Right On

[mapuc]

Listen to this radio-talkshow(pres the "play button")

The texture is danish, the Radio-talkshow is in english.
http://www.skattetryk.dk/2006/08/31/ren-besked

And by god, the host is right in every thing he says.

Markus

[Yahoshua]

EXCELLENT!!!

I'm saving it and forwarding it!!!!

[TteFAboB]

Good one, thanks.

[joea]

Could someone give a summary? Can't listen on my work computer (media player doesn't work).

[STEED]

The Radio presenter has hit the nail on the head, why don't the majority of Muslims stand up against this minority of Muslim terrorists and condemn there actions and to inform the police where they are? They will never do that so how can you trust them?

[CB..]

i dunno what the radio broadcast says (modem difficultys)
but on the point that so called moderate muslims have not at any point ever raised any significant objection publically against the more extreme terrorist groups who are acting in THEIR name...is so glaringly obvious now that it is hard to mistake it for anything other than complicity...

they behave like a man with a rabid dog on a lead who walks into a store and demands to be given what ever he desires or he will let the dog of the leash...then they stand there innocently saying "dog what dog?? i don't see no dog..."

they then walk out the door with an arm full of goodies mumbling "suckers" under their breath..

they as a whole found a cartoon more offensive than 9/11 or the bombings in London.. pretty psychotic don't you think..

it's allso pretty obvious that the divide between religion and politics has become a moot point...
and only if religious groups are able to satisfy the same criterea for acceptance as political groups should they be allowed to weild political power..
it is perhaps time to stop automatically granting religious groups "license" to hold beliefs that blantantly contradict any sense of human rights we may have developed purely on the basis of their religious texts...
if you examine most religious beliefs in the context that they are political aspirations (in the sense that they desire to influence the political and social climate around them) removing the sense that they are "given of god" or similar...then most "specifics" of their faith would be found to be pretty un-acceptable if presented as policy by any political party seeking to gain power....

why should any group be able to promote un acceptable political ideas on the basis that they are "given of god" (etc)..

i refer you back to the invisble dog scenario..

time for the discussion to be held..when is a religious belief simply a political aspiration in a clever disguise..