|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 22:46:19 GMT -5
Most dictatorships ARE secular. Secular isn't the sacred word -- it's "democracy". That may well be, but the point raised by 'fixit' is the transition from religious to secular. In that regard Turkey and Iran took steps toward modernity almost a century ago, and repressed the religious influence of their past. The effect was to create a more radical or extremist form of Islam in those countries, which is actually a more recent phenomena; it has not always been thus. Many people do not know that burkhas were not common in those two countries 5 or 6 decades ago, for example, although it must be added that women were not allowed to wear the burkha by law. This is perfectly natural. Religious people (including Americans) who are uneducated about the true principles of democracy, are always more inclined to support religious authorities than advocates for democracy. President Obama said it best: "When the chips are down, people turn to god and guns." A lot of Americans were insulted by that, but the rest of us knew exactly what he meant. It's the reason millions of Americans continue to vote against their own good interests -- because their ignorant about the guarantees that come with democratic principles. In the case of Iran -- who is to say that the people of Iran were worse off after Pahlavi was gone? All the Western (primarily US) media cared about in that situation was the fate of American control over the Iranian economy -- that, combined with their assumption that as long as the US was so delighted with Pahlavi, the common people had to be doing well under that arrangement. Fact is -- they weren't. Don't worry -- Iran is developing a democracy. One of the problems with Westerners is that they think democracy comes through legislation. It doesn't -- it always comes through confrontation, because democracy always comes at an enormous cost to the dictating class, and wresting power and control from those classes is a generations-long exercise. The US is a prime example of that. This country was far from democratic for half its existence, and we still have vestiges of limits on democracy. The fight is still ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 23:10:21 GMT -5
Unfortunately large numbers of Muslims regard the West as their enemy. If "the common people" did manage to elect democratic governments, those governments might be more belligerent than the dictatorial governments they replace. What is needed is an Islamic awakening, an enlightenment that would lead them out of the dark religious hole they are currently digging for themselves. You don't think much of Muslim people, do you> Muslim people are OK, its the barbaric behaviour in the name of their religion that I don't like.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 21, 2015 0:15:05 GMT -5
You don't think much of Muslim people, do you> Muslim people are OK, its the barbaric behaviour in the name of their religion that I don't like. But you seem to think all Muslims are responsible for that? You can't blame anything done in the name of religion on anyone except the person(s) who do(es) it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 0:40:52 GMT -5
Muslim people are OK, its the barbaric behaviour in the name of their religion that I don't like. But you seem to think all Muslims are responsible for that? You can't blame anything done in the name of religion on anyone except the person(s) who do(es) it. No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms. Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 21, 2015 1:05:54 GMT -5
But you seem to think all Muslims are responsible for that? You can't blame anything done in the name of religion on anyone except the person(s) who do(es) it. No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms.Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced. Now that sounds like G. W. Bush! That was also his idea of why some people "hate us," "they hate our freedoms."
If they hate us, it isn't because of "our freedoms or our secular democratic society."
Could it possibly be because the Western countries have exploited their resources and even interfered with their own elected governments? Oh my, what am I thinking! Of course not! And the US didn't mess with Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister either! (crossed fingers behind my back)"During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms"
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 21, 2015 1:08:19 GMT -5
But you seem to think all Muslims are responsible for that? You can't blame anything done in the name of religion on anyone except the person(s) who do(es) it. No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms. Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced. How many Muslims do you KNOW who want sharia law? They're not retarded, you know. They came here to get out of the hell hole, not create another one. I don't see what the problem is -- the police seem to be doing a decent job of catching their criminals. They should, they're spying on every one of them they can find. You wouldn't recognize 90 percent of Muslims unless they told you they were Muslim. You have to go visit a good mosque some day.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 2:52:32 GMT -5
It seems that a global median of 73 percent of Muslims reject violence carried out in the name of Islam.
That leaves nearly 600 million Muslims who don't reject violence.
That's enough Muslims to do a lot of damage in the world.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 3:01:27 GMT -5
How many Muslims do you KNOW who want sharia law? They're not retarded, you know. They came here to get out of the hell hole, not create another one. I don't see what the problem is -- the police seem to be doing a decent job of catching their criminals. They should, they're spying on every one of them they can find. You wouldn't recognize 90 percent of Muslims unless they told you they were Muslim. You have to go visit a good mosque some day. In a poll released Feb 2006, 40% of Muslims said they wanted Sharia Law in parts of Britain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 3:44:47 GMT -5
There's another side to this. The rise of modern Islam coincides (?) with the decline in Christianity. It's as if Islam is starting to fill a vacuum, particularly in Western countries. There's this correlation between religion and family size, and religion and - what shall I call it - intensity of values. So as the West retreated from empire, and gave the impression of not been willing to defend its values anymore, and stopped having large families (or any families at all) then this opened opportunities for Islam - through immigration, conversion, demographics, .... and terror.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 8:48:40 GMT -5
My concern is not individual offence, or offence against despots, or political offence, but offence between cultures. That kind of offence can be mitigated. But I do agree no one has a right, in law, to not be offended. That does not mean we have carte Blanche 'to offend' without considering the effect of our provocations. Here I'm not concerned that provocations have made someone angry. We forget that often offence hurts the weak, the poor, the new immigrants, the migrant workers, the unpopular religion, and so on. It does mean we have carte blanche to say what we wish. At some point it becomes a moral/ethical/common decency issue which is up to the individual to manage. If someone speaks out against your dearly held values, your beliefs, your god(s) and you are offended the first question you should ask is "Why am I offended?" Why do I care if you believe god will regenerate your missing limb? Why should you care that I don't believe it will happen? It's not purely up to the individual to manage the moral, ethical and decency implications of their speech or artistic acts. I see it more as a "community" issue, and within the realm of corporate, NGO, community and local council policy. These kinds of policies do not have the force of law, but generally function by mutual consent. Someone raised the point of how people know what offends and what doesn't. Individuals can use guidance on what constitutes proper or ethical behaviour, often it's just a matter of understanding another culture and making some minor concessions. The problem these days I think is that people tire or weary of these minor concessions.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 8:53:47 GMT -5
But you seem to think all Muslims are responsible for that? You can't blame anything done in the name of religion on anyone except the person(s) who do(es) it. No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms. Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced. You sound like a person who has little fine-grained contact with Muslims, and form broad general ideas about Muslims based on events in the newspaper. A Turkish Muslim is so much different from an Iraqi Muslim, and again, different from a Saudi, an Egyptian, or an American Muslim. And even within those countries it's very difficult to generalize. Different country, culture, ideas, and different application of the religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 8:58:38 GMT -5
There's another side to this. The rise of modern Islam coincides (?) with the decline in Christianity. It's as if Islam is starting to fill a vacuum, particularly in Western countries. There's this correlation between religion and family size, and religion and - what shall I call it - intensity of values. So as the West retreated from empire, and gave the impression of not been willing to defend its values anymore, and stopped having large families (or any families at all) then this opened opportunities for Islam - through immigration, conversion, demographics, .... and terror. You could actually research this and find out why Islam has grown. The natural, non-immigrant growth in countries like the USA is small. Only .6% of the US population is Muslim. The growth of Islam in countries like Turkey, Iran and Iraq has a lot to do with oppression by the West and its despotic surrogates. When people are oppressed they turn to religion. Just like in the Old Testament. I don't think you are wrong to critique the Muslim religion incidentally. Perhaps all it takes is to focus your comments more narrowly on Muslim extremism, or Muslim fundamentalism, depending on just what you're saying. Targetting all 1+ billion Muslims in your comments is unfair, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 9:00:59 GMT -5
How many Muslims do you KNOW who want sharia law? They're not retarded, you know. They came here to get out of the hell hole, not create another one. I don't see what the problem is -- the police seem to be doing a decent job of catching their criminals. They should, they're spying on every one of them they can find. You wouldn't recognize 90 percent of Muslims unless they told you they were Muslim. You have to go visit a good mosque some day. In a poll released Feb 2006, 40% of Muslims said they wanted Sharia Law in parts of Britain. There is nothing wrong with Muslims wanting sharia law. The point is, will they get it? Certainly here in Canada the resounding answer is NO. BTW, do you know why they want sharia law?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 21, 2015 9:43:48 GMT -5
It's not purely up to the individual to manage the moral, ethical and decency implications of their speech or artistic acts. It is up to the individual to manage their own expression. If they are speaking for an organization, as its representative, it is up to the organization to manage what is expressed.Of course people my decide to be polite. Some do. Dome don't. Some don't care. To get away from religion and other strongly held beliefs - If, at a gathering, someone walks up and asks "Do you like my new shirt?" My inclination is that they have asked me a question because they want an answer and for whatever reason are seeking my opinion. Now if I like the shirt everything is fine. But if I don't like the shirt we enter that strange land where I have to decide if I need to lie or not. Generally I just ask the person if they like the shirt and then explain that what they think is all that matters. That is so transparent that I might as well have told them that it was not a flattering color for them, that the cut was wrong, and it made them look 20 pounds heavier. Minor concessions are often lies. Why should a person compromise themselves?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 10:22:06 GMT -5
It's not purely up to the individual to manage the moral, ethical and decency implications of their speech or artistic acts. It is up to the individual to manage their own expression. If they are speaking for an organization, as its representative, it is up to the organization to manage what is expressed.Of course people my decide to be polite. Some do. Dome don't. Some don't care. To get away from religion and other strongly held beliefs - If, at a gathering, someone walks up and asks "Do you like my new shirt?" My inclination is that they have asked me a question because they want an answer and for whatever reason are seeking my opinion. Now if I like the shirt everything is fine. But if I don't like the shirt we enter that strange land where I have to decide if I need to lie or not. Generally I just ask the person if they like the shirt and then explain that what they think is all that matters. That is so transparent that I might as well have told them that it was not a flattering color for them, that the cut was wrong, and it made them look 20 pounds heavier. Minor concessions are often lies. Why should a person compromise themselves? You would like living in Holland. You can just say that you don't like the shirt, or that it makes the person look heavy, or whatever is honest. stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2011/05/28/dutch-directness/Here are a couple of famous examples of Dutch directness. www.youtube.com/watch?v=600jpIq6__c www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIkgCbljJysAnyway, the question here is offence in a multicultural context. Individual offence is probably best negotiated by the individuals involved, and if adjudication is required, well, we have Ann Landers, or whoever took her place. In contrast, I don't think you can just leave cultural interaction to individuals as you suggest. For example, if you were to make a deal on behalf of your company in China, you'd be wise to take on some coaching on your interactions with the Chinese. In the multicultural context, we could all use some coaching, in terms of behaviour, and especially, what I see, in attitude. Aside from that though, there are sacred cows in every culture, especially when religion is involved. 'Charlie Hebdo' makes a sport of goring those sacred cows. And, they are allowed to do it, and IMO, we should not change our laws on freedom of expression on account of the 'Charlie Hebdo's of the world. But, at the same time, let's call a spade a spade. I am not 'Charlie Hebdo'.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 21, 2015 12:12:56 GMT -5
No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms.Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced. Now that sounds like G. W. Bush! That was also his idea of why some people "hate us," "they hate our freedoms."
If they hate us, it isn't because of "our freedoms or our secular democratic society."
Could it possibly be because the Western countries have exploited their resources and even interfered with their own elected governments? Oh my, what am I thinking! Of course not! And the US didn't mess with Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister either! (crossed fingers behind my back)"During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms"
I think a good example of how the US is keeping one of the most strict and brutal sect of Islam in power is Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is brutal and is not reflective of what Islam is about. Yet Saudi Arabia and their dictators are fully supported by the US and their financial power because of the US needing their oil gives them power over the Muslims that adhere to a more peaceful version of Islam. Do you really think there is not a lot of resentment towards the US for supporting these dictators and their version of Islam? It would be like supporting Pat Robertson for leader and letting him have full control of all the things that happen in your religion and society. I think most Christians would not like that one little bit. Or an even better example would be the Westboro Baptist Church having control of your religion and your society. Wouldn't it be wonderful living by their rules and interpretation of what God wants? Well the Wahhabi sect is a lot like the Westboro Baptist Church in their beliefs. If a country supported the Wahhabi sect and made it possible for them to force their beliefs on others that didn't hold those beliefs, I think they have every right to be resentful against that country. Another example of the US getting involved is the Shah of Iran. Then when Ayatollah got involved they turned to Saddam Hussain to help them. Then when he got out of control (read that their control) they messed with that. So I agree dmg, it's not our freedom they resent, it's our interference that has put a great number of them in danger for their lives if they don't believe like the fanatics in their religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 21, 2015 12:25:57 GMT -5
Now that sounds like G. W. Bush! That was also his idea of why some people "hate us," "they hate our freedoms."
If they hate us, it isn't because of "our freedoms or our secular democratic society."
Could it possibly be because the Western countries have exploited their resources and even interfered with their own elected governments? Oh my, what am I thinking! Of course not! And the US didn't mess with Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister either! (crossed fingers behind my back)"During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms"
I think a good example of how the US is keeping one of the most strict and brutal sect of Islam in power is Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is brutal and is not reflective of what Islam is about. Yet Saudi Arabia and their dictators are fully supported by the US and their financial power because of the US needing their oil gives them power over the Muslims that adhere to a more peaceful version of Islam. Do you really think there is not a lot of resentment towards the US for supporting these dictators and their version of Islam? It would be like supporting Pat Robertson for leader and letting him have full control of all the things that happen in your religion and society. I think most Christians would not like that one little bit. Or an even better example would be the Westboro Baptist Church having control of your religion and your society. Wouldn't it be wonderful living by their rules and interpretation of what God wants? Well the Wahhabi sect is a lot like the Westboro Baptist Church in their beliefs. If a country supported the Wahhabi sect and made it possible for them to force their beliefs on others that didn't hold those beliefs, I think they have every right to be resentful against that country. Another example of the US getting involved is the Shah of Iran. Then when Ayatollah got involved they turned to Saddam Hussain to help them. Then when he got out of control (read that their control) they messed with that. So I agree dmg, it's not our freedom they resent, it's our interference that has put a great number of them in danger for their lives if they don't believe like the fanatics in their religion. The Saudi's were in the paper this morning. Apparently we (Canada) are selling $15 billion worth of armoured vehicles to the Saudi's but our government is refusing to say whether our normal export rules will apply. The rule in question is one that says we won't export munitions that a govt plans to use on its own people.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 21, 2015 12:29:22 GMT -5
It is up to the individual to manage their own expression. If they are speaking for an organization, as its representative, it is up to the organization to manage what is expressed.Of course people my decide to be polite. Some do. Dome don't. Some don't care. To get away from religion and other strongly held beliefs - If, at a gathering, someone walks up and asks "Do you like my new shirt?" My inclination is that they have asked me a question because they want an answer and for whatever reason are seeking my opinion. Now if I like the shirt everything is fine. But if I don't like the shirt we enter that strange land where I have to decide if I need to lie or not. Generally I just ask the person if they like the shirt and then explain that what they think is all that matters. That is so transparent that I might as well have told them that it was not a flattering color for them, that the cut was wrong, and it made them look 20 pounds heavier. Minor concessions are often lies. Why should a person compromise themselves? You would like living in Holland. You can just say that you don't like the shirt, or that it makes the person look heavy, or whatever is honest. stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2011/05/28/dutch-directness/Here are a couple of famous examples of Dutch directness. www.youtube.com/watch?v=600jpIq6__c www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIkgCbljJysAnyway, the question here is offence in a multicultural context. Individual offence is probably best negotiated by the individuals involved, and if adjudication is required, well, we have Ann Landers, or whoever took her place. In contrast, I don't think you can just leave cultural interaction to individuals as you suggest. For example, if you were to make a deal on behalf of your company in China, you'd be wise to take on some coaching on your interactions with the Chinese. In the multicultural context, we could all use some coaching, in terms of behaviour, and especially, what I see, in attitude. Aside from that though, there are sacred cows in every culture, especially when religion is involved. 'Charlie Hebdo' makes a sport of goring those sacred cows. And, they are allowed to do it, and IMO, we should not change our laws on freedom of expression on account of the 'Charlie Hebdo's of the world. But, at the same time, let's call a spade a spade. I am not 'Charlie Hebdo'. I agree with you that when we are dealing with multi-cultural issues, we need to learn the way the cultures interact or we set ourselves up for failure. I do editing and proof reading for university students doing their masters and recently I took on the papers of a student that was studying this particular subject. It was a learning experience for me and it was fascinating to see how the different cultures processed things and how these different processes could lead two different people to come to absolutely different conclusions. For example, she did a work up of how the aboriginal culture in Canada comes to conclusions based on their community based leanings versus the typical Canadian who is more focused on the individual. We don't owe it to anyone to not be offensive, but it is in our best interests for sure to learn how not to be offensive if we want to be successful in any kind of a relationship with someone or another company, as you point out.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 21, 2015 12:31:00 GMT -5
I think a good example of how the US is keeping one of the most strict and brutal sect of Islam in power is Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is brutal and is not reflective of what Islam is about. Yet Saudi Arabia and their dictators are fully supported by the US and their financial power because of the US needing their oil gives them power over the Muslims that adhere to a more peaceful version of Islam. Do you really think there is not a lot of resentment towards the US for supporting these dictators and their version of Islam? It would be like supporting Pat Robertson for leader and letting him have full control of all the things that happen in your religion and society. I think most Christians would not like that one little bit. Or an even better example would be the Westboro Baptist Church having control of your religion and your society. Wouldn't it be wonderful living by their rules and interpretation of what God wants? Well the Wahhabi sect is a lot like the Westboro Baptist Church in their beliefs. If a country supported the Wahhabi sect and made it possible for them to force their beliefs on others that didn't hold those beliefs, I think they have every right to be resentful against that country. Another example of the US getting involved is the Shah of Iran. Then when Ayatollah got involved they turned to Saddam Hussain to help them. Then when he got out of control (read that their control) they messed with that. So I agree dmg, it's not our freedom they resent, it's our interference that has put a great number of them in danger for their lives if they don't believe like the fanatics in their religion. The Saudi's were in the paper this morning. Apparently we (Canada) are selling $15 billion worth of armoured vehicles to the Saudi's but our government is refusing to say whether our normal export rules will apply. The rule in question is one that says we won't export munitions that a govt plans to use on its own people. Interesting. Also interesting would be our definition of 'their own people'. The people of Saudi Arabia only, or Muslims in general?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 13:50:38 GMT -5
I think a good example of how the US is keeping one of the most strict and brutal sect of Islam in power is Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is brutal and is not reflective of what Islam is about. Yet Saudi Arabia and their dictators are fully supported by the US and their financial power because of the US needing their oil gives them power over the Muslims that adhere to a more peaceful version of Islam. Do you really think there is not a lot of resentment towards the US for supporting these dictators and their version of Islam? It would be like supporting Pat Robertson for leader and letting him have full control of all the things that happen in your religion and society. I think most Christians would not like that one little bit. Or an even better example would be the Westboro Baptist Church having control of your religion and your society. Wouldn't it be wonderful living by their rules and interpretation of what God wants? Well the Wahhabi sect is a lot like the Westboro Baptist Church in their beliefs. If a country supported the Wahhabi sect and made it possible for them to force their beliefs on others that didn't hold those beliefs, I think they have every right to be resentful against that country. Another example of the US getting involved is the Shah of Iran. Then when Ayatollah got involved they turned to Saddam Hussain to help them. Then when he got out of control (read that their control) they messed with that. So I agree dmg, it's not our freedom they resent, it's our interference that has put a great number of them in danger for their lives if they don't believe like the fanatics in their religion. The Saudi's were in the paper this morning. Apparently we (Canada) are selling $15 billion worth of armoured vehicles to the Saudi's but our government is refusing to say whether our normal export rules will apply. The rule in question is one that says we won't export munitions that a govt plans to use on its own people. Do you support Operation Inherent Resolve? Do you think the West should seal its borders, cut off all foreign aid and trade, and leave the Islamic world to deal with its own problems? It would require a rather heartless response to the millions of refugees that the Islamic world is good at producing. Do you have a solution for the asylum seekers that would no doubt increase exponentially if the West stopped being involved in the Islamic world?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 21, 2015 14:25:33 GMT -5
Satire or insults. Where to draw the line. There is no line when it comes to satire. PEGIDA spokeswoman Kathrin Oertel welcomed Bachmann's resignation, saying that his "Hitler selfie" had been "satire, which is every citizen's right" but that " sweeping insults against strangers" went too far. www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11390068How ironic. Sweeping insults against strangers. Isn't that what Charlie does.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 21, 2015 14:31:43 GMT -5
Question: why is everyone so focused on protecting a few French who deliberately, knowingly, insulted someone's religion and yet do nothing about Boko Haram who are killing, raping and taking thousands.
Favouritism? ! ? Who are the innocent ones?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 14:36:16 GMT -5
Question: why is everyone so focused on protecting a few French who deliberately, knowingly, insulted someone's religion and yet do nothing about Boko Haram who are killing, raping and taking thousands. Favouritism? ! ? Who are the innocent one? You're not calling for yet another interference by the West in Muslim lands are you Mary?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 21, 2015 14:36:58 GMT -5
No, I don't blame all Muslims but I wish more of them would get over their hatred for our secular democratic society with its freedoms. Especially those who live in Western countries. If they want Sharia law they should go live in a hell-hole where Sharia law is practiced. How many Muslims do you KNOW who want sharia law? They're not retarded, you know. They came here to get out of the hell hole, not create another one. I don't see what the problem is -- the police seem to be doing a decent job of catching their criminals. They should, they're spying on every one of them they can find. You wouldn't recognize 90 percent of Muslims unless they told you they were Muslim. You have to go visit a good mosque some day. So who are the ones who come here and create the hell hole. Seems as if some are here to create the hell hole. It's a bit late after the crime. The police are doing the best they can but they are not catching the majority of criminals. Prevention is better than cure.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 21, 2015 14:38:21 GMT -5
Question: why is everyone so focused on protecting a few French who deliberately, knowingly, insulted someone's religion and yet do nothing about Boko Haram who are killing, raping and taking thousands. Favouritism? ! ? Who are the innocent one? You're not calling for yet another interference by the West in Muslim lands are you Mary? I'm saying protect the innocent. Why favouritism? Go where help is needed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 14:45:00 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with Muslims wanting sharia law. The point is, will they get it? Certainly here in Canada the resounding answer is NO. BTW, do you know why they want sharia law? I guess they want Sharia law because it's their religion and culture. They likely see it as a solution to their problems - just as the Nazis saw the holocaust as the solution to their problems.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 21, 2015 14:48:36 GMT -5
You're not calling for yet another interference by the West in Muslim lands are you Mary? I'm saying protect the innocent. Why favouritism? Go where help is needed. I like your suggestion. Protecting the innocent requires military action, and unfortunately lots of Westerners oppose that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 21, 2015 15:28:58 GMT -5
How many Muslims do you KNOW who want sharia law? They're not retarded, you know. They came here to get out of the hell hole, not create another one. I don't see what the problem is -- the police seem to be doing a decent job of catching their criminals. They should, they're spying on every one of them they can find. You wouldn't recognize 90 percent of Muslims unless they told you they were Muslim. You have to go visit a good mosque some day. In a poll released Feb 2006, 40% of Muslims said they wanted Sharia Law in parts of Britain. Means nothing. What they want and what they'll get are two different things. Anyway, that figure all depends on who took the poll. Now what portion of American Christians want Christian morality legislated -- for the whole country?
|
|