Associated Students Legislative Council spent the majority of last night’s meeting discussing funding for College Republicans’ proposal to bring controversial speaker David Horowitz to campus.
After being denied funding for the proposed lecture at Monday’s A.S. Finance Board meeting, College Republicans requested that Legislative Council reopen the board’s minutes and allocate $1,770 for the event’s audio-visual, recording and security costs. Horowitz, a noted conservative activist and writer, last visited campus in April 2008 shortly after accusing UCSB’s Muslim Student Association of having political ties with al-Qaeda. Although several members of the Muslim Student Association and general campus community attended the meeting in protest of the group’s request, the council eventually approved $800 to the organization.
As of press time, the council remained in session pending the approval of the A.S. 2011-2012 budget, which faces significant cuts.
President of College Republicans Steven Begakis requested $1,770 for security, audiovisual technology and visual recording for the proposed event. Begakis said the council should allocate funds on the basis of freedom of speech.
“We just want to bring a conservative speaker to represent our minority opinion and promote a diversity of ideas,” Begakis said.
Sophia Armen, a second-year political science and feminist studies major, said the board’s eventual decision to even partially fund the event reflected poorly on the student government.
“Our association does not look good right now in the eyes of the average student,” Armen said. “I just want you to understand … what isolating communities really means. You’d better have communities on this campus’ back, because it’s your job. Not just because it’s your job — because it’s your moral responsibility.”
Andres Rey, a second-year political science major, said denying funding for the event would be a violation of a citizen’s First Amendment rights.
“That’s freedom of speech: the ability for you to speak,” Rey said. “I think it’s a very important step that the council approves the security for funding because you are denying the vehicle for someone to speak.”
While On-Campus Representative Danielle Stevens objected that Horowitz’s views transcended the divide between free speech and hate speech, Rey said the speaker’s words are not inflammatory enough to be censored by the association.
“The definition of hate speech … it has to be directly linked to a violent act,” Rey said. “You have to prove it incites direct acts of hatred and I think that’s something you can’t prove.”
However, College Republicans Vice President Matt Borasi said the campus has the duty of providing students a space where all voices can be heard.
“Do I agree with everything that Daniel Horowitz said? No,” Borasi said. “What I do agree with is the open forum the university stands for.”
Muslim Student Association member Ahmed Naguib, however, said the Muslim community is underrepresented on campus and is unwilling to tolerate further discrimination.
“There’s 200 or 300 of us on campus. We really fly under the radar,” Naguib said. “But, believe it or not, this is something that really affects us.”
Finance Board Chair Katie Lieberknecht said the board declined to allocate any funds to College Republicans on Monday as, according to A.S. Legal Code, the association cannot deny funding to events on the basis of offensive content.
“You need to base this not on the context of the event but on the event itself,” Lieberknecht said. “You really need to look at the policies and procedures of what can and can’t be funded.”
According to Internal Vice President Jake Elwood, California state law requires that the UC Regents not deny funding to events based on their content.
“If we pass the finance board minutes,” Elwood said, “we will be sued by David Horowitz.”
On April 14, 2008, the Daily Nexus printed an advertisement paid for by the Horowitz Freedom Center, advocating against the Muslim Students Association and accusing it of being a “Campus Front Group For Jihad.”
“The MSA is a radical political group that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring the jihad into the heart of American higher education,” the ad read.
Nick Dürnhöfer, editor in chief of the Nexus in 2008, said the editorial section of the newspaper cannot execute agency over the advertising section.
“I didn’t see that ad before it ran in the Nexus — I don’t see any ad that goes in there,” Dürnhöfer said. “I’m not going to let a newspaper get biased in that way by picking and choosing advertisers … When you start thinking that way, you can’t really do you job as an editor.”
Following a lengthy debate, the board swiftly approved a motion to allocate $1,100 for the event. However, according to Stryker, confusion arose among the representatives as to what the motion they passed entailed as it followed a string of stipulations and modifications.
“When the amendment is friendly with the person that made the original motion, then that amendment becomes the new motion,” Stryker said. “So when we passed it, we passed that motion. I guess a few got confused and thought we just passed that motion. People that wanted to vote didn’t understand what was going on and thought it was just to pass that amendment.”
The result was met with outrage from the audience, as individuals shouted “You are sponsoring Islamophobia and racism on this campus,” and “Who on this board is representing the Muslim community?”
Considering the murky circumstances under which the resolution had been passed, the council moved to amend the allotted amount to $732, providing funding for only police officers.
On-Campus Representative Joseph Lee said the council was overstepping in bounds by reopening the discussion.
“What happened to the whole point of transparency of this council?” Lee said. “We’re already not doing our jobs and paying attention to what’s going on and just because we admitted to making a mistake that doesn’t mean we get to reconsider something we all passed through consent.”
The council eventually modified the amount to $800.
Additionally, Lee presented an apology for his recent incarceration. He spent five days in Santa Barbara County jail in relation to a stolen laptop and, after pleading not guilty at his arraignment on Tuesday, is set to appear in court on May 18.
“My mistakes have brought disappointment and frustration to both my student constituents and my peers,” Lee said. “I am ashamed and I fully regret this situation.”
Lee said he felt the incident was isolated within his personal life and would not affect his ability to perform his job.
“I’m going to do my best to continue to perform to the best of my best in leg council to the students that represented me,” Lee said. “This matter solely matters to me.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcw1QJCtDXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTiz4rWZB6M
Josh,
One additional comment on your latest post. In it you make the unsubstantiated comparison between the Old Testament and what is found in Islam. I strongly encourage you to read the following article which should put to rest any doubts you may have that Islam is like any other Abrahamic religion.
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
From what I get from the article, the thrust of the argument is that Judeo-Christian history is violent, while the Q’uran commands violence.
But how does that challenge my argument?
Just because the Q’uran commands violence, does it mean that All, Most or a Large Minority of Muslims will resort to violence?
Even though the bible does not command violence, it has never the less inspired violence. But somehow the violence that results from biblical interpretations of the old testament are different from the Q’uranic verses that incite violence.
Ill reiterate my example, lets assume that the bible does not command the stoning of homosexuals. Yet, we still have laws in Uganda that will punish homosexuality with the death penalty.
How do you account for that?
Josh,
If you cannot understand the distinction between a religion whose prophet practiced and encouraged his followers to follow the Golden Rule as Christ did, versus a religion whose prophet practed and encouraged his followers to hurt all non-Muslims then there’s little I can write that will make any difference.
Did Buddha kill, rape, enslave and steal?
Did Jesus kill, rape, enslave and steal?
Did Buddha teach his followers that injuring others – physically or otherwise – was a good thing?
Did Jesus teach his followers that injuring others – physically or otherwise – was a good thing?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions. Yet Mohammed did all these things. He raped, enslaved, stole and demanded his followers do the same. This is not anything I have made up. It is absolutely true as stated in the Qur’an and hadiths.
As I wrote above, if you cannot understand the consequences of these very different role models than there is nothing more I can write.
Finally, it is obvious Christians have not lived up to Christ’s teachings throughout history, but that is not because Christ wanted them to do so, that was because these Christians were (to use Christian terminology) sinners. In contrast to this when Muslims kill Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, atheists, Jews this is not considered a sin and in fact is one way to ensure the killers go to Paradise.
You keep missing the point.
Please read carefully what I say, please try to give it more than a few seconds of thought! This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me, as I am afraid that I am not able to communicate with you what my points are.
Let me try once more.
IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be violent?
If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be a supremacist?
Is there a CAUSE AND EFFECT BETWEEN Believing X and doing Y.
Strictly speaking, does practicing Islam mean that you inevitably will do violence and become a supremacist?
My point is that, THERE IS NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT ONE PROFESSES TO BELIEVE AND WHAT ONE ACTUALLY DOES.
IT might be ONE of the MANY necessary and sufficient conditions that would CAUSE a person to ACT on certain beliefs, BUT mere BELIEF does not EQUAL ACTING on the BELIEF.
And my position is that much in the same way that the DARK AGES was replaced by the Renaissance and later on the scientific revolution. What you define as Islam, will one day be touched by a Rebirth and a Scientific Revolution that will pull them away from what you see as a Supremacist Ideology and its violent tendencies.
Acting like the ONLY REASON that Jihadists are violent and supremacists is because of what the Q’uran says, is to cop out of the very real problems the Middle East and Africa face.
IF the ONLY Reason that Jihadists are Supremacists and Violent is because of what is said in the Q’uran, then why isnt 1/5th of the world’s population actively engaged in Jihad against the other 4/5ths.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here. I posted something similar on another article. Religion is a red herring. The Q’uran may command violence and praise the destruction of infidels, but if everyone in Pakistan had food, water, a home, internet, iPods, cars and a TV, I feel like there would be a drop in Taliban recruitment.
Having said that, I also feel that if you were able to magically replace Islam with Buddhism, you’d also see a drop in people blowing themselves up. For some reason I just can’t conjure up the image of a Buddhist monk in Tibet strapping C4 to his chest. The Q’uran might not be the underling cause of the horrible violence and supremacy, but its teachings certainly don’t help matters.
Nik,
Thanks for the help.
Nik,
Many people believe that if not for Islam people in Pakistan would have food, water, a home, internet, iPods, etc…
Islam by being a religion, a political system, a judicial system, a teaching system that begins in the cradle, and an all-encompassing ideology that represses curiosity and independent thought is in large part why Pakistan has none of the things you mention.
Contrast this with Judaism a religion that encourages intellectual curiosity and independent thought and I think you will agree that the socialization that different religions foist onto their adherents (as a generalization) help form what the societies of these people become.
I agree with most of what you wrote, the only thing is I don’t agree with is that the root cause is Islam. Islam (as all religions were) was written to galvanize and support the ideals of the culture. The real problem is the acceptance and perpetuation of these practices. The rest of the world will eventually drag that region in line with modern civility. The only reason the more stable Muslim countries don’t denounce the actions of extremists is because it would be seen as an attack against the teachings of Islam and which those in power use to justify their autocratic rule.
Once oil drys up and the money stops flowing, the people will realize that Allah is not funding their Jihads. They will see that their leaders have tricked them and traded social development for the illusion of power. When the money goes away they will realize that all they’ve been given is repression.
Josh,
I feel like we’re both missing one another’s point, but the questions you’ve just asked are very clear and even I understand them this time! Let me try to be clear in my response.
You ask, “IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be violent?
If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be a supremacist?”
A Muslim is not required to be violent but they are required to submit to Allah. This means not questioning Allah’s demands that they treat non-Muslims as beneath them and worthy of their contempt. This can manifest itself in ways that are physically violent so much as psychologically cruel, or by draining non-Muslims of their ability to support themselves.
In Egypt, for instance, many Christians have been killed by Muslims, but many more have been victims of financial ruin, or inability to practice their religion is ways that are unfettered. The Christians in Egypt are treated as second class citizens and the rules governing their religious practice are very limiting and cruel.
So, not all Muslims are physically violent, but to be a good Muslim means (as per the Qur’an) that they may NOT treat non-Muslims as equals, which I would argue is a form of psychological violence.
As to your second question (are Muslims forced to be supremacists?), the answer is yes. A good Muslim follows the Qur’an and the Qur’an demands Muslims treat others as inferior. In fact Muslim countries have refused to sign onto the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN. Instead Muslim countries have created a counter Declaration called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. The former Declaration states that all people are to be treated as equal and that all religions are too. The latter Declaration – the Cairo Declaration – is based on Sharia law and in following Sharia law non-Muslims and their religions are not equal.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if I have been unclear.
Let me try once more.
IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is ALWAYS forced to be violent?
If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is ALWAYS forced to be a supremacist?
Is there ALWAYS a CAUSE AND EFFECT BETWEEN Believing X and doing Y.
Strictly speaking, does practicing Islam mean that you inevitably will ALWAYS do violence and become a supremacist?
I dont require an explanation or qualifiers. Yes or no.
It doesn’t have to be that being Muslim causes you to be violent, it doesn’t have to be a logical necessity to be true. Some people blow themselves up in public places. Some people engage in “holy wars”. Some people use religious law to subjugate and abuse women. Now, of this population, where does the overwhelming majority of the sample come from and what religion do they practice? Not all Muslims act in this way, but the majority of people that do act this way seem to be a product of Muslim countries and Islamic teachings.
Josh,
You write, “I would also add, that I have no problem with you talking about x,y and z countries that are repressive, backwards and cruel. But it seems incredible to me how you seem to want to attribute guilt by association, or rather guilt by adherence to a faith. I know for a fact that ONLY a small minority of muslims are terrorists.”
You are putting words into my mouth. I never said a majority of Muslims are terrorists. What I have said is that Islam is a repressive, backwards-looking religion which serves to hold back a majority of Muslims from ever reaching their potential. I have also suggested that there are many ways for Muslims to exert repression upon people besides strapping bombs to their midriff and then detonating them in pizzerias.
Take the following example of Muslims (not terrorists per your definition) destroying what was once an institution of hope and turning it into an ally of the wicked. (This includes aiding and abetting terrorists like the genocidal leader of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir who all but gets a free pass from the UN.)
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/02/islamism_and_un.php
“Muslims and Muslim apologists have gotten many people in the west to believe Islam is a tolerant, compassionate, peaceful religion and that only a small minority of Muslims make up the terrorists when in fact Islam is a violent, intolerant and war-mongering religion.”
Your quote implies that the statement “only a small minority of muslims make up the terrorists” is false, and I took it to mean that the opposite was true.
Im confused, Im not sure I see where you are coming from with that link.
Ive read the first few paragraphs and skimmed the rest, but I dont see how it fits in with the rest of your statement.
Could you elaborate, perhaps offer a small summary of the article?
(I assumed that the link was the example you where referring to of Muslims destroying the UN)
P + P = P,
Is Richard Dawkins biased or is he just stating the truth about Islam?
(It’s important to know that Dawkins has spent a lifetime studying ALL religions including Islam.)
http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html
>>Joshua: Legitimate logic, even works within strongly biased argument’s framework, courteous, asks questions
Arafat: Ad hominem, failed logic, false premises, insane generalizations, doesn’t even try to hide bigotry
I think we can clearly see the winner here, guys. (It’s not Arafat)<<
*********************
Just to set the record straight I have asked questions. Admittedly I habe been less than courteous but never knew that was a requirement in our society. And concerning being strongly biased this is like calling people Islamophobes which I have already shown is defined as being honest about Islam. I didn't know being honest was cinsidered a bad thing in a debate.
Are these men Islamophobes like me?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T9VLFM30K16SAHC66
ehh, no one has called you an Islamophobe. as far as I know i think islamophobia has to do with fear of Islam, so strictly speaking, if you are mortified by islam to the point that it has become a phobia, then perhaps you are indeed an islamophobe. Contrary to what you might think, I dont like throwing around terms like racist, islamophobe or bigot at people that disagree with me.
My concern here is not “arafat needs to have the exact same position I have” or “arafat disagrees with me so he is x,y,z”.
Mostly, I am trying to figure out if I agree or disagree with your position, which is sometimes hard when you throw around loaded terms like “leftist apologist” or “supremacist ideology”.
And to answer your question, no, strictly speaking I dont think the people quoted are Islamophobes, but that would be using my definition, (although I did not read all of them, just some of the quotes).
There is nothing wrong with being honest in a debate, but I think what P not P was trying to point out, is that your honesty has given away some very strong biases on your part.
Regardless, I dont really care about whether or not you are courteous or whether or not others perceive you as an Islamophobe.
Josh,
A couple of points.
1) I write that Islam is a supremacist ideology because it is. Read the Qur’an, study Mohammed’s life, read the Hadiths and this is abundantly clear. In Islam all non-Muslims are inferior. Is this not supremacism?
2) Islamophobia is nothing more than a BS word used to confuse people about Islam and to discredit people like me (or Richard Dawkins, or Winston Churchill, or John Quincy Adams). I am not afraid of Islam, I just understand Islam and am honest about Islam. Honesty is being confused with a phobia purposely by Muslims to confuse the debate. When Richard Dawkins says that Islam is evil, Muslims and their apologists shout out that he is an Islmaophobe and by doing so the reasons for his observation quickly become irrelevnat and the issue instead becomes a debate about Richard Dawkins.
I’m surprised at how admadantly against a middle-eastern conservative theocratic religion the right-wingers are, considering their wet-dream is installing middle-eastern conservative theocracy as state policy.
If they weren’t so out of touch with reality, they’d both see they’re both delusional in the exact same way, with just different names and skin colors.
X,
For what it is worth I am an atheist just like this man:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/wilders-trial-the-most-determined-statement-of-dhimmitude-weve-yet-seen-in-europe.html
you know, there was a lot of backlash against this man on youtube by other atheists as well, mostly because it became apparent that almost every video he made became only about Islam and about muslim presence in the UK.
But the tipping point came when he openly endorsed UKIP.
For more on this watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkCkdoO8lU8
Look at the video to see why the atheist community in general went after Pat Condell.
I think that as long as the event follows AS and university guidelines, then there is no reason to deny funding. I leave it up to the “senators” to decide how much student money they want to give to the College Republicans. They could invite the KKK or the Neo-Nazi’s to speak and I leave it up to AS to decide how much money they want to give them. I am very much in favor of defending their right to speech and perhaps even using a part of the student funds to fund their event. after all, they like every other student, paid their dues and are entitled to events that cater to their ilk, lol.
However, I also think that there should be a lot of criticism, not of AS for dishing out 800 bucks for such a ridiculous speaker, but of College Republicans. They are after all the ones sponsoring the event.
Everyone should really be pilling on, trying to persuade them out of having him at UCSB. Furthermore, it would be smart to dissuade the student population from attending the event at all. The worst, THE WORST thing you could ever do is buy a ticket and go the CR event and interrupt him or walk out.
See, imo, idiots like him are meant to be ignored and kept in a dark corner where only people registered at a mental institution actually listen to him.
To me, its not disappointing to see student government pay for part of the event, to me its disappointing to see that there are actual students that actually go to the event. The quickest way to make sure an event like this never happens on campus, is to have him come speak and have a showing of only the 30 or so college republicans on Campbell hall. That would essentially delegitimize their claim that the event is for anyone else other than college republicans.
Joshua, I think your position is pretty reasonable. That said I was wondering what specifically you find offensive about Horowitz. If you could be specific it would help us have a constructive debate on this topic.
Thanks for being fair-minded about the funding.
If you want an example of explosive quotes ala James O’keefe then watch this 10 min video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000
If you want to see the entire 90 min presentation then watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnFlv9vDmSQ
I dont see why finding specific parts that I found offensive is at all relevant. If you read my comment, not once do I mention anything about the event being offensive to me or do I talk about how offensive it is to others.
Start with the facts and we will go from there
Justin, it’s been my observations that with Muslims, their apologists and leftists generally it’s a one-way street, i.e., what’s good for the goose and good for the gander, with the gander being those who see things differently than they do.
While they whine and whine about our speakers and our prejudice against them you never hear them complain about their speakers or their behavior towards us.
To wit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0
http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/02/23/university-of-central-florida-stifles-discussion-of-terrorism-and-muslim-brotherhood/
Like I said, what’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander when it comes to univeristy Muslims, eh?
We support full funding for the David Horowitz lecture. Most of the liberal speakers funded by the Students are offensive to us, but you really do not care as long as your viewpoints are heard. You fund the Muslims speakers why not those who speak against their brand of terrorism on campus.
Please provide full funding .
Thank you.
Concerned Taxpayers, I.N.C.
Justin Ruhge
Hmm, let me ask you something, if College republicans wanted to have Snookie come speak at the university, do you think AS should give full funding for the College Republicans so they can bring their speaker to UCSB?
Ah Arafat, glad to hear from you again. Could you give an example of a questionable speaker that was invited to this campus by MSA?
So Horowitz is questionable but the Muslim Student Association and its invited speakers are not? What is happening to this country?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/msa-pledge-of-allegiance-i-will-die-to-establish-islam.html
hmm, yeah pretty much. I love the way you just blatantly assume that you can compare the two categories though. lol, especially because I bet you dont even know how many MSA speakers we’ve had this year so far. You probably dont even know how much funding they got either, but those are facts and who cares about that.
So let’s discuss facts if you think I don’t care about them. But I’ll readily admit upfront I know nothing about the funding issue for these events. If you want to discuss the facts about Islam and it being a violent, supremacist ideology I’d be happy to indulge you.
Ok, Im guessing that means that you are retracting your original point, since you just admited that you dont know anything about the funding issue, which kind of puts into question your opinion about the entire episode, since its not based on many facts, just assumption.
But thats ok, we can just switch to your topic, and see where it goes.
To start, just define your terms. And guess what, you get to define them as you see fit.
1st, what is Islam
2nd what does it mean for Islam to be violent and
3rd what does it mean for Islam to be a supremacist ideology
Once you define your terms, all you have to do is show me facts and premises that logically lead you to the conclusion that Islam is both violent and a supremacist ideology.
To put it in simple terms, the structure of your argument that would be most constructive for debate would be this:
A = Islam
B = Violent
C = Supremacist Ideology
Premises:
1. if D then E
2. D
3. if E then A = B
4. if F then G or H
5. F
6. not H
7. if G then A = C
8. Premise 3, 7 QED A = B and C
Its just an example, but I want things to be clear simple and uniform.
Gee, Josh, if I had all week I’d comply, but since I don’t I’ll keep it simple, concise and in a picture format such that even a child can understand it:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/people-picture-muslims-with-a-quran-in-one-hand-and-a-sword-in-the-other.html
A = Devout (studied) Muslims in pictures.
B = There obvious embracing of violence.
C = This one is tougher and is not illustrated in the picture but can be clearly understood if the book they’re holding (the Qur’an) is read.
{See here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm And, here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm }
Hope this helps answer you challenge. I readily admit my answer is NOT complete, but does fill in most of the pieces of the equation. I do think your challenge to me is hard to answer in an algebraic form –and is in fact somewhat disingenuous — but I did what I could in the time available to give it a shot.
you should try reading up on formal logic. That is how arguments are broken down to basic pieces and analyzed.
The lines I posted are actually only an example of what you could have done. Your argument could have been as simple as this:
If A then B
A
QED: B
But you did give us some definitions. and I can address that. The definitions are not really help, at least not imo.
1st, your definition of what Islam is not exhaustive. unless of course you are saying, only the poeple in the image are the only member of Islam.
2nd, if all it takes for something (religion, nation, ideology) to be considered violent is for them to have a very obvious embracing of violence, then now you have to tell me what you mean by obvious.
For example, if I showed you this picture:
http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/sitebuilder/images/IRA_Terrorism-321×259.jpg
how would we know if they are embracing violence? what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to fall under that category?
3rd seems to have not been answered at all. But you did make a reference to the Q’uran. Lets say you are referring to a passage in the Q’uran in which it says something along the lines of “Conquer everything”, would that be enough to classify Islam as part of a Supremacist Ideology? If we find a similar quote in the Torah, does that mean Judaism is also a Supremacist ideology? If we find the Book of Mormon riddled with racist passages, does that mean it is a racist ideology? Do you see where I am going with this?
Joshua,
Your lecturing me on logic is really pretty funny, and I mean it. I have a smile on my face while thinking about it.
Anywho, let’s try this again.
A. Mohammed is considered a perfect man in Islam.
B. Mohammed is the only significant prophet of any religion who killed, raped, enslaved, stole and demanded the same from his followers.
C. Islam is based on Mohammed’s example.
D. Islam is violent always has been violent (see Siras and Hadiths describing Mohammed’s life) and will always be violent in no small part thanks to Muslim apologist like you who do their best to confuse the truth with illogical arguments that don’t add up to a hill of beans.
Allahu Akbar!
Ok, Im willing to grant your terms and I am willing to work within that framework. Granting all of the above, what should be done about the conclusion that Islam is a violent ideology. (I didnt see you defend the claim that Islam is a supremacist ideology, but Ill grant that assumption as well)
Ok, so granting all that, who should do something about it and what should they do? And why?
Education, Joshua. Teach poeople about the real Islam. Teach people about how Islam is aggressive, how Sharia law is repressive and against ALL individual freedoms, teach people about what Mohammed did during his lifetime, teach people why Islamic countries are backwards, repressive and cruel. Education is the first step.
Muslims and Muslim apologists have gotten many people in the west to believe Islam is a tolerant, compassionate, peaceful religion and that only a small minority of Muslims make up the terrorists when in fact Islam is a violent, intolerant and war-mongering religion. Until we understand what Islam is it’s impossible to take rational steps towards dealing with it in a rational way.
1st, you say this like people dont know that most of the middle east is made up of 3rd world countries, with monarchies and dictatorships.
I know that Saudi Arabia has horrible punishments for even the slightest crimes. Corporal punishment, honor killings, etc. But you seem to ignore that 1/5th of the world right now is a practicing muslim. Islam has spread to many different places, and in places where technology, western culture and secularism have been allowed to flourish, the people there are not violent or supremacists in ideology. Much in the same way that Old testament endorses slavery, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, indiscriminate slaughter of towns and tribal genocide, Islam as a religion can be tamed by the forces of progress.
But Islam is not the only religion with a problem, and religion itself is not THE problem. I think there is more to it than that.
I would also add, that I have no problem with you talking about x,y and z countries that are repressive, backwards and cruel. But it seems incredible to me how you seem to want to attribute guilt by association, or rather guilt by adherence to a faith. I know for a fact that ONLY a small minority of muslims are terrorists.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/12/fareed-zakaria-glenn-beck-wrong-about-10-percent-muslims-being-terrorists/
http://blessedbejehovah.com/images/2.png
But even if your statements are true, I still dont see what these “rational” steps toward dealing with Islam are.
Should we encourage democracy? should we encourage foreigners to come abroad to our country to study in our universities to learn about our culture and values? should we perhaps avoid antipathy towards them?
I mean, what exactly is the threat posed by the Quran or a prophet who lived in the 6th century?
I also wonder if the way that you would like to solve the problem is by countering violence with violence, intolerance with intolerance and war-mongering with war-mongering.
For example, the easiest way to become intolerant and completely lacking in empathy for people of different faiths, is to make broad statements about them. All jews are X, all blacks are y, all mexicans are z, all muslims are a. And you also seem to forget that correlation does not equal causation. Just because a majority of the prison population in the US are african americans and other minority groups, does not mean that all african americans or minority groups are criminals.
Just because you are Christian, does not mean that you believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death.
Let me ask you something, what do you think of the witch burnings in Africa done by Christians? what about the anti-homosexuality bill in uganda and others like it across africa, that punish homosexuality with the death penalty? Can I take these countries in africa as great examples of what Christianity is about? Can I now label all Christians as fear-mongering, witch burning and cruel people out to hunt homosexuals?
And furthermore, do you think that when considering that question, it is at least fair to take into account that africa and the middle east are areas with fairly high poverty, great over-population, already violent areas of the world where great acts of cruelty can run amuck.
Joshua: Legitimate logic, even works within strongly biased argument’s framework, courteous, asks questions
Arafat: Ad hominem, failed logic, false premises, insane generalizations, doesn’t even try to hide bigotry
I think we can clearly see the winner here, guys. (It’s not Arafat)
Just FYI we finished at 3:45, almost 11 hours into the meeting with a pretty good budget plan for next year. Thank your elected officials (of which I’m not one, just a proxy)