|
On November 25 2012 02:12 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 01:55 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 01:28 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On November 24 2012 23:57 murphs wrote:On November 24 2012 21:45 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 24 2012 21:35 Callynn wrote:Until the day comes that they ban all religion's influence in politics - shit like this will keep happening. Cutting into people's bodies without a medical reason really shows off how barbarian religions are. female circumsision is sick beyond belief, and brings long term harm to the body of a woman. This would not happen with Mubarak around to keep the Pro Jihad / Sharia freaks in check. It seems every Arab nation with a democracy becomes worse. But it's totally ok on males, right? On males it actually has a benefit. If you live in a country with high prevalence of AIDS. Otherwise not. EDIT: And even then the evidence is not that strong. While it is not something I would choose for my kid, I do feel that there is a vast difference between male and female circumcision. While male is of course painful it has been shown to help with certain diseases and can be argued to have a hygienic benefit. Female circumcision is basicly torture that mutilates genitalia irreparably for life.
So is male circumcision, regardless of any benefits. Strictly speaking of course. I agree they are different and one is worse, but that doesn't mean the other one is good. But we've already had an entire thread on this so maybe we should get back to female circumcision and Egypt.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On November 25 2012 02:22 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 02:12 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On November 25 2012 01:55 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 01:28 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On November 24 2012 23:57 murphs wrote:On November 24 2012 21:45 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 24 2012 21:35 Callynn wrote:Until the day comes that they ban all religion's influence in politics - shit like this will keep happening. Cutting into people's bodies without a medical reason really shows off how barbarian religions are. female circumsision is sick beyond belief, and brings long term harm to the body of a woman. This would not happen with Mubarak around to keep the Pro Jihad / Sharia freaks in check. It seems every Arab nation with a democracy becomes worse. But it's totally ok on males, right? On males it actually has a benefit. If you live in a country with high prevalence of AIDS. Otherwise not. EDIT: And even then the evidence is not that strong. While it is not something I would choose for my kid, I do feel that there is a vast difference between male and female circumcision. While male is of course painful it has been shown to help with certain diseases and can be argued to have a hygienic benefit. Female circumcision is basicly torture that mutilates genitalia irreparably for life. So is male circumcision, regardless of any benefits. Strictly speaking of course. I agree they are different and one is worse, but that doesn't mean the other one is good. But we've already had an entire thread on this so maybe we should get back to female circumcision and Egypt.
Yea I should not be the one derailing threads
|
On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on.
Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews.
In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it?
|
On November 25 2012 02:12 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 01:55 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 01:28 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On November 24 2012 23:57 murphs wrote:On November 24 2012 21:45 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 24 2012 21:35 Callynn wrote:Until the day comes that they ban all religion's influence in politics - shit like this will keep happening. Cutting into people's bodies without a medical reason really shows off how barbarian religions are. female circumsision is sick beyond belief, and brings long term harm to the body of a woman. This would not happen with Mubarak around to keep the Pro Jihad / Sharia freaks in check. It seems every Arab nation with a democracy becomes worse. But it's totally ok on males, right? On males it actually has a benefit. If you live in a country with high prevalence of AIDS. Otherwise not. EDIT: And even then the evidence is not that strong. While it is not something I would choose for my kid, I do feel that there is a vast difference between male and female circumcision. While male is of course painful it has been shown to help with certain diseases and can be argued to have a hygienic benefit. Female circumcision is basicly torture that mutilates genitalia irreparably for life. Oh, I am not arguing , like some, that they are the same. The difference is extremely big and people being up in arms, when male circumcision is not mentioned, when female one is, are ridiculous. I was just reacting to the supposed benefits of the male one.
|
On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it?
Well. He might be exaggerating a bit saying that they will be slaugtered. But countires that have some form of islamic law has a tendency to have their non muslim population persecuted. Pakistan, egypt, Iraq etc.
Iraqi christians claimed their life was better under saddams rule. Its like Islamic nutcases have free reign to judge non muslims unde their law if something happens they dont like.
Like the parkistani blasfemi law. Many believe that the law gets (mis)used to settle disputes between muslim and christians.
|
On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it?
Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written.
The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith.
Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD?
Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion".
|
On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it?
Its not like Strict Islamic nations have a track record of funding global genocidal Jihad.
Oh wait Iran Saudi Arabia and other backwards islamic states are the main global sponsors? My bad!
The Muslim Brotherhood has made no attempt to hide they hate the West, Jews, Christians and others who refuse to bow before them but hey they are just politicians.
Perhaps time to allow all copts to migrate to Europe. before they are put to the sword which is all so common in Islamic history.
|
On November 25 2012 07:28 Bahamut1337 wrote:The Muslim Brotherhood has made no attempt to hide they hate the West, Jews, Christians and others who refuse to bow before them but hey they are just politicians. Perhaps time to allow all copts to migrate to Europe. before they are put to the sword which is all so common in Islamic history.
Where do you read about the Muslim brotherhood? Genuinely interested to know.
|
On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". Is there any muslim here who can confirm or dispel all of these statements?
|
On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people.
|
On November 25 2012 03:02 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Well. He might be exaggerating a bit saying that they will be slaugtered. But countires that have some form of islamic law has a tendency to have their non muslim population persecuted. Pakistan, egypt, Iraq etc. Iraqi christians claimed their life was better under saddams rule. Its like Islamic nutcases have free reign to judge non muslims unde their law if something happens they dont like. Like the parkistani blasfemi law. Many believe that the law gets (mis)used to settle disputes between muslim and christians. ...You do realize the reason Iraqi Christians liked Sadam was because under his rule there wasnt an 8 year bloody civil war....nothing to do with Islam per se. Everything to do with incompetent planning and execution of the occupation by the American neocon doofuses.
What is obviously a concern to everyone is that a guy got elected to the presidency and now says "well since we had this one vote, it means I can rule by decree and without court interference." Sure, after 50 years of Nasserite corruption in the judicial system its inevitable that the judges would be used as a tool to strike down any attempt at reform but just announcing that they are finished is the first step to announcing you dont need elections at all and you can just rule 'for the good of the people' But hey give Mosri credit, at least he waited over a year to mount a coup. Nasser did it within 6 months of his revolution against the king.
As to the broader point, if Egypt tomorrow got Western judges and a Western understanding of electoral politics it would still be a religious and conservative country where there would be an inevitable step back from some of the freedoms enjoyed under Mubarak. Conversely, the idea would be that once they tried the Islamist way and didnt find it particularly appealing (and very few societies do when they are given a free choice) then they would hand the power over to someone else to try. Islamists are popular in the middle east, but once they actually get into power its pretty amazing how quickly they start relying on good old political repression.
|
On November 25 2012 07:28 Bahamut1337 wrote:
Perhaps time to allow all copts to migrate to Europe. before they are put to the sword which is all so common in Islamic history.
In your view, why would the same Egyptian Muslims they didnt put the Copts to the sword in the preceding 1200 years would do so now?
|
On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people.
Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia.
Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion.
In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now.
Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know.
If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi.
|
On November 25 2012 09:33 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 07:28 Bahamut1337 wrote:
Perhaps time to allow all copts to migrate to Europe. before they are put to the sword which is all so common in Islamic history.
In your view, why would the same Egyptian Muslims they didnt put the Copts to the sword in the preceding 1200 years would do so now?
Because they where too busy taxing, persecuting and discriminating them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts , particularly the bit entitled Persecution and discrimination in Egypt is of note.
|
On November 25 2012 09:54 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people. Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia. Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion. In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now. Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know. If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi. You seem to have misunderstood my point when I brought up the crusades. I wasn't bringing up the crusades (or the child molesting, or the gay killing) to point fingers at Christianity, telling you how bad it is. I was using that as a point to show that in the past, 'we' as Christians (even though I myself am atheist) did bad things but we evolved out of it. A lot of the middle eastern countries and the Islamic rules they live by are really similar to us a few hundred years ago. I'm just saying that instead of condemning it, we should give them a chance to evolve out of it, just like we did.
Also. The Old Testament is some of the most violent pieces of literature I ever read. People were being smitten for being anything other than the perfect Christian left right and center. Maybe there are no direct commands of that nature in there (honestly it's been very long since I read it), but the message it puts across is really quite similar to that in the Quran in a lot of ways.
|
On November 25 2012 10:17 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 09:54 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people. Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia. Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion. In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now. Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know. If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi. You seem to have misunderstood my point when I brought up the crusades. I wasn't bringing up the crusades (or the child molesting, or the gay killing) to point fingers at Christianity, telling you how bad it is. I was using that as a point to show that in the past, 'we' as Christians (even though I myself am atheist) did bad things but we evolved out of it. A lot of the middle eastern countries and the Islamic rules they live by are really similar to us a few hundred years ago. I'm just saying that instead of condemning it, we should give them a chance to evolve out of it, just like we did. Also. The Old Testament is some of the most violent pieces of literature I ever read. People were being smitten for being anything other than the perfect Christian left right and center. Maybe there are no direct commands of that nature in there (honestly it's been very long since I read it), but the message it puts across is really quite similar to that in the Quran in a lot of ways.
I don't even know why we have the old testament around that much. Its really just the jewish part of the bible and has no real impact on christian ideals. Christ came in the new testament and thats where you should be getting all your christian quotes and stuff.
And people should have really low expectations for eqypt for the next few decades. democracy is a brand new thing for them and they'll have to work out all the kinks just like america had to do back when the country was founded for white protestant men.
|
On November 25 2012 08:58 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". Is there any muslim here who can confirm or dispel all of these statements?
I'm not sure "dispel" is the correct wording, but "ignorant" would fit. Islamic countries treat the Quran like a Constitution, and give it the same veneration (except it doesn't change). Yes, there are some things that we in the West find offensive in it, but it's not this barbaric thing he makes it out to be. There are also conflicting views on a number of the more restrictive portions of it.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization. It's just a religiously motivated political movement.
|
On November 25 2012 10:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 10:17 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 09:54 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 09:16 Mikau wrote:On November 25 2012 03:19 Scootaloo wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that those Conservative Christians bombing abortion clinics grabbing power in the US wouldn't be a problem? It should also be noted that the culture their religion is based on is incredibly ruthless and discriminatory, those values you talk about are outdated all the way back to when the Qu'ran was written. The Qu'ran tells people to kill jews, it tells you to beat your wife and rape her if she refuses sex, it tells you to kill anyone you know that renounces their faith. Do you honestly believe anything good can come from a political party based on the strict adherence to the values of a book that want's people to revert back to how barbarian nomads lived in 600AD? Nobody is suggesting the MB will try to invade Israel and kill jews because of they're fundamentally evil, they will do so because their holy book tells them to, believing that destroying another race is just dandy because Islam is good with that shit constitutes, I would say, a bit more then "a slight difference in culture and religion". It's funny, because the Bible actually tells people a lot of the same things. And just like not every Christian takes everything the Bible says literally, there are plenty of Muslims who don't take the Quran literally. Islam isn't inherently evil, just like Chrstianity isn't. Maybe we should actually give them a chance, instead of getting up in arms before we even know what's going to happen. Just like we had to give Christianity a chance to not be a bunch of gay-killing, child-molesting, crusading bunch of people. Actually, the bible doesn't say the same things the Qu'ran does, the Bible tells you that at x point in time people x justly killed people y because z, it does not tell you to actively search out and kill Jews and people that have converted, most of the time the Bible is telling it's history, whereas most of the time the Qu'ran is giving commands, the sheer amount of which combined with the ruthless time, leads to some of the more controversial rules existing. Seriously, give me a Bible quote where God gives all Christians the order to kill anyone in specific, it doesn't even give any punishments that should be given when sins are committed because it believes any judgement will be done post mortem, in stark contrast to the Sharia. Islam isn't inherently evil, to be honest evil is a broken concept, all actions can be just in a specific light, Nazi's or the Devil are evil, mostly because they are ethereal concepts devoid of any realism or humanity, given enough time to empathize and understand, noone but the most hardcore of sociopaths can be considered evil, let alone an entire religion. In it's initial time frame Islam did a lot of good, but at this point it's more severe rules that only make sense in historical context are starting to hurt it's own people, making a sick form of blood sport out of suicide bombings, and all the other ridiculous rules completely incompatible with any form of modern culture, usually not even those of Muslim countries themselves. At some point those differences are going to break, forcing Muslims to either "update" the Qu'ran, completely secularize or live by it's teachings to the death, mind you the last possibility is extremely unlikely, but considering an entire country can band up against the Jews, Armenians or Kurds, it's not hard to imagine the world banding together if a specific a single religion keeps causing trouble, especially if we keep steering towards one world government as quickly as we are now. Please don't try to use the Crusades as one liner, it's a rather complicated subject, during that time Christian countries lacked any form of military cohesion, whereas most of the Islamic world was unified and rapidly conquering Christian lands and terrorizing pilgrims, eventually culminating in Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which until that point had been the holiest site for Christians and especially pilgrims. After that the pope, in response to pleading from the pilgrims and in an attempt to gain more power called for the first Crusade, the rest of the story I really hope you know. If you want to blame anyone for the Crusades, blame the Pope for wanting more power and Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah for launching a literal terror campaign on Christians in his lands, unlike in the Qu'ran, nowhere in the Bible does it tell people to Crusade, the word doesn't even appear in it, unlike Jihad and Ghazi. You seem to have misunderstood my point when I brought up the crusades. I wasn't bringing up the crusades (or the child molesting, or the gay killing) to point fingers at Christianity, telling you how bad it is. I was using that as a point to show that in the past, 'we' as Christians (even though I myself am atheist) did bad things but we evolved out of it. A lot of the middle eastern countries and the Islamic rules they live by are really similar to us a few hundred years ago. I'm just saying that instead of condemning it, we should give them a chance to evolve out of it, just like we did. Also. The Old Testament is some of the most violent pieces of literature I ever read. People were being smitten for being anything other than the perfect Christian left right and center. Maybe there are no direct commands of that nature in there (honestly it's been very long since I read it), but the message it puts across is really quite similar to that in the Quran in a lot of ways. I don't even know why we have the old testament around that much. Its really just the jewish part of the bible and has no real impact on christian ideals. Christ came in the new testament and thats where you should be getting all your christian quotes and stuff. And people should have really low expectations for eqypt for the next few decades. democracy is a brand new thing for them and they'll have to work out all the kinks just like america had to do back when the country was founded for white protestant men. I'm not sure if that last paragraph is you making fun of me or completely agreeing with what I was trying to say...
|
The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a terrorist organization.
It's just a terrorist support organization that has spawned a large number of high-ranking terrorists and churns out large numbers of young men indoctrinated to hate Jews and like jihad.
It also is the main player in whipping up anti-Coptic bigotry and in anti-Copt attacks and riots.
This thread isn't about political Islam per se but political Islam just plain shitty and if you compare it to religious conservatives in the US you're comparing a yippy little terrier who will bite you on the ankle sometimes to a pit bull raised by a crack dealer.
It also isn't about the Old Testament, but one of the main reasons that the Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible is that Christians believe that the Jews of the Old Testament were tasked by God to create a nation living by God's law because according to God that was necessary for the Messiah to come. So the story of the Jews in the Old Testament is very important to Christians. The teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament prophets concerning the Messiah are also very important, as to Christians the details of the Messianic prophecies confirm that Jesus was the true Messiah.
Now for an update from Mohamed El Baradei:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1292737--egyptian-reformist-mohamed-elbaradei-warns-military-could-step-in-as-tension-mounts-over-presidential-decrees
CAIRO—Prominent Egyptian democracy advocate Mohamed ElBaradei warned Saturday of increasing turmoil that could potentially lead to the military stepping in unless the Islamist president rescinds his new, near-absolute powers.
At the same time, Egypt’s liberal and secular forces — long divided, weakened and uncertain amid the rise of Islamist parties to power — are seeking to rally themselves in response to the decrees issued this week by President Mohammed Morsi. The president granted himself sweeping powers to “protect the revolution” and made himself immune to judicial oversight.
The judiciary, which was the main target of Morsi’s edicts, pushed back Saturday. The country’s highest body of judges, the Supreme Judicial Council, called his decrees an “unprecedented assault.” Courts in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria announced a work suspension until the decrees are lifted.
Outside the high court building in Cairo, several hundred demonstrators rallied against Morsi, chanting, “Leave! Leave!” echoing the slogan used against former leader Hosni Mubarak in last year’s uprising that ousted him. Police fired tear gas to disperse a crowd of young men who were shooting flares outside the court.
The edicts issued Wednesday have galvanized the anger brewing against Morsi, who took office in June as Egypt’s first freely elected president, and the Muslim Brotherhood, from which he hails. Critics accuse the Brotherhood — which has dominated elections over the past year — and other Islamists of monopolizing power and doing little to bring real reform or address Egypt’s mounting economic and security woes.
I don't know if El Baradei is bluffing by bringing up the specter of the military stepping in, but it does underscore how high the stakes are considered by the players themselves. The opposition understands now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken the route of "one, person, one vote, one time." Have one open and fair election they know they'll win anyway, then sham elections or no elections at all from then on out. Things don't look good for the prospect of a stable Egypt, particularly if Morsi's move and the resulting situation messes up Egypt's loan deal with the IMF.
|
On November 25 2012 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 03:02 TheRealArtemis wrote:On November 25 2012 02:35 beef42 wrote:On November 25 2012 01:03 Cirqueenflex wrote: there is actually not much good that islamic ruled countries inflict upon their citizens. So in my opinion, it would be far better for Egypt to get ruled by the military than a mostly islamic government. Not only for the sake of the inhabitants (and all the non-muslims, who would eventually get slaughtered), but also for the sake of the peace with Israel. An islamic government would eventually brake the treaty and attack, and probably forcing at least the US to take action. And that part of the world already has enough war going on. Everytime I read this sort of prejudice it irks me a little. These terrifying islamists aren't going to slaughter anyone, or invade Israel or anything crazy like that - they're politicians just like everyone else. They aren't very different from other religious conservatives from other parts of the world (for example conservative Christians as we know them from the USA), except their values are based on a different culture than the one we know in the western world. You honestly can't say, that just because their holy book and accompanying set of values is slightly different, that they're dangerous psychopaths hellbent on invading Israel and killing all jews. In any case, if there is a legitimate election, and the islamists win it, then how can we argue with it? Well. He might be exaggerating a bit saying that they will be slaugtered. But countires that have some form of islamic law has a tendency to have their non muslim population persecuted. Pakistan, egypt, Iraq etc. Iraqi christians claimed their life was better under saddams rule. Its like Islamic nutcases have free reign to judge non muslims unde their law if something happens they dont like. Like the parkistani blasfemi law. Many believe that the law gets (mis)used to settle disputes between muslim and christians. ...You do realize the reason Iraqi Christians liked Sadam was because under his rule there wasnt an 8 year bloody civil war....nothing to do with Islam per se. Everything to do with incompetent planning and execution of the occupation by the American neocon doofuses. What is obviously a concern to everyone is that a guy got elected to the presidency and now says "well since we had this one vote, it means I can rule by decree and without court interference." Sure, after 50 years of Nasserite corruption in the judicial system its inevitable that the judges would be used as a tool to strike down any attempt at reform but just announcing that they are finished is the first step to announcing you dont need elections at all and you can just rule 'for the good of the people' But hey give Mosri credit, at least he waited over a year to mount a coup. Nasser did it within 6 months of his revolution against the king. As to the broader point, if Egypt tomorrow got Western judges and a Western understanding of electoral politics it would still be a religious and conservative country where there would be an inevitable step back from some of the freedoms enjoyed under Mubarak. Conversely, the idea would be that once they tried the Islamist way and didnt find it particularly appealing (and very few societies do when they are given a free choice) then they would hand the power over to someone else to try. Islamists are popular in the middle east, but once they actually get into power its pretty amazing how quickly they start relying on good old political repression.
No? The american war in Iraq had its tolls on every party in the region, that much is clear, offcause. But what I talk about nothing to do with the war. A large percentage of the people fleeing from Iraq are christians and that isnt a coinsidence. They felt safer with Saddam making sure the majority werent getting hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Religion The minorities and christians in Iraq were about 3-5% Yet, in 2003-05 they almost made up for 40% of the refugess that fled into syria. That is very strange indeed. War can do alot of things, but only persecution can make a majority flee so much from violence.
Mosul is now one of the most violent cities in Iraq with Christians and other minorities singled out for attacks and thousands continue to flee from the troubled nation, a Christian group said Thursday, August 16. The attacks against Christians in Mosul and all of Iraq amount to "religicide," warned Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors USA, the American branch of the international Open Doors group. "Christians in cities like Baghdad and Mosul are gripped by terrorism. They are fleeing in droves. Today it was reported that at least 20 people died in blasts and shootings across the country + Show Spoiler +http://www.worthynews.com/11689-mosul-iraqs-most-dangerous-city-for-christians
Iraq — A new wave of Iraqi Christians has fled to northern Iraq or abroad amid a campaign of violence against them and growing fear that the country’s security forces are unable or, more ominously, unwilling to protect them. + Show Spoiler +http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It has every bit to do with Islam. They are simply trying to get their countries rid of the minorities, and it happens in pretty much every islamic nation. Espacially in Iraq, Egypt, and Pakistan. Minorites even have to pay ekstra taxes tto live in egypt. + Show Spoiler +http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/christians-should-convert-pay-tribute-or-leave/
|
|
|
|