Olympic champ Dalilah Muhammad: "It's insane what America is becoming"

so i guess hassan is going back to the netherlands soon?

There was a Canadian denied access this week on his way to compete at BU.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/another-canadian-citizen-refused-entry-united-states-border-1.3976230

#FightOn

And as for Muhammad, what words would she offer to her president, if given the chance? “Oh man,” she says, before pausing for thought. “I guess I would say to him we’re all the same, no matter what our beliefs.”

We're all the same no matter what our beliefs? No. People who believe that committing genocide against Christians are not the same as the rest of us. People who believe women are second class citizens are incompatible with our liberal society. People who throw gays off the tops of buildings are not welcome here. People who believe Jews need to be exterminated are not like the rest of us. People who say they will take over the world and convert, enslave, or kill everyone else are not what I call "good neighbors".

... and the people who point all this out are not "bigots". They are responsible citizens.

Why didn't someone ask her about any of that?

DiscoGary wrote:

Why didn't someone ask her about any of that?

Because they have some sense of perspective.

It all boils down to the US occupation of Jerusalem and Palestine. I.E. the US should pull out all of it's European settlers and militants and restore Palestine to it's original form.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Why didn't someone ask her about any of that?

Because they have some sense of perspective.

What perspective would that be? Don't blame all Muslims for the actions of 20% of their group?

DiscoGary wrote:

... and the people who point all this out are not "bigots". They are responsible citizens.

But the people who think those behaviors are representative of EVERYONE WHO IS EVEN VAGUELY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RELIGION are irresponsibly paranoid.

Freedom of religion my friend. It's right there in your favorite government document.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Why didn't someone ask her about any of that?

Because they have some sense of perspective.

Agreed. It's important to look at the world in a balanced and objective way, and not to let fears get the best of your reason. Otherwise it's easy to catastrophize and assume everyone who falls into a certain group are exactly the same as the very worst examples of people in that group (who, I agree, we want absolutely nothing to do with).

It's insane what Islam is becoming. But no, she's not allowed to criticize Islam, she may only criticize the country that gave her everything.

Deport those democrats.

I am the Knowlegable One wrote:

It all boils down to the US occupation of Jerusalem and Palestine. I.E. the US should pull out all of it's European settlers and militants and restore Palestine to it's original form.

Nope. Bill Clinton tried to give the Palestinians everything they were asking for but Arafat refused the offer. He did that because he would probably have been killed by his own people if he accepted it.

The Palestinian conflict is maintained by the surrounding Muslim countries as a reason to agitate against Israel. Those countries could have solved this problem long ago by simply taking in the Palestinians and making peace with Israel. But they won't because they are anti-Semites and want to exterminate Jews.

FitzyXC wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

... and the people who point all this out are not "bigots". They are responsible citizens.

But the people who think those behaviors are representative of EVERYONE WHO IS EVEN VAGUELY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RELIGION are irresponsibly paranoid.

Freedom of religion my friend. It's right there in your favorite government document.

Islam, as it is practiced by over 50% of Muslims who follow Sharia Law is completely incompatible with my favorite government document. They do not believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights under the law, etc.

Unless Islam undergoes a reformation, it will remain incompatible with any kind of civil society. This should not be hard to see.

DiscoGary wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Because they have some sense of perspective.

What perspective would that be? Don't blame all Muslims for the actions of 20% of their group?

Yes. But to think that 20% of Muslims are terrorists is a reckless exaggeration. Which is not to say we shouldn't be wary of the few violent radicals, we absolutely should. But we must not blow it out of proportion and assume all Muslims are a homogeneous group with the same violent beliefs. There are insane fundamentalists in every religion, but we can't let them overshadow the mainstream.

rabble rabble rabble wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

What perspective would that be? Don't blame all Muslims for the actions of 20% of their group?

Yes. But to think that 20% of Muslims are terrorists is a reckless exaggeration. Which is not to say we shouldn't be wary of the few violent radicals, we absolutely should. But we must not blow it out of proportion and assume all Muslims are a homogeneous group with the same violent beliefs. There are insane fundamentalists in every religion, but we can't let them overshadow the mainstream.

20% is not an exaggeration at all.

FitzyXC wrote:

But the people who think those behaviors are representative of EVERYONE WHO IS EVEN VAGUELY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RELIGION are irresponsibly paranoid.

Freedom of religion my friend. It's right there in your favorite government document.

Freedom of religion does not mean 100% freedom of religion. You should try actually understanding what "that document" actually means.

Nor is Trump's ban a religious ban. It is a temporary ban on specific risky and dangerous nations. Not all nations and not all Muslims. Anyone who keeps making this a religious issue or using the phrase "muslim majority nations" is being dishonest.

These nations are proven to have problems and potential risk. Trump didn't start this. Obama (and maybe Bush) singled them out too.

Vetting and profiling is not irresponsibly paranoid. It is the opposite. It is responsible if you know there is a threat or risk. It is extremely selfish to complain about getting questioned when there are people out there getting killed and hurt.

Lives are more important than you being able to get through the airport in less than 30 minutes. Anyone complainihg about this is extremely selfish and self-centered.

Furthermore, "those behaviours" are significantly prevalent throughout the Muslim community. If those behaviors and opinions were less than 1%, then you might have a reason to call it paranoid. But those behaviors and opinions are as high as near 90% of the population in some of those countries.

rabble rabble rabble wrote:

Yes. But to think that 20% of Muslims are terrorists is a reckless exaggeration. Which is not to say we shouldn't be wary of the few violent radicals, we absolutely should. But we must not blow it out of proportion and assume all Muslims are a homogeneous group with the same violent beliefs. There are insane fundamentalists in every religion, but we can't let them overshadow the mainstream.

It is not an exaggeration nor reckless. In some of these countries, terroristic behavior IS mainstream or at least has a significant presence.

the actions of 20%, which would be at least 300 million Muslims, or the actions of a disappearing fraction of 1% (measured in the tens of thousands of Islamist radicals around the world)?

DiscoGary wrote:

FitzyXC wrote:

But the people who think those behaviors are representative of EVERYONE WHO IS EVEN VAGUELY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RELIGION are irresponsibly paranoid.

Freedom of religion my friend. It's right there in your favorite government document.

Islam, as it is practiced by over 50% of Muslims who follow Sharia Law is completely incompatible with my favorite government document. They do not believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights under the law, etc.

Unless Islam undergoes a reformation, it will remain incompatible with any kind of civil society. This should not be hard to see.

That is simply not true. Do you have any Muslim friends? I know some highly devout Muslims and they all wholeheartedly believe Islam is compatible with the American constitution. I'm sure your average American Muslim sees it differently than your average ISIS recruit, but it's obvious it's not black and white. "Sharia" itself is not some homogeneous document agreed upon by every Muslim or even 50% of Muslims. In fact it is interpreted very widely by different groups. Islam itself is more diverse in beliefs than even Christianity, it has very few central authorities and the ones that do exist usually fiercely disagree with each other. It's complicated, and unwise to oversimplify things into easy to understand black and white situations.