Its pretty sad isn't it Will? But I can't think of a time when some group wasn't in the position the Muslims are right now. Again considering our past we've handled this round of blind ignorance much better then we would have in the decades ago.

Its almost a little promising and maybe there is a little light at the end of the tunnel.

Isn't it it like that for the entire world? This doesn't seem like an "only in America" kind of thing. Someone will always hate someone else, it's human nature. A group or race or whatever else you can think of will always be looked down upon and sometimes be made the scapegoat. It will never go away completely.

Sure and singling out the US is probably a little unfair, we certainly aren't the only ones. But you're right its never going to go away completely but as long as its getting better and not worse there is always hope.

i have to be somewhere soon, so all i can say is that we live in a mass-media environment & that people select their political viewpoints like any other consumer item in the main except that they live through them at least for particular durations, in particular situations. the game that the populist right is playing with the fictional mosque is exactly the same game that neo-fascist organizations all over europe play with islam. the game the populist right plays with immigration is the same. the difference is that in western europe, neo-fascist organizations are named publicly--which is a problem for them because it forces people to choose explicitly to align with neo-fascist politics. here in the states, there is no naming. it's "the tea party" and the xenophobic/racist politics that are mobilizing the tea partiers right now are not labelled what they are. and in the name of some illusory "balance" this neo-fascism is given **heavy** media exposure, which functions to legitimate it, extend it.

this is not a sky-is-falling situation. i focus on it the way i do in this thread because of the topic of the thread and because it affects people close to me directly. but i don't think it's a Crisis. but i do think that there is something really really wrong with a political context that allows neo-fascism to become a mass movement, to be normalized as just another conservative position. it isn't. and i would expect conservatives to be right there to point that out.

and maybe all this happens in meat-space over beverages and conviviality which is very not like the narrowcasting of a messageboard.

but there we are.

I wasn't sure if this belonged here more so than it deserving its own thread, but we can split this off later if we must.

Below is a news item breaking out of Tennessee regarding a case of arson against the building of a mosque. It appears it's been facing hostile opposition for a while now, and now this.

The negative (and ignorant) sentiment surrounding people's views of Islam in general is getting disgusting, and a little bit frightening.

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson - CBS News

If I didn't know any better, I'd think the people who say things like "They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group" are joking because of how crazy that sounds. "That sounds so stupid, it must be a joke." If only.

Do protests ever get anything done? I'm not only talking about anti-Islam protests, I'm talking about any kind. They walk around in 90 degree heat for a few hours as their arms fall off from holding the sign up so long. I've never been to any kind of protest, but it seems almost pointless. You show up, march around and yell and be stupid, and then you leave, end of transaction. Am I in the general area of being correct?

Occasionally they'll see some small successes like women's suffrage or civil rights for blacks.

I know the civil rights movements back in the day had success with protests, but I meant modern day, within the past 10 years. I should have made that more clear in my post.

Look at it this way: protests are a part of the dance between government and the public. When political candidates are running for a spot, they campaign for votes by presenting their platform. On the other side of things, when politicians are in positions already, people might protest their actions or, more generally, the state of things in one area or another. Protests, then, are a kind of campaigning by the public. Politicians campaign by telling the public what they'll do, whereas the public campaigns by telling politicians what they want.

If you think about it, it's some pretty sweet feedback. There are two main ways that politicians get feedback from potential voters. They can either conduct formal surveys or they can pay attention to the public's actions, whether it be petitions, protests, or other street actions. The larger, the most important, in both respects, but which will yield more genuine results, the surveys or the public actions? What would you give more weight to? What the public tells you when you ask, or what the public tells you without your prompting them at all?

Although you probably won't find many examples of direct correlation like during the civil rights movement, I would suggest that protesting has at least some effect. It all depends on the scope and whether the protests/movements/topics are high profile.

I had missed this when it aired last week--
The Parent Company Trap - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/23/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

My...god...that's terrible. Does anyone know of any good ear bleach?

Before anyone asks, yes this is for real. It was produced by WooTV.us, "Home of the Conservative Voice."

It raises a good question too: Are there any good conservative protest songs?

Would you be interested in investigation of the funds for the building, if one of the key donators was found to have donated to an organization that was frozen by the FBI to giving money to a terrorist group. If it was just a guy who gave 100 bucks I would not care, but since there now is 1 certified tie (as long as the press is correct) then I think the funds should be reviewed.

Article

Oh, that's the guy in Long Island who donated six grand to the largest Islamic charity group in the U.S. two years before the feds froze their assets and declared them a terror group for funding Hamas.

"[An indictment against the charity's officers was not] a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation." –John Ashcroft

Is that all they have? Are they grasping at straws or are they, as New York magazine puts it, gearing up for a witch hunt?

Where's Glenn Beck and his magical chalkboard?
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...beckchart3.jpg

He's the only one who can get to the truth of the matter.

Hey, Fugly, don't knock the chalk. I wish he'd get a dry erase board, everything about chalk boards makes me uneasy. But that's for another thread.

Baraka, I've never heard of any good conservative protest songs. The issues they protest aren't the best at making songs for. Not edgy enough.

Are you saying there are no songs about cutting taxes for the rich?

Witch hunt, indeed. Now convince me that Hamas is a terrorist group.

Hey, leave me out of this. I have no reason to convince you of as much. Although it should be noted that both of our governments consider it to be so.

How can anyone claim that America was founded on Christianity? Amazing. If this lady believes that the native peoples nature religion's are all completely invalid she at least should have the decency to believe in Odin and Thor, etc -

But I dont think this kind of ignorance of religion if an American problem at all. I think it is worse in the UK. I have had people knock on my door trying to convert me who do not even know the bible as well as I do and cannot have a sensible discussion about it.

I supsect that the average English Christian would be clueless about the connections between Islam and Christianity, would have no clue that Jesus was an important prophet of Allah in the Qu'ran and so on.

_

On the whole thing about building a mosque next to the WTC... I really dont understand the issue. Maybe since all but one (I believe?) of the terrorists involved in the attacks where Saudi these people should instead put their energy into encouraging the US to boycott Saudi oil? This should have many benefits to the environment as well as allowing them to show their disgust at the 9/11 atrocity.

From what I hear, you guys don't have the problem with Christian fundamentalism that we do. I think I read a year or two ago that only about 30% of people in the UK who consider themselves religious go to church regularly. Here, there's an honest belief that a move away from White-Christian-dominated culture that pushes religious values on government is tantamount to Christians being systematically persecuted. It's simply not rational.

MSD,

Just for my own personal understanding, what is the difference between a "Christian Fundamentalist" and a "Christian"?

Last night I saw the WTC lights while having dinner with friends. It's heart breaking and gut wrenching to see them and be reminded of that day.

The whole mosque discussion is turning into an absurd spectacle.

i know this wasn't addressed to me, but are you seriously pretending that there's no distinction between, say, baptist charismatics and mainline methodists or quakers or roman catholics?

Absolutely not. I'm asking you to make the distinction as you see it. I'm not picking a fight. I see these terms used to make points and wonder where MSD and you make the distinction...if you wouldn't mind.

I'll jump in here and state that, for me, the difference is between those Christians who choose to apply the tenets of the Bible to their own lives vs. those who choose to foist those tenets upon the country at large.

It's the difference between someone that believes in God as a part of a healthy, well-rounded life and someone that has his or her life taken over by their belief, often to the point of being actively militant.

Ever seen this?

Not too bad.

um, have you seen bob roberts? just wondering.

Hey say what you will about old Bob but the man sang a catchy tune or two :D

you realize it's a satire, right?

Bob Roberts (1992)

You're kidding. I was under the impression that old Bob got arrested, sent to Shawshank and is now enjoying a fine life somewhere in Mexico writing catchy conservative protest songs and still sticking it to the man.

Wes, stop yanking his chain.
General question: Do you think sarcasm tranlates well on the internet?

No I know it doesn't and I use it a little to much for my own good. But I generally only try to do it when I think others are just screwing around too, all of the above was written with a smile. :)

I don't think that's a very good distinction. I think it puts more Christians into the fundamentalist group than you intended. There's plenty who consider their religion much more than just a 'part' of their life, who consider more of a focal point, yet come nowhere near being militant or (sometimes) even political. There's something kinda inauthentic, to me (as a lapsed non-believing Catholic), in treating a religion like Christianity as a hobby rather than a driving force. Some religions can work that way, but doing that with Christianity strikes me as cherry-picking. It's just that important. It's supposed to take you over.

Hopefully not in that bad, militant way like with Koran burners or anti-smokers.

Moi aussi.
Me too:thumbsup:

Yeah I have to agree, there is nothing wrong with being completely enveloped in your faith. Heck most Christians I know are like that, their faith is part of everything they do but the key difference lies in how that faith should be applied to everything else around them. Some feel that faith is a very personal thing and all that matters is how they live their own lives while others think the word of God should be the law of the land and everything we do as a nation (or planet I suppose) needs to in line with that law.

To me that's where you go from just being Christian to a wacky fundamentalist.


EDIT: Amaras, was did I just walk through a whole heap of Internet sarcasm and have it go right over my head? Well played my friend, well played heheh :D

Thank you, sir:orly:

Outside of the fact that "Christian Fundamentalist" is media shorthand for people that liberals don't like and who go to church regularly, the key is the degree upon which a christian is an evangelist for the christian religion. Similar to a Muslim Fundamentalist, some believe there is a special calling to help convert the world to their religious views.

For me I am willing to live side by side with anyone with any views in peace and harmony as long as they leave my freedoms and property alone. I don't tolerate Christians, Muslims, big government, or anyone else trying to tell me how to live assuming I am not interfering with the freedoms of others. I am conservative and most conservatives I know feel the same way. The irony is with liberals and how they want to do their social engineering. They should mind their own business.

Christianity is objectively internally contradictory, therefore all Christians cherry-pick. That shouldn't even be the issue, though.

The issue is those who go from being religious to being essentially obsessed. It's that line between healthy and unhealthy where the distinction of fundamentalist, in my mind, comes into play. It's the same thinking that goes into establishing mental disorders: it's a mental or behavioral pattern that causes distress or disability and is not a part of normal (objectively healthy) mental or behavioral patterns. Burning someone else's holy book would be a prime example of this, but lesser things like creationism (trying to scientifically explain the supernatural by bastardizing science while flatly denying the demonstrable) also qualify.