ruminations on how Islamophobia is not 'a thing'....

[RattlerGator]

You know, Adam -- what would it take for these fools to do to convince you that there is no Islamophobia? Is there *any* atrocity they could commit that would cause you to re-think your position. I know it's convenient to throw out that term and cease to do any further thinking, but the facts show they've opened their doors in Europe and even contemplated allowing the limited use of sharia law.

Where is the Islamophobia?

We in this country had to suffer all manner of liberal lectures after 9/11 about an "Islamophobia" that never was present nor ever reared its head, much to the credit of the nation.

Again, what freaking Islamophobia?

I'm confident my position is the far more accurate representation of American *and* European opinion right now. But you keep shouting Islamophobia; more and more people give less than a damn about attempts to slime people with that term, and the shouters help us identify those who would lead us down a suicidal path.

We damn well better have a phobia for headchoppers and people who are dedicated to blowing up those who will not bow to their demands.

[RattlerGator]

Slowly but surely, liberal England is waking the hell up. This is in The London Guardian today:

Nick Cohen: Progressive liberalism (he also calls it multicultural liberalism)
is the enemy of tolerance
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/progressive-liberalism-enemy-of-tolerance

Multicultural liberals are always going the school marm route and are forever trying to police debate but . . . a tolerant group NEVER abandons the freedom to argue. This tendency to toss around "phobia" devoid from its actual meaning is an attempt to squash discussion. A phobia, by definition, has to be irrational. No reasonable person could argue the concern over Islamic terrorists concealing themselves in refugees from dysfunctional Islamic socieities is in any way, shape or form irrational. Quite the contrary. It is rational in the extreme.

[Adam White]

Slowly but surely, liberal England is waking the hell up. This is in The London Guardian today:

Nick Cohen: Progressive liberalism (he also calls it multicultural liberalism)
is the enemy of tolerance
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/progressive-liberalism-enemy-of-tolerance

Multicultural liberals are always going the school marm route and are forever trying to police debate but . . . a tolerant group NEVER abandons the freedom to argue. This tendency to toss around "phobia" devoid from its actual meaning is an attempt to squash discussion. A phobia, by definition, has to be irrational. No reasonable person could argue the concern over Islamic terrorists concealing themselves in refugees from dysfunctional Islamic socieities is in any way, shape or form irrational. Quite the contrary. It is rational in the extreme.

The Guardian is national - if anything, it's the Manchester Guardian.

I would hardly a) call England (or the UK) "liberal" and b) consider an editorial as an example of anything other than the author's personal opinion.

As far as "waking the hell up", I don't know what you mean.

[Tacachale]

I have no real desire to get into this conversation, but I think the main reason people are wary of painting large groups with a broad brush (like blaming "Islam" or "Muslims" for the actions of individuals, governments or terrorist organizations) is that it can have major effects on innocent people who happen to be part of that group. We've let it happen before; in World War II we were attacked by Japan, and our anger and pain led us to put 100,000 Americans into concentration camps.

For an example of how this can play out, just look at the largest local mosque, the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. They are a peaceful, Americanized congregation, and they spend a great deal of time doing community service and condemning violence caused by Muslim terrorists. None of that makes the news, however, and in 2010 they were the victims of a hate crime when a St. Johns County man firebombed the building during services. http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-05-04/story/fbi-agents-fatally-shoot-suspect-jacksonville-mosque-bombing

[AKIRA]

But while conservative voters generally agree that national security must come at the cost of aiding Syrian refugees, polls suggest evangelicals are split on the issue.

Moore suggests the divergent attitudes come from Christ-like compassion — and an evangelistic spirit.

“Our Muslim neighbors are not people we want to scream and rail at — we don’t want to demonize our mission field,” Moore said. “I think that the evangelistic missionary impulse of Christianity that sometimes seculars present as nefarious actually is what grounds evangelicals to see individuals not as issues but as persons.”

“Every person may well be our future brother, sister in Christ.”




Considering the religious moral objectives of the gentleman, I'm not sure that the cold realities of foriegn policies should be too much influenced by him... seperation of church, state and all..

It would be helpful if the State Department would explain the vetting process for the refugees.  I imagine there is some sort of process.