Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, but your own words demonstrate that my statement is appropriate.
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. |
Well, it
would contradict my statement
if one could ignore the last sentence. It's wikpedia and usually I would recommend one refrain from posting publicly editable internet information as fact. In this case, however, you including a definition that supports my contention and then calling me wrong is just laughable...the first sentence in your quote is an excellent example of a logical error called an undistributed middle term. All followers of Islam are muslims (this is how the first sentence should be worded--and actually could be changed given it's wikpedia *hint*), not all muslims are followers of Islam (this is incorrect as the following sentences point out that some muslims are NOT followers of Islam).
How exactly do you just ignore the last sentence? Muslims aren't necessarily followers of Islam. Moses and Jesus were Jewish, dude, no way around it. Mother Teresa wasn't Islam, but she certainly fits that definition of a muslim. I mean, I could argue that apples are red, sure I've seen some green ones, but if you ignore that last part, all apples are red...but that'd be an equally illogical argument as all muslims are followers of Islam, ignoring Moses and Jesus, among others...
Perhaps you would be interested in reading what some muslims (the Progressive Muslim Union North America) have to say about this issue:
http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2004...ethnicity.html
Quote:
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.
|
If someone lumps all christians into a radical and extremist group of ideologues, then I would agree their position is an ignorant one. All the threads I've seen, however, don't do that and many go to great lengths to clarify that they are speaking about a particular group of people. Lotsa christians take umbrage at what they read into the post rather than what is there. Also, a lot of people are religious and progressive in their politics and a lot of people post here who are christian but aren't offended by statements made by host himself. The utmost irony would be if host were a christian himself. I would laugh my ass of because I haven't ever seen you avail yourself of the option to not insult him, and I've never seen the reverse in action.
Quote:
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."
|
This is interesting and follows the trend you set in the opening. You want to disagree with me, so you say I'm wrong and then paraphrase my point. That's cool, I mean I'm all for you understanding what I wrote better so please paraphrase away.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Me neither, but I didn't want to type out "followers of Islam" and I couldn't really figure out how to parse the term any other way. I actually thought you would follow what I was writing.
Quote:
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.
|
If by philosophy, you meant personal belief, then who am I to falsify it? But if you really feel that Republicans think and "look" (I don't know what kind of meaning I should infer from this; do you mean racially? phenotypically? But I find it interested that you would read "act" as "look") differently than you, your interests would be better served finding or creating a different political party. Poltiics are about securing the interests of your self-selected group.
Of course, I didn't see the original discussion revolve around whether Republicans looked and thought the same; rather that Republican, conservative christians thought along the same lines and acted in similar ways. This is an intersection of at least three classes of belief: conservatives within christianity (a self-selected group of individuals working toward an end in the larger umbrella of their religion) espousing adherence to a political party that promises to secure their ideological interests.
I can't think of a single person on this board who thinks that all generalizations apply to all individuals within a specified group. weeell, you might get some flamboyant post that floats a variant of the idea that all leftists are enemies of America. but hopefully that won't happen this time because I'd rather not be proved wrong on this point.