The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

Illegal immigrant isn't a race. Mexican isn't a race. Muslim isn't a race.

 

[CiG]

I did not say racism alone accounted for his victory in the primary. Re-read my last post. I said the evidence contradicts your assumption that racism did not play a role. In other words, it played some role. Not all. Not none.

So there's evidence that it did play some role?

 

[Einherjar86]

Illegal immigrant isn't a race. Mexican isn't a race. Muslim isn't a race.

I don't understand this response. It's eliding the issue, which is that "illegal immigrant" is absolutely associated with racial dynamics. You can't just say "illegal immigrant isn't a racial term" and expect to expunge the entire conversation of racial connotations.

 

[Dak]

I don't understand this response. It's eliding the issue, which is that "illegal immigrant" is absolutely associated with racial dynamics. You can't just say "illegal immigrant isn't a racial term" and expect to expunge the entire conversation of racial connotations.

If people regardless of race were illegally waltzing or staying in and passing out gifts to everyone and assimilating would there be this concern with it? The fact that most countries have a racial majority is a secondary fact in that matter.

 

[Einherjar86]

If people regardless of race were illegally waltzing or staying in and passing out gifts to everyone and assimilating would there be this concern with it? The fact that most countries have a racial majority is a secondary fact in that matter.

Ah, no probably not - but that isn't where the problem lies, is it?

The problem is that people are using the topic of immigration as a justification for extending general exclusions toward all members of a particular group, usually based on reasoning that makes problematic assumptions. Indiscriminate discrimination, let's say.

Are some people who consider themselves Muslims also terrorists? Yes - but this doesn't justify indiscriminate policies against all incoming Muslims.

 

[CiG]

Are some people who consider themselves Muslims also terrorists?

The implication being they aren't Muslims?

 

[Einherjar86]

No, the implication being that their Islamism has no necessary connection to their extremism. Even if they proclaim their violence in the name of Allah, this kind of behavior shouldn't reflect on the religious beliefs of peaceful Muslims.

I think it speaks volumes that so many in America are adamant about calling terrorists "Muslim extremists," but no one would dream of calling Dylan Roof a Christian extremist.

 

[rms]

What link is there to Roof and Christianity?

 

[EternalMetal]

Ah, no probably not - but that isn't where the problem lies, is it?

The problem is that people are using the topic of immigration as a justification for extending general exclusions toward all members of a particular group, usually based on reasoning that makes problematic assumptions. Indiscriminate discrimination, let's say.

To a subset of people I know, the main problem with illegal immigration lies with the exploitation of taxes and the taking advantage of government funded services (like healthcare and the like). This encompasses illegal immigrants of all races/ethnicities/etc. Others complain about those damn Mexicans working for low pay that dip into the profit margins of legitimate small businesses that provide similar services. This is indeed a problem with landscaping and cleaning businesses that refuse to hire illegals, whether you think it's overtly stereotypical or not.

Are some people who consider themselves Muslims also terrorists? Yes - but this doesn't justify indiscriminate policies against all incoming Muslims.

Importing Muslims from countries under ISIS' influence is a danger to our national security, especially considering that they threatened the idea that they will send in terrorists among other immigrants. During this period of war-time, the most simple and effective solution would be an indiscriminate ban. Though im pretty sure at this point they are proposing a more elaborate screening and vetting process for Muslim immigrants rather than an all out ban. How does this context not demand special attention?

edit: As far as the extremist argument goes, the context makes all the difference between the Muslims and Christians. Muslims who commit atrocities these days often do so in the name of an active and powerful terrorist organization that is a current global threat. As for critics not recognizing Christian extremists as extremists, those subset of people are most likely Christians who do not want to acknowledge that their religion can also spawn hatred. I condemn both, but ignoring the additional ramifications of Muslim terrorism in the name of ISIS is just being dense.

 

[Dak]

Ah, no probably not - but that isn't where the problem lies, is it?

The problem is that people are using the topic of immigration as a justification for extending general exclusions toward all members of a particular group, usually based on reasoning that makes problematic assumptions. Indiscriminate discrimination, let's say.

Excluding the terrorism issue, can you recall a time or speech where Trump lambasted legal immigration and the crowd cheered?

No, the implication being that their Islamism has no necessary connection to their extremism. Even if they proclaim their violence in the name of Allah, this kind of behavior shouldn't reflect on the religious beliefs of peaceful Muslims.

I think it speaks volumes that so many in America are adamant about calling terrorists "Muslim extremists," but no one would dream of calling Dylan Roof a Christian extremist.

Let's assume Dylan is a "Christian extremist" (which makes no sense since there's no passage in the Bible you could even "selectively interpret" to call for killing blacks specifically). When you can find something comparable to ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other lesser known organized group which is more than happy to repeatedly blow up those of its own race in addition to those "infidels" outside it, you might have a valid parallel.

I'm not saying there aren't peaceful US Muslims, I've known some. I do think that people who are scared of Muslims being imported from places rife with war and radicalism have a right to their concern.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I did not say racism alone accounted for his victory in the primary. Re-read my last post. I said the evidence contradicts your assumption that racism did not play a role. In other words, it played some role. Not all. Not none.

lol

If you're going to be like that, racism plays SOME role in EVERY election. Thanks for the zesty hot opinion there brocakes.

Do you have anything against selective blocks on immigration from Muslim countries that disproportionately export terrorists, or parents of terrorists?

 

[CiG]

No, the implication being that their Islamism has no necessary connection to their extremism. Even if they proclaim their violence in the name of Allah, this kind of behavior shouldn't reflect on the religious beliefs of peaceful Muslims.

I think it speaks volumes that so many in America are adamant about calling terrorists "Muslim extremists," but no one would dream of calling Dylan Roof a Christian extremist.

This is one of the more asinine things I've read on UM, which is honestly saying a lot.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

To be fair, there were some people here pretending that the abortion clinic shooter in Colorado several months back wasn't a Christian terrorist. I don't know that I'd call Dylan Roof one, he was clearly primarily motivated by white supremacy/separatism, but whatevs.

 

[CiG]

Really? I must not have been here for that.

Still, I consider Christian radicalism being brought up as simply a weak derailment. Islam is the most dangerous religion to criticise for a reason.

 

[Einherjar86]

Excluding the terrorism issue, can you recall a time or speech where Trump lambasted legal immigration and the crowd cheered?

No, but I do recall them cheering when he says that he'll ban all (emphasis on ALL) Muslims from coming into America.

Let's assume Dylan is a "Christian extremist" (which makes no sense since there's no passage in the Bible you could even "selectively interpret" to call for killing blacks specifically). When you can find something comparable to ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other lesser known organized group which is more than happy to repeatedly blow up those of its own race in addition to those "infidels" outside it, you might have a valid parallel.

I'm not saying that Roof is a Christian extremist! You're not following my point.

I'm saying that it makes no sense to call Roof a Christian terrorist. His actions are probably divorced from what the vast majority of people identify as modern Christianity.

Likewise, the actions of ISIS are divorced from what the majority of Muslims identify as Islam. When we call ISIS "radical Islamic terrorists," we're exploiting an association, the implication of which is that elements of Islam are inherently violent. Additionally, it places the blame on Islam for the actions of some of its adherents.

edit: As far as the extremist argument goes, the context makes all the difference between the Muslims and Christians. Muslims who commit atrocities these days often do so in the name of an active and powerful terrorist organization that is a current global threat. As for critics not recognizing Christian extremists as extremists, those subset of people are most likely Christians who do not want to acknowledge that their religion can also spawn hatred. I condemn both, but ignoring the additional ramifications of Muslim terrorism in the name of ISIS is just being dense.

To the emboldened section of your post: this is the point.

They pledge their allegiance to a criminal organization. That they consider themselves members of a religious community should be beside the point in this conversation.

Still, I consider Christian radicalism being brought up as simply a weak derailment. Islam is the most dangerous religion to criticise for a reason.

Islam doesn't deserve to be criticized for the deplorable acts of terrorists. We have to differentiate "religion" from "crime."

I think you and Dak both misinterpreted my reason for bringing up Dylan Roof. I'm not trying to say that we should call him a Christian terrorist. I'm suggesting that our resistance to call Roof a Christian terrorist should be carried over to the discussion on "radical Islamic terror."

It's terrorism, and we should focus on the criminal elements and organization. When people say "Muslim terrorists" it simply amplifies people's paranoia and anxiety around Muslims, which is pointless and unproductive.

EDIT: to give one final example:

There have been numerous criminal acts committed by people obsessed with heavy metal, creating a paranoid reaction against the musical genre (I think we're all familiar with this phenomenon).

Should we call those criminals "radical heavy metal terrorists"?

 

[CiG]

Should we call those criminals "radical heavy metal terrorists"?

This kind of thing is beneath a man of your intellect.

As I understand it, the reason there is a conflation of Islam and terrorism committed by muslims is because, as polls show, much of the actions of the terrorists is spewing forth in an extreme way from basic things that much of the Islamic world agrees with.

Furthermore, if a terrorist says they're acting on behalf of Allah, Muhammad, some caliphate or the longing to resurrect Ottoman Empire imperialism, I take their word for it. There is no official interpretation of the Qur'an or the Hadith and there is no centralised authority like a pope, so who are we to deny the Islamic genuineness of muslim terrorists?

To me the true irony here is that you claim it's us who cherry-picks religious motives in relation to terrorism, but I very highly doubt you would make the same argument if the radical religious activities in question were carried out by a faith highly associated with white people.

 

[EternalMetal]

To the emboldened section of your post: this is the point.

They pledge their allegiance to a criminal organization. That they consider themselves members of a religious community should be beside the point in this conversation.

Im not trying to demonize Islam as a whole. But it is apparent that this criminal organization is successfully using religious propaganda to indoctrinate extremists. Religion plays a role in this whether you like it or not.

Islam doesn't deserve to be criticized for the deplorable acts of terrorists. We have to differentiate "religion" from "crime."

What about religiously motivated crimes? Violent wars have been waged in the name of religion throughout history. Im not saying that we should criticize the religion based on extremist positions, but it isnt like this criminal organization exists in a vacuum entirely removed from religion either.

It's terrorism, and we should focus on the criminal elements and organization. When people say "Muslim terrorists" it simply amplifies people's paranoia and anxiety around Muslims, which is pointless and unproductive.

This is true. Lots of people have indeed fed into the idea that Islam is interconnected with terrorism. My argument is that we should not have to temper our approach to immigration because it might be able to be taken the wrong way. When our current screening process is incapable of discerning terrorists from the population of immigrants, there is a problem. Why should we threaten the security and lives of people in our country just to appeal to the sensitivities of foreigners?

I understand that this is a win for the terrorists. However we have come to the point where ISIS is very powerful, and ignoring the threat that they pose to the world is dangerous and irresponsible. Personally I cant think of a way to topple ISIS, but facilitating the mobilization of agents into our country is definitely not a good strategy. I sympathize with innocent Muslims, but we are at war with people who do not play by the rules. Increasing our guard is the most pragmatic approach at this point. I dont like it just as much as you, but from my perspective this is the reality of the situation. We do need to continue to educate and inform people that Muslim-Americans arent a threat to us and that we should not yell obscenities at them (or harm them), but for the people who arent already here, they can wait because of the threat of infiltration. We cant get rid of the terrorists who have passed our screening tests and are now citizens, but we can prevent further infiltrators by drastically altering our immigration parameters regarding immigrants from terrorist hot-spots.

Also what CIG brought up: the ideas in ISIS arent exactly in direct contrast with current Islamic values. I decided not to directly address these issues because it complicates the argument by suggesting that the current state of Islam may not be compatible with our values as a country. I have seen this idea suggested in right-wing media, and I think we have discussed it on here before. It may not be relevant when it comes to terrorism, but it is still something to consider.

 

[Einherjar86]

This kind of thing is beneath a man of your intellect.

Is it? Why?

As I understand it, the reason there is a conflation of Islam and terrorism committed by muslims is because, as polls show, much of the actions of the terrorists is spewing forth in an extreme way from basic things that much of the Islamic world agrees with.

This is not accurate, although much of the conservative and Christian right wants you to think it is.

Furthermore, if a terrorist says they're acting on behalf of Allah, Muhammad, some caliphate or the longing to resurrect Ottoman Empire imperialism, I take their word for it. There is no official interpretation of the Qur'an or the Hadith and there is no centralised authority like a pope, so who are we to deny the Islamic genuineness of muslim terrorists?

Based on this, then you should also take at their word criminals who claim to be committing crimes because Ozzy told them to, and then generally target all heavy metal bands. That's the logic I'm trying to resist.

One way or another, we're talking about criminal acts. To acknowledge inspiration and legitimize political action in one case and not in another is an arbitrary distinction.

And of course, it's worth mentioning that the Christian right did lead a significant campaign against various musical acts in the 1980s and '90s, and you still have people toeing this line today. Some metal bands pledge allegiance to Satan and inspire horrible crimes, therefore all heavy metal must be evil and corrupt.

Islam isn't heavy metal, but the reactions to them are analogous.

To me the true irony here is that you claim it's us who cherry-picks religious motives in relation to terrorism, but I very highly doubt you would make the same argument if the radical religious activities in question were carried out by a faith highly associated with white people.

The difference is that if a person who identifies as Christian murders a bunch of people, I'm not going to start calling for a closer surveillance and/or targeting of Christians. That's the point I'm making here.

EDIT: @EternalMetal

I think we're actually mostly in agreement. I know that there are appeals to religion and religious motivation among ISIS members and comparable groups. I simply do not believe that their appeals to Islam justify widespread targeting of Muslims; this is an incidental association and not a necessary one, the same way that any Christian criminal's Christianity is also an incidental association.

Many on the conservative and Christian right want to mobilize political action against Muslims based on a necessary association between terrorism and Islam.

 

[rms]

The difference is that if a person who identifies as Christian murders a bunch of people, I'm not going to start calling for a closer surveillance and/or targeting of Christians. That's the point I'm making here.

But these terrorists who happen to be Muslim (a phrase I think you would prefer) don't just identify themselves as Muslims. They are upset because we protected Jews and steal land from Muslim people. Because we interfere(d) with Muslim lives in that region. Religion is their motive and end goal.

 

[Einherjar86]

But these terrorists who happen to be Muslim (a phrase I think you would prefer) don't just identify themselves as Muslims. They are upset because we protected Jews and steal land from Muslim people. Because we interfere(d) with Muslim lives in that region. Religion is their motive and end goal.

I read a discrepancy in this post between these two clauses:

"don't just identify as Muslim" and "Religion is their motive and end goal."

The discrepancy is on the terrorists' part as much as on yours, though; in other words, you're right to say that they are upset due to larger geopolitical issues, and it's these issues that I would suggest focusing on. This is not to absolve them of their criminality, but to understand their criminality as geopolitically motivated, not primarily religiously motivated.

Religion is a system for making sense of the world, and there can be all kinds of reasons for gravitating toward religiously-inclined systems that also promote violence. This still does not justify the demonization of a particular religion because it happens to inspire terrorism. A religion may be their end-goal; but whatever religion that may be, it isn't the one that a majority of Muslims living today identify with or condone. ISIS terrorists, if we want to speculate on intention, misidentify a religion as their motivating cause, when in fact that same religion inspires no such motivation in most of its supplicants.

So when we say that "religion is their end goal," we assume that the entire history and culture of Islam is motivated by an implicit drive to exorcise the world of all non-Muslims. We make a category error when we ascribe terrorist violence to the abstract system of Islam, which a vast majority of Muslims identify with, but without rationalizing violent behavior to promote that religion.