• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

His point was that Muslims wouldn't kill Muslims based on their religion if they believed the same thing.

ISIS claims to be Islamic but their beliefs are obviously warped outside of normalcy for the religion. The religion has 1.6 billion members and clearly they're not all following the same radical agenda of ISIS. Obama is just pointing that out. Were his comments precise? Maybe not, but describing it in the necessary detail to be precise would likely have bored most viewers and would have lost their attention.
Then it may have been wiser for him to not preach what Islam either is or isn't. He seems to deliberately put himself in these foolish situations which could be easily avoided. That he feels the need to express an unnecessary opinion seems to be a habit of his.
 
Then it may have been wiser for him to not preach what Islam either is or isn't. He seems to deliberately put himself in these foolish situations which could be easily avoided. That he feels the need to express an unnecessary opinion seems to be a habit of his.
Really? This is the president you're concerned about effectively expressing himself?
 
If ISIL or ISIS is not Islamic, why does he keep calling them ISIL?

ISIL by their own definition are Islamic. They are a sick extreme version of Islam that needs to be destroyed by all means necessary, however, they still are Islamic fascists terrorizing millions of people. What should happen is the civilized people of Islam (which there are millions) should rise up and destroy ISIL/ISIS. And we should be glad to help with that endeavor.

North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that make them a democracy just because they have Democratic and Republic in their name?
 
I'm stating it's as much semantics as claiming half the Muslim supports killing civilians. You can twist definitions and logic around until you've made even the most revered society members out to be vile, depending on the viewpoint and the propaganda.
No, you can twist definitions and logic around but i refuse to pay this game.
I don't support ISIL, but it's not because of their religion. Their religion is an internal viewpoint. Internal viewpoints aren't of harm to me until exercised. I disagree with their violence, which is a common issue across humanity.
Ni idea what the"I" in ISIL stands for?

We don't define them as "human." We don't define them as "male." We don't define them as "religious." We define them as Islamic because that definition fits in with the propaganda.
They are Islamic. They are Muslims. You'll have to live with that, just as they do.
 
The problem doesn't come from having a moral code, it's when you convoluted it with stuff that isn't relevant to it, like the cow line. There are certain things that every human being knows is wrong without being told, until the indoctrination comes in. For instance, killing someone is not something that a human being does naturally; there's reason why most murders occur either accidentally or in the heat of the moment. Very rarely do you have the try sociopaths that are just evil. You wanna know what my moral code is? ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea that people shouldn't be interfering with another's life, unless it directly affects them. This is why I believe that we have the higher moral ground in the west, because (in general) we respect an individual's wishes to live the life as they wish (again with the caveat that it doesn't interfere with mine.) I know as long as our government follows the principle, then we'll be alright.

Apparently every human being doesn't know these things because there are plenty of countries where these morals are not taught where things happen quite differently. Just because you want that to be true doesn't actually make it true. Even in our own country, there are things that go on that might violate our own moral sense, but they happen nonetheless and you're just pretending that there has to be something wrong with people who do something you disagree with because you don't want to deal with the reality that your moral position isn't objective.

This is the problem with a lot of libertarian thought, it revolves around a really ridiculous assumption that there are these magical, mystical rights just floating around in the ether that exist everywhere, just because you want them to. Natural rights are nonsense. The rights we have in this country, the rights that are enumerated in the founding documents of this country, exist because the founding fathers wanted them and put them there. If we were to do it all over today, a lot of what appears in the founding documents certainly wouldn't appear in the new ones. The world has changed and will continue to change and clinging desperately to the past, just because some people that you respect wrote it down, doesn't really help us go anywhere useful.

And by the way, as nice of an idea of saying that "one way isn't any more right or wrong than other" might be, you realize the number of things you are condoning by not condemning them? I won't insult your intelligence by listing them all, but needless to say, when one doesn't have that sense of what is right and what is wrong, you can find yourself defending a lot of bad things.

I've neither condoned nor condemned a thing, the lack of one is not the presence of the other. There are plenty of things that I would both condone and condemn, but I'd never do either of them because of a sound byte, a statement that something is right or wrong, simply because it is right or wrong. I could actually defend my views in detail and I also recognize that my views are just my opinions, just as yours are, even if you're unwilling to acknowledge that.
 
True but it's not really any different than the old "Irish troubles" where the Catholics and the Protestants were at war.
It's completely different. Absolutely different.
No they weren't. Whatever Christianity adopted came from the human experience, none of it was original to Christianity, Christians have simply tried to take credit.
If you want to give credit to some group other than Christians, or those influenced by Christianity, who were they?
Secular society. We no longer allow Christians to run wild in the streets, we don't allow them to own slaves, we don't allow them to force adherence to their religion, we don't allow Inquisitions, etc. None of those things were give up voluntarily by Christianity, they were taken away by force by a society sick and tired of Christian abuses. If it wasn't for secular society, the Catholics would still be raping altar boys without consequence. They're still doing it, of course, but at least there are criminal and civil penalties for it now.
I have not seen Christians running wild in the streets, Christians worked to end slavery, and child molestation occurs everywhere, and is even condoned by some cultures and at least one major religion.
 
No, you can twist definitions and logic around but i refuse to pay this game.
Ni idea what the"I" in ISIL stands for?

They are Islamic. They are Muslims. You'll have to live with that, just as they do.

A) You're already playing, you just don't appreciate it.

B) They're self identifying. There are many self identifying groups and individuals who don't necessarily get recognized by the greater society. I'm guessing thine quicker to accept their religious status than you would to accept a transgender's identity.

C) They are human. They are religious. They are male. They are rebels. Why the significance that aspect of their shared identity and not the others?
 
A) You're already playing, you just don't appreciate it.
Sure.
B) They're self identifying. There are many self identifying groups and individuals who don't necessarily get recognized by the greater society. I'm guessing thine quicker to accept their religious status than you would to accept a transgender's identity.
'm not interested in your guesses. There's too much of that silliness going on.
C) They are human. They are religious. They are male. They are rebels. Why the significance that aspect of their shared identity and not the others?
It was they who gave them their shared identity, not me. Best take that up with them.
 
North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that make them a democracy just because they have Democratic and Republic in their name?
You and Nazi apologists seem to post this every chance you get. You must have this handy somewhere.

ISIL is an Islamic group. I think we should learn to take them at their word, accept it, and move on.
 
Apparently every human being doesn't know these things because there are plenty of countries where these morals are not taught where things happen quite differently. Just because you want that to be true doesn't actually make it true. Even in our own country, there are things that go on that might violate our own moral sense, but they happen nonetheless and you're just pretending that there has to be something wrong with people who do something you disagree with because you don't want to deal with the reality that your moral position isn't objective.

This is the problem with a lot of libertarian thought, it revolves around a really ridiculous assumption that there are these magical, mystical rights just floating around in the ether that exist everywhere, just because you want them to. Natural rights are nonsense. The rights we have in this country, the rights that are enumerated in the founding documents of this country, exist because the founding fathers wanted them and put them there. If we were to do it all over today, a lot of what appears in the founding documents certainly wouldn't appear in the new ones. The world has changed and will continue to change and clinging desperately to the past, just because some people that you respect wrote it down, doesn't really help us go anywhere useful.

I've said it once already, but it's worth repeating, that not everything this country, or the west in general does, do I believe is right. There are many things about our society that I believe is wrong. However, it still goes without saying that you have a better shot at a happy life in the west today, then almost anywhere else in the world. That's where the Natural rights, (which we're getting a little off subject if we are bringing that up) comes into play. Again, the Bill of Rights is great start, but it's not perfect, but there pretty good. Like I said before, it's when humans start mucking about, or enumerating said rights and deeming what is right and wrong, where things get a little mucky. Lastly, on the murder front, I've done missionary work in Africa, and I know that life can be hard on a person and it can lead to that person doing despicable things, but when I look into the eyes of a small child, no matter where he's born, I've never seen a murderous villain in them.

I've neither condoned nor condemned a thing, the lack of one is not the presence of the other. There are plenty of things that I would both condone and condemn, but I'd never do either of them because of a sound byte, a statement that something is right or wrong, simply because it is right or wrong. I could actually defend my views in detail and I also recognize that my views are just my opinions, just as yours are, even if you're unwilling to acknowledge that.

I wonder how long injustices like slavery and women's rights went a long, because people didn't want to get involved and risk offending others?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 
Oh dood...you are so full of **** its scary. Anytime it is convenient, liberals rush to drag them in as an example of 'Christianity'. Every liberal? No. But plenty of them? You bet.

I'm dragging them in not as representative of Christianity as a whole, but as an example of a very "non-Christian" (as in, they don't do a very good job following Christ). I don't look at them as representative of the whole of Christianity, and I don't look at ISIS/L as representative of the whole of Islam. THAT is the only comparison. I'm not bringing them in as "but...but...Christians," but as an example of extremists that don't represent the whole religion that everybody would have heard of.
 
It is 'liberals' who are trying to deflect from the fact that ISL is Islamic by bringing in another religion. Why is that? Is it anther of those 'they all do it' arguments and, if so, what's the point?

That wasn't the point, and if you think it was you missed the point completely. Which a lot of people are doing here.

There is no comparison between the groups in their actions. Both, however, represent extremist sects that don't do a very good job at following their stated religion, and do not represent the religion as a whole.

Anybody who thinks I did that completely missed my point, which sadly is typical around here.
 
I'm dragging them in not as representative of Christianity as a whole, but as an example of a very "non-Christian" (as in, they don't do a very good job following Christ). I don't look at them as representative of the whole of Christianity, and I don't look at ISIS/L as representative of the whole of Islam. THAT is the only comparison. I'm not bringing them in as "but...but...Christians," but as an example of extremists that don't represent the whole religion that everybody would have heard of.
And you believe that this was a point which only you and a few chosen others understood?

Maybe this bears repeating yet again. Not all Muslims are terrorists! Can we finally put that cliche away?
 
You and Nazi apologists seem to post this every chance you get. You must have this handy somewhere.

ISIL is an Islamic group. I think we should learn to take them at their word, accept it, and move on.

As usual, you cannot refute what I said and instead resort to personal attacks. Just because they call themselves Islamic, doesn't make it so. But please continue with your foaming at the mouth comments.
 
And you believe that this was a point which only you and a few chosen others understood?

Given the number of responses saying that there's no comparison between Westboro and ISIS, apparently it is.
 
It's an obvious attempt to reach out to the non radical elements of the Muslim community, in order to prevent ostracization. It's an approach that was mirrored, and some would argue in even greater quantity, by his predecessor.
 
The point, which is apparently lost on conservatives, is that if one claims to be a religious "nation" one should uphold the tenets of that religion. Islam does not condone the slaughter of innocent children.

As the President said:
I mean really, the lengths conservatives will go to claim Obama is wrong is disheartening.

Another tin foil hat wearing liberal. Notice how liberals hate the U.S. the worst president in history can do no wrong.

5L55J65M83Gd3I43Jec41ad5656596aec1869.jpg
 
I've said it once already, but it's worth repeating, that not everything this country, or the west in general does, do I believe is right. There are many things about our society that I believe is wrong. However, it still goes without saying that you have a better shot at a happy life in the west today, then almost anywhere else in the world. That's where the Natural rights, (which we're getting a little off subject if we are bringing that up) comes into play. Again, the Bill of Rights is great start, but it's not perfect, but there pretty good. Like I said before, it's when humans start mucking about, or enumerating said rights and deeming what is right and wrong, where things get a little mucky. Lastly, on the murder front, I've done missionary work in Africa, and I know that life can be hard on a person and it can lead to that person doing despicable things, but when I look into the eyes of a small child, no matter where he's born, I've never seen a murderous villain in them.

I never said that you did. It all depends on what you define as a happy life. There are people living in Africa that would probably say they are happy, I'm sure there are people in North Korea that say they're happy. Happiness is also subjective. You're blinded by your western perspective. I'm sure there are people out there who say they could never be happy without a cell phone or constant access to social media, yet in other countries, there are people who have never even seen a cell phone, who have probably never even seen indoor plumbing, who are perfectly happy. Other people have just as much a right to self-determination as we do. Even with the Bill of Rights, blacks and women were not equal. Only white, male landowners were. Things evolved over time. If the people of the Middle East don't want women to be equal, as much as that might bother people coming from a western perspective, we don't have any right to impose our views on them, any more than we want them to impose their views on us. Just because we have the planes and the tanks doesn't mean we get to rule the planet. If we want to be able to do things our way, we have to allow others to be able to do things their way. To do otherwise is grossly hypocritical.

It always surprises people that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the entire planet. A couple of months ago, there was a blogger, and I want to say it was in Yemen but I could be wrong, who had an atheist blog and they got arrested because it was illegal. Tons of people got up in arms, screaming that they had a freedom of religion and a freedom of speech. No they didn't. Not in Yemen or wherever it was. It was a crime. We forget that our rights end at our borders and with our citizens.

I wonder how long injustices like slavery and women's rights went a long, because people didn't want to get involved and risk offending others?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Depending on how you define evil, of course. According to the Muslim radicals, what we do in this country is evil. Prove them wrong.
 
Every religion condones the killing of innocents.

At some point in their history, I'm sure that's true. Actually, for the radicals, I'm sure that's always the case, even if they don't actually carry it out.
 
That wasn't the point, and if you think it was you missed the point completely. Which a lot of people are doing here.

There is no comparison between the groups in their actions. Both, however, represent extremist sects that don't do a very good job at following their stated religion, and do not represent the religion as a whole.

Anybody who thinks I did that completely missed my point, which sadly is typical around here.

Says who? There are more than 33,000 distinct sects of Christianity. All of them can't be right, in fact, at least 32,999 of them are wrong, perhaps all of them are wrong. Maybe the extremists are the ones who actually have it right.
 
Yeah, the OP is not the only one whose seen Obama's Lies about Islam.

I've used Every one of these answers to the same Apologism many times.
Unfortunately, my fellow atheists are the WORST 'False equivalence/equivocators', Liars for Islam, "every religion is the samers". Perhaps because many are liberal/socialist/PC/etc.
(see above and the last page: ie, the posts of Cephus and paschendale)
Of Course, knee-jerk PC is Not just a liberal idea, but contains even most conservatives I see here. Easily the board's largest common idea, Guaranteed wrong.

Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon : Sam Harris
9/10/2014
SamHarris.org

In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):

"ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America."​
In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:

"Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America."​

As an Atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “No.”

More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.
No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS..."

But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.

Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran.

The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.

But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems.

Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism:
How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry.

In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy:
"Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil.
No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them."
Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?"..."
[..........]
 
Last edited:
Says who? There are more than 33,000 distinct sects of Christianity. All of them can't be right, in fact, at least 32,999 of them are wrong, perhaps all of them are wrong. Maybe the extremists are the ones who actually have it right.

All religion is the construct of men. There IS NO REASONING with a person of faith. Faith, is hugely powerful. More powerful then anything else, it will not budge, to the death. People of faith will kill and die for what they believe. They all are dangerous because of it. Oh, and none of them are right.
 
Back
Top Bottom