I knew Uganda would be brought up, and it is indeed terrible that Christian evangelists have succeeded in their homophobic efforts. Of course there are alrerady 5 Islamic states that have the death penalty for gays, and many more who have prison terms and flogging, but let’s not be concerned about that!:rolleyes:
I guess we should immediately stop being concerned about Saudi Arabia’s multi-billion dollar, decades-long world-wide Wahhabist indoctrination campaign because of what happened in Uganda. Go back to sleep everybody.
“Short of walking into a conversation, sandblasting the brick and installing track lighting, there is no surer way to announce one is from the 1980s than to mount an assault on ‘political correctness,’ the contemporary phrase for which is ‘not being a jackass.’”
I don’t see the presence of mosques as dangerous in and of itself. Of all the things that should cause concern, Saudi financing of mosques seems to be very near the bottom of the list.
In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, according to this November 2014 article in the New Statesman entitled “Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism”. Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism
And still we should not be concerned that hundreds of mosques, Islamic centres and muslim private schools across the west are Saudi financed.
Nobody is moving goalposts except in your mind. I asked if there were examples of American missions giving rise to radicalism and you offered the well-known example of Uganda. I was already aware of Uganda when I wrote that, and I thought, “watch, some jackass is going to trot out Uganda, and that will magically make murderous homophobia in the Muslim world suddenly all right because Christian Missionaries did this in Uganda.”
How would that even work? Are the Saudis handing out money in local communities in the hope that mosques get built, or just, y’know, paying contractors to build mosques? If it’s the latter, how exactly would the locals refuse the money?
Has anyone figured out the exact ratio between how many insults you level at a person in a discussion and how right you are? For example, if I am discussing, oh say, climate change with someone, and I suddenly blurt out “You are an ignorant asshole, puss-sucking prick!” will my viewpoint be adjudged correct? How much do you have to insult your opponent before you are declared to be right?
Well, you have to believe that the Saudis do not just buy a couple of acres in a city in the west and then presto, local Muslims are as surprised as everyone else to learn that there is a mosque there. “Holy Allah, where did that mosque come from!!!”:rolleyes:
I am not privy to the exact arrangements between the local Muslim community and the Saudis that causes an expensive mosque, Islamic centre, etc. to be built and subsequently used by the local Muslims, but there logically must be some arrangement. Do the Saudis keep ownership of the buildings? Do they pay the salary of the Imam but specify that it must be one that they select?
All I know is there must be some point at which the local Muslims make a decision to subject themselves to Wahhabist Saudi influence or reject it.
If you believe someone has insulted you, you can report the post by pressing the report button. Same with the double post error you mentioned. There’s no need to keep posting about it here, in lieu of an actual discussion.
Well, to be precise, you are not insulting me in the manner that the rules of this Message Board would forbid. You are not just calling me names. I was referring to your comment “You’re not debating, you’re ranting with your fingers in your ears, to people you clearly do not respect.”
This is the sort of ad hominem abuse that really does nothing to aid discussion because it does not address arguments. My comment was in the nature of sarcasm, in which I said that if you do that several more times it will prove you are right. :rolleyes:
Brain Glutton my friend, when you get to the point where you consider ad hominem arguments a valid debating device, I think I can pack it in. Thank you all for sharing your opinions with me. Free speech and freedom from fear when you speak (or even draw cartoons) are precious birthrights that we in the west enjoy. Let us always be ready to defend them to the death.
You should at the very least recognize the distinctions of thought and deed within the Islamic world. As I have already mentioned, I am rather fond of the Sufi, which I oversimplify to think of as the Unitarians of Islam, tolerance and peace being their guiding lights. Need it be said that the Wahhabi sects are sternly disapproving of such enlightened humanism?
The Islamic center proposed for New York, that came under such withering contempt from the armies of ignorance, was proposed and advanced by the Sufi, who preach a tolerance between Sunni and Shia Muslims that gains them little but hatred from fanatics of both stripes.
I would also remind friend Valteron that on more than one occasion, it was a Muslim who warned of impending attacks, causing many people to ask “Who was that mosqued man? I wanted to thank him…”.
Friend Valteron is a man of considerable intelligence, it is a pity that his humanity is not nurtured to the same extent. Alas.
Before I go to the bother of combing through your posts, do you genuinely believe that you’re innocent of this sort of behavior? Do you honestly believe that you’ve debated showing civility and respect toward other posters? I encourage you to review your own posts in this thread in a spirit of honest self-criticism before you respond.
That was the point of my post to you. It was not an ad hominem; I wasn’t insulting you, I was telling you that your posts are insulting the people you disagree with in this thread. You are not talking* to* us, you are talking at us. Do you really believe that is an effective way to persuade people?
And how does posting things like this:
not insulting other posters here? If you already know what the replies will be, and you think of us as “jackasses”, then why are you bothering? That is not a discussion or a debate.
To get back to the discussion: Do you have any viable proposals as to what you think can be done? I am no fan of the Saudi regime myself, but I doubt our elected representatives will change the current ass kissing mode they are in at this time. If we in the west don’t have the power to change our governments’ stance, why do you expect Muslims to be able to do so?
The problem I have with your argument is that you apportion blame to people who are suffering the bulk of the consequences of these extremists, when our own experience shows us how difficult it is to effect change even under more stable democratic circumstances.