Islam: The Religion of Cultural Terrorism

[JEDIYoda]

We hate gays.

We?? How many people are you speaking for??
Hate is a really strong word......
I would bet that there are gays and lesbians who pray for you everyday and who have no malice towards you at all....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

We?? How many people are you speaking for??
Hate is a really strong word......
I would bet that there are gays and lesbians who pray for you everyday and who have no malice towards you at all....

Apparently a majority of Americans and Arabs...

That shows how religions come together to condemn their enemy.

I'm fairly sure that if you did the same fucking test in Israel you'd see the same result, not everyone is as lenient as a believer as you are or an atheist as i am.

But i do believe that we are on our way to making a majority in all the world except for the Islamic world which is turning worse by the year.

Here's to never giving up the good fight no matter where we have to fight it.

Shalom

 

[Lemon law]

Oh come on come on, as a student of history, Christianity is way ahead of Islam in imposing religious terrorism. The Jews per capita are way ahead of the Christians but oh well they are such a much smaller group.

But if we do a fast backward 1000 years, Islam as a religion had a long proud record of cultural diversity and respect for learning, while Christians were the most ignorant people on the planet. They don't call feudalism the dark ages for nothing.

But we can't help living in the small slice of time in history we are born in, and right now we live in the start of a post colonial period, in which the Muslims are almost the last people to throw off the colonial yoke. Worse yet in an accident of history, Muslims tended to live on the regions of the world with the most oil, something of no known value before about a 100 years ago.

But the thing to think really hard about is the future of the human race. Because in the spam of one living lifetime we now have the military means to kill everyone on earth. And if we don't learn more about peace tolerance and fairness for all, that may indeed be the human future.

As for the jerk in the video, he reminds me of war current criminals who likewise played the racial division cards, as soon all kinds of Christians were rounding up and murdering Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ich bin ein Hitler Judend.

yeah, yeah, we know, we know..

 

[Craig234]

I'm NOT American dipshit.

And mutual cooperations within nations does not justify terrorist acts either way, if you think it does, this discussion is over.

No, you're British dipshit, as we all know.

I assumed when you said 'the day you made it our business' referred to 9/11.

If that's right, then by your definitions, you have no business talking about 9/11, you're not American. As opposed to my giving you credit for being in a larger western group.

If that's wrong, then my points still stand - the US and UK both 'messed with them' first. Need a refresher in England's history in the Middle East?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, you're British dipshit, as we all know.

I assumed when you said 'the day you made it our business' referred to 9/11.

If that's right, then by your definitions, you have no business talking about 9/11, you're not American. As opposed to my giving you credit for being in a larger western group.

If that's wrong, then my points still stand - the US and UK both 'messed with them' first. Need a refresher in England's history in the Middle East?

I'm speechless.. i haven't got a right to argue when my team was the first sent into Afghanistan?

Yeah, you know what, fuck off you retarded pice of sheit.

The rest is bullsheit too and if it wasn't, i don't give a sheit, we'll end it, one way or another, there will not be a kind end, just a wait for something to happen serious enough to blow the fuckers right up.

I'll be there to pinpoint them then, and if you like terrorists rather than civilians dying, you'd be more appreciative of teams like mine.

Personally, i belive you cheer for the deaths, the deaths of NATO soldiers that is, not the enemy troops.

 

[SandEagle]

Son, i've been in the foreign stationed forces for a good 22 years now and in forces where i have been able to partake in almost all reporting i'd like from all agencies including the ISI for a good ten years, so let me tell you one thing, if there is a victim of propaganda in this discussion, it's not me.

So now you are against the UN too, well join hands with the other participants in this thread, they hate the UN for not giving them a free reign when it was obvious they were perpetrating a known lie and laughed out of the room.

I suppose that arguing AGAINST human rights, as you are doing now is enough to make even the staunchest antagonist against a war with Islam engage into fighting one, so keep that up, all the way to your own dug grave.

fuck dude, a fry chef for 22 years? congrats i suppose. by the way, i build airplanes for the Navy. been doing that for 31 years.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love the JOS argument as he says, "I'm speechless.. i haven't got a right to argue when my team was the first sent into Afghanistan?"

Well maybe JOS you might have some bragging rights if team JOS accomplished anything positive, but after 10 years of continuous dis improvement, all you have done JOS, leaves us inspiring message on how to lose an military occupation.

As we win second place in a beauty contest with the Taliban. How could we ever sink that low? But with JOS stinking thinking we managed that feat. But if I want to know how to lose a world empire in a short time, the go to guys are always the Brits.

As JOS becomes the best recruiter the Taliban ever had.

Of course as an American, I can only feel shame, as we too blow our future off in the politics of stupidity.

 

[Craig234]

Gotta love the JOS argument as he says, "I'm speechless.. i haven't got a right to argue when my team was the first sent into Afghanistan?"

Well maybe JOS you might have some bragging rights if team JOS accomplished anything positive, but after 10 years of continuous dis improvement, all you have done JOS, leaves us inspiring message on how to lose an military occupation.

As we win second place in a beauty contest with the Taliban. How could we ever sink that low? But with JOS stinking thinking we managed that feat. But if I want to know how to lose a world empire in a short time, the go to guys are always the Brits.

As JOS becomes the best recruiter the Taliban ever had.

Of course as an American, I can only feel shame, as we too blow our future off in the politics of stupidity.

To be fair, I had no problem with JoS using 9/11. When he opened the topic - citing 9/11 as the beginning of all hostilities between the west and the Muslims - I did not say a word about 'he's not American, so he has no business saying that'. He HAS (if we believe him) been fighting there for years in the conflict 9/11 triggered. My response, rather, pointed out errors in his saying that THEY messed with US first, by mentioning history before 9/11.

Instead of answering that at all rationally, HE made the point of saying that he doesn't have to answer for any of that history, because he's not American.

I was just pointing out that he's trying to have it both ways. He's able to use 9/11, an attack on the US, in arguments, but he doesn't have to discuss any other US history.

(I also pointed out that at a Brit, there's plenty of English history we could replace the points I made with. For just one example, while WE 'messed with' Iran installing the Shah as their dictator, it was at England's request. While WE launched an aggressive war againt Iraq, it was the British who MADE Iraq, patching together enemies to make a mess. Etc.)

 

[Lemon law]

Point granted Craig234, JOS its just an itsy bitsie tienie weanie part of Nato stupidity. But if JOS volunteers to be a poster child of stinking thinking and is still puzzled about why we are failing, is is it forum unfair to single him out?

Maybe we can all admire the dedication and the goals of JOS, when those same policies lead to Nato only defeat, we must question their wisdom.

And we must also say, while the end goals of JOS may be desirable, the shame is really on us when we are to cheap to pony up the 400,000 troops and devepoment money to make JOS ideas work.

But still reality is reality, JOS is a fool to advocate a strategy that can't work with the resources granted to Nato. When our Nato resources are less than ideal, JOS type ideas are counter productive.

 

[The Green Bean]

Because as members of the human race, our morality says that it's bad for people to be wrongly harmed - violence, bigotry, discrimination.

We have plenty of our own history of wrongs there - and some still going on - but so do you.

Your bigotry against gays is no less bad than bigotry against Muslims, against blacks, against women, etc.

It's a human rights issue, and those cross borders. Ya, we're still working on it here too.

Human Rights are not universal. The only reason why the West and Islam share some common morals is because both are derived from Christianity. Where was this human morality when Titus massacred Jerusalem's population? After all, the Romans were the most advanced society of the time. What about the Nazis? Stalin? Morals were different for them. For Hitler, there was nothing wrong in killing a Jew. It was the right thing to do... Look at the big picture: right and wrong have never been universal. And what's good for a human and what's not is also subjective. Jailing people, or executing them is bad for an individual but arguably good for society as a whole. So who decides? For you it's your constitution. For me, it's the Quran.

The main problem here is that most people evaluate Islam in what they have in front of them today--which is a on the whole a corrupted and backward society that doesn't even follow Islamic principles except in name. The average jihadi doesn't know any other aspect of Islam, its philosophy, history, jurisprudence but is brainwashed to believe that blowing others up will take him straight to heaven. It's pretty much how the West is fed with the "freedom" rhetoric. It's noble to kill innocents in the name of freedom as long as you call in collateral damage.

Society in 200 years will see today's society as barbaric, corrupt and backwards. That is how it works. People will always see "others" as inferior. If Hitler had won WW2, anybody that was not a fascist would have been "backward." "Human Rights" would have been different then. Something similar would have happened if the Soviets had won the Cold War. In the same way, in an Islamic society Western values are regarded as backward and corrupt.

 

[HAL9000]

Then you know nothing of this so called religion of islam.

I know enough to know that it's not so called, it is a religion, and just like any other.

 

[Craig234]

Human Rights are not universal. The only reason why the West and Islam share some common morals is because both are derived from Christianity.

No, it's not. Other religions - every religion except perhaps Satanism - shares some common morals; atheists share some common morals with Muslims and Christians.

It doesn't even make a lot of sense to talk about 'universal' with human rights, not because they're not but because it's confused.

Is there any such thing as any universal human right? Say, the right not to be tortured to death for no reason? If not, then how do we justify any war for any moral reason - and how would that make any sense to even talk about? And yet basically everyone agrees morals are important. So I'd say put aside the 'universal' debate.

Basically there's no universal agreement on morals - one person things one thing, another another - but that doesn't mean that the person who thinks something is moral can't decide he things someone else is doing something immoral and intervene. So where does that leave us?

If you see a man abducting a 6 year old child you know he plans to rape torture and murder, are you required to say "I have my morals, he has his" and let him proceed? On the other hand, is a person who sees someone eating pork allowed to say 'that's immoral and I must ban you from doing it', if not kill them for the bad behavior?

Who's to say "but one is really bad and the other isn't"?

Bottom line there is no easy answer to take either extreme; it does come down to people deciding their views when to intervene.

Where was this human morality when Titus massacred Jerusalem's population? After all, the Romans were the most advanced society of the time. What about the Nazis? Stalin? Morals were different for them. For Hitler, there was nothing wrong in killing a Jew. It was the right thing to do... Look at the big picture: right and wrong have never been universal. And what's good for a human and what's not is also subjective. Jailing people, or executing them is bad for an individual but arguably good for society as a whole. So who decides? For you it's your constitution. For me, it's the Quran.

The fact that someone did something we view as immoral in the past does not require us to allow any behavior by everyone now.

Yes, the plantation owner in 1840 Alabama might have thought keeping slaves was not immoral. Now, we think it is. And? It means that we do not allow it now. If our society sinks back to thinking it's not immoral, sadly, then we'll have no reason not to allow it again. But we do now, and we outlaw it now. That doesn't mean it wasn't immoral then (nor does it mean we're right now. Maybe we're just overly sensitive).

But TODAY, I think that the bigotry against gays is wrong, that our understanding of the history of the bigotry and its flawed basis show it's wrong. Today, you are the guy still defending Hitler, still defending slavery, when it comes to you defending bigotry against gays. And I'm ok with opposing you harming Jews or slaves or gays - just as I'm ok with opposing anti-Mulsim bigots here from harming you for their bigotry.

You really don't have a point. You are not going to be able to defend your bigotry with anything other than some nihilism about "there's no such thing as morality".

Or the similar claim, "there's no such thing as morality in terms of telling others right and wrong". And you can see above my example on the child murderer about that.

The main problem here is that most people evaluate Islam in what they have in front of them today--which is a on the whole a corrupted and backward society that doesn't even follow Islamic principles except in name. The average jihadi doesn't know any other aspect of Islam, its philosophy, history, jurisprudence but is brainwashed to believe that blowing others up will take him straight to heaven. It's pretty much how the West is fed with the "freedom" rhetoric. It's noble to kill innocents in the name of freedom as long as you call in collateral damage.

This has nothing to do with Islam, frankly. You may say and think you are basing your hatred of gays on the Quran. It doesn't matter - I'm discussing the bigotry, not why.

Whether you hate gays because you think the Quran tells you to or because you resemble the ignorant terrorists above and 'were raised to hate them' doesn't matter.

But IMO you resemble the people you condemn above on the gay issue more than you realize.

Society in 200 years will see today's society as barbaric, corrupt and backwards. That is how it works. People will always see "others" as inferior. If Hitler had won WW2, anybody that was not a fascist would have been "backward." "Human Rights" would have been different then. Something similar would have happened if the Soviets had won the Cold War. In the same way, in an Islamic society Western values are regarded as backward and corrupt.

Not exactly. For example, take the golden rule. It goes a long way to addressing the issues you list - 'don't dehumanize other people'. It covers a lot of ground, and doesn't change a lot over 200 years. Slaves were dehumanized. Hitler dehumanized Jews. Terrorists might dehumanize the west and many in the west might dehumanize terrorists.

And you dehumanize gays. And that's wrong. The US has dehumanized gays our whole history. We were wrong. We're improving. You should too.

At the same time the US had legalized slavery, we had abolitionists who said it was wrong. They were right. At the same time you hate gays, we have people saying you're wrong.

Now this was about your demand that you be left alone to hate gays. You lumped in your treatment of gays with your choices of food, dress, etc. They aren't the same.

When Hitler was doing the genocide against a number of groups, did the world have a right to say 'we're going to intervene'? I'd say yes. Now the sad fact is we didn't. The world was more concerned about going to war with him for his attacking others, and I question whether the world would have intervened without Hitler's attacks. But that's not the point. I'm not saying war is justified for you being a bigot - or for war to be started against the US because we are. But I do think it's the world's business to protect human rights.

That can mean speaking out, sanctions, alliances, and in theory even violence.

I'm not saying to invade you now for your bigotry, but I am saying that I disagree with your defense that it's no one's business if you harm gays.

You have the right as sovereign nation to ban gay marriage, to execute gays, to bring back slavery, to create concentration camps and kill all Jews in your borders, to legalize child rape and murder - you can do those things. You can refuse to explain yourself to the world. But they're still moral issues and the world still has the right to respond and oppose you harming people.

It's not a neat answer, there's no simple process for saying 'your morals are approved and yours are not', for saying what the sanctions will be.

Sadly, the most common behavior seems to be to misuse these issues as war propaganda - sort of like us ignoring Saddam's behavior when an ally, but bringing it up 20 years later when we're trying to get support for war against him. But nonetheless, I'd say that human rights ARE universal issues, in that everyone has an interest in protecting everyone.

And at the moment, I'm interested in protecting the gays in your society from your bigotry.

But I'm not calling for war, I'm just telling you, as I would tell that slave owner, you're wrong, and try to encourage you to improve your problem in this area.

I'm assuming your views are based in part - regardless of the Quran - on ignorance and an existing bigotry, that can be fixed, the same way I do with anti-gay bigots here.

I was just watching a show last night - it was only 14 years ago a TV station refused to carry a show because it had a character announce they're gay. How backwards ignorant, wrong is that? It shows us having people who simply did not understand homosexuality to the point they thought that someone saying they're gay is some evil thing, that they can just 'oppose gay' the way they opposed robbery. If that was here in the US 14 years ago, how much worse would it be in another entire culture?

Sorry, abolitionists spoke out against slavery, and I'm telling you your bigotry is wrong.

I'm encouraging you to discuss the issue - you might find you agree it's wrong eventually.

One nice thing, now that many 'civil rights' issues have been won - no more slaves, women can vote, etc. - it makes the next ones easier, people have a better idea about equality.

I'm not going to say ignore your Quran, but just as with Christians who thought the bible approved slavery, or killing gays, there's room for realizing you misunderstand it.

There are all kinds of things in the bible today that can be viewed differently than they have been - things like the Leviticus rules. You don't need to be killed for touching a football. Wearing clothing made of more than one material may be an 'abomination' just as 'man laying with man' is, but there are different interpretations of the rule. I sure hear a lot more from fundamentalists against gays than the two-material fabric.

Use a little common sense - what if you were gay? What do you think people who are born gay did wrong that they deserve to be 'dehumanized' or treated as second class?

Jesus saying 'love your enemy' speaks a lot more loudly than Leviticus to many people.

It may have seemed outrageous to end slavery as immoral at one point. Later, it didn't.

I'd like to use the argument, Green Bean, you are familiar with bigotry against Muslims, so you should better understand why bigotry against gays is wrong. But I know that doesn't work - the same applies to blacks in the US, who better understand bigotry because of our history, and yet are much more likely to be anti-gay bigots anyway, and when confronted about it, don't get the point, instead they get pissed off at being compared to gays. 'Fighting anti-black bigotry is nothing like fighting anti-gay bigotry!' What can I say.

But to repeat, no, I don't buy your attempting to say human rights issues are 'your business' the way what you choose to eat is, like some 'cultural trait' to be respected.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

/agree

 

[The Green Bean]

No, it's not. Other religions - every religion except perhaps Satanism - shares some common morals; atheists share some common morals with Muslims and Christians.

It doesn't even make a lot of sense to talk about 'universal' with human rights, not because they're not but because it's confused.

Is there any such thing as any universal human right? Say, the right not to be tortured to death for no reason? If not, then how do we justify any war for any moral reason - and how would that make any sense to even talk about? And yet basically everyone agrees morals are important. So I'd say put aside the 'universal' debate.

Basically there's no universal agreement on morals - one person things one thing, another another - but that doesn't mean that the person who thinks something is moral can't decide he things someone else is doing something immoral and intervene. So where does that leave us?

If you see a man abducting a 6 year old child you know he plans to rape torture and murder, are you required to say "I have my morals, he has his" and let him proceed? On the other hand, is a person who sees someone eating pork allowed to say 'that's immoral and I must ban you from doing it', if not kill them for the bad behavior?

Who's to say "but one is really bad and the other isn't"?

Bottom line there is no easy answer to take either extreme; it does come down to people deciding their views when to intervene.

Most laws today are based on Greek philosophy and religious scriptures. That is why they are all so similar. But morals can not be absolute. Morals change from generation to generation and society to society. Yesterday, gays were regarded as sinners. Today, they are celebrated. Whether society moved "forward" or "backward" is debatable.

Then there is another debate about whether a man can me convicted of a crime he planned to commit but was stopped from doing so. According to my morals, that is barbaric.

You put the nail right in the coffin when you say who is to decide? Really, who is? Is it the majority? Is it the powerful? Is it the religious? Is it the educated elite? That is where the actually debate starts and ends because there is no real answer to that. But to realize that leads to the biggest question: now what?

The fact that someone did something we view as immoral in the past does not require us to allow any behavior by everyone now.

Yes, the plantation owner in 1840 Alabama might have thought keeping slaves was not immoral. Now, we think it is. And? It means that we do not allow it now. If our society sinks back to thinking it's not immoral, sadly, then we'll have no reason not to allow it again. But we do now, and we outlaw it now. That doesn't mean it wasn't immoral then (nor does it mean we're right now. Maybe we're just overly sensitive).

But TODAY, I think that the bigotry against gays is wrong, that our understanding of the history of the bigotry and its flawed basis show it's wrong. Today, you are the guy still defending Hitler, still defending slavery, when it comes to you defending bigotry against gays. And I'm ok with opposing you harming Jews or slaves or gays - just as I'm ok with opposing anti-Mulsim bigots here from harming you for their bigotry.

You really don't have a point. You are not going to be able to defend your bigotry with anything other than some nihilism about "there's no such thing as morality".

Or the similar claim, "there's no such thing as morality in terms of telling others right and wrong". And you can see above my example on the child murderer about that.



This has nothing to do with Islam, frankly. You may say and think you are basing your hatred of gays on the Quran. It doesn't matter - I'm discussing the bigotry, not why.

Whether you hate gays because you think the Quran tells you to or because you resemble the ignorant terrorists above and 'were raised to hate them' doesn't matter.

But IMO you resemble the people you condemn above on the gay issue more than you realize.



Not exactly. For example, take the golden rule. It goes a long way to addressing the issues you list - 'don't dehumanize other people'. It covers a lot of ground, and doesn't change a lot over 200 years. Slaves were dehumanized. Hitler dehumanized Jews. Terrorists might dehumanize the west and many in the west might dehumanize terrorists.

And you dehumanize gays. And that's wrong. The US has dehumanized gays our whole history. We were wrong. We're improving. You should too.

At the same time the US had legalized slavery, we had abolitionists who said it was wrong. They were right. At the same time you hate gays, we have people saying you're wrong.

Now this was about your demand that you be left alone to hate gays. You lumped in your treatment of gays with your choices of food, dress, etc. They aren't the same.

When Hitler was doing the genocide against a number of groups, did the world have a right to say 'we're going to intervene'? I'd say yes. Now the sad fact is we didn't. The world was more concerned about going to war with him for his attacking others, and I question whether the world would have intervened without Hitler's attacks. But that's not the point. I'm not saying war is justified for you being a bigot - or for war to be started against the US because we are. But I do think it's the world's business to protect human rights.

That can mean speaking out, sanctions, alliances, and in theory even violence.

I'm not saying to invade you now for your bigotry, but I am saying that I disagree with your defense that it's no one's business if you harm gays.

You have the right as sovereign nation to ban gay marriage, to execute gays, to bring back slavery, to create concentration camps and kill all Jews in your borders, to legalize child rape and murder - you can do those things. You can refuse to explain yourself to the world. But they're still moral issues and the world still has the right to respond and oppose you harming people.

It's not a neat answer, there's no simple process for saying 'your morals are approved and yours are not', for saying what the sanctions will be.

Sadly, the most common behavior seems to be to misuse these issues as war propaganda - sort of like us ignoring Saddam's behavior when an ally, but bringing it up 20 years later when we're trying to get support for war against him. But nonetheless, I'd say that human rights ARE universal issues, in that everyone has an interest in protecting everyone.

And at the moment, I'm interested in protecting the gays in your society from your bigotry.

But I'm not calling for war, I'm just telling you, as I would tell that slave owner, you're wrong, and try to encourage you to improve your problem in this area.

I'm assuming your views are based in part - regardless of the Quran - on ignorance and an existing bigotry, that can be fixed, the same way I do with anti-gay bigots here.

I was just watching a show last night - it was only 14 years ago a TV station refused to carry a show because it had a character announce they're gay. How backwards ignorant, wrong is that? It shows us having people who simply did not understand homosexuality to the point they thought that someone saying they're gay is some evil thing, that they can just 'oppose gay' the way they opposed robbery. If that was here in the US 14 years ago, how much worse would it be in another entire culture?

Sorry, abolitionists spoke out against slavery, and I'm telling you your bigotry is wrong.

I'm encouraging you to discuss the issue - you might find you agree it's wrong eventually.

One nice thing, now that many 'civil rights' issues have been won - no more slaves, women can vote, etc. - it makes the next ones easier, people have a better idea about equality.

I'm not going to say ignore your Quran, but just as with Christians who thought the bible approved slavery, or killing gays, there's room for realizing you misunderstand it.

There are all kinds of things in the bible today that can be viewed differently than they have been - things like the Leviticus rules. You don't need to be killed for touching a football. Wearing clothing made of more than one material may be an 'abomination' just as 'man laying with man' is, but there are different interpretations of the rule. I sure hear a lot more from fundamentalists against gays than the two-material fabric.

Use a little common sense - what if you were gay? What do you think people who are born gay did wrong that they deserve to be 'dehumanized' or treated as second class?

Jesus saying 'love your enemy' speaks a lot more loudly than Leviticus to many people.

It may have seemed outrageous to end slavery as immoral at one point. Later, it didn't.

I'd like to use the argument, Green Bean, you are familiar with bigotry against Muslims, so you should better understand why bigotry against gays is wrong. But I know that doesn't work - the same applies to blacks in the US, who better understand bigotry because of our history, and yet are much more likely to be anti-gay bigots anyway, and when confronted about it, don't get the point, instead they get pissed off at being compared to gays. 'Fighting anti-black bigotry is nothing like fighting anti-gay bigotry!' What can I say.

But to repeat, no, I don't buy your attempting to say human rights issues are 'your business' the way what you choose to eat is, like some 'cultural trait' to be respected.

That is just one lump trying to justify intervention in our affairs on the Gays issue. If you really want to tackle to issue of "dehumanization" and "equality" you should be the last one to talk. Nationalism and state borders symbols of inequality and injustice. Why do you jail "illegal immigrants?" Was it their fault they were born where they were or to whom they were? It's okay to view illegal immigrants as a threat to society while saying the same against gays is now a taboo.

Also, in my opinion, freedom of sexuality is not a step forward. It is the step backward. The Quran mentions this numerous times:

80. We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?

81. "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

82. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

83. But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

84. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

You can dismiss this as a myth but I can say the same for the holocaust.

 

[Craig234]

Green Bean, let's take one issue here - following scripture literally.

There are various interpretations possible of the one you quoted - but let's instead simply ask if you are consistent or pick and choose.

I'm not familiar with the Quran, but let's take the following example from the bible which may or may not be in the Quran - if not, substitute something similar I suspect is there.

The bible says - instead of quoting the exact text, I'll paraphrase the gist of it, someone is welcome to look it up, and it'll be the same issue - if a man rapes a woman in the field (it has two situations, in the city and outside), then he has to pay her family 50 silver and to marry her.

That's what it says. Quite clear. So, is that what we should vote into law today? It didn't have any say for the woman, by the way.

I think you will have plenty of guys supporting you who think it's a great idea that they can rape a girl they're attracted to and marry her.

Do you support that being the law (if it's in the Quran) or your similar examples?

Let's start there, as we hear you quote scripture on how to handle gays, which are not discussed in the bible IMO (and not necessarily in the scripture you quoted, also IMO).

Certainly there's nothing in the bible discussing the facts of homosexuality as a natural condition for some people, any more than it discussed many specific types of people.

When it says 'go forth and multiply', is it talking to those born impotent? What are they to do?

The bible has teachings that sometimes sound very specific - and other teachings that are larger principles. Remember the story of saving the lamb on the Sabbath? It violated the specific - and a larger one took precedence.

The bible does speak against promiscuity - which could include things like *straight* people being so promiscuous they started to pursue same-sex promiscuity (I won't claim to understand the culture of the people then on this).

Who's to say gays, who are born gay, aren't the people not meant by the scripture, like the trapped lamb wasn't the work meant by resting on the Sabbath, like the people born impotent aren't meant by the scripture on 'multiply'?

There are larger principles - and people born gay fit them by being treated with love, not discrimination, as equals.

Some Christians used to defend slavery using the bible; now some defend discrimination against gays with the bible.

There's plenty of reason to suggest both are more about bigotry than scripture, notice inconsistent application.

The question to you is, are you consistent in being literal for each such example (and you know there are many more to come if you say yes). Bonus question is the one on impotent people.

It's not easy to get through on this with people.

Save234

 

[Baasha]

Human Rights are not universal.

As is the case with systems of governance and religious philosophy. Why then, is proselytization a hallmark of Christianity and Islam?

 

[The Green Bean]

Green Bean, let's take one issue here - following scripture literally.

There are various interpretations possible of the one you quoted - but let's instead simply ask if you are consistent or pick and choose.

I'm not familiar with the Quran, but let's take the following example from the bible which may or may not be in the Quran - if not, substitute something similar I suspect is there.

The bible says - instead of quoting the exact text, I'll paraphrase the gist of it, someone is welcome to look it up, and it'll be the same issue - if a man rapes a woman in the field (it has two situations, in the city and outside), then he has to pay her family 50 silver and to marry her.

That's what it says. Quite clear. So, is that what we should vote into law today? It didn't have any say for the woman, by the way.

I think you will have plenty of guys supporting you who think it's a great idea that they can rape a girl they're attracted to and marry her.

Do you support that being the law (if it's in the Quran) or your similar examples?

The Quran does not speak directly about rape, hence the main jurisprudence schools of Islamic law have different interpretations. The one I specialized in says that the rapist will be punished in the same way as an adulterer. The woman, through no fault of her own is free and can marry as she pleases.

Let's start there, as we hear you quote scripture on how to handle gays, which are not discussed in the bible IMO (and not necessarily in the scripture you quoted, also IMO).

Certainly there's nothing in the bible discussing the facts of homosexuality as a natural condition for some people, any more than it discussed many specific types of people.

When it says 'go forth and multiply', is it talking to those born impotent? What are they to do?

The bible has teachings that sometimes sound very specific - and other teachings that are larger principles. Remember the story of saving the lamb on the Sabbath? It violated the specific - and a larger one took precedence.

The bible does speak against promiscuity - which could include things like *straight* people being so promiscuous they started to pursue same-sex promiscuity (I won't claim to understand the culture of the people then on this).

Who's to say gays, who are born gay, aren't the people not meant by the scripture, like the trapped lamb wasn't the work meant by resting on the Sabbath, like the people born impotent aren't meant by the scripture on 'multiply'?

There are larger principles - and people born gay fit them by being treated with love, not discrimination, as equals.

Some Christians used to defend slavery using the bible; now some defend discrimination against gays with the bible.

There's plenty of reason to suggest both are more about bigotry than scripture, notice inconsistent application.

The question to you is, are you consistent in being literal for each such example (and you know there are many more to come if you say yes). Bonus question is the one on impotent people.

It's not easy to get through on this with people.

Save234

There is no denying the scientific fact that homosexuality leads to a greater spread in STDs. What would be the world opinions towards gays if tomorrow it was found out that gays are the cause of HIV and homosexuality puts gays at severe risk (let's assume 1 in 3). Then it was found out that a new disease can spread from these HIV gays by non-sexual means. How would society look at homosexuality then?

Then there are the social ills. But since Western and Islamic views on these ills are on the opposite poles, discussing this would be pointless.

Also, there is more than one reason the Quran to get married: for children, for companionship and for social and sexual needs.

 

[PingviN]

There is no denying the scientific fact that homosexuality leads to a greater spread in STDs.

Say what now?

 

[bfdd]

JoS wtf is this splitting of tradition and religion? They are two and the same. That's just some PC non-sense. Any "true faith" religonut can irrationally justify weird ancient traditions, which may or may not pre date their religion, for their religion. Just how the boy loving Catholics don't actually see anything wrong with fucking little boys.

 

[Craig234]

The Quran does not speak directly about rape, hence the main jurisprudence schools of Islamic law have different interpretations. The one I specialized in says that the rapist will be punished in the same way as an adulterer. The woman, through no fault of her own is free and can marry as she pleases.

You didn't do as I ask, and pick a similar rule from the Quran - or answer the question whether you are consistent in applying ever rule literally the same way.

There is no denying the scientific fact that homosexuality leads to a greater spread in STDs.

So does heterosexuality. Homosexual sex can be relatively safe, as can heterosexual se. Both can be more dangerous, too.

What would be the world opinions towards gays if tomorrow it was found out that gays are the cause of HIV and homosexuality puts gays at severe risk (let's assume 1 in 3). Then it was found out that a new disease can spread from these HIV gays by non-sexual means. How would society look at homosexuality then?

We can put aside the question to note that anti-gay bigotry has thousands of years to answer for before AIDS.

That's really hiding behind something to try to say that's the issue. It's not.

Not only is it not relevant to equal gay rights, letting gays marry would REDUCE risk.

Now you aren't so concerned about disease, right?

Then there are the social ills. But since Western and Islamic views on these ills are on the opposite poles, discussing this would be pointless.

That would sort of prove my earlier comment it's hard to discuss this with someone who just says 'the Quran says it, end of discussion'.

I'm not saying you are doing that - but you are saying 'the cultures are very different'. Well, it would have been very hard to talk about gay marriage 50 years ago here.

Or for abolitionists to talk about equal black rights in a slave state What should they do? I'd say there's benefit to talking about it.

At least you don't have a 'kill the gays' bill pending, like Uganda (with pushes from a radical group here).

Bigotry is not easy to discuss with one person - with a society, wow.

Also, there is more than one reason the Quran to get married: for children, for companionship and for social and sexual needs.

While many pro-bigotry Christians try to say 'marriage is all about children' as a justification to ban gay marriage, until reminded about heterosexuals who can't have kids.

Then their 'non-bigoted' opinions race off looking for some other cover.

 

[bfdd]

Lol at LL not being up on his history. The dark ages is a myth.

 

[sandorski]

Religion: Cultural Terrorism

 

[Macamus Prime]

This is what happens when you step into the Middle East and try to control it; you then try to justify why it isn't working and why you need to wipe out what is preventing you from controlling it.

Let us be very clear on this, we (the US) is in Middle East for oil. Not for freedom. Not for women's rights. Not for little baby Jesus. We are there for our own interests.

You can argue over the existance for or against Islam all you want. But, the truth is, there is over a billion of them on this world. You either choose to live in co-existance (don't meddle with their affairs and find the best way to just avoid dealing with them). Or, control them - and attempting to control them has gotten us fucked up over and over again.

 

[JeepinEd]

I watched the video and it's poorly laid out. The Quran is only used to justify the first argument. The Quran does call Muslims towards war, but it also lays down its rules. But then again the West should stop complaining. They're killing thousands of innocents in the name of freedom.

Can you elaborate on the Quran's rules for war? I'm sure I can google it, but I'd rather get your interpretation.

Thanks.