172 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Those global efforts are probably effective to some degree.  Quantifying this is difficult though.  Yam there is no doubt that this ideology is a scourge to free peoples around the world.  It just IS.  We in the western tradition will either fight it to a standstill or it will permeate every aspect of our culture until it is victorious.  If that doesn't seem to be something worth fighting for to you then your words supporting freedom ring a bit hollow.

The freedom of my countrymen is not under threat by radical Sharia law.   That isn't just "is", that's preposterous!  

These modern day crusaders, these big government loving republicans and democrats and their bipartisan wars, these mindlessly emotional reactionaries to terrorist attacks like 9/11 who try to blame our freedom on terrorist motives are what threatens our freedom.    We live under the US Constitution and I suggest wholeheartedly that you stand up and fight for it, and when you do that, it will keep you safe from all the bureau-manufactured bogeymen hiding under the bed including the ones who think God is Great that we've spent way too much money, youth and blood on already.

[shadowlark]

Ugly1, on 19 January 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

So let me get this straight. A country predominately christian that holds voting every x amount of years to oppose things such as gay rights, or abortion is Radical? I guess radical is in the eyes of the beholder. Some see radical as getting your hands cut off for stealing, girls getting imprisoned after being gang raped, honor killings, and so much more but I guess voting could be considered radical. Great point!

To gays or women who want abortions it may be considered radical. A gay couple being denied the right to marry because "the Bible says it's a sin" may see that as radical. I get your point, it's not nearly comparable to being jailed, tortured or executed, but the point I was trying to make was that Christians try to force their beliefs on people as much as some Muslims do.

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

It never ends.  There's always someone who trots out the crusades or the inquisition to justify - JUSTIFY - the behavior of militant Islam.  Has it ever occurred to you that we, as a planet, might not HAVE the luxury of the unfolding "timeline" of moderation for these crazies?  That with the presence of nuclear weapons they (and WE) might not survive to see them come to their senses?  And a last point - Christians who committed such atrocities did so in the name of their religion but they most definitely did NOT do the will of Christ.  They eventually did repent and do the right thing for the most part.  The difference is that Muslims ARE obeying the letter of their prophet's laws.  So for them to moderate will essentially mean turning from the written word of their faith.  If that happened then their faith would not exist any longer.  I don't mean to come off sounding angry or spiteful.  It's just that this particular argument has many holes in it and I personally believe in the eschatology of this age we are in.  Meaning that prophecy is unfolding all around anyone who is willing to see it.  It's kind of amusing to me that so many in a place like UM can easily accept UFO's, ghosts and the paranormal of all stripes but roll their eyes at the scriptures.  They don't even see their own biases.

I disagree. I think the majority of Muslims are moderate already. Yes, we need to worry about the radicals, but we need to worry about the radicals of any religion, not just Islam. There are over a billion Muslims in the world - how many of them go around acting in a radical fashion? I'm very good friends with two Muslims, one guy, one girl. They are among the most intelligent, kind hearted people I've ever met. I would like to think they represent the majority of Muslims in the world.

Again, I am NOT justifying radical Islamists, or radicals of any religion. I'm not Muslim. I'm not religious at all. I was merely trying to make the point that there seems to be a timeline that large religions follow and Islam is currently where Christianity was 600 years ago. I would hope that in 600 years, the radicals would have for the most part disappeared, but I agree, we may not have the luxury of waiting it out.

[Ugly1]

shadowlark, on 19 January 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

To gays or women who want abortions it may be considered radical. A gay couple being denied the right to marry because "the Bible says it's a sin" may see that as radical. I get your point, it's not nearly comparable to being jailed, tortured or executed, but the point I was trying to make was that Christians try to force their beliefs on people as much as some Muslims do.



I disagree. I think the majority of Muslims are moderate already. Yes, we need to worry about the radicals, but we need to worry about the radicals of any religion, not just Islam. There are over a billion Muslims in the world - how many of them go around acting in a radical fashion? I'm very good friends with two Muslims, one guy, one girl. They are among the most intelligent, kind hearted people I've ever met. I would like to think they represent the majority of Muslims in the world.

Again, I am NOT justifying radical Islamists, or radicals of any religion. I'm not Muslim. I'm not religious at all. I was merely trying to make the point that there seems to be a timeline that large religions follow and Islam is currently where Christianity was 600 years ago. I would hope that in 600 years, the radicals would have for the most part disappeared, but I agree, we may not have the luxury of waiting it out.

That just doesn't hold water. To Christians, Islamists, and just about every religion could consider gays and lesbians radicals in that case. Give me an example of how you have been forced into believing in anything Christian? I can see how someone holding a gun to your head may be forcing you to do something but a suggestion is different than that. How is anyone saying that "I do not like, and I will not support your homosexuality" forcing anything on you? Is that making you go court someone from the opposite sex? No.

[shadowlark]

Ugly1, on 19 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

That just doesn't hold water. To Christians, Islamists, and just about every religion could consider gays and lesbians radicals in that case. Give me an example of how you have been forced into believing in anything Christian? I can see how someone holding a gun to your head may be forcing you to do something but a suggestion is different than that. How is anyone saying that "I do not like, and I will not support your homosexuality" forcing anything on you? Is that making you go court someone from the opposite sex? No.

How is saying "I do not like and I will not support your homosexuality" and taking that view as far as possible by not allowing a gay person to marry the person they love NOT imposing their beliefs/values on that person? It's not holding a gun to their head, but they are being denied their rights. No, their not being forced to date someone of the opposite sex, but they are being denied their right to commit their love in the same way as straight people based on the beliefs of others. You're right, it's not just Christians that are against homosexuality, but the OP stated that Muslims are "completely intolerant of anything against their own beliefs" and I personally think that's no different than Christians in the US being intolerant towards gays and trying to force their beliefs on others by banning things such as gay marriage and abortion.

[redhen]

Likely Guy, on 19 January 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

The western countries don't arm islamist states? I think not.

http://www.thenation...-gulf-countries  

Of course they do. "The enemy of enemy is my friend." But the point is Russia, China, N. Korea are going to be loathe to do anything that would jeopardize their sphere of influence, no matter how crazy these Muslim fanatics get, or how maniacal secular leaders like Assad get.

It's not just the money from arms sales, these are allies against the West.

"The USSR turned to other Arab states in order to gain influence in the Arab world and to eliminate Western influence. The USSR viewed the Arab states as more important than Israel because they could help the USSR achieve its goal of spreading Communist influence. The USSR chose to support Egypt and Syria with arms in order to demonstrate its domination. The Soviet Union manipulated the Arab states against Israel in order to increase their dependence on the Soviet Union and to discourage Western powers from assisting Israel. The USSR hoped to be the only superpower influence in the Middle East."

http://en.wikipedia....The_Middle_East

[and then]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

The freedom of my countrymen is not under threat by radical Sharia law.   That isn't just "is", that's preposterous!  

These modern day crusaders, these big government loving republicans and democrats and their bipartisan wars, these mindlessly emotional reactionaries to terrorist attacks like 9/11 who try to blame our freedom on terrorist motives are what threatens our freedom. We live under the US Constitution and I suggest wholeheartedly that you stand up and fight for it, and when you do that, it will keep you safe from all the bureau-manufactured bogeymen hiding under the bed including the ones who think God is Great that we've spent way too much money, youth and blood on already.

That is not what I said - and you know it.  I said that this ideology is a scourge to free peoples around the world.  As to fighting for the constitution - I'll be happy to.  But I'll pick time and place.  No sense wasting the effort when it's likely to be a last stand.

[Yamato]

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is not what I said - and you know it.  I said that this ideology is a scourge to free peoples around the world.  As to fighting for the constitution - I'll be happy to.  But I'll pick time and place.  No sense wasting the effort when it's likely to be a last stand.

It doesn't matter if you said it or not.   We're not under threat by a religion.  We are protected from religious rule in this country by design.  Being afraid of things that can't possibly hurt you isn't even rational.  You're not fighting for the Constitution if you're chasing after foreign dragons to slay.   We're not even supposed to have a standing army according to the Constitution.   Read the 2nd Amendment.   That was by design too, so we couldn't have radical Presidents going around the world looking for a fight to pick.

[shadowx]

One suggestion I might say for is to do one of the things that we as a nation backed down from doing beforehand because of the threats of riot. You know what's a great way to find and get rid of all those radicals that'll bomb and kill and break stuff? Make them riot, do what they don't want us to do, and we get all the people out in the streets we need to get rid of

In all honesty though, if we did ignore their threats of violence and actually did what the law says to do (as in, stop the rioters) we'd probably get to deal with the problem in the best way possible while leaving out those that aren't actually radical.

[shadowlark]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Being afraid of things that can't possibly hurt you isn't even rational.

Tell that to all the homophobes trying to block gay marriage in the States!

[Yamato]

shadowlark, on 19 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Tell that to all the homophobes trying to block gay marriage in the States!

I will!   And in Washington DC.  Both parties are rife with "civil union" supporters.   But that's exactly what I'm talking about.   People who are scared of groups of all kinds because they don't identify with them personally.   Or the corollary, subsidizing groups that they do!   Sarah Palin was all for federal funding for special needs children the moment she birthed one.   Who do these people think they are?   They have no right to federally impose their opinions on the rest of us.   They can raise their own money like the rest of us through private donations and let the people decide whether their fear or preferences are worth paying for.   I don't have two pennies to rub together to give to bureaucrats to keep the slaves beaten with rods, to keep blacks on the muddy side of the street and off the white toilets, to keep women from voting, to keep this oily war racketeering in business, or to devolve our humanity 900 years to wage another Crusade in the Middle East.

[spud the mackem]

In days gone by we assisted these guys, built Oil Refineries for them, taught them how to defend themselves,and are still educating them,judging by the number of "students" arriving every day,then they return to their homes and turn the education against us.Big Laugh.But once the OIL runs out  they will have bought a lot of the Country and businesses that are in your land.

[.AKUMA.]

spud the mackem, on 19 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

In days gone by we assisted these guys, built Oil Refineries for them, taught them how to defend themselves,and are still educating them,judging by the number of "students" arriving every day,then they return to their homes and turn the education against us.Big Laugh.But once the OIL runs out  they will have bought a lot of the Country and businesses that are in your land.

Your paranoid and somewhat dilusional :/

[freetoroam]

Helen of Annoy, on 18 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Theoretically, yes. But theoretically I could be burnt at stake if theoretically far right comes to power and lets few bishops stuck in medieval times loose.

Are you saying bishops are far right? being burned at the stake is in the past as far as the Western World is concerned, just because some might want to still seen it done, does not mean it will ever be allowed again, unlike the barbaric sharia laws which certain muslims want to adopt in western countries.
If the muslim countries want to follow sharia law, then who are we to tell them otherwise? let them do it, but my gripe is with the western do gooders who are allowing this "cult' to flourish in our countries. We are NOT a muslim country and trying to accommodate them is a left wing ideology which will never work, the radical muslims have absolutely no intentions of integrating and living side by side with us. We just need to look at what is happening in places like Syria and Egypt....do people really think that is not in the cards here if the islamists are allowed to grow?
If the different sects of muslims can not live together peacefully in muslim countries, let alone their intolerance towards any other religions, then how the heck is it going to work in our non muslim countries if the islamists are allowed to grow?

[Helen of Annoy]

freetoroam, on 19 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Are you saying bishops are far right? being burned at the stake is in the past as far as the Western World is concerned, just because some might want to still seen it done, does not mean it will ever be allowed again, unlike the barbaric sharia laws which certain muslims want to adopt in western countries.
If the muslim countries want to follow sharia law, then who are we to tell them otherwise? let them do it, but my gripe is with the western do gooders who are allowing this "cult' to flourish in our countries. We are NOT a muslim country and trying to accommodate them is a left wing ideology which will never work, the radical muslims have absolutely no intentions of integrating and living side by side with us. We just need to look at what is happening in places like Syria and Egypt....do people really think that is not in the cards here if the islamists are allowed to grow?
If the different sects of muslims can not live together peacefully in muslim countries, let alone their intolerance towards any other religions, then how the heck is it going to work in our non muslim countries if the islamists are allowed to grow?

Not all bishops, of course. But I’ve noticed the best people from the clergy are balancing at the edge of excommunication, while the worst abusers of their proclaimed faith are advancing.
Religion is more about politics than faith, obviously, and our far right is abusing religion to ridiculous extent. So are we clear about that, not US far right, Croatian far right.
But that’s the far right, bunch of delusional people ridden with very visible issues, so when I said “theoretically” I meant that. The quite real danger comes from populist right-ish formerly leading party that is in symbiosis with part of clergy that has ruling ambitions. Not only political ambitions, but ruling ambitions.
They want their rather backward life style forced on anyone, regardless of their religion, which is, obviously, wrong. My country belongs to me as much as it belongs to any other citizen, so no hypocrite will command me into Catholicism 16^th century style because that would make his position more secure and his perversions better served. So much about Christian talibanery in Croatia today. Shall not pass. Too many literate people around.

Sharia... sharia doesn’t worry me in my own everyday life because this is not the West yet, we live by different rules and in the last war I’d say my side did more damage to Muslim neighbours than they did to us – that is debatable, but no matter what the ratio of pain was, the point is that both majority of my nation and of Bosnian Muslims reached the conclusion that we ate huge pile of **** by allowing armed conflict between us. Majority, you have slower people too. Not their fault, but I'd appreciate if they'd crawl back under their rocks and stop praying for the next war.

The admirable old Bosniak tradition is so much different than Muslim bogeyman from the media.
Watch Jasmila Zbanic's films, particularly “On the Path” and see what Bosnia truly is, complete with newfangled extremes, old tradition, new urban ways and their relations, she tells that far more coherent and accurate than me. (Not artsy-boring, there's a lot of straightforward truth and humour, typically Bosnian.)

Western society suffers from self-imposed... what to call that phenomenon? ... permissiveness?
I’d rather not dissect that at the moment, not that I have issues with stating my own opinions, but it’s complex subject and I don’t allow myself too superficial approach.
Let me just say that there are sane and fair ways to remove aggressive elements in order to allow sane majority normal, peaceful life. It only takes political will to do so and that will is at the moment absent.


Edit: Much like drugs, if you want your society drug-free, get the dealers, big ones, everyone knows who they are. If you want your society drug-free.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 19 January 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Tesla II]

pallidin, on 18 January 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Who want's to vacation in Egypt now, or any of a number of Islamic lead countries, while you might be kidnapped, held for ransom, or executed.

They would kidnap only people from countries like US,UK, France... which at the end were one countries that invaded their lands under false flag assumptions... Didn't it all started this way? And at the end US and their allies are victims... playing the world out.

It is really interesting you people didn't invade Iran on those same assumptions, is it because Russia and China watching from backgrounds?