Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wilders Denied Entry Into UK Despite Being Invited By Parliament
Options
Comments
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza"
The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.0 -
Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient/
True, if the BBC or RTE covered Gaza then we would all know about. Unfortunatley they spend all their time on the plight of Christians in Saudi Arabia, and Jews in the rest of the ME.0 -
-
Where?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles? Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die? If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate. There is somewhere between 15-30% of the population of Italy and Spain who "do not believe there is a god"
Perhaps, but if ones holy book tells them to go out and kill non believers and they proceed to do that, it's hard to claim to the contrary that they're acting in violation of Koranic teachings.I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.
Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.
+1ChocolateSauce wrote: »When was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?0 -
Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.
Except that they didn't. It started when Israel broke the cease fire, by launching an attack into Gaza. Of course, this fact is constantly denied, as its terribly inconvenient.
Anyway, still doesn't change the US support for the atrocities commited in Gaza.
**EDIT**
Here is a link concerning the breaking of the ceasefire:
Guardian.co.uk: Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen0 -
Advertisement
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Well they seem to have latched onto the Koran."?
No, certain muslims have latched onto a certain reading of the KoranChocolateSauce wrote: »Loons, they are. Militant, they are not. ."?
Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.ChocolateSauce wrote: »As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?
Why would you get that in the secular, largely irreligous West?
Go to India, however, and you'll find Hindus every bit as militant as their muslim counterparts. Or Sri Lanka. Or take a look at the christian phalangists in Lebanon.SeanW wrote:Perhaps, but if ones holy book tells them to go out and kill non believers and they proceed to do that, it's hard to claim to the contrary that they're acting in violation of Koranic teachings."?
...a statement which rests on the presumption that that simplistic reading is correct. However, the majority of muslims don't agree with that, and don't act in such a fashion. And presumably it is by actions that we judge them, rather than baseless fear.....SeanW wrote:Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.."?
...but not as inconvenient as the fact that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land and mistreating the inhabitants for over four decades, long before there was a Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the other non-secular groups.0 -
The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.
Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. The Congress voted to bomb Gaza, not to kill everyone in it. Furthermore, Hamas started the thing with their endless rocket attacks on civilian targets, and Hamas is democratically elected too. They broke the ceasefire by doing this, and then they hid their militants in civilian buildings so that the only way the Israelis could stop them was to attack buildings full of civilians. It's a losers game for both sides, it is wrong to attack civilian targets, but it is also wrong to hide in civilian buildings if you're launching rockets at non-combatants.No, certain muslims have latched onto a certain reading of the Koranchocolatesauce wrote:Well they (militant Islamists) seem to have latched onto the Koran.
We seem to have said the same thing here.Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.
Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians. Where are the Christian versions of the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, where are the weekly Christian suicide bombings, the barbaric and sick Christian Sharia courts (inquisitions), or even the state sponsored terrorists that are the Saudi Religious police?...but not as inconvenient as the fact that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land and mistreating the inhabitants for over four decades, long before there was a Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the other non-secular groups.
I don't think you can blame today's politicians or people for the founding of Israel. Blame the allies after the war for that. Besides, all parties are guilty of being unable to live together peacefully. Who started it is irrelevant, who finishes it is all that matters.Why would you get that in the secular, largely irreligous West?
Go to India, however, and you'll find Hindus every bit as militant as their muslim counterparts.
The Times today has an article dealing with Hindu militants. In the highly conservative parts of India where they're rife, they beat women who are acting "immorally". However, they are vigilantes, even if they do have the tacit support of the local government. In Arabia, they are proud of the fact they brutally lash women in public for similar offenses, and it is written into law. I never said it was exclusively Islam which is like this, but I was comparing it to the west, of which India and Lebanon are not a part.
Largely irreligious, compared to other parts of the world. Very, very few countries in the west actually have Christian minorities, and the US is very devout, fanatical throughout large swathes of it.0 -
which "death to Israel" can only be construed as
Actually it probably could be translated as "Down with Israel" - it's an emotive language.
This seems orthogonal to the main thread here - I am sympathetic to Palestinians ( but i was more sympathethic to them when they were nationalists not Islamists) but the point on the table is should Wilders be allowed into the UK.
I say yes.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. .
Hardly. However theres already a thread to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian issue.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I don't think you can blame today's politicians or people for the founding of Israel. Blame the allies after the war for that. Besides, all parties are guilty of being unable to live together peacefully. Who started it is irrelevant, who finishes it is all that matters..
I wasn't referring to the foundation of Israel. But theres a thread here already if you wish to discuss it further.
...claiming biblical justification. Much like Al Qaeda and the Koran.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians...ChocolateSauce wrote: »The Times today has an article dealing with Hindu militants. In the highly conservative parts of India where they're rife, they beat women who are acting "immorally". However, they are vigilantes, even if they do have the tacit support of the local government. ...
And they have political parties who would instituionalise their views into law, given a chance.ChocolateSauce wrote: ». I never said it was exclusively Islam which is like this, but I was comparing it to the west, of which India and Lebanon are not a part.
...
Not all faces of Islam are contained in and behave like Saudi Arabia.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Largely irreligious, compared to other parts of the world. .
...and thus acts accordingly.0 -
Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.
Waco was a State action against some religious nuts. Thats the tragedy there. Oklahoma city was a reaction to that, and no sense that he was religiously motivated. Abortion clinic bombings are rarer than attacks on scientists who work with animals.
Christians would be way down the list of ideologies which produce modern terrorism, behind Islamists, Animal Rights activists, Marxists, Nationalists etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. The Congress voted to bomb Gaza, not to kill everyone in it.
What would you call the nutters spray painting "death to arabs" around Hebron?
The US congress voted to support an act of state terrorism. You seem to think it ok for the West to support this, but when the other guy does it, it is wrong? They use nastier words, but the end result is the same, support of killing innocent civilians.
Why is it ok for the US to support such an atrocity? To get back to the main point, they supported state terrorism. They are a secular democracy and they supported it. Israels excuses aside, my point is simple, the democratically elected US congress supported state terrorism.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Furthermore, Hamas started the thing with their endless rocket attacks on civilian targets, and Hamas is democratically elected too. They broke the ceasefire by doing this, and then they hid their militants in civilian buildings so that the only way the Israelis could stop them was to attack buildings full of civilians.
You do realize the ethnic cleansing of Palesinte and Israel occupation happened before this? How exactly are Hamas to blame for Israel acts of state terror? Could Hamas not say the same thing. They started it so, we can do whatever we like to defend ourselves? Seems ridiculous to me.
Also, Israel broke the ceasefire, I provided a link earlier about it. Also, when you attack all aspects of infrastructure of one of the world most densly populated area's, civilians will be killed. This has little to do with Israel claims of Hamas hiding among civilians, these guys have homes that they go to sleep in at night, which Israel have no issues attacking. I am sure if Palestinains attacked a member of the IDF in his home and kill them and there entire family, no one would excuse it and would call it terrorism.
Again, to go back to my main point, was of the US congress supporting Israel state terror.ChocolateSauce wrote: »It's a losers game for both sides, it is wrong to attack civilian targets, but it is also wrong to hide in civilian buildings if you're launching rockets at non-combatants.
Israel attacked all government buildings including Police stations, which are civilian targets, Israel targetted everything. So there excuses are ridiculous. They attacked all aspects of the Gazan infrastructure, they openly admited it. The after the fact excuses, mean very little, especially when I know that Israel's claims are largely lies.
Once again, to go back to my main point, was of the US congress supporting Israels state terror.
Just, because the other guys calling for violence are bit more nasty in there rethoric, does not change what the US congress supported, which is state terrorism plain and simple.
Also, don't get me wrong I support Wilders right to go where ever he please. Just as I support the right of the other people who were banned from the UK.
Having said that, from what I can see Wilders has been banned like many others and his case is really no different to the others. Once its ok to ban people for there views from coming to a country, people should not be surprised, when the government starts using those powers to ban anyone they feel like.0 -
Well Nodin, I guess that wraps up our conversation.What would you call the nutters spray painting "death to arabs" around Hebron?
Nutters comes to mind.
I never said I supported it, I only said it wasn't as bad as genocide.The US congress voted to support an act of state terrorism. You seem to think it ok for the West to support this, but when the other guy does it, it is wrong. Why is it ok for the US to support such an a atrocity?You do realize the ethnic cleansing of Palesinte and Israel occupation happened before this? How exactly are Hamas to blame for Israel acts of state terror? Could Hamas not say the same thing. They started it so, we can do whatever we like? Seem ridiculous to me. Israel attacked all government buildings including Police stations, which are civilian targets, Israel targetted everything. So there excuses are ridiculous.
While I do agree that Israel over-reacted, I don't think reacting with military force was unjustifiable. The Gaza people voted into power a militant party which has publicly stated it will not stop rocket attacks on Israel until it gets what it wants. As a democracy, the citizens have to take responsibility for the actions of their government. Again, I'm not saying I support Israel, I'm just saying Gaza isn't blameless.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Nutters comes to mind.
Who are protected by the IDF.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I never said I supported it, I only said it wasn't as bad as genocide.
I never called it genocide. Also, terrorism isn't as bad as genocide either.ChocolateSauce wrote: »While I do agree that Israel over-reacted, I don't think reacting with military force was unjustifiable. The Gaza people voted into power a militant party which has publicly stated it will not stop rocket attacks on Israel until it gets what it wants. As a democracy, the citizens have to take responsibility for the actions of their government. Again, I'm not saying I support Israel, I'm just saying the Gaza isn't blameless.
I would disagree with your version of events, but that outside the scope of this converstion. Anyway, none of which excuses Israel act of state terror. They also elect there government which pursues apartheid, colonization and state terror, against the Palestinians. Why are they not held responsible by the West for there government? In fact there state terror and apartheid are openly supported in the West, by democratically elected government as well. Why no responsiblity there then? Plenty of people support violence, some do it via protest and others do it via there democractically elected congress.0 -
I was listening to the Wide Angle on Newstalk over the weekend and they had excellent guests on about this, Micheal Portillio from the Tories, and a Dutch journalist.
Portillo made the point that he thinks this guy is a buffoon, but giving him and his ilk the oxygen of publicity, it will make them more popular than if the authorities did nothing. Just look at the number of people looking up his documentary, its rocketed in recent days.
Also, the journalist was pointing out that Dutch Left and Centrist Members of Parliment are in uproar over this decision because this idiots numbers in the polls have gone way up, resulting in potentially more MPs under the leadership of this racist.
Never mind the debate about freedom of speech, this was a totally idiotic decision that lacked foresight.0 -
I’m going to have to take your word for it.ChocolateSauce wrote: »The Koran has far fewer contradictions than the bible.
Popular among a tiny minority, yes, considering there are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over who did not take to the streets in such a way. While we’re on this particular subject, have Christian groups never protested against, say, the dramatic portrayal of Jesus Christ?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Well I would think the interpretation which is currently popular is the one which has millions of Muslims on the streets of cities all over the world calling for the destruction of the west over a silly little cartoon.
I do not believe that is true. There are several countries in the world that were founded as secular republics. Turkey, for example, comes to mind. But anyway, it’s somewhat irrelevant as the US is not a secular country, by any stretch of the imagination.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles?
I think we may have misunderstood each other. I was not arguing that Christian countries are “less secular” than Muslim countries.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die?
Lumping Pakistan (which, like India, was founded as a secular state) in with Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent, Iran) is just ridiculous – they are two completely different countries.ChocolateSauce wrote: »If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate.
That’s a little dismissive and rather naïve, to be honest. There are Christian terrorist groups all over the world. The US has the CSA, the ARA, the Army of God, the Aryan Nations and everyone’s favourite Christian fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan. There are other prominent groups in Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, Burma, Uganda and Canada.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians.0 -
djpbarry, I am watching you, and your Tu Quoque. You seem to have the utter inability to argue in defence of Islam without attacking Christianity. Or to argue A, without attacking B. This tends to bring all threads off topic. As I am now.
That is always and everywhere you argument. And it gets old fast.The US has the CSA, the ARA, the Army of God, the Aryan Nations and everyone’s favourite Christian fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan. There are other prominent groups in Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, Burma, Uganda and Canada.
The CSA, ARA, Army of God are so important that I have not heard of them. Most would presumably be nationalist, or racist as well. The KKK has about 5 members, average age 98.
As for the rest, no real iea who these Christian terrorists are - but I would imagine that Christians in Indonesia and India tend to be the subjects of terror rather than the perpetrators, given their position. In fact in both countries Christians have come under attack from mobs, and terrorist organisations, and in Indonesia - a genocidal act by the State.
Islam has terrorist organisations where it is in the majority. And minority. And everywhere in between.0 -
-
djpbarry, I am watching you, and your Tu Quoque. You seem to have the utter inability to argue in defence of Islam without attacking Christianity. Or to argue A, without attacking B. This tends to bring all threads off topic.
...and that happens because of the tendency to treat Islam in isolation to other religons and behaviours, thus creating a 'biased sample'.0 -
...and that happens because of the tendency to treat Islam in isolation to other religons and behaviours, thus creating a 'biased sample'.
Not biased at all. One religion has more bloody frontiers than others, and that is Islam. At least now.
So desperate are y'all for equivalence that we get to hear about terrorists in Indonesia ( which has a historical genocidal policy towards Christians, and a large Islamic terrorist group ranged against them) and Burma ( which has a present day genocidal policy towards Christians).
Really. Come on.
Try harder.0 -
Not biased at all. One religion has more bloody frontiers than others, and that is Islam. At least now..
...frequently for reasons which are often as much nationalistic as anything else (Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir.So desperate are y'all for equivalence that we get to hear about terrorists in Indonesia ( which has a historical genocidal policy towards Christians, and a large Islamic terrorist group ranged against them) and Burma ( which has a present day genocidal policy towards Christians).
Really. Come on.
Try harder.
Well we're merely applying the "terrorist" label. Personally I've always thought armed resistance justified in the three examples I've given, regardless of the various religons involved. If they get blanket labelled, I see no reason not to apply the same criteria in order to refute the "Something About Islam" point of view.0 -
Advertisement
-
I’m not attacking Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. I have merely been pointing out that it is incorrect to argue that Christian fundamentalism/terrorism (a) does not exist and/or (b) is not a threat to anyone. But then, I think you knew that.You seem to have the utter inability to argue in defence of Islam without attacking Christianity.
Well I’m not here to educate you on the subject, but the Army of God, for example, is responsible for 37 bombings in 33 states across the US, according to the Washington Post. But hey, you haven’t heard of them, so I guess they’re not important.The CSA, ARA, Army of God are so important that I have not heard of them.
Possibly, but I’m sure the same could be said about a lot of Islamic fundamentalists too.Most would presumably be nationalist, or racist as well.
Your feigned ignorance of the subject is not terribly convincing. Take for example the National Liberation Front of Tripura, which, according to MIPT, was one of the most active terrorist groups in the world in 2003. The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura (source).As for the rest, no real iea who these Christian terrorists are - but I would imagine that Christians in Indonesia and India tend to be the subjects of terror rather than the perpetrators…0 -
I never called it genocide. Also, terrorism isn't as bad as genocide either.
I know. I was just pointing out some people are calling for it.They also elect there government which pursues apartheid, colonization and state terror, against the Palestinians. Why are they not held responsible by the West for there government? In fact there state terror and apartheid are openly supported in the West, by democratically elected government as well. Why no responsiblity there then?
I would say because they're America's little democratic puppet example in the Middle East, the only ally there who is an ally without conditions, like the sale of oil. And who has ever held the US accountable? No one, not during the cold war when they fought illegal proxy wars, or when they used subterfuge, espionage and military aid to overthrow democratically elected left-wing governments, and not now.
I think we're mostly on the same page here; I don't at all think what the US (or Israel) has done and continues to do is moral. They're not following their own values, as enshrined in writing by the truly magnificent founders. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument for balance, when it comes to Israel/Gaza.I was listening to the Wide Angle on Newstalk over the weekend and they had excellent guests on about this, Micheal Portillio from the Tories, and a Dutch journalist.
Portillo made the point that he thinks this guy is a buffoon, but giving him and his ilk the oxygen of publicity, it will make them more popular than if the authorities did nothing. Just look at the number of people looking up his documentary, its rocketed in recent days.
Also, the journalist was pointing out that Dutch Left and Centrist Members of Parliment are in uproar over this decision because this idiots numbers in the polls have gone way up, resulting in potentially more MPs under the leadership of this racist.
Never mind the debate about freedom of speech, this was a totally idiotic decision that lacked foresight.
Indeed. It is worth noting that in the majority of cases, it is the places where extremists are denied freedom of expression that they're big. In Germany where nazism is essentially illegal, neo-Nazis are on the rise. In Turkey and Russia, where you're not allowed to speak against the state, nationalism is taken to its farthest extreme, in Pakistan where the Taliban are not given a platform, they're losing control of the country, but in America and Ireland and France, where you are allowed to air extreme views, it is not as big a problem. This was and still is true in Britain, but is becoming less so, which is the whole premise of this thread. If Wilders had been allowed to show Fitna in the Lords, they would have torn him a new one, I think. At the very least, they would have had a discussion with all sides aired.I do not believe that is true. There are several countries in the world that were founded as secular republics. Turkey, for example, comes to mind. But anyway, it’s somewhat irrelevant as the US is not a secular country, by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps I should clarify...Turkey and France existed as religious countries before they were reformed into secular ones. The US has at no time in its existence not been secular. And the US is, and always has been, officially secular, and extremely so. Yes, there ever more law breakers like the federal reserve and the government, who are made up often of fundamentalists, but the law is clear: religion has no place in public in the US.Lumping Pakistan (which, like India, was founded as a secular state) in with Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent, Iran) is just ridiculous – they are two completely different countries.
Pakistan is on the brink of being over-run by Islamists. The Taleban control large parts of the north of the country. I don't think it is unfair to compare this very conservative country to Iran and Arabia, especially when those three are compared together to Europe.That’s a little dismissive and rather naïve, to be honest. There are Christian terrorist groups all over the world. The US has the CSA, the ARA, the Army of God, the Aryan Nations and everyone’s favourite Christian fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan. There are other prominent groups in Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, Burma, Uganda and Canada.
In line with Asdasd's train of thought, I've never heard of most of those, which for someone who reads as much news as me tells me they're not very high profile. The KKK for example is such a tiny force these days that people hardly care anymore. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I would also support the idea that Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries are terrified of persecution, which would of course lead to the dark side via a well know process....and that happens because of the tendency to treat Islam in isolation to other religons and behaviours, thus creating a 'biased sample'.
Of course not all religions are equal (just like not all ideas are...eg. who the heck had the bright idea of giving creationism equal time with evolution on televised debates, as though it deserved it?), some are very much worse than others. For example, although I don't happen think Buddhism or Wicca have any factual merit, I wouldn't waste my energy attacking them when there are elephants in the room to watch out for.
Darn it asdasd, I write as I go, but you've already said what I'm thinking!:pac: I swear I'm not just copying you!I have merely been pointing out that it is incorrect to argue thatChristian fundamentalism/terrorism (a) does not exist and/or (b) is not a threat to anyone. But then, I think you knew that.
I don't think we're arguing it (terrorism, specifically. Fundamentalism is a different matter) doesn't exist, just that when compared to Islamic version, it becomes virtually irrelevant because it's so rare.
Djpbarry, that link leads to a 14 year old article, which in turn states its figures as having been over a 15 year period. Furthermore, I can only locate reports of 2 deaths in that article. How many people were blown up by Islamic terrorists since the new year?
As for the Indian rebels, ok, you found some pretty bad Christian terrorists, but again, in a 9 year-old article. I see in 2003 they killed 42 people. Weren't something like 50 people a day being killed in Iraq by Muslim suicide bombers until recently?0 -
Fair enough.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Perhaps I should clarify...Turkey and France existed as religious countries before they were reformed into secular ones. The US has at no time in its existence not been secular. And the US is, and always has been, officially secular, and extremely so. Yes, there ever more law breakers like the federal reserve and the government, who are made up often of fundamentalists, but the law is clear: religion has no place in public in the US.
Well, I’m still going to have to disagree with you. While you are correct in saying that the Taliban does control parts of the country, the overwhelming majority of the population do not support the Taliban, as evidenced by the poor showing of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam in the most recent elections (2008). Putting Pakistan and Saudi in the same “Muslim bracket” is akin to grouping Ireland with the US in the Christianity stakes.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Pakistan is on the brink of being over-run by Islamists. The Taleban control large parts of the north of the country. I don't think it is unfair to compare this very conservative country to Iran and Arabia…
I fail to see why that is important? I’m sure there are plenty of Islamic extremist groups the world over whom nobody has ever heard of.ChocolateSauce wrote: »In line with Asdasd's train of thought, I've never heard of most of those…
By that logic, we can excuse the actions of Hamas.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I would also support the idea that Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries are terrified of persecution, which would of course lead to the dark side via a well know process.
Granted, Islamic extremism is more common; I have not argued otherwise. But, extremist versions of other religions are far more common than most people seem to realise, probably due to trends in media coverage. Besides, as asdasd has already said of certain organisations, religion is often not their sole motivation, but the same is true of Islamic movements. Take the Taliban for example; one of their central ideologies is Pashtun nationalism. Of course, there is a common motivator among all of these groups, independent of religion, and that is power (or the desire for it).ChocolateSauce wrote: »I don't think we're arguing it (terrorism, specifically. Fundamentalism is a different matter) doesn't exist, just that when compared to Islamic version, it becomes virtually irrelevant because it's so rare.0 -
but the law is clear: religion has no place in public in the US.
Actually that is not true. It is now the law, as interpreted by a liberal supreme court but what the founding fathers meant when they added a clause banning the establishment of a church was just that, banning an established official church - i.e. the president ( Head of State) as head of a church. As they have in the UK.
It didn't stop bibles being used in inaugurations, or chaplains tending to the senate or congress, or a day of prayer in the senate, or churches being schools on the prairie. It does ban some of that now ( although the ACLU chooses it's targets :-) )
America's firey secularism, newly interpreted. is probably part of the reason why there is a fundamentalist backlash.0 -
Well, I’m still going to have to disagree with you. While you are correct in saying that the Taliban does control parts of the country, the overwhelming majority of the population do not support the Taliban, as evidenced by the poor showing of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam in the most recent elections (2008). Putting Pakistan and Saudi in the same “Muslim bracket” is akin to grouping Ireland with the US in the Christianity stakes.
Fair enough.By that logic, we can excuse the actions of Hamas.
Not at all, I said I support the idea, meaning I think that is how it can turn out. I never gave my support to the process.Granted, Islamic extremism is more common; I have not argued otherwise. But, extremist versions of other religions are far more common than most people seem to realise, probably due to trends in media coverage. Besides, as asdasd has already said of certain organisations, religion is often not their sole motivation, but the same is true of Islamic movements. Take the Taliban for example; one of their central ideologies is Pashtun nationalism. Of course, there is a common motivator among all of these groups, independent of religion, and that is power (or the desire for it).
I'm very much on board with you there. Religion has always been linked to power, and often is it hard to tell: is the authority using religion to further its own aims, or is the religion using the authority to further itself?Actually that is not true. It is now the law, as interpreted by a liberal supreme court but what the founding fathers meant when they added a clause banning the establishment of a church was just that, banning an established official church - i.e. the president ( Head of State) as head of a church. As they have in the UK.
It didn't stop bibles being used in inaugurations, or chaplains tending to the senate or congress, or a day of prayer in the senate, or churches being schools on the prairie. It does ban some of that now ( although the ACLU chooses it's targets :-) )
America's firey secularism, newly interpreted. is probably part of the reason why there is a fundamentalist backlash.
I would like to think that the state was intended to be fully secular and merely corrupted...but you might have a point there. Well, at least there is no established church with a head who cannot perform any functions.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »I know. I was just pointing out some people are calling for it.
Sure, there are people on both sides.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I would say because they're America's little democratic puppet example in the Middle East, the only ally there who is an ally without conditions, like the sale of oil. And who has ever held the US accountable? No one, not during the cold war when they fought illegal proxy wars, or when they used subterfuge, espionage and military aid to overthrow democratically elected left-wing governments, and not now.
Well, my point is that people in the West happily support violence. Who needs a bunch of idiot protesters when billions of dollars and the support of the US congress does the job.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I think we're mostly on the same page here; I don't at all think what the US (or Israel) has done and continues to do is moral. They're not following their own values, as enshrined in writing by the truly magnificent founders. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument for balance, when it comes to Israel/Gaza.
I have no issue with the balance. It still shows people in the West supporting violence and yes they have there reasons, but then so do the guys who are annoyed with Israel. This is me trying to provide balance as well.0 -
Fair enough - apologies for the misinterpretation.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Not at all, I said I support the idea, meaning I think that is how it can turn out. I never gave my support to the process.0 -
Advertisement