on...
BUT, you cant do that...Can you?

reply to post by Miccey

Dear Miccey,

You're absolutely right, I can't guarantee that. That's just one of the things that I can't guarantee.

In the past, people came to America in order to be Americans. Now? I'm not so sure. Certainly they want to live here and enjoy America's protections and rewards, but do they want to be Americans? (And I'm referring to every immigrant, I have "equal opportunity" doubts.)

It's easy to find groups and spokesmen from a variety of groups who want to "conquer" America in one way or another, but I'm not sure how wide-spread the feeling is.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Why are you replying?
I wasnt asking YOU...

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by skalla

 

your statement about there being areas in the uk where sharia law is allowed by the government to take precedence over british law was entirely untrue

Sharia In Britain legally Binding

Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.

A new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions [b]*****can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.*****

Okay? Will you now stop arguing for the sake of arguing?

Ah, A Daily Scare reader now i understand - it's also a 2008 article relating to a loophole. I could pick through the article as the Daily Scare notoriously trumps things out of all proportion. just one little gem - the court heard a mighty 100 cases between summer 2007 and sept 2008 according to the source. feel free to be outraged at that, i'll enjoy my cuppa and chuckle at someone being manipulated by britains worst tabloid.

and that is still not taking precedence over british law - it requires agreement, and could be negated by the High Court - it acts within the Arbitration Act and is therefor no different from another mediation service - you still are not outraged over a local priest, vicar or rabbi mediating a dispute too which seems quite telling.

i'm hardly arguing for the sake of it when tackling an untruth that is commonly used to attack. now of course our discussion has gone on for a few posts and is not on topic, but if you hadnt perpetuated disinfo i would not be discussing this.

reply to post by Miccey

The bold i highlighted... IF you can guarantee THIS..AND if their belief DOES NOT interfer with NON belivers...I atleast, am fine with whatever religion you put on... BUT, you cant do that...Can you?

who do you think can force an american to accept Islam?
They are doing it out of free choice.
If thats not the case then you do have laws that will help, don't you?
Its the responsibility of americans to see that nobody is either forced into a religion or forced out/prevented to practice their religion.
I am an outside observer, i don't have a vote or authority to guarantee, you do. I hope you'l stand up for freedom of religion for every american.

reply to post by charles1952

Hahahha...I don't think anyone at all was insulting me, this is the first time I've spoken in this thread. But thanks for the famous and beloved!

I suppose salad bowl is a better metaphor. Nice to have interesting textures rather than homogeneous slop. Not sure how that sort of multiculturalism could endanger those vague values you mentioned. The US already has that "Do what you want unless it hurts someone else" attitude- opposition to that is coming from within the US itself, and not as a response to immigrants or anything- the recent attempts by Bloomberg to limit drink sizes, for example.
Personally, I am not against legislation that would prevent people from hurting themselves- laws against suicide, laws against smoking, laws against excess etc. The examples in Demolition Man were a bit extreme, because they outright banned salt and meat and all that stuff, which was only dangerous in excess. Now, I'm not an american, but I don't see my view as some minority view in the US to such a point that such a view could be considered "unamerican".

Would you be offended or consider it unamerican if you went somewhere in the US and someone answered the phone to you in Spanish? Or if Spanish was the first language in one of those automated telephone services?

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

Thank you for your answer. You may not believe this, but for some reason your response has made me more aware of the differences between the US and the rest of the world. People getting stoned to death for the words they use or the people they walk with seems to be an occurrence on another planet. (Sometimes I wish it were on another planet.)

Please forgive me for this, but I'm going to try to describe my emotional reaction. I realize it's false, but for some reason I want to tell you.

Personally, I am not against legislation that would prevent people from hurting themselves- laws against suicide, laws against smoking, laws against excess etc. The examples in Demolition Man were a bit extreme, because they outright banned salt and meat and all that stuff, which was only dangerous in excess.

I read this and thought "Here is a creature I don't recognize." It was as if my mother told me she was a Mafia hitman and her favorite hobby was filling soccer balls with cement and throwing them on the field.

Here's my difficulty. (Or, rather, here are my difficulties.) Society would be saying you can't do anything to endanger yourself. Whether you enjoy it, or are driven by some internal desire to do a certain thing, you must not do it. Consider what this would make illegal.

Ice skating, bathtubs (use showers instead), stairs, certainly motorcycles, all-you-can-eat buffets, just about any imaginable sport, coffee, open fires, gay sex (not for moral reasons, it's just more dangerous than straight sex). How long would you like the list?

And why? How could these bans be justified? I can only think of two reasons. One, the State knows better than you what you should be doing or not doing, so bow to our superior wisdom. If you can tell me the effective difference between that and slavery I'd be much relieved.

Or, two, You must take care of your body because it isn't yours, it belongs to the State and we will not have you damaging it prematurely. Slavery again?

The more often a State tells you what you may or may not do, the closer to slavery the State becomes. I admit the need for some laws, but let me tell you a little example from my life.

Perhaps you have heard of White Castle hamburgers. They're about two inches on a side and consist of (some kind of) meat with five small holes punched in it. The meat is fried, placed on a small bun and some fried onions are added. Some really like them, but I believe a majority have decided that they are an abomination. Late one night, when I was younger, I drove by such an establishment. In order to prove something to myself, heaven alone knows what, I ordered and ate a dozen of them.

In the society you envisage, indeed in any sane society (or even one with good taste) that would have been a criminal act. it remains in my memory, however, as a twisted symbol of youth, strength, rebellion, and a bunch of other good things. Please don't ban it.

Would you be offended or consider it unamerican if you went somewhere in the US and someone answered the phone to you in Spanish? Or if Spanish was the first language in one of those automated telephone services?

If I was not going into a specifically Spanish facility, I would certainly think it odd, at least. It would definitely be a significant change from the first two centuries of our country. Would it be a good change that I couldn't communicate when before I could? No. Does society benefit from having groups of people which can't communicate with each other? If it is a good thing, then wouldn't three, four, or five languages be better still?

Un-American? Depends on what you mean by the word. Mandarin is not a language spoken much in the US, so in that sense mandarin is an un-American language. But there is nothing in a language which, by itself attacks American principles or ideals, so in that sense no language is un-American

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Hey Charles!

Again, I mentioned actions that were inherently, in and of themselves, harmful (thus totally banned), or harmful in excess (thus the excess of that thing banned). Now you can make excuses such as "What if I have a faster metabolism" or "What if I am bigger and need more food" or "What if I'm really hungry and haven't eaten in ages", these are all just trying to stick in complicating points in a generally simple idea: The excess of anything is bad. IF at some point some legislation is implemented (and it almost was, in New York, so it really shouldn't be that alien to you, it certainly isn't just me speaking as some completely unconnected alien creature , you live side-by-side with these guys), I'm pretty certain they'll do it with these things in mind.

It is interesting, however, how you call a society that would have prevented your excesses a "sane society" .

Originally posted by charles1952
If I was not going into a specifically Spanish facility, I would certainly think it odd, at least. It would definitely be a significant change from the first two centuries of our country. Would it be a good change that I couldn't communicate when before I could? No. Does society benefit from having groups of people which can't communicate with each other? If it is a good thing, then wouldn't three, four, or five languages be better still?

I am not sure what you mean by these terms "odd" and "significant change". How would it be odd? The first two centuries of your country involved a number of southern state transfers where the main language was Spanish (or French). Many of these communities and people STILL only speak Spanish or French as a first language. They are still irrevocably "American" and make up what being "American" is. It isn't really all that much of a significant change. You never could communicate to the fullest extent with these people (although they probably can speak basic phrases in English, and you possibly speak basic phrases in French or Spanish).

It is a thing that already exists, so I'm not sure how to answer your questions- while the majority of the USA speaks english as a first language, it is neither the national language or the official one, and these people, with their alternate language have no reason for theirs to be considered a secondary language to yours (perhaps in the same way you felt it "odd" for theirs to be given greater importance), nor for it to be "less american" or any such thing for mainly just speaking it.

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

I'm really grateful that you took the time to respond as you did. It serves as a reminder to me that I don't communicate as well as I think I do.

I have a handicap, English is not my first language. My parents would only speak Canadian around the house, and I picked up American as a second language. English is still tough for me.

Let me try something that is difficult for me and risky. I will try to write very briefly. Let's see what that does.

It's Ok for the government to stop me from hurting someone who doesn't want to be hurt. Government shouldn't get in the way of stopping me from doing anything dangerous. I'm not used to people thinking that the government should.

Hearing Spanish as the language of business or government in the US is odd in the sense of unusual. It's fine in certain shops or areas, but it's still out of the ordinary.

The US has become more and more divided in the last few years. I don't like that. Using one language would ( I think) help erase some divisions.

With great respect,
Charles1952

P.s. I can always use more words if you'd like. - C -

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by charles1952

 

I have a handicap, English is not my first language. My parents would only speak Canadian around the house, and I picked up American as a second language. English is still tough for me.

Hah! Pity you moved even further away from English by going towards American from Canadian.

Originally posted by charles1952
It's Ok for the government to stop me from hurting someone who doesn't want to be hurt. Government shouldn't get in the way of stopping me from doing anything dangerous. I'm not used to people thinking that the government should.

As I say, I'm not necessarily OPPOSED to it if they do. Like with cigarettes. Because they want smokers to stop causing harm to others, they've been almost totally banned indoors (except for designated smoking areas, I suppose?), and even outdoor in many areas (public parks or areas a certain distance from many buildings), to the result that smokers have become something of outcasts, having the brave the cold if they want some, or hide out in those congested smoking areas. The result is, fewer people are smoking.
Would it be a bad thing if cigarettes were totally eradicated? What if all people voluntarily gave it up? What if the eradication was imposed by the government? The first scenario would be a beautiful display of humanity's collective intelligence going up, but we all know it would never happen.
What about something more personal. What if coc aine was totally eradicated? Would that be a good thing? Is it a bad thing that the government has banned its use (and sale and production)?

Originally posted by charles1952
The US has become more and more divided in the last few years. I don't like that. Using one language would ( I think) help erase some divisions.

What would you do if that language became Spanish?

Originally posted by charles1952
P.s. I can always use more words if you'd like.

- C -

I can't not use more words, so go ahead, if you like.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Miccey

 

The bold i highlighted... IF you can guarantee THIS..AND if their belief DOES NOT interfer with NON belivers...I atleast, am fine with whatever religion you put on... BUT, you cant do that...Can you?

who do you think can force an american to accept Islam?
They are doing it out of free choice.
If thats not the case then you do have laws that will help, don't you?
Its the responsibility of americans to see that nobody is either forced into a religion or forced out/prevented to practice their religion.
I am an outside observer, i don't have a vote or authority to guarantee, you do. I hope you'l stand up for freedom of religion for every american.

Ok, i wasnt onkly talking about americans.
Im Swedish btw. And a good question.

Free choice hmmm...Are you really sure?

Would you apply that free choice to doughters of islam
aswell? Dont even try, i KNOW first hand that theres
no way a Muslim father accepts his doughters choice
to marry i.e a Jew...NO WAY..She would be badly
hurt or even killed...And dont come here saying
"its a culture" thing...I KNOW FIRST HAND.

reply to post by Miccey

Would you apply that free choice to doughters of islam aswell? Dont even try, i KNOW first hand that theres no way a Muslim father accepts his doughters choice to marry i.e a Jew...NO WAY.

Well, its the same reason why Jewish or Christian fathers wont let their daughter choose a Muslim man in marriage. So if everybody else wants to stick to their own kind then nothing wrong with Muslims doing it.

reply to post by Miccey

Would you apply that free choice to doughters of islam aswell? Dont even try, i KNOW first hand that theres no way a Muslim father accepts his doughters choice to marry i.e a Jew...NO WAY..She would be badly hurt or even killed...And dont come here saying "its a culture" thing...I KNOW FIRST HAND.

yes i will, daughters of Islam are free to make choices once they are adults. The parents may not like it but they have no right to hurt her, they however have a right to discuss it and advice her.

For a muslimah her religion is important and she knows that a non muslim man may not respect her religion and prophet and may not be the best for her spirituality and she may have to do haram things(drinks in the house, cook pork etc)

i believe in giving knowledge to people and letting them choose for themselves. People are smart you see.