ADVERTISEMENT

It sure is a good thing France imported Diversity

Lets leave GMM and the other racists and apologists out of this. We are on the same page with regard to GMM, Hunk, 85, pastor boggs, etc...If I wanted the opinion of children, I would ask my own. I'm interested in the real world.

How do those people that didn't come for your head, while being guarded with M4s carbines, a 50 cal, and armor, feel about apostasy? Insulting the prophet? Women? Homosexuals? This is what I don't understand about modern liberals.

It is also important to remember that Islam makes a very special claim for itself. A claim that is custom made for violence. Islam is the FINAL revelation from the Abrahamic god. No more. He has spoken.

You didn't address any of my points.

If there is a problem with your fundamentalists, there is a problem with you fundamentals.

I also think you underestimate Islam. Have you taken a look at the Pew polls regarding apostasy, blasphemy, women, etc..?
 
no

it was caused by terrorist who were Muslim who had an extreme view of their religion.

"Pedestrian" Islam is not at odds with a free society. No society is 100 percent free. Every society has some degree of restrictions on freedom. If it were, it would be anarchy. Our preference for extreme freedom is not the universal preference. We like it, it works for us, but not everyone wants it.

"Pedestrian" Islam MAY be at odds with American cultural values as it is PRACTICED in some other nations. Of course there are people right here who practice both "pedestrian" Islam AND the American way of life/freedoms.
 
he wasnt when he bombed

the OKC building...he turned against religion AFTER that point while in prison.

Wrong again.
 
I'm sure they felt the same way

Catholics felt about the Pope's picture being ripped up on SNL, or conservative Christians feel about abortion (some going so far as to shoot abortion docs and bomb clinics but again that's an extreme minority who go that far), or gay relationships/marriage/adoption, or blasphemy, or someone like Maplethorpe. Point is, the vast majority of both religions don't actually do anything about it.

You don't think Christianity claims it's the "Final" word?? Nothing special about that claim. Jews say that they have the final word til the Messiah comes, Christians come after and say, nope we have the final word because the Messiah did come. Muslims say, Jesus was a prophet but the really final word was Mohammed.
 
let's unpack all of this

1. What do you think "liberal values" are? Do you think "liberal values" means "religion bad?" Because most liberals are also members of a religion. What western values in Europe do you think are being trampled on? Are they different from "liberal values?" If so, how. If not, how are western values different from American values?

2. I don't know what "rudimentary Islam" is. Is that different from "pedestrian Islam?" Assuming you mean "your average Muslim" then what evidence do you have that the average Muslim in America or Europe is doing anything to western or liberal or American values?

3. Extremist Islam most certainly is a threat to American, western, and liberal values. And liberals wouldn't want to live under Sharia Law. That's not compatible with any of those values. Of course, Sharia Law doesn't exist in America. Or Europe.

4. Liberals don't pretend that an Iranian has to live "liberal values." What works there, doesn't have to work here, and vice versa.

Your question is as Gr8 said overly broad. If you want to label it as terrorism done by an extremist Islamist, no one is going to argue with you. But you apparently want it to be labeled as a default feature of Islam in general, as if moderate/nonviolent Islam is somehow a rarity or mistake or accident.
 
Re: no

Unlike you, I can't find a reason to restrict speech.
 
lol

so you yell fire in a crowded theater?

You incite riots?

You don't think treason is an actual crime?

Sounds like someone needs to research speech restriction and the 1st Amendment.
 
"Of course, Sharia Law doesn't exist in America. Or Europe."

Yep, you're as unaware of the reality of Muslim immigration in Europe as I thought. Looks like the MSM has done its job.
 
lol

so what country in Europe has Sharia Law...do tell.
 
Re: lol

Fire is a bad decision.

Inciting is good law.

Treason is a crime.

There. I qualified my statement. I'm sorry I was incomplete.

Of course, you know there is a difference between your examples and the topic at hand.
 
no there isn't

I made a point, no culture is 100 percent free.

You tried to respond against that point, by arguing that speech is. I pointed out SOME examples where it wasn't. There are actually others. Obscenity for example is not free speech. Fighting Words aren't free speech. Slander is not free speech. Threats aren't free speech.

The point is that every society limits freedom to some extent, the question is how much a certain society is willing to do it. You purport the idea that somehow there's freedom and not freedom as if it's a binary good/evil dichotomy.

That ain't reality.
 
Re: no there isn't

You win. I made a clumsy statement. My intent was never the binary scenario you are presenting.
 
then what is it?

Do you think American Muslims who are productive members of society, who don't believe in Sharia, somehow aren't really Muslims?

Because you sure seem to be putting forward that Muslim has as core concepts some things that I personally know Muslims who would disagree with you.
 
Nah, I'll let you remain ignorant

Whatever you do, don't use a search engine to find out if there are Muslim zones where Sharia law prevails.
 
by all means educate me

what Muslim zones in Europe are there where Sharia Law prevails.

A search engine shows hyperbolic websites claiming it, but nothing actually happening.
 
Originally posted by ecouch:
Lets leave GMM and the other racists and apologists out of this. We are on the same page with regard to GMM, Hunk, 85, pastor boggs, etc...If I wanted the opinion of children, I would ask my own. I'm interested in the real world.

How do those people that didn't come for your head, while being guarded with M4s carbines, a 50 cal, and armor, feel about apostasy? Insulting the prophet? Women? Homosexuals? This is what I don't understand about modern liberals.

It is also important to remember that Islam makes a very special claim for itself. A claim that is custom made for violence. Islam is the FINAL revelation from the Abrahamic god. No more. He has spoken.

You didn't address any of my points.

If there is a problem with your fundamentalists, there is a problem with you fundamentals.

I also think you underestimate Islam. Have you taken a look at the Pew polls regarding apostasy, blasphemy, women, etc..?
Click to expand...
When reason is abandoned in favor of dogmatic scripture, atrocities are soon to follow. The questions, I think are:

1) Does Islam have the most radicals in the present day?

2) If so, why?

I think the answer to the first question is yes, but the second is far more complex. I think it far too simplistic to say that Islam is inherently different than Christianity when it comes to justification of violence, the subjugation of women, or demonization of non-heterosexuals. Anyone familiar with pre-enlightenment Europe could Imagine what a nation would look like if it were strictly adherent to biblical law.

It is also important to factor in a history of colonization and despotism in the squelching of renaissance in the Muslim world. Government stability is essential in protecting the freedoms enjoyed by western nations, a stability missing from the nations whence come modern day terrorists.

Related to government stability is the wicked problem of poverty. The young and desperate are far more likely to be influenced by radical beliefs, and failed states become breeding grounds for those willing to commit atrocities in the name of something bigger.

3) What should the US & other democracies do about these issues?

Even tougher than the second question, but I simply cannot imagine a policy of drone strikes & war to be a long-term answer. The enlightenment must come from within Islamic states themselves; purveyors of such a process I do not envy.
 
Re: he wasnt when he bombed

Exactly, McVeigh claimed his motivation for OKC was a response to federal "oppression" or whatever you want to call it of the Branch Davidians.
 
Originally posted by GMM:
How was it a "shot"?..........I'm also not sure how it made me "uncomfortable." I don't recall any
discomfort in answering his question. I don't recall any unease. It was
pretty clearly Islamic terrorism, jihadism, whatever you want to call
it.

Why not answer his question and leave it at that? Because you fear disapproval from the left. You fear the term "Islamophobe" being applied to you so you have to make sure everyone knows you're not agreeing with me. Hence, the discomfort.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure I've got this nailed.

It'll be much easier to know if you're wrong if you would actually answer the questions about Mohammed.

If you're trying to call me "politically correct"......

When it comes to this issue you do a good job of toeing the PC line. Don't like being called politically correct? Then stop enforcing it.
Click to expand...
I'm not enforcing anything other than attempting to fight ignorance where I see it.

I answered his question and then separated the difference between your view and mine. It wasn't a shot. It was accurate and germane to ecouch's question. I'm not wrong about your view - which was the whole point - and trying shift focus by luring me into some perverted discussion about Muhammad doesn't change that fact.

The irony here is that you said I was "uncomfortable" with his question, but when your view is rightly portrayed for everyone to see, you get upset about it.
 
Originally posted by ecouch:

How do those people that didn't come for your head, while being guarded with M4s carbines, a 50 cal, and armor, feel about apostasy? Insulting the prophet? Women? Homosexuals? This is what I don't understand about modern liberals.

It is also important to remember that Islam makes a very special claim for itself. A claim that is custom made for violence. Islam is the FINAL revelation from the Abrahamic god. No more. He has spoken.

You didn't address any of my points.

If there is a problem with your fundamentalists, there is a problem with you fundamentals.

I also think you underestimate Islam. Have you taken a look at the Pew polls regarding apostasy, blasphemy, women, etc..?
Click to expand...
I think your question is answered very well by Beeazlebub below. Yes, Islam has the most violent fundamentalist/terrorist movement associated with it. No, that does not represent what most Muslims see as Islam.

When I said "walking the streets", I meant "walking the streets"... not patrolling. I was in civilian clothes, unarmed, by myself very often in the six months I lived in Bahrain. I was in civilian clothes, unarmed, with a friend in Qatar, and the UAE. In Pakistan (Karachi specifically), I did not go out on my own as it was not permitted. However, it was the Pakistanis I talked to who were the most "pedestrian" Muslims and joked about, "we don't drink, but... yeah, we drink" and proceeded to invite me out to the various bars they frequented.

The Saudis aren't allowed to drink, or women to drive, etc... but that's why many of them, including royalty, venture to Bahrain on the weekends. You should see the difference in traffic in Manama on a Friday or Saturday than during the week. Why? The devout Saudis who are all there to drink and party.

I think you overestimate Islam. I think the others on here that you call children believe that every Muslim prays 5 times a day in between polishing his AK-47 and working on his bomb vest. The reality is most of them just want to raise and educate their kids in peace. Unfortunately, there's a very large portion of the population that doesn't have that ability and thus it leads to a bunch of people who need to belong to something, and happen to be Muslim. Enter AQ and ISIS...

As for the rest of it, how can I possibly answer that? Some of them want to subjugate all women. Some of them would get very angry at a drawing of Muhammad. Some believe apostasy is a mortal sin. What about fundamentalist Christians? A woman's place is in the kitchen. Don't take the Lord's name in vain. Go to Church on Sunday or go to Hell. I can characterize groups too...

As others said, imagine a society that lived by strict Biblical law... you don't have to imagine it, you can look at history and see how ugly that would be.
 
just to be clear

he's no more a representative of representative of true Christianity any more than the extremist Muslims are. Ideologies exist to be used for good, or perverted, depending on the actor.
 
Chrisitianity had a 600 year head start

where was it in the 1400s compared to now? To Islam? We'd consider the 1400s version of Christianity pretty radical, and actually there was a time when Jews preferred the relative moderate treatment of Muslims to Christians . Things have changed, but that's not because one religion is better or worse than the other.

Your greater point is the more important one though about poverty breeding extremism.
 
that last bit is key

extremism doesn't look pretty anywhere. And it exists everywhere. Thankfully, where it does exist, for the most part, it's the great minority, but as we all know, it doesn't take much to cause a lot of damage...that's why we talk about one bad apple spoiling the bunch, because that's literally what happens.
 
I suppose.....

....the answers you got weren't satisfactory. Surprised? You shouldn't be. This latest jihad attack is more evidence of their worldview collapsing so I wouldn't expect honest answers.

I get the feeling that the left is being crippled by correctness.

When you say "correctness" I assume you mean "political correctness". I wouldn't say they're crippled by it. No, instead they're upholding it. One of the main purposes political correctness, aka cultural marxism, is to destroy Western societies' abilities to defend or propagate themselves. Its working.

An extensive movement is being waged in Europe against not only western
values, but against everything liberals claim as cherished,

There's your problem. You actually believe what "liberals" claim to cherish.

Apparently what they've done, or in this case haven't done, isn't enough to convince you they don't believe in what they say they believe. What would they have to do to change your mind?

What would they have to do for you to doubt they believe in freedom of speech, tolerance, women's rights, gay rights, etc.?

Rudimentary Islam, what we are seeing in France, runs opposed to liberal values.

Yes, it does. Which is precisely why the left is for the importation of it into Western countries, for the preservation of it in Western countries (anti-assimilation, Multiculturalism, Diversity, etc.), and against blaming it for the numerous jihad attacks waged by its adherents.

What gives?

Confusion. You shouldn't have any. Their behavior should make sense to you. If it doesn't then it means your beliefs are incorrect. Come up with new beliefs so their behavior makes sense.

Why are you so afraid of tagging the past week in Paris as Islamic terrorism?

Because they fear doing so would open the floodgates. They simply cannot allow us to equate Islam with anything bad. That would violate the dictates of all holy and sacred Equality. If it becomes acceptable, if its seen as reasonable, to see something non-Western, non-Christian, and mostly non-White as bad then what other things can be seen as bad? Can they be seen as worse than something Western, Christian, or White?

These are forbidden thoughts. If Westerners are allowed to think these thoughts then the left's stranglehold on power is doomed. If they don't have power over Western societies they can't destroy, aka "fundamentally transform", them. If they can't do that then their entire enterprise is finished. Acknowledging what happened in Paris as Islamic terrorism represents an existential threat.

All of their behavior in the wake of the attacks makes sense. The denial, the avoidance, the moving of the goalposts, the charges against their opponents of "racism" and of blaming/hating all Muslims, the attacks on Christianity, the empty gestures, etc. all make sense to me but they don't to you.
 
Well, that is exactly what I am trying to say. Of course, I am not a renowned polemicist and perhaps the most well read man of modern times. By posting that, you validate my point.

I don't understand why modern liberals are opposing this position.

I'm certainly not interested in chasing a no true scotsman fallacy which is what this thread has become.
 
what position

are you talking about at this point?

Your position appears to be, Muslims are inherently violent. No, liberals don't believe that. Reasonable people don't believe that.

I don't really care what Hitchen's position was. The guy built a career on being as inflammatory to as many folks as he could.
He hated all religion, so nothing special about his not liking Islam.

So as he mocked Islam in this video, he certainly was no more of a believer in Christianity and would and did mock the Christ story as well. But hey, "he says everything you want to say" right?

And you can't believe everyone doesn't believe it?

Right.



This post was edited on 1/11 11:16 PM by qazplm
 
"perverted discussion"?

....... and trying shift focus by luring me into some perverted discussion about Muhammad doesn't change that fact.

How can it be perverted when Mohammed is at the core of this entire event? The jihadists murdered 17 innocent people because a newspaper mocked their beloved prophet. What kind of man was Mohammed? Was he violent? Was he a murderer? A beheader? A pedophile? A deceiver? A rapist? A warlord?

If he is then is what he did Islamic?
 
Re: "perverted discussion"?

Originally posted by GMM:
....... and trying shift focus by luring me into some perverted discussion about Muhammad doesn't change that fact.

How can it be perverted when Mohammed is at the core of this entire event? The jihadists murdered 17 innocent people because a newspaper mocked their beloved prophet. What kind of man was Mohammed? Was he violent? Was he a murderer? A beheader? A pedophile? A deceiver? A rapist? A warlord?

If he is then is what he did Islamic?
Click to expand...
Here is what so many in here are taking offense to. You aren't just condemning the Islamic terrorists. Your problem isn't with terrorists. Your problem is with Islam. It looks like you are merely using the terrorists as a way to point the finger at Islam.
 
Re: "perverted discussion"?

Here is what so many in here are taking offense to. You aren't just condemning the Islamic terrorists. Your problem isn't with terrorists. Your problem is with Islam.

Um, yeah, I have a problem with Islam considering its playbook, its founder, and the behavior of its most devout adherents now and throughout history.

Is it a crime to have a problem with a belief system? No. But apply political correctness to that and, yes, its a crime to have a problem with something that represents a threat to the West. The same mentality was on display during the Cold War when, if you criticized communism or its regimes too much, the left tried to ridicule you as some paranoid crank. They would even say things like "Why do you hate Russians so much?", or "You know, not all Russians hate America. They just want to go about their lives peacefully." Sound familiar?

It looks like you are merely using the terrorists as a way to point the finger at Islam.

Which is entirely legitimate considering there are so many of them and they have the support of so many Muslims worldwide.

Question: If Mohammed were alive today would he be trying to defeat groups like Hamas, AQ, and ISIS or would he be trying to lead them?
 
Re: just to be clear

Originally posted by qazplm:
he's no more a representative of representative of true Christianity any more than the extremist Muslims are. Ideologies exist to be used for good, or perverted, depending on the actor.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly agree.
 
Re: "perverted discussion"?

Originally posted by GMM:

What kind of man was Mohammed? Was he violent? Was he a murderer? A beheader? A pedophile? A deceiver? A rapist? A warlord?
Click to expand...
Yep, pretty much exactly what I meant by "perverted" as in you've perverted your view of Mohammed to suit your world view. I'll opt out, thanks.
 
I'm not surprised you're opting out

The truth would be too uncomfortable, too much of a threat to your view of Islam.

Unless you'd like to opt in and tell us what kind of man Mohammed really was.
 
Re: I'm not surprised you're opting out

Originally posted by GMM:
The truth would be too uncomfortable, too much of a threat to your view of Islam.
Click to expand...
Not the reason why at all, but your continued attempts to bait me into this "discussion" are noted. Nothing you say makes me "uncomfortable" in the way (that I worry about being politically correct) that you mean it.
 
Originally posted by ecouch:
Well, that is exactly what I am trying to say. Of course, I am not a renowned polemicist and perhaps the most well read man of modern times. By posting that, you validate my point.

I don't understand why modern liberals are opposing this position.

I'm certainly not interested in chasing a no true scotsman fallacy which is what this thread has become.
Click to expand...
From Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:


"True liberals should not avoid criticizing Muslim voices that promote
modern barbarity. Not every Muslim holds extremist or Islamist
beliefs, but enough do that we must criticize those that endorse
violence and reactionary, fundamentalist doctrines severely. If we
choose to sit back and say that Islam only has a problem with a small
minority, the real reformers in these societies who risk their lives for
liberty will no doubt fail. We must support liberty, even if it offends
ones sacred beliefs."

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/01/extremism-and-islamism-just-a-few-bad-apples/
 
Re: Chrisitianity had a 600 year head start

Originally posted by qazplm:
where was it in the 1400s compared to now? To Islam? We'd consider the 1400s version of Christianity pretty radical, and actually there was a time when Jews preferred the relative moderate treatment of Muslims to Christians . Things have changed, but that's not because one religion is better or worse than the other.

Your greater point is the more important one though about poverty breeding extremism.
Click to expand...
It was not my intention to place any religion as better or worse than another. Any doctrine that uses faith, belief, and dogma to support their positions is inherently at risk of being co-opted by charismatic leadership for deleterious ends.
 
define "enough do"

What percentage qualifies as "enough do."

What percentage of Muslims hold extremist or Islamist views? How do we arrive at that percentage?

What is the definition of "Islamist" views if they are different from "extremist" views?

Finally, can you point me to any liberal unwilling to avoid criticizing Muslim voices that promote "barbarity?"
 
Re: define "enough do"

Originally posted by qazplm:
What percentage qualifies as "enough do."

What percentage of Muslims hold extremist or Islamist views? How do we arrive at that percentage?

What is the definition of "Islamist" views if they are different from "extremist" views?

Finally, can you point me to any liberal unwilling to avoid criticizing Muslim voices that promote "barbarity?"
Click to expand...
Good questions.

Here is Pew survey offering some data on extremist views. On sharia law, women's rights, honor killings, etc., there seem to be a significant number who hold what I consider to be extreme views. The views also vary by region, supporting the (obvious) notion that Islam should not be painted as extremist with a broad brush.

Anecdotally speaking, my liberal friends seem far more willing to bash fundamentalist Christians than fundamentalist Muslims. Perhaps this is because they're more familiar with Christianity? Many were raised in a christian faith only to become atheist or agnostic later in life, so it's possible Christianity makes for an easier target.
 
Re: define "enough do"

On sharia law, women's rights, honor killings, etc., there seem to be a significant number who hold what I consider to be extreme views.

There's no doubt that if they were instead whites or Christians the qazplm's of the world would be denouncing them. We simply have different standards for different groups based on their political correctness levels.

Anecdotally speaking, my liberal friends seem far more willing to bash fundamentalist Christians than fundamentalist Muslims. Perhaps this is because they're more familiar with Christianity?

Or perhaps its because if they do they'll be seen as hip and worldly. Meanwhile if they merely criticize Muslims they'll be denounced as racist, bigoted, hate-filled, ignorant, intolerant Islamophobes.
 
Re: define "enough do"


"Or perhaps its because if they do they'll be seen as hip and
worldly. Meanwhile if they merely criticize Muslims they'll be
denounced as racist, bigoted, hate-filled, ignorant, intolerant
Islamophobes."

I agree that they would hate to be lumped in with people like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G

It sure is a good thing Australia imported Diversity

Replies
0
Views
249
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
GMM
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back