Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

 :: Main :: Religion

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by TexasBlue on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:13 pm

More On Koran Burning

Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review
April 5, 2011


Jonah, my problem with the Koran burning stunt is that it is counterproductive. I hear what you’re saying about decency. But on that score, I don’t find the burning any more offensive in principle than I do its opposite extreme: the bizarro hyper-reverence with which the Koran is handled by the Defense Department.

Down at Gitmo, the Defense Department gives the Koran to each of the terrorists even though DoD knows they interpret it (not without reason) to command them to kill the people who gave it to them. To underscore
our precious sensitivity to Muslims, standard procedure calls for the the book to be handled only by Muslim military personnel. Sometimes, though, that is not possible for various reasons. If, as a last resort, one of our non-Muslim troops must handle or transport the book, he must wear white gloves, and he is further instructed primarily to use the right hand (indulging Muslim culture’s taboo about the sinister left hand). The
book is to be conveyed to the prisoners in a “reverent manner” inside a “clean dry towel.” This is a nod to Islamic teaching that infidels are so low a form of life that they should not be touched (as Ayatollah Ali
Sistani teaches, non-Muslims are “considered in the same category as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].”

This is every bit as indecent as torching the Koran, implicitly endorsing as it does the very dehumanization of non-Muslims that leads to terrorism. Furthermore, there is hypocrisy to consider: the Defense Department now piously condemning Koran burning is the same Defense Department that itself did not give a second thought to confiscating and burning bibles in Afghanistan.

Quite consciously, U.S. commanders ordered this purge in deference to sharia proscriptions against the proselytism of faiths other than Islam. And as General Petraeus well knows, his chain of command is not the only one destroying bibles. Non-Muslim religious artifacts, including bibles, are torched or otherwise destroyed in Islamic countries every single day as a matter of standard operating procedure. (See, e.g., my 2007 post on Saudi government guidelines that prohibit Jews and Christians from bringing bibles, crucifixes, Stars of David, etc., into the country — and, of course, not just non-Muslim accessories but non-Muslim people are barred from entering Mecca and most of Medina, based on the classical interpretation of an injunction found in what Petraeus is fond of calling the Holy Qur’an (sura 9:28: “Truly the pagans are unclean . . . so let them not . . . approach the sacred mosque”).

I don’t like book burning either, but I think there are different kinds of book burnings. One is done for purposes of censorship — the attempt to purge the world of every copy of a book to make it as if the sentiments expressed never existed. A good modern example is Cambridge University Press’s shameful pulping of all known copies of Alms for Jihad (see Stanley’s 2007 post on that). The other kind of burning is done as symbolic condemnation. That’s what I think Terry Jones was doing. He knows he doesn’t have the ability to purge the Koran from the world, and he wasn’t trying to. He was trying to condemn some of the ideas that are in it — or maybe he really thinks the whole thing is condemnable.

This is a particularly aggressive and vivid way to express disdain, but I don’t know that it is much different in principle from orally condemning some of the Koran’s suras and verses. Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . .”; 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [i.e., the tax paid for the privilege of living as dhimmis under the protection of the sharia state] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”). I must say, I’ve got a much bigger problem with the people trying to comply with those commands than with the guy who burns them.

I think the big problem with what Jones did is the gratuitous insult to all Muslims, including the millions who do not subscribe to the violent jihadist or broader Islamist construction of Islamic scripture. They have found some way to rationalize the incendiary scriptures — and if it works for them, who the hell am I to say they’re wrong? They are our natural allies in this battle, and as I’ve often pointed out, without their help, we could not have done things like infiltrate the Blind Sheikh’s terror cell, gather vital intelligence, thwart terrorist attacks, and refine trial evidence into compelling proof.

These people regard the Koran as the most important of their scriptures. When someone burns the Koran in an act of indiscriminate, wholesale condemnation, the message to them is that their belief system is incorrigible. Freedom of speech means that we have to allow that argument to be made, and I’m not entirely sure it’s wrong. But good Muslim people give us reason to hope that what ails Islam can be reformed. I don’t see the upside in alienating those people. I think you can condemn the condemnable aspects of the Koran without condemning everything. But that’s just my opinion, and Mr. Jones is as entitled to his as I am to mine. And for what it’s worth, I doubt my opinion would be much more popular than his in Mazar-e-Sharif.
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by dblboggie on Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:04 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with the title of this thread! Political correctness with Muslims does have to stop!

avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by kronos on Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:05 am

Down at Gitmo, the Defense Department gives the Koran to each of the terrorists even though DoD knows they interpret it (not without reason) to command them to kill the people who gave it to them. To underscore
our precious sensitivity to Muslims, standard procedure calls for the the book to be handled only by Muslim military personnel. Sometimes, though, that is not possible for various reasons. If, as a last resort, one of our non-Muslim troops must handle or transport the book, he must wear white gloves, and he is further instructed primarily to use the right hand (indulging Muslim culture’s taboo about the sinister left hand). The
book is to be conveyed to the prisoners in a “reverent manner” inside a “clean dry towel.” This is a nod to Islamic teaching that infidels are so low a form of life that they should not be touched (as Ayatollah Ali
Sistani teaches, non-Muslims are “considered in the same category as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].”

About the only reasonable part of this protocol is using the right hand, which I don't think is too much too ask. In Islamic culture, the left hand is used for bodily hygiene.

Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . .”; 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [i.e., the tax paid for the privilege of living as dhimmis under the protection of the sharia state] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”). I must say, I’ve got a much bigger problem with the people trying to comply with those commands than with the guy who burns them.

Apparently this famous verse is taken out of context. The injunction to fight here is in reference to a specific situation with a specific tribe, not a general command to fight all infidels everywhere.

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by The_Amber_Spyglass on Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:30 am

As much as I agree with the title, I would extend that to all religions btw. We pander to the religious on far too many issues on; people who, expect protection from any sort of criticism while reserving the right to sit in judgement over others. You know what they say about glass houses. Muslims AND Christians are equally guilty of that.

I don’t like book burning either, but I think there are different kinds of book burnings. One is done for purposes of censorship — the attempt to purge the world of every copy of a book to make it as if the sentiments expressed never existed. A good modern example is Cambridge University Press’s shameful pulping of all known copies of Alms for Jihad (see Stanley’s 2007 post on that). The other kind of burning is done as symbolic condemnation. That’s what I think Terry Jones was doing. He knows he doesn’t have the ability to purge the Koran from the world, and he wasn’t trying to. He was trying to condemn some of the ideas that are in it — or maybe he really thinks the whole thing is condemnable.
Book burning can never be justified.

"Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."
avatar
The_Amber_Spyglass




http://sweattearsanddigitalink.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by The_Amber_Spyglass on Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:52 pm

Thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml

Jews still more likely to be victims of religious hate than any other group. Despite widespread rhetoric that Christians are under "constant attack", they are the least likely group to be victims of violence or intimidation because of their religion. This proves something I've believed for a long time, that Christians and Muslims are engaged in a war of words to outdo each other in the "we're so hard done by!" stakes.

Thoughts?
avatar
The_Amber_Spyglass




http://sweattearsanddigitalink.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by TexasBlue on Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:16 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml

Jews still more likely to be victims of religious hate than any other group. Despite widespread rhetoric that Christians are under "constant attack", they are the least likely group to be victims of violence or intimidation because of their religion. This proves something I've believed for a long time, that Christians and Muslims are engaged in a war of words to outdo each other in the "we're so hard done by!" stakes.

Thoughts?

I would agree almost completely. I have seen this study on hate crimes against Jews in the last 2 years. It's almost the same for the last two years.

One thing though. Here in America, we have the ACLU. They are a very far left organization (and powerful). They rail against Christians quite often, basing it on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's not to say that they don't have a point. But they usually (imo) take it too far. Crosses in the desert on gov't property? Who gives a shit? I mean really.
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by dblboggie on Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:13 pm

kronos wrote:
Down at Gitmo, the Defense Department gives the Koran to each of the terrorists even though DoD knows they interpret it (not without reason) to command them to kill the people who gave it to them. To underscore our precious sensitivity to Muslims, standard procedure calls for the the book to be handled only by Muslim military personnel. Sometimes, though, that is not possible for various reasons. If, as a last resort, one of our non-Muslim troops must handle or transport the book, he must wear white gloves, and he is further instructed primarily to use the right hand (indulging Muslim culture’s taboo about the sinister left hand). The
book is to be conveyed to the prisoners in a “reverent manner” inside a “clean dry towel.” This is a nod to Islamic teaching that infidels are so low a form of life that they should not be touched (as Ayatollah Ali Sistani teaches, non-Muslims are “considered in the same category as urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].”

About the only reasonable part of this protocol is using the right hand, which I don't think is too much too ask. In Islamic culture, the left hand is used for bodily hygiene.

And yet, even then it is acquiescing to the sensitivities of people who were trying to murder innocent people and our troops. So, while I can understand why we might want to be bigger than them, I'm still of a mind to say "screw you, if you don't like it provide your own Qur'an." They are illegal combatants who made the decision to wage war in violation of international laws and just common human decency. That they are getting Qur'an's and prayer blankets at all is an enormous concession.

kronos wrote:
Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . .”; 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [i.e., the tax paid for the privilege of living as dhimmis under the protection of the sharia state] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”). I must say, I’ve got a much bigger problem with the people trying to comply with those commands than with the guy who burns them.

Apparently this famous verse is taken out of context. The injunction to fight here is in reference to a specific situation with a specific tribe, not a general command to fight all infidels everywhere.

Actually, it is not taken out of context. It means exactly what it says. I have not just studied the Qur'an and the Haddith, I have also made a point of researching what various Muslim legal scholars have to say on a wide variety of issues relating to the Qur'an.

Make no mistake about it, the Qur'an says what it means and means what it says. Period.

And while there is no question that the vast majority of Muslims are quite moderate and only wishing to leave in peace and to make a better life for themselves and their families, do not mistake this majority as being orthodox Muslims. They are not. The Muslims who are leading the most orthodox and fundamentalist lives are, in fact, the people we are calling the "extremists." Those "extremists" are anything but extreme when in comes to a true observance of the Qur'an and the Haddith.

I know this sounds like an extreme position itself, but believe me, it is not. And believe me, I wish it were otherwise... I have a son and 2 nephews in the military who have done rotations to Iraq (it's what motivated me in my research). Unfortunately, the Qur'an is quite clear about how those not Muslim should be dealt with.

And I've not even touched on the legal (Qur'anic) principle of abbrogation, taqqiya, or other practices the Qur'an commands.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by dblboggie on Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:19 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml

Jews still more likely to be victims of religious hate than any other group. Despite widespread rhetoric that Christians are under "constant attack", they are the least likely group to be victims of violence or intimidation because of their religion. This proves something I've believed for a long time, that Christians and Muslims are engaged in a war of words to outdo each other in the "we're so hard done by!" stakes.

Thoughts?

I'm not surprised . I've seen this study before and I'm familiar with the site.

However, as Tex noted, it is not Judaism or Islam that is under attack in America. Sadly, the Democrats and the ACLU have had it out for Christians for decades. Now, I'm not exactly crying a river for Christians, but all the same there is no doubt that they have been the sole target of the left in our country - that is just the simple truth.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by kronos on Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:22 am

dblboggie wrote:
kronos wrote:
Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . .”; 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [i.e., the tax paid for the privilege of living as dhimmis under the protection of the sharia state] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”). I must say, I’ve got a much bigger problem with the people trying to comply with those commands than with the guy who burns them.

Apparently this famous verse is taken out of context. The injunction to fight here is in reference to a specific situation with a specific tribe, not a general command to fight all infidels everywhere.

Actually, it is not taken out of context. It means exactly what it says. I have not just studied the Qur'an and the Haddith, I have also made a point of researching what various Muslim legal scholars have to say on a wide variety of issues relating to the Qur'an.

Make no mistake about it, the Qur'an says what it means and means what it says. Period.

You have apparently studied the Qur'an a lot more than I have, and yet just glancing through the Sura in question, I see two possible ways to interpret it, where you see only one. You are being far too rigid here. Religious texts are not instruction manuals. Interpreting them is not such a cut-and-dry matter as you seem to think. Christians differ widely as to what certain parts of the Bible mean and which parts matter more than others. So what makes you think there is one, single absolute way to interpret the Qur'an?

And there is a context here. We can debate how much that really affects the meaning of the passage in question, but it is undeniably there. The Sura pertains to a specific event. This is obvious from the opening lines:

Allah supposedly wrote:[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

These particular polytheists, and this treaty, and the alleged failure of said polytheists to observe said treaty, are mentioned throughout the Sura. It is undeniable that this Sura is connected with this particular situation. The question then becomes: is that all there is to it? Is this just a story about this time and place, and these people, and this treaty? Or are those temporal circumstances just a vehicle for expressing a more general, timeless truth?

That said: after reading the Sura, I am somewhat more inclined toward your exegesis. It strikes me that the language quickly moves out of the realm of particulars, and into generalities. Still: you can't pretend that your interpretation is the only one, or that it is demonstrably the correct one (as if there is such a thing in religion), and you certainly can't tell me that all Islamic scholars share your interpretation, because that simply isn't the case.

kronos




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by The_Amber_Spyglass on Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:45 pm

dblboggie wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml

Jews still more likely to be victims of religious hate than any other group. Despite widespread rhetoric that Christians are under "constant attack", they are the least likely group to be victims of violence or intimidation because of their religion. This proves something I've believed for a long time, that Christians and Muslims are engaged in a war of words to outdo each other in the "we're so hard done by!" stakes.

Thoughts?

I'm not surprised . I've seen this study before and I'm familiar with the site.

However, as Tex noted, it is not Judaism or Islam that is under attack in America. Sadly, the Democrats and the ACLU have had it out for Christians for decades. Now, I'm not exactly crying a river for Christians, but all the same there is no doubt that they have been the sole target of the left in our country - that is just the simple truth.
Again you are using affirmations like "truth" without context or evidence.

According to whom and what statistics is Christianity the most victimised religion in your country? The fact that ACLU have the gall to criticise them? As far as I am concerned, a country that protects the right for Fred Phelps to wave placards stating "GOD HATES FAGS", that protects the right of Christian groups to remove books from public libraries they don't like, that protects the right for somebody to burn the Koran ought to also protect the right for others to criticise Christians, their beliefs and practices or it ought to give up the pretence of free speech and declare that some religions are more equal than others.
avatar
The_Amber_Spyglass




http://sweattearsanddigitalink.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by TexasBlue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:20 pm

kronos wrote:Religious texts are not instruction manuals. Interpreting them is not such a cut-and-dry matter as you seem to think. Christians differ widely as to what certain parts of the Bible mean and which parts matter more than others.

I'm no religious scholar (thank God) but the way I look at it is that many in their faiths interpret their "bibles" the way they want. Many Baptists, for example, interpret the Bible literally. If it says so, then it must be so.

My point is that there's probably millions of Muslims that interpret the Koran the same way. I've read excerpts from it and a lot of it is pretty dastardly, like our Old Testament. If you take those very people and brainwash them with it, they believe it as so.

I had a religious nut in Texas tell me that Friends In Low Places by Garth Brooks was about the devil. That's how insane these people can get. That's why I don't even bother with discussing religion to start with. But then... why am I posting this anyway? Big Grin
avatar
TexasBlue




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by BubbleBliss on Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:43 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

"Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."

I agree with this, even though I'm probably the only one who understands this. "This was only the beginning, only there, where one burns books, one burns people".
Book burning was a popular strategy that Hitler used, to get the people riled up against anybody who spoke out against him and that's exactly what most book burnings are about today.
avatar
BubbleBliss




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by dblboggie on Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:17 pm

kronos wrote:
dblboggie wrote:
kronos wrote:
Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . .”; 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [i.e., the tax paid for the privilege of living as dhimmis under the protection of the sharia state] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”). I must say, I’ve got a much bigger problem with the people trying to comply with those commands than with the guy who burns them.

Apparently this famous verse is taken out of context. The injunction to fight here is in reference to a specific situation with a specific tribe, not a general command to fight all infidels everywhere.

Actually, it is not taken out of context. It means exactly what it says. I have not just studied the Qur'an and the Haddith, I have also made a point of researching what various Muslim legal scholars have to say on a wide variety of issues relating to the Qur'an.

Make no mistake about it, the Qur'an says what it means and means what it says. Period.

You have apparently studied the Qur'an a lot more than I have, and yet just glancing through the Sura in question, I see two possible ways to interpret it, where you see only one. You are being far too rigid here. Religious texts are not instruction manuals. Interpreting them is not such a cut-and-dry matter as you seem to think. Christians differ widely as to what certain parts of the Bible mean and which parts matter more than others. So what makes you think there is one, single absolute way to interpret the Qur'an?

And there is a context here. We can debate how much that really affects the meaning of the passage in question, but it is undeniably there. The Sura pertains to a specific event. This is obvious from the opening lines:

Allah supposedly wrote:[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

These particular polytheists, and this treaty, and the alleged failure of said polytheists to observe said treaty, are mentioned throughout the Sura. It is undeniable that this Sura is connected with this particular situation. The question then becomes: is that all there is to it? Is this just a story about this time and place, and these people, and this treaty? Or are those temporal circumstances just a vehicle for expressing a more general, timeless truth?

That said: after reading the Sura, I am somewhat more inclined toward your exegesis. It strikes me that the language quickly moves out of the realm of particulars, and into generalities. Still: you can't pretend that your interpretation is the only one, or that it is demonstrably the correct one (as if there is such a thing in religion), and you certainly can't tell me that all Islamic scholars share your interpretation, because that simply isn't the case.

I know exactly what you are saying, and you’d think that I was indeed being far too rigid. Sadly, I can assure you that I am not. Interpretation of the Qur’an is not something that is taken lightly in the Muslim world. There are only certain people who were considered valid interpreters of the Qur’an, chief amongst these are the writers of the Haddith – including Mohammed himself. To be quite honest, the issue of the interpretation of the Qur’an is so unbelievably complex and arcane that it literally makes one’s head spin just trying to sort through the whole thing. And there are still divisions between moderate Muslim scholars and those Muslim scholars who hold real power (as in Iran and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) and are by no means moderate.

Suffice it to say, the Sura in question effectively means what it says, is not limited to that point in time, and is being used to justify Muslim violence against non-Muslims.

In a sane world, it could be interpreted differently as you suggest. But we do not live in a sane world. And while you and I could interpret this in any number of ways, this is immaterial as the voices that really count are those who interpret it to mean exactly what it says in its most literal and brutal context.
avatar
dblboggie




Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by The_Amber_Spyglass on Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:21 am

BubbleBliss wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

"Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."

I agree with this, even though I'm probably the only one who understands this. "This was only the beginning, only there, where one burns books, one burns people".
Book burning was a popular strategy that Hitler used, to get the people riled up against anybody who spoke out against him and that's exactly what most book burnings are about today.
Book burnings have been used throughout history to destroy ideas that people disagree with, sadly Hitler was not the first and not the last. I cannot condone it under any circumstances as an attack against intellectual freedom.
avatar
The_Amber_Spyglass




http://sweattearsanddigitalink.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by bigger_guns_nearby on Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:28 am

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As much as I agree with the title, I would extend that to all religions btw. We pander to the religious on far too many issues on; people who, expect protection from any sort of criticism while reserving the right to sit in judgement over others.

It's just farcical that modern society obeys the OCD whims of an ancient text. Judaism and Islam seem to be worse than Christianity in this regard. I mean, seriously, every culture in its time has invented hocus-pocus surrounding the right and left hands. It's right there in the words we use for them. Seriously, grow out of it. Your God can create the universe, and yet he insists that you only eat with your right hand?

I understand how we make allowances in order to avoid conflict, to avoid antagonizing people when we can make a small change to keep them happy. But when we go out of our way to almost pre-emptively allow for their endless permutations of bullshit, we encourage more and more of that bullshit.
avatar
bigger_guns_nearby



Birthday : 1985-07-14
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by The_Amber_Spyglass on Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:19 pm

And potentially dangerous bullshit. Apparently, some African communities believe that to cure themselves of AIDS they must have sex with a pre-pubescent girl.

Anybody want to defend their right to religious expression?
avatar
The_Amber_Spyglass




http://sweattearsanddigitalink.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Political Correctness with Muslims Has to Stop

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: Main :: Religion

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum