Am I a Bigot?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]lixy wrote:
eic wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it. But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.

Again, that is not what what the OP is arguing. His words were that it is your responsibility to “police” them, not merely “say something”. He wrote, and I quote “instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people.”

Can you see the difference? Good.

The situation would be different if, say the “rogue” individuals were committing the mischief on said group’s dime or that they were publically elected. In that case, it does seem appropriate to, not only distance one’s self vocally, but also militate against what is done in the name of one’s country/ideology/religion. With me so far? Let’s move one.

The shepherd in the outskirts of Baghdad has probably not heard of the US grassroots movement opposing the bombing and invasion of his country before it even began. He may be tempted to give in to bigotry, and assume that Americans do not speak up or commit acts of civil disobedience to protest what’s done in their name. Furthermore, the only Americans he’s interacted with were shooting bullets as he was chasing one of his sheep that escaped from the herd. He may have heard first-hand horrific accounts of post-invasion Abu-Ghraib, Mahmoudiya, Fallujah, etc. Does that make him a bigot? I’ll say yes. Even though said horrors were committed in the name of Americans and on their dime, assuming tacit complicity remains idiotic.

For all we know, Warlock’s interaction with Muslims could be limited to a school bully or a criminal who decided that hurting innocents in the name of Islam is an effective way to spread it around. He may be looking through his local paper expecting to find a wave of caped Muslims swooping Toronto night to fight crime. He may be amalgamating nationalistic and independentist struggles with religious ones.

Could Muslims do more in order to root out the evil extremists? In certain countries, yes! From the Saudis exporting Wahabism with their petro-dollars to Waziristan and the haven it provides for Al-Qaeda, you can lay the blame on those. But to associate all Muslims with them is pure bigotry. Most Muslims live in the (secular) republic of Indonesia anyway.

Radical Islamism is on the rise, there is no denying that. Bigotry is not only morally reprehensible but it is also feeding the movement. If you have an Asian fetish, and a Japanese women is raped, do you go out shouting that you do not tacitly approve of the act? Do you take it upon yourself to stop people in the street and ask them if they’re about to rape an Asian girl in an effort to “police” them? If you’re a Christian and some pastor starts burning Harry Potter books, do you stop him? Would I assume that you tacitly approve of a pastor preaching against homosexuality just because you happen to share the same faith?

A crime is a crime, and the responsibility is shared by all of us to stop those who transgress the law. If you are going to assume that a person is tacitly approving a crime when you haven’t even bothered asking him/her, then you are bad-faithed to start with. And singling out a group in doing so, makes you a bigot. There’s no going around it![/quote]

great post!

22

Mohammed was responsible for the murder of at least 3,000 people.

He instigated several battles. He killed harmless date farmers, took their women, and he and his men raped them. He sacked caravans. He promoted military conquest of unbelievers (Surahs 9:5 and 9:29). He is a model of conduct according to the Qur’an, but he was not a good man by anyone’s standards except those of the Muslims.

You’re not a bigot for recognizing that Islam is a violent religion and promotes hatred and violence against unbelievers. You’re stating the truth.

23

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Mohammed was responsible for the murder of at least 3,000 people.

He instigated several battles. He killed harmless date farmers, took their women, and he and his men raped them. He sacked caravans. He promoted military conquest of unbelievers (Surahs 9:5 and 9:29). He is a model of conduct according to the Qur’an, but he was not a good man by anyone’s standards except those of the Muslims.

You’re not a bigot for recognizing that Islam is a violent religion and promotes hatred and violence against unbelievers. You’re stating the truth. [/quote]

See? There’s always a rationale!

24

I hate the Irish. Why? Because, fuck 'em.
Haha, no rationale there. I win.

25

yup

just because a you are part of a group doesnt mean you should have the responsibility to stop “rouges” very few Muslims are terrorists and many people are\would help the fight against terrorism if it wasnt for the danger of death\torture

26

[quote]eic wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it. But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.[/quote]

What about people who kill in the name of America?

edit - Forget that. I just realized that Lixy already covered that issue.

27

[quote]nephorm wrote:
You cannot police every person that shares a trait with you. Don’t join associations that do things you dislike. Report crimes if you see them, intervene if necessary. Beyond that, white people have no obligation to make sure other white people behave well. The same thing with blacks, Brazilians, or anyone else. As far as I am concerned, if you are a Muslim and a good citizen, you do not owe anyone but God an explanation of your faith.[/quote]

I could not have said it better.

28

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.[/quote]

There are no Brazilians killing anyone in name of Brazil my friend.

Violence there is widespread and I have no respect for anyone that have no respect for human life, doesn’t matter what. I am more than happy to talk about violence in Brazil if you start a thread about that given subject, for now I’d prefer to keep the discussion on track

29

Adolf Hittler got to power through a democratic election.

Correct me if I am wrong but when he first got in power his partry was a minority.

They did what they did, spread their word of violence, discrimination and hatred.

He started small, kept pushing the rest of teh country kept quiot because he was attcacking jewish, imigrants, non-whites and gays.

The majority kept quiot adn teh minority turned into majority.

The rest of the story whe all know.

Is there a possibility of the same happening???

In a planet where the poor gets poorer and more desperate everyday?

That’s what makes me believe that when someone commits any act in name of a certain group the whole group has the responsibility to support or repreend that action.

And about radicals? extremists? Who can do a better job of finding them than the “moderates” who has more in common or better access?

30

[quote]Petermus wrote:
yup

just because a you are part of a group doesnt mean you should have the responsibility to stop “rouges” very few Muslims are terrorists and many people are\would help the fight against terrorism if it wasnt for the danger of death\torture[/quote]

Sometimes omission is a crime as well and denial of responsibility doesn’t change anything.

Therefore keeping other people in danger is fine?

Letting a crime to be commited is fine?

If I see a woman being rapped I should walk away as I can suffer retaliation for calling the cops?

If these principles make me a biggot I take the title and am proud of it.

31

[quote]nephorm wrote:
You cannot police every person that shares a trait with you. Don’t join associations that do things you dislike. Report crimes if you see them, intervene if necessary. Beyond that, white people have no obligation to make sure other white people behave well. The same thing with blacks, Brazilians, or anyone else. As far as I am concerned, if you are a Muslim and a good citizen, you do not owe anyone but God an explanation of your faith.[/quote]

As far as I know teh KKK was stoped by other white people that could not tolerate their crimes, they could very well just say: “I have nothing to do with that.”

But that is another story…

32

[quote]lixy wrote:
eic wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
Yes.

BTW doesn’t Brazil have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Sounds like you need to start policing “your” group.

Okay, this shit is getting ridiculous. Assuming the OP is talking about Islam, the key you guys are missing is that the Muslim extremists ARE KILLING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM and purport to do so FOR ISLAM!

I live in Nebraska. If a Nebraska guy started killing people, I have no duty to publicly speak out against it. But if a Nebraska guy started killing people and said that he was doing it because Nebraska Cornhusker fans are the greatest in the world and all other college football fans should bow down before them, I would feel obliged to step forward and say, “Look, this guy’s a nut. No one else feels this way. Sorry college football fans.”

Do you guys get it now? You look ridiculous when you say, “Humans are killing others. Maybe you should police THAT group!” Humans aren’t killing in the name of humans as a “movement.”

The fact that some people in a larger group are doing things ON BEHALF OF that group should make others in that group step up and say something. If they don’t, the rest of the world is free to assume that they tacitly approve and should be able to make this assumption without being labeled a bigot. Case closed. End of story.

Again, that is not what what the OP is arguing. His words were that it is your responsibility to “police” them, not merely “say something”. He wrote, and I quote “instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people.”

Can you see the difference? Good.

The situation would be different if, say the “rogue” individuals were committing the mischief on said group’s dime or that they were publically elected. In that case, it does seem appropriate to, not only distance one’s self vocally, but also militate against what is done in the name of one’s country/ideology/religion. With me so far? Let’s move one.

The shepherd in the outskirts of Baghdad has probably not heard of the US grassroots movement opposing the bombing and invasion of his country before it even began. He may be tempted to give in to bigotry, and assume that Americans do not speak up or commit acts of civil disobedience to protest what’s done in their name. Furthermore, the only Americans he’s interacted with were shooting bullets as he was chasing one of his sheep that escaped from the herd. He may have heard first-hand horrific accounts of post-invasion Abu-Ghraib, Mahmoudiya, Fallujah, etc. Does that make him a bigot? I’ll say yes. Even though said horrors were committed in the name of Americans and on their dime, assuming tacit complicity remains idiotic.

For all we know, Warlock’s interaction with Muslims could be limited to a school bully or a criminal who decided that hurting innocents in the name of Islam is an effective way to spread it around. He may be looking through his local paper expecting to find a wave of caped Muslims swooping Toronto night to fight crime. He may be amalgamating nationalistic and independentist struggles with religious ones.

Could Muslims do more in order to root out the evil extremists? In certain countries, yes! From the Saudis exporting Wahabism with their petro-dollars to Waziristan and the haven it provides for Al-Qaeda, you can lay the blame on those. But to associate all Muslims with them is pure bigotry. Most Muslims live in the (secular) republic of Indonesia anyway.

Radical Islamism is on the rise, there is no denying that. Bigotry is not only morally reprehensible but it is also feeding the movement. If you have an Asian fetish, and a Japanese women is raped, do you go out shouting that you do not tacitly approve of the act? Do you take it upon yourself to stop people in the street and ask them if they’re about to rape an Asian girl in an effort to “police” them? If you’re a Christian and some pastor starts burning Harry Potter books, do you stop him? Would I assume that you tacitly approve of a pastor preaching against homosexuality just because you happen to share the same faith?

A crime is a crime, and the responsibility is shared by all of us to stop those who transgress the law. If you are going to assume that a person is tacitly approving a crime when you haven’t even bothered asking him/her, then you are bad-faithed to start with. And singling out a group in doing so, makes you a bigot. There’s no going around it![/quote]

Thank you for your post.

Where can we see public demosntration fo Islamic groups denouncing Islamic sociopats?

Wich actions have been taken?

Is there any form of Islamic association that fights extremists?

Who is the great representative against these horrors?

Where are these news???

No I am not stupid to believe in CNN or mainstream media or am trying to be a smart ass.

I just want a little more education/clarification.

And I trully believe that if someone where getting so much press commiting crimes in my name I’d try to use all my resources to get the guy and bring jsutice upon him plus do my best to clear my name with actions…

33

[quote]warlock wrote:
Where can we see public demosntration fo Islamic groups denouncing Islamic sociopats?

Wich actions have been taken?

Is there any form of Islamic association that fights extremists?

Who is the great representative against these horrors?

Where are these news???[/quote]

These are good questions, but I think you must know that they will skirted around and answered with counter-questions.

I’ve never seen any form of disdain for Islamic extremists outside of “that’s not true Islam”. At least make an effort!

34

[quote]warlock wrote:
Adolf Hittler got to power through a democratic election.

Correct me if I am wrong but when he first got in power his partry was a minority. [/quote]

This is a misrepresentation. Nationalsozialismus was widespread in Germany at the beginning of last century mostly as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. There were divisions within the Nazi Party, but most Germans were riled up about the Communists and “non-Germans” (most prominent group of the latter being Jews) and blaming everything on them.

So while Germans may have been quibbling over the details, Nazism as an ideology was quite pervasive and widely accepted in Germany (and other parts of the world) at the time.

And oh, those were the 1920s. Non-biased Information was extremely hard to come by. What’s your excuse?

[quote]They did what they did, spread their word of violence, discrimination and hatred.

He started small, kept pushing the rest of teh country kept quiot because he was attcacking jewish, imigrants, non-whites and gays.

The majority kept quiot adn teh minority turned into majority.

The rest of the story whe all know. [/quote]

In Germany? In Botswana? In Britain? It would help at this point to get a bit more specific. But let’s assume you’re referring to Ben Laden and his ilk.

Last I checked, nationalism was six feet under in most Arab countries, so I don’t think there’s any danger from that front. Besides, none of them has any notable military force, nuclear arsenal or as much as a strong work ethic to build anything that could resemble a threat to your country.

Well, assuming you’re referring to religion, that’s where you slip into bigotry. Unless the members of that “certain group” voted or/and financed for that “someone” who committed the “act”, they have no responsibility - moral or otherwise - to “support [n]or reprehend that action”. Most will naturally step forward to dissociate themselves from the crime anyway. But judging from your first post, that ain’t good enough. You called it an “excuse”.

And since you’re probably referring to Islam, I present you with the wise words of its prophet:

�??If anyone of you sees something objectionable, he should change it with his hand, but if he cannot, he should change it with his tongue, and if he cannot he should do it in his heart, that being the weakest form of faith.�?? – Mohammed bnu Abdallah

It’s just common sense really. Whether a crime is committed by a bald dude, a blonde chick, a Jew, a Hindu or a Samoan matters not. Every one in society holds an equal responsibility to stop it. And if you think I feel any kind of responsibility when some creep blows up a plane, think again. I’d react the same way had he done it in the name of atheism or Scientology.

It depends. If you’re referring to the extremist in majority-Muslim countries, then by all means, you are right. I can assure you that people are regularly putting their lives on the line to root out the “rogue” elements. But radicalization is not going to stop anytime soon. For every one that’s put behind bars or shot, three more take his/her place. And believe it or not, they are not all irrational fanatics. They are driven by some legitimate grievances as well. They conflate them with religion simply because justifying murder and mayhem is much easier when one can claim to be doing the work of God. Also, since the death of Arab Nationalism, Islamism was the only place where one could find any funds and support to militate. It’s of course more complicated than what I make it seem, but that’s about it.

P.S: You are starting to sound like a broken record. People have answered your initial question. Elaborate and defend your position with arguments and examples, and we can take the discussion down a more constructive route. But if you’re hoping that repeating yourself will somehow make people change their positions, let me tell you that it’s not going to happen.

35

Stupidest thread ever. Islam is a leaderless religion. There is no membership, no baptism, and you don’t “belong” to a mosque. There are no elections. There is no governing council charged with overseeing it.

A person who says he’s muslim has no more responsibility over another person who says he’s muslim than a person who drives a ford has over other ford drivers. And it might sound crazy, but some muslims actually have things jobs and families, and can’t devote their lives to trying to convince you that they think killing people is bad.

If you can’t see this, it’s either because you are retarded, or you are going out of your way not to see it.

Which is it?

36

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Stupidest thread ever. Islam is a leaderless religion. There is no membership, no baptism, and you don’t “belong” to a mosque. There are no elections. There is no governing council charged with overseeing it.

A person who says he’s muslim has no more responsibility over another person who says he’s muslim than a person who drives a ford has over other ford drivers. And it might sound crazy, but some muslims actually have things jobs and families, and can’t devote their lives to trying to convince you that they think killing people is bad.

If you can’t see this, it’s either because you are retarded, or you are going out of your way not to see it.

Which is it?[/quote]

Agreed. But they do have a moral responsibility to leave a religion that declares

and

The morally responsible thing to do is to renounce a religion that calls for open-ended bloodshed of non-believers.

37

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
A person who says he’s muslim has no more responsibility over another person who says he’s muslim than a person who drives a ford has over other ford drivers. And it might sound crazy, but some muslims actually have things jobs and families, and can’t devote their lives to trying to convince you that they think killing people is bad.[/quote]

There’s a difference between preemptively denouncing extremists and making meek statement of “non support”. Nobody said “devote you life to it”.

And not many Ford drivers blow themselves up in the name of Henry Ford.

38

[quote]warlock wrote:
Where can we see public demosntration fo Islamic groups denouncing Islamic sociopats? [/quote]

That wasn’t the premise of the thread. You wrote: “My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with.”

Which implies that you have seen more than your fair share of “denouncing” and people dissociating themselves from the “Islamic sociopats”[sic].

If you haven’t, start here:

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Islamism is nothing new. It just came to light after 9/11 because of the unprecedented scale of the attack, and because of who the victims were. It has bled places like Algeria by plunging it into a civil war that started in 1991 and claimed 200,000 lives. It has kept Egypt under a state of emergency since 1981. So it’s not like the problem is either punctual or easily fixable.

As far as “actions” are concerned, do you mean in Canada? If so, I’m sure you can lead by example and show people what “actions” you have in mind. Elsewhere, there’s relentless police work that already claimed thousands of brave people’s deaths. The actions include raids, seizures, executions, sackings, education, etc.

What do you mean by “fight”?

If you know any “extremist” planning a mischief, let me know. I’ll be glad to drag him/her to court one way or the other. I don’t need an association to do so.

I can assure you that the bulk of the police forces fighting extremists (with my tax money) is composed of Muslims. If you’re talking about civilians going around slaying whoever they consider a bad person, then that’s not something I’d support. And neither should you.

Come again?

Are you under the impression that, despite all their ethnic, nationalistic, cultural or religious conflicts, Muslims are a monolithic block that has a “great representative”? The only person that ever held such position was the prophet. And in case you hadn’t noticed, the man’s not around any longer.

And you should. As for me, nobody’s committing squat in my name.

What they’re doing is in the name of God (or so they say). Take it up with Him.

39

Moreover, Islam is not a leaderless religion. There are schools of jurisprudence - 4 of them for the Sunnis, to be exact. But still, if Sheikh Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo says something, the entire Sunni world will listen, which is why the Pope and other religious leaders meet with him as a representative of Islam - because he is.

40

[quote]Makavali wrote:
There’s a difference between preemptively denouncing extremists and making meek statement of “non support”. Nobody said “devote you life to it”. [/quote]

Honestly, that you would associate me with criminals and require me to “preemptively denounce” anything that I have as much control over as yourself, is quite insulting.

I’ve seen this form of bigotry in my country as people associate Americans by default to Bush and the actions of the US military. But that’s a bit a less pronounced form of bigotry than Warlock’s position, as Americans are extremely likely to be financing Dubya’s crimes.