Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Avatar Samantha Ai

How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims

Changing views on Muslims   28 members have voted

  1. 1. How have your thoughts changed towards Muslims?

    • I am a Christian and my views have changed to better understand and accept Muslims.
      5
    • I am not a Chrisitan and my views have changed to better understand and accept Muslims.
      7
    • I am a Chrisitan and my views have changed to take a dimmer view against Muslims.
      4
    • I am not a Christian and my views have changed to take a dimmer view against Muslims.
      7
    • Obligatory other
      5

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

278 posts in this topic

Beck, and his ilk of course would NEVER advocate violence but incite the hatred behind what makes people act out violently? That is a whole different story.

Here are some online articles that discuss that line that Beck walks:

http://www.the-richmonder.com/2011/01/glenn-becks-long-history-of-inciting.html

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/69-69/4705-glenn-beck-flashback-qshoot-them-in-the-headq

I don't think all Tea party members are violent however when someone wants to incite violence they can and will do it. It leaves them with clean hands and the ability to keep spouting hatred.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the shoot them in the head link. He certainly did say that. I'll give it to you.

Let me give something a shot here, no pun intended. He said he believes in something so strongly that the only way he will ever stop professing his beliefs is if you shoot him in the head. A short time later, while talking about the progressive communists who are bent on taking over our political system, he said the only way to stop them is to shoot them in the head too. I can certainly see that as coming off violent but I don't think that was his true intent. It was a metaphor to describe how deeply people in our government feel about destroying our founding principles. Again, certainly not the best way to get a point across but I don't really think Beck meant to incite violence. I'll bet there was a further transcript or perhaps a show a day or so later where he clarified that statement. I won't defend it further.

As for the other link, c'mon. You can't blame Beck for the acts of nuts. First, he always said in his shows not to believe him and to do your own homework. Second, there has always been nutcases out for political vengeance. You can't blame anyone but the perpetrator. If Beck was so influential in inciting violence wouldn't you think there'd be a few million political renegades running around by now? Hell, we'd be having a civil war at the moment if that was the case.

Who is to blame for all the crazy Independents that go on political rampages? Or the far left environmentalist terrorists? Or the far left wingnut terrorists like Bill Ayers? Or far right terrorists like Timothy McVeigh? Or Muslim Terrorists? Some f them may actually have direct influential sources, many do not. The point is that all crazy people who do crazy things have themselves to blame. Indirect sources like Beck... well it's a real stretch, like conspiracy type stretch, to put blame squarely on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is my point exactly, he doesn't have to commit violent acts himself, in fact he'd never do that, but inciting it in others is something that he seems to not mind. Yes there are nutcases as you call them out there, again exactly my point, he gets people who maybe don't have the self control to say ok it's best if I just think these things but not act them and gets them more paranoid, more afraid, more fearful. All of those things can and do cause others to commit violence. I think it's amazingly ironic that Beck frequently uses the idea that Hitler incited violence in fearful and angry people but cannot see that he does the exact same thing himself against those he disagrees with.

Edited by darkmoonlady
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's debatable. I find such things far fetched perhaps because I don't have such violent urges no matter what I hear and see and my mind isn't so able to be molded by others. I happen to have watched and listened to my fair share of Beck and I love his website theblaze.com but I've never caught on to a habit of inciting violence. Both he and his website happen to embellish and sensationalize a good bit but that's when I either tune out or make an extra effort to hear/read it out, take in the main points and figure out my own perception of the story at hand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's debatable. I find such things far fetched perhaps because I don't have such violent urges no matter what I hear and see and my mind isn't so able to be molded by others. I happen to have watched and listened to my fair share of Beck and I love his website theblaze.com but I've never caught on to a habit of inciting violence. Both he and his website happen to embellish and sensationalize a good bit but that's when I either tune out or make an extra effort to hear/read it out, take in the main points and figure out my own perception of the story at hand.

That can be used as an excuse for the people who are already sick and twisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That can be used as an excuse for the people who are already sick and twisted.

Apparently it is. Darkmoonlady has some points to be made and isn't being insane about it, so that's good, but it'll be tough to sell me on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is thee most generation nation on the planet. Our government gives away more of our tax money to nations than anyone, even the nations who don't deserve a dime. The private sector gives more in charity than anyone. And as soon as any conflict or emergency arises America is damned as heartless greedmongers if we don't immediately come to help and then when we come to help we are deemed intrusive and overbearing and unwanted.

The thing I can't stand about your side, the progressive left, is you never have one good thing to say about your own country and all you want to do is change it instead of preserving it.

One cannot expect other country's citizens to not criticize, or expect a mandate from their own citizens, when giving with the right hand but take away or destroy with the left.

Progressives have plenty of good things to say about America such as how it contains the mechanisms which have allowed us to makes things so much better than how they were in the past and how those mechanisms will allow us continue progress in the future.

I cannot simply discuss this, or the better aspects of America, with you in a forum where strong language and statements and other controversial contentions are issued that require redress, or at other times in the way of personal attacks of fellow posters, to sadly and simply be ignored.

Look at some of the comments (emboldened below) made in this very thread which you have either liked or said yourself. Overall, all I know you can be quite sensible as well but what a chaotic mix we have here once we add in the input of others with not all being on the same page.

The fascists had their own political correctness. It is only in modern Western society that the left has brilliantly and successfully adopted the strategy.

Personally I find the love affair between the political left and radical islam a sight to behold. Do the leftists dreamers not realize that in a Shariah society they would be among the first to lose their heads? Talk about useful fools...

The ugliest avatar gets to post the biggest photos.

Spot on. The vast majority of Muslims aren't radicals but they have been silenced by the violent minority which has been aided in their depravities by the politically correct "useful idiots" of the left. Silly nannies, like britney here, are so filled with guilt that when attacked they blame America rather than point a finger at a growing worldwide problem. Britney is a moral and likely physical coward who believes that self flagellation will assuage the anger of the attackers but doesn't have one iota of the mindset of the people he is trying to appease. Truly disgraceful behavior

^ I liked that while I was still reading it.

And you're right. They will cut his head off on live tv before he can finish saying I love you to them...

If we are misusing the word it is only because of how we learned of it back in 2001. They said it meant holy war and it seems they meant it. So now it has two meanings and I'm only concerned about one of them. Again, you do realize there are plenty if jihadis that would happily cut your head off in front of an audience? You focus so much time telling everyone how many good ones there are as if people can't understand that. Your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the bad ones and have a conniption when someone mentions them. Hell, even Bill Maher is sensible about this subject. He had a guest on the other night who sounded just like you and Maher actually told him he was speaking liberal bullsht. If Maher can say that then surely so can you. And if it helps he had nothing nice to say about the 'right' during the rest of the show.

Sure, you must've been one of those who was seething for Boston to be a right wing thing since it was tax day while never looking to realize that those types of attacks are always target oriented like a gov institution or employees and you know because the right wingers are the number one terror problem these days. And islam terrorism as everyone else sees it is always random Americans except for 9-11. I guess it makes liberals feel good to wear terrorism blinders but if a white guy uses a racial slur it'll be hell to pay.

Insane. You excuse them and blame US. I wonder if the dad of the dead and mangled family at the finish line would feel the same. Also, you're insane.

Is that what you think it is? A constant fear all day like an arachnophobic walking through spider webs? Just crazy.

There is also a huge difference between awareness and a phobia. You are about the most irrational poster I've seen in a long time.

Frank, handle this guy please.

Yes, I've mentioned already on this thread that most wars/conflicts are found to be racial/tribal if you scratch the surface. Best example of this is Northern Ireland and the "troubles". Sure, ostensibly this was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but no one was coming to blows over the details of theology. War can cloak itself in all kinds of outwards semblances, religion is just one.

That said, there are indeed religions that have no truck with violence and war. Buddhism, Jainism and Ba'hai. I already solicited evidence on this thread that shows violence being promoted in any of these religions scriptures or commentaries. No responses were received.

Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name.

I fear neither but am aware of both. The difference between the two is that nobody sets out to have a deadly car accident. Malice is almost a non issue concerning vehicles. Purpose, intention and malice is absolutely a part of terrorism. It's not about the probability. There are terrorists. They exist and they are hell bent on killing people. I can't understand why I can't be an angry American without getting a lecture on fairness and statistics and what Christians did in 1497. We have a problem that exists today and it can't be compared to bad driving. There is nothing that can stop stupidity and accidents. There is however something that can be done about a group of people with a particular belief system that are high on intentional murder and domination. I don't know what the fix is but the point is it's a problem that can be dealt with. We know the difference between good and bad and we know that they're a minority of Muslims. How come nobody gets all tolerant and liberal when someone condemns Mexican cartels? You never hear anyone screaming its not all Mexicans!!! Why? Because we know the difference. I think I had better points to make but I got lost in a rant and forgot what those were but seriously. Why can't the problem be identified and talked about without threads like this being made? Ahhhhh, you said muslim and terrorist in the same sentence! Bigot! Fear monger! Right winger! What else am I supposed to say?

There might be plenty of worthy discussion using comparisons and analogies concerning the history of the behavior of religions but it seriously has no place in the discussion of modern day terrorism and what to do about it. But if we are to look to history to talk about solutions to today's problems then the answer is simple. Brutal unrelenting force via profiling. I'd like a more civilized solution myself but might as well go with the flow of the conversation now. Shall we line the outskirts of our cities with impailed terrorists? Put their heads on spikes on our bridges? Swift, public capital punishment? Those things do work. We sure aren't going to love and tolerate the problem away.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Should we tolerate a religion that is morally retarded because it has not had time to grow up yet? Why 400 years to wait? Surely all religions can't be expected to take the same course. The atrocities done in the name of christianity occurred within the context of the societies of the time. Modern Islam exists in the 21st century but does not reflect this. I don't think it's too much to expect Muslims to reject medieval barbarity - it's not like they're completely isolated from the rest of the world.

C'mon man. That's weak. We are all humans who have been around the same amount of time. In 400 years should we expect the crusades of Scientology? Ha, nm probably will. Who cares how long the religion has been around?

Please with the patronizing and excusing. You're not quite so understanding about guns. I know you're not down with jihad but this kind of talk is soft. You guys have the same problem we do here with these people and it's time to stop pussyfooting around, toss out the PC and call things how they are. F'd up. And we don't have 400 years to waste on these wastes. We can be doing better things.

Right on Frank.

It's just too stereotypical of left wing slander. It could be true but I'll bet you came to that conclusion yourself. You probably were trying to pull a strawman argument on him and those words probably didn't come out of his mouth verbatim. As I said, it might be true but by using Glenn Beck as an example of the way he thinks makes that unlikely since Beck would never say or advocate such things. He's kooky and overly passionate sometimes but isn't violent at all. I think what you were trying to say was that this guy's a rightie and he likes Beck so he must feel a certain way. He probably left the conversation because he couldn't take the insanity coming from the nurse who would fork out money for Kermit Gosnell's defense.

Comments made toward another religion not your own, and other comments made toward our own fellow posters, strong language, and other controversial over-the-top commentary, will simply not lead to discussions where one has good things to say about the agressors, it will produce much in the way of explanation and exploration of how the intended victims some want to make among Muslims is not rooted in rationality.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments made toward another religion not your own, and other comments made toward our own fellow posters, strong language, and other controversial over-the-top commentary, will simply not lead to discussions where one has good things to say about the agressors, it will produce much in the way of explanation and exploration of how the intended victims some want to make among Muslims is not rooted in rationality.

Hey man, nothing I said wasn't true no matter how you highlight things I say to make it look as if its what I'm advocating.

It isn't always pretty but guess what? Welcome to the politics threads. It'll put hair on your chest.

If you can't handle such descriptions as dead and mangled families and children then perhaps talking about terrorism isn't for you. Those are the realities of it and no matter what connection you want to make, I, an everyday citizen nobody, have not been manufacturing or causing any of these things.

On September 11, 2001 I was 21 years old, didn't have a political thought in my head and had little to no impact on society whatsoever. At 9 o'clock in the morning my mother woke me up to see what was going on. It wasn't long until I got to see it live with plane number 2. At that moment I knew we were under attack. At that moment I had formed a solid opinion on terrorism. At that moment I formed a great appreciation for my country.

I came up with all of these thoughts all on my own long before I knew what left/right was. Hell, I didn't even know the difference between republican and democrat. It wasn't until at least 2006 that I even began an interest in politics. Another year before I began to understand left/right views and the differences. I didn't vote until 2008. You make lots and lots of assumptions about who I am, who influences me and who I influence when the answer to all is really just nobody. The terrorists themselves manufactured the thoughts I formed about them all by themselves. My first view of Muslims were them dancing in the streets to our demise. Yet I was smart enough to know that couldn't possibly be them all. Sometimes I'm still not sure but I'll reserve my judgement for acts and words that I view, hear or read and will hold my judgment on all others who have never bothered me and that goes for all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds but that does not mean all those I tolerate get to impose their will and culture on me and my country.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man, nothing I said wasn't true no matter how you highlight things I say to make it look as if its what I'm advocating.

It isn't always pretty but guess what? Welcome to the politics threads. It'll put hair on your chest.

If you can't handle such descriptions as dead and mangled families and children then perhaps talking about terrorism isn't for you. Those are the realities of it and no matter what connection you want to make, I, an everyday citizen nobody, have not been manufacturing or causing any of these things.

Never claimed you advocated anything or were any of those examples given because others could not handle or stand them.

They were specific examples in regards to what you yourself stated you cannot stand, specifically how you accused one group of never having, "one good thing to say about your own country and all you want to do is change it instead of preserving it."

Conversely it could be said that some have no optimism or hope for the future of our country. Instead of offering solutions they simply veer to the negative and begin finding other groups to scapegoat. To point this out is not causing or contributing to division, as one poster consistely claims, it is attempting to stop the division. We need to cooperate and share.

Sure it would be appreciated if others would not make personal attacks, calling out others by name with unsophisticated remarks, but that is a mark of someone who can not handle it.

It is always one group that does this, not other groups who would rather focus on issues and views.

On September 11, 2001 I was 21 years old, didn't have a political thought in my head and had little to no impact on society whatsoever. At 9 o'clock in the morning my mother woke me up to see what was going on. It wasn't long until I got to see it live with plane number 2. At that moment I knew we were under attack. At that moment I had formed a solid opinion on terrorism. At that moment I formed a great appreciation for my country.

Well point of this thread proven if you "formed a solid opinion" after one media presentation without any educated knowledge to support that. So when comments are made based on such sentimentalities others are going to focus on offering a more informed narrative. This could be why we are not disucssing the greatness of America, praising it for all the change we have made, and having hope for our future.

I came up with all of these thoughts all on my own long before I knew what left/right was. Hell, I didn't even know the difference between republican and democrat. It wasn't until at least 2006 that I even began an interest in politics. Another year before I began to understand left/right views and the differences. I didn't vote until 2008.

When one group is accused of political unsophistication you do a swell job in proving that point.

You make lots and lots of assumptions about who I am, who influences me and who I influence when the answer to all is really just nobody. The terrorists themselves manufactured the thoughts I formed about them all by themselves.

It appears that the right and the media manufactured those thoughts. You yourself stated you never thought of these items, including Muslims I assume, and now you are repeating exactly what they told you.

My first view of Muslims were them dancing in the streets to our demise.

And the first view some will have of Americans are your posts and those you agree with.

Yet I was smart enough to know that couldn't possibly be them all. Sometimes I'm still not sure but I'll reserve my judgement for acts and words that I view, hear or read and will hold my judgment on all others who have never bothered me and that goes for all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds but that does not mean all those I tolerate get to impose their will and culture on me and my country.

Thank you for at least being honest.

BTW no one is imposing their will and culture on your or our country. Democracy is not imposition of someone elses will on us. Acculuration is not an imposition of culture either but a very natural process. A quick review of history will reveal it happens over and over throughout time and will only increase due to globalization.

It is easy to understand your views are based on fear (the belief others are forcing something on your and us as a country).

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One cannot expect other country's citizens to not criticize, or expect a mandate from their own citizens, when giving with the right hand but take away or destroy with the left.

Can you explain this metaphor?

Progressives have plenty of good things to say about America such as how it contains the mechanisms which have allowed us to makes things so much better than how they were in the past and how those mechanisms will allow us continue progress in the future.

Only if you allow free speech. See my 2 prior questions about the FIRE cases. which you still have not responded to.

I cannot simply discuss this, or the better aspects of America, with you in a forum where strong language and statements and other controversial contentions are issued that require redress, or at other times in the way of personal attacks of fellow posters, to sadly and simply be ignored.

I have never personally attacked you, so please continue.

Look at some of the comments (emboldened below) made in this very thread which you have either liked or said yourself. Overall, all I know you can be quite sensible as well but what a chaotic mix we have here once we add in the input of others with not all being on the same page.

"Liking" a post does not mean you that necessarily agree with everything. So let's see what you quoted me on;

"Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name."

Right, and what would you call executions by stoning and crucifixion. Where death is the sentence passed if you fool around, or are gay or convert to a non-Muslim religion? What would you call that, progressive? I know what I call, by it's right name; Sharia.

Comments made toward another religion not your own, and other comments made toward our own fellow posters, strong language, and other controversial over-the-top commentary, will simply not lead to discussions where one has good things to say about the agressors, it will produce much in the way of explanation and exploration of how the intended victims some want to make among Muslims is not rooted in rationality.

That long, convoluted sentence is hard to decipher. All I understood was don't strongly criticize and/or use demeaning or derogatory phrases. I don't, unless of course the charges are true.

So would care to address now the issue of how the majority left-wing academia and pc monitors try to stifle free speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain this metaphor?

That someone can donate a billion dollars to charity for poor Muslim children but if they turn around and assault a poor Muslim child then how will they be viewed by poor Muslims and perhaps by all Muslims in general?

Only if you allow free speech. See my 2 prior questions about the FIRE cases. which you still have not responded to.

I only read about the first case, which was posted at that time, regarding someone making a complaint over publishing the names of other students with the claim that they admitted to him of being responsible in the destruction of their pro-life display.

My opinion is that if the rules of the university state one should not publish fellow students names in an attempt to accuse them of something, or that is highly critical in nature of them, or meant to generate negative towards them, then the rules should be followed. There is clear proof that a statement was written to this effect, in fact that person wants to not be punished for that statement, and that same statement was used in evidence of that student violating the rules.

Is there evidence that the other students actually defaced a display, that they admitted to it, and if there is and there are rules then I beleive they should also receive the penalities specified for that rules or within the administrators discrestion if that is the prescription for a violation.

My advice now is to make another thread devoted to FIRE and you will likely receive more commentary on that issue, Instead of having that topic lost here it deserves its own thread, totally,

I have never personally attacked you, so please continue.

That was one half of the equation, the other was regarding controversial statements, such as claiming another religion, "has not evolved beyond bronze age and medieval mindsets."

"Liking" a post does not mean you that necessarily agree with everything. So let's see what you quoted me on;

"Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name."

Well I am pretty sure dear Mr. Fess liked your post for its whole content, especially the part I placed in bold, but if he doesn't agree with that I am sure he will let us know.

Right, and what would you call executions by stoning and crucifixion. Where death is the sentence passed if you fool around, or are gay or convert to a non-Muslim religion? What would you call that, progressive? I know what I call, by it's right name; Sharia.

I would call for you to explore Islam in greater depth. There were the preservers of civilization, such as the Greek classics, chess, tolerance, and more, all while contemporary Europe was in the Dark Ages.

I would call for you to explore why some communities and societies turn to extremism, it has more to do with geopolitical forces than a religion, and is the reason why we as Christians turned away from the darker forms of tribalism, due to the right geopolitical forces that allowed progress. We have manipulated those geopolitical forces that to deny our mutual and specific responsibility is simply lacking both hindsight and the long view.

I would call for you to abandon your own tribal mindest which by its very nature is the us-vs-them mindest.

That long, convoluted sentence is hard to decipher. All I understood was don't strongly criticize and/or use demeaning or derogatory phrases. I don't, unless of course the charges are true.

If that is all you took away then it is a good start. The heart of that statement was in response to Mr. Fess' lament over why we cannot sit around exchanging patriotic praises.

So would care to address now the issue of how the majority left-wing academia and pc monitors try to stifle free speech?

Making an offensive statement against another group is simply not going to be tolerated especially at a university.

Of course when calling out certain groups such as evangelicals for making an offensive statement against another group is not in itself offensive but attempting to redress their offense.

Because of this their portion of religion will change and already has, within me certainly as I grew up hearing and believing some of those very narrow-minded and spiteful things, most based on fear, but after reading more well-written and educated views, some from this very site, my opinions have evolved toward healthier thoughts and expressions (which is the opposite of those based on fear).

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That someone can donate a billion dollars to charity for poor Muslim children but if they turn around and assault a poor Muslim child then how will they be viewed by poor Muslims and perhaps by all Muslims in general?

That's a hypothetical claim. I'm sure you had something more specific in mind, something from a news article perhaps.

I only read about the first case,
Ok, one more time, there are far more cases of conservative students complaining about infringements on free speech than left wing students. This by the watchdog FIRE's own admission.
My advice now is to make another thread devoted to FIRE and you will likely receive more commentary on that issue, Instead of having that topic lost here it deserves its own thread, totally,

We have one already, in the Cultural Marxism thread that you started.

That was one half of the equation, the other was regarding controversial statements, such as claiming another religion, "has not evolved beyond bronze age and medieval mindsets."

Right and then I offered evidence of cruel, barbaric Sharia law death penalties and execution styles, in the 21st century. Which you ignored.

I would call for you to explore Islam in greater depth. There were the preservers of civilization, such as the Greek classics, chess, tolerance, and more, all while contemporary Europe was in the Dark Ages.

That's not addressing the problem which I posed. see above.

I would call for you to explore why some communities and societies turn to extremism, it has more to do with geopolitical forces than a religion, and is the reason why we as Christians turned away from the darker forms of tribalism, due to the right geopolitical forces that allowed progress.

Hmm, ok, so we have to wait for an Islamic Enlightenment age. When's this going to happen?

We have manipulated those geopolitical forces that to deny our mutual and specific responsibility is simply lacking both hindsight and the long view.

Responsibility? To whom? In what respect?

I would call for you to abandon your own tribal mindest which by its very nature is the us-vs-them mindest.

I have an inclusive mindset, hell my circle of compassion even extends to non-human animals. But when there is a consistent and growing threat by a specific demographic, it would behoove us to take that into account. That's just due diligence, which as we have seen is not allowed in the West because it might offend some people. So, people die in terrorist acts on American soil, again.

If that is all you took away then it is a good start. The heart of that statement was in response to Mr. Fess' lament over why we cannot sit around exchanging patriotic praises.

That's right, we have to focus on the problem.

Making an offensive statement against another group is simply not going to be tolerated especially at a university.

Yes, and conservative students don't usually do this.

Of course when calling out certain groups such as evangelicals for making an offensive statement against another group is not in itself offensive but attempting to redress their offense.

Show me a case of evangelical students making offensive public statements against specific demographic groups.

Because of this their portion of religion will change and already has, within me certainly as I grew up hearing and believing some of those very narrow-minded and spiteful things, most based on fear, but after reading more well-written and educated views, some from this very site, my opinions have evolved toward healthier thoughts and expressions (which is the opposite of those based on fear).

Well that's a relief. Evangelical students have been admonished and have stopped saying spiteful things. Now when is Islam going to change and stop stoning people to death and crucifying them for being gay, an adulterer or an apostate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one can play devils advocate and say no one asked the Christians to stop persecuting anyone or torturing wise women deemed witches or the other things that were committed in the name of god.If anyone finds Islam and its principles distasteful but holds christian values they are wearing blinders as to the history of their own faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one media presentation? When I saw that second plane fly into the building I immediately had formed an opinion about whatever group of people did it and didn't want to hear one bs reason or excuse for why they did it. It didn't matter who it was. I knew they were our enemy. I'd hardly call live footage a media presentation in the way you want to describe it as a sensational over the top right wing extravaganza. I would've felt the same seeing it in person with no media influence forming my thoughts. I remember specifically watching it on CNN if that makes a difference.

I'm a little tired of explaining myself to what appears to be a young and arrogant kid. You can analyze that comment all you want. Analyzing the posts we like and why??? Ridiculous.

FTR, progressives do hate America and its founding principals. They loathe the constitution except for its 'mechanisms put in place to change it.' That's a progressive and Obama favorite. Seriously, is that the best you've got to say about America that you love it's mechanisms?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one can play devils advocate and say no one asked the Christians to stop persecuting anyone or torturing wise women deemed witches or the other things that were committed in the name of god.If anyone finds Islam and its principles distasteful but holds christian values they are wearing blinders as to the history of their own faith.

I don't get it; what went on hundreds of years ago is not an excuse for similar behavior today.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right and then I offered evidence of cruel, barbaric Sharia law death penalties and execution styles, in the 21st century. Which you ignored.

Yea, I'm with redhen on this one. I do think it is fair to state things such as 'Islam', the very general belief system, needs to evolve more and adopt enlightenment ideals, despite some flavors of Islam having already accomplished that. There are just simply too large a number of Muslims who do believe in these backwards, medieval notions that other Muslims have rightfully jettisoned. Although I don't think the prevalence of these notions is strictly because of the belief system itself.

But when there is a consistent and growing threat by a specific demographic, it would behoove us to take that into account. That's just due diligence, which as we have seen is not allowed in the West because it might offend some people. So, people die in terrorist acts on American soil, again.

I may have missed this; what are we not taking into account or not doing in the West, especially the US, just because it might offend some people?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed this; what are we not taking into account or not doing in the West, especially the US, just because it might offend some people?

The West is not allowed to profile, like the Israelis do. The reason is that it singles out certain identifiable groups, which is anathema to the cultural diversity/politically correct crowd.

From a Washington Post (liberal) article;

"JERUSALEM - Israel has long held the reputation as home to the world's most stringent airport security procedures. But most passengers aren't frisked, there are no intimately revealing body-imaging scanners, and security experts dismiss as misguided the new, more intrusive American approach that requires pat-downs or highly detailed scans of every passenger."

"Israel's approach allows most travelers to pass through airport security with relative ease. But Israeli personnel do single out small numbers of passengers for extensive searches and screening, based on profiling methods that have so far been rejected in the United States, subjecting Arabs and, in some cases, other foreign nationals to an extensive screening that comes with a steep civil liberties price."

Hopefully that will help explain what I meant.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The West is not allowed to profile, like the Israelis do. The reason is that it singles out certain identifiable groups, which is anathema to the cultural diversity/politically correct crowd.

Yea, I'm not a big fan of profiling myself, which has as much to do with the implementation of it as anything else. When translated into practice in America, 'certain identifiable groups' might as well be synonymous with 'people of browner skin or dark complexions'. It's not just a matter of 'political correctness', it is as the article stated an issue of civil liberties. But we have other issues with the whole airport security screening process, which is to too much of an extent better named 'airport security screening theater', so the wisdom of profiling is probably a different conversation. Thanks for the reply and clarifying what you were referring to.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it; what went on hundreds of years ago is not an excuse for similar behavior today.

Except modern times have had their share of Christianity in different forms commit atrocities for example; South American Catholic churches used native peoples as slave labor up until the 50's, the bombings in Northern Ireland were terrorist acts done in the name of God (protestant vs catholic), The Christian Brotherhood in Australia used children as slave labor and abused them physically and sexually, the US mission schools abused and attempted cultural genocide on Native Americans, The Army of God bombed abortion clinics in the 90's, even the KKK used the bible as motivation as they were good white christian soldiers for god as they put it. These are a few examples. You can say they are extremists but then again so are the Islamists the right uses to make an example of Islam. They don't want to bring to light those that use their christian god for evil, but they are more than willing to condemn all of Islam. I'm not a proponent of either faith, but one can't help but see hypocrisy in the US Christian right condemning Islam for things it has done and continues to do in some areas of the world.

Edited by darkmoonlady
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think terrorists represent a religion at all in general, so I agree that connecting the two is a mistake, whether it's on purpose or simple human nature. Terrorists make that connection themselves also, but to me it's pretty obvious that 9/11 and most other terrorist attacks have more to do with money and politics ( also heavily money related ) than they do with religious faith.

The average islamic terrorist represents muslims about as much as the average televangelist represents christians in my view.

Edited by MysticStrummer
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except modern times have had their share of Christianity in different forms commit atrocities for example; South American Catholic churches used native peoples as slave labor up until the 50's, the bombings in Northern Ireland were terrorist acts done in the name of God (protestant vs catholic), The Christian Brotherhood in Australia used children as slave labor and abused them physically and sexually, the US mission schools abused and attempted cultural genocide on Native Americans, The Army of God bombed abortion clinics in the 90's, even the KKK used the bible as motivation as they were good white christian soldiers for god as they put it. These are a few examples. You can say they are extremists but then again so are the Islamists the right uses to make an example of Islam. They don't want to bring to light those that use their christian god for evil, but they are more than willing to condemn all of Islam. I'm not a proponent of either faith, but one can't help but see hypocrisy in the US Christian right condemning Islam for things it has done and continues to do in some areas of the world.

John 8:7.

Their hypocrisy is just sickening.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one media presentation? When I saw that second plane fly into the building I immediately had formed an opinion about whatever group of people did it and didn't want to hear one bs reason or excuse for why they did it. It didn't matter who it was. I knew they were our enemy. I'd hardly call live footage a media presentation in the way you want to describe it as a sensational over the top right wing extravaganza. I would've felt the same seeing it in person with no media influence forming my thoughts. I remember specifically watching it on CNN if that makes a difference.

That might be the fundamental difference between us, not a political alignment, which itself might be a manifestation of the possible actual difference between us: an alignment of inquisitiveness.

It matters greatly to me and others these questions of who did it and more importantly why? Digging into the history books, our role in the West of drawing the border lines for other societies (the British Mandate), our reasons in doing so (maybe to solve the European question of what to do with the Jews in Europe?), the difference between Sunni and Shia, and other divisions within Islam, their relations with neighboring societies (MIzrahim Jews lived so long in relative peace with Arabs, they are all Semitic and look alike, and the return of the more pale skined Ashkenazi who are Euro-looking), and our own foreign policies as they exists now generating blowback.

To immediately label another our enemy, or allow the media to tell us who our enemy was in the months after 9-11, allowed for many innocents to die. I understand you are OK with that but do others understand that many of us are not OK with that?

It was a media presentation, through and through, because no one knew who the enemy was, we had to wait to be told and we were told Iraq did it and they did not and their and our society has suffered due to the war. Admittedly your narrative stated it did not matter who did it which implies you yourself did not know but did await for others to tell you: the media.

The evangelical involvement, direct or not, also helped frame the American populist mind. It was a right-wing sensationalist media extravaganza through and through when all was said and done, and this media extravaganza lasted several years. Do not tell me it did not, 9-11 is still fresh in your mind, 9-11 is still today, fresh in some of our minds.

A deeper analysis will reveal our own foreign policy is also the enemy, primary and foremost. I understand deeper analysis is not your thing but do others understand that for others it is, and the results they arrive to will play a part in this conversation?

I also saw the second plane, in fact I was in a Christian chat room on IRC at the time, do not recall which television station I already had it set too in the background, but even then I had questions, even when I went to chuch that week I had questions and was nervous so my concealed handgun (licensed) was a relief, even as I reported to my assignment at an airport that week I had questions, and those who simply wanted to blindly follow instead of understand, well I understand their view also counts but our own views will not be discounted either.

Whether you like it or not all that I placed in bold above will be part of the conversation and only when we take the less sophisticated views and the more in depth views, see what they have to offer to each other, via national and global dialogue, only then will we arrive at an increasingly improving and developing answer. Nothing is static.

I can admit my view will not totally reign but it will influence as yours will too. I don't see this as one of us has to win, that would be so frustrating but also unrealistic.

I'm a little tired of explaining myself to what appears to be a young and arrogant kid. You can analyze that comment all you want. Analyzing the posts we like and why??? Ridiculous.

FTR, progressives do hate America and its founding principals. They loathe the constitution except for its 'mechanisms put in place to change it.' That's a progressive and Obama favorite. Seriously, is that the best you've got to say about America that you love it's mechanisms?

Again, no need for personal attacks, whatever you say about me reveals more about yourself. Just as whatever I say about a topic reveals more about me than the given topic.

The very mechanisms that allow change and progress is democracy. Yes, democracy is a favorite of mine. Yes, that is the best I have to come up with.

A better question is why do you dislike democracy? Why do you detest cooperation? Why do you abhor the concept that we have to share and discuss all things?

One group of people having it all their way at the exclusion of everyone else will not allow dialogue, will not allow the better ideas we both have to be shared, or for the better ones we could offer to rise and remain at the top until better ones come along...

We don't have to agree but we have an obligation to dialogue. I am not tired of explaining myself because I am not in it to win. Dialogue is about influence. Just thinking it is a win-lose situation will increase fight-or-flight stressors in our bodies taking a toll on our health in time.

The West is not allowed to profile, like the Israelis do. The reason is that it singles out certain identifiable groups, which is anathema to the cultural diversity/politically correct crowd.

From a Washington Post (liberal) article;

"JERUSALEM - Israel has long held the reputation as home to the world's most stringent airport security procedures. But most passengers aren't frisked, there are no intimately revealing body-imaging scanners, and security experts dismiss as misguided the new, more intrusive American approach that requires pat-downs or highly detailed scans of every passenger."

"Israel's approach allows most travelers to pass through airport security with relative ease. But Israeli personnel do single out small numbers of passengers for extensive searches and screening, based on profiling methods that have so far been rejected in the United States, subjecting Arabs and, in some cases, other foreign nationals to an extensive screening that comes with a steep civil liberties price."

Hopefully that will help explain what I meant.

Well Israel is vastly more homgenous than America. They have less diversity in both citizenry and visitors as well as volume of both. Their system of profiling will not look like ours. This is not a defense of their system but an attempt to understand their system in comparison to ours. And their system would not work here regardless if our current system is working or not, there is no need to believe their system would work better here.

It would make it more convenient for some but that is not the intended raison d'être of profiling. It is about screening possible threats. Everyone in the defense or security industries will be familiar with the tale of the woman being used to have bombs planted on her without her knowledge. Our enemies are not beyond doing that to a child either.

That is the reason we check everyone, not to avoid racial profiling, but because anyone could be an unwittingly carrier of an IED. There is also another reason, 9-11 has taught us that our enemies can look exactly like us, blending in so well we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between us and them, since our enemies will consider and focus on phenotype selection, fashion, accents, demeanor, and even acting skills to appear calmer than the average sucide bomber.

The average suicide bombing requires no consideration of some of those elements since they only have to run or drive up to a guard booth and not sneak in past one as well as into the general population.

Israel is not going to have the same risks as we do since we are different socieities, note this is not saying one of us is more at risk (that would require deeper analysis) just that our risks our uniquely different.

Also Israel itself understands racial profiling is an issue, they are looking for solutions, at least certain quarters within their society are, and in time we will see them.

Our own security measures include a dose of psychology. We have screeners who do chat-downs instead of pat-downs. They walk through our airports or are stationed at certain checkpoints looking at everyone. They will look for microexpressions. If they see any that draw red flags they will pull someone aside and talk to them in the case of walk throughs. If stationed at a checkpoint they will simply begin the interview there, "How are you?," while scanning for someone who might be smiling but for a microsecond their expression changes.

OK maybe that does not really pertain to our conversation...

What does is this: During the Watertown lockdown did the police go knocking on doors and say, "Well these people look like Americans so no need to ask further questions or ask to search their homes?" Did they say that they should just profile those who look a certain way and not bother with decent Americans?

(Do not decent Americans come in all shapes, sizes, shades, and looks?)

No, that would have been foolish so why would we do it any different at our airports and other points of entry?

And in case if you are wondering about the woman who nknowinlgy had bombs planted on her, her name was Anne Mary Murphy, and even if most security personnel will not know her name or that of the Hindawi affair, all will be familiar with this story, just as I was made aware of it when I was in that industry.

To believe our system of profiling checks everyone just because of political correctness is off base, completely.

Except modern times have had their share of Christianity in different forms commit atrocities for example; South American Catholic churches used native peoples as slave labor up until the 50's, the bombings in Northern Ireland were terrorist acts done in the name of God (protestant vs catholic), The Christian Brotherhood in Australia used children as slave labor and abused them physically and sexually, the US mission schools abused and attempted cultural genocide on Native Americans, The Army of God bombed abortion clinics in the 90's, even the KKK used the bible as motivation as they were good white christian soldiers for god as they put it. These are a few examples. You can say they are extremists but then again so are the Islamists the right uses to make an example of Islam. They don't want to bring to light those that use their christian god for evil, but they are more than willing to condemn all of Islam. I'm not a proponent of either faith, but one can't help but see hypocrisy in the US Christian right condemning Islam for things it has done and continues to do in some areas of the world.

We still have to detangle the beliefs in myths and geopolitical forces when understanding the root causes of extremism. While both play a part and both should be scrutinized, we simply cannot ignore one and focus soley on the other, we have to do both.

I agree unhealthy expressions of belief, such as thoughts, based on myths within any community should not be accepted and should be confronted via dialogue and if those expressions take the form of action, then they need to be confronted with a stronger dialogue such as the rule of law.

Mosre importantly we need to direct and increase the provision of information to these communities who engage in unhealthy expressions, be they thought or action, because actions of a few extemists only occur, as you rightly pointed out, because of a moderate base who all share unhealthy thoughts and are the bedrock of the extremist.

What we should not do is attack the whole myth if parts of it allow for healthy expressions, we need to detangle both as many already have within the Chrisitan community. People are not isolated individuals or communities, if we isolate them and cut off dialogue they will not change, if we include them they will have no choice but to change because we are highly influenced by others, our ideas and thoughts are highly determined by our environment and the greater groups we are in.

We don't outnumber them, we are them: biological humans.

You might not agree but this is how I see it, the witch burnings were because of a society that had unhealthy expressions and a lack of tolerance. If we ourselves change this now, today, we would have in essence stopped that problem for all time. Today the problem is the same, our own American society has unhealthy expressions and a lack of tolerance, the victim is the Muslim and Sikh within our own society who is at the receiving end of hate crime up to murder.

How many innocents are still dying today because of this? Likewise, Islamic society is still burning witches, hanging homosexuals, stoning emos. Both of our societies need a radical change and that only occurs through education and tolerance.

Iraq's moral police was granted approval by the Ministry of Education to enter Baghdad schools and pinpoint students with such appearances, according to the interior ministry's statement.

Stoned to death for being an emo: NINETY Iraqi students killed for having 'strange hair and tight clothes'

So on another note, why did we go to Iraq again? Pre-invasion there were youth there who adopted Western styles, there were universities, women attending them...and now?

The media, evangelicals, as do every each one of us has a responsibility. (Neo-Pagans and secularists too.)

No we don't have to rise to it but it is ours nonetheless: Do not accept intolerance; embrace the intolerant. Only then can they change, only then will we change...

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Israel is vastly more homgenous than America. They have less diversity in both citizenry and visitors as well as volume of both. Their system of profiling will not look like ours. This is not a defense of their system but an attempt to understand their system in comparison to ours.

Well I think you misunderstand. You claim that Israel has less diversity and therefore it is more important to use racial profiling. That's doesn't make any sense.

And their system would not work here regardless if our current system is working or not, there is no need to believe their system would work better here.

And why would Israeli security measures not work? I mean beside your belief that it's not needed.

It would make it more convenient for some but that is not the intended raison d'être of profiling. It is about screening possible threats. Everyone in the defense or security industries will be familiar with the tale of the woman being used to have bombs planted on her without her knowledge. Our enemies are not beyond doing that to a child either.

You are taking one specific, exceptional case and trying to make a general rule.

That is the reason we check everyone, not to avoid racial profiling, but because anyone could be an unwittingly carrier of an IED.

You expect me to believe that? Look at the hot water U.S. police departments get into for using racial profiling. The same goes with federal departments.

There is also another reason, 9-11 has taught us that our enemies can look exactly like us, blending in so well we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between us and them, since our enemies will consider and focus on phenotype selection, fashion, accents, demeanor, and even acting skills to appear calmer than the average sucide bomber.

Wow that's some pretty sophisticated measures, can you give me an example where an Islamic terrorist "looked exactly like us, blending in so well"?

The average suicide bombing requires no consideration of some of those elements since they only have to run or drive up to a guard booth and not sneak in past one as well as into the general population.

You are talking about the Middle and Near East. I'm talking securing about the West.

Israel is not going to have the same risks as we do since we are different socieities, note this is not saying one of us is more at risk (that would require deeper analysis) just that our risks our uniquely different.

What risks from Islamic terrorists that the West faces is not a concern in Israel?

Also Israel itself understands racial profiling is an issue, they are looking for solutions, at least certain quarters within their society are, and in time we will see them.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

What does is this: During the Watertown lockdown did the police go knocking on doors and say, "Well these people look like Americans so no need to ask further questions or ask to search their homes?" Did they say that they should just profile those who look a certain way and not bother with decent Americans?

No they didn't, they treated everyone as if they were a potential deadly threat, In spite of having a clear picture of the suspect broadcast around the world. That's the foolishness that belies political correctness.

(Do not decent Americans come in all shapes, sizes, shades, and looks?)

No, that would have been foolish so why would we do it any different at our airports and other points of entry?

The criteria for catching this suspect was not "decency" (what does that look like anyway). The criteria is the facial identification as shown in the FBI picture.

And in case if you are wondering about the woman who nknowinlgy had bombs planted on her, her name was Anne Mary Murphy, and even if most security personnel will not know her name or that of the Hindawi affair, all will be familiar with this story, just as I was made aware of it when I was in that industry.

Yes you've already mentioned this exceptional case. You were in the security industry? I find that amazing.

To believe our system of profiling checks everyone just because of political correctness is off base, completely.

Well I can point to several videos of TSA officials doing pat down searches on infants at U.S. airports. When they search all equally, they really mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cont.

We still have to detangle the beliefs in myths and geopolitical forces when understanding the root causes of extremism. While both play a part and both should be scrutinized, we simply cannot ignore one and focus soley on the other, we have to do both.

Yes, I understand that you believe Islamic terrorists are committing atrocious acts in the name of geopolitical aspirations and should discount their written and verbal testimony and their exhortations of Allahu Akbar as they commit them.

I agree unhealthy expressions of belief, such as thoughts, based on myths within any community should not be accepted and should be confronted via dialogue and if those expressions take the form of action, then they need to be confronted with a stronger dialogue such as the rule of law.

You keep bring up myths, what exactly are you talking about? Do you think it's a myth that Islamic terrorists are committing terror to further their Jihadist goals?

Mosre importantly we need to direct and increase the provision of information to these communities who engage in unhealthy expressions, be they thought or action, because actions of a few extemists only occur, as you rightly pointed out, because of a moderate base who all share unhealthy thoughts and are the bedrock of the extremist.

I'm sure that's been tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is, those who head out into those areas where it's needed (education for girls for example), they get shot by the Taliban.

What we should not do is attack the whole myth if parts of it allow for healthy expressions, we need to detangle both as many already have within the Chrisitan community.

Still not clear on what myths you're talking about.

People are not isolated individuals or communities, if we isolate them and cut off dialogue they will not change, if we include them they will have no choice but to change because we are highly influenced by others, our ideas and thoughts are highly determined by our environment and the greater groups we are in.

Sounds good, but paying off the drug lords in Afghanistan seems to work better. It always has.

][/b]You might not agree but this is how I see it, the witch burnings were because of a society that had unhealthy expressions and a lack of tolerance.

I think superstitions had something to do with it.

If we ourselves change this now, today, we would have in essence stopped that problem for all time.

Not following you here.

Today the problem is the same, our own American society has unhealthy expressions and a lack of tolerance, the victim is the Muslim and Sikh within our own society who is at the receiving end of hate crime up to murder.

Yes I understand how you feel. You've made that clear earlier. The problem is discrimination against Muslims.

How many innocents are still dying today because of this?

I dunno, you tell me? How many innocents Muslims were slain during the great backlash after the Boston bombings?

Likewise, Islamic society is still burning witches, hanging homosexuals, stoning emos. Both of our societies need a radical change and that only occurs through education and tolerance.

Look here folks, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Here is cultural relativism, political correctness aka cultural Marxism in full bloom. The rare hate crime in the U.S. is equated with the everyday, routine, barbaric executions as mandated by Sharia law in backwards Muslim countries. Thanks for making this clear to the UM readers.

So on another note, why did we go to Iraq again? Pre-invasion there were youth there who adopted Western styles, there were universities, women attending them...and now?

And now? I suspect there are still universities in Iraq that are attended by females. Not so?

]The media, evangelicals, as do every each one of us has a responsibility. [/b](Neo-Pagans and secularists too.)

No we don't have to rise to it but it is ours nonetheless: Do not accept intolerance; embrace the intolerant. Only then can they change, only then will we change...

Ah yes, hate the sin, love the sinner. I think that's a noble sentiment. We'll see how that works out in a hundred years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except modern times have had their share of Christianity in different forms commit atrocities for example; South American Catholic churches used native peoples as slave labor up until the 50's,

There's a difference between slavery and poor working conditions. Perhaps you can give us some examples to decide?

the bombings in Northern Ireland were terrorist acts done in the name of God (protestant vs catholic),

Yes, how many times did we hear cries of "Take that you idolatrous, transubstantiational, Papist b******!" ? You really believe the Northern Ireland troubles were all about the finer points of theology? Really?

The Christian Brotherhood in Australia used children as slave labor and abused them physically and sexually, the US mission schools abused and attempted cultural genocide on Native Americans, The Army of God bombed abortion clinics in the 90's, even the KKK used the bible as motivation as they were good white christian soldiers for god as they put it. These are a few examples. You can say they are extremists

No they are not extremists. Extremism implies that you are taking something legitimate too far. But there's noting in the Bible that advocates for these crimes. Unlike Islam, which mandates cruel, barbaric punishments for things like adultery, homosexuality and apostasy.

but then again so are the Islamists the right uses to make an example of Islam.

The "right" doesn't have to do anything, anyone, anywhere in the world that has access to a free press can discern for themselves this pattern of backwards thinking.

They don't want to bring to light those that use their christian god for evil, but they are more than willing to condemn all of Islam.

There's a difference between using a god for evil, and carrying out orthodox religiously sanctioned stoning and crucifixions, in the 21st century. Hello?

I'm not a proponent of either faith, but one can't help but see hypocrisy in the US Christian right condemning Islam for things it has done and continues to do in some areas of the world.

Me neither. I'm not an American, I'm not a Christian, I am inclined to the right though. But I put the truth above everything else. If someone can provide convincing evidence for some point I've made where I got it wrong. I will correct my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.