My limit has been reached

[Bbucko]

In awe of your posts in this thread, Jason...Just wanted to let you know.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The tyrants, despots and autocrats who rule so many Islamic countries are only too happy to encourage their citizens to vent anger outwards (at British teachers or Danish cartoons or just about anything western) rather than where that anger really should be vented: inwards at the tyrants, despots and autocrats.

 

[dong20]

The tyrants, despots and autocrats who rule so many Islamic countries are only too happy to encourage their citizens to vent anger outwards (at British teachers or Danish cartoons or just about anything western) rather than where that anger really should be vented: inwards at the tyrants, despots and autocrats.

Quite true. But of course when it comes to religious expression (and with many other things) such blatant duplicity in failing to admonish one's own faith's extremist elements - while decrying those of another isn't exactly scarce when one looks somewhat a little closer to home.

 

[MalakingTiti]

You're limit has been reached huh? Have you any idea of how arrogant you just came across? I agree that what happened to the lady is crappy to say the least but don't be an ass all of your life. Tolerance is a two way street in case you didn’t know. While the world appreciates your generosity in tolerating Muslims up to now, don't think they don't do their fair bit of tolerance of people like you who paint them all with the same broad brush.

Yes, I agree there is a segment of the Muslim population who just don't get it, and I suspect they never will. However, it's interesting how conveniently you left out the part about the Sudanese Muslims who came to bat for the lady, asking the court for leniency. I, like the rest of the thinking world am sick of extremism, ON ALL SIDES. Do you think extreme sweeping indictments like yours helps, or hurts? Because if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Consider this. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all as you make them out to be, we sure wouldn’t be sitting here debating this on a big dick website.

 

[2322]

In awe of your posts in this thread, Jason...Just wanted to let you know.

:redface:

Would it help to let you know I'm in awe of your dedication to AIDs awareness, zest for life, intelligence, completely open leather pride, wisdom, looks, and cock?:wink:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Quite true. But of course when it comes to religious expression (and with many other things) such blatant duplicity in failing to admonish one's own faith's extremist elements - while decrying those of another isn't exactly scarce when one looks somewhat a little closer to home.

You make a certain point, dong .... but I think there is far more full-throated criticism of religious extremism in Western society than there is in Muslim society.
Sure, there are scholars at Al-Azhar University in Egypt and other places that do occasionally speak out in favor of moderation and of the kinder, more inclusive and life-affirming thread in Muslim practice ... but there's a reserve and a quietude in their speaking out that troubles me.
It's like they're literally afraid to provoke the extremist elements.
And why wouldn't they be?
The Qur'an can be read in ways that justify extremism and religiously-motivated violence just as easily as it can be read as a paean to universal love and tolerance.
The same can be said of the Bible, but it's the Old Testament that contains most of the violence. And the more specifically Christian elements of the Bible are found in the New Testament.
Moreover, most Christians (unless I'm out to lunch on this) feel free to interpret the Bible in quasi-mythic terms.
For Muslims, that's less possible. Qur'an, as you know, literally means 'dictation,' of the literal word of Allah through the angel Gabriel.
The extremists don't have much trouble find citations in the Qur'an that seem to justify violence in the name of Islam.
So Islamic extremists quite naturally have an easier ride with the (usually somewhat muted) criticisms they receive from their co-religionists.
(EDIT: FWIW, I'm not a Christian.)

 

[dong20]

You make a certain point, dong .... but I think there is far more full-throated criticism of religious extremism in Western society than there is in Muslim society.

I agree and I wasn't suggesting parity in terms of openly vocalising condemnation, merely a commonality of underlying majority sentiment. From conversations I've had with muslims I know that many of them feel at least as much frustration with their extremists as I do as a (nominal) 'Christian' with 'mine'. Of course, in that regard I'm pretty much on the outside looking in, I don't doubt that the view of this situation from the inside is somewhat different.

Many Muslims may not choose to (or be able to) vocalise their frustration with the same veracity you and I may - but it's no less genuinely held for that. That's something that is too often and too conveniently overlooked. But then I've never been a devotee of the 'silence=approval' creed. It's entirely possible that silence may mean something else.

While there may be a disparity in the levels of open condemnation of Islamic extremism by the broader Muslim community, I think you will agree the is no paucity of such condemnation by them of the actions of the the Infdel. And, naturally, vice versa. In essence, I suppose it's easier to throw sticks and stones than it is to build a bridge, as some comments earlier in this thread have demonstrated admirably.

To me, the entire concept of relgious conflict is akin to, and as sensible as, two bald men squabbling over a comb.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I agree and I wasn't suggesting parity in terms of openly vocalising condemnation, merely a commonality of underlying majority sentiment.

Roger, dong.

Many Muslims may not choose to (or be able to) vocalise their frustration with the same veracity you and I may - but it's no less genuinely held for that. That's something that is too often and too conveniently overlooked.

I'm sure you're right.

While there may be a disparity in the levels of open condemnation of Islamic extremism by the broader Muslim community, I think you will agree the is no paucity of such condemnation by them of the actions of the the Infidel. And, naturally, vice versa.

You know, I think there is somewhat less condemnation of the other on the part of Christians. But hey ... it's a matter of degree only. I accept your point, beyond a quibble or two.

To me, the entire concept of religious conflict is akin to, and as sensible as, two bald men squabbling over a comb.

Ain't it the truth, dong?

 

[MalakingTiti]

Really? There are mobs of crazed Christians calling for people to be murdered for naming teddy bears?

No. So called Christians mobs are more into burning crosses, wearing hoods, and lynching people because they looked the direction of a white woman. And let us not forget about Nazi germany, the Spanish Inquisition, and The Crusades, just to name a few.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Christianity is no less tolereant of diversity in areas of extremeism.

The Bible and the Koran are fill of bloodshed done in the name of God. Christians tend to forget that fact. Christians who read the Kron are appalled by it. I think the same could be said of Muslims reading the Bible.

The whole mess of extremism in both of these religons is that the belief system doesn't come from the books, but the language and customs. I know of pious "I'm Christian" folks who tell me that they also uphold the NRA and think segragation is a good idea. (As if Jesus would own a gun and vote Republican).

The whole mess isn't going to clean itself up with idiots like Bush and bin Laden calling the shots.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Prior to 9/11/2001 Rudy Guiliani's politcal standing was in tatters. He was overbearing and facist.

Now he's working with Carl Rove on his being elected.

Too scary.

 

[dreamer20]

I've always viewed the few Muslims who called for death to the West and other catchy sound bites to be the few.

I even assumed that this issue would be over soon and common sense would prevail. But no she was jailed.

OK, slightly puzzling and annoying but I still held out that she'd get let off of the sentence and that Islam would prove itself to be controlled by the supposed majority who aren't extreme in view.

Wrong. Fuck 'em. Religion of peace my arse.

Do I really mean that? Possibly not. Will I change my mind? Possibly.

Right now I'm pissed with an entire belief system.

My anger will no doubt abate...

...Have you any idea of how arrogant you just came across? I agree that what happened to the lady is crappy to say the least but don't be an ass all of your life. Tolerance is a two way street in case you didn’t know. While the world appreciates your generosity in tolerating Muslims up to now, don't think they don't do their fair bit of tolerance of people like you who paint them all with the same broad brush. Yes, I agree there is a segment of the Muslim population who just don't get it, and I suspect they never will. However, it's interesting how conveniently you left out the part about the Sudanese Muslims who came to bat for the lady, asking the court for leniency. I, like the rest of the thinking world am sick of extremism, ON ALL SIDES. Consider this. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. If they were all as you make them out to be, we sure wouldn’t be sitting here debating this on a big dick website.

MalakingTiti, sortofbigthen believed that the "supposed majority" of Sudanese possessed common sense and would come "to bat for the lady". In his opinion "coming to bat" for her meant seeing that this case was groundless and not convicting her. Instead her life hangs in the balance as a "supposed minority" of Sudanese, not satisfied with her prescribed punishment, want to kill her over such a trivial matter.

It is hard for him or anyone to conceive that the majority of Sudan's Muslims are tolerant of others of different faiths when such religious intolerance is displayed. Otherwise we would not be debating this issue on this website.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Religion isn't the problem. Fundamentalist interpretation and application of the faiths is the problem. It seems that anytime fundamentalists get power, they abuse it. I agree that this situation and the other one about the rape case in Saudi Arabia are an abuse of human rights. But I don't think it is reasonable to condemn a faith based on the actions of politicians. We don't have to look very far back in history to find horrible abuses by any religion, ethic group, nation or what have you.

This sounds a little like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. While that's true in the strictest sense, possessing guns makes it easier for people with violent impulses to do fatal damage to others. This drives responsible, law-abiding gun owners crazy.

There are a lot of nutjobs out there, and a disproportionate number of them seem to rally around religious causes. Banning religion won't get rid of the nutjobs, but it will make them less organized.

There are plenty of jurisdictions that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership after determining that the right of the responsible owners to own guns is outweighed by the harm done by irresponsible/criminal gun owners. At some point, societies are going to have to start weighing the pros and cons of religions in the same way.

 

[36DD]

No. So called Christians mobs are more into burning crosses, wearing hoods, and lynching people because they looked the direction of a white woman. And let us not forget about Nazi germany, the Spanish Inquisition, and The Crusades, just to name a few.

A true Christian (and by that I mean one who wants and strives to live their life in a way befitting of Christ's teachings) would not be burning crosses, wearing hoods, lynching people or committing any of the afore mentioned atrocities. That is not to say that Christians are perfect...far from it, they are human...but acts such as these are not representative of Christ's philosophies and people who hide behind their despicable actions of hatred and prejudice waving a banner of Christianity are not what I consider to be even remotely Christ-like. While I am personally opposed to abortion because I feel no one has the right to take another's (except in self-defense), I would never condone the actions of those who bomb abortion clinics...to me those who participate in that are terrorists, not Christians.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

What do you think of pre-emptive war then?

 

[againredundant]

No. So called Christians mobs are more into burning crosses, wearing hoods, and lynching people because they looked the direction of a white woman. And let us not forget about Nazi germany, the Spanish Inquisition, and The Crusades, just to name a few.

Your knowledge of history is abysmal.

Burning crosses, wearing hoods and lynching people were racist actions done by the KKK. They were not done because someone claimed that the victim had "offended" the Christian religion. It was pure racism-driven hatred. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Are you seriously claiming that Nazi Germany's actions were undertaken in the name of Christianity? The hero of the Nazis was Nietzche, a complete anti-Christian. The Nazis abhorred Christianity and everything it stood for. So let's not "forget" the Nazis, but remember them accurately. and the fact that their anti-Semitism was no worse than that which currently exists in the middle east and is taught to children there in their schools.

The Spanish Inquisition and Crusades? We're talking current events here. If you have to reach that far back for an example of bad behavior then you have no evidence to support the spurious claim that Christianity is just as bad as the friendly folks who have been hijacking airplanes, blowing up barracks, murdering wheelchair-bound cruiseliner passengers, rioting about cartoons, flying planes into buildings, trying to blow up airliners over the ocean, bombing subways in Britain and trains in Spain, nightclubs in Germany, murdering Dutch film-makers, beheading hostages, jailing elementary school teachers while kinder and gentler mobs call for her death, etc., etc.

Not all religions are equal and not all ideas are the same or have the same effects. If you believe that the substance of an idea makes no difference in the behavior of its adherents then you are living in a fantasy world.

If you want to see the consequences of an idea look at the actions that typically follow when someone adopts that idea as their guide to life. Compare it to what happens when followers adopt other ideas. Whether that idea is a philosophy or a religion when people start following it you will see its effects on them. Pointing out isolated incidents proves nothing. It is the cumulative and repetitive results that will clue you in that the idea is dangerous and wrong or is ameliorative.

Far and away followers of that certain religion quite popular along the Euphrates are responsible for the lion's share of murder, mayhem and cruelty in the modern world which is being committed in the name of a philosophy. It is not just that the followers commit the acts, they proudly proclaim that they are doing it because their ideology requires it or justifies it.

In the first two-thirds of the 20th century it was the Marxists, who considered human beings nothing more than fodder for an economic system, who killed millions when their ideas gained currency. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their acolytes in North Korea and North Viet Nam inflicted untold misery through mass starvation, re-education, torture and executions. And the Nazis? They were the National Socialists.

Now the present-day folks, fueled in power by oil have decided to put on the push for their way of remaking the world.

When we begin seeing year after year of mobs of Christians or Jews committing the kinds of barbarous and disgusting acts of violence and cruelty that have become synonymous with their ideology then your point will have validity.

 

[B_RedDude]

There is a word for these people, and it is "PRIMITIVE"