Attacks on Brussles

[Gamedog]

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

[Saxon]

4 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

Islam is a cause of homophobia in our countries too; when the UK permitted equal marriage for homosexual couples it was widely publicised that the Church of England and the Catholic Church were trying to convince the government that they were making a mistake. It was less publicised that associations of mosques were also sending letters to the government decrying homosexual unions. 

I get the feeling that, bizarrely, left leaning people expect me to sympathise with religious minorities because I'm gay and hence 'a persecuted minority' too. I don't view myself as persecuted, and the only time I was ever given shit for being gay was when one of my muslim associates told me that, even though he personally didn't think it was a big deal and wouldn't want to see me tortured, Allah knows best and is going to burn me in the eternal fires of hell for my perversion. 

 

 

[Troj]

Leftists definitely tend to have a major blind spot when it comes to minorities being dicks. "Muslims are minorities, therefore, we have to protect them!"

As I've said before, this is a complicated issue, because the right-wingers on the other side are often equally delusional and misinformed, albeit in a different way.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Troj

[#00Buck]

5 hours ago, Flake said:

It's scapegoating if your response to an act of terrorism is to blame an entire religion. It's better to address the people actually doing these things instead of lumping all Muslims into the same boat.

Even then, I read the links you posted and honestly, that stuff is disturbing. Barbaric. Not the sort of thing you'd expect from a civilized country in the 21st century. Also:

 

Saudi Arabia just seems like an awful place to begin with, if only for the human rights concerns. It does bother me that those things are allowed to go on.

Yes, and that country has their holiest city and all people of that religion must make a pilgrimage there once in their lifetime.

The beheadings take place with such frequency that pilgrims regularly see the beheadings going on while they are there. 

Seeing crowds of people cheering for the beheadings is also disturbing. 

The idea that most Muslims don't agree with this kind of violence is absurd. 

If they disagreed with it they would never set foot in Saudi Arabia let along travel to Mecca which is where it all takes place. 

4 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

Good question. 

I'm still waiting for a gay couple to go into a Muslim bakery and ask for a gay wedding cake. 

I guess I'll be waiting a long time because Christians are non-violent and easy to pick on. 

They would be too scared of the muslims to ever try it. 

Edited March 24, 2016 by #00Buck

[ArielMT]

I don't know who ordered the wedding cake, but...  http://www.france24.com/fr/20120330-france-mariage-homosexuel-musulmans-gay-religion-imam-coran-corps-livre-ludovic-mohamed-zahed (Google translated from French: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.france24.com%2Ffr%2F20120330-france-mariage-homosexuel-musulmans-gay-religion-imam-coran-corps-livre-ludovic-mohamed-zahed&edit-text=&act=url )

On SSM and LGBT within Islam: http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_marriage_and_marriage_i.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam  Just like conservative Christianity for centuries and to this day, conservative Islam has been using its holiest scriptures to oppose LGBT rights.  Also just like in Christianity, liberalism within Islam does exist and has existed since at least the European Renaissance, even though just like in Christianized Europe's darkest times conservative interpretations, some inhumane, still hold sociopolitical power.

Perhaps I'm missing a few posts, but where in this thread has anyone stated or implied Muslim dicks, literal or figurative, don't have sociopolitical power in Muslim-majority nations?

Related, it's very dangerous to equate noisiness of support for a thing with size of support for that thing, no matter how unjust that thing is.  That same logic would conclude that the minority of Americans who wholeheartedly embrace Trump's bigoted rhetoric, whether it turns out to be a plurality or not, is actually an overwhelming majority because of how loudly they cheer it.

But all that still detracts terribly from the only point I am trying to make: Islam is not to blame for any of the attacks ISIS carried out in France and Belgium, a rogue state embracing a fundamentalist interpretation so extreme that hundreds of thousands of Muslims are running for their lives from that rogue state is to blame.  (Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, according to your logic, necessarily embrace extremism are running from extremism.)  Islam as a whole is no more to blame for these attacks than Christianity as a whole (necessarily including Western Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy) is to blame for the Spanish conquest of the Americas.  Why is that so hard to see or recognize, or how is that in any way a defense of anything?

[Feelwell]

1 hour ago, ArielMT said:

But all that still detracts terribly from the only point I am trying to make: Islam is not to blame for any of the attacks ISIS carried out in France and Belgium, a rogue state embracing a fundamentalist interpretation so extreme that hundreds of thousands of Muslims are running for their lives from that rogue state is to blame.  (Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, according to your logic, necessarily embrace extremism are running from extremism.)  Islam as a whole is no more to blame for these attacks than Christianity as a whole (necessarily including Western Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy) is to blame for the Spanish conquest of the Americas.  Why is that so hard to see or recognize, or how is that in any way a defense of anything?

It's likely it's being blamed on Islam as, most people are used to that as that's what everyone else blames, because that's what the media blames. It's hard to take a step back and look at the real, real reason because many don't care to look closer, only hate and fear. Furthermore it's easier to blame something as big as Islam, because much of it can be twisted to seem bloodthirsty, just like ISIS and other militants twist the idea of the Jihaad into a rallying point for war.

That being said, some people are forced to radicalize, else they and their families are shot as traitors.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Feelwell the Rabbit

[ArielMT]

3 minutes ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

That being said, some people are forced to radicalize, else they and their families are shot as traitors.

Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer.  Never hint at what you really feel.

[WolfyAmbassador]

On 3/22/2016 at 10:13 AM, #00Buck said:

It is taking a little bit longer than normal but people in the media are chiming in with "This is a sad day but don't be racist."

Soon we'll hear about how this is yet another "isolated incident" in a long string of isolated incidents that form a pattern that everyone is ignoring.

Or it will be brushed off as "workplace violence." Or people will someone say the Belgians "deserved it" although that's kind of a tough one. I don't know of Belgium making anything other than delicious chocolate. 

People will be in denial right up until the moment they are being stabbed to death by a guy yelling about Allah. 

Everyone needs to wake up. 

This is not the time for irrational anger.

This is the time for completely justified rational anger. 

Being angry about being blown up is okay! Self defence is okay! It is time to stop being pussies and stand up for yourselves! 

People should be angry and fired up. That's what is supposed to happen when a mass murderers kill innocent people. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you're just being racist. GTFO Republican!

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

and the only time I was ever given shit for being gay was when one of my muslim associates told me that, even though he personally didn't think it was a big deal and wouldn't want to see me tortured, Allah knows best and is going to burn me in the eternal fires of hell for my perversion. 

lmfao

[Crazy Lee]

I think the best solution to all of this, watching Christians and Muslims duke it out for all eternity, is to destroy all religion. Nuke and genocide all practitioners of religious belief. Before you criticize my idea, think about it. 90% of the population is gone, an end to world hunger, overpopulation, overuse of fossil fuels... eventually climate change will fix itself because far less CO2 will be going into the atmosphere, and less war and violence. And the only people we'll have left over is people who only worship at the altar of science and intellectual thought. It's a win-win situation really.

 

22 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Their holiest city is Mecca in Saudi Arabia. 

Mecca is where they chop off heads. Not 18 - 15 years ago.

22 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Here's an article about them trampling each other at Mecca. 

So Saudi Arabia is a shit country, run by a shit dictatorship, that use violence and force to keep their power while they roll around in piles of money thanks to all their oil, and the USA looks the other way because not only do we buy oil from them, but they help us contain Iran and oh, allow us to have bases in their country. None of this is news.
Saudi Arabia is a country that uses religion as an excuse to be dicks. ISIS is a group that uses religion to be murderous.

Some people will use religion in a peaceful way. Some people will use religion in a stupid way.
 

10 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Yes, and that country has their holiest city and all people of that religion must make a pilgrimage there once in their lifetime.

If they disagreed with it they would never set foot in Saudi Arabia let along travel to Mecca which is where it all takes place.

Wait, if they disagreed they'd never step foot in Mecca, a place where they are REQUIRED TO STEP FOOT IN if they want to get to heaven? So, you're basically contradicting yourself.

[#00Buck]

44 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Wait, if they disagreed they'd never step foot in Mecca, a place where they are REQUIRED TO STEP FOOT IN if they want to get to heaven? So, you're basically contradicting yourself.

Your reading comprehension isn't very good. 

What I was saying is:

If someone claimed to be a muslim and disagreed with the barbaric practice of beheading people they would never go to Mecca. 

But if they don't go then technically they're not following the religion they claim to believe in.

If they do go to Mecca they must think that beheading is okay. 

Which means they are religious and barbaric. 

Get it?

Edited March 25, 2016 by #00Buck

[Saxon]

That's a good argument buck, actually. 

[Crazy Lee]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Your reading comprehension isn't very good. 

What I was saying is:

If someone claimed to be a muslim and disagreed with the barbaric practice of beheading people they would never go to Mecca. 

But if they don't go then technically they're not following the religion they claim to believe in.

If they do go to Mecca they must think that beheading is okay. 

Which means they are religious and barbaric. 

Get it?

That's a stretch of logic.

They don't have to agree with Saudi Arabia's barbaric practices to go to Mecca. If they don't go to Mecca, they don't go to heaven when they die (according to their beliefs).

Plus, according to your logic, every journalist who goes to a country with barbaric or tyrannical practices to do a story must support those practices. If a diplomat goes to North Korea, for example, they must agree with the NK's government. And so on and so forth. I'm not exactly sure HOW stepping on a country's soil is supportive of that country's regime.

[#00Buck]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

That's a stretch of logic.

They don't have to agree with Saudi Arabia's barbaric practices to go to Mecca. If they don't go to Mecca, they don't go to heaven when they die (according to their beliefs).

Plus, according to your logic, every journalist who goes to a country with barbaric or tyrannical practices to do a story must support those practices. If a diplomat goes to North Korea, for example, they must agree with the NK's government. And so on and so forth. I'm not exactly sure HOW stepping on a country's soil is supportive of that country's regime.

1) Yes they do have to agree to their barbaric practices. Any dissent in Saudi Arabia is crushed immediately. Anyone who openly disagrees with Saudi policy quickly becomes a political prisoner. Also Saudi practices are also the practices of Islam so they go hand in hand. 

2) Journalists are not religious pilgrims. Going on a pilgrimage to a holy place because you believe in the religion is totally different than being a diplomat or a journalist. Your logic isn't logical at all. If you are going to a place that beheads people and you believe in that religion and you are there to celebrate that religion you must be okay with beheading. There is no other explanation. 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by #00Buck

[Crazy Lee]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

1) Yes they do have to agree to their barbaric practices. Any dissent in Saudi Arabia is crushed immediately. Anyone who openly disagrees with Saudi policy quickly becomes a political prisoner. Also Saudi practices are also the practices of Islam so they go hand in hand. 

2) Journalists are not religious pilgrims. Going on a pilgrimage to a holy place because you believe in the religion is totally different than being a diplomat or a journalist. Your logic isn't logical at all. If you are going to a place that beheads people and you believe in that religion and you are there to celebrate that religion you must be okay with beheading. There is no other explanation. 

 

1) They have to agree with them in public. Doesn't mean they agree with them in their heads. I could go to North Korea like that idiot kid who got 15 years, and sit there and smile and say "This is a beautiful country", while in my head I'm wishing the entire country gets nuked into the sea.

Saudi practices are the practices of a violent distortion of Islam in order to squash dissent and hold on to power.

2) Your logic isn't logic at all either. Just because people go to a country because their religion REQUIRES it, does not mean they support the actions of the regime where the location they have to go to is located.

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

1) They have to agree with them in public. Doesn't mean they agree with them in their heads. I could go to North Korea like that idiot kid who got 15 years, and sit there and smile and say "This is a beautiful country", while in my head I'm wishing the entire country gets nuked into the sea.

Saudi practices are the practices of a violent distortion of Islam in order to squash dissent and hold on to power.

2) Your logic isn't logic at all either. Just because people go to a country because their religion REQUIRES it, does not mean they support the actions of the regime where the location they have to go to is located.

The actions of the regime are also the tenants of the religion. 

You're treating them like they are separate. They are not. 

They do support the regime because the regime is using Islamic law.

You can't believe in Islam and not believe in Islamic law. They are the same thing. The laws are the religion. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by #00Buck

[Derin Darkpaw]

To say that people must act in an exactingly specific manner in order to qualify as member of a religion is to ignore the very real tendency for religion to splinter and change over time.  Christianity has split into more sects then I care to count and Islam itself is currently divided into two major sects.

[#00Buck]

14 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

To say that people must act in an exactingly specific manner in order to qualify as member of a religion is to ignore the very real tendency for religion to splinter and change over time.  Christianity has split into more sects then I care to count and Islam itself is currently divided into two major sects.

Which both follow Islamic law. 

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Which both follow Islamic law. 

Even if we assume that your current views on Islam are correct who is to say that we aren't in the middle of seeing another great shift within the Islamic faith.  We are seeing Muslims throughout the world that reject the ideas of Sharia law, jihad, and the violent mutilation of criminals.  There is the distinct possibility that we are witnessing the development of a new sect of Islam.

Again all of that is assuming you are even correct in the first place. 

All I am really saying right now is that religion is capable of change over time and because of that you can't not say that a set of specific criteria are necessary to be a follower of a certain faith.

[#00Buck]

Just now, Derin Darkpaw said:

Even if we assume that your current views on Islam are correct who is to say that we aren't in the middle of seeing another great shift within the Islamic faith.  We are seeing Muslims throughout the world that reject the ideas of Sharia law, jihad, and the violent mutilation of criminals.  There is the distinct possibility that we are witnessing the development of a new sect of Islam.

Again all of that is assuming you are even correct in the first place. 

All I am really saying right now is that religion is capable of change over time and because of that you can't not say that a set of specific criteria are necessary to be a follower of a certain faith.

Yes a specific set of criteria are required. 

The most basic premises of a religion never change because the holy books do not change. They stay the same forever. 

If what you practice is contrary to the Quran then it isn't Islam. 

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Yes a specific set of criteria are required. 

The most basic premises of a religion never change because the holy books do not change. They stay the same forever. 

If what you practice is contrary to the Quran then it isn't Islam. 

Actually holy books do change and you see a large amount of things added or subtracted to them over time.  The Bible did not in fact spring fully formed from the mind of god into this world.  It was written and amended by men.  They made decisions over what texts to include or not include and there are records of texts and stories that used to be within the Bible that have been removed over time.  Saying that holy books do not change is demonstrably false.

[#00Buck]

Just now, Derin Darkpaw said:

Actually holy books do change and you see a large amount of things added or subtracted to them over time.  The Bible did not in fact spring fully formed from the mind of god into this world.  It was written and amended by men.  They made decisions over what texts to include or not include and there are records of texts and stories that used to be within the Bible that have been removed over time.  Saying that holy books do not change is demonstrably false.

No it isn't. I've studied texts from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

Many versions and translations. You will find only the most minor variations and the wording is in most cases identical. Where they are not identical the context is the same. If there is a variation it is so small that it is insignificant. 

 

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, #00Buck said:

No it isn't. I've studied texts from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

Many versions and translations. You will find only the most minor variations and the wording is in most cases identical. Where they are not identical the context is the same. If there is a variation it is so small that it is insignificant. 

 

So I assume you have never heard of Apocryphal texts then.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

"The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible"

This clearly demonstrate that there are alternate versions of the Bible that vary not only in translation, but have entirely different chapters in them.  I don't know about you, but if we look at two books and one of them has 5 more chapters then the other its pretty safe to assume that they are not in fact the same book.

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

So I assume you have never heard of Apocryphal texts then.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

"The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible"

This clearly demonstrate that there are alternate versions of the Bible that vary not only in translation, but have entirely different chapters in them.  I don't know about you, but if we look at two books and one of them has 5 more chapters then the other its pretty safe to assume that they are not in fact the same book.

You are now nitpicking on a sub-atomic level with an electron microscope because you are desperate to be right about something or anything at all.

I've won all the major points of the argument. 

At this point I'm willing to concede any pointless minutia you bring up because it is totally irrelevant. 

You've totally gone away from terrorism, current events, and anything to do with reality and are arguing about ancient greek.

I win. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by #00Buck

[Derin Darkpaw]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

You are now nitpicking on a sub-atomic level with an electron microscope because you are desperate to be right about something or anything at all.

I've won all the major points of the argument. 

At this point I'm willing to concede any pointless minutia you bring up because it is totally irrelevant. 

You've totally gone away from terrorism, current events, and anything to do with reality and are arguing about ancient greek.

I win. 

Could you explain how bringing up an example of something that clearly proves your argument wrong is nitpicking?

[#00Buck]

Just now, Derin Darkpaw said:

Could you explain how bringing up an example of something that clearly proves your argument wrong is nitpicking?

I've made every point I need to in this thread. 

People can draw their own conclusions. 

[Troj]

Well, this should be an easy enough test:

Can we think of parallel examples where Christians compromise on their principles, and/or tacitly endorse, ignore, or permit horrendous words, beliefs, and deeds?

If we can, then is there any meaningful difference between the Christian example and the Muslim one?

If there is a meaningful difference, then we can make a case for Islam being notably nasty. If there isn't, then our anti-Islamic argument in that case needs to be re-thought or re-worked.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Troj

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

If there isn't, then our anti-Islamic argument in that case needs to be re-thought or re-worked.

Or expanded to all religions.

 

And 'people' who drink chocolate milkshakes.

[Saxon]

@Derin Darkpaw @#00Buck 

Holy texts do change, often radically. For instance a lot of Muslims you meet on the internet will claim that the Koran supports the big bang theory, because of a modern Turkish translation which deliberately contorts genesis to change the word for 'firmament' into 'growing expanse'. 

It's all still bullshit, and I think arguments about changes to religion miss the point, which is that the world over, Islamic law is routinely used to justify foul and inhumane treatment of people. If someone had freedom and self respect, they would look at the beheadings in Mecca and reject the faith in its entirety, because its very core is so obviously rotten.

...but much of the Islamic world doesn't provide its citizens with freedom of expression, and if they did denounce the faith they would find themselves on the chopping block. 

Even in the UK, when Muslim women stop wearing Hijab they complain about their family sending them funerary poems...to show that 'you may as well be dead to us'. 

[WolfyAmbassador]

On 3/24/2016 at 4:46 AM, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

Not to mention, our extremists don't kill gays, women, or non-believers, a small percentage if any. Christians to me are just stupid and annoying as hell, but with Islam it is much more than "a small percentage of extremists". Also, you got to love how when Muslims don't murder innocent people they're called "moderates" (even though their views are still twisted), but when Christians don't murder anyone they're still called "extremists". I can see in the future leftism becoming the new far-right and Islam becoming the new Christianity except 2x worse.

[Toboe]

3 hours ago, Troj said:

Well, this should be an easy enough test:

Can we think of parallel examples where Christians compromise on their principles, and/or tacitly endorse, ignore, or permit horrendous words, beliefs, and deeds?

If we can, then is there any meaningful difference between the Christian example and the Muslim one?

If there is a meaningful difference, then we can make a case for Islam being notably nasty. If there isn't, then our anti-Islamic argument in that case needs to be re-thought or re-worked.

Historical example: 3rd Reich. Part of Christians supported, part opposed the Nazis. (Note: Jehovas witness are exempt, they did oppose collectively and were send to concentration camps collectively, if i remember my history classes correctly)

Current: Depending on your opinion on Guantanamo, that could count for American Christians.

And if you'd rather have individual American Christians really fucking around: There is the role American Christians played in Ugandas gay laws (already repealed)

If you prefer non video: The law aimed to put Gays in prison. In case of repeat offenders, HIV-infected or involving <18 it originally included the death penalty, which has been toned down to life sentence iirc.

 

(In before another whining of "Christian persecution!!!!!!111oneleven")

[willow]

5 hours ago, Troj said:

Well, this should be an easy enough test:

Can we think of parallel examples where Christians compromise on their principles, and/or tacitly endorse, ignore, or permit horrendous words, beliefs, and deeds?

If we can, then is there any meaningful difference between the Christian example and the Muslim one?

If there is a meaningful difference, then we can make a case for Islam being notably nasty. If there isn't, then our anti-Islamic argument in that case needs to be re-thought or re-worked.

the first group that came to mind was the KKK. maybe not so much now but back in the early 1900's and I think up until the 70's they were the ones promoting the lynchings and all that stuff. though there's really no shortage of smaller white supremacist, NeoNazi, Christian conservative groups US or people who just kill 'in the name of God'. though of course they can't really gain much power in the US now partly because shifting attitudes and the military would probably destroy them before they could get very far.

Christian extremism also seems to be way more individualist than Islamic extremists.

I can't exactly think of anything meaningful though, except maybe the culture?

[ArielMT]

General reminder: That filter bubble each of us is in should be popped every so often, lest you spiral into a worldview increasingly disconnected from reality.

Just the most cursory news examples I found regarding Christians killing recently in the name of Christ:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/christian-muslim-conflict-in-central-african-repub/?page=all

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/pope-calls-for-peace-between-christians,-muslims-in-war-torn-pk5/6988590

So are we then supposed to regard these Christians as representative of Christians worldwide in exactly the same way we're supposed to regard ISIS as representative of Muslims worldwide?  If yes, then why?  If no, then what makes one religion fundamentally worthy of exception and not the other?  There is a third possible answer to this obviously loaded question.

16 hours ago, #00Buck said:

If someone claimed to be a muslim and disagreed with the barbaric practice of beheading people they would never go to Mecca. 

But if they don't go then technically they're not following the religion they claim to believe in.

If they do go to Mecca they must think that beheading is okay.

You know, just this morning I avoided literally running into a whole bunch of challenges to this overgeneralization.

This Sunday is Easter Sunday, and every year about 30,000 Christians make a religious pilgrimage on foot to el Santuario de Chimayo just north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Easter service.  This is a pilgrimage their religion compels them to make not just once in their lifetimes if possible, but every single year they can.  Does this mean that all of them are okay with New Mexico's injustices, such as continuing to execute people and seek the death penalty in current convictions despite the repeal of the death penalty?  Does this mean that all of them are okay with America's injustices, such as modern Jim Crow laws, the criminalization of poverty, and allowing states to perform inhumane executions, never mind still having death penalties on the books at all?  Again, why if so, or what makes one so fundamentally special if not?

Not one bit of this is a defense of the Saudi kingdom's bad human rights record.

By the way, this is not the only Christian sect with religious pilgrimages.  Start with looking up "Our Lady of Guadalupe" for a more populous example.

[Troj]

My take:

Islam is a young religion, first.

Second, it has its roots in a harsh, tribalistic desert honor culture.

So, you have to be careful when comparing Islam as a religion to either Christianity or Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are also desert monotheisms, but they've undergone an extended "domestication" process throughout their respective histories, I'd argue.

So, while many individual Muslims might be lovely, peaceful people whose loveliness and kindness might be inspired by their interpretation of Islamic teachings, I personally stop short of just calling Islam a "peaceful" religion and leaving it at that.

But, at the same time, we need to resist the urge to turn Muslims into evil supernatural boogeymen. Muslims are not uniquely evil, sadistic, bloodthirsty, and violent; they're still human beings who are motivated by the same standard human emotions, instincts, and desires as everyone else. I believe it is this fundamental understanding--that is, that Muslims are humans, and not irrational killbots--which will ultimately provide us with the keys to defeating Islamofascism.

In light of the "humanness" of Muslims, it's tricky to say where normal complicity in brutality or corruption ends, and abnormal or excessive complicity or agreement begins. Are individual Muslims being more evil or even more troublingly backwards than other types of people when they make excuses or apologies for some batshit crazy imam or ayatollah, or when they conform to the dictates of their culture or country? That's a major question the thread seems to be chewing on at the moment, if I'm following correctly.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Troj

[Gamedog]

15 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

Not to mention, our extremists don't kill gays, women, or non-believers, a small percentage if any. Christians to me are just stupid and annoying as hell, but with Islam it is much more than "a small percentage of extremists". Also, you got to love how when Muslims don't murder innocent people they're called "moderates" (even though their views are still twisted), but when Christians don't murder anyone they're still called "extremists". I can see in the future leftism becoming the new far-right and Islam becoming the new Christianity except 2x worse.

if youre considerate "moderate" for not killing people, that's an issue.

[Saxon]

18 hours ago, ArielMT said:

 

You know, just this morning I avoided literally running into a whole bunch of challenges to this overgeneralization.

This Sunday is Easter Sunday, and every year about 30,000 Christians make a religious pilgrimage on foot to el Santuario de Chimayo just north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Easter service.  This is a pilgrimage their religion compels them to make not just once in their lifetimes if possible, but every single year they can.  Does this mean that all of them are okay with New Mexico's injustices, such as continuing to execute people and seek the death penalty in current convictions despite the repeal of the death penalty?  Does this mean that all of them are okay with America's injustices, such as modern Jim Crow laws, the criminalization of poverty, and allowing states to perform inhumane executions, never mind still having death penalties on the books at all?  Again, why if so, or what makes one so fundamentally special if not?

Not one bit of this is a defense of the Saudi kingdom's bad human rights record.

By the way, this is not the only Christian sect with religious pilgrimages.  Start with looking up "Our Lady of Guadalupe" for a more populous example.

The state of New Mexico is separated from its Church, whereas Saudi Arabian law is Shariah, so your choice of comparisons is desperate. 

 

[Toboe]

on the whole terrorism topic:

http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

[Fantasma]

11 minutes ago, Toboe said:

on the whole terrorism topic:

http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

This makes an incredible amount of sense to be honest. A good read.

Isis never really struck me about being about islam, they will kill other muslims left and right as compared to Al Queda where, if I'm not mistaken, their focus was not on their own people.

[CETME]

2 minutes ago, Johanna Waya said:

This makes an incredible amount of sense to be honest. A good read.

Isis never really struck me about being about islam, they will kill other muslims left and right as compared to Al Queda where, if I'm not mistaken, their focus was not on their own people.

One of the biggest reasons why they're killing other muslims is because ISIL is Sunni and the other groups fighting them are shia, (or in Syria) Alawite muslims 

[WolfyAmbassador]

LOL

 

[ArielMT]

14 hours ago, Saxon said:

The state of New Mexico is separated from its Church, whereas Saudi Arabian law is Shariah, so your choice of comparisons is desperate.

The enshrinement of religion in law wasn't really a part of my point, so if you meant "disparate" then fair enough, I grant that.

[Saxon]

8 hours ago, ArielMT said:

The enshrinement of religion in law wasn't really a part of my point, so if you meant "disparate" then fair enough, I grant that.

Then you've missed the point of the argument. Muslim law demands the beheading of apostates and infidels who enter Mecca. These laws are enforced in Mecca, and people who go on Hajj to Mecca, in order to venerate this grizzly city, are therefore complicit with them. 

[Kinharia]

As a Socialist I find Islam to be incompatable with European Values. We can't have equality if there are groups who see themselves as above everyone else and feel like they have a grudge to pick for the crusades.

[ArielMT]

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

Muslim law demands the beheading of apostates and infidels who enter Mecca.

Can you cite a source for this, please?  Of all the near-universally condemned aspects of Saudi Arabia's system of crime and punishment, I can't find a single mention of this in Islamic law, Saudi law, or even mob rule, on my own.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 3:46 AM, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

Because it isn't.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

9 hours ago, Kinharia said:

As a Socialist I find Islam to be incompatable with European Values. We can't have equality if there are groups who see themselves as above everyone else and feel like they have a grudge to pick for the crusades.

Obviously doesn't have anything to do with the West's persistent meddling in North Africa or the Middle East.

Clearly all of these extremist Muslims are persistently harassing the West for precisely zero reason whatsoever.

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Dr. Doggo]

Just now, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Obviously doesn't have anything to do with the West's persistent meddling in North Africa or the Middle East.

Clearly all of these extremist Muslims are persistently harassing the West for precisely zero reason whatsoever.

It's a shame that it's ordinary people in Europe that have to pay the price for it all.

[Kinharia]

33 minutes ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Obviously doesn't have anything to do with the West's persistent meddling in North Africa or the Middle East.

Clearly all of these extremist Muslims are persistently harassing the West for precisely zero reason whatsoever.

 

I was explicity refering to that, they still see it as crusades

[Crazy Lee]

On 3/25/2016 at 10:23 PM, #00Buck said:

You are now nitpicking on a sub-atomic level with an electron microscope because you are desperate to be right about something or anything at all.

I've won all the major points of the argument. 

At this point I'm willing to concede any pointless minutia you bring up because it is totally irrelevant. 

You've totally gone away from terrorism, current events, and anything to do with reality and are arguing about ancient greek.

I win. 

On 3/25/2016 at 10:28 PM, #00Buck said:

I've made every point I need to in this thread. 

People can draw their own conclusions. 

"I'm right you're wrong la la la" *sticks fingers in ears*
Great arguing technique there.

On 3/24/2016 at 4:46 AM, Gamedog said:

Flake, these things are "allowed to go on" solely because of islam

 

I have a q: how come the left always yells about homophobia being a trait of Christianity (particularly in the south) but never wants to admit that Islam is the cause of homophobia in Muslim communities ???

Christianity has passages against homosexuality, pretty much all in the Old Testament (that people still follow despite not having to). Yet, many Christians are accepting of homosexuality, and many Christians ARE gay.

I don't know if there is any passages in the Koran against gays (there probably is) but there are Muslims who do not condemn gays, do not hate on gays.

How is it hard to understand that some members of a religion might be okay with gays?

Also, and this is my own opinion, but anyone can think however they want. If you want to hate gays, or disagree with gay lifestyle, that's your own business. Just keep it to yourself and don't violate anyone else's rights. Plus, if you move to a country you have to conform to that country's laws.

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, ArielMT said:

Can you cite a source for this, please?  Of all the near-universally condemned aspects of Saudi Arabia's system of crime and punishment, I can't find a single mention of this in Islamic law, Saudi law, or even mob rule, on my own.

Hadith demand that apostates are executed. (Sahih al-Bukhari 52:260 83:37)

Some 23 Islamic nations forbid apostasy by law and there is a worrying level of support for killing apostates: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf (page 55). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia Saudi Arabia is one of these countries, where apostasy carries the death sentence. 

So if you are an apostate, and you go to Mecca, you will be killed. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Apostasy_laws_in_2013.SVG

Notice that Indoensia, usually regarded as a 'secular' Islamic nation, will in prison apostates and take their children away. 

 

I was, however, incorrect when I said that infidels would be killed if they went to Mecca. Non-Muslims are diverted on roads and fined, before they can enter Mecca, because the Saudi Government insists that the Koran describes non-Muslims as 'Unclean'. 

If you're actually found in the city, as a non-Muslim, the Saudi state warns that the punishment will be 'severe', whatever that means. 

 

"I'm right you're wrong la la la" *sticks fingers in ears*
Great arguing technique there.

Christianity has passages against homosexuality, pretty much all in the Old Testament (that people still follow despite not having to). Yet, many Christians are accepting of homosexuality, and many Christians ARE gay.

I don't know if there is any passages in the Koran against gays (there probably is) but there are Muslims who do not condemn gays, do not hate on gays.

How is it hard to understand that some members of a religion might be okay with gays?

Also, and this is my own opinion, but anyone can think however they want. If you want to hate gays, or disagree with gay lifestyle, that's your own business. Just keep it to yourself and don't violate anyone else's rights. Plus, if you move to a country you have to conform to that country's laws.

 

The Bible and Koran are derived from the same root texts, so many of the condemnations of homosexuality that are found in the Old Testament can also be found word-for-word in the Koran. 

Unfortunately, 'conforming to that country's laws' often means being sentenced to death, if you're a gay person who gets outed in a Muslim nation. 

...as an aside, do notice that if you're a gay man and you live in Jamaica, you can be sentenced to 10 years hard labour. 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Saxon

[WileyWarWeasel]

2 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Obviously doesn't have anything to do with the West's persistent meddling in North Africa or the Middle East.

Clearly all of these extremist Muslims are persistently harassing the West for precisely zero reason whatsoever.

 

You want the oil and gas trade routes don't you ;V