…. that in the end asks, “Who will bell the cat”.
Who was it who decided that children were an option for the lazy and the stupid?
Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?
Who was it decided we shall hide our lights under a bushel basket?
Which mental midget amongst us sits bestride the backs of giants and dares imagine, we are loftier than they?
We have sown the breeze and are now reaping the whirlwind should we be surprised?
Its not the Muslim’s fault. They are but the whet stone being used to hone us that we might actually stand for something and do something and be someone who matters.
Don’t try to reform them. We must try reform ourselves and having done so see how quickly they fall.
The Islamic faith is one that dwells in fear loathing and ignorance. We only strengthen it when we deal in the same.
Thank you, Joe. It’s comments like this that make the blogging effort worthwhile.
Well said Joe, thanks…
“Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?”
This one is quotable Joe.
It applies equally to the militant seculars who want to purge judeo-christian ethos from civil institutions and civil society….as it does militant Islamic theocracts.
Who’d have thought there was a convergence point for statist-atheism and militant theocracy?
Secular statist socialism or Fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy = State enforced theological intolerance…just 2 separate brands of it.
It explains why the fanatical atheists of the left can join forces with the intolerant theocrats of radical Islam…it is a common goal…deconstruction of western institutions fomented upon judeo-christian liberal democratic ideals…primary among them is the rule of law…they just hate the preamble of the Charter:
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Judeo-Christian divinity ethos and the rule of law are indivisible in our culture…extremist deconstructionists know this.
Sorry, I’m not sure I have it right.
I’m having trouble keeping track.
Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site.
At one time I thought it was just a fun place where farmers could gather round to argue about which pickup truck is better or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you’d know)
The secularists do not merely suggest we hide our light under a bushel — they demand it.
Fortunately our forefathers had the prescience to carve the scripture “He shall have dominion from sea to sea” in stone above our parliamentarians’ heads, where they can’t easily get at it.
At least until someone launches a human rights complaint.
Sheldon everyone should HATE the kind of moral revisionism expressed by the apeasers just as much as the irrationality of radical islam.
“Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site.”
Wrong on all counts! Actually, this is a dedicated anti-Sheldon Levin site!
Thanks for weighing in!
Who – that’s simple, the mediocre, that’s who.
Those who would rather take than earn.
Whether it be money, power, fame, credibility, morality, etc. The script is always the same, the results always predictable.
Sheldon – Did you really just want this site to be about farmer’s discussing pickups? Would that allow you to continue mocking farmers to all your intellectual friends? Does mocking farmers allow you to feel better, if so, then please have a few free mocks on me! Consider it a Christmas gift and I hope the New Year treats you better than this one obviously did.
Sheldon. perhaps you should refrain from commenting further until you’ve undergone some “keeping track” skill development.
Sheldon Levin:
Obviously it is a Web site that singes the feathers of stilted cultural marxists.
Sheldon, lad, you are going to have to do better than that to compete around here.
Ahelly sez:
“or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you’d know)”
Mass murderes are rank amateurs compared to statist socialist regimes when it comes to mass murder…300 million killed in the last century and counting, now that’s effective mass murdering…stop sweating over the small change and keep an eye on the pros and you will be much safer. đ
I agree and don’t agree with Joe’s comments. I’m an atheist, so the religious attributes of a belief system (ie, metaphysical authority) are not, for me, relevant. What is relevant is Joe’s call to reject a call for domination of any one belief system.
The Islamic belief system, which considers its views supreme and inviolate, is filled with the arrogance of a lack of humility. Joe’s point (I think) is to reject their insistence and instead, stand by our own beliefs.
I agree; but I don’t agree that the Islamic belief system can’t be reformed and that we shouldn’t call for its reform. Since it is, like any belief system, a man-made construct, then, we humans can change it.
It must be reformed. There is no option. How can we ignore over a billion people on this planet? The world no longer operates within isolate nations where contact takes months of travel by ship and land. Contact now is rapid. We can’t ignore this global networking.
Yes, we have to stand firm in our own belief systems, whatever they may be. As an atheist, I opt for the primacy of reason, logic, science and a humble ethics. These are all, by the way, rejected by the Islamic belief system.
But, I think that we can’t be silent; we have to confront Islamic belief systems and ask questions. It is vital to support our own belief systems, but, if we don’t ask questions of the Islamic mindset, then, we are similar to them. They don’t ask questions of us; they simply assert that their belief system is superior. How does that help?
What puzzles me, and I ask the question of those who insist that Islam cannot be reformed, is – how do you expect the planet to operate when you have a belief system held by over a billion people that rejects reason, science and equality? Instead of insisting on reform, what are you going to do? How are you going to interact in this global network?
Sheldon
Your pathetic outburst betrays your discomfort at hearing the truth.
“Which mental midget amongst us sits bestride the backs of giants and dares imagine, we are loftier than they?”
“Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site.”
I think you have your answer Joe. Sheldon Levin.
ET, I think Joe has said what he means quite clearly.
Wether you agree with Joe that Islam can’t be reformed or ET that it can, ET’s question is quite valid : how do you interact in the world?
While compromise always sounds like a rational approach “for civilised people”, it only works with two parties who are actually interested in an amenable settlement and who each have a firm, but flexible, belief/ethical structure.
This does NOT represent the situation that we are facing in the “western world” dealing with Islam, specifically radical Islam (but supported but the acquiesence of the moderates).
This has been said time and time again: they do not compromise their beliefs, they are not interested in reaching a compromise solution.
Give an inch and they will take a mile! This is not compromising, it is surrender!
If you belive in nothing or anything (that comes along), then surrender is the easy option.
As an atheist, I opt for the primacy of reason, logic, science and a humble ethics.
Ethics that are subject to revision.
Since it is, like any belief system, a man-made construct, then, we humans can change it.
In effect, no ethics at all.
“or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you’d know)”
Actually Sheldon, most “mass murderers” are one of the two forms of totalitarian state socialism. Most don’t reload their weapons because they are cowards who have their useful idiots do their killing for them.
I was going to mention that you are the useful idiot type but that would be incorrect. You aren’t smart enough to be a useful idiot. You are a useless idiot. Not even a commie could make use of what little you have to offer.
I bet when you wrote your pathetic little condescending drive-by that you thought you were being clever. As is the case with the rest of your sad life, you are wrong.
As for the substance of your little rant, it clearly says more about you than us. I would put my education against yours any day of the week and would hazzard to guess you would fall in the bottom 1/3 of posters on this site.
Now go back to school.
I think sheldon needs it broke down into simplier terms.So he cant understand what it means.
Before you knock Islam, try understanding what would possess a Christian to join “Opus Dei.” (Self flagellation etc.) How about baptismal rites in the “muddy waters of the Mississippi” that allegedly cleanse “the original sin.”
One outrageous religious rite soes not cancel another. Merry Christmas, and make sure you leave milk and cookies under the tree for “Saint Nick.” As for the Virgin Mary, I don’t know–I never checked!!
Love
J. Jesus
Lol can i meant to say
Lol can i meant to say
ol hoss – your statement that because something can be changed, means that it doesn’t exist (no ethics at all) doesn’t make any sense.
Every society has a set of ethical values. To state that ethical behaviour can only exist if its axioms are unchanging means that we cannot improve ourselves as a people.
Pope Benedict’s recent speech refers to a universal morality – a postulate that I accept. There IS such a thing as a common or universal human morality.
Now, if I’m living in a society that has an isolate set of morals specific only to itself, are you going to say that if I manage to get out of this isolation, and move into a morality that considers that all people are equal and all share the same basic human rights – that this action of mine means that I now have ‘no ethics’?
ET,there is just one thing wrong with your argument about people reforming Islam and its what they have been using in Iraq.Get a room full of persuaders to talk to Islamists and send a boy in with sweetmeats and “BOOM”no more persuaders.Unless you have the stamina and resolve to keep sending people in to get killed YOU WILL LOSE!
It hurts to hear the truth but it can also serve as an awakening.
We’ve been surrendering and abandoning so many principles and traditions this successful Western Democracy was built on to APPEASE. It has been a Leftist creep aided by Multiculturalism and the Trudeau Charter.
Those who come here from Countries or States with whom we have no history should be offered our great freedoms, be expected to abide by our laws and contribute to the Country, not work against
it or contribute to any movements or terrorism in the places they left. We owe nobody anything more.
We certainly should NEVER abandon our founding principles.
ET Is correct that all theologies which command a set of laws be obeyed by it’s adherents MUST be reformed if those laws are being misread or abused by the theocrats.
The Christian Church of Rome became a belligerent imperialist power cabal that ran theocratic wars and theocratic purges/tyrannies in it’s Jurisdictions….that is until Chrisitian reformers like Martin Luther and others brought the Christian church back to the humanitarian liberal ethos expressed by Christ….apostasy of the old testament values which where filed with the same theocratic tyranny that radical Islam has never reformed…vengence, intolerance, cruel justice.
Islam is 800 years overdue for reformation…perhaps the influence of the reformed Christian ethos in the liberal democricies Muslims now populate can help them embrace humanitarian reform if their theological absolutism.
Related:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute where he referenced a book called âTroublesome Young Menâ which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain.
It’s a very revealing book and a very powerful book because we tend to look backwards and we tend to overstate Churchill’s role in that period. And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement
was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn’t craven. Chamberlain had a very clear
vision of the world and he was very ruthless domestically. And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into they war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don’t want to offend the German people.
The Chamberlain world view was one of the British omelet
sacrificing, if necessary, the individual British eggs. Even on the eve of World War II where most people knew war was upon them, the Chamberlain Brits were concerned about publishing anti-German stories fearing that they might offend the German people.
Sounds a lot like today? Huh? Chamberlain had the same problem we have today. He couldnât bring himself to see that it was an ideology not a country or a people that was the enemy. Weâre making the same mistake today by not embracing the concept of Islamo-fascism or Islamism as the enemy and not any one particular Muslim country or group.
And you read this book, and it makes you want to weep because,
interestingly, the younger Tories who were most opposed to appeasement were the combat veterans of World War I, who had lost all of their friends in the war but who understood that the failure of appeasement would result in a worse war and
that the longer you lied about reality, the greater the disaster.
And they were severly punished and isolated by Chamberlain and the Conservative machine, and as I read that, I realized that that’s really where we are today. Our current problem is tragic. You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody pre pared to talk about the policy we need. Because we are told if you are for a strong America, you should back the Bush policy even if it’s inadequate, and so you end up making an argument in favor of something that can’t work. So your choice is to defend something which isn’t working or to oppose it by being for an even weaker policy. So this is a catastrophe for this
country and a catastrophe for freedom around the world. Because we have refused to be honest about the scale of the problem.
Absolutely correct. Those that worship at the altar of pacifism will only bring down upon us all a terrible price for peace at any cost. Or to quote Robert Heinlein, âPacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay — and claims a halo for his dishonesty.â
When will the pacifist ever learn that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.
Posted @ the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com
I see Sheldon has brought out the best in everyone. Whatever it was he was trying to gain by his comment he sure has succeded.
Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?
If you want to blame someone, blame those who teach one verse per Sunday, using that verse (often out of context) to illustrate some point of their own word, rather than God’s Word.
How many lifetimes would it take, hearing one verse per Sunday, to hear God’s Word?
Who was it decided we shall hide our lights under a bushel basket?
What light? It takes fuel to make a light. See above.
Paul said teaching salvation and baptism over and over to the saved is like re-crucifying Christ. Hebrews 6:6
Joes is saying that we only strengthen Islam when we deal in ‘fear, loathing and ignorance’. Of ourselves? Of them? Of both?
I’m still asking the question, and so far, no-one that I’ve asked (irwin daisy and joe) have answered. How does one deal with the Islamic world, over a billion in population, if you reject the option of their reforming their ideology?
The world is now too small to be able to ignore their existence. Stopping all immigration (irwin daisy’s suggestion) won’t solve any problems. The world doesn’t operate, any more, only in ‘actual reality’. It also operates in ‘virtual reality’, ie, the actions and thoughts that affect us are no longer bound by spatial distance.
My point is that we have to insist on the viability, the validity of our own beliefs (democracy, civic secular society, equality of mean and women, reason and faith together)and reject any denigration of these axioms. BUT, we have to question and confront those who don’t operate in this set of beliefs.
I don’t see how we can stand by and not question or confront these beliefs. The very act of our standing up for our own beliefs must also be an action of questioning their beliefs.
The problem is that Islam will never universally reform to the “religion of peace” that some claim it to be.
When you try to change your countries laws to accomodate beliefs that break your laws its a quick road to destruction.
When a school teacher in an Islamic country names a teddy bear allah and can be, by local ethics, killed for it. Does not make it right or moral.
Yes, ol hoss, ethics are subject to change. What were the correct ethical positions on stem cell research or genetically-modified food 2000 years ago? Obviously there weren’t any. Likewise, a couple of centuries ago, slavery and witch burnings were morally acceptable. Human knowledge advances and so does our moral beliefs.
Oh, ya, like Opus Dei is responsible for widespread, global acts of terror and honour killings.
Johnny J., if possible, try opening your very small mind: remember, if you gave yourself such a blasphemous (and juvenile, BTW) moniker in “Islam-land”, your sorry head would be hacked off, live, on the Internet, with a blunt instrument.
Unless you have something worthwhile to say here–highly unlikely–why don’t you just buzz off?
‘Before you knock Islam, try understanding what would possess a Christian to join “Opus Dei.” (Self flagellation etc.) How about baptismal rites in the “muddy waters of the Mississippi” that allegedly cleanse “the original sin.” ‘ johnny insult to Jesus
Hey, jayjay. Tell us how self flagellation is equivalent to hanging gays by the hundreds in Iran. Explain to us how baptism in ANY kind of water is equivalent to blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren. Show us which religions are stoning people to death today (hint: there is ONLY one).
I could go on for hours, but I have work to get done around here. I was going to say that others would take up the task, but it just occurred to me that they are Ignoring you anyway, and probably quite right to do so.
I just loved how most of you handled twit Kevin’s remarks. Well done.
I am with ET on this string. I am atheist but support Christian values. I don’t feel any conflict.
Christian values accommodate freedom logic, reason and rule of law. So, I accommodate Christianity. We can get along.
I part trails where the supernal being part comes into play. Otherwise, it’s all good.
I will always be able to find other Atheist with whom I disagree and I can tell you, that’s pretty much most of them. I can also find some Christians with whom I disagree. What is important is that I don’t want to kill any of either of them .. well, maybe one or two from time to time :0)
Again we should have the FREEDOM to differ on some things, yet work together for the greater good and real progress in this world.
Islam cannot think this way and therefore must either reform, or we must continue to fight them for our own sakes.
ET
The Qu’rans words and demands are the very words and demands of Allah to the slaves of Islam. Tell me who would dare rephrase them? As I said before, there is no central authority so there is no one qualified to speak for the ummah as a whole. If they had their Caliphate, the Caliph could manipulate minor things, but he cannot change the words of Allah.
The world has been operating as best it can with Islam for over 1400 years. Not many cultural groups have survived it’s attentions without being severely hindered or even destroyed. The west is particularly disliked for being a surviving (and now dominant)thorn in their side.
How to “operate” or “interact” with Islam then? That is the dread question. The first thing necessary is to educate the non muslims about the burden that Islam lays on it’s followers. These needful things for Islam are all supremacist in character and on many levels of intimidation and coercion and old fashioned murder. To publicly expose these things and make them general knowledge would go a long way itself. But that will soon be hate speech and banned, won’t it?
I like the Spanish precedent of 1492 myself, but Islam will have to really kick us in the n*ts first to make that viable. So we are in some trouble already. Curtailing Muslim immigration would be helpful but that would make us “racist” wouldn’t it?
Trying to answer you in a line or two has made me suddenly pessimistic. I don’t think we can or will do anything positive to defend our country and culture until the most horrendous of shocks delivered by Islam turns us upside down. If no such shock is delivered we may well be demographically Islamic well before global warming does us in.
None of the options are pretty as far as I can see. It could degrade into torches and pitchforks before anything sensible is done.
Reminds me of the Jack Nicholson line:
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
The analogy of belling the cat seems reasonable in this situation.
Although I prefer to see it as a Pied Piper of Hamelin situation. Did anyone in Hamelin ever stop to ask how the rats got out of control in the first place? And just why are the Hamelinanians too week to deal with them on their own? Who will play the Piper and who will PAY?
It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I guess those who proclaim their atheism will have to wait and find themselves in a foxhole to know. When times are good, it is easy to be an atheist. I wonder how many atheists were in the concentration camps. There were some… commandants and guards, those who with no conscience could dispose of their fellow man, created in the likeness of God. There will come a day when there will be no more atheists. It is written “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. We will all one day stand before the judge of every human soul and give account… this would seem to be the end of atheism.
“Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?”
Maranatha
ET,
No one said that Islam can’t be reformed. The point was that it isn’t our job. It’s our job to reform ourselves and get our cultural mojo back. It’s our job to defend ourselves and stop apologizing for our existence and way of life. We have to recognize our OWN rights, our own cultural value, and our own contribution to humanity and stop blaming ourselves for the actions of others.
Muslims and “fill in the blank here” are not bloody savages because of something WE did. Colonialism is foolish leftard’s ideology for excusing the actions of non-westerners and their incivility.
You shouldn’t get a pass for bad behavior just because you aren’t white. That’s a stupid leftard being racist while calling the rest of us racists. The irony of their position is lost on them.
Until we embrace our own society and deem ourselves worthy of defence, we aren’t in the fight so aren’t in a position to win it.
Islam and its values are irrelevant. We don’t have to care what they think so long as they don’t have the power to force it on us.
Exactly, WLMR.
The Church, in the West, had moved into a theocratic imperialist power with dictatorial powers over belief and behaviour. The West confronted this, and reformed. Islam hasn’t done this. It has to.
I reject irwin daisy’s suggestion, if I understand him, that the answer has to be allout war on the peoples of Islam. Are you seriously suggesting war against a billion people? Not only is that untenable, but, that won’t reform the ideology!
I think that the ideology has to be confronted, as WLMR said, in our own countries, where we must refuse to accept their ideology as dominant over ours (our democracy, civic secular society, equality, focus on individual, reason and faith).
BUT, I think that we also have to contront this ideology on the international scene. We have to reject, openly and publicly, their rejection of human rights, their lack of equality of men and women, etc, etc.
Joe is a fine man and says all kinds of fine things, many with which I totally agree. However, I sometimes find his thinking somewhat one-dimensional. We are not just spiritual beings: we are INCARNATE, which immerses us in the dirty world of politics and all the hell that entails.
Here are two recent cross posts, when Joe and I were discussing this issue at the Coren/Mansur thread:
1) Joe writes, “Its not the Muslim’s fault” and “We need to realize that the reason the Muslims act the way they do is because that is the nature of the Muslim faith.”
Joe, this seems an awful lot like “The Devil made me do it” reasoning. Dumbing down too. If it’s not the Muslims’ fault, whose is it? It sounds very much like you’re trying to posit an equivalency between Christian culture (waning though it is) when you talk about removing planks from our eyes first. Honestly, I don’t think this quite applies in a situation where the Muslim fanatics have declared open warfare on the people of the West and our freedoms.
Perhaps we need to remove the planks from our PC blinded eyes and recognize the clear and present danger in our midst posed by a radicalized religion too many of whose adherents behave like toddlers with Uzis. Rather than pander to Muslim sensibilities even more, in hopes that appeasement will workâwe both recognize it won’tâI believe we need to get tough and let them know weâre not prepared to put up with their totally unacceptable behaviour. If theyâre unwilling to comply with the standards of a free society, they are free to leave.
The elites of the West seem to be afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome: âa psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placedâ (Wikipedia).
Our politically correct overlords actually identify with our sworn enemies and make excuses for them, as well as aiding and abetting them by allowing such a travesty as letting them use our own sense of fairness, our adherence to due process, and our resources against us, e.g., Human Rights (sic) cases, like the one against Mark Steyn. This is pathological! Many of us would like to see the HRCs radically reined in or abolished altogether. Many of us would like to see visible minorities treated the same as the rest of us in our everyday lives: no excuses to let them off the hook, and the ability to criticize their behaviour without being accused of racism and bigotry. (I donât think these suggestions constitute âfutile gnashing of teethâ.)
And, Joe, it sounds to me as if youâve bought in to letting them off the hook. If not, just what are you thinking of when you say, “Its not the Muslim’s fault” and âRight now all I read is futile gnashing of teeth instead of the steady strong answers we require to win this war.â What strong answers are you considering?
2) Thanks, Joe. Your message altogether resonates with a committed Christian. It’s unfortunate, though, that the majority of Canadians, including Sunday-only Christians, don’t fit this mold, nor do the majority of posters here.
So, as in “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” what is the body politic to do?
Christians, as Christians, will discern and pray–and pray and pray: a wise, fine, and powerful thing to do, praise God–and, as citizens, will try to discern a way forward in the temporal world of politics, which cannot be ignored: it’s part of the reality we deal with.
I believe what you propose is altogether valid on the level of being a Christian. However, there is another dimension–the political–which, I believe, has a different set of priorities, which we also need to address.
More answers to your questions, Joe:
(From LGF) The ever-tolerant peace-lovers who frequent loony left sites such as Huffington Post and Democratic Underground react to the news of a small chemical explosion at Fox News headquarters.
* Who among us would have wept if Fox News HQ had been blown up? I can honestly say I wouldnâtâve.
* We could only wish. Those hate-filled bigots should be taken off the air ASAP!
* Fox News being destroyed is one of the best things that could happen.
* If something happens to FOX News and one of those Bush enablers getâs [sic] hurt…who cares? How many have died because they helped this administration lie us into a war?
* [expletive deleted] Fox News..!
* oh yea good idea…. ****DIRTY BOMB, …Let us Pray
* what a nice christmas present, i guess the whole sleazy enterprise going up in smoke would have been too much of a gift. well, itâs a start
* False flag! They probably did it themselves to generate news to them in a sympathetic light. I wonder who Michelle Malkin will want to round up into internment camps for this…
* Reichstag fire, anyone?
“We will all one day stand before the judge of every human soul and give account… this would seem to be the end of atheism.
“Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?”
Maranatha”
Well Marantha, in my case, it was me. The beauty of FREEDOM is that one can decide for one’s self … right or wrong.
Apparently, you are one Christian I would find disagreeable and intolerant. Too bad.
Peace
Kate- I think I was quite on track, perhaps just not your track. It seems your readers sure know a lot about my political views, my education and where I live from my short comment. In the future I’ll try to post only comments which reflect the views of this site, which there are quite a few. Hopefully I won’t strike another nerve by putting my ideas in words.
marantha – I always dislike the use of the passive tense, eg, ‘It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes’.
You see, that sentence doesn’t tell us WHO made this statement. Furthermore, it implies universality of such a saying.
Your error, and it is a profound error, is to assume that an atheist has no conscience. That’s nonsense. Read John West’s post; I fully agree with his outline. I certainly have, I assure you, a deep ethical and moral perspective. It is based on reason; I don’t need any metaphysical agency to tell me these basic axioms of morality.
To state that ethical behaviour can only exist if its axioms are unchanging means that we cannot improve ourselves as a people.
Ah, now you have ethics, and “improved ethics”. Will the real ethics please stand up.
Funny thing religion.
It really is a chicken/egg argument.
Ask yourself this:
Is stealing and sleeping with your neighbour’s wife wrong because it’s in the bible or is it in the bible cause it’s wrong?
If you haven’t figured it out, ask yourself if you’d be killing, whoring and stealing all over town if you hadn’t read your bible.
People can tell right from wrong all on their own. The bible just tells you what you should already know.
Well Sheldon, I had to convert Islam to marry my wife, I am also a gun owner, hope thatâs confusing for you. By the way, all of the mass murderers, Hilter, Mao, Stalin, etc confiscated personally owned firearms prior to their mass murders.
Anyways, people need to stand up to Islam as it is being pushed onto us and onto Muslims. Most Muslims are decent folks trying to go about their lives, but they are taught from day one, to keep their heads down, donât ask questions, go along with what your leaders and Imams tell you. This quiet acceptance is what fuels fundamental Islam, the quiet majority is in essence like the spouse of an abuser, they will rarely fight back, and will defend their abuser, even though it is purely illogical.
Muslim seem to have tunnel vision, when my devout brother inlaw found out I was not terribly religious he became very upset, I pointed out that I only became Muslim to abide by the laws of Malaysia (2 months of jail, caning and seizure of any children by the state) and was forced to do so. He said âThere is no compulsion in Islamâ I pointed out, that I can never renounce Islam and in any Muslim country I will always be subject to Sharia law and asked if he could renounce it, which of course he is not allowed to, so despite clear evidence that compulsion exists, they still cling to the belief it does not.
Also the only places that the âBrotherhood of Islamâ can peacefully co-exist is in the West. All Muslim states suppress or punishes those that believe in the other types of Islam that are not state sanctioned, no Shia can preach in Malaysia without risking their life and liberty.
Islam as currently preached is the neighbourhood bully, we in the west better stand up to it, or be prepared to cower before it.
“I reject irwin daisy’s suggestion, if I understand him, that the answer has to be allout war on the peoples of Islam. Are you seriously suggesting war against a billion people? Not only is that untenable, but, that won’t reform the ideology!”
ET,
Why do you insist on lying? I never said that. You continue to debate by outright fabrication, or extrapolation of what I say. I can only assume that you find this necessary because your argument is weak.
From an earlier exchange with you, I said:
The application of reason creates apostates.
Islam can slowly, but surely be destroyed through exposure, criticism and shame. This seems to be what the Islamist leaders fear the most. They are furiously attempting to shut down free speech with regards to criticism of Islam in the west.
In the meantime, western countries would be wise to shut down immigration from Islamic theocracies and those countries practicing Sharia law in any form.
CSIS, for example, has said that they are overtaxed and underfunded, and cannot keep up with more Muslim immigration.
As well, why should citizen taxpayers fund immigrants that adhere to a hostile political ideology? Why should taxpayers fund more security and the incumbent hassles? Where’s the benefit? There is none.
As well, applicable laws should be enforced against the political side of Islam, abhorent customs, and the preaching of hate in mosques and schools.
The Quran, Hadith and Sira should be examined as hate literature. And if found to be, the offending parts should be banned.
People like the murdering father of that girl should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and held up as an example. No quarter should be given.
We must not tolerate an intolerant ideology. That is madness.
Posted by: irwin daisy at December 14, 2007 4:10 PM
ET
You reject your perception of Irwin’s declaration for war on all things Islamic, then in the next sentence declare war (as Muslims would perceive it) on Islam yourself. You are insisting that Islam can be forced to listen to reason, reason would be the death of Islam and it will be resisted.
People can tell right from wrong all on their own. The bible just tells you what you should already know.
That’s been working well. Do people also already know how not to do wrong? And how to free themselves of guilt attached to past wrongs?