Profiling Religions

[Ultimatum]

I don't believe I did. Could you, who perhaps may be more knowledgeable of the intricacies of political science than I am, show me how?

Post number 13: "I'd rather be afraid of criminals than be afraid of the fascist state."
This clearly implies that you think a single policy, that would be religious profiling to prevent terrorism, would automatically lead to a so-called "fascist state".

I was being very specific on the type of profiling presented in the OP, which was about profiling religions; i.e., mass profiling of Muslims, and theoretically other religions that our culture has deemed "terrorist". Profiling as a conceptual tool can be either a good or bad thing depending on how it's done, just like all tools.

Profiling, in my opinion and avocation, mostly takes place at borders, airports, and ports. If there is a suspicious individual from Iraq, and keeping in mind "innocent until proven guilty, lest you try to pass me off as a fascist, is it not sensible to conduct background checks on this individual? Perhaps checking what associations he may or may not be affiliated with? Or should we just let him through for the sake of left-wing, pro-mass immigration apologist ideals that seem to pour through in the media and in politician's speech.

The fact that you were citing "multiculturalism" and "political correctness", as if they were the primary arguments you were fighting, made it look like you were in advocacy of mass-profiling of Muslims, or at least Middle-Easterners. Though admittedly, the wording you were using was very confusing, so I very well could have completely misunderstood.

See my previous content. Are we going to allow the free movement of people, willy-nilly, in the name of political correctness, in these times of severe threat, and breach our people's safety?

 

[Riverwolf]

Post number 13: "I'd rather be afraid of criminals than be afraid of the fascist state."
This clearly implies that you think a single policy, that would be religious profiling to prevent terrorism, would automatically lead to a so-called "fascist state".

Ah, indeed it does, and such wording is easy to fall onto when in a topic that ignites deep-seated fears. Apologies.

Let me clarify: I don't believe it will, without fail, automatically lead to a fascist regime. Let me use what I understand of other countries as examples of my recognition of this fact. Japan (a country and culture that I love, BTW), does not have a democratic process in its government, and from what I understand, is able to make certain decrees without much capability for appeal. (They also, I understand, have a "guilty until proven innocent" form of prosecution, though I suspect, admittedly based on Death Note, that this applies in the actual process of trial, but that sufficient evidence must first be provided in order to have a trial in the first place). Germany and Australia censor and ban video games based on what I believe are stupid reasons(I've heard the latter described by people who live there as a "nanny state"). The UK has cameras pretty much everywhere. (I've always said that, something the movie didn't seem to understand, there's a reason V for Vendetta took place in England, not the US). BUT these are not currently fascist regimes.

Hence why, in subsequent posts, I specified that it's a slippery slope; I was also specifically talking about profiling of religions specifically.

Profiling, in my opinion and avocation, mostly takes place at borders, airports, and ports. If there is a suspicious individual from Iraq, and keeping in mind "innocent until proven guilty, lest you try to pass me off as a fascist, is it not sensible to conduct background checks on this individual? Perhaps checking what associations he may or may not be affiliated with? Or should we just let him through for the sake of left-wing, pro-mass immigration apologist ideals that seem to pour through in the media and in politician's speech.

'Course not, and I wouldn't advocate such a thing, despite being on the left side of the political spectrum and in favor of watched open borders. (For the record, I don't follow the media or politicians; I've long learned that doing so is a terrible way to learn about the world or form personal political opinions, and other, unrelated, events have shown me that following them can make one far, far more susceptible to the Straw Man's lies).

On the other hand, Jirard the Completionist is apparently stopped at every airport he goes to, and he's just a host for a Youtube gaming show. The only reason he's stopped is because he's of Arabic descent, and looks it with his massive, to-be-embraced beard. That's not okay. I'm of Irish descent; should I be profiled because the IRA exists?

See my previous content. Are we going to allow the free movement of people, willy-nilly, in the name of political correctness, in these times of severe threat, and breach our people's safety?

Political correctness is, far as I'm concerned, just a single step up from what's been called "tokenism". That is to say, it's an attempt to artificially instill the illusion of equality by taking the statement that "all men are created equal" far beyond its intended implications (either back then or now), and pretend that everyone is exactly the same and that bad people just need to be hugged into being good. I never argue with it as my basis. Multiculturalism is fine, but when properly understood, is recognized as not being inherently peaceful. I would use it as a basis for arguing against cultural imperialism and the like; this particular topic has nothing to do with it.

I certainly don't believe that movement between countries should be free willy-nilly, particularly movement between countries where both the governments and the people have been at odds in the recent past. I've played Papers, Please.

 

[Augustus]

I've heard a number of people recently start talking about profiling religions as a means of reducing "terrorism" threats in the wake of the Paris attack.

What say you?

What do you mean 'start' profiling religions? Already happens, but it's mostly profiling ethnicities as that's easier.

Well it is extremely important that we do whatever is needed to uphold our Western values: in the Paris massacre case it would be satire and free speech--something that we all cherish and love and have done for a very long time. And if this type of terrorism encourages censorship on these values, then we are approaching a very politically correct, dangerous, and censored society.

It is self-censorship rather than censorship and Islam is nowhere near the number one cause of self-censorship. Violence is far from the only thing that causes self-censorship.

Anything that causes this is bad, but it has always existed and missing out on a few cartoons of Muhammed is hardly its worst manifestation.

 

[Penumbra]

Well lets take an examination into why this statement is false and entirely unintelligent in light of academic studies on religion. . .

Radicalism implies that a person is letting their beliefs, convictions exceed normal limits or become out of control. This is how people use the term radicalism and especially in religion. I assume you are using the same definition.

Now, Islam when being practiced properly by a Muslim is inherently violent, barbaric and dangerous. It is no different than a death cult for the most part except it has noticeable doctrine and is an actual religion. This makes it very inbetweenish in terms of religion and cult.

Now then, if a Muslim is violent he/she is just practicing their religion to its fullest extent and is not being a radical just a devote Muslim. Religiosity as used in many studies can refer to the prevalence of religion in a society or the prevalence of it in the individual.

I present Example A:

Both PEW and Gallup have done wonderful research on religiosity in regard to society and individual polling. This is how religiosity can be used in studies as it only implies the relevance of religion in particular circumstances.

. . . henceforth your entire argument is fallacious, nonsensical and scores 100/100 (1/1 if reduced) on the LOL Meter.

I can't tell if you're being serious about presenting this as an actual argument or not. I hope not.

Look at the actual questions in that poll that you provided. You're not demonstrating any link at all between a) people claiming to be religious and doing things like attending places of worship and reading holy texts and b) actually being radical, in the sense of holding extreme views and having a willingness to carry out extreme actions.

The majority of the acts of violent terrorism are done by men. Yet you're arguing women should be investigated more due to being more "radical", with your only evidence being that on surveys about religion, women are more religious, despite none of the questions being about anything radical.

Doesn't make sense.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I can't tell if you're being serious about presenting this as an actual argument or not. I hope not.

I am quite serious.

Look at the actual questions in that poll that you provided. You're not demonstrating any link at all between a) people claiming to be religious and doing things like attending places of worship and reading holy texts and b) actually being radical, in the sense of holding extreme views and having a willingness to carry out extreme actions.

Then I will assume you did not read the poll or are trying to back out of a failed argument. The latter is more evident considering you keep repeating arguments I have exposed as flawed.

The majority of the acts of violent terrorism are done by men. Yet you're arguing women should be investigated more due to being more "radical", with your only evidence being that on surveys about religion, women are more religious, despite none of the questions being about anything radical.

Doesn't make sense.

Terror groups like ISIS, al Qaeda recruiting more women - CBS News

‘Sex Jihad’ Fatwa Permits Incest in Syria | FrontPage Magazine

Must I seriously go into detail about how women cover up for the activity of the men? Are they the ones pulling triggers all the time? No but they are the one's ensuring young children are having Islamic thought maintained. All I have to do is pull out data from the web to argue this point and it will plaster these pages so fast you won't have time to think.

Again you keep using the failed argument about radicalism and religiosity and considering that I am not fighting radicalism just Islam it is a worthless argument. You do not even understand Islam.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let me ask you, then, what is your solution to preventing an attack on my country's grounds? Our safety levels are at "Severe" at the moment--after the announcement by ISIS. Do you honestly think that letting people through our airport gates willy-nilly, without checks, is fair on my people?

I support legal methods that do not infringe upon the rights of innocents. I support innocent until proven guilty. I also support searching for individuals members, rather than looking at the group as a whole. If you're going to profile Islam, you are going to have to profile Christians, Jews, animal rights groups, environmental groups, Communists (this turned deadly not too terribly long ago), every racial and ethnic group, those who are enthusiastic about individuality and self-sovereignty, and pretty much every other group that produces a deranged psycho/sociopath.
I do not believe groups like ISIS should be ignored. However, because the threat is severely over blown, I cannot see justifying profiling people just because they are Muslim. "Regular" people working completely on their own and sometimes with a close friend or relative pose a much more significant and severe threat in America than radical Muslims.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again you keep using the failed argument about radicalism and religiosity and considering that I am not fighting radicalism just Islam it is a worthless argument. You do not even understand Islam.

What you don't understand is even though there are about 160,000,000 radical Muslims, there are still about 1,440,000,000 who aren't. The extremist group is no where close to having a seventh digit, and because of this much smaller number compared to the much larger number, it can't be said that Islam is this really bad thing that turns people violent. We Americans killed nearly 15,000 of our own in 2012. Muslim terrorists didn't kill a tenth of that many people in that year. They killed about a fifth of that on 9/11. Clearly, we must be more fearful of our own fellow citizens than radical Islam, for we have killed many and they have only killed a few.

 

[Penumbra]

I am quite serious.

Then I will assume you did not read the poll or are trying to back out of a failed argument. The latter is more evident considering you keep repeating arguments I have exposed as flawed.

Terror groups like ISIS, al Qaeda recruiting more women - CBS News

‘Sex Jihad’ Fatwa Permits Incest in Syria | FrontPage Magazine

Must I seriously go into detail about how women cover up for the activity of the men? Are they the ones pulling triggers all the time? No but they are the one's ensuring young children are having Islamic thought maintained. All I have to do is pull out data from the web to argue this point and it will plaster these pages so fast you won't have time to think.

Again you keep using the failed argument about radicalism and religiosity and considering that I am not fighting radicalism just Islam it is a worthless argument. You do not even understand Islam.

You still haven't presented any case that women are actually more radical. There's very little for me to respond to any more than I already have, because there simply hasn't been an argument developed, other than a) women report more general religiosity, b) ?, c) ?, d) therefore women are more radical, which misses several steps.

You linked to women being recruited by terrorists; but nobody denied that. For your argument to hold weight, you'd have to show that they recruit more women than men, for example, which does not appear to be the case. I don't see any reasonable argument for your claim that more investigation resources should be focused on women than men, when women commit by far less terrorism than men. It doesn't add up.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What you don't understand is even though there are about 160,000,000 radical Muslims, there are still about 1,440,000,000 who aren't. The extremist group is no where close to having a seventh digit, and because of this much smaller number compared to the much larger number, it can't be said that Islam is this really bad thing that turns people violent. We Americans killed nearly 15,000 of our own in 2012. Muslim terrorists didn't kill a tenth of that many people in that year. They killed about a fifth of that on 9/11. Clearly, we must be more fearful of our own fellow citizens than radical Islam, for we have killed many and they have only killed a few.

And just like that you have exited the world of intellectualism. Onto my ignore list you go!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And just like that you have exited the world of intellectualism. Onto my ignore list you go!

Ok, so what about Muslims everywhere else? You research only looks at some of the most violent and backwards countries out there. And ignored just because I called out your crap?

 

[Penumbra]

Ok, so what about Muslims everywhere else? You research only looks at some of the most violent and backwards countries out there. And ignored just because I called out your crap?

Something like two thirds of European Muslims, according to polls, think Sharia law is more important than the law of their current country. Two thirds say they will not have homosexuals as friends, and 45% say Jews cannot be trusted.
Here's an example: Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

I've seen other statistics from polls too, such as a majority of Norwegian Muslims believe that stoning is appropriate for homosexuals, and like a third of European Muslims believe that blasphemy laws should be put in place in Europe, with another large percent that want Sharia in Europe.

American Muslims as a demographic tend to be somewhat less fundamentalist than European Muslims, but the reverse is true for Christians where American Christians are far more likely to be fundamentalist than European Christians. An ongoing problem with Muslim communities in Europe and the US is isolation; they tend to be far more isolated with other Muslims and avoiding the rest of the community, than other immigrant groups, statistically.

So it's not really a country thing. Muslim demographics almost everywhere hold views, as a statistical group, that are alarming to most everyone else. In Islamic countries it's more extreme, but even in some of the more economically developed ones like Turkey, views tend to be alarming, and then that extends into large numbers of European Muslims as well.

My issue with the debate is not that Islam is benign, but rather this idea that measuring religiosity is a good proxy for measuring radicalism, when clearly it is not. Over 40% of Muslims in Europe score at the highest level of fundamentalism, with another large percentage that are on the next level of fundamentalism (constituting the majority, together), but only a tiny, tiny fraction of them, commit violence. And more women report religious feelings and actions, but more men commit acts of religious terrorism and violence. Measuring the likelihood of a threat is a lot more nuanced than measuring mere self-reports of religiosity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Something like two thirds of European Muslims, according to polls, think Sharia law is more important than the law of their current country. Two thirds say they will not have homosexuals as friends, and 45% say Jews cannot be trusted.
Here's an example: Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

I've seen other statistics from polls too, such as a majority of Norwegian Muslims believe that stoning is appropriate for homosexuals, and like a third of European Muslims believe that blasphemy laws should be put in place in Europe, with another large percent that want Sharia in Europe.

In America Christians think Christian law is important, and they try to make it into state law. Though the penalties tend to be less severe, America still has a problem with Christians demanding everyone live under their own idea of Christian law (you'll even find plenty who feel homosexuals and transgenders should be put to death, and act out on this). America itself has long used the Bible to justify wickedness, and even still today we send people to Washington who make it a pledge to enact Christian morality as law. We have Christian terrorists, but even non-terrorists are causing massive destruction by believing they must be fruitful and multiply. And while I don't know the exact number, a lot of Christians do not believe Jews can be trusted either.

 

[Muffled]

I've heard a number of people recently start talking about profiling religions as a means of reducing "terrorism" threats in the wake of the Paris attack.

What say you?

Isn't that like profiling Afro-Americans. If you are black you must be up to no good.

What shall we say then that because there are Muslim terrorists, all Muslims must be up to no good?

I believe we even profiled the ones who bombed the Boston Marathon but that didn't stop them.

 

[Muffled]

That would not be likely to make much of a difference. People would just hide their beliefs.

I believe Christians will not hide even when the government becomes evil and targets us.

 

[Muffled]

We don't need another Red Scare.

I believe however that it is appropriate to watch those who state a desire to overthrow the government.

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe however that it is appropriate to watch those who state a desire to overthrow the government.

And NOT take away everybody else's rights in the process. The Red Scares took shotgun approaches, and as a result, many who were completely innocent had their lives completely ruined by the likes of McCarthy and the like. The US was basically becoming the very thing it was afraid of.

 

[Muffled]

And NOT take away everybody else's rights in the process. The Red Scares took shotgun approaches, and as a result, many who were completely innocent had their lives completely ruined by the likes of McCarthy and the like. The US was basically becoming the very thing it was afraid of.

I believe you are correct. The main view was that the Communist Party advocated the overthrow of the government so any member of the party must believe the way the party did. I believe this was an incorrect assumption and most often was proven to be untrue.

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe you are correct. The main view was that the Communist Party advocated the overthrow of the government so any member of the party must believe the way the party did. I believe this was an incorrect assumption and most often was proven to be untrue.

Plus, from what I understand, most of the people who got witch-tried weren't actually communists. And that's where the danger comes in.

It is illegal to actively threaten or state one's intention to overthrow the government, because from what I understand of US law, direct threats are not protected by the First Amendment. Like you say, being a member of a political party doesn't inherently mean a desire to overthrow the government.

Watching individuals who are "suspicious" sounds fine on paper, but what constitutes "suspicious"? Leaving a package in the middle of a crowded room and then just walking away is suspicious. Wearing a turban... why should the simple act of wearing a turban be suspicious?

 

[Penumbra]

In America Christians think Christian law is important, and they try to make it into state law. Though the penalties tend to be less severe, America still has a problem with Christians demanding everyone live under their own idea of Christian law (you'll even find plenty who feel homosexuals and transgenders should be put to death, and act out on this). America itself has long used the Bible to justify wickedness, and even still today we send people to Washington who make it a pledge to enact Christian morality as law. We have Christian terrorists, but even non-terrorists are causing massive destruction by believing they must be fruitful and multiply. And while I don't know the exact number, a lot of Christians do not believe Jews can be trusted either.

Here's a direct comparison between European Christians and European Muslims on some of those questions:

Source: How widespread is Islamic fundamentalism in Western Europe? - The Washington Post

As for America...

-Here's a link about American attitudes towards members of various religions. The interesting result is, that Jews came with the best overall view. Meaning, in a predominantly Christian nation, Jews nonetheless received higher scores than Christians, in terms of positive public perception:
How Americans Feel About Religious Groups | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

And American Muslims as a demographic are less fundamentalist than European Muslims as a demographic, but nonetheless, Muslim attitudes towards homosexuals are tied with Evangelical Christian attitudes in being the most negative towards homosexuals in the US, and so Christians as a whole in the US have less negative views towards homosexuals, as Muslims in the US do:
How Muslims Compare With Other Religious Americans | Pew Research Center