The myth of "Islamophobia" in America

Alex37

CAG Veteran
The myth of "Islamophobia" in America

The answer to Time's titular question is a resounding "no."

In context, so-called "Islamophobia" is virtually non-existent, only 1.3% of all hate crimes, which are in themselves only a minute percentage of all crimes in America.

All hate crimes need to be taken seriously, but to exaggerate one set is to minimize the many hate crimes that far outstrip anti-Islamic crimes.

Time magazine's cover story last week asks a simple question:

time+islamophobia.jpg


Jonah Goldberg, writing in the Los Angeles Times, shows that the number of anti-Islamic bias incidents in the US peaked in 2001 for obvious reasons, and then plummeted in 2002, and has never gone back up.

I went to the FBI hate crime page and pulled out the anti-religious hate crimes statistics for the years 2004-2008, the most recent ones published. It shows that anti-Islamic hate crimes were trending down:

fbihate1.jpg


The number of incidents, combined over fifty states, does not seem to be too alarming. One could spin a story about the massive increase in anti-atheist hate crimes, as they soared from 6 to 14 in 2008, an increase of 133%!

I purposefully kept a dataset out of this graph. Because when you add anti-Jewish hate crimes in America, they would be off the chart:

fbihate2.jpg


Can you imagine Time magazine having a cover story on the relatively large number, and increase, of anti-semitic crimes in America (at the very same time that anti-Islamic crimes were going down)?

Of course not. As Goldberg points out,


Why aren't we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn't one. And there isn't an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don't like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you'll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party") than you will toward Muslims.
In other words, Time's cover story is not trying to uncover a truth but rather it is trying to obscure one. "Islamophobia" is a gross exaggeration that has been peddled by Muslim political leaders with an agenda.

In New York State, the very spot where Islamic terrorists murdered nearly 3000 people, the number of anti-Islamic crimes were a mere six in 2008. The number of anti-semitic crimes? 129.

In liberal, tolerant California, also in 2008, there were 11 hate crimes against Muslims - less than once a month. Anti-semitic crimes? 294.

Let's look at all hate crimes in America, not just those against religion. Here are the FBI's 2008 statistics, sorted by number of incidents:

Type

Amount

Anti-Black

2,876

Anti-Jewish

1,013

Anti-Male Homosexual

776

Anti-White

716

Anti-Hispanic

561

Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin

333

Anti-Homosexual

307

Anti-Multiple Races, Group

209

Anti-Other Religion

191

Anti-Female Homosexual

154

Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander

137

Anti-Islamic

105

Anti-Catholic

75

Anti-Multiple Religions, Group

65

Anti-Protestant

56

Anti-Mental

56

Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native

54

Anti-Heterosexual

33

Anti-Bisexual

27

Anti-Physical

22

Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

14



http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/08/myth-of-islamophobia-in-america.html
 
You know a phobia is a fear, right? Taking a measurement of hate crimes against Muslims does not gauge the public fear of Muslims.
 
Jonah Goldberg? really?

fuck off.

No, really. fuck off. Jonah Goldberg is a fucking hack who only writes shit for arguments so he can maintain his addiction to buffets. This guy wrote "Liberal Fascism," wherein he really, truly, made the argument that Hitler was a vegetarian, ergo fascism is inherently "liberal." Actually, given that thought, "hack" is too kind a word to describe him.

But if you want more than "fuck off," I don't know what to tell you. Actually, I do. That you read this and found the argument credible, that Time Warner read it and found the argument plausible - this speaks to why liberals are condescending when talking to the right. Goldberg's thesis is preposterous, illogical, and easily refuted.

Let's get over the first hurdle. Now, it's a short hurdle, but I want you to be careful since you weren't unable to make this leap on your own. You read this article and accepted it at face value, so I'm concerned you won't be able to make this logical step on your own. Come here, hold my hand, I'll help you up.

1) Attitudes ≠ actions. Hate crimes are not a proxy for any kind of 'phobia.' They're hate crimes. Phobia is reflect in attitudes and opinions, because many (if not most) people have opinions under their belt, but not all have hate crimes. Since muslims aren't victims of hate crimes *as often,* that doesn't speak AT ALL to people's attitudes towards the faith. If you think so, you're a pants-wetting simpleton. "Hey, we're not stabbing you for being Muslim, so it's all good, right?"

You know, it would be amazing if someone surveyed American attitudes towards Islam. Oh, wait, why is this text orange? Does it link to such a survey that was published three days ago? IT DOES! Outstanding! What does it say? That near half of Americans have unfavorable attitudes towards Islam? Nearly three quarters of Republicans don't like Islam? Oh, but that's not Islamophobia, because we're not slashing their throats - just the one guy, not a plurality.

2) Representation bias. Now, if a certain kind of bias crime is presented, numerically, as a raw number or percentage of overall hate crimes, and done so without respect to said groups' representation in the population, the numbers then can't tell the whole story. There are 137 Anti-Islam hate crimes reported above compared to 103 Anti-Catholic. Now, if there were more Muslims in the US than Catholics, then that would support the "lack of bias" thesis. Do you want to bet that there are 25% more (give or take) Muslims in the US than there are Catholics? If so, lay down a number and I'll PM you my email address so you can send me my payment later

3) Difficulty in identifying hate crimes/charging people with hate crimes. Now, I know conservatives think that police are interested in applying hate crimes all the time, but the rubrics for determining that it was a hate crime that happened. FBI hate crimes data is useful and all, but it is indeed limited. Not only for explaining attitudes, but also actual bias crimes.

So, a more elaborate, thought out "fuck off," but my thesis is still "fuck off" (with a corollary of "fuck you"). Had you read time magazine with a mind capable of critical thinking skills, you might have discovered that Goldberg's argument fucking sucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Um.

May I ask what "anti-physical" is?

But, uh, yeah, simply listing the number of crimes and trying to derive some sort of "this group is more hated than this group" is a totally balls way of going about it. There are four times as many crimes against protestants than there are against atheists/agnostics; therefore, atheists are four times more popular than protestants in the US! And white people are twice as unpopular as gays!
 
With a site name like Elder of Ziyon I totally expected a non-bias article. Surprised that shit didn't show up in the Flotilla attack thread.
 
funniest thing imo...

they have separate sections for homosexual hate crime and bisexual hate crime... just the idea that there's hate crime specific to bisexuals...
 
[quote name='SpazX']lol, that was terrible. I guess at least he proved that Americans really really hate black people.[/QUOTE]

But Republicans want you to believe that we're in a new post-racial society.
 
For the sake of argument there are supposedly 5.5 million jewish people in the US, and 2.5 million muslims. If you adjust for the proportion difference, it still does not even out. So he is technically right about the hate crime theory at least between the jewish, and muslim people.

I am also confused how a study of hate crimes does not substantially prove a lack of fear of the religion of islam, but a survey in which 54% of republicans view the religion unfavorably proves that they are islamophobes. In other words, in his study, you say all hate crimes aren't accounted for, and in your study the level of "dislike" for islam is not measured. Both of your points are inconclusive, but at least his is technically right. Maybe if you provided a study of the percentage of dislike for judaism along with the muslim one, we could compare, but alas you provided just the one with the motive of demonizing the public (republicans?) for not favoring islam.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ anti-physical disability.[/QUOTE]
People commit that many crimes against the physically and mentally disabled? What the fuck is that shit?
 
Don't sweat vermin's vitriol, Alex.

Myke may be numbers man, but he'll frequently and willfully ignore historical fact - especially when it reveals the Lefts' concerted efforts to resurrect fascism under a different, yet hackneyed, pseudonym. Myke is no liberal in the historical sense, and neither did Goldberg present an argument that Hitler's fascism evolved from such. He explained the co-opting of "liberalism" by the Left, and that Fascism and MODERN liberalism, as it has come to be known, share a common ancestor.

Myke is not a believer in liberalism in any common sense or dictionary definition of the word. He is a Leftist/communist at his core, pretending to believe in human rights, or individual rights, as it relates to his political agenda - even when it may contradict it.

Nice precis, by the way, of filtering his entire book down to Hitler's vegetarianism. I'm still chuckling. Then there's the recent "survey" of islamaphobia done in response to the recent mosque building issue near Ground Zero. Yeah, that MUST be a perfect litmus test for Islamaphobia in America. I'm sure the "surveys" of BP were great the day before the oil spill too. Maybe we need to step back from such an emotional and controversial issue before we can use that particular survey as the definition of American hate.

Nice Blank-Out of the Jewish question as well. I guess crime numbers DO lie after all.

fuck those dirty Jews anyway. They deserve all the hate crimes that are so disproportional to their population, eh Myke?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Don't sweat vermin's vitriol, Alex.

Myke may be numbers man, but he'll frequently and willfully ignore historical fact - especially when it reveals the Lefts' concerted efforts to resurrect fascism under a different, yet hackneyed, pseudonym. Myke is no liberal in the historical sense, and neither did Goldberg present an argument that Hitler's fascism evolved from such. He explained the co-opting of "liberalism" by the Left, and that Fascism and MODERN liberalism, as it has come to be known, share a common ancestor.

Myke is not a believer in liberalism in any common sense or dictionary definition of the word. He is a Leftist/communist at his core, pretending to believe in human rights, or individual rights, as it relates to his political agenda - even when it may contradict it.

Nice precis, by the way, of filtering his entire book down to Hitler's vegetarianism. I'm still chuckling. Then there's the recent "survey" of islamaphobia done in response to the recent mosque building issue near Ground Zero. Yeah, that MUST be a perfect litmus test for Islamaphobia in America. I'm sure the "surveys" of BP were great the day before the oil spill too. Maybe we need to step back from such an emotional and controversial issue before we can use that particular survey as the definition of American hate.

Nice Blank-Out of the Jewish question as well. I guess crime numbers DO lie after all.

fuck those dirty Jews anyway. They deserve all the hate crimes that are so disproportional to their population, eh Myke?[/QUOTE]

Out of everyone that posts on this board, your posts are the only ones I find completely irrelevant. Turbochickenman, or whatever his name was, had better posts.
 
Myke, that dirty commie.

I don't get how you can criticize a survey. They measure a number of people's responses to questions at the time, no more, no less. If you conducted the same survey a year from now it probably would be different, but that could be true of any survey.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't get how you can criticize a survey.[/QUOTE]

easy - he found one that didn't agree with his worldview, like all the others before it. Someone want to bump the Boston Herald thread on how people don't change their minds in the light of facts, but rather more staunchly support what they believed before?

I understand a poor Michigander needs to see it.
 
So Alex37, if Islamophobia is a myth,

1. How do you feel about the NY mosque?
2. How do you feel about Muslim women wearing headscarfs in public, or at their job?
3. How do you feel about Middle Easterners getting singled out in airports, public transportation, or public events - do you support that?

Bmul you can answer too if you can come off without sounding like an upper-class twit.
 
1. How do you feel about the NY mosque?

It's irrelevant how I feel about a mosque near ground zero (notice the Italics). What I THINK is that it's private property and he should be able to do with it whatever he sees fit according to local law. That is, the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance, as it affects all property in that area equally. It's a community center with a mosque IN IT, not a mosque anyway. Obama crying about religious freedom purposely creates controversy about this issue by avoiding the core principle - property rights. It's classic political misdirection and another opportunity to label detractors as racist Islamaphobes.

2. How do you feel about Muslim women wearing headscarfs in public, or at their job?

My feelings about wearing headscarves are about as relevant as my feelings about the earth saving sandwich you're eating right now. What I THINK is that it's a free fucking country, for now, until you leftists get complete control over it. You pseudo-liberals puke out reverence to individual rights until you come across something that doesn't suit you- like talk radio, or conservative viewpoints in general- and you need to have it silenced in the name of tolerance. (obviously not totally directed at you Camoor, but the commie-freedom-killing-hippies with which you cavort). Headscarves, bikinis, bell bottoms - wear whatever the fuck you want, or nothing at all. I don't care.

3. How do you feel about Middle Easterners getting singled out in airports, public transportation, or public events - do you support that?

Again, feelings are a non-issue. I THINK it makes sense to make efforts to pre-screen people who originate from areas more prone to commit terrorist-type, violent acts. It just logical thing to NOT give a 70 year old sweedish grandma a strip search at the airport while giving Amad Ali Hamas a free pass because we want to give the impression we're being fair to all people at all times for all reasons.

I fly with middle eastern people who also believe this. Most people who get onto airplanes want to be doubly sure they're going to be getting off the plane in one piece. And most of them believe the same as I do even though they are sometimes subjected to what looks like racist treatment. They understand the need to profile in order to be more efficient at eliminating mid-air threats. If white guys started bombing busses and buildings in the USA like they do in Ireland, I'd expect some additional screening procedures for my white-bread ass - and I'd be thankful if it kept any bombing, white, irish asshole from blowing up my plane over the Atlantic.


Of course there's Islamaphobia in America. There's Jew-phobia too. Hell, people like Myke are phobic about people having the right to property. The point of the article wasn't that Islamaphobia doesn't exist, it was that it may not be as rampant, or epidemic as it's portrayed by the media. Some of us realize that bias and bad feelings will ALWAYS exist, no matter how many fairness laws are passed. Some of us want to make sure society is run properly to eliminate prejudice by fiat. Make sure to check your "feelings" at the door before deciding which side you're on.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Some of us want to make sure society is run properly to eliminate prejudice by fiat.[/QUOTE]

No, we want to make sure people's prejudice isn't reflected in actual policy/actions. That's why I'm liking the part of the Civil Rights Act that Rand Paul opposes.
 
Oh, great, now it's a pretentious Ayn Rand circle jerk, where the so-called objectivists get to cosplay like they're dispassionate rational thinkers.

Dispassionate, rational thinking is exactly how you get from "religious rights" and "property rights" to "the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance." Your dispassionate rationalism likes to have a floating definition of "property" that you sculpt like play-doh to meet your temporal debate needs. You're so clumsily, deviously full of shit.

You must be an alcoholic that just lapsed. You disappear for months on end, come back in a fiery, nonsensical rage, and your logic is dreadful. Don't get me wrong, I'm a drunk, but you just fell off a wagon somewhere.
 
Neither of the last two dudes to bring explosives on a plane (I'm thinking shoe bomber and underpants bomber here) were middle eastern.
 
The fact that:

1. Some idiots still think Obama is a Muslim.
2. That people think it would be a bad thing if he was.

Is enough to point to Islamaphobia. Much less all the ire over face veils and anything else. As others said, you don't have to have hate crimes to have racial fear....or even hate.
 
Colin Powell was, I think the most courageous in speaking about Obama being a Muslim:

[quote name='Colin Powell']
I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is, "What if he is?" Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']easy - he found one that didn't agree with his worldview, like all the others before it. Someone want to bump the Boston Herald thread on how people don't change their minds in the light of facts, but rather more staunchly support what they believed before?

I understand a poor Michigander needs to see it.[/QUOTE]
I should put a link to that article in my signature it comes to mind so often.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, great, now it's a pretentious Ayn Rand circle jerk, where the so-called objectivists get to cosplay like they're dispassionate rational thinkers.

Dispassionate, rational thinking is exactly how you get from "religious rights" and "property rights" to "the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance." Your dispassionate rationalism likes to have a floating definition of "property" that you sculpt like play-doh to meet your temporal debate needs. You're so clumsily, deviously full of shit.

You must be an alcoholic that just lapsed. You disappear for months on end, come back in a fiery, nonsensical rage, and your logic is dreadful. Don't get me wrong, I'm a drunk, but you just fell off a wagon somewhere.[/QUOTE]


Dispassionate rationalism. That's a good one myke - as well as redundant. You make that up yourself, or is that what passes for right minded, pinko-intellectual doublespeak these days?

My definition of property rights has a specific origin and consistent definition according to my philosophy - completely in opposition to your claim of it's moral relativism. The fact that you even put the word "property" in quotes displays your disdain for the concept and willful attempt to confuse your own stance on the issue.

My definition of property does not float. It is the rock that is the basis for our way of life in America and the cornerstone of our legal system. I know, I know, folks like you will do anything, by any means, to eradicate this premise. Fundamental change and social control begins with private property eradication. You keep hiding from it and I'll keep pointing out the guy in the Brownshirt.
 
Half our country thinks the president needs to be white, Christian, straight, and stupid.

We could have a candidate any permutation of other attributes, and have solutions to every problem in our midst, and half this country would cry their beer-urine soaked underwear while posturing about "my freedoms" and "my guns" and everything else, and probably brandish the antichrist message, since some old book claims that if a peacekeeper DOES show up, he's secretly the unholy Lord of Hell.

We are never going to have honest conversation about these things, because half the country refuses to do so.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']My definition of property rights has a specific origin and consistent definition according to my philosophy - completely in opposition to your claim of it's moral relativism.[/QUOTE]

You say it's consistent, but you're sitting on the fence of allowing the builders of the mosque property rights of their own - therefore, no, you don't have any consistency, nor do you believe fully in property rights.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and when you contradict yourself by virtue of hedging your bets by appealing to limited property rights while espousing the virtues of full property rights, I'm going to call you out as the philosophically inconsistent bullshit artist you are.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Neither of the last two dudes to bring explosives on a plane (I'm thinking shoe bomber and underpants bomber here) were middle eastern.[/QUOTE]

Shhh that's another fact. He's already using caps. More facts will only get Bmulligan angrier and more nonsensical.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You say it's consistent, but you're sitting on the fence of allowing the builders of the mosque property rights of their own - therefore, no, you don't have any consistency, nor do you believe fully in property rights.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and when you contradict yourself by virtue of hedging your bets by appealing to limited property rights while espousing the virtues of full property rights, I'm going to call you out as the philosophically inconsistent bullshit artist you are.[/QUOTE]

Myke, what the hell are you talking about? What the hell do you even mean by "full property rights"? Is this a branch of all your illogical argument against freedom? I think it is and it goes like this:

Absolute freedom means being able to do anything you want to do with no restrictions.

If you believe in "full" freedom, you should be able to kill other people.

If you don't believe that then you must not believe in "full freedom".


Sorry, the argument fails because your freedom ends where my life begins. It doesn't invalidate the concept of freedom of an individual. There are boundries, namely the intersection of your freedom with someone elses, and how it may transgress theirs.

I think you're just mouthing bullshit because you can't think of anything else wrong with my opinion, yet you're egotistically compelled to argue with me. I sit on no fence on the mosque issue. The owner's of the property have every right to build a mosque because they OWN the property - period. Inherent in the ownership of that property, though, is the local ordinance (we call them laws, myke) that have previously designated that parcel for a specific purpose or prohibited purposes. Every county and local municipality has these zoning laws and there are good reasons for them. Specifically so they do not intersect and transgress on the rights of all the surrounding property owners. As long as the facility they want to build falls in the legal category for the zoning of the parcel, they should be allowed to build it. How is that agnostic, or even contradictory, in any way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, the struggle between freedom and liberty. I'm fully aware of that, and I'm stunned that you grasp that our freedoms are indeed limited.

Where you failed to make sense is in your masturbatory prose. Rather than saying that the law is the law and the laws say it can be built, you type this while jerking off with your other hand:

"That is, the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance"

Which is not the same thing. Talking about established ordinances is one thing, but that's past/present tense. Laws on the books. Your quote is placed in future tense, so you're not advocating for following the laws as writ, but you're advocating for a review and vote of the laws on the books.

So, if you want to be consistent, fine. I'm not like you, I can concede when you have a point precisely because I don't have a hardon for going after you personally, just your points of view. I'm not like you, I can admit when I'm wrong. And I misunderstood your earlier claim that "That is, the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance" means the same thing as "they should follow the laws on the fucking books."

And I bet just as sure as you fell off the wagon again, you're similarly un8willing to make any concession that your prose is unnecessarily polysyllabic Ayn Rand slashfic - a libertarian penthouse letter - written in such a way that *you* failed to make *your point with *your* own writing, in no small part because you don't grasp how tense changes your argument from what you thought it was to something else entirely.

You know, for a libertarian/objectivist wanker, you sure are lacking for personal accountability.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Am I the only one who feels bad for all the gay black jews out there?[/QUOTE]

Walking fucking targets man. All twelve of of them.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Am I the only one who feels bad for all the gay black jews out there?[/QUOTE]

2 out of 3?
sammy%20davis%20jr%2001.jpg
 
[quote name='Strell']We are never going to have honest conversation about these things, because half the country refuses to do so.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Strell']Here, I'm going to play republican's advocate for this thread:

terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies[/QUOTE]

Gee, I can only imagine why you have a hard time finding people to have legitimate intelligent conversation with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Gee, I can only imagine why you have a hard time finding people to have legitimate intelligent conversation with.[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but he isn't having conversations with himself. He's having conversations with people who post intellectually stimulating things like this:

[quote name='UncleBob']Thank God they banned fluid transfers![/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course, the struggle between freedom and liberty. I'm fully aware of that, and I'm stunned that you grasp that our freedoms are indeed limited.

Where you failed to make sense is in your masturbatory prose. Rather than saying that the law is the law and the laws say it can be built, you type this while jerking off with your other hand:

"That is, the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance"

Which is not the same thing. Talking about established ordinances is one thing, but that's past/present tense. Laws on the books. Your quote is placed in future tense, so you're not advocating for following the laws as writ, but you're advocating for a review and vote of the laws on the books.

So, if you want to be consistent, fine. I'm not like you, I can concede when you have a point precisely because I don't have a hardon for going after you personally, just your points of view. I'm not like you, I can admit when I'm wrong. And I misunderstood your earlier claim that "That is, the PEOPLE of NYC should decide what it can be used for by ordinance" means the same thing as "they should follow the laws on the fucking books."

And I bet just as sure as you fell off the wagon again, you're similarly un8willing to make any concession that your prose is unnecessarily polysyllabic Ayn Rand slashfic - a libertarian penthouse letter - written in such a way that *you* failed to make *your point with *your* own writing, in no small part because you don't grasp how tense changes your argument from what you thought it was to something else entirely.

You know, for a libertarian/objectivist wanker, you sure are lacking for personal accountability.[/QUOTE]

And you accuse ME of being masturbatory....

And as far as future tense is concerned, I was stating the case as it should be handled as a hypothetical for all cases by any local zoning board - past, present, and fucking future. How about we call it future perfect continuous. How you can interpret that as a calling for NYC to review it in the future is beyond me. And how that becomes inconsistent with my belief that they can build whatever they want to on that site must just be another one of those bullshit points stuck up your ass that you claw out while trying to retrieve your head.

Zoning laws are constantly being replanned, appealed, and overturned. There's always a review process in any building project by various boards and it's their judgment that ultimately green lights a project in the name of the community. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT LAWS ARE "ON THE BOOKS" AS THERE'S ALWAYS A REVIEW OF THE PROJECT BEFORE IT STARTS. There's no fine print on all those laws in books that can categorize all types of business and situations, therefore there's always a "trial" of sorts when the plans get submitted, reviewed, and then a decision is made by the judges that compose the board according to local laws. It's called bureaucracy and you, above anyone else, should be more familiar with it.

See, you don't just go directly to jail if you kill someone or steal a car, do you? Of course not. Even though those "book laws" require jailtime for murder and car theft, there's always a review of the case, presented evidence, and a decision rendered by a jury. There are processes to determine legality and merit because God doesn't come down from the sky and render things automatically. You're the criminologist- you know these things about process, right?

Now, as far as I can remember, I saw the zoning board in question green light the project - and I agree with their decision. See? Past tense !!!! I also hope that the Lower Manhattan Zoning Board will properly review and approve all such similar cases in the future . Please tell me if I can make that any more clear for you, as I understand how hard it must be to hear me from that colon cavity.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']See, you don't just go directly to jail if you kill someone or steal a car, do you? Of course not. Even though those "book laws" require jailtime for murder and car theft, there's always a review of the case, presented evidence, and a decision rendered by a jury. There are processes to determine legality and merit because God doesn't come down from the sky and render things automatically. You're the criminologist- you know these things about process, right?[/QUOTE]

So you go from talking about building a Muslim mosque to gta and murder without skipping a beat? Never mind about trying to explain, your analogy is so deeply flawed and offensive it doesn't merit further comment. Only thing I want to know: is this rant a Bmuls original or are you borrowing schtick from Glenn Beck?
 
Myke said you were "advocating for a review and vote of the laws on the books." That isn't the same thing as a zoning board reviewing the details of a project. He's talking about the laws on the books, basically rewriting the laws which themselves govern building.
 
[quote name='Clak']Myke said you were "advocating for a review and vote of the laws on the books." That isn't the same thing as a zoning board reviewing the details of a project. He's talking about the laws on the books, basically rewriting the laws which themselves govern building.[/QUOTE]

You guys don't seem to understand zoning laws. Despite the law saying an area is zoned for a specific purpose, they still review whether or not the area is suited for that building. Such as my earlier example where Wal Mart has to jump through hoops to get approval to build their store. The zoning for the property they are going to purchase is for commercial, yet the board makes the decision on whether or not it is suited for the area.
 
[quote name='Christopher Hitchens']This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.[/quote]

That about sums it up.
 
What is it about Islamic preaching that makes your fear rational? And please don't give me the extremist infidels must die bullshit. I can find that kind of preaching for every religion on the planet.
 
[quote name='depascal22']What is it about Islamic preaching that makes your fear rational? And please don't give me the extremist infidels must die bullshit. I can find that kind of preaching for every religion on the planet.[/QUOTE]

Pastafarianism does preach that. It endorses piracy on the high seas, but it doesn't preach infidels must die.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You guys don't seem to understand zoning laws. Despite the law saying an area is zoned for a specific purpose, they still review whether or not the area is suited for that building. Such as my earlier example where Wal Mart has to jump through hoops to get approval to build their store. The zoning for the property they are going to purchase is for commercial, yet the board makes the decision on whether or not it is suited for the area.[/QUOTE]

The only reason Walmart jumps through hoops is because they make more profits from federal, state, and local subsidies then they do from retail. Land development subsidies are only the start, they also get employment subsidies, transportation subsidies and a host of others.

Small town politicians fall all over themselves to get a Walmart and doom their local economy. Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You guys don't seem to understand zoning laws. Despite the law saying an area is zoned for a specific purpose, they still review whether or not the area is suited for that building. Such as my earlier example where Wal Mart has to jump through hoops to get approval to build their store. The zoning for the property they are going to purchase is for commercial, yet the board makes the decision on whether or not it is suited for the area.[/QUOTE]
I don't see where I disagreed with that. In fact, my post was regarding what I believe Myke was getting at. Mullgian's post simply wasn't very well worded for what he was trying to say.
 
Oh please, you think some holier than thou christian preacher hasn't manifested an irrational fear in preaching? Just use gay marriage for example, that's about as irrational as a fear can get, you think that's been kept out of every service in the country? Even if it is, it gets throw into the "things that are destroying our country" or some other all inclusive line.


edit- Oops, there I go bashing the christians again. Why Don't I just say that all this BS about religion is just another reason for my dislike of it, that fair enough?
 
I'm not sure a man like Hitchens varies in his universal disdain for religion. You could substitute any faith for "Islam" in the quote above and Hitchens would concur. His whole worldview is that religion as a concept is to be distrusted and abandoned.

He holds no special place in his heart for the destruction of one faith over another, and it's misleading to quote him out of context. You make it sound like he supports Islamophobia in and of itself - to the contrary, all of his writings express a universal faith-o-phobia. It would be incorrect to use his ideology to support the distrust of only one.
 
I actually had the look him up because I had him slightly mixed up with someone else. But yeah, the guy hates all religions, he isn't exactly saying that it's rational to fear islam, he'd say that about any religion. I don't really understand fearing a religion anyway, it's religious people that sometimes scare me, a religion is just a concept, a bunch of words supposedly said by somebody and written down in a book.
 
bread's done
Back
Top