|
For as much as conservatives love to masturbate and self-fellate over constitutional rights, I don't see many people standing up for the first amendment in this case. Funny, that.
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:What metric are we using to determine things are "worse"? I'm not denying things are bad (they are) but how much of it is because what's going on now is fresh in our minds in the moment and that post-9/11 hysteria was 14 years ago and a lot of it has washed from our memories? Presidential hopefuls were not openly calling for a specific database/ID'ing of Muslims, even immediately after 9/11. That is a fair bit worse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Religion is more than a set of beliefs, it is part of people's cultural and ethnic heritage. How about instead of vilifying Islam, you vilify the western powers who are arming and funding these assholes that are creating the refugee problem in the first place. Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mainly Saudi Arabia and the gulf emirate states funding and arming the Islamist groups like ISIS?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The same is true of Islam, incidentally, which is why I'm skeptical of claims that the should be some kind of Islamic pope - that's not the issue and I'm not sure it could actually help. You're aware this already exists, right?  (At least for Shi'ia Islam in Iran)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Is Islamophobia a motivator even for those with empathy/non-bigoted views towards Muslims? For example, David Cameron was on the BBC recently to talk about the coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria and the incompatibility of Islamic doctrine calling for theocracy with modern western values of separation of church and state. Yet, as in the US, there is a seeming hypocrisy with leading candidates for the Presidency and Congress needing to vetted for Christian credentials to be suitable for office (moreso in the Republican party) as well as including the Ten Commandments with courthouses such as in Florida and (recently removed) Oklahoma. Is it because Muslims are sufficiently "Other-ized" that makes it easier to organize movement along Western (and Christian) and Islamic fault lines? Although the national character of the US and the UK, among others, is diverse, there is still a presumption of Western and Christian heritage as their predominant identities that seems to make prosecuting intra-Christian conflict more problematic than confronting Islamic conflict. In other words, despite some personally not being motivated out of racist/prejudiced views, there seems to be a difference and even hypocrisy in confronting Islamic conflict versus intra-Western/Christian extremists as Out vs In groups respectively. Thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Is it hypocritical? Saudi Arabia has no secular law whatsoever. Iran is a state literally ruled by the clergy. The only comparison in the Western world is the Vatican. I see it as hypocritical mainly in the sense that we are supposed to live up to the ideal of "separation of church and state" and yet there are forces at play to keep Christianity intertwined with our politics and political leaders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia is just now allowing women to vote and hold political office for the first time (although they still can't legally drive or give speeches directly to men). So... Progress? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
As an aside, I don't really get why women are prohibited from interacting with men in Saudi Arabia. I mean, I get wearing hijab and all that, but it starts to get fuzzy when women need to be accompanied by men at all times and are then prohibited with interacting with men outside of their husband's permission. When I lived in Jeddah in the early 90s as a very young child, my mother even as a foreigner needed to wear hijab in public and if caught by the matawi (religious police) with arms uncovered, they would warn her first, give a light whack with a switch second, and then from there paint her arms black. Well, at least as second-hand information anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Tei posted:The most positive part is that most people think is unamerican. It's more depressing than positive IMO. People basically think it goes against all American values but want to do it anyways.  Mulva posted:It's loving hilarious that the Islamic world has a reputation for homophobia. Me and my husband will get funny looks holding hands in many major cities in America, but in Saudi Arabia of all places no one bats an eye; it's literally one of the gayest places on earth. I don't think it's so much guys being gay there as it is part of the culture for men who are friends with each other to hold hands or hug. It's the same deal in India. Definitely weird as a westerner to see, but it's just what's considered normal there. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? "A developed country, #1 GDP in the world" 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 14:43
|
|
poo poo THEMSELVES
|
As an aside, why do western countries use ISIS instead of Daesh to refer to the eponymous group? It seems weird considering it's already a formal practice to refer to Burma as "formerly known as Myanmar" as to show the military coup's illegitimacy, why not do the same for ISIS/Daesh?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:It could be any number of reasons; a lack of clarity to people who don't get understand the label (and having to explain it), the unexplained shift in language used, or most likely, the potential for undermining the threat (supposed or real) of the group by lampooning them. But wouldn't lampooning them by better than outright calling them "the Islamic State"? The latter only seems to rile up more Islamophobic hate crimes as people continue to see Muslims as a Fifth Column of said State.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 04:57
|
|