[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It doesn't answer that of course. But neither should there be no tolerance, you know, just in case a Real Evil slips through. What is and is not tolerated is where politics, justice, and morality happen.
The truth? Now there's an alien concept.

Not at all. But one own's identity is formed by identifying what is one's own/oneself, b.) what is not one's own/oneself. the act of making differences, to separate, to draw lines that define what is "in" and what is "out", is necessary, and from here you get the understanding what you can afford to tolerate, and what not. The truth is important insofar as it is about historical events and processes that are "true" in so far" as truth is in common language used to point at the common standard of knowledge in sciences. Referring to history's events and processes thus is a legitimate way to gain impressions on and form an assessemewnt of what is not me, but is the other (nation, people, ideology, religion, whatever). When you say truth is so relative that it cannot be named, then you say that we should not allow history being used as an example to learn from. And by that you prevent defining one's own identity at all. No wonder then that you are happy to indiscriminately tolerate all and everything - for when you have no identity, you cannot make destinctions to differ between you and "non-you". But that is no multicultural side-by-side. It is a green-grey, featureless, meaningless mass that results when you add all colours into one pot and stir it until it all is well mixed. Nobody would mistaken that ugly pot of dark green colpur with a skilled painting. It is total uniformity. And as I often have said in the past: if you do not know your own identity, and cannot make the differene between "me" and "you", you are unable to define reasonable rules to hold the community together, for the latter is depending on the first. This is the phase the West has entered, and where Britain alraedy seem to have advanced very far: it shows in these unreasonable rules that are displaying PC, and that result in "vorauseilendem" obedience towards foreigners, and puts the interest of the fews and stranger above that of the many and the culturally/geographically local residents, and leads to an overboarding production of headless rules that simply are no rules that make sense, but crap. For sense would have identity as a preconditiuon, and that sense of our own identity is dying out. no matter that we fall victim so easily to an ideology that is totally hostile towards the morals and rules and political understanding of our former identity - for we have forgotten it, and since we do not know who we are anymore, we are unable to defend us. We are even unwilling to defend us. If we do not enforce OUR rules on the basis of OUR identity, we have a society either with the rules of the others, or no rules at all. the latter is called anarchy. and in an anarchy not the most sensible, reasonable and friendly survives, but the most aggressive, brutal, unscrupullous - the strongest.

And who said that this respect you think that does not damage your home - is mutual...?

Erm, nobody said that. [/quote]

Wrong, you did, and that is what I refer to: "I'm finding it hard to imagine mutual respect for each other being destructive to my home." You imply that the respect is mutal from the beginning. Let me tell you - it is not so.

That we respect each other is a trait that not everyone follows. However, it seems that most people in at least my society, believe in treating one another with respect and decency. Mutual. Do unto others, etc. If that spells the end of my society.....sorry guys i just can't follow that.

And what if your ammount of tolerance is not answered in the same way by the other? You assume that this automatically always must be the case. But Islam does not respect western conceptions of liberty, freedom, democarcy - it sees them as weaknesses that could be exploited. These would have been a threat to Muhammad's power, and he designed it all to be exactly preventing these threats. You cannot understand Islam and why it is what it is, if you do not know Muhammad's historic biograohy and from that form a reasonable model of his personality. This is essential, and without it, Islam (Muhammadanism) cannot be explained and is history's great riddle of absurdities. Understand the man and his motives - and suddenly all falls into place. It's a personal cult, like what the leader in North korea is doing, amongst others in the past: totalitarian mind control, brainwashing, monuments if not in stone, then in tales.

Saddam did the same. He copied the example set by Muhammad.

And you may want to recall where this almost unlimited determination to be decent and respectful have led your ancestors to when they sent Chamberlain and beliveed what they wanted to believe. Was Chamberlain finding an attitude in Hitler that mirrord his own attitude? Hardly. He just beoieved so. I know this example has been beaten to death - but it simply is valid, and true.

You probably assume that Islam follows comparable ethics and morals and goals like western free, liberal, democratic societies. that it compares to Jesus' religion, and is not muhc different. But it is, and this is what leads you to your dangerous attitutudes towards it. What you mean as a gesture of good intentions - from islam's perspective is an indication that you are weak and close to fall. So, it does not see the need to answer you your favour. Instead it pushes forward even more ruthless.

You/your nation/your culture/your wealth are considered a prey, and an obstacle on the way to true peace. You better believe me. Without doubt you won't, there is no room in your good-hearted worldviews for such a brutal reality. But still - you better should believe it.

The current pope has entered one important word into the Islam debate: that is "reciprocity". It cannot be that since almost half a century now we built mosques in the West en masse, and accept ridiculously high muslim immigration - and at the same time christian communities in muslim nations get opressed, get discriminated, get reduced in size, churches shut down, priest and nuns murdered on the streets. It cannot be that this monumental disbalance is accepted to be carried on in the name of an faint and still dying hope that what has not taken place in the past 50 years, hopefully will happen in the next 50 years. Islams goals are not the goals of the Western attempt to acchieve coexistence. Coexstince is something islam is not about. It is madness to assume any longer that our motves must be islam's motives as well.

I do not even go into the totally failed integration project in eurupre. England, Holland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden - the integration of Muslims has failed. No conclusions from that?

Know and understand your enemy. Never before has this old advise been so important for our surviving than today.

You know what? If Islam is the Cylons, then you are Sire Uri, and I am Commander Adama then.