"SOMEONE'S comments on Muslims

[Bill V]

...and as MN has acquiesced to their demands...

KL, that right there is what makes both your and FOX News' stance so idiotic.



Minnesota has NOT acquiesced to their demands!



As Mark correctly pointed out, the cabbies objecting to carrying booze were overruled, and instructed that they must either allow it or get new jobs. And although Target accommodated the employees who objected to handling bacon by finding other positions for them (just like Target accommodates Christians by closing their doors on 12/25), TARGET IS NOT MINNESOTA! The FOX News report linked here calls for Minnesota voters to stand up to this. How? The people we vote for overruled the cabbies--so how do they want the voters to improve on that? (Actually, I'm not positive of that--I'm not sure that those who overruled the cabbies are elected officials or not.)



And Target is not a government entity--they're an independent company. Does FOX want the voters of this state to somehow insist that they force all employees to handle bacon? I thought that the conservative standpoint was that we have too much government sticking their nose into everything! But they want the voters (and hence, the government) to get involved in this? That's ridiculous!



If you want to disagree with Target about THEIR decisions, fine, that's your right. But don't implicate the people or the state of Minnesota in that, or expect the voters of Minnesota to somehow fix it--they have nothing to do with it!

 

[Bill V]

My point was, and not necessarily directed at anyone, that people get so upset and defensive of Muslims when they are unfairly characterized by their "fringe" extremists, but not so much as when it is done to Christians.

That's ridiculous. If anything, the opposite is true--People criticize Christianity's fringe extremists, and only the fringe extremists, and many non-fringe Christians than bogusly claim that the criticism of the Christian fringe extremists was addressed toward and characterizing of all Christians, when no such thing exists.



You want Muslim leaders to do more to denounce the extremists within their faith. Great--so do I. But then, when people denounce the extremists within the Christian faith, rather than joining in and also denouncing them, you falsely claim that you're being denounced too. It's such a great "Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" position.



If Christianity is so "under attack" in this country, then why is it that Christians are the ones going on the offensive against others most of the time?

 

[Kevin Lang]

The people of MN do have something to do with it.



Target is, as you say, a private company. The cabbies presumably work for a private company.



Private companies should rather fire these people than bend their practices, and profits, for their whims, however their clientele, the people of MN, would crucify them for such an "intolerant" act.



So they acquiesce to the demands of the muslims as they can't afford the backlash for not doing so. Sadly, the government would probably be the one ramming the spear into them on the cross, attacking them legally for "invidious behavior".



<hr>



Also, the Government is being called upon by the cabbies to have the "right" to refuse service. The only reason that they do not have such a right already is because the cab companies called upon them to waive that right via contract. So they are calling upon the government to overrule private industry & condone breach of contract.



Muslims are calling for special treatment in both cases, and trying to get the government to strong-arm private industry into granting it to them.



That is not right. That is why the conservatives care.



(And, as you know, the People are the Government)

 

[Bill V]

Private companies should rather fire these people than bend their practices, and profits, for their whims, however their clientele, the people of MN, would crucify them for such an "intolerant" act.

Since when is Target's clientele only the people of MN? If they aren't in all 50 states, they must be close.



And no--primate companies should not "rather fire these people". They should do what is best for the company. If that includes firing, fine. If that doesn't, that's fine too. But it's up to THEM as to what is best for THEM--not anyone else. Just because you feel it would be best to fire them, doesn't mean that that's what they should determine is best for them.



If Target were to decide to be open 24 hours on December 25, and to require that all employees work that day, and if many Christian employees said no, they won't work that day, then it should also be up to THEM to decide whether to fire those employees, or do something else, depending on what is determined to be best for the company.



And in both cases, it is completely within their right to consider all aspects of the decision, including both employee and public reaction, in deciding how to proceed.

 

[Steve McKellop]

So much for the intended humor.......................:sad:

 

[Bill V]

Muslims are calling for special treatment in both cases, and trying to get the government to strong-arm private industry into granting it to them.

And in the one case the government (I'm again presuming it was the government) sided against them, and in the other case a resolution was reached between the employees and the company before the government ever got involved. So based on those two cases, what's your beef with either the people or the government of MN???

 

[H D]

TJR:

I think that Islamic leaders have done too little to denounce the extremists. They should do more. I have no problem with calling out the extremists. I have no problem with putting pressure on Muslims to denounce the extremists.



However, I already stated my objection - and it is against those that seem to use the term "Muslim" and "Islamic Extremist" synonomously.

We are in complete agreement.:banana: Your first sentence is exactly what I was getting at. I also would like to see more differentiation between Muslim and Islamic Extremists.



Bill:

when people denounce the extremists within the Christian faith, rather than joining in and also denouncing them, you falsely claim that you're being denounced too.

Are you completely ignoring the denouncements of the Christian extremists in this very thread?



Quotes from me:

...if some idiot leader of a church of 50 wants to burn a Qu'ran.

...Christians have misused the Bible for political reasons (which is absolutely true)...

Quotes from Eddie:

The Christian crusades were wrong. Notice in modern times most Christians get it.

I have to admit there are some Christians that are stuck with 1000yr old thought.

And Steve:

Westboro Baptist Church .......... what a bunch of IDIOTS !

Are those the kind of denouncements you're looking for Bill?

 

[Bill V]

Hugh, you make a partially valid point--although it also misses the point I was attempting to make.



Yes, some Christian non-extremists are speaking out against the Christian extremists--as your examples rightly show. Just as some Muslim non-extremists are speaking out against the Muslim extremists too. In both cases, however, more denouncement of the in-faith extremists is needed, especially from the leadership of both faiths.



However, my point was that a large number of non-extremists Christians are claiming that their faith and they themselves are under attack when people from both within and outside the Christian faith criticize the extremists. Perhaps instead of saying, "...RATHER THAN joining in and also denouncing them, you falsely claim that you're being denounced too.", I should have said, "...IN ADDITION TO joining in and also denouncing them, you falsely claim that you're being denounced too." Although that would have been incorrectly taking the characterization too far the other way, as there are plenty of non-extremist Christians out there who won't denounce some or all of the extremists. The point is, lots of Christians are claiming that their faith is under attack, and is being singled out in this country for persecution, but it simply isn't so. Criticism of American Christianity's fringe elements does not equal attack or persecution of the faith on a whole. A conscious effort to not attack other faiths is not in and of itself an attack on Christianity.



Christianity has ruled the playground in this country for centuries. No one's saying that they now have to leave. They just need to share the playground and play nice.

 

[Don Pertz]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

:btddhorse: