Social Experiment. Perception of Quran vs. Bible
- Thread starter dogman6126
- Start date
I am aware, and I don't care what they base their rules on. I just know what I base my rules on. In America, they don't and actually can't enforce such laws. What I do know is there are people here in America treating Muslims unjustly, and I'm not going to just sit by and let it happen. I saw a disgusting video on Facebook a while back where a man was shouting down a Muslim man who was looking to build a new Mosque. During a town hall meeting. This man was shouting that all Muslims are terrorists and that his religion was all about torture and all kinds of terrible things, and the crowd was clapping. This would never be aloud where I come from. It doesn't matter what a few extremists have done. That man didn't do anything to deserve that kind of treatment. We ought to change. Perhaps they do to, but that is separate from the fact that we ought to change. And that is the part we can deal with.
Condemnation of Muslims is completely rational. We should all condemn them. A quick glance at their countries and the effect they are having on ours is enough to come to this conclusion. Look at women and children in Muslim countries. If you are sane I'm not sure what else you need to see. I suggest traveling to the Middle East if you require first-hand experience to understand. I'm sure it will be an enjoyable and enlightening experience for you.
You can talk about the books or the perception of the books until the end of time, but that doesn't change the realities of Muslim migration. It doesn't change the state of Muslim countries. They are living one thousand years in the past. They are primitive. They do not belong in a civilized country. It is okay to be intolerant of something so hideously barbaric. It's shocking to me that liberals so enthusiastically avert their eyes from these realities and instead choose fanciful interpretations of Muslims and the Middle East. They're terrified of being called a bad name.
The simple reality that most are conveniently avoiding is that there is literally no point whatsoever to having boatloads of primitives - oh, sorry, Muslims - in the West. These people have no skills we require and have cultures deeply incompatible with our own. They do not belong here and need to be completely removed. They have their own countries, do they not? Also, I happily accept the label of racist and I'm proud to be "Islamophobic." They are wonderfully fitting labels and I'm falling in love with them.
Anyway, there are actual problems that need to be solved here. Like the thousands and thousands of European women and girls who are being raped or gang-raped yearly by Muslim migrants. What about these people? Do they matter less? Do they have to endure every nightmare imaginable so our liberals can feel good about how tolerant they are? More like how indifferent they are. What about all the ghettos springing up because of third world migration? And the plummeting standard of living in these areas? What fanciful interpretation do you have of these realities?
A small measure of rationality and so many problems become solvable and so many innocent women and girls are spared horrors you never have to worry about. Not to mention the Western standard of living would improve and Western cultures wouldn't be under constant attack from Islam. I really don't understand why people are so uncaring about these things. Why is everyone so cowardly? People are afraid to defend their countries, cultures, national identities, friends, families and all that.. because they don't want to be yelled at by some obese liberals about how politically incorrect they are. Something this dumb could only exist in the modern West.
You can talk about the books or the perception of the books until the end of time, but that doesn't change the realities of Muslim migration. It doesn't change the state of Muslim countries. They are living one thousand years in the past. They are primitive. They do not belong in a civilized country. It is okay to be intolerant of something so hideously barbaric. It's shocking to me that liberals so enthusiastically avert their eyes from these realities and instead choose fanciful interpretations of Muslims and the Middle East. They're terrified of being called a bad name.
The simple reality that most are conveniently avoiding is that there is literally no point whatsoever to having boatloads of primitives - oh, sorry, Muslims - in the West. These people have no skills we require and have cultures deeply incompatible with our own. They do not belong here and need to be completely removed. They have their own countries, do they not? Also, I happily accept the label of racist and I'm proud to be "Islamophobic." They are wonderfully fitting labels and I'm falling in love with them.
Anyway, there are actual problems that need to be solved here. Like the thousands and thousands of European women and girls who are being raped or gang-raped yearly by Muslim migrants. What about these people? Do they matter less? Do they have to endure every nightmare imaginable so our liberals can feel good about how tolerant they are? More like how indifferent they are. What about all the ghettos springing up because of third world migration? And the plummeting standard of living in these areas? What fanciful interpretation do you have of these realities?
A small measure of rationality and so many problems become solvable and so many innocent women and girls are spared horrors you never have to worry about. Not to mention the Western standard of living would improve and Western cultures wouldn't be under constant attack from Islam. I really don't understand why people are so uncaring about these things. Why is everyone so cowardly? People are afraid to defend their countries, cultures, national identities, friends, families and all that.. because they don't want to be yelled at by some obese liberals about how politically incorrect they are. Something this dumb could only exist in the modern West.
Last edited:
I've met and spoken with several Islamic families at my last job and all I can discern from your post is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your ignorance is abhorrently disgusting.
Of course every individual Muslim isn't completely awful, but there are patterns and trends here. You can conveniently ignore the existence of those patterns and trends, but they will still exist. My point makes sense in a "better safe than sorry" kind of way. And, anyway, do these people not have their own countries? Why do they need to be here? We're very different from one another.
So we should allow lots and lots of Muslims into our countries and hope for the best? Many of them have no respect whatsoever for Western cultures or ways of life and when they constitute a large enough minority they'll be pushing for political change. This is already happening in some places. What do you say about that?
It's pretty clear that the more we allow in the more our countries will begin to look like theirs.
You can demonize them as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. You're just fear-mongering and encouraging hatred.
Ok, you have got to be kidding me. Ok first of all, I will go out on a limb here and say this was addressed more directly at me. I tend to actually be republican first of all, not democratic. The conclusion I draw here is driven in ethics and morality. NOT POLITICS. You speak of trends and tendencies, but you don't sound like you know what you are talking about. Have you ever had experience with statistics? Psychology? Research in general? Or are you just speaking out of some self-inflated superiority of judgment? The crimes that you name are not unique to that area, that is just the area that you are focusing on. And even if you were right, and their countries are violent, that's not the people. That is the sum, not the individual. Why would you blame the individual? If one Muslim is innocent, should we blame them? Should we punish them?
No.
That would make us irrational. Barbaric. Our countries are different, and perhaps our cultures, but our humanity is the same. That is what we must respect on pain of irrationality. That is what we must respect on pain of immorality.
"Ethnic groups with particularly high rates of rape included individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), and Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries) who were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, and 17 greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively."
I pray for your common sense, my friend. It appears to be on life support.
And yet you miss the point. You are choosing to condemn all by the actions of the few, but this is wrong! If you want the proper description, it is called the base rate fallacy. In philosophical terms, it is called anti-symmetry in mereology. However, I have the sense that you don't care about any of that. The simple idea is that the parts (individual) and the whole (society) are distinct entities. You cannot judge one on the actions of the other. It logically doesn't follow. Further, it is immoral.
You say my common sense is "on life support"? Well, your rationality isn't doing any better.
I understand that you're proud of your education. That's cool.
Anyway, why do they need to be here? Why do all of these women have to pay the price for their being here? Let's focus on realities and not abstractions. If we closed our borders to Muslims entirely and deported problematic ones it would save a lot of women a lot of misery, would it not? It would. That's common sense. It would do other wonderful things, too. Like help us preserve our cultures and identities. I'm not supporting genocide here; I'm supporting the preservation of our cultures.
Do you want them here so you can show the world how educated dogman6126 is? And how tolerant and understanding dogman6126 is? Do you want to show Muslims how much dogman6126 loves dogs?
Why are you assuming this is about me? To me this is a question of what is right in wrong, not of need for achievement or social approval.
Further, this education that I'm receiving is not some toy of youth to be brushed aside for its inconvenience to your world view. That which I discuss is grounded in reality. The fact that you separate reality and abstractions demonstrates that you are merely brushing aside rather than engaging.
You're talking about that group as being the ones to suffer with your suggestion, but you are completely ignoring all those people who would suffer for the deportation you are suggesting. This is your first comment where you limited your suggestions to "deportation of the problematic ones". However, your earlier comments talked about outright condemnation of all Muslims. You may not be supporting genocide, but you are supporting persecution. You say that it is to preserve our culture, but I think you are forgetting what was at the heart of American culture. Freedom for all. We weren't called the great mixing pot for nothing. You aren't trying to preserve American culture. You're just trying to wrap yourself up in a shell so that you don't have to deal with something different.
When the constitution was written the United States was nearly nothing but whites and slaves and only white men were free. You're ignoring the context of those words and applying them to a very different present. Were the Founding Fathers alive today I'm sure they would revise their beliefs. They were sensible people.
I suggested "deporting problematic ones" to see if we could find middle ground. Apparently not. That was naive of me. Complete intolerance of Islam is what I believe is right.
I'll make some short points, all of which can be easily verified by the most cursory of Google searches:
* The European Court of Human Rights has determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy."
* The Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan have jointly lobbied the United Nations to make exceptions in the application of the Declaration of Human Rights, to accommodate the practices of muslim nations.
* These same nations also have also petitioned the United Nations for exemptions from the rules of Freedom of Speech, in regard to what sharia law considers blasphemy.
If you are too lazy to look up the issues yourself, Wikipedia is always and easy and reasonably reliable reference for major topics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
You wrote that the vast majority of Muslims practice sharia law. Can you back up that statement? Egypt isn't an Islamic republic any more. There's 200 million Muslims in India compared to the 50 million in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan combined.
Another distinction is that Sharia isn't one thing. Some countries use it extensively, others very little.
EDIT: For the record, I hate sharia law. It is a negative force in the world that is largely responsible for the unrest in the Middle East. My first girlfriend, Sarah, came from a Muslim family that didn't approve of us because I'm not a Muslim. I have no sympthies for extremists. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white. Muslims aren't a grey mass that have the same objectives. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and just like us. All of the Muslims that I know are kind, sweet and charitable people. Separating them from us because of the actions by a few isn't making the world a better place. We need to embrace them more than ever. Don't let the extremists succeed in making this "us and them" mindset permanent.
Last edited:
Is not to limit the words of the founding fathers to its initial context but to do exactly what you were condemning the middle east for doing? Remaining in the dark ages? Sure, they may be at an even older time, but the idea of freedom for all mean has evolved. Shall we limit it to the initial idea, or shall we recognize the social progress we have made since then in recognizing people of all kinds as men and women to be protected under these freedoms? In one sense, sure, our culture has changed, but in another it has remained the same. Freedom for all was our founding concept, but who is considered a part of the all has expanded. That is what it is to develop. Choosing to protect those Muslims that are good, and that do want our protection...that want to live in peace....that is something that our culture has developed to include. So long as they, in the least, are American citizens, then they have all the Freedoms, and deserve all the respect that is given to any other American. Sure, if there is a Muslim going around shooting people, then he is dealt with as determined by law. But even then he is still human, and so are we. We ought to be moral even if someone else isn't.
Wow…holy wow!
We are not going to turn Murica into a fascist nation…nor does any race of humankind have superiority over any other…the very things you are talking about implementing go absolutely contrary to what this country was founded on (speaking of the founding fathers).
You are advocating religious persecution of a particular religion by the whole country of the US?
Do we learn nothing at all from history…including our own?
What did we do to the Native Americans? You think the Muslims are going to take over like we did back then?
Google - “Manzanar”
Google - “Operation Wetback” (yes, that was the actual name).
Now we have people attacking Muslims (and non-Muslims idiotic Americans think are Muslim) in the US because of fear-mongering.
I’m not afraid in the slightest…I’m more scared of dying in a car crash or if it is a shooter that kills me eventually - statistically it will be another white person who does it.
Not only is what you suggest immoral and grouping entire people together unfairly, but it is actually against the law in the US.
So good luck with that.
If we reach that point - I’m fucking moving and you can have the shithole you helped build.
BTW, I have travelled to quite a few places around the world and people treated me like I treated them - like a friend.
Last edited:
I see what you mean. Well to the particular example, India, under British rule, muslim/sharia law was inserted into the common law in cases of muslims. It provided for things like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other matters. Indian muslims have their own particular law, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, of 1937. While this is not strictly a sharia law, because cases are interpreted in reference to the Indian-Muslim Law, not the Quran (and other books), those laws are derived from the islamic books. The following map shows the geographic distribution of strictly interpreted sharia law application. You will notice that India is not indicated, for the reasons above, nevertheless the muslims in India are subject to muslim laws.
Cross referencing this map, with the 2010 list of the list of the countries with the most muslims, ought to in you words "back up" the earlier statement. Although, I suspect that you aren't actually interested, nevertheless:
- Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%[SUP][78][/SUP])
- Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%)
- India 171,012,000 (14.6%)
- Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%)
- Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%)
- Iran 74,819,000 (99.6%)
- Turkey 74,660,000 (98.6%)
- Egypt 73,746,000 (90%)
- Algeria 34,780,000 (98.2%)
- Morocco 32,381,000 (99.9%)
- Iraq 31,108,000 (98.9%)
- Sudan 30,855,000 (97%)[SUP][79][/SUP]
- Afghanistan 29,047,000 (99.8%)
- Ethiopia 28,721,000 (33.8%)
- Uzbekistan 26,833,000 (96.5%)
- Saudi Arabia 25,493,000 (97.1%)
- Yemen 24,023,000 (99.0%)
- China 23,308,000 (1.8%)
- Syria 20,895,000 (92.8%)
- Malaysia 17,139,000 (61.4%)
- Russia 16,379,000 (11.7%)
- Niger 15,627,000 (98.3%)
