Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby cynical » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 am

thejasond wrote:
cynical wrote:Jason, it stayed on-topic the entire time... all it did was branch off of certain points. That's how topics get better. :roll:

Also.... Westboro has its fair share of members who are willing to go the extremist route, but they are staying within the First Amendment.


I'm not too sure that every post was on topic, considering the topic was about Islam. But I did enjoy the entire thread, even when it branched off. And yes, they're within the first amendment. But we shouldn't get too complacent with that because a fair share of people in this nation would like to get rid of the first amendment :crazy:


First Amendment has its pros and cons... but that "fair share of people" would like to "more thoroughly" exercise their Second-Amendment rights, which would be a disaster. :shock:

Oh, also, if you mean the mudslinging back and forth (I kid I kid ;)) as off-topic, then yeah, it HAS went off topic quite a few times.
cynical
User avatar
PolitiSeedling
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:11 am

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby crankyhead » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:24 am

WTFO wrote:I will continue to post facts about the violence of Islam here...violence sanctioned by islam's thug religion... In no way have I ever said all muslims were violent, etc



WTFO wrote:It's because of this kind of stupidity that I don't try to "debate" this liberal troll


Let's be honest WTFO, the main reason you won't debate me any more is because you can't write a whole paragraph without contradicting yourself, and I care too much about the nature of logical discourse to allow you to get away with it. You just go ahead and keep redefining the English language whenever reality gets in the way of your narrow view.

Cheers :thumbsup:
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:34 pm

Here's some honesty about how an Islamic country that follows strict Sharia law treats its women, in accordance with the qur'an:

WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:42 pm

Here's a more indepth look at the practice of stoning, as directed by the religion of islam:

NOTE: at about the 1:10 point it states that "an adulterer man shall be buried in a ditch up to near his waist and adulterer woman up to near her chest, and then stoned to death". Why the difference? If the adulterer can dig themselves free, the stoning stops. Clearly they don't want the women to be able to dig themselves free as easily as a man.



The video is over at the 3:00 mark.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:13 pm

Here's more on how the qur'an instructs its govts to treat non-mulsims:

-------------------------

Unmasking dhimmitude – the significance of Islam for Christians and Israel today
Andrew Tucker Saturday 2 January 2010

The revival of Islam throughout the world presents the Church today with an enormous challenge, a challenge which so far it has failed to either understand or respond to in a satisfactory way. In his new book The Third choice – Islam, dhimmitude and freedom, Australian theologian, author, activist and Anglican priest Dr. Mark Durie argues that this challenge is deeply related to the concept of dhimmmitude, a notion that lies at the heart of the Islam.

In countries or regions ruled by Islamic governments, non-Muslims basically have three choices. First, they can accept Islam and become Muslims. If they refuse to do so, they should either be killed, or (the ”third choice”) they can choose to become dhimmis. There is no other way. Dhimmis are those who voluntarily accept the position of dhimmitude, an Islamic institution offered to non-Muslims under jihad conditions. In essence, dhimmis are second-class citizens in an Islamic society.

In her preface, Bat Ye’or (author of many books including Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005), Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2001)), introduces this important book as follows:

“Durie exposes in clear language the multi-dimensional aspects of dhimmitude, a concept that pertains to a fourteen-centuries old civilization, birthed through jihad, and structured in accordance with the strict requirements of the Sharia….

Too few Westerners grasp that the concept of dhimmitude is crucial to understanding the relationship between Islam and non-Islam. As Durie argues, through a conspiracy of silence, the heads of state, church and community leaders, universities and media smother its reality under a blanket of ignorance. With numerous examples, the author denounces this intimidated concealment, which, he affirms, is undermining Western Judeo-Christian civilization and is contrary to human freedom and dignity….

[T]his specific type of evil is not something of the past, something that its promoters have renounced or agreed to relinquish; rather, this violation of human psychological and physical rights continues to develop freely in local and international politics, whether by violent jihadist threats and terrorism, or through entrenched and chronic religious discrimination.”

The best part of the book is devoted to a thorough review of the history of Islam over the past 14 centuries, an assessment of the current revival of Islam worldwide, and a textual analysis of Islamic literature. Durie analyses the life of Muhammad, and traces the historical development of Islam to the present day. He provides a detailed but clear overview of the basic literary sources of Islam, and how they are understood and interpreted within the different Islamic streams of thought. As such, it is a valuable tool for all Christians seeking to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of Islam.

Dr. Mark Durie is well placed to do so. He is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

While based on extensive research, and containing many detailed notes and references, the book is intended for the average reader and is written in an accessible style. For the lay reader there is a useful Glossary of Arabic Terms, and for those interested in further research the author has compiled an extensive Bibiography. The book contains a detailed index.

Rejection
Durie demonstrates that at the heart of Islam is the notion of rejection: rejection of all those who do not submit to the demands of Muhammad. Rejection was a key factor in Muhammad’s own personal development, and as a result has characterized Islam ever since. It lies at the heart of Islamic culture today. It has resulted in Muslims themselves adopting an attitude of “victimhood”, which, amongst other things, influences the conduct of Islamic government leaders in international relations. It has also led to the systematic oppression of non-Muslims over the centuries, and especially Jews and Christians. It is this attitude of rejection, asserts Durie, that all people, and in particular the Church, must understand and oppose:

”People of many faiths and none need to find freedom from the age-old legacy of the dhimma, and Moslims too, for dhimmitude degrades oppressors and oppressed alike. This book is therefore dedicated to the healing and freedom of all those who have fallen within the reach of dhimmitude, whatever their religious convictions, non-Muslim and Muslim alike.”

Dhimmi church leaders
Durie argues, in effect, that our understanding of, and response to, Islam tells us a lot about our understanding of our own identity as Christians. He recounts many alarming stories in the book that to my mind sum up the appalling failure (refusal?) of Church leaders to date to either understand Islam or respond in a meaningful way. They have unwittingly adopted a dhimmi attitude towards Islam, and in so doing betray a deep misunderstanding of their own identity as Christians and the calling of the Church in this world. For example:

• “In March 2003, Archbishop Frank Griswold, leader of the American Episcopalian church, was interviewed for an Islamic website www.soundvision.com. He stated that the US should not be a superpower but a “super-servant”. This well-meaning but naïve statement was consequently reproduced on a number of American Muslim websites, and applauded as a victory of Islam over Christianity.”
• “In 2007 a letter entitled A Common Word between Us and You was addressed by 138 Muslim scholars to the Christian world. A group of Yale theologians responded by placing a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, which was endorsed by 300 Christian leaders including Yonggi Cho, Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren and John Stott. “Consistent with the worldview of dhimmitude, the Yale theologians adopted a tone of grateful self-humiliation and self-inculpation, using expressions such as:
» ‘it is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter’;
» the Muslims’ letter was ‘extraordinary’ and written in ‘generosity’;
» ‘we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world’.

No comparable expressions of humble gratitude or expression of guilt were offered from the Muslim side. No doubt the Christians believed they were relating from a position of strength, by invoking Christian virtues of humility and self-examination. However they appear not to have taken account of the dynamics of dhimmitude and the possibility that these statements could be understood by Muslims as a display of self-acknowledged inferiority.

Ironically, while this dialogue was being conducted on the pages of the New York Times, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic thought, which had initiated and hosted the Common Word process on the Muslim side, was broadcasting fatwas on its website by its Chief Scholar which condemned converts from Islam to Christianity as apostates, characterizing them as deserving of death or else they should be stripped of all legal rights and treated legally as non-persons (because they ought to be dead).”

Dhimmitude, the Jews and Israel
This book is also important in that it exposes how Islam is so fundamentally rooted in its rejection of the Jewish people, and that this attitude still informs the approach of Muslims today towards Israel and the Jewish people. Although in some times and places their treatment was more humane than in others, Jews and Christians have always been treated as dhimmis. It is this same basic philosophy that underlies the attitude of the Muslim world towards the State of Israel, and why so many Muslims ultimately cannot accept the notion of a Jewish State.

One begins to understand why Yasser Arafat in 2000 at Camp David was unable to accept the offer by Prime Minister Barak for over 95% of the West Bank. Had he done so he would have faced certain death at the hands of his own Muslim supporters.

Durie challenges the claim of historian Bernard Lewis that Islamic hostility towards Jews is a cultural and not a theological issue. Durie: “Islamic hostility to the Jews is theological to its bootstraps…. Lewis’s astounding claim … has been relied on by many Western intellectuals, corrupting their understanding of Islamic history.”

Durie’s book is a powerful warning to both Christian and secular leaders to confront the reality of Islam, and not to adopt a dhimmi attitude of submission. This requires holding onto the truth while acting in love.

”Love for the other and truth are two attributes to be held together, the one complementing the other. Truth without love can be harsh and even cruel, but love without truth can be equally dangerous, as, lacking discernment, it steers the soul into shipwreck after shipwreck. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable.”

The Third Choice – Islam, dhimmitude and freedom is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Islam and what it means for the Church and Israel today.
-------------------------

We better wake up and ignore the idiots who hide and ignore the nature of islam and the harm some of its follows can bring to the world.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:29 pm

Another great example of how the "religion of peace" looks out for its people. In this case, school girls:

-------------

Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue
Friday, 15 March, 2002
BBC News

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

About 800 pupils were inside the school in the holy city of Mecca when the tragedy occurred.

According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.

"Lives could have been saved had they not been stopped by members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," the newspaper concluded.

Relatives' anger:

Families of the victims have been incensed over the deaths.

Most of the victims were crushed in a stampede as they tried to flee the blaze.

The school was locked at the time of the fire - a usual practice to ensure full segregation of the sexes.

The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

-------------------

So Islam would rather young girls die than not adhere to the strict "modesty" rules? If they treat muslim girls like this, what do you think they are willing to do to non-muslims?
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby crankyhead » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:05 am

You know, WTFO, after some careful consideration, I'm starting to see it your way. Obviously there's a huge problem with these people.

All I want to know now, is whether you have any kind of timeline for us, to let us know at what point we can expect Shaquille O'neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to start torching orphanages? We have to stop them right? I mean, think of the children.
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby crankyhead » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:37 pm

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticN ... QP20120205

Canadian Muslims issue fatwa against "honor killing"

TORONTO (Reuters) - A group of Canada's leading Muslim clerics has issued a fatwa against so-called "honor killings," just a week after three members of an Afghan Canadian family were convicted of a gruesome quadruple murder that triggered a national debate about cultural values.

A weekend statement from the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said 34 imams and leaders affiliated with the group issued the religious edict to remind Muslims that honor killings, domestic violence and misogyny are major sins and crimes punishable by law.

"The recent Shafia family trial in Kingston, Ontario has reminded all of us that we need to do more in order to prevent such tragedies in the future," the statement said.

"There is no justification for honor killings, domestic violence and misogyny in Islam."

A jury last month found husband and wife Mohammad Shafia and Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their son Hamed Mohammad Shafia, guilty of four counts of first-degree murder. The victims were three of Hamed's younger sisters and Mohammad Shafia's first wife in a polygamous marriage.

All four were found drowned inside a submerged Nissan Sentra that had been pushed into a canal near the eastern Ontario city of Kingston.

The girls, aged 13, 17 and 19 when they died, had reached out to the police, social services and their teachers for help with an abusive family. The court heard that the three teenagers sought a more liberal lifestyle than the one forced on them by their father.

The case struck a chord in Canada, where growing immigration has led to clashes between Canadian values and the more restrictive traditions of immigrants like the Shafia family. Some Quebec communities recently made headlines by banning headscarves, matching curbs in parts of Europe.
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:22 pm

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

2012.02.08 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Eleven people at a hotel cafe are torn to shreds by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
2012.02.07 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Violent Islamic separatists gun down a Buddhist man and his wife.
2012.02.06 (Ummarari, Nigeria) - Gunmen enter an apartment building and shoot two residents to death while shouting 'Allah akbar.'
2012.02.06 (Mansehra, Pakistan) - A prayer leader is among those charged after rival religious groups shoot and throw stones at each other.
2012.02.06 (Dehrawod, Afghanistan) - A young girl bleeds to death following the detonation of a shrapnel bomb by Sunni hardliners.
2012.02.05 (Damboa, Nigeria) - Fundamentalists gun down two people at a gathering for mourning another of their victims.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Where do you stand on these topics?

Postby WTFO » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:28 pm

Solid article:

--------------------

Islamonausea, not Islamophobia .
Saturday, 04 February 2012 11:12 Nicolai Sennels

We should stop using Muslims' self-chosen word – “Islamophobia” – by which they paint themselves into a corner of being feared: it destroys communication. Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a more approachable and factual word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: “Islamonausea.” This does not render communication impossible, but enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick.

It's no wonder that Muslims use the word “Islamophobia” so often. Lacking convincing arguments, charm or constructive contributions to their surroundings, being feared is the only way to gain at least some kind of respect. The term Islamophobia, fear of Islam, points to what Muslims want, not to what non-Muslims feel. Who is afraid of Islam, anyway?

“Xenophobia,” an irrational fear of that which is strange or foreign, also doesn't work. Aversion to Islam doesn't come from unfamiliarity with the religion; in fact, it's quite the opposite. There’s no reason to fear being called a racist, either, since neither Islam nor Muslims are a race.

Our language needs a term that describes what many critically thinking people feel about Islam according to their own terms, not according to what Muslims wish us to feel or what the PC establishment diagnoses to scare us into allowing more voters for the Left into our countries. We need a term that simultaneously invites Muslims to realize what they need to change about their behavior and religion if they wish to advance from an embarrassing last place in the evolution of civilizations and to earn some real respect among the world community.

Natural reaction to Islamonausea

As in many other nauseating situations, Islamonausea is a normal and natural reaction to something abnormal, not vice versa.

The nausea reflex is innate, and it is biologically natural and healthy to experience emotional and bodily discomfort with anything that is unpleasant, unhealthy or harmful.

There is nothing phobic or racist in feeling nausea when hearing about the Islamic massacres performed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats through history and all over the world today. The same goes for Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, and the cutting off of limbs and stonings in the name of Allah and his Sharia laws.

Thinking of Muslims’ epidemic practice of forced inbreeding (which damages intelligence and increases the risk of psychiatric diseases) -- often many generations in a row -- one may also experience unpleasant feelings in the abdomen. There is also no shame in feeling nausea when hearing about the extreme social control, violence and murderous examples made to keep and scare hundreds of millions of their women from enjoying their human rights to chose their own sexual partners, clothing and lifestyle.

The many calls for hatred, violence and killing of non-Muslims commanded by the faultless Koran are outright disgusting. Imagining the pinnacle of evolution being a planet-sized Islamic caliphate is not only a complete embarrassment to the human race; it may also make one lose one's appetite.

Islamonausea Examples

The word Islamonausea can be used to describe a feeling of nausea, disgust, displeasure, discomfort or aversion that arises by itself when encountering Islam or Islamic culture, or whatever or whoever represents it.

Examples of use of the word: "I'm not afraid of Islam, I have Islamonausea." "I do not want minarets in my town. They give me Islamonausea." "They got Islamonausea from all the Muslim immigrants and decided to move to another neighbourhood." "Reading the Koran gives me Islamonausea." "He got Islamonausea and decided to quit his job at the prison." "I get Islamonausea hearing about all those honor killings." "I get Islamonausea at the thought of eating Halal." "I get Islamonausea seeing all those Muslims hopping up and down and shooting in the air, trying to scare us into respecting their childish behaviour."

Prevalence

The first use of the word that I have been able to trace, is from 7 July 2005, in a comment on this website, Jihadwatch.org.

Here, a person calling himself Sheik Canuck, writes in a commentto an article on Muslims' positive reaction to the Islamic suicide bombings in London that same day:

"I don't have islamophobia, I have islamoNausea, I'm sick of them all."

The first time it occurred in a Danish newspaper was in a letter by this writer in Nordjyske Stiftstidende on December 30th 2011, entitled "We have nausea."

The term attracted some attention when the comedian, atheist and Islam critic Pat Condell used it in a video from 2009 called "Apologists for evil."

Islamonausea deserves its own article on Wikipedia.

Help get Islamonausea into our dictionaries by using the word on blogs, in articles and in Letters to the Editor, and in everyday speech.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

PreviousNext
Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Options

Return to PolitiChat

cron