Over 500 Imams started protesting, about time.

They were not protesting about the bigotry and lack of human rights showed to atheists in Islamic countries.

They were not protesting about Islamic terror

They were not protesting about their blasphemy laws that persecute non muslims

They were not protesting about death for apostasy in Islamic countries.

They were not protesting about the child brides that are rampant in Islamic parts of the world.

They were not protesting about the death penalty for homosexuals in the Islamic part of the world

They were protesting about gay marriage... ;D
Read more here-www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10066730/More-than-500-imams-in-landmark-gay-marriage-protest.html

Looks like the inevitable clash between the 2 darlings of the left - musulmen and hommerthexuals - has begun.

My money is on the musulmen, at least in the long run.

Good to see that you're not worried about being bigoted.   ;D ;D

Given the continual spread of Islam throughout Europe, the clash between Muslims and the liberal left should be inevitable. The gays versus the Muslims here is one such example, which should become more frequent.

It's a classic case of where the slogans of 'tolerance' and 'equality' show absolutely no foresight. The left-wing trendies have imported people who are absolutely hostile to their political interests, and now they are reaping what they sowed.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Given the continual spread of Islam throughout Europe, the clash between Muslims and the liberal left should be inevitable. The gays versus the Muslims here is one such example, which should become more frequent. It's a classic case of where the slogans of 'tolerance' and 'equality' show absolutely no foresight. The left-wing trendies have imported people who are absolutely hostile to their political interests, and now they are reaping what they sowed.

So, you'd prefer that people preached intolerance and hatred of immigrants?

Some Muslims hate Gays.  So, why should all Muslims be blamed for those attitudes?

Some Christians hate Gays, yet we don't blame all Christians for those attitudes.

Looks like some people like displaying their prejudices.   ;D

|dev|null wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:20pm: Given the continual spread of Islam throughout Europe, the clash between Muslims and the liberal left should be inevitable. The gays versus the Muslims here is one such example, which should become more frequent. It's a classic case of where the slogans of 'tolerance' and 'equality' show absolutely no foresight. The left-wing trendies have imported people who are absolutely hostile to their political interests, and now they are reaping what they sowed. So, you'd prefer that people preached intolerance and hatred of immigrants? Some Muslims hate Gays.  So, why should all Muslims be blamed for those attitudes? Some Christians hate Gays, yet we don't blame all Christians for those attitudes. Looks like some people like displaying their prejudices.   ;D

The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays.

so how do you think the trendies could have displayed more "foresight" Misty? Demand that muslims be banned from expressing their democratic right to protest peacefully?

Do you think the trendies just love muslims for their beliefs - or that perhaps they defend the right of *ANY* group - muslim or not - to not be vilified and discriminated?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:44pm:

so how do you think the trendies could have displayed more "foresight" Misty? Demand that muslims be banned from expressing their democratic right to protest peacefully? Do you think the trendies just love muslims for their beliefs - or that perhaps they defend the right of *ANY* group - muslim or not - to not be vilified and discriminated?

Left-wing trendies display no foresight. They carry the slogans of 'tolerance' and 'equality' around in their head without analysing the possible repercussions of such a policy.

An interesting question now is: Are the left-wing trendies going to be tolerant of Islam's hostility toward gays? Is that free speech?
Whenever a white conservative has reservations about gays they get called homophobes and bigots. I wonder if the 'useful idiots' will use such terms toward Muslims?

Interesting times ahead for Europe.

Thats not answering the question Misty.

I'm not aware of these so called 'left-wing trendies' ever professing to stand up for islamic intolerance, or apologising for it.

|dev|null wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Some Muslims hate Gays.  So, why should all Muslims be blamed for those attitudes?

The first time over 500 imams protest something it is gay marriage of all things.

The muslim majority countries of Mauritania,Saudi Arabia,North Sudan,Yemen and Iran have the death penalty for homosexuals,in Nigeria and Somalia the death penalty applies in some regions.
In Saudi Arabia where Islam originated and the direction muslim face when praying they chop your head off if you are found to be homosexual.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

In Iran they hang homosexuals,Ahmadinejad did say there are no poofs in Iran, about 4000 gays have been executed since the Islamic revolution, read the amnesty international reports on human rights in Iran.

These teenagers were hung for being gay in Iran
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni

The muslims will vote for Tony before they vote for the parties that allow gay marriage.

All traditional religions have no time for hommerthexuals, because despite the superficial differences, they are all based on natural law.  Now I'm not a big fan of religion, but natural law is something we should align more closely with.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Thats not answering the question Misty. I'm not aware of these so called 'left-wing trendies' ever professing to stand up for islamic intolerance, or apologising for it.

There must be something I am missing. What was your question again?

Quote:

I'm not aware of these so called 'left-wing trendies' ever professing to stand up for islamic intolerance, or apologising for it.

That's true. They prefer to ignore the elephant in the room an deflect to tangential issues, or insist it is intolerant or vilification to talk about the intolerance.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Thats not answering the question Misty. I'm not aware of these so called 'left-wing trendies' ever professing to stand up for islamic intolerance, or apologising for it.

You seem to be 'not aware' of an awful lot of things, Gandy.

Islamists and the left are both political entities and have a very obvious shared grounding: a hatred of the west and western capitalism. They both blame everything on western culture, history, capitalism. That's why you never hear a lefty bed-wetter speaking out against Islamist - he would have to defend what the Islamist is attacking.



So your trendy 'unawareness' just means means that you have never heard of a lefty defending the west and western culture and western capitalism. 
D'oh!!! WHo has?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 7:38pm:

There must be something I am missing. What was your question again?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:44pm:

so how do you think the trendies could have displayed more "foresight" Misty? Demand that muslims be banned from expressing their democratic right to protest peacefully?

My point is, we have a group of muslims exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest, and your response is, the "left-wing trendies" display no foresight. So what should they have done? Does allowing this protest to go ahead mean they necessarily agree with their point of view? No. Does it mean they can, and do criticise their anti-gay views? Absolutely.


freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:27pm:

That's true. They prefer to ignore the elephant in the room an deflect to tangential issues, or insist it is intolerant or vilification to talk about the intolerance.

Thats may be true in some instances, but broadly speaking I don't believe its the case. What you people fail to acknowledge is that there is a very fine line between attacking people for their views, and being outright prejudice and discriminatory to those people. But to say these "lefties" never criticise muslims, or any other minority, for expressing bigoted views - is complete nonsense.

And by the way, peacefully protesting against gay marriage is not inherently islamophobic or bigoted - and its certainly not confined to the islamic community.

I wasn't actually criticising the Muslim's protestations of gays. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal left and their mantra of 'tolerance' being a very poor policy to run a society by; exemplified by the current clash of the liberals and Muslims in the op.

I want to see consistency here by the liberal left. I want to see them tar these Muslims with the terms 'bigotry' and 'homophobia' just as they do so with white conservatives.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:46am:

I wasn't actually criticising the Muslim's protestations of gays. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal left and their mantra of 'tolerance' being a very poor policy to run a society by;

That's unlike you, Mistie.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:46am:

I wasn't actually criticising the Muslim's protestations of gays. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal left and their mantra of 'tolerance' being a very poor policy to run a society by; exemplified by the current clash of the liberals and Muslims in the op. I want to see consistency here by the liberal left. I want to see them tar these Muslims with the terms 'bigotry' and 'homophobia' just as they do so with white conservatives.

Again you miss the point. I know you weren't criticising the muslims - I'm saying there is no hypocrisy that I can see.

Are you saying the lefties should be calling muslims bigots and homophobes for marching in an anti-gay marriage protest? That would be absurd. I also reject the idea that these same lefties label white conservatives who protest against gay marriage bigots and homophobes. They *DO* however speak up against actual homophobia (whether its from non muslims or muslims) - and they *DO* believe that homophobia *CAN* arise from the sort of institutional discrimination such as marriage inequality. But the two are not the same thing.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 11:42am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:46am: I wasn't actually criticising the Muslim's protestations of gays. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal left and their mantra of 'tolerance' being a very poor policy to run a society by; exemplified by the current clash of the liberals and Muslims in the op. I want to see consistency here by the liberal left. I want to see them tar these Muslims with the terms 'bigotry' and 'homophobia' just as they do so with white conservatives. Again you miss the point. I know you weren't criticising the muslims - I'm saying there is no hypocrisy that I can see. Are you saying the lefties should be calling muslims bigots and homophobes for marching in an anti-gay marriage protest? That would be absurd. I also reject the idea that these same lefties label white conservatives who protest against gay marriage bigots and homophobes. They *DO* however speak up against actual homophobia (whether its from non muslims or muslims) - and they *DO* believe that homophobia *CAN* arise from the sort of institutional discrimination such as marriage inequality. But the two are not the same thing.

It doesn't matter what arguments are brought forth against gay marriage from white conservatives, the bigot and homophobic tag gets thrown toward them.

The Christian argument against gay marriage is almost identical to Islam's. Yet, Christians receive plenty of hate for it. It's yet to be shown though that that same hate has been directed toward Islam. 

Quote:

My point is, we have a group of muslims exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest, and your response is, the "left-wing trendies" display no foresight. So what should they have done?

Acknowledging the conflict of values would be a good start.


Quote:

But the two are not the same thing.

Funny how you have no trouble telling the difference when it suits your argument.


Quote:

The Christian argument against gay marriage is almost identical to Islam's. Yet, Christians receive plenty of hate for it. It's yet to be shown though that that same hate has been directed toward Islam.

I think the real difference is that criticism of Islam does not follow the usual left/right divide. It seems to come down to whether people focus more on everyone being nice to each other or on protecting human rights, even if some take offense. You get a good mix of both from the left and the right.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:42pm:

The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays.

So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:53pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:44pm: so how do you think the trendies could have displayed more "foresight" Misty? Demand that muslims be banned from expressing their democratic right to protest peacefully? Do you think the trendies just love muslims for their beliefs - or that perhaps they defend the right of *ANY* group - muslim or not - to not be vilified and discriminated? Left-wing trendies display no foresight. They carry the slogans of 'tolerance' and 'equality' around in their head without analysing the possible repercussions of such a policy.

And those repercussions are?  That people are treated decently without prejudice and intolerance?

Obviously you've never been victimised.  Could it be that you just like victimising people?


Quote:

An interesting question now is: Are the left-wing trendies going to be tolerant of Islam's hostility toward gays? Is that free speech? Whenever a white conservative has reservations about gays they get called homophobes and bigots. I wonder if the 'useful idiots' will use such terms toward Muslims? Interesting times ahead for Europe.

Interesting times for everybody.

I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims.

I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays.

I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting.   ;D

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Funny how you have no trouble telling the difference when it suits your argument.

meaning?

Brian Ross wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims. I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays. I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting.

Exactly. If Misty or FD could point me to where these supposedly 'inconsistent' lefties have ever ignored, or apologised for muslims being bigoted over gays, I'll be grateful.

A gay Muslim answers the imams trying to stop equal marriage


Once Muslim gay marriage is in place, the push will be on for Muslim polygamy to be extended to gayz in the form of polyandry.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims. I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays. I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting. Exactly. If Misty or FD could point me to where these supposedly 'inconsistent' lefties have ever ignored, or apologised for muslims being bigoted over gays, I'll be grateful.

Never going to happen, you realise?   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims. I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays. I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting. Exactly. If Misty or FD could point me to where these supposedly 'inconsistent' lefties have ever ignored, or apologised for muslims being bigoted over gays, I'll be grateful.

Perhaps you could point me to where leftists have taken Muslims to task for being bigoted toward gays?

Brian Ross wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

And those repercussions are?

What do you think will be the repercussions of gays in an Islamic dominated society?



Quote:

That people are treated decently without prejudice and intolerance?

The words 'prejudice' and 'intolerance' are thrown about so often that they fail to even make sense any more. What point are you even trying to make here?




Quote:

Obviously you've never been victimised.  Could it be that you just like victimising people?

Again, you throw trendy terms out there like 'victimizing' that mean nothing. What is it you're trying to say?




Quote:

Interesting times for everybody. I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims. I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays. I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting.   ;D

Maybe you'll protest against people discriminating against conservatives? How about bankers? How about Catholic priests?

Brian Ross wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 10:22pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:42pm: The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays. So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::)

It's not me who is under the microscope. Re-read the op and look at the context of my comments.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 11:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: And those repercussions are?  What do you think will be the repercussions of gays in an Islamic dominated society?

They may be discriminated against and persecuted.  Rather similar to what happens in Uganda where they've just recriminalised homosexuality.  Oh, bugger, that's a Christian country, isn't it?   ::)


Quote:

[quote]That people are treated decently without prejudice and intolerance?

The words 'prejudice' and 'intolerance' are thrown about so often that they fail to even make sense any more. What point are you even trying to make here?
[/quote]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  You made a point.  I questioned it.  Sufficient context for you?   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Obviously you've never been victimised.  Could it be that you just like victimising people?

Again, you throw trendy terms out there like 'victimizing' that mean nothing. What is it you're trying to say?
[/quote]

You do appear to have a reading comprehension problem.  I made an observation and then asked a question.  I used common English words.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Interesting times for everybody. I'll protest against people discriminating against Muslims. I'll protest against people discriminating against Gays. I'm an indiscriminate in my protesting.   ;D

Maybe you'll protest against people discriminating against conservatives? How about bankers? How about Catholic priests? [/quote]

What don't you understand about the meaning of the word "indiscriminate"?   ::)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 11:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:22pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:42pm: The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays. So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::) It's not me who is under the microscope. Re-read the op and look at the context of my comments.

Why are Muslims under the microscope?

You've made a statement, I asked a question.  Is that hard to comprehend?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:19am:

They may be discriminated against and persecuted.  Rather similar to what happens in Uganda where they've just recriminalised homosexuality.  Oh, bugger, that's a Christian country, isn't it?   ::)

Which goes to show what I've been saying: Islam and Christianity are hostile to homosexuality. So why would the liberal left import people who are not friendly to their political views?


Quote:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  You made a point.  I questioned it.  Sufficient context for you?   ::)

So, in context, you're saying Islam is 'intolerant' and 'prejudiced' for opposing gay marriage? Or, let me guess, it was me who you directed those terms toward for pointing out the clash between gays and Islam?


Quote:

You do appear to have a reading comprehension problem.  I made an observation and then asked a question.  I used common English words.   ::)

An observation on what?



Quote:

What don't you understand about the meaning of the word "indiscriminate"?   ::)

If you were "indiscriminate" you'd have supported the gays in the op over the Muslims. But you decided to go off on some tangent and engage in ad hominem .

Brian Ross wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 11:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:22pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:42pm: The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays. So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::) It's not me who is under the microscope. Re-read the op and look at the context of my comments. Why are Muslims under the microscope? You've made a statement, I asked a question.  Is that hard to comprehend?   ::)

Did you even read the op? Do you even know the context of what is being spoken about?

Brian Ross wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 11:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:22pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:42pm: The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays. So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::) It's not me who is under the microscope. Re-read the op and look at the context of my comments. Why are Muslims under the microscope?

Take a wild guess.

The timing of your stupid question couldn't be worse. Jihadis hack a soldier to death in London, car-b-ques in Stockholm, Muslim rioter's contempt of court in Sydney - and the daily sectarian violence across the Muslim world hardly makes the front page any more.

And so all Muslims must be condemned because of the actions of a few.  One Muslim is contemptuous of a Magistrate, so suddenly it is the fault of all Muslims?   Two Muslims hack a man to death in London's streets and it is suddenly the fault of all Muslims?  You really do believe in guilt by association, don't you?

I thought the world had gotten over this bullshit when the Nazis were toppled from power.  ::) ::)

The Muslims are the new Nazis.

|dev|null wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:15pm:

And so all Muslims must be condemned because of the actions of a few.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 6:39pm:

The Muslims are the new Nazis

Apparently so Hot Breath.

90% of Nazis were really nice people and did not personally murder any Jews. It is vilification to tar all Nazis with the same brush by suggesting they were worse than Muslims.

Ah yes FD - I have no doubt that you just labelled muslims "nazis" - meaning people that are "really nice".

I use "really nice people" and "nazi" interchangeably all the time.

You miss the point again Gandalf. All these apologists whining that we don't take enough care to couch our criticisms of Muslims will happily demonise and generalise about Nazis, even though the same meaningless propaganda can apply to them - that the majority of them were nice people. But make no mistake, when I compare Muslims to Nazis and Islam to Nazism, I mean it in a bad way. And the people constantly apologising for Muslims sound exactly like the people who bent over backwards to accommodate the Nazis for the same reasons - right up until they landed on their doorstep.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:52pm:

You miss the point again Gandalf.

No I got it loud and clear.

Merely trying to make light of what is trully a f*cked up line of argument of yours.

One could either cry or laugh - I chose the latter.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 8:52pm: You miss the point again Gandalf. No I got it loud and clear. Merely trying to make light of what is trully a f*cked up line of argument of yours. One could either cry or laugh - I chose the latter.

Gandy, and all the other nuancy-boys - yes, there is all the diversity in the world within the 'Muslim community' despite all the sectarian violence of the last 1400 years, but when it comes down to where your loyalty is, there is a pan-islamic identity, an ummah, a shared muslim identity that you ALL sign up to, above all others.

So beneath all that ' can't blame all the Muslim', you actually do share a common bond, and you all identify as brothers and sister.  And here' the kicker - that bond, despite all the sectarian massacres, is more important than any other. The bond of Islam overrides everything for true Muslims - morality, politics, everything.

Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

So beneath all that ' can't blame all the Muslim', you actually do share a common bond, and you all identify as brothers and sister.  And here' the kicker - that bond, despite all the sectarian massacres, is more important than any other. The bond of Islam overrides everything for true Muslims - morality, politics, everything.

Does that Muslim bond extend to Sunni and Shia happily throwing bombs at each other?   

Datalife wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 10:21pm:

Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 10:10pm: So beneath all that ' can't blame all the Muslim', you actually do share a common bond, and you all identify as brothers and sister.  And here' the kicker - that bond, despite all the sectarian massacres, is more important than any other. The bond of Islam overrides everything for true Muslims - morality, politics, everything. Does that Muslim bond extend to Sunni and Shia happily throwing bombs at each other?

Yes it does. When it comes to infidels like you (I assume you are a useful idiot and not a Muslim) or me, they are united against us insofar as we are in the way of the pan-Islamic ummah. When they have cleared the way to that, they will no doubt duke it out among themselves whether it is to be a sunni or shia ummah. But the kuffr must be dealt with first (after all the Jews are killed off, that is, as it says in the Koran).

Neither the sunnis nor the shia will side with the kuffr against the other except for short-term, tactical reasons. As the poet said all those years ago, 'ummah, ummah uber alles'.

If you don't believe me, ask any Muslim.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:00am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 12:19am: They may be discriminated against and persecuted.  Rather similar to what happens in Uganda where they've just recriminalised homosexuality.  Oh, bugger, that's a Christian country, isn't it?   ::) Which goes to show what I've been saying: Islam and Christianity are hostile to homosexuality. So why would the liberal left import people who are not friendly to their political views?

Quote:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  You made a point.  I questioned it.  Sufficient context for you?   ::)

So, in context, you're saying Islam is 'intolerant' and 'prejudiced' for opposing gay marriage? Or, let me guess, it was me who you directed those terms toward for pointing out the clash between gays and Islam?
[/quote]

And the conflict between Christianity and Gays?  And the conflict between Buddhism and Gays?  And the conflict between Hinduism and Gays?

Or perhaps we should just be worried about the conflict between Conservatives and Gays?   Afterall, there are progressive elements in all religions which aren't in conflict with Gays but there are conservative ones who hate Gays.

Perhaps the problem isn't with the religious believes, per se but with the political nature of some people?

No, you'd rather focus on sectarian issues, it would seem.   ::)


Quote:

[quote] You do appear to have a reading comprehension problem.  I made an observation and then asked a question.  I used common English words.   ::)

An observation on what?
[/quote]

Your apparent viewpoint?


Quote:

[quote] What don't you understand about the meaning of the word "indiscriminate"?   ::)

If you were "indiscriminate" you'd have supported the gays in the op over the Muslims. But you decided to go off on some tangent and engage in ad hominem .
[/quote]

Why?   Perhaps I perceived the op's discrimination against Muslims as being more unfair 'cause the Muslims haven't done anything...?  ::)

Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 10:23am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 12:21am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 11:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 10:22pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:42pm: The acceptance of gays by Islam and Christianity is the exception more than the rule. You'd think a sensible policy would be to import like-minded people. Call it prejudice or whatever slogan you trendies want, it isn't going to change the fact that Islam is generally hostile to gays. So, you'd bar Muslims and Christians?   ::) It's not me who is under the microscope. Re-read the op and look at the context of my comments. Why are Muslims under the microscope? Take a wild guess. The timing of your stupid question couldn't be worse. Jihadis hack a soldier to death in London, car-b-ques in Stockholm, Muslim rioter's contempt of court in Sydney - and the daily sectarian violence across the Muslim world hardly makes the front page any more.

Then place those people under the microscope, not all Muslims, Soren.

Your problem is that you use a sledehammer to crack a walnut.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 7:52am:

And the conflict between Christianity and Gays?  And the conflict between Buddhism and Gays?  And the conflict between Hinduism and Gays? Or perhaps we should just be worried about the conflict between Conservatives and Gays?   Afterall, there are progressive elements in all religions which aren't in conflict with Gays but there are conservative ones who hate Gays. Perhaps the problem isn't with the religious believes, per se but with the political nature of some people? No, you'd rather focus on sectarian issues, it would seem.   ::)

There are plenty of anti-Christian threads here. Check out the Atheist and General forum. Perhaps you might even be consistent and defend Christianity against 'bigots' and 'intolerance'? I doubt it. 
Anyway, this thread was set up as Muslims protesting against gays, therefore that is the topic. Strange, isn't it, to mention something related to the topic at hand.



Quote:

Why?   Perhaps I perceived the op's discrimination against Muslims as being more unfair 'cause the Muslims haven't done anything...?  ::)

Huh? The op is about Muslims discriminating against gays and you claim it's the Muslims who should be protected?

This has been an eye opener. It shows that the liberal-left place the rights of Muslims over gays. Thanks for helping me with my research.

It is quite interesting that the conservative leaning members are the ones on the side of the gays!

Quote:

It is quite interesting that the conservative leaning members are the ones on the side of the gays!

No matter what, the liberal left are on the other side to the conservative leaning members.  Teh gayz, muslimz etc are just excuses.  If, by some strange cosmic phenomenon they should find themselves in agreeance,  a division will be created to preserve the animosity, usually something along the lines of "you support (cause x) for the wrong reasons"

... wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

Quote: It is quite interesting that the conservative leaning members are the ones on the side of the gays! No matter what, the liberal left are on the other side to the conservative leaning members.  Teh gayz, muslimz etc are just excuses.  If, by some strange cosmic phenomenon they should find themselves in agreeance,  a division will be created to preserve the animosity, usually something along the lines of "you support (cause x) for the wrong reasons"

True. They're so reactive they just oppose whatever happens be in power or whatever exerts a bit of power. That explains why they're rarely consistent in their beliefs.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 6:53pm:

They're so reactive they just oppose whatever happens be in power or whatever exerts a bit of power. That explains why they're rarely consistent in their beliefs.

Still waiting to hear of a single example of this sort of inconsistency: where these lefties defend or apologise for muslim homophobia.

Wouldn't want to ruin your little fantasies with actual evidence now would we?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:53pm: They're so reactive they just oppose whatever happens be in power or whatever exerts a bit of power. That explains why they're rarely consistent in their beliefs. Still waiting to hear of a single example of this sort of inconsistency: where these lefties defend or apologise for muslim homophobia. Wouldn't want to ruin your little fantasies with actual evidence now would we?

They don't apologise or defend it outright. They either ignore it, obscure the issue, de-construct it to oblivion, obfuscate, introduce Red Herrings and strawmans, or engage in ad hominem.

Exhibit A: Brian Ross
Exhibit B: Hot Breath
Exhibit C: buzzandj
Exhibit D: Skippy
Exhibit E: adelcow
Exhibit F: Academics on The Conversation
Exhibit G: Writers on Online Opinon
Exhibit H: Writers on The Drum

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

They either ignore it, obscure the issue, de-construct it to oblivion, obfuscate, introduce Red Herrings and strawmans, or engage in ad hominem.

Speaking of obfuscating  ::)

That could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything. What a copout.

Brian Ross is a great example of the inconsistency.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:53pm: They're so reactive they just oppose whatever happens be in power or whatever exerts a bit of power. That explains why they're rarely consistent in their beliefs. Still waiting to hear of a single example of this sort of inconsistency: where these lefties defend or apologise for muslim homophobia. Wouldn't want to ruin your little fantasies with actual evidence now would we? They don't apologise or defend it outright. They either ignore it, obscure the issue, de-construct it to oblivion, obfuscate, introduce Red Herrings and strawmans, or engage in ad hominem. Exhibit A: Brian Ross Exhibit B: Hot Breath Exhibit C: buzzandj Exhibit D: Skippy Exhibit E: adelcow Exhibit F: Academics on The Conversation Exhibit G: Writers on Online Opinon Exhibit H: Writers on The Drum

In otherwords, anybody who disagrees with your bigotry?

Might long list that's going to be!

Why attack all Muslims, unless you're bigoted?   ::)

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Brian Ross is a great example of the inconsistency.

Prove it or piss off FD.   ::)

How has Islam improved Western societies in the last 100 years?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Brian Ross is a great example of the inconsistency. Prove it or piss off FD.   ::)

You always attack Christianity and Christians, often in very generalised terms, then do the opposite for Muslims and insist it is bigotry when people criticise Islam the way you criticise Christianity. You are the poster child for the type of hypocrisy that is being attributed to "the left" in this thread.

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 7:07pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 6:53pm: They're so reactive they just oppose whatever happens be in power or whatever exerts a bit of power. That explains why they're rarely consistent in their beliefs. Still waiting to hear of a single example of this sort of inconsistency: where these lefties defend or apologise for muslim homophobia. Wouldn't want to ruin your little fantasies with actual evidence now would we? They don't apologise or defend it outright. They either ignore it, obscure the issue, de-construct it to oblivion, obfuscate, introduce Red Herrings and strawmans, or engage in ad hominem. Exhibit A: Brian Ross Exhibit B: Hot Breath Exhibit C: buzzandj Exhibit D: Skippy Exhibit E: adelcow Exhibit F: Academics on The Conversation Exhibit G: Writers on Online Opinon Exhibit H: Writers on The Drum In otherwords, anybody who disagrees with your bigotry? Might long list that's going to be! Why attack all Muslims, unless you're bigoted?   ::)

You've rendered the term 'bigotry' meaningless. You're saying that anyone who makes a judgement on a phenomenon is a bigot. In effect, then, everyone becomes a bigot, which renders the term meaningless.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 7:52am: And the conflict between Christianity and Gays?  And the conflict between Buddhism and Gays?  And the conflict between Hinduism and Gays? Or perhaps we should just be worried about the conflict between Conservatives and Gays?   Afterall, there are progressive elements in all religions which aren't in conflict with Gays but there are conservative ones who hate Gays. Perhaps the problem isn't with the religious believes, per se but with the political nature of some people? No, you'd rather focus on sectarian issues, it would seem.   ::) There are plenty of anti-Christian threads here. Check out the Atheist and General forum. Perhaps you might even be consistent and defend Christianity against 'bigots' and 'intolerance'? I doubt it.

Obviously you missed where I did.

Those threads however only call for Christians to be treated as if they are mentally ill.  They do not call regularly for the genocide of all Christians or that they should be expelled from our society because of their religion.

You may not be able to detect the difference in the level of intensity but a more neutral observer can.


Quote:

Anyway, this thread was set up as Muslims protesting against gays, therefore that is the topic. Strange, isn't it, to mention something related to the topic at hand. [quote] Why?   Perhaps I perceived the op's discrimination against Muslims as being more unfair 'cause the Muslims haven't done anything...?  ::)

Huh? The op is about Muslims discriminating against gays and you claim it's the Muslims who should be protected?

This has been an eye opener. It shows that the liberal-left place the rights of Muslims over gays. Thanks for helping me with my research.
[/quote]

Your research has started with a pre-conceived conclusion.  It is flawed.


Quote:

It is quite interesting that the conservative leaning members are the ones on the side of the gays!

It is ironic but it appears that bigotry against Muslims tops bigotry against gays in their minds.

I wonder what their attitude is toward Gay Muslims?  What little thinking they have must be rather convoluted on that one as I am sure yours is.   ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

You've rendered the term 'bigotry' meaningless. You're saying that anyone who makes a judgement on a phenomenon is a bigot. In effect, then, everyone becomes a bigot, which renders the term meaningless.

A common charge against those who insist on correctly identifying their opponents' arguments.

It is of course false.  You cannot render a word "meaningless".  If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::)

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: freediver wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Brian Ross is a great example of the inconsistency. Prove it or piss off FD.   ::) You always attack Christianity and Christians, often in very generalised terms, then do the opposite for Muslims and insist it is bigotry when people criticise Islam the way you criticise Christianity. You are the poster child for the type of hypocrisy that is being attributed to "the left" in this thread.

Provide proof that I have attacked Christians, except as a means of contrasting the attack on Muslims, FD.

Point to a post where I specifically attacked Christians by themselves, for their beliefs or attitudes.

I have actively defended them.  Therefore, I cannot be a bigot.

Unlike yourself WRT to Muslims.

As you have failed to provide proof, I must therefore come to the conclusion that your charge is meaningless and merely characteristic of someone who is defending themselves from the identification of their continual attacks on Muslims as being evidence of their own bigotry.  QED. 

Quote:

Provide proof that I have attacked Christians, except as a means of contrasting the attack on Muslims, FD.

Have you ever attacked Muslims as a means of contrasting attacks on Christians? Or would that be stupid?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Obviously you missed where I did. Those threads however only call for Christians to be treated as if they are mentally ill.  They do not call regularly for the genocide of all Christians or that they should be expelled from our society because of their religion. You may not be able to detect the difference in the level of intensity but a more neutral observer can.

I've never called for genocide. Nor deportation. 

If you're trying to put me in that category, they call that the association fallacy.


Quote:

Your research has started with a pre-conceived conclusion.  It is flawed.

No. My "research" started with reading the link contained in the op, which then links to the letter written and signed by Muslims opposing gay marriage. There is no "pre-conceived conclusion" here, simply an observation of a particular act partaken in by Muslims concerning gays.

Look, here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10065280/Muslim-leaders-stand-against-gay-marriage.html

Who's the bigot?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:03pm: You've rendered the term 'bigotry' meaningless. You're saying that anyone who makes a judgement on a phenomenon is a bigot. In effect, then, everyone becomes a bigot, which renders the term meaningless. A common charge against those who insist on correctly identifying their opponents' arguments. It is of course false.  You cannot render a word "meaningless".  If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::)

So slippery, so cunning, aren't we!

An observation is not intolerance!!!

Re-read the link in the op, or read it if you haven't yet, and see who the "bigots" are. Did you even read it? It's a signed letter by hundreds of Muslims opposing gay marriage.

Your silence on this speaks volumes.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:43pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:03pm: You've rendered the term 'bigotry' meaningless. You're saying that anyone who makes a judgement on a phenomenon is a bigot. In effect, then, everyone becomes a bigot, which renders the term meaningless. A common charge against those who insist on correctly identifying their opponents' arguments. It is of course false.  You cannot render a word "meaningless".  If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::) So slippery, so cunning, aren't we! An observation is not intolerance!!! Re-read the link in the op, or read it if you haven't yet, and see who the "bigots" are. Did you even read it? It's a signed letter by hundreds of Muslims opposing gay marriage. Your silence on this speaks volumes.

We have moved far beyond your op, Mist.  Time you realised that.

Again, your claim that I've rendered the world meaningless is foolish.  Live with it.   ::)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Obviously you missed where I did. Those threads however only call for Christians to be treated as if they are mentally ill.  They do not call regularly for the genocide of all Christians or that they should be expelled from our society because of their religion. You may not be able to detect the difference in the level of intensity but a more neutral observer can. I've never called for genocide. Nor deportation.

I didn't claim that you had.  I said the threads did.  You are not the only contributor to a thread, you realise?  That you don't admonish those that do, suggests that you agree with them...


Quote:

If you're trying to put me in that category, they call that the association fallacy.

I agree.  As I've said, you didn't say it but others did.  No criticism of them, just reinforcement of their views from you...   ::)

My question of you.  Why aren't Muslims allowed to voice criticism of Gays while Christians appear free to?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 2:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:43pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:03pm: You've rendered the term 'bigotry' meaningless. You're saying that anyone who makes a judgement on a phenomenon is a bigot. In effect, then, everyone becomes a bigot, which renders the term meaningless. A common charge against those who insist on correctly identifying their opponents' arguments. It is of course false.  You cannot render a word "meaningless".  If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::) So slippery, so cunning, aren't we! An observation is not intolerance!!! Re-read the link in the op, or read it if you haven't yet, and see who the "bigots" are. Did you even read it? It's a signed letter by hundreds of Muslims opposing gay marriage. Your silence on this speaks volumes. We have moved far beyond your op, Mist.  Time you realised that. Again, your claim that I've rendered the world meaningless is foolish.  Live with it.   ::)

Well, you've moved beyond dealing with the op, because you didn't even deal with it to begin with (if you did you'd have to admit that Muslims were committing "bigotry").

So what specific point is it you're speaking to?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 2:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Obviously you missed where I did. Those threads however only call for Christians to be treated as if they are mentally ill.  They do not call regularly for the genocide of all Christians or that they should be expelled from our society because of their religion. You may not be able to detect the difference in the level of intensity but a more neutral observer can. I've never called for genocide. Nor deportation.  I didn't claim that you had.  I said the threads did.  You are not the only contributor to a thread, you realise?  That you don't admonish those that do, suggests that you agree with them... Quote: If you're trying to put me in that category, they call that the association fallacy. I agree.  As I've said, you didn't say it but others did.  No criticism of them, just reinforcement of their views from you...   ::)

Point to where I've reinforced genocide or deportation.


Quote:

My question of you.  Why aren't Muslims allowed to voice criticism of Gays while Christians appear free to?

Huh? Since when have I advocated such a position? Seriously, this is spot of borg territory. It just goes around in circles with dozens of side-points and issues that never actually deal with the topic at hand. But maybe this is your intention? Frustrate your interlocutor with irrelevant by-paths? Whatever. Your double standards have been exposed. You cannot bring yourself to comment on the Muslims speaking out against gays. Such dishonesty and avoidance is typical of the liberal-left.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Quote: Provide proof that I have attacked Christians, except as a means of contrasting the attack on Muslims, FD. Have you ever attacked Muslims as a means of contrasting attacks on Christians? Or would that be stupid?

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::)

And how did you get to be imam that decides what is bigoted??


I think you are bigoted - you have not converted to Islam. The way you talk, you should have done so a long time ago. But you know in your ones what a crazy thing that would be.

Brian Ross wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Your problem is that you use a sledehammer to crack a walnut.    ::)

Lovely mindless cliche. Give us some more.

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:43pm: If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::) And how did you get to be imam that decides what is bigoted??

I am stating my opinion, Soren.

It is obvious you wish to dispute it but you keep demonstrating that my opinion of your posts is correct.   ;D


Quote:

I think you are bigoted - you have not converted to Islam. The way you talk, you should have done so a long time ago. But you know in your ones what a crazy thing that would be.

**YAWN**  Why do I need to convert to Islam to recognise that you are being bigoted towards Muslims, Soren?

I always defend the oppressed and the persecuted against racism/bigotry/hatred/prejudice, its because I don't believe such things should go unnoticed.   As Mr. Burke is reputed to have said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I can no more stand idly by while Jews get shovelled into the ovens than I can stand idly by and see you and your ilk continually abusing Muslims, Soren.  ::)

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 7:54am: Your problem is that you use a sledehammer to crack a walnut.    ::) Lovely mindless cliche. Give us some more.

Actually a very good description of your attitudes, Soren.   ;D

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Quote: Provide proof that I have attacked Christians, except as a means of contrasting the attack on Muslims, FD. Have you ever attacked Muslims as a means of contrasting attacks on Christians? Or would that be stupid?

That would be stupid.   ::)

So why is it not stupid when you attack Christians as a means of contrasting the attack on Muslims?

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:11am:

Soren wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 6:41pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:43pm: If you don't believe you're being bigoted or Soren isn't being a bigot, then stop posting things that fall under the purvey of the word.   ::) And how did you get to be imam that decides what is bigoted?? I am stating my opinion, Soren. It is obvious you wish to dispute it but you keep demonstrating that my opinion of your posts is correct.   ;D Quote: I think you are bigoted - you have not converted to Islam. The way you talk, you should have done so a long time ago. But you know in your ones what a crazy thing that would be. **YAWN**  Why do I need to convert to Islam to recognise that you are being bigoted towards Muslims, Soren? I always defend the oppressed and the persecuted against racism/bigotry/hatred/prejudice, its because I don't believe such things should go unnoticed.   As Mr. Burke is reputed to have said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I can no more stand idly by while Jews get shovelled into the ovens than I can stand idly by and see you and your ilk continually abusing Muslims, Soren.  ::)

You equate opposition to, dislike of, Islam and Islamists with bigotry.

And that is jut plain stupid.

Your position is like defending KKK members because not all of them have lynched blacks and jews and most of them lead quiet lives, with occasional attendance at a peaceful, non-violent cross burning. There have been tens of thousands of KKK members and only a very tiny minority did ever engage in actual violence. Most of them just provided the extras for the rally crowd scenes.
This is your argument. You can substitute nazi, commie, anything for KKK - but not Muslims whose religion is inextricably tied to politics and whose members commit violence in the name of that religion. But they are a protected species.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

You equate opposition to, dislike of, Islam and Islamists with bigotry.

Haven't got a problem with you attacking Islamists, if they deserve it, Soren.  I do have a problem with you attacking Muslims who don't deserve it.  As I keep pointing out, you don't differentiate, to you all Muslims are Islamists, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by one Muslim.  That is bigotry.   ::)


Quote:

Your position is like defending KKK members because not all of them have lynched blacks and jews and most of them lead quiet lives, with occasional attendance at a peaceful, non-violent cross burning. There have been tens of thousands of KKK members and only a very tiny minority did ever engage in actual violence. Most of them just provided the extras for the rally crowd scenes. This is your argument. You can substitute nazi, commie, anything for KKK - but not Muslims whose religion is inextricably tied to politics and whose members commit violence in the name of that religion. But they are a protected species.

You are attempting to equate Muslims with the KKK, that in itself is bigotry, Soren.

Not all Muslims support Terrorism.  Not all Muslims support Islamism.  Not all Muslims are violent.  Not all Muslims are Terrorists.

Few Muslims are those things.

You, however continually attempt to paint all Muslims in the blackest light possible.   If anybody around here is the equivalent of the KKK, it is yourself, Soren.  The KKK was bigoted against black people, Jews, Catholics, immigrants of all kinds, and so on.  Their narrow mindset is the same as yours.   ::)

Quote:

You are attempting to equate Muslims with the KKK, that in itself is bigotry, Soren.

Please explain what is wrong with the KKK, without falsely tarring all KKK members with the same brush.

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 10:27am: You equate opposition to, dislike of, Islam and Islamists with bigotry. Haven't got a problem with you attacking Islamists, if they deserve it, Soren.  I do have a problem with you attacking Muslims who don't deserve it.  As I keep pointing out, you don't differentiate, to you all Muslims are Islamists, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by one Muslim.  That is bigotry.   ::) Quote: Your position is like defending KKK members because not all of them have lynched blacks and jews and most of them lead quiet lives, with occasional attendance at a peaceful, non-violent cross burning. There have been tens of thousands of KKK members and only a very tiny minority did ever engage in actual violence. Most of them just provided the extras for the rally crowd scenes. This is your argument. You can substitute nazi, commie, anything for KKK - but not Muslims whose religion is inextricably tied to politics and whose members commit violence in the name of that religion. But they are a protected species. You are attempting to equate Muslims with the KKK, that in itself is bigotry, Soren. Not all Muslims support Terrorism.  Not all Muslims support Islamism.  Not all Muslims are violent.  Not all Muslims are Terrorists. Few Muslims are those things. You, however continually attempt to paint all Muslims in the blackest light possible.   If anybody around here is the equivalent of the KKK, it is yourself, Soren.  The KKK was bigoted against black people, Jews, Catholics, immigrants of all kinds, and so on.  Their narrow mindset is the same as yours.   ::)

Not all KKK members support lynching.

They are providing a critical point of view, don't you know. Brian.

You of all people, Brian, who cites that very thing as the justification for importing Muslims, gotta love anyone who provides a critical point of view.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 2:41pm: Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 10:27am: You equate opposition to, dislike of, Islam and Islamists with bigotry. Haven't got a problem with you attacking Islamists, if they deserve it, Soren.  I do have a problem with you attacking Muslims who don't deserve it.  As I keep pointing out, you don't differentiate, to you all Muslims are Islamists, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by one Muslim.  That is bigotry.   ::) Quote: Your position is like defending KKK members because not all of them have lynched blacks and jews and most of them lead quiet lives, with occasional attendance at a peaceful, non-violent cross burning. There have been tens of thousands of KKK members and only a very tiny minority did ever engage in actual violence. Most of them just provided the extras for the rally crowd scenes. This is your argument. You can substitute nazi, commie, anything for KKK - but not Muslims whose religion is inextricably tied to politics and whose members commit violence in the name of that religion. But they are a protected species. You are attempting to equate Muslims with the KKK, that in itself is bigotry, Soren. Not all Muslims support Terrorism.  Not all Muslims support Islamism.  Not all Muslims are violent.  Not all Muslims are Terrorists. Few Muslims are those things. You, however continually attempt to paint all Muslims in the blackest light possible.   If anybody around here is the equivalent of the KKK, it is yourself, Soren.  The KKK was bigoted against black people, Jews, Catholics, immigrants of all kinds, and so on.  Their narrow mindset is the same as yours.   ::) Not all KKK members support lynching.

Really?  Educate me then, Soren as you appear to have so much intimate knowledge of the opinion of the KKK membership...

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 10:27am: You equate opposition to, dislike of, Islam and Islamists with bigotry. Haven't got a problem with you attacking Islamists, if they deserve it, Soren.  I do have a problem with you attacking Muslims who don't deserve it.  As I keep pointing out, you don't differentiate, to you all Muslims are Islamists, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by one Muslim.  That is bigotry.   ::) Quote: Your position is like defending KKK members because not all of them have lynched blacks and jews and most of them lead quiet lives, with occasional attendance at a peaceful, non-violent cross burning. There have been tens of thousands of KKK members and only a very tiny minority did ever engage in actual violence. Most of them just provided the extras for the rally crowd scenes. This is your argument. You can substitute nazi, commie, anything for KKK - but not Muslims whose religion is inextricably tied to politics and whose members commit violence in the name of that religion. But they are a protected species. You are attempting to equate Muslims with the KKK, that in itself is bigotry, Soren. Not all Muslims support Terrorism.  Not all Muslims support Islamism.  Not all Muslims are violent.  Not all Muslims are Terrorists. Few Muslims are those things. You, however continually attempt to paint all Muslims in the blackest light possible.   If anybody around here is the equivalent of the KKK, it is yourself, Soren.  The KKK was bigoted against black people, Jews, Catholics, immigrants of all kinds, and so on.  Their narrow mindset is the same as yours.   ::)

Muslims are bigoted, as a matter of religious doctrine, against Christians, Hindus ('polytheist'), Jews - and that's just what's in the Koran. It is not even a personal choice, it is written in their book. And they have been treating them all as second class citizens accordingly.

A muslim in the west, on the other hand,  has full and equal rights (it's written in the West's religious book, BTW). Are they happy, those Muslims busting their way into the West??  bugger, no. They have equal rights yet they are bleating about oppression and so go on week-long rampages in Paris and now in Stockholm.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Muslims are bigoted, as a matter of religious doctrine, against Christians, Hindus ('polytheist'), Jews - and that's just what's in the Koran. It is not even a personal choice, it is written in their book. And they have been treating them all as second class citizens accordingly.

And this is different to the other religions you name, how, exactly?

All religions are bigoted towards non-believers, Soren.  You only have to look at history to see that.   ::)


Quote:

A muslim in the west, on the other hand,  has full and equal rights (it's written in the West's religious book, BTW). Are they happy, those Muslims busting their way into the West??  bugger, no. They have equal rights yet they are bleating about oppression and so go on week-long rampages in Paris and now in Stockholm.

I'd like to see you provide a quote for your claim that The Bible guarantees rights for all, including non-Christians.  There is an awful lot of that inconvenient stuff that you appear so ignorant of - history - which shows that not many Christians were paying attention to their good book, if that is the case it's in there.  Unfortunately even to the point of committing genocide.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:40am:

Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 10:04pm: Muslims are bigoted, as a matter of religious doctrine, against Christians, Hindus ('polytheist'), Jews - and that's just what's in the Koran. It is not even a personal choice, it is written in their book. And they have been treating them all as second class citizens accordingly. And this is different to the other religions you name, how, exactly? All religions are bigoted towards non-believers, Soren.  You only have to look at history to see that.   ::) Quote: A muslim in the west, on the other hand,  has full and equal rights (it's written in the West's religious book, BTW). Are they happy, those Muslims busting their way into the West??  bugger, no. They have equal rights yet they are bleating about oppression and so go on week-long rampages in Paris and now in Stockholm. I'd like to see you provide a quote for your claim that The Bible guarantees rights for all, including non-Christians.  There is an awful lot of that inconvenient stuff that you appear so ignorant of - history - which shows that not many Christians were paying attention to their good book, if that is the case it's in there.  Unfortunately even to the point of committing genocide.   ::)

This is a secular society, Brain. Not a theocracy.
We do not want theocracy, not Christian, not Muslim.
Christian get this. Muslim not yet.  Nor you.

SO shove your sharia up yer jumper, Brain, where it belongs.

There is no secular separation of law and mosque under Islam. Inconceivable. You must be really, really thick or really, really ... well,...  thick not to get that.

But you don't get it, do you, Brain??