Muslim families in Winnipeg want children excused from
18 Feb 2011, 11:03 pm
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
Quote:
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion.
My question that why Muslims have higher proportion of terrorists in their community is still unanswered and one can give names of countries where muslims first grew faster than other communities and then they started civil war. India(1947), sudan, nigeria, lebanon and may be one or two other.
Please answer this question. This will let you know why the brush for muslim is different from the brush of other communites. And yes we use same brush to paint all the members within a community. The reason is that a community has its principles. It the principles are extremist then a higher proportion of its member are likely to commit acts of violence than the same in other community still not all member will be violent. That what we mean by saying that a particular community is this and that.
Just yesterday muslims in New Delhi clashed with police. It is so common now that we just ignore it. People do not realize what it portends. a civil war.
19 Feb 2011, 1:14 am
@Daspie: the Hindus in Kashmir are just as bad as the Muslims in Kashmir, and in America religious violence by Christians is far from unheard-of.
On the other hand, every single Muslim whom I've personally met has been a fine, gentle, civilized human being. Muslims in Egypt just had one of the most civilized revolutions to ever occur.
I agree that covering anyone from head to toe is silly, though; requirements for photo IDs exist for a reason, and I don't think that exceptions to requiring the face to be uncovered should be made - but that should include people who deliberately wear hats that obscure their faces, too.
19 Feb 2011, 2:18 am
If the singing is in association with something forbidden (for example: drinking songs while consuming alcohol) then it is forbidden. But music or singing in and of itself is not forbidden. I don't see a problem with music education in an elementary school.
_________________
Not through revolution but by evolution are all things accomplished in permanency.
19 Feb 2011, 4:51 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trying to lump all Muslims into one insane car-bombing mass. Its ridiculous.
Quote:
The highlighted part is illogical and is often used to absolve muslims of their religious aggression. To really ascertain if a particular community is aggressive or not one should simply calculate the ratio of extremists (and extremists are often much more than terrorists) to total population. When someone says muslims are extremist they mean that a randomly picked muslim is likely to be more extremist in nature than a average guy of other religion.
My question that why Muslims have higher proportion of terrorists in their community is still unanswered and one can give names of countries where muslims first grew faster than other communities and then they started civil war. India(1947), sudan, nigeria, lebanon and may be one or two other.
Please answer this question. This will let you know why the brush for muslim is different from the brush of other communites. And yes we use same brush to paint all the members within a community. The reason is that a community has its principles. It the principles are extremist then a higher proportion of its member are likely to commit acts of violence than the same in other community still not all member will be violent. That what we mean by saying that a particular community is this and that.
Just yesterday muslims in New Delhi clashed with police. It is so common now that we just ignore it. People do not realize what it portends. a civil war.
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
19 Feb 2011, 7:05 am
Macbeth wrote:
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
This is the fallacy in your logic. If muslims have done something peacefully then you count it. Every one is expected to be peaceful and therefore just count when any community has been riotous and violent. Anyway what happened in egypt was "within a community" matter. You again chose not to answer my point which is what muslims have done to non muslims in nigeria, sudan, India, lebanon etc.
Quote:
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
I have already answered this rhetoric in my earlier post. Wait for 30 years when muslims will be a sizeable minority just as they are in britain. When they will bomb you like they have done elsewhere in europe then you will realize the legacy of muhammed.
19 Feb 2011, 7:21 am
LKL wrote:
@Daspie: the Hindus in Kashmir are just as bad as the Muslims in Kashmir, and in America religious violence by Christians is far from unheard-of.
This is highly irresponsible statement I have ever seen. See these links and please reply back.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
video 1
video 2
Quote:
On the other hand, every single Muslim whom I've personally met has been a fine, gentle, civilized human being. Muslims in Egypt just had one of the most civilized revolutions to ever occur.
No one is saying that all Muslims are like that but on an average a muslim is more likely to be an extremists(extremist needs not be a terrorist, he/she just needs to have extremist views). Also every Muslim is potentially a terrorist. Pleasethis and this.
Quote:
I agree that covering anyone from head to toe is silly, though; requirements for photo IDs exist for a reason, and I don't think that exceptions to requiring the face to be uncovered should be made - but that should include people who deliberately wear hats that obscure their faces, too.
There is difference between a Muslim wearing burkha and a non muslim wearing a hat. The former is motivated by a religion and that too which is supremacist, so hard to change whereas the latter is not doing it due to religious conviction and is easy to change.
19 Feb 2011, 9:43 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
In case you missed it, people have been clashing with Police in quite a few places across the middle east and Africa.
This is the fallacy in your logic. If muslims have done something peacefully then you count it. Every one is expected to be peaceful and therefore just count when any community has been riotous and violent. Anyway what happened in egypt was "within a community" matter. You again chose not to answer my point which is what muslims have done to non muslims in nigeria, sudan, India, lebanon etc.
Quote:
Lumping everyone in a community into the same pot is stereotyping, ridiculous, and liable to cause more problems than it solves.
I have already answered this rhetoric in my earlier post. Wait for 30 years when muslims will be a sizeable minority just as they are in britain. When they will bomb you like they have done elsewhere in europe then you will realize the legacy of muhammed.
Literally none of your posting about Muslims has anything to do with a small group peacefully requesting an exception from certain compulsory lessons in Canada. Certainly what Muslims choose to do in Nigeria or Sudan or anywhere else does not reflect what these Muslims are doing.
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f*****g stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
19 Feb 2011, 10:12 am
Macbeth wrote:
Literally none of your posting about Muslims has anything to do with a small group peacefully requesting an exception from certain compulsory lessons in Canada. Certainly what Muslims choose to do in Nigeria or Sudan or anywhere else does not reflect what these Muslims are doing.
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You still have not understood what murphycop and me have been saying. The fact that there are so many examples of muslims doing the same things in different parts of the world and that too in different times clearly shows that they are acting according to some principles and that is "holy" koran. What they are demanding in winnipeg is one of the manifestations of that exclusive ideology. You fulfill their one demand and they will table ten more. The reason why muslims are disliked everywhere is because they all act according to their book, koran. So explaining their behaviour by invoking koran and history is not wrong. You may call it "tarring or painting every one with same brush" but the brush is their and that is koran. I hope you will understand it now.
19 Feb 2011, 11:00 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Literally none of your posting about Muslims has anything to do with a small group peacefully requesting an exception from certain compulsory lessons in Canada. Certainly what Muslims choose to do in Nigeria or Sudan or anywhere else does not reflect what these Muslims are doing.
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You've fallen into the ridiculous fallacy, that because some "Muslims" have complained, and some other Muslims have used violence, these ones MUST also be trying to enforce their views on everyone else, threatening violence and generally being unpleasant.
Once more, because you aren't getting it. Treating a whole community..ANY community..as one homogeneous whole is f***ing stupid. I've tried explaining it politely but it just isn't sinking in. All Muslims are NOT the same. Just like All PEOPLE are not the same.
What this thread should have been covering was about compulsory lessons and religious requirements, and the various pros and cons of making lessons compulsory, why those lessons are compulsory, and whether a religious requirement should take precedent over any given lesson, and if so why. What we got was pages of ranting about how the evil bogeymen Islamics will come and make your children worship Allah, and force your womenfolk into bondage. Any wonder that a lot of them don't like you, when any request or complaint they make is painted as an attack on western "culture"?
You still have not understood what murphycop and me have been saying. The fact that there are so many examples of muslims doing the same things in different parts of the world and that too in different times clearly shows that they are acting according to some principles and that is "holy" koran. What they are demanding in winnipeg is one of the manifestations of that exclusive ideology. You fulfill their one demand and they will table ten more. The reason why muslims are disliked everywhere is because they all act according to their book, koran. So explaining their behaviour by invoking koran and history is not wrong. You may call it "tarring or painting every one with same brush" but the brush is their and that is koran. I hope you will understand it now.
I understand you both utterly fail to understand the difference between a Muslim parent making a reasonable request for an exception from a relatively unimportant lesson, and even offering a perfectly reasonable alternative... a request and desire that is in no way exclusive to Islam or even religion (as has been pointed out time and again) ...and a religious extremist in a completely different country car-bombing a mosque because he is a Shia and the mosque was full of Sunni...or a Muslim destroying a plane-load of Americans because they hate American involvement in their affairs, or even the kind you both think is ALL Muslims..the ones who bomb innocent westerners because they think their religion told them to. When these parents set off a car-bomb outside their Winnipeg school because they don't want their children to do mixed PE ...THEN you will maybe have a point, Until then you're just hate-mongering and making the whole situation worse with your limited understanding of the religion or the subject as a whole.
A parent wanting their child to NOT attend a compulsory lesson is not singular to Islam. It happens with MANY religions, and for secular reasons as well.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
19 Feb 2011, 11:07 am
Macbeth wrote:
I understand you both utterly fail to understand the difference between a Muslim parent making a reasonable request for an exception from a relatively unimportant lesson, and even offering a perfectly reasonable alternative... a request and desire that is in no way exclusive to Islam or even religion (as has been pointed out time and again) ...and a religious extremist in a completely different country car-bombing a mosque because he is a Shia and the mosque was full of Sunni...or a Muslim destroying a plane-load of Americans because they hate American involvement in their affairs, or even the kind you both think is ALL Muslims..the ones who bomb innocent westerners because they think their religion told them to. When these parents set off a car-bomb outside their Winnipeg school because they don't want their children to do mixed PE ...THEN you will maybe have a point, Until then you're just hate-mongering and making the whole situation worse with your limited understanding of the religion or the subject as a whole.
A parent wanting their child to NOT attend a compulsory lesson is not singular to Islam. It happens with MANY religions, and for secular reasons as well.
A parent wanting their child to NOT attend a compulsory lesson is not singular to Islam. It happens with MANY religions, and for secular reasons as well.
I was arguing politely but it seems that since you can't reason therefore you are using abusive language. Only a loud noise of a bomb can wake you up. Keep loving them with your illogic. I am done with arguing you. Btw according to quran allah, compassionate and merciful, will burn you in afterlife.
19 Feb 2011, 11:52 am
daspie wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I understand you both utterly fail to understand the difference between a Muslim parent making a reasonable request for an exception from a relatively unimportant lesson, and even offering a perfectly reasonable alternative... a request and desire that is in no way exclusive to Islam or even religion (as has been pointed out time and again) ...and a religious extremist in a completely different country car-bombing a mosque because he is a Shia and the mosque was full of Sunni...or a Muslim destroying a plane-load of Americans because they hate American involvement in their affairs, or even the kind you both think is ALL Muslims..the ones who bomb innocent westerners because they think their religion told them to. When these parents set off a car-bomb outside their Winnipeg school because they don't want their children to do mixed PE ...THEN you will maybe have a point, Until then you're just hate-mongering and making the whole situation worse with your limited understanding of the religion or the subject as a whole.
A parent wanting their child to NOT attend a compulsory lesson is not singular to Islam. It happens with MANY religions, and for secular reasons as well.
A parent wanting their child to NOT attend a compulsory lesson is not singular to Islam. It happens with MANY religions, and for secular reasons as well.
I was arguing politely but it seems that since you can't reason therefore you are using abusive language. Only a loud noise of a bomb can wake you up. Keep loving them with your illogic. I am done with arguing you. Btw according to quran allah, compassionate and merciful, will burn you in afterlife.
Of course I must "love" Muslims because I disagree with your sweeping statements of global terror. No doubt I must agree with Islamic extremists setting off bombs and killing innocents as well eh? Any other thoughts or feelings you want to decide I MUST have?
Who gets to be the extremist? The idiot who declares that Islam will destroy us all in fire and flame, or the reasonable parent who has a mild issue with the timetable? The lunatic who incites hatred against millions of people, or the mother who thinks mixed PE lessons are inappropriate? Do I have to remind you that single sex PE lessons were the norm for decades, and still are in many places, regardless of religion? I probably do, because all you can see is a horde of screaming saracens coming to rape your children and burn you down.
I've been using reason since post ONE, and all that you and murphycop can do is rattle on about how evil Islam is whilst totally failing to address the actual OP or any other information that doesn't agree with your World View. Clearly reason has long since left the building.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
19 Feb 2011, 1:45 pm
daspie wrote:
I was arguing politely but it seems that since you can't reason [as I do] therefore you are using abusive language.
The abusive language has been removed.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
20 Feb 2011, 3:05 am
daspie wrote:
LKL wrote:
@Daspie: the Hindus in Kashmir are just as bad as the Muslims in Kashmir, and in America religious violence by Christians is far from unheard-of.
This is highly irresponsible statement I have ever seen. See these links and please reply back.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
video 1
video 2
Quote:
On the other hand, every single Muslim whom I've personally met has been a fine, gentle, civilized human being. Muslims in Egypt just had one of the most civilized revolutions to ever occur.
No one is saying that all Muslims are like that but on an average a muslim is more likely to be an extremists(extremist needs not be a terrorist, he/she just needs to have extremist views). Also every Muslim is potentially a terrorist. Pleasethis and this.
Quote:
I agree that covering anyone from head to toe is silly, though; requirements for photo IDs exist for a reason, and I don't think that exceptions to requiring the face to be uncovered should be made - but that should include people who deliberately wear hats that obscure their faces, too.
There is difference between a Muslim wearing burkha and a non muslim wearing a hat. The former is motivated by a religion and that too which is supremacist, so hard to change whereas the latter is not doing it due to religious conviction and is easy to change.
Your links are to propaganda sites and to a wikipedia page with a lot of grievances in its history.
Here are some other links:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p10s02-comv.html
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701013/session1.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 70,00.html
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... gd.e081106
http://truthofhinduism.com/general/hind ... hristians/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... nding-war/
http://www.granta.com/Magazine/112/Kash ... ever-War/1
I will grant that I was in error in limiting the religious violence to Kashmir.
It is true, of course, that extremist muslims can be violent and, like extremists of most religions, can hold reprehensible view points. As an atheist looking at religions from the outside, however, it seems that Muslims are far from the only religious group using religion to justify killing people - regardless of what justification is found in the holy texts (don't forget that one of the holiest Hindu storys involves a warrior and his charioteer Krishna killing many, many people - and Krishna justifies it as the warrior's sacred duty. The bible is full of disgusting violence as well).
It is true that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between a burkha and a hat, but if public safety and visibility for crime control is the excuse you use to limit one, then you have to apply it equally to the other.
As far as 'sudden jihad syndrome...' !
That sounds like a lot of the anti-semitic (by white supremacist), anti-gentile (by hardline orthodox Jews in Israel), anti-protestant (by the IRA), anti-Catholic (by the UDL), anti-Mexican, rabid-anti-people-not-like-us propaganda that any vile, fear-mongering, racist group might use to shut down even the possibility of a dialog that might bring about peace. It makes me wonder if that blogger is a duct-tape magnate.
.
20 Feb 2011, 6:45 am
Macbeth wrote:
Of course I must "love" Muslims because I disagree with your sweeping statements of global terror. No doubt I must agree with Islamic extremists setting off bombs and killing innocents as well eh? Any other thoughts or feelings you want to decide I MUST have?
Who gets to be the extremist? The idiot who declares that Islam will destroy us all in fire and flame, or the reasonable parent who has a mild issue with the timetable? The lunatic who incites hatred against millions of people, or the mother who thinks mixed PE lessons are inappropriate? Do I have to remind you that single sex PE lessons were the norm for decades, and still are in many places, regardless of religion? I probably do, because all you can see is a horde of screaming saracens coming to rape your children and burn you down.
I've been using reason since post ONE, and all that you and murphycop can do is rattle on about how evil Islam is whilst totally failing to address the actual OP or any other information that doesn't agree with your World View. Clearly reason has long since left the building.
Who gets to be the extremist? The idiot who declares that Islam will destroy us all in fire and flame, or the reasonable parent who has a mild issue with the timetable? The lunatic who incites hatred against millions of people, or the mother who thinks mixed PE lessons are inappropriate? Do I have to remind you that single sex PE lessons were the norm for decades, and still are in many places, regardless of religion? I probably do, because all you can see is a horde of screaming saracens coming to rape your children and burn you down.
I've been using reason since post ONE, and all that you and murphycop can do is rattle on about how evil Islam is whilst totally failing to address the actual OP or any other information that doesn't agree with your World View. Clearly reason has long since left the building.
What we, me and murphycop, has been saying that this demand is a forerunner to muslim extremism. If you have not noticed muslim political dynamics and see the OP in isolation then I guess it is your asperger's which is coming in your way.
20 Feb 2011, 7:48 am
LKL wrote:
Your links are to propaganda sites and to a wikipedia page with a lot of grievances in its history.
Those videos of dead and sufferers were propaganda. What about wikipedia?
Quote:
Here are some other links:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p10s02-comv.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 70,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p10s02-comv.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 70,00.html
These link does not tell that earlier muslim mob(muslins were about 15% of the population) burnt 59 hindus(about 80% of the population) to death just because they are returning from ayodhya, a holy site. See minority muslim had the guts to kill the majority hindus.
Quote:
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701013/session1.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... nding-war/
http://www.granta.com/Magazine/112/Kash ... ever-War/1
This is a fallacious reasoning to hide the Islamic angle to the conflict. There are so many places in the world where muslims heve been working for islamic state. I need not post any link for that. Pakistan sponsored terrorism in kashmir is just one way to bleed Hindu India a thousand cuts, to put it in their own language. Gen. Musharraf has already said that low intensity war(read terrorism) will not end even if kashmir issue is resolved.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/module ... 144&page=4
The mosque at ayodhya was built after destroying the temple as muslim did to hagia sophia, temple mount and thousand of others places through out the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Temp ... ed_to_Them
As soon as jews retreated from some place in Israel the first thing muslim did was to burn synagogues.Why? Because mohammed himself distroy idols of pagans. This is why taliban destroyed statue of buddha at bamiyan.
Quote:
A situation has come to some extent where Hindus have to protect themselves as muslim votes hungry politicians often ally with some fundamentalist regional parties who call muslim terrorist organisations as cultural organisation. http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/ ... c94fd68095
This situation will become more grave as muslim population will increase in India. Hindus would have to form a militia just as christian did in lebanon.
Quote:
It is jihadi website with propaganda, true to Islam. Yes, some Hindu fanatics did vandalized some churches as opposed to destroying scores of churches. One reason is, which still not justifying, that christian missionary often resort to dishonest and illegal means to get converts like providing money, "scholarships" and showing hinduism as regressive and old religion. The website talks about anti-sikh riots. It was not hindus killing sikhs, and btw sikhism is very much like hinduism, it does say that Islam is fine which I don't agree with, It was congress party goons killing sikhs.
Quote:
I will grant that I was in error in limiting the religious violence to Kashmir.
It is true, of course, that extremist muslims can be violent and, like extremists of most religions, can hold reprehensible view points. As an atheist looking at religions from the outside, however, it seems that Muslims are far from the only religious group using religion to justify killing people - regardless of what justification is found in the holy texts (don't forget that one of the holiest Hindu storys involves a warrior and his charioteer Krishna killing many, many people - and Krishna justifies it as the warrior's sacred duty. The bible is full of disgusting violence as well).
It is true that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between a burkha and a hat, but if public safety and visibility for crime control is the excuse you use to limit one, then you have to apply it equally to the other.
It is true, of course, that extremist muslims can be violent and, like extremists of most religions, can hold reprehensible view points. As an atheist looking at religions from the outside, however, it seems that Muslims are far from the only religious group using religion to justify killing people - regardless of what justification is found in the holy texts (don't forget that one of the holiest Hindu storys involves a warrior and his charioteer Krishna killing many, many people - and Krishna justifies it as the warrior's sacred duty. The bible is full of disgusting violence as well).
It is true that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between a burkha and a hat, but if public safety and visibility for crime control is the excuse you use to limit one, then you have to apply it equally to the other.
Muhammed killed people because they did not or refused to believe in allah. Mahabharata is about waging a war when all other means to make peace ends. This why christianity survived because of crusades. Other wise the philosophy of Matthew 5:38-42, NIV would have ended christianity from europe just as buddhism vanished from south-east asia and afghanistan.
Quote:
As far as 'sudden jihad syndrome...' !
That sounds like a lot of the anti-semitic (by white supremacist), anti-gentile (by hardline orthodox Jews in Israel), anti-protestant (by the IRA), anti-Catholic (by the UDL), anti-Mexican, rabid-anti-people-not-like-us propaganda that any vile, fear-mongering, racist group might use to shut down even the possibility of a dialog that might bring about peace. It makes me wonder if that blogger is a duct-tape magnate.
That sounds like a lot of the anti-semitic (by white supremacist), anti-gentile (by hardline orthodox Jews in Israel), anti-protestant (by the IRA), anti-Catholic (by the UDL), anti-Mexican, rabid-anti-people-not-like-us propaganda that any vile, fear-mongering, racist group might use to shut down even the possibility of a dialog that might bring about peace. It makes me wonder if that blogger is a duct-tape magnate.
This guy is still not as vocal as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9qRwv39YCk I totally agree with this.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Easy Online Sleep Study for Families of a Person w Autism! |
23 Feb 2024, 4:39 pm |
| Old Children's Movies that are now Politically Incorrect |
29 Mar 2024, 12:26 am |
| Cyberattack reduces services at Chicago children's hospital |
09 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm |
| Hate crime - Philadelphia children's recreation center |
03 Feb 2024, 2:54 pm |
