GIGO, despite the headline on that Pew poll, I would characterize the lack of opposition to ISIS shown there to be alarmingly high. I don’t think you can just focus on the number that is determined to tell the pollster they support an organization their government is at war with. I think we have to assume a lot of the people who don’t take a position either way are also supportive in their hearts of hearts, and probably also some of those who say they oppose ISIS, again because they can’t be sure it is safe to say anything else. (By the same token, of course, I would take any poll conducted within ISIS controlled territory, that showed a high degree of support, with a grain of salt.)
And I will take what you say with that grain of salt too, thank you.
Really, unless they are from Nigeria I do think that calling the lack of opposition to ISIS as “alarmingly high” is being misleading. Pakistan would raise :dubious: also, but the bottom line is that unless we accuse Pew of not taking the local government bias into account you are demanding that we use ignorance so as to continue with an argument that does not have the support that you expected.
And that is the problem. You aren’t against the bigotry. You’re against the people and the religion. You use their bigotry as an excuse to practice your own. You propose bigoted solutions like you did in the beginning of this thread.
As for your guy Sam Harris, I am now okay with saying he has Islamophobia problems There is about half of a good speech in there, but he front loads it with bigotry. He says bigotry is wrong while engaging in it himself. He deigns to tell the majority of Muslims that they are wrong and the terrorism is part of their religion.He deliberately conflates problems with bigotry in the culture and terrorism. He decides that he can tell Muslims how they have to change things.
It starts to get good with the ninth paragraph (about the terrorisr attacks), with just a bit of baggage from the preceding paragraphs. Then he levels out into a rather good speech from then on–and it’s all stuff that could have been there without the need to vilify Islam and attack the very people he claims we need to help us.
There just is no way to deal with terrorism without being able to allow the terrorists are not true followers of the religion. Hell, he claims to want people to repudiate the views of ISIS in how they interpret Islam, but he himself repudiates those views. He claims to want one thing, but then acts like the very act of that happening is bad.
Unfortunately, due to these opposing ideas, his speech is an incoherent mess. It seems to be the type written to accommodate the bigots and their views. Still, he comes off better than you do in your “I hate Muslims” thread that this has become.
It’s funny how different this perspective is. For me, it was the most accommodating piece of writing I have ever seen from him. But I suspected others might feel differently, and I was curious to find out–which is why I linked it. Very interesting, thanks for your feedback.
Why Sam Harris correctly pointed out that Islam is a death cult that horribly subjugates women and homosexuals when it isn’t serially killing non-believers all over the world. So label him an Islamaphobe (i.e., a sentient human with a functioning brain) and be done with it.
Death-cult? Now there’s a new one for you. Not at all like the Christian death-cult that worships a fucking undead revenant who was, like, buried alive for three days then clawed his way out of his coffin, and asked people to put their fingers into his wounds. Gosh, no, no death-symbology in Christianity!
Seriously, Islam is a life-affirming religion, with rules for helping people in need, charity and alms, truces in wartime, and so on. It’s grotesquely childish to call Islam a “death cult,” and I entertained myself by smearing Christianity with a similar grotesquerie. Ridicule is one of the coins-in-trade in the Pit.
Why BigT should come back to show the hateful bigots where he sees bigotry when the hateful bigots of course will justify anything and see their hate and bigotry as The Truth so that the idea of calling a major world religion a ‘death cult’ draws no comment from them…
No I don’t see why he should waste his time with the hateful ignorant bigots at all.
There is no christian equivalent to the Islamic martyr or suicide bomber. Sacrificing ones life for Islam is a meme that goes back to the 7th century battle for Persia. There is no christian equivalent for the heavenly rewards for martyrdom. It is not incorrect to say that segments of Islam are death cults.
Death Cult= “any organization or group that indoctrinate members in devotion or worship of death, suicide or killing”
Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the Caliph stated to the Persian commander: “If you don’t [convert to Islam], you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life.”
When people are aculterated to martyr themselves via mass murder (as opposed to the Vietnamese Buddhist monks who immolated themselves in protest of the Vietnamese War) then it is not unreasonable to call these Muslims a member of a death cult.
Oh how wonderful we have the near pure example of the Mythological pseudo-history of the prejudiced Bigot to justify his bigotry and prejudice.
First
Stupid ignorant idiots should probably not participate in such discussions.
It is strange of course to read there is no Christian equivalent… as the Christians indeed invented the warrior martyr concept before the Islam was revealed.
Of course our bigots will without doubt assert that the century or more of the European scholarship examining the concept of the Crusader Martyr(against any of the Infidels, whether the pagan Europeans the Western Christians loved to burn to death if they did not convert under force, or merely the heretics, or the Jews or the Muslims) are just some Leftist invention. No indeed this writer obvioiusly is a pointy head intellectual who does not love america and the christians since he has written a book touching on this non existent idea of martyrdom in the combat or war that our learned poster has told us does not exist. And of course this book discussing how the idea of martyrdom (including the martial martyrdom) shared with some of the Jewish ideas, it is merely invention. Or this book touching on how the Western church of the christians adopted, unlike the Greek eastern church, the martial ideas of martyrdom well developed(and funny turned in the fourth crusade against those Christians of the Wrong Type - funny the circus mirror self-justification by violent intolerant side of the westerners keeps up similar games…). Of course this book with the whole chapter devoted to the examination of the elaboration of the martial martyrdom ideology is only anti western christian propaganda. And so is this chapter in thisscholarly pinheaded book it is obviously propaganda intended to detract from the pure peaceful history of the western christendom in contrast with the death cult of the muslims (who somehow strangely unlike the tolerant enlightened westerners ended up not massacring or forcing the conversion over many centuries of the religious minorities across broad and wide and diverse territories, but no matter in history for the westerners it is only the last two decades that count, or maybe only since the founding of the holy empire of the god given united states, may god save it…). Of course a book examining martial martyrdom ideologyof a French is only a fiction.
But since it is easy to tell from him that he has gotten his “understanding” of the history from various of the sites promoting the religious bigotry, it is not a surprise to read their slanted biased echoes…
Of course there is, but then of course the idea of the suicide bomber is something the Takfiri borrowed from the Hindu Tamils in the past two or three decades. It is a modern borrowing.
Quelle innovation….
As if this is some kind of contrast with the Christianity
This is very amusing in its profound ignorance and sheer stupidity to make this kind of assertion.
It is truly extraordinary that someone can type this, given how so very developed the Western christian cult of martyrdom has been for centuries upon centuries, before the existence even of the Islam.
The weasel words of the ignorant, hateful bigots trying to pretend they are not engaging in a genocidal logic.
Obviously then the segements modern American society with its devotion to media that shows the “Kill them all and let the God sort them out” mentality is a death cult…
Ah so the 2nd hand reported threats of a general trying to scare an imperial army are your example?
I like even better then the Christian Death cult, the Western Christian Church that slew all the non-christian in the Jerusalem, and were proud that as the Crusader Fulk of Chartres, said“In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared”, and of course we add burning alive the Jews who fought with the Muslims against this Death Cult… (and slaying those who took refuge with the Muslims in Al Aqsaa)…
Or the Reconquista that offered the Jews and the Muslims of Iberia the choice of death or conversion, and then burned, tortured and killed those who stayed and did not conform.
By these dishonest standards we must call Americans members of the Great American Death Cult, with your series of wars of aggression, of course to “save” the sub-humans and bring your enlightened views….
The kind treatment in torture and mass murder in the Philippines of the unworthy brown people who opposed the great American enlightenment
The kind treatment of the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, to save them from themselves of course….
And the liberation theology you brought to the Iraq….
Not that this is reasonable analysis, but it is a fine idiot bigot type of prejudice pseudo histories.
Ah wonderful also the bald hypocrisy of the gross, badly learned bigots - it is not the fourth century, oh no it is not the fourteenth century, oh no it is not the nineteenth century… but of course the history only is referable to support (if through the circus mirror) the prejudices and bigotries.