Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.

One of my subordinates, in a previous position, was a Coptic Catholic who fled Egypt, because his life was endangered merely because of his religion. He was an industrial process engineer, who spoke 4 languages, and couldn't get a job in Egypt. He detailed the way that people of his faith would catch "casual beatings" in much the same way someone in North America might think of gay bashing occurrences.

 

[Kramodlog]

Unless and until you actually provide specifics about what policies and positions you're using to label a party that represents a third of the country as racist, I see no value in continuing a conversation that seems to only exist so that you can continue to make insults.

If you decide to do so, linking the party platform positions would be extremely useful. Failing that, a sufficed good pointer to where the policies was expounded or stated would be sufficient. That way, we can ask be on the same page and discuss without confusion.

Ok.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the N-word vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more N-word who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the N-wordphobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Sounds pretty clear to me. Not to you?

PCism might prevent such frankness nowadays, but something can be PC and still be racist. But even some minorities can't get hypocritical political correctness. Carson said something very racist when he said Muslims shouldn't become president of the US. Sadly, 45% of Republicans agree with him. Since then, Carson's numbers in polls have increased, not dropped. Trump also said some pretty racist things about Mexicans. Add his poll numbers to Carson and you are close to 50%. Still not enough to say there is a racism problem within the Republican party?

Santorum singling out black people are on welfare in 2012 was racist. That racist comment that he made to the base didn't stop him from being a close second in the Republican primaries of 2012. There was a lot of people who voted for his racist ass during the primaries. If Republican primary voters weren't racist, they certainly didn't mind voting for a racist. No?

I mean, Republican candidates keep talking about abolishing abortions and defunding planned parenthood. Would you say that isn't a sign that the Republican party and its base aren't against abortions?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Standby, past prematurely submitted, writing on completion.

Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Sounds pretty clear to me. Not to you?

And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act. Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.
[Quite]
PCism might prevent such frankness nowadays, but something can be PC and still be racist. But even some minorities can't get hypocritical political correctness. Carson said something very racist when he said Muslims shouldn't become president of the US. Sadly, 45% of Republicans agree with him. Since then, Carson's numbers in polls have increased, not dropped. [/quote]
In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race. Ironic, no?

Carson's remarks are not based on anything remotely racist. You can disagree with him, and you can characterize his comments as bigoted, but they're not racist. The fact that he limits his comments only to the point that a devout Muslim that honors sharia law and points out that such belief is in opposition to several foundational doctrines if the Constitution may or may not get past the knee jerk reaction of saying something poorly of Islam, but it's most definitely not racist. Sound might even consider that a valid, if very uncomfortable point. I'm not a fan of sharia law, and I would be against anyone that believes in sharia law having any political power over me. Granted, I would exercise that by voting against then, and I would care in the least what their skin tone was, not would I have any particular problem with working with then as a colleague or having our kids in the same subset team. That's the general extent of Carson's statement.

Although, given your source, I'm not surprised at your statement (not a comment on washpo in general, but specific to this article). Try the CNN coverage of the same -- it expounded on more than the gotcha sound bite and covers some of his further remarks.

Trump also said some pretty racist things about Mexicans. Add his poll numbers to Carson and you are close to 50%. Still not enough to say there is a racism problem within the Republican party?

As much as I want to day that trunk is a clown and could just as easily be running as a Democrat and that he's hardly indicative of the Republican party, he is the front runner as a Republican so it does reflect on the party.

Trump is bombastic, and overstates his case, but he resonates with far more than just the Republican party base when he talks about illegal immigraagain, His proposals poll very well, even pulling in a respectable block of Democratic voters. Some issues skew more right in the polls, but his entire immigration policy set evokes greater than half (often better than sixty percent) of the country's approval. So, if we're going to accept that Trump is indicative of Republican party racism, we'll need to expand the discussion to the American population.

As an aside, while Trump had said some directly racist things, and I deplore those, there is a strong tendency to declare anyone proposing a policy to limit or punish illegal immigration as inherently racist. This asshats to me to be because those policies disproportionally target Hispanics. While true in the sense if you consider the total population of the US, it's very untrue if you look at who's actually illegally entering the country. When you have geography determining the majority (overwhelming) racial demographic involved in a policy issue, it's intellectually dishonest to call those policies that on the theory of disproportionate impact. That's a valid theory in some cases (black incarceration rates, war on drugs, etc) but it fails here because the demographics are determined solely by geography -- ANY policy on immigration right now will disproportionally effect Hispanics if considered against the population of the US or the world. It doesn't if you consider impact against the actual set of immigrants.

Santorum singling out black people are on welfare in 2012 was racist. That racist comment that he made to the base didn't stop him from being a close second in the Republican primaries of 2012. There was a lot of people who voted for his racist ass during the primaries. If Republican primary voters weren't racist, they certainly didn't mind voting for a racist. No?

If you want me to agree that Santorum is a douche, you have an easy row to hoe. I will not defend him.

However, as that campaign drug on and more of his d-baggery became evident, he lost his soak even to the base. The fact that he was out of the race entirely for months after those comments first came to light does more to show that that wasn't the defining part of his limited success and, in fact, weighed him down. Did he actually day something racist? Sure. Did it help him secure any additional voters? Arguably no, as he was on a major upsetting already when he said it and shortly thereafter list his momentum entirely (by February he was barely holding on sharing Romney, who is and was a very weak caudate that did nothing to excite his base). That he lost to Romney, of all people, and badly enough he pulled his plug before the final primaries really shows that whatever Rick had, it wasn't it.

I mean, Republican candidates keep talking about abolishing abortions and defunding planned parenthood. Would you say that isn't a sign that the Republican party and its base aren't against abortions?

The huh? Yes, of course they are, but we're talking about racism and you bring in abortion and PP?! Non sequitur much? If course, thinking back, this conversation was about shrinking government as part of the Republican platform before it suddenly pivoted to Republican racism, and now it seems that's not enough and so it's pivots again to another hot button social issue?

This really seems like more of an opportunity for you to air all of your grievances against the Republicans that any attempt to discuss. Which is fine, but you don't need me to bash the Republicans (although, depending on the topic, I'd gleefully join you), so if that's the case, please let me know so I can not waste any more of my time.

 

[billd91]

And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act. Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.

I'm not sure I'd consider passing civil rights legislation a counter to Nixon's southern strategy considering it was the passage of said legislation that made the southern strategy possible. The divide in the legislature was almost mostly North/South rather than Democrat/Republican (although northern Democrats voted for the legislation in proportions higher than northern Republicans - so I still wouldn't say the GOP lead the nation in passing the CRA). And in the aftermath, it was the GOP that made it a substantial part of their strategy to attract people disaffected by African Americans gaining in civil rights.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure I'd consider passing civil rights legislation a counter to Nixon's southern strategy considering it was the passage of said legislation that made the southern strategy possible. The divide in the legislature was almost mostly North/South rather than Democrat/Republican (although northern Democrats voted for the legislation in proportions higher than northern Republicans - so I still wouldn't say the GOP lead the nation in passing the CRA). And in the aftermath, it was the GOP that made it a substantial part of their strategy to attract people disaffected by African Americans gaining in civil rights.

Republicans voted in favor of the CRA in greater numbers than the Democrats. Considering they were the ministry party at the time, that's pretty telling. The Republican monkey leader in the Senate was instrumental in overturning the Democrat led filibuster, so...

You might want to quibble on "led" but it would be very hard to deny that the Republicans did more work as a party than the Democrats to pass the legislation. Left to the Democrats, it would have died to a filibuster in the Senate.

That the Republicans almost immediately pivoted to the Southern Strategy and its racist overtones is shameful, but doesn't erase the good work just accomplished. Further, it was a clear sign if the times and individual Democrats were running very racist campaigns at the same time (granted not at the party level). The whole era is ornate in racism, and the whole era had little to do with today. I'm not making claims that the modern Democrat party is racist because of its CRA filibuster, although the leader of that effort, Robert Boyd is a modern Democrat hero. Although, to be fair, he did change his tune and is remembered fondly for his championing of other causes, so I guess that goes to show how little we should give credence to that area in judging modern positions.

ETA: also, the implied argument that Republicans passed the CRA so that they could successfully enact the Southern Strategy seems a bit conspiracy theoryish.

 

[billd91]

Republicans voted in favor of the CRA in greater numbers than the Democrats. Considering they were the ministry party at the time, that's pretty telling.

Don't what numbers you're going by, but the record I'm seeing has 152 Dems, 138 Reps for in the House, 46 Dems, 27 Reps for it in the Senate. It's only by percentages that the GOP votes more for the legislation than against, but, as I pointed out above, the opposition is primarily from the South. Though even there, 100 of southern Republicans opposed the legislation while only 93%-95% of Dems opposed.

The Republican monkey leader in the Senate was instrumental in overturning the Democrat led filibuster, so...

Yes, the GOP were instrumental in breaking the filibuster, but I understand the bill had to be watered down in the Senate to get enough on board to vote for cloture. So let's dispense with the rose colored glasses on the GOP and CRA, OK?

ETA: also, the implied argument that Republicans passed the CRA so that they could successfully enact the Southern Strategy seems a bit conspiracy theoryish.

That implication is entirely invented by your reading. The GOP leadership (Nixon and his ilk, primarily, but presaged by Goldwater in the 1964 campaign) reacted to the controversy of the CRA to try to wheedle electoral advantage. There's no implication that the GOP rank and file were encouraged to vote CRA in order to enable the Southern Strategy.

 

[Umbran]

That the Republicans almost immediately pivoted to the Southern Strategy and its racist overtones is shameful, but doesn't erase the good work just accomplished.

More importantly, since it was so long ago, it doesn't speak to *today*. The people who passed that legislation are generally no longer present in governance, rendering it irrelevant to current matters.

Recent voter registration laws aimed at minimizing minority votes, Trump's comments about Mexicans, GOP support for cops who engage in biased enforcement, support for "stand your ground" laws, and kids getting hauled away from school for building clocks (which is indicative of resistance to removing racial profiling) are perhaps more relevant recent indicators of the party's leanings.

In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race. Ironic, no?

I don't think it is ironic - it is merely indicative of the belief that Carson's comments are not only about religion, but do have a racial component as well. In essence, he's just implying that Carson doesn't fully separate religion from race. Failing to separate them is not uncommon - ultimately, whether they are differentiated by race or religion is likely for many a rationalization that comes *after* noting "those people" as the Enemy.

You may contend that assertion is not well founded, but I don't think you are doing yourself or your position any favors by suggesting it is Goldomark who is being racist in this case. Aside from it being an irrelevant misdirection away from the meat of the matter, it smacks rather strongly of trying to win points in the argument. I suggest you'd do better to not go there again.

 

[gamerprinter]

You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.

I was speaking of America and most of Western Europe. Its hardly surprising that Muslim countries are where the persecution against Christians/Jews primarily exists - its been that way since the initial existence of Muslim beliefs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Don't what numbers you're going by, but the record I'm seeing has 152 Dems, 138 Reps for in the House, 46 Dems, 27 Reps for it in the Senate. It's only by percentages that the GOP votes more for the legislation than against, but, as I pointed out above, the opposition is primarily from the South. Though even there, 100 of southern Republicans opposed the legislation while only 93%-95% of Dems opposed.

Well, yes, of course by percentages. Considering the Republics were the minority by a good margun at the time, a straight count isn't exactly s fair metric. The Republicans, as a party, voted in much higher numbers than the Democrats did. They showed more support for the CRA as a party than the Democrats did. That's a salient data point when arguing the racism of the entire party.

Both parties supported the CRA by majority. I'm not understanding that vehemence in denying that more Republicans supported it more than Democrats, especially as it was sixty years ago.

Yes, the GOP were instrumental in breaking the filibuster, but I understand the bill had to be watered down in the Senate to get enough on board to vote for cloture. So let's dispense with the rose colored glasses on the GOP and CRA, OK?

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The Republicans broke the filibuster, and a compromise bill was made so that more Democrats would support it (it was majority Democrat opposition that had it stalled in the Senate after all), and somehow that's evidence that the Republicans really didn't have a leadership role in passing the CRA?
I must need to review my understanding of how leadership works in politics as I was under the impression that it involved getting disagreeing parties to agree to something that betters the country. Do you have a solid recommendation on a more modern definition so I can reeducate myself?

That implication is entirely invented by your reading. The GOP leadership (Nixon and his ilk, primarily, but presaged by Goldwater in the 1964 campaign) reacted to the controversy of the CRA to try to wheedle electoral advantage. There's no implication that the GOP rank and file were encouraged to vote CRA in order to enable the Southern Strategy.

Apologies, then, that makes much more sense.

 

[Kramodlog]

And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act.

Which has nothing to do with racism inside the Republican party.

Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.

I knew you'd say that. Thing is, the Republicans still need the same voters they did back then. The vocabulary just changed, as Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N–ger, n–ger, n–ger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n–ger” — that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites … “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N–ger, n–ger.”

Nowadays they say things like "voter ID", "anchor babies", "illegal immigrants", "black people want free stuff", etc, and what needs to be defunded are things the Affordable Health Care Act and planned parenthood. Old stuff like states rights is still used though. When it came to the Confederate flag words like heritage, pride and freedom of speech were used.

Times changed, but the strategy is the same. Which, electorally speaking, is problematic for Republicans as demographics are changing in the US. It will be fascinating to see how they dig themselves out of that hole. Not gonna happen this cycle though, thanks in part to Trump.

In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race. Ironic, no?

No. I knew you'd use that distraction instead of talking about Carson's and the Republican's racism. Colloquially, the word racism is used to talk about bigotries that do not necessarely involve race. But I guess it is easier to dodge than face more proof of the racism in the Republican party.

Lets use your rationalization of Carson's bigotry toward Muslims and see if it wouldn't be decried as racist if it was applied to Jews.

The fact that he limits his comments only to the point that a devout Muslim Jews that honors sharia talmudic law and points out that such belief is in opposition to several foundational doctrines if the Constitution may or may not get past the knee jerk reaction of saying something poorly of Islam Judaism, but it's most definitely not racist.

Yeah, wouldn't happen.

The Pope was in town and he told you that some of your constitution, like allowing the death penalty, was poopie. I guess Catholics shoudn't become president either cause their values are against the US constitution. That is starting to be a lot of people who should be excluded from office. I wonder why he didn't mention all those devout Catholics and Jews? I wonder I wonder... Couldn't be that it isn't about Muslim values and more about getting the votes of racists. Nah. Impossible.

So, if we're going to accept that Trump is indicative of Republican party racism, we'll need to expand the discussion to the American population.

Racism is a problem in the US, but we are talking about the Republican party and how it tries to appeal to the racists found in the US population.

As an aside, while Trump had said some directly racist things, and I deplore those, there is a strong tendency to declare anyone proposing a policy to limit or punish illegal immigration as inherently racist.

Trump just did away with the abstractions that Lee Atwater was talking about. He exposed why those who talk so much about immigrants are often labelled as racist.

However, as that campaign drug on and more of his d-baggery became evident, he lost his soak even to the base. The fact that he was out of the race entirely for months after those comments first came to light does more to show that that wasn't the defining part of his limited success and, in fact, weighed him down. Did he actually day something racist? Sure. Did it help him secure any additional voters? Arguably no, as he was on a major upsetting already when he said it and shortly thereafter list his momentum entirely (by February he was barely holding on sharing Romney, who is and was a very weak caudate that did nothing to excite his base). That he lost to Romney, of all people, and badly enough he pulled his plug before the final primaries really shows that whatever Rick had, it wasn't it.

Santorum said his racist remark on Januray the 2nd. The first primaries were held on the 3rd in Iowa and Santorum won. He won others after that and was the second candidate when it came to votes. His racist remarks didn't make him the least popular candidate, as it should have. At worst it didn't hurt him.

Yes, of course they are, but we're talking about racism and you bring in abortion and PP?!

Comparison. If the standards used to say that the Republican party and its base are against abortions are acceptable, the same standards should apply to racism. Lots of candidates say stuff against abortion, propose anti-abortion policies and get base support for saying these things. You agree this means the party is against abortion. Lots of candidates say racist stuff, propose racist policies and get base support for saying these things... but your conclusion is that it isn't a sign of racism. Seems like a double standard.