So, you have a group of people who are being given direct commercial support by the government to engage in business, most of whom are veterans of the armed services or their families while others are retirees from the armed services, receiving pensions or other general veterans’ support , (while being a bit long in the tooth to be causing any trouble), and you decided it is the religion that separated their actions from the actions of the significantly larger group of people who are not being provided the same support.
That makes perfect sense.
Sorry, but Frank has a valid point, and that has nothing to do with which side of the argument I’m on. In this thread you have repeatedly cited bullshit without evidence and then pretended that it’s everyone else’s job to go look up the facts, like you did here. And you’ve just done it yet again, this time with some vague anecdotal tale for which you’ve said yourself you have no proof. You seem to be bubbling with all kinds of strange beliefs about the intrinsic evil of the Muslim population with no ability to back them up. I’m sure glad you’re not on my side.
Oh, you mean like the terrorist attack that killed more people than any other airplane involved terrorist attack prior to 9/11?
It’s also worth noting huge numbers of the Tamil Tigers have engaged in suicide bombing. The Tigers are overwhelmingly Hindu, though their motivations aren’t religious in nature.
Considering a Gurkha has to pass English tests to finish their basic training, will usually spend considerable time around brits during their service, and have to have spent several years proving they are prepared to fight and die for Britain, can you see any factors that might make comparing them to the situation of Pakistani immigrants somewhat chalk and cheese.
And can you please answer any of the several posts asking just how you exclude Jesus command on killing those who do not follow their lord from your view of Christianity.
Burden of Proof fallacy again. Do try to learn the basics of arguing, there’s a chap.
are you referring to the Jesus who was tortured and nailed to a chunk of wood rather than instruct his followers to take up arms? Cause I’m confused. As prophets go he was kinda lazy in this respect. Couldn’t be bothered with a publisher.
Seriously, at least read the posts one page before:
Luke 19:27
Well to be fare OBL didnt actually commit 9/11 by himself. He was the mastermind.
Post me the book, chapter and verse and I will answer the Question, I am trying to answer all comments but as you can see I am a busy lad I am not fully retired and I am also involved with trying to improve maters on the estate on a voluntary basis.
Just found the quote about Jesus it was not addressed to me but I will give you an answer later as I have other things to do.
Let me demonstrate then that “The cross is a potent symbol of an oppressive, intolerant ideology. It is a declaration of adherence to a belief system that professes incredibly hateful things about gays, Jews, and non-Christians generally, and challenges legitimacy of even the continued existence of these groups of people on the planet”
The bible on non-Christians:
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” – 2 John 7
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” – Deuteronomy 13:6-10
On homosexuals:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Sure as shit looks like an oppressive, intolerant ideology to me. And as pointed out numerous times, there’s plenty of current examples of its adherents trying to enforce that oppression to the fullest.
You don’t have to pretend the Bible is all sweetness and light to have concerns about certain aspects of Islamic doctrine, especially since Christians have largely jettisoned the more barbaric aspects of their scripture.
Besides, do you really want to get into the quoting game, here? Intolerance for unbelievers is arguably one of the Koran’s central messages, and that’s not even starting on all the various hadith.
Also, it’s just occurred to me that you’re actually kinda proving Hank’s point, here. If you’re willing to blame the intolerance of certain Christians on beliefs they have gleaned from the Bible, you must also accept that intolerant Muslims are intolerant because of their religious beliefs.
You are starting to get it. Since Christians and Muslims are both intolerant of infidels, why should Muslims be treated differently?
I don’t think Muslims should be treated differently. I think we should talk about Islam differently, and there are two reasons why:
- As bad as the Bible may be (and it certainly is bad), the Koran and Hadith are simply worse. It’s condemnations of unbelievers are more numerous, more forceful, and there are fewer ideological handbrakes to restrain people from acting upon them. Take the Deuteronomy quote above. Why aren’t Jews and Christians stoning their children to death for heresy? Well, since Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, they can choose to believe that his teachings superseded earlier revelations. And since Jesus contradicted himself left, right, and centre, it’s really easy to cherry-pick the nicer parts of his sermons and cobble together a theology that doesn’t allow for that sort of barbarism. It takes work, but it doesn’t take much work. As for Jews, well they can argue that they’re under no obligation to punish apostates because there hasn’t been a universally recognised Sanhedrin for about two and a half thousand years and there probably won’t be one any time soon.
The scriptural basis for arguing that Muslims should be tolerant of apostates is simply a lot thinner.
- The Koran and Hadith contain certain dogmas which just don’t appear in the Bible. Principal among them are the doctrine of martyrdom (insofar as, according to Islamic scripture, martyrs are awarded prime real-estate in the afterlife), and the doctrine of Jihad as offensive war. Five hundred years ago, these doctrines weren’t so problematic. Nowadays, in this age of 737’s weaponised anthrax and suitcase nukes, they are simply antithetical to the maintenance of human civilisation. If a Jihadist ever got his hands on a nuclear weapon, why would he refrain from launching it? He’s not afraid to die, any innocents he kills will go to heaven, and anyone else will just rot in hell where they belong. It’s a perfect thinking trap, and it is one which can be credibly supported by certain Islamic doctrines.
If this seems like an outlandish fear, consider the fact that technology is getting more accessible and more compact all the time. 70 years ago, the most advanced computer in the world wouldn’t have fit into your living room. Today, you can carry a device ten thousand times more powerful in your coat pocket, and you can make phone calls on it! How on Earth could you possibly know what a nuclear weapon will look like in a hundred years time? It might be possible to build one in your garage, for all you know. If someone like Al-Baghdadi were to get his hands on a device like that, civilisation would be screwed.
Hank could probably think of more reasons, but those are the ones which principally concern me.
and read what I wrote. Jesus never dictated the New Testament. You stated it yourself LUKE 19:27. If you look at the retelling of the parables they’re all life-lessons on how to treat people. There is nothing complex about them.
If you follow Mohammad’s example it’s a war-lord’s existence. It’s his way or no way. If you follow Jesus’s example it’s one of sacrifice for others. The difference is substantial and explains the behavior of the most fanatical follower today. No other religion directly generates the volume of violence that is found in Islam and it’s clearly driven by the words and actions of Mohammad.
You have quoted the last verse of a parable so that it can be taken out of context, if you read the whole peace Luke 19 12-27 everything becomes clear. Basically a man goes to another country to be their king but is rejected on his return home he orders that those who have rejected him should be slaughtered in other words a declaration of war.
Some will tell you that Jesus preaches that homosexuals should be executed by tying a millstone around their neck and throwing them into a river.
Jesus never mentions homosexuals, he does mention millstones saying that the weight of a mans sin must be like a millstone around his neck drowning the sinner in remorse and it would be better for him if he had never sinned
yes indeed this is why for over one thousand years the muslims consistently treated the religious minorities -the christian, the jewish, even the non-Abrahamic religious minorities with much greater tolerance - and indeed often welcoming the expellees from the Christian lands. And explains of course why for over one thousand years the christians expelled and exterminated religious minorities - whether the chrisitan or the non christian in the lands of their control. … yes must be the explanation. ‘Less hand breaks’ indeed.
Or it could be simply the ahistorical special pleading for justification of a current prejudice and dressing up the current historidal moment in the unchanging essentialism to justify the current prejudices in a faux rationalism…
Luke 19:27 is not a quote from Jesus saying “Kill all my enemies.” It’s the last line from the parable of the talents, and the quote comes from a character Jesus has made up, not from Jesus himself.
Some may agree with this and others may not, but it strikes me as a position that is at least rationally arguable. But I think it’s important to point out that this has now ranged so far from the OP that it’s an entirely different subject – remember, the OP describes a Muslim couple simply shopping at Walmart being treated with hostility for no reason except that they exist, with the observation that “Americans have been told to be tolerant but I think our tolerance is coming to an end”. Which brings me to this:
Fine, so let’s cut to the chase and get down to business here. My question for you, Hank, and everyone else who’s been taking an anti-Muslim position is, simply, what do you want? What do you think should be done? Specifically:
[ul]
[li]How should Muslims who are residents of western democracies be treated, with respect to civil rights, religious freedom, and the freedom of expression that we all enjoy including the right to wear clothing that we’re culturally comfortable with?[/li]
[li]How do you think your views should affect immigration policy?[/li]
[li]How do you think your views should affect foreign policy?[/li][/ul]