Or is it the "Fox guarding the Hen House?"

[carolinajazz]

"Muslim Americans keep us safe," he told the audience, crediting the contributions Muslims have made to communities across the country. "They are our police. They are our firefighters. They're in (the Department of) Homeland Security."

Nearly half of Americans think at least some US Muslims are anti-American, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday. Two-thirds of Americans said people, not religious teachings, are to blame when violence is committed in the name of faith. However, when respondents were asked which religion they consider troubling, Islam was the most common answer.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists," grieves one prominent Muslim journalist in the London newspaper Al Sharq al-Awsat, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." That is the fact of the matter. It must be confronted, without apology, without remorse.

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
Socially – no: Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Philosophically – no: Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Politically – no: Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

....not my viewpoint, just pointing out what the American Public has said in the past and at the present!

 

[Nate505]

Socially – no: Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.


Huh, nobody told that to the Muslim guy I work with. He's pretty friendly, and just about everyone likes him.

 

[Gameface]

Socially – no: Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.


Huh, nobody told that to the Muslim guy I work with. He's pretty friendly, and just about everyone likes him.

Yeah, when I was TAD to shipboard security aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier one of the guys I worked with was Muslim and he was pretty into being in the U.S. Navy and pretty chill and easy to get along with. Our job was, while at sea, to perform armed patrols of the ship. We were literally the only people armed on the entire aircraft carrier. As far as I could tell he wasn't recon for jihadists or anything.

I was also in school for the Phalanx CIWS with two guys from Bahrain. Bahrain had just purchased a couple of our frigates that had Phalanx CIWS on them so these were the two guys out of their entire Navy that was going to get official U.S. Navy training on how to work on, and operate those weapon systems. Anyway, they were pretty chill. The officer was a little more serious, but Fazil was a class clown. At our graduation party they had a couple drinks and partied with us. We had a graduation pizza party at the school and they both ate the pizza with ham on it, although Sammy (the officer) seemed a little uncomfortable with it.

It's funny because my only person-to-person contact I've had with Muslims has been in the U.S. Navy. And while in the Navy I traveled to several pretty awesome Muslim cities. It's funny that having served in the military has made me about as non-anti Muslim as you could be.

 

[fishonjazz]

I smoked some opium with a dude who had recently come to the us from iran.

Farsheed was a pretty fun guy and a hard worker. I liked him.

Not certain he was Muslim though. Religion never came up when we hung out.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

"Muslim Americans keep us safe," he told the audience, crediting the contributions Muslims have made to communities across the country. "They are our police. They are our firefighters. They're in (the Department of) Homeland Security."

Nearly half of Americans think at least some US Muslims are anti-American, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday. Two-thirds of Americans said people, not religious teachings, are to blame when violence is committed in the name of faith. However, when respondents were asked which religion they consider troubling, Islam was the most common answer.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists," grieves one prominent Muslim journalist in the London newspaper Al Sharq al-Awsat, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." That is the fact of the matter. It must be confronted, without apology, without remorse.

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
Socially – no: Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Philosophically – no: Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Politically – no: Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

....not my viewpoint, just pointing out what the American Public has said in the past and at the present!

How many Muslims do you know CJ? Or are Muslims merely some abstract concept to you to which you can attach all of the bigoted, racist drivel floating around in what passes for brains in your skull?

How long are we going to tolerate this bigot on this discussion board? (I'm asking you moderators.)

 

[Stoked]

How many Muslims do you know CJ? Or are Muslims merely some abstract concept to you to which you can attach all of the bigoted, racist drivel floating around in what passes for brains in your skull?

How long are we going to tolerate this bigot on this discussion board? (I'm asking you moderators.)

I am not speaking for the board but for me personally.

As long as he is not personally attacking others or some other way breaking board rules I am not banishing him for having an opinion. Even one I think is shameful and terrible. I do not believe in "safe spaces" or things of that nature.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I am not speaking for the board but for me personally.

As long as he is not personally attacking others or some other way breaking board rules I am not banishing him for having an opinion. Even one I think is shameful and terrible. I do not believe in "safe spaces" or things of that nature.

Well, there's having an opinion and there's being a bigot. Bigots have all sorts of opinions, and few of them merit discussion or debate. I'm not suggesting anything like a 'safe space,' I am talking about disciplining someone who has, for years now, offered up racist and bigoted posts. Clearly, there's some line here that, when crossed, merits action. What does CJ, or anyone else, have to do to cross that line, aside from offering a ongoing litany of racist/bigoted screeds?

I should add that while I absolutely oppose censorship in broader public forums, private, voluntary forums, such as this one, can establish their own rules as to what is and is not acceptable. For example, someone who comes on and uses the N word liberally has clearly crossed some line. What's the line, and how far does one need to descend into bigoted language to cross it? (I don't expect you to have a formal policy on this per se, just curious what you're thinking is.)

One final thing, I don't care if CJ or anyone criticizes Muslim beliefs, hell, I think many of them are bat ****e crazy. Any and all beliefs are fair game in my opinion. It's the blatant negative stereotyping and condemnation of hundreds of million of people and their character that is the cause of my problems here. My guess is that many of our LDS friends on this forum would object where such a language and stereotypes directed their way, but may not object when its directed at someone else.

 

[Siro]

Well, there's having an opinion and there's being a bigot. Bigots have all sorts of opinions, and few of them merit discussion or debate. I'm not suggesting anything like a 'safe space,' I am talking about disciplining someone who has, for years now, offered up racist and bigoted posts. Clearly, there's some line here that, when crossed, merits action. What does CJ, or anyone else, have to do to cross that line, aside from offering a ongoing litany of racist/bigoted screeds?

The policy is fine as it is. Let's not start censoring opinions that we disagree with.

 

[colton]

....not my viewpoint, just pointing out what the American Public has said in the past and at the present!

So what is your viewpoint?

 

[Siro]

One final thing, I don't care if CJ or anyone criticizes Muslim beliefs, hell, I think many of them are bat ****e crazy. Any and all beliefs are fair game in my opinion. It's the blatant negative stereotyping and condemnation of hundreds of million of people and their character that is the cause of my problems here. My guess is that many of our LDS friends on this forum would object where such a language and stereotypes directed their way, but may not object when its directed at someone else.

I've made countless threads criticizing religion since I joined these forums. Most recently, I made a thread suggesting a negative correlation between faith and intelligence. MVP pretty much only makes negative posts about religion. And yet, we're all still here.

You're offended by this. Other will be offended by other things. Maybe "steortyping" of Republicans or Democrats. Maybe casting all Americans in a negative light. Let's not play that game.

 

[fishonjazz]

I am not speaking for the board but for me personally.

As long as he is not personally attacking others or some other way breaking board rules I am not banishing him for having an opinion. Even one I think is shameful and terrible. I do not believe in "safe spaces" or things of that nature.

Good respond stoked

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The policy is fine as it is. Let's not start censoring opinions that we disagree with.

There's a difference between censoring views one doesn't agree with and drawing lines in a private community as to what types of overtly racist/bigoted language we as a community are willing to tolerate.

We DO already censor language here (again, try using the N word and see how quickly that gets you censored), so it's not a binary choice here. I have no desire per se to silence CJ, and I'm bound to disagree with 99.9% of what he says, it's HOW he says it that's the issue here.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I've made countless threads criticizing religion since I joined these forums. Most recently, I made a thread suggesting a negative correlation between faith and intelligence. MVP pretty much only makes negative posts about religion. And yet, we're all still here.

You're offended by this. Other will be offended by other things. Maybe "steortyping" of Republicans or Democrats. Maybe casting all Americans in a negative light. Let's not play that game.

I've made probably as many posts criticizing religion as you have. There is, for example, a difference in saying that LDS beliefs are weird and non-sensical (which I think many of them are), and saying that LDS people are dupes, fools, uncritical sheep, dishonest, or go on down the line until it gets very nasty and personal. In the same way, criticizing Muslim beliefs is one thing (and I think many of them are stupid and/or dangerous), but essentially impugning the character of hundreds of million of people and attributing to them ill-intentioned stereotypes is another thing.

I'm just wondering out loud what the policy is here about where the line is and when/if this line gets crossed, what is done about it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So what is your viewpoint?

I think he's made that pretty clear.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The policy is fine as it is. Let's not start censoring opinions that we disagree with.

So there's a policy?

If something clearly doesn't cross a line (and I conceded that it's hard to draw lines here (like the one Supreme Court Justice said about ponography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it, although I suspect that plenty would disagree that he can identify it so well), then I agree, better to err on the side of free and open language.

 

[Stoked]

For the record I vehemently disagree with CJ on his posts.

But as long as he is not inciting violence, insulting others (not the same as offending), breaking board rules of becoming obscene with his posts I do not agree with censoring him. Despite me strongly disagreeing with him.

Now if you feel his posts merit a penalty/punishment please report them and explain the specific part you disagree with. He will be judged by the same board rules and if found to have violated them action will be taken.

But I share your disdain for CJs posts.

 

[carolinajazz]

So what is your viewpoint?

First of all, let me point out that my original post to start this thread...were all QUOTES from outside agencies and sources in connection with Obama's visit to the Mosque in Baltimore! Since it was a "hot" topic in the news, I thought I'd bring it up in connection as a news worthy idem! Personally, I think it's a shame that those who brace the Muslim faith have been lumped all together with the "radical" types who have caused the death and destruction of so many innocent people, including there own! However, the fact remains that since it's virtually impossible to distinguish the "radical" from the "non-radical" Muslim in today's society it does not bode well for those who embrace that faith, based on the actions of a minority of adherents. Just as there are "counterfeit" Christians who have been "false friends" to the Bible and true Christianity, there are those who have wrecked havoc on the world scene by embracing the Muslim faith "unconditionally!" Just as historically, Christendom has claimed to believe in the Bible and to be its guardian while at the same time there religious organizations have been associated with some of the most appalling horrors of history, from the Crusades and pogroms of the Middle Ages to the Holocaust....those supporting the Muslim faith now face a similar scenario in which they will be judged...and judged harshly...by the governmental and military establishments of the world who are trying to preserve there social, economic and political structures! I hope that clarifies the matter somewhat!

 

[colton]

Thanks for clarifying your view.

 

[cowhide]

"Muslim Americans keep us safe," he told the audience, crediting the contributions Muslims have made to communities across the country. "They are our police. They are our firefighters. They're in (the Department of) Homeland Security."

Nearly half of Americans think at least some US Muslims are anti-American, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday. Two-thirds of Americans said people, not religious teachings, are to blame when violence is committed in the name of faith. However, when respondents were asked which religion they consider troubling, Islam was the most common answer.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists," grieves one prominent Muslim journalist in the London newspaper Al Sharq al-Awsat, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." That is the fact of the matter. It must be confronted, without apology, without remorse.

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
Socially – no: Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Philosophically – no: Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Politically – no: Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

....not my viewpoint, just pointing out what the American Public has said in the past and at the present!

They said the same thing about the Catholics and Mormons, Japanese, Germans, and Italians. Painting a wide brush on a whole group of people is the root of bigotry. There have been many Muslims who have helped America, they work as translator and have fought with American soldiers.

 

[Gameface]

First of all, let me point out that my original post to start this thread...were all QUOTES from outside agencies and sources in connection with Obama's visit to the Mosque in Baltimore! Since it was a "hot" topic in the news, I thought I'd bring it up in connection as a news worthy idem! Personally, I think it's a shame that those who brace the Muslim faith have been lumped all together with the "radical" types who have caused the death and destruction of so many innocent people, including there own! However, the fact remains that since it's virtually impossible to distinguish the "radical" from the "non-radical" Muslim in today's society it does not bode well for those who embrace that faith, based on the actions of a minority of adherents. Just as there are "counterfeit" Christians who have been "false friends" to the Bible and true Christianity, there are those who have wrecked havoc on the world scene by embracing the Muslim faith "unconditionally!" Just as historically, Christendom has claimed to believe in the Bible and to be its guardian while at the same time there religious organizations have been associated with some of the most appalling horrors of history, from the Crusades and pogroms of the Middle Ages to the Holocaust....those supporting the Muslim faith now face a similar scenario in which they will be judged...and judged harshly...by the governmental and military establishments of the world who are trying to preserve there social, economic and political structures! I hope that clarifies the matter somewhat!

That clarifies things nicely.

Please aggressively enjoy yourself!