glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Yet you yourself believe those who practice Judaism to be a race...funny that...
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
Yet you yourself believe those who practice Judaism to be a race...funny that...
Not at all. I equate the terms "Jew" or "Jewish" to terms describing a race because, as often as not, it's used as an alternative to "Israeli". It's also often used to describe someone's genetic lineage.
Traits that one is born with are (and should be) protected classes - ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, height, etc. "Jew" and "Jewish" are regularly used to describe rightfully protected classes of people.
"Muslim" on the other hand, is almost exclusively used to describe someone who has chosen to swap logic and intelligence for subservience and fairy stories. Just like the terms "Christian" or "Sikh".
But there's a strong push from those who want to quiet any debate for the term "Muslim" to be treated in the same way as "Gay" or "Fenale". This is dangerous because once that happens, it will be impossible to have a proper debate over what's wrong about Islam (pretty much everything) without such discussion being silenced as racist.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Those terms that describe a race, genetic linage and country (Israel) are all based on the same "fairytales" (as you would call them) that are written in the same "Holy Books" that other Godtards you bash follow. I'm sure we can look into those same books and find other races that are based on similar stories written within.
So sorry, you cannot bash one group of 'Godtards' and say that others are different "because they base their race, history and culture on Godtard texts": especially when some of those texts can be accused of being used to show that one race is "superior" to others (i.e. "GHod's Chosen Race")
Bash them all, or leave all of them be
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Why do you feel the need to single out Islam as 'the worst'? You and I share the same views on religion, however I don't feel the need to single out a particular one. Although I believe its all hogwash, I have a healthy respect for people that practice their chosen religion to the betterment of themselves and others.
I cringe sometimes at the stuff you say about islam in particular, as one of the most revered members of this board is a Muslim, and has to hear the brick you spout about his religion.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Thank you
Did you read the interview with Sam Harris I posted? He states a number of very good reasons, way more eloquently than I could, why Islam should be of particular concern to any humanist.
On the basis that we can't end all religion immediately, doesn't it make sense to begin by aiming at that which does the most harm and work from there?
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
I'd say in the present context the Nut Job Fundies in the US pose just as great a threat. These maniacs could soon have control over their foreign policy.
Regardless of how you feel about its creation, Israel is a country - one recognised by pretty much every non-Godtard country on this planet.
Therefore, having been born in that country is a protected class - just like being Welsh or being Belgian is.
Having a genetic make-up of people from that country is also a protected class, just like a son or daughter of Welsh or Belgian heritage.
You may disagree with the creation of Israel, you may not like that it exists, but it does and therefore being from there or having lineage there should be free from criticism.
Pretty much all religious texts are the same. They are all evil and disgusting, written by evil and disgusting people. The closer people live their lives by those books, the more I will criticise them.
Islam, in all but it's most extremely westernised interpretations, is not compatible with modern society. Neither was Christianity at one point, but it has had to adapt. Islam will also have to adapt in order to be compatible with the modern world - it will have to stop punishing women purely for being women, it will have to accept that leaving marriages and religion is acceptable, that other religions and people have the right to live in peace, it will have to accept varying sexual preferences, etc. There's only one religion that works so hard to stifle debate through violence - I'm fairly sure the Book of Mormon has yet to cause any deaths, yet the response to a handful of cartoons is murder.
I understand why it would be so hard for you to see it, I think only an atheist can truly balance all religions because there's so much emotion entangled in religion. But at this point in human evolution, there's one clear leader in dragging us backward.
I think if they ever did have proper control then they would be very dangerous.
The fact that they operate within a democracy puts some fairly solid caps on what they can and can't do though. They also have a constitution, the reversal of which requires such a majority that it's safe to say it will never happen.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
I haven't. Will read it now.
Your last comment concerns me though. Whilst I agree with the sentiment, and I feel I know how your mind operates in a purely logical fashion. I wonder if you see how religion in the Western world operates in just the same way as barbaric Islam, but in a more calculated 'clever' way?
It's well worth a read.
I certainly don't like the lack of church/state separation that there is in some Western countries - the US especially.
But as with my response to @Gilzeantoscore, there are protections in place within democracies that stop religious fundamentalism from taking control.
When I think about the major criticisms of Islam, it's very difficult to apply them in any significant way to Western countries - even in terms of it being done in a more underhanded way.
Treatment of women: Whilst not entirely equal yet, I'd say women's lot is pretty good by worldwide standards and the equality is increasing all the time. Women aren't getting stoned to death for adultery and very few seem to be owned by their husbands.
Treatment of the LBGT community: Again, improvement required but we're a long way short of executions.
People are free to choose not to adhere to any state religion, nobody is forced into staying in unhappy marriages - even the Catholics are finally getting on board with that one. Even in the US where they're particularly regressive about it, women are still mainly free to choose abortions with comparatively little interference.
One can speak out freely against religion without fear of reprisal (except from Muslamic Infidels) and say pretty much anything that stops short of incitement to violence.
I don't know of a single western country whose entire leadership wants to wipe another country off the face of the Earth simply because that country reads a different flimflam book about the same flimflam GHod. Neither do I know of one where the intentional targeting of civilians is used as a part of warfare.
So no, I don't think it does at all. If you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear some examples, but on the whole I think even the worst stuff is still significantly less bad than what is happening in the name of Islam.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
A bit of lighthearted relief - Trump Tweets, the musical
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I won't debate the philosophy behind why I am against the travel ban (suffice for you to know, I am) and will try, somewhat in vain I fear) to make another clear case. When you blanket demonize any group of people, you run the risk of creating new potential 'converts' to an extremist faction of those being demonized. You increase the recruitment potential for extremists. Fact. IF all you want is, indeed, for people to have their reasoning straight, then we are done.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Israel's creation is irrelevant here: firstly it was about 60 years ago and its creation is based on what those same Holy Books (which you call flimflam) say.
Secondly, there were people practicing Judaism long before the creation of Israel 60 odd years ago, so again irrelevant (I mean would you have had a different attitude to the Holocaust at that time because you or others couldn't point to the existence at that time of a nation called Israel, hence persecution of Jews being acceptable? Also does that make ISIS and their "quest" for an "Islamic State" actually seem more relevant for them to say "Islam is a race/ethnicity not just a religion"??).
Thirdly, not all those who practice Judaism are Israelis or even link their lineage to Israel (a bit like not all Christians are from Europe or from the Middle-Eastern/Mediterranean region where Christianity is supposed to have sprung from).
All the disgust you have for Islam is the same that Christianity has invoked, and in some places still invokes. "Punishing women purely for being women" could be argued to be inherent from movements that follow Holy Texts where the ultimate being worshipped is said to be a male: i don't think Islam is any worse than Christianity in this regard. Perhaps you are mixing up some of the customs of many groups who live in certain parts of the Middle East with Islam? The way women are treated in societies where Islam is the main religion is practiced varies widely: the brutalities of Regimes in places like Saudi Arabia are not reflected in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran.
Islam is no better or worse at accepting other religions and varying sexual preferences; plus it has not got a monopoly on trying to stifle debate through violence.
And i'm speaking as somebody who was brought up as a Christian (Catholic) and have left religion nearly two decades ago so i have no in-built emotional reason to defend Islam (or any other religion actually).
Robbo
Paul Walsh
If anything, Trump does (unintentionally?) make sure there's plenty of very interesting news articles being written now. Lots of good journalism on his administration. Or was that "fake news"? Thanks for all the great links being posted in what has quickly become my favourite GG thread.
wiziwig
Steed Malbranque
I know I really shouldn't involve myself with your nonsense but seriously, is it really that difficult for you to try and comprehend what's being communicated to the viewers, by the spoken word of the participants, rather than be concentrated on the media outlet itself?
There's a highly regarded Democrat in the video, one who should give us hope, a highly regarded woman many tip to be the first female POTUS. But you shut her down as I know you didn't view the video. I know because the Fox News Logo, that sent you into your 15 year old high school left wing entitlement maniacal laughter, were but a mere one minute opening segment of the five minute video.
You're drowning in your own dogma and ignorance. You need to seriously wake up man
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Of sorts...