Leaderboard

May I take up your first words and use them as a basis to make some rhetorical questions to try make a point. Thank you because I am removing them out of the context you used them for which I appreciate. Can anyone name a Muslim country that has treated another Muslim country or non Muslim country fairly? Can anyone think of a Muslim country accepted or acknowledged its collective responsibility for a war or conflict, ever? The selective take on history that Muslim countries are victims is with due respect just that selective and it leads I would argue to a false narrative and a rewriting of history to falsely portray Muslim states as victims of the West. Muslim states vicitimize and kill. If one looks at the history of Muslim nations from the organized implementation of Islam through Sharia law states to the nations of today, this depiction of Muslim states being victims is false. They have victimized more than they have been victimized and they have victimized Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Bahaiis, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, Siekhs, Druze, Kurds, Azidi, communists, trade unionists, gays, women, on and on. Islam is not and has never been a peaceful religion in the manner in which it has been practiced by states and imposed by war on others whether it be fellow Muslims or non Muslims. Muslim countries not treated fairly? What country has been treated fairly on this planet and who decides that? With due respect when referring to the history of Islam, there is very little peace. To pretend it was a peaceful society only to be victimized by the West into becoming bad is a crock of crap. Its the same false script that falsely states Muslim extremists, Muslim terrorists are only violent because the West victimized them. Oh bull sheeyat. Muslims have been and continue to be their own worst enemy clinging to a non flexible approach to their ideology and condemnation of progressive Islamic movements trying to teach and guide them to move past fundamentalist rigid thought processes to critical analysis and free thought. My concern is for progressive Muslims and all kinds of Muslims and non Muslims being victimized by Islamic extremists. My concern is that states in Niger, Chad, Malawi, Sudan, or in pockets of Nigeria, or in Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, are corrupted and violent-blaming the West for Muslim uprisings in China and Russia is nonsensical. Suggesting Boca Ratan are reacting to Western unfairness in Nigeria is crap. When the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt tried to wipe out Coptic Christians, when Sudan does the same through its Muslim Brotherhood to its Christians, when Assad engages in what he does, when Erdogan of Turkey openly calls for war against Kurds and encourages their genocide and denies the Armenian genocide, that's not because the West was unfair. The Arab league nations that chose to ally with the Nazis, then Soviets and try wipe out Jews for having a tiny country were not victims-in fact they victimized Palestinians and turned Palestinians into pawns for their failed victimization of Jews in Israel. the 900,000 Jews expelled from the Arab world, the hundreds of thousands of Jews persecuted in Arab countries along with Zoroastreans, Bahaiis, Christians, were not victimized because of the West victimizing Muslim nations. My comments are directed at Muslim governments and extremist Muslim terrorists and theologians, not ALL Muslims. I have been careful to state the Muslim governments I criticize hate everyone especially fellow Muslims in their own nations.

An interesting article on Bill 62. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/banning-the-niqab-is-bigoted-and-sexist-or-is-it/article36696047/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe Personally I agree with Bill 62. The European Court of Human Rights has agreed the requirement to show one's face in public is not unreasonable. According to this article, many media pundits, CBC, and liberals, leftists oppose bill 62. These people are out of touch with most Canadians. One report says about 70% of Canadians oppose face coverings. A number of European countries have banned face coverings in various circumstances. I think while it is a relatively small number of people effected by bill 62, it is the best time to ban face coverings in certain circumstances before the practice spreads far more widely. It is a symbol of a kind of conservative political Islam (one group which enforces it is the fundamental Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia) which is not held by most Muslims in the world. To encourage the wearing of face coverings could be laying the groundwork for greater future problems. The face covering really cuts off people from communicating with fellow Canadians and works against fitting into Canadian society. It really isolates people. There are restrictions to religious practices in other religions already, as for example, polygamy is illegal. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do anything.

I'm surprised there has been no threads on this topic yet so I thought I'd start the pot boiling So far we are a couple meetings into negotiations and all has been eerily quiet from the American side, Canada is confident, Mexico is confident , Canada/Mexico have sort of a preliminary agreement started, everything is calm. Here's what I think is going to happen... 1. Trump is suddenly going to find the time to participate and he is going to blow the whole deal wide open and everyone is going to have to start from square one 2. Chrystia Freeland will go from being a respected foreign diplomat to the lowest form of life on earth faster than feminists can scream MISOGYNIST!!!!! in Trump's opinion when she starts standing up to him. After her reaction to the Belgian state of Walloon during the CETA giveaway this will be a thousand times worse., I wouldn't be surprised she quits politics over this. 3. From what I've seen of Trudeau's track record so far it wouldn't be a stretch we are singing the American national anthem when the smoke clears.

Horse crap.Where do you get off making you righteous pronouncements trying to name call people. How can a religion NOT contain ideology. All religions contain ideology, i.e., visionary theorizing, concepts regarding human life or culture and most importantly integrated assertions theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program all characteristics of both theology and ideology and in particular Islam and Sharia law which fuse theology, politics, and law and use the state to impose Islamic r beliefs. Ideology refers to a broad set of beliefs that any one person or group holds and theology or religion refers to an ideology a group of like minded persons believe about the origins of their life, or what God is. To suggest religions don't set out ideological concepts as to political, economic and social beliefs is past stupid, its nonsensical. You just spew out the isms and ists the moment you disagree with something. If anything religion is a faith based ideology that might focus on a subject matter as to God or lack of God but its still an ideology. Run along and use a dictionary. Racist. Yah. Racism refers to the exercise of discriminating against someone because of engaging in negative generalizations based on racial, i.e., secondary physical characteristics, skin colour, eye structure, nose shape, hair texture NOT beliefs as to God, social, economical or political beliefs. Its lazy, HALF ASSED, name calling to misapply the term racism let alone make an illogical statement that religion is not an ideology. Next you will say theology can't be a philosophy as well.

Yet you don't possess the intellectual rigor necessary to speak of these unknowns. That is intellectual dishonesty coupled with intellectual laziness.