General US Politics

[solrocknroll]

Well, you could always offer them a piece of bacon (Or some wine if they claim to be jewish) and make them draw a figure of Mohammed. The truly fanatical ones probably would not be able to hold their religious extremism in.

There's a difference between finding extremists and disrespecting the beliefs of a whole set of people. Forcing them to eat bacon and draw Muhammad would not only be an easy test to pass, but it flagrantly disregards a religion. Are you going to force someone who's Jewish to eat non-Kosher to enter the US?

[Life]

To blah, Your immigration stance is a real shocker to me seeing how most people on Serenes forest take the most left wing position on.. about anything. No moderate/conservative.

I'm actually pretty right wing, which is strange because I grew up in Canada. Center-right but I still defy your assessment.

Also, there is a point to Halal which is the same as Kashrut for Jews, or at least the religious believe so.

Forget the whole "God said this" argument (which is stupid in its own right), the other argument is that pigs and seafood are generally seen as unclean within the religion. It's to keep your body healthy and considering that study that came out about linking bacon to serious diseases, there may be a legitimate point there.

I myself used to observe Kashrut so I know what I'm talking about.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[tuvarkz]

I'm actually pretty right wing, which is strange because I grew up in Canada. Center-right but I still defy your assessment.

Also, there is a point to Halal which is the same as Kashrut for Jews, or at least the religious believe so.

Forget the whole "God said this" argument (which is stupid in its own right), the other argument is that pigs and seafood are generally seen as unclean within the religion. It's to keep your body healthy and considering that study that came out about linking bacon to serious diseases, there may be a legitimate point there.

I myself used to observe Kashrut so I know what I'm talking about.

Actually, it was due to the fact that desertic climate made those kinds of food spoil with extreme ease, making them generally unsafe to eat. Making them religious statements was probably only to prevent people from questioning it.

EDIT: And to note, pretty much any food will cause some kind of disturb in your body if you eat it excessively.

Edited March 3, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Original Alear]

Actually, it was due to the fact that desertic climate made those kinds of food spoil with extreme ease, making them generally unsafe to eat. Making them religious statements was probably only to prevent people from questioning it.

EDIT: And to note, pretty much any food will cause some kind of disturb in your body if you eat it excessively.

Both chicken and fish spoil faster than pork. Neither are proscribed by kashrut. So why would they proscribe one food for spoiling faster than another, but not another food that spoils even faster than that? On the other hand, related to Life's point re bacon, I'm not sure what study he's talking about, but the study that made all the headlines recently that I'm aware of also linked beef to cancer. I'm sure that laws of kashrut, halal, etc., were ultimately related to health, but I'm skeptical that ancient cultures had such a command of scientific knowledge that their findings were as reliable as those we have today, and thus trying to cite a specific aspect that might make a food more healthy/unhealthy is probably misguided when they were probably working partially off of a general bias.

Forgive me if I'm reluctant to believe a piece of bacon and a sketchpad will make it less likely for a jihadist to get into my country.

You do realize that jihadists have been found with pornography, right, and that is also considered immoral? I don't think that's as failsafe as you believe it is.

Apparently at least the terrorist camps and sects that trained the 9/11 terrorists encourage, even train them to, disregard some muslim laws in order to make them more effective at infiltration.

http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

French officials think that Takfiri beliefs have bred a distinct form of terrorism. "The goal of Takfir," says one, "is to blend into corrupt societies in order to plot attacks against them better. Members live together, will drink alcohol, eat during Ramadan, become smart dressers and ladies' men to show just how integrated they are."

In general I'm skeptical of a fair amount of religious sincerity regarding purity, and I suspect that the willingness to commit taboo acts was motivated by more than just a desire to more effectively appear assimilated, but w/e. Edited March 3, 2016 by Sane Young Dog Man

[blah the Prussian]

You hit the nail right on the head. But Trump is to the right of Slick Willy on several issues, like guns, abortion, and the death penalty. He is also far less hawkish than Hell Clinton, apparently, which might alienate the people that voted for W. In 2000 and 2004.

To blah, Your immigration stance is a real shocker to me seeing how most people on Serenes forest take the most left wing position on.. about anything. No moderate/conservative.

It's a bit more complex than that. Basically, I think that if we find an illegal immigrant without kids in the US, we should deport them, but we shouldn't have, say, a special initiative devoted to finding them, because that will devolve into witch hunts fairly quickly. I am also in favor of making legal I'm,irrational easier, and if that happens we can be more sure that the illegal ones are doing it out of a lack of scruples rather than a lack of means.

@Ms. Andrews: TBH if you're already so blatantly engaging in religious discrimination it's not actually a bad idea to test them based on this. No one would be forcing them to do it. It's a still a stupid idea, though.

To Tukvarz, there haven't been many Catholic extremists (whether or not the IRA counts is for another thread) but there certainly have been Christian terrorists, most bloodily the Taiping rebels, whose leader claimed he was the brother of Jesus and tried to force Christianity on China. A friend of mine described them as the Christian version of ISIS, which, given the shit they did, isn't that far off. TENS OF MILLIONS of civilians died, a figure that wouldn't be topped until the Nazis and Soviets, both of whom had industrialized weaponry, unlike the Taiping. So, the notion that Christian terrorism doesn't exist is false.

[Moblin Major General]

Here are some Christian sects that could be seen as terrorists:

The Templars: Invaded the Levant to further the spread of a specific type of Christianity that even the Christian inhabitants thereof didn't follow and held it under military rule for around 100 years, exploiting and purging the people around it.

The Inquisition: As the fallout of the Reconquista, The Spaniards attempted to purge anyone who was not a Catholic, and although it was Church supported, it wasn't wholly adopted by the regency.

The Conquistadors: Fundamentalist, white supremacist, modern, militarized hate group at the left hand of the Spanish Government and the Spanish Church.

Mary Queen of Scots: A self-proclaimed leader of the British Isles that attempted to reverse the "reforms" of her father Henry VIII. Put down like OBL by baby Elizabeth.

Japanese Christians: Adopted Christianity specifically to spite the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Taiping Rebellion: See above.

Ku Klux Klan: If this isn't a Christian Terrorist group, I don't see what is. Almost all members come from the most conservative of Southern Evangelism. They try to biblically justify their hate claiming that black people are the descendants of Cain. All of Cain's descendants died in the flood, therefore their argument is invalid automatically. Yet they cling to this belief as if the fate of the South rests upon their actions. As a Southerner, that's sickening, considering that most people here either don't really care, or just keep their prejudices to themselves.

So yes, there are Christian terrorists. Every religion has terrorists and fundamentalists in them, even ones claiming to be peaceful, like Buddhism. I will play devil's advocate saying that not one of three major monotheistic religions ever claim to preach peace on the whole.

[Irysa]

The IRA.

@Irysa: Yes, perhaps amongst the lesser educated amongst Trump's supporters it is pandering to their racist tendencies, but it is also noticeable that there's a degree of truth to Trump's words.

Look man, I don't throw around the term racist lightly, unlike some people. I don't even think you need to categorically define someone who has racist tendancies as a racist necessarily.

However, I do not believe Trump has said anything close to what any coherant supporters of his seem to think he has said. "Islam is a regressive idealogy that is not truly compatible with Western Civilisation" is not what Trump has said. What he has said is "If we let Muslims in then we're gonna get done in by Terrorists!", and people like you justify it after the fact with that reasoning. This is important, because as far as I know, Trump has not made any idealogical criticisms of Islam, he has simply reffered to Muslims as a dangerous out-group. Irrespective of how you want to frame how perhaps a more educated voter views such a policy, the way Trump presents the policy is specifically intended to create division. This tactic is effective because as long as there are prospective enemies enemies, a leader (or aspiring one) can always divert the attention of his subjects to those enemies to solidify his position. But politics of division as a tactic when used so broadly reinforces insular viewpoints and is in direct opposition to the actual approaches required in order to facilitate a better and more peaceful world.

I will say that it's a critical failing of any opponents to Trump in not explaining this nuance correctly and simply calling him a racist, because it's a strong accusation that demands a deflection of some kind.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Irysa

[blah the Prussian]

Here are some Christian sects that could be seen as terrorists:

The Templars: Invaded the Levant to further the spread of a specific type of Christianity that even the Christian inhabitants thereof didn't follow and held it under military rule for around 100 years, exploiting and purging the people around it.

The Inquisition: As the fallout of the Reconquista, The Spaniards attempted to purge anyone who was not a Catholic, and although it was Church supported, it wasn't wholly adopted by the regency.

The Conquistadors: Fundamentalist, white supremacist, modern, militarized hate group at the left hand of the Spanish Government and the Spanish Church.

Mary Queen of Scots: A self-proclaimed leader of the British Isles that attempted to reverse the "reforms" of her father Henry VIII. Put down like OBL by baby Elizabeth.

Japanese Christians: Adopted Christianity specifically to spite the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Taiping Rebellion: See above.

Ku Klux Klan: If this isn't a Christian Terrorist group, I don't see what is. Almost all members come from the most conservative of Southern Evangelism. They try to biblically justify their hate claiming that black people are the descendants of Cain. All of Cain's descendants died in the flood, therefore their argument is invalid automatically. Yet they cling to this belief as if the fate of the South rests upon their actions. As a Southerner, that's sickening, considering that most people here either don't really care, or just keep their prejudices to themselves.

So yes, there are Christian terrorists. Every religion has terrorists and fundamentalists in them, even ones claiming to be peaceful, like Buddhism. I will play devil's advocate saying that not one of three major monotheistic religions ever claim to preach peace on the whole.

I agree with most of these, especially the Conquistadors given that the Spanish government had very loose control over them, but Mary? Really? She was the lawful ruler of Scotland, she didn't try to force Catholicism on the Scots, there was no evidence she was a threat to Elizabeth until well into her captivity, and she was executed after a blatant show trial. I am a huge fan of Elizabeth, but how she handled Mary was not one of her prouder moments.

[Yojinbo]

re: "there are no christian terrorist groups"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony

[kirby9612]

to Pharohe Monarch (whatever his username is)

Right wing? by US standards? or by Israelli/UK/european standards?

Anyways it seems Trump has been acting "different" lately. I believe he may be in some sort of "transition" from the bigoted, racist "Primary Trump" to the more moderate, less bigoted, less brash "General Election Trump" . He seems less hostile to the media, less focused on bashing his rivals in the primaries, and less evasive of answering questions. I think today he finally disavowed the KKK. But we will see if Trump has changed or not when he faces Rubio, Cruz and Kasich tonight on the debate stage. If he continues to label his opponents as "liars" on the debate stage, then that change may be temporary and I may be suffering from the "illusion of improvement"

Edited March 3, 2016 by kirby9612

[dondon151]

Well, you could always offer them a piece of bacon (Or some wine if they claim to be jewish) and make them draw a figure of Mohammed. The truly fanatical ones probably would not be able to hold their religious extremism in.

are you fucking serious lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

islam sanctions its followers to lie or commit blasphemy if there exists no other option. a religious test would accomplish zilch.

[kirby9612]

I can't believe that people here actually understand that some aspects of Islam (namely Sharia law) are not compatible with Christianity and other religions. I also can't believe that unlike the Daily Kos, Salon.com , the Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, Mother Jones, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and on forums like Democratic Underground that people here are actually looking at Islam for what it really is.

Edited March 3, 2016 by kirby9612

[CyborgZeta]

Islam is a difficult subject for anyone in the West to talk about these days. You can't make fun of it, as evidenced by the reactions to the Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests

You can't criticize it without being labeled a bigot or an Islamphobe, as evidenced by Salmon Rushdie (Iran's previous Ayatollah issued a fatwa on him).

Even Ex-Muslims who criticize Islam can't criticize it without getting criticized!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_10571_b_8615610.html

Whether you like Islam or not, where is the line drawn here? I thought the West was supposed to be a bastion of free speech, yet Islam seems to be the only religion that can get away with censoring it.

[Moblin Major General]

^Because the Middle East has been the dominant force in politics since the dawn of history. Modern law comes from Mosaic Law, Hammurabi's code, among other things. Three of the most powerful religions descend from the Middle East, two specifically from the Levant. Christianity and Judaism are easy to persecute and/or parody because there is a pattern of persecution for both, especially in its native region, whereas Islam has been the dominant religion of the Middle East since its inception in the 500s A.D. Criticizing Islam would be like criticizing the Church during the Renaissance: you just don't do it. Christians haven't been players in international politics since the Napoleonic Era, whereas Islam did since the Ottoman Empire.

[Phoenix Wright]

I can't believe that people here actually understand that some aspects of Islam (namely Sharia law) are not compatible with Christianity and other religions. I also can't believe that unlike the Daily Kos, Salon.com , the Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, Mother Jones, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and on forums like Democratic Underground that people here are actually looking at Islam for what it really is.

maybe it's because most of the left-wing posters here are also secular (and can think critically). parroting a site like msnbc would be stupid.

Alright, one reply at a time, because I'm not sure how to quote multiple people in the same post

@Phoenix Wright: You mentioned that the laws of the places reflected the teachings of Islam. It happens to be that shariah is a common factor in those places, making a link between islamic teachins and shariah, don't you think?

rather than selecting "quote," you select "multiquote," which is between "quote" and "report."

yes, but aside from that being a connection i made in my post:

eh, most arabs are muslim. most arab nations (if not all) have islam as the national religion, and have laws that reflect some of the teachings of islam. speaking as a non-religious (but come from a christian family) arab, even i know muslim = arab, generally. or pakistani. you're just trying to split hairs because the side you lean with politically is morally wrong.

the point of the connection was to show that arab = muslim, generally speaking. and, as the above quote notes, i am aware of arabs that aren't muslim (i am from a family that is christian), but again, generally speaking, if you run into an arab (from the middle east), it's pretty likely they'll be a muslim. someone else noted that a majority of arab americans are christian, and i'm inclined to accept that as fact, though i'll admit i haven't looked into it. anyway, point is arab = muslim, and this is generally understood by people.

so, knowing that now, we can see how words by trump are fueled not as just anti-islam, but also anti-arab.

[blah the Prussian]

^Because the Middle East has been the dominant force in politics since the dawn of history. Modern law comes from Mosaic Law, Hammurabi's code, among other things. Three of the most powerful religions descend from the Middle East, two specifically from the Levant. Christianity and Judaism are easy to persecute and/or parody because there is a pattern of persecution for both, especially in its native region, whereas Islam has been the dominant religion of the Middle East since its inception in the 500s A.D. Criticizing Islam would be like criticizing the Church during the Renaissance: you just don't do it. Christians haven't been players in international politics since the Napoleonic Era, whereas Islam did since the Ottoman Empire.

Wait, what? The only thing that makes the Middle East relevant today is oil, and European countries actually reached the height of their dominance after the Napoleonic era.

Islam is a difficult subject for anyone in the West to talk about these days. You can't make fun of it, as evidenced by the reactions to the Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests

You can't criticize it without being labeled a bigot or an Islamphobe, as evidenced by Salmon Rushdie (Iran's previous Ayatollah issued a fatwa on him).

Even Ex-Muslims who criticize Islam can't criticize it without getting criticized!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_10571_b_8615610.html

Whether you like Islam or not, where is the line drawn here? I thought the West was supposed to be a bastion of free speech, yet Islam seems to be the only religion that can get away with censoring it.

You know, I don't t anyone was legally punished for either of those incidents. Part of free speech is that people are free to label you a bigot or an Islamophobe if you criticize Islam. Trust me, criticizing Judaism or Christianity will get you into deep shit too. While I agree that Islam is not perfect, that does not mean that you are having your free speech infringed upon by speaking out against it. As I have said many times before, there is a common misconception that the whole of the Middle East is fundamentalist, while in reality only Iran and Saudi Arabia are. Turkey is secular, Jordan is secular, Syria is Fascist, Iraq was Fascist but now it's just an anarchy, Egypt is under military rule, etc.

[dondon151]

Whether you like Islam or not, where is the line drawn here? I thought the West was supposed to be a bastion of free speech, yet Islam seems to be the only religion that can get away with censoring it.

no way, dude. criticizing christianity is a good way to end your political career in the US. criticizing judaism quickly earns you the label of anti-semite and invites rhetoric about disregarding US interests in the middle east.

islam is somewhat peculiar in that it's more often defended by non-muslims, but it is not the prime offender in the fight for political overcorrectness in the US.

[Yojinbo]

One thing that has yet to be pointed is that most muslims aren't actually arabian either. The countries with the highest number of muslim citizens are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

[kirby9612]

One thing that has yet to be pointed is that most muslims aren't actually arabian either. The countries with the highest number of muslim citizens are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

Exactly.

[Rapier]

not if you reform tax codes (which is bernie's plan). how is that even a point to be raised? this is the same bullshit i talked to some other guy about (which he never responded to); saying that current tax codes are bad doesn't mean that the good ideas that rely on those tax codes are bad. it means those tax codes should be reformed.

please provide reasoning for that claim.

i suppose finland, norway, and other similar socially democratic nations are indeed disasters!

i'm not sure how you came to feel the way you feel, but i suggest doing more research.

bernie's race isn't even close to being over--claiming it is only serves to be detrimental to bernie's campaign.

Ok, doesn't change the fact that investors look for countries with a more lax taxation instead, which makes heavy taxation on large fortunes a shot on one's own foot in the long run. Tell me how this is bullshit, because the argument follows.

The scandinavian countries have the luxury of employing absurdly expensive social programs because they had the resources for them prior to their application, and their reasonable degree of economic liberty actually doesn't scare investors away, which maintains a healthy cycle of profit/expenses. Norway's huge amounts of oil also help. Anyway, not the same case as America, which lacks the resources for employing such expensive social programs right now, being a trillion dollars in debt (IIRC). Spending even more while on such a large debt is madness. Go on, tell me how this is wrong.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Rapier

[Rapier]

Also, this.

However, I do not believe Trump has said anything close to what any coherant supporters of his seem to think he has said. "Islam is a regressive idealogy that is not truly compatible with Western Civilisation" is not what Trump has said. What he has said is "If we let Muslims in then we're gonna get done in by Terrorists!", and people like you justify it after the fact with that reasoning. This is important, because as far as I know, Trump has not made any idealogical criticisms of Islam, he has simply reffered to Muslims as a dangerous out-group.

I don't see what is wrong with the first claim, although the latter claim is a bad generalization for considering that all Muslims are terrorists even if said terrorists are a minority. It's also bullshit that there is a stigma and even censorship for anyone who criticizes Islam (or any other ideology). I do realize that some islamic cultural elements are not compatible with western culture, very few islamic countries are secular enough to employ or even tolerate the idea of free will and personal freedom from forced religious commandments, and those detrimental religious values are rooted on their culture to be carried wherever they go. The result of this is the same bullshit that's making Muslims protest against or even attack women who do not dress as they think they should because of their unimportant cultural beliefs, as happened in Germany, among other cases.

The idea is that the wealth generated through bernie's program would balance out the costs, like the new deal.

Does Bernie's program also consider balancing out the costs while including America's current trillionaire debt, or did he merely consider the costs of his program alone? I don't remember.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Rapier

[tuvarkz]

Alright, I might have understated the end of Christian-based extremist groups. (Although I believe the KKK has been reduced to a joke of recent)

Templars: Too deeply mixed up with economic matters (And the fact was, there were Islamic raids on Christian territory as well)

Inquisitors: I already talked about these guys

Conquistadores: That one is bollocks. They were mostly economically motivated gloryhogs to which religion was at best a casus belli (And the spanish crown didn't like the execution of Atahualpa) that ended up in a war between themselves shortly after the conquest of south america. (And peruvian here, I know my own history)

Mary: Legitimate ruler

Japanese Christians: If it was done to 'spite' a government, I don't think it specifically counts as terrorism

Taiping: Alright

IRA: A quick wikipedia search says that while the group was majoritarily Catholic, it wasn't specifically exclusive to them nor was specifically sectarian. Would need to see whether later developments of it took a Catholic-exclusive theme more in depth.

Kony: Considering the fact that his "religion" (Cult of personality would seem more appropriate) includes non christian elements and is clearly deviating from the more consistent catholic conservativism canon, I don't think this can be (exclusively) denominated as catholic terrorism.

And yes, I was joking about the bacon and the cartoon.

[Rapier]

I think it was something like, the initial wealth will be gained through taxing the upper class more (as well as cutting funding on some other programs, like the military, which won't be as needed under his foreign policy which imo is one of his better stances).

Cutting funding on some other programs like the military seems like a good idea - we've already seen that military interventionism in the globe is bad and we live in quite "peaceful" times that do not require larger spendings on the military. I'm just skeptical toward the taxation on the rich because it scares investors away. Naturally, if they choose other countries to invest on, the government will earn less money than it thinks it will. Anyone's welcome to show me how to turn around that one problem.

[dondon151]

I don't see what is wrong with the first claim,

irysa's point is that there isn't anything wrong with the first claim (except to a regressive liberal), but that's not the content of trump's anti-muslim rhetoric.

[Phoenix Wright]

Exactly.

eh, i kind of mentioned it when i said "or pakistanis," in my original post on the topic.

but still, the nuances of where muslims actually are is irrelevant. ask 100 random people in the united states "where are muslims? who are muslims?" and they'll respond "the middle east," and "arabs." you guys are missing the point entirely

Ok, doesn't change the fact that investors look for countries with a more lax taxation instead, which makes heavy taxation on large fortunes a shot on one's own foot in the long run. Tell me how this is bullshit, because the argument follows.

The scandinavian countries have the luxury of employing absurdly expensive social programs because they had the resources for them prior to their application, and their reasonable degree of economic liberty actually doesn't scare investors away, which maintains a healthy cycle of profit/expenses. Norway's huge amounts of oil also help. Anyway, not the same case as America, which lacks the resources for employing such expensive social programs right now, being a trillion dollars in debt (IIRC). Spending even more while on such a large debt is madness. Go on, tell me how this is wrong.

are you really trying to say the united states doesn't have a giant industry that would provide funding for huge social programs? we make much, much more than those two nations combined (1000x more), we have only about 30x as much people, and per capita income is roughly comparable.

you're making it sound like we're so poor and we need the super rich to survive as a nation. this isn't true. the 'uuuuuuggee gap in wealth tells us that the rich are simply keeping the wealth among each other. fuck their "investments." investments in what, by the way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

you're obviously wrong if we assume bernie's plan would work, which, for the sake of this particular discussion we have to. if we didn't, then bernie wouldn't be a good candidate worth backing. and so, i'd like to point your attention to my original post to you where i said bernie's plan results in a net positive. check the link i provided and see for yourself. having a net positive in budgets provides a relief of debt.

Does Bernie's program also consider balancing out the costs while including America's current trillionaire debt, or did he merely consider the costs of his program alone? I don't remember.

you clearly didn't read the link i provided.

what's the point in talking to you if you're not gonna read anything

Edited March 3, 2016 by Phoenix Wright