Paris might be problem for Trudeau

[Scotty]

Speaking out against violence is not.

Smearing an entire religion is.

Got it?

So if a Muslim deplores western values does that make him a racist?

[jacee]

And no one would conflate derision of the KKK or the WBC as being a Christianaphobic like people who speak out against Sharia Law and Fundamentalist Islam are often tagged as being.

No one blames all Christians or Christian ideology for kkk extremist violence - and they are still the number one terrorists in North America, recently identified by the RCMP as the number one terrorist threat in Canada.

And you don't blame all Muslims or Islam's ideology for extremist violence either.

Got it now?

.

[jacee]

Who are you to decide what is and is not an acceptable argument?

Racism and bigotry are never acceptable arguments.

.

[Boges]

And you don't blame all Muslims or Islam's ideology for extremist violence either.

Got it now?

.

WHO IS DOING THIS!!???!!!!

Certain people use Islam as an excuse for doing horrible things. We should speak out against that. Part of the problem is the idea of Sharia where all other ideologies are blasphemy. Criticizing these ideologies is not smearing an entire religious group.

Got it now?

[Boges]

Racism and bigotry are never acceptable arguments.

.

Islam is not a race.

[BC_chick]

Criticizing these ideologies is not smearing an entire religious group.

Got it now?

When people say let's close the border to destitute people that's smearing an entire religious group.

"Got it now"?

[Boges]

When people say let's close the border to destitute people that's smearing an entire religious group.

"Got it now"?

Again, I never said that.

I do think JT is grandstanding by committing to fast tracking admittance of refugees by the end of the year. The Federal Government doesn't take less than 2 months to do anything but can decide whether 25,000 people leaving a warzone would all be good fits to live in Canada?

Where was the fast tracking for refugees from the Rwanda in the 90's?

[jacee]

Again, who's smearing an "entire" religion? If someone is saying that All of Islam should answer for these terrorist attacks, then shame on them. But please cite.

Is speaking out against Sharia and ISIS smearing an entire religion? Many Muslims speak out against such things.

Don't conflate the two.

Sharia is not good/bad by itself, often as benign as the Ten Commandments. It is extremism, currently ISIS, that implements violence in the name of Sharia.

If so, then speaking out against WBC and the KKK is smearing all of Christianity.

Some of your arguments are pointless.

Again, do not confuse and conflate Sharia law with ISIS terrorism.

.

Edited November 16, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

WHO IS DOING THIS!!???!!!!

Certain people use Islam as an excuse for doing horrible things. We should speak out against that. Part of the problem is the idea of Sharia where all other ideologies are blasphemy. Criticizing these ideologies is not smearing an entire religious group.

Got it now?

The problem is violently imposing one's ideology on others.

The problem is not Sharia.

The problem is violence.

.

[Boges]

Don't conflate the two.

Sharia is not good/bad by itself, often as benign as the Ten Commandments. It is extremism, currently ISIS, that implements violence in the name of Sharia.

Some of your arguments are pointless.

Again, do not confuse and conflate Sharia law with ISIS terrorism.

.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sharia+law

Noun

1. sharia law - the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia isonly applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state"

Does denying the separation of Church and State, that we hold as a Western Value, not a troublesome worldview to you?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Boges

[Boges]

The problem is violently imposing one's ideology on others.

The problem is not Sharia.

The problem is violence.

.

So Sharia is cool as long as it's not violently imposed. GOTCHA! I completely agree with you here.

The rub is, that in much of the Muslim world, it is violently imposed on people. In ISIS controlled land especially.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Boges

[dialamah]

So if a Muslim deplores western values does that make him a racist?

Deploring something is not the same thing as being a racist. Certainly a Muslim who deplores Western values and also thinks it gives him license to harass and intimidate Western women because they are 'immoral' is a racist. As such, ISIS members are racists. Muslims who practice their religion, do not seek to impose it on others and treat everyone with respect are not racists, even if they deplore Western values. Many Christians deplore certain Western values, but still manage to treat other people with respect and kindness; I believe its called 'hating the sin, not the sinner'.

[dialamah]

It is a piece on Syria from before the civil war.

While women are legally allowed to work outside the home, there are significant obstacles. For example, the government's Moral Intelligence Department investigates women before allowing them to hold federal jobs. Only 11 percent of women of working age are employed outside the home; among those women, 80 percent work in agriculture.

http://www.everyculture.com/Sa-Th/Syria.html

You said ... "13% of Syrian refugees surveyed support ISIS." ISIS did not exist prior to the Syrian war, and we didn't have thousands of Syrian refugees so how could 13% of what didn't exist support something that also didn't exist?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Charles Anthony
fixed quote

[Black Dog]

Again, I never said that.

You're moving the goal posts buddy. You only have to do a quick read of these threads to see plenty of examples of people who consider Islam and ISIS basically interchangeable. Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean nobody does.

[dialamah]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sharia+law

Does denying the separation of Church and State, that we hold as a Western Value, not a troublesome worldview to you?

Why would another country's decision to 'combine church and state' affect me, as long as they aren't trying to do it here? Much of Sharia law is pretty benign, but it's also true that there are some very harsh things in it, that I would not implemented as part of my government. Most of the Muslim world accepts Sharia law to a greater or lesser degree; as long as they aren't here trying to impose it on me, then I don't have a problem with that, however much I disagree with it or even 'deplore' it. Given that our governments are pretty much controlled by corporations, I don't see that we have much moral high ground here, honestly.

[Black Dog]

So Sharia is cool as long as it's not violently imposed. GOTCHA! I completely agree with you here.

The rub is, that in much of the Muslim world, it is violently imposed on people. In ISIS controlled land especially.

How much is "much?" You're talking about the Middle East which is a very small part of the Muslim world.

Also, it's not sharia law that ISIS/Daesh is imposing but a very specific fundamentalist, medieval interpretation of Sunni Islam.

[Boges]

Why would another country's decision to 'combine church and state' affect me, as long as they aren't trying to do it here? Much of Sharia law is pretty benign, but it's also true that there are some very harsh things in it, that I would not implemented as part of my government. Most of the Muslim world accepts Sharia law to a greater or lesser degree; as long as they aren't here trying to impose it on me, then I don't have a problem with that, however much I disagree with it or even 'deplore' it. Given that our governments are pretty much controlled by corporations, I don't see that we have much moral high ground here, honestly.

So you're conflating corporations with religions? That's some weird moral equivalency.

If Sharia's goal is to remove the separation of church and state, it's by definition incompatible to the Western democratic worldview.

To oppose it isn't a blanket condemnation of all Muslims.

[dialamah]

So you're conflating corporations with religions? That's some weird moral equivalency.

I think the control that corporations have over Western governments is extremely immoral. I'm pretty sure that's a different thread, though .

If Sharia's goal is to remove the separation of church and state, it's by definition incompatible to the Western democratic worldview.

To oppose it isn't a blanket condemnation of all Muslims.

It isn't Sharia's goal to remove separation of church and state. Sharia law is both, and covers everything from an individual's personal behavior, to the legal system and system of governance. Some places follow it more closely than others.

[jacee]

So Sharia is cool as long as it's not violently imposed. GOTCHA! I completely agree with you here.

The rub is, that in much of the Muslim world, it is violently imposed on people. In ISIS controlled land especially.

ISIS is one thing.

"Much of the Muslim world" is a smear job.

Sharia is another thing.

Stop trying to conflate ISIS & Sharia, and smear "much of the Muslim world".

Then we'll agree.

.

[jacee]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sharia+law

Does denying the separation of Church and State, that we hold as a Western Value, not a troublesome worldview to you?

All religion is troublesome to me.

Kinda yuck really.

I don't see any value in arguing one over the other as you want to.

You don't like Islam. Oh well.

Yawn.

Live and let live.

ISIS is another thing, a creation of extremism, violence.

Do not conflate them.

That is smearing all Muslims, spreading hatred of people solely because of their religion.

Is that what you are here to do?

.

Edited November 17, 2015 by jacee

[Big Guy]

Who are you to decide what is and is not an acceptable argument?

I have full right to evaluate and express what I feel is and what is not an acceptable argument - as do you. Demeaning a race or culture or religion based on some individuals warped personal standards is not acceptable for me.

[cannuck]

Recently, I listened to a rather long sermon by a Muslim cleric, quite a famous one judging by the size of the audience. Anyway, his sermon taught that there were three parts to the Koran: one was about things that happened in the past and no longer applied, one was about how to live one's life in the present, and the third was what Allah would provide for his people. ISIS (he didn't say their name, it was by implication) were taking the parts of the Koran that referred to the past and using that to justify their present actions.

So, at least in this sermon, ISIS would be similar to a bunch of Christians who took the old testament as justification for burning witches, stoning adulterous women, keeping slaves, implementing 'eye-for-an-eye' penalties for wrongdoing, and chasing their enemies to kill them from behind. Even the New Testament has passages suggesting that its ok to kill non-believers (Luke 19:27; Matthew 10:34).

Excellent post. Could not agree more with your assessment.

[Guest]

All religion is troublesome to me.

Kinda yuck really.

I don't see any value in arguing one over the other as you want to.

You don't like Islam. Oh well.

Yawn.

Live and let live.

ISIS is another thing, a creation of extremism, violence.

Do not conflate them.

That is smearing all Muslims, spreading hatred of people solely because of their religion.

Is that what you are here to do?

.

There is no smear in saying ISIS are Islamic. They are. There can be no argument on that point. I'm surprised that people seem unable to tell the difference between people who do bad things in the name of their religion and people who don't.

It stands out like a beacon to me, crystal clear.

[Guest]

Excellent post. Could not agree more with your assessment.

Me too.

Edit> I think there are more than just ISIS members who do all that though. I think you can still get stoned in the odd non ISIS place over there too.

Edited November 17, 2015 by bcsapper

[cannuck]

Again, I never said that.

I do think JT is grandstanding by committing to fast tracking admittance of refugees by the end of the year. The Federal Government doesn't take less than 2 months to do anything but can decide whether 25,000 people leaving a warzone would all be good fits to live in Canada?

Where was the fast tracking for refugees from the Rwanda in the 90's?

Actually, our eldest daughter gave us the solution to this dilema over dinner tonight. She suggested that these refugees be distributed within Canada in direct proportion to the percentage of Liberal votes from each constituency. Additionally, each Liberal MP should have to sponsor a family. Finally, a number of such families should take up residence at 22 Sussex. Of course, unlike the armchair warriors around here, she makes those statements as her husband relates battle plan scenarios he is teaching right now, in full awareness that under NATO rules, he may well be back in the field carrying them out once more.