Interesting post, Peter!👍 One could make the case that Islam is more a system of governance rather than a true religion, as it seems to seek control of the people. Rather than things like the Ten Commandments, which provide guidelines in the conduct of one’s life, Islam (at least today’s mullahs) dictate punishments for failure to comply with the demands of Islam (maybe that’s radical Islam?). If you want to observe the impact of Islamists holding public office, witness the current situation in the UK, where Islamists are taking over entire cities. Can that happen in the USA? 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ Watch Dearborn, Michigan…
As to Islam, it's very important to make the distinction between Islam and Islamism. Only about 20% of Muslims are extremists. Unfortunately, the 80% treat them the way Democrats treat leftists - they stand with them out of solidarity more than they reject their extremes. We should encourage the moderate majority to disavow the radicals, just as the moderate Dems are starting to disassociate from the lefty loons.
I've known many Muslims who live assimilated, Westernized lives. They are not the problem. They can be friends and neighbors, and they should not be "othered" for their faith.
As for 10C - there's the same thing there. If strictly adhered to, the Ten Commandments would be incompatible with the Constitution. The first four are all about establishing religion, for example.
Iran, prior to 1979, was a Westernized, cosmopolitan nation. Lebanon, half a century ago, was the same. Islam is not going away, so it behooves us to stand with the moderates rather than rejecting the entirety.
When I joined the Navy in 1967, I was awarded an instant--and ugly--reputation while in uniform. That reputation was earned by a small fraction of Navy women. My career was long and rewarding because I made the effort to dissociate, and I encouraged others to do the same. Meaning I agree entirely that we should encourage the moderate majority to disavow the radicals. Werked fer me. :-)
The number of people on social media who post ignorant opinion stated as "fact" boggles the mind. I would have thought the age of the internet, with abundance of truth available to everyone who bothers with a simple search, would have led to a vastly better-informed public. I was wrong. And it's not just in the realm of politics - which seeps into everything it seems - but everything. It's as if there's an INVERSE correlation between the amount of informed opinion and the amount of information available with which to form an opinion.
I think the reinforcement mechanisms are all screwed up. People get buoyed up by likes and agreement, even when the professed statement is flat-out wrong. And when challenged, the most common thing I see is a deflection. Change the conversation to avoid admitting the error.
It's also a lot more work to challenge than to click a "like" button.
I agree. Since different search engines produce different results, one cannot believe search results willy-nilly. For instance, the Constitution and its amendments have become highly misquoted (which is why I keep an annotated copy on my desktop). I think the public would be better informed if they applied a dose of critical thinking and used their discretion. In other words, learn how to search and cull the garbage.
Not sure how glad I am that my name appears on your post. In California, and the Nation I believe, there was a ban on open Communists in Government. Jerry Brown ended that rule if I recall correctly. As my Father said about Communism, we will defeat it through Education, but we lost Education to the Leftists decades ago. Your point is well taken but the Constitution is not a suicide pact and Communists and radical Islamists are not interested in assuring our Constitutional Rights, just skirting it until they can take control.
Interesting post, Peter!👍 One could make the case that Islam is more a system of governance rather than a true religion, as it seems to seek control of the people. Rather than things like the Ten Commandments, which provide guidelines in the conduct of one’s life, Islam (at least today’s mullahs) dictate punishments for failure to comply with the demands of Islam (maybe that’s radical Islam?). If you want to observe the impact of Islamists holding public office, witness the current situation in the UK, where Islamists are taking over entire cities. Can that happen in the USA? 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ Watch Dearborn, Michigan…
All this isn't really the point of the article.
As to Islam, it's very important to make the distinction between Islam and Islamism. Only about 20% of Muslims are extremists. Unfortunately, the 80% treat them the way Democrats treat leftists - they stand with them out of solidarity more than they reject their extremes. We should encourage the moderate majority to disavow the radicals, just as the moderate Dems are starting to disassociate from the lefty loons.
I've known many Muslims who live assimilated, Westernized lives. They are not the problem. They can be friends and neighbors, and they should not be "othered" for their faith.
As for 10C - there's the same thing there. If strictly adhered to, the Ten Commandments would be incompatible with the Constitution. The first four are all about establishing religion, for example.
Iran, prior to 1979, was a Westernized, cosmopolitan nation. Lebanon, half a century ago, was the same. Islam is not going away, so it behooves us to stand with the moderates rather than rejecting the entirety.
👍👍
When I joined the Navy in 1967, I was awarded an instant--and ugly--reputation while in uniform. That reputation was earned by a small fraction of Navy women. My career was long and rewarding because I made the effort to dissociate, and I encouraged others to do the same. Meaning I agree entirely that we should encourage the moderate majority to disavow the radicals. Werked fer me. :-)
The number of people on social media who post ignorant opinion stated as "fact" boggles the mind. I would have thought the age of the internet, with abundance of truth available to everyone who bothers with a simple search, would have led to a vastly better-informed public. I was wrong. And it's not just in the realm of politics - which seeps into everything it seems - but everything. It's as if there's an INVERSE correlation between the amount of informed opinion and the amount of information available with which to form an opinion.
I think the reinforcement mechanisms are all screwed up. People get buoyed up by likes and agreement, even when the professed statement is flat-out wrong. And when challenged, the most common thing I see is a deflection. Change the conversation to avoid admitting the error.
It's also a lot more work to challenge than to click a "like" button.
I agree. Since different search engines produce different results, one cannot believe search results willy-nilly. For instance, the Constitution and its amendments have become highly misquoted (which is why I keep an annotated copy on my desktop). I think the public would be better informed if they applied a dose of critical thinking and used their discretion. In other words, learn how to search and cull the garbage.
I find it interesting that when I run Constitution searches, I have to add "text" to the search to get what it actually says.
That can't possibly be coincidence.
Not sure how glad I am that my name appears on your post. In California, and the Nation I believe, there was a ban on open Communists in Government. Jerry Brown ended that rule if I recall correctly. As my Father said about Communism, we will defeat it through Education, but we lost Education to the Leftists decades ago. Your point is well taken but the Constitution is not a suicide pact and Communists and radical Islamists are not interested in assuring our Constitutional Rights, just skirting it until they can take control.
That was totally unintentional. I can edit it out if you wish.
Not sure how a ban on Communists would work, but Communism is not a religious test, and it's an aside to the point I'm making here.