04-27-2017, 06:09 PM
(04-27-2017, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is total BS. This discussion has been had all across the country. It has been all over the news. How can you claim this discussion has "not even seen the lioght of day".
And here is what it boils down to. A certain group wants to treat Muslims differently than other religious groups. They want them subject to registration and public surveillance that would not be allowed on other religions. You want to violate their right to wroship freely despite the fact that they are breaking absolutely no laws of our country.
Not one person here has advocated for any of what you just claimed. More BS false claims from the master of flat out lying about the statements of others.
Quote:Every religious person places his religious beliefs above the "law of man", and every religious person who breaks the "law of the land" should be punished. But we have millions of Muslims living peacefully in this country. They should not have their rights violated because of their religious beliefs.
I think you'd best brush up on other religions because Christianity specifically instructs its members to follow the law of man. Render unto Cesar ring a bell?
Quote:Should every Christian who objected to gay marriage based on religious beliefs be subject to registration and heightened surveillance?
Hyperbole from the crown prince of hyperbole.
Quote:Acting like any discussion has been silenced is disingenuous. The discussion has been had and not one person from the left supported the objectionable aspects of radical Islam.
Not one person, except they frequently deny the scope of the problem or the reason the problem exists. Saying it's not ok to murder homosexuals or stone a raped woman is not sufficient, nor courageous, when you turn a blind eye to why such practices occur on a daily basis in the muslim world.
Quote:The only thing the left objected to was violating the rights of millions of law abiding Muslims living peacefully in this country. You are free to discuss all of the nest elements of Islam that you want. No one will object to that.
No one but Ben Affleck.
Quote:But you will get plenty of protest when you try to violate the rights of innocent people who do not live or abide by those principles.
More hyperbole. Find a post in this thread, or any other, in which this was advocated.
(04-27-2017, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So lets have a disussion on the bad elements of radical Islam.
Who here thinks gentile mtuilation is a good thing?
How about honor killings?
C'mon, lets have that debate that the mainstream media has refused to do.
So who wants to take the side of Pro-genitile mutilation and Pro-honor killing?
How about you start out with by answering a question posed several posts ago? Why did no major media outlet publish the Danish cartoons? Why did South Park censor an image of Muhammad when they have a character that directly satirizes Jesus on their show?
(04-27-2017, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Are there, somewhere in the world, Muslims who won't try to kill you if you say bad things about them or draw a picture of their prophet? If so, then "tolerating" Muslims who do not kill people for cartoons, as do leftists, should not be conflated with tolerating people who do.
Not acknowledging why the people that will try and kill you exist is not going to ever address the problem.
Quote:My point was not that I don't like the rights' criticism of Islam because they are rightists. My point is that the criticism is contradictory. On the one it upholds "liberal" values of tolerance which conservatives have not themselves practiced in order to scapegoat an entire religion. You can't preen yourself for the civil tolerance won over hundreds of years by others while at the same time practicing intolerance in a new direction.
Pointing out bad ideas is not intolerance. Being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance. You can point out that an idea is bad without castigating the person who believes in it. That would require a little intellectual capacity and moral courage though.
Quote:This does not become suddenly ok when Maher and Harris do it. My primary objection to those two is that they actually know very little about Islam or other cultures in general.
Hahaha, maybe in the case of Maher. Making that statement about Harris exposes an insane level of ignorance on your part.
Quote:They don't know the origin/development of current conflicts and the beliefs which drive them.
Sure they do. They're called the Quran and the Hadith
Quote:They read news accounts and polls, and then extrapolate "what must be" from them. They draw support for others similarly ill-informed. The less you know, the more sense they make.
You're literally making this up as you type it because not a word of this statement can be substantiated. It does please me to see just how desperate the three headed sock puppet hydra is getting though.
(04-27-2017, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "believe in the implantation of Sharia Law," nor what you mean by "radical."
By radical do you mean Salafist or what?
Implementation where? In what sense? Which version?
If you don't know the answer to these questions then you literally have no business being involved in this discussion.
