Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Common Sense vs Tolerance


F3SS

Recommended Posts

What you say doesn't square with what is happening now in Thailand, Myanmar (Burma) or Sri Lanka. None of these countries is involved in Muslim countries, but they sure get their share of terrorism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link lazy here so you will have to provide the trasnscript or you can transcribe a select quote.

In either case I don't watch Maher, he is not a true progressive, and you should quit parading him around as if he was one of us. Did you really think he was?

Maher sees it for what it is and tells the truth, perhaps you and your progressive kind should listen. A bias attitude will get in the way of mental clarity and always brings a blind eye to what is really true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanato --

What you say is impressive; I suppose you refer to those Americans fight with in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Somehow the mindset of most Muslims has to be brought around to tolerance. Islam is far too large a portion of the world's population to think that the rest of the world can retain this hostility, natural though it is. I remember the reaction here in Ho Chi Minh City when Bush began bombing Iraq. The official government position was of course to condemn the American "aggression." Let me tell you, the people felt very otherwise, and even the official position was much softer than one would have expected, and steadily disappeared from the government press as the war proceeded. There is immense hostility to Islam through most of the non-Muslim population in SE Asia and has been all my life.

It is very simply because of Muslim arrogance and intolerance. It appears everywhere: they are entitled to do things that a non-Muslim is severely attacked for. This especially applies to their attitude toward other religions and their freedom to criticize them, and when they can to persecute them.

I think Islam has to change, and I think it is changing, but perhaps not rapidly enough to avoid some sort of disaster.

Islam does need to evolve. It appears that as technology and society in general have evolved that particular religion from primarily the Middle East has failed to keep up. However when you look at the two most populace Muslim nations (India and Indonesia which together of nearly have 400 million people of that faith) you wont find many threats from them as Nations. In them Religious freedoms are fairly high. Though I know there are restrictions for non recognized religions in Indonesia.

Thanato, I appreciate your experience in Afghanistan, and I understand your refusal to generalize, but Frank has a good point. Members of non-Muslim religions (dhimmi) are severely restricted in Muslim nations. This is not some corruption of Islam, it's part of sharia law. Here's a list of some "regulations with respect to dhimmis". Not all Muslim countries execute apostates, but many do or at least have the death penalty on the books. Even in Afghanistan people have faced the death penalty for converting from Islam.

When you served in Afghanistan you must have sat in on some talks that explained the lesser status that non-Muslims have especially in regards public display of crosses, crucifixes, bibles, etc.? I'm sure these warnings were given in the most pc way though.

Islam has not evolved the same as it's brother religion, Christianity, that is mainly due to the society in which the two are most numerous. Where many of the believes of Islam live in Third World Nations many Christians live in first world nations. So the evolution of Society is drastically different. However I do remember reading that Christians did the same thing as the Muslims in terms of religious persecution. It's just for the most part they have evolved past physical harm to non-believers.

When I was in Afghanistan, we where given classes on tolerance etc. Mostly to not offend them culturally. Such as only shake with your right hand. Try to wear a shirt when you are around them, etc. Nothing like 'they think what you believe in is less than what they believe in.' I spent a lot of time with Terps (interpreters) and I never got the vibe from them that I was an infidel, that because I didn't believe in Islam that I was lesser. Hell we had a muslim in our Crew as a vehicle commander.

Our *** wasn't concerned with if our troops religious affiliations offended the locals or not, just that our cultural differences didn't offend the locals.

~Thanato

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry...but the truth stings doesn't it.

There are no modern Christian Church denominations...catholic or protestant...that calls for the death of those that criticize or "insult" their "founders".

I don't watch Bill Maher very often...I occasionally do to learn what knew ridiculous crap the Libtards are screaming about but on a rare occasion, I will admit I have agreed with him. This is one of those times.

(For your edification...the last time I agreed with him was when he said the Liberals may be losing him over taxes...said it is just too much...and he is correct)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maher sees it for what it is and tells the truth, perhaps you and your progressive kind should listen. A bias attitude will get in the way of mental clarity and always brings a blind eye to what is really true.

No, the title of this thread can be translated as (populism/anti-intellectualism/common sense) vs (pluralism/scholarship/nuance).

Populism is the rights of the people as opposed to the elite but when we further explore we can see the identify of populists is based on their opposition to some shadowy elite which in turn makes it an expression of one monolothic group which you are either for them or against them. Thus it is based on an us vs them mindest. No room for even other non-elite groups such as minorities or foreigners in general.

In contrast pluralism is based on respecting the rights of all groups as equals or with the mechanisms that will foster greater egalitarianism.

Populists are highly anti-intellectual, they mistrust scholarship, they cast skepticism toward the ivory tower of academia, at its extreme they scorn the academic degreed as being out of touch with reality, and at minimum are hostile to expressions of higher culture (as in a cultured and sophisticated society) in favor of the least common denominator they all can agree upon. They would rather get information from Fox and comedians than from modern scholarship. Who offers more solutions?

Scholarship on the other hand favors nuance and exploration.

Common sense is, "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training; normal native intelligence."

Common sense served us well in the tribal era but the modern world demands nuance and sophisticated approaches to solutions.

We won't tackle social problems much less geopolitical ones with the blutness, brutness, and brutality of common sense. Bluntness as in a hammer or rusty knife instead of surgical precision.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves, therefore, are those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves, observed Dresden James.

Bill Maher is a perfect example of that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves, therefore, are those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves, observed Dresden James.

Bill Maher is a perfect example of that.

:tu: Good post!

Seems to me the MSM is trying to sell this:

"Give the government more of your rights! Those evil muslims are out to kill you! They hate you for your freedom!"

:no:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check this out: http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-us-muslims-react-fear-frustration-resolve-130317602.html

Boston bombing: US Muslims react with fear, frustration, and new resolve

“This will put Islamophobia on steroids,” fears Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware in Newark.

It is, in effect, a fight on American soil for the right to define Islam – with each bomb, shooting, and terrorist plot setting back the efforts of American Muslims to define themselves and to reclaim an embattled faith.

“It is time for us as American Muslims to provide an alternative to Muslim extremism; otherwise, we’ll be defined by it,” says Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. “That alternative is the moderate voice, the voice for reform, for the theology of life that Islam stands for as opposed to the cult of death that extremists promote through their distortions of Islam in their ideology.”

Still, reports of reprisals spread, with two of the sources reached for this story reporting vandalism and break-ins at their local mosques. Also, as was widely reported in the Muslim press, a Bangladeshi man was beaten up outside a Bronx Applebee’s restaurant. And in Malden, Mass., a man approached a Muslim woman heading with her daughter in a stroller to a play date, punched her in the shoulder, and shouted, “F--- you Muslims! You are terrorists! I hate you! You are involved in the Boston explosions! F--- you!”

For many Muslims, this is an ugly, if expected, side effect of the attack, and one that brings increasing frustration.

“We are the ones standing up and condemning these horrific acts, ostracizing these cowardly men, and disclaiming them as part of our flock,” Mr. Ba-Yunus writes. “But we bear the brunt of the public's outrage, and it's simply not fair.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also need our own alternative here, for some of us to become more vocal and condemn the war, the drone attacks, and the common brute who would strike a woman or man here in America just because they are Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the title of this thread can be translated as (populism/anti-intellectualism/common sense) vs (pluralism/scholarship/nuance).

Populism is the rights of the people as opposed to the elite but when we further explore we can see the identify of populists is based on their opposition to some shadowy elite which in turn makes it an expression of one monolothic group which you are either for them or against them. Thus it is based on an us vs them mindest. No room for even other non-elite groups such as minorities or foreigners in general.

In contrast pluralism is based on respecting the rights of all groups as equals or with the mechanisms that will foster greater egalitarianism.

Populists are highly anti-intellectual, they mistrust scholarship, they cast skepticism toward the ivory tower of academia, at its extreme they scorn the academic degreed as being out of touch with reality, and at minimum are hostile to expressions of higher culture (as in a cultured and sophisticated society) in favor of the least common denominator they all can agree upon. They would rather get information from Fox and comedians than from modern scholarship. Who offers more solutions?

Scholarship on the other hand favors nuance and exploration.

Common sense is, "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training; normal native intelligence."

Common sense served us well in the tribal era but the modern world demands nuance and sophisticated approaches to solutions.

We won't tackle social problems much less geopolitical ones with the blutness, brutness, and brutality of common sense. Bluntness as in a hammer or rusty knife instead of surgical precision.

No, it's called "critical thinking" through observation, analysis, evaluation, looking at the issue from a third point of view without egocentric or sociocentric bias attitudes. Conclusively deciding that it is what it is, if it smells like a rat, looks like a rat, squeaks like a rat, then it is a rat. No political ideology or political philosophy required. It just that simple.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn! Double post, sorry.

Edited by Purifier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:tu: Good post!

Seems to me the MSM is trying to sell this:

"Give the government more of your rights! Those evil muslims are out to kill you! They hate you for your freedom!"

:no:

The incessant 'coverage' of the Boston thing is the propaganda machine in overdrive. 24/7 the story is pounded into the public psyche, as history is being written. And the masses gobble it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the title of this thread can be translated as (populism/anti-intellectualism/common sense) vs (pluralism/scholarship/nuance).

Populism is the rights of the people as opposed to the elite but when we further explore we can see the identify of populists is based on their opposition to some shadowy elite which in turn makes it an expression of one monolothic group which you are either for them or against them. Thus it is based on an us vs them mindest. No room for even other non-elite groups such as minorities or foreigners in general.

In contrast pluralism is based on respecting the rights of all groups as equals or with the mechanisms that will foster greater egalitarianism.

Populists are highly anti-intellectual, they mistrust scholarship, they cast skepticism toward the ivory tower of academia, at its extreme they scorn the academic degreed as being out of touch with reality, and at minimum are hostile to expressions of higher culture (as in a cultured and sophisticated society) in favor of the least common denominator they all can agree upon. They would rather get information from Fox and comedians than from modern scholarship. Who offers more solutions?

Scholarship on the other hand favors nuance and exploration.

Common sense is, "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training; normal native intelligence."

Common sense served us well in the tribal era but the modern world demands nuance and sophisticated approaches to solutions.

We won't tackle social problems much less geopolitical ones with the blutness, brutness, and brutality of common sense. Bluntness as in a hammer or rusty knife instead of surgical precision.

No that's not how the thread title is translated. It is translated verbatim, as it is. Did I not say in the op that part of my frustration is my words being regurgitated by a machine that prints the opposite of everything I say. You prove my point. You make shlt up. If you don't like what you read you just make up something else and say that's what you read. Is pointing out that America has an issue with terrorist who terrorize in the name of a religion called Islam not sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training; normal native intelligence.? It doesn't take a brain surgeon. It takes a child who seen the news. You strive to look intelligent and tolerant but never sensible and achieve neither. You yearn for acceptance from a group who wants you dead. Common sense would serve you well as it serves everything well. Sophisticated solutions need common sense approaches too.

Check this out: http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-us-muslims-react-fear-frustration-resolve-130317602.html

Boston bombing: US Muslims react with fear, frustration, and new resolve

“This will put Islamophobia on steroids,” fears Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware in Newark.

It is, in effect, a fight on American soil for the right to define Islam – with each bomb, shooting, and terrorist plot setting back the efforts of American Muslims to define themselves and to reclaim an embattled faith.

“It is time for us as American Muslims to provide an alternative to Muslim extremism; otherwise, we’ll be defined by it,” says Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. “That alternative is the moderate voice, the voice for reform, for the theology of life that Islam stands for as opposed to the cult of death that extremists promote through their distortions of Islam in their ideology.”

Still, reports of reprisals spread, with two of the sources reached for this story reporting vandalism and break-ins at their local mosques. Also, as was widely reported in the Muslim press, a Bangladeshi man was beaten up outside a Bronx Applebee’s restaurant. And in Malden, Mass., a man approached a Muslim woman heading with her daughter in a stroller to a play date, punched her in the shoulder, and shouted, “F--- you Muslims! You are terrorists! I hate you! You are involved in the Boston explosions! F--- you!”

For many Muslims, this is an ugly, if expected, side effect of the attack, and one that brings increasing frustration.

“We are the ones standing up and condemning these horrific acts, ostracizing these cowardly men, and disclaiming them as part of our flock,” Mr. Ba-Yunus writes. “But we bear the brunt of the public's outrage, and it's simply not fair.”

Thing is guys like him have few outspoken comrades. About the best you ever get from public muslim voices is

'yes the bombings are horrific and we are saddened but... Let me tell you what Islam means to me....' And i think they're all full of shlt. The Muslims need more voices like this guy.

We also need our own alternative here, for some of us to become more vocal and condemn the war, the drone attacks, and the common brute who would strike a woman or man here in America just because they are Muslim.

Yes the brute. Won't defend him but its funny you can't focus on the 'brutes' who just lit a bomb and killed and maimed kids and 190 other people but you're right. Brutes are today's real issue.

The incessant 'coverage' of the Boston thing is the propaganda machine in overdrive. 24/7 the story is pounded into the public psyche, as history is being written. And the masses gobble it up.

I agree with your premise but really what type of coverage is preferable?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odds that you'll be killed in a terrorist strike rates up there with lightning strikes. It's a low percentage. It's important to recognize why these incidences happen rather than foolishly jumping to irrational conclusions. We're involved in a manufactured so-called War on Terror which can be reversed through communication with the so-called enemy. Open dialogue has been and forever will be the transmitter of peace.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fess

The type of coverage desireable is a dispassionate analysis of what we know at the time.

But all the coverage on this event is very passionate. It inflames the passions, whether fear or hatred, of those watching the coverage. That reveals its propaganda value.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is guys like him have few outspoken comrades. About the best you ever get from public muslim voices is

'yes the bombings are horrific and we are saddened but... Let me tell you what Islam means to me....' And i think they're all full of shlt. The Muslims need more voices like this guy.

Mr. Fess

The type of coverage desireable is a dispassionate analysis of what we know at the time.

But all the coverage on this event is very passionate. It inflames the passions, whether fear or hatred, of those watching the coverage. That reveals its propaganda value.

You hit the nail on the head. The MSM isn't reporting all the Muslims who are outraged and shocked at the behavior of the bombers, because it doesn't fit their agenda on the so-called "War on Terror".

“Islamic law does not permit the random, indiscriminate killing of civilians. It is categorically forbidden,” says Omid Safi, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a Religion News Service blog post. “[W]e should not conflate their deranged motivations and the teachings of the Islamic tradition.”

In the same breath, some Muslims have expressed frustration with the perceived need to explain and apologize for the alleged actions of the suspects.

“The Tsarnaev brothers’ ... actions do not speak for me or the overwhelming majority of Muslims. I am not compelled to apologize for them or explain their actions,” says Wajahat Ali, a Muslim-American writer and cultural commentator, in an article for Salon. “This is like asking Republican Christians to apologize for Timothy McVeigh or expecting young white males to explain why individuals like Adam Lanza ... used assault rifles to unleash terror on innocent civilians.”

And what of reports that the elder Tsarnaev, who some say turned to Islam after a youth apparently spent drinking, womanizing, and smoking pot, may have been motivated by extremist tendencies?

By and large, Muslims are suspicious, questioning media accounts that Mr. Tsarnaev had become devout – and that this was the reason for his unraveling.

“Without so much as even the slightest indication from the [alleged] bombers themselves as to what their motives were, the media is going crazy and thus raising the public's fears about Islamic radicalization,” Ba-Yunus writes. “I think we all need to focus on Tamerlan's other issues – like his apparent inability to fit in, his aggressive streak, his isolation, his xenophobic behavior. These are things shared by other mass murderers, and should be studied in greater detail.”

“I don’t care if you call yourself Muslim," Ms. Abu-Jubara says. If you just killed innocent people, "in my eyes you’re not Muslim,” she says. “True Islam does not call for acts of violence, especially not ones on innocent people.”

Adds Yusufi Vali, executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, in an interview with CNN: “I don't care who or what [the alleged] criminals claim to be, but I can never recognize [them] as part of my city or my faith community.”

In fact, at least one Boston cleric, Imam Talal Eid, has refused to bury the elder Tsarnaev according to Islamic rites. “I would not be willing to do a funeral for him," he told The Huffington Post. "This is a person who deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.”

Still, the Muslim community appears to understand the need to confront radicalism within its ranks.

“Radicalism is a problem because even if it recruits one person, that’s one person too many,” says Mr. Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. “Some 0.1 percent of radicals are relevant to American society, whereas 99.9 percent of Muslims remain irrelevant. We have to change that equation.”

In fact, according to a Muslim American Public Opinion Survey, religious Muslims are actually less likely to engage in anti-American extremism, and “mosques and religiosity are associated with high levels of civic engagement and support for the American political system.”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslims see little backlash after Boston bombing

NEW YORK (AP) — It looked like the backlash was starting even before the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing were identified as Muslim.

Hours after the explosions, a Bangladeshi man told police he was dubbed an "Arab" and beaten in New York. A veiled Muslim woman in a city near Boston said she was struck in the shoulder and called a terrorist. When the public learned days later that the FBI was pursuing two Muslim men of Chechen descent, American Muslims feared the worst.

But the worst didn't happen.

Muslim civil rights leaders say the anti-Islam reaction has been more muted this time than after other attacks since Sept. 11, which had sparked outbursts of vandalism, harassment and violence. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which monitors bias and hate crimes against Muslims, said his organization has seen no uptick in reports of harassment, assaults or damage to mosques since the April 15 bombings. Leaders noted a larger, broader chorus of Americans warning against placing collective blame.

The change may only reflect the circumstances of this particular attack. The two suspects are white and from an area of the world, Russia's turbulent Caucasus region, that unlike the Mideast, Americans know little about. Investigators say Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his brother, Dzhokhar, 19, who had lived in the U.S. for about a decade, carried out the bombings, although it's not clear why.

But U.S. Muslims also credit a new generation of leaders in their communities with helping keep tempers in check after the attack. Many are the American-born children of immigrants who saw the impact of the 2001 terror attacks on their faith and have strived ever since to build ties with other Americans.

"There seems to be a much more mature, sophisticated response to this tragedy than in the past 12 years," said Wajahat Ali, 32, an attorney and co-author of "Fear, Inc.," a report by the Center for American Progress on the strategies of anti-Muslim groups in the United States. "We really do see a palpable shift."

Check this out too:

"Trust me — no group of people wants to stamp out radicalism more than Muslims, who have seen it soil their faith and define its image," said Khurram Dara, 24, author of "The Crescent Directive," a well-known e-book urging U.S. Muslims to more fully integrate into American society. "They're vigilant of radicalism in their communities."

The message was driven home by a case this week in Canada. Investigators there said they thwarted a plan by two men, guided by al-Qaida in Iran, to derail a train between New York City and Montreal because a local Muslim leader alerted them to the threat. The leader, Muhammad Robert Heft, said the father of one of the two suspects had come forward with concerns about his son's intolerant religious views. A 2011 study of American Muslim terrorism by the Triangle Center for Terrorism and Homeland Security found U.S. Muslims were the largest single source of tips to law enforcement that year for terrorist plots.

Sheila Musaji of St. Louis, editor of TheAmericanMuslim.org, which she founded as a community magazine in 1989, said more Muslims are online and actively countering extremist preachers. "There are these crazy groups out there. It's hard to know when they cross some sort of line into something else that involves violence," Musaji said.

"They need to be countered," she said, "but also the lslamophobes need to be countered."

Because along with progress in recent years, Muslims can point to better organized efforts to condemn their religion.

For example, in Murfreesboro, Tenn., opposition to a mosque has become an ideological and religious conflict that has dragged on for more than three years and spilled over into local public schools. Since 2010, bills have been proposed in more than 30 state legislatures that would restrict consideration of religious law or foreign law in local courts. The bills are similar or identical to a model drafted by activists who contend Muslims, by stealth, want to replace the American legal system with Islamic law, or shariah.

Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/muslims-see-little-backlash-boston-bombing-195735937.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2011 study of American Muslim terrorism by the Triangle Center for Terrorism and Homeland Security found U.S. Muslims were the largest single source of tips to law enforcement that year for terrorist plots.

Well of course they are. They're the most likely to come across that type of information. That's not saying much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the title of this thread can be translated as (populism/anti-intellectualism/common sense) vs (pluralism/scholarship/nuance).

Don't even give us that crap, "anti-intellectualism". I hate to break it to you but thinking with your feelings, discarding critical thinking in politics and using circular logic do not make you a scholar. You see, I can make an ad hominem too!

Edited by Glorfindel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2011 study of American Muslim terrorism by the Triangle Center for Terrorism and Homeland Security found U.S. Muslims were the largest single source of tips to law enforcement that year for terrorist plots.

Well of course they are. They're the most likely to come across that type of information. That's not saying much.

You do seem to be fairly close minded. You attack a religion based on the actions of a minority.

~Thanato

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do seem to be fairly close minded. You attack a religion based on the actions of a minority.

~Thanato

Really? Are Muslim communities not the place you would look to for tips? Yea, it's a real statistic but it isn't too deep. It's a good stat

I've attacked nothing. You people and your unrelenting slander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might not of outright attacked a religion but based on your previous comments you do not regard them high at all. In fact it looks like you see them as the enemy.

~Thanato

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning line in video: Bill Maher says "That is Liberal Bullsh1t right there."

I also don't agree with Bill Maher on much of anything, but he nailed the discussion here.

In either case I don't watch Maher, he is not a true progressive, and you should quit parading him around as if he was one of us.

Are you kidding us?? Not a progressive!! Maher has been the very Champion of progressivism for decades. And now, because he calls a Spade a Spade, he's tossed onto the "Traitor" pile.

The indictment of an entire religion can never equate to anything close to common sense!

But the condemnation of a entire nation is OK? (USA)

I know that 90% of the people who live there just want to go about their day and live their life.

I think the actual problem is that 10%. In a Western nation the percentage of people who want to go about their lives in liike 99.9999%. 10% of billion people maybe wanting to act against the West scares the crap out of me.

--------------------------------

Profiling is based on facts (ideally), and if a Muslim middle eastern man is the highest threat statistically, I say we screen accordingly. It is stupid to handycap youself intentionally in order to simply prove that our nation is more cultured. Screw cultured, catch the bad guys.

--------------------------------

At people who say this will cause more Anti-Muslim sentiment.... Yes it will, and why shouldn't it? If there were 10 attacks on Muslim cities by Christian Fundamentalists that resulted in thousands of dead, wouldn't screening Christians traveling to those Musliims cities be wise? Hell yeah it would be wise. And you know what.... The various Muslim nations would have no problem performing such screening. Don't you think that Anti-Christian sentiment would rise? And rightfully so, IMHO.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not have to be "anti-Muslim" or "closed-minded" to see that there are things genuinely and seriously wrong with Islam and that the world would be better off if it didn't exist.

But it does exist, and we have to live with reality, and one major reality is that most Muslims are not terrorists or whatever. They still have cultural and religious views and a mind-set that those who believe in tolerance and a universal brotherhood find frightening and, of course, dead wrong.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.