|
Post by rational on Feb 21, 2015 23:49:20 GMT -5
I don't perceive evils in all Muslims. I perceive evil in the Muslim doctrine that proscribes death for leaving the religion. Do you believe there are Muslims who do not support that doctrine? I am not OK with any religious organization or the doctrines they support. Try to imagine a world without it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 23:56:20 GMT -5
I don't perceive evils in all Muslims. I perceive evil in the Muslim doctrine that proscribes death for leaving the religion. Do you believe there are Muslims who do not support that doctrine? I am not OK with any religious organization or the doctrines they support. Try to imagine a world without it. Of course there are Muslims who don't support the death for apostasy doctrine. The surveys show that.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 0:08:22 GMT -5
quote-I am not OK with any religious organization or the doctrines they support. Try to imagine a world without it.
Mao, Marx, Stalin and quite a number had that imagination and attempted to make those imaginations a reality.
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." Marx
“There can be nothing more abominable than religion,” Lenin
“The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution.” ― Mao Tse-tung
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 22, 2015 0:38:02 GMT -5
quote-I am not OK with any religious organization or the doctrines they support. Try to imagine a world without it.Mao, Marx, Stalin and quite a number had that imagination and attempted to make those imaginations a reality. So did John Lennon
"Imagine"
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 0:51:47 GMT -5
I think many of us can understand Lennon's hurt feelings and disappointment with religion he experienced. Interesting interview with John..... Alvin
CBN.com During his lifetime, he became one of the most controversial figures in popular culture, effecting not just how people listen to music, but how many view religion and faith. But a recently discovered interview with the late Beatles frontman John Lennon indicates the singer’s real views about Jesus and Christianity. The interview, which was unearthed two weeks ago, took place in 1969 for a segment on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation show before getting lost in studio obscuirty for nearly 40 years.
Lennon’s views on Christianity first came into focus when he made his infamous 1966 proclamation that the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus.” The statement drew scorn and boycotts like nothing rock ‘n roll had seen before. Christians decried Lennon and his band, blasting the audacity of such an irreverent statement. But, according to the interview, irreverence wasn’t the singer’s intention. And, as it turns out, he was actually really interested in Jesus.
"It's just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ," he said in the interview. "Now I wasn't saying that was a good idea, 'cos I'm one of Christ's biggest fans. And if I can turn the focus on the Beatles on to Christ's message, then that's what we're here to do."
He went on to express how he felt many Christians seemed to be very “uptight” and even hypocritical for not allowing him to marry Yoko Ono in church because he had been divorced. He said that his original distaste for church first came at a young age, when he was kicked out for giggling. But, in the interview, Lennon said that his feelings only extended to the organized church, not Jesus Himself.
"If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won't be full, but there'll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls. Whatever they celebrate, God and Christ, I don't think it matters as long as they're aware of Him and His message," his voice says on the unearthed recording.
And though this is the first time many Beatles fans have heard this particular conversation, Lennon’s interest in Christ was no secret in the early ‘70s. In his book, The Gospel According to the Beatles, writer Steve Turner said that there was a period in his life when the world’s most famous songwriter deeply wanted to know who Jesus was. According to the book, in an effort to escape the chaos of public life, Lennon would often retreat to television and became a regular viewer of the era’s most influential evangelists including Billy Graham, Oral Roberts and even Pat Robertson.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 22, 2015 1:10:49 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lennon had such hurt feelings and disappointment about religion just because he was kicked out for giggling.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 1:24:51 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lennon had such hurt feelings and disappointment about religion just because he was kicked out for giggling.
Me neither, there were more disappointments in religion as he alludes to in the article. Not unique at all. I don't suppose ANYBODY has not been disappointed in "religion" , in some form or other, or politics, leaders , or family members or humanity or................................................................................. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 22, 2015 4:00:07 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lennon had such hurt feelings and disappointment about religion just because he was kicked out for giggling.
Me neither, there were more disappointments in religion as he alludes to in the article. Not unique at all. I don't suppose ANYBODY has not been disappointed in "religion" , in some form or other, or politics, leaders , or family members or humanity or................................................................................. Alvin It's good that he was able to discern between Christ and organised religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 20:12:27 GMT -5
Well, it's not that complicated. Arabs hate Jews, by and large. And the practices within their societies hold women in subjection. I think both of those are fair criticisms. By way of comparison, arguing that Muslims are inherently violent because of the their religious beliefs is not fair criticism. Well, I certainly do not see it – any of it – as being simple. I don’t think it serves anyone to deny that there are some deeply disturbing ideologies and behaviors within Islam. I think Syed Soharwardy would agree: It is people like Syed who have the understanding and influence to make a real difference within the Islamic community. For the rest of us, there is probably not a lot we can do, other than keeping our own reactivity in check so that we don’t exacerbate the situation. People like Ezra Levant are not helpful. Neither are the overly politically correct. I haven’t followed Syed Soharwardy that closely, but from what I have seen of him, and what I know of him, he is a genuinely peace loving individual, who loves Canada and the way of life he and his family have here. He is in a position of trying to provide some balanced leadership within a community with some progressive elements, some conservative elements, and, unfortunately, some radicalized elements. He has certainly made some missteps along the way. I’ve watched his English and his confidence improve. He has also been gaining skills at handling the media, which in itself is no small feat. I understand there are disturbing aspects of Islam, particularly the treatment of women within the religion. What I was questioning was the connection between that and the notion that Islam is complex. I agree with everything else you've said but I don't see how you've explained your comment that it isn't simple. Seems simple enough to me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 20:31:06 GMT -5
Where do you find this stuff? As almost all Canadians know, Ezra Levant is nuts. I wouldn't trust anything that guy writes. Did you just Google this stuff, or is this another part of your information network. Seriously, you worry me. www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ezra-levant-loses-80-000-defamation-lawsuit-1.2123314The Koran stuff you posted is really bad. 1) It wasn't written by a Muslim. It's a strawman. 2) It's not a balanced view of what is in the Koran; it takes select verses out of context. It's not even good theology. 3) It attempts to associate all Muslims with violent behaviour. 4) It discriminates against, and promotes bigotry against ordinary Muslims by arguing that Muslims are inherently violent, and that they are a threat to us. 5) It increases the alienation of western Muslims within western society. If you provided an analysis of ISIS' theology, using their statements, I would not have an issue with it. As it is, it's quite reprehensible. It upsets me not because I disagree but because of the very real and negative impact that literature has on ordinary Muslims in the West. So when I state that today's Muslims are like the Jews in the 1920s that analysis proves the case. This hate material does have implications, you realize. Basically, the literature you post is being used in an attempt to smear the new Muslims in our country, who are ordinary folks for the most part. You don't seem to understand that top Islamic scholars are preaching anti-western rhetoric to millions of people around the world as we speak. Including your close to home Sheikh Rageah who teaches that those who leave Islam should be murdered. World peace for these guys is for everyone on the planet to fall into line with their version of Islam. I agree with you that ISIL must be confronted on the battlefield. Where we differ is that I believe ISIL is largely a product of the anti-western rhetoric of Islamic scholars and Imams, and this too must be confronted. I'd like to see some evidence of this. We're just discussing complex things, and I suspect the causes and motivations for ISIL are much more complex than orders from the Imam. I believe that what he said is that in many countries you can be killed for apostasy. He did say that you'd be safe in the West. The belief is hideous but logical, at least if Muslim Hell is anything like Christian Hell. Christians have had similar practices, at least killing those who publicise or preach heretical doctrine. And if you leave Christianity often it's for something heretical. If you really believe in Hell, then killing a few apostates is just logical, as it will save the rest from eternal damnation. It comes down to which is worse, death in this life, or eternal torment in hellfire. This was a conclusion reached by St. Augustine and was a practice for centuries. Why did Christians stop doing this? I think it's because there are few people within society that are Christians, in the first place, and second, few that really believe in Hell anymore. None of this means that Muslims are inherently violent. Any more than Texans are more violent because they practice capital punishment. I think they are more violent for other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 20:57:55 GMT -5
We're both fairly news aware, but I think where we differ is in our concerns about the threat Islam represents to our society. I'm not concerned about ideological threats, that is, what an imam might say. At least on our shores nothing can be done about radical imams. There are moderate imams also. It's better to let guys like Rageah talk because forcing radical Muslims underground has been tried in Turkey and Iran and only makes the problem worse. At least this way there is much needed dialogue, especially within the Muslim world itself. As far as overseas, little can be done. If the threat becomes a military one then we deal with it as we do any military threat. (And Iraq in 2003 was not a military threat.) The real conflict is within the Arab world itself and has been for a century or more. And will continue. A more moderate version of Islam is bound to be the result but it may take another century yet. I have hope that a more moderate Islam will emerge after they realise their religion is doing them no favors. It's not just an Arab problem. Islam causes untold misery in non-Arab societies as well. How would you like to be a young Muslim in Canada and be told there's a death sentence on you if you leave the religion? If a leader of any other cult in Canada announced that the penalty for leaving the religion is death, I think there would be an uproar. Ragheb made very clear that apostates are not killed in Canada. Because criticism needs to be accurate and fair. The two events are not in the least connected. Your posts provide a case study in simplistic dualistic thinking. Islam good or Islam bad. I note above that 86% of Jordanians Muslims favour death to apostates. Yet Jordan hardly supports ISIS and is bombing them. According to your logic, they should be signing up to join in the beheadings. However, I think we would both agree that moderate Muslims will have to take stronger steps to distance themselves from ISIS or they will continue to get caught in the crossfire.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 21:25:31 GMT -5
Ezra Levant's voice on controversial issues seems to resonate with a lot of Canadians, and he says he's overwhelmed by the support he is receiving. I just received an email from a professing friend on Ezra's response on the Macleans article that claimed that Winnipeg was the most racist city in Canada. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7lpvUErOQ I watched that. Come on, no racism against aboriginals in Winnipeg. Who is Levant kidding? Recent studies show that we are all to some extent, racist. We all have implicit racial biases even though overty and philosophically we are against racism. I haven't tried this web site (at Harvard) but it looks quite interesting. implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Levant argues that because the vast majority of people in Winnipeg are kind and friendly, which they are, we're to think there's no racism there? There might well be issues with MacDonald's article. I don't have an opinion as I haven't read it. But you must realize Levant's arguments are rhetorical, not logical. In fact he is illogical and I find he's usually that way. Most aboriginal victims of crime, are victims of other aboriginals, so then he makes a large leap to conclude that means there is no racism. In effect, to detect racism, he's implying, we need to find whites killing aboriginals. That's not how racism necessarily works. However, there have been deaths as the result of racism in Canada's western cities. Just not enough of them to satisfy Ezra Levant.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 21:38:01 GMT -5
At one time I subscribed to the Western Report which he took over and ruined. He's seen as a loudmouth here in Ontario. No doubt he has his fans as did that idiot ex-mayor, Rob Ford. Fortunately no one under 40 likes either one of these characters so I remain optimistic. In other good news, the Sun News network, our Canadian faux news network on which Levant Was a regular, had its plug pulled this week. Very few people watched it. Ezra Levant is…well…Ezra Levant. He tries to be outrageous, extreme, provocative, and offensive. It is his “brand”. That being said, he can get so caught up in his arguments that he loses perspective. I don't think that serves either him or his "brand". I am not a follower, but he does gets mentioned often enough in mainstream media and coffee room/dinner table discussions. Through the years, I have felt he has been less than helpful in quite a number of situations. Occasionally, I think he says some things that probably need to be said. So what comes to mind as far as something he would say, that needs to be said? If nothing comes to mind, don't worry about it. I'm just curious to understand how there might be something good out of his brand of yellow journalism. What he did to the Arab student lawyer was shameful, and fortunately, he paid dearly for it.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 21:46:12 GMT -5
I didn't get that he said there was no racism in winnipeg. Would be super duper naiive and dishonest to even imply that. Did he actually say that? I think.sadly, we are all inclined to be racist, to a degree .? I was disappointed in myself a while ago , when a certain set of circumstances came together, and I caught myself thinking and expressing some racist thoughts. I am guilty. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better. " Samuel becket t. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 22, 2015 22:05:35 GMT -5
Okay, so Ezra Lavant is a"nutcase" and Ralph Nader is "warped",but is there something in their messages that we can learn from or NOTHING they have to say is worth considering if it doesn't support my present position? I'm not so fond of either one ,either, but is there some truth in their arguments? Alvin I don't know what Nader has been doing lately, but guys like Levant are mainly in the entertainment business. Not to mention Rex Murphy, various open line hosts and so on. I do listen to them from time to time, but never learn anything. Better to read informed commentary ... I recommend the Economist which is my main source of news. Beyond that, read books by people who make the subject their life's work. Right now I'm reading "The Struggle for Power in Syria" by Nikolaos van Dam, a specialist on Syria. It actually doesn't take that much time to read a book on a subject. In 5 to 10 hours spent reading a book you'll go far more in depth than newspaper articles or TV news, which repeat the same information, ad nauseum. Lately, I've started on podcasts on my walks to and from my office. My kids and their friends are really into the podcast thing, and they sure make the walk go by quickly, and are an excellent way to learn stuff. My wife and another daughter are quite into audiobooks, downloaded digitally. Kind of a combination of the preceding two paragraphs, but I'm always a few steps behind my kids and my wife, too, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 22, 2015 22:18:33 GMT -5
So what comes to mind as far as something he would say, that needs to be said? If nothing comes to mind, don't worry about it. I'm just curious to understand how there might be something good out of his brand of yellow journalism. Easy. A recent example would be the part 2 youtube video that Alvin posted about the racism in Winnipeg. I grew up in Manitoba, Winnipeg was "the city" to us. I went to university there, lived there for 6 years. I know that city, it's in every cell of my body, in my bones. The Maclean's article was one of the most dishonest pieces of journalism that I have ever read. Nancy MacDonald should be ashamed. If she was not absolutely humiliated by the radio interview with Dave Wheeler, she should be. Of course there is racism there. But not in the sense or for any of the reasons that she articulates in her article. Ezra nailed this one.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 22, 2015 22:18:45 GMT -5
I have hope that a more moderate Islam will emerge after they realise their religion is doing them no favors. It's not just an Arab problem. Islam causes untold misery in non-Arab societies as well. How would you like to be a young Muslim in Canada and be told there's a death sentence on you if you leave the religion? If a leader of any other cult in Canada announced that the penalty for leaving the religion is death, I think there would be an uproar. Ragheb made very clear that apostates are not killed in Canada. How about in the power vacuum of Iraq and Syria? How about on a beach in Libya?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 22:20:06 GMT -5
Interesting. Quite obvious, and I accept that, I am not such a well read person, although I don't recall right now a single person who I have met, who I could not learn something from. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 22, 2015 22:22:45 GMT -5
You don't seem to understand that top Islamic scholars are preaching anti-western rhetoric to millions of people around the world as we speak. Including your close to home Sheikh Rageah who teaches that those who leave Islam should be murdered. World peace for these guys is for everyone on the planet to fall into line with their version of Islam. I agree with you that ISIL must be confronted on the battlefield. Where we differ is that I believe ISIL is largely a product of the anti-western rhetoric of Islamic scholars and Imams, and this too must be confronted. I'd like to see some evidence of this. We're just discussing complex things, and I suspect the causes and motivations for ISIL are much more complex than orders from the Imam. Would a youtube clip suffice? This man spoke of American enemies, and said that Jews are descended from apes and pigs (which comes from the Quran). This Arab/Islamic leader was elected president of Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 22, 2015 23:43:00 GMT -5
Why are kids in the UK taught that Christians and Jews are monkeys and pigs?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 22, 2015 23:50:46 GMT -5
Maybe because they understand their monarch, the queen ,comes from a reptile. So it all makes sense NOT. Sorry, could nt control myself again. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 22, 2015 23:57:19 GMT -5
Imam preaching against interfaith dialog, and saying that Mohammad waged war against the Jews when they refused to become Muslims.
Teaching that the United Nations was established in order to fight Islam, to destroy the State of Islam and to draw the Muslims away from their religion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 23, 2015 0:37:37 GMT -5
Here's an anti-western sermon in New York calling for the destruction of Israel and teaching American Muslims that they have a duty to fight...
In saying there are "Benedict Arnolds" in their midst he is clearly encouraging an "us and them" attitude in his congregation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 3:26:00 GMT -5
Ragheb made very clear that apostates are not killed in Canada. How about in the power vacuum of Iraq and Syria? How about on a beach in Libya? Fixit, I do hope that after there has been a blood bath because of incitement against Muslims, that there will some people who feel cleaner.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 23, 2015 4:38:07 GMT -5
How about in the power vacuum of Iraq and Syria? How about on a beach in Libya? Fixit, I do hope that after there has been a blood bath because of incitement against Muslims, that there will some people who feel cleaner.
The incitement has mostly been coming from Islamic leaders, and for many years. Pretending that it's not happening won't help. Actually, it makes it really difficult for moderate Muslims who try to prevent their children from being radicalised. Like this man: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10747220/Muslim-parent-Radical-school-is-brainwashing-our-children.html
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 23, 2015 4:53:46 GMT -5
Kids are radicalised throughout the Muslim world...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 23, 2015 9:38:13 GMT -5
So what comes to mind as far as something he would say, that needs to be said? If nothing comes to mind, don't worry about it. I'm just curious to understand how there might be something good out of his brand of yellow journalism. Easy. A recent example would be the part 2 youtube video that Alvin posted about the racism in Winnipeg. I grew up in Manitoba, Winnipeg was "the city" to us. I went to university there, lived there for 6 years. I know that city, it's in every cell of my body, in my bones. The Maclean's article was one of the most dishonest pieces of journalism that I have ever read. Nancy MacDonald should be ashamed. If she was not absolutely humiliated by the radio interview with Dave Wheeler, she should be. Of course there is racism there. But not in the sense or for any of the reasons that she articulates in her article. Ezra nailed this one. Don't worry, there is no "upset" in anything I post here. I like to be direct though. I can just see that I'm going to have to read the Maclean's article to see what the fuss is about. Not that I really want to. You'll see my response to Levant's video in another post. While I do have issues with the "rights agenda" people, some of who I debate as vigorously as I do the right of centre, I admire their impulse and energy to change things for the better. Levant contributes nothing to the issue. I can say with some assurance that any native person viewing that video would rightly see the subtext as "deal with it". Basically, a kick in the teeth. I think Ezra Levant is the last person you want critiquing the "rights agenda" because his approach is so confrontational. To some people that might well be "things that need to be said". I think he just plays to the anger of the moral majority and he basically adds nothing to the debate, at least based on that video. I too have connections in Winnipeg and in western Canada, and some years ago we rented a house in Winnipeg while I worked on a project there. Most people want nothing to do with the large native ghetto in the city. That indicates racist attitudes all of itself. The interfaces with the native community are left to some churches, social services, the medical community and the police. Unless you have personal knowledge of those interfaces I don't think we can really comment on whether racism exists or not. I believe also we should de-stigmatise the word "racism" to some extent. We avoid the reality of it, because it's thought to be such a terrible thing. But we all make prejudicial decisions based on race and other factors, often just for the sake of personal safety. Like the Muslim issue, more genuine dialogue is required, and I don't believe the Ezra Levant's of the world are much help, other than letting us know how far we have to go.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 23, 2015 9:42:37 GMT -5
I didn't get that he said there was no racism in winnipeg. Would be super duper naiive and dishonest to even imply that. Did he actually say that? I think.sadly, we are all inclined to be racist, to a degree .? I was disappointed in myself a while ago , when a certain set of circumstances came together, and I caught myself thinking and expressing some racist thoughts. I am guilty. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better. " Samuel becket t. Alvin What's his point, then? The MacLean's article is about racism in Winnipeg. Clearly some people are trying to do something about it. Now, here comes Ezra picking at the weak spots in the article. Why does he do this? Levant doesn't come out and say, "here's what I think the problem is". He's only interested in taking potshots at the reporter and others who raise his ire. But what's his actual contribution to solving the problem. He's denying that there is any problem at all with racism in Winnipeg. That is certainly how that video would be perceived by any native person in Canada. What do you think his point is?
|
|