- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,496
- Reaction score
- 1,878
- Location
- DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
We can’t decide for others which of their fears are unreasonable.
Fearing extremism in this day and age doesn’t seem to be that irrational to me though.
If you would you wouldn’t have made that statement about jews and the NT. The individual believer can’t be held responsible for acts of other members of his faith group, but we can hold the faith accountable, especially when its scripture leads to extreme interpretations.
Xenophobia against Islam? I would agree with you if you said something like “discriminating muslims doesn’t help, doesn’t solve anything”. The problem is I want to discuss the tenants of Islam, preferably with muslims, that becomes a lot harder when every bit of criticism is met with hostility.
Creative, but I would say that's a stupid comparison. Again, a lot of fears are irrational, like being afraid of going to hell. Hitchens once said that "only religion can make good people commit evil", in that sense you only need a history book to develop a healthy fear for religion .. in general.Being afraid of radioactive bears tearing down you wall is stupid, so is fearing Islam in general.
There is, unfortunately the latter isn't as irrational as you may think. RoP could quote a variety of muslim extremists who spoke about colonizing or conquering europe by immigration and birth rate. I also think its an exaggeration, I don't believe that muslims are conspiring against us, but Islam certainly has a few totalitarian qualities, if only because it's a monotheistic religion.You're talking past my points. There is a difference between, "We should combat Terrorism," and, "Islam in general is a totalitarian ideology that sets out to destroy the West."
No, we shouldn't make baseless assertions about most muslims. I'm sure you mean well but I don't think you countered my initial argument. Literalism goes beyond following the holy book to the letter, it means you can't change anything, you're not allowed to contest any of it, let stand follow your own interpretations. We can find literalism in all of the abrahamic religions but there are differences between them in terms of what they believe.So we shouldn't be running around with our hands in the air whenever public schools offer halal food.
Two bads don't make a good. The vast majority of religious texts are filled with 1000+ year old morals, nowadays we find things like slavery and genocide immoral. It only becomes a problem when a group of idiots write a letter to God and fly a few thousand people to heaven. Unfortunately, that isn't as unlikely as a radioactive bear, even if you were camping in the forrests of Tsjernobyl.Because, really the Quran is no worse than the vast majority of religious texts. The problem is that a group of idiots have decided to make a big deal about it.
Creative, but I would say that's a stupid comparison. Again, a lot of fears are irrational, like being afraid of going to hell. Hitchens once said that "only religion can make good people commit evil", in that sense you only need a history book to develop a healthy fear for religion .. in general.
There is, unfortunately the latter isn't as irrational as you may think. RoP could quote a variety of muslim extremists who spoke about colonizing or conquering europe by immigration and birth rate. I also think its an exaggeration, I don't believe that muslims are conspiring against us, but Islam certainly has a few totalitarian qualities, if only because it's a monotheistic religion.
No, we shouldn't make baseless assertions about most muslims. I'm sure you mean well but I don't think you countered my initial argument. Literalism goes beyond following the holy book to the letter, it means you can't change anything, you're not allowed to contest any of it, let stand follow your own interpretations. We can find literalism in all of the abrahamic religions but there are differences between them in terms of what they believe.
To respond to your example; the great thing about being a libertarian is that the rules are few and simple. You can eat all the halal food you want as long as you don't shove it down my throat.
Two bads don't make a good. The vast majority of religious texts are filled with 1000+ year old morals, nowadays we find things like slavery and genocide immoral. It only becomes a problem when a group of idiots write a letter to God and fly a few thousand people to heaven. Unfortunately, that isn't as unlikely as a radioactive bear, even if you were camping in the forrests of Tsjernobyl.
I don't see islamophobia as much more rational. It's still a silly fear, and I'm going to attack it as long as I see it as silly.
I know about these extremists, and while they can carry out attacks, Muslims will probably not become the majority anytime soon even with demographic shifts, and even then, ther extremists probablty wont take over.
And reletively few Muslims do this, RoP makes it sound like Islam is dangerous in general.
And to my knowledge, that's really all that these people RoP keeps denouncing as leftists are doing, accommodating, but not forcing much down people's throats. Do they go to far in some cases, yeah, but it's not like they're welcoming in the Taliban.
I know; I'm just pointing out the double standard that so many have.
I also have my dislikes; like calling people names they have not chosen for themselves.
I think you're right but I don't see why others have to agree with that, we can't predict the future.
*sigh*
Politics is often about images and news headlines, in some of these subjects we find that we're only talking about image forming, which tend to differ from one person to the next.
I'm just pointing at the weakness of that argument.
I'm disappointed I have not been able to convince you of my position but I'm ignorant enough to blame it entirely on your persona. Better luck next time.
It's interesting that this kind of information is actually newsworthy. It will be a good day when information such as this is not newsworthy. It will mean that religious polarization will no longer be a problem.
Being afraid of radioactive bears tearing down you wall is stupid, so is fearing Islam in general.
There is a difference between, "We should combat Terrorism," and, "Islam in general is a totalitarian ideology that sets out to destroy the West."
So we shouldn't be running around with our hands in the air whenever public schools offer halal food.
Because, really the Quran is no worse than the vast majority of religious texts. The problem is that a group of idiots have decided to make a big deal about it.
I sense a dangerous trend of unholy assimiliation here..
OK.
In other news, in France. First we have this guy:
who gets married with that gal:
...
And now I hear Madonna's new boyfriend is a Frenchie called Brahim?!
...
I sense a dangerous trend of unholy assimiliation here..
Music to my ears.
How long before their female partners get beat up and end up in burkas?
*shrudders*Madonna in a burka, that's something to fantasize about:darthgunny
It doesn't appear that the fear is against Islam in general but the changes, often negative, Islam is having on British culture and society.
But that''s just what many Muslims themselves are saying. Are they lying? Misinformed?
What steps are being taken to be sure that British customs, laws and traditions are being maintained in order to prove those Muslims wrong?? Or are the British people being too accommodating to those Muslims who are putting pressure on Britain's traditional laws and values? That's the question being asked. This "Not all Muslims are terrorists" defense should have been put to rest long ago.
Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, not all people are running around with their hands in the air.
That's right. And this group of idiots are bombing buildings and public transport, denying young girls an education, spreading hatreds, murdering Gays, treating women like crap, and so on. That's why many in the democracies are concerned. And it is very strange that instead of confronting these problems we're still hearing those tired "not all Muslims are terrorists" cliches. That's why those Muslims who say they can take over the West, at least as far as Europe is concerned, just might be right.
OK.
In other news, in France. First we have this guy:
who gets married with that gal:
...
And now I hear Madonna's new boyfriend is a Frenchie called Brahim?!
...
I sense a dangerous trend of unholy assimiliation here..
What are these extreme changes? Why are they so negative?
When did I say all Muslims were right?
What's putting them in danger? You still have Parliament, the Queen, and fish and chips. Halal food, nonbinding religious courts, and the popularity of the name "Mohammed" won't change that.
Grant, I don't know how many times I've stated that Islamic extremism is a problem in this thread. I have no problem with calling it out and facing it down. What I have a problem with is people like RoP acting like the world coming to an end, because his Britannia has some new Muslim influence. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but some foreigners coming in doesn't mean the end to my culture.
Perhaps you should read some of those links contributed on this very thread. But surely you must be aware of the 24 hour surveillance of the British people, 7/7, the failed attempts at terrorism, etc. I don't see why, 10 years after 9/11, that you can possibly remain that uninformed about what's going on in the world. I assume you're being deliberately silly here.
Nowhere, as far as I know. But many Muslim leaders are saying they'll take over the western democracies. Are they right? Wrong? What's to stop them?
Yes, you still have parliament and fish and chips. We all know that. We really, really do! But the question is how long will you have them? Forty years? Sixty? One hundred?
But your world in Britain, the world the British have known for centuries and which has contributed so much to the world in the past, has come to an end and has gone forever. And no one is certain what will take its place. We do know that Britain is under attack, as are all of the democracies. How we respond to that threat will determine the future. Can we hang on to our laws and culture, and assimilate all people equally, or will he become two societies. Who will dominate?
You acknowledge Muslim 'influence' but how do you contain this Muslim influence? Do Jews, atheists, agnostics and Christians have the same influence? Whose influence is on the rise and whose is on the wane? That's the question that are justifiably being asked.
I've addressed this Grant. Read through the thread.
I don't know, parliament, the electorate, the rule of law?
By looking at America, I think you'll see that they aren't really in danger. Yeah, the immigrants through Ellis Island and current ones through Latin America changed our culture, but American culture really isn't all that different from what it was before.
You mean that culture, changes?! Of course it does. Cultures change all of the time. Or was your island never invaded by the Romans, Saxons, and Normans? British culture isn't static, but some more immigrants won't lead to public executions for non-burqa wearing women. It's just part of a progression.
The question being asked is why is this such a big deal?
Yes there are extremists, but generally British society as a whole won't be very much affected, and while the proportion of uslims will increase in the future, the chances of them becoming a majority are quite low.
Maybe all these efforts to cast Muslims as the "other" will drive them away from greater Western society making more of them want to be apart from if not subvert.it.
Yes, you said "Yeah, all those evil Muslims..."
Not all Muslims are evil, right? But some are. In fact enough are evil that we should be a little concerned about it. At a minimum we should not dismiss the possibility so casually anyway.
All will change and are changing. Have you not noticed? The face of parliament is changing,
the electorate is changing
and the rule of now is now being applied differently than it once was, depending on which group you belong to.
That depends on where you lie in the United States.
The examples you provided were not necessarily peaceful. They were invasions. And while you may look back at these events quite casually it was not so agreeable to the victims. Now there is another invasion,
according to some Islamic leaders who don't speak for most Muslims, and you appear equally indifferent. Progression implies progress, but that is not always the case.
It's a big deal because they will eventually dominate western Europe, and are well on their way in doing so today. Muslim leaders will tell you that their takeover is inevitable, and I tend to believe them. They are looking at the possible while the west can't quite believe what's happening. Your claim that it's not such a big deal is not uncommon, but in fact we are living in historical times. Democracy is not a sure thing.
Birthrates say otherwise and while most Muslims remain peaceful, when it comes down to the crunch
they'll have to side with their fellow Muslims. Not all Germans were Nazis either, but Nazi followers simply believed more fervently and eventually took control, with the rest of the Germans following.
More and more Muslims define themselves firstly as Muslims so, in fact, they are already 'the other'. We don't have to force them into that.
And why should Muslims assimilate into any western democracy? Are we that superior that everyone wants to live like us? Not according to their leaders. They feel we're decadent infidels and shun our way of life.
......some foreigners coming in doesn't mean the end to my culture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?