DHS rejects "religiously-charged terminology"

[SillyAmerican]

Per a policy of the Department of Homeland Security, government officials need to be sensitive about the words they are using:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From which it seems we are being asked to continue to conclude that our insensitivity is the reason for ISIS atrocities. Once again, there is money being spent here to guide people away from the use of such incendiary terms as "sharia" or "jihad". Do you feel that the homeland is made more secure by such activities? Is this the best use of the dollars going to DHS?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is anyone other than 'freebeacon.com' reporting this?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism. Rather, what is being argued here is that, in our zeal to fight the terrorists who operate under the banner of "radical Islam", failing to treat a religion of over 1 billion followers with nuance will only reinforce the appeal of groups like ISIS to those young Muslims who might be considering joining such a group but still have reservations about it.  In other words, if we don't act with caution and sensitivity, we would just be proving the extremists correct, that we really are at a war with all of Islam.

Also, just for the record, both "sharia" and "jihad" have much broader (and more legitimate) uses within Islam than the way in which the violent fanatics use them - which is the usage that Americans are familiar with.

[RaphaelDLG]

Also, just for the record, both "sharia" and "jihad" have much broader (and more legitimate) uses within Islam than the way in which the violent fanatics use them - which is the usage that Americans are familiar with.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

[RINO Tom]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

I've disagreed with people with all kinds of avatars.  I'm a fact driven person.  If someone says something that is wrong I say it is wrong.  Or if I believe they are wrong I say they are wrong.  I don't check their avatar first and then state my opinion.

SillyAmerican is in the habit of starting these strawman threads.  It reminds me of far right talk radio.  They create this bizarre enemy that is supposedly out to get them.

If I honestly felt in my heart of hearts saying "radical Islam" five times a day while facing Mecca would end terrorism I would do it.  I know what ISIS and their followers are and I don't need a politician shouting "radical Islam" over and over again to make me feel safe.  I don't know how that makes me or anyone else a bad person or a terrorist enabler or whatever they are claiming.

[RINO Tom]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

I've disagreed with people with all kinds of avatars.  I'm a fact driven person.  If someone says something that is wrong I say it is wrong.  Or if I believe they are wrong I say they are wrong.  I don't check their avatar first and then state my opinion.

SillyAmerican is in the habit of starting these strawman threads.  It reminds me of far right talk radio.  They create this bizarre enemy that is supposedly out to get them.

If I honestly felt in my heart of hearts saying "radical Islam" five times a day while facing Mecca would end terrorism I would do it.  I know what ISIS and their followers are and I don't need a politician shouting "radical Islam" over and over again to make me feel safe.  I don't know how that makes me or anyone else a bad person or a terrorist enabler or whatever they are claiming.

I'm not questioning your credibility, it just seems really clear you're a Democrat or a STRONGLY Democratic-leaning independent, and the avatar feature is one of the cool things about this site.

I will not lie, however: it seems like people think that if they have no avatar they retain some credibility as this neutral, above-bias poster, and if that at all fuels your decision to remain avatarless, I definitely find that annoying.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

I've disagreed with people with all kinds of avatars.  I'm a fact driven person.  If someone says something that is wrong I say it is wrong.  Or if I believe they are wrong I say they are wrong.  I don't check their avatar first and then state my opinion.

SillyAmerican is in the habit of starting these strawman threads.  It reminds me of far right talk radio.  They create this bizarre enemy that is supposedly out to get them.

If I honestly felt in my heart of hearts saying "radical Islam" five times a day while facing Mecca would end terrorism I would do it.  I know what ISIS and their followers are and I don't need a politician shouting "radical Islam" over and over again to make me feel safe.  I don't know how that makes me or anyone else a bad person or a terrorist enabler or whatever they are claiming.

I'm not questioning your credibility, it just seems really clear your a Democrat or a STRONGLY Democratic-leaning independent, and the avatar feature is one of the cool things about this site.

I will not lie, however: it seems like people think that if they have no avatar they retain some credibility as this neutral, above-bias poster, and if that at all fuels your decision to remain avatarless, I definitely find that annoying.

Clearly you're just a $hillary plant coercing a left-leaning independent into the rigid categorization of the two party system so he can fall under the influence of the corrupt Democratic establishment.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism. Rather, what is being argued here is that, in our zeal to fight the terrorists who operate under the banner of "radical Islam", failing to treat a religion of over 1 billion followers with nuance will only reinforce the appeal of groups like ISIS to those young Muslims who might be considering joining such a group but still have reservations about it.  In other words, if we don't act with caution and sensitivity, we would just be proving the extremists correct, that we really are at a war with all of Islam.

Also, just for the record, both "sharia" and "jihad" have much broader (and more legitimate) uses within Islam than the way in which the violent fanatics use them - which is the usage that Americans are familiar with.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I will not lie, however: it seems like people think that if they have no avatar they retain some credibility as this neutral, above-bias poster, and if that at all fuels your decision to remain avatarless, I definitely find that annoying.

You are reading way too much into this avatar thing.  I honestly never thought about it.

[RINO Tom]

I will not lie, however: it seems like people think that if they have no avatar they retain some credibility as this neutral, above-bias poster, and if that at all fuels your decision to remain avatarless, I definitely find that annoying.

You are reading way too much into this avatar thing.  I honestly never thought about it.

I didn't accuse you of doing that, but there are definitely people who do.

[SillyAmerican]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

Well, I'm a registered independent: on social issues I fall a bit more to the left, on fiscal and national security issues I fall a bit more to the right. So by your wise all-knowing decree, what avatar do I need to get? 'Cuz as I've mentioned elsewhere, I cast my vote based on issues, not on mindless party affiliation or other such nonsense. Sorry if that offends the sensibilities of others on this forum.

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism. Rather, what is being argued here is that, in our zeal to fight the terrorists who operate under the banner of "radical Islam", failing to treat a religion of over 1 billion followers with nuance will only reinforce the appeal of groups like ISIS to those young Muslims who might be considering joining such a group but still have reservations about it.  In other words, if we don't act with caution and sensitivity, we would just be proving the extremists correct, that we really are at a war with all of Islam.

Also, just for the record, both "sharia" and "jihad" have much broader (and more legitimate) uses within Islam than the way in which the violent fanatics use them - which is the usage that Americans are familiar with.

Excellent points. I'm just a bit concerned that our being unwilling/unable to draw a clear distinction between "radical Islam" and Islam in general is actually serving to feed the ISIS narrative and undercut the very moderates which we should be supporting. In our zeal to be sensitive of Muslim feelings, are we in effect shooting ourselves in the foot?

[Badger]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

You do recognize the irony in your post, right Tom?

[RINO Tom]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

You do recognize the irony in your post, right Tom?

Haha, I suppose there would be a ton if my username weren't 100% sarcastic.

Also, Silly American: I wasn't talking to you, so I have no idea what you're talking about, my friend.

[SillyAmerican]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

You do recognize the irony in your post, right Tom?

Haha, I suppose there would be a ton if my username weren't 100% sarcastic.

Also, Silly American: I wasn't talking to you, so I have no idea what you're talking about, my friend.

Ah yes, sorry, my mistake. (I must have been blurry eyed at the time...). 

[SillyAmerican]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

Except this would be like if you referred to the mafia as "crooked Italian."

[SillyAmerican]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

Except this would be like if you referred to the mafia as "crooked Italian."

Yes. But I think that's Giuliani's point: for those objecting to the use of the term "mafia", it is effectively equivalent to "crooked Italian", and if you are a decent, law-abiding Italian, drawing a distinction between those like you and those like them is not a bad thing. On the contrary: it's an important distinction to make, as otherwise you run the risk of all Italians being painted as being crooked, which clearly is not the case, just as not all Muslims are murdering terrorists. Why we spend our precious resources trying to make sure that terms like "jihad" and "sharia" are kept out of public view and avoiding the use of terms like "radical Islam" is beyond me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

Except this would be like if you referred to the mafia as "crooked Italian."

Yes. But I think that's Giuliani's point: for those objecting to the use of the term "mafia", it is effectively equivalent to "crooked Italian", and if you are a decent, law-abiding Italian, drawing a distinction between those like you and those like them is not a bad thing. On the contrary: it's an important distinction to make, as otherwise you run the risk of all Italians being painted as being crooked, which clearly is not the case, just as not all Muslims are murdering terrorists. Why we spend our precious resources trying to make sure that terms like "jihad" and "sharia" are kept out of public view and avoiding the use of terms like "radical Islam" is beyond me.

Except it wasn't.  There were plenty of major non-Italians in the mafia/organized crime.

[Antonio the Sixth]

AFAIK, "jihad" is a fairly generic term that simply means a religious commitment of some kind or another. Using it in relation to terrorism is the last thing we should do.

Sharia law is basically the Muslim equivalent of the kind of laws American fundies would like to see enacted.

[ingemann]

AFAIK, "jihad" is a fairly generic term that simply means a religious commitment of some kind or another. Using it in relation to terrorism is the last thing we should do.

I love the fact that we have a Islamic scholar on this forum. You're both able to define Jihad for us, tell that it have nothing to do with Islamic Holy War and decide who's a real Muslim or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really Sharia is several code of law, it's a religious based version of Lübecker Recht or the other medieval code of laws which was shared by several states. There doesn't exist a similar law code among Christians. Of course that doesn't mean that Christianity haven't affected both medieval and modern law codes, the ban on polygamy is a good example of how Christianity affected the law codes of northern Europe. The witch trial is another less positive example.

[Antonio the Sixth]

AFAIK, "jihad" is a fairly generic term that simply means a religious commitment of some kind or another. Using it in relation to terrorism is the last thing we should do.

I love the fact that we have a Islamic scholar on this forum. You're both able to define Jihad for us, tell that it have nothing to do with Islamic Holy War and decide who's a real Muslim or not.

You need to improve your English reading comprehension.

[ingemann]

AFAIK, "jihad" is a fairly generic term that simply means a religious commitment of some kind or another. Using it in relation to terrorism is the last thing we should do.

I love the fact that we have a Islamic scholar on this forum. You're both able to define Jihad for us, tell that it have nothing to do with Islamic Holy War and decide who's a real Muslim or not.

You need to improve your English reading comprehension.

The problem is that the term originated as a term for Holy War, it's also used as a term for personal struggle (like the Germans can use the term kampf (combat/war/battle) for personal struggle or at least they did in the past), but it have never been disconnected from the original use. As such jihad is the term the Muslim themselves use for what the jihadist does, I don't see why we shouldn't use it, especially as the meaning of the word in western languages have becomed "Religious War by Crazy Muslims" of course Arabs use it differently, I'm sure some use it for the Intifada, but we don't use it in that case, as we see that conflict as fundamental secular/nationalist in nature.

[Adam Griffin]

Most radicalized people in the Western world are not radicalized by any one event or particular thing. It is the culmination of many, many different experiences snowballing gradually until it becomes too big to stop. Hearing terms like "violent Muslims" and "sharia law" used negatively once isn't going to radicalize anyone. Hearing it hundreds of times on its own likely isn't going to radicalize anyone. However, when you stack casual and consistent usage of those terms with all of the other relatively isolated or innocent experiences - each of which on their own would not radicalize anyone - then the consequences from that aggregate can be massive.

Think about it the same way you would think about skin damage from the sun. Going out in the sun once isn't likely going to give you skin cancer. Doing it 100 times even probably won't lead to that. But start going out in the sun every day, hit the tanning beds, smoke two packs of cigarettes every day and be sure to never drink any water. No one incident likely caused it; when you go to the doctor and they find skin cancer, they're likely going to tell you that it was a combination of all of it, and that any individual instance on its own - while bad nonetheless - likely wasn't the culprit.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand: the goal is to minimize the number of negative impressions made that lead vulnerable people down this path. It's not about "being PC". If you don't believe me, then go to somebody's house tomorrow and start screaming whatever "politically-incorrect" terms you'd like over and over outside. Then go back and do it the next day. And the day after that. Keep doing it. Start adding more things into your routine, and continue to escalate it. Sooner or later, something bad is going to happen to you. It wasn't any one occasion that caused it. It's the aggregate result of you being a shithead that caused them to snap.