6 of 6
6
I am a Muslim immigrant :
Posted: 28 July 2008 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Wotansson - 28 July 2008 08:00 AM
burt - 26 July 2008 05:08 PM
Wotansson - 26 July 2008 12:47 AM
burt - 25 July 2008 09:10 PM
Wotansson - 25 July 2008 05:29 PM
burt - 21 July 2008 04:06 PM
Wotansson - 21 July 2008 03:56 PM

Burt:

This ignores the fact that there are lots of levels within Islam, just as with Christianity.  On the one side, there are the fanatics, and a large proportion of fundamentalists (much larger than within Christianity).  Then there are people like Bruce, who considers himself a good Christian (I presume), and more generally, liberal Christians.  Would you call them Jack Christians?

Anyone who does not follow the accepted tenets, texts and teachings of any faith is a Jack-Whatever. If this were not true then why call it a religion? For the Christian, the way is defined by the gospels in the words actually attributed to Jesus. Those who do not live to follow these words are Jack Christians.
Try to not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Stay Well

Wot

So I guess arildno is just an Ass rather than a Jack Ass.  cheese


A bizarre percecption indeed and just as I was beginning to view him as a thoroughbred race horse.

Wasail
Wot

Best not go with the thoroughbred analogy, those horses are bred for speed only and are inbred and dumb as posts.  Try a quarter horse.

I yield to your superior knowledge of horses. Quarter horse it is then. But as to your horse sense, well….that it a horse of a different color and we have been there before.

Wassail
Wotansson

And the more we shovel the deeper the horse shit gets.  But Ah, the smell!  LOL

Quit your horsing around!
Hi ho Silver….awaaaaaaaaaaay

Neigh!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2008 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Dee - 10 July 2008 04:43 AM

When it comes to understanding just what the general situation is concerning Muslim ( I’m talking here mostly about the radicals, but not entirely. It is shocking to realize how the line between radical and “moderate” can be blurred ) attitude towards “unbelievers”, thier progress and activity in countries that are not Muslim,and thier religious imposition and demands ... we should focus on one word , and that word should be “PERSPECTIVE “

Before you settle on an opinion, cave in to your emotions,judge according to what other aquainances tell you ,or what you see in a few Muslims or some other impression—-remember this : gain perspective and you will find the facts.

There ARE the experts, knowledgable scholars of the subject,foremost interpreters in America and other countries etc. Why don’t you look into what they have to say before you judge ?

And I’ll ask you to remember that what I wrote in my first post were NOT my own words but something I quoted from another source. That post isn’t about me, it is about immigrants . Take a deep breath and consider what is being said. Decide to be possitive and learn.

For one thing, you didn’t provide a link.  For another thing, there is not one single statistic, piece of data, or cited source in your post.  There’s nothing to “learn,” and I’m not quite sure what you expect the rest of us to be “possitive” about.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2008 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
arildno - 25 July 2008 01:21 PM
LogicAndReason - 25 July 2008 10:45 AM

Just so I understand your point, you are saying that if men who live in Dallas, as a generalization, tend to beat their children and wives and men in San Francisco, as a generalization do not, then those in San Francisco can characterize Dallasites as brutal fathers and are justified in hating them?  The fathers in Dallas who are good and loving get off how?

Misogyny is wrong.  To characterize Muslims, Christians, or penguins as misogynist as a group may also be wrong.  I hate misogyny and bigotry in general, and only ask if we trade one hatred for another?  Maybe we just need to speak out against acts of misogyny regardless of the people involved.

Let’s draw a line between hating certain acts of a people and hating a people.

By characterizing themselves as Muslims, for example, they are individually responsible for attaching themselves to an explicit belief structure which IS, unambiguously, misogynistic.
That is the main difference.

In a larger sense, I agree with you—this fits in with Sam’s attack on religious moderates.

However, this conversation took a really ugly turn when several posters opined that burt’s friends were not to be trusted because they are self-professed Muslims.  Yes, there are some fundamental moral and intellectual flaws at the foundation of their belief system, but individuals interact within their social, cultural, religious, and political ideologies in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. 

It is simplistic to think of Islam as a software program and of any given believer as merely a hard drive.  Human nature doesn’t work that way.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2008 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
bigredfutbol - 26 September 2008 12:54 PM
arildno - 25 July 2008 01:21 PM
LogicAndReason - 25 July 2008 10:45 AM

Just so I understand your point, you are saying that if men who live in Dallas, as a generalization, tend to beat their children and wives and men in San Francisco, as a generalization do not, then those in San Francisco can characterize Dallasites as brutal fathers and are justified in hating them?  The fathers in Dallas who are good and loving get off how?

Misogyny is wrong.  To characterize Muslims, Christians, or penguins as misogynist as a group may also be wrong.  I hate misogyny and bigotry in general, and only ask if we trade one hatred for another?  Maybe we just need to speak out against acts of misogyny regardless of the people involved.

Let’s draw a line between hating certain acts of a people and hating a people.

By characterizing themselves as Muslims, for example, they are individually responsible for attaching themselves to an explicit belief structure which IS, unambiguously, misogynistic.
That is the main difference.

In a larger sense, I agree with you—this fits in with Sam’s attack on religious moderates.

However, this conversation took a really ugly turn when several posters opined that burt’s friends were not to be trusted because they are self-professed Muslims.  Yes, there are some fundamental moral and intellectual flaws at the foundation of their belief system, but individuals interact within their social, cultural, religious, and political ideologies in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. 

It is simplistic to think of Islam as a software program and of any given believer as merely a hard drive.  Human nature doesn’t work that way.

Agreed that Muslims should not discriminated against simply because they are Muslim. I was just trying to caution burt who is overly naive’,IMO. But considering that only a minority, say 10% radicals according to the estimates offered here by Muslims, and considering the training of the young for jihad, it would be more simplistic to dismiss the potential threat. One need only to look at he demographics of the 9/11 conspiritors - educated, trained, dedicated, programmed, to properly assess the threat.


Stay Well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2008 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Wotansson - 26 September 2008 02:36 PM
bigredfutbol - 26 September 2008 12:54 PM
arildno - 25 July 2008 01:21 PM
LogicAndReason - 25 July 2008 10:45 AM

Just so I understand your point, you are saying that if men who live in Dallas, as a generalization, tend to beat their children and wives and men in San Francisco, as a generalization do not, then those in San Francisco can characterize Dallasites as brutal fathers and are justified in hating them?  The fathers in Dallas who are good and loving get off how?

Misogyny is wrong.  To characterize Muslims, Christians, or penguins as misogynist as a group may also be wrong.  I hate misogyny and bigotry in general, and only ask if we trade one hatred for another?  Maybe we just need to speak out against acts of misogyny regardless of the people involved.

Let’s draw a line between hating certain acts of a people and hating a people.

By characterizing themselves as Muslims, for example, they are individually responsible for attaching themselves to an explicit belief structure which IS, unambiguously, misogynistic.
That is the main difference.

In a larger sense, I agree with you—this fits in with Sam’s attack on religious moderates.

However, this conversation took a really ugly turn when several posters opined that burt’s friends were not to be trusted because they are self-professed Muslims.  Yes, there are some fundamental moral and intellectual flaws at the foundation of their belief system, but individuals interact within their social, cultural, religious, and political ideologies in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. 

It is simplistic to think of Islam as a software program and of any given believer as merely a hard drive.  Human nature doesn’t work that way.

Agreed that Muslims should not discriminated against simply because they are Muslim. I was just trying to caution burt who is overly naive’,IMO. But considering that only a minority, say 10% radicals according to the estimates offered here by Muslims, and considering the training of the young for jihad, it would be more simplistic to dismiss the potential threat. One need only to look at he demographics of the 9/11 conspiritors - educated, trained, dedicated, programmed, to properly assess the threat.


Stay Well
Wotansson

Which threat?  The threat of Islam?  Agreed.  The threat of religiously motivated violence?  Agreed.

But telling someone flat out that they shouldn’t trust their friends, neighbors, and acquaintances because “they” are either shielding their true intentions or “they” are not really what they claim to be…well, that’s a very dangerous line of reasoning.  Not to mention, you run the risk of validating Dee’s insane bigotry and Jack’s pathetic delusions of grandeur by letting him play the victim of prejudice.

But thanks for clarifying; it seems to me that a lot of online/message board debate would be a lot more productive if people made the effort to meet halfway and clarify what the other person really means.  I appreciate the gesture.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2008 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
bigredfutbol - 26 September 2008 03:25 PM
Wotansson - 26 September 2008 02:36 PM
bigredfutbol - 26 September 2008 12:54 PM
arildno - 25 July 2008 01:21 PM
LogicAndReason - 25 July 2008 10:45 AM

Just so I understand your point, you are saying that if men who live in Dallas, as a generalization, tend to beat their children and wives and men in San Francisco, as a generalization do not, then those in San Francisco can characterize Dallasites as brutal fathers and are justified in hating them?  The fathers in Dallas who are good and loving get off how?

Misogyny is wrong.  To characterize Muslims, Christians, or penguins as misogynist as a group may also be wrong.  I hate misogyny and bigotry in general, and only ask if we trade one hatred for another?  Maybe we just need to speak out against acts of misogyny regardless of the people involved.

Let’s draw a line between hating certain acts of a people and hating a people.

By characterizing themselves as Muslims, for example, they are individually responsible for attaching themselves to an explicit belief structure which IS, unambiguously, misogynistic.
That is the main difference.

In a larger sense, I agree with you—this fits in with Sam’s attack on religious moderates.

However, this conversation took a really ugly turn when several posters opined that burt’s friends were not to be trusted because they are self-professed Muslims.  Yes, there are some fundamental moral and intellectual flaws at the foundation of their belief system, but individuals interact within their social, cultural, religious, and political ideologies in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. 

It is simplistic to think of Islam as a software program and of any given believer as merely a hard drive.  Human nature doesn’t work that way.

Agreed that Muslims should not discriminated against simply because they are Muslim. I was just trying to caution burt who is overly naive’,IMO. But considering that only a minority, say 10% radicals according to the estimates offered here by Muslims, and considering the training of the young for jihad, it would be more simplistic to dismiss the potential threat. One need only to look at he demographics of the 9/11 conspiritors - educated, trained, dedicated, programmed, to properly assess the threat.


Stay Well
Wotansson

Which threat?  The threat of Islam?  Agreed.  The threat of religiously motivated violence?  Agreed.

But telling someone flat out that they shouldn’t trust their friends, neighbors, and acquaintances because “they” are either shielding their true intentions or “they” are not really what they claim to be…well, that’s a very dangerous line of reasoning.  Not to mention, you run the risk of validating Dee’s insane bigotry and Jack’s pathetic delusions of grandeur by letting him play the victim of prejudice.

But thanks for clarifying; it seems to me that a lot of online/message board debate would be a lot more productive if people made the effort to meet halfway and clarify what the other person really means.  I appreciate the gesture.

I think my comments to burt were clear enough to him so whatever clarification was needed was for your benefit alone. That being said, I think it prudent to be cautious when dealing with the religious, especially the orthodox or the activist. A good friend had the following experience: She was invited by a friend to a meeting her friends. These folks (Catholic) were engaged in a discussion of an abortion clinic. They were trying to establish when the clinic would be empty so they destroy it without incidental death. She got out of there and her friend later told her that she would be sorry. The friendship ended.
I personally agree with Sam on the issue of how religious moderates enable the extremists and that they should be afforded no deference and need, in fact, to be openly challenged. Although this is not likely to make too many friends for a person, the converse is what is truly “very dangerous”. I, like Sam, offer no apology for this perspective nor should any be required. Religions should be judged by their benefit to the believers and what they inspire the believer to do.

Stay Well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2008 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

Actually, OF COURSE Muslims should be discriminated against precisely BECAUSE they choose to be Muslims.

They are childfucker worshippers, rapist idolators and mass murderer celebrators in terms of the defining trait of their “faith”, and they are to be treated in exactly the same way as we should treat other childfucker worshippers, rapist idolators and mass murderer celebrators.

What is IMMORAL is to treat them as people who are NOT from any of the above mentioned despicable categories of the human race.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed