Religion of Peace
Theo van Gogh, a noted filmmaker from The Netherlands who made a short film about the terrible treatment of Muslim women in Islam, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. Van Gogh was shot down, and as he lay pleading for his life, was shot again. The assailant, one Mohammed Bouyeri, then took out a knife and slit his throat, leaving van Gogh to bleed to death. Afterward, Bouyeri took out a 5 page manifesto threatening most Western countries.
So when exactly did this happen? November 2, 2004. Yes, that's right, 6 years ago this happened. Though it is mentioned on Wikipedia, there was apparently no coverage of any sort in US media.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear your local news whitewashing something involving Islam. It is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of cruelty and war. They are not directed to live among us in harmony, they are directed to kill us as infidels if we do not convert. They will stab you through the chest and attach manifestos to your body if they think it will serve their ends.
Yes, for those who are wondering, Theo van Gogh's great uncle was Vincent van Gogh, the famous painter.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil
Well. I guess that's that then.
Oh, and Conner maybe you should round up to 6000. You know, since this is the 57th century!
That there are individual people who bomb abortion clinics in God's name does not mean the whole of the religion is tainted. Keep some perspective here.
Thats exactly what i am bringing here, perspective, that the actions of a few winnuts should not reflect on the majority of peace loving individuals.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are indeed in a state of constant war with Islamic terrorists.
This is not a world wide phenomena, although it is world wide in scope, it is mostly directed towards US interests, Not New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and the list goes on. It would seem that Islamic extremists are more at war with the US that anything to do with world domination, again, perspective.
Oh, my, Fury, come back out of your closet! Samson answered this one:
Just north of me is the largest Islamic nation in the world, Indonesia is 85% Muslim and 15% others. In the last 50 years there have been 2 or 3 terror attacks against westerners in Indonesia, to which the government quickly bright to justice those who masterminded such acts and all those associated with the organizations involved.
If, as you say, Islam is a purely violent religion, why do we not have persecution and slaying of minorities groups in places like Indonesia, Lebanon, Singapore, Malaysia, all of which are predominately Muslim nations with Christian and other minority groups. Perhaps this is because Islam is predominately a peaceful religion.
When Israel bombed the Lebanese city of Trye, Hezbollah payed to all the citizens of Tyre $200, they paid this to Christian and Muslim alike, there was no discrimination and yet, Hezbollah is an extremist Islamic political party. Seems to me, they care about the people in their country no matter who they pray to, and that their beef is with the US and Israel. This is hardly a group hell bent on world domination and the extermination of non Muslims as you have portrayed Islam to be.
Also, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Islamic extremism comes out of the middle east, shows that there are other factors here that are influencing the opinions and actions of a small number of individuals to commit acts of terror, other than the Qurran demanding the followers of Mohammad to slay all non Muslims.
Seems to explain the Jesus + Sword passage fairly well.
Yes, but the point i was making was that there is Symbolism in all religious texts and unless you read them in Context of the surrounding passages and also take into account the original audience and what life was like at the time it was written, you cannot fully understand what the real meaning of it is.
Now if we could just get the Muslims to understand that their own book is filled with metaphors
The overwhelming majority do, its just a small number of individuals who twist things to suit their own ends because they are pissed at America and Israel.
I challenge you to find a Jew who wouldn't laugh at the very notion of a Jew becoming a terrorist
I don't know, some of those Zionists are getting really close to that. Again the root cause is Fundamentalism.
Oh God this thread has some pace, sorry i cannot respond to all points you raised Conner work is hectic and time limited at the moment to spend playing forums games.
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 1, 2010 4:13 pm
Dallen said:
Why can't the act be evil in and of itself?
Why can't the act be evil in and of itself?
Well, it could, but to call it such depends on your moral position which means, in all likelihood the ons commiting the act don't consider it evil.
Dallen said:
I think all three of God's personas are tainted but if I absolutely 'had' to pick one the Jewish version would get my vote, as he isn't eavesdropping on my every thought waiting for an opertunity to banish me to a place of ever lasting torment. Now, if you'd kindly get your God to move the Dome of the Rock appoximately 100 ft to the left...I have a 900ft statue of myself I wish to put in it's current location.
I think all three of God's personas are tainted but if I absolutely 'had' to pick one the Jewish version would get my vote, as he isn't eavesdropping on my every thought waiting for an opertunity to banish me to a place of ever lasting torment. Now, if you'd kindly get your God to move the Dome of the Rock appoximately 100 ft to the left...I have a 900ft statue of myself I wish to put in it's current location.
I can't argue about which of those Gods I prefer, obviously.
Hey, if you want to erect a statue of yourself, I'm not going to stop you.
(btw, thanks for tagging my map, I hadn't realized how close you were to Samson before.
)
Dallen said:
Oh, so what about the Hittites, the amelekites, the canaanites, the egypt-tites...oh, wait, you said that.
Oh, so what about the Hittites, the amelekites, the canaanites, the egypt-tites...oh, wait, you said that.
Well, actually, I figured I was including them all when I said the so-called Palestinians and, by extension, the Arabs since they've all pretty much already ceased to exist on their own except for their members who's decendants have become modern day Egyptians.
Dallen said:
Oh, and Conner maybe you should round up to 6000. You know, since this is the 57th century!
Oh, and Conner maybe you should round up to 6000. You know, since this is the 57th century!
Actually, that had occured to me after I'd posted it but I didn't think it was worth editing posts over.
The_Fury said:
Thats exactly what i am bringing here, perspective, that the actions of a few winnuts should not reflect on the majority of peace loving individuals.
Thats exactly what i am bringing here, perspective, that the actions of a few winnuts should not reflect on the majority of peace loving individuals.
Naturally, but I haven't seen evidence that the majority of the Mulsim masses are the few peace loving individuals I've run across...
The_Fury said:
This is not a world wide phenomena, although it is world wide in scope, it is mostly directed towards US interests, Not New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and the list goes on. It would seem that Islamic extremists are more at war with the US that anything to do with world domination, again, perspective.
This is not a world wide phenomena, although it is world wide in scope, it is mostly directed towards US interests, Not New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and the list goes on. It would seem that Islamic extremists are more at war with the US that anything to do with world domination, again, perspective.
Again, from everything I've heard on the subject I'd have to disagree. Australia in particular was represented in this latest War that our fearless Obama has just declared done and happens to be heavily Christian in populace and the Islamic Extremists are calling all Judeo-Christians their enemies which, no matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, still make you one of ther primary enemies too.
The_Fury said:
If, as you say, Islam is a purely violent religion, why do we not have persecution and slaying of minorities groups in places like Indonesia, Lebanon, Singapore, Malaysia, all of which are predominately Muslim nations with Christian and other minority groups. Perhaps this is because Islam is predominately a peaceful religion.
When Israel bombed the Lebanese city of Trye, Hezbollah payed to all the citizens of Tyre $200, they paid this to Christian and Muslim alike, there was no discrimination and yet, Hezbollah is an extremist Islamic political party. Seems to me, they care about the people in their country no matter who they pray to, and that their beef is with the US and Israel. This is hardly a group hell bent on world domination and the extermination of non Muslims as you have portrayed Islam to be.
Also, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Islamic extremism comes out of the middle east, shows that there are other factors here that are influencing the opinions and actions of a small number of individuals to commit acts of terror, other than the Qurran demanding the followers of Mohammad to slay all non Muslims.
If, as you say, Islam is a purely violent religion, why do we not have persecution and slaying of minorities groups in places like Indonesia, Lebanon, Singapore, Malaysia, all of which are predominately Muslim nations with Christian and other minority groups. Perhaps this is because Islam is predominately a peaceful religion.
When Israel bombed the Lebanese city of Trye, Hezbollah payed to all the citizens of Tyre $200, they paid this to Christian and Muslim alike, there was no discrimination and yet, Hezbollah is an extremist Islamic political party. Seems to me, they care about the people in their country no matter who they pray to, and that their beef is with the US and Israel. This is hardly a group hell bent on world domination and the extermination of non Muslims as you have portrayed Islam to be.
Also, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Islamic extremism comes out of the middle east, shows that there are other factors here that are influencing the opinions and actions of a small number of individuals to commit acts of terror, other than the Qurran demanding the followers of Mohammad to slay all non Muslims.
I don't know what news you read, but it seems to me that we do, in fact, routinely hear about the slaying of minority groups in those regions.
A whole $200.. guess we know what the Hezbollah value an individual to be worth now, eh?
I think you're being far overly optimistic about them. That's kind of like someone during WWII, before the US entered the war, that Hitler's attacks are well confined since he hadn't attacked the US so it's obviously not really about world domination.
The_Fury said:
The overwhelming majority do, its just a small number of individuals who twist things to suit their own ends because they are pissed at America and Israel.
The overwhelming majority do, its just a small number of individuals who twist things to suit their own ends because they are pissed at America and Israel.
I'm no quite sure that I'm ready to take your word for that, but even if you're right, when the 'small number of individuals' count in the hundred thousands to millions and are banding together left and right, it still justifies a very real threat that absolutely demands a very real response.
The_Fury said:
I don't know, some of those Zionists are getting really close to that. Again the root cause is Fundamentalism.
I don't know, some of those Zionists are getting really close to that. Again the root cause is Fundamentalism.
Close, perhaps, but still no cigar compared to the blatent actions of the Islamic terrorists so far. Also, try to keep that perspective of yours, any actions even the Zionists take is general strictly retalitory and almost universally against the same Arabic and Islamic extremists that we're already talking about here.
The_Fury said:
Oh God this thread has some pace, sorry i cannot respond to all points you raised Conner work is hectic and time limited at the moment to spend playing forums games.
Oh God this thread has some pace, sorry i cannot respond to all points you raised Conner work is hectic and time limited at the moment to spend playing forums games.
I hear you, though I'm thinking in terms of more than this thread, but... yeah.
The_Fury said:
When Israel bombed the Lebanese city of Trye, Hezbollah payed to all the citizens of Tyre $200
When Israel bombed the Lebanese city of Trye, Hezbollah payed to all the citizens of Tyre $200
You are familiar with the concept of propaganda, yes? That's what Hezbollah was doing there. Using Iran's money to fuel a propaganda campaign to make them look like the good guys in the war. Your own government has them labeled as a terrorist group. EGYPT thinks they're a terrorist group. What's that tell you? Hezbollah gets its primary backing from Syria and Iran. That ought to be more than enough to know they're not our friends.
They certainly are not a friend of Israel and have repeatedly called for their destruction based only on the fact that they exist - not because Israel ever did anything to them. Hell, they didn't even exist prior to 1982.
Edited by Samson on Sep 1, 2010 5:59 pm
You are familiar with the concept of propaganda, yes?
Oh look, for sure it was partly propaganda, but what it also shows is that they, Hezbollah, an Islamic extremist organization is not out for world domination, nor the extermination of anyone who outwardly professes to worship another god other than Mohammad, they will support and protect any Lebanese or Palestinian living in Lebanon no matter what religion they profess to.
Naturally, but I haven't seen evidence that the majority of the Mulsim masses are the few peace loving individuals
Again i point you to the largest Muslim nations, located in SE Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei as examples of non violent Islamic nations as well as countries like Jordan, Turkey and some of the north African nations as well as all the other stans in the former Soviet states as being very peaceful Islamic societies.
The trouble is, that people try to equate Islam as being Hezbollah or Al Queda, Fatar or Hamas and it just plain is not any of those things.
In fact, Muslim fundamentalism is much too complex a phenomenon to be explained away by a reductionist blaming of religion. Like most prominent social movements, it has underlying socio-economic causes which have to be considered. Most Muslim societies are stricken with the poverty, corruption and social disparities that are endemic to the developing world. The result is a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of the middle classes, who can see that they will struggle all their lives to eke out a basic existence. At the same time, in most of these societies there exists a ruling class which controls virtually all government, industrial and military institutions and supports itself lavishly by consuming a huge proportion of society's resources. In these circumstances it is only natural for class struggle to erupt through the desire to replace the ruling classes.
This is exactly the state of affairs which led to widespread Marxist agitation all over the developing world only a few decades ago. However, the end of the Cold War has made Marxism untenable as a political philosophy in most countries. In the Muslim world, it is only natural that class dissatisfaction expresses itself in religious "fundamentalist" terms, as Islamist movements also tend to support the removal of current ruling classes. There is only one difference from the Marxist case; the Islamist's explicit justification for removing the upper class is that it is composed of a Westernized elite and insufficiently "Islamic". But this is only really a rhetorical distinction. This analysis brings out the absurdity of any Western attempt to eliminate "fundamentalism" in Afghanistan, Iran or elsewhere. If "fundamentalism" is essentially a Marxist movement, then it is only successful economic development and a consequent alleviation of class inequalities in Muslim societies which will end it.
The other dimension to "fundamentalist" movements is external rather than internal. Muslims perceive the West and its new ex-Soviet allies to be responsible for imperialist policies directed at politically and economically suppressing Muslim populations. This is particularly resented in the case of US support for Israeli policies in the occupied territories, and its uncritical stance towards the brutal Russian campaign against the Chechens. The looming threat of attack on Iraq is the newest issue adding fuel to the fire of public opinion in the Muslim world. Anger at these Western policies fuels religious extremism and regressive views of jihad all over the world, which effectively silences alternative and non-violent interpretations of Islam everywhere. There will have to be peaceful and just solutions to all these conflicts to end the Muslim world's attraction to violent and anti-Western stances of Islamist "fundamentalism".
This is exactly the state of affairs which led to widespread Marxist agitation all over the developing world only a few decades ago. However, the end of the Cold War has made Marxism untenable as a political philosophy in most countries. In the Muslim world, it is only natural that class dissatisfaction expresses itself in religious "fundamentalist" terms, as Islamist movements also tend to support the removal of current ruling classes. There is only one difference from the Marxist case; the Islamist's explicit justification for removing the upper class is that it is composed of a Westernized elite and insufficiently "Islamic". But this is only really a rhetorical distinction. This analysis brings out the absurdity of any Western attempt to eliminate "fundamentalism" in Afghanistan, Iran or elsewhere. If "fundamentalism" is essentially a Marxist movement, then it is only successful economic development and a consequent alleviation of class inequalities in Muslim societies which will end it.
The other dimension to "fundamentalist" movements is external rather than internal. Muslims perceive the West and its new ex-Soviet allies to be responsible for imperialist policies directed at politically and economically suppressing Muslim populations. This is particularly resented in the case of US support for Israeli policies in the occupied territories, and its uncritical stance towards the brutal Russian campaign against the Chechens. The looming threat of attack on Iraq is the newest issue adding fuel to the fire of public opinion in the Muslim world. Anger at these Western policies fuels religious extremism and regressive views of jihad all over the world, which effectively silences alternative and non-violent interpretations of Islam everywhere. There will have to be peaceful and just solutions to all these conflicts to end the Muslim world's attraction to violent and anti-Western stances of Islamist "fundamentalism".
I think this is much closer to the money, SOURCE
The citing of Muhammad's wars and warlike Qur'anic verses out of their historical context by both Muslim radicals and Western Islamophobes should accordingly be treated with skepticism.
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 1, 2010 7:36 pm
Even amongst the most extremist of Islamics, Mohammad was only a prophet, not a god.
And I will just as happily point out those same Islamic incursions as further proof of the intent of the Islamics goal of world domination. Most of those places were distinctly non-Muslim a decade or two ago. Even a violent Jihad may still have some fronts where they don't need to exert violence to get their way. Not that any of those places are particularly peaceful regions anyway.
You know, it's funny because even just forty years ago, if you were an American arguing for the North Vietnamese or the North Koreans a decade before that, or the communists anytime in that span the way you're trying so hard to defend the Islamics that we're currently at war with today (Despite Obama's recent announcement that the military conflict in Iran is over with, congress has not declared our war with Iraq over yet that I know of), you could, and likely would, be charged with sympathizing with the enemy which is a lesser form of treason. Amazing how tolerant we evil westerners have become isn't it?
The_Fury said:
Again i point you to the largest Muslim nations, located in SE Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei as examples of non violent Islamic nations as well as countries like Jordan, Turkey and some of the north African nations as well as all the other stans in the former Soviet states as being very peaceful Islamic societies.
Again i point you to the largest Muslim nations, located in SE Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei as examples of non violent Islamic nations as well as countries like Jordan, Turkey and some of the north African nations as well as all the other stans in the former Soviet states as being very peaceful Islamic societies.
And I will just as happily point out those same Islamic incursions as further proof of the intent of the Islamics goal of world domination. Most of those places were distinctly non-Muslim a decade or two ago. Even a violent Jihad may still have some fronts where they don't need to exert violence to get their way. Not that any of those places are particularly peaceful regions anyway.
You know, it's funny because even just forty years ago, if you were an American arguing for the North Vietnamese or the North Koreans a decade before that, or the communists anytime in that span the way you're trying so hard to defend the Islamics that we're currently at war with today (Despite Obama's recent announcement that the military conflict in Iran is over with, congress has not declared our war with Iraq over yet that I know of), you could, and likely would, be charged with sympathizing with the enemy which is a lesser form of treason. Amazing how tolerant we evil westerners have become isn't it?
nor the extermination of anyone who outwardly professes to worship another god other than Mohammad
Well, except for the Jews, and us Americans anyway, oh and you Aussies too. What's that? No they don't? You need to go back and check the Hezbollah charter a little more closely then - their primary goal is the destruction of Israel and all who support her.
Oh, and Hamas too while you're at it. They have the same destruction of Israel clause in their charter as Hezbollah.
They also all give themselves insane Islamic Jihad type names, so it should come as no surprise that the world at large identifies them as Muslims.
Western Islamophobes
Sorry, they just tripped my "ignore them" trigger with that catch phrase.
@ Conner:
Well, technically, you could be charged with sympathizing with the enemy for supporting/defending say al-qaeda. Even if you aren't, your neighbors are highly likely to take a dim view of such activities. However, even 40 years ago, merely 'saying' you agree with the communist wasn't enough to bring such a charge; there has to be some substance. Like say, distributing propaganda or donating to the communist party.
And didn't I here of some Islamist blowing up a disco in Indonesia not that long ago?
Well, technically, you could be charged with sympathizing with the enemy for supporting/defending say al-qaeda. Even if you aren't, your neighbors are highly likely to take a dim view of such activities. However, even 40 years ago, merely 'saying' you agree with the communist wasn't enough to bring such a charge; there has to be some substance. Like say, distributing propaganda or donating to the communist party.
And didn't I here of some Islamist blowing up a disco in Indonesia not that long ago?
And didn't I here of some Islamist blowing up a disco in Indonesia not that long ago?
Yes, the Bali Bombings, which i mentioned and to which the Government of Indonesia quickly brought to justice those who conducted the terror attacks and have since attempted to dismantle the entirety of Jamal Islamea, the group behind those bombings.
In all something like 40 individuals were either jailed or executed for this, and when you consider that the nation has 300 million odd Muslims living there, you can only conclude that the nation as a whole is rather peaceful.
Yes, Fury, that's called pacification. Or subjugation. Take your pick. The Muslims already conquered Indonesia and don't need to fight with themselves there. In places which have not yet submitted themselves to Islamic rule, you have wars being fought.
I guess, you would vote fro geert wilders if he was running for a US government and then blow away the 1st amendment.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you if you decide to go on a homicidal bombing run in the middle of the city though. How you figure Wilders has any relevance to that is beyond me.
Dallen said:
Like say, distributing propaganda or donating to the communist party.
Like say, distributing propaganda or donating to the communist party.
Like say, quoting Islamic propaganda in direct opposition to national interests?
The_Fury said:
the nation has 300 million odd Muslims living there
the nation has 300 million odd Muslims living there
Well, odd does seem the right word to me for them..
The_Fury said:
I guess, you would vote fro geert wilders if he was running for a US government and then blow away the 1st amendment.
I guess, you would vote fro geert wilders if he was running for a US government and then blow away the 1st amendment.
Seems to me that Geert Wilders was all about the 1st amendment, his whole set of problems are the world domination by Muslims and the lack of freedom of speech.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you if you decide to go on a homicidal bombing run in the middle of the city though.
Does it protect those who have done no wrong who want to build a mosque in NYC?
Yes, it does and almost everyone that's said it's a bad idea has said so. Sometimes, just because you 'can' do something, doesn't mean you should. Nobody (except maybe me) , has a problem with building a Mosque in NYC; just not within eyeshot of ground zero.
, has a problem with building a Mosque in NYC; just not within eyeshot of ground zero.As Dallen said, yes, it does, but frankly, even if it weren't for the fact that they want this new mosque to be on the site of the former WTC buildings that were knocked down only because of an attack directly against this country by Muslim extremists which makes it awfully insulting to the American people as a whole and the survivors of the victims of that attack personally, I'd still be opposed because, frankly, I think we've already got too damn many churches (regardless of denomination) in this country as it is. Even way out here in farmland America where I live, I can't drive more than a few miles without finding another church of some sort, and that's taking into account that I have to drive much further to find an actual town.
Does it protect those who have done no wrong who want to build a mosque in NYC?
Yes. And it also protects those of us who think that's a colossally bad idea due to it being in very poor taste on their part to build it on the site of their attack against us. Now, if you've been following along, you'll note that they do this kind of thing to provoke. If they want a mosque, build one, just put it somewhere else.
Like I said, they'd kill us if we tried to put a cathedral in Mecca. I think we've shown more than enough restraint in not doing the same when they're deliberately spitting in our faces.
Your assumption that they've done no wrong seems ill placed as well. They attacked us 9 years ago and killed 3,000 people. I'd say that's wrong enough.
Your assumption that they've done no wrong seems ill placed as well
I think he was talking about the specific individuals that are trying to build this thing. Like I said, seeming as your not allowed 'in' Mecca, I'd love to see you build an outhouse there, let alone a cathedral. Remote manipulation spells, here we come!!
Yes, but the fact that I'm not even allowed in Mecca, let alone able to build something there, simply strengthens my point. If they have no intention of even tolerating our presence there, why should we tolerate them building a mosque on our sacred ground?
We shouldn't. But they can 'talk' about it as much as they want to.
Your assumption that they've done no wrong seems ill placed as well. They attacked us 9 years ago and killed 3,000 people. I'd say that's wrong enough.
Maybe it is your assumption that is wrong. American citizens of Islamic faith did not attack you, nor commit a hate crime, or terror attack against you. Islam did not attack you either, it was Al Queada a terror organization that has fundamentalist Muslims as its members.
There is a huge difference between a religion and a group that uses said religion as its justification for delivering unprovoked attacks against other peoples.
Using all logic, all catholics are pedophiles because many of their priests like to have sex with children, and it would be a huge insult to anyone who has been molested if someone built a church next to a school or playground, and thus, catholics have lost the right to the first amendment because of their crimes against children.
frankly, I think we've already got too damn many churches (regardless of denomination) in this country as it is.
Your probably living in the wrong country if you want LESS religion, a typical and somewhat unfair of Americans is they like 3 things, Guns, Religion and Fast Food and not always in that order.
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 2, 2010 1:47 pm
Maybe it is your assumption that is wrong.
Negative Ghostrider, the imam behind this particular mosque has engaged in hate speech against America and is known to be funded by the very terrorist organization who attacked us. So really, get your shit straight. If I didn't know any better I'd say you've become an apologist for Islam and lack any sense of religious sensitivity by ignoring the fact that wanting to build a mosque on Ground Zero is spitting in our eye.
1. he is an apologist for Islam.
2. Whether or not the Imam did or did not engage in hate speach is...controversiral...so I'll give the benefit of a doubt.
3. Building a Mosque @ ground 0 is...inappropriate at this time.
2. Whether or not the Imam did or did not engage in hate speach is...controversiral...so I'll give the benefit of a doubt.
3. Building a Mosque @ ground 0 is...inappropriate at this time.
wanting to build a mosque on Ground Zero is spitting in our eye.
I agree, however it is not being built ON Ground Zero, it is a few blocks (2 NYC blocks north of the Towers 1/10 of a mile is a fair distance to me) away near by. In a city the size of NY it must be hard to find a condemned building or vacant land to do anything with. So how far is too far away for it to be acceptable with you?
1. he is an apologist for Islam.
Firstly, lets not let this turn into a name calling fest, it makes it look like you have lost the argument and have nothing better to do than go na na na na your a poopy head.
Secondly i am no Islamic apologist as Samson is well aware of, I am however into equality for all, no matter what the religion (and im hardly a fan of any religion and am known for my outright bashing of the christian church, being a former AOG youth paster) i also support things like womens rights, abortion and gay marriage. See, very liberal and very progressive and that is the basis for my argument, see i also live in a very multicultural society, most of my friends are from other countries, so my world view is very different from someone who just reads the news.
Ultimately, Arab Muslims have a lot to answer for, because it is mostly them who have given the rest of the the Muslim world and Islam in general such a bad name, when the rest of the Muslim world prefers to live in peace with its neighbors and just want to live their lives and advance their lot.
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 2, 2010 2:49 pm
It wasn't name calling, by any stretch of the imagination. Just observation on what I'd seen. As far as religion in general, I agree with you. And I fully support all the things you've listed. (well, except the last one shouldn't even be an issue, because if you want to spend eternity with your cat, that's on you)
The Arab Muslims are the start and end of the Muslim world, don't you see that? It's like me saying "The European Germans have a lot to answer for..."
The Arab Muslims are the start and end of the Muslim world, don't you see that? It's like me saying "The European Germans have a lot to answer for..."
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Blog Categories
