Politically Incorrect Idea to Reduce Radical Islamict Recruiting

[Rick_in_CA 401]

Lol. Rick. Rightwingwatch isn't exactly a trusted bipartisan unbiased source of news. It's like if one of the forums conservatives started posting support for their opinions with links to Fox News. I agree in part with what you are saying' date=' but I advise you to find better more credible sources. I think somewhere in the religious rights screaming, there may be tiny, tiny nuggets of truth in there. But I'm not an ideological warrior so both sides would like to hang me for being a political heretic.[/quote']

 

Actually Rightwingwatch is very credible, as they source virtually everything they report (usually with links to the original recording or text), unlike most of the wingnut sites. Note however, they are not claiming to be a general news site, but to be: "A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement." So their credibility should be based on how honestly, and accurately they do that.

 

We are living in a world where reality does have a "liberal bias", but only because so much of the right wing is living in a bubble where any fact that doesn't match their world view is simply dismissed. It's why so many people on the right were convinced that Romney was going to win the 2012 election even though the polling was showing he would loose - they just rejected it all as "biased". And any source that reports any fact that the right doesn't like (on stuff like: climate change, Benghazi, Obama is not a Muslim, etc.), becomes a "biased liberal source" that can be rejected out of hand. So we get poll results like: 45% of republicans don't believe Obama was born in the US (from a 2011 poll - more recent polls probably would show different numbers).

 

Hence my comment about bringing facts to a fact-free discussion. Because the "Christians Under Assault in the US!" crowd have their own reality (their own "facts").

[Sentinel947 1205]

 

Actually Rightwingwatch is very credible, as they source virtually everything they report (usually with links to the original recording or text), unlike most of the wingnut sites. Note however, they are not claiming to be a general news site, but to be: "A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement." So their credibility should be based on how honestly, and accurately they do that.

 

Sure. I'll buy that. But one can cherry pick facts. People with an agenda can distort things with what facts they choose to select. I'm not familiar with Right Wing Watch. I'm sure they do use real facts instead of making up their own. Because of their name however, and their mission statement, I'm not willing to believe such a website is going to give a unbiased, bipartisan look at an issue. I avoid news organizations that have an agenda they are trying to push on me. I want unbiased reporting with as many facts as possible. I'll make my own decisions from there.

 

That being said this thread is getting derailed. It's about JoeBob, my censoring of his post, and moderators on this forum. Not Right Wing Watch, or any other sidebar conversations. If this thread has fulfilled it's original purpose, we can be done. If We want to discuss "Christian Persecution in America." That deserves it's own thread. Sound good?

[CalicoPenn 729]

Gee, I don't know - this forum - and not just this sub-forum, but in all the sub-forums, has a long tradition of threads being de-railed. Nothing says "This is a Scouter Forum's thread" like a discussion on an eagle scout ceremony evolving (devolving??) in to a discussion on uniforms.

 

You must be one of those people that like to try to herd cats.

[JoeBob 606]

Because the "Christians Under Assault in the US!" crowd have their own reality (their own "facts").

 

Duke University is going to start broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/15/us/duke-call-to-prayer/index.html

 

But Christians in US public schools are forbidden from saying a blessing at meals or praying in the morning. (Moment of silence...)

 

A minute of silence to yourself vs. 3 minutes of prayer broadcast over the whole campus/town.

Anybody see a double standard here?

 

Or is this also not 'reality'?

[CalicoPenn 729]

Sorry, JoeBob - this is just another example of non-equivalency pretending to be significant.

 

Duke University is a Private university. As a private university, they can broadcast the Muslim call to prayer without violating the Constitution of the United States. As a private university, then can have professors start classes by leading the class in prayer if they so desired without violating the Constitution of the United States.

 

Comparing Duke University to Public schools is disingenuous - designed to score points that are unearned and to pretend that facts don't matter.

 

Christians are not forbidden from saying a blessing at meals or praying in the morning. In fact, a table full of Christians could get together and say a blessing at meals or pray in the morning if they wanted. There is nothing stopping them (except perhaps for over-zealous teachers/administrators who haven't been properly trained in the laws - but that's easily solved). The prohibition is on administrators, teachers and staff at Public schools (aka Government Employees) leading prayers, or coercing others to join in prayers.

 

That is in Public schools. In Private schools, they can lead prayers all they want - no one will say anything to them, at least from a constitutional perspective.

 

If there is a double standard, it comes directly from the Constitution of the United States which describes what government can and can't do but doesn't apply itself to private entities. If Duke University decides to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer, it does so with the full blessing of the United States Constitution since it is a private entity. If and when Duke University bans Christians from holding a prayer service around a flagpole, then maybe you can claim persecution against Christians, but it is not persecution against Christians for public (government) schools not to be allowed to do the same thing as a private schools - and if it is, you can blame the Founding Fathers for including both freedom of religious expression and freedom from government coerced religion of any kind in the Constitution.

[JoeBob 606]

You can't blame it on the Constitution.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Current government policy seems to pretty well do exactly the opposite of what was originally written.

Politicians.

 

​(Hopefully someone will flag this post for obscene language: I wrote 'politician'.)

[Torchwood 177]

Yes, we can "blame" it on the Constitution. Or, at least on a plethora of court decisions based on the Constitution (which is how the legal system works, btw). These decisions (in a nutshell) state that we are free to believe and exercise those beliefs, but we CANNOT impose them on others. That is why, as posted earlier, a student or group of students in a public school can pray together, but the administration and faculty cannot lead the entire class in prayer. You are incorrectly interpreting "current government policy" that is providing some measure of equality to those of us who are not Christian as an attack on Christianity. Sorry, it just ain't so.

[walk in the woods 888]

Sorry, JoeBob - this is just another example of non-equivalency pretending to be significant.

 

Duke University is a Private university. As a private university, they can broadcast the Muslim call to prayer without violating the Constitution of the United States. As a private university, then can have professors start classes by leading the class in prayer if they so desired without violating the Constitution of the United States.

 

Comparing Duke University to Public schools is disingenuous - designed to score points that are unearned and to pretend that facts don't matter.

 

Well, in general I agree that this is a bit of a straw man argument but it's not totally without merit. The administration at Duke accepts Federal Student Aid I suspect. So if they are accepting money from the US Treasury are they then an agent of the US Government distributing funds on their behalf? Might be an interesting case.

[LeCastor 641]

If you want to go placing "blame" or "finding the root cause" of the problem , you can "blame" me, indirectly, for this thread. It never would have happened if I hadn't started the other thread on deciding if it's appropriate to express yourself or not just because you can. Please allow me to bring it back to my original thought.

 

Sure, I was motivated by the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. However, I'm not asking you if it's appropriate to bad-mouth Muslims or Christians. My Scoutmaster's Minutes typically come from current events (national or local--or global). In fact, here's my SM minute from this week:

 

We have probably all said something or done something that has ended up hurting the feelings of those we care about or even people we didn't even know. In some cases we meant to offend but in others it was purely accidental. Our freedom of expression is a right that we have as Americans, but we must always be prepared to accept the consequences of what we say. We might not always agree with each other, but we must respect the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion.

 

This applies to anything from telling "your mama" jokes to ridiculing another Scout's religion and anything in between. I didn't really intend to start a religious polémique, although Charb et al would appreciate that I did, while indirectly.

 

LeCastor

 

P.S. If anyone cares, my friend wrote an opinion piece for the local paper and it talks about the issues that France faces vis-à-vis religion and race matters. It's worth a read.

 

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/ritt-deitz-is-france-s-hidden-wound-beginning-to-heal/article_c4c12519-6e61-5490-b315-c5aba8fe3789.html#.VLaZEzuXchh.facebook

 

[packsaddle 753]

DC, your argument works better applied to the federal research money that comes in. There will be a very healthy 'discussion' on and around that campus as a result, I predict. I'll be interested to see how long this lasts.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

<>

 

 

 

Actually, we are living in a world where educated liberals think that facts are the be all and end all of politics, and once they state THEIR facts, only unreasonable fools will fail to agree with them.

 

The reverse is much closer to the truth.

 

Have you considered why political differences are so persistent and hard to change? It's not because one side doesn't undersatand "the facts." If facts were the real issue, the world would have far fewer areas of political disagreement.

 

However, a large part of political disagreement is because of the different VALUES people and cultures have. Differing values are persistant, and very often not subject to being resolved by "facts."

 

I always find it amusing that my liberal friends are so ready to believe they have the facts on their side, when the facts are very often not the issue at all.

[RememberSchiff 3662]

P.S. If anyone cares, my friend wrote an opinion piece for the local paper and it talks about the issues that France faces vis-à-vis religion and race matters. It's worth a read.[/font][/color]

 

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...uXchh.facebook

 

Thanks for link. Your friend states

"At many levels, France seems, at least partly, to be coming to terms with a new and visible generation of French men and women, millions of them the children and grandchildren of African immigrants."

 

I would append "who are prevented or choose not to integrate into French society" and I think the generalization is true for all nations including us.

"At many levels, countries need to come to terms with a new generation of citizens men and women, millions of them the children and grandchildren of immigrants or natives (legal or not) who are prevented or choose not to integrate into that nation's society."

 

I think the US sometimes does a better job with some of our groups than others but we have had a long string of failures and a long way to go. Amish, American Indian (innocent Muslims were not sent to a Carlisle school), black, disabled, Japanese, Muslim (more died at 9/11 than Pearl Harbor but Muslim-Americans were not rounded up and placed in camps as Japanese Americans were), gay, Hispanic (bilingual programs seem to be part of the problem)...

 

I will add this observation of a immigrant group (Russian) that deliberately refused to integrate into a nation's (Ukraine) society. Part of that nation (Crimea) is now part of Russia. Putin had a plan all along.

 

As Scout leaders, we have seen the problems when the Scout Oath and Law are ignored for some councils, some units, or some scouts and what happens when National does not come to terms with a new generation of families and youth.

 

Another $0.02,

[JoeBob 606]

Well that didn't take long:

[h=1]Duke University Cancels Plans For Muslim Call To Prayer[/h] http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/15/muslim-prayer-duke

 

Apparently some wealthy donors to Duke's endowment failed to tolerate the double standard.

[packsaddle 753]

JoeBob, I think Franklin Graham must have been 'channeling' you.

[TAHAWK 1420]

 

I will add this observation of a immigrant group (Russian) that deliberately refused to integrate into a nation's (Ukraine) society. Part of that nation (Crimea) is now part of Russia. Putin had a plan all along.

 

So is the Crimea to Russia as Alta California is to Mexico? (No, because Alta California was taken from Mexico by conquest and the Crimea was given to the Ukrainian S.S.R. by the U.S.S.R. under Khrushchev.).