2016 Presidential Horse Race

[pkt77242]

I'm so sick of this argument. Blame everyone for terrorism except the people who are actually out their blowing themselves up and others along with them. Terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not anyone who "pushed them to the fringe."

Really?

I am for blaming terrorists. I am not for being suspicious of all Muslims or for knee jerk reactions that could help create more of them while not making us any safer. Well thought out and intelligent polices that make us actually safer, sure lets do it. Muslim patrols surely is not one of them though.

 

[pkt77242]

Why Mormons Don't Like Donald Trump - The Atlantic

 

[wizards8507]

Really?

I am for blaming terrorists. I am not for being suspicious of all Muslims or for knee jerk reactions that could help create more of them while not making us any safer. Well thought out and intelligent polices that make us actually safer, sure lets do it. Muslim patrols surely is not one of them though.

What if there was a neighborhood of known Klansmen in your town? Would you object to increased police presence in those streets?

Nobody is saying "we're suspicious of all Muslims" any more than airport security says "we're suspicious of all people who fly in airplanes." No, you're not suspicious of every member of the group, but when those people you are suspicious of tend to fall within a certain group, you focus your time and resources on that group.

The problem with the American left is that they view people as demographic groups, not as individuals. "Black people" are more important than black individuals. "Women" are more important than each woman. In this case, you consider it an affront to ALL Muslims that law enforcement be deployed in a way so as to catch the Muslim INDIVIDUALS within the community who wish to do us harm. Please tell me what negative impact it has on a moderate Muslim if police look into his neighbor for suspicious activity? I would suspect such a reasonable individual would welcome the police presence in that case.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I'm so sick of this argument. Blame everyone for terrorism except the people who are actually out their blowing themselves up and others along with them. Terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not anyone who "pushed them to the fringe."

No, I'm pretty sure destabilizing the middle east hasn't helped our cause...

 

[woolybug25]

Being physically present makes a difference. The neighbors of the San Bernardino couple saw sketchy activity going on in one of the houses but didn't report anything. There's nothing outrageous about suggesting the police take a stroll by just to see "what's up" every once in awhile.

Surprising to probably some, I am totally with Wiz on this. I'm not saying that I agree with profiling, but more police presence in muslim neighborhoods is a good thing. Not because they will be out harassing everybody, but rather as Wiz pointed out previously, they can build relationships within the community. These relationships will not only help keep our police forces in the loop, but also build trust within their community that the police are partners with them.

Listen... cops are a big part of community outreach. The best way to stay in front of suspicious activity is to have a trust relationship within those communities, where they know they can speak candidly with the police force. This isn't some gestapo tactic aimed at taking away the rights of muslim americans, it's meant to empower the relationship between them and the rest of the community.

 

[pkt77242]

What if there was a neighborhood of known Klansmen in your town? Would you object to increased police presence in those streets?

Nobody is saying "we're suspicious of all Muslims" any more than airport security says "we're suspicious of people who fly in airplanes." No, you're not suspicious of every member of the group, but when those people you are suspicious of tend to fall within a certain group, you focus your time and resources on that group.

Bad example.

The example is actually should we step up patrols in Christian neighborhoods because all Klansmen are Christians (similar to Terroists being Muslim but then again not all Terrorists are Muslims).

The answer for me is no. If we have reason to be suspicious of a particular person, or mosque and you want to step up patrols, then sure. Same as if there is a couple of KKK members living in an area who have been overheard talking about causing problems, then we should step up patrols in that neighborhood but blanket we should step up patrols in Muslim or Christian neighborhoods to me is not acceptable.

I am for stepping up security at high risk targets such as airports, other transportation, sporting events, etc. There is also a conversation that we can have about adding some screening as people enter airports, etc.

 

[wizards8507]

No, I'm pretty sure destabilizing the middle east hasn't helped our cause...

Yeah, the fact that their prophet told them to kill the infidels has nothing to do with it.

 

[pkt77242]

Surprising to probably some, I am totally with Wiz on this. I'm not saying that I agree with profiling, but more police presence in muslim neighborhoods is a good thing. Not because they will be out harassing everybody, but rather as Wiz pointed out previously, they can build relationships within the community. These relationships will not only help keep our police forces in the loop, but also build trust within their community that the police are partners with them.

Listen... cops are a big part of community outreach. The best way to stay in front of suspicious activity is to have a trust relationship within those communities, where they know they can speak candidly with the police force. This isn't some gestapo tactic aimed at taking away the rights of muslim americans, it's meant to empower the relationship between them and the rest of the community.

If this was 3 or 4 years ago I would be with you but if you step up patrols in this environment it isn't about building a relationship and the people in that community know it. If they had tried this 4 or 5 years ago then yep, it probably would have worked but now with the things that Cruz and Trump have been saying, I think it would do the opposite. We would be better off trying to build relationships first with some of the community leaders (such as leaders at the mosques).

 

[wizards8507]

If this was 3 or 4 years ago I would be with you but if you step up patrols in this environment it isn't about building a relationship and the people in that community know it. If they had tried this 4 or 5 years ago then yep, it probably would have worked but now with the things that Cruz and Trump have been saying, I think it would do the opposite. We would be better off trying to build relationships first with some of the community leaders (such as leaders at the mosques).

The leaders at the mosques are the ones doing the radicalizing in many cases. Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam in Denver, San Diego, and DC. He was described by the New York Times and others as a moderate Muslim who could help bridge the divide between East and West.

 

[pkt77242]

The leaders at the mosques are the ones doing the radicalizing in many cases. Anwar al-Awlaki was an imam in Denver, San Diego, and DC. He was described by the New York Times and others as a moderate Muslim who could help bridge the divide between East and West.

Not really. Most of the radicalization is happening due to the internet (from people overseas). Yes there are some examples of Muslim leaders here doing it but it is not often, mostly it happens because of the internet.

 

[wizards8507]

Not really. Most of the radicalization is happening due to the internet (from people overseas). Yes there are some examples of Muslim leaders here doing it but it is not often, mostly it happens because of the internet.

So police bad, internet censorship good. Got it.

 

[pkt77242]

So police bad, internet censorship good. Got it.

Huh? Now I just think that you are trolling. Where did I ever say that police is bad or that internet censorship is good? Care to try again?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Surprising to probably some, I am totally with Wiz on this. I'm not saying that I agree with profiling, but more police presence in muslim neighborhoods is a good thing. Not because they will be out harassing everybody, but rather as Wiz pointed out previously, they can build relationships within the community. These relationships will not only help keep our police forces in the loop, but also build trust within their community that the police are partners with them.

Listen... cops are a big part of community outreach. The best way to stay in front of suspicious activity is to have a trust relationship within those communities, where they know they can speak candidly with the police force. This isn't some gestapo tactic aimed at taking away the rights of muslim americans, it's meant to empower the relationship between them and the rest of the community.

If done correctly, this community understanding could work (and I'd like to be optimistic about it).

However, as a member of a community, how do you not see this as being "supervised"?

I certainly wouldn't want cops patrolling my (white) neighborhood because a Timothy McVeigh went ahead and blew up a building.

So yes, cultural understanding is huge to developing interracial compassion, but I'm skeptical of the cost:benefit ratio that's being proposed.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Yeah, the fact that their prophet told them to kill the infidels has nothing to do with it.

Our God (assuming you're Christian) told Abraham to kill his son...

But, that's ok, because it was just one person (and he backed out of it anyway).

Oh, and the Crusades....

Religion, especially the old fables, are old, outdated, and simply irrelevant. Mohammed is from a time when slaughter was "understandable".

Also, how is "killing the Muslims back" anymore ethical?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Religion, especially the old fables, are old, outdated, and simply irrelevant. Mohammed is from a time when slaughter was "understandable".

2Enlightened4Me

 

[wizards8507]

Our God (assuming you're Christian) told Abraham to kill his son...

But, that's ok, because it was just one person (and he backed out of it anyway).

Oh, and the Crusades....

Religion, especially the old fables, are old, outdated, and simply irrelevant. Mohammed is from a time when slaughter was "understandable".

Except that Islamists are still slaughtering people today, in 2016.

Also, how is "killing the Muslims back" anymore ethical?

When the hell did I say kill Muslims?

 

[ACamp1900]

Did someone just say religion is outdated and irrelevant??

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Did someone just say religion is outdated and irrelevant??

Old fables, with ambiguous interpretations, are indeed outdated, causing their original purpose to be misconstrued, and are used to reinforce good (and bad) decisions and beliefs.

Also, when you have multiple "religions", each claiming to be correct (and none can be proven/disproven), no one is going to "give in".

Because we no longer live in an isolated world, in which cultures didn't readily overlap, we are now stuck with stubborn, misconstruding individuals, that are causing cultural mayhem.

 

[NorthDakota]

Did someone just say religion is outdated and irrelevant??

Apparently....Good Lord, some people's children.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Except that Islamists are still slaughtering people today, in 2016.


When the hell did I say kill Muslims?

1) Yes, radical Muslims are choosing their Holy Word over modern ethics. They're making a mistake, just as the Catholic Church made with the Crusades.

2) The killing Muslims part was not intended to be directed towards you. It was a rhetorical question for those (no poster in particular, just supporters) that believe we should "fight back with an iron fist", mentality.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Apparently....Good Lord, some people's children.

I have friends that are Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, Diest, and agnostic.

As a member of the Catholic Church, if I were to follow my religion verbatim, I will be losing all of my friends to hell.

Should I believe my religion verbatim? Or should I understand that good people, will be properly rewarded, regardless of their religious affiliation?

Source: My Catholic Priest that told me (in front of my 6th grade religion class) that my Indian uncle, will be going to hell for being Hindi.

Now, did I chose to disown the Catholic Church (like many, many of my other classmates have)? No, I realized that God is a loving, compassionate being. He would not burn my uncle in hell, for being born in Mumbai, and being raised in a culturally different location.

So, please, tell me again how religion (Catholicism, in this case) is up to date.

 

[wizards8507]

I have friends that are Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, Diest, and agnostic.

As a member of the Catholic Church, if I were to follow my religion verbatim, I will be losing all of my friends to hell.

Should I believe my religion verbatim? Or should I understand that good people, will be properly rewarded, regardless of their religious affiliation?

Source: My Catholic Priest that told me (in front of my 6th grade religion class) that my Indian uncle, will be going to hell for being Hindi.

Now, did I chose to disown the Catholic Church (like many, many of my other classmates have)? No, I realized that God is a loving, compassionate being. He would not burn my uncle in hell, for being born in Mumbai, and being raised in a culturally different location.

So, please, tell me again how religion (Catholicism, in this case) is up to date.

Paging Whiskeyjack.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

1) Yes, radical Muslims are choosing their Holy Word over modern ethics. They're making a mistake, just as the Catholic Church made with the Crusades.

Just... stop. This an absurd comparison, and you clearly don't know enough history to debate the subject intelligently. Nor would such a debate belong in this thread anyway.

You can easily argue that blanket discrimination against Muslims is unjust and/or counter-productive without utilizing this ridiculous "all religions are equally murderous/ dumb" meme. It actually undermines your credibility.

 

[NorthDakota]

1) Yes, radical Muslims are choosing their Holy Word over modern ethics. They're making a mistake, just as the Catholic Church made with the Crusades.

2) The killing Muslims part was not intended to be directed towards you. It was a rhetorical question for those (no poster in particular, just supporters) that believe we should "fight back with an iron fist", mentality.

11th Century Europeans vs. 21st Century Muslims. Valid comparison.

 

[kmoose]

So, please, tell me again how religion (Catholicism, in this case) is up to date.

Sheesh! You wouldn't think that we would have to explain it to someone smart enough to live in Seattle?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Just... stop. This an absurd comparison, and you clearly don't know enough history to debate the subject intelligently. Nor would such a debate belong in this thread anyway.

You can easily argue that blanket discrimination against Muslims is unjust and/or counter-productive without utilizing this ridiculous "all religions are equally murderous/ dumb" meme. It actually undermines your credibility.

So, did the Catholic Church not make a mistake by initiating the Crusades? If so, then I stand corrected.

For me to deny my churches history, would be the real travesty. I look at the churches past as a learning opportunity. An especially great learning opportunity for other religions as well, so they don't have to share similar mistakes.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have friends that are Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, Diest, and agnostic.

As a member of the Catholic Church, if I were to follow my religion verbatim, I will be losing all of my friends to hell.

Nowhere in the catechism does it say that only Catholics can find salvation.

Should I believe my religion verbatim? Or should I understand that good people, will be properly rewarded, regardless of their religious affiliation?

If you're Catholic, then yes, you're bound to accept its doctrines as true. For the record, we trust in God's mercy that non-Christians of good will also find salvation, but it's a mystery to us.

Source: My Catholic Priest that told me (in front of my 6th grade religion class) that my Indian uncle, will be going to hell for being Hindi.

I'm sorry you experienced that. Rest assured that's not the Church's teaching.

Now, did I chose to disown the Catholic Church (like many, many of my other classmates have)? No, I realized that God is a loving, compassionate being. He would not burn my uncle in hell, for being born in Mumbai, and being raised in a culturally different location.

So, please, tell me again how religion (Catholicism, in this case) is up to date.

Catholic doctrine is as true today as it was when Jesus founded the Church 2k+ years ago. You had the misfortune of being catechized by an ignorant priest.

 

[ACamp1900]

Catholic doctrine is as true today as it was when Jesus founded the Church 2k+ years ago.

Nah. Howard Zinn and the interwebs killed it....

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

11th Century Europeans vs. 21st Century Muslims. Valid comparison.

Were humans not humans in the 11th century? I'm struggling to see why this is so, unfair.

It's evidence to support how history can repeat itself. It's also pointing out how backwards radical Muslims are... They are acting with "medieval" rationality.

This is not a shot at the Catholic Church, this is a shot at a group of extremists that are acting out of flawed beliefs, just like those a millenia ago.

I agree they should "know better by now", in the year 2016. But they don't. So, yes, they're just as broken as our church was then.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Nowhere in the catechism does it say that only Catholics can find salvation.



If you're Catholic, then yes, you're bound to accept its doctrines as true. For the record, we trust in God's mercy that non-Christians of good will also find salvation, but it's a mystery to us.



I'm sorry you experienced that. Rest assured that's not the Church's teaching.



Catholic doctrine is as true today as it was when Jesus founded the Church 2k+ years ago. You had the misfortune of being catechized by an ignorant priest.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

I actually have no clue, if you know what you're talking about, or if you're just "confidently" talking your way around my arguments to try and prove your broken statements.