No I haven’t. I want the concept of “whiteness” (and the associated concepts of “blackness”, “brownness”, and similar) to cease to be important and relevant in human society.
Also – do you not care for all brown children? What about brown children who might be close blood relations to you?
EDIT: And your views are monstrous, and your ideals are dinosaurian and becoming less and less relevant with each passing year.
One of the most important things I learned taking a course in the legal history of Asians in America (other than the fact that a, thankfully, very small subset of students–Asian-American males who stated that it was their duty to “protect the Asian-American females”–didn’t think I had any business taking the course because I’m not Asian; note that the “poor defenseless in need of protection” Asian-American females had no issue with me taking the course) was that the ups and downs of said history related to how “white” the Asians were seen. That brought home to me more than anything else that race is nothing but a social construct.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if disinheritance were in their future. Of course that brings up a relevant issue in another thread where he’s posting [del]concerns[/del] nonsense, the Should the USA have black States? thread: what about multi-racial people?
His views were comical in Mississippi Masala, 24 years ago. That anyone would seriously still hold them a quarter freaking century later isn’t comical; it’s merely pathetic.
It proves that the ideology or religion that gives them the space and rationale to behave in the way they do should be excoriated openly by all comers, instead of finding apologists like Monty. Any ideology that can be twisted to evil so easily at such large scale deserves to be openly called out and criticised for the piece of crap that it is.
What are you on about? I’m not an apologist.
He’s one of those people who think that if you don’t agree with him that Islam is TEH WORSTEST THING iEVAR then you’re an “apologist for Islam”.
It’s the modern variant of those people who, back during the Cold War, used to loudly proclaim that anyone who opposed the immediate nuclear carpet-bombing of the Soviet Union was obviously a Commie-loving traitor.
Whereas you definitely come across as a dispassionate, objective, honest broker. 
Transcending history and the world, a tale of idiots and trolls eternally retold. Welcome… to the stage of bigotry !
sick guitar riff
Well, now, he has a point, when you look at all the religions that have not been twisted and warped to fit somebody’s agenda. He was too busy too list them all, but there’s a bunch of them, of that you can be sure! Or maybe just one, but that would be the real one.
I’m not the one stooping to ad hominem in a desperate bid to provide some legitimacy for my ideas. The fact remains - religions typically contain a lot of bad ideas, Islam contains as many or more than most, and there are large schools of thought within Islam that promote extremism and violence as not only valid but religiously approved, and they are able to do so because there’s plenty approval for extremism and violence in the source material.
Answer me one question only - Do you truly believe that there are no meaningful differences between the role Islam can play as a religious fountainhead for extremism and violence and the role that Jainism or Buddhism can play?
Jainism has never had the population/power to demonstrate such behavior.
Buddhists have often been promoters of terror.
Recently, in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami, Buddhists engaged in persecution of non-Buddhists in affected areas, blaming those not Buddhist for the wave.
Currently, Buddhists are persecuting Muslims in Myanmar/Burma.
Those aren’t real Buddhists.
That has nothing to do with my point. The core central precept of Jainism is non-violence. Any Jain that commits violence would have to actively repudiate his/her religion to do so. How do you get around this?
Could you please cite where they claim to be influenced by Buddhism? I have not said that no Buddhists can commit violence, only that their religion allows them far less space to do so than Islam. Tibetan separatists who wish to use violence to achieve their ends actually reject Buddhism because it does not endorse violence as a means to an end.
In fact, China’s experience with minorities and separatism - Tibetan, Mongolian and Uighur - the first two largely Buddhist and the latter largely Muslim - comes as close to a pure natural experiment in the social sciences as you can achieve. Spoiler alert - it’s the Uighurs that are responsible for the majority of the (admittedly few) terrorist incidents that China experiences.
The same way members of every other religion do: you reinterpret or ignore the offending tenet. The Jain emperor Kharavela was tolerant of other religions (he probably had to be, since most of his subjects were likely not Jains) but killed thousands of people and possibly millions in wars of conquest that covered much of modern India.
Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities
The Extremism of Buddhism in Myanmar
Special Report: Buddhist monks incite Muslim killings in Myanmar
Surge of radical Buddhism in South Asia
The same way Christians found it in them to work around that pesky “thou shallt not kill/murder” thing ?
I mean, it’s basically OK if you’re murdering Musselmen, stands to reason. Or Protestants. Or Papists. And Orientals basically don’t count. As for Native Americans/Australians and negroes, the jury’s out on their basic humanity so the principle perforce cannot apply.
And so on, and so forth.
But do they wear kilts ?
J
Well, let’s not forget that the same Bible prescribes the death penalty for drunken and disobedient sons, as well as for a girl whose parents cannot prove she was a virgin on her wedding night. And then there are the rules for war in Deuteronomy 20, which fall a bit short of the modern Geneva Conventions:
BTW, it might surprise some people to learn that I am uneasy about the 11 year prison sentence given to Ali Shukri Amin. I have been known to say supportive things about the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, so the slippery slope concerns me even though I find ISIS/ISIL to be vile.
That death penalty for disobedient sons, can that punishment be modified for circumstances? Like, say, selling his X-box to buy a really good single malt? Sarcasm qualifies as “disobedient”, yes?
I repeat - I am not claiming that NO Jain or Buddhist can commit violence. The aplogists in the thread seem to claim that Islam has zero influence on the actions of Islamic extremists. That they would behave exactly the same way, and at the same scale no matter what religious(or other ideology) they were taught/indoctrinated with. This strikes me as patent nonsense.
If you take two groups of people, similar in other ways, teach one the ideology that non-violence is the most critical thing, and teach the other that violence in the pursuit of your goals is both desirable and glorified, there will be significant differences in their behaviour. Ideologies and ideas matter, particularly those held by others you identify with.
I actually went through every single one of those links, and not one of them shows any of the groups either claiming to be inspired or justified by their religion. In-group vs. out-group identification is bred into our genes, and violence between groups is easy. All I’m saying is that it is easier when one group’s basis for identity glorifies and encourages violence against other groups. And such a basis deserves to be attacked and ridiculed by people of liberal thought on message boards, newspaper articles and stand up comedy in much the same way Christianity often is.
The Bible is well known to contain many contradictory and nonsensical messages, not to mention the concept of forgiveness for belief. The Jain faith considers violence against insects to be wrong, but let’s not get sidetracked here. You have not answered the one question I put to you.
Do you truly believe that there are no meaningful differences between the role Islam can play as a religious fountainhead for extremism and violence and the role that Jainism or Buddhism can play?
I am not commiting the No true Scotsman fallacy when I state that Tibetan separatists who seek violent responses to China actually reject Buddhism(and the Dalai Lama). This is a documented fact. Among other places, in “Democratic Development & Political Terrorism: The Global Perspective” by William J. Crotty.
Then again, coming from someone who jumped straight to ad hominem accusations of bigotry in response to criticism of a set of ideas, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.