Nice Planet © 2009

French Rage · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
From time to time in the Muslim majority communities in the US, you hear Muslim "spokesmen" talking about impletmenting some aspect or another of Sharia. "Let us take care of this in our own communities in our own way." There was also a case in Florida a few years ago of a woman who didn't want to unveil for her driver's license photo--against her religious law, don't ya know. The proceeding were televised on what used to be called Court TV. There are various killings reported in the media deriving from deviations from Muslim law and practice. We recently had a young convert to Christianity who went to court to keep her parents off her back out of her (apparantly) justified fear that they would kill her. We have seen no major american newspaper (with the exception of the Philadelphia Enquirer) print the Muhammad cartoons. Why? Because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of Muslim readers? Or because they were scared of the retribution they were risking for violating Muslim law in doing so? These examples are just off the top of my head.

One need only look to Europe (take France, for example) to see the disastrous potential of the accomodationist impulse. Murders, riots, wearing of traditional garb in public service jobs, demands for special treatment based on religion and the creation of enclaves where civil and criminal law are ignored are just some of the problems. And those problems are in our future should we go down that same road. This camel's nose should never be permitted inside the (you should pardon the expression) tent.

I agree Europe has been a joke in those regards. On one hand, if people's cultures have customs that are different than the government should not harass or impede them, but that all goes out the window the very second those customs infringe on the rights of others or break the laws in those countries, as the secular law always takes precedence over religious or cultural rules (and if people don't like it they can feel free to find a country where it's the other way around). I remember some story in Germany about some multicultural laws there allowing a Muslim man to beat his wife because it was a religious law in some way; to me there's a fine line between not infringing on people's abilities to practice benign customs without harassment and that, and I don't see how you can make such laws without realizing you've crossed them. (Along those lines, I though the woman getting harassed for changing religions was another country, not here?)

(I'm hesitant to place the cartoon thing in quite the same boat since it's not any specific law in this country that's preventing them from being published (as far as I'm aware of). Now granted, them fearing retribution if they do is just as bad as a law that prevents them from doing so, actually even worse since it's a way of stopping them that actually goes outside of our proscribed legal system. But that's something we can fight back against by papers just going about their job and printing them, standing up to the threats and calling their bluff, and not something that our legal system would actually impede them in doing. I dunno, it's still a bull**** way of trying to impose one's religious will on others, so maybe here I'm just arguing semantics, I have a habit of that.)

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

French Rage said:
I agree Europe has been a joke in those regards. On one hand, if people's cultures have customs that are different than the government should not harass or impede them, but that all goes out the window the very second those customs infringe on the rights of others or break the laws in those countries, as the secular law always takes precedence over religious or cultural rules (and if people don't like it they can feel free to find a country where it's the other way around). I remember some story in Germany about some multicultural laws there allowing a Muslim man to beat his wife because it was a religious law in some way; to me there's a fine line between not infringing on people's abilities to practice benign customs without harassment and that, and I don't see how you can make such laws without realizing you've crossed them. (Along those lines, I though the woman getting harassed for changing religions was another country, not here?)

(I'm hesitant to place the cartoon thing in quite the same boat since it's not any specific law in this country that's preventing them from being published (as far as I'm aware of). Now granted, them fearing retribution if they do is just as bad as a law that prevents them from doing so, actually even worse since it's a way of stopping them that actually goes outside of our proscribed legal system. But that's something we can fight back against by papers just going about their job and printing them, standing up to the threats and calling their bluff, and not something that our legal system would actually impede them in doing. I dunno, it's still a bull**** way of trying to impose one's religious will on others, so maybe here I'm just arguing semantics, I have a habit of that.)

Been there, done that.

I saw an article just a couple of days ago (from UK) where a long time nurse was required to stop wearing a crucifix at her hospital, despite the fact that Muslim women were allowed to wear their religious clothing. There was the horrible murder (in Holldand?) of a playwright who had spoken out against Islamic threats and intimidation. And that's the problem with the cartoon flap. IMHO, US newspapers have been intimidated into not running the cartoons--they've been put in fear of violence and these avatars of John Peter Zenger have caved like weekend gamblers in Vegas. If there was a similar series of cartoons (and of course there have been) ridiculing Christianity or Judaism, can you imgagine the NY Times refusing to pubish them out of fear of retribution? The Times has no problem suggesting the current Pope has something to answer for as regards sexual abuse by European priests (perhaps he does) but I wonder if they would be quite so quick to ask the questions if we were talking about a similarly placed Muslim cleric?

The problem with Islam is that it sees itself as a theocracy while the western world has come to see the wisdom of the separation of church and state. And far too many Muslims (evidently quite a few of them here in the US) seem to think that's a pretty good concept, and needs to be spread to other nations. I am not a nativist, in general I believe legal immigrants make the best Americans. And I have nothing against Muslims in general. But I do insist that they and folks from any other groups coming here adjust themselves to our culture and our way of doing things and not the other way 'round,. The question is: are you an American who happens to be Muslim? Or are you a Muslim, with allegiances elsewhere? We've already seen the answer to that question from one Army trained "DOCTOR" who owed everything he had or was to the people of this country. But who decided to murder a room full of helpless, innocent "infidels" anyway. And just about everyday the media have stories about the latest native born jihadist caught plotting to kill his fellow citizens. I don't know how to respond to these very real concerns. But I do know that "accomodating" Muslims out of a misguided sense of avoiding giving them offense absolutely will not work and is a prescription for more, not less, of the same.

French Rage · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
The problem with Islam is that it sees itself as a theocracy while the western world has come to see the wisdom of the separation of church and state. And far too many Muslims (evidently quite a few of them here in the US) seem to think that's a pretty good concept, and needs to be spread to other nations. I am not a nativist, in general I believe legal immigrants make the best Americans. And I have nothing against Muslims in general. But I do insist that they and folks from any other groups coming here adjust themselves to our culture and our way of doing things and not the other way 'round,. The question is: are you an American who happens to be Muslim? Or are you a Muslim, with allegiances elsewhere?

Agreed. It's interesting to note from a historical perspective that Islam has always taught itself as a universal faith that transcended specific borders, and the concept of nationalism among the different countries that make up the majority of the Muslim world (specifically the Arab world) is only a recent (and somewhat of European origin) concept that really only took hold in the last several decades. That in part can also explain why to many the practice of the religion supersedes the customs of whatever country it is present in.

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
And I have nothing against Muslims in general.

But I do insist that they and folks from any other groups coming here adjust themselves to our culture and our way of doing things and not the other way 'round,.

Obviously forcing others to observe their culture is wrong, just as it is for ANY religious group, because the law of the land matters more. But the reason this is a great country is that it's a land of many people with many cultures, and every attempt to forcibly make people into a unified vision of real americans has met with absolute failure.

pirate · Apr 1, 2010

French Rage said:
While a cartoon character may make kids more inclined to want or try something, in the end it's up to the parents to say no, as they have more power than the cartoon by virtue of being actually, you know, real.

I think the problem arises when Ronald drives to the house, picks the kids up, drives them to McD's and forces them to eat mass quantities of happy meals.

The parents really have no way to stop this. If only they could somehow gain the power to decide where their kids go and what they eat...maybe then there could be progress against this evil clown and his posse of french fry gobblins, crazy irish uncles, hamburglars, milkshake stealing barneys, big headed politicians and corrupt hamburger policemen.

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Foxton said:
Obviously forcing others to observe their culture is wrong, just as it is for ANY religious group, because the law of the land matters more. But the reason this is a great country is that it's a land of many people with many cultures, and every attempt to forcibly make people into a unified vision of real americans has met with absolute failure.

LOL or shove it up your azz, makes no difference to me. Nothing I've said can be reasonably interpreted as anti-Muslim bias. And no one has suggested "a unified vision of real Americans."

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
And no one has suggested "a unified vision of real Americans."

That very text I quoted of you suggesting that they should adopt "our" culture is an implication that there is some universally held belief system for Americans. There isn't, there's never been, never will be. There isn't even an agreement that the constitution should be followed.

Thank you Texas state board of education you conservative religious ****tards.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/the_texas_school_book_reposito.html

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Foxton said:
That very text I quoted of you suggesting that they should adopt "our" culture is an implication that there is some universally held belief system for Americans. There isn't, there's never been, never will be. There isn't even an agreement that the constitution should be followed.

Thank you Texas school board of education you conservative religious ****tards.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/the_texas_school_book_reposito.html

Well here's a universally held American belief, except for you evidently and some of them: We don't kill people in this country to advance our own faith. We consider it a crime, not our "duty."

Other than an obvious effort to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a know nothing, what is the point of the link to the textbook selection process in Texas?

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
We don't kill people in this country to advance our own faith.

Oh really? There's an entire very large group of people who were here first who might disagree with you. I'm assuming you're thinking of some kind of generic 'american' faith, and not even some religious one.

Other than an obvious effort to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a know nothing, what is the point of the link to the textbook selection process in Texas?

So you agree with Texas revising history, and how their standards will effect the textbooks used throughout the country?

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Foxton said:
Oh really? There's an entire very group of people who were here first who might disagree with you. I'm assuming you're thinking of some kind of generic 'american' faith, and not even some religious one.

So you agree with Texas revising history, and how their standards will effect the textbooks used throughout the country?

Yes, by all means, the Indians. And the evil white man. A relevant topic given its currency. The Indians weren't killed because of their religion or lack thereof. It was a little more complicated than that, but why bother when you are justifying Islamism or at least downplaying its dangers?

My views on the current and past selection processes in Texas are not germaine to our discussion, notwithstanding your strenuous efforts to change the subject.

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
Yes, by all means, the Indians. And the evil white man. A relevant topic given its currency. The Indians weren't killed because of their religion or lack thereof. It was a little more complicated than that, but why bother when you are justifying Islamism or at least downplaying its dangers?

They often were, or other vile tactics were used. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "kill the indian save the man"?

Maybe you should read up on the ghost dance movement that played a major role in leading to the massacre at Wounded Knee.

And no, the example was brought up when you said Americans all agree on never killing for their 'faith', whatever this undefined faith is. Would you rather I only bring up WASP deaths?

My views on the current and past selection processes in Texas are not germaine to our discussion, notwithstanding your strenuous efforts to change the subject.

Yea this thread is all about staying on one topic about muslim extremists.

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Foxton said:
They often were, or other vile tactics were used. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "kill the indian save the man"?

Maybe you should read up on the ghost dance movement that played a major role in leading to the massacre at Wounded Knee.

And no, the example was brought up when you said Americans all agree on never killing for their 'faith', whatever this undefined faith is. Would you rather I only bring up WASP deaths?

Yea this thread is all about staying on one topic about muslim extremists.

Would you suggest boning up on Ward Churchill (the plagiarist and liar) as a way to start "learning" how evil the white man was? All very interesting, of course, but what on earth does that have to do with Islamism and the well documented desires of some Islamists to kill as many Americans as possible? We're in the 21st century and dealing with a 21st century threat. But never, ever, pass up an opportunity to cast aspersions on your own country. You and Ward (and Susan Sontag for that matter) are unanimous on that one.

What I said was (and it evidently requires repeating so you can grasp the concept) is that Americans, regardless of their faith, reject the notion of killing others of different faiths just because they believe differently. This is a principal tenant of only one major religion: Islam. We treat religious murderers the same way we treat any other type of murderer, we prosecute them and put them in prison--like the guy who killed Dr. Tiller.

It's not about "staying on one topic," it's about you being unable to express yourself without resorting to unrelated smears. Doesn't bother me, but I would suggest it doesn't do much to convince the unconvinced of the rightness of your position. Just the opposite, in fact. Then, you may be preaching to the choir, and running down a check list of your favorite prejudices may substitute for mutual masturbation.

The Rube · Apr 1, 2010

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
When Fred Phelps dies, I really hope there's a protest of his funeral...

I wanna crap on his coffin. Literally. Actually, I hope Clay Aiken does that. Or Elton John. Hell, even Ricky Martin.

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Brenthoven said:
I wanna crap on his coffin. Literally. Actually, I hope Clay Aiken does that. Or Elton John. Hell, even Ricky Martin.

The one gay dude Phelps won't ever get to meet unfortunately, was that
6'6" 240 pound gay Jewish rugby player on the United Flight that went down on 9/11. That dude was one of the heroes of that flight, and I'd love to see him have an "up close and personal" discussion with Phelps. Snap his turkey neck.

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

Old Pio said:
All very interesting, of course, but what on earth does that have to do with Islamism and the well documented desires of some Islamists to kill as many Americans as possible?

It's called a conversation, please try and keep up. You brought up something and I gave you an example of why you were wrong. Now you're angry that I didn't use an example from islam.

What I said was (and it evidently requires repeating so you can grasp the concept) is that Americans, regardless of their faith, reject the notion of killing others of different faiths just because they believe differently.

Apparently it needs to be repeating, but no, I gave you a past example of it. And I'll give you another more recent one with Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Who was an American, who killed people for their faith. Or would you like to say that you can't be a muslim and an american? Cause there are plenty of christians who think they are above US law as well, though they usually fall outside the violence spectrum. (Kent Hovind) Unless you count abortion doctor killers.

"He also said God's judgment against the U.S. will "sweep over this land like a prairie wind.""

It's not about "staying on one topic," it's about you being unable to express yourself without resorting to unrelated smears. Doesn't bother me, but I would suggest it doesn't do much to convince the unconvinced of the rightness of your position. Just the opposite, in fact. Then, you may be preaching to the choir, and running down a check list of your favorite prejudices may substitute for mutual masturbation.

Thanks for showing that you don't really read what I wrote. I mentioned that not even all americans agree that the constitution should be followed, so I gave an example of a group of people who are trying to throw out the first amendment just for a start.

bigblue_dl · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Nice Planet © 2009

Re: Nice Planet © 2009

Foxton, have you always been this illogical, or are the estrogen pills making you this ****ing stupid?

Terrierbyassociation · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Nice Planet © 2009

Re: Nice Planet © 2009

If anything, he's making more sense than usual. He's being argumentative for argument's sake, but Old Pio opened the door.

MinnesotaNorthStar · Apr 1, 2010

bigblue_dl said:
Foxton, have you always been this illogical, or are the estrogen pills making you this ****ing stupid?

It's Foxton. Foxton hates religion, and anything related to religion. And Foxton will jump at the chance to rip on religion....

Old Pio · Apr 1, 2010

Foxton said:
It's called a conversation, please try and keep up. You brought up something and I gave you an example of why you were wrong. Now you're angry that I didn't use an example from islam.

Apparently it needs to be repeating, but no, I gave you a past example of it. And I'll give you another more recent one with Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Who was an American, who killed people for their faith. Or would you like to say that you can't be a muslim and an american? Cause there are plenty of christians who think they are above US law as well, though they usually fall outside the violence spectrum. (Kent Hovind) Unless you count abortion doctor killers.

"He also said God's judgment against the U.S. will "sweep over this land like a prairie wind.""

Thanks for showing that you don't really read what I wrote. I mentioned that not even all americans agree that the constitution should be followed, so I gave an example of a group of people who are trying to throw out the first amendment just for a start.

I'm afraid I'm unable to grasp bringing up "Dr." Malik, given that his motivation for mass murder was serving Islam, that his loyalty to his faith transcended his loyalty to his country and justified his massacre of innocents. And given that is precisely my point.

You are apparantly so consumed with the kind of anti-Americanism that keeps 'em in stitches in the dorm on Saturday night (especially Saturday night) that you don't pay attention to what YOU'VE written.

I'm trying to distill your point, let's see if I've got it: the white man treated Indians badly in the 18th and 19th centuries, therefore it's okay, or at least not something to b***h about if Islamists want to kill Americans in the 21st century? That about it?

Foxton · Apr 1, 2010

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
It's Foxton. Foxton hates religion, and anything related to religion. And Foxton will jump at the chance to rip on religion....

In a round about stretch of a way I'm actually arguing against discriminating against a religion. (Islam)

Nice Planet © 2009

NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]

Registered User

NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]

Banned

Currently Busy

Registered User

Banned

Registered User

Banned

Registered User

Banned

Registered User

Retired Due To User Interface

Registered User

Banned

Armed

Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It

Minding the gap

Registered User

Banned