Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
NEWS FLASH: Garland, Texas USA (filed under Faith & Religion)
Yes, @yagr, putting a face to a person in a group really does make a difference. It's a long story, which doesn't need to be told, but my adopted (now an adult living in Pakistan) is Muslim, and I think about what a wonderful man he is, but also that he is silent about Muslim fundamentalism. It's a quandary.
Are they silent, or are we ignoring them? Sure, there are plenty who are indeed silent, or they are only discussing it in private. I'm sure some are willfully turning a blind eye, are trying to process their own thoughts about it, etc. That's certainly a given. Saying the majority are silent is a bit much. Just because they don't have a 24-hour cable news camera trained on them doesn't mean that they're not calling out extremism.
I haven't read threw every comment yet, but I hope this question has been posed by someone: How many of you, especially @SpinyNorman, have actually read the Quran or studied Islam intensely? How many of you know Muslims in real life?
To call an entire group of people terrorists, homophobics, sexists, extremists is Wrong View, Wrong Speech, Wrong Thinking. The extremists are such a small group within such a large religion. Muhammad spoke of self-defense to preserve Islam - not to start wars, condemn others, and kill non-believers. That is all ideas taken out of context and inflated by extremist views (even in the 1950s and 60s when it became a prominent religion in Black communities during the Civil Rights movement).
Perhaps if America never stuck their nose where it didn't belong, if America never armed rebel forces in the Middle East, if America never sent special forces insurgents into communities to start unrest, we would have a different perception of Islam as a nation. People need to take into account what started all of this hatred politically and historically to see how we came to the present perception of a people. "Where there is perception, there is deception."
The majority of Muslims are, at best, silent about Islamic fundamentalism. Or, maybe they make comments behind closed doors. But most say nothing publicly about the misdeeds that are being done, which is, really, being complicit in those deeds.
Perhaps the Muslims who would like to speak out don't have a media outlet to speak out to since there is a portion of the media that is anti-Islamic and an even larger portion that wishes not to incite political debate. Perhaps places where Muslims are speaking out are not popular channels and you will not know unless you go looking for them. Perhaps there are Muslims who want to say something, but do not believe themselves eloquent enough to express themselves the right way. Not to mention that to anti-Muslim people nothing they could say against others of their own religion would ever be seen as good, anyways. So maybe they feel - what's the point? The Western world has such a negative view of Islam now that it is difficult for Muslims to have a voice on a popular media platform, no matter what it is they want to say.
@nmarie3 said:> To call an entire group of people terrorists, homophobics, sexists, extremists is Wrong View, Wrong Speech, Wrong Thinking. nation.
Clearly the majority of Muslims aren't extremists or terrorists, so that's a straw-man argument. But it does seem that the Abrahamic religions in particular lend themselves to fundamentalism and extremism. And clearly there are strong undercurrents of sexism and homophobia in Islam.
I don't see why we should be fearful of criticising the negative aspects of any religion, including Islam.
You don't need to be fearful for criticizing anything - you need to be fearful of doing it without proper knowledge of what or whom you are criticizing. Fear ignorance.
The prevailing view of Islam is not a positive one in the US, and outing yourself and your family to stand up and say "This is not Islam!" is asking a lot, I think. Also, as was said already, people try. And they are silenced pretty quickly with a very large "You are ignorant if you don't know your own religion is so violent and that all of these things are true!" People are afraid of Islam, and thus Muslims, and combating that kind of fear is very difficult.
I live in a state where ISIS and other recruit their young people from. The one surviving would-be 9/11 hijacker lived and trained in my state. They don't live where I live, but I spend time in their cities, and for all I know have been face to face with them. Much of the time the parents don't have a clue (supposedly). The community doesn't have a clue. Like most immigrant nationalities they struggle to put food on the table and they struggle with identity after leaving war-torn countries. We give them asylum here, but we don't do much to provide resources to support them and there are culture clashes and other problems. One group of them asked to set up a Muslim food shelf so that their food conformed to their beliefs, and whoa did that set off a firestorm. Nationally even. They are not often met with compromise or kindness or understanding or compassion.
Which is why most of them live their lives the way we always talk about here "Live your path, then others will see it. Don't try to force it because it never works." They are willing to converse,but they understandably want to trust who they are talking to because there is a lot of viciousness aimed their way and at their children as well.
They need to be organized as communities with leaders to speak and when you are fighting for survival in a new way, the ability to do that is pretty difficult.
4
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
The 19 9/11 hijackers were upper middle class wealthy, educated men (as were the families they came from). Most of the radical leaders are men of means, which makes sense, but it's not true that those who carry out the radical deeds are always 'down and out' or 'economically oppressed'. I'm sure that this enters into the picture, it contributes, but is a weak contributor considering the known number of well-to-do young Muslim men involved and volunteering. Sam Harris makes what sounds like a uniquely insightful argument (a lot more than I'm doing) on this subject,
I'm guessing moderate Muslim folks might be afraid to speak up, may feel like it would expose them to criticism, make them targets of their own? That thought would cross my mind, in that position.
@nmarie3 said:
I haven't read threw every comment yet, but I hope this question has been posed by someone: How many of you, especially SpinyNorman, have actually read the Quran or studied Islam intensely? How many of you know Muslims in real life?
To call an entire group of people terrorists, homophobics, sexists, extremists is Wrong View, Wrong Speech, Wrong Thinking. The extremists are such a small group within such a large religion. Muhammad spoke of self-defense to preserve Islam - not to start wars, condemn others, and kill non-believers. That is all ideas taken out of context and inflated by extremist views (even in the 1950s and 60s when it became a prominent religion in Black communities during the Civil Rights movement).
Perhaps if America never stuck their nose where it didn't belong, if America never armed rebel forces in the Middle East, if America never sent special forces insurgents into communities to start unrest, we would have a different perception of Islam as a nation. People need to take into account what started all of this hatred politically and historically to see how we came to the present perception of a people. "Where there is perception, there is deception."
I read about the first half of the Quran, but after a while it was just page after page of condemning "Israel"/Jews, so I stopped.
My adopted son and his former wife are Muslims, and he now lives back in Pakistan.
My school had a steady population of Muslims...perhaps 4%. I often attended Muslim/Pakistani celebrations and parties.
I don't see anyone condemning all Muslims. But it also isn't an isolated couple of Muslims causing the problems or overlooking the problems, either.
But, I notice you appear to be blaming only America for the problems of the Middle East. That's painting a pretty broad brush, as well.
@nmarie3 said:
Perhaps the Muslims who would like to speak out don't have a media outlet to speak out to since there is a portion of the media that is anti-Islamic and an even larger portion that wishes not to incite political debate. Perhaps places where Muslims are speaking out are not popular channels and you will not know unless you go looking for them. Perhaps there are Muslims who want to say something, but do not believe themselves eloquent enough to express themselves the right way. Not to mention that to anti-Muslim people nothing they could say against others of their own religion would ever be seen as good, anyways. So maybe they feel - what's the point? The Western world has such a negative view of Islam now that it is difficult for Muslims to have a voice on a popular media platform, no matter what it is they want to say.
Fair points, to be sure. But if you remain silent when your voice could make a difference, then you have to accept that criticism that is pointed in your direction. And, I hold the same standard for myself.
@Hamsaka I wasn't sure if your post was referring to what I said about the Muslim struggle to make it in the state I live in. I wasn't referring to the radicals in my post. I just meant everyday people who some of us are saying need to stand up and speak out and make their voices heard by condemning the radicals. Sometimes they do try, and it doesn't seem to go well. But I also understand why it is so difficult for them to take that step. That's what I was referring to. Most of them (the ones I have spoken with) just try to be under the radar and hope they are left alone. They don't want to rock the boat by making themselves stand out, because in the US, standing out as a Muslim doesn't tend to go very well in a lot of areas.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2015
I think it's safe to say that when you hear Christians criticising other so-called Christians for behaving in a way that is decidedly Un-Christ-ian, the number is considerable.
When you hear Muslims criticising other so-called Muslims for carrying out atrocities in the name of Islam, the number is disproportionate.
The repercussions are wildly different.
Edit to add:
The sheer number of those suffering at the hands of each, are also wildly disproportionate. (but that's not to excuse any type of 'abusive' behaviour, I might add....)
I'm not so sure. I don't recall any huge outcry from a majority of Christians against Phleps and his church. A few, sure. But certainly no organized, gathered, Christian community outcry intended to put him out of business, so to speak. And for the most part, you don't have to worry that other bands of Christians will burn down your home, trash your business, threaten your children, attack you or other things. For Muslims that threat can be very real.
I have found that any discussion or pushback about Christian misdeeds is nearly always relegating to ancient history. While I know that the Crusades were quite a few centuries ago, I'm old enough to remember signs on the yards of good Christian folks that said, 'Dogs and Indians Stay off the Grass' or 'Indians need not apply' signs right under the 'Help Wanted' signs in businesses owned by Christians.
My grandfather was forced into an Indian boarding school. We think my grandmother was as well, but she refused to speak on the matter. She died a few years ago and in her delirium at the end she was crying out in her native tongue which she didn't remember consciously. She was begging someone to stop hurting her.
I wouldn't expect either of them to speak out against AIM, for instance. To be honest, I think they enjoyed the furor over AIM's actions. Beyond that though, they wouldn't have felt safe to speak on matters such as that. BTW, here's a picture of the wife with Clyde Bellecourt, one of the founders of AIM.
@vinlyn said:
But, I notice you appear to be blaming only America for the problems of the Middle East. That's painting a pretty broad brush, as well.
Again, you don't know the number of Muslims speaking out because there is no platform for them to be heard. I've been part of three Muslim student organizations at three different universities and an alarming number of students feel like their voices don't matter. They speak of problems within their community, at the mosque, but aside from personal blogs or a sympathetic student at the school newspaper, there just isn't a way for people to know. You have to understand that the popular media in the U.S. is more interested in stories causing panic or entertainment from celebrities; those are the two things that sell.
As far as my comments on American interference in Middle Eastern affairs - never in my post did I use the words "only America" - I simply mentioned American involvement. Please do not put words in my mouth. I will say I respect your opinions though since you can claim actual knowledge of Muslims and Islam - thank you for having beliefs based on personal experience instead of conjecture.
@karasti said:
I'm not so sure. I don't recall any huge outcry from a majority of Christians against Phleps and his church. A few, sure. But certainly no organized, gathered, Christian community outcry intended to put him out of business, so to speak. And for the most part, you don't have to worry that other bands of Christians will burn down your home, trash your business, threaten your children, attack you or other things. For Muslims that threat can be very real.
I did a research paper for one of my college classes a year ago and something over 70% of American terrorist groups are actually white middle class men with white supremacist groups being the largest perpetrators. The victims of Islamic terrorist attacks were over 80% Muslim and the remainder being non-Muslims because most of these terror attacks actually happen in Islamic countries. Many times during times of political unrest. One might consider that these terror attacks are more likely politically-fueled occurrences than religiously-sanctioned ones since we aren't seeing a religion of nearly 2 billion people worldwide causing widespread terror. They're just people, honestly.
I apologize for not having direct citations for this post, but if you look through a university research database you should find reliable academic information citing this. If I can find my paper I will post an annotated bibliography.
@nmarie3 said:
I did a research paper for one of my college classes a year ago and something over 70% of American terrorist groups are actually white middle class men with white supremacist groups being the largest perpetrators.
And I am fortunate to live smack dab in the middle of White Supremacist Central. {/sarcasm}
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'm sure this has come up in this thread somewhere.
Is there a Buddhist movement to end the persecution and potential genocide of Muslims in Burma?
If not, why not. If not, I think it's because Buddhists have little influence over the people committing those crimes. Thailand has some 60+ million Buddhists right next door. They can't stop the problem by speaking up. Some of them are, in all likelihood, involved in the trafficking of Burmese Muslims into Thailand as slave labour or sex workers.
Can western Muslims effect what is happening in the Middle East? Or is them speaking out something people need to feel better about a religion that non Muslims may know very little about?
Bashar al-Assad claimed from the start of the uprising in Syria that he was fighting terrorists. And he is a Muslim. I think we can all agree that even if there were some honest freedom loving rebels involved, they never stood a chance of taking power there, even if they could have overthrown Assad.
It might be naive to imagine that gentle peace loving Muslims can sway the jihadists away from their goal by speaking up.
@nmarie3 said:
Again, you don't know the number of Muslims speaking out because there is no platform for them to be heard. I've been part of three Muslim student organizations at three different universities and an alarming number of students feel like their voices don't matter. They speak of problems within their community, at the mosque, but aside from personal blogs or a sympathetic student at the school newspaper, there just isn't a way for people to know. You have to understand that the popular media in the U.S. is more interested in stories causing panic or entertainment from celebrities; those are the two things that sell.
As far as my comments on American interference in Middle Eastern affairs - never in my post did I use the words "only America" - I simply mentioned American involvement. Please do not put words in my mouth. I will say I respect your opinions though since you can claim actual knowledge of Muslims and Islam - thank you for having beliefs based on personal experience instead of conjecture.
In all fairness to the media, news is when something happens. News is not when nothing happens. And yes, media sells stories that sell; if they didn't, they would go out of business.
I don't quite buy that many Muslims are speaking out and that they have no platform. Countless minority groups have created their own platform.
I am also reminded of a Pakistani party that my son and his wife took me to (it was in Virginia just outside Washington). It was a huge party...maybe 100 people or more (some coming for a while and then leaving, others staying the entire time (as we did). I was the only "Westerner", so over the course the evening almost every man who was there for any length of time came over to see who I was. When I would introduce myself, they would invariably say something along the lines of, "Oh, you are Imran's 'second' father". They were very nice and very pleasant. But without exception, every conversation turned to a statement along the lines of, "Don't you agree that the Pentagon did the 9/11 attacks?" Every single conversation...at least 3 dozen times.
Thank you, @yagr, but it's a very complicated story with a not so happy ending.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It would also be relevant to add that the Muslim culture in the UK is marginally different to that in the USA. During Ramadan, and after, supermarkets everywhere are full of food items, posters and adverts marking the occasion. Same with Hannukah and Diwali. All supermarkets have food aisles full of Indian products, and there are also sections for those of Jewish origin. Furthermore, many outlets also stock halal meat as a matter of course.
Commercial integration is a normal and everyday thing, and it is an extremely common sight to see Muslim men dressed in their cultural clothing, just as it is totally commonplace to see women wearing the hijab.
@yagr said:
It might also be naïve to imagine that gentle peace loving Christians can sway the religious fundamentalists away from their goal by speaking up.
Very true, but I think the momentum is gradually away from Christian fundamentalism. But it seems intense because they are most vocal. And it's a phenomenon that is common to many "groups". When is a nation most dangerous? When is a rattlesnake most dangerous? When is a cultural group most dangerous? When they feel threatened.
I happen to live in Colorado Springs which is where a number of the notable evangelical churches are located. They kinda had their glory day from 7-20 years ago, and in recent years have faded in terms of their vocal-nature, although I'm not sure their membership has declined. Now they get hepped up about things like Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. But their time of being opposed to interracial marriages is in the past. Even our local gay community is more visible in the last couple of years and to a large extent much ado about nothing in terms of controversy.
@federica I wouldn't say, in that case, that it is only marginally different. You will find locally owned businesses who carry culturally-specific foods but not nearly so much the major grocery chains and they most definitely do not advertise for other cultural holidays beyond the typical Thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter/July 4th. I'm not saying there are no issues in the UK or elsewhere in Europe by any means. But I think they are much more integrated there than in most areas of the US.
I mean you still have people in California, which is supposedly one of our liberal havens (generally speaking) and they sue school districts over their children doing yoga because they don't want them to "become Hindus." Ignorance is rampant and integration is not wide spread. Communities frequently protest Islamic temples being built. They protest their children having to learn about Arabic cultures in order to help increase tolerance and understanding. They protest gay marriage because they don't want their kids to see 2 men holding hands. We haven't figured out how to integrate much of anything. Integration with other cultures is far from marginally different, I think. But it does vary depending where you live in the US as well. There are pockets where difference isn't as feared and as frowned upon. But they are pretty few and far between considering the size of the country.
I do think a lot of it has to do with religion in the UK versus the US. The UK is less religious, overall, than the US is. 80% of Americans identify as religious. 75% of them as Christian. Religions other than Christianity only make up about 8% or do depending who you believe. More than 90% of our elected congress is Christian. I'd hazard a guess that overall, in the UK those that define themselves as religious are probably a bit more tolerant than their counterparts in the US.
We are an extremely divided country and we can't figure out how to do much of anything without fighting like children over it. Though of what I saw about the UK election on Facebook, the UK politics at least aren't in much better shape than ours
@karasti said:
fe they sue school districts over their children doing yoga because they don't want them to "become Hindus." Ignorance is rampant and integration is not wide spread. Communities frequently protest Islamic temples being built. They protest their children having to learn about Arabic cultures in order to help increase tolerance and understanding. They protest gay marriage because they don't want their kids to see 2 men holding hands.
The wife and I saw a black man gassing up at a local gas station two days ago and we exclaimed simultaneously, "Is it tourist season already?"
Unless integration has something to do with a John Deer tractor or one of the 47 different kinds of hay...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said:
federica I wouldn't say, in that case, that it is only marginally different....
No, actually, I meant "markedly ". I typed on my phone and missed the autocorrect!
LOL!! Darn phones. Amazing that you type so much on your phone. I can barely handle typing out anything beyond a couple sentences. I just cannot stand touchscreen typing. I miss my slide out keyboard on my old phone.
"Bush, a midlife convert to Roman Catholicism, used the speech to emphasize that he is a man of deep belief — a key signifier in a party that values faith. But he also sought to differentiate himself from other candidates who more explicitly bring their religious fervor to their politics, namely Huckabee and Cruz, warning against feeding into Democratic arguments that the GOP is turning into a party of religious rigidity. “The mistake is to confuse points of theology with moral principles that are knowable to reason as well as by faith,” Bush said, pointedly refusing to bash the move toward legalizing same-sex marriage that Cruz has embraced as an affront to his faith. “And this confusion is all part of a false narrative that casts religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose their views on everyone.”
I've stayed away from this website due to bewilderment over the initial few minutes' or hours' responses. First I was insulted as being some sort of mentally ill cripple and then..., well. Let sleeping dogs lie.
For me, this is a Justice issue. Going around inciting hostility or ridicule is not gentlemanly or gentlewomanly behavior: not something a Just person would do. It's really just that simple.
Nobody has a monopoly on Truth. Just people challenge themselves each day to do better and to amend their behavior and attitudes. Our beings do not end at our fingertips; although we are partial to those parts of ourselves which lie near to our bones and sinews we must in matters that do not concern us directly ever strive to be impartial.
It is simply unjust to go about desecrating the ideals of other people. Much better 'twould be to try to see things from their perspective.
It is unjust not to respect other people. All people everywhere deserve respect. Admiration is earned, but respect is deserved.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Nope.
a certain median of respect is deserved, from one Being to another.
What that being then does, merit an alteration in the respect I have for them.
It does not remain a constant.
I have mixed feelings on the respect issue. I think there are layers of it like there are with trust in the functional world. I agree with @federica. There is a level of respect present for all human beings (and all beings) simply because we are all suffering on the same samsaric rollercoaster. But I can't honestly say I have the same level of respect for every person. I think it varies by the person, too. Some people automatically apply high levels of respect to certain people or certain vocations while others may not even if they still appreciate what that person does. Do you respect doctors more than you respect drug dealers? Perhaps it depends on the doctor, some are little less than drug dealers. But generally speaking. Do you respect the person who goes out every day and hands out food to the homeless on the exact same level you respect the person who just mugged a homeless person?
Also, I don't think respect or justice or whatever has to mean never questioning. There is a difference between respect and a "live and let live" attitude and turning a blind eye to things that need attention.
Respect just means to give due regard to and treat the power of the respected entity carefully. It is not some emotional state, e.g., as in the nuance in "I care so much about this." (Real caring is actually attending to something in the physical plane.)Respect is a circumspectual attitude that simultaneously is engaged enough to be concerned about outcomes.
I respect the Grizzly Bear, and should he gore me I respect him even more if he gets away. I respect those who bear me ill will and will treat them with kid gloves when necessary. I respect the right to life of every citizen of this planet, and in the name of Justice I will strive not to let my Truth blindside me to the Truth of others.
I err if I should let something that does not concern me personally move me to act in a disrespectful way towards another. Ideologies and principles can make people crazy if they let that happen. Justice, namely to afford to people what they deserve (measured with impartiality of motive), is the human enterprise par excellence.
Initially I try to respect each person. As I get to "know" them (either personally or just through seeing and hearing them), they do things that either earn more respect or take away from that initial respect. At the same time, I try -- at least for a while -- to see things a bit from their perspective.
And this is how I expect people to judge me.
Someone I always liked once said, "I don't hate my enemies. After all, I made them." And on a personal level, I think that's very true. Where it gets all distorted is when people begin hating other people not for what they actually do, but for their belonging to some group -- it could be their racial group, or their religious group, etc. As MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
I try also to remember that everyone has character flaws. And, people deserve a break. But not break after break after break after break.
When I was appointed principal, one of my colleagues took me aside and asked, "Vince, are you sure you have a tough enough skin to handle all the criticism you're going to get. Because right or wrong on any particular issue, you will get criticized." And as we talked she gave me very good advice. She said, "When you get criticized, do 2 things. First analyze whether or not the criticism was deserved; whether it's an accurate criticism. If it is, accept that and learn from it. If it isn't, dismiss it. Then, decide how much you respect the person giving the criticism. If you respect that person, then you have more to deal with. But if the criticism is coming from a person you don't respect, then learn from it, but don't dwell on them. Set them aside. And get on with your job."
As Tricky Dicky once said, "Others my hate you, but those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
When it comes to respect I start everyone off at 80% and then it goes up or down accordingly.
Respectfully, I don't understand where most of y'all are coming from. Where I come from RESPECT just means treating people with some deference and cordiality when deserved. It certainly is NEVER equated with trust, with actually liking the other guy, or with unlimited deference.
What I find so hard to understand is how modern Western countries can allow such contemptuous treatment of the sincere beliefs (or strong scruples, as the case may sometimes be) to continue unpunished by the courts. For uninjured parties, such as the Danish cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo, to bandy around their hubris-filled ridicule of things they don't understand and don't want to serves no public good. Nor does it address any harm done to their persons by those whom they ridicule or harass.
And that is the salient point I am trying to get across here: That if something does not affect you personally, it is none of your business: So stay out of it! Maybe if so many in the West could stop being "Our Way is the Right Way!" dogmatists, things just might slacken off a little "over there." In other words, all these quite useless ideologies being shored up even further for the sake of the specific ideology itself will bring about only further rifts and divisions. Only an individual can be pure. Once you start building up institutions and ideologies, goodness and purity flee away. For the sake of very fine principles, much evil hath been wrought on this earth.
Truth, what the Ancient Greek philosophers called "Aleitheia" (unveiling), has got to be the standard for freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Nobody has, nor can have, a monopoly on the Truth; therefore no uninjured party* has the right to malign the Truth of another. That maligning would serve only to sow the seeds of injustice. Nor can any real "Truth" be extracted from past centuries, especially if it be a destructive "truth" (and therefore highly suspect, in the first place).
Now, attorneys will tell you that they only worry about the law in their court dealings. Justice plays no part. My question is: Where are the Laws? We have laws about hate crimes. Maybe it's time for laws concerning hate speech. This destructive religious activity has got to STOP.
-
*Hard to put into words, but I am referring to two parties being in proximal relation at some time at which some harm was done by one to another. Then, of course, there would be (or could be) only one truth, and therefore one of the parties would hold the cards, as it were.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2015
I don't see how either side could be right but I could see how one could be less right.
They are cartoons for crying out softly.
Anybody willing to kill over a cartoon they deem offensive is just looking for an excuse.
Perhaps it's best to flush them out now, I don't know.
@ourself said:> Perhaps it's best to flush them out now, I don't know.
History shows that trying to appease fascists isn't productive.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
As long as there are sides, all sides are misguided.
@Nirvana I don't agree if something doesn't affect you personally it's none of your business. To a degree, yes, most certainly. But on a global scale, things affect us even though we aren't there to directly experience it. Everything has a ripple effect. "It's none of my business" is why so many children die at the hands of abusive parents/caretakers. It's why many atrocious things take place. And when those things happen, it affects us all. Sometimes, it is our business even if it doesn't affect us. I know the point you are probably try to make, and I agree to some extent, but it doesn't apply to everything. When someone is being hurt, being bullied, someone needs to stand up for them, and against the aggressor.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Nirvana said: And that is the salient point I am trying to get across here: That if something does not affect you personally, it is none of your business: So stay out of it!
Really?
I mean, really - ?!
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Not to pile on, but to expand on the last two posts, staying out of if it doesn't affect you personally is one of the roots of the collective shrugging that has gone on regarding many actions of the USG, foreign and domestic over the recent past. I know many if not most of the regulars on here are not US, so this is really my concern over the poor health of my county's democracy, but it's not like our apathy doesn't have consequences outside of our own borders
What sort of bullying is this, to expect mathematical precision and enlargement in every communication? Of course I meant if it doesn't hurt others stay out of it if it does not affect you. The Kim Davises of the world can claim to be hurt and to have super-refined consciences; but I seriously doubt that to be the case. Believe me, I know a lot of people not bright enough to have a conscience of their own.
The concept of conscience only comes into play, it seemeth to me, when consciousness (note the cognate) of a wrong or potential wrong by a person halts the mind. And of course, some people have no conscience, and some who so pretend delude themselves. And some of the worst are churchgoers; thus have I learned. Other egregious examples of people without proper reins on their conscience are those overly caught up in some political ideology or such, viz the ungodly and damned Danish Cartoonists and their ilk of troublemakers.
The teachings of the New Testament urge people to love and not label one another. Frankly, Kim Davis is no Follower of Jesus.
Comments
Yes, @yagr, putting a face to a person in a group really does make a difference. It's a long story, which doesn't need to be told, but my adopted (now an adult living in Pakistan) is Muslim, and I think about what a wonderful man he is, but also that he is silent about Muslim fundamentalism. It's a quandary.
I haven't read threw every comment yet, but I hope this question has been posed by someone: How many of you, especially @SpinyNorman, have actually read the Quran or studied Islam intensely? How many of you know Muslims in real life?
To call an entire group of people terrorists, homophobics, sexists, extremists is Wrong View, Wrong Speech, Wrong Thinking. The extremists are such a small group within such a large religion. Muhammad spoke of self-defense to preserve Islam - not to start wars, condemn others, and kill non-believers. That is all ideas taken out of context and inflated by extremist views (even in the 1950s and 60s when it became a prominent religion in Black communities during the Civil Rights movement).
Perhaps if America never stuck their nose where it didn't belong, if America never armed rebel forces in the Middle East, if America never sent special forces insurgents into communities to start unrest, we would have a different perception of Islam as a nation. People need to take into account what started all of this hatred politically and historically to see how we came to the present perception of a people. "Where there is perception, there is deception."
Perhaps the Muslims who would like to speak out don't have a media outlet to speak out to since there is a portion of the media that is anti-Islamic and an even larger portion that wishes not to incite political debate. Perhaps places where Muslims are speaking out are not popular channels and you will not know unless you go looking for them. Perhaps there are Muslims who want to say something, but do not believe themselves eloquent enough to express themselves the right way. Not to mention that to anti-Muslim people nothing they could say against others of their own religion would ever be seen as good, anyways. So maybe they feel - what's the point? The Western world has such a negative view of Islam now that it is difficult for Muslims to have a voice on a popular media platform, no matter what it is they want to say.
Clearly the majority of Muslims aren't extremists or terrorists, so that's a straw-man argument. But it does seem that the Abrahamic religions in particular lend themselves to fundamentalism and extremism. And clearly there are strong undercurrents of sexism and homophobia in Islam.
I don't see why we should be fearful of criticising the negative aspects of any religion, including Islam.
You don't need to be fearful for criticizing anything - you need to be fearful of doing it without proper knowledge of what or whom you are criticizing. Fear ignorance.
The prevailing view of Islam is not a positive one in the US, and outing yourself and your family to stand up and say "This is not Islam!" is asking a lot, I think. Also, as was said already, people try. And they are silenced pretty quickly with a very large "You are ignorant if you don't know your own religion is so violent and that all of these things are true!" People are afraid of Islam, and thus Muslims, and combating that kind of fear is very difficult.
I live in a state where ISIS and other recruit their young people from. The one surviving would-be 9/11 hijacker lived and trained in my state. They don't live where I live, but I spend time in their cities, and for all I know have been face to face with them. Much of the time the parents don't have a clue (supposedly). The community doesn't have a clue. Like most immigrant nationalities they struggle to put food on the table and they struggle with identity after leaving war-torn countries. We give them asylum here, but we don't do much to provide resources to support them and there are culture clashes and other problems. One group of them asked to set up a Muslim food shelf so that their food conformed to their beliefs, and whoa did that set off a firestorm. Nationally even. They are not often met with compromise or kindness or understanding or compassion.
Which is why most of them live their lives the way we always talk about here "Live your path, then others will see it. Don't try to force it because it never works." They are willing to converse,but they understandably want to trust who they are talking to because there is a lot of viciousness aimed their way and at their children as well.
They need to be organized as communities with leaders to speak and when you are fighting for survival in a new way, the ability to do that is pretty difficult.
The 19 9/11 hijackers were upper middle class wealthy, educated men (as were the families they came from). Most of the radical leaders are men of means, which makes sense, but it's not true that those who carry out the radical deeds are always 'down and out' or 'economically oppressed'. I'm sure that this enters into the picture, it contributes, but is a weak contributor considering the known number of well-to-do young Muslim men involved and volunteering. Sam Harris makes what sounds like a uniquely insightful argument (a lot more than I'm doing) on this subject,
I'm guessing moderate Muslim folks might be afraid to speak up, may feel like it would expose them to criticism, make them targets of their own? That thought would cross my mind, in that position.
I read about the first half of the Quran, but after a while it was just page after page of condemning "Israel"/Jews, so I stopped.
My adopted son and his former wife are Muslims, and he now lives back in Pakistan.
My school had a steady population of Muslims...perhaps 4%. I often attended Muslim/Pakistani celebrations and parties.
I don't see anyone condemning all Muslims. But it also isn't an isolated couple of Muslims causing the problems or overlooking the problems, either.
But, I notice you appear to be blaming only America for the problems of the Middle East. That's painting a pretty broad brush, as well.
Fair points, to be sure. But if you remain silent when your voice could make a difference, then you have to accept that criticism that is pointed in your direction. And, I hold the same standard for myself.
@Hamsaka I wasn't sure if your post was referring to what I said about the Muslim struggle to make it in the state I live in. I wasn't referring to the radicals in my post. I just meant everyday people who some of us are saying need to stand up and speak out and make their voices heard by condemning the radicals. Sometimes they do try, and it doesn't seem to go well. But I also understand why it is so difficult for them to take that step. That's what I was referring to. Most of them (the ones I have spoken with) just try to be under the radar and hope they are left alone. They don't want to rock the boat by making themselves stand out, because in the US, standing out as a Muslim doesn't tend to go very well in a lot of areas.
I think it's safe to say that when you hear Christians criticising other so-called Christians for behaving in a way that is decidedly Un-Christ-ian, the number is considerable.
When you hear Muslims criticising other so-called Muslims for carrying out atrocities in the name of Islam, the number is disproportionate.
The repercussions are wildly different.
Edit to add:
The sheer number of those suffering at the hands of each, are also wildly disproportionate. (but that's not to excuse any type of 'abusive' behaviour, I might add....)
I'm not so sure. I don't recall any huge outcry from a majority of Christians against Phleps and his church. A few, sure. But certainly no organized, gathered, Christian community outcry intended to put him out of business, so to speak. And for the most part, you don't have to worry that other bands of Christians will burn down your home, trash your business, threaten your children, attack you or other things. For Muslims that threat can be very real.
I have found that any discussion or pushback about Christian misdeeds is nearly always relegating to ancient history. While I know that the Crusades were quite a few centuries ago, I'm old enough to remember signs on the yards of good Christian folks that said, 'Dogs and Indians Stay off the Grass' or 'Indians need not apply' signs right under the 'Help Wanted' signs in businesses owned by Christians.
My grandfather was forced into an Indian boarding school. We think my grandmother was as well, but she refused to speak on the matter. She died a few years ago and in her delirium at the end she was crying out in her native tongue which she didn't remember consciously. She was begging someone to stop hurting her.
I wouldn't expect either of them to speak out against AIM, for instance. To be honest, I think they enjoyed the furor over AIM's actions. Beyond that though, they wouldn't have felt safe to speak on matters such as that. BTW, here's a picture of the wife with Clyde Bellecourt, one of the founders of AIM.
Again, you don't know the number of Muslims speaking out because there is no platform for them to be heard. I've been part of three Muslim student organizations at three different universities and an alarming number of students feel like their voices don't matter. They speak of problems within their community, at the mosque, but aside from personal blogs or a sympathetic student at the school newspaper, there just isn't a way for people to know. You have to understand that the popular media in the U.S. is more interested in stories causing panic or entertainment from celebrities; those are the two things that sell.
As far as my comments on American interference in Middle Eastern affairs - never in my post did I use the words "only America" - I simply mentioned American involvement. Please do not put words in my mouth. I will say I respect your opinions though since you can claim actual knowledge of Muslims and Islam - thank you for having beliefs based on personal experience instead of conjecture.
I did a research paper for one of my college classes a year ago and something over 70% of American terrorist groups are actually white middle class men with white supremacist groups being the largest perpetrators. The victims of Islamic terrorist attacks were over 80% Muslim and the remainder being non-Muslims because most of these terror attacks actually happen in Islamic countries. Many times during times of political unrest. One might consider that these terror attacks are more likely politically-fueled occurrences than religiously-sanctioned ones since we aren't seeing a religion of nearly 2 billion people worldwide causing widespread terror. They're just people, honestly.
I apologize for not having direct citations for this post, but if you look through a university research database you should find reliable academic information citing this. If I can find my paper I will post an annotated bibliography.
And I am fortunate to live smack dab in the middle of White Supremacist Central. {/sarcasm}
If you were asking me (not sure), I do know many Muslims, yes. I have talked to a few about all of this but only a couple have been forthcoming.
I can't blame them but at the same time I couldn't have faith in a war mongering deity either.
I'm sure this has come up in this thread somewhere.
Is there a Buddhist movement to end the persecution and potential genocide of Muslims in Burma?
If not, why not. If not, I think it's because Buddhists have little influence over the people committing those crimes. Thailand has some 60+ million Buddhists right next door. They can't stop the problem by speaking up. Some of them are, in all likelihood, involved in the trafficking of Burmese Muslims into Thailand as slave labour or sex workers.
Can western Muslims effect what is happening in the Middle East? Or is them speaking out something people need to feel better about a religion that non Muslims may know very little about?
Bashar al-Assad claimed from the start of the uprising in Syria that he was fighting terrorists. And he is a Muslim. I think we can all agree that even if there were some honest freedom loving rebels involved, they never stood a chance of taking power there, even if they could have overthrown Assad.
It might be naive to imagine that gentle peace loving Muslims can sway the jihadists away from their goal by speaking up.
In all fairness to the media, news is when something happens. News is not when nothing happens. And yes, media sells stories that sell; if they didn't, they would go out of business.
I don't quite buy that many Muslims are speaking out and that they have no platform. Countless minority groups have created their own platform.
I am also reminded of a Pakistani party that my son and his wife took me to (it was in Virginia just outside Washington). It was a huge party...maybe 100 people or more (some coming for a while and then leaving, others staying the entire time (as we did). I was the only "Westerner", so over the course the evening almost every man who was there for any length of time came over to see who I was. When I would introduce myself, they would invariably say something along the lines of, "Oh, you are Imran's 'second' father". They were very nice and very pleasant. But without exception, every conversation turned to a statement along the lines of, "Don't you agree that the Pentagon did the 9/11 attacks?" Every single conversation...at least 3 dozen times.
It might also be naïve to imagine that gentle peace loving Christians can sway the religious fundamentalists away from their goal by speaking up.
If I haven't yet taken the opportunity to say so, I admire you greatly for caring enough to adopt.
Thank you, @yagr, but it's a very complicated story with a not so happy ending.
It would also be relevant to add that the Muslim culture in the UK is marginally different to that in the USA. During Ramadan, and after, supermarkets everywhere are full of food items, posters and adverts marking the occasion. Same with Hannukah and Diwali. All supermarkets have food aisles full of Indian products, and there are also sections for those of Jewish origin. Furthermore, many outlets also stock halal meat as a matter of course.
Commercial integration is a normal and everyday thing, and it is an extremely common sight to see Muslim men dressed in their cultural clothing, just as it is totally commonplace to see women wearing the hijab.
Very true, but I think the momentum is gradually away from Christian fundamentalism. But it seems intense because they are most vocal. And it's a phenomenon that is common to many "groups". When is a nation most dangerous? When is a rattlesnake most dangerous? When is a cultural group most dangerous? When they feel threatened.
I happen to live in Colorado Springs which is where a number of the notable evangelical churches are located. They kinda had their glory day from 7-20 years ago, and in recent years have faded in terms of their vocal-nature, although I'm not sure their membership has declined. Now they get hepped up about things like Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. But their time of being opposed to interracial marriages is in the past. Even our local gay community is more visible in the last couple of years and to a large extent much ado about nothing in terms of controversy.
@federica I wouldn't say, in that case, that it is only marginally different. You will find locally owned businesses who carry culturally-specific foods but not nearly so much the major grocery chains and they most definitely do not advertise for other cultural holidays beyond the typical Thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter/July 4th. I'm not saying there are no issues in the UK or elsewhere in Europe by any means. But I think they are much more integrated there than in most areas of the US.
I mean you still have people in California, which is supposedly one of our liberal havens (generally speaking) and they sue school districts over their children doing yoga because they don't want them to "become Hindus." Ignorance is rampant and integration is not wide spread. Communities frequently protest Islamic temples being built. They protest their children having to learn about Arabic cultures in order to help increase tolerance and understanding. They protest gay marriage because they don't want their kids to see 2 men holding hands. We haven't figured out how to integrate much of anything. Integration with other cultures is far from marginally different, I think. But it does vary depending where you live in the US as well. There are pockets where difference isn't as feared and as frowned upon. But they are pretty few and far between considering the size of the country.
I do think a lot of it has to do with religion in the UK versus the US. The UK is less religious, overall, than the US is. 80% of Americans identify as religious. 75% of them as Christian. Religions other than Christianity only make up about 8% or do depending who you believe. More than 90% of our elected congress is Christian. I'd hazard a guess that overall, in the UK those that define themselves as religious are probably a bit more tolerant than their counterparts in the US.
We are an extremely divided country and we can't figure out how to do much of anything without fighting like children over it. Though of what I saw about the UK election on Facebook, the UK politics at least aren't in much better shape than ours
The wife and I saw a black man gassing up at a local gas station two days ago and we exclaimed simultaneously, "Is it tourist season already?"
Unless integration has something to do with a John Deer tractor or one of the 47 different kinds of hay...
No, actually, I meant "markedly ". I typed on my phone and missed the autocorrect!
LOL!! Darn phones.
Amazing that you type so much on your phone. I can barely handle typing out anything beyond a couple sentences. I just cannot stand touchscreen typing. I miss my slide out keyboard on my old phone.
Interesting from Politico:
"Bush, a midlife convert to Roman Catholicism, used the speech to emphasize that he is a man of deep belief — a key signifier in a party that values faith. But he also sought to differentiate himself from other candidates who more explicitly bring their religious fervor to their politics, namely Huckabee and Cruz, warning against feeding into Democratic arguments that the GOP is turning into a party of religious rigidity. “The mistake is to confuse points of theology with moral principles that are knowable to reason as well as by faith,” Bush said, pointedly refusing to bash the move toward legalizing same-sex marriage that Cruz has embraced as an affront to his faith. “And this confusion is all part of a false narrative that casts religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose their views on everyone.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-2016-election-waiting-to-declare-117791.html#ixzz3ZmPFuKG7
I've stayed away from this website due to bewilderment over the initial few minutes' or hours' responses. First I was insulted as being some sort of mentally ill cripple and then..., well. Let sleeping dogs lie.
For me, this is a Justice issue. Going around inciting hostility or ridicule is not gentlemanly or gentlewomanly behavior: not something a Just person would do. It's really just that simple.
Nobody has a monopoly on Truth. Just people challenge themselves each day to do better and to amend their behavior and attitudes. Our beings do not end at our fingertips; although we are partial to those parts of ourselves which lie near to our bones and sinews we must in matters that do not concern us directly ever strive to be impartial.
It is simply unjust to go about desecrating the ideals of other people. Much better 'twould be to try to see things from their perspective.
It is unjust not to respect other people. All people everywhere deserve respect. Admiration is earned, but respect is deserved.
Nope.
a certain median of respect is deserved, from one Being to another.
What that being then does, merit an alteration in the respect I have for them.
It does not remain a constant.
I have mixed feelings on the respect issue. I think there are layers of it like there are with trust in the functional world. I agree with @federica. There is a level of respect present for all human beings (and all beings) simply because we are all suffering on the same samsaric rollercoaster. But I can't honestly say I have the same level of respect for every person. I think it varies by the person, too. Some people automatically apply high levels of respect to certain people or certain vocations while others may not even if they still appreciate what that person does. Do you respect doctors more than you respect drug dealers? Perhaps it depends on the doctor, some are little less than drug dealers. But generally speaking. Do you respect the person who goes out every day and hands out food to the homeless on the exact same level you respect the person who just mugged a homeless person?
Also, I don't think respect or justice or whatever has to mean never questioning. There is a difference between respect and a "live and let live" attitude and turning a blind eye to things that need attention.
Respect just means to give due regard to and treat the power of the respected entity carefully. It is not some emotional state, e.g., as in the nuance in "I care so much about this." (Real caring is actually attending to something in the physical plane.)Respect is a circumspectual attitude that simultaneously is engaged enough to be concerned about outcomes.
I respect the Grizzly Bear, and should he gore me I respect him even more if he gets away. I respect those who bear me ill will and will treat them with kid gloves when necessary. I respect the right to life of every citizen of this planet, and in the name of Justice I will strive not to let my Truth blindside me to the Truth of others.
I err if I should let something that does not concern me personally move me to act in a disrespectful way towards another. Ideologies and principles can make people crazy if they let that happen. Justice, namely to afford to people what they deserve (measured with impartiality of motive), is the human enterprise par excellence.
This is the human vocation
Initially I try to respect each person. As I get to "know" them (either personally or just through seeing and hearing them), they do things that either earn more respect or take away from that initial respect. At the same time, I try -- at least for a while -- to see things a bit from their perspective.
And this is how I expect people to judge me.
Someone I always liked once said, "I don't hate my enemies. After all, I made them." And on a personal level, I think that's very true. Where it gets all distorted is when people begin hating other people not for what they actually do, but for their belonging to some group -- it could be their racial group, or their religious group, etc. As MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
I try also to remember that everyone has character flaws. And, people deserve a break. But not break after break after break after break.
When I was appointed principal, one of my colleagues took me aside and asked, "Vince, are you sure you have a tough enough skin to handle all the criticism you're going to get. Because right or wrong on any particular issue, you will get criticized." And as we talked she gave me very good advice. She said, "When you get criticized, do 2 things. First analyze whether or not the criticism was deserved; whether it's an accurate criticism. If it is, accept that and learn from it. If it isn't, dismiss it. Then, decide how much you respect the person giving the criticism. If you respect that person, then you have more to deal with. But if the criticism is coming from a person you don't respect, then learn from it, but don't dwell on them. Set them aside. And get on with your job."
As Tricky Dicky once said, "Others my hate you, but those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
Respectfully, I don't understand where most of y'all are coming from. Where I come from RESPECT just means treating people with some deference and cordiality when deserved. It certainly is NEVER equated with trust, with actually liking the other guy, or with unlimited deference.
What I find so hard to understand is how modern Western countries can allow such contemptuous treatment of the sincere beliefs (or strong scruples, as the case may sometimes be) to continue unpunished by the courts. For uninjured parties, such as the Danish cartoonists and Charlie Hebdo, to bandy around their hubris-filled ridicule of things they don't understand and don't want to serves no public good. Nor does it address any harm done to their persons by those whom they ridicule or harass.
And that is the salient point I am trying to get across here: That if something does not affect you personally, it is none of your business: So stay out of it! Maybe if so many in the West could stop being "Our Way is the Right Way!" dogmatists, things just might slacken off a little "over there." In other words, all these quite useless ideologies being shored up even further for the sake of the specific ideology itself will bring about only further rifts and divisions. Only an individual can be pure. Once you start building up institutions and ideologies, goodness and purity flee away. For the sake of very fine principles, much evil hath been wrought on this earth.
Truth, what the Ancient Greek philosophers called "Aleitheia" (unveiling), has got to be the standard for freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Nobody has, nor can have, a monopoly on the Truth; therefore no uninjured party* has the right to malign the Truth of another. That maligning would serve only to sow the seeds of injustice. Nor can any real "Truth" be extracted from past centuries, especially if it be a destructive "truth" (and therefore highly suspect, in the first place).
Now, attorneys will tell you that they only worry about the law in their court dealings. Justice plays no part. My question is: Where are the Laws? We have laws about hate crimes. Maybe it's time for laws concerning hate speech. This destructive religious activity has got to STOP.
*Hard to put into words, but I am referring to two parties being in proximal relation at some time at which some harm was done by one to another. Then, of course, there would be (or could be) only one truth, and therefore one of the parties would hold the cards, as it were.
They are cartoons for crying out softly.
Anybody willing to kill over a cartoon they deem offensive is just looking for an excuse.
Perhaps it's best to flush them out now, I don't know.
Frederick Douglass: "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong”.
History shows that trying to appease fascists isn't productive.
@Nirvana I don't agree if something doesn't affect you personally it's none of your business. To a degree, yes, most certainly. But on a global scale, things affect us even though we aren't there to directly experience it. Everything has a ripple effect. "It's none of my business" is why so many children die at the hands of abusive parents/caretakers. It's why many atrocious things take place. And when those things happen, it affects us all. Sometimes, it is our business even if it doesn't affect us. I know the point you are probably try to make, and I agree to some extent, but it doesn't apply to everything. When someone is being hurt, being bullied, someone needs to stand up for them, and against the aggressor.
Really?
I mean, really - ?!
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Not to pile on, but to expand on the last two posts, staying out of if it doesn't affect you personally is one of the roots of the collective shrugging that has gone on regarding many actions of the USG, foreign and domestic over the recent past. I know many if not most of the regulars on here are not US, so this is really my concern over the poor health of my county's democracy, but it's not like our apathy doesn't have consequences outside of our own borders
Off my soapbox..
What sort of bullying is this, to expect mathematical precision and enlargement in every communication? Of course I meant if it doesn't hurt others stay out of it if it does not affect you. The Kim Davises of the world can claim to be hurt and to have super-refined consciences; but I seriously doubt that to be the case. Believe me, I know a lot of people not bright enough to have a conscience of their own.
The concept of conscience only comes into play, it seemeth to me, when consciousness (note the cognate) of a wrong or potential wrong by a person halts the mind. And of course, some people have no conscience, and some who so pretend delude themselves. And some of the worst are churchgoers; thus have I learned. Other egregious examples of people without proper reins on their conscience are those overly caught up in some political ideology or such, viz the ungodly and damned Danish Cartoonists and their ilk of troublemakers.
The teachings of the New Testament urge people to love and not label one another. Frankly, Kim Davis is no Follower of Jesus.
Now, lets all sit down for a nice cup of tea, shall we?.
Will that be high tea or low tea?
Paraphrasing here: For tyranny to succeed, good men and women must be quiet and do nothing.