Why didn’t this Scarborough guy guy just ask “are you proposing internment camps?” See the difference?
And let’s not forget the previous Republican highlights:
The wilfully ignorant trust fund brat who led you into 9/11, Iraq and the GFC. Then his Dad, who despite his flaws was sufficiently sane and competent that his own party rejected him after a single term. Then there’s the empty suit actor who exploded the deficit before spending his second term clinically demented. Then we had the never-elected President, then the racist criminal…and then we finally reach the last respectable Republican President, Eisenhower. Who, according to the GOP of his day, was insufficiently right wing to be a “real” Republican.
The reason why so few current Republicans are demonstrating the courage and decency required to resist Trump is because anyone with an ounce of courage or decency would have quit the party in disgust decades ago. The 21st century Republican Party is a White Nationalist hate group, committed to an ideological rejection of reality that seriously endangers the entire planet.
24 Likes
Hear, hear.
I await with interest the discussion of legitimate issues with Republicans that @jayseedub alleges is possible.
4 Likes
Well technically, philosophically, of course it is. I don’t think anyone is arguing that ISIL is literally not an organisation run and funded by people who are predominantly Islamic. There seems to be an insistent, attendant implication though, from people like Trump, that radicalism is a particularly unique feature of Islam.
Why does no one get so upset when Christian white supremacists attack minorities, or Christian right-to-lifers bomb abortion clinics, and those attacks aren’t described as “radical Christianity”?
In this two year old speech Obama is trying to distance the activities of ISIL from the activities of the vast majority of Islamic people, and he is using deliberate and emotive language to do that.
The situation is really simple. The current government in the US is avoiding language that would demonise Islam, because that is the morally responsible thing to do, while Donald Trump is demonising Islam as the central feature of his campaign, because he really is the most morally bankrupt piece of shite. Why are you here defending him?
12 Likes
I’m not, and this is the frustrating thing about the polarised framing of the discussion. With both Islam and Christianity, I resist attempts to present an idealised form that suggests that doctrinal and political motivations be easily separated, or that you can identify true or false religion based on criteria that are contradicted in the sacred texts of both religions. This is as relevant in a statement by the President as it is in formal philosophy. If it is the case that true religions never support violence against innocents, then you can throw both religions out straight away. They are both waist deep in innocent blood. I won’t ignore that because it would be politically expedient, nor will I accept a suggestion that only agreeing that religions are peaceful is an acceptable answer to the claim that ISIL is typical of Islam. Neither is true at all.
As I’ve said earlier:
I won’t demonise Christianity or Islam for the actions of a small minority, but extreme viewpoints in both that have some support from moderates are a part of these belief systems and must be opposed inside and outside the community (even though religion is only one of many factors in ISIL and attacks on abortion clinics).
5 Likes
Yeah, and my objections would still apply in that case. You’re not going to duck the issue just by changing the religion that’s being thrown under the bus.
Our current civilization’s laws and culture. And guess what - short of somehow forcing everyone in the world to become atheist, spreading the idea that “no real religion condones the killing of innocent people” is the only way to combat religiously-fueled violence.
Religions generally aren’t logical. Neither is non-religious bigotry, of which there is also plenty to go around. This is a battle of ideas, not logic.
5 Likes
When your party is capable of reacting to a racist, bigoted, bloviating knuckledragging demagogue in a way that suggests adults are at the helm (protip: if it’s the “literal definition of racism”, then “it” is racism), then you’ll get adult comments about the actions of your party.
7 Likes
I am new to Boing Boing, and I do have different opinions than most, here.
Your response was really unwelcoming, and makes my point even better than I
could have on my own.
Please, be nice.
To help you toward your goal, I will move on to other forums where there is
a true interest in dialog, an openness to others and their diverse
opinions, and a willingness to engage with others rather than shutting them
down.
I’m sure you’re a very nice person, and hope that you’ll continue to
reflect aspect of your personality more in future posts!
Nice generalizing. Very effective point. So solution-focused.
Onward.
Perfectly put.
3 Likes
Please feel free to refute my accusation that your party’s standard bearer is NOT a racist, bigoted, bloviating demagogue. Pro-tip: Breitbart links will only be accepted as humorous asides, and not factual evidence.
10 Likes
There’s also removing political and social reasons for people to be attracted by extremist viewpoints and supporting those who oppose violence and bigotry in their own communities and criticise regressive and entrenched elements. Nobody is fooled by the claim that religions aren’t violent. This may be the reality that we want, but it’s just denialism. Christians who attack abortion clinics are not good Christians, and Muslims who attack clubs are not good Muslims. Men who rape women are not good men. But these all exist and they are often supported by their culture. We can identify and criticise dangerous elements without vilifying whole groups. If we can’t, it really does start to look like Trump is the only one not afraid to tell the truth, and we have lost the debate.
1 Like
If you march in here with a stridently held controversial opinion and nothing else, expect it to be vigorously challenged.
11 Likes
I wouldn’t demonize them, but they are certainly fair game for some pretty harsh criticism. The holy books of those religions condone some pretty awful acts and it’s silly to pretend modern religions are all positive.
1 Like
You should check out this thread:
Almost 900 posts, but you’ll find most of the people criticizing Trump and the party that nominated him don’t think much of Hilary Clinton or really all that much of the democrats. Perhaps you are rushing to the conclusion that just because we think Republicans are stupid for selecting Trump means we are Democrats. Quite a few of us aren’t even Americans.
You seem to be very concerned with people painting Trump supporters with a broad brush for someone who is in the #NeverTrump camp. If you feel strongly about Trump being too dangerous/unqualified/whatever to elect, what do you think of people who have elected him?
He isn’t make a historical or logical claim, he is saying that we ought to agree to not recognize the legitimacy of a religion that does call for violence. Stating it as fact is a presumptive close - a sales tactic.
I think Obama’s explanation is good. This is strategic. To whatever extent we associate a conquest-oriented group like ISIS with a religion, we are supporting them by building their pool of recruits and increasing their funding. If one ontological position drives dollars to killers and another avoids doing so, then we aren’t in philosophy class anymore.
Religions are sort of identity driven (and hence we’d be tempted to use self-identification as the test for religious inclusion) but they are also kind of private clubs that have rules of inclusion. That’s obvious when you have a religion with a specific figure head like the pope or the dalai lama who can literally dictate who is in the club and who is not. But there is, to some extent, a consensus model in other religions. If a billion Muslims say that Islam does not condone killing, then a group of people killing in the name of Islam are not Muslims. That’s not a No True Scotsman argument any more than saying Homer isn’t a member of the No Homer’s club is a No True Scotsman. They’ve been excluded for not following the rules.
6 Likes
“controversial” in quotes. Keep an open mind, please.
This is true. ISIL is very much shaped by Islam, a very reactionary form that goes back to something most others diverged from in the middle ages. But like I said here, I think Obama is in a very poor position to acknowledge that, since the nuance of his remarks is likely to be stripped and any subtext can hurt people.
This explains it well enough to me; the main concern is to be sure not to have people think the west and Islam are enemies. Because that’s a message people are looking for. It’s what Trump has been selling, it’s the whole reason his people care that Islamic terrorism is singled out in the first place. I’m not sure how people think saying he’s right is supposed to help counter him, but I am sure it’s a message that gets people hurt.
Obama is describing religion as he would like it instead of as it is, but for his position I think he is saying the right thing. If not in terms of politics against Trump, in terms of actually discouraging marginalization or radicalization of religious groups.
9 Likes
Absolutely nobody is claiming that.
What they’re saying is that that violence doesn’t define the religion, and that if you’re going to engage in that kind of action then the majority who practice the religion don’t want you. It’s peer pressure, and telling the vast number of Muslims that say their religion does not support violence that “you’re wrong, and we’re going to define your religion by the bad actors no matter what you say” is a great way to perpetuate the problem.
6 Likes
Fair enough, I don’t want to push the point. My main objections are that
-
It can ignore cultural problems. Regardless of the presence or absence of mental illness, events like this or the Stanford rape showed attitudes that were supported by the parents and that reflects wider cultural attitudes. The standard narrative is that there were no warning signs or cultural pattern, and this is often wrong.
-
Obama may be the US president, but he’s not a Muslim - let alone their spokesperson. I’d rather he didn’t make sweeping generalisations that are not likely to be accepted by fundamentalist Muslims or conservative Americans. It’s just a contradiction of a conservative claim. But I may be wrong. I have found Christians and Muslims to be very friendly and good neighbours on the whole, but in both cases there are long and widely held beliefs that are troubling.
I think we’re both trying to get to the same place though - acceptance of multiple beliefs in society and challenging of harmful attitudes on many sides. Part of what motivated this shooter was the experience of being othered. Suspicion will not make us safer.
In case you missed it I’ll repeat my question: Which of the other Republican candidates would you have preferred?
