CHL radio ad

[snatchel]

Speedsix, I have all the respect in the world for you. I would never intentionally disrespect you.

however, I stand by what I say. You make clear, true points. I think they are valid in most respects. It disgusts me as much as it does you that American isn't the dream land it used to be. As far as the internal social issues, I'm with you 100%.

I simply think that we can not make a blanket statement and say that anyone Muslim or of Arab descent is evil because it's not true. I understand that a lot of folks have never been to any of the Arab counries, so impressions are based almost completely on what is presented in the news. I wont deny that there are some extreme Islam teachings toward the west and general, and specifically Americans. But you can not apply those extreme teachings across the entire Muslim world. The only way I can make this clear to you is by using our own model that is familiar to all of us: Christianity.

There are many beliefs that stem from the Christian Bible. I'm Catholic. There are Baptist, Methodist, Protestant, Church of Christ, etc. Too many to list here, but they all have different ideas on what exactly the Bible teaches. Then you have wackjob extreme ignorance like Westboro Baptist teaches.

My point is that there needs to be a clear understanding that there are distinct lines that seperate Extreme Muslim teachings, and peaceful Muslim teachings.

[snatchel]

I just realized that this discussion has gone way off track, and I appologize for doing my part in taking it into another direction. Mods, I understand if the comments are deleted/discussion is moved elsewhere. Whoops.

[speedsix]

...just as there are many interpretations of our Bible that result in many denominations and many who either twist or ignore what the Bible says to come up with a wacko "doctrine" like you mentioned at Westboro...

...there are many factions and "denominations", if you will, in Islam...because of their own interpretations...

...our Bible, however, does not teach to lie and deceive those around us, nor does it teach that life is valueless if not in our faith, nor does it tell us to kill those we can't convert, or at the very least subjugate them and make them pay to live...their book of faith says exactly that...and I believe that just as Christians will when under pressure and going through rough times come back to their true core beliefs and begin to live them, so will the Islamics at some point in the future...and history will be repeated...to our detriment...and with that, I'm done...

(more like following a logical progression than off-track...the ad itself provoked many tangents)

[snatchel]

......and I believe that just as Christians will when under pressure and going through rough times come back to their true core beliefs and begin to live them, so will the Islamics at some point in the future...and history will be repeated...to our detriment......

(more like following a logical progression than off-track...the ad itself provoked many tangents)

I can't argue with educated, historically backed reason. Again, we agree. My point was also made, I think we can chalk this one down to the books and call it done!

[RiverCity.45]

Being Musum does not equal being a terrorist. And if you check the definition of the word "bigot," you'll find he fits, no matter what our personal beliefs are.

[A-R]

snatchel and speedsix,

I greatly appreciate both of your posts and the discussion that has ensued. snatchel, your post nearly took the words right out of my mouth - hatred, bigotry, etc., cannot be tolerated. but I definitely understand speedsix's point of view as well.

my simple belief is this - until someone, an INDIVIDUAL, has shown me his/her ill intentions, then that someone is a fellow man, an equal, to be treated with respect. I try my darndest not to label INDIVIDUAL's as merely members of a group.

after all, we may all be "gun-totin' " - but I doubt all of us are inbred rednecks bent on overthrowing the government

anyway, thanks again for the sprited and interesting discussion from multiple viewpoints

[Kythas]

Well, I could be wrong, but wouldn't the refusal of service be based on religion or race? Isn't that discrimination? Aren't those two of the things that it is against the law to discriminate for?

I mean, one could be denied service for not wearing shoes or a shirt. However, denying someone because of their religion, gender, race, etc. will get one in trouble. I don't entirely agree with this law because it is being abused in the courts even now. I heard today that there are some Muslin students suing the Christian University they attend for having too many Christian symbols and it interferes with their prayers to Allah or Mohammed, I forget which. And there is another case where an atheist, I think, sued a Catholic Group for not allowing him to run for President of their organization. As ridiculous as these seem, the courts allowed them to proceed.

Actually, no. There are only certain activities which are illegal to discriminate. General discrimination is not against the law.

It is against the law to discriminate in employment, housing, or any activity or group where you receive Federal funds. There is no law stating it's illegal to discriminate in the teaching of a CHL class based on race or religion, unless you receive Federal funds to teach the class. Is it socially and/or morally wrong? Perhaps. But people discriminate all the time: social clubs, community organizations, etc. For example, you are not allowed to enter a Mormon Temple unless you're a Mormon - and one certified by your Bishop to be a Mormon in good standing at that. One could argue that's discrimination based on religion and they'd be right, yet it's perfectly legal.

[Middle Age Russ]

my simple belief is this - until someone, an INDIVIDUAL, has shown me his/her ill intentions, then that someone is a fellow man, an equal, to be treated with respect. I try my darndest not to label INDIVIDUAL's as merely members of a group.

Good point, A-R. We cannot know what is in the heart or on the mind of another until it is communicated in some fashion. As a general rule, I also try not to label folks. I have known people of other faiths that never exhibited ill will toward me and people of my faith that have shown ill will. Thus, I try not to immediately close my mind based on outward appearances that may indicate a faith other than mine. I have to admit some preconceptions, though, and these sometimes raise my awareness level despite a lack of exhibited intentions. As a side note, isn't it interesting how "profiling" is perceived as evil in our tolerant times, but avoiding profiling at all costs leaves one uncomfortably exposed to a sudden death at the hands of those less tolerant?

If the instructor who posted the ad wants to exclude anyone, it should be well within his or her rights to do so. They are providing a service for a fee, and can refuse that service (without taking the fee) for whatever reason they deem appropriate. Their stance will probably do nothing to help ecumenical relations, but they obviously feel that is a lost cause anyway.

[kjolly]

Mason is a very small quiet town with more deer hunters per capita than the rest of the state. I doubt that any muselims live there and if there are people of ethnic races I really doubt they are practicing muselims. Just a publicity stunt.

[texanron]

Local radio talk show host Michael Berry just interviewed Crocket Keller on the air. I have to agree with Michael when he said, "That's the kind of guy you would like to sit down and have a beer and chicken fried steak with".

[texasmusic]

[C-dub]

Well, I could be wrong, but wouldn't the refusal of service be based on religion or race? Isn't that discrimination? Aren't those two of the things that it is against the law to discriminate for?

I mean, one could be denied service for not wearing shoes or a shirt. However, denying someone because of their religion, gender, race, etc. will get one in trouble. I don't entirely agree with this law because it is being abused in the courts even now. I heard today that there are some Muslin students suing the Christian University they attend for having too many Christian symbols and it interferes with their prayers to Allah or Mohammed, I forget which. And there is another case where an atheist, I think, sued a Catholic Group for not allowing him to run for President of their organization. As ridiculous as these seem, the courts allowed them to proceed.

Actually, no. There are only certain activities which are illegal to discriminate. General discrimination is not against the law.

It is against the law to discriminate in employment, housing, or any activity or group where you receive Federal funds. There is no law stating it's illegal to discriminate in the teaching of a CHL class based on race or religion, unless you receive Federal funds to teach the class. Is it socially and/or morally wrong? Perhaps. But people discriminate all the time: social clubs, community organizations, etc. For example, you are not allowed to enter a Mormon Temple unless you're a Mormon - and one certified by your Bishop to be a Mormon in good standing at that. One could argue that's discrimination based on religion and they'd be right, yet it's perfectly legal.

Really? That does surprise me.

Looks like I was wrong.

[fishman]

Local radio talk show host Michael Berry just interviewed Crocket Keller on the air. I have to agree with Michael when he said, "That's the kind of guy you would like to sit down and have a beer and chicken fried steak with".

Dang I missed it. I guess I'll catch the 5 o'clock show!

[wgoforth]

...just as there are many interpretations of our Bible that result in many denominations and many who either twist or ignore what the Bible says to come up with a wacko "doctrine" like you mentioned at Westboro...

...there are many factions and "denominations", if you will, in Islam...because of their own interpretations...

...our Bible, however, does not teach to lie and deceive those around us, nor does it teach that life is valueless if not in our faith, nor does it tell us to kill those we can't convert, or at the very least subjugate them and make them pay to live...their book of faith says exactly that...and I believe that just as Christians will when under pressure and going through rough times come back to their true core beliefs and begin to live them, so will the Islamics at some point in the future...and history will be repeated...to our detriment...and with that, I'm done...

(more like following a logical progression than off-track...the ad itself provoked many tangents)

Yessir, and I make that point in my lectures. When there are whack-jobs like Westboro, we all condemn it. Where is the wide scale condemnation on jihad by Islamists? Some are referring to being anti-Islamists as "racism." Islam isn't a race it is a chosen theocratic religion. It is not just that it is a religion with which we do not agree.. it is a political entity. Not only the Quran, but the Imam's in the US will tell you that Democracy and the Quaran are contradictory.

[A-R]

Actually, no. There are only certain activities which are illegal to discriminate. General discrimination is not against the law.

It is against the law to discriminate in employment, housing, or any activity or group where you receive Federal funds. There is no law stating it's illegal to discriminate in the teaching of a CHL class based on race or religion, unless you receive Federal funds to teach the class. Is it socially and/or morally wrong? Perhaps. But people discriminate all the time: social clubs, community organizations, etc. For example, you are not allowed to enter a Mormon Temple unless you're a Mormon - and one certified by your Bishop to be a Mormon in good standing at that. One could argue that's discrimination based on religion and they'd be right, yet it's perfectly legal.

Curious for my own understanding, what stops this same guy who let's say owns a restaurant from saying "NO *insert protected group here* allowed" ? This is what you see in all the history books happened in the south in the mid-1900s with "No Coloreds Allowed" signs etc., and that doesn't happen anymore. Why not? I thought there was a Federal law forbidding such signs.