Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smooth
I think the irony is how you've constructed a completely inappropriate analogy.
|
You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but your own words demonstrate that my statement is appropriate.
Quote:
|
2) these same people, along with others, usually can't seem to understand the difference between a fanatic religious segment of muslims, a non-fanatic religious segment of muslims, and the hinge of all this--that muslim is an ethnicity, not necessarily tied to the religion Islam.
|
Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
Quote:
A Muslim is an adherent of Islam. Literally, the word means someone who has submitted him or herself to God.
The declaration of submission to God, called Shahada that includes the recognition of Muhammad as the last prophet constitutes the main condition to be considered a Muslim. Muslims describe many Biblical figures, such as Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), as Muslims, because, as prophets, they submitted completely to God.
|
This appears to contradict your statement regarding both ethnicity and that a Muslim is not necessarily tied to the religion Islam, the last sentence (using the literal translation of "Muslim") notwithstanding.
Furthermore, there are a "host" of examples on the TFP in which someone lumps all Christians in with people such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or George W. Bush. Occasionally they will refer to the lunatic fringe as the "radical right," or "extremist Christians" in an attempt to disguise the inherent bigotry. However, within their thinking is the fundamental assumption that ALL Christians are "radical" and "extremist."
Such a position remains "ignorant," to use your word.
Quote:
3) political parties are chosen, presumably, by their adherents because they share the views of other members of the party and want to implement similar policies. So they band together and elect representatives in the hopes those people will effect their will.
4) religious groups, while many people might be born into them, are by and large chosen by the adults because they share the perspective of the other members in their congregation.
|
This appears to be a distinction without a difference. For example, it would be just as accurate to say that "religious membership is chosen, presumably, by its adherents because they share the views of other members of the religion."
There is also no shortage of religions/denominations that attempt to sway their members into electing representatives who are likely to effect the church's position. The fear of losing tax-exempt status has been the only limitation on the activities of the larger ones.
Quote:
|
So it seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me that when you have a group of people sharing a religious perspective AND a political party that you will find those people tend to think along similar lines and desire to plot courses of action in conjunction with one another.
|
Like "Muslims" from the Middle East?
Quote:
|
It seems really odd to me that you would equate such a statement with "all caucasians are the same" or "all italians are the same." You might have had a stronger case if you had used "all Islamics are the same."
|
I simply used the verbiage that would be the most familiar to the most people. I have not observed any of the national media using the word "Islamics" in the manner you prefer.
Quote:
|
These comments are all based on my premise that political parties are self-selected groups of people who think about particular problems in similar ways and want a coordinated effort to address those problems.
|
Like Arabic suicide bombers?
Quote:
I definately don't see the same patterns of behavior and choice when it comes to ethnicity or racial categorization.
Although, one might make a case for broad characterizations of a particular ethnic groups as it pertains to cultural notions.
But those same people would have to be very careful when they decide to shift from the aggregate to the personal...
|
My entire premise (admittedly couched in sarcasm) was based on the philosophy that Republicans do not all think alike and look alike.
It would appear that we are at least partially in agreement: Generalizations do not always apply to individuals within the specified group.