Why are liberals so protective of Muslims?

I think you have it all backwards. The federalists were liberals through and through.

 

Well let's break that down, shall we?

Supporting traditional marriage is fine -- unless by that you mean "passing laws to forbid gays from marrying", in which case you are using the levers of government to impose your personal view on other people.

And allowing employers to pick and choose the specific health benefits in their employees' insurance is another example of using coercive power (not government, but still) to impose your personal views on other people. Given that our health-care system is based on employer-provided insurance, it's not like this is just a perk that employees are free not to use. Getting their own insurance with full coverage on the individual market would cost a ton, for no other reason than they would have to cough up the 70% of premiums that employers typically cover.

You seem deeply concerned for the tender sensibilities of the employer, but not concerned AT ALL for how intrusive it is, or how it affects the employees.

 

Kind of? Actual liberalism is much more contemporary. Back then it was really "conservative", and "not as conservative" mixed with libertarianism.

 

I think what Chef is saying is that a private business supports traditional marriage is being attacked. They never said anything homophobic or inappropriate toward gay people. I'm pro-SSM and I think it's totally fine that Chick Fila supports traditional marriage. Just like I'm fine with Starbucks (just using a random name) supporting gay marriage.

 

I said precisely zero in support of "laws to forbid gays from marrying." I love your professorial "let's break it down, shall we?" followed by a complete straw man. Nice.

 

I thought I did on post 75. So I'm not sure what further types of information you want on that, but the thread topic is why are liberals so protective of Muslims. You may disagree with that premise but you would never expect to see a thread topic of "Why are liberals so protective of Christians" would you?

 

If that is what he is saying, that's a slightly different point.

That said, I have no problem with people using their free-speech rights (criticizing Chik-Fil-A, refusing to do business with them) in response to Chik-Fil-A using its free-speech rights (to publicly support traditional marriage). I personally was not out protesting the chain, but doing so is PART of free speech, not a restriction on it. Free speech does not mean "I should not suffer any consequences from what I say." It just means the government can't punish you for it.

 

Um, how is it a "straw man" when I said "supporting traditional marriage is fine -- UNLESS"?

See that "unless"? It means "IF you mean this, then here's my response." It was a conditional statement, since it wasn't entirely clear what you meant by the phrase "supporting traditional marriage". So that's not what you meant? Great. Then the condition doesn't apply to you, and the first part of my sentence -- "Supporting traditional marriage is fine" -- applies.

 

I fully agree with this

 

Of course, as do I.

 

Not at all. The liberals of today have more in common with tyrants than the Federalists. The Federalists were opposed to the very things the alt left and the liberals are doing.

 

I don't see where he said "defend terrorism" but I get his point, the liberal media down plays it best they can, kind of does sound like defending so fine, I will say it. Why do you all defend terrorism? I think by skirting it and misreporting it IS defending it and I agree with the quote but the OP is right about terrorism being down played and a love affair with one religion and not another.

 

So you are incapable of understanding that those being defended are the billion Muslims who are non-violent; and in particular American who have as much right to be here as anyone else?

Or are you in the us and them camp - them being anyone who isn't a white bible thumper?

 

Why do you libs insist on trying speak for me? You failed to address my question after I agreed with the movie quote. How many Muslims do you know? My quote was not anti-Muslim, I have known many and know a few now and some are great guys, some I do not trust, just like all races. Now are you ready to answer any questions or is this the liberal game of answer a question with a question and/or answer the question you like?

 

I'm not a "lib" but I understand the brainwashed right leaps to conclusions.

I am a former Republican turned Independent, for the record.

No one defends terrorism. That comment alone disqualifies anyone saying it as being objective. It is a ridiculous straw man. The goal of people like Obama was to not alienate a billion people over the actions of a few. What about that can't you understand?

 

I have had many Muslim friends, btw. I went to college with hundreds of Muslims [one of my best friends in college was Muslim] and my former boss was a Muslim.

My degrees are in physics so of course most of my classmates weren't white Americans like me. They are generally found on the other side of campus studying less challenging subjects.

 

Okay, awesome. So what is your complaint? That "the Left" (as if it's a monolithic bloc) does not come to the defense of people who don't need it (a large corporation)? Why would you expect them to do that?

You seem to be trying to equate defending Muslims against Islamaphobia to defending a fast-food chain against critics. If that's the case, let me show you how the comparison falls down:

1. The fast-food chain is a large, profitable company that is fully capable of defending itself;
2. The fast-food chain chose to put itself in the crosshairs by publicly stating a position on a controversial topic.

Meanwhile, Muslims:

1. Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. They are not nearly as capable of being heard or defending themselves as an American fast-food chain;
2. Muslims in this country are often non-white and/or first-generation immigrants. Again, that makes them less capable of being heard or defending themselves.
3. Liberals do not defend Islamic extremists. They defend the huge majority of Muslims that are peaceful and non-violent, against prejudice- and fear-based attacks
4. Defending someone against lies and prejudice does not require agreeing with everything that person or group does, says or believes.

Does that clear anything up? Or did I answer the wrong question?

 

Perhaps the left has adopted the common Islamic/Arabic definition of 'Peace.'

" "As-Salaam-Alaikum," the Arabic greeting meaning "Peace be unto you," was the standard salutation among members of the Nation of Islam. The greeting was routinely deployed whenever and wherever Muslims gathered and interacted, whether socially or within worship and other contexts. "Wa-Alaikum-Salaam," meaning "And unto you peace," "
(http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/mxp/notes/5140.html)


" "Salaam is the peace of submission. It’s the drawn out pronunciation of “slm” in “Islam,” (written Arabic has no vowels) the Arabic word for submission and obedience, and in “Moslem” or “Muslim,” the Arabic word for “one who submits.”

There is peace, salaam, among Moslems when they submit to Allah and the teachings of the Koran. There is peace, salaam, between Moslems and kafirs, infidels, only when the latter submit to the rule of the former.

In other words, salaam, Moslem peace, is not the absence of violence as it is for us, but the absence of disobedience." "
(http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009345.html)

To most folks, peace means a stable atmosphere where different individuals and cultures and ideologies and nations interact with eachother with tolerance, neutrality or even cooperation.

This 'Peace' in the languages and cultures in the middle east loses something in translation... it more accurately means stable interaction through TOTAL SUBMISSION. There is no cohabitation of differing ideas or beleif systems unless cohabitation itself is forced upon the populace. This is why we only see majority muslim populations living peacibly with minority ethnic/religious groups in nations that have a strong, brutal, dictatorial regime to force them to cohabitate. This is why the result of toppling those regimes is always total subjigation of the non muslim groups. 'Peace' via brutally enforced submission.

There is a strong paralel forming with this growing notion on the left that a difference of opinion qualifies as an attack, and warrants a physical response. Cite: antifa violence against 'fascists' (Trump supporters)

'Peace' be upon you indeed (so long as you submit to me).

 

I see a claim. I see no proof, other than your opinion of the left hating christians.
I bet there are many on the left that are christian. Would they hate themselves? BTW - the 1st of these multiquotes is #75

 

And I asked what further types of information you would want? So I'm unclear what you would consider proof. Experience tells me there isn't anything to change your mind because you can't even describe what evidence you would consider acceptable.

 

ummm... you're talking about Classical Liberals. Classical Liberalism was the promotion of (or often demand for) limited government, 'lassaiz faire' (unregulated) capitalism, sovereign private property for individuals, freedom of expression, and while not specifically noted in history, gun rights (while there is a preponderance of historically notable 'classical liberals' that staunchly supported a well armed populace as a means to deter authoritarian abuse and promote order through individual self defense instead of law enforcement, i doubt you could find one, and certainly not many advocating authoritarian restrictions or 'regulations' in the name of public safety).
I suppose a couple of those still line up with todays modern or neo so-called liberals, but the promotion of socialism by itself pretty much cancels out any legitimacy of claim to ties with Classical Liberalism.
If anyone today can claim a tie to Classical Liberalism, its Libertarians or maybe the Tea Party (if its even still around).

Thomas Jefferson, commonly reffered to as the father of liberalism, is surely rolling in his grave at todays progressives calling themselves 'liberal.'

 

You say the left hates christians. Surely you have proof. It's your claim, show us why you think nearly 1/2 the country, many of whom are christian themselves, hate christians and by logic, themselves.

 

I am talking about liberals, as the definition states.

Definition of liberal

1. 1a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal educationb archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
   
   
2. 2a : marked by generosity : openhanded a liberal giverb : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal mealc : ample, full
   
   
3. 3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
   
   
4. 4: not literal or strict : loose a liberal translation
   
5. 5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
   
   
6. 6a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalismb capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
   

I particularly like 4 and 5.

 

my bad. you did say 'liberal' and not 'Liberal.'

I often forget that the two are quite different.

 

Self hatred is a major component of the American left, so that's not an issue!

You still couldn't describe what sort of information or data you would find acceptable. Not exactly a surprise. I'll post a link to an article (you won't count it as meeting your still indescribable criteria however) and you can tell me what you think of the thrust of the article.

Why Are Muslim and Christian Politicos Treated Differently on the Question of Homosexuality?

"Christianity does teach us that gay sex is a sin. (Not that being homosexual is a sin, a distinction which Farron made.) But then it also teaches us that sex outside marriage is a sin. My own suspicion is that God is probably most offended by promiscuity (whether of the homosexual or heterosexual variety). He is probably also dismayed that the Church of England keeps banging on about gay sex while ignoring the vastly more serious issue of abortion.

It is great sport to tease a Lib Dem about all this stuff, of course. Or really to tease most Englishmen with our natural reserve about discussing sex, religion and politics – let alone a combination of all three; a combination for agreeably excruciating viewing. Of course Farron didn’t help himself by his desperate evasiveness.

Yet the cowardice of Newman, and the rest of her mob of media colleagues, comes in their double standards.

Would Newman demand of the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, (or Sajid Javid, the Communities and Local Government Secretary) to explain whether as a Muslim he regards homosexuality as immoral?

Would Mayor Khan expect to have the Koran quoted at him – “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone.”

Would Newman say: “Mr Khan, as a Muslim do you regard gay sex as a sin or not? Will a shower of brimstone be rained down? Or is what the Koran says just a load of rubbish?”

The point here is that the left holds Christians and Muslims to different standards. Do you agree or disagree with that?