Counter-Protests Outnumber Anti-Muslim Marches in Several Cities Across U.S.

[Spectral]

Can you show me an example of progressives going after the Amish for the same issue?

No, I cannot. People usually don't care about the Amish the same way they care about Evangelicals. I suspect this is mostly a result of the Amish being disengaged from politics, but I don't really know.

You have restated your initial stance, not provided clarity.

I'm sorry you think so. If you disagree that progressives have assisted in normalizing Islamic values that are incompatible with liberal values, we simply disagree and that'll be that. To me, this is strikingly obvious and basically a brute fact, which makes it difficult to argue it rather than just stating it slightly differently.

[NineSpine]

No, I cannot. People usually don't care about the Amish the same way they care about Evangelicals. I suspect this is mostly a result of the Amish being disengaged from politics, but I don't really know.

Alright, can you show me an example of progressives going after evangelicals for how they organize their personal and family lives, or their choice of clothing?

I'm sorry you think so. If you disagree that progressives have assisted in normalizing Islamic values that are incompatible with liberal values, we simply disagree and that'll be that. To me, this is strikingly obvious and basically a brute fact, which makes it difficult to argue it rather than just stating it slightly differently.

What's your actual evidence for this though? For example, is there a big progressive movement to make sure FGM remains legal? Is there a big progressive movement to publicly fund Islamist religious schools? Because it sounds like you are just saying that by default progressives are normalizing radical Islam by defending moderate Islam.

[Spectral]

Alright, can you show me an example of progressives going after evangelicals for how they organize their personal and family lives, or their choice of clothing?

This doesn't line up perfectly with what you're asking for, but it popped to mind immediately. Sanders is obviously holding Christians to a very different standard than he's holding Muslims to.

To comply with the exact request, I could go slog through the shitheap that is Salon, but I'd rather not.

What's your actual evidence for this though? For example, is there a big progressive movement to make sure FGM remains legal? Is there a big progressive movement to publicly fund Islamist religious schools? Because it sounds like you are just saying that by default progressives are normalizing radical Islam by defending moderate Islam.

As mentioned, I think an excellent example of the normalization of illiberal Islamic values is glamorizing the hijab, which is an unambiguously misogynist, oppressive symbol.

[NineSpine]

This doesn't line up perfectly with what you're asking for, but it popped to mind immediately. Sanders is obviously holding Christians to a very different standard than he's holding Muslims to.

To comply with the exact request, I could go slog through the shitheap that is Salon, but I'd rather not.

Do you have an example of Sanders defending a Muslim appointee's bigotry? Otherwise, I don't see how this proves a point.

As mentioned, I think an excellent example of the normalization of illiberal Islamic values is glamorizing the hijab, which is an unambiguously misogynist, oppressive symbol.

That's far too nuanced an issue for it to mean that you are arguing it means. The right of people to define the meaning of their own religious symbols, and the agency associated with that, is complicated. One can easily argue it is illiberal to tell women they must interpret and understand their use of the hijab as an oppressive symbol, and one could further argue that you are denying those women agency in a fairly mysoginistic way. You are going to need something far more clear cut to make that kind of point.

[Dystemper]

https://clarionproject.org/majority-...ver-democracy/

[Glorious Leader]

Do you have an example of Sanders defending a Muslim appointee's bigotry? Otherwise, I don't see how this proves a point.



That's far too nuanced an issue for it to mean that you are arguing it means. The right of people to define the meaning of their own religious symbols, and the agency associated with that, is complicated. One can easily argue it is illiberal to tell women they must interpret and understand their use of the hijab as an oppressive symbol, and one could further argue that you are denying those women agency in a fairly mysoginistic way. You are going to need something far more clear cut to make that kind of point.

Yea im torn on this as well. I deteste the hijab, i do think its a symbol of opression for millions of world wide who have no choice. Having said that i mean if they are granted a choice and do decide to wear it should we not defend that right? The only compromise i can think of is to say no to.it.in public life but permit it privately.

[NineSpine]

https://clarionproject.org/majority-...ver-democracy/

We are supposed to be shocked that religious people consider their faith more important than the laws of man? Seriously? You think American Christians think the government is more important than Jesus?

[Dystemper]

We are supposed to be shocked that religious people consider their faith more important than the laws of man? Seriously? You think American Christians think the government is more important than Jesus?

https://clarionproject.org/understan...ist-extremism/

What is Islamic Extremism?

Islamic extremism is driven by an interpretation of Islam that believes that Islamic law, or sharia, is an all-encompassing religious-political system. Since it is believed to be proscribed by Allah (Arabic for “God”) sharia must be enforced in the public sphere by a global Islamic state. As such, Islamic extremists consider it to be the only truly legitimate form of governance and reject democracy and human rights values.

Thus, the ultimate objective of Islamic extremists is the merger of “mosque and state” under sharia law. Those who favor such an approach are called Islamists. Their ideology is called Islamism, or political Islam.

(Photo: © Reuters)Related terms for Islamic extremism include radical Islam and Islamic supremacy.

Islamic extremists believe they are obligated to install this form of governance in Muslim-majority territories, countries and, eventually, the entire world. In the minds of Islamic extremists, they are promoting justice and freedom by institutingsharia.

In some cases, Islamic extremists even describe sharia as a superior form of “democracy.”

Islamic extremists have intermediate political goals which they believe will pave the way for the global implementation of sharia.One of these goals is the removal of non-Muslim military forces from Muslim lands and the overthrow of “enemy” regimes.

Acts of Islamic extremism includes terrorism, human rights abuses, the advancement of sharia-based governance, bigotry towards non-Muslims and rival Muslims and overall hostility to the West and, in particular, Western democracy.

[NineSpine]

https://clarionproject.org/understan...ist-extremism/

What is Islamic Extremism?

Islamic extremism is driven by an interpretation of Islam that believes that Islamic law, or sharia, is an all-encompassing religious-political system. Since it is believed to be proscribed by Allah (Arabic for “God”) sharia must be enforced in the public sphere by a global Islamic state. As such, Islamic extremists consider it to be the only truly legitimate form of governance and reject democracy and human rights values.

Thus, the ultimate objective of Islamic extremists is the merger of “mosque and state” under sharia law. Those who favor such an approach are called Islamists. Their ideology is called Islamism, or political Islam.

(Photo: © Reuters)Related terms for Islamic extremism include radical Islam and Islamic supremacy.

Islamic extremists believe they are obligated to install this form of governance in Muslim-majority territories, countries and, eventually, the entire world. In the minds of Islamic extremists, they are promoting justice and freedom by institutingsharia.

In some cases, Islamic extremists even describe sharia as a superior form of “democracy.”

Islamic extremists have intermediate political goals which they believe will pave the way for the global implementation of sharia.One of these goals is the removal of non-Muslim military forces from Muslim lands and the overthrow of “enemy” regimes.

Acts of Islamic extremism includes terrorism, human rights abuses, the advancement of sharia-based governance, bigotry towards non-Muslims and rival Muslims and overall hostility to the West and, in particular, Western democracy.

That's nice. I have an advanced degree in this subject, speak Farsi and Arabic, and spend multiple months every year working in Muslim countries. But I appreciate the attempt to copypasta me an overview of islamic extremism. Do you have a point?

[Spectral]

Yea im torn on this as well. I deteste the hijab, i do think its a symbol of opression for millions of world wide who have no choice. Having said that i mean if they are granted a choice and do decide to wear it should we not defend that right? The only compromise i can think of is to say no to.it.in public life but permit it privately.

One can defend a right to do something (wearing a hijab in this case) while still culturally condemning it. There's nothing at all laudable about pathologizing female attractiveness and the entire rationale behind the hijab is essentially "well, she shouldn't go out looking like that if she doesn't want to get raped".

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have an example of Sanders defending a Muslim appointee's bigotry? Otherwise, I don't see how this proves a point.

The question was whether progressives go after evangelicals for their personal lives. The example I gave is Sanders condemning someone for having the temerity to actual believe that their religion is true.

That's far too nuanced an issue for it to mean that you are arguing it means. The right of people to define the meaning of their own religious symbols, and the agency associated with that, is complicated. One can easily argue it is illiberal to tell women they must interpret and understand their use of the hijab as an oppressive symbol, and one could further argue that you are denying those women agency in a fairly mysoginistic way. You are going to need something far more clear cut to make that kind of point.

This sort of normalization is exactly what I'm referring to. The claimed nuance isn't real, the history and doctrine are very, very clear. The thin veneer of respectability that's been added to it for Western consumption doesn't look remotely plausible.

[Slybak]

honor killings in the us? can you name three in the last 5 years?

An average of three women per day are killed by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States, but they don't count as "honor killings" for reasons best left unexamined.

[stomination]

Find me literally one case of this happening and i will delete my MMO champion account and never return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_..._United_States

They happen here but ppl get arrested.

[NineSpine]

One can defend a right to do something (wearing a hijab in this case) while still culturally condemning it. There's nothing at all laudable about pathologizing female attractiveness and the entire rationale behind the hijab is essentially "well, she shouldn't go out looking like that if she doesn't want to get raped".

The entire existence of a dichotomy between masculine and feminine clothes does the exact same thing. Your argument that the hijab is particularly offensive to western values in this regard just doesn't make sense in light of that. On top of that you are denying women the presence of mind and agency to decide for themselves what the hijab means to them, which is absolutely more mysoginistic than any headscarf.

The question was whether progressives go after evangelicals for their personal lives. The example I gave is Sanders condemning someone for having the temerity to actual believe that their religion is true.

What I saw was Sanders taking issue with writings someone made because he believed those writings contradicted the mission of the position he was being appointed to. Once again, please provide me with a video of Sanders defending a bigoted belief of a Muslim appointee.

This sort of normalization is exactly what I'm referring to. The claimed nuance isn't real, the history and doctrine are very, very clear. The thin veneer of respectability that's been added to it for Western consumption doesn't look remotely plausible.

Yeah, and that's exactly what fringe radical feminists say about short skirts and heels: They are examples of the male gaze and women are too stupid and indoctrinated by evil Western culture to have the agency to define that for themselves. They believe there can be no nuance, there can be no compromise, and no ideal that has any root in mysogyny can possibly be appropriated and understood outside of that context. It's bullshit.

[Berengil]

Both sides exercised their rights. Big whoop.

I'll say this much for myself: Accusations of racism in this matter of the philosophy in question are groundless. No philosophy is bound to any one race of people.

Let me state my position clearly: There can be no justification for discrimination on the basis of race.

OTOH, one's belief system (being something you can choose to enter freely, or to leave if you were born into it) says something fundamental about your character.

So, if some people choose a philosophy that in many ways is incompatible with the values of the Enlightenment and its offspring of Western Liberal Democracy? That concerns me deeply. Under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, they of course are free to do so; it nonetheless troubles me.

[Traveler Voltin]

Shocking the left is at it again with its "i dont see it therefore it doesn't exist" crap

[NineSpine]

Both sides exercised their rights. Big whoop.

I'll say this much for myself: Accusations of racism in this matter of the philosophy in question are groundless. No philosophy is bound to any one race of people.

Let me state my position clearly: There can be no justification for discrimination on the basis of race.

OTOH, one's belief system (being something you can choose to enter freely, or to leave if you were born into it) says something fundamental about your character.

So, if some people choose a philosophy that in many ways is incompatible with the values of the Enlightenment and its offspring of Western Liberal Democracy? That concerns me deeply.

The definition of racism includes ethnic discrimination. One of the primary markers of ethnicity is religion. You are welcome to think discrimination on the basis of religion is acceptable, but you don't get to pretend it isn't racism just because it's a negative thing to be called.

- - - Updated - - -

Shocking the left is at it again with its "i dont see it therefore it doesn't exist" crap

Don't see what?

[Glorious Leader]

The entire existence of a dichotomy between masculine and feminine clothes does the exact same thing. Your argument that the hijab is particularly offensive to western values in this regard just doesn't make sense in light of that. On top of that you are denying women the presence of mind and agency to decide for themselves what the hijab means to them, which is absolutely more mysoginistic than any headscarf.



What I saw was Sanders taking issue with writings someone made because he believed those writings contradicted the mission of the position he was being appointed to. Once again, please provide me with a video of Sanders defending a bigoted belief of a Muslim appointee.



Yeah, and that's exactly what fringe radical feminists say about short skirts and heels: They are examples of the male gaze and women are too stupid and indoctrinated by evil Western culture to have the agency to define that for themselves. They believe there can be no nuance, there can be no compromise, and no ideal that has any root in mysogyny can possibly be appropriated and understood outside of that context. It's bullshit.

The whole she shouldnt dress like that if she doesnt want to get raped happens in western non muslim culture as well particularly among evangelical christians although not exclusively. Its obnoxious no matter who says it frankly.

[HumbleDuck]

It won't be long before cities are making it law, in particular where they have a majority. Look at Utica NY or Deerborn MI, and see what Obama's refugee policy has done to cities like that. During his tenure those cities and other like it went from middle class white people to looking like some place out of the Middle East.

Watch less fox and read more books, that's my advise for you.

[Berengil]

The definition of racism includes ethnic discrimination. One of the primary markers of ethnicity is religion. You are welcome to think discrimination on the basis of religion is acceptable, but you don't get to pretend it isn't racism just because it's a negative thing to be called.

That definition of racism is far too broadly cut. It seem to suit the demands of the far Left to shut down any speech critical of something on the Progressive stack. Religion (any religion) can, must, and should be open to ridicule, satire, and parody ( or just plain old disapproval).

Judging people by what they choose to believe is entirely acceptable. One's beliefs form a fundamental part of one's character.

Note to Mods: I'm doing my best to discuss this without mentioning any one belief or group of people in particular. If that's not being careful enough, my apologies, and please PM me if you like to discuss it.

[Spectral]

The entire existence of a dichotomy between masculine and feminine clothes does the exact same thing. Your argument that the hijab is particularly offensive to western values in this regard just doesn't make sense in light of that. On top of that you are denying women the presence of mind and agency to decide for themselves what the hijab means to them, which is absolutely more mysoginistic than any headscarf.



What I saw was Sanders taking issue with writings someone made because he believed those writings contradicted the mission of the position he was being appointed to. Once again, please provide me with a video of Sanders defending a bigoted belief of a Muslim appointee.



Yeah, and that's exactly what fringe radical feminists say about short skirts and heels: They are examples of the male gaze and women are too stupid and indoctrinated by evil Western culture to have the agency to define that for themselves. They believe there can be no nuance, there can be no compromise, and no ideal that has any root in mysogyny can possibly be appropriated and understood outside of that context. It's bullshit.

This all looks like a lot of dissembling to me. There is no legitimate equivalence between the fashion of skirts and telling women to cover themselves.