The Islamic conquer of Europe

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

I think this is more a sign of the inadequacy of this definition. Surely every totalitarian regime does that.

 

[Dean]

["¦] I think this is more a sign of the inadequacy of this definition. Surely every totalitarian regime does that. ["¦]

Indeed, heh ... I tend to think of the difference as one of scale, e.g. when most people speak of "terrorism", it tends to involve just one person, or a small group of persons, rather than a government. And after all, language is derived from popular opinion ...but most web-definitions of that word specify something about the "coercion" or the "terrorizing" of a person or group based on ... politics, religion, etc. It's not necessarily the best term to use anyhow in my opinion.

 

[Prolescum]

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.

So you seem to have ignored the reason they are exempt (I'm not surprised at this point); it's in the European convention of human rights and the various local legislation. Good luck in your attempt to change the universally granted guarantees of freedom. :lol:

Let's see, that's "removing religious freedom" ticked on my list of the fuckwitted ideas of atheists. I love it when minorities try to tell everyone else what they should do. Reminds me of... something.

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

What?

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

:lol:

This pile of stupid doesn't even deserve a response. I do live in the UK.

Bigotry... against what?

A bigot is someone intolerantly devoted to their own opinions. I know you've struggled to keep up so far, but I'm absolutely certain you can figure this one out.

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.

And I've told you exactly why you will not be able to change it. Cry as much as you like, you militant secularist anti-theist (I'm not a bigot, honest guv!), you.

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".

Your point is spurious and irrelevant, and you have given me no reason to retract my view that your arguments are bigoted.

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")?

No, but whether I would or not is entirely irrelevant.

It's ridiculous and the idea that an omnipotent, all-wise god would care about these technicalities is even more absurd.

Irrelevant. Are you ever going to give us something that shows the "Islamising of Europe"?

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?

If you think the process of starting a religion is really as retarded as that, there really is no point in attempting to dissuade your fundamentalist mindset.

Yes, that kind of extreme over-the-top example seems to be fine under your view of what constitutes acceptable religious freedom.

Only if you have your head up your arse. The amount of shit that's smeared across this thread now, it wouldn't surprise me if yours was.

After all, nobody really suffers from it, except a bunch of innocent animals who have never harmed anyone.

:facepalm:

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.

Quite.

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.

Is your memory a sieve? I've already explained why you'd have to change the human rights legislation itself to remove the religious exemption, and you can't even argue your case on the internet...

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

Oh fucking lordy... Let me try to explain this as if to a child: Me woznt defending it, me sez it is legal.

It can't be put any fucking simpler. Nuance, Dogma, you feel me? Oh I forget, you "anti-theists" love absolutes, a bit like your religious facsimiles.

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

Evidence?

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.)

:facepalm: The arbitration act has a very specific function. I can only assume you didn't read it.

It's interesting that most of the links you've furnished have been from the British right-wing press, that you're Romanian explains why you seem to think Britain is under the heel of immigrants.

The civilized world must say no to these archaic, sexist courts, it must not be complicit to them.

Says some angry little boy who hates religion so passionately he want the very freedoms that protect him removed so they don't protect the religious.

You're a fucking embarrassment to the civilised world.

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.

No it isn't; you're calling for the removal of religious freedom.

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?

None of this is evidence, you're just reiterating something you've heard someone else say. Not that I'm surprised at this point.

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.

So rather than tighten the rules, you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Tsk.
I'm getting fed up with this petulant, short-term idiocy.

Lol.

Why is that funny?

You're stupid enough to fall into the trap of being identified by the labels given by your religious counterparts.

You fundies crack me up. Well, before you annoy me.

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.

Pahahahahahahahahaha!

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.

So... Islamising of Europe? No? Forgotten have we? Aww, there there. Is du wee baby twying to keep too much in his teensy-weensy head?

and with a much higher percentage of extremists

Evidence, please.

I think I've covered that

You think wrong. For a so-called secularist, you really seem to be entirely unfamiliar with what evidence is.

if you want to dismiss the poll as propaganda that's you're problem.

It's not just propaganda, it's fucking idiotic to take what you have from its results; a complete and utter lack of critical thinking on your part. I'd be fucking ashamed if I was in your position right now.

I don't see however, how you can dismiss the fact that terrorism is heavily correlated with Islam

Because it isn't, sweetheart. I could list off hundreds of terrorists of various political hues. There's an important word in there, let's see if you can spot it...

*cue Jeopardy music*

that almost all majority Islamic countries are an authoritarian, oppressive, theocracy

Because the logical fallacies covering generalisations don't apply to your reasoning!

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.

:facepalm:

Dictatorship of the majority is not the same as democracy, you should know better.

And you should spend some time reviewing Turkey's recent history.

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.

I haven't read Turkey's constitution, but I'll bet there are Sharia principles involved.

Period.

Right everyone, let's pack it in; he's said period. Stop all disagreements now! :lol:

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.

So you acknowledge there's actually more than one type of Muslim. we're getting somewhere.

Slowly...

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

You, being a Romanian, have no right to demand anything of the Turkish political framework. Oh that's right, you're a "militant secularist anti-theist", so your view is sacrosanct!

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

This is the last time I will explain this to you; to have the exceptions removed from the slaughter of animals convention, you have to change the human rights legislation to your own detriment.

Oh and about double standards, how would you feel if the Christian Right in America was acting like these fundamentalist Islamic groups?

They do.

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?

No. This is so fundamentally ridiculous it's really not even worth contemplating. Go and read the American constitution and bill of rights. There's a reason they're allowed to bear arms, you know.

(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?

Are we talking about religious intolerance or your own?

I'm sure you have good intentions but in practice, I think you're just letting your guard down.

You are so blinded by your own fanaticism and certainty, you'd remove the very right that allows you freedom to not practice a religion. And you say I'm letting my guard down? :lol:

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.)

So your case against Islam boils down to "they're intolerant, so we should be equally intolerant".

Fucking disgraceful.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Wow, such a heated response, I don't even know where to start.

For the record, I'm not trying to defend Christianity or the Christian Right or the Catholic Church so be cool. You just can't say that they are all equally dangerous because experience has shown otherwise.

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

I'm just saying there's a much stronger connection between Islam and terrorism than there is between atheism and the crimes of the communists.

...and this is different to Christianity how?

Not really different in theory, but in practice I've yet to see any contemporary Christian theologian praising the bombing of abortion clinics and even if that was the case, he'd still be outnumbered by the radical Imams.

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

Yeah because the religious texts are hardly consistent, for example one part will preach "love thy neighbour" and another one question what "fellowship" you can have with unbelievers.

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

Like I said, I'm not trying to defend what the Bible says. All I'm saying is the Muslim world has more blood on its hands right now.

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

Again I'm not defending the madness of the American Christian Right, but let's think about their agenda for a minute.

The Christian Right opposes gay marriage.
The Islamic fundies want homosexuals dead.

So who is more dangerous again?

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

Again who does the most of honor killings? Christians or Muslims? You can't just point to Christianity and say "oh they do it too, so they're equally dangerous", you should consider the frequency at which it happens as well.

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

You can't possibly be serious. Of course it's a human problem, the difference is, while the civilized world tries to fix it, the Muslim world indulges in it. Even within the American Bible Belt, women aren't treated as badly as in the Muslim world. Not on a legal level, not a social level.

The US still executes people.

Although it would be best to just lock them up for life, only murderers get the death penalty and only some states. The EU doesn't do it at all.

But, Islamic theocracies don't limit cruel and unusual punishments to murder.

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

Except Sharia specifically demands these punishments.

Yeah, fundie Christians hate censorship don't they?

Of course they love censorship too, fundamentalists don't like criticism. But again, which of these two religions is the most suppressive to religious criticism overall?

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.

Of course not, my suggestion is a psychological examination for anyone applying for citizenship, deportation of those who exhibit traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom.

Call it hypocritical, but we can't give freedom to people who want to use it against us, it's a form of cultural masochism and generations from now, I don't want my family to live in a Europe plagued by social unrest because we allowed immigrants who despise everything about us and refuse to live in the 21st century.

Again, neither. Both are insane.

Hypothetically speaking of course. Make your choice, don't just say "neither".

 

[australopithecus]

Ok, let's assume Islam is the evil shadowy figure you say it is. Where is your evidence that Europe is more Islamy than it was yesterday, or last month, or last year? This is the topic after all, the Islamification of Europe.

Hypothetically speaking of course. Make your choice, don't just say "neither".

As has been point out, your question is a false dichotomy. 'Neither' is always an option, and it would be the option I would take.

 

[Dean]

Ok, let's assume Islam is the evil shadowy figure you say it is. Where is your evidence that Europe is more Islamy than it was yesterday, or last month, or last year? This is the topic after all, the Islamification of Europe.

Hypothetically speaking of course. Make your choice, don't just say "neither".

As has been point out, your question is a false dichotomy. 'Neither' is always an option, and it would be the option I would take.

Hmm. And interestingly, the term "Militant Secularism" has been brought up rather a lot too... and that term will be subject to criticism (I believe) in the next episode of League Of Reason Presents ...

PS: Was it me who pointed out that false-dichotomy fallacy?

 

[australopithecus]

PS: Was it me who pointed out that false-dichotomy fallacy?

I believe so, and yes, Ep.3 of the LoR show is on militant secularism. Recording starts in 10 minutes.

 

[Prolescum]

Call it hypocritical, but we can't give freedom to people who want to use it against us

And here, my loves, is where the truth lies. He doesn't actually care about rights, dignity or freedom of expression (those oh so precious "western values" he was talking about saving); he wants his own little atheist caliphate.

I wish I had a smiley that shows my utter contempt for this position.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Call it hypocritical, but we can't give freedom to people who want to use it against us

"If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." -Norman Thomas
After further examination I have decided I am not sure why I wrote this. Its been a very weird week for me... :|

 

[Dogma's Demise]

It's not a "false dichotomy", I never said or implied that the only two choices are Islamic theocracy and Christian Right style theocracy, I was merely asking a hypothetical question.

So you seem to have ignored the reason they are exempt (I'm not surprised at this point); it's in the European convention of human rights and the various local legislation. Good luck in your attempt to change the universally granted guarantees of freedom. :lol:

Let's see, that's "removing religious freedom" ticked on my list of the fuckwitted ideas of atheists. I love it when minorities try to tell everyone else what they should do. Reminds me of... something.

Hello again, angry man. :lol:

I never said anything about "removing religious freedom", that's just a strawman on your part, like the the false accusation of "racism" before it.

We were taking about the "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter" remember? And I think it should be changed so all animals are stunned before slaughter. We're already killing them so the least we could do it be humane about it and not cause pain.

^ What part of this statement is religious "bigotry" to you?

There's a difference between being against religious freedom and being in favor of a policy that might conflict with specific religious practices. I thought stunning was a humane thing to do long before I heard of Halal meat.

This pile of stupid doesn't even deserve a response.

Maybe you just don't give a fuck about animal rights so that's why this example isn't getting to you. And in all fairness now, I can sympathize with that idea more because I myself don't like some of the ideas of animal rights activists. But we have to be at least minimally humane about how we treat animals. They too are sentient beings and can feel pain so we can't just ignore it.

And these restaurants and public institutions are withholding information from their customers because it's more convenient if all food is Halal.

A bigot is someone intolerantly devoted to their own opinions.

Only the fundamentalists drew the first blow, not me. They were given freedom and they used that freedom to make it clear they don't want it, they just want Sharia. If the fundies had their way, I'd be tortured and executed for blasphemy or lynched in the streets. That is if I didn't get arrested first for eating pork. And half of the population (women) would become second class citizens and subject to FGM while the authorities turned a blind eye. So damn right I want to see fundies (not all Muslim, fundies, and arguably only specific types of fundies) deported.

I didn't see any atheist being called a "bigot" or a "racist" when they suggested Helen Ukpablo the Christian fundie witch-hunter (whose teachings have lead to the deaths and mutilation of children in west Africa) should be barred from entering the US.

By the way, visas - they're a privilege, not a right.

And in your country's case in particular (UK), even citizenship can be revoked, if it is a case of dual citizenship and it is deemed in the public interest.

http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/home-office-is-cancelling-british-citizenship-of-more-dual-nationality-brits.html

Irrelevant. Are you ever going to give us something that shows the "Islamising of Europe"?

I think we need to define terms here.

"Islamising of Europe" is simply the spread of Islam and its values in Europe. Do you deny that number of Muslims is not increasing? Do you deny there is an increasing demand of Halal food? Do you deny that official Sharia courts didn't exist until several years ago?

If you think the process of starting a religion is really as retarded as that, there really is no point in attempting to dissuade your fundamentalist mindset.

So what exactly is the difference Islam and a religion created 5 minutes ago out of the fantasy of the sole adherent? Oh yeah that's right, history and numbers. It doesn't need to be rational or true.

So what are you saying? You are against my freedom to practice my religion of stabbing kittens for the lulz?

Or you're only for religious freedom as long as it's a centuries/millenia old, well established and high adherent number religion?

I demand that a special provision be made in the animal welfare legislation to allow ritual torture of kittens because it's contrary to my religion. [/parody]

Is your memory a sieve? I've already explained why you'd have to change the human rights legislation itself to remove the religious exemption, and you can't even argue your case on the internet...

Hello? "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter" - that's what you first linked.

Oh fucking lordy... Let me try to explain this as if to a child: Me woznt defending it, me sez it is legal.

Yeah, only the way you said it indicated otherwise.

It can't be put any fucking simpler. Nuance, Dogma, you feel me? Oh I forget, you "anti-theists" love absolutes, a bit like your religious facsimiles.

Oh right, so now you're making generalizations about all "anti-theist"? Even within this group of people's opinions vary.

Both of us actually agree with religious freedom, yes I like to criticize and ridicule religion and try to convince people to leave it, but I won't do it by force.

And yes the spread of Islam does concern me, but I'm not calling for the ban on Islam or for the closure of mosques. Halal food isn't even the main issue, yes I think it's wrong, but it's not the Halal meat eating Muslims I want to see deported. It's the fundamentalist Sharia-loving Muslims, the kind who dream of a Eurabia instead of trying to adapt to Europe.

And this is a subject I'd want you to respond to: I claim that "no-stun" food is not an instance of religious freedom, but of religious special pleading, just like tax exemption is, just like withholding medical treatment from a child on religious grounds is, just like saying you don't want a new ID card because you "see" the number 666 in it is. The only discrimination is against those regular food producers who are obligated to ensure stunning while Halal food producers can get away with it.

Sharia court again - banning them is not a violation of religious freedom.

Says some angry little boy who hates religion so passionately he want the very freedoms that protect him removed so they don't protect the religious.

You're a fucking embarrassment to the civilised world.

Strawmanned again.

As I said, visas are a privilege, not a right. No country should be under any obligation to accept disruptive immigrants.

No it isn't; you're calling for the removal of religious freedom.

Government enforced Sharia courts are not an instance of "religious freedom", they are an instance of forcing everyone else to endorse the rulings of a particular religion. Or as Americans would call it "respecting an establishment of religion". When a Sharia court makes a decision, the state is obliged to enforce that decision. It's not religious freedom, not in theory, and most certainly not in practice.

None of this is evidence, you're just reiterating something you've heard someone else say. Not that I'm surprised at this point.

As far as I know, if you're gullible enough to submit to Sharia courts, you can't appeal the decision to a real court.

It's not just propaganda, it's fucking idiotic to take what you have from its results; a complete and utter lack of critical thinking on your part. I'd be fucking ashamed if I was in your position right now.

All you've done is dismiss it as "right-wing nonsense" because you don't like what it says.

So you acknowledge there's actually more than one type of Muslim. we're getting somewhere.

Slowly...

I've acknowledged it from the beginning, now you're just being manipulative. When did I ever say all Muslims are bad? Even that "right-wing nonsense" that I linked shows the majority of Muslims aren't extremists.

You, being a Romanian, have no right to demand anything of the Turkish political framework.

So now you're against my free speech? Besides, it's hardly a "demand". I'm just saying what I think it's best for them, if they want to ignore it that's their problem.

Oh and about double standards, how would you feel if the Christian Right in America was acting like these fundamentalist Islamic groups?

They do.

No, they don't, you're being entirely dishonest with this statement and you know it. How islamized does one have to be do deny the obvious? I don't get people like you, I've never seen a single atheist so equally offended by criticism of Christianity, but when Islam is involved, you suddenly become this force of hypocritical political correctness.

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?

No. This is so fundamentally ridiculous it's really not even worth contemplating. Go and read the American constitution and bill of rights. There's a reason they're allowed to bear arms, you know.

Dude, anything is possible with a regime overthrow, including the abolishment of a constitution. Not going to happen in USA of course, but that's not the point. My point is it's absurd to compare the Christian Right with Islamic theocracy.

So your case against Islam boils down to "they're intolerant, so we should be equally intolerant".

Fucking disgraceful.

What do you propose? Bend over and take it like a man?

You really need to re-think your values, you live in the UK, it's your tax money going to (among other things) endorsing a religion you don't believe in. How about you start caring about your own freedom as well for once, how about you start caring for the freedom of defenseless women coerced or swindled by their peers and family into submitting to a court system that discriminates against them (you know women get twice less inheritance? you know their testimony counts as half of a man?) How about you start caring about women subjected to FGM while the authorities turn a blind eye and don't even score ONE criminal conviction?

And how about you stop caring about the pseudo-"religious freedom" of radical Muslims in the Middle East to violate the freedoms of women, apostates, Christians, Jews, closet atheists and even other Muslims? What they're doing is despicable and it's the moral thing to do to speak out against them.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Oh yeah and if you want to keep pushing the "religious freedom" argument, here's the actual text:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. "

Fundies don't seem to allow freedom for apostates, do they?

"2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Since it mentioned morals (among other things), is it moral to cause suffering to an animal when you could easily avoid it?

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-9-freedom-of-thought-conscience-and-religion.html

 

[australopithecus]

Fundies don't seem to allow freedom for apostates, do they?

Why don't you pop over to Iran and start a revolution then? However back in Europe, we do have religious freedom.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Do I look like Superman or an omnipotent god? :lol: The Iranian people need to liberate themselves.

 

[australopithecus]

Nice to have an opinion from the comfort of a 1st world democracy, isn't it?

 

[Laurens]

Wow, such a heated response, I don't even know where to start.

For the record, I'm not trying to defend Christianity or the Christian Right or the Catholic Church so be cool. You just can't say that they are all equally dangerous because experience has shown otherwise.

How about the Rwandan Genocide?

Wikipedia[/url]"]The most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide is Timothy Longman's Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda. He argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing. Churches had longed played ethnic politics themselves, favoring the Tutsi during the colonial period then switching allegiance to the Hutu after 1959, sending a message that ethnic discrimination was consistent with church teaching. The church leaders had also long had close ties with the political leaders, and after the genocide began, the church leaders called on the population to support the new interim government, the very government that was supporting the genocide.

Or the Srebrenica genocide (a massacre of over 8000 Bosnian Muslims by Serb Orthodox soldiers)? This occurred during conflict in which around 200,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed and over 2 million displaced.

I think that experience has shown that all religions are capable of endorsing and encouraging very dangerous actions.

I'm just saying there's a much stronger connection between Islam and terrorism than there is between atheism and the crimes of the communists.

That's as may be, but there is a general correlation between religious extremism and atrocities, it's not solely down to Islamists.

The Christian Right opposes gay marriage.
The Islamic fundies want homosexuals dead.

So who is more dangerous again?

How about Uganda, a country that is majority Christian - whose Anti Homosexuality Bill penalizes homosexuality with death sentences or life imprisonment?

 

[malicious_bloke]

How about Uganda, a country that is majority Christian - whose Anti Homosexuality Bill penalizes homosexuality with death sentences or life imprisonment?

Not wanting to turn this into a "which of the abrahamic religions is eviller" thing, but if that bill passes Uganda becomes the 8th country to make homosexual activity a capital crime.

The other 7 are: Sudan, Mauritania, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates and Iran. All majority muslim countries.

 

[Laurens]

The other 7 are: Sudan, Mauritania, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates and Iran. All majority muslim countries.

My point wasn't to assert that Christian countries were the only countries to enforce death penalties for homosexuality. I was merely countering the false sentiments of this statement:

The Christian Right opposes gay marriage.
The Islamic fundies want homosexuals dead.

So who is more dangerous again?

Some Christians do want homosexuals dead. That was my point.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Look that's just an exception to the rule, one example is not enough, most fundamentalist Christians wouldn't go that far. Which still make fundie Islam a bigger threat to homosexuals' freedom than fundie Christianity, at least the given the current social climate and what is expected to happen for the foreseeable future.

Nice to have an opinion from the comfort of a 1st world democracy, isn't it?

Well, I'm not sure you could call Romania a "1st world democracy", but it is a democracy so that's close. :lol:

Yes, it is nice, so let's not create social unrest (or worse) by opening the EU borders to every uncivilized crackpot who wants nothing to do with democracy, secularism or freedom and makes no secret of it. You think protesting Denmark embassies and calling for nuclear missiles to be fired at it because someone drew a fucking cartoon is acceptable use of "free speech"? How about invading that country and taking the women as "war booty"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20

If there was any common sense in EU, everyone participating in this protest would be deported or in jail for instigation to terrorism, war and genocide.

 

[Laurens]

Look that's just an exception to the rule, one example is not enough, most fundamentalist Christians wouldn't go that far.

What about the examples of atrocities sanctioned or carried out by non-Islamic extremists that I cited? You appear to have skimmed over those...

For example the number of Bosnian Muslims killed by Serbian Christians far exceeds the number of people killed in 9/11 and 7/7 combined, the same is true of the Rwandan genocide. These were actions sanctioned or carried out by Christian extremists rather than Islamists, how does that fit with your assertions that Islam is somehow the worse than other forms of religious extremism?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Look that's just an exception to the rule, one example is not enough, most fundamentalist Christians wouldn't go that far.

What about the examples of atrocities sanctioned or carried out by non-Islamic extremists that I cited? You appear to have skimmed over those...

For example the number of Bosnian Muslims killed by Serbian Christians far exceeds the number of people killed in 9/11 and 7/7 combined, the same is true of the Rwandan genocide. These were actions sanctioned or carried out by Christian extremists rather than Islamists, how does that fit with your assertions that Islam is somehow the worse than other forms of religious extremism?

About crimes against the Bosnians...

Remember, that was a more local conflict, during war time, with nationalist implications, not just religious. If it was the case that groups of Christians all over the world were praising those Serbian mass murderers as glorious fighters for the cause of God, then yes I'd be equally worried about Christianity as I am about Islam.

I'd also be worried if those same Serbians then traveled to other Muslim countries and started committing suicide bombings against civilians because they viewed the Muslim world as "decadent" and "anti-Christian". Or if they went into multiple European countries to commit suicide attacks because they viewed them as "decadent untrue Christians" that must be returned to the true path of Jesus.

I'd also be worried if Serbia was some kind of oppressive Christian theocracy that butchered its own people regularly for the crime of being women or "not true Christians". But they don't even come close.