The Islamic conquer of Europe

[Visaki]

All I can say is that I truly mourn my favorite icecream, that of which production was quickly halted when someone mistook an O for an I.
...

I can feel your pain. Here in your formed colony we had candy called "neekerinsuukko" or nergoes kiss (neekeri is an old finnish word for nergo, african, black, whatever and at least used to be neutral, my parents generation used it normally to refer to a black person) that had to change it's name and also Fazers licorace bar that used to have a stylized black boys face on the wrapping from since I was born had to change their look too.

Finnish immigration critics point at Sweden as what we might have if immigration isn't tightened up. That might tell you something.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I believe you mean negro.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Prolescum, I wanted to write a more detailed response but for now I'm only going to quickly go over a few points.

1. Animal slaughter procedures - The bottom line is, exemption from humane treatment of animals on religious grounds is unacceptable. It's not okay for Islam and it's not okay for Judaism, everyone should use stunning when slaughtering animals. The reason I don't push it with Judaism is because Judaism doesn't push me and doesn't try to force its values on everyone else in the way Islam (and to a lesser extent Christianity) does. How many Jews (not ethnic Jews, but religious Jews) actually want a theocracy? It's hardly a threat. Even Israel isn't a theocracy, in fact Muslims in Israel have more rights there than in Muslim dominated countries.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of animal rights activist, I have no problem with killing animals, but we should try to limit their suffering when possible. I could understand it if stunning was actually very expensive and economically unfeasible, but that's not the issue. Muslims don't refuse to stun because it's expensive, they refuse to stun because it's again their religion.

2. I take it you're okay with Sharia courts because they're voluntary and only limited to civil matters? Okay, how about the young Muslim women under peer pressure to submit to their courts, with NO APPEAL to a secular court? How about the fact that these courts discriminate against women?

It's a mechanism that makes it harder to leave the religion or to become more secularized and integrate in UK society.

It's not acceptable. UK should not be pandering to this type of mentality, let them play court (unofficially) if the want to, just don't make the courts' decisions legally binding in any way.


And as for racism accusations, I'll tell you what I am: I am a militant secularist (which is really defensive secularism) and anti-theist, and like it or not, Islam is the most dangerous religion, far more dangerous than Christianity, and with a much higher percentage of extremists. While the Christian dominated world matured and became more secularized and stopped its heretic/witch burning/persecution, the Islamic world did not and almost every country that has a majority Islamic population is in a sort of dark age now, with various human rights violations (directly proportionate to how extreme the theocracy is in that country - the more theocratic it is, the more human rights violations and less freedom). So far Turkey is the most secular, which is good, but even there radicals are trying to get power and have support from a lot of the population.


So, I have very good reasons to keep its influence in Europe as LOW as possible and if you still want to play the race card, so be it, but it has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with religion.

 

[australopithecus]

[...]and like it or not, Islam is the most dangerous religion, far more dangerous than Christianity, and with a much higher percentage of extremists.

I'd love to see the source that gives the numbers for extremists in either religion. Care to share it with us?

8. The fact that 28% of UK Muslims want UK to become an Islamic state: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/ ... of-the-uk/

One thing I hate is when the media (and anyone who swallows their bullshit) start stating things like "facts" when claiming to know what everyone within a group think. Why? Let me explain:

The polls cited in the argument that actually gave the numbers of those polled adds up to 3100 people. Let's double that to make up for the polls that didn't give numbers, just as a conservative estimate, that's 6200 people (assuming every poll interviewed no one twice). Of those 6200 28% are teh evil Muslims who want Sharia and ll that jazz, that's 1736 people.

The Muslim UK population count in 2010 when most of the polls were conducted (give or take) was 2.8 Million*. 1736 people is approx 0.07% of that population (0.07% is actually 1960 people). So when you or the media say 28% of UK Muslims want a UK Islamic state you're lying. Extrapolating an opinion on 2.8 million people who didn't take the poll is dishonest. While I'd agree there are a lot of Muslims who would want a British Islamic state, the fact is you can't honestly claim 28% do unless you've polled 100% of them and 28% agreed.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum, I wanted to write a more detailed response but for now I'm only going to quickly go over a few points.

That's fine.

1. Animal slaughter procedures - The bottom line is, exemption from humane treatment of animals on religious grounds is unacceptable.

You might be interested to know that I agree with you, however, decisions like that are out of our hands; it's EU-wide and it's been active since 1979 i.e. when western teens were scared of communists and didn't care much about Muslims. (There was another other to fear.)

But going back to my point, you were defending the idea that this was an example of an increasing Islamising of Europe when it clearly isn't. You're using it as an excuse for your particular flavour of bigotry.

It's not okay for Islam and it's not okay for Judaism, everyone should use stunning when slaughtering animals.

I agree in principle, but please go and read article 9 of the Human Rights Act and you'll see why it is exempt and why I disagree with you in practice.

The reason I don't push it with Judaism is because Judaism doesn't push me and doesn't try to force its values on everyone else in the way Islam (and to a lesser extent Christianity) does. How many Jews (not ethnic Jews, but religious Jews) actually want a theocracy? It's hardly a threat. Even Israel isn't a theocracy, in fact Muslims in Israel have more rights there than in Muslim dominated countries.

I refer you to my previous statement.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of animal rights activist, I have no problem with killing animals, but we should try to limit their suffering when possible. I could understand it if stunning was actually very expensive and economically unfeasible, but that's not the issue. Muslims don't refuse to stun because it's expensive, they refuse to stun because it's again their religion.

Article 9.

2. I take it you're okay with Sharia courts because they're voluntary and only limited to civil matters? Okay, how about the young Muslim women under peer pressure to submit to their courts, with NO APPEAL to a secular court? How about the fact that these courts discriminate against women?

I'm not saying it's perfect, right or anything else; it's set within the arbitration rules set out by parliament, ergo, it's legal in this country. Take it up with your MP.

The point is, your fear of "sharia courts in the UK" is designed to inflame and to insinuate a creeping takeover. It's fucking bullshit, and fails at the first hurdle of rational enquiry.

It's a mechanism that makes it harder to leave the religion or to become more secularized and integrate in UK society.

Evidence, please.

It's not acceptable. UK should not be pandering to this type of mentality, let them play court (unofficially) if the want to, just don't make the courts' decisions legally binding in any way.

This is unbelievably naiive. The arbitration act allows for others (with appropriate qualifications) to sit too. You can't just ban one type of arbiter based on their religion. You believe in equality, right? The ability to make choices, yes?

And as for racism accusations, I'll tell you what I am: I am a militant secularist

Lol.

(which is really defensive secularism) and anti-theist, and like it or not, Islam is the most dangerous religion

Evidence, please.

far more dangerous than Christianity

Evidence, please.

and with a much higher percentage of extremists

Evidence, please.

While the Christian dominated world matured and became more secularized and stopped its heretic/witch burning/persecution, the Islamic world did not and almost every country that has a majority Islamic population is in a sort of dark age now, with various human rights violations (directly proportionate to how extreme the theocracy is in that country

Oh, you like human rights now?

the more theocratic it is, the more human rights violations and less freedom). So far Turkey is the most secular, which is good, but even there radicals are trying to get power and have support from a lot of the population.

Are you also against democracy?

So, I have very good reasons to keep its influence in Europe as LOW as possible and if you still want to play the race card, so be it, but it has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with religion.

So you discriminate on religious grounds (specific ones, no less) and you complain about the human rights abuses of other nations? That, dear sir, is hypocrisy.

When you build an argument, I promise to read it fully.

 

[Visaki]

I believe you mean negro.

Yes. I actually managed to mistype it twise.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Yes. I actually managed to mistype it twise.

Just trying to help with grammar.

 

[Asrahn]

Now, you have my sympathies. Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. Admittedly we have Sharia law brewing in the background from extremists and some "moderates" alike, but none of our current politicians are even close to that nuts.

Then again, our most far-right party is basically an extremely weaksauce version of what you guys call Democrats. IE: Our worst Conservatives would be called Liberals in your country.

I guess by an american definition we've had a communist party in charge for the past 80 years or so, on and off.

Edit: In addition, in response to the serious allegations and slander previously thrown against my favorite icecream (and which made it get canceled), I am aiming to launch a new brand of icecream, one which simply -cannot- raise any controversy.

I present to you, the Kokoskon (Translated: Coconut Cone).

Foolproof.
While it is annoying to have products that you like censored, I can't help but think that they occasionally are in the right. I mean, I found an old dictionary from the 50's that stated the Banjo as "A kind of negro-guitarr". Things change, and sometimes old stuff we eat don't really tag along until someone points it out.

But indeed, I know we're being used as an example, in fact I have heard from various friends that basically all of the remaining scandinavia points to Sweden when it comes to failed immigration, and the dangers of what could happen if things aren't slowed down, or plainly stopped.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I recently watched a video about your immigration problem. Policemen were saying they wouldn't go into certain neighborhoods because of the people there, firemen were worried about getting stoned. Crazy! By, the way, foolproof plan indeed.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

You might be interested to know that I agree with you, however, decisions like that are out of our hands; it's EU-wide and it's been active since 1979 i.e. when western teens were scared of communists and didn't care much about Muslims. (There was another other to fear.)

If you live in the EU, you can, at least in theory, do something about it, it's not "out of hands". And if enough people speak out, there might actually be something done.

But going back to my point, you were defending the idea that this was an example of an increasing Islamising of Europe when it clearly isn't. You're using it as an excuse for your particular flavour of bigotry.

Do you know that if you live in the UK, you could be endorsing Halal food without even realizing it?

Obviously these restaurant owners, school principals etc. would rather have their staff serve Halal food, just in case a Muslim might be "offended". :lol: After all, it's not really a big deal if some secularist or animal welfare activist gets offended. Their opinions never really mattered anyway. And if a few animals suffer needlessly before slaughter so be it. :lol:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3144459/Halal-meat-secretly-served-to-thousands-by-venues-says-Masood-Khawaja.html

Bigotry... against what? I'm simply against the irrational obsession over not stunning animals, because they might get killed during the stunning process and technically make it "carrion" because it died seconds before its throat was cut. Give me a break, this is the kind of madness you get with religious dogma in general, you can hold silly beliefs without justification, just say "God commands it, I believe it, that settles it." It's almost a license to be stupid yet free of any criticism because you can scream "bigotry".

I mean really, would you ever make a case that somehow eating meat from an animal that died 5 seconds prior to throat cutting poses some serious risk to your health (or to your "eternal soul")? It's ridiculous and the idea that an omnipotent, all-wise god would care about these technicalities is even more absurd.

I agree in principle, but please go and read article 9 of the Human Rights Act and you'll see why it is exempt and why I disagree with you in practice.

So let me get this straight, a regular guy can torture a cat and get jail time, a regular abattoir must stun animals or face closure, but if I form a death cult centered around gruesome acts too graphic to describe against kittens, puppies and parrots, I can just claim "religious freedom" and say the torture and killing of animals gives my voodoo magic god a celestial boner so it's okay? Yes, that kind of extreme over-the-top example seems to be fine under your view of what constitutes acceptable religious freedom. After all, nobody really suffers from it, except a bunch of innocent animals who have never harmed anyone.

As with any rights (including right to practice your religion), there are limitations. The most obvious is that you can't infringe on others' freedom of or from religion.

You must also obey the law.

So if the law is changed to no longer allow exceptions and require stunning in all cases, where exactly is the infringement? It would apply to everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim.

I'm not saying it's perfect, right or anything else; it's set within the arbitration rules set out by parliament, ergo, it's legal in this country. Take it up with your MP.

If you don't think it's right then may I suggest you stop being so defensive about it?

The point is, your fear of "sharia courts in the UK" is designed to inflame and to insinuate a creeping takeover. It's fucking bullshit, and fails at the first hurdle of rational enquiry.

I simply find it to be a dangerous slippery slope, why is there any need for the British legal system to enforce it anyway? That would be equivalent to the Romanian government enforcing the archaic decisions of the Stabor courts on civil matters. (Luckly we don't have something as stupid as an arbitration act, it's one law for all.)

The civilized world must say no to these archaic, sexist courts, it must not be complicit to them. If they really want to play judge, let them as far as I'm concerned, just don't make their decisions legally binding that's all I'm saying really.

It's a mechanism that makes it harder to leave the religion or to become more secularized and integrate in UK society.

Evidence, please.

Oh I dunno, let me think - Uh, the fact that the one who refuses to submit will be instantly recognized as an evil infidel apostate or "not a true Muslim" maybe?

The fact that you can't really appeal the decisions and even if you leave Islam or become more secularized they will stick with you for life?

This is unbelievably naiive. The arbitration act allows for others (with appropriate qualifications) to sit too. You can't just ban one type of arbiter based on their religion. You believe in equality, right? The ability to make choices, yes?

No, I can "ban" it (well, I can't really ban it, but I can speak against it) based on the gender discrimination that these courts practice and the fact that in practice, they are not always voluntary, thanks to peer pressure to submit.

And as for racism accusations, I'll tell you what I am: I am a militant secularist

Lol.

Why is that funny?

(which is really defensive secularism) and anti-theist, and like it or not, Islam is the most dangerous religion

Evidence, please.

far more dangerous than Christianity

Evidence, please.

Okay, based on these demands I can only assume you're either too politically correct or you've been living under a rock for the past decade.

First of all, let's quickly compare the incidents of terrorism:

Islam:
The 9/11 attacks
The 7/7 attacks
The countless terrorists suicide bombers in Israel
The kidnappers, insurgents, suicide bombers in Iraq
Frequent reports all over the world

Christianity:
A few evangelist lunatics in America bombing abortion clinics

Other religions:
... - Okay I'm drawing a blank here. :lol: I'm sure they all have had their lunatics and isolated events, but none as much as Islam.


Now let's compare these religions' impact on the world and their followers:

Christianity (mostly the evangelical flavor in America) is heavily opposed to Evolution teaching, stem cell research, abortion.

They promote abstinence only education (they don't however ban premarital sex like the most fundamentalist Muslim countries do neither do they try to censor websites that promote real sex education)

They want tax exemption, even though they benefit from public services (police, military, fire department, mail, roads etc.) and should pay taxes like everyone else.

A few obscure extremist Christian sects (like that of Helen Ukpablo) torture and kill children because they think they're "witches".

But:

You won't see massive and violent protests worldwide, resulting in a hundred deaths, over Jesus caricatures among Christians.
You won't see high ranking Christian officials issuing death warrants against some apostate who dared to criticize Christianity.

No majority Christian country kills heretics anymore.
No majority Christian country cuts off arms and legs.
No majority Christian country has blasphemy laws as draconic and inhumane as a majority Islamic country.
The Christian dominated world has pretty much done away with forced marriages, has greatly reduced sexism and generally Christianity has retreated from public life quite a bit.

Now Islam. - Almost every single country where Islam dominates, there is no real religious freedom, there is limited respect for human rights. Even in moderate Malaysia, Muslims will find it difficult to leave the Islamic religion.

and with a much higher percentage of extremists

Evidence, please.

I think I've covered that, if you want to dismiss the poll as propaganda that's you're problem. I don't see however, how you can dismiss the fact that terrorism is heavily correlated with Islam, that almost all majority Islamic countries are an authoritarian, oppressive, theocracy, that even some so-called "moderate" Muslims (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhxbjnn12Gw ) want Sharia to be an important part of public life and think Western values of freedom are decadent and should be abandoned.

the more theocratic it is, the more human rights violations and less freedom). So far Turkey is the most secular, which is good, but even there radicals are trying to get power and have support from a lot of the population.

Are you also against democracy?

Dictatorship of the majority is not the same as democracy, you should know better. Turkey has Christians, Turkey has atheists (no doubt a lot more if you consider closet atheists) they should not be subject to any kind of Islamic law. Period. In fact any Islamic law is detrimental even to Muslims themselves, since they may have different opinions on different issues. Some may in fact be Muslims in name only without really believing all that nonsense about pork, alcohol etc. being evil.

Turkey is a secular country by constitution, parties with Islamic agendas should not even be allowed to exist let alone be eligible for elections.

So you discriminate on religious grounds (specific ones, no less) and you complain about the human rights abuses of other nations? That, dear sir, is hypocrisy.

There's a difference between discrimination and not wanting to allow special privileges for religion just because it is a religion.

Oh and about double standards, how would you feel if the Christian Right in America was acting like these fundamentalist Islamic groups? Let's go further than that, let's say they had the support of 80% and completely ignored the separation of church and state, started imprisoning atheists, fornicators, Sabbath workers, executing abortion doctors, practicing FGM, burning all books on evolution and teaching creationism everywhere and basically turning the country into a full blow theocracy. You'd call that "democracy" just because enough people are stupid enough to support it?


(Also I'll tell you why my post seems hypocritical, it's because it raises this issue of tolerance of intolerance... How far can we tolerate it? I'm sure you have good intentions but in practice, I think you're just letting your guard down. For example, can you truly allow an immigrant into the country if he despises core western values of freedom and thinks it is decadent and only the imposition of morality with an iron rod will fix it? Think about it.)

 

[australopithecus]

The best part was when he flat out ignored my post that roundhoused his 28% argument in the face, while using the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail as credible sources on Islam.

Here's a fun fact, the poll I debunked earlier (in fact a lot of polls on what Muslims thinks) were done on the behest of a right wing think tank. Now I'm not saying conservatives have a predisposition towards xenophobia and fear mongering.....no, wait, I am saying that.

First of all, let's quickly compare the incidents of terrorism:

Islam:
The 9/11 attacks
The 7/7 attacks
The countless terrorists suicide bombers in Israel
The kidnappers, insurgents, suicide bombers in Iraq
Frequent reports all over the world

Christianity:
A few evangelist lunatics in America bombing abortion clinics

I C WUT U DID THAR.

Allow me to put it this way....

Islam:
A few fundamentalist lunatics from a handful countries kiling people and generally being dicks.

Christianity:
30 years of sectarian in-fighting in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK between Catholics and Protestants which left 3,526 people dead, 1855 of which were civilians, and which is still sporadically going on today. Notably in Scotland.
Timothy McVeigh.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (SPLITTERS!) in India, accused of forcibly trying to convert people to Christianity.
Anders Behring Breivik.
The KKK.
Lord's Resistance Army. KONY 2012 and all that.
And as you said, all those nutters in the USA bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion performing Doctors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

See, I can try and play down things by mentioning them only with limited detail too.

 

[Laurens]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3144459/Halal-meat-secretly-served-to-thousands-by-venues-says-Masood-Khawaja.html

Just a quick point; I wouldn't use the Sun and the Daily Mail in a serious discussion about the supposed Islamic conquer of Europe. Their whole purpose as newspapers seems to be stirring people into a xenophobic frenzy about immigrants and muslims supposedly taking over the country...

 

[Laurens]

The best part was when he flat out ignored my post that roundhoused his 28% argument in the face, while using the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail as credible sources on Islam.

Here's a fun fact, the poll I debunked earlier (in fact a lot of polls on what Muslims thinks) were done on the behest of a right wing think tank. Now I'm not saying conservatives have a predisposition towards xenophobia and fear mongering.....no, wait, I am saying that.

First of all, let's quickly compare the incidents of terrorism:

Islam:
The 9/11 attacks
The 7/7 attacks
The countless terrorists suicide bombers in Israel
The kidnappers, insurgents, suicide bombers in Iraq
Frequent reports all over the world

Christianity:
A few evangelist lunatics in America bombing abortion clinics

I C WUT U DID THAR.

Allow me to put it this way....

Islam:
A few fundamentalist lunatics from a handful countries kiling people and generally being dicks.

Christianity:
30 years of sectarian in-fighting in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK between Catholics and Protestants which left 3,526 people dead, 1855 of which were civilians, and which is still sporadically going on today. Notably in Scotland.
Timothy McVeigh.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (SPLITTERS!) in India, accused of forcibly trying to convert people to Christianity.
Anders Behring Breivik.
The KKK.
Lord's Resistance Army. KONY 2012 and all that.
And as you said, all those nutters in the USA bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion performing Doctors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

See, I can try and play down things by mentioning them only with limited detail too.

I'd count the inquisition and witch hunts as terrorism too!

 

[Visaki]

...
Christianity:
30 years of sectarian in-fighting in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK between Catholics and Protestants which left 3,526 people dead, 1855 of which were civilians, and which is still sporadically going on today. Notably in Scotland.
Timothy McVeigh.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (SPLITTERS!) in India, accused of forcibly trying to convert people to Christianity.
Anders Behring Breivik.
The KKK.
Lord's Resistance Army. KONY 2012 and all that.
And as you said, all those nutters in the USA bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion performing Doctors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

See, I can try and play down things by mentioning them only with limited detail too.

I didn't know that McVeighs reason for the bombing was religious, I always thought he was nuts about federal goverment wanting to take over his life.
Also Breivik didn't do his crimes in the name of christianity, he actually says he's a "cultural christian", or because if it but because of his vision of an islam invasion of Europe.

Otherwise yeah, pretty much every major religion has or has had it's terrorists. Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Jew, probably Buddhists too. It's the curse of media these days, you can get some much news but it's all selected for you. If you don't actually go out and find out for yourself you'll get a limited view of the world. India could be a good example. I've mainly heard just about the big attacks a year or two ago in Mumbai and some random Tamili things. Indians probably have heard about much much more about local terrorism, both muslim, hindu and sikh. Islamic terrorism is viewed as a number one threat because of the 9/11 attacks and the fact that it's currently the only truly global terrorism there is.

Here in scandinavia (well, Finland anyway) it's been "interesting" after Breiviks attacks. If you take up any position that was also agreed by Breivik in his 1500 page lumbering badly written manifesto you pretty much get attacked for defending his actions.

The Felonius Pope: I bet you're a closet grammar Nazi, peeking out of the keyhole waiting for the moment to jump out and yell "AHA" when someone makes a typo.

P.S. Laurens: I'd probably count them too but they are a bit out of date I think to be relevant in this. I mean you could take up Muhammeds slaughter of jews and jewish slaughter of cananites up too but....
P.S.S. You know what's really christian terrorism? Hell.

 

[australopithecus]

I didn't know that McVeighs reason for the bombing was religious, I always thought he was nuts about federal goverment wanting to take over his life.
Also Breivik didn't do his crimes in the name of christianity, he actually says he's a "cultural christian", or because if it but because of his vision of an islam invasion of Europe.

I could counter that Islamic terrorism is more politically motivated than religiously motivated, so either way DD's argument still doesn't hold water. It's the same argument that VyckRo makes when he starts blaming communism on atheism, it ignores any other rationale in favour of one tenuous link.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I didn't know that McVeighs reason for the bombing was religious, I always thought he was nuts about federal goverment wanting to take over his life.
Also Breivik didn't do his crimes in the name of christianity, he actually says he's a "cultural christian", or because if it but because of his vision of an islam invasion of Europe.

I could counter that Islamic terrorism is more politically motivated than religiously motivated, so either way DD's argument still doesn't hold water. It's the same argument that VyckRo makes when he starts blaming communism on atheism, it ignores any other rationale in favour of one tenuous link.

Only communism is not some kind of "sect" of atheism. It's an entire socio-economic ideology that advocates common ownership of all the means of production and exists only because 150 years ago the workers got tired of the way they were treated. It was not born out of the atheist doctrine (there isn't one) or even by misinterpreting some atheist holy book (there isn't one of those either).

Islamic terrorism on the other hand would have never been possible without the ramblings in the Quran about how disbelievers are evil or how Allah will reward martyrs. (And yeah I'm aware some "scholars" say martyrdom cannot be a suicide attack, but you try explaining that to the terrorists who follow other "scholars" and who've already made up their mind.)

And just to give an example of what you can expect to find in the Quran - Yeah, you can just smell the tolerance and the message of peace of these verses can't you:

3:1 Alim. Lam. Mim.
3:2 Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal.
3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
3:4 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

Besides, even disregarding terrorists as mere isolated events, why is it that in almost all countries where Islam dominates, there's oppression, honor killings, sexism, amputation as acceptable punishment, flogging as acceptable punishment, censorship etc.? I mean it can't possibly have something to do with Sharia and its authoritarian practices can it? If Islam had any major support in Europe, this site wouldn't even exist and most atheists would still be in the closet, both IRL and on the Internet. And that's not a matter of speculation, but of track record.

Until I see the Muslim countries capable of some reform (much like the Christians did and stopped their silly witch burnings and heretic persecutions) I'm going to remain skeptical that this religion is not a danger to our freedom (at least as it is currently practiced in much of the world).


That's not to say I practice discrimination against Muslims. Many have adapted to our "decadent" and secular societies in Europe and don't bother anyone and I'm okay with those. I'm not okay with immigrants who want a theocracy though. We have enough of our own fundies, we don't need more and it's time to seriously consider who we let into our countries (before it's too late).

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I'd count the inquisition and witch hunts as terrorism too!

Well okay. :lol: By that standard every Muslim theocracy is ruled by terrorists. They may not attack Americans and Europeans, but they sure love to kill their own apostates, blasphemers and disobedient women.

If you had to choose between an Islamic rule and the Christian Right rule, who would you choose as the least of the two evils?

Or if you had to choose between an Islamic rule and some ultra-conservative Catholic party (but based on how Catholicism is practiced today, without its witch burning and inquisition)?

I think we all know the answer so let's drop the political correctness.

 

[australopithecus]

Islamic terrorism on the other hand would have never been possible without the ramblings in the Quran [...]

Without the Qu'ran there would probably be no Islam anyway so this isn't really much of a point.

[...] about how disbelievers are evil or how Allah will reward martyrs.

...and this is different to Christianity how?

(And yeah I'm aware some "scholars" say martyrdom cannot be a suicide attack, but you try explaining that to the terrorists who follow other "scholars" and who've already made up their mind.)

Religious doctrine is subjective and open to interpretation? Who knew?

And just to give an example of what you can expect to find in the Quran - Yeah, you can just smell the tolerance and the message of peace of these verses can't you:

An example of what you can expect to find in the Bible:

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Yeah, you can just smell the tolerance and the message of peace of these verses can't you?

Besides, even disregarding terrorists as mere isolated events, why is it that in almost all countries where Islam dominates, there's oppression...

America and gay marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx

honor killings

Christian kills his sister to stop her marrying a Muslim: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/12/another-honor-killing.html

sexism

Sexism has and continues to be a stupid part of humanity in general, it is not exclusive to Islam or any religion.

amputation as acceptable punishment

The US still executes people.

flogging as acceptable punishment

While it is prevalent in Islamic countires, Trinidad and Tobago and Ecuador do too, and they are Christian countries.

censorship etc.?

Yeah, fundie Christians hate censorship don't they?

I mean it can't possibly have something to do with Sharia and its authoritarian practices can it?

Evidently not.

If Islam had any major support in Europe, this site wouldn't even exist and most atheists would still be in the closet, both IRL and on the Internet. And that's not a matter of speculation, but of track record.

If. It doesn't, and you seem a bit naive on the subject of how European Governments work.

Until I see the Muslim countries capable of some reform (much like the Christians did and stopped their silly witch burnings and heretic persecutions) I'm going to remain skeptical that this religion is not a danger to our freedom (at least as it is currently practiced in much of the world).

Fundie Christians haven't reformed they're as batshit insane as always. But if you want to judge 2 billion people on the actions of corrupt governments and the morons who shout the loudest then so be it.

That's not to say I practice discrimination against Muslims. Many have adapted to our "decadent" and secular societies in Europe and don't bother anyone and I'm okay with those. I'm not okay with immigrants who want a theocracy though. We have enough of our own fundies, we don't need more and it's time to seriously consider who we let into our countries (before it's too late).

I don't think if you asked immigrant fundamentalists "Do you want to overthrow the government and impose an Islamic state?" you'd get definitive "yes". You can't screen for idiocy at the border.

If you had to choose between an Islamic rule and the Christian Right rule, who would you choose as the least of the two evils?

Neither. On principle. Both are equally dangerous.

Or if you had to choose between an Islamic rule and some ultra-conservative Catholic party (but based on how Catholicism is practiced today, without its witch burning and inquisition)?

Again, neither. Both are insane.

I think we all know the answer so let's drop the political correctness.

Political correctness you say? :roll:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

All I can say is that I truly mourn my favorite icecream, that of which production was quickly halted when someone mistook an O for an I.
...

I can feel your pain. Here in your formed colony we had candy called "neekerinsuukko" or nergoes kiss (neekeri is an old finnish word for nergo, african, black, whatever and at least used to be neutral, my parents generation used it normally to refer to a black person) that had to change it's name and also Fazers licorace bar that used to have a stylized black boys face on the wrapping from since I was born had to change their look too.

Finnish immigration critics point at Sweden as what we might have if immigration isn't tightened up. That might tell you something.

At least you don't do this:
http://satwcomic.com/obama-is-in-town

 

[Dean]

Dogma's Demise

["¦]Well okay. :lol: By that standard every Muslim theocracy is ruled by terrorists. ["¦]

Personally, I would've described the acts of the Crusades and Inquisition as more theocratically totalitarian, rather than terrorist. The same applies to Islamic dictatorships, e.g. Iran. Granted, their regimes may be opprssive, but it's not "terrorism".

• ter,·ror,·ism/ˈterəˌrizÉ™m/ Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
  Synonyms: terror

As much as you'd like to think they're synonyms, they're not.

["¦] They may not attack Americans and Europeans, but they sure love to kill their own apostates, blasphemers and disobedient women. ["¦]

And what is this supposed to prove? Earlier, were you not talking about an assumed Islamic "conquest" of Europe, and effectively describing Islam as a predatory religion? Do you think that there's the slightest possibility that such policies might be enacted in e.g. European countries??

["¦] If you had to choose between an Islamic rule and the Christian Right rule, who would you choose as the least of the two evils? ["¦]

Ignoring that this is a somewhat false dichotomy, it's worth mentioning that this pseudo-dilemma has been touched upon before, and the answer is of course neither. Both are equally theocratic and dangerous, potentially, so I don't know why you would isolate Islam in all this, as if it's the only perpetrator.

["¦] Or if you had to choose between an Islamic rule and some ultra-conservative Catholic party (but based on how Catholicism is practiced today, without its witch burning and inquisition)? ["¦]

I notice you qualified your statement with the phrase "how it is practised today". Why "as it is practised today"?? There was a time when it was quite the opposite. Islam was once the centre of culture and scientific advancement in the world, millennia back. Meanwhile, the Vatican held a political stranglehold on it's people, and burned people with funny-shaped moles, etc, etc. So why limit one's self to modern times? What about the Catholic IRA, e.g. in Northern Ireland?

["¦] I think we all know the answer so let's drop the political correctness.

That phrase is one that is misused so often ... you too, now, apparently.