Spare a thought for the 'poor' muslims

Don't you think it unfair to characterise a group by a couple of unpleasant aspects. We could say the majority disagree with binge drinking and violence outside pubs, to malign the British, or paedophine priests and IRA terror to malign Catholics or the Irish. Obviously I oppose predominantly Muslim paedophile gangs, and cruel slaughter practices, but if you want to characterise all Muslims in that manner, then that is dumb.

If what you are saying is simply that we should openly talk about those things, then yes, I agree. It pees me off when some lefties forbid all discussion of certain subjects.

I agree to some extent WWT BUT...

I disagree with several Roman Candle doctrines. I disagree with several Jewish Orthodox doctrines. If I knew enough about other religions, I may disagree with some of their doctrines. However, that doesn't mean I vilify all RCs or Jews because their religious views do not accord with mine.

The issue here is that, in general, other religious doctrines do not, at their heart, espouse diktats against basic human values in modern-day terms. Whilst there are, undoubtedly, very reasonable aspects to Islam, it has, at its very heart, teachings which are anathema to any right-thinking individual.

The key difference between Islam and the other religions of the world is that it exclusionary in ALL respects in relation to those who do not believe. Unlike other religions, it's raison d'etre is not designed to sit nicely alongside other religions.

I do not hate any one person for holding a religious belief but I do have very serious misgivings about any view (religious or otherwise) which screams intolerance at me.

My issues are with the religion and not the individual.
 
Sponsored Links
Don't you think it unfair to characterise a group by a couple of unpleasant aspects. We could say the majority disagree with binge drinking and violence outside pubs, to malign the British, or paedophine priests and IRA terror to malign Catholics or the Irish. Obviously I oppose predominantly Muslim paedophile gangs, and cruel slaughter practices, but if you want to characterise all Muslims in that manner, then that is dumb.

If what you are saying is simply that we should openly talk about those things, then yes, I agree. It pees me off when some lefties forbid all discussion of certain subjects.

I agree to some extent WWT BUT...

I disagree with several Roman Candle doctrines. I disagree with several Jewish Orthodox doctrines. If I knew enough about other religions, I may disagree with some of their doctrines. However, that doesn't mean I vilify all RCs or Jews because their religious views do not accord with mine.

The issue here is that, in general, other religious doctrines do not, at their heart, espouse diktats against basic human values in modern-day terms. Whilst there are, undoubtedly, very reasonable aspects to Islam, it has, at its very heart, teachings which are anathema to any right-thinking individual.

The key difference between Islam and the other religions of the world is that it exclusionary in ALL respects in relation to those who do not believe. Unlike other religions, it's raison d'etre is not designed to sit nicely alongside other religions.

I do not hate any one person for holding a religious belief but I do have very serious misgivings about any view (religious or otherwise) which screams intolerance at me.

My issues are with the religion and not the individual.

Do you have some proof that Islam per se excludes all other religions of the world? There are extremist forms such as that spread by ISIS that do conform to that description. Islam was known for centuries as a tolerant religion allowing non believers to co-exist, at a time when Christianity was intolerant and burning heretics. Certainly there are intolerant regimes, such as Suadi Arabia and others.
 
We could debate all day about Islam and, even amongst muslims, there are differing opinions. However, even a cursory analysis of The Quran makes it clear that Islam is 'the true path' to the exclusion of all others. Most of the first verses of the accepted text talks about those who do not follow Islam and what will happen to them. I know of no other religious texts which are so replete with such phrases. Whilst it is true that Christianity has historically been perverted by such events as The Crusades and The Spanish Inquisition, the basic tenets do not espouse such superiority.

Take just one example - apostasy

Ignoring the fact that it attracts the death penalty in several regions, The Quran is widely accepted as enshrining severe penalties for converting from Islam. No other religion I know penalises their followers to such an extent if they wish to 'leave' the faith. This is because they see Islam as the one true faith to the exclusion of all others.

No religion I know of sets itself as being exalted above above all others.

The Quran also talks of jihad. Whilst the meaning of the term has become a point of debate, the thrust of the term is for muslims having a duty to maintain the religion. Why? Surely people ought to be free to choose whatever religion or atheism they wish. I know of no other religion which imposes a duty on it followers to maintain it.

That then begs the question how that jihad is put into practice.
 
Obviously I oppose predominantly Muslim paedophile gangs, and cruel slaughter practices, but if you want to characterise all Muslims in that manner, then that is dumb.

If what you are saying is simply that we should openly talk about those things, then yes, I agree. It pees me off when some lefties forbid all discussion of certain subjects.

Rather than classifying them as predominantly Muslim I would say they should be classified as predominantly Pakistani because that is what they are.
Classifying them as predominantly Muslim is just another example of people beating about the bush and being frightened to call a spade a spade for fear of upsetting someone.
 
Sponsored Links
Obviously I oppose predominantly Muslim paedophile gangs, and cruel slaughter practices, but if you want to characterise all Muslims in that manner, then that is dumb.

If what you are saying is simply that we should openly talk about those things, then yes, I agree. It pees me off when some lefties forbid all discussion of certain subjects.

Rather than classifying them as predominantly Muslim I would say they should be classified as predominantly Pakistani because that is what they are.
Classifying them as predominantly Muslim is just another example of people beating about the bush and being frightened to call a spade a spade for fear of upsetting someone.

JBR used the term Muslim in reference to paedophile gangs. I think he just chose to refer to them as Muslim, but you are correct that we should refer to them as of Pakistani heritage, as that is more accurate. There was no beating about the bush from me, nor I suspect from JBR. The problem in that instance was partly people being afraid of being branded a racist for highlighting an issue predominantly involving one ethnic group.

I happen to think corruption is very much an Indian and Pakistani issue, after working with Indians, and seeing high profile vote rigging scandals in Asian areas. But say that in public and you get taken to court. But you can say binge drinking is a white British problem. Or violence outside pubs. Encouragingly Trevor Phillips, ex chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, is in agreement. He pointed out that Romanians are far more likely to be pickpockets, but you'd get in trouble for saying it.

Now if you go round calling people spades, you really will cause offence. :D
 
That's rich from the guy that endlessly bangs on about people being antisemitic.:rolleyes:
 
Does that mean he doesn't get infections?

:confused:
 
If what you are saying is simply that we should openly talk about those things, then yes, I agree. It pees me off when some lefties forbid all discussion of certain subjects.

Rather than classifying them as predominantly Muslim I would say they should be classified as predominantly Pakistani because that is what they are.
Classifying them as predominantly Muslim is just another example of people beating about the bush and being frightened to call a spade a spade for fear of upsetting someone.

JBR used the term Muslim in reference to paedophile gangs. I think he just chose to refer to them as Muslim, but you are correct that we should refer to them as of Pakistani heritage, as that is more accurate. There was no beating about the bush from me, nor I suspect from JBR. The problem in that instance was partly people being afraid of being branded a racist for highlighting an issue predominantly involving one ethnic group.

I happen to think corruption is very much an Indian and Pakistani issue, after working with Indians, and seeing high profile vote rigging scandals in Asian areas. But say that in public and you get taken to court. But you can say binge drinking is a white British problem. Or violence outside pubs. Encouragingly Trevor Phillips, ex chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, is in agreement. He pointed out that Romanians are far more likely to be pickpockets, but you'd get in trouble for saying it.

Now if you go round calling people spades, you really will cause offence. :D
That's the thing that really pi$$es me off too.
We are allowed to refer to some social groups in disparaging terms, but not others.

Why?

I suspect it is because the trendy lefty liberals who decide what is and what is not acceptable feel that some members of our society are in need of 'protection' whilst others are not. Indigenous white Anglo-Saxon people are obviously in the latter category, but I fear that the tables are now beginning to turn.

I have said before that I believe in fair treatment of everyone (legally) present in this country but, like positive discrimination, punishing some for what they say and not others is far from treating us all equally.

(Edit: I see the automatic censor is back in action again! :LOL:)
 
No I'm not. I'm anti Muslim. The jews don't cause any trouble. Why do you Jews need a special word? You are just sooo precious.
 
That's the thing that really pi$$es me off too.
We are allowed to refer to some social groups in disparaging terms, but not others.

Why?

I suspect it is because the trendy lefty liberals who decide what is and what is not acceptable feel that some members of our society are in need of 'protection' whilst others are not. Indigenous white Anglo-Saxon people are obviously in the latter category, but I fear that the tables are now beginning to turn.

I have said before that I believe in fair treatment of everyone (legally) present in this country but, like positive discrimination, punishing some for what they say and not others is far from treating us all equally.

(Edit: I see the automatic censor is back in action again! :LOL:)

I can see why someone who says "Black b'stard" to someone would not be suitable in the police force or as a teacher. You could not have a racist in such a job. But I have trouble with the idea that insulting a black person is legally worse than insulting a white person. It creates a sense of injustice, as you demonstrate. Anyway, it is the not giving a job to someone, or allowing them into a building, or behaving aggressively to them, because of their race that is surely the real issue.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top