The violent, inhumane extremism of mainstream Islam in the Middle East

[ronburgundy]

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

I'm saying that moderated Muslims are no problem. So do we leave huge blocks of Muslims in refugee camps for years to increase their chance of radicalization or do we allow individuals into the nation?

And what the OP data shows is that relative to modern secular values, the majority of the refugees are not "moderate" but are already dangerously radical in many ways, not artificially confining it to their odds of committing terrorist acts. Yes, keeping them camps will likely make them even more radical. But allowing them into our society poses an immediate danger (again, not limited to terrorism) to those around them, especially women. It complicated. My point of the OP was merely to point to the data showing that your assumption that most refugees pose no threat is false, and that whatever we do, should acknowledge and limit that real threat.
Part of the obstacle in any rational approach is that it is opposed by irrational forces on both the left and the right. The left doesn't want to acknowledge the inherent threats of Islamic beliefs, because they beliefs of non-whites and victims of US foreign policy. The right won't fully acknowledge what these threats really are and where they stem from because that requires acknowledging the inherent threat of such monotheistic religions, including Christianity, that are only subdued when the religion is weakened and contained by secularism.

As things stand, the US Constitution has done well in the last 50 years to help reduce the influence of Christianity, even when half of Republicans want to recriminalize gay sex. It can handle Islam.

True. And our constitution can also handle the supposed "rape culture" on college campuses, and the "culture of racism" in law enforcement, etc.. But just because these cultural forces won't completely take over society doesn't means that individuals won't be directly harmed as a result of them, or that steps shouldn't be taken to limit and reduce them (which with the refugees means taking steps to make them less Muslim, which you can pretend means "a different kind" of Muslim if that makes you feel better about it). Millions of lives are harmed and many even lost every year in the US, due to the continued influence of Christianity that shares the same values as mainstream Islam. Progress in humane policy has been immensely slowed and continues to not exist in many areas, due to this influence. Make no mistake, additional lives of Americans will be more harmed than helped by the influx of Muslim refugees, and even more so if they are given voting rights. The degree of this impact will be directly proportional to the number let in.

 

[Nexus]

And what the OP data shows is that relative to modern secular values, the majority of the refugees are not "moderate" but are already dangerously radical in many ways

To be considered moderate in Islam all you have to do is not stone women or blow yourself up for 72 virgins. Wanting more Muslims is like wanting more Fred Phelps in your society. He never physically attacked anyone nor called for violent attacks yet I never hear atheists venerate him for his non-violence and unique cultural perspective.

The degree of this impact will be directly proportional to the number let in.

Observing different cultures and their percentage of Muslims shows the direct impact of how shitty their country can be as their ratios get higher.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know enough to talk about Islam, but if you read the New Testament, it is absolutely clear that the belief concerns pacifist socialism.

Jesus supported everything in the OT. He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).

Thus, the God of the NT and OT are identical, and all of the authoritarian, intolerant, infidels killing, sexual deviant stoning endorsements of the OT are foundational to Christianity as well as Judaism. Not to mention, authoritarianism is logically inherent to the very concept of a singular creator God from whom all law emanates, which is a defining feature of ever sect of all the Monotheisms that bare any remote resemblance to the religions from which they historically sprang.

Which is why I take special protective measures on those mornings when the Christians congregate outside my house and go into their magic building. Not taking any chances. It's really frightening. I sometimes wonder how many are carrying assault weapons and wearing suicide vests. They even park right beside my house and do so freely. If there's a car bomb I'm probably toast. Terrified I am.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm saying that moderated Muslims are no problem. So do we leave huge blocks of Muslims in refugee camps for years to increase their chance of radicalization or do we allow individuals into the nation?

And what the OP data shows is that relative to modern secular values, the majority of the refugees are not "moderate" but are already dangerously radical in many ways, not artificially confining it to their odds of committing terrorist acts. Yes, keeping them camps will likely make them even more radical. But allowing them into our society poses an immediate danger (again, not limited to terrorism) to those around them, especially women.

The danger of non-radicalized if very conservative religiously entering the US over the long term can't possibly be worse than helping create breeding grounds for terrorists.

It complicated. My point of the OP was merely to point to the data showing that your assumption that most refugees pose no threat is false, and that whatever we do, should acknowledge and limit that real threat.

I'm saying diluting conservative to uber conservative, though non-radicalized religious people into a quasi-secular nation with stability instead of armed brigades shooting around them is the best bet over the long term. I understand that most Americans fear the idea of something over a long period of time, but I'm looking at 50 to 100 years down the road, not tomorrow. Showing compassion is in our best interest.

 

[ronburgundy]

Jesus supported everything in the OT. He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).

Thus, the God of the NT and OT are identical, and all of the authoritarian, intolerant, infidels killing, sexual deviant stoning endorsements of the OT are foundational to Christianity as well as Judaism. Not to mention, authoritarianism is logically inherent to the very concept of a singular creator God from whom all law emanates, which is a defining feature of ever sect of all the Monotheisms that bare any remote resemblance to the religions from which they historically sprang.

Which is why I take special protective measures on those mornings when the Christians congregate outside my house and go into their magic building. Not taking any chances. It's really frightening. I sometimes wonder how many are carrying assault weapons and wearing suicide vests. They even park right beside my house and do so freely. If there's a car bomb I'm probably toast. Terrified I am.

Most of the Christians you see don't actually believe in 99.9% of what the Bible says. As I explained in the OP, the key to monotheists being "moderate" is the weakness and doubt in their actual beliefs in the core ideas that define their stated religion. Most Christian church goers in 2015 are secularist who got most of their ideas and values from secular society and not their religion or the Bible. Back when most members of society actually adhered to Christianity and the Bible, you would be damn rational to be afraid and likely to get stoned, burned, or hung if you didn't fall in line and at least pretend to share their views. Also, the type of threats posed by the inherently intolerant beliefs of these religions depends upon the power status of the people who hold those beliefs. Terrorism is a strategy of the militarily weak against a stronger external force. Muslims only resort to terrorism because, unlike Christians, they don't control massive military power that they can use to commit violence using more "traditional" means.

 

[ronburgundy]

And what the OP data shows is that relative to modern secular values, the majority of the refugees are not "moderate" but are already dangerously radical in many ways, not artificially confining it to their odds of committing terrorist acts. Yes, keeping them camps will likely make them even more radical. But allowing them into our society poses an immediate danger (again, not limited to terrorism) to those around them, especially women.

The danger of non-radicalized if very conservative religiously entering the US over the long term can't possibly be worse than helping create breeding grounds for terrorists.

It complicated. My point of the OP was merely to point to the data showing that your assumption that most refugees pose no threat is false, and that whatever we do, should acknowledge and limit that real threat.

I'm saying diluting conservative to uber conservative, though non-radicalized religious people into a quasi-secular nation with stability instead of armed brigades shooting around them is the best bet over the long term. I understand that most Americans fear the idea of something over a long period of time, but I'm looking at 50 to 100 years down the road, not tomorrow. Showing compassion is in our best interest.

I can respect all of that and might even agree that the long term benefits outweighs the costs, so long as you can acknowledge the reality that in the more short term, some extra women will get beaten and raped (and not just their "own" women ), and other additional bad things will occur to current US residents as a result of bringing them into our society.

 

[arkirk]

I see the problem this way. So does Chomsky. It is a matter of the nature of the west' engagement over the last 150 years and our current engagement being essentially only military. Things will never quiet down in that part of the world as long as we keep shipping the weapons and troops and bombs to keep it going. We are constantly building a series of resentments against the West with our heavy militaristic hand in the area. We cannot afford billions of dollars of weapons to fight a total of perhaps 20,000 enemies, using our cast offs against us, using our mistaken killings of civilians against us. Why are we doing this? Because we are not sincere in our efforts to fight global warming and it shows who really runs things in America....Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP. Our wars over there are also grossly contributing to global warming. Our policy leaders think nothing of plotting and scheming to cause regime change any time any government gets in the way of the free flow of fossil fuels or other raw materials from any area. They fight alternative energy with the same fervor they fight Jihadis. This is crazy. If we had a good public relations effort (international) to turn down the heat and try to limit shipments to the middle east to only things that did not explode the fire in the ME would sputter and die shortly. We are just pouring gasoline on the fire and that just means more fear of terrorists, more taking of your shoes at the airport where perhaps you should not be in the first place.

 

[untermensche]

The way I see it, there are some American's making millions off this foreign aggression that produces enemies and the call for greater aggression, and so forth.

It is the gravy train to end all gravy trains.

Right from the tax payers to the well connected political contributors. So what a few peasants in the military get killed.

Nothing more complicated than unmitigated greed without a concern for the consequences of any of it, including environmental.

America has run out of productive ideas.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done.

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

Which Mormons and which Muslims? Denominations and sects matter.

"Radical" ones, aka those that actually believe in and adhere to the ideas and values founational to their religion. "Sect" matters mostly because different sects differ in the importance they place on the foundational doctrines of the religion and in whether their adherents sincerely believe in those doctrines as sacred.

And we determine who is and is not radical how?

 

[arkirk]

The way I see it, there are some American's making millions off this foreign aggression that produces enemies and the call for greater aggression, and so forth.

It is the gravy train to end all gravy trains.

Right from the tax payers to the well connected political contributors. So what a few peasants in the military get killed.

Nothing more complicated than unmitigated greed without a concern for the consequences of any of it, including environmental.

America has run out of productive ideas.

You know, America has some good ideas and some good thinkers. They simply have no traction in today's political bubble machine. The people who run this machine will have to back off when they perceive an environmental threat to themselves. Environmental improvements are always late because those who profit from pollution put the improvements off as long as they can. It would be possible for our country to turn a corner far more than the ME which has been severely retarded by western colonialism and industrial empire. We simply have to give the ME a chance to recover from our serial robberies. Some regimes will have to change but it is not up to the U.S. to change them...things like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and I think Israel. Simply cutting the war supplies to the area would have a sobering effect on politicians drunk on war and its personal profits. It would also have a sobering effect on war materiel manufacturers in the U.S. Whoever orders this kind of change had better have a good Secret Service.

 

[untermensche]

You know, America has some good ideas and some good thinkers....

Thinking is a crime in America.

Unless it is to create some toy or weapon.

 

[4321lynx]

The way I see it, there are some American's making millions off this foreign aggression that produces enemies and the call for greater aggression, and so forth.

It is the gravy train to end all gravy trains.

Right from the tax payers to the well connected political contributors. So what a few peasants in the military get killed.

Nothing more complicated than unmitigated greed without a concern for the consequences of any of it, including environmental.

America has run out of productive ideas.

You know, America has some good ideas and some good thinkers. They simply have no traction in today's political bubble machine. The people who run this machine will have to back off when they perceive an environmental threat to themselves. Environmental improvements are always late because those who profit from pollution put the improvements off as long as they can. It would be possible for our country to turn a corner far more than the ME which has been severely retarded by western colonialism and industrial empire. We simply have to give the ME a chance to recover from our serial robberies. Some regimes will have to change but it is not up to the U.S. to change them...things like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and I think Israel. Simply cutting the war supplies to the area would have a sobering effect on politicians drunk on war and its personal profits. It would also have a sobering effect on war materiel manufacturers in the U.S. Whoever orders this kind of change had better have a good Secret Service.

It would certainly boost Russian arm exports to the M-E. Probably Iranian/Pakistani arms too. And China, what with its Uighurs on the one hand, and a needy arms market presenting itself on the other hand, might not ignore the situation for too long. And maybe the correct attitude is 'so be it'.

History shows the region has been conquered, ruled and otherwise messed about with by a variety of people. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region)#Ancient_period -- is worth reading because of the
latest cause for the inhabitants' suffering -- 'Western ' and UN messing that are often mentioned in these fora. This usually concerns oil, yes. It also concerns the elephant in the room that is studiously ignored : what the Muslims all over the world but especially those in the M_E call colonialism, that is the State of Israel and its policies eg -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Infiltration_Law
This will remain a problem and an irritant to Muslims of all sects, everywhere, even if all the other inter-sectarian and nationalistic aqnd oil problems are magically solved. And the violent inhumane history will continue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This reminds me of all the polls we do here in America that ask conservatives about the individual aspects of the ACA and then ask the final question "Do you approve of Obamacare?" They say "yes" to all of its components but "no" to Obamacare.

No--they like all components except the individual mandate. In general laws that require people to act in a responsible fashion are widely disliked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

I'm saying that moderated Muslims are no problem. So do we leave huge blocks of Muslims in refugee camps for years to increase their chance of radicalization or do we allow individuals into the nation?

As things stand, the US Constitution has done well in the last 50 years to help reduce the influence of Christianity, even when half of Republicans want to recriminalize gay sex. It can handle Islam.

But how many more San Bernadinos are we willing to accept in the process?

(Or for that matter, the shooting at the draw-Mohammed thing. That was ISIS, also.)

 

[Will Wiley]

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq where US and allied troops went on a spree shooting "every male you see" according to Chris Kyle, there had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq.
I wonder how violent Americans would be if Iraq invaded the USA and started shooting every male they saw, and imposed a puppet sectarian government that violently suppressed peaceful protests?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq where US and allied troops went on a spree shooting "every male you see" according to Chris Kyle, there had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq.
I wonder how violent Americans would be if Iraq invaded the USA and started shooting every male they saw, and imposed a puppet sectarian government that violently suppressed peaceful protests?

One reason for the later suicide bombers and car bombs was the Bushites refusal to give the US military the wherewithal to destroy Saddam's armies and also take control of known warehouses full of high explosives. When the US military finally was able to go to these warehouses, they were found to have been stripped bare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qa'qaa_high_explosives_controversy

[h=1]Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy[/h] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy concerns the possible removal by Baathist insurgents of about 377 tonnes of high explosives HMX and RDX after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[1]
The explosives, considered dangerous by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were certified by UN weapons inspectors to be inside facilities whose doors were fastened with chains and the United Nations' seal, at the Al Qa'qaa industrial complex in Iraq in 2003. By October 2004, the facility was empty.


You will note the same bastards that insist on repeatedly "investigating" Benghazi didn't see any need to investigate al Qa'qaa. These purloined explosives will be killing people for years to come. Thanks Bush and Cheney et al!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm saying that moderated Muslims are no problem. So do we leave huge blocks of Muslims in refugee camps for years to increase their chance of radicalization or do we allow individuals into the nation?

As things stand, the US Constitution has done well in the last 50 years to help reduce the influence of Christianity, even when half of Republicans want to recriminalize gay sex. It can handle Islam.

But how many more San Bernadinos are we willing to accept in the process?

Well, no fewer than the Sandy Hooks if we are to be consistent. At least we are screening the refugees.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done.

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

Which Mormons and which Muslims? Denominations and sects matter.

"Radical" ones, aka those that actually believe in and adhere to the ideas and values founational to their religion. "Sect" matters mostly because different sects differ in the importance they place on the foundational doctrines of the religion and in whether their adherents sincerely believe in those doctrines as sacred.

And we determine who is and is not radical how?

That's irrelevant to the question you responded to. Nexus asked if you would like to see a rise in the % of the population who belong to other religions, like Mormons.
Whether it would be a negative thing to have more people who reject the basic values of free secular society (e.g., any person who sincerely believes in Islam and supports Sharia law), is a separate question from when such persons could be effectively identified outside of a self-reporting contexts where their statements are anonymous and have no consequences for them.

That said, just asking people their beliefs like the PEW survey in the OP did might identify many of the most radical. Although some radicals would lie about their faith to avoid detection, many others would consider it an affront to Allah and their identity to deny their beliefs. Thus, pretty much anyone willing to say that Sharia law should be government law is by definition, a radical who rejects the basic values of secular society. It would yield false negatives but only true positives.
As I said, what we should do with that info policy wise is a separate question too.

 

[ronburgundy]

But how many more San Bernadinos are we willing to accept in the process?

Well, no fewer than the Sandy Hooks if we are to be consistent. At least we are screening the refugees.

That reasoning is a bit like arguing that because we cannot completely get rid of lung cancer due air pollutants, we shouldn't bother to prevent nuclear waste from being dumped into rivers. Your argument about long term world-wide moderation of Muslims is better footing.

 

[ronburgundy]

I see the problem this way. So does Chomsky. It is a matter of the nature of the west' engagement over the last 150 years and our current engagement being essentially only military. Things will never quiet down in that part of the world as long as we keep shipping the weapons and troops and bombs to keep it going. We are constantly building a series of resentments against the West with our heavy militaristic hand in the area. We cannot afford billions of dollars of weapons to fight a total of perhaps 20,000 enemies, using our cast offs against us, using our mistaken killings of civilians against us. Why are we doing this? Because we are not sincere in our efforts to fight global warming and it shows who really runs things in America....Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP. Our wars over there are also grossly contributing to global warming. Our policy leaders think nothing of plotting and scheming to cause regime change any time any government gets in the way of the free flow of fossil fuels or other raw materials from any area. They fight alternative energy with the same fervor they fight Jihadis. This is crazy. If we had a good public relations effort (international) to turn down the heat and try to limit shipments to the middle east to only things that did not explode the fire in the ME would sputter and die shortly. We are just pouring gasoline on the fire and that just means more fear of terrorists, more taking of your shoes at the airport where perhaps you should not be in the first place.

Chomsky has a myopic focus upon international relations that pays far too little heed to intra-societal relations and the use of religion as a means to control people and spread ideas and values that greatly impede moral and political progress.

Chomsky is correct US foreign policy and terrorism specifically, because terrorism is essentially a military action against foreign threats with far superior military power. But as I said in the OP and several posts since, the violence and anti-secularism inherent to Islam isn't about terrorism, but the countless other forms of violence and injustice and impediments to progress resulting from people's everyday actions within a society and toward other members of that society.

In these areas, the effect of US policy has been indirect and mostly via impeding the natural erosion of the inherently violent Islamic religion that otherwise would likely have occurred as the obvious moral, political, and technological benefits of secularism became apparent to people in those societies.