Manhattan explosion

[tyr_13]

I was addressing the point of your arguments, or my perceived lack of it. I believe this to be entirely within the MA.

I didn't say it wasn't in the MA, I said it was bad form. You weren't addressing the points by asking me why I was making them, which is what I was talking about in the post you quoted. Are you aware of the way you're making straw men and twisting points by changing the set again like this? You ask a specific question on my motivation, and while I address an element of that question, you then widen the set back to arguments. This is a set change, changing the understood topic, to change the meaning of what I was saying.

That's great, but I haven't said, hinted or even implied that any kind of consensus has been reached. Nor have I claimed victory because of A'isha's absence (all the best, by the way). I also think that my posts have been well-substantiated, and I have not twisted or ignored any of the main points made against my arguments.
It seems then, from what you have said here, that you are being deliberately confrontational and negative, not because of anything I have said, but for other reasons you don't want to share. I'm not convinced this makes you look good.

I never said you did. Not every effect of a discussion is intended or controlled by a specific participant or group of them.

And again, me looking good isn't the point of being in this discussion. I'm being adversarial because I don't have the time to be more diplomatic and because of how strongly I disagree with some of the reasoning and ideas being floated. This doesn't change the arguments themselves.

Well at least you have stated a positive point. I may not agree with it, but it is at least a start.




I have consistently argued that something needs to be done about extremist preachers. Are you saying that this idea is harmful?

No, I'm not saying nor have I implied that doing something about extremist preachers is inherently harmful. I have said that not all things that are 'something' are good, and some things that are 'something' are harmful.

And yet you claim complete ignorance about what is being done in the UK, and ridicule the idea that anything should be done in the first place.
For the record: what exactly do you think is being done to deal with extremism and radicalisation?

Whoa there, what? I've done no such thing as claim complete ignorance. You cannot be surprise by my accusations of dishonesty when you make statements like this. I don't know everything that's being done in the UK, but that's a far cry from complete ignorance!

Besides the reporting programs, you have many using their powers of speech and persuasion to decrease the acceptability of extremist ideas. You have people denouncing them, and law enforcement doing it's thing. These and more have been cited repeatedly in this thread, even by you. My repeating them is pointless.

My arguments, summarised, are thus:
There are mechanisms within the UK that allow for Muslims to expel extremist preachers from mosques.
There are laws in the UK prohibiting hate speech.
The first line of defence against Muslim extremism is Muslims themselves. They should take a more proactive stance in policing what goes on in their religious establishments.
The second line of defence should be a multi-denominational, nationwide, independent MUslim-run organisation with the power to expel extremist preachers.The third line of defence should be the laws of the UK itself.
I have stated this many times, and I still cannot see why you object so strongly to this. What are your reasons for this opposition, to what to me seems like a perfectly reasonable solution?

The highlighted is where you lose me, and the reason for my accusation that you're against freedom of religion and association. Giving a group through force of law the ability to dictate to other sects what is acceptable is a slippery slope. I firmly believe that the law as is currently enforced (more or less) is the place for that limit. I go back to my Mormon example. The only way that authority to remove preachers who haven't crossed to something illegal should be given to any body is through consent of the people attending those places of worship. Convince them to do so, and if you can't, you have no right to force them too. This is already being done by your own sources, and thus my conclusion that they're already doing what they can (they being peaceful Muslims).

 

[McHrozni]

What are you talking about? I don't think it ridiculous that pizza chains compete for customers, nor that likewise competing sects of Islam...compete for followers. You think this makes it a bad analogy for some unknown reason.

It is a rather bad analogy if you use it to excuse Islamic sects who don't try to pry away Muslims from extremist sects, yeah

If you can't understand why you probably shouldn't be commenting on the matter.

That's actually pretty easy...

...because it's this right here. Muslims who don't preach hate or violence, don't condone it, do report it when they know about it, should very well have nothing happen to them. They're innocent and it's only just that no more happen to them than happens to you or me.

Sure, I agree with that. But that's a very, very, very tiny minority of the overall Muslim community. What about the sizable majority that looks the other way?

Good thing no one is arguing otherwise. I have not, so stop accusing me of it.

That's news to me. I'll chalk it up to shifting your opinions in a stealthy manner.

And after all, something beyond what is happening should happen to them, according to you in this very post.

It's a question that has no correct answers, only incorrect ones. There is no definite question as to which one is the least incorrect. We can all agree that gas chambers are one of the worst possible answers out there, but we'll struggle to agree on much else.

That said, it's a question that doesn't need answering if they step up to the plate and deliver what is rightfully asked of them. It's not like we're asking them to give up their faith or anything, they claim this is not part of it anyway.

It's always problematic to compare incidents from the past for level of violence when the populations are today greater and the means of violence much more effective (although so are the means of survivalability of violence). That said, there doesn't have to be an equivalency in magnitude for equivalency in kind. Besides that, problems with FLDS continue to this day. Child brides and repeated rape with absolute control over followers practiced by the FLDS is not the fault of mainstream Mormons, even if the FLDS is practicing closer to what their older holy texts say. In this same way, peaceful Muslims are not responsible for what ISIS does.

I'm not holding them responsible for what ISIS does, I'm holding them responsible that they consider texts that justify what ISIS does as sacred, perfect, unchangeable, and in doing so create the conditions that saw the creation of ISIS and it's growth that was only checked by military power of their ideological enemies - mostly those who agree with the texts, but think a few slight variations in the line of righteous leaders of the religion are of vital importance.
Without the problematic parts of the Quran and Hadith there would be no ISIS. With them there will always be a tendency to create monsters like ISIS. Muslims don't have a personal responsibility in creating these monsters as such, but they do have both personal and collective responsibility for creating and maintaining the groundwork for these groups to arise and flourish.

You don't wish to defend your argument on that level, so don't expect it to be given weight. It fails at a basic point.

No, I don't have any particular inclination to defend an argument I didn't make. I think that's only sensible, truth to be told.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The highlighted is where you lose me, and the reason for my accusation that you're against freedom of religion and association. Giving a group through force of law the ability to dictate to other sects what is acceptable is a slippery slope.

Freedom of religion means one is free to practice whichever religion one chooses. It doesn't touch what limitations, if any, are placed on that religion. Suffice to say there are limits to all freedoms, usually where you begin to seriously infringe on rights of others.

The only thing left is the freedom of association, which again is a personal freedom and doesn't extend to organizations. Muslims are free to abandon their religion if they don't want it, and they're free not to be associated with the said council. They will be declared apostates if they do though - (I agree that giving them the right to expel anyone is not the way things should be done. No one has the right to be associated with a group that doesn't want to associate with them either.

The only thing you do have a point with is expelling, they should have the power to declare certain people apostates, but not the power to punish them beyond that. The rest is good and proper procedure, which is already in place in Islam today, just on a lower level, and in many other religions as well.

We can ignore Mormons, because they're tiny, unimportant and mostly harmless. Islamic terrorists kill more people yearly than there are followers of the Mormon Fundamentalist Church, and should rightfully considered a threat that needs solving.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I didn't say it wasn't in the MA, I said it was bad form.

No, you didn't say it wasn't in the MA: I did. I am entirely within my rights to question the motives of the argument being made, as long as I do not attack the arguer. I was quite careful in that regard.
Which makes this....

You weren't addressing the points by asking me why I was making them, which is what I was talking about in the post you quoted. Are you aware of the way you're making straw men and twisting points by changing the set again like this? You ask a specific question on my motivation, and while I address an element of that question, you then widen the set back to arguments. This is a set change, changing the understood topic, to change the meaning of what I was saying.

...yet more irrelevant strawmanning.

I never said you did. Not every effect of a discussion is intended or controlled by a specific participant or group of them.

So the inclusion of this statement in your reply to my post, directed at me, was irrelevant to what I had said. Thanks for putting that straight.

And again, me looking good isn't the point of being in this discussion. I'm being adversarial because I don't have the time to be more diplomatic and because of how strongly I disagree with some of the reasoning and ideas being floated. This doesn't change the arguments themselves.

So you are being deliberately confronational. Again, thanks for setting the record straight.

No, I'm not saying nor have I implied that doing something about extremist preachers is inherently harmful. I have said that not all things that are 'something' are good, and some things that are 'something' are harmful.

This is in response to my setting out specifically what I think should be done.
Now, believe it or not, I have been trying to be accomodating and not adverserial here, but, as you have responded so unfavourably to my attempts to better our communication and make some progress in this debate, I feel less inclined to do so.
You have repeatedly strawmanned my argument on this point, and I'm not going to let that slide any longer.
My argument is that recruiting terrorists in the UK is illegal- Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza are two examples i have given of this.
I have also listed example of hate speech (post 693). Hate speech is also illegal in the UK.
I have said that this kind of activity and preaching is unacceptable and there needs to be some mechanism to curb it.
For example:

Your "they" in this argument is me. I want some authority to have some control over mosques. Does this mean that I want "Muslims to stop being Muslims"? Well, that depends. Do I want people to stop talking like this? Then, absolutely, yes:


A'isha's argument was that the sects of Islam that operated these mosques would, as a matter of course, preach this kind of thinking. If that is the case, then, absolutely, this is totally unacceptable. If this is how you define Islam, as these preachers and these denominations clearly do, then this has to stop or be stopped. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech do not cover incitement to hatred, violence or the overthrow of democracy.

This is what you have said in reply:

I was not the one making the claim, so you'll have to ask those who want some authority to have control over the mosques (as opposed to some or a mosque) what they meant, what form this control can take (as in this mechanism I keep requesting be named). As I understand their arguments, it's that they want Muslims to stop being Muslims, and do this by having some Muslims change what religious beliefs and words other Muslims may say or claim as Islamic.

In short; they don't believe in the concepts of freedom of religion nor of association.

Depending on what you mean by 'control', then yes, you don't want freedom of religion. If you hold what some sects preach against other Muslims who don't agree with those sects, then you don't want freedom of association. ......
Why does another Muslim have more obligation or right to control what other Muslims are allowed to believe than any other fellow citizen does?

It seems quite clear to me that you have consistently, and probably deliberately, twisted my argument to make it sound like I am attacking freedom of religion, even though I explicitly stated that freedom of religion does not include the kinds of statements and activities I was concerned about.
Let me re-emphasise this.
You do not have a human right to recruit terrorists.
You do not have a human right to call for 10-year-old girls to be beaten.
You do not have a human right to call for homosexuals to be killed by throwing them off cliffs.
This is not about telling people what they should or should not believe: it is about protecting people from incitements to hatred or violence against them.It is also about upholding the law of the land, that specifically outlaws this kind of speech.
And it is this protection that you say you are uncomortable with, that you say is "harmful". The only way you have been able to justify this is to claim that I am somehow calling for Muslims to oppress each other, or that certain kinds of legal belief should be outlawed, and this is utterly untrue.
Please stop it with this strawman as well.

Whoa there, what? I've done no such thing as claim complete ignorance. You cannot be surprise by my accusations of dishonesty when you make statements like this. I don't know everything that's being done in the UK, but that's a far cry from complete ignorance!

Oh really? You see, as I said above, I was trying to be accommodating. I therefore assumed that what you posted here was by default honest. the opposite, I should point out, of what you are doing. Here you are again with another flat-out, in-your-face accusation of dishonesty on my part.
So, when you said this:

No, still manifestly you. A'isha claimed there were no authorities who control Islam or most Mosques. She explained clearly and repeatedly that anyone can open a Mosque and call themselves and expert or scholar. Your straw man is extraordinarily dishonest after it's been clearly explained over and over what was meant.

When she said 'no authorities in Islam', she was talking about Islam on the level of the general or in another case the level of Britain. Your assumption is illogical.

You knew that there were authorities. OK.
What about this?

What was said in the context of the discussion was only that no one controls mosques as a category. There is no authority who who can say, 'don't say these things in mosques' and it be done, even if there are authorities who could say 'don't say these things in my mosque' and it be done.

Again, if you knew about the situation in the UK, you must have known this was untrue.
I even put you right:

In the context of the UK that simply is not the case. The Charities Commission is in overall control of all charitable organisations, of which mosques are a part.

Despite this, you continued to claim ignorance of this fact:

What do you mean by 'control' here?

If you knew the answer, why ask the question?
Then there's this:

I'm asking for a mechanism. I don't know what mechanism they think could be used. I'm skeptical of a lawful mechanism that could be employed by many Muslims that is not already being employed. It is simply a description of how others seem to see it. It is not something I claim exists. I'm asking you what mechanism could be employed.

Your statements and questions reveal an almost total ignorance of the legal status of mosques in the UK, and of anti-hate speech legislation.
Or, alternatively as your outraged comment implies, you weren't actually that ignorant: in which case, you were being deliberately dishonest by making statements you knew were untrue, and asking questions to which you already knew the answer.
The difference between you and I is that I didn't automatically assume that you were being dishonest. My statement about your ignorance of British laws and institutions was based on a number of your posts, and was thus entirely honest. If you are now going to say you did have knowledge you were pretending not to have had, well.....

The highlighted is where you lose me, and the reason for my accusation that you're against freedom of religion and association. Giving a group through force of law the ability to dictate to other sects what is acceptable is a slippery slope. I firmly believe that the law as is currently enforced (more or less) is the place for that limit. I go back to my Mormon example. The only way that authority to remove preachers who haven't crossed to something illegal should be given to any body is through consent of the people attending those places of worship. Convince them to do so, and if you can't, you have no right to force them too. This is already being done by your own sources, and thus my conclusion that they're already doing what they can (they being peaceful Muslims).

I have already addressed the strawman that this is aimed at. Preventing hate speech is not a "slippery slope", and does not challenge freedom of belief, except what should be commonly accepted by any civilised society.
I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I am calling for preachers who have broken the law to be removed, and mosques that foster violent extremism and recruit terrorists should be shut down. To claim I have said that preachers who have not crossed this line is total straw.

 

[tyr_13]

No, you didn't say it wasn't in the MA: I did. I am entirely within my rights to question the motives of the argument being made, as long as I do not attack the arguer. I was quite careful in that regard.
Which makes this....


...yet more irrelevant strawmanning.

No. My statement was accurate. It doesn't matter if it was inside the MA or not, it was not addressing my arguments. It was addressing my motives for the argument. That is no straw man. You again changed the set under discussion to change the meaning of what I said. This is dishonest, intentional or not.

So the inclusion of this statement in your reply to my post, directed at me, was irrelevant to what I had said. Thanks for putting that straight.

No, it was directly relevant to what you said. What are you talking about? Just because something isn't accusing you of doing something doesn't mean it doesn't address your question. The actual hell?

So you are being deliberately confronational. Again, thanks for setting the record straight.

And? Again, this doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any way.

This is in response to my setting out specifically what I think should be done.
Now, believe it or not, I have been trying to be accomodating and not adverserial here, but, as you have responded so unfavourably to my attempts to better our communication and make some progress in this debate, I feel less inclined to do so.

You're failing spectacularly at better communicating because you keep failing to correct for your lack of understanding of what others have said (or you're doing it deliberately) and keep twisting their arguments into straw men. More on that below.

You have repeatedly strawmanned my argument on this point, and I'm not going to let that slide any longer.
My argument is that recruiting terrorists in the UK is illegal- Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza are two examples i have given of this.
I have also listed example of hate speech (post 693). Hate speech is also illegal in the UK.
I have said that this kind of activity and preaching is unacceptable and there needs to be some mechanism to curb it.
For example:

This is what you have said in reply:




It seems quite clear to me that you have consistently, and probably deliberately, twisted my argument to make it sound like I am attacking freedom of religion, even though I explicitly stated that freedom of religion does not include the kinds of statements and activities I was concerned about.
Let me re-emphasise this.
You do not have a human right to recruit terrorists.
You do not have a human right to call for 10-year-old girls to be beaten.
You do not have a human right to call for homosexuals to be killed by throwing them off cliffs.
This is not about telling people what they should or should not believe: it is about protecting people from incitements to hatred or violence against them.It is also about upholding the law of the land, that specifically outlaws this kind of speech.
And it is this protection that you say you are uncomortable with, that you say is "harmful". The only way you have been able to justify this is to claim that I am somehow calling for Muslims to oppress each other, or that certain kinds of legal belief should be outlawed, and this is utterly untrue.
Please stop it with this strawman as well.

This is insane. I've already said that legal actions should be, and are being taken against illegal activities, and that the proper place for that power is of course law enforcement. Suggesting that some other body be given this power part of what I object too. Muslims are already reporting illegal activity, as your own citations show.

Which brings me to the second highlight. Not once have I suggested that. Not once. You and McHronzi keep making that disgusting and stupid accusation, but it's so obviously wrong that no one should be left with any illusion as to who is misunderstanding here. Things that are already properly illegal are simply not what is being talked about. It is not my objection at all, and is not addressed by giving some council the ability to remove preachers. It's as foolish as having college officials investigate rape accusations. Law enforcement is the place for that.

This is why asking that mosques be forced to join a council is against the idea of freedom of religion and association. By definition it would exclude those already engaged in illegal activities, and of course those that are would never voluntarily agree to give power to such councils. Others would decline because of religions conflicts that are not Islamist, such as who the rightful heir of the prophet is.

Oh really? You see, as I said above, I was trying to be accommodating. I therefore assumed that what you posted here was by default honest. the opposite, I should point out, of what you are doing. Here you are again with another flat-out, in-your-face accusation of dishonesty on my part.
So, when you said this:

You knew that there were authorities. OK.

You're again playing fast and loose with sets to make something say something it doesn't. There were no overall authorities in Islam controlling all or most of the mosques. Of course the legal authorities have the same authorities they'd have over anything else. That's your gottcha?

What about this?

Again, if you knew about the situation in the UK, you must have known this was untrue.
I even put you right:

Despite this, you continued to claim ignorance of this fact:

If you knew the answer, why ask the question?

Because you keep changing the sets under discussion so I wanted to nail you down to a category of control. It obviously didn't work as you continue to use minor ambiguity of words to make straw men. I was hoping you wouldn't be able to change the range of what kind of 'control' we were talking about, but you refused. Now you're having trouble with 'authority' again.

Then there's this:


Your statements and questions reveal an almost total ignorance of the legal status of mosques in the UK, and of anti-hate speech legislation.
Or, alternatively as your outraged comment implies, you weren't actually that ignorant: in which case, you were being deliberately dishonest by making statements you knew were untrue, and asking questions to which you already knew the answer.
The difference between you and I is that I didn't automatically assume that you were being dishonest. My statement about your ignorance of British laws and institutions was based on a number of your posts, and was thus entirely honest. If you are now going to say you did have knowledge you were pretending not to have had, well.....

I cannot believe you're still having trouble with that statement. No, really, I don't believe you don't understand what was being said.

I had already said in addition to that, "Muslims should do something through some mechanism that's not available to you, even though everything said so far has been either something they're already doing, or something not possible to do. It's that simple. You and others making your argument still haven't shown what additional mechanism can be utilized. Everything else is hand-wringing and demonization." as well as saying as you quote here, "I'm skeptical of a lawful mechanism that could be employed by many Muslims that is not already being employed."

Then you cite things already being done by Muslims, and already being done by law enforcement. Things already being done are clearly excluded from my statement, even if you ignore the context of the previous discussion. Other things excluded would include, but not be limited to, things which are unlawful or things which non-Muslims can also do.

It is not that hard to follow.

I have already addressed the strawman that this is aimed at. Preventing hate speech is not a "slippery slope", and does not challenge freedom of belief, except what should be commonly accepted by any civilised society.
I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I am calling for preachers who have broken the law to be removed, and mosques that foster violent extremism and recruit terrorists should be shut down. To claim I have said that preachers who have not crossed this line is total straw.

If they've done something unlawful, the only sensible thing to do is to arrest them, not make them join a Muslim council. You want more than enforcing hate speech laws. This is why I keep asking for an additional mechanism that the Muslims could do to show they're 'doing enough' and shut up those who keep saying they 'aren't doing enough'.

I really doubt we've been talking past each other to that extreme a degree.

 

[tyr_13]

No, I don't have any particular inclination to defend an argument I didn't make. I think that's only sensible, truth to be told.

McHrozni

Neither do I, which is why this is as much response as your last two post deserve.

 

[McHrozni]

Neither do I, which is why this is as much response as your last two post deserve.

Such responses always please me and remind me of this clip.



McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You're failing spectacularly at better communicating because you keep failing to correct for your lack of understanding of what others have said (or you're doing it deliberately) and keep twisting their arguments into straw men. More on that below.


This is insane. I've already said that legal actions should be, and are being taken against illegal activities, and that the proper place for that power is of course law enforcement. Suggesting that some other body be given this power part of what I object too. Muslims are already reporting illegal activity, as your own citations show.

Which brings me to the second highlight. Not once have I suggested that. Not once. You and McHronzi keep making that disgusting and stupid accusation, but it's so obviously wrong that no one should be left with any illusion as to who is misunderstanding here. Things that are already properly illegal are simply not what is being talked about. It is not my objection at all, and is not addressed by giving some council the ability to remove preachers. It's as foolish as having college officials investigate rape accusations. Law enforcement is the place for that.

This is why asking that mosques be forced to join a council is against the idea of freedom of religion and association. By definition it would exclude those already engaged in illegal activities, and of course those that are would never voluntarily agree to give power to such councils. Others would decline because of religions conflicts that are not Islamist, such as who the rightful heir of the prophet is.






You're again playing fast and loose with sets to make something say something it doesn't. There were no overall authorities in Islam controlling all or most of the mosques. Of course the legal authorities have the same authorities they'd have over anything else. That's your gottcha?



Because you keep changing the sets under discussion so I wanted to nail you down to a category of control. It obviously didn't work as you continue to use minor ambiguity of words to make straw men. I was hoping you wouldn't be able to change the range of what kind of 'control' we were talking about, but you refused. Now you're having trouble with 'authority' again.


If they've done something unlawful, the only sensible thing to do is to arrest them, not make them join a Muslim council. You want more than enforcing hate speech laws. This is why I keep asking for an additional mechanism that the Muslims could do to show they're 'doing enough' and shut up those who keep saying they 'aren't doing enough'.

I really doubt we've been talking past each other to that extreme a degree.

OK. I'm going to try again to be accommodating, non-confrontational and try to establish some common ground between us.
Please state if you agree or disagree with these statements.
1. We both agree that hate speech is illegal in the UK.
2. We both agree that there exists a lawful mechanism for reporting such, and punishing the perpetrators, and that this is justifiable.
3. We both agree that there exists in the UK a government body which is responsible for overseeing mosques, and which had powers of legal enforcement (the Charities Commission).
4. Some Muslims want the establishment of a multi-denominational council to oversee mosques and preachers.
5. Some, if not many, Muslims are uncomfortable with government interference in their religion, and so support the establishment of such an organisation. (You have said so yourself, by the way).
6. Therefore, although national, state-run organisations exist to police mosques to ensure that illegal activity such as hate crimes does not occur there, it would be preferable if an independent, non-governmental organisation existed which could oversee mosques and preachers, and take steps to ensure that what was preached in those mosques fell within the boundaries of the law.
7. This organisation would have the right to enter mosques (and madrassas, which can also foster hatred and extremism) to check whether what is being preached there falls within what is legally acceptable.
8. This kind of organisation would not just apply to Muslims: similar organisations would also be put in place (if they are not there already), if similar objections were raised by those particular religions.

I would appreciate a reply free of accusations of dishonesty and set-changing. Whatever you may think of me personally, I have no interest in dishonest arguments, oppression or obstruction of human rights: indeed, I am all for the opposite of that. In the hope that you feel the same, let us try to build some kind of consensus.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Given that this thread was originally about the Manhattan explosions, Id like to ask a question about the States.
In the UK, as I have shown, there exists a mechanism for exerting control over mosques, and laws prohibiting hate speech.
A'isha said that this does not apply to the US.
I don't know enough about the legal situation in America to be able to comment, so I'd like to ask about it.
Is there some government agency responsible for ensuring religious institutions remain within the law?
Are there laws prohibiting hate speech in the US, and do they apply to religions?
Is there any kind of intermediary organisation, like MINAB in the UK, which is independent of government, and is run voluntarily by Muslims with the idea of removing extremist preachers from mosques and preventing radicalisation and recruitment to terrorist groups?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... I'm calling out what I see as bad and harmful arguments, especially ones that have already been more calmly and completely addressed just to be twisted or ignored. It's important that lurkers don't mistake people like A'isha giving up on lengthy, well informed replies (likely due to issues with her cancer for those in the stands), as conceding. It bothers me when the posters with the most 'vigor' to keep posting can give the impression that some consensus is reached. That I'm not doing it as artfully or tactfully as I am capable (I am being very adversarial in this thread) of is for many reasons.

Lurkers, like everyone else, are fully responsible for their own proper due diligence in all matters, including this one. Due diligence, in turn, is based on accepting fact, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, and drawing grounded conclusions.

The primary being that I am fully of the opinion that normalizing the idea that Muslims who are peaceful and trying are more responsible for what Islamists do than anyone else is will lead to violence against them or at the very least be counter-productive to any advancement on the issue being made. This idea would further be used against other unpopular groups. As I said earlier, if for no other reason (like morality) an atheist would be motivated to do this from self-interest because they'll come for us too. Not my motive, but if someone needs more, there it is.

If the advocacy of violence, or its use, is your main concern, and fair protections under law for beliefs (not practices) another criterion, then in the spirit of the tone of your post, I would say you have yet to make sufficient analysis, as both of those criteria, fairly taken, would advocate taking a very hard look at the doctrine that is and has been advocating an extraordinary amount of violence since its inception, Islam, and at the same doctrine once again, as it denies entirely the protections for beliefs you hold dear, and sanctions those who disagree with the sentence of death. (Mo's own bright idea. He ordered whole groups slaughtered. Islam - as a faith - started out with its own little series of real, factual, blood-curdling holocausts. It is evil, if the word 'evil' is to have any useful application.)

Do you assign political and moral equivalence to absolute monarchism as you do to democracy? Both are ideas, both can be freely held. Yet one would deny all rights and abrogate them to a single authority, while the other protects those rights. Same deal for religion: not all the same. Time to take a hard look; choose your sources, read some books. Come back when you have found moderate Islam in the actual canon.

 

[smartcooky]

If the advocacy of violence, or its use, is your main concern, and fair protections under law for beliefs (not practices) another criterion, then in the spirit of the tone of your post, I would say you have yet to make sufficient analysis, as both of those criteria, fairly taken, would advocate taking a very hard look at the doctrine that is and has been advocating an extraordinary amount of violence since its inception, Islam, and at the same doctrine once again, as it denies entirely the protections for beliefs you hold dear, and sanctions those who disagree with the sentence of death. (Mo's own bright idea. He ordered whole groups slaughtered. Islam - as a faith - started out with its own little series of real, factual, blood-curdling holocausts. It is evil, if the word 'evil' is to have any useful application.)
Do you assign political and moral equivalence to absolute monarchism as you do to democracy? Both are ideas, both can be freely held. Yet one would deny all rights and abrogate them to a single authority, while the other protects those rights. Same deal for religion: not all the same. Time to take a hard look; choose your sources, read some books. Come back when you have found moderate Islam in the actual canon.

THIS!

The claim that Islam is a "religion of peace" is a crock. Its nothing more than politically correct, modern day apologist, revisionist claptrap. Islam's very basis was in violence against, and death to, Al-Fitnah (the non-believer). Every person on this planet who is not Islam has a target on their back; they are marked for death according Mo's own teachings...

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

So not believing in Allah is worse than killing someone!

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There's your Islamic justification for beheading infidel

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them." and in so doing, declared the women and children were also pagans, and therefore legitimate targets.

There is your Islamic justification for blowing up school buses and flying aeroplanes full of people into buildings full of people!

Islam is no more a religion of peace than Nazism was a beneficial doctrine.

 

[tyr_13]

OK. I'm going to try again to be accommodating, non-confrontational and try to establish some common ground between us.

Probably a good call.

Please state if you agree or disagree with these statements.
1. We both agree that hate speech is illegal in the UK.
2. We both agree that there exists a lawful mechanism for reporting such, and punishing the perpetrators, and that this is justifiable.
3. We both agree that there exists in the UK a government body which is responsible for overseeing mosques, and which had powers of legal enforcement (the Charities Commission).
4. Some Muslims want the establishment of a multi-denominational council to oversee mosques and preachers.
5. Some, if not many, Muslims are uncomfortable with government interference in their religion, and so support the establishment of such an organisation. (You have said so yourself, by the way).

Up to here we agree completely.

6. Therefore, although national, state-run organisations exist to police mosques to ensure that illegal activity such as hate crimes does not occur there, it would be preferable if an independent, non-governmental organisation existed which could oversee mosques and preachers, and take steps to ensure that what was preached in those mosques fell within the boundaries of the law.
7. This organisation would have the right to enter mosques (and madrassas, which can also foster hatred and extremism) to check whether what is being preached there falls within what is legally acceptable.
8. This kind of organisation would not just apply to Muslims: similar organisations would also be put in place (if they are not there already), if similar objections were raised by those particular religions.

Six is where we start to disagree. It would be nice to have such an organization. I'd advise mosques to join an organization if it remained otherwise neutral for matters that are not illegal or unethical. There are no doubt some sects that would try to abuse such a system to turn people to their ideas that aren't related to violence or oppression. Still, such an organization would do a lot to build trust of mosques.

However, it would not do much to curb this problem of radicalization. I don't believe any organization should be forced to join this council. Those who are inclined to violence simply wouldn't submit, and would likely try to use the very existence of it as propaganda about the evil government control of their religion. That's not a reason not to do it of course, but it would be something that happened regardless of the justness of this council.

I would appreciate a reply free of accusations of dishonesty and set-changing. Whatever you may think of me personally, I have no interest in dishonest arguments, oppression or obstruction of human rights: indeed, I am all for the opposite of that. In the hope that you feel the same, let us try to build some kind of consensus.

My attitude might have been misplaced, but I will not refrain from calling out set-changing when it distorts what is said. You want me to do it more nicely? That's a fair request. You want me to stop? Refrain from doing it. It's better to ask for clarification, or at least accept when clarification is offered even if not asked for.

Given that this thread was originally about the Manhattan explosions, Id like to ask a question about the States.
In the UK, as I have shown, there exists a mechanism for exerting control over mosques, and laws prohibiting hate speech.
A'isha said that this does not apply to the US.
I don't know enough about the legal situation in America to be able to comment, so I'd like to ask about it.
Is there some government agency responsible for ensuring religious institutions remain within the law?
Are there laws prohibiting hate speech in the US, and do they apply to religions?
Is there any kind of intermediary organisation, like MINAB in the UK, which is independent of government, and is run voluntarily by Muslims with the idea of removing extremist preachers from mosques and preventing radicalisation and recruitment to terrorist groups?

General oversight of religious organizations in the US is an abject joke sadly. Many abuse tax-breaks and other benefits, and many have even taken over entire towns to protect their abuses of human rights. Dig around in the wiki article on FLDS and like churches, and you might understand why I'm so incensed that it's evils are brushed off as not having a similar effect (no, not in magnitude) on mainstream Mormonism and Christianity as Islamists have on mainstream Muslims.

There are inter-faith councils in many places, including mosques. They don't tend to be aimed at preventing radicalization, but they tend to have that effect anyway. As A'isha has repeatedly cited, even the Islamists warn against trying to recruit knowledgeable faithful.

 

[tyr_13]

Lurkers, like everyone else, are fully responsible for their own proper due diligence in all matters, including this one. Due diligence, in turn, is based on accepting fact, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, and drawing grounded conclusions.



If the advocacy of violence, or its use, is your main concern, and fair protections under law for beliefs (not practices) another criterion, then in the spirit of the tone of your post, I would say you have yet to make sufficient analysis, as both of those criteria, fairly taken, would advocate taking a very hard look at the doctrine that is and has been advocating an extraordinary amount of violence since its inception, Islam, and at the same doctrine once again, as it denies entirely the protections for beliefs you hold dear, and sanctions those who disagree with the sentence of death. (Mo's own bright idea. He ordered whole groups slaughtered. Islam - as a faith - started out with its own little series of real, factual, blood-curdling holocausts. It is evil, if the word 'evil' is to have any useful application.)

Do you assign political and moral equivalence to absolute monarchism as you do to democracy? Both are ideas, both can be freely held. Yet one would deny all rights and abrogate them to a single authority, while the other protects those rights. Same deal for religion: not all the same. Time to take a hard look; choose your sources, read some books. Come back when you have found moderate Islam in the actual canon.

Is is the old 'you don't agree with me because you don't know about the subject'. Like many atheists (strong agnostic technically), I began my journey by studying holy texts. I've read the Bible, several versions, the Koran, the Mormon books, and many of the non-Abrihamic religions too. As I said before, I recommend the skeptic's annotated versions which are nicely accessible online.

I believe we come to different conclusions because I find the highlighted metric nonsensical for judging a religion's practices to another. They're all highly ridiculous. They all can and do use different parts to justify crazy conclusions and practices. They all also can and do find ways to support more just and healthy practices in spite of passages as well. I'm more utilitarian than comparing what a religion 'should be'. The FLDS is much closer to what the book of Mormon and other Mormon works say than the mainstream church in Utah, but I'm more than happy to let the mainstream church do relative good in spite of it's books.

Many Muslims and sects of Islam can and do reach better ways with their interpretation of the works. As long as they to that, I'm not going to hold them responsible for those that don't. Religions are all made up anyway; I'm not in a position to tell them they can't be both half-dragon and half-vampire.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Up to here we agree completely.

Great. Thank you.

Six is where we start to disagree. It would be nice to have such an organization. I'd advise mosques to join an organization if it remained otherwise neutral for matters that are not illegal or unethical. There are no doubt some sects that would try to abuse such a system to turn people to their ideas that aren't related to violence or oppression. Still, such an organization would do a lot to build trust of mosques.

However, it would not do much to curb this problem of radicalization. I don't believe any organization should be forced to join this council. Those who are inclined to violence simply wouldn't submit, and would likely try to use the very existence of it as propaganda about the evil government control of their religion. That's not a reason not to do it of course, but it would be something that happened regardless of the justness of this council.

Right, then let's start at number six.
You see, what you are describing is not what I had in mind: perhaps I should have made that clearer. The idea that all mosques would have to join this organisation is, I agree, pointless, as it would emasculate the organisation and render it pointless.
As I say,though, that wasn't what I was envisaging. I was thinking more of something like the RSPCA. The RSPCA has the legal power to enter homes if they suspect animal cruelty, regardless of whether the home-owners are members of the Society.
It would be the same with this organisation. The idea is, to avoid accusations of government interference, and to acknowledge the discomfort that some Muslims have with non-Muslims entering mosques, to create an organisation composed of different denominations of Muslims, which would have overall responsiblity for ensuring that mosques, madrassas and individual preachers, are conforming to the law.It would be an intermediary between mosques, madrassas etc., and the Charities Commission. The organisation's representatives would have the legal right to enter mosques, regardless of those mosques' denomination or affiliation, to see whether this is happening. They would have no powers at all beyond ensuring compliance with the law, thus negating any possibility, as you have raised, of attempting to convert members of one denomination to another. The fact that it would be multi-denominational would also help to preserve this balance.
All mosques would be subject to its powers, regardless of whether they participated in the organisation or not. It would put the extremist ones in a difficult situation, because they would find it hard to object to being subject to the laws of the country they operate in, and hard to object to fellow Muslims enforcing them.
I hope that clarifies my ideas, and welcome your thoughts.

 

[McHrozni]

Right, then let's start at number six.
You see, what you are describing is not what I had in mind: perhaps I should have made that clearer. The idea that all mosques would have to join this organisation is, I agree, pointless, as it would emasculate the organisation and render it pointless.
As I say,though, that wasn't what I was envisaging. I was thinking more of something like the RSPCA. The RSPCA has the legal power to enter homes if they suspect animal cruelty, regardless of whether the home-owners are members of the Society.
It would be the same with this organisation. The idea is, to avoid accusations of government interference, and to acknowledge the discomfort that some Muslims have with non-Muslims entering mosques, to create an organisation composed of different denominations of Muslims, which would have overall responsiblity for ensuring that mosques, madrassas and individual preachers, are conforming to the law.It would be an intermediary between mosques, madrassas etc., and the Charities Commission. The organisation's representatives would have the legal right to enter mosques, regardless of those mosques' denomination or affiliation, to see whether this is happening. They would have no powers at all beyond ensuring compliance with the law, thus negating any possibility, as you have raised, of attempting to convert members of one denomination to another. The fact that it would be multi-denominational would also help to preserve this balance.
All mosques would be subject to its powers, regardless of whether they participated in the organisation or not. It would put the extremist ones in a difficult situation, because they would find it hard to object to being subject to the laws of the country they operate in, and hard to object to fellow Muslims enforcing them.
I hope that clarifies my ideas, and welcome your thoughts.

Thos seems like a good and very reasonable idea. I can't wait to see the excuses as to why it shouldn't be pursued.

McHrozni

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

As I say,though, that wasn't what I was envisaging. I was thinking more of something like the RSPCA. The RSPCA has the legal power to enter homes if they suspect animal cruelty, regardless of whether the home-owners are members of the Society.

On what basis does the RSPCA derive the "legal" authority to enter people's home without the consent of the home owners?

It would be the same with this organisation. The idea is, to avoid accusations of government interference,

If they are deriving the "legal" authority to disregard other people's rights it must be from the government.

Where else?

If this is the case why does it matter who does it? Might as well be the cops.

and to acknowledge the discomfort that some Muslims have with non-Muslims entering mosques,

You don't think that Muslims might be uncomfortable with other Muslims coming in with the express purpose of evaluating their beliefs while under color of law?

to create an organisation composed of different denominations of Muslims, which would have overall responsiblity for ensuring that mosques, madrassas and individual preachers, are conforming to the law.

Who chooses which Muslims are going to be given this authority? How is their interpretation of the law going to be controlled and monitored? Who watches them, and if they are being watched anyway why gin up intermediaries?

It would be an intermediary between mosques, madrassas etc., and the Charities Commission. The organisation's representatives would have the legal right to enter mosques, regardless of those mosques' denomination or affiliation, to see whether this is happening.

On what basis would this organization you propose derive the "legal" right to enter someone's property without their consent.

They would have no powers at all beyond ensuring compliance with the law,

This is not a trivial power.

thus negating any possibility, as you have raised, of attempting to convert members of one denomination to another.

You don't believe there is any way such power could be coercive?

The fact that it would be multi-denominational would also help to preserve this balance.

Why? Who determines that it is "multi-denominational"? Who chooses these denominations? Are the suspect mosques going to be part of this group of citizen correct behavior police? (And where are these denominations suddenly coming from. What happened to the assertion that there is only one Islam?)

All mosques would be subject to its powers, regardless of whether they participated in the organisation or not. It would put the extremist ones in a difficult situation, because they would find it hard to object to being subject to the laws of the country they operate in, and hard to object to fellow Muslims enforcing them.
I hope that clarifies my ideas, and welcome your thoughts.

You need to explain how you can give legal authority to some arbitrarily selected non-governmental group without that authority coming from the government.


You don't see any problem with giving some Muslims legal authority over other Muslims?

How do you think Christian groups would react to this sort of scheme being set up to monitor them?

This is police state tactics. Would it continue to be such a good idea to you if it were to be applied to more and more subsets of your society? I mean, why stop with Muslims? You could give neighborhood groups the authority to check out any house they wanted if they thought there might be something hinky going on.

Of course, you wouldn't mind your neighbors pounding on your door to come in and check things out, would you? After all, it wouldn't be the government.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I was thinking more of something like the RSPCA. The RSPCA has the legal power to enter homes if they suspect animal cruelty, regardless of whether the home-owners are members of the Society.

No they don't

 

[quadraginta]

No they don't

So much for that proposal.

 

[tyr_13]

Great. Thank you.





Right, then let's start at number six.
You see, what you are describing is not what I had in mind: perhaps I should have made that clearer. The idea that all mosques would have to join this organisation is, I agree, pointless, as it would emasculate the organisation and render it pointless.
As I say,though, that wasn't what I was envisaging. I was thinking more of something like the RSPCA. The RSPCA has the legal power to enter homes if they suspect animal cruelty, regardless of whether the home-owners are members of the Society.
It would be the same with this organisation. The idea is, to avoid accusations of government interference, and to acknowledge the discomfort that some Muslims have with non-Muslims entering mosques, to create an organisation composed of different denominations of Muslims, which would have overall responsiblity for ensuring that mosques, madrassas and individual preachers, are conforming to the law.It would be an intermediary between mosques, madrassas etc., and the Charities Commission. The organisation's representatives would have the legal right to enter mosques, regardless of those mosques' denomination or affiliation, to see whether this is happening. They would have no powers at all beyond ensuring compliance with the law, thus negating any possibility, as you have raised, of attempting to convert members of one denomination to another. The fact that it would be multi-denominational would also help to preserve this balance.
All mosques would be subject to its powers, regardless of whether they participated in the organisation or not. It would put the extremist ones in a difficult situation, because they would find it hard to object to being subject to the laws of the country they operate in, and hard to object to fellow Muslims enforcing them.
I hope that clarifies my ideas, and welcome your thoughts.

First, I don't see the power to expel preachers found to be extremists mentioned earlier. Even so, what you describe are powers that should be reserved to governmental institutions. It not being the government doesn't mean much if people are compelled to cooperate with them in order to exercise their freedom of religion, and it means they must associate with them. Giving governmental power to non-government entities is problematic to say the least. My previous objections still stand. Giving investigative authority to an institution without consent of those being investigated carries huge risks, and is why we don't actually do things like that, besides arguably things like the BAR association.

Besides that, what is gained? Muslims can attend these mosques now and report to the legitimate authorities. Plus they already do. How does it help in that regard again?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Besides that, what is gained? Muslims can attend these mosques now and report to the legitimate authorities. Plus they already do. How does it help in that regard again?

Obviously they aren't doing it enough.

If they were there would be no more Muslim terrorists anymore.

Or something.