Security and political correctness

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

about """political correctness"""

It kind of irritates me that I've seen you post hundreds of snarky one-liner replies, but I'm not sure I've ever seen you engage in a single substantive discussion.

there is no substantive discussion to be had with someone who believes "political correctness" is about beïng "afraid to speak the truth". it's the same level of absurdity as the "atheïsts know god exists but don't want to admit it because they're evil or whatever" types.

OK, that may be in this case, but I meant more generally.  Maybe you only reply to completely merit-free arguments (why?) or maybe you think that all arguments you disagree with are merit-free (really?)...

Idk, why attack the weakest argument you see and then bounce?  I don't get it

that's fair. often it's a case of someone else (usually crabcake lol) already having made my argument better than i could have.

[montypythonPC]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

My friend Heatmaster has been correct in what needed to be said, if others on this forum have a problem with that, well! That's really tough

[136or142]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

My friend Heatmaster has been correct in what needed to be said, if others on this forum have a problem with that, well! That's really tough

Your reaction is not a surprise: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

There are two or three other similar studies does independently around the same time that confirmed these findings.

[Kalimantan]

The problem is you say "radical islam" and a lot of people just hear "Islam". Better just to call them terrorists and focus on how to stop them

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

Whatever "caused what happened today" a good part of it is bigoted idiocy and oversimplistic "solutions" that don't solve anything, much like whatever bullsh**t you're peddling.

[136or142]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

Whatever "caused what happened today" a good part of it is bigoted idiocy and oversimplistic "solutions" that don't solve anything, much like whatever bullsh**t you're peddling.

They're just compensating for their small hands, or small...whatever.

[ProudModerate2]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

My friend Heatmaster has been correct in what needed to be said, if others on this forum have a problem with that, well! That's really tough

Note to everyone ...
It seems that our friend heatmaster has created another account, montypythonPC, to hide behind and to use to "defend" himself and to pat-himself-on-the-back.
LOL.

[SillyAmerican]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

The difference is simple. If you believe that the terrorists are justifying their activities by way of their religion, then we have to take a serious look at Islamic doctrine and begin the discussion there, at the root of the problem. If that is your view, it's very frustrating to have your government leaders and the political correctness police telling you that these activities have nothing to do with Islam, that the PC folks know better than to believe the terrorists when they say that their motivations are religious, that the source of these activities is something other than the religion which happens to be the common denominator at the center of all these events. Condemning terrorism is all well and good, but addressing the underlying problem will take a bit more honest discussion than Democrats are willing to have.

[catographer]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

The difference is simple. If you believe that the terrorists are justifying their activities by way of their religion, then we have to take a serious look at Islamic doctrine and begin the discussion there, at the root of the problem. If that is your view, it's very frustrating to have your government leaders and the political correctness police telling you that these activities have nothing to do with Islam, that the PC folks know better than to believe the terrorists when they say that their motivations are religious, that the source of these activities is something other than the religion which happens to be the common denominator at the center of all these events. Condemning terrorism is all well and good, but addressing the underlying problem will take a bit more honest discussion than Democrats are willing to have.

I would argue that just because they claim religion is their motivation doesn't mean it actually is; that is, that their faith is not in actuality promoting or causing the violence, but instead being used as an outlet for their violent and terrorizing intentions. To back up my claim that Islam isn't the primary factor here, I offer evidence based on the fact that terrorists are mostly made up of Arab Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Afghan and Pakistani Muslims. Yet large Muslim populations native to in Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Central Asia and Southern Europe are not organizing and committing terrorism. I believe that it is more of an Arab Muslim problem, aka regional and political, not religious.

[win win]

The thing that bothers me the most is the part in the Quran where they advocate killing nonbelievers.

I understand not all Muslims believe in those laws but an awful large number of them do.

[136or142]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

The difference is simple. If you believe that the terrorists are justifying their activities by way of their religion, then we have to take a serious look at Islamic doctrine and begin the discussion there, at the root of the problem. If that is your view, it's very frustrating to have your government leaders and the political correctness police telling you that these activities have nothing to do with Islam, that the PC folks know better than to believe the terrorists when they say that their motivations are religious, that the source of these activities is something other than the religion which happens to be the common denominator at the center of all these events. Condemning terrorism is all well and good, but addressing the underlying problem will take a bit more honest discussion than Democrats are willing to have.

I would argue that just because they claim religion is their motivation doesn't mean it actually is; that is, that their faith is not in actuality promoting or causing the violence, but instead being used as an outlet for their violent and terrorizing intentions. To back up my claim that Islam isn't the primary factor here, I offer evidence based on the fact that terrorists are mostly made up of Arab Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Afghan and Pakistani Muslims. Yet large Muslim populations native to in Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Central Asia and Southern Europe are not organizing and committing terrorism. I believe that it is more of an Arab Muslim problem, aka regional and political, not religious.

The person on the program I linked to said that they should be considered cultists who believe a version of Islam that virtually every other Islamic person disagrees with, even Al Quida.   I believe he said that they should be considered to Islam what Charles Manson and his interpretation of the Bible is considered to Christianity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

I agree that there are a number of people who begin their comment by, rhetorically, ask permission if they can "not be politically correct", then launch scathing attacks on some group, accurately or inaccurately.  Such folks are often cruel and loutish at a personal level.  I tend to shun such folks because many of them are not persuaded by any reasonable arguments against any of their established beliefs.  But it is not wrong to point out that in this wave of terror, the perpetrators are Radical Islamic Jihadists.  The terror being inflicted on the Western World (not just America) is being done by Radical Islamic Jihadists, and these Radical Islamic Jihadists receive undetermined aid and comfort from members of the Muslim populations of the countries which they reside in, or have infiltrated.

I'm not one to bash Obama, but I think that Americans are rightly concerned over why he will not refer to the terrorists in Paris, Brussels, etc. as Radical Islamic Terrorists.  Is there really a question as to who is behind the wave of terror in the world today?  If not, what purpose does it serve for our President to NOT say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorists"?  I sincerely ask what objective is served in NOT doing so?  Indeed, saying those words earlier may have made Obama at least a smidgen less divisive, and appear to be more concerned with the feelings of the Silent Majority of Americans who obey the law and are peaceful, as opposed to a contingent of folks who often project themselves to be ambivalent about being Americans, and cannot condemn terror without adding some kind of reservation.

And I don't think Trump (or anyone else) is wrong about not wanting more Muslim immigration into America until our immigration system is fixed.  Europe has far worse problems than we do precisely because they allowed (for whatever reason) unfettered Islamic immigration onto the Old Continent, and now they have major issues with security and safety.  Muslims live in the nations of Europe in communities that are more like colonies than neighborhoods.  I don't think it's racist or xenophobic to say, unreservedly, that I don't want this country to be MORE like Europe.  And I don't think it's racist or xenophobic to call out those Muslims in America that are ambivalent in condemning terror WITHOUT RESERVATION.  Radical Islamic Jihadists have declared us as their enemy, and they're walking the talk.  It really is OK to call out the ambivalent and ask them which side they're truly on.

[Virginiá]

Can we call Christians who violently attack abortion providers / doctors / patients Radical Christian Terrorists?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we call Christians who violently attack abortion providers / doctors / patients Radical Christian Terrorists?

Not and be accurate:

1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. 

2.  There is no international NETWORK of religiously-based abortion clinic bombers that is 1/1,000,000,000th the size of Global Jihadism.

3.  Christians, such as myself, who are ardently pro-life, are, nonetheless, committed to the rule of law.

People who can't see the difference are either willfully blind or so despising of Christians and Christianity that, perhaps, a bit of self-examination is in order.

[Mr. Morden]

While there was a mention of Clinton and Sanders in the OP, the actual discussion in the thread has veered off enough from the 2016 campaign that I'm moving this to Political Debate...

[Fuzzy Bear]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

The difference is simple. If you believe that the terrorists are justifying their activities by way of their religion, then we have to take a serious look at Islamic doctrine and begin the discussion there, at the root of the problem. If that is your view, it's very frustrating to have your government leaders and the political correctness police telling you that these activities have nothing to do with Islam, that the PC folks know better than to believe the terrorists when they say that their motivations are religious, that the source of these activities is something other than the religion which happens to be the common denominator at the center of all these events. Condemning terrorism is all well and good, but addressing the underlying problem will take a bit more honest discussion than Democrats are willing to have.

I would argue that just because they claim religion is their motivation doesn't mean it actually is; that is, that their faith is not in actuality promoting or causing the violence, but instead being used as an outlet for their violent and terrorizing intentions. To back up my claim that Islam isn't the primary factor here, I offer evidence based on the fact that terrorists are mostly made up of Arab Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Afghan and Pakistani Muslims. Yet large Muslim populations native to in Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Central Asia and Southern Europe are not organizing and committing terrorism. I believe that it is more of an Arab Muslim problem, aka regional and political, not religious.

Not all Muslim terrorists are religiously motivated, but the Jihadist terrorists that make up ISIS are very much religiously motivated.  So was al-Queda.  Let's not kid ourselves.  And they have Qu'ranic Scriptures to support their viewpoint.  

Islam is, very much, a "Religion of the Book", even more so than Christianity.  There are no lack of Scriptures in the Qu'ran that justify Jihad.  Not all folks who call themselves Muslims live religiously by the Qu'ran, but the havoc is being caused by those that do, and many Muslims who are not fundamentalist Muslims give aid and comfort to those who those who are on the Jihadist front lines.

[136or142]

Not and be accurate:

"1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. "


There are several passages in the Bible about stoning people. 

[SillyAmerican]

Not and be accurate:

"1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. "

There are several passages in the Bible about stoning people.  

Yes, the most important of which is John 8:7, the New International translation of which reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are human; all sin and fall short of the glory of God. That's the Christian view; the Jihadists seem to believe otherwise.

I'd be interested to know if Adam can provide a passage in the Gospels which condones such things.

[Virginiá]

1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do.  

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%2017.2%E2%80%935
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/why-so-much-war-in-the-old-testament/

Do you know how violent this is? And before you say something stupid like "Old Testament doesn't count", please, save your breath.

Reading parts of this, it's not hard to imagine an alternate reality Christian version of ISIL stoning people to death for petty crimes or adultery and invading nearby lands to impose their religion on others. If we lived by these words, the world would be barbaric as hell.

Furthermore, and this is important, if there are some outdated and simply bad parts of your religious documents that you choose to ignore, or feel no longer fit the real world, then why can't the same be applied to the Islam? Why can you rule out stoning people, but somehow all Muslims are locked into believing in Jihad simply because the Qur'an says it? Why do you get a pass and they don't?

2.  There is no international NETWORK of religiously-based abortion clinic bombers that is 1/1,000,000,000th the size of Global Jihadism.

Uh, so size matters here? Are you saying a single person can't be a terrorist? You realize Bush himself called for roving wiretaps on lone wolf terrorists, right? The government seems to recognize independent terrorists, why can't you?

3.  Christians, such as myself, who are ardently pro-life, are, nonetheless, committed to the rule of law.

Excuse me? You're aware that there are over a 1.5 billion Muslims, right? Are you saying they are all terrorists or support the ideas terrorists go on? This world would be on fire if even half of them were. The vast  majority of them are decent, hardworking people who do not condone terrorism or violence like this, and some of them have to put up with people like you everyday ignorantly blaming them for everything and lumping them in with people they themselves despise. Thanks for that.

And are you saying all Christian pro-lifers are law-abiding citizens? Because I don't know how else to interpret that. If so, that's blatantly false. There is probably some pro-lifer Christian breaking some law right now as I type this, somewhere out there.

People who can't see the difference are either willfully blind or so despising of Christians and Christianity that, perhaps, a bit of self-examination is in order.

Did you just tell me to go commit suicide because I challenged your post?


(edit: removed some heated language that shouldn't have been said)

[SillyAmerican]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

Looking at your link confirms my belief how I feel about political correctness and it's a case-by-case basis for me.

Sometimes PC is needed. Other times it's too ridiculous. I look at this link and I see examples of both.

True enough.

I didn't mean to imply that I agree with all of the items in the PC list, only that anyone who says "there's no such thing as political correctness" needs to check with reality. The worst kind of political correctness is that imposed by those who deny that PC is being imposed.

[SillyAmerican]

1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. 

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%2017.2%E2%80%935
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/why-so-much-war-in-the-old-testament/

Do you know how violent this is? And before you say something stupid like "Old Testament doesn't count", please, save your breath.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, who is the Jewish Messiah who the prophets of the Old Testament speak of. The teachings of Christianity are documented in the New Testament, which forms the basis for the New Covenant. Before you say something stupid like "Old Testament supersedes New Testament", please save your breath.

[Virginiá]

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, who is the Jewish Messiah who the prophets of the Old Testament speak of. The teachings of Christianity are documented in the New Testament, which forms the basis for the New Covenant. Before you say something stupid like "Old Testament supersedes New Testament", please save your breath.

Crossed out, but not deleted, just for you sweetie

[SillyAmerican]

Furthermore, and this is important, if there are some outdated and simply bad parts of your religious documents that you choose to ignore, or feel no longer fit the real world, then why can't the same be applied to the Islam? Why can you rule out stoning people, but somehow all Muslims are locked into believing in Jihad simply because the Qur'an says it? Why do you get a pass and they don't?

An Islamic reformation is exactly what's needed. The protestations of Luther against the wayward teachings of the Catholic church were justified. A Muslim needs to take a stand against wayward teachings within their faith.

A couple of good articles about this topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/we-need-muslim-reformation-316906
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626

I am glad to see we are in agreement here.

[Virginiá]

An Islamic reformation is exactly what's needed. The protestations of Luther against the wayward teachings of the Catholic church were justified. A Muslim needs to take a stand against wayward teachings within their faith.

A couple of good articles about this topic:
http://www.newsweek.com/we-need-muslim-reformation-316906
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reformation-for-islam-1426859626

I am glad to see we are in agreement here.

Maybe they do (though I'm not nearly well-versed in any religion enough to say anything more than that) and the radicalism in the Islamic world needs to put out to pasture. I don't know how, but I assume it starts with all the sane people saying enough is enough and rebelling against the radicals.

Though, I think one area where the US itself can help is by no longer supporting Saudi Arabia as long as they export Wahhabism around the world. That, and to stay the hell out of the Middle East

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

1.  Scripture does not condone such acts, whereas the Jihadists can point to all sorts of Qu'ranic support for what they do. 

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%2017.2%E2%80%935
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/why-so-much-war-in-the-old-testament/

Do you know how violent this is? And before you say something stupid like "Old Testament doesn't count", please, save your breath.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, who is the Jewish Messiah who the prophets of the Old Testament speak of. The teachings of Christianity are documented in the New Testament, which forms the basis for the New Covenant. Before you say something stupid like "Old Testament supersedes New Testament", please save your breath.

so you do believe judaïsm is a horrible, violent religion, then? is that right?