Post by: gunsmith on December 11, 2007, 12:22:45 PM
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/12704.html
the story
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211175557.p3d3kaah&show_article=1
Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.
Police said in a statement they received an emergency call at 7:55 am local time Monday from "a man who indicated that he had just killed his daughter."
The victim, Aqsa Parvez, was "rushed to hospital with life-threatening injuries, but tragically passed away late last night."
Her father, Muhammad Parvez, 57, was arrested at the scene and will be formally charged with murder when he appears in court Wednesday, said police.
The girl's friends, meanwhile, told local media she was having trouble at home because she did not conform to the family's religious beliefs and refused to wear a traditional Islamic head scarf, or hijab.
"She wanted to go different ways than her family wanted to go, and she wanted to make her own path, but he (her father) wouldn't let her," one of her classmates told public broadcaster CBC.
"She loved clothes," another of her friends, Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, told the daily Toronto Star. "She just wanted to show her beauty ... She just wanted to dress like us, just like a normal person."
According to her friends, Aqsa had worn the hijab at school last year, but rebelled in recent months.
They said she would leave home wearing a hijab and loose-fitting clothes, but would take off her head scarf and change into tighter garments at school, then change back before going home at the end of the day.
The victim's 26 year-old brother was also charged with obstructing police in the investigation.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 12:25:28 PM
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
Post by: 280plus on December 11, 2007, 03:46:23 PM
Quote
They said she would leave home wearing a hijab and loose-fitting clothes, but would take off her head scarf and change into tighter garments at school, then change back before going home at the end of the day.
Kids never change, I used to do the same thing with this denim jacket I had in HS. "Mother" wouldn't let me wear it because she said it made me look like a hoodlum so I snuck it to school and kept it in my locker and wore it at school. I don't remember how but she found out, got ahold of it and cut it up into pieces. Yea, she was a great mom. Guess I should be grateful she didn't kill me, although she may have come close a couple times, for real not figuratively. She wonders why I don't call. 
Then there was the time she broke my "Ballad of John and Yoko" 45 because she said they were talking about crucifying Christ. THEN there was the time she destroyed my "Houses of the Holy" album cover (but not the album) because, "There's naked children on that cover!" I could go on, I won't...
Post by: ilbob on December 11, 2007, 04:03:48 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 04:13:52 PM
Ah, yes.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
No need to go back to that to find it in Canada-apparently you could have headlines like "Devout Bible Quoting Christian Murders 50 women": http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3b742afe-c303-4fb7-9042-e20479bb05cb
Quote
"I know I was brought into this world to be hear today to change this world of there evil ways. They even want to dis-re-guard the ten command-ments from the time that Moses in his day brought in power which still is in existence today," wrote Pickton, who is facing another 20 counts of murder which are to be dealt with at a second trial.
There was also that religious Christian community activist who hated women so much he killed something like a hundred because of their low morals in Oregon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3232567.stm
But hey, I guess deep religious convictions on the part of a murderer only matter if he's Muslim. At least that's the impression I get from the way Muslims are treated in the media.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 11, 2007, 04:37:38 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 04:43:18 PM
Ah yes, the knee-jerk Muslim Barbarian apologist comment. Couldn't have gone too long without it.
Please explain to me what, in any possible light, can be construed as "apologetics" for this brutal crime?
The comment is on painting this as a religious issue, versus refusing to treat other murders where the murderer is religious as such simply because they aren't Muslims. I think it's right not to play up the religious angle when some barbaric crime happens at the hands of someone who claims to be a religious Christian trying to "change this world of there evil ways"; that clearly isn't what Christianity teaches, and the guy is a lowlife murderer, and that's the way the news treats and we treat it.
So why doesn't Islam get the same level of respect? Why does everyone assume that what this guy did is sanctioned by his religion anymore than killing prostitutes is sanctioned by Christianity?
Sorry, but noting and questioning religious discrimination in coverage of crimes is not apologizing for murder.
Post by: Ron on December 11, 2007, 04:51:53 PM
Quote
So why doesn't Islam get the same level of respect? Why does everyone assume that what this guy did is sanctioned by his religion anymore than killing prostitutes is sanctioned by Christianity?
I think you are missing the obvious point that Islam currently has a big problem with honor killings and other odd violent expressions of their faith.
It seems the moderate Muslim community while much larger has little influence on the minority community.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 11, 2007, 05:05:09 PM
Ah yes, the knee-jerk Muslim Barbarian apologist comment. Couldn't have gone too long without it.
Please explain to me what, in any possible light, can be construed as "apologetics" for this brutal crime?
The comment is on painting this as a religious issue, versus refusing to treat other murders where the murderer is religious as such simply because they aren't Muslims. I think it's right not to play up the religious angle when some barbaric crime happens at the hands of someone who claims to be a religious Christian trying to "change this world of there evil ways"; that clearly isn't what Christianity teaches, and the guy is a lowlife murderer, and that's the way the news treats and we treat it.
So why doesn't Islam get the same level of respect? Why does everyone assume that what this guy did is sanctioned by his religion anymore than killing prostitutes is sanctioned by Christianity?
Sorry, but noting and questioning religious discrimination in coverage of crimes is not apologizing for murder.
Islam, unlike the other major religions, teaches that murder isn't always wrong. That is wrong, and that's what it looks like you're trying to apologize for.
I highly doubt the crime would have happened if Muhammad Parvez had been Christian, Jewish, or Hindu. He appears to be an otherwise sane man. Take away his religious views on clothing, women's rights, and honor killings, and there'd be no reason for him to commit the crime.
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 05:20:49 PM
Quote
Islam, unlike the other major religions, teaches that murder isn't always wrong. That is wrong, and that's what it looks like you're trying to apologize for.
There isn't anything to apologize for, because the statement is totally untrue. If you are interested in what the religion actually teaches, trumpeting murder cases with no analysis of religion is not the way to find out.
Quote
I highly doubt the crime would have happened if Muhammad Parvez had been Christian, Jewish, or Hindu. He appears to be an otherwise sane man. Take away his religious views on clothing, women's rights, and honor killings, and there'd be no reason for him to commit the crime.
In what way does this guy "appear to be sane"? There is absolutely no detail on this matter whatsoever. Violent and abusive parents have killed and do kill their children for disobedience regularly in America; and some of them are religious. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this case is an example of a normal guy just propelled by his religious teaching to murder-indeed, it appears to be a cut and dry case of an abusive, controlling parent using violence against his own children (an all too common story for all religions.)
We don't know what his religious views were-but if they were something like what most Muslims believe about women and clothing, he'd have to believe that he earned himself the death penalty for murder. The idea that Islam sanctions murdering your daughter for not wearing the right clothes seems to be what you're relying on here, and it's totally false.
My question to you is: Where do you get the notion that punishing a girl for not wearing the hijab, or even requiring that she wear it, is something the vast majority of Muslims would agree with? Indeed, the facts would support the opposite-in the vast majority of places where Muslims are the majority, the hijab is not required, nor is it commonly worn. This murdering father, even if he believed that he had to do this as punishment, would be out of step with Islam in the same way that the Canadian serial killer is totally out of it with respect to Christian teaching today (although he might have been considered within his rights in a different place/time in history)
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 05:28:43 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 05:37:08 PM
Shootinstudent could write speeches for Ibrahim Hooper.
Of course that's a bad thing, because unlike you, the head of CAIR doesn't know what Islam teaches, or is part of the apparently billion man conspiracy to hide what Islam actually teaches.
The idea that all prominent Muslim leaders are covering up "the truth" of what Islam actually teaches is a conspiracy theory, no different from the theories that have been levelled against other religions-Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc etc.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 06:02:11 PM
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 06:15:17 PM
Whether or not Islam itself is behind the times--any more than the Vatican is, say--it's certainly true that the Muslim world is behind the times. Apart from a few of their rulers, who live like drunken frat boys at a panty raid, most live in relative squalor and repression. To say that "they" would like to destroy modern civilization is to say that they'd rather live short, miserable lives, squatting in huts and crapping in latrines. Pure nonsense. That's why so many of them come over to the West where they can enjoy modernity. There are between two and three million Muslims in the US, the vast majority of whom have never committed any act of terrorism.
Only one thing will bring Muslims into the 21st century: the same thing that forced the Mother Church to stop inquisiting and find other approaches. Raise the level of prosperity in that part of the world. The only thing we can do to that end is engage in free trade--which conservatives claim to be all about in the first place (though most of them are lying). Bombing the crap out of them won't help. It won't teach them to revere us as thunder gods, nor to befriend or obey us. It will encourage more of their only practical option: asymmetric warfare.
If only there were a presidential candidate who is all about free trade, and who is strong on defense while refusing offensive war and tangling alliances.
Anyway, back to the jingoistic attacks on Shootinstudent already in progress. Them mooslims. Bah! They're savages. They don't respect life like we do, which is why we have to exterminate them like we're doin'. All they understand is force. Boo-yah!
--Len.
Post by: CNYCacher on December 11, 2007, 06:19:01 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 11, 2007, 06:21:35 PM
So why doesn't Islam get the same level of respect? Why does everyone assume that what this guy did is sanctioned by his religion anymore than killing prostitutes is sanctioned by Christianity?
Could it be because what he did is sanctioned by his religion? In fact, many would argue that it is required by his religion. That's what his understanding of Islam is, I'm sure. Even Muslim father's don't routinely go around offing their daughters for no reason.
Quote from: shootinstudent
My question to you is: Where do you get the notion that punishing a girl for not wearing the hijab, or even requiring that she wear it, is something the vast majority of Muslims would agree with?
Possibly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban are still big on drive-by killings of women who don't adhere to their dress code. Not all Muslims believe women must wear a hijab, of course, but you make it seem like only a tiny majority believe that way, and if that's what you believe ... I respectfully submit that it is you who are in error.
Post by: Finch on December 11, 2007, 06:37:58 PM
Anyway, back to the jingoistic attacks on Shootinstudent already in progress. Them mooslims. Bah! They're savages. They don't respect life like we do, which is why we have to exterminate them like we're doin'. All they understand is force. Boo-yah!
And don't forget - THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS RAAAARRR!!!!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 11, 2007, 07:14:28 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 07:21:28 PM
Hawkmoon,
Quote
Could it be because what he did is sanctioned by his religion? In fact, many would argue that it is required by his religion. That's what his understanding of Islam is, I'm sure. Even Muslim father's don't routinely go around offing their daughters for no reason.
I don't know of a single Muslim authority who argues that this is "required", and most would say that the proper punishment for what this father did is death. And no, "Muslim fathers" do not routinely off their daughters-that's completely off the wall and it's completely false.
Quote
Possibly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban are still big on drive-by killings of women who don't adhere to their dress code. Not all Muslims believe women must wear a hijab, of course, but you make it seem like only a tiny majority believe that way, and if that's what you believe ... I respectfully submit that it is you who are in error.
Well, in the first place, the Taliban don't live in an Islamic law system. They have their own legal system that is rooted in ancient Pahtan custom-it isn't Islamic, and most of the Taliban aren't Arabic speakers or experts on Islamic law. They are Pahtan tribesmen-so it makes sense that they apply (surprise) the ancient legal system of their particular culture. The consensus in Islamic scholarship on the dress of the Taliban (burqa) is that not only is it not required, it's possibly not allowed, and it's definitely not allowed to be worn as a statement of moral superiority.
On the hijab, the religious scholars (who are not clergy-there is no such thing as a Muslim "priest" or equivalent ordained position) mostly agree that it is required-but Muslims consistently vote for and live in societies that don't require it. That isn't something you need to take my word for-take a look at a list of Muslim-majority states, and see how many require the hijab.
Post by: SomeKid on December 11, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
You pointed out examples of Christians doing bad things.
When a Christian does a bad thing, people criticize Christianity.
What do Christians do? We denounce the bad act.
In some cases (think the Amish school shooting) we not only pray for those hurt, and hope for the best, we actively send aid to them. The Amish VICTIMS went so far as to help the murderers family!
Now, lets compare that act, with you.
Muslim commit a barbaric act, that is pretty common in the Muslim world.
People denounce the act as barbarism.
You (and other Muslim apologists, like CAIR) immediately jump out, complaining of prejudice and attacking Christianity.
No denouncing his actions, just attacking Christianity as having bad apples, and grumbling about how everyone attacks Islam unfairly.
I looked through all your posts. I don't even see you denouncing his actions. Just attacking Christianity, and whining about the plight of Muslims.
Notice any difference there? Bueller?
To give you one more example, to this DAY over 6 YEARS after the fact, I have yet to meet one Muslim who will agree that Osama and his ilk deserve to all die. I have yet to encounter one who will flatly denounce his actions, but multiple who will attack both America and Christianty.
Spotting differences yet?
Post by: gunsmith on December 11, 2007, 09:09:59 PM
then there are similar crimes committed by Christians from anywhere.
I posted the story because I was sad about a beautiful young lady getting killed in such a brutal way.
I am not anti Muslim at all, and God knows family issues run deep and violent in every culture, but in modern middle eastern cultures (a minority of them Christian also) their is a brutal oppression of young women.
I hate it. How do we stop it? Where are all those femminist protesters now?
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 10:01:01 PM
Quote
You pointed out examples of Christians doing bad things.
When a Christian does a bad thing, people criticize Christianity.
What do Christians do? We denounce the bad act.
When a Christian does a bad thing, people criticize Christianity.
What do Christians do? We denounce the bad act.
Actually, no, people don't blame christianity for it-just look at the coverage of the two psychos. And they are right not to blame it-to take instances of crimes like these and ascribe them to Christianity just because the killer claimed to be Christian is wrong and unfair to all Christians.
Quote
Muslim commit a barbaric act, that is pretty common in the Muslim world.
People denounce the act as barbarism.
People denounce the act as barbarism.
"People" includes Muslims.
Quote
You (and other Muslim apologists, like CAIR) immediately jump out, complaining of prejudice and attacking Christianity.
No denouncing his actions, just attacking Christianity as having bad apples, and grumbling about how everyone attacks Islam unfairly.
No denouncing his actions, just attacking Christianity as having bad apples, and grumbling about how everyone attacks Islam unfairly.
Yeah, the grumbling isn't about people condemning the act. Notice that not a single line in my posts defends this murderer's crime. The complaining is about blaming the murder committed by a single man, on a whole religion, and claiming that my religion somehow was at fault for what this scumbag chose to do. Sorry, not buying-the murderer is responsible for the murder, not every member of a religion he claimed to adhere to.
Quote
To give you one more example, to this DAY over 6 YEARS after the fact, I have yet to meet one Muslim who will agree that Osama and his ilk deserve to all die. I have yet to encounter one who will flatly denounce his actions, but multiple who will attack both America and Christianty.
Okay, try this-find one Muslim organization in America that has not condemned Osama, Al Qaeda, and the terrorist attacks committed by them?
If you haven't met one, you haven't met any, or you simply haven't asked. Perhaps what is happening is that today, you don't see it, because we're all tired of having to say "I hate Osama bin Laden" in every single conversation with everyone we talk to. It gets old-sort of like being a gun owner and having to explain that you don't believe people should be able to shoot each other down in duels at the drop of a hat, or having to explain that you aren't a blood thirsty racist member of the Aryan nations just because you like guns and nascar. It offends gun owners to be treated this way, and rightly offends Muslims that some people will never stop demanding "clear denuncations of terrorism" as if they haven't happened, and if you're somehow suspicious simply because you don't begin every sentence with "I hate osama."
Post by: SomeKid on December 11, 2007, 10:04:57 PM
Are you incapable of coming out and denouncing fellow Muslims?
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 10:05:25 PM
It is safe to say that there are tons more "honor killings" done by Muslims from the middle east
then there are similar crimes committed by Christians from anywhere.
then there are similar crimes committed by Christians from anywhere.
No, this isn't safe to say-a good number of the "honor killings" in the middle east are done by Christians and other religious minorities, who tend to be more extreme in those places about "their women" going off with men outside the clan than the majority population, which is more secure in its identity. Honor killings happen in these countries despite religion, not because of it.
Quote
I am not anti Muslim at all, and God knows family issues run deep and violent in every culture, but in modern middle eastern cultures (a minority of them Christian also) their is a brutal oppression of young women.
I hate it. How do we stop it? Where are all those femminist protesters now?
I hate it. How do we stop it? Where are all those femminist protesters now?
There are no protestors in those countries, because protesting the dictator means being tortured and killed. A sure way to aggravate the problem is to only become concerned about rights when it serves the purposes of a foreign power; what ends up happening is that the real women's rights activists in these countries get written off as stooges of the former-colonial powers. It would be like if the USSR started running ads and campaigning in favor of a particular politicians-that politician would lose a huge amount of credibility just by association.
Supporting local women's rights organizations in the middle east, and putting pressure on their governments to hold elections and make decisions transparently, rather than in secret, is how you deal with this. Not by associating women's rights with a bias against Islam generally.
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 10:10:15 PM
SS, you say you haven't defended the man, but you are. Every post here has been a defense that covers this man, though not directly.
Are you incapable of coming out and denouncing fellow Muslims?
Are you incapable of coming out and denouncing fellow Muslims?
Uh, please cite the material that "defends this man"? I haven't even called him a man-I refer to him as murderer, scumbag, etc etc.
Let me quote from my previous posts:
Quote
But hey, I guess deep religious convictions on the part of a murderer only matter if he's Muslim.
Quote
Please explain to me what, in any possible light, can be construed as "apologetics" for this brutal crime?
Quote
We don't know what his religious views were-but if they were something like what most Muslims believe about women and clothing, he'd have to believe that he earned himself the death penalty for murder.
Quote
This murdering father, even if he believed that he had to do this as punishment, would be out of step with Islam in the same way that the Canadian serial killer is totally out of it with respect to Christian teaching today
Quote
Notice that not a single line in my posts defends this murderer's crime.
Let's see SomeKid-by my count, that's condemnation and clear labelling of this guy as a murderer in every single post on this thread. I also pointed out that according to the rules in Islam for this crime, he deserves the death penalty.
What did you want or expect? Could you give me an example of what condemnation is, if not branding the guy a brutal murderer? And what is "indirectly covering" about saying these things?
Post by: Iain on December 11, 2007, 10:39:40 PM
You pointed out examples of Christians doing bad things.
When a Christian does a bad thing, people criticize Christianity.
What do Christians do? We denounce the bad act.
In some cases (think the Amish school shooting) we not only pray for those hurt, and hope for the best, we actively send aid to them. The Amish VICTIMS went so far as to help the murderers family!
When a Christian does a bad thing, people criticize Christianity.
What do Christians do? We denounce the bad act.
In some cases (think the Amish school shooting) we not only pray for those hurt, and hope for the best, we actively send aid to them. The Amish VICTIMS went so far as to help the murderers family!
Not quite.
SS criticism was of the article and the response to it. Headlines could fairly regularly exist about nutjob religious loons, the latest British serial killer is or was a devout Catholic. We regularly accuse the media of irresponsibility, the possibility exists that this headline would be seen this way - if it wasn't about muslims.
Christians will only denounce a bad act where they feel that act is linked to, or could be construed as being part of, Christianity. Thus, if a man were to quote the relevant old testament passage whilst beating a homosexual to death, or stoning his adulterous wife - would you apologise?
It's not your responsibility. That isn't your Christianity. It isn't Christianity. There are those who would claim that it is your responsibility, that it is part of the Christian tradition. You might call them ignorant Christian bashers.
Post by: gunsmith on December 11, 2007, 11:22:47 PM
to westerners, the killing of female family members because of irrational control issues.
Answer this question?
Quote
How do we stop it? Where are all those femminist protesters now?
Quote
Honor killings happen in these countries despite religion, not because of it
Yes, maybe that is true, but nowadays Christianity is very much a minority in those countries, also I never hear of honor killings by Christians from the middle east when they move to western countries but I do
hear of them by Muslims.
This is not meant to bash, not at all! I just want to know why so that I may find a way to make it stop.
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 11:41:02 PM
Quote
How do we stop it? Where are all those femminist protesters now?
I thought I had answered this-in the countries where this is a problem, there are no unsanctioned protests of any kind. Protesting is likely to result in being shot/beaten/tortured by the police. The more hard core Islamist political parties have made a point of trying to make examples of the men who commit this crime-but those parties are mostly illegal, and mostly not in power, so their impact is limited. The dictatorships in the region mostly do not care about women's rights or anything else, so instead of paying for an anti-honor killing campaign, they spend it on a new ferrarri or some similar luxury item.
Quote
Yes, maybe that is true, but nowadays Christianity is very much a minority in those countries, also I never hear
of honor killings by Christians from the middle east when they move to western countries but I do
hear of them by Muslims.
of honor killings by Christians from the middle east when they move to western countries but I do
hear of them by Muslims.
That's because Christianity never makes the headline if someone does this and is Christian-it only makes the headline when it's a Muslim. But it most definitely happens. It's just that when a Christian does it, you will not read "Christian kills his wife in honor killing", you'll read "Love triangle murder case" or something more appropriate to what actually happened. And that's how it should be with this case as well.
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANY sense in which I'm defending this atrocious behavior. What on earth is in my posts that suggests that I'm defending this practice, and how can I possibly be more clear about my view that it is murder, plain and simple?
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 02:21:22 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see ANY sense in which I'm defending this atrocious behavior. What on earth is in my posts that suggests that I'm defending this practice, and how can I possibly be more clear about my view that it is murder, plain and simple?
It's clear that you're not defending this behavior. However, in the US today the conventional way to condemn the behavior is to condemn Islam as well. Because you condemn the behavior, but don't condemn Islam, you "come across as an apologist."
If you mention that Iranian mullahs condemned 9/11 as a crime, or that there are fatwas against Bin Laden, or that Bin Laden's motivations are political rather than religious... WHAMMO! You'll again be called an apologist for terror.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 04:54:36 AM
Islam is motivating the murder of women all over the globe, and the trend shows no signs of stopping. Deny it all you want, ignore it all you want, try your best to confuse the issue with other irrelevancies. It's still true.
But hey, you can name a few peaceful Muslims, so that means all Muslims are always peaceful all the time. The Muslim faith is beyond reproach. Right?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 12, 2007, 05:14:45 AM
Quote
Bin Laden's motivations are political rather than religious
False. To extremists, the Islamic faith and government are the same thing.
What part of "Islamic State" is unclear?
The really ironic thing is that the religion is being eaten from within by the violent extremists, whose practices are spreading like wildfire. Even now, in many countries, if a "moderate" Muslim makes a peep or tries to leave the religion, (apostate!!!), the extremists will summarily kill them.
If current trends continue, the extremists will become all that's left of the religion, and they will have to be destroyed to preserve civilization. Unless the "moderates" fight back and fight back hard, instead of being silent about the extremists while fighting those who condemn then instead...that's what will happen.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 05:38:06 AM
I don't have an issue with your attempts to defend Islam, but Why can't seem to do it without trying to tear down other religions. Why is that? Why can't you defend Islam on its own merit without even mentioning other religions? I guess that would be too difficult for you.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 05:41:17 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 05:45:22 AM
The crucial element that you and SS are ignoring (deliberately, I think) is that, as best we can tell based on the information we have now, Islam contributed to this murder.
KKK members are usually church-goers. So does Christianity "contribute" to their lynchings? Remember that like the father in question, they will cite the Bible in justification, and blather about how "God made three races," etc., etc.
Quote
But hey, you can name a few peaceful Muslims, so that means all Muslims are always peaceful all the time. The Muslim faith is beyond reproach. Right?
You realize that there are one billion Muslims in the world, right? If only "a few" were peaceful, we'd be looking at the extinction of the species by now.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 05:46:42 AM
Quote
Ah, yes.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 05:50:25 AM
SS, Why can't simply agree that this was a barbarous act.
Er, um, he did. As he points out, he did so in every post in this thread. He merely took offense that people felt compelled to condemn not only the act, but his religion along with it.
It's fair to put the shoe on the other foot and see how you like it: "White supremacists quote the Bible. Therefore, Christianity sucks."
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 05:52:49 AM
The crucial element that you and SS are ignoring (deliberately, I think) is that, as best we can tell based on the information we have now, Islam contributed to this murder.
KKK members are usually church-goers. So does Christianity "contribute" to their lynchings? Remember that like the father in question, they will cite the Bible in justification, and blather about how "God made three races," etc., etc.
Quote
But hey, you can name a few peaceful Muslims, so that means all Muslims are always peaceful all the time. The Muslim faith is beyond reproach. Right?
You realize that there are one billion Muslims in the world, right? If only "a few" were peaceful, we'd be looking at the extinction of the species by now.
--Len.
What would be more useful in this discussion is some posts about the historical background of "honor killings" and why this is still considered the right thing to do by some people.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 05:54:51 AM
SS, Why can't simply agree that this was a barbarous act.
Er, um, he did. As he points out, he did so in every post in this thread. He merely took offense that people felt compelled to condemn not only the act, but his religion along with it.
It's fair to put the shoe on the other foot and see how you like it: "White supremacists quote the Bible. Therefore, Christianity sucks."
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 06:45:10 AM
Yeah, but do we go around dredging up articles about honor killings and Muslim murderers in an attempt to say "other people do bad things too!"? No we don't.
Not usually, no. But suppose that the person starting the thread about a KKK lynching were a Muslim. How would we respond in that case? We both know I think.
Quote
What would be more useful in this discussion is some posts about the historical background of "honor killings" and why this is still considered the right thing to do by some people.
Agreed. Perhaps SS can contribute something on that. But it's certainly understandable why he feels a bit defensive.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 07:29:42 AM
I think my Pro-Lifer murder is a better example as there were a few nuts causing problems not too long ago. My pastor talked about one case of a guy who killed a doctor. He slammed the guy pretty hard and pointed out why he was wasn't justified. "Crusader arrogance" was a term he used sometimes, though I can't remember if he used it for that case. He didn't mention any other religion though.
What the father in Canada did was wrong. I, personally, would like to read more discussion about honor killings and the why and where. This Islam vs Christianity defensiveness gets old fast.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 09:04:30 AM
Recently though, students in Iran have protested gov't policy.
But where, in Canada,USA and other western countries are left leaning orgs like NOW
& code pink, "answer" workers world etc. They protest to shut down gitmo and free mumia at the drop of a hat, but never speak up for oppressed young women and gays (oppressed by Islamic traditions).
Wayne Sheppard, the gay guy killed in Wyoming had tons of people protesting for him, why wont the same people protest Saudi Arabia's treatment of women and gays? or Egypt?
If a nutcase goes and kills an abortion doc, the left groups will absolutley(SIC) protest.
Why cant they protest or speak up for this young women?
They were all over it in the 80's when the Soviets were in Afghanistan! Spartacus, workers world and all the abcd left wing groups were protesting Islamic religious fundamentalist barbaric treatment of women, now, because The Republican party went into Afghanistan, all of a sudden the guys they hated in the 80's are now untouchable.
The left protested "honor killing" in the 80's when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, but now, any ally against "the neo cons" is their best friend.
Post by: griz on December 12, 2007, 09:10:14 AM
Also, just for accuracy's sake, this comment below was the ONLY comment made before SS's first post that could be construed as a criticism of Islam. In fact, it was a criticism of the action. I think SS is working on a short fuse.
Quote
Ah, yes.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
"Honor killing".
Welcome to the 6th century, Canada.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. The title of the post indicates that religion was the problem. If the subject line said "Man kills daughter over proper dress", then it would be about the senslessness of the murder and I would agree with you.
Post by: Iain on December 12, 2007, 09:13:44 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 09:15:52 AM
I guess I just don't consider the KKK to be a religious based or justified by religion. They hate everyone.
But they claim to be. And they don't hate WASPs, unless those WASPs are "race traitors." And SS feels just as you do: he doesn't consider the father in question to be "religious based or justified by religion" either, even though the murderer claims to be.
Quote
I think my Pro-Lifer murder is a better example as there were a few nuts causing problems not too long ago. My pastor talked about one case of a guy who killed a doctor.
That's a fair analogy too. And SS's imam would condemn the murderer in this thread.
Quote
What the father in Canada did was wrong. I, personally, would like to read more discussion about honor killings and the why and where. This Islam vs Christianity defensiveness gets old fast.
Sure. It's understandable though; the jingoism in America right now is thick enough to spread on a bagel.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 09:17:48 AM
But where, in Canada,USA and other western countries are left leaning orgs like NOW & code pink, "answer" workers world etc. They protest to shut down gitmo and free mumia at the drop of a hat, but never speak up for oppressed young women and gays (oppressed by Islamic traditions).
Fair question. Though that's not SS's problem, unless he's a member of NOW. The answer is obvious, I think--and SS already gave it. Protesting injustice in Dubai is dangerous. Protesting injustice in the US is fairly safe. The lefties like protesting, but they don't like danger.
--Len.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 09:24:11 AM
Post by: Iain on December 12, 2007, 09:26:16 AM
It seems your opinion of 'leftists' is just one big strawman.
Post by: roo_ster on December 12, 2007, 09:33:21 AM
Protesting here in the 'States is as close to a risk-free proposition as can be found on this here Earth. You can protest anything, nearly anywhere & nearly anytime with little or no risk to self.
Yet, The political feminists produce not a peep in protest of the savagery against women and homosexuals in the Middle East.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 12, 2007, 10:57:13 AM
The more you look into "honor cultures", the more grateful you'll be that it is one more thing the West grew out of long ago. These honor cultures are what we are truly fighting against. Even if Islam never came to be, these primitive screwheads would be jealous and afraid of the modern Westernized world.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 01:32:52 PM
Quote
It seems your opinion of 'leftists' is just one big strawman.
My opinion of leftist comes from being one for over 20 years in NYC.
Post by: El Tejon on December 12, 2007, 04:31:55 PM
Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The United States is the enemy of the Middle East thus the Left is a friend to the Middle East. Which I find ironic as the Leftists will be the first to have their throats cut if the radicals in the Middle East prevail.
Post by: Hawkmoon on December 12, 2007, 04:55:25 PM
I, personally, would like to read more discussion about honor killings and the why and where. This Islam vs Christianity defensiveness gets old fast.
It makes for interesting (albeit frightening and disgusting) reading:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html
http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/clpub.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0214/p07s02-wome.html
There's more out there ... lots more. You don't have to dig very deep to find out more about it than you ever wanted to know.
Post by: De Selby on December 12, 2007, 05:56:56 PM
Yes, it is intereting reading indeed. I would like to highlight some of the things in your articles:
From the CS monitor:
Quote
But Zahra's murder in part because it happened in the capital and not a rural area has compelled Syria's grand mufti, cleric Ahmad Hassoun, to publicly condemn the crime, calling for the first time for the immediate protection of girls at risk and for legal reform on the basis that such crimes are un-Islamic.
From gendercide:
Quote
Most "honour" killings of women occur in Muslim countries, the focus of this case study; but it is worth noting that no sanction for such murders is granted in Islamic religion or law. And the phenomenon is in any case a global one.
And from the NGC:
Quote
In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Crimes of passion, which are treated extremely leniently in Latin America, are the same thing with a different name, some rights advocates say.
"In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable," said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
The practice, she said, "goes across cultures and across religions."
"In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable," said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
The practice, she said, "goes across cultures and across religions."
I guess all those articles are "eye opening" because, according the logic being used here, they must be defending honor killing, since like me, they noted that it has no basis in Islam and that it cuts across religions and cultures as a phenomenon. Does that mean Hawkmoon gave us a list of articles that are "apologizing for murder"?
And just look-the head Muslim in a country with mostly Muslims condemns this as un-Islamic. No one noticed that though; just the killing and that it was Muslims involved. I guess that's proof that as a Muslim I'm partly to blame, or that Islam is? Or not.
MechAg,
Note that I am not here saying "Christianity is bad because Christians off their pregnant wives in record numbers!" or any similarly ridiculous thing. What I am pointing out is that when this crime of honor killing occurs (and it does) in places where the parties aren't Muslim, it is reported fairly-as the result of domestic violence and violence against women, and it is not identified with the religion of the murderer, even when the murderer is religious. That is the right way to deal with these crimes, since they have no basis in anyone's religion-Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
But when a Muslim commits this crime, Islam is automatically in the headline, on the faulty presumption that being Muslim has something to do with being prone to murder one's family. It is a preposterous assumption, and it gets made only with regard to Muslims-even when the crime committed is identical to a crime commonly committed by non-Muslims. That is unfair treatment and hype on the part of the media, and if Christians were routinely treated this way, you can bet that they'd rightfully be up in arms about it.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 06:54:12 PM
when he came for cancer treatment in NYC, lots of protest against him AND the hostage takers.
As a young "rad/lib" I generally sided with the Iranian hostage takers. I viewed the Shah
as a CIA puppet that was oppressing us kids....and I loved Iranian college girls
I was pretty dismayed that the Islamonazi's took over the Iranian revolution and turned it into
an Islamic (so called) revolution. I've read a ton of Idries Shah's books on Sufi's and am familiar with
the great Persian writings. Throughout the 1980's I protested every single war by Reagan and Bush (41).
When Clinton came around I thought it was gonna be better all I got was gun control, increased federal death penalties, cigars in strange places and war....oh yeah...the great cutting off of federal funds for welfare moms.
Things that if an R did would have thousands in the streets!
The talking heads of the day would say "Clinton is the best Republican President we've ever had"
And they were serious.
I didn't come to my conclusions about leftist because of not knowing anything about them, I got to where I am today by knowing them all to well.
Why in the world can't the lefties protest and march for Aqsa Parvez when they can for Anita Hill?
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 12, 2007, 07:03:04 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 12, 2007, 08:01:22 PM
Quote
But Zahra's murder in part because it happened in the capital and not a rural area has compelled Syria's grand mufti, cleric Ahmad Hassoun, to publicly condemn the crime, calling for the first time for the immediate protection of girls at risk and for legal reform on the basis that such crimes are un-Islamic.
Why is it necessary for prominent Muslim leaders to remind their people that murdering female family members is wrong? Hmm...?
Post by: De Selby on December 12, 2007, 08:57:53 PM
Quote
But Zahra's murder in part because it happened in the capital and not a rural area has compelled Syria's grand mufti, cleric Ahmad Hassoun, to publicly condemn the crime, calling for the first time for the immediate protection of girls at risk and for legal reform on the basis that such crimes are un-Islamic.
Why is it necessary for prominent Muslim leaders to remind their people that murdering female family members is wrong? Hmm...?
Because this one lives in a state with rampant poverty and lots of places with little education-sort of like how it's necessary for Priests in Latin America to remind people that kidnapping and terrorism are crimes, and that torture isn't okay. It's not necessary, it's something religious Muslims do-they try to make where they live a better place by speaking out on abuses and crimes.
I like how you set that up with your question though:
If Muslims don't condemn it, then they are "silently complicit" in a crime that "must be supported by Islam" because they don't condemn it.
If they do condemn it, "well, Islam must be partly responsible, otherwise why do they need to say anything?".
Here's an idea: maybe religious leaders in Islam (like Christianity) speak from their religious viewpoint to correct whatever moral failings they see in their societies-and that's why in places where honor killing is a problem they condemn it on religious grounds (despite the indifference and violently anti-religious attitudes of their governments), and why preachers in America condemn crimes that are commonly committed in America.
Post by: De Selby on December 12, 2007, 08:59:32 PM
Keep it up, SS. It is beautifully ironic how your apologetic efforts have exactly the opposite effect! I love it! Encore! Encore!
You know, I was happy to read that thread where you came around and realized that abortion is wrong.
I eagerly await a thread from you recognizing that genocide committed against other religions is wrong, past and future. It'd be nice if you were as upset about the holocaust as you are about Muslims continuing to live their religion.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
The left wont protest this, and the only reason why is it doesn't fit their agenda, like it did in the 1980's when the Soviets were the ones against honor killing.
The silence of the feminists.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 13, 2007, 01:20:52 AM
The minute someone, as a progressive, starts criticizing things like honor killings, genital mutilation, widow immolation, subjugation of women, female infanticide and the like, and it is then pointed out to them that those activities are not only illegal in the West and not condoned by the "civilized" religions in other regions but are, conversely, often given tacit acceptence and/or open approval in "primitive" honor societies and tribal cultures, that progressive is stuck with either admitting to hypocrisy or acknowledging that some cultures and traditions are indeed "better", by any rational measure, than others.
Blows their whole "everybody is the same deep down and it is somehow our fault they don't like us and everybody's culture has something worth contributing to mankind" mantra right out of the water.
There's civilization and there's savagery, one has fought bloody intranecine battles to improve itself and continues to do so by allowing internal dissent and change and one that says "this is how it was and this is how it will remain, to challenge the status quo is to be destroyed or driven out".
Post by: 280plus on December 13, 2007, 01:45:28 AM
Post by: El Tejon on December 13, 2007, 02:44:13 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 03:49:22 AM
Out of curiosity I checked what the folks at DU had to say. They ranged from one comment like the above to a couple making the killer into the victim (no surprise there), but most correctly called the crime a crime without blaming it on Islam.
This thread is nothing as bad as the one at FR, but not as balanced as (many of the posts at) DU. My point? When conservatives bring the subject up, it's a safe bet what their general perspective is. If I were a Muslim I'd be on the defensive from the get-go.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 03:54:41 AM
Quote
Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.
She was KILLED for NOT COVERING HER FREAKING HEAD!
What part of that is not clear? How is that NOT related to the extremist flavor of A RELIGION!
Post by: MechAg94 on December 13, 2007, 05:06:01 AM
MechAg,
Note that I am not here saying "Christianity is bad because Christians off their pregnant wives in record numbers!" or any similarly ridiculous thing. What I am pointing out is that when this crime of honor killing occurs (and it does) in places where the parties aren't Muslim, it is reported fairly-as the result of domestic violence and violence against women, and it is not identified with the religion of the murderer, even when the murderer is religious. That is the right way to deal with these crimes, since they have no basis in anyone's religion-Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
But when a Muslim commits this crime, Islam is automatically in the headline, on the faulty presumption that being Muslim has something to do with being prone to murder one's family. It is a preposterous assumption, and it gets made only with regard to Muslims-even when the crime committed is identical to a crime commonly committed by non-Muslims. That is unfair treatment and hype on the part of the media, and if Christians were routinely treated this way, you can bet that they'd rightfully be up in arms about it.
SS, You have said this many times on many thread, but always after you try to demean Christianity in order to deflect criticism off Islam. Note that I am not here saying "Christianity is bad because Christians off their pregnant wives in record numbers!" or any similarly ridiculous thing. What I am pointing out is that when this crime of honor killing occurs (and it does) in places where the parties aren't Muslim, it is reported fairly-as the result of domestic violence and violence against women, and it is not identified with the religion of the murderer, even when the murderer is religious. That is the right way to deal with these crimes, since they have no basis in anyone's religion-Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
But when a Muslim commits this crime, Islam is automatically in the headline, on the faulty presumption that being Muslim has something to do with being prone to murder one's family. It is a preposterous assumption, and it gets made only with regard to Muslims-even when the crime committed is identical to a crime commonly committed by non-Muslims. That is unfair treatment and hype on the part of the media, and if Christians were routinely treated this way, you can bet that they'd rightfully be up in arms about it.
In this particular case, the headline fits because it was by all appearances that man's religious ideas that lead to what he did. Whether that paints all Muslims as bad is another argument that I don't think anyone was making.
It still falls back to one of my original quesitons. Why must you seek to tear down Christianity in order to defend Islam? You started off the quote above with that same BS. Why? I could understand it if someone was telling you that Christianity was better. I have seen that implied on other threads, but not this one.
You say you don't like people painting Muslims with a broad brush, then you do it to Christians just to provoke an argument. Practice what you preach.
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 05:34:42 AM
She was KILLED for NOT COVERING HER FREAKING HEAD!
By an insane person. Religion, namely Islam, was the fixation of his insanity. Just like Christianity is the fixation of JW parents who let their children die rather than receive a blood transfusion, or those people in the south who dance with snakes, etc. The question isn't whether Islam was involved, but whether it's to blame. Was the Republican party to blame for that guy who tried to crash his airplane into the Clinton White House? Is Catholicism to blame for murdered abortionists?
SS argues that the insanity is part of the murderer's Pakistani culture, which is a tribal "honor culture" predating Islam. Non-muslim Indians don't wear hijabs--but they did have a custom of burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyres, until the British outlawed the practice (suttee). They still have Hindu "honor killings" for inter-caste marriages.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 13, 2007, 07:30:00 AM
Quote
But Zahra's murder in part because it happened in the capital and not a rural area has compelled Syria's grand mufti, cleric Ahmad Hassoun, to publicly condemn the crime, calling for the first time for the immediate protection of girls at risk and for legal reform on the basis that such crimes are un-Islamic.
Why is it necessary for prominent Muslim leaders to remind their people that murdering female family members is wrong? Hmm...?
If Muslims don't condemn it, then they are "silently complicit" in a crime that "must be supported by Islam" because they don't condemn it.
If they do condemn it, "well, Islam must be partly responsible, otherwise why do they need to say anything?".
Don't you get it? A leader doesn't absolve the guilt of his people just by giving a few speeches. It doesn't matter if their religious leaders are all Mother Theresa reincarnated, there are still way too many Muslims who think their religion compells them to stone or murder or abuse innocent women.
I appreciate that the leadership is trying to improve, "A for effort" and all that. But good intentions don't matter, results do. The results are that Aqsa Parvez was murdered by a barbaric Muslim practicing a barbaric Muslim practice.
Speeches and condemnation aren't going to bring Aqsa Parvez back to life.
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 07:50:56 AM
Speeches and condemnation aren't going to bring Aqsa Parvez back to life.
You seem to have forgotten: conservatives blame the killer. Conservatism is all about personal responsibility. It's liberals that blame the killer's society, religion, lack of education, lack of money, mental illness, and last but not least the weapon. You're taking the liberal route of absolving the killer so you can condemn his religious group instead.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 13, 2007, 08:06:31 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 13, 2007, 08:23:04 AM
Quote
Mr. Parvez and his religion are both deserve blame.
Explain how his religion is responsible for his actions. While you're at it, you can also explain why Jews, upon reading Leviticus, are not 'putting people to death' for the offenses listed in Leviticus 20: 9-16. Or stoning 'mediums' or 'wizards' pursuant to Leviticus 20: 27.
Why is that?
Post by: Joe Demko on December 13, 2007, 09:16:07 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 13, 2007, 09:35:11 AM
Dammit, people here just will not accept the truth. NO, it was NOT just a crime not related to religion.
She was KILLED for NOT COVERING HER FREAKING HEAD!
What part of that is not clear? How is that NOT related to the extremist flavor of A RELIGION!
Quote
Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.
She was KILLED for NOT COVERING HER FREAKING HEAD!
What part of that is not clear? How is that NOT related to the extremist flavor of A RELIGION!
Because the hijab is a tribal covering that predates Islam by centuries.
Back when many of those tribes were Zoro-Astrian or outright pagans of various stripes, honor killings for being uncovered or alone with a man or any of the other "ways to control our wimmin folk" were happily practiced.
They were neither created by Islam nor are they condoned by most interpretations of Islamic law. They predate Islam, they predate Christianity and they predate Judaism.
THEY ARE TRIBAL TRADITIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RELIGION OF THE TRIBESMEN!
Quote from: Manedwolf
What part of that is not clear? How is that NOT related to the extremist flavor of A RELIGION!?
Fixed that for you.
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 13, 2007, 09:41:14 AM
I eagerly await a thread from you recognizing that genocide committed against other religions is wrong, past and future. It'd be nice if you were as upset about the holocaust as you are about Muslims continuing to live their religion.
Apples and oranges. And a grossly simplistic way to think about the world too.
It is a matter of priorities. Self-preservation ranks very high. Preservation of hostiles ranks very low. When hostiles can cause serious damage to our side, it is rational to choose a solution which satisfies the higher priority. Genocide can be such a solution. If they were not hostiles, the math would work differently.
In any case, SS, you must realize you have lost virtually all credibility here. There was a time on this forum when it would be only myself and Manedwolf who'd refuse to tolerate your lame apologeticism. Now, it is gratifying to me to see that a list of other posters have reached the same point too. Since I am no longer the crazy minority, maybe it is you who should rethink your ways.
Your religion is crap. Always has been, always will be. It is violent, intolerant, paranoid, schyzophrenic, oppresive, medieval, backward, evil, and inhuman. I am no fan of christianity either, but would sit at Jesus's table any day over sitting with Muhamad on the best day. It is an affront, a blemish, on the face of modern human society.
Out of desire to live in peace, modern western society has been twisting itself into a moebius loop trying to be accomodating, but the reality is no matter how accomodating you are to a poisonous vicious snake, it will always bite you. Why? Because it cannot help itself. It is in its nature.
People like you think they help matters by playing the apologetic spinning game, by selling cultural equivalence, by counterattacking other religions, by an incessant stream of pretend victimology. Instead, you just help and abett rank evil, while turning neutrals against you too. You are broadening the gap instead of shrinking it. You are digging your own grave. So, keep busy, busy bee, buzz, buzz... You are an idiot.
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 10:02:14 AM
Self-preservation ranks very high. Preservation of hostiles ranks very low.
Preservation of non-hostiles also ranks low. So low that killing tens of thousands of non-hostiles in hopes of nailing a few hostiles is perfectly acceptable.
Quote
In any case, SS, you must realize you have lost virtually all credibility here.
Since when are you the credibility score-keeper? You have no way of knowing how much credibility others here vest in him, and pretending that you have the inside track while he is an outsider trembling at the door needing a kind word from you is... lots of things. Laughable, mostly.
Quote
Your religion is crap.
Being a Christian, I'd love to see Muslims everywhere convert to Christianity. But I wouldn't approach it by saying, "Your religion is crap." I wouldn't say it so confidently if I were you, for two reasons. Firstly, it's a virtual certainty that I and some others on this board (such as the atheists, agnostics, and probably others) regard your religion as "crap"--or, if you don't have one, I and the religious folks on the board would consider that to be "crap". Second, I'm pretty sure calling others' religion "crap" on this board is against forum rules.
Quote
People like you think they help matters by playing the apologetic spinning game, by selling cultural equivalence, by counterattacking other religions, by an incessant stream of pretend victimology.
I advise SS not to do any of those things. Instead, I suggest he get a CCW, take NRA training, and carry at all times. If you or anyone else crosses the line between saying a bunch of insulting crap and start physically threatening him, I suggest he respond, with deadly force if necessary.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 10:03:16 AM
Quote
Being a Christian, I'd love to see Muslims everywhere convert to Christianity.
They can't.
Because the extremists that are spreading everywhere will declare them apostates, and kill them.
Oops. Little complication there!
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 10:05:23 AM
Quote
Being a Christian, I'd love to see Muslims everywhere convert to Christianity.
They can't. Because the extremists that are spreading everywhere will declare them apostates, and kill them.
They can't anyway, because when folks of your ilk are finished with them, there won't be any left to convert.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 13, 2007, 10:16:58 AM
Quote
It is a matter of priorities. Self-preservation ranks very high. Preservation of hostiles ranks very low. When hostiles can cause serious damage to our side, it is rational to choose a solution which satisfies the higher priority. Genocide can be such a solution. If they were not hostiles, the math would work differently.
It is a priority, which means worrying about a particular religion, when it is in fact a tribal culture and worldview that is the actual enemy, is misplacing our priorities.
If you spend all your time watching out for "Muslim extremists" without differentiating between civilized people and tribal screwheads, one of the tribal screwheads who doesn't fit your pre-concieved notions of who the enemy is is going to bash your head in with a rock.
By demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the honor cultures we really have to worry about, as opposed to blanket condemnations of particular cross-cultural religions, it's you who are losing credibility.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 13, 2007, 10:20:42 AM
By demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the honor cultures we really have to worry about, as opposed to blanket condemnations of particular cross-cultural religions, it's you who are losing credibility.
QFT.
Chris
Post by: Joe Demko on December 13, 2007, 11:59:58 AM
Quote
Your religion is crap.
From my point of view as an atheist, all religions are crap. They've all been at the root of more problems than they ever solved.
Post by: grampster on December 13, 2007, 12:41:29 PM
Perhaps rather it is the various and sundry selfish acts of groups of human beings who twist and turn and distort a particular creed to further their own bloodthirsty lust for riches and power that is the core of problem.
Tribalism is not civilized in the modern sense. Civilized cultures have progressed beyond most of that culture. But even then individuals and groups within civilized societies are capable of brutality and horror. We don't need to look too hard to find examples. I have railed against Tribalism, feudalism and with regard to Islam, specifically Wahabbists because Wahabbists seem to hate everyone, including other Muslims. So, in a way, I recognize I am the pot calling the kettle black. But at least I know better.
This propensity to declare my religion is better than your religion, or my non religion is superior to your religion because I don't believe in myths, or a pantheon of comparisons will not end anything.
I'm a Christian and I need to live up to my beliefs. I can't live up to yours for you. Nor should I single you out except when you have broken a law that we have agreed to abide by. In living up to the standards that I hold deeply, perhaps others will be curious and find their way as a result. It is up to individuals to control their own behavior within the parameters of what is stamped upon their heart or intellect. All we can do in the end is be responsible for our own behavior. It is pointless to mock the beliefs of others, even though it is difficult to not mock in the face of a despicable act. But.....
At the same time, when a line gets crossed, then blood cries out for us to collectively speak for the slain or butchered, we can act collectively to seek justice.
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 13, 2007, 03:27:30 PM
It's almost a given that when a thread involving religion shows up here, hostilities will ensue.
For those with a predilection to do so, continually stirring the pot of poop doesn't make it smell any better.
This one's done.