Islamic State

I really hate Bill Maher with a passion.

This is not a question of the left being unwilling to condemn this sort of stuff. It is just that conservatives, especially in America, seem unable to grasp that you cannot kill an idea with missiles and bullets. The only way to end radical Islam permanently is by defeating it culturally, not militarily. This is why 'liberals' go out of their way to avoid antagonising Islam and Muslims; they know that doing so only hardens the resolve of the ideology they hope to convert. Conservatives do not seem to get this, they condemn it as being weak because they see any concession as a threat to their masculine prowess. Meanwhile, the left long ago realised that language was its greatest weapon (which is why so many conservative pundits froth at the mouth when they hear PC terminology).

Yeah but how are you going to talk to a radical Muslim when he's cutting your head off? No thanks Jeff.

Coalition drone catches ISIS member in a compromising position with a donkey

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/ ... h-a-donkey

[iup=3581920]Nathanbrains[/iup] wrote:To counter that; Ben Affleck raising himself in my estimations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc

Muslims aren't a race, so being anti-Islam isn't racist, and no religion should be exempt from criticism, mockery and contempt.

[iup=3583445]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Muslims aren't a race, so being anti-Islam isn't racist, and no religion should be exempt from criticism, mockery and contempt.

Of course Muslims are not a race and it is not racist to criticise Islam.

However, a lot of anti-Islam people are the same people that not so long ago were chanting “Pakis go home!” and writing “NF” and swastikas on walls. Funny how a lot of the BNP/EDF/Britain First types suddenly became theologians once they finally realised that people don’t like racism but that a lot of brown people were Muslims…

[iup=3583604]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583445]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Muslims aren't a race, so being anti-Islam isn't racist, and no religion should be exempt from criticism, mockery and contempt.

Of course Muslims are not a race and it is not racist to criticise Islam.

However, a lot of anti-Islam people are the same people that not so long ago were chanting “Pakis go home!” and writing “NF” and swastikas on walls. Funny how a lot of the BNP/EDF/Britain First types suddenly became theologians once they finally realised that people don’t like racism but that a lot of brown people were Muslims…

That is sadly very true, but I don't think Bill Maher is one of those sorts of people. He's anti-religious, IIRC, but that's quite another kettle of chips.

[iup=3583776]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583604]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583445]Alvin Flummux[/iup] wrote:Muslims aren't a race, so being anti-Islam isn't racist, and no religion should be exempt from criticism, mockery and contempt.

Of course Muslims are not a race and it is not racist to criticise Islam.

However, a lot of anti-Islam people are the same people that not so long ago were chanting “Pakis go home!” and writing “NF” and swastikas on walls. Funny how a lot of the BNP/EDF/Britain First types suddenly became theologians once they finally realised that people don’t like racism but that a lot of brown people were Muslims…

That is sadly very true, but I don't think Bill Maher is one of those sorts of people. He's anti-religious, IIRC, but that's quite another kettle of chips.

No I don’t think Bill Maher is either (I got carried away as I see EDF/Britain First gooseberry fool on my Facebook all the time!), but I don’t think anybody called him racist. In the Ben Afleck video, he was accused of using similar arguments to those used against black people, but nobody accused him of racism.

Is saying “All Muslims want to rape and kill us!” so different to “Give black people freedom and they will rape and kill us!”? Other than one talking about a race of certain people and one talking about the religion of certain people?

Anti theist is a virtue. Religious beliefs are a vice. Atheism is the neutral zone. Still good but for people who have yet to realise religion is a delusion of the mind and therefore might still have manners for laughably bad ideas.

/tips fedora

[iup=3583786]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:Anti theist is a virtue. Religious beliefs are a vice. Atheism is the neutral zone. Still good but for people who have yet to realise religion is a delusion of of a mind and therefor might still have manners for it.

See I don't mind that sort of stuff. I see no reason to demonise Muslims but ignore Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. People should have a go at all religion, not pick on just one delusional group.

To play the devil's advocate Moggy, one could argue that since a religion consists of a set of beliefs and ideas, then the people who subscribe to that religion therefore share those beliefs and ideas. Whereas it is obviously ridiculous to say "all Asian people think that qi is the basic life energy of the universe" or "Black people believe in transubstantiation". But substituse Taoist and Catholic respectively and you would be correct.

[iup=3583791]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583786]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:Anti theist is a virtue. Religious beliefs are a vice. Atheism is the neutral zone. Still good but for people who have yet to realise religion is a delusion of of a mind and therefor might still have manners for it.

See I don't mind that sort of stuff. I see no reason to demonise Muslims but ignore Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. People should have a go at all religion, not pick on just one delusional group.

People rip into other religions all the time. Tonnes of shows have ripped into Christians and Jews. South Park probably being one of the better known examples, they literally have Jesus as a recurring character.

The problem is too many Muslims suffer butt devastation and want to commit violent acts when people rip into their peado warlord instead of just putting up and shutting up like most other religious people have learned to.

[iup=3583789]Falsey[/iup] wrote:/tips fedora

I am euphoric.

M'lady.

[iup=3583799]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583791]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583786]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:Anti theist is a virtue. Religious beliefs are a vice. Atheism is the neutral zone. Still good but for people who have yet to realise religion is a delusion of of a mind and therefor might still have manners for it.

See I don't mind that sort of stuff. I see no reason to demonise Muslims but ignore Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. People should have a go at all religion, not pick on just one delusional group.

People rip into other religions all the time. Tonnes of shows have ripped into Christians and Jews. South Park probably being one of the better known examples, they literally have Jesus as a recurring character.

The problem is too many Muslims suffer butt devastation and want to commit violent acts when people rip into their peado warlord instead of just putting up and shutting up like most other religious people have learned to.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying it is wrong to laugh at Islam or to discuss aspects of it, I just think it is wrong to demonise it.

Making jokes about Muhammad is as fine with me as laughing at Jesus or Buddha.

Demonising a billion or so people as genocidal maniacs is not fine with me.

[iup=3583792]Winckle[/iup] wrote:To play the devil's advocate Moggy, one could argue that since a religion consists of a set of beliefs and ideas, then the people who subscribe to that religion therefore share those beliefs and ideas. Whereas it is obviously ridiculous to say "all Asian people think that qi is the basic life energy of the universe" or "Black people believe in transubstantiation". But substituse Taoist and Catholic respectively and you would be correct.

I agree, but not all Muslims believe in killing non-Muslims. Very few Muslims support IS/ISIS/ISIL. The demonising I see represents all Muslims as maniacs that are planning to rape women and murder everyone and that's just not true of the vast vast majority of Muslim people.

[iup=3582076]Meep[/iup] wrote:This is not a question of the left being unwilling to condemn this sort of stuff. It is just that conservatives, especially in America, seem unable to grasp that you cannot kill an idea with missiles and bullets. The only way to end radical Islam permanently is by defeating it culturally, not militarily.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you think that radical Islam can be defeated culturally? Specific suggestions, please!

[iup=3583809]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3583792]Winckle[/iup] wrote:To play the devil's advocate Moggy, one could argue that since a religion consists of a set of beliefs and ideas, then the people who subscribe to that religion therefore share those beliefs and ideas. Whereas it is obviously ridiculous to say "all Asian people think that qi is the basic life energy of the universe" or "Black people believe in transubstantiation". But substituse Taoist and Catholic respectively and you would be correct.

I agree, but not all Muslims believe in killing non-Muslims. Very few Muslims support IS/ISIS/ISIL. The demonising I see represents all Muslims as maniacs that are planning to rape women and murder everyone and that's just not true of the vast vast majority of Muslim people.

Totally agree.

[iup=3583792]Winckle[/iup] wrote:To play the devil's advocate Moggy, one could argue that since a religion consists of a set of beliefs and ideas, then the people who subscribe to that religion therefore share those beliefs and ideas. Whereas it is obviously ridiculous to say "all Asian people think that qi is the basic life energy of the universe" or "Black people believe in transubstantiation". But substituse Taoist and Catholic respectively and you would be correct.

I don't necessarily agree. Whilst I agree that transubstantiation is a fundamental tenet of Catholicism, does it necessarily thus follow that those who don't believe in it are not truly Catholic? Must someone accept a full and fundamentalist interpretation of scripture to 'qualify' as a follower?

I agree that criticism of the religious does not equal racism for exactly the reason you say; that it's impossible to make predictions and judgements about a person's ideals based on their race but certainly possible (at least to some extent) to do so with someone who claims to follow a religion. But I don't accept the extension that you can therefore assume that anyone who calls themselves a follower must therefore accept the most extreme frivolities of that religion. I don't accept that knowing someone calls themselves a Catholic is solid ground to conclude that they must believe that a cracker literally becomes the body of Christ inside them. More than likely, they see it as a traditional symbol of worship. By the same logic, I don't see any basis to claim that someone calling themselves muslim is a signed-and-sealed confirmation that you're dealing with a woman-stoning homophobe - and they may have a thousand reasons for why they reject what others consider a fundamental tenet of 'true believers'.

Some may well say that anyone who doesn't actually believe in literal transubstantiation cannot legitimately call themselves a true Catholic. That it is as fundamental a tenet of Catholicism as execution of homosexuals is to Islam and that anyone who doesn't absolutely, unquestionably support these things is not a 'true believer'. But such binary thinking, denying the existence of a considered, moderate, middle ground, is the kind of useless rhetoric spewed by fundamentalist preachers and terrorists. And Cal.

As I say, I agree that, knowing someone's religion, you can probably take a reasonable stab at a few things that they probably believe. But I don't think it's a free pass to assume that follower of Religion A automatically accepts all tenets of Religion A - especially when you get to the more contentious, extreme positions. Whether you consider those people 'Real followers' is possibly an interesting debate, but to apply such binary thinking to the real world is, as binary thinking usually is, destructive and pointless.

Some may well say that anyone who doesn't actually believe in literal transubstantiation cannot legitimately call themselves a true Catholic. That it is as fundamental a tenet of Catholicism as execution of homosexuals is to Islam and that anyone who doesn't absolutely, unquestionably support these things is not a 'true believer'.

Indeed, although execution of homosexuals would also be a belief of a “true” Catholic.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them