[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Shan Yue]

No, and in point of fact, most would just be satisfied with an honest acknowledgement of its existence in the current political narrative.

I'm pretty sure literally everyone but radical Muslims believe radical Islam is a threat.

The Muslim Reform Movement begs to differ, and it depends on how you define threat, and against who, since the negative influence of Jihadists varies from region to region.

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm pretty sure literally everyone but radical Muslims believe radical Islam is a threat.

Define "Radical Islam".

Oh, and in doing this, please make sure that your definition doesn't simply define all of Islam as "radical".

[Alien Space Bats]

They are. The annoyance comes, I think, with how Obama really refuses to use terms that clearly and accurately describes what AQ and ISIS is. The problem with fighting "terrorism" is that it's such a broad term you can apply it to anybody or anything that uses terror with the hopes of reaching certain political goals. Rumsfeld was right. We should have called it the war on Islamic extremism/radicalism.

But what ARE AQ and ISIL? Are they religious entities or political groups? If the latter, why do we NEED to focus on their alleged religious beliefs, especially if we believe those beliefs to be nothing more than heretical, self-serving distortions of the faiths they are supposedly based upon.

Are for the idea that we should "declare war on Islamic extremism/radicalism", how in the world does a secular State whose fundamental law prohibits the establishment or disestablishment of religion "declare war" on a religious belief? We quite literally cannot "wage war" on Islam — even radical, extremist, or heretical Islam — without taking the 1st Amendment putting it to the torch. If it's a RELIGION that we're fighting, we've already lost.

Indeed, if you ask me, that's the entire reason WHY the GOP wants a President who is willing to "stand up" and say "we are at war with <insert qualifying adjective here> Islam". If they can get the United States to "go to war" with Islam in ANY form, they can start defining unacceptable beliefs and "false religions" that no longer merit "true" 1st Amendment protection. Travel down that road long enough, and you can even start throwing Neo-Pagans and atheists in jail as "enemies of the State".

[Trumpostan]

Delightful quote from a Trump supporter:

"We gathered in World War II all the Japanese and put them in camps. ... It's appropriate today to do to the Muslims, same way," said David Brooks, 67, a former owner of a paving company. "And anybody that don’t like it, liberals can get the hell out. I'd close every mosque in this country."

I think we need a war on radical GOP/Republicanism. And I would say it is necessary to put a lot of these right wing crazies in mental hospitals.

[Eol Sha]

Not all economic growth is equal. Some of the results of that growth include jobs moving out of certain places and to others. A lot of the growth has been comprised of low-wage jobs, as well. Still other jobs require knowledge, skills, and a degree that aren't easily accessible. Especially for those who lost their factory jobs.

So rase the minimum wage for large companies and reduce the cost of a university education.

As nice as that sounds, you try getting that through Congress.

[Eol Sha]

They are. The annoyance comes, I think, with how Obama really refuses to use terms that clearly and accurately describes what AQ and ISIS is. The problem with fighting "terrorism" is that it's such a broad term you can apply it to anybody or anything that uses terror with the hopes of reaching certain political goals. Rumsfeld was right. We should have called it the war on Islamic extremism/radicalism.

But what ARE AQ and ISIL? Are they religious entities or political groups? If the latter, why do we NEED to focus on their alleged religious beliefs, especially if we believe those beliefs to be nothing more than heretical, self-serving distortions of the faiths they are supposedly based upon.

Are for the idea that we should "declare war on Islamic extremism/radicalism", how in the world does a secular State whose fundamental law prohibits the establishment or disestablishment of religion "declare war" on a religious belief? We quite literally cannot "wage war" on Islam — even radical, extremist, or heretical Islam — without taking the 1st Amendment putting it to the torch. If it's a RELIGION that we're fighting, we've already lost.

Indeed, if you ask me, that's the entire reason WHY the GOP wants a President who is willing to "stand up" and say "we are at war with <insert qualifying adjective here> Islam". If they can get the United States to "go to war" with Islam in ANY form, they can start defining unacceptable beliefs and "false religions" that no longer merit "true" 1st Amendment protection. Travel down that road long enough, and you can even start throwing Neo-Pagans and atheists in jail as "enemies of the State".

What I don't understand is how anyone can expect to "win" this fight by pissing off the locals who live in the Middle East day to day and have lived there for many, many centuries. While most Muslims are probably fine with fighting radical Islam, saying the words proves and means nothing. Its not like saying "radical Islam" in every speech will make every ISIL operative glow with a red light. Even moreso, if we start saying radical Islam then, eventually, we're going to have to talk about where its coming from and start pointing fingers at our regional partners like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.

[Geilinor]

They are. The annoyance comes, I think, with how Obama really refuses to use terms that clearly and accurately describes what AQ and ISIS is. The problem with fighting "terrorism" is that it's such a broad term you can apply it to anybody or anything that uses terror with the hopes of reaching certain political goals. Rumsfeld was right. We should have called it the war on Islamic extremism/radicalism.

But what ARE AQ and ISIL? Are they religious entities or political groups? If the latter, why do we NEED to focus on their alleged religious beliefs, especially if we believe those beliefs to be nothing more than heretical, self-serving distortions of the faiths they are supposedly based upon.

Are for the idea that we should "declare war on Islamic extremism/radicalism", how in the world does a secular State whose fundamental law prohibits the establishment or disestablishment of religion "declare war" on a religious belief? We quite literally cannot "wage war" on Islam — even radical, extremist, or heretical Islam — without taking the 1st Amendment putting it to the torch. If it's a RELIGION that we're fighting, we've already lost.

Indeed, if you ask me, that's the entire reason WHY the GOP wants a President who is willing to "stand up" and say "we are at war with <insert qualifying adjective here> Islam". If they can get the United States to "go to war" with Islam in ANY form, they can start defining unacceptable beliefs and "false religions" that no longer merit "true" 1st Amendment protection. Travel down that road long enough, and you can even start throwing Neo-Pagans and atheists in jail as "enemies of the State".

1,) AQ and ISIL wouldn't exist without their religious ideologies. Even if we defeat these political groups, there are possibly millions more people who share the same beliefs.
2.) We are not fighting Islam, we are fighting the beliefs and attitudes that put people at risk.
3.) Slippery slope fallacy, even if that's true of some Republicans.

[Alien Space Bats]

What I don't understand is how anyone can expect to "win" this fight by pissing off the locals who live in the Middle East day to day and have lived there for many, many centuries. While most Muslims are probably fine with fighting radical Islam, saying the words proves and means nothing. Its not like saying "radical Islam" in every speech will make every ISIL operative glow with a red light. Even moreso, if we start saying radical Islam then, eventually, we're going to have to talk about where its coming from and start pointing fingers at our regional partners like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.

The same people who think that we have to "declare war" on "Radical Islam" also tend to believe that we can win this war by either invading the Middle East and forcibly converting everyone to Christianity at bayonet point, or else transforming the entire region into a radioactive parking lot with nuclear weapons.

[Geilinor]

I'm pretty sure literally everyone but radical Muslims believe radical Islam is a threat.

Define "Radical Islam".

Oh, and in doing this, please make sure that your definition doesn't simply define all of Islam as "radical".

Radical Islam is Islam that both opposes the separation of church and state and advocates violence against non-Muslims.

[Alien Space Bats]

AQ and ISIL wouldn't exist without their religious ideologies. Even if we defeat these political groups, there are possibly millions more people who share the same beliefs.

That was just as true of communism as it is of AQ and ISIL. How does this make them any less political adversaries, rather than military ones?

We are not fighting Islam, we are fighting the beliefs and attitudes that put people at risk.

If "waging war" is the operative metaphor, how do we do that with a RELIGION?

Slippery slope fallacy, even if that's true of some Republicans.

If it's true it's not a fallacy.

But I'll play along: How do we ban Islam (or even "Radical Islam") without eviscerating the 1st Amendment?

[Geilinor]

What I don't understand is how anyone can expect to "win" this fight by pissing off the locals who live in the Middle East day to day and have lived there for many, many centuries. While most Muslims are probably fine with fighting radical Islam, saying the words proves and means nothing. Its not like saying "radical Islam" in every speech will make every ISIL operative glow with a red light. Even moreso, if we start saying radical Islam then, eventually, we're going to have to talk about where its coming from and start pointing fingers at our regional partners like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.

The same people who think that we have to "declare war" on "Radical Islam" also tend to believe that we can win this war by either invading the Middle East and forcibly converting everyone to Christianity at bayonet point, or else transforming the entire region into a radioactive parking lot with nuclear weapons.

I don't. I respect Muslims and don't think we need to destroy the Middle East and so does Mike the Progressive.

[Ashmoria]

The same people who think that we have to "declare war" on "Radical Islam" also tend to believe that we can win this war by either invading the Middle East and forcibly converting everyone to Christianity at bayonet point, or else transforming the entire region into a radioactive parking lot with nuclear weapons.

I don't. I respect Muslims and don't think we need to destroy the Middle East and so does Mike the Progressive.

....you think we need to declare war on radical islam?

[Alien Space Bats]

Radical Islam is Islam that both opposes the separation of church and state and advocates violence against non-Muslims.

And can such a religious belief be banned?

---

Also, your use of the conjunctive logical operator "AND" instead of "OR" is telling. Why require the former instead of the latter?

And are we prepared to be equally zealous in dealing with other faiths that meet these criteria (i.e., advocacy of the separation of church and state and violence against non-believers)?

[Geilinor]

AQ and ISIL wouldn't exist without their religious ideologies. Even if we defeat these political groups, there are possibly millions more people who share the same beliefs.

That was just as true of communism as it is of AQ and ISIL. How does this make them any less political adversaries, rather than military ones?

We are not fighting Islam, we are fighting the beliefs and attitudes that put people at risk.

If "waging war" is the operative metaphor, how do we do that with a RELIGION?

Slippery slope fallacy, even if that's true of some Republicans.

If it's true it's not a fallacy.

But I'll play along: How do we ban Islam (or even "Radical Islam") without eviscerating the 1st Amendment?

The United States was founded on the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion - two things AQ and ISIL are against. And no, we shouldn't ban anything, but we should encourage religious tolerance and help other Muslims defend themselves from violent elements.

[Alien Space Bats]

The United States was founded on the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion - two things AQ and ISIL are against. And no, we shouldn't ban anything, but we should encourage religious tolerance and help other Muslims defend themselves from violent elements.

Yet there are domestic Christian groups that believe the modern concept of the separation of church and state is both flawed and contrary to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution. Granted, they don't (currently) advocate violence, but such a view is nonetheless "radical" to modern sensibilities. How do you propose the government "deal with" them? Should we "wage war" on Dominionism, too?

[Geilinor]

Radical Islam is Islam that both opposes the separation of church and state and advocates violence against non-Muslims.

And can such a religious belief be banned?

---

Also, your use of the conjunctive logical operator "AND" instead of "OR" is telling. Why require the former instead of the latter?

And are we prepared to be equally zealous in dealing with other faiths that meet these criteria (i.e., advocacy of the separation of church and state and violence against non-believers)?

Having a private belief is fine, but it becomes an issue when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

[Geilinor]

I don't. I respect Muslims and don't think we need to destroy the Middle East and so does Mike the Progressive.

....you think we need to declare war on radical islam?

Not exactly, but we do need to admit that there are extremists who use theology to justify themselves.

[Alien Space Bats]

Having a private belief is fine, but it becomes an issue when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

So if a Muslim believes that laws should be based on the Qu'ran, and that apostates should be put to death, but they're not prepared to actually go out and kill anybody, what do you propose we do about those beliefs?

[Geilinor]

Having a private belief is fine, but it becomes an issue when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

So if a Muslim believes that laws should be based on the Qu'ran, and that apostates should be put to death, but they're not prepared to actually go out and kill anybody, what do you propose we do about those beliefs?

I'm not sure what we can do, but I'd hope we can try to convince them that people of other beliefs should be respected.

[Eol Sha]

....you think we need to declare war on radical islam?

Not exactly, but we do need to admit that there are extremists who use theology to justify themselves.

I don't think anyone with the ability to think denies this.

[Ashmoria]

....you think we need to declare war on radical islam?

Not exactly, but we do need to admit that there are extremists who use theology to justify themselves.

then he wasn't talking about you.

I don't see the point of worrying what anyone uses to justify their criminal actions. the people in san bernadino are just as dead as the ones at the planned parenthood clinic and just as dead as the kids at sandyhook.

[Alien Space Bats]

Having a private belief is fine, but it becomes an issue when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

So if a Muslim believes that laws should be based on the Qu'ran, and that apostates should be put to death, but they're not prepared to actually go out and kill anybody, what do you propose we do about those beliefs?

I'm not sure what we can do, but I'd hope we can try to convince them that people of other beliefs should be respected.

So if we can't actually DO anything about people with such beliefs until they actually start to plan and carry out violent acts based on those beliefs, why are we insisting on the use of a "war" metaphor?

[Valaran]

Not exactly, but we do need to admit that there are extremists who use theology to justify themselves.

then he wasn't talking about you.

I don't see the point of worrying what anyone uses to justify their criminal actions. the people in san bernadino are just as dead as the ones at the planned parenthood clinic and just as dead as the kids at sandyhook.

Ideally that might be true, but in practice attempts at justification help frame the debate and perceptions of these incidents (or less charitably, they warp perceptions and debates). Though clearly there are more non-terrorist related violent murders in the US than terrorist related ones, the debate and perception of each of the categories varies noticeably. Muslims provide a much easier collective scapegoat than gun owners, for instance.

I'd say the point is to strip away the religious cloak of AQ's and ISIS's justification, for instance, so that the murders and barbarism can simply be seen for what it is, and not necessarily tied to those who are muslim, etc. I'm sure one can attempt do the same for gun control and abortion, but the underlying point is that this needs to be done in order to best combat those who commit these murders.

[Valaran]

Having a private belief is fine, but it becomes an issue when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

So if a Muslim believes that laws should be based on the Qu'ran, and that apostates should be put to death, but they're not prepared to actually go out and kill anybody, what do you propose we do about those beliefs?

I'm not sure what we can do, but I'd hope we can try to convince them that people of other beliefs should be respected.

So if we can't actually DO anything about people with such beliefs until they actually start to plan and carry out violent acts based on those beliefs, why are we insisting on the use of a "war" metaphor?

As I understood it, the 'war' metaphor is largely just rhetoric outside the actual battlefields of Syria and Iraq (and Libya, etc), and the cover work of the intelligence agencies. It often that happens that things are framed in military language, since its easily to express.

[Ashmoria]

then he wasn't talking about you.

I don't see the point of worrying what anyone uses to justify their criminal actions. the people in san bernadino are just as dead as the ones at the planned parenthood clinic and just as dead as the kids at sandyhook.

Ideally that might be true, but in practice attempts at justification help frame the debate and perceptions of these incidents (or less charitably, they warp perceptions and debates). Though clearly there are more non-terrorist related violent murders in the US than terrorist related ones, the debate and perception of each of the categories varies noticeably. Muslims provide a much easier collective scapegoat than gun owners, for instance.

I'd say the point is to strip away the religious cloak of AQ's and ISIS's justification, for instance, so that the murders and barbarism can simply be seen for what it is, and not necessarily tied to those who are muslim, etc. I'm sure one can attempt do the same for gun control and abortion, but the underlying point is that this needs to be done in order to best combat those who commit these murders.

I think it would be an excellent thing to strip religion away from aq and isis. especially since they want to be the champions of islam while most of the people they kill with their terrorism are muslims. its time that the Islamic world and the disaffected Islamic "youth" of the non-Islamic world saw that utterly clearly. then they might not be quite so attracted to the idea of them. (not unlike the chapter of the first freakonomics book that discussed superman vs the kkk)

I assume that the right is going crazy over this particular attack because they cant allow themselves the space to see the general role of religion and guns in the "usual" mass killing in this country. the pent up anger and fear from the more than 300 freaking mass shootings this year alone are being expressed in outrage over this one. personally I don't find it more scary that a muslim couple did this.

and, to bring it back to the thread topic, the republican candidates are losing their minds over this because they want to distinguish themselves as being the bestest possible antidote to the president's calm but ...inadequate...response. (I doubt there IS an adequate response possible but that's not the point)