Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Bob]

As I already posted - I disagree. IMO the greatest threat is inability to have a dialogue, typified by your hysterical reaction to a religion very similar to your own.

Who exactly is demonstrating an inability to have a dialogue? When Islamist filth (is that term too offensive for you when describing mass murderers, Michael Hardner?) perpetrate suicide bombings at religious ceremonies like Passover seders, teenagers partying on the weekends at discotheques and nightclubs, and break into homes and murder entire families including several-month-old infants up close and personal with knives, are they demonstrating an ability to have a dialogue? Perhaps we should be negotiating with such people, because in your myopic view, anybody who would commit such disgusting crimes must have a good reason, right? We must've done something really really really mean, right?

You must've fainted from satisfaction when campaign-Obama in 2008 committed to speaking, without preconditions, to speaking Ahmedinejad, right? After all, "peace" at any cost is your religion.

[Michael Hardner]

What are your views on innocent Muslims?

[Bob]

What are your views on innocent Muslims?

What are your thoughts on the United Russia political party?

[Guest Manny]

What are your thoughts on the United Russia political party?

"Who exactly is demonstrating an inability to have a dialogue?"

[jbg]

I view contemporary Islamism (which many deeply religious Muslims see as one-in-the-same as Islam) as the greatest threat to Western civilization today, and it tends to operate hand-in-hand with leftist (socialists, communists, etc) who have formed a sort of perverted alliance through their shared contempt of what the West represents - freedom and achievement. Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows.

I couldn't have said it better. Check my new signature. Edited December 26, 2011 by jbg

[jbg]

As I already posted - I disagree. IMO the greatest threat is inability to have a dialogue, typified by your hysterical reaction to a religion very similar to your own.

How does one "dialogue" over the noise of jets screaming into the WTC?

[eyeball]

I view contemporary Islamism (which many deeply religious Muslims see as one-in-the-same as Islam) as the greatest threat to Western civilization today, and it tends to operate hand-in-hand with leftist (socialists, communists, etc) who have formed a sort of perverted alliance through their shared contempt of what the West represents - freedom and achievement. Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows.

The west's achievement of freedom on the backs of oppressed Muslim's is pretty contemptible Bob. You don't have to be a lefty to understand that at a glance but it probably helps.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

I don't agree... humour can be used effectively in debates and criticisms. I don't believe that religions or religious figures should be some sort of untouchable "sacred-cow" when it comes to humour.

Quite so, and humour can be a very effective means of pointing out some of the more rediculous and harmful aspects of religion.

[eyeball]

How does one "dialogue" over the noise of jets screaming into the WTC?

With a smiley face obviously

[jbg]

The west's achievement of freedom on the backs of oppressed Muslim's is pretty contemptible Bob. You don't have to be a lefty to understand that at a glance but it probably helps.

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the backs of oppressed Muslims (even with superfluous apostrophe). The Magna Carta long preceded any exploitation of your favorite victim culture.

[Scotty]

The west's achievement of freedom on the backs of oppressed Muslim's is pretty contemptible Bob. You don't have to be a lefty to understand that at a glance but it probably helps.

Would you care to explain how you believe we achieved freedom 'on the back of oppressed Muslims'?

[Guest Peeves]

Interesting point...

I suspect that in both there are many text's that suggest kiling others is a bad thing??

Right on point. Most contemporary religions have evolved to societal mores that eschew violence for both moral and practical grounds. Most consider draconian punishments as abhorrent, (hanging children, stoning etc as in the old holy books. I can only think of one that doesn't

Most consider the violent written millennial old verses and chapters of their respective holy books to be

anachronism. I can only think of one that doesn't.

Most accept the right to worship as you would. I can only think of one that doesn't.

Most countries based on religious convictions have granted as inalienable the right to: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html

Only a few don't.

Most grant the right to vote, the right to dissent peacefully (Arab spring NOT!)

The right to assemble, to change religions, preach alternative choices in religion to that of the theocratic rulers.

To date who they will, marry who they will.

To condemn violence and murder rather than make the perps martyrs and heroes.I can only think of one religion (politic) that doesn't.

I am of course open to alternate views as ever.

I can think of a few that aren't.

[jbg]

Right on point. Most contemporary religions have evolved to societal mores that eschew violence for both moral and practical grounds. Most consider draconian punishments as abhorrent, (hanging children, stoning etc as in the old holy books. I can only think of one that doesn't

I am not sure to which religion you're referring. Zoroastrian? Baha'i?

[Michael Hardner]

What are your thoughts on the United Russia political party?

I don't understand that response to my question. I'm not familiar with that party, in any case.

[Michael Hardner]

How does one "dialogue" over the noise of jets screaming into the WTC?

Why not hopscotch over the metaphor and make your point directly ?

MLW is a place for dialogue, and there don't seem to be any terrorists or terrorist supporters here.

[Bob]

The west's achievement of freedom on the backs of oppressed Muslim's is pretty contemptible Bob. You don't have to be a lefty to understand that at a glance but it probably helps.

The West's freedom and achievement began long before the beginnings of its contemporary involvement in the Middle East (see Roosevelt's initiation of America's modern relationship with Saudi Arabia and the development of ARAMCO years earlier). Good luck providing any legitimate narrative of the West's freedom and achievement being built on the back of oppressed Muslims". That's literally a Jihadist talking point, and the type of historical fantasy that one would expect to hear from the mouth of Nasrallah or Ahmedinejad. The relationship between the West and Muslim-majority countries is relatively mutual (they produce petroleum products and we buy them), but of course you want to perpetuate this false victim narrative that Islamist-apologists and their leftist allies (like yourself) love to tout - that somehow the Muslim-majority Middle East would've been a bastion of freedom and achievement had it only not been for the imaginary phantom of colonialism/imperialism/interventionism. It's a transparent attempt to deflect the responsibility for the dysfunction of the region on external forces, basically an infantile blame game. The reality is, of course, that the Muslim-majority Middle East has been one of the most resistant regions to foreign influence. It has been and remains quite immune to Western influence, and is very insulated by virtue of it's oppressive governments and rigid cultural/social/religious structure. Of course a leftist like yourself has this all upside down, as what the Muslim-majority Middle East needs is MORE Western influence, not less.

[Bob]

I don't understand that response to my question. I'm not familiar with that party, in any case.

And nobody understands your original meaningless question - "What are your views on innocent Muslims?". Can you make it any more obvious that you don't grasp anything I'm saying?

Our moderator, ladies and gentlemen....

[Michael Hardner]

And nobody understands your original meaningless question - "What are your views on innocent Muslims?". Can you make it any more obvious that you don't grasp anything I'm saying?

Our moderator, ladies and gentlemen....

I'm not a moderator here.

I thought my question was clear.

[Bob]

I'm not a moderator here.

I thought my question was clear.

I know you thought it was clear. My question was also clear, as well as equally irrelevant and meaningless and completely from left-field.

[Michael Hardner]

I know you thought it was clear. My question was also clear, as well as equally irrelevant and meaningless and completely from left-field.

Ok. I answered yours though.

[cybercoma]

Because, by and large, Christians and Jews are living in more enlightened societies (not coincidentally).

It is bigoted to say that Christians and Jews are more enlightened (the implication being that they are superior) than Muslims. It's the same kind of stereotype that was used to subjugate Jews, Natives, and Africans.

[cybercoma]

So it really has nothing to do with the religion then, but it is the society?

It has to do with the religion. He said as much when he wrote, "not coincidentally."

[cybercoma]

Who exactly is demonstrating an inability to have a dialogue? When Islamist filth (is that term too offensive for you when describing mass murderers, Michael Hardner?) perpetrate suicide bombings .... blah blah blah

Your problem is that you like to use Islamist, not to just refer to terrorists, but to imply that the entire religion is filth. Your denotation is Islamic poitical fanatics, but you don't say "terrorists" sine qua non, rather you imply that it is Islam that is the necessary condition. In other words, you say Islamist filth, but imply Muslim filth, which is unequivocally a bigoted remark. The fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions of Muslims that not only disagree, but condemn terrorism and political extremists that use religious zealotry to justify violence. However, you paint them all with the same brush, marking them for no other reason than their faith as inferior to you, your religion, and your culture. Without even knowing a Muslim person's political beliefs, you make the assumption that Muslim means terrorist, which is BS.

[cybercoma]

I know you thought it was clear. My question was also clear, as well as equally irrelevant and meaningless and completely from left-field.

It's not irrelevant for exactly the reason I stated above. Your arguments wear a thin veil.

[Guest Peeves]

The west's achievement of freedom on the backs of oppressed Muslim's is pretty contemptible Bob. You don't have to be a lefty to understand that at a glance but it probably helps.

The Islamic countries of course are rioting because they are being murdered and oppressed by the West!.

Sure, and Mohammad was a Catholic missionary.