Republicans discover that Islam is a religion

KingGorilla wrote:

I am much more concerned with the threat to the broader education system, and I am content to let some members create some religious utopia or ghetto.

The big problem is that America likes precedent. People bash on the slippery-slope fallacy all the time (For good reason, I'll add), but it _does_ apply in some cases. Winning one legal battle makes it easier to win another, and so on.

Same thing tends to happen with politics. So, if we've got an educational ghetto, people will eventually end up using that to justify broader reforms, or it spreading. (People have tried, already.)

Besides that, _everyone_ is entitled to a good education. It's borderline child abuse to hold that back. I don't really mind religious schools.(We've got a couple here. A catholic primary school that's one of the better rated ones in the state, and a Lutheran college that's fully accredited, and damned good.

Personally, I think that religious schools need to be held to the same standard. Which means young-earth creationism is right out. Prove it, and then we'll talk.

KingGorilla wrote:

Ah, but OG, this is an interesting quirk. Kansas and Texas are revising the whole state to this small and factually incorrect mindset-5k old earth, creationism. Vouchers keep the crazies at home.

Now then, a very small portion of parents will use these to get their kids into the nut bar schools, and onto nut bar colleges. The majority of parents are taking the vouchers to get their kids into the best college prep programs and schools available, and then onto larger and more prestigious universities to become lawyers, engineers, doctors, data entry specialists.

And as we know the dark liberal arts programs are the death of these ideologies.

Now add into this that many of these ultra right wing colleges and at home curriculum are not accredited-IE you cannot even get a job requiring a HS diploma. So send your kid to a place to make you feel better, but kill her future.

I am much more concerned with the threat to the broader education system, and I am content to let some members create some religious utopia or ghetto.

Vouchers don't keep the crazies at home. It gives them the money they need to create schools and institutions that teach their brand of craziness.

Not that that matters too much since Texas has made chunks of conservative revision of history part of the entire state's education system and Tennessee has injected creationism into its schools. Give it a decade or so and your average public school will be teaching sh*t courtesy of religious crazies and extremist conservatives.

Besides that, I am simply incredibly leery of voucher programs. The research out on the magnet schools that it's helped create has been very mixed and no one on the right has ever come up with a good answer to what happens when every parent wants to use their voucher at the same school.

Of course the answer is that the school will require the voucher plus X amount of money meaning that we'll still have the problem of the poor being trapped in the worst schools that have the least resources. That and the idea of making primary and secondary education a for profit institution is insane in my mind. It's an investment the state should make in its citizens for the good of everyone.

The 'slippery slope fallacy' is itself a fallacy. In real life, it's an extremely real thing. Change happens incrementally.

Not quite.

The "slippery slope" fallacy is not in recognizing the existence of incremental change, but rather in suggesting that a small change makes a large change inevitable. On the other side, it would be a fallacy to suggest that a small change cannot possibly lead to a large one. The error is one of modality: confusing possibility with necessity.

To argue that "if we do a little X, it will inevitably lead to maximum X" (and therefore we should do no X at all) is to apply the slippery slope fallacy. To argue that "if we do a little X, we should be careful to think harder before doing more X later" is reasonable and logical.

Thanks for putting that into words, Hypatian. The place I see slippery slope used most egregiously is when it comes to marriage equality, where gay marriage inevitably leads to marrying animals and objects.

Well, I don't think that's accurate, but once we set aside the (stupid) principle that marriage must be between a man and a woman, the eventual acceptance of polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much every other non-traditional family arrangement between consenting adults becomes inevitable. If it's okay for a marriage to be same-gender, why does it have to be a pair? As long as everyone involved is adult, and consents, who are we to tell them how they arrange their private lives?

I think the eventual acceptance of all those ideas is absolutely required for society to be consistent with itself. But that doesn't mean that it will ever extend to objects and animals, because they are not adult, and cannot consent. This principle of opposite-gender marriage being left behind means a fairly large transition must inevitably take place, but it won't be as profound as some of the anti-crowd claims.

Slippery slope is very real. If you change your guiding principles, then further changes become nearly certain. You will slide downslope until you run into another principle.

Seth wrote:

Thanks for putting that into words, Hypatian. The place I see slippery slope used most egregiously is when it comes to marriage equality, where gay marriage inevitably leads to marrying animals and objects.

But surely it was the act of marriage itself that leads to gay marriage and animal husbandry and materialism! Therefore whichever religion created marriage must be the beginning of the slippery slope! Actually, now I need to find out what the oldest recorded marriage system is.... I'm curious!

Two atoms of hydrogen came together to make a helium, I believe.

KingGorilla wrote:

I was also reminded of how Texas Purged Jefferson from their history books. Are nickels still acceptable currency in Texas?

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure they banned the use of the dime, the half dollar, and the five dollar note a long time ago.

Malor wrote:

Well, I don't think that's accurate, but once we set aside the (stupid) principle that marriage must be between a man and a woman, the eventual acceptance of polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much every other non-traditional family arrangement between consenting adults becomes inevitable. If it's okay for a marriage to be same-gender, why does it have to be a pair? As long as everyone involved is adult, and consents, who are we to tell them how they arrange their private lives?

I think the eventual acceptance of all those ideas is absolutely required for society to be consistent with itself. But that doesn't mean that it will ever extend to objects and animals, because they are not adult, and cannot consent. This principle of opposite-gender marriage being left behind means a fairly large transition must inevitably take place, but it won't be as profound as some of the anti-crowd claims.

Slippery slope is very real. If you change your guiding principles, then further changes become nearly certain. You will slide downslope until you run into another principle.

I'm gonna respond to this one in the gay marriage thread. Mostly because of the example in question, but also because the concept of slippery slope really does apply there easier.

Well the thing about a snowball or slippery slope argument is that you need your assumptions readily present and understandable. Leaving your parking brake off of your car on a hill is a good way to hurt someone or ruin a building. That is a sound snowball argument, and on challenge you can elucidate the intermediate steps between brake being off and some person getting walloped.

The if we allow gays to marry leads to marrying bicycle tires is a bit trickier.

As for plural marriage or plural love. It is perfectly legal to have a mistress, to have a live in lover, to have an open marriage. Our one spouse laws tend to come down to finance. Where polygamists run afoul is with tax evasion typically. A polyamorist limiting themselves to private ceremonies with spouses 2+ would typically not run into this issue. But often they end up naming the subsequent spouses as a spouse on loan applications, taxes, health insurance.

Any change would likely be the same way our tax code works for people with multiple homes, you have a primary residence-and a primary spouse. And thus we have no change for the purposes of estate management, property, taxes. Regardless of declaring yourself married to a man or woman, you still have parental rights. I am wondering if a serious alteration to hospital visitation rights would be the most significant change.

LGBT rights goes far beyond a title. We are talking about gay couples having wills overturned, children stripped away, denied hospital visitation. Furthermore, LGBT couples are not asking for a sweeping change to anything, just the ability to have the same legal status as everyone else until they suffer from irreconcilable differences.

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

Hypatian wrote:

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

JUDEN.

I don't want to Godwin a thread on its second page already—but how does a community commit vandalism and arson and make threats against a segment of the population, and not stop for a moment to consider, "Hey, doesn't this remind me of a certain black period in Western civilization that isn't too far in the past, that I should be very familiar with and have no desire to revisit in any degree?"

Who, since 1945, can say something like, "I don't want ethnicity/religion/sexuality X living near me" and still think of herself as a human being?

Hypatian wrote:

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

In what country is this not an ironclad "contempt of court" case?

Gravey wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

JUDEN.

I don't want to Godwin a thread on its second page already—but how does a community commit vandalism and arson and make threats against a segment of the population, and not stop for a moment to consider, "Hey, doesn't this remind me of a certain black period in Western civilization that isn't too far in the past, that I should be very familiar with and have no desire to revisit in any degree?"

Who, since 1945, can say something like, "I don't want ethnicity/religion/sexuality X living near me" and still think of herself as a human being?

White Southerners from 1945-today? People writing zoning laws throughout the US? Ask Paleocon about his MD Home Owners Association interview story again.

Hypatian wrote:

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...

Mosque opponents sued Rutherford County in September 2010 to stop construction of the new building. Their suit included claims that Islam is not a real religion and that local Muslims wanted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Islamic religious law.

gagging on the irony.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Mosque opponents sued Rutherford County in September 2010 to stop construction of the new building. Their suit included claims that Islam is not a real religion and that local Muslims wanted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Islamic religious law.

gagging on the irony.

How can these both be true?

NathanialG wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Mosque opponents sued Rutherford County in September 2010 to stop construction of the new building. Their suit included claims that Islam is not a real religion and that local Muslims wanted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Islamic religious law.

gagging on the irony.

How can these both be true?

Only a specific sect of Christianity is a religion, all others are cults.

NathanialG wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Mosque opponents sued Rutherford County in September 2010 to stop construction of the new building. Their suit included claims that Islam is not a real religion and that local Muslims wanted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Islamic religious law.

gagging on the irony.

How can these both be true?

Because F-YOU! That's how.

Terrorist.

Tanglebones wrote:
Gravey wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

In semi-related news:

CNN wrote:

Sally Wall, one of the leading opponents of the mosque, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling and never thought her group would win the court case. She said she just wanted to show Muslims that they are not welcome in Murfreesboro.

Ugh.

JUDEN.

I don't want to Godwin a thread on its second page already—but how does a community commit vandalism and arson and make threats against a segment of the population, and not stop for a moment to consider, "Hey, doesn't this remind me of a certain black period in Western civilization that isn't too far in the past, that I should be very familiar with and have no desire to revisit in any degree?"

Who, since 1945, can say something like, "I don't want ethnicity/religion/sexuality X living near me" and still think of herself as a human being?

White Southerners from 1945-today? People writing zoning laws throughout the US? Ask Paleocon about his MD Home Owners Association interview story again.

Yup ask about 80% of the population of the city i group up in and you'll see them say that rabidly.

Top Republicans denounce attack on Clinton aide, who is Muslim

The top Republican in the Congress on Thursday criticized Representative Michele Bachmann and four other fellow House Republicans for making "pretty dangerous" accusations when they questioned the security clearance of a Muslim aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The comments of House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner came after Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, blasted the five lawmakers for seeking an investigation into whether Huma Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political organization.

It is nice to see that wrong is called out as wrong regardless of political ideology. It seems to be a rarity these days.

Of high amusement value (emphasis mine):

McCain was supported on Wednesday by Edward Rollins, a prominent Republican strategist who worked on Bachmann's primary campaign.

On the Fox News website, Rollins wrote that he was "fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts," but said "this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level," a reference to the U.S. senator from Wisconsin who rose and then fell accusing government officials and others of being communists in the 1950s.

Maybe they'll have the good sense to take away all her committee positions.

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Maybe they'll have the good sense to take away all her committee positions.

Hah.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Are they intentionally trolling congress when they re-elect her? Seriously what is a voter thinking when they say "this is the person I want to represent me"?

LeapingGnome wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Are they intentionally trolling congress when they re-elect her? Seriously what is a voter thinking when they say "this is the person I want to represent me"?

The sad reality is that there are a great many high functioning individuals who fell hook, line, and sinker for the whole "Shariah Law" and "terrorist till proven otherwise" routines. They're not trolling anyone, they honestly think they're doing their patriotic duty to protect America.

LeapingGnome wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Are they intentionally trolling congress when they re-elect her? Seriously what is a voter thinking when they say "this is the person I want to represent me"?

Her district curves along the northern edge of the Twin Cities and is gerrymandered in such a way as to concentrate the greatest number of crazy-ass rural old white folks you could possibly have. The district is effectively custom-built for her.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Are they intentionally trolling congress when they re-elect her? Seriously what is a voter thinking when they say "this is the person I want to represent me"?

The sad reality is that there are a great many high functioning individuals who fell hook, line, and sinker for the whole "Shariah Law" and "terrorist till proven otherwise" routines. They're not trolling anyone, they honestly think they're doing their patriotic duty to protect America.

Yup. That less than 1% of Minnesotans who are Muslim are totally going to rise up and enslave the 82% who are Protestant and Catholic.

OG_slinger wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Welcome to Minnesota, where adjacent Congressional districts feature (A) a Muslim congressman and (B) a crazy-ass nutbag who likes to invent conspiracy theories about Muslims.

Are they intentionally trolling congress when they re-elect her? Seriously what is a voter thinking when they say "this is the person I want to represent me"?

The sad reality is that there are a great many high functioning individuals who fell hook, line, and sinker for the whole "Shariah Law" and "terrorist till proven otherwise" routines. They're not trolling anyone, they honestly think they're doing their patriotic duty to protect America.

Yup. That less than 1% of Minnesotans who are Muslim are totally going to rise up and enslave the 82% who are Protestant and Catholic.

The War on Lutherans here is simply terrifying.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The War on Lutherans here is simply terrifying.

I heard Garrison Keillor is using A Prairie Home Companion broadcasts to secretly coordinate attacks against Lutherans.