A couple of stories caught the eye over Christmas:
QuoteSweden hit by third mosque arson attack in a week
AFP By Tom Sullivan
January 1, 2015 12:45 PM
Stockholm (AFP) - Swedish police launched a manhunt Thursday after the third arson attack against a mosque in a week, amid growing tensions over the rise of a far right anti-immigration movement.
"People saw a man throwing something burning at the building," police in Uppsala said in a statement, adding that the mosque in eastern Sweden did not catch fire and that the suspect had left behind "a text on the door expressing contempt for religion."
A police spokesman told Swedish news agency TT that the burning object was a Molotov cocktail and that no one was in the building at the time.
Sweden's Islamic Association posted a photograph online of the main door of the mosque, which was emblazoned with the slogan "Go home Muslim shit".
The police were alerted by passers-by, who reportedly witnessed the attack at around 0430 GMT.
"The crime has been classed as attempted arson, vandalism and incitement to hatred," the police said, appealing for witnesses to come forward.
Thursday's attack in Sweden's fourth-largest city came just three days after a late-night blaze at a mosque in Esloev in the south, which police suspect was also arson.
On Christmas Day, five people were injured when a petrol bomb was thrown through the window of a mosque in Eskilstuna, east of the capital Stockholm.
Sweden's leftist Prime Minister Stefan Loefven led condemnation of the latest attack.
"The most important thing now is that everyone distances themselves from this," he told TT.
"In Sweden no one should have to be afraid when they practice their religion," he added, saying the government would increase funding for securing places of worship.
- 'People are afraid' -
According to the anti-racism magazine Expo, there have been at least a dozen confirmed attacks on mosques in Sweden in the last year and a far larger number are believed to have gone unreported.
"People are afraid, they fear for their safety," Mohammad Kharraki a spokesman for Sweden's Islamic Association told AFP.
"We've seen through history that people use violence as a way of polarising society against minorities."
The attacks come as debate intensifies in Sweden over immigration and the integration of asylum seekers in the traditionally tolerant Nordic country, which is expected to receive more than 100,000 asylum applications this year, breaking all previous records.
Last month the far right Sweden Democrats -- which doubled its support to 13 percent in September elections -- came close to bringing down the left-green government over its liberal refugee policies. The party's support in opinion polls has risen to around 16 percent.
However in a last minute agreement on December 27, the government and centre right opposition parties cut a deal effectively denying the Sweden Democrats influence over major policy -- including over immigration.
Kharraki said the arson attacks could be carried out by "Sweden Democrats people who are angry because they've been pushed aside."
"They think Muslims are the problem," he said, while "mainstream political parties have taken a stand against racism and Islamophobia."
However, a spokesman for the Sweden Democrats said there was no reason to consider the attacks to be politically motivated.
"This is not political, it's criminal. It's criminals doing this and it's a police matter, not a political question," said Henrik Vinge.
"This type of violence is something we take very seriously.... It's unacceptable of course."
Muslim groups have called on politicians to join vigils in several cities around the country Friday to show their opposition to racially-motivated violence.
QuoteAngela Merkel issues New Year's warning over rightwing Pegida group
German chancellor claims leaders of movement, referred to as 'pinstripe Nazis', are rooted in prejudice, coldness, and hatred
The Guardian, Tuesday 30 December 2014 23.42 GMT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F12%2F30%2F1419982611661%2FThousands-Gather-In-Dresd-011.jpg&hash=977c33baeeee5ffc5c51026336ef52da5b3f0fda)
Participants in a Pegida demonstration of an estimated 17,000 people in Dresden, Germany. Photograph: Imago/Barcroft Media
German chancellor Angela Merkel in a New Year's address deplored the rise of a rightwing populist movement, saying its leaders have "prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts".
In her strongest comments yet on the so-called Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Pegida), she spoke of demonstrators shouting "we are the people", co-opting a slogan from the rallies that led up to the fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years ago.
"But what they really mean is: you are not one of us, because of your skin colour or your religion," Merkel said, according to a pre-released copy of a televised speech she was to due to deliver to the nation on Wednesday evening.
"So I say to all those who go to such demonstrations: do not follow those who have called the rallies. Because all too often they have prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts."
The nationalistic and xenophobic Pegida movement, only formed in late October, has since drawn more than 17,000 protesters on to the streets of the eastern city of Dresden, sparking heated debate and deep soul-searching in the country.
Merkel in her wide-ranging speech touched on crises such as west Africa's Ebola outbreak and the conflicts in Ukraine and Iraq and Syria, where the Islamic State group "brutally murders all those people who refuse to submit to its rule".
"One consequence of these wars and crises is that worldwide there are more refugees than we have seen since the second world war. Many literally escaped death," she said.
"It goes without saying that we help them and take in people who seek refuge with us," she said, pointing to the estimated 200,000-odd asylum seekers who have come this year to Europe's biggest economy to ask for a safe haven.
The chancellor mentioned demographics, the rapid ageing of the German population, as one of the key national challenges and called immigration "a gain for all of us".
Touching on the case of a Kurdish refugee who has settled in Germany, she said that it is "perhaps the biggest compliment" for the country to call it a place "where the children of the persecuted can grow up without fear".
Organized religion's gotta quit playing the race card.
Is Viking okay?
Does anybody have his number? :o
:lol:
Isn't Viking Norwegian or Icelandic? If so, why would things in Sweden and Germany involve him?
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2015, 03:19:06 AM
Isn't Viking Norwegian or Icelandic? If so, why would things in Sweden and Germany involve him?
Because he moves around quite a bit, and he is drawn to this stuff like a moth to a flame.
Yeah well whatchagonnado. It's been a long time since Swedish police actually caught criminals.
Well, after we burn through Europe and put and end to the death camps, we'll probably hang you bastards. That's kind of our thing.
I thought the joke was "slargos did it"?
First of all the reason I have particular contempt for islamic theology is that it leads many people to do violence and threaten violence. I certainly don't approve of violence or threats of violence being used against regular people getting on with their lives. There are no suspects in the Mosque burning; be it electric heater, rival muslim group or swedeish neo-nazis (who are a real problem).
PEGIDA hasn't actually done anything other than hold street demonstrations insisting their unhappiness with the present state of affairs. Calling them nazis is a mistake and is the central error sweden has made in dealing with the Sweden Democrats.
In any case I am too much of a misanthrope to show up to large gatherings of people... I am anti-violence so don't approve of arson... I am sufficiently Icelandic that when it's cold outside I stay inside...
I can't take Pegida seriously.
They say that mainstream press and politicians don't listen to them ...
... and Pegida has refused all attempts to talk to them (except one time when a satirist posed as RT journalist).
They say that there's no true freedom of speech in Germany ...
... but make use of it every Monday.
Their organizer says criminal foreigners should be deported ...
... but is a convicted criminal himself who fled to South Africa when he was hunted by the police.
They say the German mainstream media is full of lies ...
... but believe untrue stories when it suits them (BILD cobbled together a story about a request from politicians to sing Muslim songs in churches as a means of understanding, which turned out to be untrue).
A few who deigned to talk to the media are among other things against asylum seekers getting approved if they're not politically prosecuted at home ...
... which is what the law says right now.
It's a handful of people who are against "the guys up there" out of principal. They're against Islam in general (not helped by sensationalist media), though being a part of Germany with one of the lowest amounts of Muslims. They're scared and angry, but it's irrational fear. If anything, I guess they're people who feel disenfranchised by German reunification who feel they don't matter anymore.
They're using the 1989 protest slogan "We are the people," but where it was used in 1989 to oppose the government, it now smacks of excluding minorities - we're the people, and you're not.
Quote from: Viking on January 03, 2015, 06:39:37 AM
I thought the joke was "slargos did it"?
First of all the reason I have particular contempt for islamic theology is that it leads many people to do violence and threaten violence. I certainly don't approve of violence or threats of violence being used against regular people getting on with their lives. There are no suspects in the Mosque burning; be it electric heater, rival muslim group or swedeish neo-nazis (who are a real problem).
PEGIDA hasn't actually done anything other than hold street demonstrations insisting their unhappiness with the present state of affairs. Calling them nazis is a mistake and is the central error sweden has made in dealing with the Sweden Democrats.
In any case I am too much of a misanthrope to show up to large gatherings of people... I am anti-violence so don't approve of arson... I am sufficiently Icelandic that when it's cold outside I stay inside...
So no Alibi then. :hmm:
Quote from: Syt on January 03, 2015, 07:38:53 AM
A few who deigned to talk to the media are among other things against asylum seekers getting approved if they're not politically prosecuted at home ...
... which is what the law says right now.
Is that law actually applied, though, or do applications for asylum just sort of get rubber-stamped: "Well, you're seeking asylum so of course you're being persecuted in your homeland" when in fact the applicant might just be job-seeking, that type of thing. It's my impression that that sort of thing is common in some countries, but not in Germany, but I could be mistaken (after all, it's just an impression).
Quote from: Syt on January 03, 2015, 07:38:53 AM
A few who deigned to talk to the media are among other things against asylum seekers getting approved if they're not politically prosecuted at home ...
... which is what the law says right now.
Wait, so in Germany you can only get asylum if you are politically prosecuted at home? What of people fleeing conflict zones or people who are fleeing persecution on grounds of religion, sexuality and the like?
Quote from: Viking on January 03, 2015, 06:39:37 AM
I thought the joke was "slargos did it"?
It couldn't be him, it said "Muslim shit". Had it said "sand niggers"...
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2015, 01:05:31 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 03, 2015, 07:38:53 AM
A few who deigned to talk to the media are among other things against asylum seekers getting approved if they're not politically prosecuted at home ...
... which is what the law says right now.
Wait, so in Germany you can only get asylum if you are politically prosecuted at home? What of people fleeing conflict zones or people who are fleeing persecution on grounds of religion, sexuality and the like?
Well, those are included, too. Sorry, should have clarified that. Not 100% how prosecution because of sexuality is handled these days, though.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2015, 12:56:36 PM
Is that law actually applied, though, or do applications for asylum just sort of get rubber-stamped: "Well, you're seeking asylum so of course you're being persecuted in your homeland" when in fact the applicant might just be job-seeking, that type of thing. It's my impression that that sort of thing is common in some countries, but not in Germany, but I could be mistaken (after all, it's just an impression).
The procedure can take weeks and months to verify each case. But yeah, Pegida is against harboring asylum seekers who are looking for jobs/welfare over here. Again, that's already covered by the law, though.
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
Surprised you don't know after all that time in Iraq.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
It's the precursor smell to burning synagogue. Once they finish off Muslims, they'll eventually get around to the Jews. Whenever the fires of ethnic hatred are stoked, it always burns the Jews in the end.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 04:46:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
It's the precursor smell to burning synagogue. Once they finish off Muslims, they'll eventually get around to the Jews. Whenever the fires of ethnic hatred are stoked, it always burns the Jews in the end.
Huh. We have hated lots of people but never burned any Jews. That may be an uniquely European thing.
Yeah, it's not like the Mongols killed anyone. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 04:46:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
It's the precursor smell to burning synagogue. Once they finish off Muslims, they'll eventually get around to the Jews. Whenever the fires of ethnic hatred are stoked, it always burns the Jews in the end.
I think you have that backwards. The Euros pretty much finished off their Jews about 70 years ago. They're getting around to the Muslims now. Not sure if they have the Hindus or the Bhuddists schedules next; you'll have to ask one of our European posters.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 04:51:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 04:46:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
It's the precursor smell to burning synagogue. Once they finish off Muslims, they'll eventually get around to the Jews. Whenever the fires of ethnic hatred are stoked, it always burns the Jews in the end.
Huh. We have hated lots of people but never burned any Jews. That may be an uniquely European thing.
Ever hear the of the Knights of Mary Fhagan? After they lynched a Jewish man, they reformed the Ku Klux Klan. Whenever ethnic hatred arises, sooner or later the boot will fall on a Jew. Guaranteed. Fortunately most Jews are out of the reach of Europe, and their words are backed by nuclear weapons. If there was no Israel and those Jews had to live in Europe, they'd be treated like Roma. Bigotry is like a cataract, it spread across the eyeball. It distorts a man's vision of one people, and it'll soon distort the vision of groups as well.
Fortunately, as this thread shows, European Islamophobia is being nipped in the bud.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,12371.0.html
Or should I say "sniped in the bud"?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 04:51:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 04:46:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
It's the precursor smell to burning synagogue. Once they finish off Muslims, they'll eventually get around to the Jews. Whenever the fires of ethnic hatred are stoked, it always burns the Jews in the end.
Huh. We have hated lots of people but never burned any Jews. That may be an uniquely European thing.
Ever hear the of the Knights of Mary Fhagan? After they lynched a Jewish man, they reformed the Ku Klux Klan. Whenever ethnic hatred arises, sooner or later the boot will fall on a Jew. Guaranteed. Fortunately most Jews are out of the reach of Europe, and their words are backed by nuclear weapons. If there was no Israel and those Jews had to live in Europe, they'd be treated like Roma. Bigotry is like a cataract, it spread across the eyeball. It distorts a man's vision of one people, and it'll soon distort the vision of groups as well.
Is it really "bigoted" to dislike an ideology?
I mean, Europeans put people in camps, that's their thing. But just disliking Islam or worrying that Muslims may attain organized political power is not bigotry any more than disliking Christianity or worrying at the demonstrated negative outcomes Christians with organized political power have effected in the U.S.
Yeah. I guess Margaret Atwood is a bigot for writing "Handmaid's Tale".
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Meanwhile back in the Middle East, the carnage continues unabated, at least 33 people, many lining up to join the police, are murdered by a suicide car bomb this morning in the Yemen.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F80106000%2Fjpg%2F_80106937_80106936.jpg&hash=1e871a5e775f4d35da00fcc125f410adb63c9c16)
A policeman holds up the photo of one of the victims of the bomb attack in Sanaa (7 January 2015)
I thought I'd post this, as the image is telling without showing the graphic consequences of a car bomb on people's bodies, those images that are routinely censored here in the West, because we're assumed to be squeamish.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.
The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements.
For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.
The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements.
For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.
But that's not the case at all.
I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.
For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2015, 08:40:02 AM
Is it really "bigoted" to dislike an ideology?
I mean, Europeans put people in camps, that's their thing. But just disliking Islam or worrying that Muslims may attain organized political power is not bigotry any more than disliking Christianity or worrying at the demonstrated negative outcomes Christians with organized political power have effected in the U.S.
It is bigotry to dislike people because of their religion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Quote
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:34:34 AM
It is bigotry to dislike people because of their religion.
But is it bigotry to dislike their religion? Where does one draw the line? It seems like if we take that to its conclusion it is bigoted to dislike any idea.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
But that's not the case at all.
I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.
For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.
Would it be fair to dislike gays because of you dislike the core concept of homosexuality? Would violence committed by gays just be "icing on the cake"?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Would it be fair to dislike gays because of you dislike the core concept of homosexuality?
Why wouldn't it be? Of course I am not sure what a core concept of a sexuality might be.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 10:38:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:34:34 AM
It is bigotry to dislike people because of their religion.
But is it bigotry to dislike their religion? Where does one draw the line? It seems like if we take that to its conclusion it is bigoted to dislike any idea.
Let's draw it far behind where Viking stands.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 10:39:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Would it be fair to dislike gays because of you dislike the core concept of homosexuality?
Why wouldn't it be? Of course I am not sure what a core concept of a sexuality might be.
Let's say I don't like gays because I have a principled stand against men sucking cock. Would that make me a bigot? I think that's fair enough.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.
The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements.
For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.
But that's not the case at all.
I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.
For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.
Islam's "core tenents" on homosexuality are exactly the same as those of Christianity and Judaism - and in fact are based on them: for example, the primary source on homosexuality is quoted as follows:
Quote"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
"Lut" = Lot; this is a reference to the OT story about Sodom (a story also, as you know, influential on Jews and Christians).
All three religions, traditionally and by their 'core beliefs', condemned male homosexuality, in similar terms. The main difference is how modern-day religious people enforce such prohibitions. All three religions have what may be broadly called "liberal" variants that contend that gay is okay (or at least not punishable). The difference is that most of the Islamic population is located in dark-ages-type countries and follows harsher varieties of the creed.
As can be seen, of Muslim-majority countries, the legal situation varies a lot, but in general majority Islamic countries are retarded in this respect (as in many others) when compared with the West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
This is mostly a matter of the relative retardation of culture in those countries. In medieval times straight through to the modern era, the situation was exactly the reverse: better to have been a gay Turk or Persian circa 1800, than a gay Englishman in 1950 - witness Alan Turing.
In short, there is no rational reason to prefer the "cire tenents" of Christianity of Judaism over those of Islam when it comes to homosexuality, as they are the same.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:34:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2015, 08:40:02 AM
Is it really "bigoted" to dislike an ideology?
I mean, Europeans put people in camps, that's their thing. But just disliking Islam or worrying that Muslims may attain organized political power is not bigotry any more than disliking Christianity or worrying at the demonstrated negative outcomes Christians with organized political power have effected in the U.S.
It is bigotry to dislike people because of their religion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Quote
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
Malthus seems to be under the impression that Jewish law was all transferred to Christianity. Uncircumcised christian bacon eaters would disagree.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 10:38:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:34:34 AM
It is bigotry to dislike people because of their religion.
But is it bigotry to dislike their religion? Where does one draw the line? It seems like if we take that to its conclusion it is bigoted to dislike any idea.
It depends on what is covered by "dislike their religion"; why and especially how matters.
Say you dislike a religion that is not your own because in your observation, believers tend towards a behaviour you find unpleasant. When talking about it, a bigot will consistently focus on the link between the behaviour and the religion, a non-bigot will not; when attempting to combat the behaviour, the bigot will focus on the link to the religion and try to combat the religion, the non-bigots will not; and when meeting new people belonging to the religion, the bigot will assume they approve of and indulge in the behaviour (perhaps secretly), the non-bigot will not.
It's the difference between noting a correlation and assuming causality.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:56:06 AM
Malthus seems to be under the impression that Jewish law was all transferred to Christianity. Uncircumcised christian bacon eaters would disagree.
Much of it in fact was. Christianity looks to Jewish laws taken from the OT, just not all of them: for example, most Christians believe in the 10 Commandments, and people would look at you funny if you claimed they didn't apply to Christians because they were "Jewish".
As it happens, homosexuality happens to be a case where, until modern liberalism, Christianity *did* look to Jewish law; and they had at least some support in the Gospels for this.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:06:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:56:06 AM
Malthus seems to be under the impression that Jewish law was all transferred to Christianity. Uncircumcised christian bacon eaters would disagree.
Much of it in fact was. Christianity looks to Jewish laws taken from the OT, just not all of them: for example, most Christians believe in the 10 Commandments, and people would look at you funny if you claimed they didn't apply to Christians because they were "Jewish".
As it happens, homosexuality happens to be a case where, until modern liberalism, Christianity *did* look to Jewish law; and they had at least some support in the Gospels for this.
No christians believe in the 10 commandments, they believe in 9 of them and split one into to to keep the number nice and round. The reason tolerance of shrimp eating, pork eating, ass fucking, sunday working etc.etc. is that Christianity has rarely held the position that the jewish law applies. At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god and what is sin... which of course is done as if the law were a buffet where they pick and choose.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 10:39:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Would it be fair to dislike gays because of you dislike the core concept of homosexuality?
Why wouldn't it be? Of course I am not sure what a core concept of a sexuality might be.
Let's say I don't like gays because I have a principled stand against men sucking cock. Would that make me a bigot? I think that's fair enough.
But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.
Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 10:46:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.
The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements.
For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.
But that's not the case at all.
I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.
For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.
Islam's "core tenents" on homosexuality are exactly the same as those of Christianity and Judaism - and in fact are based on them: for example, the primary source on homosexuality is quoted as follows:
Quote"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
"Lut" = Lot; this is a reference to the OT story about Sodom (a story also, as you know, influential on Jews and Christians).
All three religions, traditionally and by their 'core beliefs', condemned male homosexuality, in similar terms. The main difference is how modern-day religious people enforce such prohibitions. All three religions have what may be broadly called "liberal" variants that contend that gay is okay (or at least not punishable). The difference is that most of the Islamic population is located in dark-ages-type countries and follows harsher varieties of the creed.
As can be seen, of Muslim-majority countries, the legal situation varies a lot, but in general majority Islamic countries are retarded in this respect (as in many others) when compared with the West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
This is mostly a matter of the relative retardation of culture in those countries. In medieval times straight through to the modern era, the situation was exactly the reverse: better to have been a gay Turk or Persian circa 1800, than a gay Englishman in 1950 - witness Alan Turing.
In short, there is no rational reason to prefer the "cire tenents" of Christianity of Judaism over those of Islam when it comes to homosexuality, as they are the same.
Malthus not sure what your point is but I agree with you 100%. I don't think I have ever given an impression that I am a great fan of any established religion, especially of the monotheistic kind. I like the new Pope, but that does not prevent me from disliking catholicism, especially its retarded, Polish version. Just as I particularly dislike Islam as the most retarded of all Abrahameic religions (at least today) for exactly the reasons you mention.
I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?
This is the part that I find retarded - from an atheist/secular perspective there is no difference between a religion and an ideology - and there shouldn't be. Of course it's Raz and you said you are not interested in reading drivel. I'd rather read Quran than Raz's posts.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?
Well, I suppose one shouldn't be judgmental though. If someone says they are a big fan of Hitler's work, they could very well mean vegetarianism and well organised train schedules, and you shouldn't immediately assume they mean Holocaust. ;)
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:06:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:56:06 AM
Malthus seems to be under the impression that Jewish law was all transferred to Christianity. Uncircumcised christian bacon eaters would disagree.
Much of it in fact was. Christianity looks to Jewish laws taken from the OT, just not all of them: for example, most Christians believe in the 10 Commandments, and people would look at you funny if you claimed they didn't apply to Christians because they were "Jewish".
As it happens, homosexuality happens to be a case where, until modern liberalism, Christianity *did* look to Jewish law; and they had at least some support in the Gospels for this.
No christians believe in the 10 commandments, they believe in 9 of them and split one into to to keep the number nice and round. The reason tolerance of shrimp eating, pork eating, ass fucking, sunday working etc.etc. is that Christianity has rarely held the position that the jewish law applies. At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god and what is sin... which of course is done as if the law were a buffet where they pick and choose.
Various Christians and Jews number them differently; they do not
omit any (except for Lutherens, who omit the prohibition on images). They are, in fact, the same "ten commandments".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Traditions_for_numbering
You are simply factually wrong on this. Until very recently, every major Christian denomination opposed homosexuality as sinful (and most still do), based on Leviticus, the story of Sodom, and various statements in the Gospels.
The notion that Christianity holus-bolus discarded the OT as a source of religious commandments (or ' At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god') is simply unhistorical and wrong.
they all omit the "Thou shalt not make graven images". Because, y'know
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbustedhalo.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fcrucifix-2-flash.jpg&hash=df594ca9177dfb36db213611ade30a8b57ba87e2)
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:26:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 10:46:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.
I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.
That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.
Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.
The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements.
For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.
But that's not the case at all.
I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.
For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.
Islam's "core tenents" on homosexuality are exactly the same as those of Christianity and Judaism - and in fact are based on them: for example, the primary source on homosexuality is quoted as follows:
Quote"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
"Lut" = Lot; this is a reference to the OT story about Sodom (a story also, as you know, influential on Jews and Christians).
All three religions, traditionally and by their 'core beliefs', condemned male homosexuality, in similar terms. The main difference is how modern-day religious people enforce such prohibitions. All three religions have what may be broadly called "liberal" variants that contend that gay is okay (or at least not punishable). The difference is that most of the Islamic population is located in dark-ages-type countries and follows harsher varieties of the creed.
As can be seen, of Muslim-majority countries, the legal situation varies a lot, but in general majority Islamic countries are retarded in this respect (as in many others) when compared with the West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
This is mostly a matter of the relative retardation of culture in those countries. In medieval times straight through to the modern era, the situation was exactly the reverse: better to have been a gay Turk or Persian circa 1800, than a gay Englishman in 1950 - witness Alan Turing.
In short, there is no rational reason to prefer the "cire tenents" of Christianity of Judaism over those of Islam when it comes to homosexuality, as they are the same.
Malthus not sure what your point is but I agree with you 100%. I don't think I have ever given an impression that I am a great fan of any established religion, especially of the monotheistic kind. I like the new Pope, but that does not prevent me from disliking catholicism, especially its retarded, Polish version. Just as I particularly dislike Islam as the most retarded of all Abrahameic religions (at least today) for exactly the reasons you mention.
That's probably because, if what you say is true, you aren't really "Islamophobic". A true Islamophobe is far more likely to argue that there is an essential difference between Islam and the other major religions (most especially, the one his culture follows in the majority) - that it is Islam, and not culture more generally, that is 'the problem'.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?
The Nazi share of the vote peaked in 1933 at around 44%, I like to think that most of them were merely misguided, the ideology is utter anathema of course.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?
Are you arguing that ideologies should be treated like religions? Because that's counter to what you have argued before. "Atheism is no more a religion then bald is a hair color".
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:33:30 AM
they all omit the "Thou shalt not make graven images". Because, y'know
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbustedhalo.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fcrucifix-2-flash.jpg&hash=df594ca9177dfb36db213611ade30a8b57ba87e2)
Again, you are provably wrong. Did you not even look at my link above?
Catholicism, the most 'graven image' branch of Christianity of them all, retains that prohibition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_in_Roman_Catholic_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_in_Roman_Catholic_theology#Graven_images
QuoteWhile Catholics are sometimes accused of worshiping images, in violation of the first commandment,[36] the Church says this is a misunderstanding. In the Church's opinion, "the honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration', not the adoration due to God alone".[36][37] In the 8th century, heated arguments arose over whether religious icons (in this context paintings) were prohibited by the first commandment. The dispute was almost entirely restricted to the Eastern church; the iconoclasts wished to prohibit icons, while the iconodules supported their veneration, a position consistently backed by the Western Church. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the ecumenical council determined that the veneration of icons and statues was not in violation of the commandment and stated "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[38][note 2] At around the time of the controversy over Iconoclasm, the Western church began to use monumental sculpture, which by the Romanesque period became a major feature of Western Christian art, that has remained part of the Catholic tradition, in contrast to Eastern Christianity, which avoids large religious sculpture. The Catechism, using very traditional arguments, posits that God gave permission for images that symbolize Christian salvation by leaving symbols such as the bronze serpent, and the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. It states that "by becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new economy of images".[36][37]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) explain the Catechism in their book entitled United States Catechism for Adults, published in 2006. Regarding graven images, they expound that this command addresses idolatry that in ancient times expressed itself in the worship of such things as the "sun, moon, stars, trees, bulls, eagles, and serpents" as well as "emperors and kings". They explain that today, idolatry expresses itself in the worship of other things, and list some as "power, money, materialism and sports."[40]
This is hardly controversial stuff ...
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:23:13 AM
But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.
Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.
Ah, but when we had the French veil ban thread you were very much in favor of limiting the rights of others. When you say you can dislike Islam but not dislike individual Muslims, does mean you dislike Muslims as a whole?
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:35:10 AM
That's probably because, if what you say is true, you aren't really "Islamophobic". A true Islamophobe is far more likely to argue that there is an essential difference between Islam and the other major religions (most especially, the one his culture follows in the majority) - that it is Islam, and not culture more generally, that is 'the problem'.
Could be - I think the only person to call me Islamophobic was Raz so I probably shouldnt worry too much. ;)
But seriously, my views are fairly similar to those of Bill Maher - and he has been accused of racism and islamophobia by some segments of the left.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:35:10 AM
That's probably because, if what you say is true, you aren't really "Islamophobic". A true Islamophobe is far more likely to argue that there is an essential difference between Islam and the other major religions (most especially, the one his culture follows in the majority) - that it is Islam, and not culture more generally, that is 'the problem'.
I'd argue that all religions are different due to their theology. What they teach makes them different. Religions are not competing brands of Unitarianism, their doctrines have consequences.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?
Are you arguing that ideologies should be treated like religions? Because that's counter to what you have argued before. "Atheism is no more a religion then bald is a hair color".
:wacko:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:23:13 AM
But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.
Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.
Ah, but when we had the French veil ban thread you were very much in favor of limiting the rights of others. When you say you can dislike Islam but not dislike individual Muslims, does mean you dislike Muslims as a whole?
That's as much limiting rights of muslims, as banning human sacrifice is limiting the rights of worshippers of Kali.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
This is hardly controversial stuff ...
They skipped the graven images one and split the old coveting the wife and ass into two commandments. Jewish law does not apply to Christians. In any case my position stands until you somehow show that eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabrics or working on a sunday are universally or to a large extent considered sin by christians.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
is it bigoted to dislike nazis?
I don't think National Socialism is a religion. Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions. For instance Rexism.
So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?
Are you arguing that ideologies should be treated like religions? Because that's counter to what you have argued before. "Atheism is no more a religion then bald is a hair color".
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:23:13 AM
But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.
Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.
Ah, but when we had the French veil ban thread you were very much in favor of limiting the rights of others. When you say you can dislike Islam but not dislike individual Muslims, does mean you dislike Muslims as a whole?
That's as much limiting rights of muslims, as banning human sacrifice is limiting the rights of worshippers of Kali.
Human sacrifice= wearing a scarf? That's why we missed you Marty.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 11:40:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:35:10 AM
That's probably because, if what you say is true, you aren't really "Islamophobic". A true Islamophobe is far more likely to argue that there is an essential difference between Islam and the other major religions (most especially, the one his culture follows in the majority) - that it is Islam, and not culture more generally, that is 'the problem'.
Could be - I think the only person to call me Islamophobic was Raz so I probably shouldnt worry too much. ;)
But seriously, my views are fairly similar to those of Bill Maher - and he has been accused of racism and islamophobia by some segments of the left.
Uh... That's cause you live in Poland.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
:huh:
Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well. Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well. Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.
He said that both should be treated as ideas but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that they are the same.
You and I are people and I think we should both be treated as people but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that we are the same.
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 12:01:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well. Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.
He said that both should be treated as ideas but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that they are the same.
You and I are people and I think we should both be treated as people but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that we are the same.
We are the same before the law.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 10:56:57 AM
It depends on what is covered by "dislike their religion"; why and especially how matters.
Say you dislike a religion that is not your own because in your observation, believers tend towards a behaviour you find unpleasant. When talking about it, a bigot will consistently focus on the link between the behaviour and the religion, a non-bigot will not; when attempting to combat the behaviour, the bigot will focus on the link to the religion and try to combat the religion, the non-bigots will not; and when meeting new people belonging to the religion, the bigot will assume they approve of and indulge in the behaviour (perhaps secretly), the non-bigot will not.
It's the difference between noting a correlation and assuming causality.
Yep. It's an irrational prejudice against Muslims. I think your view on Islam is more or less irrelevant.
And of course Islamophobia isn't a perfect word. But irrational against Muslims (not Islam) does exist and Islamophobia's the word we've got.
QuoteOf course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.
See that angers me. I'd tell the former to fuck off/kick up a fuss and tell the latter to stop thinking about gay sex :lol:
I am going to go on a rant.
We all agree (mostly) that not all Muslims are violent sociopaths. Most Muslims I know are very good, welcoming, chaps. We all know, except a few intellectually dishonest, that all of this is the fault of a tiny minority of radicals; that we should hate Islamism but not Islam, yada yada yada. That said, the bottom line is, we don't see newly converted Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Gays or Republicans or Democrats run amok inside killing policemen, or run outside to battlezones to get to kill and rape and kidnap humanitarians to bleed them by the neck in front of a camera. These pigs have one thing in common, they profess a Muslim faith. Thus, it becomes as much a problem for "real", law-abiding Muslims than for us Westerners, and it should be so. Just them staying in the side and repeatingly screaming "WE are not causing this, it's not the fault of Islam but of a few monsters hiding behind Islamism to commit crimes" is not enough anymore. It's bullshit.
Perhaps when Muslim communities at large, collectively, start to feel some seriously unwarranted heat (like peaceful imams vocally being shut down, normal Muslims shunned in the streets, visas suspended and them threatened to be returned to their countries of origin) because of the acts of a tiny minority of barbarians, hiding behind their religion and in their midst to commit their atrocities, one day they will feel compelled to take action, physically root them themselves out of their collectivities, and throw them under the bus so that they stop hurting their own community. Because one day, these countrymen that have opened their arms wide to welcome them, sometimes to the point of spinelessly tolerating some of its most rabid anti-Western elements to spew their bile freely because we have freedom of speech, will start to lose patience. I really fear the recent attack will ciment a very real victory for Le Pen's and her National Front in France. More and more citizens are starting to feel defenceless and wanting to lash back, and others might stop to rely on the police and the military to protect them after the fact and take things into their own hands preemptively befor it happens.
And in truth, seeing how things are turning, I wouldn't blame them. It's not right, it certain not moral, but it stops being morally undefensible. We are collectively threatened by a bunch of thugs who want no less then our moral, if not our physical destruction.
That it is why it is critical that Muslims, publicly, vocally, and repeatedly denounce Islamism, that they actively cooperate with authorities AND hunt down Islamotards within their midst. Yes, they now need to show where their loyalties lie, that they are law-abiding citizens, because their silence can now be interpreted as tacit agreement and passive support. We all agree that collective guilt is not a good thing, but it does serve a purpose: get them to get rid of this problem by themselves and show they follow both the law and the rules of their host, before the host lose patience and kick all the guests out with a shotgun muttering "get off my lawn".
I should have stopped reading that the word rant. :rolleyes:
So, say, Drakkan - if a Muslim imam denounces the radical Islamicists and says the fighting and terrorism is unislamic to the point that he is stabbed or otherwise attacked on seven different occasions... is that the sort of thing you are looking for?
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 12:27:53 PM
I should have stopped reading that the word rant. :rolleyes:
Except that I support and defend your right to disagree. I won't threaten to come over and physically silence you because you do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 12:19:34 PM
And of course Islamophobia isn't a perfect word. But irrational against Muslims (not Islam) does exist and Islamophobia's the word we've got.
It's a fine word, it's the usage that's problematic, in the same way that Israel's labeling of any criticism of itself as anti-Semitic is problematic.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
Secular religion? Does the meaning of words matter to you at all? In any case do your best, you are free to insult my ethics morals and values as much as you can. It doesn't insult me I just consider it part of normal discourse.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 12:29:53 PM
So, say, Drakkan - if a Muslim imam denounces the radical Islamicists and says the fighting and terrorism is unislamic to the point that he is stabbed or otherwise attacked on seven different occasions... is that the sort of thing you are looking for?
Yes, that exact sort of intervention and mobilization. Officially, vocally, and repeatedly.
That a Muslim imam would be stabbed and repeatedly attacked because of doing what is the right thing to do, shows that something is fucked up inside that religion that needs to be addressed quickly inside that community. I've never seen a Bishop being murdered by his parishioners inside his own Church because he professed women should be allowed to become Catholic priests.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2015, 12:32:09 PM
It's a fine word, it's the usage that's problematic, in the same way that Israel's labeling of any criticism of itself as anti-Semitic is problematic.
Okay, I agree. John Kerry is not the mouthpiece of anti-semitism for example. And I don't think it should be used to silence people either (you do that by winning the argument).
But I think that it (and its cousin anti-semitism) is a problem that exists in Europe and is growing and should be confronted.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 12:33:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
Secular religion? Does the meaning of words matter to you at all? In any case do your best, you are free to insult my ethics morals and values as much as you can. It doesn't insult me I just consider it part of normal discourse.
Ah, so religion is just some ideas, but Atheism, that's special? I'm not insulting your beliefs I'm trying to clarify what you mean. I insult your method of posting stuff you haven't taken time to read, because someone else has told you that it makes your case. But let me ask you something, do you think religion should be banned? You have said that religion is simply a bunch of ideas, but in many countries in the EU ideas are banned like Nazism (which you keep bring up for some reason). Since you have said that religion should enjoy no special status over other ideas, presumably then this would be okay in the countries where certain ideas are banned (like Nazism).
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
Until very recently, every major Christian denomination opposed homosexuality as sinful (and most still do), based on Leviticus, the story of Sodom, and various statements in the Gospels.
What statements in the gospels? As far as I know this is only mentioned by Paul.
But anyway I think people's problems with living under certain religions has to do with what happens now rather than what may or may not have happened 70 years ago. If a major Islamic sect became as gay friendly as the Anglican church is today I don't think Marty would have a problem with their 'core beliefs'.
As for me I have a serious problem with religions who have sets of laws....in the sense I would never be a part of such a religion and if somebody asked my advice about joining such a religion I would be against it.
Quote from: Drakken on January 07, 2015, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 12:27:53 PM
I should have stopped reading that the word rant. :rolleyes:
Except that I support and defend your right to disagree. I won't threaten to come over and physically silence you because you do.
ok?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 12:49:21 PM
Ah, so religion is just some ideas, but Atheism, that's special?
Strange why is religion not capitalized but Atheism is? You are aware there are many sorts of atheism like there are many sorts of religions right?
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 07, 2015, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 12:27:53 PM
I should have stopped reading that the word rant. :rolleyes:
Except that I support and defend your right to disagree. I won't threaten to come over and physically silence you because you do.
ok?
But apparently people who share his beliefs may burn down your buildings.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 12:58:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 12:49:21 PM
Ah, so religion is just some ideas, but Atheism, that's special?
Strange why is religion not capitalized but Atheism is? You are aware there are many sorts of atheism like there are many sorts of religions right?
I wasn't really aware of that. Are there Atheists who believe in the divine?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2015, 12:58:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 12:49:21 PM
Ah, so religion is just some ideas, but Atheism, that's special?
Strange why is religion not capitalized but Atheism is? You are aware there are many sorts of atheism like there are many sorts of religions right?
I wasn't really aware of that. Are there Atheists who believe in the divine?
No but what they do believe in can vary pretty radically.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2015, 03:55:33 PM
I wonder how does a burning mosque smells.
Surprised you don't know after all that time in Iraq.
Why would you assume that I would target mosques or that I would look the other way when my guys did target practice on mosques?
Our RoE explicity state that we can only shoot at mosques when directly getting shot from mosques.
This means that even if you hear a mosque firing indirect (mortars, rockets, catapults, etc) you cannot shoot at them.
We had to get the pussies in the local police to got into the mosque and check.
Normally they came out saying" Mister, mister, all okay. No Ali Baba here, mister."
Then the dudes in the mosque wait a few minutes, and continue shooting.
Therefore, from time to time mosques got hit by stray bullets, usually from M2s and Mk19s.
Occasionally they got on fire, but I was too far out to smell it.
Regardless, we never got authorization to drop a Jdam on them.
That kind of munition has to be approved way up.
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2015, 01:20:40 PM(mortars, rockets, catapults, etc)
:unsure: Have you actually come under fire from a catapult once?
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2015, 01:20:40 PM
Why would you assume that I would target mosques or that I would look the other way when my guys did target practice on mosques?
I didn't. I just assumed Shias and Sunnis blew up each others' Mosques.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
This is hardly controversial stuff ...
They skipped the graven images one and split the old coveting the wife and ass into two commandments. Jewish law does not apply to Christians. In any case my position stands until you somehow show that eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabrics or working on a sunday are universally or to a large extent considered sin by christians.
No they don't. Show me an actual source that says Roman Catholics do not have the commandment against graven images.
This particular bit of nonsense is, apparently, stated by anti-Catholic religious loonies, but has no basis in reality.
Here's a Catholic refutation. Are you claiming that you know Catholic doctrine better than Catholics?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/catholic-doctrines-and-practices/graven-images-altering-the-commandments/
QuoteAccording to this booklet, one "mark of the beast" is the alteration of God's Commandments. The booklet claims that the Catholic Church dropped the "Second Commandment" which forbids "graven images", i.e. statues. Allegedly the Catholic Church condones statue worship.
...
The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment" as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments.
You are simply wrong on the facts. You have mistakenly accepted an anti-Catholic canard invented by fundies as the truth.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
The notion that Christianity holus-bolus discarded the OT as a source of religious commandments (or ' At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god') is simply unhistorical and wrong.
:yes:
There was a Christian sect which believed the Jewish writings should not form part of acceptable Christian teaching but that view did not win out.
It's complicated :P
Quote from: Syt on January 07, 2015, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2015, 01:20:40 PM(mortars, rockets, catapults, etc)
:unsure: Have you actually come under fire from a catapult once?
It was a poor joke about the quality of Iraqi equipment and training.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
This is hardly controversial stuff ...
They skipped the graven images one and split the old coveting the wife and ass into two commandments. Jewish law does not apply to Christians. In any case my position stands until you somehow show that eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabrics or working on a sunday are universally or to a large extent considered sin by christians.
No they don't. Show me an actual source that says Roman Catholics do not have the commandment against graven images.
This particular bit of nonsense is, apparently, stated by anti-Catholic religious loonies, but has no basis in reality.
Here's a Catholic refutation. Are you claiming that you know Catholic doctrine better than Catholics?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/catholic-doctrines-and-practices/graven-images-altering-the-commandments/
QuoteAccording to this booklet, one "mark of the beast" is the alteration of God's Commandments. The booklet claims that the Catholic Church dropped the "Second Commandment" which forbids "graven images", i.e. statues. Allegedly the Catholic Church condones statue worship.
...
The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment" as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments.
You are simply wrong on the facts. You have mistakenly accepted an anti-Catholic canard invented by fundies as the truth.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
This is hardly controversial stuff ...
They skipped the graven images one and split the old coveting the wife and ass into two commandments. Jewish law does not apply to Christians. In any case my position stands until you somehow show that eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabrics or working on a sunday are universally or to a large extent considered sin by christians.
No they don't. Show me an actual source that says Roman Catholics do not have the commandment against graven images.
This particular bit of nonsense is, apparently, stated by anti-Catholic religious loonies, but has no basis in reality.
Here's a Catholic refutation. Are you claiming that you know Catholic doctrine better than Catholics?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/catholic-doctrines-and-practices/graven-images-altering-the-commandments/
QuoteAccording to this booklet, one "mark of the beast" is the alteration of God's Commandments. The booklet claims that the Catholic Church dropped the "Second Commandment" which forbids "graven images", i.e. statues. Allegedly the Catholic Church condones statue worship.
...
The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment" as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments.
You are simply wrong on the facts. You have mistakenly accepted an anti-Catholic canard invented by fundies as the truth.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
So, you *are* still claiming that Catholics dropped the graven image commandment? Even after it was
clearly explained that this was simply a numbering issue, and it falls within the first bit of the Catchetism - which is a 'short form' for ease of rememberance?
Incredible.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
Incredible.
I thought he was posting it to show that he was now agreeing with you :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 02:11:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
Incredible.
I thought he was posting it to show that he was now agreeing with you :(
Well, if that is the case, colour me wrong. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:14:05 PM
Well, if that is the case, colour me wrong. :Embarrass:
:lol:
Viking never admits he is wrong. CC was making a joke.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:14:05 PM
Well, if that is the case, colour me wrong. :Embarrass:
:lol:
Viking never admits he is wrong. CC was making a joke.
I can't win! :weep:
;)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. :huh:
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
Honey, you're not on any list.
Hey, stop ganging up on Martinus.
You know he cannot take it and will bounce.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 02:11:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
Incredible.
I thought he was posting it to show that he was now agreeing with you :(
No, it still remains that Christianity did not Import Jewish law. That was the issue at hand. I said that christians do not on the whole have a prohibition on graven images as the jewish law does have, it was an example of this. Malthus choose to ignore this and point out that the Catholic church argues that it's 10 commandments are the correct and true ones and there was no point in time when there were a true set of 10 commandments which the catholic church then edited. The point being they ignore the prohibition of graven images in Exodus.
All of this is besides the point. Virtually no christian denomination insists on jewish laws on other issues like shrimp, mixed fabrics, bacon etc. etc. They follow the ones they want.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 02:11:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
Incredible.
I thought he was posting it to show that he was now agreeing with you :(
No, it still remains that Christianity did not Import Jewish law. That was the issue at hand. I said that christians do not on the whole have a prohibition on graven images as the jewish law does have, it was an example of this. Malthus choose to ignore this and point out that the Catholic church argues that it's 10 commandments are the correct and true ones and there was no point in time when there were a true set of 10 commandments which the catholic church then edited. The point being they ignore the prohibition of graven images in Exodus.
All of this is besides the point. Virtually no christian denomination insists on jewish laws on other issues like shrimp, mixed fabrics, bacon etc. etc. They follow the ones they want.
Yup. And for example on homosexuality, the Catholic Church is mainly using Paul's letter, rather than Sodom and Gomorrah or Leviticus to justify its stance.
A downside to multi-culturalism is the belief that people's various religions have a role to play in public life.
Quote from: mongers on January 07, 2015, 03:03:52 PM
A downside to multi-culturalism is the belief that people's various religions have a role to play in public life.
Well dude, Darwinism.
If a religion has followers its leaders will have a say in pubic life.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 02:11:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 02:08:33 PM
Incredible.
I thought he was posting it to show that he was now agreeing with you :(
No, it still remains that Christianity did not Import Jewish law. That was the issue at hand. I said that christians do not on the whole have a prohibition on graven images as the jewish law does have, it was an example of this. Malthus choose to ignore this and point out that the Catholic church argues that it's 10 commandments are the correct and true ones and there was no point in time when there were a true set of 10 commandments which the catholic church then edited. The point being they ignore the prohibition of graven images in Exodus.
All of this is besides the point. Virtually no christian denomination insists on jewish laws on other issues like shrimp, mixed fabrics, bacon etc. etc. They follow the ones they want.
I was simply taking you to task for, quite incorrectly, claiming that Roman Catholicism ditched the commandment against graven images - which it hasn't.
This was part of my general point - that Christianity has indeed absorbed much of its law from Judaism, or rather, the OT (starting, of course, with the ten commandments). Given your refusal to concede on this, it seemed foolish to move on. If you won't even concede the most basic, well-attested stuff, what hope is there for more controversial business?
Christianity did indeed ditch much of the Jewish law. Basically, it ditched the prohibitions concerning "ceremonial requirements", but kept those concerning "moral requirements". Guess which category Catholics place homosexuality?
Here's the Catholic approach on "Catholic.com". Note that it is expressly approved by the papacy and a Bishop. Note the reliance on Sodom, on Leviticus, as well as on the Gospels, and "Natural Law". This is absolutely typical of Catholic reasoning - to be based on a bunch of sources of authority, not on the gospels alone.
Quote
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
Divine Law
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God's destruction of Sodom was its people's homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city's destruction. We must look to Scripture's own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God's wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament's ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament's forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
Natural Law
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
"I Was Born This Way"
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
The Ten Percent Argument
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey's subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey's research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.
"You're Just a Homophobe"
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person's arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one's position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
The Call to Chastity
The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality's] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).
Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.
Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001
(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Now, who are we going to believe on the topic of Catholicsm - the Catholic Church, or Viking and Martinus? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:09:37 PM
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Now, who are we going to believe on the topic of Catholicsm - the Catholic Church, or Viking and Martinus? :hmm:
Again, off topic. Are you trying to say that Jewish Law IS imported into Christianity with all it's foreskin cutting, bacon banning etc. or are you talking about something else?
:huh:
V, you started saying that Malthus is confused and seems to be saying that all from Judaism was ported into Christianity. Malthus noted that much was and then you got yourself lost in a rabbit hole of trying to say that Catholicism had dropped a commandment to refute a stance that Malthus had never adopted (mainly that all from Judaism is in Christianity).
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 03:27:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:09:37 PM
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Now, who are we going to believe on the topic of Catholicsm - the Catholic Church, or Viking and Martinus? :hmm:
Again, off topic. Are you trying to say that Jewish Law IS imported into Christianity with all it's foreskin cutting, bacon banning etc. or are you talking about something else?
Huh? It is directly on topic. Did you even read what I posted?
The point is a simple one: Accordinmg to Catholics, Christianity imports the "moral" commandments, does not import the "ceremonial" commandments. Bacon banning and foreskin cutting are "ceremonial" commandments, thus discarded. Anti-homosexuality is a "moral" commandment, thus retained.
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the
first category.
Or, as the article above puts it:
QuoteTo discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament's ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
In fact, the article uses exactly the same two examples you do! :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
Not available in Polish for your local Tatars? Getting a "critical" edition with an index for the suras and their chronological order e.g for the abrogation concept and see how Mahomet evolves is a must.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 03:27:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:09:37 PM
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Now, who are we going to believe on the topic of Catholicsm - the Catholic Church, or Viking and Martinus? :hmm:
Again, off topic. Are you trying to say that Jewish Law IS imported into Christianity with all it's foreskin cutting, bacon banning etc. or are you talking about something else?
This is going to get boring fast if you keep responding to something Malthus isn't writing.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
Point being here that it is subjective, not absolute. I might ask if you read my previous posts where I said that the old laws are guides to the mind of god. The central point here is that you can ignore them, guided by the holy ghost. The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws. Christianity falls into the first, Islam into the second. This is the reason why Christianity (and Rabbinical Judaism) can get around the laws while Islam (and TempleJudaism) cannot.
On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?
In terms of the topic I think Nigel Farage's attack this evening on a 'fifth column living amongst us, holding our passports' is sailing pretty close to the wind.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?
In terms of the topic I think Nigel Farage's attack this evening on a 'fifth column living amongst us, holding our passports' is sailing pretty close to the wind.
Yep, lock him up for hate speech.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:11:56 PM
Yep, lock him up for hate speech.
That's a bit of a leap isn't it :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?
On the basis of
Viking's 100% Guaranteed Purely Rational and Not Idiosyncratic at all Taxonomy of Moral Thought.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. :huh:
Okay, so is acceptable to ban religion? Certain ideas are banned in Europe, correct?
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
Point being here that it is subjective, not absolute. I might ask if you read my previous posts where I said that the old laws are guides to the mind of god. The central point here is that you can ignore them, guided by the holy ghost. The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws. Christianity falls into the first, Islam into the second. This is the reason why Christianity (and Rabbinical Judaism) can get around the laws while Islam (and TempleJudaism) cannot.
No, you can't. Not if you are a Catholic believer, any way.
As the article put it, "While the Old Testament's ceremonial requirements are no longer binding,
its moral requirements are. ". The Church, with all its authority, states that men fucking men is a moral wrong, based in large part on the "moral requirements" found in the OT; the 'moral' basis of these OT commandments is buttressed (as it were) by the Gospels and "natural law".
No Catholic authority, anywhere, claims you can simply "ignore them, guided by the holy ghost". This is completely wrong.
In short, there is absolutely
nothing to distinguish between Catholicism and (mainstream) Islam on the point of homosexuality. They both base their position, in large part, on much the same mythology. It is true that Catholicism looks in addition to the Gospels and "natural law", while Islam looks to various 'sayings' of the Prophet - but this makes no practical difference, as (according to Catholics and Muslims) they are all saying the same thing: that is, Homosex is morally wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?
In terms of the topic I think Nigel Farage's attack this evening on a 'fifth column living amongst us, holding our passports' is sailing pretty close to the wind.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"
That sort of convinced me.... The central point seems to be to reconcile the laws to morality and reality rather than the other way round. That's what I mean.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. :huh:
Okay, so is acceptable to ban religion? Certain ideas are banned in Europe, correct?
It is acceptable to ban certain religions if they are deemed harmful to the public good. For example, scientology is banned in several European countries.
Likewise, it is acceptable to ban certain practices, even if they are important to some religions. For example, certain countries ban ritual slaughter of animals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
Viking's view of Catholicism (and from memory most non-literalist traditions) always seems a bit 17th century Protestant to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.
The Catholic Church is neither holy, Catholic nor not a pedophile ring.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
Viking's view of Catholicism (and from memory most non-literalist traditions) always seems a bit 17th century Protestant to me.
You can't both agree with and disagree with the guy saying you can't just make it up while saying the guys making it up are the true catholicism.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.
Yes, but you were just arguing about Catholics specifically.
It is true there are a wide range of Christian beliefs (just as there are a wide range of Islamic ones). I challenge you to find a single version of mainstream Christianity that thought homosexuality was morally acceptable prior to the 20th century. (For Islam, the answer would be "Sufism").
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:15:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:11:56 PM
Yep, lock him up for hate speech.
That's a bit of a leap isn't it :o
Not at all. He might have made someone feel uncomfortable.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.
Wait a minute. You were making claims about what Catholics believe and then to buttress that argument you turned to what non-Catholics believe?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:56:02 PM
Wait a minute. You were making claims about what Catholics believe and then to buttress that argument you turned to what non-Catholics believe?
There you go with nothing but ad-homs and name-calling again.
lol buttress
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:48:58 PM
Not at all. He might have made someone feel uncomfortable.
So? I think you're tilting at a straw man here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:48:58 PM
Not at all. He might have made someone feel uncomfortable.
So? I think you're tilting at a straw man here.
Sheilbh, I'd like you to meet derspiess. Derspiess, this is Sheilbh. You've both been posting for a while here on languish, so you might want to get to know one another.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2015, 03:33:09 PM
In short, Catholics look to the OT for stuff like "thou shalt not kill", but not for stuff like "thou shalt not eat bacon", and they think "thiu shalt not fuck other men" falls into the first category.
The very point is that it is up to christians to find out which of those laws can safely be ignored and which cannot. The ability to that at all is the central difference between a religion of morals and a religion of laws.
For someone claiming to know a lot about Catholicism you are putting forth a position that is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. Catholic means universal. To have a Universal church it needed to have a consistent interpretation of theological principles. That is what the fight for what would be considered orthodox and unorthodox through the ages has been all about.
Your notion that a believer can simply decide for themselves is part of non Catholic theology.
the word "christians" refers to more than just Catholics, if you choose to follow the catholic "plate at the buffet" you are a catholic.
Yes, but you were just arguing about Catholics specifically.
It is true there are a wide range of Christian beliefs (just as there are a wide range of Islamic ones). I challenge you to find a single version of mainstream Christianity that thought homosexuality was morally acceptable prior to the 20th century. (For Islam, the answer would be "Sufism").
Don't pretend to read my mind, when I mean Catholics I'll use the word Catholic.
As for Rumi, I offer you the opportunity to show that his relationship was in the open and accepted by his peers. Else I call Bullshit.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:03:16 PM
Don't pretend to read my mind, when I mean Catholics I'll use the word Catholic.
We're reading your posts. That's enough.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2015, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:03:16 PM
Don't pretend to read my mind, when I mean Catholics I'll use the word Catholic.
We're reading your posts. That's enough.
Obviously you fail at reading comprehension.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 05:06:14 PMObviously you fail at reading comprehension.
Not a problem for you since you clearly don't read most of the posts you respond to.
This is why I come to Languish.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 04:35:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2015, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.
Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same? For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?
The point is that all ideas - whether it is a religion, atheism or, say, vegetarianism, should be treated the same and be given the same kind of protection. That does not mean all of them are religions. :huh:
Okay, so is acceptable to ban religion? Certain ideas are banned in Europe, correct?
It is acceptable to ban certain religions if they are deemed harmful to the public good. For example, scientology is banned in several European countries.
Likewise, it is acceptable to ban certain practices, even if they are important to some religions. For example, certain countries ban ritual slaughter of animals.
Okay, I just wanted to see if you really were totalitarian.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 04:48:58 PM
Not at all. He might have made someone feel uncomfortable.
So? I think you're tilting at a straw man here.
Or maybe I honestly misread your post. I thought you were saying Farage was getting close to illegal hate speech.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2015, 06:01:59 PM
Or maybe I honestly misread your post. I thought you were saying Farage was getting close to illegal hate speech.
But Islamophobia's not illegal hate speech, nor should it be.
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 09:29:34 PM
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Can I guess which denomination?
Lutheran.
I believe in that one commandment that makes it illegal to quarter troops in my house.
Hello sailor!
I think Malthus is right and Viking wrong, but to take Viking's side and counterbalance the dog pile a bit, I think there is something to what he is saying. Yes Malthus is right in the case of Catholic views toward Old Testament laws--they take a point of view that has been established for a very long time and is not so easy to change.
However, if you look at actual Catholic practice, ~500 years ago they were having heretics burned at the stake, a scientist was put under arrest for pointing out the planets revolve around the sun, and large parts of the world were being forcibly subjugated in part to spread the religion. Even though the Church talks about being unchanging, preaching consistent messages, etc, it has been flexible enough to change with the times.
I'd argue that this has happened in Islam too, even if events like this suggest otherwise.
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
But that is the point isnt it? On the big doctrine stuff the Catholics have remained constant while they have adopted quite well to the modern world. Unlike some other Christians who reject things like evolution and who think humans lived with dinosaurs for example.
It's a centralized corporate model all the independent franchises are lacking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2015, 10:14:26 PM
It's a centralized corporate model all the independent franchises are lacking.
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
But that is the point isnt it? On the big doctrine stuff the Catholics have remained constant while they have adopted quite well to the modern world. Unlike some other Christians who reject things like evolution and who think humans lived with dinosaurs for example.
The problem here is that Viking is taking one of the "big doctrine unchanging items" -- the views toward which parts of old testament law apply, and saying it is proof the church is flexible to change.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2015, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 09:29:34 PM
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Can I guess which denomination?
Lutheran.
Was that actually a serious guess? 'Cause I've actually mentioned in the past what denomination I belong to, and it isn't Lutheran.
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 09:29:34 PM
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Obviously Baptist.
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 10:39:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2015, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 09:29:34 PM
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Can I guess which denomination?
Lutheran.
Was that actually a serious guess? 'Cause I've actually mentioned in the past what denomination I belong to, and it isn't Lutheran.
Am I ever that serious?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2015, 10:46:40 PM
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 10:39:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2015, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on January 07, 2015, 09:29:34 PM
As a non-Catholic Christian, I'm still waiting for Viking to tell me which 9 commandments I believe in.
Can I guess which denomination?
Lutheran.
Was that actually a serious guess? 'Cause I've actually mentioned in the past what denomination I belong to, and it isn't Lutheran.
Am I ever that serious?
Not that I can recall, but I don't always read every thread, so there may be stuff I've missed.
And no, derspiess, I'm not Baptist, and I have no idea if you were being serious, either.
Gnostic.
Pentecostal then.
Methodist!
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 10:23:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
But that is the point isnt it? On the big doctrine stuff the Catholics have remained constant while they have adopted quite well to the modern world. Unlike some other Christians who reject things like evolution and who think humans lived with dinosaurs for example.
The problem here is that Viking is taking one of the "big doctrine unchanging items" -- the views toward which parts of old testament law apply, and saying it is proof the church is flexible to change.
Yeah, except he is wrong on the facts. The 10 commandments are one of those big doctrine bedrock items that didnt change.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 12:46:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Methodist!
And we got a winna!
Honestly didn't know that. I assume you know the secret handshake? :yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 12:49:38 AM
I assume you know the secret handshake? :yeahright:
A Methodist, not Method Actor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
But that is the point isnt it? On the big doctrine stuff the Catholics have remained constant while they have adopted quite well to the modern world. Unlike some other Christians who reject things like evolution and who think humans lived with dinosaurs for example.
What do you consider "big doctrine" though? Immaculate conception, for example, is now a central part of the doctrine, but it has been so for a relatively short time. The Catholic Church has revised its doctrine a number of times, not just on social issues but on the dogma as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 11:31:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 10:23:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 07, 2015, 09:51:45 PM
Why do you say the Catholic Church talks about being "unchanging"?
I meant on the big doctrine stuff.
But that is the point isnt it? On the big doctrine stuff the Catholics have remained constant while they have adopted quite well to the modern world. Unlike some other Christians who reject things like evolution and who think humans lived with dinosaurs for example.
The problem here is that Viking is taking one of the "big doctrine unchanging items" -- the views toward which parts of old testament law apply, and saying it is proof the church is flexible to change.
Yeah, except he is wrong on the facts. The 10 commandments are one of those big doctrine bedrock items that didnt change.
This is a very simplified view, though. For one thing, the importance of 10 commandments was different in different periods. For another, the interpretation also changed (for example, right now, the Catholic Church is interpreting the fifth commandment as an opposition to death penalty - that has not always been this way).
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
95% of Languishites see Martinus anti-Catholicism as more annoying than Islamic fundamentalism.
Margin of error: +/- 5%
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
No but you are going to confuse the hell out of the Amazon recommendation bot.
:D
Nor not. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
No but you are going to confuse the hell out of the Amazon recommendation bot.
Yeah, random muslims buying the Quran will get "other people bought this with this" a gay calendar.
Well played Martinus, well played.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2015, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2015, 04:09:57 PM
On what basis is Rabbinic Judaism not a religion of laws?
In terms of the topic I think Nigel Farage's attack this evening on a 'fifth column living amongst us, holding our passports' is sailing pretty close to the wind.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"
That sort of convinced me.... The central point seems to be to reconcile the laws to morality and reality rather than the other way round. That's what I mean.
Rabbinic Judaism is a religion of laws, and a religion of morals, and a whole bunch of other things. Its a complex multidimensional historical and sociological phenomenon that can't be summarized in simplistic labels
As is Islam.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:27:38 AM
95% of Languishites see Martinus anti-Catholicism as more annoying than Islamic fundamentalism.
Margin of error: +/- 5%
While 90% of Languishites either believe that religion deserves to be disrespected. But only if they can replace the word deserve with something else that makes more sense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
No but you are going to confuse the hell out of the Amazon recommendation bot.
Other customers have purchased:
Stephens, Kevin
Coaching Rugby: 120 Drills & Practice Sessions PlansDe Sade, M.
120 Days of Sodom
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 11:38:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:27:38 AM
95% of Languishites see Martinus anti-Catholicism as more annoying than Islamic fundamentalism.
Margin of error: +/- 5%
While 90% of Languishites either believe that religion deserves to be disrespected. But only if they can replace the word deserve with something else that makes more sense.
Can't we just link vid clips to Monty Python skits instead?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2015, 11:38:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 11:27:38 AM
95% of Languishites see Martinus anti-Catholicism as more annoying than Islamic fundamentalism.
Margin of error: +/- 5%
While 90% of Languishites either believe that religion deserves to be disrespected. But only if they can replace the word deserve with something else that makes more sense.
Can't we just link vid clips to Monty Python skits instead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j--0gzT2rk
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 08, 2015, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
So, my Amazon purchase order now features an English version of Quran (hardcover), two copies of Dieux du Stade 2015 naked rugby player calendar and an iPhone wallet cover. Will I make it to the FBI watch list? :huh:
No but you are going to confuse the hell out of the Amazon recommendation bot.
Yeah, random muslims buying the Quran will get "other people bought this with this" a gay calendar.
Well played Martinus, well played.
I haven't thought about it! :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
Only one comma is required.
I put in extra punctuation so that you can salt and pepper my sentences as you choose.
Just wanna make you comma. I'm just being honest.
Comma chameleon :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
That may well inform your personal view.
I know, not tons, but quite a number of muslims. Heck there's a surprisingly large number of lebanese muslim lawyers in this town. And none of them have ever threatened to stone anyone to death.
Possibly. But then you would not be at risk under sharia so YMMV. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:05:04 PM
Possibly. But then you would not be at risk under sharia so YMMV. ;)
No, the ones I know are quite westernized, and most were born in this country.
And it's not as if there's any shortage of gay lawyers in this country either.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
You have called for genocide against Muslims in the past. Along with Catholics, Russians, Turks, Gypsies and anyone who makes you mad at any particular moment. I am not afraid of Islam or Muslims. There is question here that nobody has asked. Why does this keep happening in Europe and not in Canada or the US? No cartoonists have been killed by Muslims in the US. I don't think this has happened in Canada either. Why?
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
The thing you should not lose sight of is that Muslims, like any peoples, are actually quite variable - a lot depends on such things as class, education, and personal history.
For example, I know a lot of Muslims personally - mostly Iranians. Some of the religious nutters actually running Iran are the most frightening around - they like nothing more than killing gays, and I doubt they like uppity Jews much better. ;) However, the ones who came to Canada tend to be the higher-class, more educated ones (often, fleeing Iran for exactly that reason), and that is why I know them - they are likely to be professionals - lawyers and (particularly) doctors. They usually have no problems with gays and uppity Jews, at least, no more than any other mixed group of professionals.
The one family I know best (the daughter is married to my best male friend) is Sufi, and as far as I can tell, it's a pretty liberal form of religion. I never had any problem with the dad, who was pretty religious (he's dead now, I was at his funeral). The daughter isn't religious at all, thinks religion is a crock.
To hear them tell it, the religious nutters who took over the Iranian revolution derived their power from manipulating the uneducated masses. It is a symptom of poverty and backwardness in a time of political upheaveal - think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. To these Iranians, the "authentic Persia" is represented by Persia's high culture and history - not the bozos running the place now.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Tolerance has its limits.
Indeed, intolerance cannot be tolerated. I don't think being afraid or feeling threatened by muslims after attacks such as this is in any way irrational or prejudiced.
Oh, I tolerate you alright despite you calls for genocide, demanding I kill myself,, and pretentious stupidity.
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
You have called for genocide against Muslims in the past. Along with Catholics, Russians, Turks, Gypsies and anyone who makes you mad at any particular moment. I am not afraid of Islam or Muslims. There is question here that nobody has asked. Why does this keep happening in Europe and not in Canada or the US? No cartoonists have been killed by Muslims in the US. I don't think this has happened in Canada either. Why?
Um, we just had a terrorist shooting in Ottawa about three months ago...
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Quote from: Barrister on January 08, 2015, 04:13:18 PM
Um, we just had a terrorist shooting in Ottawa about three months ago...
Well, to be fair, it seems that case had a higher "nut" to "terrorist" ratio.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
I don't think I called for genocide. I am angry with Islam. I hate it as a set of ideas. I find it harmful, ridiculous and dumb. And I want to tell that to every Muslim I meet (admittedly I have not personally met any so I may be more civil in person). But I do recognise that we have values and principles, and I don't want to compromise them for a bunch of camel fucking moon worshippers.
I am also scared of Islam and of clerics that say I should be stoned to death.
The thing you should not lose sight of is that Muslims, like any peoples, are actually quite variable - a lot depends on such things as class, education, and personal history.
For example, I know a lot of Muslims personally - mostly Iranians. Some of the religious nutters actually running Iran are the most frightening around - they like nothing more than killing gays, and I doubt they like uppity Jews much better. ;) However, the ones who came to Canada tend to be the higher-class, more educated ones (often, fleeing Iran for exactly that reason), and that is why I know them - they are likely to be professionals - lawyers and (particularly) doctors. They usually have no problems with gays and uppity Jews, at least, no more than any other mixed group of professionals.
The one family I know best (the daughter is married to my best male friend) is Sufi, and as far as I can tell, it's a pretty liberal form of religion. I never had any problem with the dad, who was pretty religious (he's dead now, I was at his funeral). The daughter isn't religious at all, thinks religion is a crock.
To hear them tell it, the religious nutters who took over the Iranian revolution derived their power from manipulating the uneducated masses. It is a symptom of poverty and backwardness in a time of political upheaveal - think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. To these Iranians, the "authentic Persia" is represented by Persia's high culture and history - not the bozos running the place now.
How close are you to your best male friend? :)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 12:46:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Methodist!
And we got a winna!
The one time I was asked for my denomination* that's what I said I was on account of having attended more Methodist services at that point than anything else. :hug:
*at an interfaith prayer vigil for a former catholic priest who was being excommunicated - he considered himself to be something else but the catholic church didn't
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
We have taller buildings. I simply asked a question. :goodboy: Though I do note that when I say something you don't like you respond with quite a bit of aggression. Is that normal?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
We have taller buildings. I simply asked a question. :goodboy: Though I do note that when I say something you don't like you respond with quite a bit of aggression. Is that normal?
Your question was loaded. Trying to find a reason why these nuts target this rather than that country or group of people is not just futile - it's insulting.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
We have taller buildings. I simply asked a question. :goodboy: Though I do note that when I say something you don't like you respond with quite a bit of aggression. Is that normal?
Your question was loaded. Trying to find a reason for these nuts to target this or that country or group of people is not just futile - it's insulting.
So you are insulted about things I say? Enough to become aggressive? To demand that I die?
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 04:15:02 PM
A cartoonist? I didn't know that.
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
We have taller buildings. I simply asked a question. :goodboy: Though I do note that when I say something you don't like you respond with quite a bit of aggression. Is that normal?
Your question was loaded. Trying to find a reason for these nuts to target this or that country or group of people is not just futile - it's insulting.
Of course, your question wasn't hard to answer. We're the Great Satan! :bowler:
Good Satan maybe. <_<
Perhaps "Great" as in large? :)
Fat Satan? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
Because we're the biggest military supporter of Israel, and have a tremendous number of Jews. Something Poland doesn't, I would suspect.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 04:29:22 PM
Perhaps "Great" as in large? :)
Venti Satan.
How could you miss that one?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 04:29:22 PM
Perhaps "Great" as in large? :)
Venti Satan.
How could you miss that one?
I never get larger than a grande. :weep:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:31:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:20:01 PM
Hey, Raz, you victim-blaming piece of shit, why has the US have muslim terrorists pilot planes into skyscrapers - unlike any other Western nation. Surely you must be doing something wrong, right?
Because we're the biggest military supporter of Israel, and have a tremendous number of Jews. Something Poland doesn't, I would suspect.
You would be surprised. :ph34r:
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
Robusto Satan?
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
To paraphrase a classic, I prefer my Satans well hung.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
To hear them tell it, the religious nutters who took over the Iranian revolution derived their power from manipulating the uneducated masses. It is a symptom of poverty and backwardness in a time of political upheaveal - think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. To these Iranians, the "authentic Persia" is represented by Persia's high culture and history - not the bozos running the place now.
Whoa, let the TP alone. Are you gonna made me google the educational level of TP members?
I remember it was higher than the general population. And the TP certainly includes a diverse population.
And TP stands for Tea Party, not toilet paper.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
The thing you should not lose sight of is that Muslims, like any peoples, are actually quite variable - a lot depends on such things as class, education, and personal history.
Yeah.
(https://editoriaraba.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sudan.jpg)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
It's not chocolate. :secret:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
What about?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120225013138%2Fpowerpuff%2Fimages%2F1%2F11%2FHim_screaming.jpg&hash=476f17e4287ce8b4be09c856d8d6d770d37f09fd)
He's pretty fabulous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
:lol:
Khalid Albaih is full of shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
For $8 a cup? I'm voting for God. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 04:53:22 PM
Khalid Albaih is full of shit.
You don't think there are Muslims who feel that non-Muslims view them as enemies and as abettors of radical Islamicist terrorists, while at the same time the radical Islamicist terrorists view them as enemies and as abettors of the secular values of the infidels?
Or did you get something else from the drawing?
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 04:58:45 PM
You don't think there are Muslims who feel that non-Muslims view them as enemies and as abettors of radical Islamicist terrorists, while at the same time the radical Islamicist terrorists view them as enemies and as abettors of the secular values of the infidels?
Or did you get something else from the drawing?
What I got from the drawing is that feeling is accurate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:00:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 04:58:45 PM
You don't think there are Muslims who feel that non-Muslims view them as enemies and as abettors of radical Islamicist terrorists, while at the same time the radical Islamicist terrorists view them as enemies and as abettors of the secular values of the infidels?
Or did you get something else from the drawing?
What I got from the drawing is that feeling is accurate.
I don't undestand.
Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2015, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
I prefer my Satans to be awesome and faustian, not dispensed by a bored, tattooed barrista. :(
But see, that's precisely where you'd find him, because that's where you'd least expect him. Because he deals in deceit and subterfuge. And whipped cream. With little chocolate shavings on top.
It's not chocolate. :secret:
I rest my case. :goodboy:
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
That's a strangely absolutist and literal way to read cartoons. By that metric most of the the cartoons we've seen from Charlie Hebdo and in response to the shootings are full of shit too.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I'd like to see polling data on that.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I'd like to see polling data on that.
There was some earlier in this thread (or the other related one).
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
See the polling in Germany from the Bertelsmann Foundation and comments from Nigel 'fifth columnist' Farage.
In addition to the ones cited by Jacob there 61% see Islam as having no place in the West, up from 52% in 2012.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
Is the globe an accurate representation of "a sizable number of people in the West," and where is the evidence that a sizable number of people feel this way? The poll Jacob cited talks about Islam, not all Muslims.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
Is the globe an accurate representation of "a sizable number of people in the West," and where is the evidence that a sizable number of people feel this way? The poll Jacob cited talks about Islam, not all Muslims.
You think people tend to distinguish between Islam and Muslims?
Beyond that, your primary beef with the cartoon is that the globe is the wrong symbol to represent the part of the world that thinks ordinary Muslims are somehow complicit with radical Islamic terrorists?
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:32:37 PM
You think people tend to distinguish between Islam and Muslims?
Absolutely.
QuoteBeyond that, your primary beef with the cartoon is that the globe is the wrong symbol to represent the part of the world that thinks ordinary Muslims are somehow complicit with radical Islamic terrorists?
Absolutely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:32:37 PM
You think people tend to distinguish between Islam and Muslims?
Absolutely.
Excellent. We understand each other, which I count as a victory for both of us :)
As well, I will add: I disagree.
Quote from: Admiral YiQuote from: JacobBeyond that, your primary beef with the cartoon is that the globe is the wrong symbol to represent the part of the world that thinks ordinary Muslims are somehow complicit with radical Islamic terrorists?
Absolutely.
I think that's a minor quibble at best, which does not at all warrant a "full of shit" IMO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
Is the globe an accurate representation of "a sizable number of people in the West," and where is the evidence that a sizable number of people feel this way? The poll Jacob cited talks about Islam, not all Muslims.
From the poll:
"- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating"
Seems at least some evidence.
According to the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
QuotePublic opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists.
Haven't actually read the polls myself, but as the article points out, this result is hardly unexpected.
That cartoon is rather insipid.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Not quite what I was looking for. Looking for a poll with questions something like "Do you think Muslims generally approve of terrorism?"
One can have negative feelings about the numbers of Muslim immigrants or changes/issues related to those numbers without thinking Muslims heart terrorism.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. .
They wouldn't be able to get married anymore, but would pay lower income taxes.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Not quite what I was looking for. Looking for a poll with questions something like "Do you think Muslims generally approve of terrorism?"
One can have negative feelings about the numbers of Muslim immigrants or changes/issues related to those numbers without thinking Muslims heart terrorism.
On the flipside, we've had several people here, Drakken being the most recent - who have said that Muslims need to come out denouncing every single act of terror that is claimed to stem from Islam. That otherwise they are helping to perpetuate the violence.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Not quite what I was looking for. Looking for a poll with questions something like "Do you think Muslims generally approve of terrorism?"
One can have negative feelings about the numbers of Muslim immigrants or changes/issues related to those numbers without thinking Muslims heart terrorism.
You mean, like the polls cited by the Christian Science Monitor article?
And, which is why I have an issue with it, statements like Farage's which blamed this attack on multiculturalism and said there's a 'fifth column with our passports' in our country doesn't seem to draw any distinction between Islam, Islamism and Muslims.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:41:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. .
They wouldn't be able to get married anymore, but would pay lower income taxes.
Cant agree with that. The train has already left the station on that one. No going back.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
You mean, like the polls cited by the Christian Science Monitor article?
Are you talking about the question about associating Islam and Muslim with terrorism?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
What is your opinion on Islam and Muslims?
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 05:43:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Not quite what I was looking for. Looking for a poll with questions something like "Do you think Muslims generally approve of terrorism?"
One can have negative feelings about the numbers of Muslim immigrants or changes/issues related to those numbers without thinking Muslims heart terrorism.
On the flipside, we've had several people here, Drakken being the most recent - who have said that Muslims need to come out denouncing every single act of terror that is claimed to stem from Islam. That otherwise they are helping to perpetuate the violence.
Beyond that, though, I largely agree with what Jacob said in post #238--I believe that Yi is incorrect in his belief that most people in the West really make any meaningful distinction between Islam and Muslims (and FWIW, I don't think most people make a meaningful distinction between Christianity and Christians, or between Judaism and Jews either--sure, people understand that one is the name of a religion, and the other a term for followers of that religion, but in most contexts I don't think that makes much difference to most people); and that at best it's a minor quibble that doesn't warrant a "piece of shit" response to the cartoon. I think that such a response shows, at best, a rather bizarre view of how political cartoons work--exaggeration is one of the biggest weapons a political cartoonist has in his arsenal, and using it hardly makes one a piece of shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
What is your opinion on Islam and Muslims?
Islam is a threat. All Muslims are with the terrorists.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
You mean, like the polls cited by the Christian Science Monitor article?
Sifting through that now. Not seeing anything specifically cited that meets my criteria.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 05:46:57 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:41:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. .
They wouldn't be able to get married anymore, but would pay lower income taxes.
Cant agree with that. The train has already left the station on that one. No going back.
So the only affect would be that they would pay lower income taxes, then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
What is your opinion on Islam and Muslims?
Islam is a threat. All Muslims are with the terrorists.
Okay... I didn't expect you to be so... candid.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:54:38 PMSo the only affect would be that they would pay lower income taxes, then.
Assuming the Tea Party is willing to take direction from 11B4V and his ilk.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:45:46 PM
And, which is why I have an issue with it, statements like Farage's which blamed this attack on multiculturalism and said there's a 'fifth column with our passports' in our country doesn't seem to draw any distinction between Islam, Islamism and Muslims.
Sounds like he and Grallon have a lot in common.
Hell, there have been at least a couple of Langusihites who have said that we are "Islamicist Apologists". Apparently, you don't even have to be
Muslim to be the enemy. ;)
Now I wouldn't argue with the contention that there is an association of Islam & terrorism in the minds of many Westerners. Islam hasn't exactly done the best PR to combat that.
What I'm curious about is what % of Westerners think Muslim people generally like terrorism. I know that sounds like splitting hairs but I honestly think there could be a difference between the two.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:53:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
You mean, like the polls cited by the Christian Science Monitor article?
Sifting through that now. Not seeing anything specifically cited that meets my criteria.
QuotePublic opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists.
Admittedly, I haven't seen any polls, and the authour does mnot link any. Maybe the author is full of shit, I have no idea. But assuming s/he isn't, is this the sort of data you are looking for?
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:54:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 05:46:57 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:41:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. .
They wouldn't be able to get married anymore, but would pay lower income taxes.
Cant agree with that. The train has already left the station on that one. No going back.
So the only affect would be that they would pay lower income taxes, then.
Don't care about the tax part. Just the other. Much to the TP religious fundies, no stopping. As it should be.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:54:38 PMSo the only affect would be that they would pay lower income taxes, then.
Assuming the Tea Party is willing to take direction from 11B4V and his ilk.
If by ilk, you mean centrist, guilty as charged.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:59:12 PM
Admittedly, I haven't seen any polls, and the authour does mnot link any. Maybe the author is full of shit, I have no idea. But assuming s/he isn't, is this the sort of data you are looking for?
Do half the people you know think "all Muslims are with the terrorists?" I don't know a single person that thinks this way.
You know grallon!
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 06:03:13 PM
If by ilk, you mean centrist, guilty as charged.
Even simpler than that, I meant "people who'd say no backing out on gay marriage."
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:38:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 06:03:13 PM
If by ilk, you mean centrist, guilty as charged.
Even simpler than that, I meant "people who'd say no backing out on gay marriage."
Good glad we agree about no going back.
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
You euros have a lot to learn about how to treat people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
:lol:
Convenient isn't it.
Head over to the other thread, and I've another question to pose of our formerly pro-interventionist posters (who were obviously nothing of the sort in the first place).
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 06:49:36 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
You euros have a lot to learn about how to treat people.
What's Hebrew for BOOM?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:38:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 08, 2015, 06:03:13 PM
If by ilk, you mean centrist, guilty as charged.
Even simpler than that, I meant "people who'd say no backing out on gay marriage."
Good glad we agree about no going back.
100% :hug:
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
:lol:
Convenient isn't it.
Yeah your criticism is convenient. Nameless Americans saying unspecified things. ;)
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes. Except possibly CdM, but that's just how he rolls with this stuff - generally progressive in outlook, incredibly racist in mode of expression, always willing to tell Euros they're shit... and everyone else too, really.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes. Except possibly CdM, but that's just how he rolls with this stuff - generally progressive in outlook, incredibly racist in mode of expression, always willing to tell Euros they're shit... and everyone else too, really.
It's natural. I hated Russians up til '92 or so.
I hate:
Geordies
Mouthy Krauts
Sanctimonious Nordics
Serbs
Russians
MOUTH SUGA
Wops
Dagos
Zipperheads
Crackers
Moon crickets
Beaners
Frost backs
Eggplants
Camel jockeys of all stripes
Curry eaters
Bogans
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
I hate:
Geordies
Mouthy Krauts
Sanctimonious Nordics
Serbs
Russians
MOUTH SUGA
Wops
Dagos
Zipperheads
Crackers
Moon crickets
Beaners
Frost backs
Eggplants
Camel jockeys of all stripes
Curry eaters
Bogans
I don't not like mannequins.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Well I have a hard time recalling the ones who weren't at the time revelling in some of the violence meeted out in Iraq. :D
Do you recall that thread we had about the apache helicopter footage released by I think by wikileaks, that showed those Iraqi, militia and/or civilians being chewed up by cannon fire and possibly missile strikes, iirc several posters thought that pretty neat. Are one or two of those now taking a more nuanced approach to the Middle East and Muslim, both in the light of experience and as an opportunity to attack Europeans ?
I can't prove these, because we don't have the old databases of posting nor the access the original Paradox OT.
So it's just my impression, does that make it untruthful?
What's a "bogan?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 07:36:22 PM
What's a "bogan?"
I think it's an Australian redneck, basically.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
So it's just my impression, does that make it untruthful?
It makes you extremely unreliable. :D
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
Do you recall that thread we had about the apache helicopter footage released by I think by wikileaks, that showed those Iraqi, militia and/or civilians being chewed up by cannon fire and possibly missile strikes, iirc several posters thought that pretty neat. Are one or two of those now taking a more nuanced approach to the Middle East and Muslim, both in the light of experience and as an opportunity to attack Europeans ?
What I remember about that event were the accusations of purposefully targeting journalists, and the careful editing job Assange did to hide the fact that the reporter and his cameraman were in the midst of armed Iraqis who were firing on the Apache.
Is that different than your memory?
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Well I have a hard time recalling the ones who weren't at the time revelling in some of the violence meeted out in Iraq. :D
That's not necessarily racist, though. If we had video footage of Massachusetts militiamen sticking it to the Redcoat during the battles of Lexington and Concord, bet some Americans would revel at that, too.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 06:52:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
:lol:
Convenient isn't it.
Yeah your criticism is convenient. Nameless Americans saying unspecified things. ;)
I'd like to at least know who he's talking about.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 08:27:10 PM
That's not necessarily racist, though. If we had video footage of Massachusetts militiamen sticking it to the Redcoat during the battles of Lexington and Concord, bet some Americans would revel at that, too.
You guys should have seen me when I saw The Patriot in the theater. High Fives all around.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:53:21 PM
Islam is a threat. All Muslims are with the terrorists.
Same page as this one.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 08:34:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:53:21 PM
Islam is a threat. All Muslims are with the terrorists.
Same page as this one.
Wasn't expressed during the run-up to, and immediate aftermath of the Iraq War.
And I agree with your earlier implies sentiment that it's surprising to find Yi taking the Grallon position.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 08:40:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 08, 2015, 08:34:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
It's a rather odd sight to see some North American posters taking Europeans to task over they're attitudes to muslim and islam, given the overtly racists attitudes expressed here by a few of those same posters in the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of Iraq war.
Links, plz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:53:21 PM
Islam is a threat. All Muslims are with the terrorists.
Same page as this one.
Wasn't expressed during the run-up to, and immediate aftermath of the Iraq War.
And I agree with your earlier implies sentiment that it's surprising to find Yi taking the Grallon position.
Yi wasn't being serious was he? After all, shortly thereafter he said that he doesn't know a single person that holds the position that all muslims are with the terrorists. ;)
Yeah I thought that was tongue in cheek.
It was tongue in cheek.
Yeah seemed pretty obvious to me.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
During periods of war, it's common to root for the home team.
QuoteI don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes. Except possibly CdM, but that's just how he rolls with this stuff - generally progressive in outlook, incredibly racist in mode of expression, always willing to tell Euros they're shit... and everyone else too, really.
I've not taking Europeans to task for any anti-Muslim attitudes, and I'd like to see in this thread where you have evidence that I have. But since you insist on judging me as is your wont, I'll play, pigeon.
I don't need to take Europeans to task for anti-Muslim attitudes, since European anti-Muslim sentiment is just symptomatic of their greater xenophobia and ethnocentric racism in general, so it's just really Europe being Europe. Watching proponents of the EU bitch about Turkish "debt" is like watching Southerns whites use "state's rights", it's all just code. That's what's so hilarious about European hypocrisy. As if the Balkans in the 90s wasn't enough of an example, look at the general apathy over the Ukraine: it's all anti-Russian more so than being pro-Ukrainian, since the Ukrainians are another people the "real" Europeans couldn't give two shits about, either. Come to think of it, they've never given two shits about anybody east of the Oder. But I don't take them to task for it. I just call them out on their hypocritical enlightened bullshit.
It doesn't help Europe that very liberal political asylum laws, in allowing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants from conflict zones in a very short time span, have resulted in more fractured, polarized and militant communities than those the usual forms of staggered and procedural immigration processes create: those that take years of working towards the employment, established residencies and solid incomes that help immigrant communities in integrating and assimilating into their new home economies. But those are political choices Europeans have made. Deal.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Well I have a hard time recalling the ones who weren't at the time revelling in some of the violence meeted out in Iraq. :D
Do you recall that thread we had about the apache helicopter footage released by I think by wikileaks, that showed those Iraqi, militia and/or civilians being chewed up by cannon fire and possibly missile strikes, iirc several posters thought that pretty neat. Are one or two of those now taking a more nuanced approach to the Middle East and Muslim, both in the light of experience and as an opportunity to attack Europeans ?
I can't prove these, because we don't have the old databases of posting nor the access the original Paradox OT.
So it's just my impression, does that make it untruthful?
I remember that discussion, and I cannot recall a single poster, American or otherwise, who thought it was "kind of neat".
I think you are full of shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:49:45 PM
I've not taking Europeans to task for any anti-Muslim attitudes, and I'd like to see in this thread where you have evidence that I have.
I wasn't sure, thus the "perhaps". I conflated your habitual upbraiding of Euros for their anti-Semitism with the current topic. My apologies for the mistake.
QuoteBut since you insist on judging me as is your wont, I'll play, pigeon.
:hug:
QuoteI don't need to take Europeans to task for anti-Muslim attitudes, since European anti-Muslim sentiment is just symptomatic of their greater xenophobia and ethnocentric racism in general, so it's just really Europe being Europe. Watching proponents of the EU bitch about Turkish "debt" is like watching Southerns whites use "state's rights", it's all just code. That's what's so hilarious about European hypocrisy. As if the Balkans in the 90s wasn't enough of an example, look at the general apathy over the Ukraine: it's all anti-Russian more so than being pro-Ukrainian, since the Ukrainians are another people the "real" Europeans couldn't give two shits about, either. Come to think of it, they've never given two shits about anybody east of the Oder. But I don't take them to task for it. I just call them out on their hypocritical enlightened bullshit.
It doesn't help Europe that very liberal political asylum laws, in allowing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants from conflict zones in a very short time span, have resulted in more fractured, polarized and militant communities than those the usual forms of staggered and procedural immigration processes create: those that take years of working towards the employment, established residencies and solid incomes that help immigrant communities in integrating and assimilating into their new home economies. But those are political choices Europeans have made. Deal.
That's all pretty on point. No arguments from me.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 12:50:53 AM
I conflated your habitual upbraiding of Euros for their anti-Semitism with the current topic. My apologies for the mistake.
It happens. In monkey shit fights, everybody gets a little wet. Apology accepted. :hug:
From The Economist:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2Fimages%2F2015%2F01%2Fblogs%2Fgraphic-detail%2F20150110_gdc999_3.png&hash=b7979bbaafc43b816d61b44d44b1e67dc293d423)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 08:43:39 PM
Yeah I thought that was tongue in cheek.
It's not entirely inconsistent with what statements he's made here before.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10303.0.html
I definitely get a negative vibe here.
Sorry dont see it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2015, 08:49:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
During periods of war, it's common to root for the home team.
QuoteI don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes. Except possibly CdM, but that's just how he rolls with this stuff - generally progressive in outlook, incredibly racist in mode of expression, always willing to tell Euros they're shit... and everyone else too, really.
I've not taking Europeans to task for any anti-Muslim attitudes, and I'd like to see in this thread where you have evidence that I have. But since you insist on judging me as is your wont, I'll play, pigeon.
I don't need to take Europeans to task for anti-Muslim attitudes, since European anti-Muslim sentiment is just symptomatic of their greater xenophobia and ethnocentric racism in general, so it's just really Europe being Europe. Watching proponents of the EU bitch about Turkish "debt" is like watching Southerns whites use "state's rights", it's all just code. That's what's so hilarious about European hypocrisy. As if the Balkans in the 90s wasn't enough of an example, look at the general apathy over the Ukraine: it's all anti-Russian more so than being pro-Ukrainian, since the Ukrainians are another people the "real" Europeans couldn't give two shits about, either. Come to think of it, they've never given two shits about anybody east of the Oder. But I don't take them to task for it. I just call them out on their hypocritical enlightened bullshit.
It doesn't help Europe that very liberal political asylum laws, in allowing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants from conflict zones in a very short time span, have resulted in more fractured, polarized and militant communities than those the usual forms of staggered and procedural immigration processes create: those that take years of working towards the employment, established residencies and solid incomes that help immigrant communities in integrating and assimilating into their new home economies. But those are political choices Europeans have made. Deal.
Don't recall somebody bitching here or anywhere about Turkish "debt", please explain. The massive influx of Muslim immigrants in France is not directly linked to generous asylum laws.
Illegal immigration is an issue, and a very lax policy right now thanks to Hollande and its ilk.
As for the alleged choices Europeans have made that's wrong, nobody was asked for instance to grant easy family regrouping in the '70s (the PC left makes it even taboo to question it) and nobody serious proposes ending it in a realistic way. The only ones serious about it are the FN, but their economic policy would be a huge disaster. I can accept ending dual citizenship, or much stronger naturalisation criteria or even the end of Jus soli, but the nonsense about the EU or even the Euro is staggering.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
That's a strangely absolutist and literal way to read cartoons. By that metric most of the the cartoons we've seen from Charlie Hebdo and in response to the shootings are full of shit too.
I don't think many people here are defending accuracy or insightfulness of Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Or using them to prove a point.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:37:29 PM
"- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating"
Seems at least some evidence.
Not really. Banning people from immigrating is a bit different than wanting to curtail rights of people who are citizens.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Here you go, derspiess:
Quote from: Syt on January 08, 2015, 01:50:49 AM
Die Zeit quotes a recent poll by the Bertelsmann Foundation who monitor attitudes towards religions. According to their recent survey (taken before the attack in Paris):
- 57% of Germans see Islam as a threat
- 40% feel they're strangers in their own country
- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating
At the same time, more than half of Germans consider themselves to be tolerant.
Not quite what I was looking for. Looking for a poll with questions something like "Do you think Muslims generally approve of terrorism?"
One can have negative feelings about the numbers of Muslim immigrants or changes/issues related to those numbers without thinking Muslims heart terrorism.
Exactly. As I already said before in this thread, my main beef with Islam and Muslims is not terrorism but their positions on many issues such as gay rights or women's rights. Even if there were no cases of Islamic terrorism, I would still want to curtail immigration of people from countries and cultures who, if allowed to vote, would not only oppose gay marriage, but actually believe that homosexuality should be criminalised.
I think certain parts of the left (represented by people like Jacob) seem to confuse or conflate rights of those who are already citizens or legal residents with those who want to become such - I don't think any country has any duty to accept everyone who wants to settle there as a citizen - it is acceptable to profile prospective citizens, including by views they hold, generally.
Quote from: dps on January 08, 2015, 05:41:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
think of what would happen to gays in America, if there was a revolution and right-wing "Tea Party" fundies seized power. .
They wouldn't be able to get married anymore, but would pay lower income taxes.
Yeah. I doubt that if Tea Party got full power, they would go Handmaid's Tale on everybody's ass.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2015, 05:45:46 PM
And, which is why I have an issue with it, statements like Farage's which blamed this attack on multiculturalism and said there's a 'fifth column with our passports' in our country doesn't seem to draw any distinction between Islam, Islamism and Muslims.
Sounds like he and Grallon have a lot in common.
Hell, there have been at least a couple of Langusihites who have said that we are "Islamicist Apologists". Apparently, you don't even have to be Muslim to be the enemy. ;)
Well, that's the thing about apologists - they are not of the group they appease, obviously. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
I hate:
Geordies
Mouthy Krauts
Sanctimonious Nordics
Serbs
Russians
MOUTH SUGA
Wops
Dagos
Zipperheads
Crackers
Moon crickets
Beaners
Frost backs
Eggplants
Camel jockeys of all stripes
Curry eaters
Bogans
:yeah:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2015, 02:09:53 AM
Sorry dont see it.
Of Course not, you didn't even know that garbon was a Republican.
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Well I have a hard time recalling the ones who weren't at the time revelling in some of the violence meeted out in Iraq. :D
Do you recall that thread we had about the apache helicopter footage released by I think by wikileaks, that showed those Iraqi, militia and/or civilians being chewed up by cannon fire and possibly missile strikes, iirc several posters thought that pretty neat. Are one or two of those now taking a more nuanced approach to the Middle East and Muslim, both in the light of experience and as an opportunity to attack Europeans ?
I can't prove these, because we don't have the old databases of posting nor the access the original Paradox OT.
So it's just my impression, does that make it untruthful?
Well, to be honest, the only Americans who are now taking Europeans to task over islamophobia are really Raz (who is insane) and garbon (who wasn't even posting during the Iraq war and if he was, he would have probably said something snide he read on salon.com). The key critics of European islamophobia seem to be Anglo-saxon Canucks and pseudo-Canucks (like Jacob) and I don't remember them cheering Iraq war that much (Malthus is the only one who occassionally takes islamophobic stances, but that's only when Israel is doing the killing and he is getting transmissions from the Mother Ship).
I remember CdM and Berkut were cheering on glassing the Middle East but they are not now in the forefront of the ponytail islamic apologists brigade (CdM is just sniping out of spite for everything and everyone).
Incidentally, you are probably the one who comes to my mind as having done a complete u-turn on the muslim question. Hell, even your original name was anti-war. :D
FWIW, I think CdM's analysis is pretty spot on.
Meanwhile, in a stable Muslim country and our ally:
QuoteDUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A Saudi blogger who was sentenced last May to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes will be publicly flogged for the first time after Friday prayers outside a mosque in the Red Sea coastal city of Jiddah, a person close to his case said Thursday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/saudi-blogger-flogged_n_6436778.html?cps=gravity_2685_-4988045114515739826
See, Jacob, Malthus and others. This is what I am talking about. This is not just about Muslim terrorism. I don't want to live in a country where laws like this exist - and while most Muslims may not approve of terrorism, will you guarantee to me that a substantial part of Muslims do not approve of laws like this?
Incidentally, an interesting tidbit showing the Saudi rule of law:
QuoteBadawi's lawyer Waleed Abul-Khair was sentenced in July to 15 years imprisonment and barred from traveling for another 15 years after being found guilty by an anti-terrorism court of "undermining the regime and officials," ''inciting public opinion" and "insulting the judiciary."
So yeah, the question to prospective immigrants should be - do you agree with this ruling. If you do, sorry, you can't come in.
I'm curious Marty, if a French Muslim is murdered in retaliation, will you be this upset?
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:57:59 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 08, 2015, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2015, 07:05:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Mongers is right, IMO, that a number of American posters were pretty anti-Muslim around the Iraq wars etc.
I don't think it's particularly ironic, in that the posters who were are not the same ones as are taking Euros to task over any anti-Muslim attitudes.
But that's exactly the thing. He's spinning a narrative of hypocritical Americans who espouse anti-muslim attitudes and then are now taking Euros to task over that.
He probably has a hard time telling Americans apart from one another.
Well I have a hard time recalling the ones who weren't at the time revelling in some of the violence meeted out in Iraq. :D
Do you recall that thread we had about the apache helicopter footage released by I think by wikileaks, that showed those Iraqi, militia and/or civilians being chewed up by cannon fire and possibly missile strikes, iirc several posters thought that pretty neat. Are one or two of those now taking a more nuanced approach to the Middle East and Muslim, both in the light of experience and as an opportunity to attack Europeans ?
I can't prove these, because we don't have the old databases of posting nor the access the original Paradox OT.
So it's just my impression, does that make it untruthful?
Well, to be honest, the only Americans who are now taking Europeans to task over islamophobia are really Raz (who is insane) and garbon (who wasn't even posting during the Iraq war and if he was, he would have probably said something snide he read on salon.com). The key critics of European islamophobia seem to be Anglo-saxon Canucks and pseudo-Canucks (like Jacob) and I don't remember them cheering Iraq war that much (Malthus is the only one who occassionally takes islamophobic stances, but that's only when Israel is doing the killing and he is getting transmissions from the Mother Ship).
I remember CdM and Berkut were cheering on glassing the Middle East
You are a liar, since I never cheered on glassing anything.
I only support a first-strike use of nuclear weapons against the People's Republic of China.
You know guys, the search function works once again at Paradox OT. Someone with time could go and find all these instances. #research #primarysources
Didn't they lose some of the earlier posts though?
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2015, 07:30:09 AM
You are a liar, since I never cheered on glassing anything.
Well, I am insane, but I'm still right. If some hothead Frenchmen kill a Muslim tomorrow, will Marty cry? Hell let's up the ante, if someone kills some Jihadi cleric who spouts incendiary bullshit is Marty going talk to us about standing up for censorship? Fuck no.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:57:59 AM
...
Incidentally, you are probably the one who comes to my mind as having done a complete u-turn on the muslim question. Hell, even your original name was anti-war. :D
No I was against the 'illegal' toppling of a nasty regime, which for better and worse was keeping a lid on most of this sort of thing; now we have ISIL and these sympathiser terrorists in France.
I think it's been pretty clear for years, even during Paradox OT that my distaste is for the corrupt 'royal' Saudi regime, which is the wellspring for much of the hate propaganda in the region, some of which reaches into Western muslim communities.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:44:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:37:29 PM
"- 24% would ban Muslims from immigrating"
Seems at least some evidence.
Not really. Banning people from immigrating is a bit different than wanting to curtail rights of people who are citizens.
The issue isn't "curtailing rights of Muslim citizens", it is the more general one of 'do a sizable number of Westerners see Muslims as, in general, sympathetic to terrorism".
To my mind, it seems hard to argue that this sentiment doesn't exist.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:57:59 AM
Well, to be honest, the only Americans who are now taking Europeans to task over islamophobia are really Raz (who is insane) and garbon (who wasn't even posting during the Iraq war and if he was, he would have probably said something snide he read on salon.com). The key critics of European islamophobia seem to be Anglo-saxon Canucks and pseudo-Canucks (like Jacob) and I don't remember them cheering Iraq war that much (Malthus is the only one who occassionally takes islamophobic stances, but that's only when Israel is doing the killing and he is getting transmissions from the Mother Ship).
I remember CdM and Berkut were cheering on glassing the Middle East but they are not now in the forefront of the ponytail islamic apologists brigade (CdM is just sniping out of spite for everything and everyone).
Incidentally, you are probably the one who comes to my mind as having done a complete u-turn on the muslim question. Hell, even your original name was anti-war. :D
I challenge anyone to find a single post in which I have ever taken an "Islamophobic stance".
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 09:29:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:57:59 AM
Well, to be honest, the only Americans who are now taking Europeans to task over islamophobia are really Raz (who is insane) and garbon (who wasn't even posting during the Iraq war and if he was, he would have probably said something snide he read on salon.com). The key critics of European islamophobia seem to be Anglo-saxon Canucks and pseudo-Canucks (like Jacob) and I don't remember them cheering Iraq war that much (Malthus is the only one who occassionally takes islamophobic stances, but that's only when Israel is doing the killing and he is getting transmissions from the Mother Ship).
I remember CdM and Berkut were cheering on glassing the Middle East but they are not now in the forefront of the ponytail islamic apologists brigade (CdM is just sniping out of spite for everything and everyone).
Incidentally, you are probably the one who comes to my mind as having done a complete u-turn on the muslim question. Hell, even your original name was anti-war. :D
I challenge anyone to find a single post in which I have ever taken an "Islamophobic stance".
Your anti Islam stance is as well documented as your anti French stance - ie as substantive as the intellectually dishonest posts of some Languishites.
Also, I have a vague recollection of someone accusing Berkut about wanting something "glassed" a while back and the accusation was shown to be completely false.
The one thing going against you is your need to purchase 20,000 dollar strollers and so people will believe almost anything about you now.
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 09:29:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:57:59 AM
Well, to be honest, the only Americans who are now taking Europeans to task over islamophobia are really Raz (who is insane) and garbon (who wasn't even posting during the Iraq war and if he was, he would have probably said something snide he read on salon.com). The key critics of European islamophobia seem to be Anglo-saxon Canucks and pseudo-Canucks (like Jacob) and I don't remember them cheering Iraq war that much (Malthus is the only one who occassionally takes islamophobic stances, but that's only when Israel is doing the killing and he is getting transmissions from the Mother Ship).
I remember CdM and Berkut were cheering on glassing the Middle East but they are not now in the forefront of the ponytail islamic apologists brigade (CdM is just sniping out of spite for everything and everyone).
Incidentally, you are probably the one who comes to my mind as having done a complete u-turn on the muslim question. Hell, even your original name was anti-war. :D
I challenge anyone to find a single post in which I have ever taken an "Islamophobic stance".
Fine, what I meant you took an unreasonably pro-Israeli position on an Israel-Palestine issue. Better? :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
Fine, what I meant you took an unreasonably pro-Israeli position on an Israel-Palestine issue. Better? :P
Well, sure. Though one could debate how "unreasonable" any particular position is.
Being in favour of Israel (a reasonably open and democratic society) over Palestine (anything but), as a generalization, seems to me reasonable enough. To give but one example - where would you rather be? Tel Aviv, or Gaza?
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 11:03:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
Fine, what I meant you took an unreasonably pro-Israeli position on an Israel-Palestine issue. Better? :P
Well, sure. Though one could debate how "unreasonable" any particular position is.
Being in favour of Israel (a reasonably open and democratic society) over Palestine (anything but), as a generalization, seems to me reasonable enough. To give but one example - where would you rather be? Tel Aviv, or Gaza?
Oh I know. I don't remember details, to be honest - I remember this was something we disagreed on, so your position must have been unreasonable by definition. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2015, 11:03:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
Fine, what I meant you took an unreasonably pro-Israeli position on an Israel-Palestine issue. Better? :P
Well, sure. Though one could debate how "unreasonable" any particular position is.
Being in favour of Israel (a reasonably open and democratic society) over Palestine (anything but), as a generalization, seems to me reasonable enough. To give but one example - where would you rather be? Tel Aviv, or Gaza?
Oh I know. I don't remember details, to be honest - I remember this was something we disagreed on, so your position must have been unreasonable by definition. :P
Hmmm... I'm not sure I find that persuasive.
Quote from: Warspite on January 09, 2015, 07:32:58 AM
You know guys, the search function works once again at Paradox OT. Someone with time could go and find all these instances. #research #primarysources
#dontbesilly
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 04:20:35 AM
See, Jacob, Malthus and others. This is what I am talking about. This is not just about Muslim terrorism. I don't want to live in a country where laws like this exist - and while most Muslims may not approve of terrorism, will you guarantee to me that a substantial part of Muslims do not approve of laws like this?
Why do we have to guarantee that Muslims do no approve of laws like that?
All kinds of people approve of all kinds of stupid laws. How many Poles in the UK think Russian anti-gay and family protection laws are swell? Do you want us to extend guarantees about that as well?
Bottom line is that for some reason Malthus wants to glass Gaza.
Probably because of all the French speakers there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 09, 2015, 12:53:19 PM
Bottom line is that for some reason Malthus wants to glass Gaza.
Probably because of all the French speakers there.
That or he wants glass gauze. Most likely in order to mount it on his $20,000 stroller.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 04:20:35 AM
See, Jacob, Malthus and others. This is what I am talking about. This is not just about Muslim terrorism. I don't want to live in a country where laws like this exist - and while most Muslims may not approve of terrorism, will you guarantee to me that a substantial part of Muslims do not approve of laws like this?
Why do we have to guarantee that Muslims do no approve of laws like that?
All kinds of people approve of all kinds of stupid laws. How many Poles in the UK think Russian anti-gay and family protection laws are swell? Do you want us to extend guarantees about that as well?
Well, if I were British, I'd want Poles out too. The only reason I support Poland's membership in the EU is because it drags Poland, kicking and screaming, into Western civilisation. If I were a part of a nation already firmly entrenched in the Western civilisation, I would want these antisemitic Catholic troglodytes out.
Now that the Islamoids are dead we can go back to pretending they're fringe outliers and go back to fighting Islamophobia.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
Now that the Islamoids are dead we can go back to pretending they're fringe outliers and go back to fighting Islamophobia.
Yep. Pretty sure that killed off the last of them. Nothing else to see here.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
Now that the Islamoids are dead we can go back to pretending they're fringe outliers and go back to fighting Islamophobia.
Sadly, the end result of this will be Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage winning elections. The problem of islamisation is a complex one and one requiring measured response, that takes into account our values. But because none of the mainstream parties acknowledges it even exists, people will end up voting for populists.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:11:55 PM
Well, if I were British, I'd want Poles out too. The only reason I support Poland's membership in the EU is because it drags Poland, kicking and screaming, into Western civilisation. If I were a part of a nation already firmly entrenched in the Western civilisation, I would want these antisemitic Catholic troglodytes out.
Polish women are kind of hot, though. So there's that.
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:11:55 PM
Well, if I were British, I'd want Poles out too. The only reason I support Poland's membership in the EU is because it drags Poland, kicking and screaming, into Western civilisation. If I were a part of a nation already firmly entrenched in the Western civilisation, I would want these antisemitic Catholic troglodytes out.
Polish women are kind of hot, though. So there's that.
As you can imagine that would not weigh heavily on my opinion either. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
That or he wants glass gauze.
I'd like a glass of Gueuze :beer:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beeroverip.org%2Fbeers%2Fgueuze.jpg&hash=5ecf58ce4e8dc59432967f29093b460864c3d3ce)
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:15:44 PM
As you can imagine that would not weigh heavily on my opinion either. :P
You would if you were a hetero Brit :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:19:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:15:44 PM
As you can imagine that would not weigh heavily on my opinion either. :P
You would if you were a hetero Brit :contract:
I can imagine myself being a Brit. I can't imagine myself being hetero. :P
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:14:47 PM
Polish women are kind of hot, though. So there's that.
A guy I worked with once had a Polish wife. Very high maintenance, and not in the cool way. Couldn't screw in a light bulb.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
Now that the Islamoids are dead we can go back to pretending they're fringe outliers and go back to fighting Islamophobia.
If only there were some fearless heroes ready and willing to remind us of the existential threat we are facing, and able to prescribe reasonable actions society could take to counter it :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:20:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:14:47 PM
Polish women are kind of hot, though. So there's that.
A guy I worked with once had a Polish wife. Very high maintenance, and not in the cool way. Couldn't screw in a light bulb.
Maybe she wasn't small enough to fit inside the light bulb?
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
Sadly, the end result of this will be Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage winning elections. The problem of islamisation is a complex one and one requiring measured response, that takes into account our values. But because none of the mainstream parties acknowledges it even exists, people will end up voting for populists.
This is nonsense. It's exactly the same as the UKIP voter saying 'none of the mainstream parties talk about immigration' or Tamas' 'none of the mainstream parties talk about welfare'. They do. Quite a lot. We used to have Tony Blair as Prime Minister for Christ's sake. They're not necessarily saying what you want but they're hardly ignoring the issue.
Nigel Farage won't win elections, they'll be lucky to get ten seats. Le Pen is more worrying in my view because it's a Presidential vote not 650 little elections. Her most likely opponent, from what I understand, is Sarko who is hardly averse to right-wing populism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:20:14 PM
I can imagine myself being a Brit. I can't imagine myself being hetero. :P
Luckily the two rarely really collide :P
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
Now that the Islamoids are dead we can go back to pretending they're fringe outliers and go back to fighting Islamophobia.
I want to know why Malthus hates Muslims and French-speakers. Even I'm not that bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:20:25 PM
A guy I worked with once had a Polish wife. Very high maintenance, and not in the cool way. Couldn't screw in a light bulb.
Most importantly, how did she look?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:20:14 PM
I can imagine myself being a Brit. I can't imagine myself being hetero. :P
Luckily the two rarely really collide :P
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:20:25 PM
A guy I worked with once had a Polish wife. Very high maintenance, and not in the cool way. Couldn't screw in a light bulb.
Most importantly, how did she look?
Not worth putting up with a lot of bullshit I heard about. :lol:
Speaking of chicks with accents, that's what I don't get about a lot of the Russian chicks around here; I've got friends I've met a few Russians through, and they are some high-maintenance, full-of-themselves little shits.
A friend once tried to hook me up with a friend of a friend, a young Russian girl. Very attractive, very materialistic, very annoying. When it got back to her that I was not interested, apparently she was floored; could not believe that I wasn't in someone so hot. BUT I HAFF SEXY RUSSIAN ACCENT MENNY PIPPLES WANT ME FOR DATINK
They're hot at 25, they're Brezhnev at 55.
Did have a boner for for a hot ass Croatian chick once. Her husband had cancer, I asked her friend where the line started. Oh, how we like to judge sometimes.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2015, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:38:26 PM
Oh, how we like to judge sometimes.
Sometimes? :hmm:
We already know your ass is on the main podium at the Parade of Roses 24/7.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:20:14 PM
I can imagine myself being a Brit. I can't imagine myself being hetero. :P
Luckily the two rarely really collide :P
I never thought of you as of an Édith Cresson fan (first French female prime minister)
Quote"French Prime Minister Edith Cresson was quoted in Newsweek (Marshall,1991) regarding her perception of a lack of male interest in women among non-Frenchmen: "The majority of those men are homosexual -- perhaps not the majority--but in the U.S.A. there are already 25 percent of them and in England and Germany it is much the same. You cannot imagine it in the history of France." She did concede that "it's difficult to produce a statistic" on comparative homosexuality. To this the Newsweek writer editorially contributed: "Evidence suggests that about 10 percent of any country's men are homosexual" (Marshall, 1991). Reference to such figures are common, frequent, and worldwide (e.g., Yamaguchi, 1991; Gargon, 1991)."
Not many links to confirm this but I do remember vaguely some controversy back then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 01:38:26 PM
Speaking of chicks with accents, that's what I don't get about a lot of the Russian chicks around here; I've got friends I've met a few Russians through, and they are some high-maintenance, full-of-themselves little shits.
A friend once tried to hook me up with a friend of a friend, a young Russian girl. Very attractive, very materialistic, very annoying. When it got back to her that I was not interested, apparently she was floored; could not believe that I wasn't in someone so hot. BUT I HAFF SEXY RUSSIAN ACCENT MENNY PIPPLES WANT ME FOR DATINK
They're hot at 25, they're Brezhnev at 55.
Yeah, I don't think I'd be able to trust a Russian chick, without maybe doing a background check and personality profile on every single member of her family. My cousin married a Russian gal. Her family turned out to be insane alcoholics, so my aunt & uncle quickly learned not to invite them over. She promptly left my cousin and their son once my aunt & uncle finished putting her through college.
And strangely, over the years I've heard many similar stories from others.
QuoteDid have a boner for for a hot ass Croatian chick once. Her husband had cancer, I asked her friend where the line started. Oh, how we like to judge sometimes.
Heard great things about Croat wimmenz, but never had the pleasure of meeting any. I know an Bosnian girl who is attractive but freakishly tall.
Generally, based on my experience, hot Russians of both sexes tend to fall more often than not into a group I like to call "Neanderthal hot". It gets old pretty fast - by the time they are 30, they are no longer attractive.
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
Yeah, I don't think I'd be able to trust a Russian chick, without maybe doing a background check and personality profile on every single member of her family. My cousin married a Russian gal. Her family turned out to be insane alcoholics, so my aunt & uncle quickly learned not to invite them over. She promptly left my cousin and their son once my aunt & uncle finished putting her through college.
And strangely, over the years I've heard many similar stories from others.
I don't trust them, at least not in the Baltimore/DC region; they're the largest immigrant group involved in high-end auto theft, chop shops and insurance fraud in the greater DC metro area, and for years they were running ATM scams. You know those little, nondescript ATMs you see in gas stations or convenience stores, the ones with no bank affiliation? That was always their gig. When it comes to financial hijinks, they put Nigerians and Morgan Chase to shame.
And they show up here with buckets full of cash to begin with, so who the fuck knows what they were up to back in the mudderland. You'd think with all that money they'd take a fucking shower once in a while. Stank ass mongrels.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:55:45 PM
Generally, based on my experience, hot Russians of both sexes tend to fall more often than not into a group I like to call "Neanderthal hot". It gets old pretty fast - by the time they are 30, they are no longer attractive.
That's because we in the West have something in abundance they do not when growing up: it's called "nutrition".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 02:04:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 01:55:45 PM
Generally, based on my experience, hot Russians of both sexes tend to fall more often than not into a group I like to call "Neanderthal hot". It gets old pretty fast - by the time they are 30, they are no longer attractive.
That's because we in the West have something in abundance they do not when growing up: it's called "nutrition".
Vodka binge-drinking also catches up with you at a certain point.
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Latino chicks have short tempers. AY CHIHUAHUA
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
We're very diverse.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Is there nationality relevant? Perhaps you'd like to generalize their behavior? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Is there nationality relevant? Perhaps you'd like to generalize their behavior? :)
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Is there nationality relevant? Perhaps you'd like to generalize their behavior? :)
Ah!
:lol:
I work with a Russian 30something girl, and she's pretty smoking and a really nice person.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:23:46 PM
So in a thread about Islamophobia in Europe, we have a couple of Americans posting generalised blanket statements about other ethnicities. :hmm:
Is there nationality relevant? Perhaps you'd like to generalize their behavior? :)
They're discussing what apparently goes on in America.
No that's why I said a couple ie two; I'm pretty sure most Americans don't hold such proto-racist views.
Quote from: celedhring on January 09, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
I work with a Russian 30something girl, and she's pretty smoking and a really nice person.
Yeah, those are the ones you really have to look out for.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:41:13 PM
No that's why I said a couple ie two; I'm pretty sure most Americans don't hold such proto-racist views.
My guess is the majority of Americans, and people around the world, subscribe to generalizations, both positive and negative.
If you're going to call the mere act of generalization proto-racist, it renders the term meaningless. For example it's conventional wisdom on Languish and at large that English people are uncomfortable around strangers. It's either true or it's false. If it's true, your definition of racism puts you in conflict with reality.
I suggest you consider a different definition of racist/bigot: a person who holds on to existing generalizations and refuses to consider evidence that would alter that generalization. I think Jews are generally smart and unathletic. If I encounter more and more athletic Jews, but still hold on to my old stereotype, then that belief is bigoted.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:41:13 PM
No that's why I said a couple ie two; I'm pretty sure most Americans don't hold such proto-racist views.
Asian chicks are submissive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:41:13 PM
No that's why I said a couple ie two; I'm pretty sure most Americans don't hold such proto-racist views.
My guess is the majority of Americans, and people around the world, subscribe to generalizations, both positive and negative.
If you're going to call the mere act of generalization proto-racist, it renders the term meaningless. For example it's conventional wisdom on Languish and at large that English people are uncomfortable around strangers. It's either true or it's false. If it's true, your definition of racism puts you in conflict with reality.
...
Projecting much are you, hint the rest of the world may not be like you. Where on earth do you get that from? I think a good test would be ask non-UK posters who've met UK Languishite, if that stereotype hold with them.
For what it's worth my own view is that the British Languishites I've met are a pretty gregarious bunch of people, as are the American and Canadian one's I've met.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lg0406U4pD1qbznm5o1_500.gif&hash=5c706ba4598350606938e7512d49a2e8dc9daea9)
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:06:04 PM
Projecting much are you, hint the rest of the world may not be like you. Where on earth do you get that from? I think a good test would be ask non-UK posters who've met UK Languishite, if that stereotype hold with them.
For what it's worth my own view is that the British Languishites I've met are a pretty gregarious bunch of people, as are the American and Canadian one's I've met.
Can I assume based on this post that you have conceded that generalizations do not equate to racism, and that you'd now like to move on to discussing which generalizations are accurate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2015, 03:11:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:06:04 PM
Projecting much are you, hint the rest of the world may not be like you. Where on earth do you get that from? I think a good test would be ask non-UK posters who've met UK Languishite, if that stereotype hold with them.
For what it's worth my own view is that the British Languishites I've met are a pretty gregarious bunch of people, as are the American and Canadian one's I've met.
Can I assume based on this post that you have conceded that generalizations do not equate to racism, and that you'd now like to move on to discussing which generalizations are accurate?
Nope, they're one of the first steps towards them, hence my use of proto. But do carry on characterising what I said.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:13:35 PM
But do carry on characterising what I said.
I never started. I asked a clarifying question about the meaning of your change of subject.
Can we all agree that both Muslims and Russians are scum? :cool:
In fact, pretty much all people are scum, only in different ways. That's diversity.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I think all Muslims are terrorists, but I never get asked.
Well, maybe not all are exactly terrorists, but they are all either terrorists, terrorists in the making, or terrorist factories.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I think all Muslims are terrorists, but I never get asked.
Well to be fair to you, your view on Muslims haven't changed since being on Languish, unlike some of the rest of us.
Look who's chirping in. If it isn't the King David Hotel bell boy himself.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2015, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I'd like to see polling data on that.
Polls are all manipulated by the polling agencies.
I don't believe in polls unless they are done by the Tea Party.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I think all Muslims are terrorists, but I never get asked.
Well to be fair to you, your view on Muslims haven't changed since being on Languish, unlike some of the rest of us.
I hope those views have changed for the worst, because muslims have done nothing good since I joined Languish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Look who's chirping in. If it isn't the King David Hotel bell boy himself.
I think it's warranted as Jews were the explicit target in the '2nd' hostage tacking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Look who's chirping in. If it isn't the King David Hotel bell boy himself.
I'll run you over with my hotel luggage carrier.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I think all Muslims are terrorists, but I never get asked.
Well to be fair to you, your view on Muslims haven't changed since being on Languish, unlike some of the rest of us.
I hope those views have changed for the worst, because muslims have done nothing good since I joined Languish.
Well it seems some of those who were gun-ho behind you guys on going into Iraq to find those WMDs and terrorist training camps, now seem to have backtracked a lot and consider modern islam a beacon of enlightenment.
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
I don't undestand.
Does the world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? I think not, so I think the cartoonist is full of shit.
Does the whole world think all Muslims are with the terrorists? No.
Is there a sizable number of people in the West who think that a big part of the problem is that the average Muslim approves of terrorism? Sure.
I think all Muslims are terrorists, but I never get asked.
Well to be fair to you, your view on Muslims haven't changed since being on Languish, unlike some of the rest of us.
I hope those views have changed for the worst, because muslims have done nothing good since I joined Languish.
Well, I for one have moved closer to your position. :P
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Look who's chirping in. If it isn't the King David Hotel bell boy himself.
I think it's warranted as Jews were the explicit target in the '2nd' hostage tacking.
I'm pretty sure those Jews had nothing to do with Siegy poisoning any West Bank water wells.
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:49:00 PM
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
UC Berkeley disapproves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:50:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Look who's chirping in. If it isn't the King David Hotel bell boy himself.
I think it's warranted as Jews were the explicit target in the '2nd' hostage tacking.
I'm pretty sure those Jews had nothing to do with Siegy poisoning any West Bank water wells.
Allegedly.
You do know those Jews have plenty of shit-hot lawyers too, some of them even post on Languish. :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:49:00 PM
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
UC Berkeley disapproves.
I'll be genuinely interest to see the languish response to what he says.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:49:00 PM
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
UC Berkeley disapproves.
I'll be genuinely interest to see the languish response to what he says.
The Canadian consensus at least will be that he can't string two sensible sentences together.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:49:00 PM
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
UC Berkeley disapproves.
I'll be genuinely interest to see the languish response to what he says.
I don't plan on watching but I fear Martinus will inflict it on us in some form. The silver lining is he may stop quoting Piketty and make this his new fount of wisdom just to change things up a bit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2015, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 02:41:13 PM
No that's why I said a couple ie two; I'm pretty sure most Americans don't hold such proto-racist views.
Asian chicks are submissive.
Latinas are not :(
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2015, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 03:49:00 PM
Salman Rushdie on tonight's Bill Maher. Must watch. :licklips:
UC Berkeley disapproves.
I'll be genuinely interest to see the languish response to what he says.
The Canadian consensus at least will be that he can't string two sensible sentences together.
No, he will be easily understood. Except by Berkut who will tell us that he didn't actually say what he said. And what he does say will simply play to the Islam is evil crowd. Its all very predictable and not worth watching.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 09, 2015, 03:57:14 PM
I don't plan on watching but I fear Martinus will inflict it on us in some form. The silver lining is he may stop quoting Piketty and make this his new fount of wisdom just to change things up a bit.
:lol:
If only Martinus was up for fearlessly disrespecting Piketty.
Houellebecq on amongst other things, Islamophobia. This interview is from the 2nd of this month. Worth a glance.
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/ (http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/)
Already posted on the other attack thread though.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 04:19:34 PM
Already posted on the other attack thread though.
Bah, thanks for the heads up.
I flicked over to RT for 10 minutes to see what they're coverage of the crisis was, actually somewhat 'neutral' as it turned out. And they were interviewing Khaled Mouhameed (excuse spelling, not sure) , British labour MP for a Birmingham seat. In amongst the expected condemnation and some analysis of the situation British muslims find themselves in, he said British muslim communities have to rise up again this threat. That was his exact turn of phrase "rise up", very interesting usage, I think he meant British muslims have to reject jihadism and alienate it's advocates within their communities.
Would like to hear more of what he has to say on the subject.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 04:19:34 PM
Already posted on the other attack thread though.
Bah, thanks for the heads up.
Sorry :blush:
I believe garbon can muster some necessary disrespect to read it though (I prefer the word irreverence but that's just me). Well, more likely than for him to know what champagne is.
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2015, 03:48:34 PM
Well it seems some of those who were gun-ho behind you guys on going into Iraq to find those WMDs and terrorist training camps, now seem to have backtracked a lot and consider modern islam a beacon of enlightenment.
I don't think
anyone here considers Islam a beacon of enlightenment.
Having said that, there are a lot of us that don't see Muslims (or Jews, or Russian, or blacks) as inherently evil, and are willing to say so.
And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq; I still say it was the right thing to do. Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue.
If I bought the Grallon/Euro line on Muslims, I wouldn't have supported invading Iraq--I would have just supported the idea of simply glassing it over, along with pretty much everything else from Rabat to Karachi, plus several other locations.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
That's one sea I'd rather not be lost at.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 09, 2015, 04:19:34 PM
Already posted on the other attack thread though.
Bah, thanks for the heads up.
Sorry :blush:
I believe garbon can muster some necessary disrespect to read it though (I prefer the word irreverence but that's just me). Well, more likely than for him to know what champagne is.
You might like to waste your time reading drivel. I don't. :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.
He is right at least in one thing - politically and ideologically speaking, Muslims and right wing Catholics could not be more similar. Thank Heavens Lady Eris made them hate each other so much.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.
I used to be a big fan. But it was like when I was a big fan of Noe films (though I still LOVED Enter the Void), it's something I'm out of now.
Having said that I've heard excellent things about his last book so maybe I should give him another go.
His new book actually sounds interesting. I haven't read it but based on that interview it seems like it suggests you can't have Christian civilisation without Christ. Thus the turn to Islam. There's no such thing as an Enlightenment civilisation or a secularist civilisation because the intellectual forces that undermined religion, or Marxism also undermine those ideas. It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.
The Guardian quite like Submission, I think it could be more interesting than it may be being sold as right now:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 06:23:17 PM
It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.
That's a really interesting view.
I sounds to me like magical bullshit.
Not really. It means two things.
For Christians, it means secularism is not an alien ideology but, like all heresies, it's a wrong answer to a valid question. So rather than simply fighting it, it tells the Church it should identify the question and find the right answer.
For secularists, it means that they can't simply expect to take secularism and transplant it to places where non-Christian creeds are dominant. In that, Christianity becomes less of a foe and more of a competitor - but one that plays according to the same rules as secularism, as opposed to other rivals. It also perhaps means that Ann Coulter's "we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not as ridiculous as it sounds. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2015, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. ;)
I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.
I used to be a big fan. But it was like when I was a big fan of Noe films (though I still LOVED Enter the Void), it's something I'm out of now.
Having said that I've heard excellent things about his last book so maybe I should give him another go.
His new book actually sounds interesting. I haven't read it but based on that interview it seems like it suggests you can't have Christian civilisation without Christ. Thus the turn to Islam. There's no such thing as an Enlightenment civilisation or a secularist civilisation because the intellectual forces that undermined religion, or Marxism also undermine those ideas. It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.
The Guardian quite like Submission, I think it could be more interesting than it may be being sold as right now:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo
That sounds a lot more interesting than the impression that the media had given me before, namely that the book was rabble-rousing sensationalism :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
He is right at least in one thing - politically and ideologically speaking, Muslims and right wing Catholics could not be more similar.
Maybe in the 19th century, but that's a bit of a stretch, even for you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 09, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
He is right at least in one thing - politically and ideologically speaking, Muslims and right wing Catholics could not be more similar.
Maybe in the 19th century, but that's a bit of a stretch, even for you.
I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq; I still say it was the right thing to do. Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue.
Lucky for us at the time, Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't think so.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:54:42 PM
I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".
And what, exactly, defines "right wing"? Free market sympathies, on top of gay-hate? :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:54:42 PM
I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".
And what, exactly, defines "right wing"? Free market sympathies, on top of gay-hate? :P
No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:57:03 PM
No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.
So, Mel Gibson then? Roger that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:57:03 PM
No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.
So, Mel Gibson then? Roger that.
Yup. Or the lefebrists. Or Opus Dei. Or followers of that Polish preacher, Father Rydzyk.
I think people like this are much less influential in American Catholicism than they are in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2015, 12:59:32 PM
I think people like this are much less influential in American Catholicism than they are in Europe.
They're there too. But a lot of the natural market of white conservative Catholics in America sold their soul and shill for the Republican party.
Though I think that's changing and they're becoming more European.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2015, 01:07:13 PM
They're there too. But a lot of the natural market of white conservative Catholics in America sold their soul and shill for the Republican party.
They don't carry the political heft like the big protestant mega-churches, though.
QuoteThough I think that's changing and they're becoming more European.
Cake or death? Pretty much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
They don't carry the political heft like the big protestant mega-churches, though.
It's weird. They don't have the heft which is why the Republicans can basically get them arguing for policies that normal Catholics would find impossible - like the death penalty, the Iraq war, or torture, all while cheering on multiple philanderers like Limbaugh and D'Souza.
But I do think they have the intellectual heft. Look at the Supreme Court and the arguments that are now brought out against abortion. It's not at the level of the seamless garment, but they've been improved and moulded by Catholics.
Edit:
QuoteCake or death? Pretty much.
No. I follow a few very conservative American Catholics and from their posts there seems to be a big row brewing from Francis. Some are moving to a more European version of ultra-Catholicism, while others are movement conservatives first Catholics second.
As an American Catholic, who is politically conservative (but I don't consider my Catholicism to be of the conservative kind), generally I'd say for a long time that American Catholics have kept sort of a wall between religion and political belief. That's essentially my philosophy, Catholicism certainly informs my values, but my political positions are based on my conceptions of what I believe is the best societal decision on any given issue. Even on the more religious moral issues that are commingled in politics, like gay marriage and abortion, you see a pretty large number of American Catholics are fine with both, and are fine voting for politicians that vote for both. You could say that any Catholics voting that way are perhaps "Catholics in Name Only" or "Cradle Catholics" who made the gestures and such as kids but couldn't describe Catholicism to you without help from "Catholicism For Dummies"
However in the the past five years and with the rise of the Tea Party I have seen a shift. Several friends of mine in my Parish that "drink the tea" so to speak, are for the first time judging the Catholic Church based on how closely it adheres to Tea Party values. You might think I'm saying that backwards, but I'm not. These guys are starting to turn on the Church in Rome as they see Francis as an insufferable political liberal, and any of the Bishops in America that are not of the political conservative ideology. It's not happened in my parish, but there has been an uptick in tea party people splintering from the Catholic Church to form Catholic Churches unaffiliated with the real Church.
This isn't surprising and I think you're seeing this more and more in America. America is becoming a place of ideological purity, on both the left and the right. And people are rejecting anything that straddles the lines. The reality is it would in fact be difficult to have this ideological political purity, in which you have no personal associations, do no business dealings with, and in a sense wall yourself off from those who have different ideologies and still be comfortable in the Catholic Church in America. I'd say our local church is 50/50 Democrat/Republican, based on my knowledge of the individuals. For the purists on either side sharing the same house is getting harder and harder.
I actually think most Islamophobia in Europe is more about Europe's intrinsic racism and hatred of other cultures. Europe is a place where everyone desperately wanted (to the point of killing over it) to live in countries that are monocultures. I think that people that do things that are totally alien to that culture are naturally despised. For secular Europeans I think the actual practice of Islam is only the smallest part, I think it's much more that Muslims look different, speak different languages typically, wear different clothes, et cetera. They're becoming citizens of these European States, but have no interest in ever becoming Germans, or French, and I think the natural monocultural hatred of things that go against the monoculture are presenting to more casual observations as hatred of Islam. However, I don't think the typical secular European has nearly as much a problem with Islam as they do with these people that look different than them. But Europeans have been educated and hammered into their heads for generations that it's absolutely wrong to hate people just on the basis of things like that. So I think Europeans do not want to admit they hate this guy because he's brown, so instead they can say they hate that he's practicing radical Islam, and if they start doing things to deal with radical Islam, which is a violent threat, and if those things just happen to punish anyone not acting like an appropriate Frenchman, well, that's just an unintended side effect so not bad.
I can't tell you how many French politicians, when pressed on the French burqa ban fell back onto "this is France, these are our laws", what they're saying is "you can't dress that way and be French, so we outlawed it."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 10, 2015, 04:07:39 PM
However in the the past five years and with the rise of the Tea Party I have seen a shift. Several friends of mine in my Parish that "drink the tea" so to speak, are for the first time judging the Catholic Church based on how closely it adheres to Tea Party values. You might think I'm saying that backwards, but I'm not. These guys are starting to turn on the Church in Rome as they see Francis as an insufferable political liberal, and any of the Bishops in America that are not of the political conservative ideology. It's not happened in my parish, but there has been an uptick in tea party people splintering from the Catholic Church to form Catholic Churches unaffiliated with the real Church.
You're also in Virginia, so there's that. Catholics in, say, Massachusetts may not see as much mutual attraction to Tea Party values, or view a Jesuit Pope with as much suspicion, as you see in the Confederacy.
I assume any state north of the dotted dixon line is nothing but apostates and atheist hordes.
Of course you do. :lookaway:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 10, 2015, 04:07:39 PM
America is becoming a place of ideological purity, on both the left and the right.
What do you mean by purity?
Something admirable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2015, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 10, 2015, 04:07:39 PM
America is becoming a place of ideological purity, on both the left and the right.
What do you mean by purity?
The idea that those who are not as radical as you are not "True Believers" and deserve to be expunged - indeed, often (depending on the relative power and need to coddle them) it is often seen that moderates of your own party are to be hated even more than the radicals of the other party.
And god forbid anyone be "independent" - those are the truly hated.
Examples: Demands that Republicans sign the "no new taxes" pledge, regardless of how transparently stupid it is. Or Dems being driven out for being "Blue Dogs".
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2015, 07:52:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2015, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 10, 2015, 04:07:39 PM
America is becoming a place of ideological purity, on both the left and the right.
What do you mean by purity?
The idea that those who are not as radical as you are not "True Believers" and deserve to be expunged - indeed, often (depending on the relative power and need to coddle them) it is often seen that moderates of your own party are to be hated even more than the radicals of the other party.
And god forbid anyone be "independent" - those are the truly hated.
Examples: Demands that Republicans sign the "no new taxes" pledge, regardless of how transparently stupid it is. Or Dems being driven out for being "Blue Dogs".
Most of the blue dogs lost their elections to Republicans, they weren't driven out. For the most part they took a hard right stand because they thought it would save them. It did not. The conservative democrats who left the party because they weren't "pure" enough, did so a long time ago. They were the Dixiecrats and their issue was segregation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:55:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq; I still say it was the right thing to do. Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue.
Lucky for us at the time, Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't think so.
What exactly do you mean here. Obviously, this isn't something you mean literally, given that neither of those 2 generals were around to give their opinion on the rebuilding of Iraq. And I certainly don't think you're disputing my statement that we botched the rebuilding. So what do you mean?
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:55:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq; I still say it was the right thing to do. Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue.
Lucky for us at the time, Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't think so.
What exactly do you mean here. Obviously, this isn't something you mean literally, given that neither of those 2 generals were around to give their opinion on the rebuilding of Iraq. And I certainly don't think you're disputing my statement that we botched the rebuilding. So what do you mean?
That the concepts of "occupation" and "rebuilding" are ever "separate issues". They weren't in Ike's and Mac's time then, and they weren't in 2003, when we embarked on a war plan with no post-war planning whatsoever.
Seemed pretty obvious what I was saying, but not nearly as obvious as the fight you want to pick over it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2015, 12:55:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq; I still say it was the right thing to do. Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue.
Lucky for us at the time, Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't think so.
What exactly do you mean here. Obviously, this isn't something you mean literally, given that neither of those 2 generals were around to give their opinion on the rebuilding of Iraq. And I certainly don't think you're disputing my statement that we botched the rebuilding. So what do you mean?
That the concepts of "occupation" and "rebuilding" are ever "separate issues". They weren't in Ike's and Mac's time then, and they weren't in 2003, when we embarked on a war plan with no post-war planning whatsoever.
Seemed pretty obvious what I was saying, but not nearly as obvious as the fight you want to pick over it.
First, I wasn't trying to pick a fight--I genuinely didn't know exactly what you were getting at. I might have gotten it if you'd said "Marshall and King" instead.
But now that the fight's here: of course they're separate issues. Sort of like how deciding on a "Germany first" strategy in WWII still left where (Pas de Calais or Normandy or somewhere else?) and when (1943 or 1944) to open a "Second Front" in Europe as separate issues.
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2015, 08:19:07 PM
But now that the fight's here: of course they're separate issues.
Nope.
Speaking of Geert Wilders visiting other countries ...
... when he visited the Pegida folks in Dresden he met their leader Lutz Bachmann. For those who don't remember, Bachmann was the guy who thought it funny to post this image of himself on Facebook:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.faz.net%2Fppmedia%2Fvideo%2Fbildergalerie%2F2785976595%2F1.3382828%2Farticle_multimedia_overview%2Fnur-ein-scherz-pegida-gruender.jpg&hash=f2ae6b07dc11735184cfec4a4dfd89b3e7fcd34b)
Some papers illustrated the meeting with this snapshot:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zeit.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2F2015-04%2Fpegida-wilders%2Fpegida-wilders-540x304.jpg&hash=23759f90af8b26548ec445695bed70dec08aab8e)
Which immediately reminded people of another photo op:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01523%2Fobama_1523079c.jpg&hash=044944b06d9e066e997a9d76694877c27e0dd806)
Uhm, wait no. I meant this one:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falphahistory.com%2Fweimarrepublic%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2F1195_hitler_und_hindenburg.jpeg&hash=79e8632c736ed9a8bb28bdd6887632c44badd275)
:D
Geert would look awesome with a Bismarck mustache.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 10, 2015, 04:12:11 PM
I actually think most Islamophobia in Europe is more about Europe's intrinsic racism and hatred of other cultures. Europe is a place where everyone desperately wanted (to the point of killing over it) to live in countries that are monocultures. I think that people that do things that are totally alien to that culture are naturally despised. For secular Europeans I think the actual practice of Islam is only the smallest part, I think it's much more that Muslims look different, speak different languages typically, wear different clothes, et cetera. They're becoming citizens of these European States, but have no interest in ever becoming Germans, or French, and I think the natural monocultural hatred of things that go against the monoculture are presenting to more casual observations as hatred of Islam. However, I don't think the typical secular European has nearly as much a problem with Islam as they do with these people that look different than them. But Europeans have been educated and hammered into their heads for generations that it's absolutely wrong to hate people just on the basis of things like that. So I think Europeans do not want to admit they hate this guy because he's brown, so instead they can say they hate that he's practicing radical Islam, and if they start doing things to deal with radical Islam, which is a violent threat, and if those things just happen to punish anyone not acting like an appropriate Frenchman, well, that's just an unintended side effect so not bad.
I can't tell you how many French politicians, when pressed on the French burqa ban fell back onto "this is France, these are our laws", what they're saying is "you can't dress that way and be French, so we outlawed it."
But in the UK Carribean people are the most integrated minority.
In a lot of other countries too blacks are very well integrated.
Its only really here in Switzerland that I've seen black people ranked lower than asians/arabs. And that's largely just down to the amount of newcomers there are and the minority that go into iffy business.
Indians too tend to look a lot more different than most muslims. They dress in traditional clothing far more often. But again you never really hear something against them.
Quite the opposite in fact. UKIP is actively trying to court the conservative Indian vote.
Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2015, 09:01:40 AM
Speaking of Geert Wilders visiting other countries ...
... when he visited the Pegida folks in Dresden he met their leader Lutz Bachmann. For those who don't remember, Bachmann was the guy who thought it funny to post this image of himself on Facebook:
and given the funny connotations people make he was clearly correct