eloisel
Forever Empress E
Jason & DeMarco, Jason & DeMarco, Jason & DeMarco!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI0_EFQVLms&feature=related
Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hypocrite Notice
- Thread starter eloisel
- Start date
Jason & DeMarco, Jason & DeMarco, Jason & DeMarco!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI0_EFQVLms&feature=related
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
That would be funny if this topic didn't say otherwise. Who's saying they have the right? Obama. Who's saying it's a private property issue? Obama. Who's a liberal? You guess it! OBAMA!
eloisel, you and I probably share more political views than you think, but I am truly puzzled over who you think is being hypocritical. From what I've seen it is actually the more conservative side who are making the hypocritical statements. The very same pundits and politicians, who pretend the constitution is sacrosanct when they want to make the liberals seem scary, are screeching about this community center. What do they expect the government to do? Ignore the constitutional rights of Muslims? I normally hate to hear the phrase "slippery slope" but if the govt acts to stop this center from being built, what is to stop action against your religion?
I completely understand the gut reaction to the idea of a mosque being built near "ground zero", I had the same reaction. It just didn't seem right, but the more I think (and read) about it, the more okay I am with it.
This is probably a shitty thing to say but...If we don't give Islam the same freedoms, how will it ever become watered down and tame like Christianity has become? There was a long period of time when many terrible things happened in the name of Christianity, things that we abhor now, things that only the small pockets of extremists still advocate. If Islam becomes more mainstream, the extremists will be marginalized, hated, and ridiculed, just as Christian extremists are.
I completely understand the gut reaction to the idea of a mosque being built near "ground zero", I had the same reaction. It just didn't seem right, but the more I think (and read) about it, the more okay I am with it.
This is probably a shitty thing to say but...If we don't give Islam the same freedoms, how will it ever become watered down and tame like Christianity has become? There was a long period of time when many terrible things happened in the name of Christianity, things that we abhor now, things that only the small pockets of extremists still advocate. If Islam becomes more mainstream, the extremists will be marginalized, hated, and ridiculed, just as Christian extremists are.
SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
Have ya'll seriously never met a muslim who doesn't have a problem with gay people? Probably like a tenth or fifth of my school is muslim, and it's a complete non-issue.
SAUSAGEMAN
Registered User
Ya, it's something in the melanin. It makes dark skinned people allergic to homosexuals.
(You tard.)
(You tard.)
Conchaga
Let's fuck some shit up
While I admire the tenacity of your hope that there will be a more watered-down version of Islam in the US, I have to shoot you down.
Unlike Christianity, Islam has no central leadership to interpret the holy text in such a way as to water it down for today's world. While they do have Ulamas (something like the Gregoriates in Catholicism), their aim is to objectively pin-down the true meaning of Islam's laws and adhere to them strictly. Whereas, in christianity, a lot of interpretations of the Bible are more subjective. Furthermore, it is left up to the clerics (imams, mullahs, etc) to interpret for their community. What's scary is that in some sects of Islam, the imam is infallible and free from sin. This might be a good idea for some middle-class white religions, but Islam in the US (from my perspective at least) is dominated by inner-city, lower-class, second-generation-jail-convert, black people. They aren't as educated as their christian counterparts.
Don't get me wrong. I think anyone who strictly adheres to any form of organized religion (specifically Muslims, Jehovas' witnesses, etc) is unintelligent and irrational. Which is why I don't think that loosing the reins on Muslims is a good idea. I applaud France for attacking muslims with legislature against the wearing of burkas. Islam is a backwards, radical religion and is slowly infesting the minds of those too undereducated or poor to know better.
That being said, Catholicism and Protestantism are - believe it or not - lower on my religious hit list than say, The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, Scientologists, or Islam. In fact, Islam takes my #1 spot of most hated bullshit on the planet. So, I don't think they should be permitted to build any mosques anywhere, ever. When it comes to the constitution, I'll hope that our leaders see the wisdom in the founding father's secularism.
Also... shit, their religious hierarchy isn't that different from the Catholic hierarchy. They've got their mullahs, muftis, ayatollahs, grand ayatollahs, caliphs, and some I"m sure I don't know about. They follow a book which is open to interpretation, just like Christians. Some day they will ignore the murderous bits, just like Christians do now.
The central leadership of Christianity aren't the ones who watered Christianity down, if you're referring to the Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholics. The watering down came after the Protestant Reformation. There are probably thousands of sects, each with their own slightly different interpretations, now. Central leadership is the glue that insures fanatic adherence.
I think the biggest blockade to watering Islam down is that in some countries Islamic law and secular law are the same thing.
The central leadership of Christianity aren't the ones who watered Christianity down, if you're referring to the Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholics. The watering down came after the Protestant Reformation. There are probably thousands of sects, each with their own slightly different interpretations, now. Central leadership is the glue that insures fanatic adherence.
I think the biggest blockade to watering Islam down is that in some countries Islamic law and secular law are the same thing.
Dirk Funk
Evil Penguin
How can you put a pacifist, politically neutral religion like Jehovah's Witnesses in the same sentence as violent religion like Islam?
Conchaga
Let's fuck some shit up
Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, what have you, all have some form of organized leadership. Especially Baptists and Lutherans, the latter of which is still recognized as a real form of Christianity by Rome. All the Baptist leaders have an annual meeting somewhere in the deep, buttfucking south, in order to talk about how they want to oppress women some more, while sitting around in their fat, white-supremacist, bigoted circle-jerk.
What that means is they all get together to talk about what kind of religious nonsense they're going to spew, and how to make it more marketable to today's conservatives and inner-city poor. The second Vatican council (Vatican II) was where the Roman Catholics brought themselves into the 20th century. They got rid of the sermons in Latin, so that common people could pray. They ditched a ton of sins and no-no's so that they wouldn't have to excommunicate so many people each year. Basically, they turned the Catholic church over to the people, FINALLY. You would've thought that Rome had learned it's lesson with Vittorio Emanuele II, nearly a hundred years before, that the Holy Roman empire was kaput.
I digress. The Islamic religions are so splintered and disorganized, it doesn't matter for shit if they have a hierarchy within their clergy. Especially when most of their leaders are in countries which support Islamic fundamentalist extremism. If they don't have a pillar religion to compare themselves to, there's no one group telling the others how they SHOULD behave. They're all off running around lopping people's body parts off and stoning women. They are, fundamentally and morally bankrupt. The leaders encourage the degradation of women, violence towards non-muslims, and strict adherence to the laws of the Qur'an (as I referenced with the Ulamas above). Ulamas' sole purpose is to literally be Islamic Lawyers. Think about it. What era of humankind can you think of that last had religious lawyers? The answer is the fucking middle ages. Which leads me back to bringing the religion into the 21st century. They still hold prayer sessions in arabic. According to the Qur'an, you're not a true muslim unless you can read the holy book in its native language and speak it as well. Granted, Arabic isn't as dead as Latin, but when a majority of your followers don't speak it and can barely read it, it's time to change. Even if it is "the language chosen by God in which to speak to mankind." Mankind chose otherwise, get over it. However, that's a concept that they can't wrap their head around. Mankind wrote their holy book, not a god. Christians sometimes admit the fallibility of the Bible, why can't muslims admit the fallibility of the Qur'an? Because they're pig-headed (pun intended) troglodytes who beat women and blow up anyone who disagrees with them, and they will never change.
/rant
What that means is they all get together to talk about what kind of religious nonsense they're going to spew, and how to make it more marketable to today's conservatives and inner-city poor. The second Vatican council (Vatican II) was where the Roman Catholics brought themselves into the 20th century. They got rid of the sermons in Latin, so that common people could pray. They ditched a ton of sins and no-no's so that they wouldn't have to excommunicate so many people each year. Basically, they turned the Catholic church over to the people, FINALLY. You would've thought that Rome had learned it's lesson with Vittorio Emanuele II, nearly a hundred years before, that the Holy Roman empire was kaput.
I digress. The Islamic religions are so splintered and disorganized, it doesn't matter for shit if they have a hierarchy within their clergy. Especially when most of their leaders are in countries which support Islamic fundamentalist extremism. If they don't have a pillar religion to compare themselves to, there's no one group telling the others how they SHOULD behave. They're all off running around lopping people's body parts off and stoning women. They are, fundamentally and morally bankrupt. The leaders encourage the degradation of women, violence towards non-muslims, and strict adherence to the laws of the Qur'an (as I referenced with the Ulamas above). Ulamas' sole purpose is to literally be Islamic Lawyers. Think about it. What era of humankind can you think of that last had religious lawyers? The answer is the fucking middle ages. Which leads me back to bringing the religion into the 21st century. They still hold prayer sessions in arabic. According to the Qur'an, you're not a true muslim unless you can read the holy book in its native language and speak it as well. Granted, Arabic isn't as dead as Latin, but when a majority of your followers don't speak it and can barely read it, it's time to change. Even if it is "the language chosen by God in which to speak to mankind." Mankind chose otherwise, get over it. However, that's a concept that they can't wrap their head around. Mankind wrote their holy book, not a god. Christians sometimes admit the fallibility of the Bible, why can't muslims admit the fallibility of the Qur'an? Because they're pig-headed (pun intended) troglodytes who beat women and blow up anyone who disagrees with them, and they will never change.
/rant
Conchaga
Let's fuck some shit up
Easily.
However, I was mistaken. I meant to say Mormons.
Ugh... I hate Mormons....
They're the Christian counterpart to fundamentalist Islam.
I worked closely with the Boy Scouts for years (yeah crack some gay jokes) and the group I hated dealing with the most were the LDS troops. The leaders were all terrible and self-important, and they treated our female volunteers like shit.
I completely disagree. Some Muslims are all those things now, but they can't maintain that level of extremism and survive in the West. As far as I know there aren't Muslims running around in the US chopping off people's body parts and getting away with it.
Also, I grew up as a member of a Baptist church. There are Southern Baptists (who have a Southern Baptist Convention), and there are other Baptists. The common belief is that you have to believe first before being baptized, as opposed to infant baptism, and that you have to have faith.. blah blah blah. There's no head Baptist honcho telling all the other Baptist preachers what to preach. The Southern Baptists might all agree on certain things, but they aren't all the Baptists by any means.
Also, I grew up as a member of a Baptist church. There are Southern Baptists (who have a Southern Baptist Convention), and there are other Baptists. The common belief is that you have to believe first before being baptized, as opposed to infant baptism, and that you have to have faith.. blah blah blah. There's no head Baptist honcho telling all the other Baptist preachers what to preach. The Southern Baptists might all agree on certain things, but they aren't all the Baptists by any means.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
Actually, the political stance on all sides has been for quite some time that if you don't believe the way that group does and don't do what that group wants when they want it and don't agree with them regardless, then you are wrong.
For example, examine Dogbert's statement:
"The right wingers are all for private property rights and civil liberties except when those are extended to people they dont like."
Well, non-right wingers are all about free speech and civil liberties, rights and pursuit of happiness and all those good things except when those are extended to people they don't like - like Republicans and Christians, unwanted unborn babies, women on life support who are married to men who have moved on. And, they are all about private property rights as long as they approve of what the property is used for.
Suppose a right wing fundamentalist type Christian group had bought that property and wanted to put a memorial there that among other things provided truthful information about the persons that committed the crime, the types of people they were, and their reasoning behind their actions. When the Muslims demand the "inflammatory" information be removed, who here is going to argue that the fundamentalist type Christian group's constitutional and private property rights should be protected?
VITRIOL
Registered User
eloisel
Forever Empress E
The WBC is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. They are so far right that their compass just spins.
Dirk Funk
Evil Penguin
They aren't right wingers. They're just insane. In this country the furthest of the far right is inhabited by Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists.