Jump to content

Islamophobia in Canada


Hudson Jones

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Sadly we live with a religious system that does a poor job of living up to gods words, a religion that is rich beyond words and yet can not help the poor or the needy, has priceless artifacts from around the world that it shares with a select few, not to mention the sexual assaults,  other abuses, and to top it off the church and it's guidance has killed more people than any other institution or  group, or nations on the globe... I think these are some of the reasons that people have left the churchs.

Not all people belong to an apostate or false religious system.  We should avoid generalizing.  There are many different denominations.  You are speaking largely of Romanism, the religion which the largest number of people belong to within nominal Christianity, but which is a false or apostate religious system that controlled the western world for the last 1,700 years.  It is not built on the Bible, but is largely a man-made religion. Yet during that 1,700 years there were small independent Bible believers or groups of Bible believers.  Usually they were underground because they would face persecution for being "heretics".  Many were killed.  The Inquisition was a time of persecution that lasted 400 years. 

The Bible commands believers to come out from an apostate or false church and be separate from them.  What matters is what God says in his written revelation, in English the KJB.  A church is not what saves a person, contrary to what some churches teach.  Salvation is a personal thing between an individual and God.  Believers are to test what they are told with the Bible.  Charity is taught in the Bible to individual believers.  Churches are not taught to be social services agencies.  That is not the function of a church.  Charity is generally an individual thing.  The purpose of a church is to provide a place of communal worship (a building), Bible study, the preaching of the word and gospel, and fellowship.  Some often do contribute to certain causes and missions in the world.  Often they help the less fortunate in their congregation or who may be experiencing a crisis or some sort of disaster.  We also live in an age where everyone pays taxes to government which provides welfare to people.  That doesn't prevent Christians from donating to charitable causes as many do.

Number of people who go to church does vary from age to age.  However, a church's duty is not to preach or present itself in a way to obtain the highest number of attendees.  The church's job is to preach the truth and follow the truth in the Bible.  It is not a popularity contest as a rock band might be. The message or biblical truth is unpopular with society and the world.  As Jesus said many are called but few are chosen.  A true church can never compromise in order to be acceptable or popular with the unbelieving world.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

In any history book, you'll find the most religions finger prints all over a lot of conflicts.  Back when religion played a much larger role. below is just wars fought for religious reasons, history also records other deaths attributed to religion, burning witches', heretics, there are a shit load of reasons that people where put to death by the order of some religious figures.

 Religious war - Wikipedia

You have just described false religion, not biblical Christianity, which is in the small minority in the world.  Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.  He did not come to build an earthly kingdom and biblical Christianity's aim is not to build an earthly kingdom and it is not it's aim to spread the gospel by force.   

The aim of the Papacy is to build an earthly kingdom and always has been, ruled by the potentate in Rome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The aim of the Papacy is to build an earthly kingdom and always has been, ruled by the potentate in Rome. 

the Whore of Babylon

God save King Billy, defender of the Enlightenment itself, Glorious Revolution of 1688

Orangemen of Upper Canada, faithful unto Judgment Day

Cuidich 'n Righ

 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Seems like the Conservatives are beginning to clue in - Michelle Rempel, for instance, posted this,

None of these people are conservative in any way, shape or form. They are simply part of the shift in the Tory party back to being the Progressive Conservatives - Liberals in all but name, without ideas, vision or principles.

I Expect someone to replace Maxine Bernier and then perhaps the PPC can find a charismatic leader with better judgement. Or a new Reform Party will arise, and drain the so-called Conservatives of almost all their support as they did to the PCs last time. O'Toole will be the next Joe Clark.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2021 at 5:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Looking like more hate mongers like this guy are doing what they do ... Again.

 

Please, all of you Muslim haters on here DO step up and rationalize the murder of a family.  Let's hear it again now, you have never been shy about hating Muslims before.

 

Your team scored four yesterday, so don't be a sore winner.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-pedestrians-killed-man-in-custody-1.6056238

That was such a stupid, hate mongering post. You might be sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm sorry that you were offended.

 

I don't understand how calling out Muslim haters is hate mongering, but stay the course I guess...

You're correct in saying that there's a problem here, but it's on both sides, so let's not act like it's a one-way street. Attacks against muslims here wasn't even a thing until after we had several muslim terrorist attacks here against Canadians.

Do you understand that MH?

No actual discussion about this or any other topic can be productive while a party to the conversation [ie - you] is blatantly lying, and lying is basically a means of providing justification (the concept of 'justification' is the root cause of all of the world's most despicable evil imo) for more of the same inexcusable behaviour. 

You need to wise up a bit to be part of such a serious discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1.You're correct in saying that there's a problem here, but it's on both sides, so let's not act like it's a one-way street. 

2. Attacks against muslims here wasn't even a thing until after we had several muslim terrorist attacks here against Canadians.  Do you understand that MH?

3. No actual discussion about this ...

4. You need to wise up a bit to be part of such a serious discussion. 

1. A problem on "both sides" ?  I don't see why someone could reasonably take that tack on attacking innocent people on either side.   

2. Which attacks specifically do you mean ?  

3. Hating Muslims because there are Muslim terrorists doesn't make sense - it is like hating white people because of an attack by a white person on a Muslim.

4. You are actually defending a terrorist attack by saying Islamists do terror too.  You are defending terror in general, which is playing into the terrorists' strategy.  Your knee-jerk reaction to defend the deaths of innocents because "both sides" have issues is essentially retarded thinking.

I don't think we can see eye to eye on this, because you are, ground-level, an emotional thinker.  I would rather condemn terrorism in all its forms on principle and not check the skin of the attacker first.

Have a good day anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm sorry that you were offended.

 

I don't understand how calling out Muslim haters is hate mongering, but stay the course I guess...

You didn't "call out Muslim haters."

You said directly that anyone who doesn't care for the religion "supports" the murder of this family.  To someone who is very clear on here about not liking the religion, but has no problem with peaceful Muslims.

Big difference.

But stay the course, I guess....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. A problem on "both sides" ?  I don't see why someone would take that tack on attacking innocent people on either side.   
2. Which attacks specifically do you mean ?  

3. Hating Muslims because there are Muslim terrorists doesn't make sense, it is like hating white people because of an attack by a white person on a Muslim.

4. You are actually defending a terrorist attack by saying Islamists do terror too.  You are defending terror in general, which is playing into the terrorists' strategy.  Your knee-jerk reaction to defend the deaths of innocents because "both sides" have issues is essentially retarded thinking.

I don't think we can see eye to eye on this, because you are basically an emotional thinker.  I would rather condemn terrorism in all its forms and not check the skin of the attacker first.

Have a good day anyway.

Now you're playing stupid and accusing me of saying things that I didn't say.

What happened in Ontario was evil, plain and simple, but there have been a lot of evil things done and it's just idiotic for you to act like we can only talk about 33% of it. 

At the heart of all of our problems is disinformation from media sources all over the globe - western, middle eastern, asian... you name it. But at the current time, you like the disinformation in Canada so you don't want to say or do anything about it. You need to grow up MH. This isn't a sandbox. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 You said directly that anyone who doesn't care for the religion "supports" the murder of this family.  To someone who is very clear on here about not liking the religion, but has no problem with peaceful Muslims.

 

Sorry - I pretty clearly complimented posters on this thread for criticizing Islam without dehumanizing them.  If you can't figure out how to do that, read the thread again and keep up.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1.  You didn't "call out Muslim haters."

2.  You said directly that anyone who doesn't care for the religion "supports" the murder of this family.  To someone who is very clear on here about not liking the religion, but has no problem with peaceful Muslims.

1.  Yes  he did, see below.

2.  No he didn't, see below.

On 6/7/2021 at 5:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Please, all of you Muslim haters on here DO step up and rationalize the murder of a family.  Let's hear it again now, you have never been shy about hating Muslims before.

That's what his original post said; that's nothing like what you claimed he said.  It's on the bottom of page 306, if you'd like to go back and read the conversation from the beginning, and understand what's actually been posted.  

Happy reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

Happy reading.

I believe that you and one other poster perhaps wrote some criticism of Islam as well.  Can we put a harpoon in the argument that people who foment hatred are criticizing a religion? They're doing nothing of the kind, they are dehumanizing people because of their faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

You have just described false religion, not biblical Christianity

They're all based on the Bible, consequently, they're all as false/true as anyone else's.  I get that you believe your particular interpretation is actually the 'right' one, but nobody joins or sticks with a religion because it's the 'false' one.

My former religion was the "right" biblical Christianity version, because we didn't celebrate birthdays, and didn't accept blood transfusions - supporting scriptures are Ecclesiastes 7:1, Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14, Acts 15:28-29.

If you'll celebrate birthdays or accept a blood transfusion, perhaps you are in the false religion, after all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

1.  Yes  he did, see below.

2.  No he didn't, see below.

That's what his original post said; that's nothing like what you claimed he said.  It's on the bottom of page 306, if you'd like to go back and read the conversation from the beginning, and understand what's actually been posted.  

Happy reading.

I was referring to *this* comment, smarty-pants/mouthy-pants:

"So we have Yzermanius and BCSapper who support the murder of this family, because it's validated by Muslim crimes in others parts of the world. "

No one here supports the murdering of this family.

 

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That's what his original post said; that's nothing like what you claimed he said.  It's on the bottom of page 306, if you'd like to go back and read the conversation from the beginning, and understand what's actually been posted.  

If you're being honest, what he said was idiotic and inflammatory. It's a non-starter for constructive dialogue.

If you want to carry on like a pop-flinging monkey in the zoo that's your problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I believe that you and one other poster perhaps wrote some criticism of Islam as well.  Can we put a harpoon in the argument that people who foment hatred are criticizing a religion? They're doing nothing of the kind, they are dehumanizing people because of their faith

I don't think they understand the difference.   For them, assuming that a woman with an hijab is either a) being forced/abused or b) if not, they are fanatic and cannot possibly be trusted not to suddenly turn into a murderous terrorist, seems to be the same as 'criticizing the religion'.  They ignore, or dismiss as not actually Muslim, those who who really believe that Islam should not be forced, that tolerance is required, that murder/terrorism are wrong.  Or they assume they're lying to fool 'us'.    Nobody that I've talked to doubts that Muslims are more conservative than Westerners, but for the most part they're not a lot different than conservative Christians.   Some take it too far, whether Christian or Muslim - which doesn't excuse either of them.  We have laws in Canada, which both Muslims and Christians must follow.  And both religions advise their followers to obey their country's laws - so neither Christians nor Muslims can claim their "religion" trumps the law of the land.

It's certainly a valid criticism of Islamic countries whose laws are very repressive for women/gays/non-believers which they claim is based on "Islam".  Muslim haters seem to think that means every Muslim in that country supports such oppression - and that is so far from the truth.   To  me, assuming all Muslims from X country must support the worst of their country's or fellow-Muslim's behavior is just wrong; there's many Muslims who want to get out of those countries and absolutely reject those oppressive laws and societal attitudes - but because the Muslim haters assume the worst is the "norm", they'd block those people from escape.  

Maybe the idea that there's a plurality of belief within a group is just too complex for these people.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I was referring to *this* comment, smarty-pants/mouthy-pants:

Oh, how ... cute!  And Adult!

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

"So we have Yzermanius and BCSapper who support the murder of this family, because it's validated by Muslim crimes in others parts of the world. "

Well, I don't know about Yzermanius, but BCSapper certainly seemed to  understand that the killer might have had enough and decided to do something about this disgusting religion, by killing a family.  His exact words:

How disgusting Islam is as a religion doesn't change because some extremist took into his own hands to do something about it, anymore than it does when a Sunni bastard blows up a Shia wedding. 

As Citizen noted:

Yes while you are apparently condemning the evil coward who did it but at the same time trying to reason that maybe it stems from what you see as a disgusting faith which clearly the victims did not see it that way. You are using (abusing) freedom of speech to justify online hate. 

And then there's the history of some of these people - accepting without question any statement that denigrates Muslims in general, and attacking anyone who objects to such denigrating statements.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Muslim haters seem to think that means every Muslim in that country supports such oppression - and that is so far from the truth.   To  me, assuming all Muslims from X country must support the worst of their country's or fellow-Muslim's behavior is just wrong; there's many Muslims who want to get out of those countries and absolutely reject those oppressive laws and societal attitudes

No one has said that, but you.

I'm sure not EVERY Palestinian voted for Hamas - a known terrorist organization.  However, the fact is that the majority did, knowing full well that their mandate/constitution is to kill the Jews.

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

but because the Muslim haters assume the worst is the "norm", they'd block those people from escape.  

You engage in the same thing you accuse others of.  No one has said they would block the escape of moderate Muslims who want to get out of Palestine because they don't like Hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, I don't know about Yzermanius, but BCSapper certainly seemed to  understand that the killer might have had enough and decided to do something about this disgusting religion, by killing a family.  His exact words:

How disgusting Islam is as a religion doesn't change because some extremist took into his own hands to do something about it, anymore than it does when a Sunni bastard blows up a Shia wedding. 

Nothing in what he said, says he agrees with it.  You read far too much into statements.  Very much like the murderer of this family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Goddess said:

No one has said that, but you.

I'm sure not EVERY Palestinian voted for Hamas - a known terrorist organization.  However, the fact is that the majority did, knowing full well that their mandate/constitution is to kill the Jews.

And yes, Hamas deserves criticism.  Should every Palestinian be judged as a mini-Hamas?  Isreal has done some pretty horrific things too; is every Jew to be judged by what Isreal has done?  Heck, Canada allowed/contributed to the death of 215 native children, at least!  We've failed miserably in protecting native women and children right up until the present.  Should we all be considered child-killers and abusers of women, then?  Should people in other countries, who know almost nothing about our culture, look at us, as Canadians, and say "Gosh, these people support barbaric things like child-killing, rape and murder of Indigenuous people - maybe not all of them, but lots of them/most of them".   

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You engage in the same thing you accuse others of.  No one has said they would block the escape of moderate Muslims who want to get out of Palestine because they don't like Hamas.

Do you ever read the posts of Argus, or DoP?  You certainly have liked/agreed with them.  Because Argus has been arguing for years that we shouldn't accept Muslims from Muslim majority country, only Christians from those countries because Muslims aren't enough like us culturally.  He doesn't care that the Christians in those countries share virtually all the same social beliefs that the Muslims do.  He'll basically accept the same belief system if it's labeled "Christian" and reject it if its labeled "Muslim".

And DoP keeps telling us that if a Muslim doesn't embrace murder/terrorism, either they just haven't gotten to it yet, or they aren't 'real Muslims'.

They both clearly and specifically broadbrush Muslims; you support them and keep telling us that "we/they don't mean all of them".   Now while I can believe *you* may not automatically believe the worst about any Muslim you meet or see on the street, I certainly don't believe it about some people who post here. 

Maybe you could pay attention to what it actually means when someone says "If she's wearing a hijab, she's extremist" and "If he doesn't believe in forced conversion, murdering gays he's not a real Muslim" and object to that, instead of attacking the people who are objecting to those kinds of bigotted (at best) statements.  Otherwise, you look just like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An advanced democratic society must be able to discuss the issues like religiously motivated attire in public places and specifically, education system in an intelligent and civilized manner for the benefit of the entire society. Pretending that there's one default true answer, and especially claiming the privilege of always and by default having the right answer does not offer any solutions. It only demonstrate absence of understanding and ability to discuss serious matters as grown up citizens in a civilized and intelligent manner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Nothing in what he said, says he agrees with it.  You read far too much into statements.  Very much like the murderer of this family.

He gets it; that disgusting religion - maybe somebody decided to do something about it.  How is that any different than a Muslim, upon hearing about a terror attack saying "Yeah, it was wrong - but I get why they did it"?  Would you accept that, or would you take it as proof positive that Muslims approve of terrorism.

Keep in mind that you are one of those, who,  whenever an Islamic terrorist blows stuff up, jump all over the rest of the Muslims for not saying/doing enough to prove they think terrorism is wrong.  You ignore the many Muslims appearing in news stories condemning violence, the ones grieving with everyone else, offering comfort and aid, the religious leaders also condemning that violence - none of that is enough.

But when the situation is reversed - when it's a White guy deliberately running over Muslims, explicit condemnation isn't required.  One can even say "well, yah ... I can see why they did that", and that's ok with you.  

Anyway, I'm sure BC condemns this killing even though he didn't explicitly condemn; I'm sure he also 'gets' why the kid did it.  But still, the kid wouldn't have had those reasons without people like Argus and DoP harping on how evil Muslims are.  Note, I didn't say Argus and DoP specifically caused this - just the people who believe and talk like they do, in person and online.

Edited by dialamah
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...