strip and send back to donkey land

Huh?

What?

WTF?

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels totally "otherized" (as they say) by this.

Kate, thanks for reminding us how the barbarians live.

I am reminded of an early passage in Sam Harris' book "The end of faith", which reads:

"It is as though a portal in time has opened, and fourteenth-century hordes are pouring into our world."

Of course the sentence which follows is even more important:

"Unfortunately, they are now armed with twenty-first-century weapons."

As for Munira Mirza, his use of the term "moderate majority" of Muslims is a joke. I despise the abuse of the word "moderate" which is just an attempt to cover up the truth. There are fewer "moderate" Muslims living in the West than most people realize, and I highly recommend Steyn's book "America Alone..." if anyone wants a well-reasoned analysis on this topic.

Savages.

Moral equivalence cancels child abuse. Didn't you know that Kate?

"Baby boomers". Snort. It's probably being up after midnight, but that one struck a funny bone with me.

The PC police will now have to come get me for re-indoctrin--I mean, re-education.

1/3 of 16 to 24 year olds are morons, what's the news?

This is the same age group who sees Bono and Green Day as deep thinkers, rarely vote, and support the NDP in heavy numbers when they do vote. It is easy to be an idealist and believe that Sharia Law might work when you're too young to have any personal life experience.

As for the over 55 numbers, how many people over 55 would agree that public hangings and stonings would discourage further crimes?

This isn't a problem with islam ... its a problem that there are far more morons than people would ever like to admit.

Where do all the Human Rights Activists hide out while they await some petty little threat to some Socialist cause du jour.

Great post NT, all too true.

Speaking of which...

Is Little Mosque on the Prairie still showing?

If so, what are the numbers like?

Or is it no longer the GLOBAL hit that CBC thought?

I would appreciate any feed-back, I haven't had any luck looking it up. I'm not computer savvy enough. Thank you.

These people should not be allowed into Canada. Their homelands are desolate fly blown chit holes for a a number of reasons.

Islam and Sharia being two of them...

Do you support Shiriah law?....sounds like a question that should be in an immigration declaration....affirmative answers can practice this demented mediaeval code in their nation of origin...but not this one.

Don't joke about Sharia Law, we almost had it passed in Ontario had it not been for a huge outcry.
Remember, our Trudeau Charter and Multicultural Bill will give it to them if it ever gets to the court of Red Robes. That's the dangerous mess we have created in this Country.

Don't joke about Sharia Law, we almost had it passed in Ontario had it not been for a huge outcry.
Remember, our Trudeau Charter and Multicultural Bill will give it to them if it ever gets to the court of Red Robes. That's the dangerous mess we have created in this Country.

Well, my fellow lefty moonbats will hate me for saying so, but I have to agree with Kate that cutting kids with razor blades without their consent is rather disturbing.

Of course, many prominent Shiite clerics also apparently agree with Kate, so then I don't feel so bad. From the paragraph immediately following the point where she decided to stop quoting:

"Lebanon's top Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, has banned bloodletting during Ashoura, even for adults. Clerics in mainly Shiite Iran forbid it as well, saying the practice is un-Islamic because it harms the body."

Odd that you left this out. Then again, I suppose quoting information indicating that this practise is (rightly) opposed by Muslim leaders would rather contradict your contention that such ritualistic violence is a normative practise among Muslims.

In the spirit of equal partiality, I suggest we now turn our collective self-righteous distain to the practise of circumcision among Christians. From udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html:

"Trusting newborns have their wrists and ankles strapped down to a table as their tightly closed foreskins are ripped open and stretched to near the tearing point. Then a scalpel is used to amputate square inches of healthy, sensitive skin. (Imagine yourself in this situation.) The cutting is slow and painful and babies usually respond in one of two ways. Either with screaming (which can last from several minutes to several hours) or with a sudden lapse into a state that resembles unconsciousness."

Liz J: Don't joke about Sharia Law, we almost had it passed in Ontario had it not been for a huge outcry. Remember, our Trudeau Charter and Multicultural Bill will give it to them if it ever gets to the court of Red Robes. That's the dangerous mess we have created in this Country.

Among those leading the huge outcry? The National Association for Women and the Law, whom SWC provides funding to and whom REAL Women thus despises. And what was REAL Women's contribution to the debate? As far as I can tell--please correct me if I'm wrong--they issued a solitary press release after Premier McGuinty decided to scrap 'faith-based' arbitration entirely.

Attn Mr. A:

I suggest you do some research about the major Shia festivals. At various religious festivals, in parades of the faithful Iranian Shia, the practice of of self-flagellation with whips and chains to the point of severe bleeding is a traditional event. And I do mean severe bleeding-nothing but blood from shoulders to waist. Do some Googling and you can see photos for yourself. They're not good viewing for those of weak stomach.

To the best of my knowledge, this very bloody Shia Muslim self-flagellation has no counterpart in either Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Shinto religious practice.

As for the statement of ONE Muslim cleric, "Lebanon's top cleric", it's hardly unusual for Muslim clerics to say one thing knowing it's for the consumption of the Western press, and another for their own people. Again, do some Googling, and maybe several lengthy visits to memri.org. MEMRI has whole archives of what Islamic clerics are saying on Middle Eastern TV (with translations or subtitles) which ought to be shown on Western TV for educational purposes. Hate, racism, zenophobia are their lingua franca.

As to your circumcision argument: It is Jewish religious law requiring circumcision of the newborn. For Christians, it is optional. You might try cracking open a Bible and reading the letter of St. Paul on the subject. He stated to Christian communities in Asia Minor and Greece that circumcision is not required of Christians, as we are "circumcised in the spirit".

So, before you use any argument (mandatory or universal circumcision among Christians or "one Imam said no"), you ought to do your homework.

And to be fair, circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran at all.

Re: A at 10:14am - Circumcision is a largely North American phenomenon that was greatly encouraged by the medical profession a generation ago for purported medical benefits. It is not a Christian practice, as you very well know since you referenced a link making this very argument. You are being intellectually dishonest. That you think you can get away with it here of all places flaunts your stupidity. Implying moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity on this basis is really grasping at straws.

If circumcision were really so traumatic, then millions of Jewish men would be stark raving mad/serial killers/alcoholics and who knows what.

Instead, Jews are disproportionally represented in the professions and among Nobel Prize winners and under represented among the prison population.

Childbirth is arguably far more painful and less easily forgotten.

By the way, A:

during "partial birth" abortions, trusting newborns have a pair of surgical scissors punched into the back of their skulls.

Now that's disturbing...

"You are being intellectually dishonest."

'A' is the poster boy for the intellectually dishonest. However, I'd lose the 'intellectual' discription. Rather A is incredibly thick.

Check any debate between A and others, especially in the previous thread on this topic.

"Well, my fellow lefty moonbats will hate me for saying so, but I have to agree with Kate that cutting kids with razor blades without their consent is rather disturbing."

Don't you say?

A testimonial that his fellow lefty moonbats support violence done to children. Not to mention violence done to women, violence done to the kaffr, violence done to each other, etc.

I suppose A's fellow travellers are already beginning to rationalize the new terrrorism plot uncovered in (where else but) England involving Muslims planning to kidnap and behead another Muslim serving in the British army in Afghanistan. They then planned to broadcast the video of the ghastly murder on the internet.

Hell, Stephen King couldn't come up with more horrific plots than these people. But then again, he writes fiction.

Wow. Are you all in denial or do you all just believe in consistency? We all know how tolerant Kate isnt, in fact, trying to dehumanise muslims as people who inflict pain on children, and therefore are nothing short of "barbarians" or "savages". After all, it isnt, in fact, easier to kill those who are bad human beings. Or is it?

Dave,

"To the best of my knowledge, this very bloody Shia Muslim self-flagellation has no counterpart in either Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Shinto religious practice."

Perhaps you should do research.

"Flagellantism was a 13th and 14th century radical Christian movement. It began as a militant pilgrimage and was later condemned by the Catholic church as heretical. The followers were noted for including public flagellation in their rituals"

"For example the 11th century zealot Dominicus Loricatus once repeated the entire Psalter twenty times in one week, accompanying each psalm with a hundred lash-strokes to his back."

"The Inquisition was active against any revival of the movement in the 15th century."

"Modern processions of hooded Flagellants are still a feature of various Mediterranean Catholic countries, mainly in Spain, Portugal and Italy and some former colonies, usually every year during Lent. For example in the comune of Guardia Sanframondi in Campania, Italy, such parades are organized once every seven years."

Been there. Done that. The Catholic Church called for it to be banned. We all know how gentle the Catholic church was towards those whose behaviour it did not approve of. The Shia clerics are also calling for it to be banned. Your point?

"Hate, racism, zenophobia are their lingua franca."

And definitely not yours.

Tenebris,

While it is all very well saying that circumcision is a north American phenomenon, it has been conducted by Jews for millenia now. Simple question: Is there moral equivalency between judaism and Christianity?

Dave, Liz J, NT Philanthropist

What say you we ban all Jewish immigrants on the basis that circumcision is inhumane? Or wait, is this targetted towards Islam and Islam only?

Intellectual honesty. What a wonderful concept. I wonder why its such a scarce commodity on this board.

irwin daisy,

Thank you for doing precisely what I hoped you would do, that is, drop all pretenses of trying to be objective and getting down to what this thread is actually about - dehumanizing muslims. Always easier to kill lesser beings, is it not?

Why let a couple of inconvenient facts get in the way, when all you want to do is tell the world how bad muslims really are? Any attempt at providing any evidence that might disprove this "truth" of yours is instantly trashed as intellectual dishonesty.

Do you consider yourself intellectually honest?

Retort to the points and evidence being posed, instead of taking cheap potshots at people. Rudeness, it is said, is a weak man's immitation of strength. If you can rebut anything A or I have said, then by all means, do so, in a manner that is somewhat civil. If you cant, then please avoid these vapid personal attacks with such imaginative soundbites as intellectual honesty.

And one last note, for a posting I missed, from the Kathy.

"If circumcision were really so traumatic, then millions of Jewish men would be stark raving mad/serial killers/alcoholics and who knows what."

Well, they did come up with communism ;)

Anywho, here:

"Justin Call, infant psychologist and professor-in-chief of child and adolescent psychology at the University of California, reports that "sometimes babies who are being circumcised . . . . lapse into a semi-coma."15 Tonya Brooks, president of the International Association for Childbirth at Home and a midwife, observes, "In four of the nine circumcisions that I have seen, the baby didn't cry. He just seemed to be suddenly in a state of shock!"16 Studies demonstrate that even though an infant may not cry during circumcision, the stress hormone level in the blood still increases dramatically"

"Circumcision has other harmful effects. Anand and Hickey write that the persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.18 "

Oh well, its just academic gobblegook anyway. Theres nothing wrong with ahving babies lapse into semi-comas out of sheer pain. After all, no one has turned into a murderer because of it. But those Christian self-flagellants, they went on to become murderers etc. Or did they?

Kathy Shaidle said:

"If circumcision were really so traumatic, then millions of Jewish men would be stark raving mad/serial killers/alcoholics and who knows what.

Instead, Jews are disproportionally represented in the professions and among Nobel Prize winners and under represented among the prison population."

Are you seriously equating circumcision with winning the Nobel peace prize.......how moronic is that?? Genital mutilation is something that shouldn't be encouraged or justified in boys or girls. Saying that it's for religious reasons does not condone it (see female circumcisions in Africa). Seriously that is some messed up logic you’re throwing out there.

For the record I am not, nor would I ever have my newborn son go through it.

Religion is often an expression of pure human evil. That is why Christianity and Islam have so much in common; especially when you compare the historic Christian record with modern Islam. That being said there is no doubt that on average Islam today is far more violent and insideous than Christianinty. You would have to go back a few Centuries to find a Christian equivilant to modern Islam.

The truth is that I feel comfortable expressing my opinions of religion with a Christian. If I am reasonably civil there is no fear of violence. I can't say that about the the followers of the "Religion of Peace."

Well, crazy Muslims are being targeted because they want to take over the world and impose sharia law on everyone, including right thinking progressives just like you.

I know you probably think we Christianist Fascists(TM) are actually the dangerous ones, trying to zap you with our special Jesus rays and make you vote Conservative or have sex with the lights out, but believe me, that is just one of your feverish dreams.

Or maybe you think Jews have some kind of plan for world domination. Yeah, that's been going really well so far.

When the Soviets WERE really, truly trying to take over the world, we held up their violent and irrational behaviour to ridicule too, from their goofy ESP experiments and bread lines and crap technology to their gulags. Were most Soviet citizens more or less harmless? Probably. did they "love their children too"? I guess. Did America do bad or stupid stuff every day, too? Of course.

But.

So.

What?

See, some of us actually want to win this war. And that means fighting the enemy on all fronts, including the web, using occasionally impolite methods.

They have declared war on us btw, just read Osama's public pronoucements or watch the BBC report on "moderate" mosques in the UK, to name but two sources. What part of boom don't you understand?

So it is a war between two very imperfect groups of people. Duh! You still have to have the nuts to pick a side. I have. Will you?

Your obsession with "hypocrisy" and some kind of impossible standard of moral and spiritual perfection ("each side is just as bad as the other") is the mark of an adolescent.

And if you don't believe there is a war on, fine, but please just go back to your hackysack and emo tunes and leave the fighting to those who get it. In other words, go pour yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.

jeremiah - there is such a thing as failed cultures, and, no, not all cultures are equal. If you can't understand why, in this point in time in the modern age, that primitive Islam superimposed on Arab tribalism is a big fat failure, then you are an idiot. A very incurious, insular, uninformed idiot to boot.

And, really, who cares what 13th century Christians were doing to their bodies. They were adults, not whipping their kids as a religious experience. That was then, this is now.

Your indignation is misplaced. I suspect free speech would be jackbooted by you too. You need to grow up and stop processing the world through your feelings. If you want to refute that Islam is not dysfunctional, that the responses to that survey are ok in the context of a democratic society, then, do it with facts instead of fishing for some historic abberation as equivocacy and spewing this kind of stupid hyperbole..."After all, it isnt, in fact, easier to kill those who are bad human beings".

robotchicken's reading comprehension skills are pretty typical of those on the Left. Please, for the love of God, do not reproduce in the first place. If you really think there is anything in common with male and female "circumcision" (a misnomer btw) then you are simply hopeless.

Cardstonkid:

did you know that Islamic radicals kill more people each year than died in the entire two hundred years of the Inquisition? Did you know there were prisoners who asked to go before the Inquistion courts rather than the civil ones because the Inquistion courts were considered more lenient?

Did you know that the Crusades were a defensive response to 400 years of Muslim agression?

Did you know that for every Joan of Arc (one) or "witch" (about a hundred) killed by her own Church in the name of God over the last 2,000 years, hundreds of thousands more Muslim women have been killed by Muslim men in the name of Islam and this goes on to every day.

You know all about self-described Christians taking millions of blacks into slavery. You may even know that it was Christians who also fought to abolish it. Did you also know that just as many white Britons were enslaved by African Muslims, and that slavery is still practiced in the Muslim world today?

Didn't think so.

It would be ever so helpful if people would get their information about Christian history from sources other than old Vincent Price movies.

jeremiah 12.20pm asks “Simple question: Is there moral equivalency between judaism and Christianity?”
No.**
Judaism still maintains the shedding of blood by animal sacrifice as a necessity*. By contrast, Christians maintain that Christ’s one atoning sacrifice of Himself ended the need for animal bloodshed.
*That orthodox Jews do not presently sacrifice is because they have no proper place to offer them.
**Don’t pop a cork, people. First, look up the meaning of the word “moral”, then check out the principle of non-contradiction. Recall also that most Christians would agree, if pushed, that they were actually Jewish by definition.

penny,

"there is such a thing as failed cultures, and, no, not all cultures are equal...then you are an idiot. A very incurious, insular, uninformed idiot to boot."

Ah, namecalling. Surely a curious informed superior intelligent being, has some understanding of history. Islamic Tribalism notwithstanding, Islamic scholars contributed to Christian renaiisance. Al Farabi and Averroes come to mind as some of the most prominent scholars who influenced the European/Christian fathers of enlightenment. Algebra takes its name from teh Arab scholar who invented it.

Cultures are not equal, nor have they ever been equal in any one time frame, and you are focusing on a time frame that ostensibly starts from the age of Enlightenment in Europe. Yes, Europe is now superior, but it wasnt always superior. Gross generalizations are a bad idea.

I may be uninformed, but it would appear that you are no better.

"who cares what 13th century Christians were doing to their bodies. They were adults, not whipping their kids as a religious experience. That was then, this is now.'

Yes, and perhaps we should just ignore every genoicide that was ever undertaken, because, as you so eloquently put it, "that was then, this is now". History has many lessons to teach. You would be wise not to ignore them.

", do it with facts instead of fishing for some historic abberation as equivocacy and spewing this kind of stupid hyperbole"

Ah, but it is okay to make gross generalizations and assume a moral high ground to which there is no real basis, given the behaviour of one's own people at a prior point in history.

jeremiah - cultures and religions can be morally compared one the basis of origin, growth mechanisms, variants/heterodoxy, nature and consequences of departure from or returning to more primitive (i.e., original) forms…

The issue is not precisely whether one culture/religion is superior such to another. The question is: superior in what way, and by what standards?

A little thought, a little digging in history books, a little comparison…such a simple task.

"Circumcision is a largely North American phenomenon that was greatly encouraged by the medical profession a generation ago for purported medical benefits."

Maybe this explains why the majority of serial killers are white? Wonder how many of them were circumcised?

[grin]

All jokes aside, I don't care what people believe so long as those beliefs aren't expressed in a fashion that leads to the injury and death of others. Muslim mistreatment of women and homosexuals... The radical Shias' mutilation of kids with razor blades... Jewish mutilation of babies through circumcision... Female genital mutilation in Africa...

Ugly. All of it.

"A little thought, a little digging in history books, a little comparison…such a simple task."

Hardly a simple task, given the wealth of knowledge that one would have to peruse through.

"The question is: superior in what way, and by what standards?"

Standards change with time. They have to be viewed in context.

And what is a moral comparison? I am curious to know how the term moral becomes relevant in a comparison that one would hope would be entirely objective.

A and Jeremiah: Go far enough back in your respective geneologies and you will find that you descended from peoples who were barbaric monsters by today's standards. This applies to all peoples the world over. Digging up the filth that Christians did 500-1000 years ago is entirely useless...likewise, digging up what Muslims or Buddhists did 500-1000 years ago is entirely useless.

I take responsibility for my own actions, not those of forebears who lived many, many generations ago.

The question that should be asked is...what are they doing today? In todays "enlightened" world, you might be able to find self-described "Christians" killing (perhaps) hundreds of people per year...but you would be able to find self-described Muslims killing hundreds of people PER DAY. The Christian churches vocally condemn the killings undertaken by Christians (publicly and privately)...the Muslim mosques vocally encourage the killings undertaken by Muslims (publicly and privately).

There is NO EQUIVALENCY between them. The fact that you cannot see this simply illustrates clearly that you are either blind or stupid or prejudiced.

NT "There are fewer "moderate" Muslims living in the West than most people realize"

It describes all the muslims I know. They all drink and smoke pot and don't go to service all that often.

"Circumcision is a largely North American phenomenon that was greatly encouraged by the medical profession a generation ago for purported medical benefits."

The Victorians thought it would keep their sons from masturbating.

"The question that should be asked is...what are they doing today? In todays "enlightened" world, you might be able to find self-described "Christians" killing (perhaps) hundreds of people per year...but you would be able to find self-described Muslims killing hundreds of people PER DAY."

Insofar as everything has a cause, we can assume that the enlightened world of today is a result of the all the things that have taken place in the past. Ignoring them is, in your words "either blind or stupid". If there had been no powerful catholic church, there might never have been protestantism ...and so on. That is the way the world works.

To look at something today and state that by todays standards, it is backward is not logical because it assumes that everyone started from the same starting point in history. Islam is 700 years behind Christianity. If one has to compare the two religions, then it might be more helpful to view the two religions at specific ages - Islam at 1300 years v/s Christianity at 1300 years (Avignon Papacy time). If you absolutely must draw comparisons then draw them from a level playing field.

It reminds me of todays climate movement. It is quite presumptous to take the high ground and state that other nations must entirely skip certain phases of industrialization at great cost because it harms the environment, while happily forgetting that these same phases of industrialization were crucial to the developed world's rise.

They are two different cultures at two different points in their developmental stages. Why anyone has to compare them is ridiculous.

This topic is aimed simply at attacking Islam, with no real basis or substance. Just one of those cockeyed attempts to smear a religion because Kate doesnt like it. Producing evidence that religions other than Islam do not have a clean sheet motivates all kinds of rants about honesty and dishonesty and stupidity. Call me any names you want. I dont give a damn.

Jeremiah, are you a bullfrog, or just an idiot? You were doing a fairly good job (even though I thought you were wrong) during this debate, but that last comment (3:45pm) takes the cake for me. That's the craziest moonbatology, I've ever heard.

jeremiah, you are using examples of Christian actions that occured 400-1000 years ago. The actions by this sect of Muslims is occuring today. Do you understand the difference. What they are doing today is barbaric and should be exposed. These people are nuts and should be exposed as the nuts they are. Your postings on here show you have no idea about what you speak but only post here because you are an angry leftist who has nothing better to do with your time than to pick a fight over the internet.

Kathy Shaidle said:
"robotchicken's reading comprehension skills are pretty typical of those on the Left. Please, for the love of God, do not reproduce in the first place. If you really think there is anything in common with male and female "circumcision" (a misnomer btw) then you are simply hopeless."

You sure showed me calling me a leftist, quite the rebuttal; you are an idiot. First off, I'm a Libertarian; secondly strapping a male child to a board and cutting off skin is mutalation no matter how you slice it(pun intended). Judging by the bliss a baby goes through when a rabbi or doctor performs the procedure I'd say it's slightly upsetting. But hey it's all worth it so that he can become a Nobel Prize winner, dentist, or accountant....by your reasoning of course. Myself and the rest of the "skinners" will shuffle off to the mines and continue to reproduce so that the underclass can provide for you enlightened folk.

You probably shouldn't argue generalities, such as there aren't any Jewish serial killers, I guess David Berkowitz was an exception.

Saying that male circumscion isn't as bad as or doesn't compare to female circumcision doesn't make it any less wrong.

Here's your idiot badge wear it with pride.

Kathy Shaidle said:
"robotchicken's reading comprehension skills are pretty typical of those on the Left. Please, for the love of God, do not reproduce in the first place. If you really think there is anything in common with male and female "circumcision" (a misnomer btw) then you are simply hopeless."

You sure showed me calling me a leftist, quite the rebuttal; you are an idiot. First off, I'm a Libertarian; secondly strapping a male child to a board and cutting off skin is mutalation no matter how you slice it(pun intended). Judging by the bliss a baby goes through when a rabbi or doctor performs the procedure I'd say it's slightly upsetting. But hey it's all worth it so that he can become a Nobel Prize winner, dentist, or accountant....by your reasoning of course. Myself and the rest of the "skinners" will shuffle off to the mines and continue to reproduce so that the underclass can provide for you enlightened folk.

You probably shouldn't argue generalities, such as there aren't any Jewish serial killers, I guess David Berkowitz was an exception.

Saying that male circumscion isn't as bad as or doesn't compare to female circumcision doesn't make it any less wrong.

Here's your idiot badge wear it with pride.

Kathy Shaidle said:
"robotchicken's reading comprehension skills are pretty typical of those on the Left. Please, for the love of God, do not reproduce in the first place. If you really think there is anything in common with male and female "circumcision" (a misnomer btw) then you are simply hopeless."

You sure showed me calling me a leftist, quite the rebuttal; you are an idiot. First off, I'm a Libertarian; secondly strapping a male child to a board and cutting off skin is mutalation no matter how you slice it(pun intended). Judging by the bliss a baby goes through when a rabbi or doctor performs the procedure I'd say it's slightly upsetting. But hey it's all worth it so that he can become a Nobel Prize winner, dentist, or account....by your reasoning of course. Myself and the rest of the "skinners" will shuffle off to the mines and continue to reproduce so that the underclass can provide for you enlightened folk.

You probably shouldn't argue generalities, such as there aren't any Jewish serial killers, I guess David Berkowitz was an exception.

Saying that male circumscion isn't as bad as or doesn't compare to female circumcision doesn't make it any less wrong.

Here's your idiot badge wear it with pride.

Sorry didn't mean to have it post that often; seems to be a problem with my server....bad reception in the mines.

People please, remember trolls are not to be fed!

a libertarian is just a liberal who likes Star Trek.

Again - http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
More light to be shed on the subject...

Dave: "It is Jewish religious law requiring circumcision of the newborn. For Christians, it is optional. You might try cracking open a Bible and reading the letter of St. Paul on the subject."

Tenebris: "Circumcision...is not a Christian practice, as you very well know since you referenced a link making this very argument. You are being intellectually dishonest. That you think you can get away with it here of all places flaunts your stupidity."

Gee, Dave, what is this "Bible" you speak of? Thanks for the religious insights, guys, but I'm quite aware that circumcision is a mandatory practise for Jews, and optional for Christians. My point was -- and I'll break it down nice and easy for you -- is this:

1. Some Shiite Muslim parents cut their kids' foreheads with razors as part of a religious ritual.
2. This practise is not mandatory in Islam, and in fact is not condoned by many of that religion's key officials.
3. Nevertheless, some Muslim parents continue practising this tradition, even though it physically hurts their kids.

4. Some Christian parents cut off their kids' foreskins with scalpels as part of a religious ritual.
5. This practise is not mandatory in Christianity, and in fact is not condoned by many of that religion's key officials.
6. Nevertheless, some Christian parents continue practising this tradition, even though it physically hurts their kids.

Now do you see why I used Christian circumcision rather than Jewish circumcision as my example? Who's stupid now, Tenebris?

"a libertarian is just a liberal who likes Star Trek."

I'm not even sure what that means......but I was into Star Wars more......damn you foreskin.

The trouble is, as I see it, that very few people have courage to define "moderate" in terms of Islam. Why? Because if you do, you may not like what you find, and it certianly won't fit with any "progressive" view of the world.

Try This ... the following is a definition of Moderate Muslim:

-believes that the state of Israel has the RIGHT to exist
- believes that terrorism is NOT justified; ever
- believes that 911 was an UNJUSTIFIED atrocity
- believes that woman should have EQUAL rights to men
- believes that Muslim APOSTATES should not face death or persecution
- believes that violence is NOT a reasonable form of protest
- believes that liberal democratic rule of law SUPERSEDES Sharia
- believes that Muslim clergy should NOT issue death FATWAS
- believes that Muslim terrorists are FANATICS
- believes that death or prison terms are NOT appropriate for homosexuals
- believes that Muslims are NOT systematically persecuted

oops ... suddenly the moderate majority doesn't seem that large a group after all.

I think the discussion wanders a bit from the essential element in regard to religion.

Sometimes one happens on to a concise statement that captures the problem in language. I was surprised to find such a statement in an old book by Alan Watts from back in the days when he was still an Episcopal priest.

I modify this quote a bit:
1. Modern civilization is disintegrating because it has no principle of unity, no certain or even workable knowledge of the meaning and true end of human life.

Philosphy and Science do not offer such a principle, nor even the hope of finding one, since this is not their proper sphere.

Religion contains our nearest approach to a principle of unity, but often does not convince or convert the modern world because its doctrines, as stated, seem incredible.

Societies require a principle of unity in order to have ultimate significance, because they are related consciously to a eternal Reality.

2. a. The spiritual leadership of a stable and unified society of this kind must have access to metaphysical knowledge, i.e., to an effective realization and immediate experience of the ultimate Reality.

Religion offers an analogy to this knowledge, but of this modern religion is unaware. Analogy alone collapses when pressed too far, and modern religion is often ineffective and uncertain, because it is a hard-pressed analogy trying to stand on its own merits. It often lacks the support of the metaphysical knowledge which it represents.

b. Some objections to this thesis:
i. That knowledge of the infinite is not real knowledge, having no positive content.
ii. That such knowledge is socially ineffective.
iii. That such knowledge does not actually exist.

[End of quote.]

Often these arguments between religions, particularly now that we are being attacked by Islamic fanatics, focus on specific ethnocentric positions and practices of piety of the religion. This begins to be like a fight between people with different colored hair rather than the real raison d'etre of that religion.

As far as the Islamic Nazis go, the sooner they can be disposed of, the better. However, we will still be left with trying to fathom the ultimate nature of religion.

You know what, robotchicken, you really need to step back, shut up, and revisit your original and excruciatingly lame comment...."Genital mutilation is something that shouldn't be encouraged or justified in boys or girls"....

Girls?

That sentence is so flamingly stupid in it's attempt at equivocacy that you deserved the response that you got. Your medical ignorance is appalling.

You, A, and jeremiah have so far driven home the tragedy of public education and its consequences for society

You know what, robotchicken, you really need to step back, shut up, and revisit your original and excruciatingly lame comment...."Genital mutilation is something that shouldn't be encouraged or justified in boys or girls"....

Girls?

That sentence is so flamingly stupid in it's attempt at equivocacy that you deserved the response that you got. Your medical ignorance is appalling.

You, A, and jeremiah have so far driven home the tragedy of public education and its consequences for society

"However, we will still be left with trying to fathom the ultimate nature of religion"

I have Christian friends and their faith seems to lift them up, inspire them, and make them better people. I admire it even if I can't understand it.

Greg in Dallas. Some interesting comments: "I modify this quote a bit:
1. Modern civilization is disintegrating because it has no principle of unity, no certain or even workable knowledge of the meaning and true end of human life."

Modern civilization isn't disintegrating it's more prosperous and less violent than ever. Heck we've even extended our sphere of influence to outer space. Even the bloody 20th century only saw 1% of the male population die in war. And our standard of living has never been higher. Sure we've got grown men holding hands in public but if this is what disintegration looks like I'd hate to live through real prosperity.

You mention the modern world lacking a unifying idea. We do have a unifying idea that everyone agrees to even the hard right and hard left and that's the concept of human rights. It's entirely a modern idea and it's spread faster than any other I can think of. That's our unifying principle in the making and it doesn't hinge around any paticular religion.

Not to dis religion in general (although there are plenty of just plain stupid ones out there) but the human race is never going to be unified by religion. Ain't going to happen... ever.

Human rights and the accompanying social and political changes (secularism, displacing some religious dogmas with science, etc.) it's bringing are precisely why some Islamic radicals started going around the bend three decades ago. They rightly percieve it as a threat to their tribal identities and religious dogmas.

Most of the muslim world is behind the curve on the whole human rights/secularism/modernism thing. It's regrettable and ugly but understandable since they're relative newcomers to the whole Enlightenment business. Left to their own devices they'll catch up, painfuly (and ocassionaly explosively) to be sure but they will. Modern history demonstrates that muslims turn their back on radicals after a decade or two(look to Egypt where this all started).

"Islamic scholars contributed to Christian renaiisance. Al Farabi and Averroes come to mind as some of the most prominent scholars who influenced the European/Christian fathers of enlightenment. Algebra takes its name from teh Arab scholar who invented it."

- Jeremiah

This statement only shows your ignorance. First of all Algebra was an invention of the ancient Asyrians, oh, about 1000 - 1500 years before Islam. So was 0. What else do the Muslims claim? Hmmm, their distinct style of architecture? Byzantine. Islamic philosophy? Greek. The Quran? plagiarized and conveniently changed writings from the Torah, NT, and various other Christian and Jewish documents.

Contrary to lefty opinion, Islam has not produced anything of use for the world. They still don't. They can shoot a gun, but can they make one? They can fly a plane, but can they manufacture one? What is Saudi Arabia inventing or manufacturing with their billions in found oil money?

You ought to consider the words you write. ie:"Islamic scholars contributed to the Christian Renaissance." If that were so, why are so-called Islamic scholars not still contributing ideas? Could we be witnessing evolution in reverse, perhaps? Seems to me the only explanation, don't you think.

Your moral equivalence arguments are just as ridiculous. How can you compare the actions of some Christians in the middle ages to Islamist behaviour today? Is that some sort of wierd justification? I can't imagine how you think. All I know is a fallacious argument when I read one.

Further, you said:

"Thank you for doing precisely what I hoped you would do, that is, drop all pretenses of trying to be objective and getting down to what this thread is actually about - dehumanizing muslims. Always easier to kill lesser beings, is it not?"

Where did I say anything like that in my post? The fact is I didn't.
If you believe, "Rudeness, it is said, is a weak man's immitation of strength." What would you call a liar, such as yourself?
How about: Lie in order to win an imaginary argument, on a topic of which you've proven to know nothing about.

Go back to your cave.

The problem with pointing out those contributions is you have to go so far back to find them, and even then it's a stretch to assume they're true.
I remember when we started getting those video taped messages from varous loons: a commentator pointed out there isn't a company in the middle east making video equipment. They have to borrow equipment to threaten us.

"Left to their own devices they'll catch up".....and just how would that happen skipping an Age of Enlightenment, a Reformation, secular leadership, a Martin Luther King, a Thomas Jefferson, etc, etc, etc?

Jose, get real. "Their own devices" aren't doing it, the whole point behind the Bush Doctrine that if change can't be generated internally, it needs to come externally to the ME, the whole case for Afghanistan and Iraq, a concept that lame lefties can't process. Time is running out for Muslims to join the modern age. Only idiots not noticing that stone age mentality Iran is building the Islamic bomb, have declared what they'll use it for, have the luxury of your thinking.

I find this discussion has gotten quite out of hand, so to speak, with the uneducated claiming the circumscision of a male is somehow mutilization. To my knowledge normal male circumscision has never adversly had any effect on any body functions where as the "traditional female circumscision" does cause irreparable damage and in many cases a painful death. To compare one to the other is ludicrous. If you want to compare female circumscision then think Laura Bobbit... without the reattachment.

Did someone actually call themselves a "skinner" here?

Especially given the context it was used, I hope the writer didn't know that the slang term for a child molester is, of course, skinner.

Yikes man.

Penny said:

"You know what, robotchicken, you really need to step back, shut up, and revisit your original and excruciatingly lame comment...."Genital mutilation is something that shouldn't be encouraged or justified in boys or girls"....

Girls?

That sentence is so flamingly stupid in it's attempt at equivocacy that you deserved the response that you got. Your medical ignorance is appalling."

First off how can a sentence be flamingly anything??? Again, what does that mean? You my friend will need to wear your own badge.

Secondly, how is it stupid that I don't see a rationale of any kind for the mutilation of genitals of newborn children of any religion?

No one reasonable person would defend the notion of female mutilation/circumcision, so why is it socially acceptable to allow it with little boys?
What medical reason is there for male circumcision?? There are none, it's done for religious practices or cosmetics there is absolutely no reason for it to occur.

The reason why I spoke out had to do with the fact that someone was justifying the act by saying it has no long term affect. If I was a member of group who's culture advocated such an act, you'd have chastied me to no end had I made the same argument. So why is it stupid for me to say that little boys shouldn't be circumcised??

You Penny are a mouth-breather........

Yukon Gold said,

Did someone actually call themselves a "skinner" here?

Especially given the context it was used, I hope the writer didn't know that the slang term for a child molester is, of course, skinner.

Uh, no I had no idea, I don't think it's common knowledge that "skinners" are child molesters so you shouldn't use the term "of course"; but I appreciate the headsup.

"To my knowledge normal male circumscision has never adversly had any effect on any body functions"

I know a fellow who can't have sex because erections are too painful -- the result of a botched circumcision. A surgeon tried to repair the problem when he was a teen and made things worse. He's not the only one suffering for a lifetime because his parents opted for a frivolous medical procedure:

http://tinyurl.com/zfbf3
http://tinyurl.com/3bdwmv
http://tinyurl.com/4ucgt
http://tinyurl.com/2tcvoe
http://tinyurl.com/2w6vub
http://tinyurl.com/2nqpzz

"Thank you for doing precisely what I hoped you would do, that is, drop all pretenses of trying to be objective and getting down to what this thread is actually about - dehumanizing Muslims."

I think this thread is about highlighting ignorant and backward behavior, an area where Islam seems to be taking the lead right now.

Texas Canuck said:

I find this discussion has gotten quite out of hand, so to speak, with the uneducated claiming the circumscision of a male is somehow mutilization. To my knowledge normal male circumscision has never adversly had any effect on any body functions where as the "traditional female circumscision" does cause irreparable damage and in many cases a painful death. To compare one to the other is ludicrous. If you want to compare female circumscision then think Laura Bobbit... without the reattachment.

How ironic that someone who uses the word "mutilization" calls me uneducated.

Again my argument had do with the fact that someone was justifying an action by saying it was alright because a religious group seemed to have flourished without much detriment caused by this supposed act. I went further to explain that hiding behind religion or tradition shouldn't justify these actions.

But since I'm not edu-macated like y'all, and y'all seem to think there is no affect, maybe you should refer to this:

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

"The human foreskin is highly innervated, and vascularized sensitive erogenous tissue. It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function."

Apparently y'all don't believe in normal human sexual response......

Penny: "...the whole point behind the Bush Doctrine that if change can't be generated internally, it needs to come externally to the ME..."

I really wouldn't put much faith in the so-called 'Bush Doctrine.' It is virtually unanimous among scholars of democratic theory and development theory that a purely top-down, externally imposed model of democratization -- such as that espoused by the Bush Doctrine -- is deeply, indeed fatally, flawed. An inability to account for cultural norms and social-historical contexts virtually ensures that exportation attempts will fail to take root in any meaningful, sustainable way.

Does anyone really believe that Iraq is in any way a success? By any standard definition of 'victory,' the war against the civil insurgency is unwinnable, and yet having initiated the vicious cycle, unilateral withdrawal of the US military is now no longer a viable option. A majority of Americans currently oppose the war in Iraq, as does most of the world community. It contributed to the party's loss of both the House and the Senate; it may yet cost them the White House as well. Perhaps most crucially, within the course of a single presidency, America's moral standing within the democratic world has been thoroughly undermined. The true costs of this are as yet unknown, and potentially devastating.

Penny, you need to recognize that the position you hold -- in support of the Bush Doctrine -- does not reflect the views of the majority (whether of the general public, political scholars, or world leaders) but rather occupies a position that is significantly to the right of the mainstream.

"It is virtually unanimous among scholars of democratic theory and development theory"

Wow. Step back and examine the unsupportable idiocy of that statement. If I was grading your term paper you'd be an F.

I need to really stop troll feeding. My apologies to everyone.

'A' sez:

"1. Some Shiite Muslim parents cut their kids' foreheads with razors as part of a religious ritual.
2. This practise is not mandatory in Islam, and in fact is not condoned by many of that religion's key officials.
3. Nevertheless, some Muslim parents continue practising this tradition, even though it physically hurts their kids.

4. Some Christian parents cut off their kids' foreskins with scalpels as part of a religious ritual.
5. This practise is not mandatory in Christianity, and in fact is not condoned by many of that religion's key officials.
6. Nevertheless, some Christian parents continue practising this tradition, even though it physically hurts their kids.

Now do you see why I used Christian circumcision rather than Jewish circumcision as my example? Who's stupid now, Tenebris?"

To answer your question A, you are once again. The comparison you have made is unbelievably stupid. Not to mention, ignorant. But then, that's par for the course with you.

Here's a little info on male circumcision that, I don't know, perhaps a Muslim baby cut on his forehead with a razor might not acquire the same benefits?

Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the 1989 Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [312]. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision, publishing a very worthy book on the topic in 2005 [315]. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study [397]) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive" [312]. Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [312].

Some of the health benefits are:

Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [253].
Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [98, 101, 104].
Reduced urinary tract infections.
Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in the male and their partner(s).
Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
Decrease in urological problems generally. (Reviewed in [2, 8, 10, 19, 107, 198, 301, 310] to cite just a few. More details appear in specific sections to follow)

And then from the BBC:

Male circumcision 'cuts' HIV risk

Foreskin cells are thought to be more vulnerable to HIV infection
Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show.
The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.

It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.

Wanker.

Penny: Wow. Step back and examine the unsupportable idiocy of that statement. If I was grading your term paper you'd be an F.

That's right, toss a few insults and then run away, all without addressing a single sustantive argument within my comment.

A more credible -- and respectable -- approach would have been to mount a reasoned defence of your support for the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps even naming a respected development theorist who actually believes such a heavy-handed, confrontational, institutional approach has any chance of success.

irwin daisy,

We have entered into a lame game of semantics now.

"This statement only shows your ignorance. First of all Algebra was an invention of the ancient Asyrians, oh, about 1000 - 1500 years before Islam. So was 0. What else do the Muslims claim? Hmmm, their distinct style of architecture? Byzantine."

Assuming you are correct (It is late and I m not bothered enough to refute you) there is something to be said for the liberalism of a religion that is willing to allow Greek philosophy at a time when it has been banned by the Christian Church. The ability to adopt and build on past teachings is not easy in an atmosphere that is hostile to the pagan past, as was the case in Europe. Al Farabi etc picked up where Aristotle left off, and their own contribution to philosophy shouldnt be overlooked. Averroes defence of philosophy in the face of religious opposition played an important role in European enlgihtenment. But as I said, we are playing a game of semantics now. I say Islam contributed. You say it couldnt possibly do that. Well the simple fact is that, at the very least, they allowed the teaching of subjects that werent allowed in Europe, and thats saying something, especially given Islam's portrayal as one that doesnt allow freedom of thought.

"If that were so, why are so-called Islamic scholars not still contributing ideas?"

If history has but one lesson, it is that everything is cyclical. Sometimes you are at the top, sometimes you are at the bottom. India and China are beginning their climb upwards. Whats to say the Arabians wont join in in a couple of centuries. Their last Golden Age was fairly recent.

"How can you compare the actions of some Christians in the middle ages to Islamist behaviour today?"

Its simple really. You take Christianity at 1300 years and you compare it to Islam at 1300 years. The last 700 years of Christianity have witnessed tremendous change. Whats to say that Islam wont witness change in the next 700? If you re going to play morals, then level the playing field. 700 years of change is why Christianity is where it is. Why deny Islam a chance, minus petty distaste for it?

penny

"You, A, and jeremiah have so far driven home the tragedy of public education and its consequences for society"

Ever heard of Rugby college, my dear? Look it up some time. Its considered quite a major school back in England. They teach critical thinking there. It helps every now and then, in helping people avoid behaving like sheep and following Kate everywhere.

"If I was grading your term paper you'd be an F."

I can give you many reasons why you arent grading term papers. Inability to think critically is probably where you would want to start.

Irwin: Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the 1989 Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure...

Oh, so now your position is that Christian parents who choose to circumcise their kids do so as an HIV prevention strategy? Yeah, that's plausible. Hahaha...

Let's try to stay on topic, shall we? If we're talking about non-therapeutic circumcision, and we're talking about Christian parents circumcising their kids as part of their belief system, then we're talking about circumcision as religious ritual, and we're not talking about going sans foreskin as health-enhancing strategy. And since we're talking about the cutting of children's flesh performed for reasons of faith, my above comparison is, in fact, quite valid.

Also, way to quote an AAP report from 17 years ago as your primary "evidence." Really compelling, except that according to the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision's policy statement (current to January 2007):

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child...Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."

Similar cautionary positions are taken by the American Association of Family Physicians, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics, the Finnish Central Union for Child Welfare, and the Danish Council for Children, among others.

Dr. Schoen is a well-known circumcision proponent who, unfortunately for you, advocates a policy stance quite removed from that of the medical establishment. Quoting extensively from him hardly leads to a mainstream argument. He's also 81 years old, which may or may not be relevant.

Who's the wanker now, Irwin?

Irwin Daisy you make some great points however, like every other issue, there are of course links which refute what any one believes.

Example:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
http://www.nocircpa.org/4642.html
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/HIV.htm

But I don't want to delve into this anymore, I came to SDA to read up on inaccuracies that were being published by the CBC, Lord knows I didn't want to get into a debate about circumcision.

I'm tired....I want to go back to hating the Liberals.

Debating the Bush Doctrine is a moot point. It's Dead on Arrival for all practical purposes and finnished except for the crying.