On Thunderf00t, Park51 and the elusive point

[lilsorms202]

After reading through here, and watching the related videos here are my thoughts. I commented something similar on DLandonCole's Video Response.

I am a former Muslim from the USA, and I understand why the mosque is proposed as a community center. The mosque that I went to every week until I was about 12 was a community center. It had a prayer hall, but it also had a dining hall and school attached.

Anyways, my take on Thunderf00t's video was that Islam needs to reform some of it's core principles (free speech, freedom of religion within Islamic countries, equality) to be able to say with a straight face, "We have a right to build our mosque here." That is so they do not appear hypocritical. But it should be known that Islam dignifies itself as a an unchanged religion. Islam will not be reformed or modernized such as some sects of Christianity or reformed Judaism have.

In Sunday School, we were taught that the Bible and Torah were rewritten by humans thus they are impure. Only the pure forms of the Bible and Torah which can not be found today were what Allah meant to be followed. That is why the Quran is still recited in all Muslim prayers in Arabic. Go to any mosque anywhere in the world and you will hear prayers being lead by an Imam reciting Arabic. Especially right now as it is Ramadan and mosques hold night prayers (Taraweh) where they read through the entire Quran in the month; it is 30 chapters, so that's about a chapter and about an hours worth of standing a night. You can find videos of Taraweh on youtube. Now that's some strong force holding onto Arabic to keep literally every Muslim from reciting the Quran in another language in prayer. For any former Christians could you imagine going to church for prayer and not understanding a word said in the prayer. That is what my childhood was like.

Back to the video, is Thunderf00t generalizing all Muslims by saying they pray towards a figure of discrimination? I don't think Muslims pray with the intention of discrimination, but Mecca is discriminatory against other religions. On the other hand all Muslims do pray towards the Kaaba, so he has every right to make his argument.

As far as I could tell the argument at hand was not a "They have the right to build the mosque there but..." type of argument. It was more a, "They will appear hypocritical when they build the mosque there and continue to disallow non-muslims in Mecca, and forbid the building of churches near the Kaaba."

Now I hope I'm not putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth, know that this is my take.

 

[lilsorms202]

Sorry about the double post. I thought maybe I did something wrong, so I reposted.

 

[Nautyskin]

When he talks about Muslims, he seems to lose that focus and discernment.

Yeah, it would appear he only has broad, general concepts of what Islam is.

It wouldn't be such a problem if his confidence and volume scaled with his knowledge.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As far as I could tell the argument at hand was not a "They have the right to build the mosque there but..." type of argument. It was more a, "They will appear hypocritical when they build the mosque there and continue to disallow non-muslims in Mecca, and forbid the building of churches near the Kaaba."

Now I hope I'm not putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth, know that this is my take.

If that's his position, it is a pretty ignorant one. It is the rough equivalent of saying "Methodists shouldn't build a nursery school until they clean up the child abuse cover-ups from the Vatican." Methodists in Minnesota have no connection to or influence over Catholic leaders in Rome. By the same token, New York Sufi Muslims have no connection to or influence over Wahhabist Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia. So to connect the proposed community center in NYC to the behavior of a completely difference sect 3500 miles away is a sign of ignorance and poor reasoning skills...

... and since we know Thunderf00t isn't stupid, why has he screwed things up so badly in relation to Muslims?

 

[lrkun]

After reading through here, and watching the related videos here are my thoughts. I commented something similar on DLandonCole's Video Response.

I am a former Muslim from the USA, and I understand why the mosque is proposed as a community center. The mosque that I went to every week until I was about 12 was a community center. It had a prayer hall, but it also had a dining hall and school attached.

Anyways, my take on Thunderf00t's video was that Islam needs to reform some of it's core principles (free speech, freedom of religion within Islamic countries, equality) to be able to say with a straight face, "We have a right to build our mosque here." That is so they do not appear hypocritical. But it should be known that Islam dignifies itself as a an unchanged religion. Islam will not be reformed or modernized such as some sects of Christianity or reformed Judaism have.

In Sunday School, we were taught that the Bible and Torah were rewritten by humans thus they are impure. Only the pure forms of the Bible and Torah which can not be found today were what Allah meant to be followed. That is why the Quran is still recited in all Muslim prayers in Arabic. Go to any mosque anywhere in the world and you will hear prayers being lead by an Imam reciting Arabic. Especially right now as it is Ramadan and mosques hold night prayers (Taraweh) where they read through the entire Quran in the month; it is 30 chapters, so that's about a chapter and about an hours worth of standing a night. You can find videos of Taraweh on youtube. Now that's some strong force holding onto Arabic to keep literally every Muslim from reciting the Quran in another language in prayer. For any former Christians could you imagine going to church for prayer and not understanding a word said in the prayer. That is what my childhood was like.

Back to the video, is Thunderf00t generalizing all Muslims by saying they pray towards a figure of discrimination? I don't think Muslims pray with the intention of discrimination, but Mecca is discriminatory against other religions. On the other hand all Muslims do pray towards the Kaaba, so he has every right to make his argument.

As far as I could tell the argument at hand was not a "They have the right to build the mosque there but..." type of argument. It was more a, "They will appear hypocritical when they build the mosque there and continue to disallow non-muslims in Mecca, and forbid the building of churches near the Kaaba."

Now I hope I'm not putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth, know that this is my take.

I agree. TF's only problem is that he uses words that can be interpreted as bigotry, like the assumption that mecca is an icon for discrimination, because of the segregation of visitors. I'm sure, if he used some other event or sets of facts:a specific provision in the holy book or the treatment of women for example, it could have been clearer.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

After reading through here, and watching the related videos here are my thoughts. I commented something similar on DLandonCole's Video Response.

Thank you very much for sharing this insight.

I am a former Muslim from the USA, and I understand why the mosque is proposed as a community center. The mosque that I went to every week until I was about 12 was a community center. It had a prayer hall, but it also had a dining hall and school attached.

That isn't that different from a lot of churches and synagogues.

Anyways, my take on Thunderf00t's video was that Islam needs to reform some of it's core principles (free speech, freedom of religion within Islamic countries, equality) to be able to say with a straight face, "We have a right to build our mosque here." That is so they do not appear hypocritical. But it should be known that Islam dignifies itself as a an unchanged religion. Islam will not be reformed or modernized such as some sects of Christianity or reformed Judaism have.

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by the christian fundies to set their church aside. "We are the only church true to the original intent of..." so, this is not a hypocrisy unique to Islam. Everybody has the only true exclusive on the absolute truth. 38,000 christian sects and counting.

Also interesting to note that until we gave them a reason to focus on just one "great satan" muslims have busied themselves killing each other en masse over which immutable absolute truth is the real, true, absolute truth... pretty much in the identical pattern as christians. Islam forbids formation of sects, pretty much the same way that christianity does, and yet there are still separate sects. Each with its own claim to being uniquely correct and each with some tenuous thread of tolerance for one another born of the knowledge that killing everyone who doesn't belong to the same sect would be bad... even if it is required by scripture. Pretty much the same as christians.
Both, when it is convenient say something like, "we aren't really different." When that is inconvenient to a political powerplay the differences are illustrated and the sound of sharpening knives can be heard... both, christian and muslim. Conflicts between Sunni and Shi'ah are legendary in parallel to the same conflicts between catholic and protestant.

I see zero difference in hypocrisy.

My interpretation of TF's videos was similar. I was left wondering how he understood Islam to be particularly more hypocritical than the others enough that it should have a bearing on whether they should have the equal right to be hypocritical. The free exercise clause has nothing to do with whether a religion is hypocritical, and everything to do with having the right to be... If religion wasn't hypocritical, the free exercise clause would have been unnecessary.

In Sunday School, we were taught that the Bible and Torah were rewritten by humans thus they are impure. Only the pure forms of the Bible and Torah which can not be found today were what Allah meant to be followed. That is why the Quran is still recited in all Muslim prayers in Arabic. Go to any mosque anywhere in the world and you will hear prayers being lead by an Imam reciting Arabic. Especially right now as it is Ramadan and mosques hold night prayers (Taraweh) where they read through the entire Quran in the month; it is 30 chapters, so that's about a chapter and about an hours worth of standing a night. You can find videos of Taraweh on youtube. Now that's some strong force holding onto Arabic to keep literally every Muslim from reciting the Quran in another language in prayer. For any former Christians could you imagine going to church for prayer and not understanding a word said in the prayer. That is what my childhood was like.

No actual difference really... jewish services depending upon sect can either strictly in hebrew, or they can be in hebrew with a native language interpretation following each prayer. Catholic services... typically latin and depending on the priest and the congregation a similar strategy of repeating each prayer in the native language...
In judaism, even the misogyny is pretty much the same. In jewish orthodoxy women aren't permitted into the synagogue-proper but sit (silently) in a separate section screened off from the main area.

EDIT: I'll take it one step beyond here... Even the English used in a lot of English language services holds no contemporary meaning for an English speaking adult, let alone a child. "Begat? WTF is a begat?" The English usage is archaic and adults argue over what the hell a word or phrase means. Children going to christian services can feel just as lost as you did even in what is ostensibly their own language. That would be representative of my own experience.

Back to the video, is Thunderf00t generalizing all Muslims by saying they pray towards a figure of discrimination? I don't think Muslims pray with the intention of discrimination, but Mecca is discriminatory against other religions. On the other hand all Muslims do pray towards the Kaaba, so he has every right to make his argument.

Only to the exact same extent he makes the exact same argument toward each religion (at the vary least the abrahamic religions).
Saying that no more churches, temples or mosques ought to be built is one thing. Saying that a specific building is worse because islam is more hypocritical is itself hypocritical.

As far as I could tell the argument at hand was not a "They have the right to build the mosque there but..." type of argument. It was more a, "They will appear hypocritical when they build the mosque there and continue to disallow non-muslims in Mecca, and forbid the building of churches near the Kaaba."

They are hypocritical and it is that hypocrisy that they are guaranteed the right to exercise freely... One can't even point to theocracy as the issue unless every religion which has ever recognized a king is included in this sort of prohibition. Great Britain still has a seated monarch... granted her role is symbolic but she is still "gods intermediary in the material world." That is the essence of what is means to be a king or queen.
I don't think it's legitimate to say that one group is less hypocritical just because they haven't killed anyone today. Saying that another group is more hypocritical is meaningless, and the entire point is moot... because it is that exact quality that the free exercise clause protects. If it had meant to protect only that which made sense, it would have said so.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It may as well read... "You are free to be as batshit crazy as you please and you are guaranteed the freedom to do so."

Now I hope I'm not putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth, know that this is my take.

If you have, it is for the same reason that many people are having trouble sorting his meaning.
If he meant to be more precise he has demonstrated historically that he is fully able to do so.

 

[lilsorms202]

As far as I could tell the argument at hand was not a "They have the right to build the mosque there but..." type of argument. It was more a, "They will appear hypocritical when they build the mosque there and continue to disallow non-muslims in Mecca, and forbid the building of churches near the Kaaba."

Now I hope I'm not putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth, know that this is my take.

If that's his position, it is a pretty ignorant one. It is the rough equivalent of saying "Methodists shouldn't build a nursery school until they clean up the child abuse cover-ups from the Vatican." Methodists in Minnesota have no connection to or influence over Catholic leaders in Rome. By the same token, New York Sufi Muslims have no connection to or influence over Wahhabist Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia. So to connect the proposed community center in NYC to the behavior of a completely difference sect 3500 miles away is a sign of ignorance and poor reasoning skills...

... and since we know Thunderf00t isn't stupid, why has he screwed things up so badly in relation to Muslims?

I hope that's not how I came across. I tried to be clear that in my view, Thunderf00t was pointing out the hypocrisy many Muslims have, especially in this specific case. I steered clear of phrases such as "They shouldn't build" and focused more on "Hypocrisy when they build." There is a difference.

I agree, the influence of New York Muslims is slim to none over Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. But from my history in Islam, as far as I can tell, it is fundamental that nothing in the Quran ever be rewritten (changed). As Thunderf00t pointed out, the reasoning behind forbidding non-Muslims from Mecca is taught directly in the Quran that every sect of Islam follows. I do not agree however in saying New York Muslims have no influence in whether Islam as a whole can be reformed. They also do not have to necessarily agree with the banning of non-Muslims, but it is written in the text they follow.

Now if it was meant to be as you said, I agree it would be in poor reasoning. The same poor reasoning used by Newt Gingrich and co. on Fox News.

 

[lilsorms202]

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by the christian fundies to set their church aside. "We are the only church true to the original intent of..." so, this is not a hypocrisy unique to Islam. Everybody has the only true exclusive on the absolute truth. 38,000 christian sects and counting.

After talking to DLandon a bit on his BlogTV, I think I should have been more clear. I went too far in saying Islam is an unchanged religion, because it's clear with varying sects that it is not. But I was trying to get to the core of the basis of their belief. The Quran, which is kept unchanged, to a high degree. I was trying to say reform is needed there, and throughout Islam. Personally I consider the mosque in good taste, as the Imam's background shows good signs of a modern Islam.

Also interesting to note that until we gave them a reason to focus on just one "great satan" muslims have busied themselves killing each other en masse over which immutable absolute truth is the real, true, absolute truth... pretty much in the identical pattern as christians. Islam forbids formation of sects, pretty much the same way that christianity does, and yet there are still separate sects. Each with its own claim to being uniquely correct and each with some tenuous thread of tolerance for one another born of the knowledge that killing everyone who doesn't belong to the same sect would be bad... even if it is required by scripture. Pretty much the same as christians.
Both, when it is convenient say something like, "we aren't really different." When that is inconvenient to a political powerplay the differences are illustrated and the sound of sharpening knives can be heard... both, christian and muslim. Conflicts between Sunni and Shi'ah are legendary in parallel to the same conflicts between catholic and protestant.

I see zero difference in hypocrisy.

I 100% agree. This type of hypocrisy is by no means isolated to Islam. You can see it in many ideologies. It would be pretty entertaining to see the reaction of Americans if the media covered the building of a Church near Ground Zero in this context as often as they've replayed the Mosque hype. I think Jon Stewart had a bit with something similar to this point, and it was priceless.

My interpretation of TF's videos was similar. I was left wondering how he understood Islam to be particularly more hypocritical than the others enough that it should have a bearing on whether they should have the equal right to be hypocritical. The free exercise clause has nothing to do with whether a religion is hypocritical, and everything to do with having the right to be... If religion wasn't hypocritical, the free exercise clause would have been unnecessary.

As TF said, of course they have the right! This is America. They have every right to be hypocritical, but also as pointed out in the video, they also deserve to be called out on the hypocrisy. Whether they deserve it more than any other religion though... I do not think so, even in this particular case. Good point.

No actual difference really... jewish services depending upon sect can either strictly in hebrew, or they can be in hebrew with a native language interpretation following each prayer. Catholic services... typically latin and depending on the priest and the congregation a similar strategy of repeating each prayer in the native language...
In judaism, even the misogyny is pretty much the same. In jewish orthodoxy women aren't permitted into the synagogue-proper but sit (silently) in a separate section screened off from the main area.

EDIT: I'll take it one step beyond here... Even the English used in a lot of English language services holds no contemporary meaning for an English speaking adult, let alone a child. "Begat? WTF is a begat?" The English usage is archaic and adults argue over what the hell a word or phrase means. Children going to christian services can feel just as lost as you did even in what is ostensibly their own language. That would be representative of my own experience.

I knew Jewish services were partially held in Hebrew, having been to a couple bar mitzvahs. But I didn't even think of Latin or Old English in Christian services. I don't think I've been to a single Christian service; even though I live right next to a minister. I should point out that during Jummah (Friday) Prayers, when Muslims have service, it is common here for there to be an Arabic sermon followed by an English translation. But the prayers themselves are recitations of the Quran in Arabic.

Only to the exact same extent he makes the exact same argument toward each religion (at the vary least the abrahamic religions).
Saying that no more churches, temples or mosques ought to be built is one thing. Saying that a specific building is worse because Islam is more hypocritical is itself hypocritical.

I didn't think of that when replying, I should have. It is weird though how saying no places of worships should ever be built seems so radical. Yet it's so easy to take this NY mosque, and target one specific religion. I wonder if it's only me that feels this way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It may as well read... "You are free to be as batshit crazy as you please and you are guaranteed the freedom to do so."

That would have been awesome if it was worded like that.

We were talking about Jefferson's Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness in Logic class the other day. And the professor pointed out how difficult it is to promote something like say banning smoking under pursuit of happiness for non-smokers without infringing on the liberty of smokers. It is very easy to overlook the big picture like that, and very easy to overlook the big picture here too.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't see anything especially hypocritical about Muslims building a community center... certainly nothing worthy of pointing out. Can someone try to explain that one to me?

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Only to the exact same extent he makes the exact same argument toward each religion (at the vary least the abrahamic religions).
Saying that no more churches, temples or mosques ought to be built is one thing. Saying that a specific building is worse because Islam is more hypocritical is itself hypocritical.

I didn't think of that when replying, I should have. It is weird though how saying no places of worships should ever be built seems so radical. Yet it's so easy to take this NY mosque, and target one specific religion. I wonder if it's only me that feels this way.

No... you absolutely aren't to only one having emotional problems with this issue.

This is a highly charged emotional issue... a confusing one.
I'm not sure that anyone in this debate is 100% right (including me) because I'm not sure that there can be a 100% right when the issue is emotional.
I think this is maybe where we have to cling to our ideals of what it means to believe in basic human rights until rationality and reason have a chance to catch up.

 

[Asylumer]

Elusive point?

Muslims who attempt to preach the virtues of tolerance are hypocritical assholes. That's it. All his videos pointed out was a blatant hypocrisy in the actions of certain Muslims who sing praises to tolerance when it helps them but feel no shame about praying towards a virtual throne of intolerance that prevents entry based upon the scripture of Islam.

I share your worry that Thunderf00t is becoming increasingly dismissive of criticisms however. He tends to ignore them instead of getting dirty in the arena of ideas. If you didn't speak up (as somebody he respects) he'd probably have continued to assume those criticizing him were complete idiots incapable of understanding wtf he was talking about instead of wondering whether it was a failure of communication on his part.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Elusive point?

Muslims who attempt to preach the virtues of tolerance are hypocritical assholes. That's it. All his videos pointed out was a blatant hypocrisy in the actions of certain Muslims who sing praises to tolerance when it helps them but feel no shame about praying towards a virtual throne of intolerance that prevents entry based upon the scripture of Islam.

I share your worry that Thunderf00t is becoming increasingly dismissive of criticisms however. He tends to ignore them instead of getting dirty in the arena of ideas. If you didn't speak up (as somebody he respects) he'd probably have continued to assume those criticizing him were complete idiots incapable of understanding wtf he was talking about instead of wondering whether it was a failure of communication on his part.

Where the heck do these Brits get off claiming the right to free speech? I mean are we just supposed to forget that nasty business back in New Amsterdam when they garrisoned their soldiers in our homes and made us feed them while they terrorized us and controlled our every movement?

I mean technically they are guaranteed the right to speak freely, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise, now does it?
Have they no common sense? Just because they can legally speak... and tell us whom we should deprive of basic freedoms...

Did you see what I did there?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Elusive point?

Muslims who attempt to preach the virtues of tolerance are hypocritical assholes. That's it. All his videos pointed out was a blatant hypocrisy in the actions of certain Muslims who sing praises to tolerance when it helps them but feel no shame about praying towards a virtual throne of intolerance that prevents entry based upon the scripture of Islam.

Isn't that the sort of "hypocrisy" that we applaud in Christian moderates? Why does it make Muslims into assholes, other than anti-Islamic bigotry that leads people to hate everything that any Muslims does. The "blatant hypocrisy" seems to be coming from Thunderf00t... and from you.

 

[Asylumer]

Where the heck do these Brits get off claiming the right to free speech? I mean are we just supposed to forget that nasty business back in New Amsterdam when they garrisoned their soldiers in our homes and made us feed them while they terrorized us and controlled our every movement?

I mean technically they are guaranteed the right to speak freely, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise, now does it?
Have they no common sense? Just because they can legally speak... and tell us whom we should deprive of basic freedoms...

Did you see what I did there?

I see that you've failed to comprehend my post and Thunderf00t's video.

None of what was said was directed towards the actual building of the Community Center or an attempt to get back at Muslims by taking away freedoms. Your Nazi comparison is nothing more than a knee-jerk response to what you've trained yourself to see in the Ground Zero debate and it is grossly misapplied in this case. The fact is that Muslims, and by that I mean practicing Muslims, who pray towards the Kaaba are worshiping a symbol that in reality, and in their own scripture, is a divinely mandated object of intolerance. Thunderf00t's video merely pointed out the irony of these Muslims who then get on a high-horse about tolerance.

A comparison would be Americans criticizing another country for invading and then occupying a third-party based upon false evidence, or the Chinese government condemning another country for stifling Free Speech, or the Pope giving lectures about morality. They can do such, but the messenger should really look at their own behavior before criticizing others.

I don't quite agree with TF on this matter either. A Muslim could pray towards the Kaaba to fulfill prayer religious obligations while supporting an open Mecca, even if such a thing is against the Koranic commands. Essentially they'd be non-Muslim (imo) with regards to this particular instance and the charge of hypocrisy wouldn't apply. They would still be praying towards something akin to a giant Swastika, but only the peaceful pre-Nazi version.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

I see that you've failed to comprehend my post and Thunderf00t's video.

Interesting statement considering I used TF's statement almost verbatim and changed one word (and the cause celebre).
If this shoe does not sit comfortably in your mouth then you might consider that bending a simple statement (they have the right) into a pretzel of emotional qualifications and contrary subtext, can't legitimately be claimed to an unambiguous statement.

None of what was said was directed towards the actual building of the Community Center or an attempt to get back at Muslims by taking away freedoms.

Correct. The statement I made did not either claim that TF did not have the right to make his statement. Rather, it took the statement he made, and redirected it inconveniently.

Your Nazi comparison is nothing more than a knee-jerk response to what you've trained yourself to see in the Ground Zero debate and it is grossly misapplied in this case.

I don't think that anyone including TF could claim that my response was knee-jerk, or that I haven't made a diligent effort to interpret what TF posted. My posting history on this is lengthy and my confusion at exactly what he means appears to be also shared by numerous other people accustomed to TF being clear and precise.
If taking the same phrasing and applying it to an imaginary grievance over the behavior of British soldiers prior to the American Revolutionary War is inept, then the original statement might deserve to be revisited enough times that TF appears to actually make a point in that manner we know him to be rather gifted.

The fact is that Muslims, and by that I mean practicing Muslims, who pray towards the Kaaba are worshiping a symbol that in reality, and in their own scripture, is a divinely mandated object of intolerance. Thunderf00t's video merely pointed out the irony of these Muslims who then get on a high-horse about tolerance.

Then I am merely pointing out the irony of someone whom, were I to choose to do so, I could hold responsible in a similar way for actions over which he also had no control.

There are a multitude of divine mandates in the christian bible too... the majority of those who practice that religion however, do not stone people for eating shellfish. With regard to the people involved, I don't give a crap what's in the book, either book. The confrontation on the content of the book is a separate issue from the people themselves. TF's argument boils down to fallacy of division, attributing the tenants of islam ubiquitously to all muslims and further claiming that all sects of islam interpret the same text, to have the same meaning.

Saying that since all muslims pray toward the Kaaba, must mean they are all of uniform opinion, is equivalent to saying that all christians would be willing to cut children up with a sword if someone told them god commanded it. That actually takes a rare form of idiocy, even if it is explicitly exemplified as the act of a hero for god in the book.

A comparison would be Americans criticizing another country for invading and then occupying a third-party based upon false evidence

sort of like ummm us? oh wait, that would be FIRST person so I guess maybe we should use... how about Great Britain and India? Shall we?

or the Chinese government condemning another country for stifling Free Speech, or the Pope giving lectures about morality. They can do such, but the messenger should really look at their own behavior before criticizing others.

A bit like we should all be sitting down and shutting the fuck up about how righteous we are after invading Iraq based upon a deliberately fabricated lie, because lemming-like we followed an illiterate hillbilly troglodyte off the edge of the cliff into an unjustifiable war? No wonder the rest of the world looks at all Americans as war-mongering arrogant assholes... kinda like that?

I don't quite agree with TF on this matter either. A Muslim could pray towards the Kaaba to fulfill prayer religious obligations while supporting an open Mecca, even if such a thing is against the Koranic commands. Essentially they'd be non-Muslim (imo) with regards to this particular instance and the charge of hypocrisy wouldn't apply. They would still be praying towards something akin to a giant Swastika, but only the peaceful pre-Nazi version.

...and unless I missed something, American muslims are American precisely because they value America.
Religion is an accident of birth. Patriation is not.

 

[Asylumer]

Interesting statement considering I used TF's statement almost verbatim and changed one word (and the cause celebre).
If this shoe does not sit comfortably in your mouth then you might consider that bending a simple statement (they have the right) into a pretzel of emotional qualifications and contrary subtext, can't legitimately be claimed to an unambiguous statement.
...

Correct. The statement I made did not either claim that TF did not have the right to make his statement. Rather, it took the statement he made, and redirected it inconveniently.

Emotional qualifications? What sort of qualification is there when the video was entirely about hypocrisy? It wasn't a "They have the right, but..." statement he was making. Nobody is trying to discourage or otherwise diminish the importance of other peoples rights.

Then I am merely pointing out the irony of someone whom, were I to choose to do so, I could hold responsible in a similar way for actions over which he also had no control.

There are a multitude of divine mandates in the christian bible too... the majority of those who practice that religion however, do not stone people for eating shellfish. With regard to the people involved, I don't give a crap what's in the book, either book. The confrontation on the content of the book is a separate issue from the people themselves. TF's argument boils down to fallacy of division, attributing the tenants of islam ubiquitously to all muslims and further claiming that all sects of islam interpret the same text, to have the same meaning.

Saying that since all muslims pray toward the Kaaba, must mean they are all of uniform opinion, is equivalent to saying that all christians would be willing to cut children up with a sword if someone told them god commanded it. That actually takes a rare form of idiocy, even if it is explicitly exemplified as the act of a hero for god in the book.

As far as I can tell, his objection was that the Kaaba was a symbol of oppression itself. The closest comparison I can think of is a Christian who protests against immorality in books and yet holds the Bible in great esteem (even if he/she ignores all the bad parts). We recognize the Bible as holding some extremely barbaric opinions, and would find the Christian's stance ironic.

A bit like we should all be sitting down and shutting the fuck up about how righteous we are after invading Iraq based upon a deliberately fabricated lie, because lemming-like we followed an illiterate hillbilly troglodyte off the edge of the cliff into an unjustifiable war? No wonder the rest of the world looks at all Americans as war-mongering arrogant assholes... kinda like that?

Not quite. More like considering America to be above reproach while engaging in said criticism, or considering the American flag to be a symbol of freedom when (at the time) it's not. Opposing something universally and recognizing faults where they lie is a consistent position that allows one to criticize others without being a hypocrite.

...and unless I missed something, American muslims are American precisely because they value America.
Religion is an accident of birth. Patriation is not.

I'm going to assume by Patriation you mean associating with a nation, and not the transfer of governmental power.

Which is still pretty silly, as association with both religion and nation is a product of where/how we were raised until thought is applied. Not all Muslims were born overseas. Furthermore, out of nationalism and religion it is the latter which comes with prescription of belief deeper than in-group out-group. The two would only be comparable if one placed religious texts alongside Strict Constitutionalism. Being an American != love of freedom, nor mean its people are unified by anything other than a common government. That said, a religious group is still heavily fractured when it comes to a single viewpoint, and I think that perhaps judgment needs to be held until we know which definition of Muslim Thunderf00t was using. If referring to somebody who follows the Koran (especially with regards to the 2 beliefs he's confronting), then his usage of the term Muslim would be accurate. If not, then his tirade becomes nonsensical.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

As far as I can tell, his objection was that the Kaaba was a symbol of oppression itself. The closest comparison I can think of is a Christian who protests against immorality in books and yet holds the Bible in great esteem (even if he/she ignores all the bad parts). We recognize the Bible as holding some extremely barbaric opinions, and would find the Christian's stance ironic.

No... I think the word you're looking for is Hypocritical rather than ironic.

Christians pray to a god that will have no other gods but him... and the bible sets ample precedent for this justifying genocide.
Exactly how is praying to a god that commands the regional slaughter of men, women and children who don't belong to the Cult of Yahweh less intolerant than praying to a granite box?

If a christian sets those bits of carnage aside and discounts it as inappropriate for the contemporary world, and a muslim sets aside the notion that non-muslims are unclean enough to pack their bags and move to a country filled with non-muslims, then what fucking difference does it make which direction his head is pointed at in prayer?
A jew may celebrate passover... do you think the subject of god killing innocent children comes up as a matter of discussion and praise? NO. Seder is celebrated by focusing on the liberation aspect not on the carnage.

People are rejecting the carnage and inequity of religion because they realize that bits and pieces of their holy books stink on ice.
They still believe, but they practice and interpret in the way that suits their surroundings.
It is not a sudden realization that their religion makes no rational sense. It is the acknowledgment that parts of it don't.

 

[Giliell]

Ok, I have several issues with TF's latest videos, I'll try to make them seperately:

First, he now plays the emo card. Suddenly feelings matter. They'd be jerks to build that whatever there because that would hurt feelings.
Sorry, but some months back, when he did his "Draw Mohamed Day" thing, he claimed that "you don't have the right not to be offended". He wanted to exercise his freedom of speech, fine. He hammered his point home regardless of the number of thumbs he was hitting alongside. The feelings of those muslims who don't think that somebody should be prosecuted or killed for drawing Mohamed but who still think it bad taste to do so could be ignored.
But now, the feelings of SOME (because there are family members of victims of 9-11 on the other side, too) family members are offended, exercising their freedom of religion makes them jerks.
That's what I call bigotry.

Secondly, his blunt generalisations of muslims and islam as if they were one homogenous group. I doubt that there are many sentences you can utter that start with "Islam is..." and "Muslims are..." beyond some general information that would not be so gross a generalisation and over-simplification that it borders on a lie.

Thirdly, the Mecca-Kaaba business. Yes, the Kaaba is an icon of Islam and Muslims pray to it (that's one of those few sentences). They don't pray to the Saud-family or their policy. Unless they have spoken on the issue and declared their position on the question "Should non-muslims be allowed into the city of Mecca", one cannot know.
You get a cookie if you can tell me what fallacy that would be, setting up a false premise for an ad hominem or something like that. Had he said "I don't take lectures on tolerance from somebody who himself is unwilling to tolerate others", that would be another thing, but saying that he won't listen to somebody because they pray to a building that happens to be in a horrible country is bigoted.

Fourth, he doesn't even listen to himself when he makes his not-backed-up claims about "Islam". He claims that Islam in its nature is anti-science and anti-tolerance when he himself acknowledges in that very same video that once the islamic world was the centre of learning and a place where tolerance unimagined at that time in christian Europe was practised. If either of those things where "the nature" of Islam, then clearly the same religion could not be so different at different points of time.

Fifth, using (and I can't give somebody like him credit for not having thought of the possible meaning of his words) phrases that can with little or no ill-will towards him be interpreted as a proposal to kill muslims and supress Islam and then using those interpretations to wail loudly about how insane people are to suppose such a thing and to usae them as "prove" that all criticism of his videos was malicious and invalid.

 

[Tenderfoot]

(...)
Catholic services... typically latin and depending on the priest and the congregation a similar strategy of repeating each prayer in the native language...
(...)

First of all, I must stress that I am Tenderfoot, and not Thunderf00t
Second, I haven't followed this controversy closely, because I could care less. Even so, I apologise for reviving this question several days after the original post.

Now, for my actual contribution:
Catholic services are tipically conducted in the official language of the country where they are held.
This is, however, relatively recent, as it was introduced by the 2nd Vatican Council, in the 1960s, IIRC.
Also, IIRC, there was (is?) a traditionalist "schism" in France that kept the services in Latin.
Just a minor point, though, sorry.

Best regards,
Tenderfoot

 

[DeathofSpeech]

(...)
Catholic services... typically latin and depending on the priest and the congregation a similar strategy of repeating each prayer in the native language...
(...)

First of all, I must stress that I am Tenderfoot, and not Thunderf00t
Second, I haven't followed this controversy closely, because I could care less. Even so, I apologise for reviving this question several days after the original post.

Now, for my actual contribution:
Catholic services are tipically conducted in the official language of the country where they are held.
This is, however, relatively recent, as it was introduced by the 2nd Vatican Council, in the 1960s, IIRC.
Also, IIRC, there was (is?) a traditionalist "schism" in France that kept the services in Latin.
Just a minor point, though, sorry.

Best regards,
Tenderfoot

Well met... I stated my meaning incorrectly.
The two catholic services I've been dragged to (there was a skirt involved, not one that I was in, but one that I was trying to get into)
were conducted primarily in English with Latin prayers followed by the prayer repeated in English.