Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any of you going to register as Muslim if the data-base gets set up?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    I am not excusing anything Jim, far from it. However we should bear in mind what George Santayana said in regards to history.......



    ..... Therefore, any claims that Islam is somehow the only Abrahamic religion that used conquest as a means to spread its message are wrong.
    Correct.

    Many people here point to the past as some sort of justification for current events. The implication being "See! Christians did it too!"

    Well, yes, Christians did. Something that should be learned from.....

    Another lesson that should be learned from past events is that uncontrolled immigration will have devastating effects on a native population.
    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

    Comment


    • #62
      Will this 'database' be anything like the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)?

      NSEERS was a Bush-era program enacted shortly after 9/11. It disproportionately targeted Arabs and Muslims and was a point of contention until April 27th, 2011, when portions were suspended by President Obama.
      "Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience" George Carlin

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        I am not excusing anything Jim, far from it. However we should bear in mind what George Santayana said in regards to history.



        The sack of Constantinople is hardly the only example that I can think of in which Christianity and secular government spurred conquest, forcible conversion, rapine and wonton slaughter. The whole of Latin America is a prime example of that. One of the main reasons that Brazil speaks Portuguese is because the Papacy decreed that the Spanish had first dibs on any territory West of an arbitrary line of longitude; Spain did not believe that there was anything East of that line. Spain was wrong and Portugal laid claim to what is now Brazil. All of that was justified by both Spain's and Portugal's assurances to the Holy See that they would spread Christianity in the Americas. Therefore, any claims that Islam is somehow the only Abrahamic religion that used conquest as a means to spread its message are wrong.
        The sack of Constantinople is not the best example. The real reason behind that sack was politics and economics. The politics was who was the rightful emperor Alexios IV or V. The Crusaders had a treaty with Alexios IV. The economics was Venice not wasting an opportunity to reduce an economic competitor. It wouldn't have mattered if Constantinople was Catholic rather than Orthodox the bigger divide was Greek vs Latin/Western Europe.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          But if it offends you, go to the Middle East or any Muslim nation and see how outsiders, criminals or not, are treated.
          So, your saying we should start acting more like a Muslim nation?
          Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
            I blame monotheism.

            If you convince the weak minded their God is the only true God, they'll invariably come to the conclusion the followers of a different God can be murdered.

            I don't know why, but it happens over and over.
            Wrong and wrong. Polytheists have been just as bloodthirsty and just as capable of advancing the notion of subjugating nonbelievers. They can be convinced their gods are the only true gods.

            The problem lies in the specifics of theology. You will always trip when you generalize. For example Christianity teaches that everyone is a precious creation of god. Under this theology the concept of murdering unbelievers is abhorrent. The theology states that nonbelievers are just as precious to God as the believers to the point that it is sometimes better to suffer an injustice for their sake than to do them harm.

            Now let's switch to polytheistic Hinduism. Under that belief system your caste and your life are determined by karma and any misfortune dealt to you must have been because you were a jerk last time. Under this belief system even fellow believers can be treated like because hey they must have deserved it, if they didn't they wouldn't be poor/shudra/crippled (circle all that apply).

            Regardless of mono or poly, regardless of religion, the moral compass of the philosophy is what determines how its believers tend to behave. If you are taught to love others you will usually love others. If you are taught to smite others you will tend to smite others. Atheist, religionist, monotheist, polytheist, all can be made mass murderers or saints based on the ideology. Instead of coming up with some meaningless correlation game, simply do the common sense thing and analyze the philosophy. If the philosophy says "be nice" it's probably okay. If the philosophy says kill infidels/unbelievers/bourgeoisie/counter revolutionaries/(insert race color here) (circle all that apply), its probably bad.

            Finding poisonous ideologies isn't rocket science and requires no generalization.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Reimnitz View Post
              It disproportionately targeted Arabs and Muslims .

              It justifiedly targeted Arabs and Muslims because after 9/11 potential danger came from these groups .

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                Wrong and wrong. Polytheists have been just as bloodthirsty and just as capable of advancing the notion of subjugating nonbelievers. They can be convinced their gods are the only true gods.

                The problem lies in the specifics of theology. You will always trip when you generalize. For example Christianity teaches that everyone is a precious creation of god. Under this theology the concept of murdering unbelievers is abhorrent. The theology states that nonbelievers are just as precious to God as the believers to the point that it is sometimes better to suffer an injustice for their sake than to do them harm.

                Now let's switch to polytheistic Hinduism. Under that belief system your caste and your life are determined by karma and any misfortune dealt to you must have been because you were a jerk last time. Under this belief system even fellow believers can be treated like because hey they must have deserved it, if they didn't they wouldn't be poor/shudra/crippled (circle all that apply).

                Regardless of mono or poly, regardless of religion, the moral compass of the philosophy is what determines how its believers tend to behave. If you are taught to love others you will usually love others. If you are taught to smite others you will tend to smite others. Atheist, religionist, monotheist, polytheist, all can be made mass murderers or saints based on the ideology. Instead of coming up with some meaningless correlation game, simply do the common sense thing and analyze the philosophy. If the philosophy says "be nice" it's probably okay. If the philosophy says kill infidels/unbelievers/bourgeoisie/counter revolutionaries/(insert race color here) (circle all that apply), its probably bad.

                Finding poisonous ideologies isn't rocket science and requires no generalization.
                Closest yet to a correct gauge on the religion/ideology aspect here.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X