The things I've described aren't troubling to Christians.
They are, on the other hand, according to such people as E.D. Kain, a terrible burden for Muslims to bear, an unfair restriction we place upon them. To expect a Muslim to suggest that suicide bombers are crazy idiots--and not say anything at all about Israel--is just too much.
"This person makes pretty embarassing arguments to boot in his comments on his own post: I can’t be a bigot, I have Muslim friends and they luuuve me. "
According to Tim, his co-worker disagreed with just about everything he posted.
And, besides...you're going for the low-hanging ad hom fruit, here. If he doesn't know anyone then "oh, you have no personal experience, I can safely ignore your arguments!" If he does, then "oh, some of your best friends are black, right, I can safely ignore your arguments!"
I'm saying that if Tim's post had been about Christians instead of Muslims, then A: the comments would have been nothing but "good post!" "I agree!" "You're right!", and B: Kain's post (this one) would never have happened, because of course it's the responsibility of Christians to denounce extremists of their faith, of course it's the responsibility of Christians to passively accept blasphemy and slander, of course Christians must apologize for the bad behavior of other Christians.
Yeah, I remember the first time *I* read that Dan Simmons article. Good times. Of course, the only really quality thing I read from Simmons was the two "Hyperion" books; shame, he's got good prose, but he's got this weird obsession with Space Jews Versus Time-Traveling Robots.
"Mainly I’m confused why you would presume to tell the billion or so Muslims out there how to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, and why you think you’re in a position to do so."
Apparently you've missed the endless debates about how the billion or so Christians out there ought to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, etcetera.
Delete "Muslim" from the top post, and insert "Christian". What's your reaction? Do you think that it's inappropriate to suggest that Christians disavow the extremist groups that label themselves "Christian"? Do you think it's racist to suggest that Christians ought to behave in a manner calculated so as not to offend? Do you think it's anti-intellectual to feel that Christians, in general, will always respond the same way to certain situations?
"Maybe a nation that demands assimilation is hard to connect with."
That would make it pretty damn hard to connect with just about anywhere, then, since Muslim nations place more emphasis on "assimilation" than America.
I guess you could move to Sweden, although if you aren't a white Swede then it's pretty tough to be anything but a working-class menial.
"The last time I checked, most Muslims in the United States were not blowing themselves up in suicide attacks against their fellow Americans. They were not issuing fatwas against Harry Potter or converting your favorite folk singer. "
The last time I checked, most Christians in the United States weren't suggesting that women were best found in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Most Christians weren't throwing turds at abortion clinics. Most Christians weren't handling snakes, or claiming that dead soldiers were queer and died because God hated them. Most Christians weren't involved with the Crusades or Galileo.
Great; you've proven that they aren't POWs, but are instead non-state actors engaged in combat against uniformed armed forces of a sovereign country. Meaning that they're dangerous thugs who should have been shot where they stood.
As for the poll: I dunno. As others have pointed out, a good number of the respondents were old, and it's been my experience that racist old farts stay that way no matter what the rest of us do.
Story time. We were visiting the Smithsonian's new airplane hangar, and looking at the Enola Gay. My mother said "it's so sad, we had to kill all those people to end the war." My grandmother said "well, they were only Japanese, you know."
"...being accused of racism has become the greater offense than actually being racist."
We've had thirty years of every media production that addresses the question making sure we KNOW that EVERYONE who has the SLIGHTEST racist thought is a total bastard, irredeemable, worthy of nothing but scorn, and should be cast into the outer darkness to weep and wail and gnash their teeth. We're taught that, the Nazis having been defeated, the only people who it's okay to hate--unreservedly, unequivocally, bone-deep Two Minute hate--are the racists.
Given that--that racism is one of the few modern sins--why wouldn't people react strongly to an accusation of racism?
"The shallow conservative counter: “Money is fungible. Whatever they don’t spend on other things just pays for more abortions.” "
This is the same reasoning that people use to explain why school vouchers constitute government support of religion and so violate the First Amendment.
I can, at least, say that none of the people responsible for the mess are people who I voted for.
Don't blame me; I voted for Thompson.
*****
This whole situation seems like...Jesus, I dunno, it's like if a mugger threatened me with a gun, and I responded by shooting myself and saying "So what are you gonna threaten me with NOW?"
Disclosure here--our contract is funded, but our customers are government employees. We find ourselves in the unique position of being contractually obligated to hold a major design review that our customer won't be allowed to attend!
NASA's problem isn't that it's NASA. NASA's problem is that it's part of the government. Believe me when I say that being a rocket scientist contracting to the USAF is no better than being one contracting for NASA.
On the other hand, at least neither of us is working for the Army.
Actually, you completely understand my argument and disagree with me. (which is okay, I actually like not having to repeatedly explain myself.)
"Obviously you can argue that any reduction of any tax burden in any form frees up private money to go elsewhere and some of that money will go to religious causes..."
Which is what I'm claiming; and you say that..."
"...at some point the relationship between religious spending and tax breaks will become too indirect to trace fairly or reasonably."
And I think that that defining that point depends on a judgement call, and winds up being more overtly an Establishment violation than just giving people vouchers.
If the government starts putting conditions and restrictions and limitations on tax credits or benefits vis-a-vis religious donations, then is not that an example of the Government making laws respecting religion or preventing the free exercise thereof?
******
As a side question, if your argument is that money spent to support religious activity shouldn't be deductible, then shouldn't homeschoolers who attend church not be permitted to deduct mortgage interest?
"The government must tolerate (or to use another phrase, “accomodate”) religious indoctrination of children and thus must allow and fairly accredit private schools; however, it ought not to support it by, inter alia, providing tuition-paying parents with tax breaks to subsidize that religious indoctrination."
But--I want to make this clear--you believe this means that a parent whose child attends a religious private school should not receive any kind of tax break for ANYTHING? No deductions from income taxes for mortgage interest or medical care or charitable giving? No tax credits for buying electric vehicles or using mass transit? No ability to make pre-tax contributions to retirement plans?
Indeed, what about people who donate to church? Should church donations not be deductible? Okay, I could see that, but you could make the argument that allowing other deductions or credits gives that person more disposable income which they turn around and give to a church, so it's "indirectly supporting religion".
"Parents of children who attend private schools receive a tax credit on their state income taxes for money donated to scholarship programs for private school tuition. Most of that money winds up in practice going to pay the tuition of religious schools and reading between the lines, specifically to pay the tuition of the children of the donors."
Doesn't this mean that parents of children who attend private religious schools shouldn't receive any tax credits at all? After all, that tax-break money increases the overall funds available to those parents, and those funds allow them to send their children to the private religious school.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Muslims Don’t Need Better PR, Americans Need More Tolerance”
*sigh*
The things I've described aren't troubling to Christians.
They are, on the other hand, according to such people as E.D. Kain, a terrible burden for Muslims to bear, an unfair restriction we place upon them. To expect a Muslim to suggest that suicide bombers are crazy idiots--and not say anything at all about Israel--is just too much.
"
"This person makes pretty embarassing arguments to boot in his comments on his own post: I can’t be a bigot, I have Muslim friends and they luuuve me. "
According to Tim, his co-worker disagreed with just about everything he posted.
And, besides...you're going for the low-hanging ad hom fruit, here. If he doesn't know anyone then "oh, you have no personal experience, I can safely ignore your arguments!" If he does, then "oh, some of your best friends are black, right, I can safely ignore your arguments!"
"
I'm saying that if Tim's post had been about Christians instead of Muslims, then A: the comments would have been nothing but "good post!" "I agree!" "You're right!", and B: Kain's post (this one) would never have happened, because of course it's the responsibility of Christians to denounce extremists of their faith, of course it's the responsibility of Christians to passively accept blasphemy and slander, of course Christians must apologize for the bad behavior of other Christians.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Yeah, I remember the first time *I* read that Dan Simmons article. Good times. Of course, the only really quality thing I read from Simmons was the two "Hyperion" books; shame, he's got good prose, but he's got this weird obsession with Space Jews Versus Time-Traveling Robots.
"
The article accused us of censorship. This was clearly a lie and we could not permit them to print it.
"
"Mainly I’m confused why you would presume to tell the billion or so Muslims out there how to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, and why you think you’re in a position to do so."
Apparently you've missed the endless debates about how the billion or so Christians out there ought to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, etcetera.
Delete "Muslim" from the top post, and insert "Christian". What's your reaction? Do you think that it's inappropriate to suggest that Christians disavow the extremist groups that label themselves "Christian"? Do you think it's racist to suggest that Christians ought to behave in a manner calculated so as not to offend? Do you think it's anti-intellectual to feel that Christians, in general, will always respond the same way to certain situations?
"
"Maybe a nation that demands assimilation is hard to connect with."
That would make it pretty damn hard to connect with just about anywhere, then, since Muslim nations place more emphasis on "assimilation" than America.
I guess you could move to Sweden, although if you aren't a white Swede then it's pretty tough to be anything but a working-class menial.
"
Accusing someone of being a "concern troll"; it's the new, internet-acceptable form of ad hominem argument!
"
Would you promote racial harmony by opening the "Black Power Soul Food And Rap Music Parlor -- Whites Not Allowed"?
On “Muslims Don’t Need Better PR, Americans Need More Tolerance”
"The last time I checked, most Muslims in the United States were not blowing themselves up in suicide attacks against their fellow Americans. They were not issuing fatwas against Harry Potter or converting your favorite folk singer. "
The last time I checked, most Christians in the United States weren't suggesting that women were best found in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Most Christians weren't throwing turds at abortion clinics. Most Christians weren't handling snakes, or claiming that dead soldiers were queer and died because God hated them. Most Christians weren't involved with the Crusades or Galileo.
On “A Too-Kind Comparison”
Great; you've proven that they aren't POWs, but are instead non-state actors engaged in combat against uniformed armed forces of a sovereign country. Meaning that they're dangerous thugs who should have been shot where they stood.
Congratulations on the own-goal!
On “Do a Plurality of Mississippi Republicans Want to Ban Interracial Marriage?”
"I’m a white guy...and I don’t hang out exclusively with a bunch of like-minded white guys."
Did you seriously just use the "some of my best friends are black" line in a thread where you just accused someone of Godwinning it up?
"
As for the poll: I dunno. As others have pointed out, a good number of the respondents were old, and it's been my experience that racist old farts stay that way no matter what the rest of us do.
Story time. We were visiting the Smithsonian's new airplane hangar, and looking at the Enola Gay. My mother said "it's so sad, we had to kill all those people to end the war." My grandmother said "well, they were only Japanese, you know."
"
"...being accused of racism has become the greater offense than actually being racist."
We've had thirty years of every media production that addresses the question making sure we KNOW that EVERYONE who has the SLIGHTEST racist thought is a total bastard, irredeemable, worthy of nothing but scorn, and should be cast into the outer darkness to weep and wail and gnash their teeth. We're taught that, the Nazis having been defeated, the only people who it's okay to hate--unreservedly, unequivocally, bone-deep Two Minute hate--are the racists.
Given that--that racism is one of the few modern sins--why wouldn't people react strongly to an accusation of racism?
"
I suppose we're lucky that one of the possible responses wasn't "PAT BUCHANAN".
On “How Responsible Are You for Where Your Taxes Go?”
Er, yeah. Well.
"The shallow conservative counter: “Money is fungible. Whatever they don’t spend on other things just pays for more abortions.” "
This is the same reasoning that people use to explain why school vouchers constitute government support of religion and so violate the First Amendment.
"
"A conservative talking point you’re bound to hear, if you haven’t already: “Why should my taxes pay for baby killers?” "
Actually, you hear this comment from both sides. The difference is over whether the babies in question are killed by doctors or killed by soldiers.
On “Several Things That Aren’t Happening Here.”
I can, at least, say that none of the people responsible for the mess are people who I voted for.
Don't blame me; I voted for Thompson.
*****
This whole situation seems like...Jesus, I dunno, it's like if a mugger threatened me with a gun, and I responded by shooting myself and saying "So what are you gonna threaten me with NOW?"
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
"As to whether the Republicans are the party of the rich, well, if we can’t agree on that, I’m not sure there’s much for us to talk about. "
It's funny how the Republicans are simultaneously the party of the rich and stuffed with ignorant blue-collar louts.
"
Disclosure here--our contract is funded, but our customers are government employees. We find ourselves in the unique position of being contractually obligated to hold a major design review that our customer won't be allowed to attend!
"
NASA's problem isn't that it's NASA. NASA's problem is that it's part of the government. Believe me when I say that being a rocket scientist contracting to the USAF is no better than being one contracting for NASA.
On the other hand, at least neither of us is working for the Army.
"
Well I dunno, Tony, I guess I could always burn my house down and go live under a bridge, like you.
On “Closed Front Doors, Open Back Doors”
"Maybe I’m not sure what you’re getting at, DD."
Actually, you completely understand my argument and disagree with me. (which is okay, I actually like not having to repeatedly explain myself.)
"Obviously you can argue that any reduction of any tax burden in any form frees up private money to go elsewhere and some of that money will go to religious causes..."
Which is what I'm claiming; and you say that..."
"...at some point the relationship between religious spending and tax breaks will become too indirect to trace fairly or reasonably."
And I think that that defining that point depends on a judgement call, and winds up being more overtly an Establishment violation than just giving people vouchers.
If the government starts putting conditions and restrictions and limitations on tax credits or benefits vis-a-vis religious donations, then is not that an example of the Government making laws respecting religion or preventing the free exercise thereof?
******
As a side question, if your argument is that money spent to support religious activity shouldn't be deductible, then shouldn't homeschoolers who attend church not be permitted to deduct mortgage interest?
"
"The government must tolerate (or to use another phrase, “accomodate”) religious indoctrination of children and thus must allow and fairly accredit private schools; however, it ought not to support it by, inter alia, providing tuition-paying parents with tax breaks to subsidize that religious indoctrination."
But--I want to make this clear--you believe this means that a parent whose child attends a religious private school should not receive any kind of tax break for ANYTHING? No deductions from income taxes for mortgage interest or medical care or charitable giving? No tax credits for buying electric vehicles or using mass transit? No ability to make pre-tax contributions to retirement plans?
Indeed, what about people who donate to church? Should church donations not be deductible? Okay, I could see that, but you could make the argument that allowing other deductions or credits gives that person more disposable income which they turn around and give to a church, so it's "indirectly supporting religion".
"
"Parents of children who attend private schools receive a tax credit on their state income taxes for money donated to scholarship programs for private school tuition. Most of that money winds up in practice going to pay the tuition of religious schools and reading between the lines, specifically to pay the tuition of the children of the donors."
Doesn't this mean that parents of children who attend private religious schools shouldn't receive any tax credits at all? After all, that tax-break money increases the overall funds available to those parents, and those funds allow them to send their children to the private religious school.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.