Should we ban blasphemy

[Armistead]

This issue may have been touch on in one of the " insert here has gone crazy threads", so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but maybe we can discuss it in more detail.

The Prime Minister of Pakistan wants the UN to develop international legislation to outlaw blasphemy. PM Ashraf ordered all internet providers toblock youtube in Pakistan.....all of it.

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/religion/pakistani-politician-calls-on-u-s-to-ban-blasphemy-11551.html

So if a bunch of nuts feel they can kill other people when you talk about their beliefs or God, should free speech by word and pen be limited. Obama and other leaders often tell us not to mock or talk about Islam. I understand trying to calm Islam, but should we care. There is much concern the upcoming Bin Ladin movie will cause more riots and death around the world.

I see many GOP members and Fox News host are saying the riots are payback because Obama keeps bringing up killing Bin Ladin and offending terrorist, causing them to do terrorist acts...:har:

The good news for the Pakistani men is even though youtube was blocked, they still had access to porn via other sites.

[Kloef]

The good news for the Pakistani men is even though youtube was blocked, they still had access to porn via other sites.

:har:

[_dgn_]

Should we ban blasphemy ?

Yes, naturally !!!

By exemple, for the Christians, Jesus is "Son of God" or "Incarnated God".

Whoever refuses this fundamental principle of the Christian religion makes a blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy).

For example, Muslims, who regard Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) only as a prophet ...

Cheers.

[Jimbuna]

Surely the above answer can only be answered by those who 'believe' :hmm2:

[August]

I think the better course is not to ban blasphemy but rather consider the worst religion bashing as a form of bullying. They're pretty much the same in form and intent.

[Skybird]

Blasphemy is the uneducated believer's and the hierarchical profiteer's way to make opposition to their world view shutting up - by using according laws, or a sword.

So I return the question to the forum, and everybody answers for himself: should blasphemy be banned?

[Skybird]

Interview with Salman Rushdie (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/salman-rushdie-speaks-about-his-time-in-hiding-and-his-new-book-a-857034-druck.html)


Rushdie: I refused to allow myself to give up my own picture of the world and accept the security picture provided by the police instead. When that happens, you become their creature, and you have to do what they say. I greatly valued the way I was being protected, I understood how important it was, and some of the bodyguards became my friends. But my public campaign and the negotiations with the security personnel were consistently aimed at regaining a normal life.

[danlisa]

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.

:hmmm:

After considerable deliberation, I have reached a conclusion......

Religious deities can do one! Bunch twaddle anyway........(Caveat; all hail the Cow, can't piss of the Indians etc too much, I like my burgers).

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh good, another religion bashing thread. Err, sorry, another Abrahamic religion bashing thread. Eastern faiths always seem to avoid the crosshairs.

[Sailor Steve]

The Prime Minister of Pakistan wants the UN to develop international legislation to outlaw blasphemy.
:rotfl2:

Here in the US we've already been there and done that. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom there were laws on the books of several states making certain religious "crimes" punishable by anything from a day in the stocks to thirty days in jail to death. Most of them weren't being enforced at the time, but could have been. In most civilized countries religious "crimes" are considered to be not worth discussing except as curiousities.

[Armistead]

Well, mostly I'm concerned for my own being. For instance if the UN passes this law and I drop a bucket on my toe and say "God damn" will my local police here in North Carolina arrest me if I happen to upset a nearby religious person..

I mean no real offense, but just saying a simple "dern" doesn't release the pain like cursing. I use to say the F word out loud in such instances, but my wife hates when I scream F....

Myself, I attach no morality to words, but I do remember when I was in school, if we said a simple "damn" we got suspended for 3 days.

[Buddahaid]

By all means blasphemy should be banned so there is no such thing anywhere, or anyhow in the world. When there is no such thing as blasphemy the middle east will become soft and cuddly like a kitten. :sunny:

[Gargamel]

Oh good, another religion bashing thread. Err, sorry, another Abrahamic religion bashing thread. Eastern faiths always seem to avoid the crosshairs.

For good reason.

When was the last time you heard of a Shinto burning the bible, or a Buddhist suicide bomber?


By all means blasphemy should be banned so there is no such thing anywhere, or anyhow in the world. When there is no such thing as blasphemy the middle east will become soft and cuddly like a kitten. :sunny:

It'll still be a desert. So cuddly like a wet dog.

[Takeda Shingen]

For good reason.

When was the last time you heard of a Shinto burning the bible, or a Buddhist suicide bomber?

And a lot will be solved by trashing it. No, it's just an excuse to take a few flogs at everyone's favorite whipping subject.

[sidslotm]

Making laws that ban or forbid people doing or saying is fine, it's upholding the laws that's difficult if people are unwilling to obey. We live by consent and our biggest problem will always be self.

The Muslims have never been able to come to terms with the fact the God told Abraham to throw Ishmael and his mother hagar out of the his camp. Hagar was not Abraham's wife, but servant. God promised Ishmael that his decendents would be too many to count . Its from Ishmael with the arrival of the Prophet Mohammed some hundreds of years later that Islam emerged.

http://niv.scripturetext.com/genesis/16.htm all is reveal here.

Interestingly, the Prophet Mohammed thought it was satan talking to him while hiding in the caves. This is where Mohammed received the revelations about Islam, it was his wife that convinced Mohammed it was God speaking.

[Skybird]

And a lot will be solved by trashing it. No, it's just an excuse to take a few flogs at everyone's favorite whipping subject.

Blasphemy is not bashing religion - blasphemy is calling any resistence to religion having its demanded way, a crime of hate, intolerance, or whatever.

You really have pushed yourself into a corner there.

Just check the many ways in which religiously motivated discrimination has found its ways into the laws and constitutions of quite several of your American federal states. For some reason that simply indicates double-standards, I have never heared a religious complaining about this sort of discrimination of different believers, or atheists. It seems that in some Americans' understanding even Bin Laden benefits from the circumstance that at least he was no atheist.

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.

I had you separated from the usual religious zealots until today, but you repeatedly have illustrated now in some snapped comments the kind of double standards that usually come from right the religious zealots form which I tried to see you different. Should I take it that I have overestimated you? :stare: Please say No.

Play your radio silent enough so that others do not need to bother. Then the others maybe will stop yelling at you. And maybe then you see what the link between both events is.

If somebody still wonders what blasphemy is, and when it is called that: not agreeing with this text (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html)- that is blasphemy. Simply replace the words "Islamic" "Sharia", "Muslim" etc generally with "religious" or "any religion", and you see what blasphemy is, and what the purpose is of making this call.

And maybe you also see why not just Islam is a problem, but any orthodox fundamentalism in any religion in general. Christian and/or Jewish zealots have much more in common with those Islamic evil-doers they condemn, than these zealots are aware of. The difference is only clothing and language. The mindsets are the same.

[mapuc]

I have only one answer

"NO"

Markus

[Takeda Shingen]

Blasphemy is not bashing religion - blasphemy is calling any resistence to religion having its demanded way, a crime of hate, intolerance, or whatever.

You really have pushed yourself into a corner there.

Just check the many ways in which religiously motivated discrimination has found its ways into the laws and constitutions of quite several of your American federal states. For some reason that simply indicates double-standards, I have never heared a religious complaining about this sort of discrimination of different believers, or atheists. It seems that in some Americans' understanding even Bin Laden benefits from the circumstance that at least he was no atheist.

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.

I had you separated from the usual religious zealots until today, but you repeatedly have illustrated now in some snapped comments the kind of double standards that usually come from right the religious zealots form which I tried to see you different. Should I take it that I have overestimated you? :stare: Please say No.

Play your radio silent enough so that others do not need to bother. Then the others maybe will stop yelling at you. And maybe then you see what the link between both events is.

If somebody still wonders what blasphemy is, and when it is called that: not agreeing with this text (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html)- that is blasphemy. Simply replace the words "Islamic" "Sharia", "Muslim" etc generally with "religious" or "any religion", and you see what blasphemy is, and what the purpose is of making this call.

And maybe you also see why not just Islam is a problem, but any orthodox fundamentalism in any religion in general. Christian and/or Jewish zealots have much more in common with those Islamic evil-doers they condemn, than these zealots are aware of. The difference is only clothing and language. The mindsets are the same.

And you have done nothing but prove my point; that you are using this thread yet another platform to trash religion. You simply take the opportunity to tell us that religion (except for your religion) is bad. That's a whole lot like the very people that you profess to stand against.

How silent is a silent radio for you? Am I allowed to go to mass? If I do, may I sing hymns? How many? Of what type? May I say 'God bless you' when someone sneezes? If so, how often? May I recite the Pledge of Allegiance? If so, how often should I omit 'under God'? I wasn't even aware that my faith was bothering you. I never proselytize, and certainly not on SubSim. In fact, the only time I talk about religion is when someone (usually you) is telling me how stupid religion is (except for your's, of course), and what a small-minded bigot I am for practicing it (also except for your's). It would seem that the very existence of the faith that I practice and the fact that I do practice it is an affront to you. In fact, on SubSim, it is always the atheists throwing the punches and those of faith absorbing them. I am tired of it, Skybird. Very, very tired of it.

And you can respect me or not; it makes very little difference to me. As for me, I'll keep my views regarding you to myself.

[Skybird]

You are blinded by your anger. I have not bashed religion in general here, until here I namely addressed fanatism, zealots, and fundamentalism instead. I indicated that religions shall not have more freedoms than non-religious attitudes, and should not enjoy their self-claimed freedoms if they come at the cost of freedoms of people not sharing these world views. It surprises me again and again, how easily religious people will to discriminate others - and not seeing that they do - but then, it surprises me not at all, and that is why I am so hostile to religions whenever they raise their head. But relativize their freedom to the same levels others have, and they immediately accuse you of being intolerant and attacking religion, not seeing the double standards they operate by.

And you are surprised when raising opposition? Maybe you just claim and demand too much for yourself...?

Your radio is then not too loud when you do not demand your tune finding the state's support in being mandatory played or being played in schools and at courts, the volume set to a level that the people in the neighbouring flat can live their lives not needing to listen to it whenever you turn it on, and not needing to come to you and ask you to reduce the volume. You also can paint your flat in a colour that I find distasteful - as long as I am not getting asked to paint mine the same way.

You indeed repeatedly display an attitude that takes it for granted that you have the right to put your freedoms and rights over the rights and freedoms of those not agreeing with your belief. And that is why you raise the resistance from people like me.

Your freedom ends where you demand your freedom executed at the cost of others' freedom. And you are expected to make sure all by yourself that you do not push that far that others need to be bothered. You have the same freedoms and rights - and not more. But the truth is that atheists are discriminated in your country. Are excluded from holding public office in certain states (by states' constitutions) although this violates opposite rules be federal law and court sentences. Plus in many schools - or all? - they are confronted with religious references without them being able to avoid them.

The pledge of allegiance originally was without reference to "under God". Religious campaigning tricked the state into introducing this, a Catholic order. The constitutional legality can be questioned. The same is true for that certain text added to your bank notes.

The stronger you push,m the more force returns. Bother others, they will bother you in return. Reduce their freedom, and see them questioning yours.

Leave them as they are, and they well leave you what you are.

You just do not understand this, because to religion, freedom means not unconditional freedom, but freedom for itself, freedom like said religion understands it - with the others expected to play by its rules, no matter their own attitudes. But the US is not an explicitly Christian or religious state, and it never was founded as that. Not even the inetion was there to acchieve that. The US was funded as an country with explicit freedom for all - not accepting priviliged freedoms for any religions.

Your view may be religious. But it is not secular. And to me, secularism is of more importance than religions' claim for special benefits given to them. Where you put religion, no matter which one, over freedom, you are every free man's enemy. And free people like me will set up a fight. Every time.

That's why I am unforgiving about Islam. Totalitarianism in general. And the churches. Jewish orthodox. And Christian zealots as well.

Your belief is your private thing, an intimate relation between you and the object your belief is about. Other should need to be concerned as much by it as by the color of your underwear. Keep it where it belongs, that is: to thyself, and we all are fine. Bother or annoy others with expecting them to witness it time and again when you try to spread it's influence, or missionize, or try to anchor it in legislation and public education, or in global politics, and don't be surprised about being greeted by hostility. It does not matter whether you are Jewish or Christian or Muhammeddan, I don't care. The message is the same for all three of you.

[gimpy117]

Oh good, another religion bashing thread. Err, sorry, another Abrahamic religion bashing thread. Eastern faiths always seem to avoid the crosshairs.

well, it is pretty hard to be mad at Buddhists

[Takeda Shingen]

You indeed repeatedly display an attitude that takes it for granted that you have the right to put your freedoms and rights over those not agreeing with your belief. And that is why you raise the resistence from people like me.

Then you have homework. I am giving you 24 hours to find anywhere where I have said that my religion is to be forced upon anyone. You can find my complete post history in my profile. Be sure to include date and context. Footnote with commentary if necessary.

The stronger you push,m the more force returns.

The second part of your assignment, also due tomorrow. Find where I have pushed for public religious inclusion. Again, be sure to include date and context. Footnotes are also optional but encouraged.

Get cracking.

well, it is pretty hard to be mad at Buddhists

Well, I know one Buddhist that I'm not real crazy about.

[Jimbuna]

This topic is pretty pointless...dependant on your point of view of course :doh:

[Skybird]

Then you have homework. I am giving you 24 hours to find anywhere where I have said that my religion is to be forced upon anyone. You can find my complete post history in my profile. Be sure to include date and context. Footnote with commentary if necessary.
Your implications, and displayed attitude as to be concluded on by your arguments. Last be seen in right this thread. Save that lawyer trickery for other opportunities, I do not buy that.


The second part of your assignment, also due tomorrow. Find where I have pushed for public religious inclusion. Again, be sure to include date and context. Footnotes are also optional but encouraged.

See above.

I take you by your words, Takeda, and I go for the meaning they deliver. And different to what August and you recently tried on me, I do not even take yours out of context. I even still give you the benefit of doubt, though it is somewhat fading.

But Jim is right. It's a dead end at best here. Since it now shifts to a personal level, it can only become ugly.

Some years ago I repeatedly suggested to Neal that topics on religion and certain political things just should be banned, by forum rules. I suggested that even repeatedly. But noooo.... :)

P.S. Just for the record: I did not start this thread. Like everybody in here, I reacted. No trigger - no reaction. ;)

[Takeda Shingen]

Your implications, and displayed attitude as to be concluded on by your arguments. Last be seen in right this thread. Save that lawyer trickery for other opportunities, I do not buy that.



See above.

I take you by your words, Takeda, and I go for the meaning they deliver. And different to what August and you recently tried on me, I do not even take yours out of context. I even still give you the benefit of doubt, though it is somewhat fading.

But Jim is right. It's a dead end at best here. Since it now shifts to a personal level, it can only become ugly.

Some years ago I repeatedly suggested to Neal that topics on religion and certain political things just should be banned, by forum rules. I suggested that even repeatedly. But noooo.... :)

P.S. Just for the record: I did not start this thread. Like everybody in here, I reacted. No trigger - no reaction. ;)

You are the one that has engaged in a logical fallacy (strawman variant), and so you are now enrolled in the Takeda School of Internet Discourse. You have been started on a simple 100-level course on the technique of argument, but you refuse to complete the assignment. Poor form.

No, instead of simple acknowledgement of the fact that you placed words in my mouth to alter the meaning of my posts, you prefer to slink away with your ball. You have no ground to stand upon in your claim of superiority.

[Skybird]

You are the one that has engaged in a logical fallacy (strawman variant), and so you are now enrolled in the Takeda School of Internet Discourse. You have been started on a simple 100-level course on the technique of argument, but you refuse to complete the assignment. Poor form.

No, instead of simple acknowledgement of the fact that you placed words in my mouth to alter the meaning of my posts, you prefer to slink away with your ball. You have no ground to stand upon in your claim of superiority.

Should I reply by a diagnosis now focussing on symptoms of refusing reality, functional short-term-memory deficits that deserve a neurological examination, and a neurotic syndrome that in the main manifests itself in projections and a complex layer of latent auto-aggression that must probably be adressed by a psychoanalytical therapy?

I suggest we leave that infantile gameplaying here and simply stop. I promise I will not feel bothered tomorrow morning by the churchbells ringing.

The noise of a muezzin balking however would stress my tolerance too much, I fear - too ugly.

[Takeda Shingen]

I suggest we leave that infantile gameplaying here and simply stop. I promise I will not feel bothered tomorrow morning by the churchbells ringing.

Yeah, it sure stinks when someone starts treating you in the same high-handed fashion that you treat everyone else, huh?

Here endeth the lesson.

[August]

Should I reply by a diagnosis now focussing on symptoms of refusing reality, functional short-term-memory deficits that deserve a neurological examination, and a neurotic syndrome that in the main manifests itself in projections and a complex layer of latent auto-aggression that must probably be adressed by a psychoanalytical therapy?

I suggest we leave that infantile gameplaying here and simply stop. I promise I will not feel bothered tomorrow morning by the churchbells ringing.

The noise of a muezzin balking however would stress my tolerance too much, I fear - too ugly.


"Diagnosis"? I didn't know you were a doctor Skybird. Why not just show the posts where he said what you claim?

[Tribesman]

well, it is pretty hard to be mad at Buddhists
Tell that to China or Burma..

You are blinded by your anger. I have not bashed religion in general here, until here I namely addressed fanatism, zealots, and fundamentalism instead.
Is that from the person who is so blinded by their anger they repeat worn out lies again and again due to their fanatical fundamentalist zealotry against religion?:rotfl2:

[mapuc]

Had a discussion with an Muslim on the internet a few days ago.

I told him that there are many author a.s.o that makes fun of Jesus, God and the Christianity and that doesn't make me angry, no way

He replied

That's because you are weak in your believe

My answer- NO! it's because I know that there are others with an another view on Religion, such as Jesus and God. And that's a thing you just have to respect.

I don't know about the laws in your country, but in Denmark it's free to make fun of a religion..BUT

It's not allowed to make fun of a single person or a group that have a believe in something The law is called § 266b* ( one of the most hatred law in Denmark)

*"Whoever publicly or with the intent to propagate in a wider circle makes statement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to fine or imprisonment up to 2 years"
Markus

[kiwi_2005]

Christianity - mock Jesus... nothing happens no riots will happen no need to run or hide. You are forgiven.

Islam - Mock Mohammad...you better run & hide.

Islam & woman. Hell is mainly full with woman only a few (woman) will ever reach paradise. :roll:

Christianity
Men and women are created equal in value and ability, although distinct in certain areas.

Islam
Muhammad believed women have a less intelligence than men, saying a woman's lower credibitity is due to 'the deficiency of her intelligence' (Hadith 1:301)

Christianity
A woman's testimony is equal to that of a man.

Islam
A woman's testimoney is worth only half that of a man. He [Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two woman equal to the witness of one man? (Hadith 1:301)

Christianity
A woman gains salvation in the same way that a man does.

Islam
A woman's gains salvation by pleasing and obeying her husband. The Prophet said: I was shown the Hell-fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful...to their husbands. (Hadith 1:28) [The majority of people in Hell were woman]

Christianity
Both men and women are sinful, but in Christ both are equally valued and regenerated.

Islam
Women are seen as a major cause of Evil and are to be kept under control.

Christianity
Wives are to submit to their husbands. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. (Ephesians 5:22 23).

Islam
Men are in charge of women. Men are in charge of women...as for those whom ye fear rebellion... Scourge them (Sura 4:34).

Christianity
One husband one wife should become one flesh.

Islam
A man may marry four wives, whereas a woman may have one husband and thus sexual relations with only one man (Sura 4.3).

Christinity
There is no discrimination between man and woman in Heaven.

Islam
In Paradise a man may have many maidens for companions (Sura 78.33). No companions are promised for the few women who reach paradise.

[u crank]

I think we should be careful what we term as blasphemy. Irreverent humour and a mocking of beliefs hardly passes for a crime of any kind. Make fun of my beliefs or my God and if it's good enough I will laugh with you. If it's not, try harder. Don't worry about God, He's a big boy. He can take it. If you don't think God has a sense of humour, look at a kangaroo. Better still, look in the mirror. I get a laugh every morning.

I realize that some religions are very intolerant when it comes to so called 'blasphemy' but then again some of these people are uptight about everything. A definite clashing of cultures that immigration and modern communication have given us. That is the present reality.

I think it takes two things to have real blasphemy. One is knowledge. If you do not know anything about what you are mocking, then you can be excused for just being uninformed on the subject matter. The other is hatred. Put these two together and you've got a recipe for some real intolerance.

Just a sec, I gotta turn my radio down. :O:

[soopaman2]

I reserve all rights to mock/trash/joke about any religion I want.


Being offended is your problem, not all of ours.

You ever hear the one about Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus in a truck stop mens room? I'll spare you.:D

[Sailor Steve]

I find it interesting how far this thread has wandered. The question was simple: Should there be laws making blasphemy a punishable crime?

Blasphemy is defined as
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

As has been pointed out, these are rude things and people really shouldn't be rude to each other. The world would be a much better place if people showed some respect to each other and each other's feelings and beliefs. Of course if you try to make a law enforcing respect for others' feelings and beliefs you get accused of Political Correctness. But this is about making it illegal to curse or to disrespect God, not, as some immediately tried to reshape it, about "bashing religion".

So, should it be illegal? Does laughing at someone who says it should constitute "bashing religion"? I think people who propose such laws deserve to be laughed at.

[TLAM Strike]

I think what we really need to do is to find the root cause of blasphemy.

The root cause of blasphemy is religion.

without religion blasphemy is not possible.

Therefore we must outlaw religion.

:up:

I see my work here is done... :03:

[u crank]

I find it interesting how far this thread has wandered. The question was simple: Should there be laws making blasphemy a punishable crime?

Definite no. Reason. Blasphemy does not harm any human.


You ever hear the one about Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus in a truck stop mens room? I'll spare you.:D :har:

One thing I've never heard is a joke about New Jersey. Know any.:O:

[Sailor Steve]

One thing I've never heard is a joke about New Jersey. Know any.:O:
New Jersey.


Satisfied?

[mapuc]

I think what we really need to do is to find the root cause of blasphemy.

The root cause of blasphemy is religion.

without religion blasphemy is not possible.

Therefore we must outlaw religion.

:up:

I see my work here is done... :03:

:up:

And the world would be a better place to live.

Markus

[Madox58]

Definite no. Reason. Blasphemy does not harm any human.

:har:

One thing I've never heard is a joke about New Jersey. Know any.:O:

New Jersey. You get in for free but have to pay to get out!
:haha:

A Law against blasphemy is blasphemy in a way.

[soopaman2]

New Jersey.


Satisfied?


We don't stink anymore, that is an old rumor, all our refineries in N jersey were killed in the 70s, thank you.

The stench in N jersey wafts over the river from new York.

We always have to clean up after them when they dump a garbage barge though. And all the times we had to close our beaches due to their medical waste washing up.. I think you mock the wrong state.

Besides for being such a small state, we consider ourselves 3 different peoples, the N jersey city folks, the central Jersey cool dudes, and south jersey folks, who wish they lived in Pennsylvania.

Try coming here before you mock it.:) (I know you guys are kidding)

[Sailor Steve]

WeTry coming here before you mock it.:)
No offense intended, it was just something to say. I have a feeling there's a reason they call it "The Garden State". I'll gladly knock my own state as well.

It's like when I was asked for my favorite blond joke. I said "Dan Quayle".

[u crank]

I think what we really need to do is to find the root cause of blasphemy.

The root cause of blasphemy is religion.

without religion blasphemy is not possible.

Therefore we must outlaw religion.

:up:

I see my work here is done... :03:

Yep, we could solve a lot of problems that way. Let's make a list. I'll get a pen.:03:

[Madox58]

I've always had to work in the denser areas.
Makes me glad that I live in an out of the way small burg that nobody has ever heard of.
:up:

[TLAM Strike]

The stench in N jersey wafts over the river from new York.

We always have to clean up after them when they dump a garbage barge though. And all the times we had to close our beaches due to their medical waste washing up.. I think you mock the wrong state.

Wait, hold on there. Don't try to connect what those barbarians down in NYC do, with the Great State of New York. :O:

[soopaman2]

:DNo offense intended, it was just something to say. I have a feeling there's a reason they call it "The Garden State". I'll gladly knock my own state as well.

It's like when I was asked for my favorite blond joke. I said "Dan Quayle".

Once you escape the areas near Philly, and NYC, it is either suburban or outright rural.

I know you guys were teasing, but we hold a reputation as being some kind of toxic waste dump.

I live the next town over from Asbury Park. Home of the Stone Pony. *tmi*

I watched Bruce Springsteen walk into the stone pony not too long ago, and begin playing the guitar with a small local band. Now tell me we don't rock! We got alot more than pollution!

[Madox58]

What he said.
:yep:

I enjoy my visits to Rochester because of a Mob friend I met up there near Chili.
:up:

[u crank]

New Jersey. You get in for free but have to pay to get out!
:haha:

Hey it's the same here, Prince Edward Island, Canada. They let you cross the bridge for free, but charge you $47.50 to leave. That's why I'm still here. :har:

[Madox58]

Hey it's the same here, Prince Edward Island, Canada. They let you cross the bridge for free, but charge you $47.50 to leave. That's why I'm still here. :har:

I'll send you the money to escape if you need it.
:har:

[soopaman2]

Hey it's the same here, Prince Edward Island, Canada. They let you cross the bridge for free, but charge you $47.50 to leave. That's why I'm still here. :har:

Not even a citizens pass or discount?

Our Garden state parkway is a toll road, it was supposed to be toll free 15 years ago...But our politicians...Hrmmm

Maybe Jersey does suck.:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

I think what we really need to do is to find the root cause of blasphemy.

The root cause of blasphemy is religion.

without religion blasphemy is not possible.

Therefore we must outlaw religion.

:up:

I see my work here is done... :03:

Not so fast. We've had this conversation before.

Religion is the excuse groups use to fear the other.

The without the other, there can be no conflict.

Therefore we must outlaw people.

:up:

Take religion out of the world and people will find something new to fight about. Even on starships. :know:

[Madox58]

Maybe Jersey does suck.:haha:

Only near the Eastern edge as far as I've seen.
But that's probably cause it rubs up next to NYC.
:hmmm:

That's a Biblical destroy zone anyway.

[u crank]

Not even a citizens pass or discount?

Nope. And they keep raising the toll.:nope:

Maybe Jersey does suck.:haha:

There's no place like home.:D

[u crank]

I'll send you the money to escape if you need it.
:har:

Thanks. Winter's comin'. Brrr.:O:

[eddie]

Well, the Paki's want a ban on Blasphemy, at the world level. ( A UN Law I suppose) and if that isn't enough this Paki politician has put up a $100,000 reward for anyone killing the film maker. And has asked the Taliban and AQ to help pull it off.

I say we cut off all monetary aid to Pakistan.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/22/14036172-pakistan-official-offers-100000-reward-for-killing-of-maker-of-anti-prophet-muhammad-film?lite

[soopaman2]

Only near the Eastern edge as far as I've seen.
But that's probably cause it rubs up next to NYC.
:hmmm:

That's a Biblical destroy zone anyway.


I even seen the area refered to as New Babylon from the book of Revelations.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The Prime Minister of Pakistan wants the UN to develop international legislation to outlaw blasphemy. PM Ashraf ordered all internet providers toblock youtube in Pakistan.....all of it.

Here's what might be abolished:

"Freedom of Religion" as a separate and sacred concept.

I see no reason why its useful, benign portions cannot be encompassed in "Freedom of Expression", and it'll stop the religious from using the first as an excuse to restrict other people's rights.

[Madox58]

I think what we really need to do is to find the root cause of blasphemy.

The root cause of blasphemy is religion.

without religion blasphemy is not possible.

Therefore we must outlaw religion.

:up:

I see my work here is done... :03:

Blasphemy is not limited to religion.
It's just a word used to express a different view that is not accepted by the main stream of any given situation.

So a Blasphemy Law could be used against someone saying We need to change our Government.

Lord knows we don't need more Laws to break!

[soopaman2]

Here's what might be abolished:

"Freedom of Religion" as a separate and sacred concept.

I see no reason why its useful, benign portions cannot be encompassed in "Freedom of Expression", and it'll stop the religious from using the first as an excuse to restrict other people's rights.

The UN also wants a worldwide gun ban.

And how has Pakistan proven to the world community it was anything more than a weasel?

Take your money, pretend we care, then hide the guy you were looking for, right under your noses. They make Mexican authorities look like Elliot Ness.

Widespread military corruption, and nuclear to top it off.

I say we strengthen ties with India, just to piss them off.

But I am more than sure, that China and Russia will play along, as they love to do anything to tweak the US nipples, whenever they get a chance.

[Takeda Shingen]

Here's what might be abolished:

"Freedom of Religion" as a separate and sacred concept.

I see no reason why its useful, benign portions cannot be encompassed in "Freedom of Expression", and it'll stop the religious from using the first as an excuse to restrict other people's rights.

Freedom of Religion is useful in preventing the rise of the type of state-sponsored religion found in various theocracies around the world from taking root in the US. It's inclusion was due to the fact that founding fathers had experienced first-hand the problems of a state church.

[soopaman2]

Freedom of Religion is useful in preventing the rise of the type of state-sponsored religion found in various theocracies around the world from taking root in the US. It's inclusion was due to the fact that founding fathers had experienced first-hand the problems of a state church.

I believe our amendment had root in the Church of England and what our founding fathers saw with the protestant movement in those days.

Pakistan can say what they want, but quite a few more progressive nations have Veto powers, that will prevent the attempt to protect the soft skin of their citizens.

Burning American flags is ok, but drawing a picture is bad...HMMMMMM?:hmmm:

(I'll go along with this, if they give up thier religious sharia laws, fair trade off, we both lose something we hold sacred)

[Madox58]

I even seen the area refered to as New Babylon from the book of Revelations.

New York may be big?
But it's not the only place with a bad rep.
:haha:

Revelations is cryptic as are all the other 'this is what will happen' stuff.
My calanders end every year at December 31.
So the mayans ran out of money to do a calander after 2012.
Don't mean anything is gonna happen and the electric company still wants thier money.
:D

[Skybird]

I find it interesting how far this thread has wandered. The question was simple: Should there be laws making blasphemy a punishable crime?

Blasphemy is defined as
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

And who is to decide what is no longer critical, but so contemptous that is is to be called "blasphemy"? ;)

The Cairo declaration of Human Rights in Islam has limited all ideals, rights and freedoms it mentioins in so far that these shall never be used to question Islam or to overstep what Shariah law defines as acceptable. Is that the limit we should follow?

The church until today tries to have criticism of it and it'S historic record rated as blasphemy, which in Germany for example then could be complained about at court on grounds of German penalty code, §166 I think. Is this the limit to critical thinking and free speech that you would like to see?

To a devout believer, ANY questioning of his belief is a blasphemy. That is at the heart and core of the row. Blasphemy here is used as a tool to silence any opposition to the religion in question. Islam practices that day in, day out: "We are offended! Our prophet is offended! Allah got offended!" All that claiming of offence suffered, in plain English means this: shut up, fall back, make room for our religion.

Calling something blasphemic, is a tool of censorship, and securing own control over opinions by criminalising opposite or differing opinions declaring them to be against the divine law. Simply that. And that is where it collides head-on with the freedom of speech in Western tradition that formed up on the basis of the enlightenment, the unfolding of the asking, questioning, scientific mind, and the tradition of humanism, and for that reason it necessarily includes the motivation to unconditionally ask even the most naive questions about things. But religious dogmas do not want to be questioned and put in doubt. They demand that people should just believe them and bow their knees to them - unquestioned, or, in case of Islam very obvious, accepting the prefabricated answers exclusively that the dogma holds ready. The only questions allowed here are of this type: why is it that Islam is right? That it could be wrong, or the nature of Allah itself, are forbidden territory from all asking's beginning on. You can name parallels to this in the church and probably in Jewish traditions as well.

Can one even raise so much that it is possible for oneself to offend a deity...? Consider that a moment - offending A DEITY, assuming for a moment that deity indeed exists? That would hold some valuable lessons about the nature of that deity, wouldn't you say. I think assuming a deity even could be offended by man, is more a sign for man's megalomania. Ad deity being offended, is not that impressive a deity at all. The claims that it is offended, is always risen by humans, btw. ;) And the penalty never is carried out by the deity, but other humans claiming to act on its behalf.

That'S why I think the term blasphemy is misleading. A status named that and fulfilling your condition, objectively simply could not be acchieved. It is a fully fictional concept that got invented to allow supression and censorship in the name of political interests of religious leaders. You cannot offend a deity.


And offendings of priests and believers , are just this: offendings. Either they claim to be offended because you ask questions and express doubt, so they do it to make you go into shutup-mode and outcast you as a heretic (that is free to be killed and everybody is forbidden to help you and you can be tortured and assassinated or thrown into prison for the rest of your life and so on and on). Or you indeed offended them by calling them names and using terms in a destructive intention to hurt - "rag-head", "pig-eater", "infidel whore" and such. But again: there is no blasphemic component. It then is an ordinary case of offending somebody personallyby calling him names, like it is punishable by the ordinary law code - as if you call somebody names in a traffic dispute or showing him a finger. But being dealt with as something ordinary...? That is the last thing religions want! No, a special category of being offended is needed: blasphemy! that sounds better, and more important.

Freedom first - and no, not defined by holy scriptures and religious laws.

[Armistead]

Not so fast. We've had this conversation before.

Religion is the excuse groups use to fear the other.

The without the other, there can be no conflict.

Therefore we must outlaw people.

:up:

Take religion out of the world and people will find something new to fight about. Even on starships. :know:


Yea, but we certainly will be more rational about what we fight about. Religion drives people nuts, you can't be rational about it to solve problems.

[Takeda Shingen]

Pakistan can say what they want, but quite a few more progressive nations have Veto powers, that will prevent the attempt to protect the soft skin of their citizens.

Burning American flags is ok, but drawing a picture is bad...HMMMMMM?:hmmm:

I'm not defending Pakistan's stance. People should have a right to be as blasphemous as they want. If they aren't causing physical harm to anyone or violating any civil laws, then they should be able to go to town. My problem is with the hostility and double standard applied to religion by it's opponents.

Science, which has become the religion of many, has created the atomic bomb; the most destructive weapon in the history of man. In a thread long ago, I was told that it would be foolish to hold science responsible for the evil application of said science. And yet, it is fully justifiable to hold religion responsible for the evil application of said religion. Look no further than this thread; the critics of religion gleefully point to the extremists and say 'see, this is religion', all while calling for it's ban.

One might as well point to Eduard Wirths and call for the end of medical research.

Yea, but we certainly will be more rational about what we fight about. Religion drives people nuts, you can't be rational about it to solve problems.

As if there was rationality in war in the first place. No, humanity, despite it's millenia of trying, has failed to improve it's condition. No amount of science or philosophy has ended the strife. So, people blame religion. It is an alternative to seeing the real problem -- people. After all, if we see that as the problem, it becomes clear, even to religion's critics, that man will not be able to rise above himself, perhaps he needs a savior after all; truly an uncomfortable proposition for a neo-humanist.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Freedom of Religion is useful in preventing the rise of the type of state-sponsored religion found in various theocracies around the world from taking root in the US. It's inclusion was due to the fact that founding fathers had experienced first-hand the problems of a state church.

Darn it, I forgotten about that one.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it even if some of its money comes out of my pocket. After all, nobody probably really thinks that every dollar the government spends is justified.

I can tolerate it as long as the people really respect Freedom of Expression, which will include my right to sing satire and criticism or blasphemise against said State Religion any time I see fit.

I still hold it may well be a good deal when compared to people using Freedom of Religion as an excuse to suppress Freedom of Expression. The latter is worth much more to me.

[soopaman2]

The UN should keep out of laws for sovereign nations.

It is because of sovereign nations they exist.

This is beyond Pakistan, but on the UN government/leaders who think they should have some kind of New world Order rules instituted. (like the worldwide gun ban for citizens, obviously aimed at the US)
Pakistan and afghanistan can stone women to death for being raped, while I (Americans) can critisize them for doing so.

Laws are different in nations because cultures and traditions dictate it.

I do not want to be the same as them, and some kinda farce of a governing body not elected by me will not, and cannot dictate that.

We kinda kicked Britains ass for the same thing.

[TLAM Strike]

Take religion out of the world and people will find something new to fight about. Even on starships. :know:
Yea but fighting on starships involves lots of phasers and photon torpedoes, which are awesome. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

I believe our amendment had root in the Church of England and what our founding fathers saw with the protestant movement in those days.
The 'Pilgrims' (actually Puritans) came here to escape "persecution" by the Church of England. They weren't actually being persecuted, just not allowed to have the same rights as the 'Official' Church.

They then turned around and did exactly the same thing in Massachussetts. Other colonies did the same thing, which is why we emphatically refuse to allow an official State Church. All the states have since followed suit, even Utah.

And who is to decide what is no longer critical, but so contemptous that is is to be called "blasphemy"? ;)
A good point. If a nebulous term is allowed to become law it leaves the question open as to who defines the term.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it.
I can't, for the very reason that the American Founders couldn't. If one religion is sponsored, it is inevitably to the detriment of all others. State-sponsored religions get special favors and the others are excluded.

I can tolerate it as long as the people really respect Freedom of Expression, which will include my right to sing satire and criticism or blasphemise against said State Religion any time I see fit.
But as soon as you have one state-sponsored religion you no longer have that freedom, because Freedom of Expression will be denied. That is the very reason we have the First Amendment.

If an atheist wants to say "God stinks!", he is guaranteed that right. If a believer wants to respond "You're going to hell for saying that!", he is also guaranteed that right. Anything else and you are no longer free.

[soopaman2]

Yeah Steve. The Salem witch trials is a great example.

I am willing to bet, that there is no nation not guilty of some kind of extremist acts.

But for them to want to regulate what is said worldwide, because their people riot when some infidel assumes Muhammad did not wipe properly after defacating...

Crude, but you get my point. You do not see Christians rioting countrywide when someones puts a crucifix in a jar of piss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

(pardon my wikipedia reference)

[Tribesman]

The UN also wants a worldwide gun ban.

but on the UN government/leaders who think they should have some kind of New world Order rules instituted. (like the worldwide gun ban for citizens, obviously aimed at the US

Soopaman, don't turn into Yubba, that is simply nonsense you just wrote

Yeah Steve. The Salem witch trials is a great example.

Hanging people because they were Quakers would be a better example of the Puritans going all Taliban in the colonies.

a nebulous term is allowed to become law it leaves the question open as to who defines the term.

Take "sharia" as an example, people rant on about it yet it is one of those things that people are just making up as they go along, definitions from one place are directly contradictory to definitions in another.
It has the same problem with blasphemy or even the anti religion zealots, its normally the real nuts who make the most noise and their versions which get noticed as "definitive"



Still, as far as I'm concerned, if the people in a country democratically vote for State-sponsored religion, I can tolerate them having it even if some of its money comes out of my pocket.
Tyranny of the masses?

[joea]

And a lot will be solved by trashing it. No, it's just an excuse to take a few flogs at everyone's favorite whipping subject.
Pretty much. :yep:

[Skybird]

The 'Pilgrims' (actually Puritans) came here to escape "persecution" by the Church of England. They weren't actually being persecuted, just not allowed to have the same rights as the 'Official' Church.

They then turned around and did exactly the same thing in Massachussetts. Other colonies did the same thing, which is why we emphatically refuse to allow an official State Church. All the states have since followed suit, even Utah.


I am aware of this "rift" in American history, between the motivation of the pilgrims to escape European supression - and the spirit that is expressed in America's founding papers and the writings of the early leaders.

Maybe this rift - I don't know a better word for it - is the reason why in America religious and antireligious seem to clash more bitterly than over here. The old debate: was America founded as an explicitly Christian or religious country, or not? By referring to the Pilgrims, you can say: the first hundreds wanted that. By referring to your historic and legal papers, you must say: no, it wasn't. Later that got confirmed again in the infamous treaty of Tripolis.

For us non-Americans it is sometimes difficult to understand why in America these two camps seem to clash so fanatically. However, with the arrival of Islam in Europe, we have shifted into a similiar situation, just that the conflict here is not between Christian fundies and atheists, but between Muslim supremacists and Western secularists. You will get that conflict breaking out in America as well, sooner or later, once a critical population mass of Muslims has been acchieved and their pro-Sharia demands necessarily will collide with secularism.

[joea]

I am aware of this "rift" in American history, between the motivation of the pilgrims to escape European supression - and the spirit that is expressed in America's founding papers and the writings of the early leaders.

Maybe this rift - I don't know a better word for it - is the reason why in America religious and antireligious seem to clash more bitterly than over here. The old debate: was America founded as an explicitly Christian or religious country, or not? By referring to the Pilgrims, you can say: the first hundreds wanted that. By referring to your historic and legal papers, you must say: no, it wasn't. Later that got confirmed again in the infamous treaty of Tripolis.

For us non-Americans it is sometimes difficult to understand why in America these two camps seem to clash so fanatically. However, with the arrival of Islam in Europe, we have shifted into a similiar situation, just that the conflict here is not between Christian fundies and atheists, but between Muslim supremacists and Western secularists. You will get that conflict breaking out in America as well, sooner or later, once a critical population mass of Muslims has been acchieved and their pro-Sharia demands necessarily will collide with secularism.

Quite so-but I am not sure there will ever be enough Muslims to worry avbout that though, the largely Christian immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries has put them in a far stronger position demographically. They have high birthrates too. :03:

[Skybird]

Quite so-but I am not sure there will ever be enough Muslims to worry about that though, the largely Christian immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries has put them in a far stronger position demographically. They have high birthrates too. :03:
One thing the Muslim subculture beats everybody else in is noise and bullying. Pumping up the volume helps to compensate for smaller numbers. Conquest through the wombs of strong Turkish women, to lend words used by Erdoghan I. of Turkey. Taking over the West through the wombs of Muslim women, said Algerian president at the UN assembly in the early 70s.

Demographics is a weapon! ;) And Europe already suffers from the consequences, in culture change as well as in finances. Note that for the starting decades, Islam remained a low profile in Europe as well, after the early 60s. This has changed. And in the media, Islamic religion is more present than all other religions together. By media representation and public awareness levels, Islam indeed is the world religion numero uno, outclassing the church even in Europe itself.

[the_tyrant]

One thing the Muslim subculture beats everybody else in is noise and bullying. Pumping up the volume helps to compensate for smaller numbers. Conquest through the wombs of strong Turkish women, to lend words used by Erdoghan I. of Turkey. Taking over the West through the wombs of Muslim women, said Algerian president at the UN assembly in the early 70s.

Demographics is a weapon! ;) And Europe already suffers from the consequences, in culture change as well as in finances. Note that for the starting decades, Islam remained a low profile in Europe as well, after the early 60s. This has changed. And in the media, Islamic religion is more present than all other religions together. By media representation and public awareness levels, Islam indeed is the world religion numero uno, outclassing the church even in Europe itself.
I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers. They enjoy porn, weed, burgers, rap, beer etc just like the rest of us.

Mind you, for the majority, its just lip service for them. Its just like my Christian friends who are being pushed to church every weekend.

Of course, there is always the few nutjobs, but don't you see nutjobs in every faith everywhere?

[mookiemookie]

One thing I've never heard is a joke about New Jersey. Know any.:O:

http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2008/12/15/picture1.jpg

[Skybird]

I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers. They enjoy porn, weed, burgers, rap, beer etc just like the rest of us.

Mind you, for the majority, its just lip service for them. Its just like my Christian friends who are being pushed to church every weekend.

Of course, there is always the few nutjobs, but don't you see nutjobs in every faith everywhere?
But they perfectly know how to make best use of their Muslim identity opportunistically to gain advantages for them. But I am not certain about your claim anyway. Studies found the third generation of Turkish migrants being far more religious and orthodox than their grandparents who came to Germany in the 50s and 60s ever have been. Turkish nationalism is spreading, and the active denial of turning German and living a German identity, is immense. Additionally, German-mobbing by young Arabs and Turks at schools is rapidly increasing, and "radical" movements like the Salafists gain acceptance in the young Muslim subculture rapidly.

It should give Germany plenty of worries. But we have chosen to act as if all these problems do not exist and would be meaningless. It will backfire at us.

[August]

But I am not certain about your claim anyway. Studies found the third generation of Turkish migrants being far more religious and orthodox than their grandparents who came to Germany in the 50s and 60s ever have been. Turkish nationalism is spreading, and the active denial of turning German and living a German identity, is immense. Additionally, German-mobbing by young Arabs and Turks at schools is rapidly increasing, and "radical" movements like the Salafists gain acceptance in the young Muslim subculture rapidly.

America is not Germany. We're far larger, far more diverse and far less Xenophobic. They don't call our country a cultural melting pot for nothing.

[Skybird]

America was founded by conditions that do not compare to what European nations have to face. The only culture you had to face as a potential rival, you just overrolled and almost wiped out, and since then, you are not used to be questioned in your national and cultural self-understanding. In Europe, with with two millenia of identity-forming history, dozens of local cultures and traditions, people, and nations, this is a bit different. So, the starting conditions for the Us have been totally different than for European nations, it just doe snot compare. Many Americans do not understand this and judge Europe by the standards they exclusively know:_ that of America. And then they are surprised again and again that their recipes may not work in Europe, or other parts of the world.

Some years ago, I saw a docu aboiut the US on TV, and some American there said something which made pretty good sense to me, he said something like this: that America in principle lacks the idea of a national self-concept like European states have - and that is the reason why patriotism as a surrogate is more prominent in the Us, while in many European areas patriotism has a bad reputation.

I think there is some truth in that. Before you now go and try to bang heads with me again, I do not mean that as any form of America-bashing, but I mean it sober and factual. I indeed think that the American sentiment about itself is based more on patriotism, while in Europe it is more based on nationalism. And that has historic roots that lead back in history, over centuries and centuries. And that is why it is so difficult if not impossible to change it fast and on-.the-fly.

You are right that Germans have been quite xenophobic - in the past. And you know what? That is probably true for all European people, due to the history of the past three thousand years. This continent has always been a place of rivalry, war and fighting- something that American history does not know in this form and dimension, since America founded its root on the principle of being a nation of migrants (the natives almost got wiped out...). So it is no surprise that then America is different in its attitude towards migrants, and national identity. The German xenophobia has started to change, already some longer time ago.Today, every fifth person living here has foreign roots from outside Germany. The change is slow, and maybe not obvious at first sight. But it is real - sometimes for better, and sometime for worse.

[August]

Then we agree that the German experience with immigrant communities does not really apply to America. Our culture is far more (for lack of a better term) "corrosive" and while foreign culture enclaves might form and exist for a time it's never in our history been very long before they become diluted and Americanized. I expect the same will happen to the Muslims.

In fact Islam might want to consider what effect that Americanized Muslims might have on the home countries. Cultural exchange is a two way street and we're the biggest culture exporters in the world. Wanna burger with those fries Mohammed?

[u crank]

In fact Islam might want to consider what effect that Americanized Muslims might have on the home countries. Cultural exchange is a two way street and we're the biggest culture exporters in the world. Wanna burger with those fries Mohammed?

Shhhhoossh! This is top secret info.:har:

[Buddahaid]

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.



In my 56 years living here I have never been subject to any fear, or retribution for being an agnostic turned atheist. This type of stuff does happen, not in major metropolitan areas but in the smaller rural communities and I don't believe it's very widespread at that. I also think that is an attitude that was more prevalent a few decades ago before women's liberation changed the work force and standard family unit.

EDIT: This just in from the religion of peace.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/iran-pastor-youcef-nadarkhani-acquitted-of-apostasy-released-from-jail-81291/

[Skybird]

In fact Islam might want to consider what effect that Americanized Muslims might have on the home countries. Cultural exchange is a two way street and we're the biggest culture exporters in the world. Wanna burger with those fries Mohammed?
You thjoiught like that with regard toi Iraq. Afghanistan. NBorth acfrica, recently Libya. And what have you got in return?

In Turkey, Attatürk may have thiought like that too, that Islam could be "abnned" or suporessed" or kepot in check by a strict secular order. He was wrong, as we see today. Islam - real Islam, I mean, never was gone, it onmy slept for 50, 60 years, and then came back - stronger and more vital than before ion the past 150 years.

You either underestimate the potence and attractiveness of monolithic Islam, or you overestimate the attractiveness of the American model. Or most likely: both. And when other people in other countries resist to your society model, and turn hostile when you try to put it on top of their heads, then you tell them that they are only greedy about what you have gotten, or that they are angry over their own lack of your characteristics or freedoms or whatever it is.

But even the American model is just one contender amongst many others. And by far not everybody in the world likes it. Not even mentioning the contradiction between claim, and reality. For many, the rigidness and clear compass provided by a totalitarian society simply is as attractive as American ideals are to you.

Maintenance of a complex machinery does not go very well if there is only just one single tool in the maintenance kit. You are well-equipped for the problem where the wrench you have fits the screw. With all other situations where screws either play no role or are only one item of interest, you have a problem.

[Takeda Shingen]

You thjoiught like that with regard toi Iraq. Afghanistan. NBorth acfrica, recently Libya. And what have you got in return?

In Turkey, Attatürk may have thiought like that too, that Islam could be "abnned" or suporessed" or kepot in check by a strict secular order. He was wrong, as we see today. Islam - real Islam, I mean, never was gone, it onmy slept for 50, 60 years, and then came back - stronger and more vital than before ion the past 150 years.

You either underestimate the potence and attractiveness of monolithic Islam, or you overestimate the attractiveness of the American model. Or most likely: both. And when other people in other countries resist to your society model, and turn hostile when you try to put it on top of their heads, then you tell them that they are only greedy about what you have gotten, or that they are angry over their own lack of your characteristics or freedoms or whatever it is.

But even the American model is just one contender amongst many others. And by far not everybody in the world likes it. Not even mentioning the contradiction between claim, and reality. For many, the rigidness and clear compass provided by a totalitarian society simply is as attractive as American ideals are to you.

Maintenance of a complex machinery does not go very well if there is only just one single tool in the maintenance kit. You are well-equipped for the problem where the wrench you have fits the screw. With all other situations where screws either play no role or are only one item of interest, you have a problem.

As you are someone who advocates the use of nuclear weapons as an end to the situation, I reject your analysis and conclusions. You are simply attempting to use fear to warmonger, and that is neither apt nor admirable.

[Skybird]

As you are someone who advocates the use of nuclear weapons as an end to the situation, I reject your analysis and conclusions. You are simply attempting to use fear to warmonger, and that is neither apt nor admirable.
Call again when the ME nuclear arms race threatens to turn the world into a hot radiating hellhole, or Western nations openly get blackmailed to play ball -else, or the first nuclear dirty terror bomb has gone off in some Western metropolis, or near Edgar C. Hoover dam.

[Takeda Shingen]

Call again when the ME nuclear arms race threatens to turn the world into a hot radiating hellhole, or Western nations openly get blackmailed to play ball -else, or the first nuclear dirty terror bomb has gone off in some Western metropolis, or near Edgar C. Hoover dam.

If you are so concerned about it, then lobby your government to pressure the EU to nuke 'em. And the dam is named for US president Herbert Hoover, not J. Edgar. I have no idea who Edgar C. Hoover is.

[u crank]

For many, the rigidness and clear compass provided by a totalitarian society simply is as attractive as American ideals are to you.

Hmm, I would have to wonder about that. Give any human a clear choice between a totalitarian state or a free and democratic state and I think we all know what they would choose. How about you? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

I have no idea who Edgar C. Hoover is.
He is a brother of Henry

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Numatic_henry_001.jpg


You either underestimate the potence and attractiveness of monolithic Islam, or you overestimate the attractiveness of the American model.
Yeah yeah 1500years and none of them have ever comeclose, any that have approached coming close threw it out with the other trash as it was just soooooo attractive.
But hey don't let rational thought intrude on your crazy phobias

[soopaman2]

If you are so concerned about it, then lobby your government to pressure the EU to nuke 'em. And the dam is named for US president Herbert Hoover, not J. Edgar. I have no idea who Edgar C. Hoover is.
Just to elaborate. J Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI. Whos favorite pastime was to use his agency (and our tax dollars) to dig up dirt on politicians in order to control them.

Herbert Hoover was a president and ex engineer who believed infrastracture and efficiency was the way to go.

His plans laid the groundwork for FDRs New Deal, which put a great many Americans to work, during a depression 100 times worse than what we are in now.

Huge difference, one wanted to blackmail America, the other wanted to heal it.

[Rilder]

Oh good, another religion bashing thread. Err, sorry, another Abrahamic religion bashing thread. Eastern faiths always seem to avoid the crosshairs.

Don't forget us Pagans, Nobody pays a lick of attention to us anymore. :woot:

Zeus is just pointing and laughing at the religious unrest with two hotties wrapped around him. :O:

He is a brother of Henry

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Numatic_henry_001.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmC62Eg82E8

[Skybird]

Hmm, I would have to wonder about that. Give any human a clear choice between a totalitarian state or a free and democratic state and I think we all know what they would choose. How about you? :hmmm:
China is not comparable to Western standards of law and order, and freedom. Still a huge majority of Chinese want China to be like it has unfolded to be over its history, and want its sometimes - in our eyes - queer legal standards as well.

80 years ago, many people in Europe, namely Austria and Germany, but also in other countries, embraced totalitarian governments with open arms.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the basis of law, state, social life, and the definition of "freedom". Sharia-Islam is the global mainstream Islam, it is no sectarian minority.

That would be around 2 billions already. Now count tribal cultures in Africa, several oligarchic regimes in south American and Russia, and it becomes more.

You just showed the typical Western mistake: to assume that all the world wants to be like us- the glorious white Western man - are. But that is a megalomaniac erratic assumption. What they want, is our wealth and material standards, maybe. Not mistake that with what they mean when saying "freedom". The concept of freedom and tolerance in Islam is totally different from the way we define it on basis of Western history, for Islam, Sharia goes first, freedom and laws must be second to it. In Asia, traditionally the mentality dominates of "collective before individual" - in our places, it is the other way around.

And me, while >>in general<< (meaning: not always) I comply with the tradition of humanism, a twisting and turning of ideas and conceptions has taken place that make that and the dominating social conceptions of the political correctness movement disagreeing strongly on terms like "solidarity", "tolerance" and "freedom". Even here in the West people sue the same words - but mean different ideas behind it. And ironically it is those who consider themselves to be socially and culturally oh so advanced and progressive who have distorted these ideas to degrees and eroded them so much that they have started to move backwards and move back to totalitarian social controls while thinking they do it in defense of freedom. A mistake that many socalled conservatives also do, but being motivated by different thinking patterns and going there due to different ways - the first group wants totalitarianism being sued to enforce freedom, the second groups accept technology and security means turning freedom into totalitarianism. And then there is the EU, using freedom to erode it in the process of turning Europe into a regime of lobbies and technocrats forming a huge neo-feudalistic order that melts itself perfectly into this socalled globalised economy.

Worldwide, theocracies, oligarchies, plutocracies and tyrannies are winning ground, while democracies lose ground. We live in post-democratic times already, and the idea of freedom in modern Western understanding already is beyond its historical zenith. We see it clearly since 9/11, in the increase of security, technology turning us all into transparent glass-citizens, social networks eroding the concept of privacy and face-to-face contact.

And I do not even touch upon my new favorite theme, drone warfare, and autonomous drones. An abyss of implications and political problems arise from that that so far the media have not even become aware of. The spreading of this technoloy will not make wars less likely, but will increase the using of lethal force by no loner to be identified actors - m,ay it be companies, states, or individual persons. We are heading back into history by several centuries there.

Are you still tempted to claim that if given the choice people would all chose the same way of living? I would even go so far and say that the cultural developements are racing away with a self-dynamic that most people do not even have a choice to chose at all. Not to mention that they would not all make the same choice, too. You cannot chose by free will if you are not aware of how you are getting influenced - and thus you get decided and made believe that it was your free will. Ha! That is perfect dictatorship - when the censor is inside people's brain and they censor themselves. Almost a Dickian dysutopia.

[yubba]

When they stop killing us,, maybe then I'll give them some consideration,,,I thought about it,, Nope ain't going to happen,,, sorry,, maybe we ought to play a new game called cowboys and muslims, that's what they want, we tried to be nice,,, Obama bowed and apologized his butt off,, gave them tons of money,, and they took it as weakness and that's where we are at now,,, all they understand is strength and the sword,,,,if any don't understand that I got a thread for that dissorder.

[August]

You thjoiught like that with regard toi Iraq. Afghanistan. NBorth acfrica, recently Libya. And what have you got in return?

Plenty, unless you think those missions were to turn them into exact copies of ourselves.

Y'know perhaps that is Germany's problem with the Turks. They're never going to morph into blond, lederhose wearing schnitzel eaters so to you they aren't assimilated into German culture but being American has very little to do with dress or diet or even religion. We are a real multicultural nation, not a mono-cultural nation with some foreign seasoning.

[yubba]

I keep hearing this thing called the new world order:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: So the muslims are going to go along with a one world government,,.. governed by whom ???????:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: Ruled by the UN maybe,,,.. but why would we have to walk on egg shells around the muslims,,, no not the UN,,.. who's rise-ing up in the world,,.. why are some in this government think muslim law would be a good thing here in the states,, and who,, boooooo ed god at the DNC, and who had 3 days of color me muslim in advance of the opening of DNC..,, kind of makes pennies on the dollar,,, that they didn't want to admit this was a terrorist attack....:har::har::har:

[u crank]

The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the basis of law, state, social life, and the definition of "freedom". Sharia-Islam is the global mainstream Islam, it is no sectarian minority.

I was careful to say "clear choice." In other words, these people would know the difference between the two systems. A large number of Muslims have no say what so ever in what happens to them. That is a totalitarian system by nature. They have no choice, nor do they have a voice. A better question to ask would be, if you were a Muslim living in the U.S. would you want to immigrate to Yemen or Pakistan? I think the answer would be "no thanks".

You just showed the typical Western mistake: to assume that all the world wants to be like us- the glorious white Western man - are. But that is a megalomaniac erratic assumption.

I don't think it's a mistake. I think it's true. People have been drawn to the West for a long time. It's because of the freedom and yes material standards but mainly because here you can do whatever you want with your life. Of course if you do not know the difference..... What I'm saying is if they knew the difference the choice would be obvious. There is no possibility of Sharia law being implemented in the U.S. or here in Canada in the foreseeable future. Our countries are far too multicultural for that to happen.

Are you still tempted to claim that if given the choice people would all chose the same way of living? I would even go so far and say that the cultural developements are racing away with a self-dynamic that most people do not even have a choice to chose at all. Not to mention that they would not all make the same choice, too. You cannot chose by free will if you are not aware of how you are getting influenced - and thus you get decided and made believe that it was your free will. Ha! That is perfect dictatorship - when the censor is inside people's brain and they censor themselves. Almost a Dickian dysutopia.

I would not be so presumptuous as to say that every one would want the same way of living. I would say, though that it's human nature to move toward the light, not the dark. If you're a parent, what do you want for your children?

As to how a person is influenced, that is the individual's responsibility. A healthy dose of mindless TV, beer and internet surfing works wonders in keeping the mind clear.:D

[yubba]

Hell, I'm just guessing,, there is so much dissimformation out there, got to follow the lies, they can't cover up and hold them accountable for,, that's the way to the truth.

[Tribesman]

Hell, I'm just guessing,, there is so much dissimformation out there, got to follow the lies, they can't cover up and hold them accountable for,, that's the way to the truth.

The way to the truth is to read one of your poats and work on the basis that the opposite is true.
Simple isn't it.:yeah:

[Skybird]

I was careful to say "clear choice." In other words, these people would know the difference between the two systems.
You do not understand it. They see the difference, for the most. And they want Sharia over freedom, because in their thinking not only is Allah's will to be rated higher as man's will, but Sharia is the way to guarantee and protect the way to real freedom - the freedom of Islam. Sharia provides the toolkit by which the individual is assisted and directed to not stray off the right path, you cannot separate it from Quran. An Islam without Sharia is unthinkable because that is an Islam that rejects a major part of Allah's will. An Islam without Sharia is something, anything - but not Islam. Mind you, only a small part of Sharia is what we in the West perceive as kind of a penalty code. Most of it is a recommendation of what to do and what to avoid. The penalty thing is kijust one aspect of it, but an integral one.


A large number of Muslims have no say what so ever in what happens to them. That is a totalitarian system by nature. They have no choice, nor do they have a voice. A better question to ask would be, if you were a Muslim living in the U.S. would you want to immigrate to Yemen or Pakistan? I think the answer would be "no thanks".
It depends. Some see themselves as a spearhead. Some enjoy Amerian liberties - to use them to spread Islam: that would be what mostly is happening in Europe, that Western freedom is turned against Europe to spread Islam and by that destroy freedom and replace it with Sharia-defined freedom. What you call freedom that you offer them to chose for - to them is an invitation to advance. What you see as your generosity and nobleness to them is a sign of weakness and a promise that you will fall soon.

You can understand this only when you are able to step out of the context of your own cultural identity that limits the viewing angle of yours so that you think your side is the one that automatically everybody would chose. You are wrong there.



I don't think it's a mistake. I think it's true. People have been drawn to the West for a long time. It's because of the freedom and yes material standards but mainly because here you can do whatever you want with your life. Of course if you do not know the difference..... What I'm saying is if they knew the difference the choice would be obvious. There is no possibility of Sharia law being implemented in the U.S. or here in Canada in the foreseeable future. Our countries are far too multicultural for that to happen.
Yes. That is why they want your country to go. Sharia is more important than freedom in Western understanding, or the values of the American constitution. America grants more freedoms to people, than many other countries, it even accepts scientology as a religion and still defends the freedom of Nazism to be voiced and spread openly despite the historic experience with it. Because this is so, Islam in America so far has met no opposition, and thus could slowly grow in numbers and influence. The row over the ground zero mosque was a first signal since, a small signal still, of things to come. When Islam has grown big enough in the US, it cannot avoid to meet even American limits to what America can afford to tolerate. And then your peaceful and tolerant multiculti-side-by-side living with it will come to an end. You will meet the same conflicts we increasingly meet in Europe. You just meet them with a delay, for in America Islam started later, and had more initial freedom to grow in.

You need to learn, urgently, that "freedom" and other culkturaes and fredom in your understanding are the sme words, but attgributed with different meanings. Like in Islam there is tlak of tolerance for the peop,e of the book as well, but a tolerance that takes it for granted that the to-be-tolerated behave submissive, obedient, with an obligation to dsicriminate them to let them feel their infeirority due to rejecting Allah. But they call that tolerance nevertheless. Same with freedom.

I linked it several times now, even a comparison side-to-side with the UN pen dant: Have you ever read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam? It is the Islamic counter-blueprint to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If after reading that you still think that freedom means the same in both spheres, then I cannot help you.


I would not be so presumptuous as to say that every one would want the same way of living. I would say, though that it's human nature to move toward the light, not the dark. If you're a parent, what do you want for your children?
Ever asked that a Palesitnian parent who take pride from and boast into the camera that their son, 16, has blown himself up in an attempt to kill Israelis? For tgrue devout Muslims, the best for thei chidlren is not this rotten, corrupted Wetsern freedom, but obedience to Allah, and obeying Sharia and folowing the Quran.

And I stress it again: mainstream Islam, globally, is that Islam that indeed bases on Quran and Sharia, most Muslims worldwide follow this idea. The West in its hopeless self-gloriofaction totally overestimates its own attractiveness as an alternative.

In the nineties, I had a very good impression of how things were in Iran, because I had been there several times, and for many months, privately. That was after the initial energy of the youth revolt in the 90s had faded out a bit. In the Western media there was the perception that these people wanted Western freedom and democracy, but when Washington realised that so far-reaching a copying of Western culture they did not want at all, it no longer voiced any support for the movement, and as a result the regime could deal with them and leading the situation into one in which it slowly died by draining its energy. What back then many Westerners did not understand is that the young people back then wanted pragmatic access to new media, to internet, a press not controlled by the state - and Sharia as foundation of Iranian society. They explicitly did not want the whole package that Washington demanded them to accept to install. - It is like this in many other places, u-crank. The young ones wanted more freedoms - including the freedom from the West selling them its own package.

If they would have gotten their way, maybe today the situation with the nuclear program would be a different one - one that saw the ultraconservative regime having died, and the conflict solved though negotiations indeed. Today, that has no chance anymore. We let it worsten, without reacting while there may have been time. Only because Washington wanted the young ones to buy the full American culture package. Which they refused. And so here we are today.

The same in Turkey today, another place where I have spend quite some time and of which I know a little bit. You have the huge cities in Turkey where you have stronger Western influence and more will to live by Kemalist ideas of secularism, but that probably has faded. Such a Turkey could coexist with Europe peacefully, and both sides would benefit from trade. However, most Turks live not in these few metropoles, but in small cities, villages and rural places. And you maybe have no clue how arch-conservative and ultra-orthodox these places are for the most. It went so far that basic rules of hospitality - which formally plays a very important role in the ME - where just met when we arrived in some of these places or travelled through, balancing closely on a thin red beyond which laid open hostility, making the politeness as icy as that of an arctic glacier. That means little in Europe, since such social norms play not that role anymore over here, but in the ME formal hospitality towards strangers coming by is in high esteem. It's a bit complex to explain. And maybe it now has changed anyway after two wars since 2003.


As to how a person is influenced, that is the individual's responsibility.
that is naive if you leave it to that. To some degree, we are masters of our fate, yes. But we are also exposed to influence that we are not aware of in everyday life, we get brainwashed, manipulated and fed selected information, we walk on paths the education of our parents have opened (ore not), and school, and youth experiences. We may be free within certain borders our former life until today has defined. But if you think these borders and limits have been open to us to define them as we want from all beginning on, then you are wrong.

You should never forget that Islam is no tolerant ideology, but the ideology of conquerors, serving the purpose to justify the violence inflicted by Muhammad in a bit to secure his power and influence, and to delete opposition to him by declaring criticism of him as heresy and a violation of a divine will. The language Islam thus speaks and understands, is that of force, and totalitarian unity.

western politiians and philantropists don't understand this, or do not want to understand this - because they then would need to understand that their own instruments: negotiating and talking and meaning it well - is rendered as helpless in the face of being challenged by Islam. And so we fall back, step by step, and we mean it well when we fall back another step, and we wonder why the other side always advances instead of stopping, taking the space we just have cleared.

Or is it that we understand it all to well, act on the grounds of feat and intimidation, and fall back because we realize that we are no longer masters in our own houses? ;) "Tolerance" easily can become the choice of those so weak that their only choice left is to suffer what they must and make themselves believe they do it not because they are weak, but because they want it.

[u crank]

You do not understand it. They see the difference, for the most. And they want Sharia over freedom, because in their thinking not only is Allah's will to be rated higher as man's will, but Sharia is the way to guarantee and protect the way to real freedom - the freedom of Islam

Well I think I do understand, but we were talking about a hypothetical situation. Reality would be some what different because the difference can not be readily explained to all these people.

An Islam without Sharia is unthinkable because that is an Islam that rejects a major part of Allah's will. An Islam without Sharia is something, anything - but not Islam.

Sharia law in its strictest sense is not universally practised in all Muslim nations. Clerics, Imams and jihadists in Muslim nations and in the West may lobby for it but it is not the rule of law. Turkey for example is a secular nation. Others have a mixture of Islamic and Constitutional Law. Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt for example.


Some see themselves as a spearhead. Some enjoy Amerian liberties - to use them to spread Islam: that would be what mostly is happening in Europe, that Western freedom is turned against Europe to spread Islam and by that destroy freedom and replace it with Sharia-defined freedom. What you call freedom that you offer them to chose for - to them is an invitation to advance. What you see as your generosity and nobleness to them is a sign of weakness and a promise that you will fall soon.

No doubt ,in some cases this is true. Again I would say it is the hardcore jihadists who think and act along these lines. The average Muslim who immigrates is probably doing so to get away from these people and to find a better life. Not all Muslims are jihadists and in the West not all Muslims want or practice sharia law. As the_tyrant said in post #74 "I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers.' They adapt very quickly as do other immigrants.

I would say that yes, Europe has a more obvious problem in regards to Muslim extremists because of your immigration policies. To many people from nations that just happen to be Muslim. Canada has a much more balanced approach to immigration. The current number of Muslims is about 2.8% of the Canadian population. In the U.S. it's around 1%. Not exactly a tidal wave. Are there trouble makers among that group? No doubt but we also have Sikh extremists, Quebec separatists and disgruntled Vancouver Canucks hockey fans. There is trouble in the world I tell ya.

Am I worried? Not really. For one thing, here in Canada, Atheists make up about 30% of the population. I'm counting on you guys to keep those really crazy religious types of all stripes at bay. Do your job!:haha:

[Skybird]

Well I think I do understand, but we were talking about a hypothetical situation. Reality would be some what different because the difference can not be readily explained to all these people.
Well take the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount away from Christian scripture - and then claim that what is left is still "Christianity". Then take away Sharia from Islam and claim what is left is Islam still. It is not.


Sharia law in its strictest sense is not universally practised in all Muslim nations. Clerics, Imams and jihadists in Muslim nations and in the West may lobby for it but it is not the rule of law.
It is., in several states, and also it is the only authority in Islam that is accepted as a legal basis - other laws are seen as corrupted. That'S why socvalled "radical Islamists" fight against such states - form an Islamic POV, they are correct. This differentiation between Islam, Islamism, moderate and fundamentalist Islam, is deception and is misleading, these differences were not made up until just short time ago. Saudi Arabia first introduced them to the world to deflect opposition and criticism to Islamic terror. That was in the 70s already. In the present. Erdoghan has been the last prominent who in a public outburst of rage told the West to finally shut up and stop differentiating between moderate and radical Islam - this would be an offense to any Muslim, and a crime against Islam.
Turkey for example is a secular nation. Others have a mixture of Islamic and Constitutional Law. Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt for example. before WWII, these terms were almost unknown. Academics talked of it as Muhammeddanism simply, which is the most precise label I know.

Also, I tell you again, most Muslims worldwide want state and legislation and jurisdiction based on Sharia. This opinion is the mainstream opinion in this 1.5 billion members of the Ummah.

Also, Turkey is no longer a secular state like it tried to become under Attatürk. Erdoghan has set back the clocks by several hundred years. State offices and administration turned more orthodox again. Females have widely withdrawn from serving in higher public offices, the scarf is more widespread again. Th supression and discrimination of Christian churches has increased. The military is loosing its stand against the religious. So much for secularism in Turkey. The good news from this backfall of theirs is that it has become >relatively< silent in the EU about Turkish EU membership.


No doubt ,in some cases this is true. Again I would say it is the hardcore jihadists who think and act along these lines. The average Muslim who immigrates is probably doing so to get away from these people and to find a better life. Not all Muslims are jihadists and in the West not all Muslims want or practice sharia law. As the_tyrant said in post #74 "I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers.' They adapt very quickly as do other immigrants.
that impressions is wrong in that our sociological studies of third generation immigrants in Germany and England prove the opposite. A growing share of them is more orthodox and radical than their first generation grand parents who arrived 60 years ago. In England, it is comparable, also founded by according statistics that I have linked to repeatedly in the past years. It is like this in Sweden. In Denmark. In Holland.

Also, do not think in so simple cliches as if every member of Islam actively decides to go out for conquering the West. The conquest of Islam in the West is more carried by the general attitude of the crowd, a general expectation for the future, a certainty of mind that things will go this way, and that it is good this way and Allah wants it and will have his way one way or the other. See it more subtle. There are the programmed Terminator-type of people, too, yes. But they are not the majority. The silent majority not being like them but still indirectly supporting the same goal by their passivity to ban terrorists in their middle and their general mindset that awaits the West turning Islamic - is an even greater problem.


I would say that yes, Europe has a more obvious problem in regards to Muslim extremists because of your immigration policies. To many people from nations that just happen to be Muslim. Canada has a much more balanced approach to immigration. The current number of Muslims is about 2.8% of the Canadian population. In the U.S. it's around 1%. Not exactly a tidal wave. Are there trouble makers among that group? No doubt but we also have Sikh extremists, Quebec separatists and disgruntled Vancouver Canucks hockey fans. There is trouble in the world I tell ya.
Doe snot compare.

In some European countries, Muslim names are ranking on first place of the lists for popular baby names. Because there are now more Muslim babies born than in any other migrant or native group. the number of converts also rises constantly, although their total number is not relevant- but since concerts tend to be even more radical about their new belief than "originals", their mindset is a problem.


Am I worried? Not really. For one thing, here in Canada, Atheists make up about 30% of the population. I'm counting on you guys to keep those really crazy religious types of all stripes at bay. Do your job!:haha:
There will come a day when you have run out of time. And then your kids will not have anything to laugh about at all.

Not all people claiming to be Muslim, are bad people. But not everybody is indeed Muslim. The problem I have, starts when Muslims being okay and indeed behaving well and not being conform with the bad and negative in Quran and Sharia, nevertheless insists to be Muslim and "islamic" - although they live their live in violation of what defines Muslims as Muslim: Quran and Sharia. I do not take all people going to church as Christians, too. Muslims not living by the Quran'S rule, are already apostates, and shall be killed if they do not regret and return to the Ummah in full. And their claim to nevertheless be Muslim means they deny and hide that state of apostacy they are already in. When I then tell them they are apostates, from my point of view that is a compliment, maybe. For them, it is an offense - and by acting like this they give Islam a positive face that Islam by its real grim face does not deserve to be supplied with.

[Fish]

A word to rioting muslims. (http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell)

[Jimbuna]

"The religion of permanent offence" :)

[mookiemookie]

All this talk about Islam has made Google's ads go crazy

http://i.imgur.com/oHX3L.png

[u crank]

Also, I tell you again, most Muslims worldwide want state and legislation and jurisdiction based on Sharia. This opinion is the mainstream opinion in this 1.5 billion members of the Ummah.

Okay. I get it. I understand what you are saying. I may not believe it in its entirety but I get it. It is not necessary to keep driving the same nail.

Does not compare.
In some European countries, Muslim names are ranking on first place of the lists for popular baby names. Because there are now more Muslim babies born than in any other migrant or native group. the number of converts also rises constantly, although their total number is not relevant- but since concerts tend to be even more radical about their new belief than "originals", their mindset is a problem.

Reread what I was saying. I am agreeing with you in regards to Muslim population growth in Europe. My point was about U.S. and Canada and there is quite a difference. Statistics Canada says that we are at 2.8%. In the U.S. it is currently around 1%. Europe is around 6%.

Not all people claiming to be Muslim, are bad people. But not everybody is indeed Muslim. The problem I have, starts when Muslims being okay and indeed behaving well and not being conform with the bad and negative in Quran and Sharia, nevertheless insists to be Muslim and "islamic" - although they live their live in violation of what defines Muslims as Muslim: Quran and Sharia. I do not take all people going to church as Christians, too. Muslims not living by the Quran'S rule, are already apostates, and shall be killed if they do not regret and return to the Ummah in full. And their claim to nevertheless be Muslim means they deny and hide that state of apostacy they are already in. When I then tell them they are apostates, from my point of view that is a compliment, maybe. For them, it is an offense - and by acting like this they give Islam a positive face that Islam by its real grim face does not deserve to be supplied with.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have the authority to make these judgements. In fact I don't think any one can. In regards to God, what one believes about themselves is all that matters. No Pope or Mullah or guru can tell one what 'special group' they belong or don't belong in. That is the definitive difference between religion and a personal faith. They may set certain rules for belonging to that 'group' but if the believer disregards them they are meaninglessness. Calling some one an apostate is simply that. Name calling. If a Muslim wishes to be known as a moderate who are you to say he is not? I would encourage him to be so. At that point what the Ummah thinks is irrevelent. The Roman Church tolerates other non Catholic denominations but believes that they are the one true church. No offence but I don't care what they think. I only care what God thinks.

Sorry, radio's getting a little loud.

There will come a day when you have run out of time. And then your kids will not have anything to laugh about at all

Come on Skybird, time is running out on a lot of things. Global warming, spread of nuclear weapons, population growth, economic meltdown. Stop worrying, lets have a drink.

[Skybird]

Okay. I get it. I understand what you are saying. I may not believe it in its entirety but I get it. It is not necessary to keep driving the same nail.
Oh, I think it is, since just before that reply you again relativised the importance of "fundamentalism".


Reread what I was saying. I am agreeing with you in regards to Muslim population growth in Europe. My point was about U.S. and Canada and there is quite a difference. Statistics Canada says that we are at 2.8%. In the U.S. it is currently around 1%. Europe is around 6%.
I said the Us is lacking behind, and will go where Europe is today, with a delay. Because the numbers right now may be what they are, with local variations of sometimes huge values, but the future-related important thing is the demographic dynamic: birth rates and migration rates. Currently there are around 2.6 million Muslims living in the US, in 2030 this numbers is expected to be beyond 6.4 millions. In Europe, it depends on the place you look. Some countries will be predominantly Muslim before the end of this century. There are metropolitan hotspots, where this is the case even today or will become the case much earlier than by the end of this century.

If there is any non-draconic counterstrategy, then it is trying to assist kind of a sexual revolution, and uprise of female Muslims against the dictate of the patriarchat. Statistically, in Muslim countries the countries with the highest level of education amongst females are the countries with the lowest score of births per woman (2.5). The mean birth rate of women in the lower 60% of Muslim countries where females have access to less education, rates above 5.0. Needless to say, since the supremacy and wanted-by-Allah superiority of man is anchored in the Quran, any such social revolution necessarily will need to accept that this confronts Islam at its very heart and bottom, and either sees Islam being turned into something new, or sees the social upraise collapsing., And Islam has been, historicall.,y, more successful and more ruthless in letting opposition collapsing by force, than the catholic church.

We have had these conflicts in the Christian world. And we should not spare Islam to go the same way. There are no shortcuts through this conflict.


I'm sorry but I don't think you have the authority to make these judgements. In fact I don't think any one can. In regards to God, what one believes about themselves is all that matters. No Pope or Mullah or guru can tell one what 'special group' they belong or don't belong in. That is the definitive difference between religion and a personal faith. They may set certain rules for belonging to that 'group' but if the believer disregards them they are meaninglessness. Calling some one an apostate is simply that. Name calling. If a Muslim wishes to be known as a moderate who are you to say he is not? I would encourage him to be so. At that point what the Ummah thinks is irrevelent. The Roman Church tolerates other non Catholic denominations but believes that they are the one true church. No offence but I don't care what they think. I only care what God thinks.
Terms and labels are not arbitrary, they have a fixed meaning, and I have a problem with people trying to reinvent the meaning of terms and names, or picking a term for something they want to label as that, but ignoring what the term really means. The historic concept called as Islam, has such a certain and relatively clearly defined set of meaning, and a basis from which it emerges. You cannot just pick that part, chose what you want ignore the rest and then claim what you then have is nevertheless "Islam". I cannot claim that a humanistic racism for example is possible or that it should be left to people to claim they are that, only to give racism a good name. Some terms simply do not make sense. Humanistic racism. Liberal tyranny. Democratic fascism. Moderate Islam. From Quran and Sharia stems a tradition that Muhammad wanted to be anything ut "m,oderate". It is a totalitarian conception and idea, from A to Z. And so whether a Muslim indeed is Muslim in the meaning of being in conformity with that, or not, is not up to him to decide, but is a relatively objective question that must be answered by implying the rule of Quran and Sharia and compare his thinking and acting to it. And if such conformity is not there, or too small, then he is not Muslim in Quranic meaning. Same with Christians. I compare Jesus teachings to how people usually act and behave in everyday life, and then I see little Christian qualities in our societies. There are the churches with their own interests that puts them against Jesus teachings, and then there is the sentimental tradition of people remembering their childhood and what it was like to celebrate christmas in decembre. And so they run once a year into the church, and it seems that on this day Christianity is blossoming, and united with both Jesus teachings and the church. Some days later the daily survival fioght begins again, jobs and careers, decisions to be made, and all this usually in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings. So I say: most people you see at churches during Christmas, are not Christian at all. They wallow in emotional memories, and want to transport this tradition to their children, now tat theyx have families of their own. I do not even call them foul on that. I have very good memories of Christmasses in my family myself, when I was young and still lived with my families, and I am thankful for these memories. But don't think I am any Christian because of that.

In the end, it should make you think that even Muslims themselves, socalled moderate as well as socalled fanatics, often speak out against separating Islam into these two groups, formally. Not only Erdoghan does like this, many of the ordinary people on the street do as well. And who are you and who are we to tell them that they are this or that type of Muslim? There is only one Islam. There are different churches, even different bibles - but there is only one Islam. Muhammad'S Islam, that is. One Quran (although in the very early times there have been several version that were opportunistically altered by local leaders to abuse iot for bolstering their personal power in that region), but there is just one Allah, one Quran, and one Sharia. And Islam not recognizing this, is not Islam.
Sorry, radio's getting a little loud. So when you call it by its name, then treat it is right that and not as something different - this is no democracy where people are free to chose.


Come on Skybird, time is running out on a lot of things. Global warming, spread of nuclear weapons, population growth, economic meltdown. Stop worrying, lets have a drink.
I am not worrying for myself, since my life's zenith already is behind me, but I worry for the now young ones and the inhumane burden we load upon their shoulders. Also, I am allergic against stupidity that refuses to learn, this really gets me into arms, and mankind seems to love making the same mistakes over and over and over again, with so much infancy and insanity spreading everywhere and even right before my housedoor. Rest assured, I enjoy the life I live, very much retreated now and calm, but being able to live the way I want, and while not being rich, still living at nobody else's cost and not depending on state and wellfare, which I also would not accept, btw. And there are so many other things running hopelessly wrong about which we usually never speak in the GT forum anyway and that have nothing to do with environment or Islam. When then thinking about the young daughters of good friends of mine, or the young ones in general, I am sad but at the same time feel a tremendous, just furor in my soul. And on occasions when does not stay deep inside, but comes to the surface, I am no pleasant company, but an extremely angry man.

[u crank]

I said the Us is lacking behind, and will go where Europe is today, with a delay. Because the numbers right now may be what they are, with local variations of sometimes huge values, but the future-related important thing is the demographic dynamic: birth rates and migration rates. Currently there are around 2.6 million Muslims living in the US, in 2030 this numbers is expected to be beyond 6.4 millions.

By 2030 the projected population of the U.S.A. will be 360,000,000. If any group who number even 10 million can dominate or control that many people then something is wrong with that society. In relation to the entire population it is an insignificant amount. I do not see any reason to be alarmed.

In Europe, it depends on the place you look. Some countries will be predominantly Muslim before the end of this century. There are metropolitan hotspots, where this is the case even today or will become the case much earlier than by the end of this century.

Yes I understand that situation as being different.

If there is any non-draconic counterstrategy, then it is trying to assist kind of a sexual revolution, and uprise of female Muslims against the dictate of the patriarchat.

Agreed and there are other possibilities. Communication is being revolutionized constantly. The ability of a hierarchy to dominate by rhetoric and fear may be broken by a technological breakthrough. Of course that works both ways.

Terms and labels are not arbitrary, they have a fixed meaning, and I have a problem with people trying to reinvent the meaning of terms and names, or picking a term for something they want to label as that, but ignoring what the term really means.

I cannot speak for Islam as, one, I am not a Muslim and two, I do not know a great deal about that religion. I am only now beginning to study up on it and in some ways you are responsible.:)

I must however clear up a misconception you may have concerning Christianity. True Biblical Christianity is not defined by the denomination or church that you belong to. There is no document that you can sign, no oath you can swear or no pronounced blessing you can receive that will make you this Christian. It does not depend on your behaviour, intelligence or for that matter any other circumstances. It is a spiritual condition that one arrives at by faith in one fact. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Redeemer. Period. What happens after that is up to the individual, but nothing changes that fact. Regrettably, some individuals and organizations behaviour is less than perfect and can give the wrong impression, and cause great harm but it does not change the singular requirement for being a Christian.

As well some individuals and organizations may say that there is more to it than that but a simple reading and understanding of the New Testament proves that approach wrong. It is an attempt by these groups to control individual believers and although may have some temporal authority they have no real spiritual power. True Biblical Christianity is a spiritual condition not an earthly position.

I compare Jesus teachings to how people usually act and behave in everyday life, and then I see little Christian qualities in our societies.

This, I would regrettably admit, is true.

...or the young ones in general, I am sad but at the same time feel a tremendous, just furor in my soul. And on occasions when does not stay deep inside, but comes to the surface, I am no pleasant company, but an extremely angry man.

Most of us feel this way at times. If I did not, I would question my humanity.

[Skybird]

I must however clear up a misconception you may have concerning Christianity. True Biblical Christianity is not defined by the denomination or church that you belong to. There is no document that you can sign, no oath you can swear or no pronounced blessing you can receive that will make you this Christian. It does not depend on your behaviour, intelligence or for that matter any other circumstances. It is a spiritual condition that one arrives at by faith in one fact. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Redeemer. Period. What happens after that is up to the individual, but nothing changes that fact. Regrettably, some individuals and organizations behaviour is less than perfect and can give the wrong impression, and cause great harm but it does not change the singular requirement for being a Christian.


Careful, you can easily get crucified for saying that in this forum - telling you by experience. I sometimes marked the difference between Christianity defined on the basis of Jesus' teachings, and "churchism", as I sometimes call it, as Christianity defined by the church's rule, and took heavy flak for that. To me, Jesus was a reasonably reasonable person who spoke common sense - all the magic and wizardry tales I save myself from, of course. As the reasonably reasonable man that he possibly was, Jesus suffered the fate of many reasonably reasonable people before and after him - he managed to upset people so much that finally he got himself killed from their hands.. Which maybe is a sign that he may have been reasonable, but maybe not clever. The church, on the other hand, imo is nothing else but an ursupator of power and influence, starting with Paul. It is a manifestation of what we call "organised crime". A mob. A mafia. Churches are mausoleums of that crime, turning the ongoing crime into a monument.

What brothels are to a real honourful nobleman, temples are to the truly spiritual human mind. You avoid them.

[u crank]

Careful, you can easily get crucified for saying that in this forum - telling you by experience.

Thanks. I shall keep that in mind.:up:

[August]

Thanks. I shall keep that in mind.:up:

I wouldn't worry about it Bud. Skybird only thinks that way because he can't post anything related to religion without coming off as condescending and dismissive of peoples personal beliefs.

[Tribesman]

Thanks. I shall keep that in mind
Keep in mind that the main flak he gets is for is his fundamentalist style zealotry and simply making up "facts" and continuing to insist they are true long after they have shown to be false.

[u crank]

I wouldn't worry about it Bud. Skybird only thinks that way because he can't post anything related to religion without coming off as condescending and dismissive of peoples personal beliefs.

Keep in mind that the main flak he gets is for is his fundamentalist style zealotry and simply making up "facts" and continuing to insist they are true long after they have shown to be false.

Thank you gentlemen. I shall also take this into consideration.

Must start writing stuff down.........:D

[Tribesman]

Must start writing stuff down.........:D
Try this one for demographics, it makes as much sense as Skys "scholarly" link on the muslim tide in the west:03:
Muslims are going to be extinct.
Each muslim has two parents 4 grandparents and 8 greatgrandparents.
those 14 people are needed to create a single 4th generational muslim who makes the magical tranformation to Skys ultimateshariafundamentalistjihadi(with new improved flavour).
With proven falling birth rates each generation they live in the west this existing 14-1 birthrate can only increase its own inevitable downward spiral condemning the muslims in the west to the fate of the dodo.

Since its a blasphemy thread I would like to attribute the maths on population to the lad himself the modest 13th disciple who didn't want his name in the book.

[yubba]

So did {Adeina ah did ah nutjob} stand up in front of the other dictaitors in the UN and call for the destruction of the jewish state while calling for a ban no blasphemy..?????:doh::doh::doh::doh: