Replies

I agree, AAC's posts are reasoned, well written, and derive from the study of the Koran and other islamic sources; I am baffled as to why his posts engendered some of the hostility we saw here?

I am surprised at the level of personal attack, and how quickly it appeared in the thread. Many of us are not new to this particular battle (I fondly recall the border thread of December 04, I tip my hat to Jan in Colorado), but the tone here definitely resonates at a far more personal level, even without the smarmy contributions of smithy and the Michigan geek.

I am sincerely curious and would welcome a non-hostile response.

I agree, Ari...I was taken aback by the hostility I found in the thread, even back in #26 ("This is not an unexpected knee-jerk response from one of the few people I've come into contact with who apparently has a "snooze" button for his brain"). But even when I tried to keep it light, I think I hit nerves. Admittedly I'm not the best comedian in the world, but I didn't think that the response fit my crime... and I realized it is a brave new world since December.

Then, I found that instead of staying on the topic of the thread, or answering why fingerprinting lawful American citizens is a good thing, we get 2400-word posts that have spurious claims (that have to be refuted, only to be excused as "I got it from PBS," etc...), demonstrating a lack of respect for other FReepers' time and efforts. I let my irritation creep into my responses.

Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but even if I don't recall the evils of Stalin's rule, and (dare I say it) Hitler's rise to power, I have known those who survived them and have seen how easy it is that degraded protections can lead to injustice.

Do I think we are about to become 1940s Germany or USSR? No...but I do think that putting more information into the hands of Hillary and her ilk is not a Good Thing^TM. It chills me to think that supposed conservatives are leading the charge to encourage the government to invade privacy based on religion. Who do they think these powers can also be used against, if not lawful Jews and Christians or anyone else?!?

On top of all this, we get use of words like "muzzies"...as if the use of similarly hostile terms for Jews would be welcome.

Bottom line: Just as there are Christians who believe that abortion clinics should be bombed, there are Muslims who believe in terrorism; just as the vast majority of Christians believe there's NO justification for such behaviour, an unknown number of Muslims do not support terrorism. What do we call the ones who believe there is no support for intolerant violence in their Islamic religion, if not Moderate Muslims?

To any who feel anything I said has been a personal attack, I apologize; I mean to address debating techniques and claims.

Finally, I not only tip my hat, but give a deep bow, to Jan in Colorado for her post of this topic again. Without this thread, I wouldn't have gotten to know many of you, and the rhetoric here probably conceals the genuine affection I feel for my fellow FReepers... I just wish you'd all keep the Constitution strong!!! ¬that was some humour...ok? <grin>