NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok. I can do this in two ways. First I can give links to US State Department about human rights violations in Islamic countries. Americans are good at listing those violations in all countries except one, USA. Or maybe links to NGO's? But that'd make a huge reading. Hence the second way...Let me give you the picture in the EXAMPLE muslim country, Turkey, which is a democracy, a NATO member and EU candidate. That way you can get an idea about the rest of muslim countries, considering the standarts of the exemplary one.

First, Turkey, the example muslim country:

Long link 1 (http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=July&x=20060707171724MVyelwarC0.8118402)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2002/n07152002_200207154.html


An enthusiastic supporter of Turkish membership. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says Turkey in the EU would become "a beacon of democracy and modernity"; and a Muslim country providing "a shining example across the whole of its neighbouring region" - ie the Arab world. Turkish membership would disprove the "clash of civilisations" theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4298408.stm

Now:

Women's situation:

90% of women are subjected to violance by their bf's or husbands in Turkey.

http://www.omct.org/pdf/vaw/publications/2003/eng_2003_09_turkey.pdf

Secularism:
Although Turkey, as a secular country, prohibits by law, the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion), this isnt the view of general public:


(Reuters, June 14, 2006)

Ankara, Turkey - A majority of Turks say a ban on women wearing the Muslim headscarf in public offices and universities should be lifted and just two fifths favor a military government, according to a poll published on Wednesday.

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

AND the current goverment there agrees with most of the population:

http://www.habervitrini.com/haber_resim/tayyip_emine_erdogan5.jpg
Turkish PM and his wife

Tolerance of other religions:

Three fifths of those canvassed attributed failure in life to a lack of religious faith and said they would oppose their daughter marrying a non-Muslim. Nearly a third said boys and girls should be taught in separate classes at school.

The results of the poll make fairly pleasant reading for Turkey's ruling AK Party, which has Islamist roots, showing two thirds back its efforts -- so far unsuccessful -- to relax a ban on women students and civil servants wearing the headscarf.

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

AND

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5296/pewglobalattitudeprojectos7.gif
Pew Global Attitude

What they really think of tourists, who are mostly Western:

Nearly half of those surveyed said tourists spoil Turkish morality and harm its culture.
Conservative Turks are uncomfortable with the spectacle of naked or near-naked tourists soaking up the sun at Turkish resorts, though tourism is a key pillar of Turkey's economy.

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

And who is the secular establishment that was mentioned:

Many in the military, academic and judicial establishment view this ban as a key pillar of Turkey's secular order.

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

which is:


Turkish military law bans homosexuals from military service as a mental illness, and those homosexuals discovered to be gay in the armed forces will be discharged immediately. In reality however, the military has made it so difficult to prove homosexuality that most gay men do compulsory service.


Talking about gays:

Anti-discrimination law

No laws exist in Turkey that protect LGBT from discrimination in employment, education, housing, health care, public accommodations or credit.
[edit]

Family law

Turkey does not recognise same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits. The Turkish Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuals should not have custody of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Turkey#Military_law

And throw in this mix poverty (GDP per capita is around 5000 USD (IMF)), corruption, etc...I'm not even talking things like honour killings, which is now a common knowledge thing for most europeans thx to muslim immigrants, and you get the picture of the EXAMPLE MUSLIM COUNTRY. Hence, it'd be logical to assume that others are even worse than this, right?

So, how do you view muslims?

Pretty much like I view Christians.

Muslim administrations, though?

Same as all other people.

I don't like people, btw.

I don't have a view of Muslims as a group. There are some Muslims I have very favorable views of, and some that I have less favorable views of, based on their behavior.

I don't believe in collectivism, so I don't judge any group of people other than their individual characteristics. Their philosophy is another thing.

NN. You are conflating the Turkish governments with all Muslims. All Muslims are not part of the Turkish government.

You are assuming that the problems of Turkey are a direct result of Islam. You have not proven any relationship.

And blonde girls like to dance salsa, not polka.

Seeing as all Muslims don't believe the same things just as all Christians don't believe all the same things you can't judge an entire group on the actions of a few. Besides, the governments of Muslim countries do not represent Islam, no matter what they may claim.

Normaly I just open me eyes!:rolleyes:

Seeing as all Muslims don't believe the same things just as all Christians don't believe all the same things you can't judge an entire group on the actions of a few. Besides, the governments of Muslim countries do not represent Islam, no matter what they may claim.

I could, however, lump militant Islamics together, even if on a religious basis, they are still divided into a heterodoxy.

I could also lump all Wahhabis together.

I view them with my eyes.

Edit;Damn, beaten to it.

I could, however, lump militant Islamics together, even if on a religious basis, they are still divided into a heterodoxy.

I could also lump all Wahhabis together.

I just lump religious fanatics together.

NN. You are conflating the Turkish governments with all Muslims. All Muslims are not part of the Turkish government.

You are assuming that the problems of Turkey are a direct result of Islam. You have not proven any relationship.

And blonde girls like to dance salsa, not polka.

I suggest you to read lots of books and develop your reading comprehension skills. You seem to be not getting that polls dont usually poll goverments but they poll people. DUH!

To answer the question: I have no overall opinion, simply because they are, like any human "group", a complex and highly varied lot. If I were to judge solely on the basis of Muslims I know personnally, I would have to say that they tend to be more intelligent, educated and open-minded than most people... but that would just be from personal experience.


A majority of Turks say a ban on women wearing the Muslim headscarf in public offices and universities should be lifted

Remember all the Americans and others howling that French Muslim women should be allowed to wear headscarfs? Those were non-Muslims arguing in favour of it. Unless your point is to say that there appears to be no difference between members of different religions in this regard?


Three fifths of those canvassed attributed failure in life to a lack of religious faith and said they would oppose their daughter marrying a non-Muslim.

That's rich, coming from you. Would you like your daughter to marry a Muslim? Be he black, arab or whatever? Knowing you, I would think not. Again, you're undermining your own point.


<SNIP RATINGS>


So Muslims tend to be more tolerant of Christians than Christians are of Muslims. What point are you trying to make here? That bigotry is good, and that Muslims should be less tolerant?


Conservative Turks are uncomfortable with the spectacle of naked or near-naked tourists (my emphasis)

Like conservatives everywhere, methinks... I'm sure many conservative Christians in the US would howl in protest at the thought of nude people sunbathing on their beaches.


Turkish military law bans homosexuals from military service as a mental illness, and those homosexuals discovered to be gay in the armed forces will be discharged immediately.

Exactly the same policy as the US, then. Your point?

Just like every other religious person, really. I've got nothing against them, but I know that I'm going to disagree on a lot of points with them.

Or were you refering to the Turkish government? They're politicians. Enough said.

I suggest you to read lots of books and develop your reading comprehension skills. You seem to be not getting that polls dont usually poll goverments but they poll people. DUH!

Right. Please point out the poll discussing how the military treats homosexuals. As soon as you do that, I will retract my statement. If not, please offer me an apology.

To answer the question: I have no overall opinion, simply because they are, like any human "group", a complex and highly varied lot. If I were to judge solely on the basis of Muslims I know personnally, I would have to say that they tend to be more intelligent, educated and open-minded than most people... but that would just be from personal experience.



Remember all the Americans and others howling that French Muslim women should be allowed to wear headscarfs? Those were non-Muslims arguing in favour of it. Unless your point is to say that there appears to be no difference between members of different religions in this regard?


It means that they are not that secular. DUH!



That's rich, coming from you. Would you like your daughter to marry a Muslim? Be he black, arab or whatever? Knowing you, I would think not. Again, you're undermining your own point.



So Muslims tend to be more tolerant of Christians than Christians are of Muslims. What point are you trying to make here? That bigotry is good, and that Muslims should be less tolerant?


Look at it again. Look to the opinions in Turkey. *watches the wheel work slowly in Ariddia's head*



Like conservatives everywhere, methinks... I'm sure many conservative Christians in the US would howl in protest at the thought of nude people sunbathing on their beaches.


I dont think ANY conservative here would object to women wearing bikinis or sunbathing. Has France regressed too much due to large muslim population that you cant see that? And it's not nude sunbathing, it's just sunbathing.



Exactly the same policy as the US, then. Your point?

USA isnt the shining beacon of civilization when it comes to homosexuals.

I don't trust them as a whole. They never really integrate properly, and they're not exactly helping the West's struggle against fundamental islam.

I could, however, lump militant Islamics together, even if on a religious basis, they are still divided into a heterodoxy.

I could also lump all Wahhabis together.

You can lump fanatics together but threads like these ask how you feel about Muslims in general. Because of that I have to look at Muslims as a whole not just the fanactical sects. I think what the Middle East needs is for their governments to actually give them some civil rights. You don't see large crowds of American Muslims attacking what we represent. They know first-hand what a great country we have. We need to show that we represent much more than just the bombs we drop on their heads.

Right. Please point out the poll discussing how the military treats homosexuals. As soon as you do that, I will retract my statement. If not, please offer me an apology.

I meant the poll here: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

And it was really silly for you to assume that only goverment officials can be capable of being violant towards 90% of the women in Turkey.

USA isnt the shining beacon of civilization when it comes to homosexuals.

You obviously haven't been to the US.

How do I view Muslims? In the case of their women, I don't. The way they're wrapped up, all I can view is their eyes. ;)

How do I view Muslims? In the case of their women, I don't. The way they're wrapped up, all I can view is their eyes. ;)

HAHA

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/image0016.jpg

It means that they are not that secular. DUH!


Obviously. But that's hardly specific to Turks or to Muslim countries in general. The UK and the US are hardly big on secular feeling either.


Look at it again. Look to the opinions in Turkey. *watches the wheel work slowly in Ariddia's head*

Thank you, I'd noticed. I was drawing your attention to the overall figures.


I dont think ANY conservative here would object to women wearing bikinis or sunbathing. Has France regressed too much due to large muslim population that you cant see that? And it's not nude sunbathing, it's just sunbathing.

Ahem. You really do need to learn to read what you yourself post:


Conservative Turks are uncomfortable with the spectacle of naked or near-naked tourists soaking up the sun at Turkish resorts


USA isnt the shining beacon of civilization when it comes to homosexuals.

Indeed it isn't. But again, your focus on a predominantly Muslim country occults the fact that exactly the same is happening in a Christian one. Unless you want to single out US policy on homosexuals as being somehow typical of what all Christians believe?

Incidentally, Italy, Greece and Portugal outright ban homosexuals from serving in the armed forces, which makes their policy more extreme than that of Turkey. Do you conclude from that that Christianity is prone to be more bigoted than Islam?

You've also ignored my opening point. See, it strikes me that it's difficult to make absurd generalisations about Muslims when you actually happen to know some.

Besides, sweeping generalisations about ethnic, national or religious groups, such as that contained in your opening question, immediately suggest to me the workings of an inferior intellect trying to label the world around it into neat (and utterly meaningless) little packets.

snip 'n pic

That disgusts me.

I can't really answer the poll. I don't lump all Muslims into one pile, so I can't say that my view of Muslims is negative or positive. I can point to certain Muslims and give you a viewpoint. I can even possibly look at certain groups of Muslims and do so. But it is impossible for me to say that my view of Muslims is negative or positive, as my view of some Muslims is negative and that of some is positive.

I meant the poll here: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

And it was really silly for you to assume that only goverment officials can be capable of being violant towards 90% of the women in Turkey.

Hey reading comprehension boy. I asked for the poll discussing homosexuality and the military.

Are you clear now? Show me the poll or apologise.

Obviously. But that's hardly specific to Turks or to Muslim countries in general. The UK and the US are hardly big on secular feeling either.

Thank you, I'd noticed. I was drawing your attention to the overall figures.

Ahem. You really do need to learn to read what you yourself post:



Conservative Turks are uncomfortable with the spectacle of naked or near-naked tourists soaking up the sun at Turkish resorts, though tourism is a key pillar of Turkey's economy.


Get it now?



Indeed it isn't. But again, your focus on a predominantly Muslim country occults the fact that exactly the same is happening in a Christian one. Unless you want to single out US policy on homosexuals as being somehow typical of what all Christians believe?


The difference is that USA is one of the worst Western countries when it comes to gays. Turkey is one of the best muslim countries when it comes to gays. Iran executes them. Get it now?


Incidentally, Italy, Greece and Portugal outright ban homosexuals from serving in the armed forces, which makes their policy more extreme than that of Turkey. Do you conclude from that that Christianity is prone to be more bigoted than Islam?


Proof of that S.Euro claim? Turkey bans them serving in the armed forces as well. It's just hard to "prove" homosexuality which they consider a mental disease. Have your eyes checked out.


You've also ignored my opening point. See, it strikes me that it's difficult to make absurd generalisations about Muslims when you actually happen to know some.

Besides, sweeping generalisations about ethnic, national or religious groups, such as that contained in your opening question, immediately suggest to me the workings of an inferior intellect trying to label the world around it into neat (and utterly meaningless) little packets.

The workings of an inferior intellect might also include lack of reading comprehension which you are suffering from.
And great scientists label the world around them. Like labelling atoms and molecules or labelling different species. Some labels work, it might be just you who cant get the meaning in them.

I can't really answer the poll. I don't lump all Muslims into one pile, so I can't say that my view of Muslims is negative or positive. I can point to certain Muslims and give you a viewpoint. I can even possibly look at certain groups of Muslims and do so. But it is impossible for me to say that my view of Muslims is negative or positive, as my view of some Muslims is negative and that of some is positive.

Unfortunately for much of the world, lumping people into one group is all certain individuals are capable of. Ya know, terrorists, NN.

I view Muslims as people. 'Nuff said.

Unfortunately for much of the world, lumping people into one group is all certain individuals are capable of. Ya know, terrorists, NN.

You know, everyone lumps some people into one group. Like the group of females. Or children. Or mentally retarded.

You know, everyone lumps some people into one group. Like the group of females. Or children. Or mentally retarded.


Really, I would lump you into two groups. The last two, actually.

The workings of an inferior intellect might also include lack of reading comprehension which you are suffering from.

Thank you for giving me a good laugh, since I'd just pointed out to you your lack or reading skills. Or shall we call it "selective reading"? You know very well that I'd read the whole sentence (at least, I hope you do!), and that I was drawing your attention to a point you'd either missed or were conveniently ignoring.


And great scientists label the world around them. Like labelling atoms and molecules or labelling different species. Some labels work, it might be just you who cant get the meaning in them.

The difference, dear boy, is that judgemental labels which seek to encompass millions of extremely diverse and complex people on the basis of one loosely shared trait are meaningless... as any great or even adequately competent scientist will tell you. Heck, as will any human being with a brain evolved enough to accept and analyse the complexity of the real world without feeling the (self-defeating) need to simplify it.

90% of women are subjected to violance by their bf's or husbands in Turkey.

Is this true I got a loved one thinking of moving to Turkey and I would like to know if I should distribute death threats to the local population?

You know, everyone lumps some people into one group. Like the group of females. Or children. Or mentally retarded.

Yes, but I'm not going to ask someone, "How do you view females, negatively or positively?" There are simply too many women, with too many variations in personality, etc. to answer that question. Nor would I do it for children or for those who are mentally retarded, or for members of a certain ethnicity, or for Christians or Buddhists, or any other huge group with lots of variation.

Yes, but I'm not going to ask someone, "How do you view females, negatively or positively?" There are simply too many women, with too many variations in personality, etc. to answer that question. Nor would I do it for children or for those who are mentally retarded, or for members of a certain ethnicity, or for Christians or Buddhists, or any other huge group with lots of variation.

Easier to ask, "Do you have a problem with Islamic religion as espoused by the Wahhabi sect of Islam?"

Then we can argue about philosophy and ideas.

Thank you for giving me a good laugh, since I'd just pointed out to you your lack or reading skills. Or shall we call it "selective reading"? You know very well that I'd read the whole sentence (at least, I hope you do!), and that I was drawing your attention to a point you'd either missed or were conveniently ignoring.



The difference, dear boy, is that judgemental labels which seek to encompass millions of extremely diverse and complex people on the basis of one loosely shared trait are meaningless... as any great or even adequately competent scientist will tell you. Heck, as will any human being with a brain evolved enough to accept and analyse the complexity of the real world without feeling the (self-defeating) need to simplify it.

90% of women in Turkey are subjected to violance. Given this percentage, it'd be a meaningful generalization to say Turks treat women badly eventhough they are "millions of extremely diverse and complex people". As I said, it's you who can not understand the meaning in some generalizations. We say sky is blue despite it isnt ALWAYS blue. Some generalizations which are correct are done on the basis of majority instead of totality.
Hence you are in NO position to speculate what "any great or even adequately competent scientist will tell me" or "as will any human being with a brain evolved enough to accept and analyse the complexity of the real world without feeling the (self-defeating) need to simplify it".

Is this true I got a loved one thinking of moving to Turkey and I would like to know if I should distribute death threats to the local population?

Press the link, page 4 in the article in the link, I think. It's from a NGO.

Yes, but I'm not going to ask someone, "How do you view females, negatively or positively?" There are simply too many women, with too many variations in personality, etc. to answer that question. Nor would I do it for children or for those who are mentally retarded, or for members of a certain ethnicity, or for Christians or Buddhists, or any other huge group with lots of variation.

Variation doesnt invalidate generalizations. Most species on Earth require oxygen although they are very diverse.
Although muslims are diverse individually, we can generalize that they dont treat women well, given the statistics.

Press the link, page 4 in the article in the link, I think. It's from a NGO.

well now I'm worried....

Variation doesnt invalidate generalizations. Most species on Earth require oxygen although they are very diverse.
Although muslims are diverse individually, we can generalize that they dont treat women well, given the statistics.

If, in fact, that statistic is true (and it seems unlikely) then I would say about the PARTICULAR of not treating women well that I am not happy about it. It does not, however, mean that I believe all Muslims are somehow bad or evil, merely that I have an opinion about that one statistic.

I am not happy about certain Christian fundamentalist beliefs... which does not mean that I think all Christians are bad or evil either.

Generalizations are, unfortunately, often misused. Deciding that one group of people is evil just because some of them do things you don't like is wrong and prejudiced. I don't like beets. That does not mean that I think Russians, some of whom eat borscht, are bad people.


*EDIT* And the statistic is for 90% of Turkish women, apparently. Which does NOT mean that Muslims in Los Angeles or Paris are violent towards women... so making the generalization that since Turkish women are abused Muslims are bad is an even more incorrect leap.

If, in fact, that statistic is true (and it seems unlikely) then I would say about the PARTICULAR of not treating women well that I am not happy about it. It does not, however, mean that I believe all Muslims are somehow bad or evil, merely that I have an opinion about that one statistic.

I am not happy about certain Christian fundamentalist beliefs... which does not mean that I think all Christians are bad or evil either.

Generalizations are, unfortunately, often misused. Deciding that one group of people is evil just because some of them do things you don't like is wrong and prejudiced. I don't like beets. That does not mean that I think Russians, some of whom eat borscht, are bad people.

Thinking someone in a negative view and thinking someone is evil are 2 different things.

Yay! SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS FTW!! Wohoo!

I view them as the individual followes of their diverse religion. Not as a kind of "Hive-mind".
I suggest you to read lots of books and develop your reading comprehension skills.
*Takes a drink*

The workings of an inferior intellect might also include lack of reading comprehension which you are suffering from.
*Takes another shot*
Hey reading comprehension boy. I asked for the poll discussing homosexuality and the military.

Are you clear now? Show me the poll or apologise.
*Downs a drink*

Damn, this thread is gonna get me drunk! *Hiccup*

Thinking someone in a negative view and thinking someone is evil are 2 different things.

Not necessarily. For instance, I can think of you in a negative way - and feel that you are evil, simultaneously. In this case, the two are one and the same.

For Chrissake, there are more than 1,000,000,000 Muslims.

How long would it take me to view them all?

Not necessarily. For instance, I can think of you in a negative way - and feel that you are evil, simultaneously. In this case, the two are one and the same.

Dobbs, I think Ny is asking for your impression of Muslims. And, as I recall, you don't do impressions. It's not your line of work.

Variation doesnt invalidate generalizations.

Yeah, actually it does. For example, if I said that people from Norway are benign and enlightened, that would be a generalization that excludes you. It only works if you ignore the facts.

Most species on Earth require oxygen although they are very diverse.
Although muslims are diverse individually, we can generalize that they dont treat women well, given the statistics.

YOU can generalize. The royal "we" is not helping you here.

I have been treated better by muslim men than by american, or dutch men. That means, me being a woman, that I can conclude that american are worst than muslims treating my gender?

Typical Ny Nordland topic. I wonder which one of the mods actually agree with his message of intolerance. It doesn't give the forums a good name.

Typical Ny Nordland topic. I wonder which one of the mods actually agree with his message of intolerance. It doesn't give the forums a good name.

Now now, be fair to the mods...

Now now, be fair to the mods...

I find it impossible that they haven't noticed this kind of threads, always signed by the same poster, that always resource to racial arguments and spread bias around the NSG community. I'll try to find an explanation if I cross one of them on mIRC, although. I should save the links, too...

I disagree with their beliefs and am very much against the idea that you HAVE to follow a religion in some countries. If a woman goes to some Muslim countries, they have to dress according to what Muslim people believe they should wear (ie not showing anything etc...) and I feel this is wrong. Religion should be a choice.

I read a letter in a newspaper from a Muslim man saying that the English flag should be changed because it represents a war against Muslims (in a really basic sense..) and is therefore anti-muslim. Perhaps this is the case but as I said, do you think I could go to a Muslim country and say "actually lads, I'm not going to take part in Ramadan. I will eat when I want.."?
It wouldnt happen would it!

However, it doesn't change my view of Muslims. It's just another thing that I disagree with.

As people, they are the same as anyone else! I disagree with alot of people about alot of different things but it makes no difference to how I view them.

If you see a group of young muslim lads causing trouble, I cast them into a certain group but into that group go white people, black people, sikhs, buddhists etc who act the same...

I find it impossible that they haven't noticed this kind of threads, always signed by the same poster, that always resource to racial arguments and spread bias around the NSG community. I'll try to find an explanation if I cross one of them on mIRC, although. I should save the links, too...

All in all this is a pretty open forum where any idea can be debated as long as you're not flaming anyone or proposing something illegal. That's the way this forum is and it's not bad.

There's the moderation forum if you think something crosses the line. They sometimes take their time to rule because they're people with lives, and won't always rule in your favour, and sometimes they get it wrong, but overall the mods do a good job.

Thinking someone in a negative view and thinking someone is evil are 2 different things.

In degree perhaps, but "negative view" (what do you really mean by that?) and "evil" seems to me like the other end of the spectrum from "good" and "better". Not such a big difference between them, really.

Variation doesnt invalidate generalizations. Most species on Earth require oxygen although they are very diverse.
Although muslims are diverse individually, we can generalize that they dont treat women well, given the statistics.

Wrong. You can generalize that women in Turkey, on average, are not treated well by their husbands or boyfriends.

Tell me, what percentage of women in the US do you think are, at some point, subjected to violence at the hands of their boyfriends or husbands? In France? In Zimbabwe? In Mexico?

Without some reference of comparison, you can't even say that Turkish women are treated worse than women anywhere else. Even with that comparison, you have no evidence that they are treated worse specifically because of their religion.

This is the problem with sweeping generalizations. To use your oxygen example above:

We know that most organisms on Earth (that we have found) need oxygen to survive. From this, we can suppose that most organisms will have some sort of mechanism to deal with free radical oxygen ions and prevent them from causing damage to the cell.

However, your statement isn't that direct. It's more like saying that, because we know most organisms use oxygen, they will all need nitrogen too.

do you think I could go to a Muslim country and say "actually lads, I'm not going to take part in Ramadan. I will eat when I want.."?

Actually you could, the difficult thing would be find a place with service. You'll have to go to the foreigners part of the city or something.

Now, after sundown, that's an entirely different matter. Even I celebrate that half of Ramadan.

I hold up a big sheet of green transparent plastic and I view muslims through that. Green muslims make me laugh. :)

In some parts of the world you couldnt. Women have to cover up regardless of their beliefs. If a woman went to some Muslim countries (not all) and walked around in shorts and flip flops, there'd be big trouble. To me, that is forcing your religion upon someone else no?

My Nordland and many others are so afraid of those radicals they can't think straight. Their kind only causes civil war, which harms intellectuals worse than anyone else and takes a country hundreds of years back into arms of ignorance.
Before even you people had heard word terror we were fighting against it so don't tell us about threats. We are aware and fighting against those threats in subtle yet effective ways, not going out to immigrant hunts at nights as you north europeans neo nazi scum do. We are not monsters, no matter what their political views its humans we are talking about and they will in the end will accept the guidance of intellect and science, by choice or force.
Any harsh actions on radical islamic sects part will result in their utter destruction so they don't dare it, in time trough inaction people supporting them will drop their support so there wont be a problem.Simple you see? action brings reaction and inaction brings peace so it will turn to simple hollow threats. We are not dumb, we are patient and unlike you guys(extremists) we are not growing weak we are growing strong. Our leaders may be weak and sold out as they are but our goverment traditions run deep, we just don't kill them all and let god sort them out.
THE POWER OF MODERATION!

I view Islam like any other religion/faith/belief. You've got the goodies, and then you've got the insane fundamentalists.

In some parts of the world you couldnt. Women have to cover up regardless of their beliefs. If a woman went to some Muslim countries (not all) and walked around in shorts and flip flops, there'd be big trouble. To me, that is forcing your religion upon someone else no?

If a woman from an African tribe came to the US and walked around the street topless, there'd be big trouble. Do our views of modesty come from somewhere other than religious influence?

Don't get me wrong, I do think a woman should dress as she pleases. Of course, I don't think it should be illegal for a woman to walk around topless. I think we have to look at our own laws and figure out if the idea is actually different, or if we just place that line a little differently.

I disagree with their beliefs and am very much against the idea that you HAVE to follow a religion in some countries. If a woman goes to some Muslim countries, they have to dress according to what Muslim people believe they should wear (ie not showing anything etc...) and I feel this is wrong. Religion should be a choice.

I read a letter in a newspaper from a Muslim man saying that the English flag should be changed because it represents a war against Muslims (in a really basic sense..) and is therefore anti-muslim. Perhaps this is the case but as I said, do you think I could go to a Muslim country and say "actually lads, I'm not going to take part in Ramadan. I will eat when I want.."?
It wouldnt happen would it!


The thing is, if you are going to go to a Muslim country and say "there should be freedom of religion" then the Muslim man has just as much right to come here and say "you should change your flag".

Muslim countries are NOT America. We do have freedom of religion here, but it is not a worldwide law. Some countries do not. And it is absolutely their right to so legislate in their own countries. Yes, it causes problems, but some of our laws cause us problems too, and each country does the best it can with its own set of concerns, laws and freedoms.


However, it doesn't change my view of Muslims. It's just another thing that I disagree with.

As people, they are the same as anyone else! I disagree with alot of people about alot of different things but it makes no difference to how I view them.

If you see a group of young muslim lads causing trouble, I cast them into a certain group but into that group go white people, black people, sikhs, buddhists etc who act the same...

(my bold) Good for you! That is an excellent sentiment. Yes, disagreement is fine, it is what makes us strive to be better than we are, but of course it should not be the be all and end all of our interactions with others.

This thread is more likely to affect how I view Norwegians than how I view muslims.

If a woman from an African tribe came to the US and walked around the street topless, there'd be big trouble. Do our views of modesty come from somewhere other than religious influence?

Don't get me wrong, I do think a woman should dress as she pleases. Of course, I don't think it should be illegal for a woman to walk around topless. I think we have to look at our own laws and figure out if the idea is actually different, or if we just place that line a little differently.

Well, in our defense, we don't beat the shit out of topless women either. :p

But that's really just a difference in reaction, not in oppression.

This thread is more likely to affect how I view Norwegians than how I view muslims.

YAY! :D

Muslim countries are NOT America. We do have freedom of religion here, but it is not a worldwide law. Some countries do not. And it is absolutely their right to so legislate in their own countries.

Oppression and abuse of human rights is ok in some places and not in others? How interesting...

Well, in our defense, we don't beat the shit out of topless women either. :p

But that's really just a difference in reaction, not in oppression.

No, but she would get harrassed - which is likely to happen in a predominantly Muslim country if a woman walks around in jeans and a sleeveless shirt. She would get thrown in jail - again, a possibility in the other case.

Again, it just seems to be a matter of where that line is placed.

This thread is more likely to affect how I view Norwegians than how I view muslims.


"Blah blah blah." - Neitszche.

Oppression and abuse of human rights is ok in some places and not in others? How interesting...

Perhaps he is of the opinion that there are no savage or evil or just plain wrong people or governments, just different cultures. Shouldn't judge those who want to abuse their fellow humans right? Our "civil rights" can't be foisted on others! But hey, maybe it is simply that the Western world is more deserving of being treated correctly.

Oppression and abuse of human rights is ok in some places and not in others? How interesting...

Nope. We should not be allowed to oppress and abuse the rights of citizens whose countries choose to behave differently than we do. They have the right to make their own decisions about things.

I don't plan to go live there, and might try to talk some of them around and show them what *I* think is a better way of behaving... but I do not support my country deciding what other countries MUST do in terms of religious freedoms or styles of government.

"Blah blah blah." - Neitszche.

Go smoke some 5000 kr. cigarettes and run around in the forest with swords, you filthy Norwegian you.

http://static.flickr.com/36/75622926_aeb7e4fc2d.jpg

Go smoke some 5000 kr. cigarettes and run around in the forest, you filthy Norwegian you.

http://static.flickr.com/36/75622926_aeb7e4fc2d.jpg


I'm not Norwegian, but Ny Norland would love it if I were.

Nope. We should not be allowed to oppress and abuse the rights of citizens whose countries choose to behave differently than we do. They have the right to make their own decisions about things.

In other words, you just said the exact same thing, that oppression and abuse of human rights is fine - we should just ignore it as long as it is someone else doing it.

Meanwhile, if they are being oppressed and abused, they quite obviously are not making their own decisions about things. Whoever is in control is making the decisions.

I don't plan to go live there, and might try to talk some of them around and show them what *I* think is a better way of behaving... but I do not support my country deciding what other countries MUST do in terms of religious freedoms or styles of government.

So, the UN is completely bogus then? We should throw it out? We should just ignore people in dire straits elsewhere?

I'm not saying we should invade every country that does things differently, but to suggest that we should do nothing is ludicrous.

In Britain; with a collusion of disdain, contempt and lamentation.

In the Arabic world; rather well. I maintain that the involvement of the USA, through the conduit of Israel, and indeed the very presence of Israel, has served to engender tension in an otherwise inoffensive, moral and thorooughly altruistic region.

I think that Islam, like most other ideologies, both religious and political, can be perverted. Great things can be turned evil if they are misused.

I'm not Norwegian, but Ny Norland would love it if I were.

How so?

Perhaps he is of the opinion that there are no savage or evil or just plain wrong people or governments, just different cultures. Shouldn't judge those who want to abuse their fellow humans right? Our "civil rights" can't be foisted on others! But hey, maybe it is simply that the Western world is more deserving of being treated correctly.

She (but don't worry about it) and no. There are people and governments that are savage, evil and wrong. What I object to is the thought that if a culture is different, it must be wrong. It is too easy for us to say "ours is the only right way". Frankly, I believe our system IS a very good one. But I also believe that not only that "Our "civil rights" can't be foisted on others", but that it is criminal to try and FORCE them on others.

In questions like this, no matter how good it looks, it is always a good idea to turn the matter around and ask "how would you feel if they did it to us?" If the government of Iraq had sent over troops, deposed Bush, destroyed our infrastructure and declared that we had to scrap our system of government because we had weapons of mass destruction and were a threat to them, then killed thousands of innocent civilians and, by their very presence, continued to threaten more lives every day, no matter WHAT system they were trying to force on us (even if it were absolute equality, peace and freedom for everyone and a million dollars in everybody's pocket) it would be a BAD THING.

Via the optic nerve, of course.

http://medicine.tamu.edu/neuro/06.gif

In other words, you just said the exact same thing, that oppression and abuse of human rights is fine - we should just ignore it as long as it is someone else doing it.

Meanwhile, if they are being oppressed and abused, they quite obviously are not making their own decisions about things. Whoever is in control is making the decisions.



So, the UN is completely bogus then? We should throw it out? We should just ignore people in dire straits elsewhere?

I'm not saying we should invade every country that does things differently, but to suggest that we should do nothing is ludicrous.

No. I did not say do nothing. What I am saying is that DIFFERENT does not equal WRONG. Yes, there are times when there are gross violations, genocide and such, that should be addressed by the international community (and most SPECIFICALLY the UN and NOT the USA). However, a country that chooses a religious form of government should not be automatically "wrong" for doing so. What would be wrong is insisting that such a government MUST allow religious freedom.

She (but don't worry about it) and no. There are people and governments that are savage, evil and wrong. What I object to is the thought that if a culture is different, it must be wrong. It is too easy for us to say "ours is the only right way". Frankly, I believe our system IS a very good one. But I also believe that not only that "Our "civil rights" can't be foisted on others", but that it is criminal to try and FORCE them on others.

In questions like this, no matter how good it looks, it is always a good idea to turn the matter around and ask "how would you feel if they did it to us?" If the government of Iraq had sent over troops, deposed Bush, destroyed our infrastructure and declared that we had to scrap our system of government because we had weapons of mass destruction and were a threat to them, then killed thousands of innocent civilians and, by their very presence, continued to threaten more lives every day, no matter WHAT system they were trying to force on us (even if it were absolute equality, peace and freedom for everyone and a million dollars in everybody's pocket) it would be a BAD THING.

I believe there can be absolutes. While I certainly believe that the Iraq war was wrong it is hardly the same thing to say that the Iraqi government and the American one can be placed on the same level. Saddam treated his citizens in ways that should never be done by anyone who respected human life. But plenty of other leaders do the same thing, not limited to Iraq. These people are WRONG and the arguement of not judging other cultures just doesn't cut it here. Sure, different doesn't mean wrong and we can't judge people by our own experiences but we can tell right from wrong. Denying fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and religion, due process and the like are neccessary. Those who deny their citizens these rights aren't just a different culture but something oppressive and wrong.

No. I did not say do nothing. What I am saying is that DIFFERENT does not equal WRONG. Yes, there are times when there are gross violations, genocide and such, that should be addressed by the international community (and most SPECIFICALLY the UN and NOT the USA). However, a country that chooses a religious form of government should not be automatically "wrong" for doing so. What would be wrong is insisting that such a government MUST allow religious freedom.

Disallowing religious freedom is an abuse of human rights.

So, you don't think an abuse of human rights should be seen automatically as wrong? Or you think it isn't an abuse of human rights to punish someone for their own personal religious beliefs?

I never said that different equalled wrong. I said that human rights abuses and oppression of certain portions of the population (simply because they are differeing) is wrong no matter where you find it. It doesn't matter how different the culture is, oppression and human rights abuses are wrong, period.

Disallowing religious freedom is an abuse of human rights.

So, you don't think an abuse of human rights should be seen automatically as wrong? Or you think it isn't an abuse of human rights to punish someone for their own personal religious beliefs?

I never said that different equalled wrong. I said that human rights abuses and oppression of certain portions of the population (simply because they are differeing) is wrong no matter where you find it. It doesn't matter how different the culture is, oppression and human rights abuses are wrong, period.


An Abuse of human rights! Dear lord, we are buggered!:rolleyes:

If an abuse of human rights serves a palpable, meritorious and pressing political cause, it is entirely justfied. If the "human wights" of a migrant minority must be trampled upon for the security of the majority, I fail to discern any problem.

No. I did not say do nothing. What I am saying is that DIFFERENT does not equal WRONG. Yes, there are times when there are gross violations, genocide and such, that should be addressed by the international community (and most SPECIFICALLY the UN and NOT the USA). However, a country that chooses a religious form of government should not be automatically "wrong" for doing so. What would be wrong is insisting that such a government MUST allow religious freedom.

It would help if the UN was actually worth anything. But it is true that a religious government does not make them wrong but when that government violates the basic human rights of their citizens then that is wrong.

Ok. I can do this in two ways. First I can give links to US State Department about human rights violations in Islamic countries.
Can you also find links to US State Department about human rights violations in the U.S.? I'd greatly appreciate that.

Other than that, I don't care for people's religious believes.

Can you also find links to US State Department about human rights violations in the U.S.? I'd greatly appreciate that.

I don't want to nitpick but if there were human rights abuses going on here, I don't see our State Department admiting it. :p

So, how do you view muslims?By going on what I've experienced in my own life, what people that have experienced tell me, and by what little I hear from my news sources, though the first two prevail.

It would help if the UN was actually worth anything. But it is true that a religious government does not make them wrong but when that government violates the basic human rights of their citizens then that is wrong.

Let's leave the value of the UN and why its value has been undermined for another discussion.

I suppose I need a definition of what constitutes "basic human rights".

An Abuse of human rights! Dear lord, we are buggered!:rolleyes:

If an abuse of human rights serves a palpable, meritorious and pressing political cause, it is entirely justfied. If the "human wights" of a migrant minority must be trampled upon for the security of the majority, I fail to discern any problem.

I'm sorry? Are you suggesting that, "OUR RELIGION IS BETTER THAN YOURS! RA RA REE!" is somehow a "pressing political cause"?

And do you really think that it's ok to trample the minority for the benefit of the majority? I'm going to go ahead and be glad that the Founding Fathers of my country disagreed with you, and made provisions to avoid such abuses.

Let's leave the value of the UN and why its value has been undermined for another discussion.

I suppose I need a definition of what constitutes "basic human rights".

I like this definition:

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

I'm sorry? Are you suggesting that, "OUR RELIGION IS BETTER THAN YOURS! RA RA REE!" is somehow a "pressing political cause"?

And do you really think that it's ok to trample the minority for the benefit of the majority? I'm going to go ahead and be glad that the Founding Fathers of my country disagreed with you, and made provisions to avoid such abuses.

Actually, I made no reference to specifics, nor should you have inferred as much.

"And do you really think that it's ok to trample the minority for the benefit of the majority?" Provided that the cause is sufficiently compelling and gravitous, indeed I do. Incidentally, if you propose to contend that the "founding fathers" surpass Machiavelli as a political guide, you do surpirse me.

Actually, I made no reference to specifics, nor should you have inferred as much.

You entered a conversation. If you meant to address something other than the conversation at hand, you should have made it clear that your response was off-topic.

"And do you really think that it's ok to trample the minority for the benefit of the majority?" Provided that the cause is sufficiently compelling and gravitous, indeed I do. Incidentally, if you propose to contend that the "founding fathers" surpass Machiavelli as a political guide, you do surpirse me.

I think Machiavelli was largely full of shit.

You entered a conversation. If you meant to address something other than the conversation at hand, you should have made it clear that your response was off-topic.



I think Machiavelli was largely full of shit.

I daresay the qualification for that contention simply deleted itself from your post?

I failed to mention the terms Islam, Muslims or, indeed, religion, at any point. You, my dear boy, not me, imparted inflection upon the post.

I don't want to nitpick but if there were human rights abuses going on here, I don't see our State Department admiting it. :p
Oh. Yeah. I forgot about that... ;)

But that was all I could of upon reading the OP. Now I'm at a loss for words :D

I daresay the qualification for that contention simply deleted itself from your post?

I don't need to qualify my opinion unless I am trying to convince you of something. I'm just telling you that I think much of what Machiavelli proposed was garbage. In truth, I think those who want power are exactly the people who shouldn't have it. Unfortunately, there isn't really a workable system that does things that way.

I failed to mention the terms Islam, Muslims or, indeed, religion, at any point. You, my dear boy, not me, imparted inflection upon the post.

You responded to a post about religion. Once again, if your response had nothing to do with the conversation at hand, why respond at all? Let's look at an example conversation:

Me: Cutting people's hands off is an abuse of human rights.

You: An Abuse of human rights! Dear lord, we are buggered!

If an abuse of human rights serves a palpable, meritorious and pressing political cause, it is entirely justfied. If the "human wights" of a migrant minority must be trampled upon for the security of the majority, I fail to discern any problem.

Now, anyone following the conversation here would think that you were, in fact, talking about cutting off people's hands, since that was the topic of the conversation that you entered.


Meanwhile, I'm not a boy, my dear.

I don't need to qualify my opinion unless I am trying to convince you of something. I'm just telling you that I think much of what Machiavelli proposed was garbage. In truth, I think those who want power are exactly the people who shouldn't have it. Unfortunately, there isn't really a workable system that does things that way.



You responded to a post about religion. Once again, if your response had nothing to do with the conversation at hand, why respond at all? Let's look at an example conversation:

Me: Cutting people's hands off is an abuse of human rights.

You: An Abuse of human rights! Dear lord, we are buggered!

If an abuse of human rights serves a palpable, meritorious and pressing political cause, it is entirely justfied. If the "human wights" of a migrant minority must be trampled upon for the security of the majority, I fail to discern any problem.

Now, anyone following the conversation here would think that you were, in fact, talking about cutting off people's hands, since that was the topic of the conversation that you entered.


Meanwhile, I'm not a boy, my dear.


I dealt with a principle, you applied it to the context.....;)

As regards Machiavelli, I happen to adhere to every tenet of "Il Principe", and yes, I do intend to be an MP....

Ah, Ny Nordland. Same ignorant, self-defeating bullshit argument, everyday.

How do I view Muslims? With my eyes.


Think about it.

I dealt with a principle, you applied it to the context.....;)

You can't take a comment out of context without making it clear that it doesn't apply to the context. If you were "dealing with a principle," you had no reason whatsoever to quote my post.

As regards Machiavelli, I happen to adhere to every tenet of "Il Principe", and yes, I do intend to be an MP....

Lucky for me that I don't live in your country then, isn't it?

I dealt with a principle, you applied it to the context.....;)

As regards Machiavelli, I happen to adhere to every tenet of "Il Principe", and yes, I do intend to be an MP....

Well, then God Save the Commonwealth.

I view muslims in N. America in a largely postive light, most of the ones I know are upright, law-abiding citizens. I believe that muslims get a bad reputation largely from the media. Looking on CNN you only see the rioters burning the embassies because of the Mo. cartoons, but never the coalition of Imams urging people to remain calm. The religion of islam I also view in a favorable light, I especially like the fact that it is not 100% exclusive, the qur'an says that jews, christians, and zoroastrians all go to heaven.(provided that they are good people)

As far as islamic terrorists goes, any religion can be perverted to support violence. The Qur'an is a very elastic book, you can find support for almost anything if you nitpick it enough.

I like this definition:

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

OK... I like that definition, but am going to play devils advocate here.

Children under the age of consent do not have equality before the law. They are forbidden the basic rights given adults in this country to drive, marry, drink, vote etc. Are we violating their civil rights? Or are we just doing what we think is best for them? Homosexuals are not allowed to marry in many places. Is that a violation of their rights, or is it ok for the majority to decide that they do not deserve equal treatment? Or does equality before the law really mean equality for those who we determine are deserving of it?

The right to life. Does that include banning both abortion and the death penalty? How about stem cell research? Is it a violation of human rights to refuse to allow funding for research that will save lives? What about medical care for people who cannot afford it but who will die without it? If the care exists, does refusing to provide it constitute a human rights violation, or is it simply a case of "you can only have what you pay for"? Does "quality of life" enter into the mix? If a person has a right to life, do they also have a right to death, if they so choose? How does the killing of innocents in war make us good guys in the defense of human rights? Or does right to life mean simply the right to be born, then the rest is up for grabs?

The right to liberty. Where do the various prison sentences of differing cultures put that line? Is it wrong for one country to have a lifetime sentence for a crime that the next places a 10 year limit on? What about countries that consider drugs illegal? If it is legal somewhere else, is it a violation of one's right to liberty if one is imprisoned for it here? If a married man no longer wants to be tied down and abandons his family and is later jailed for lack of child support payments, is that a violation? If he is responsible to his family, is it any different if a woman elsewhere is not allowed to divorce her husband? Or does the right to liberty refer to slavery only, and anything else is up to political geography?

Freedom of thought and expression. As to the first, until mind reading is a proven fact, I don't see how it can be addressed. As to the second, certain monks believe that setting themselves on fire is a valid protest. Are their rights being violated when someone puts them out? The KKK thinks it is right to burn crosses to show how they feel about things. The people in front of whose houses they are burned disagree. Fred Phelps wants to protest at soldiers funerals. Some states are making that illegal, are they violating his right to expression? If I find it an expression of my love of the sun to walk the streets naked, and am arrested for indecent exposure, who is right? Or is freedom of thought and expression really the freedom to express non-offensive ideas in a way that the majority finds palatable?

The point I am making is not that there should be NO care given to human rights, but that there should be GREAT care given to how those violations are being determined and by whom, and what is their agenda in making those determinations.

Somewhat positive, somewhat negative

I've seen nothing negative from the Muslims that live in my country, Ireland, but I know of fundamentalists in the UK and elsewhere in the EU. I don't look positively on that. I also don't like the fact that there is such a violent reaction to mere words in many parts of the world.

Overall I think Muslims on average are too conservative. But that's nothing to crucify them for.

I put "mostly positive, a bit negative", because while I find the acts of Muslim terrorists and dictators beyond deplorable, the two Muslims in my life are both better paople than many of my schoolmates.

like christians, my opinion on muslims, just as with christians, depends on how religious they are. muslim governments though are evil.

quite a lot of my friends are muslims and even when they try to convert me they do it in a sensible way most of the time rather then the angry shouting method favoured by christians

How do I view Muslims? With my eyes.


Think about it.
I had thought about it, Maineiacs:
Via the optic nerve, of course.

http://medicine.tamu.edu/neuro/06.gif

Great minds and all that, eh wot? ;)

I dealt with a principle, you applied it to the context.....;)

As regards Machiavelli, I happen to adhere to every tenet of "Il Principe", and yes, I do intend to be an MP....
That's too bad, because The Prince does not contain Machiavelli's philosophy at all. The philosophy can only be understood by reading BOTH The Prince and The Discourses. Have you read The Discourses? It's the longer of his two books. It puts The Prince into a real world context. Without The Discourses, The Prince is nonsense.

That OP is cute. Why bother to post a poll if you're so bent on telling people what to think? Oh, that's right -- it's because it's Ny.

Negatively, just like members of any large organized religion.

How do I view Muslims? as a wide and varied group.

I have personally known red-headed whiter-than-white Muslims, Turkish Muslims, Puerto Rican Muslims, and Muslims hailing from Middle Eastern Countries.

Most of them I got along well with, some were the sweetest and most thoughtful people I had ever met (one gave me a scarf as a gift when she was graduating) and some I had some sticking points with but ultimately it worked out. I had one Albanian Muslim who was acting up in class and told me in front of my class that since I was "just a woman" he didn't need to respect me or do any work. I smiled sweetly and told him that as I was "just a woman" who was holding the red pen that would give him his grade, he'd better learn very quickly to pretend to respect me and to do his work, since his behavior would not harm me one little bit, but it certainly would impact on him.

That was, shall we say, the swift and painless end of THAT.

The Muslims I know from college and the local community are good people. Nothing outstandingly bad or good on their own, but I do find them to be much more thoughtful than other locals.

On the international scene, we see a lot of things about Muslim violence, Muslim oppression, etc., but news reports never focus on the average in any population. From my own look into the Muslim population at large, they seem to be as decent as anyone else in their respective country. Extremists certainly make the whole look bad, but I try not to judge a group by its vocal minority. Regardless of what group they're from, the loudest are also the biggest assholes of the group.

I was gonna make a "How do you view Black People?" copycat thread before I realized two things:

1) The mods no like that.
2) Ny Nordland will probably be making that soon enough anyway

How do you view Muslims?
with my eyes.

seriously. I don't hold the actions of some so-called Muslims to all Muslims. now if they are acting strangely... and suspiciously... then I will be wary, but so far, I've never had any cause for fear or suspicion.

I was gonna make a "How do you view Black People?" copycat thread before I realized two things:

1) The mods no like that.
2) Ny Nordland will probably be making that soon enough anyway

Would it not still be considered a copycat thread even if Nordland himself were the thread author?

Would it not still be considered a copycat thread even if Nordland himself were the thread author?

Well, yes... but is that likely to deter him, really?

Well, yes... but is that likely to deter him, really?

I'm rather counting on it not deterring him. ;)

how do i view muslims? through a television mostly but also via direct ocular sensory perception.

I don't view "Muslims" at all. It's a category that has nothing to do with merit.

I'm rather counting on it not deterring him. ;)

Live the dream, baby, live the dream. :p

I view Islam like I view any other religion: mostly beneficial for those who believe in it, with a few nutjobs who take it WAAAY too far and try to kill anyone else. Just as there are Islamic fundamentalists, there are Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, etc, etc.

However, I do NOT think that expressly Islamic governments are good things--just as I don't think that expressly Christian or Jewish governments are good things. Now, does that mean that I view the Vatican City and Israel the same way I view Iran? I must admit, no. I think Iran poses a much greater threat to the stability of the world.

One question in particular concerns me: how many Muslims are extremists (fundamentalists, radicals, whatever word you want to use)? I would venture a guess to say a much higher proportion than extremist Christians or Jews. But that's just a guess. Maybe fundamentalists Muslims aren't more common but are just more vocal.

They have good people and bad people in every religion and culture. All people and governments who rule thier nation don't represent thier religion. That goes for the Muslim governments in the Islamic World, The Jewish Government in Iseral, and the Christian Governments in Europe, Latin American, and North America.:headbang:

Western nations tend to quickly point the finger at other non-western peoples and their cultures/religions, as if they're in a higher moral position in doing it so. Just before the Pope criticized Islam, he also criticized secular Catholic leaders (presidents and other forms of governments) of their lost ways with their religion and secularism (gay rights, and etc). What sets this apart though is that, the Pope felt he was in position to criticize a religion in which he does not even practice in. If Muslims have any difference with Christianity, they don’t try tarnishing Christianity’s head figures (prophets), and reason is that, up to all prophets (Adam, Moses, Jesus, and so on, except prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him)) are also shared by Islam. Regardless how much the pope tries to hide Christianity’s turbulent pasts by taking the attention on to Islam; it won’t just easily disappear as he thinks.

I too view Islam like I view the other Abrahamic religions, and to a lesser extent, organised religion in general. I believe it is a plague on humanity. Most of the time is doesn't cause dangerous levels of insanity, but it is never good for humans, and causes death on a regular basis.

Religion is unreason. Organised religion is unreason shoved down people's throats, by other people who gains personally by doing it. It is very much the enemy of humanity, because it offers no justification, cannot compromise & cares for no human or human undertaking.

Mulims themselves I view as individuals. Some are nice, some aren't. Some have had their humanity & common sense burned right out of them by the religion that infects them. Other than the general ethnicity, I can't tell the victims of the Abrahamic plagues apart.
The ones who aren't seriously disabled only have a few strange superstitions. The really crippled ones don't drink, smoke, fuck or go dancing & they're always incapable of coping with normal human things, like questioning authority, having fun, the lack of absolutes & such. It's very sad, but not uncommon among the victims of any of the Abrahamic strains.

The really crippled ones don't drink, smoke, fuck or go dancing & they're always incapable of coping with normal human things,

right, anyone who chooses not to consume a brain-cell killing toxin, the smoke from an addictive cancer-causing plant, and doesn't have promiscous sex before marriage, is a conformist zombie with no opinions of their own....:rolleyes:

Its dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted atheism like this that made me become a christian in the first place

Mostly negative - I judge on a case-by-case basis, but I can't say I think favourably of most Muslims. I won't shun an individual simply for being Muslim, unless they give me reason to.

The recent burning of Papal effigies, for instance, by Muslims who cannot appreciate the freedom of speech did not impress me, at all.

I believe it is a plague on humanity.
Humanity itself is a fucking plague.

And yes, I am a humanist. -_-

Normaly I just open me eyes!:rolleyes:

same here...so i can view them thru a teloscopic sight....just kidding!

all i know is there are many muslims from many cultures...so i got no clue what to think about them...the muslims i have met seem decent enough to me though.

now the militant fundies...like the far right christians could all fall off the face of tghe earth,and i think we would be better off.

right, anyone who chooses not to consume a brain-cell killing toxin, the smoke from an addictive cancer-causing plant, and doesn't have promiscous sex before marriage, is a conformist zombie with no opinions of their own....:rolleyes:If the rest of the sentence you quoted also applies to you, then yes.Its dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted atheism like this that made me become a christian in the first placeDon't blame me for your malady. If you wanted to adopt some sort of lifestyle package in a backlash against normal behaviour, you could've become Straightedge. Better yet, you could have used those spry little gray cells of yours & thought up something for yourself.

By the way, I may be dogmatic, but I do tolerate religions - all of them, not just your strain - and I'll continue to tolerate your personal religious trip until you take it out on others. If you teach your offspring religion before they've learned critical thinking skills, for example, then I consider you a child abuser.

If the rest of the sentence you quoted also applies to you, then yes.Don't blame me for your malady. If you wanted to adopt some sort of lifestyle package in a backlash against normal behaviour, you could've become Straightedge. Better yet, you could have used those spry little gray cells of yours & thought up something for yourself.

By the way, I may be dogmatic, but I do tolerate religions - all of them, not just your strain - and I'll continue to tolerate your personal religious trip until you take it out on others. If you teach your offspring religion before they've learned critical thinking skills, for example, then I consider you a child abuser.

I'm not blaming you for anything, I'm blaming bigotry and generalizations, and choosing not to abuse alcohol and drugs is not a backlash against "normal" behavior, it is a lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality. So why the double standard? There is no such thing as a "normal" lifestyle what is considered "normal" in one place can be considered profane in another.



please do not all me stupid, as it is flaming.

I'm not blaming you for anything, I'm blaming bigotry and generalizations, Feel free to blame me for whatever you want. I know I do.and choosing not to abuse alcohol and drugs is not a backlash against "normal" behavior,You said "Its dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted atheism like this that made me become a christian in the first place." If you would've liked me to interpret that as something other than a backlash against normal behaviour (the average adult in my part of the world drinks, has pre-marital sex & generally enjoy him or herself), then you should have phrased it differently.it is a lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality.For some religious & spiritual people, it might be a choice, but hardly for the majority of you. Most of you are indoctrinated to some extent from birth, and to a great many of you, a universe without absolutes is both unimaginable & incomprehensible. You don't need to try bullshitting me, the disease is widespread enough for me to have been surrounded by it all my life.

I assume the homosexuality comment was an attempt to throw me off or something, right? If it was, good for you. If not, I encourage you to falsify your postulate. Go fall in love with a guy. Hell, just go get turned on by a guy. If you can't do it, it probably isn't a choice ;) So why the double standard?What double standard?There is no such thing as a "normal" lifestyle what is considered "normal" in one place can be considered profane in another.Normal means average, not desirable or undesirable. You missed my point altogether though. I'll quote the sentence in full for your benefit: "The really crippled ones don't drink, smoke, fuck or go dancing & they're always incapable of coping with normal human things, like questioning authority, having fun, the lack of absolutes & such."
The point wasn't the drinking & smoking. Those were simply examples of activities that a great many people benefit from engaging in. My point was that religion in some cases deprives people from taking pleasure out of life, and somehow makes them see things like fun, relaxation & intimacy as "bad".
In these extreme, but unfortunately not rare cases, the victims usually also try to turn this completely harmless & very often quite useful behaviour into something negative for others as well. Sort of like schoolyard bullies who're too fucking stupid to participate meaningfully in the classes, and attempt to make themselves feel better by fucking things up for everyone else.please do not all me stupid, as it is flaming.I didn't. You mentioned how harmful drinking is to one's braincells, and mentioned that you don't drink. I do, so compared to me, your little gray cells must indeed be some spry little fuckers.
If anything, I called you clever. Fret not, however. I'll do my utmost to avoid calling you anything of the sort in the future.

You practically begged for that :p

well,you'll always have false generalizations to fall back on, beating my head against a brick wall is futile

Normaly I just open me eyes!:rolleyes:

AH, here it is. I was scrolling through the posts looking for this one.

I had some joke about brale (spelling?) line up, but it ain't worth it.

Somewhat positive, somewhat negative. After all, life is not black-and-white, and all religions have had their extremists....

Mostly negative, a bit positive.

I dislike the theory behind islam, and the practices it can lead to even in the modern world, the here and now. That said, I've never met (though seen enough british muslims interviewed and involved in discussion programs who've put me off their point of view) an individual muslim who's given me any cause for complaint (fair enough, that's only a sample of maybe a couple of dozen, tops, but that's not the point), so I know what badnesses it generates are _not_ a given.

The wanton stupidity, violence, and abuses carried out today in the name of Islam by self- and group- identifying muslims leads to distain for the religion, but not the individuals - just like respect, contempt for individuals has to be earned!

I'm not blaming you for anything, I'm blaming bigotry and generalizations, and choosing not to abuse alcohol and drugs is not a backlash against "normal" behavior, it is a lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality. So why the double standard? There is no such thing as a "normal" lifestyle what is considered "normal" in one place can be considered profane in another.



please do not all me stupid, as it is flaming.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, you damn bigot. It's mostly genetic. God, I hate people like this. Look up some facts.

I have known and encountered a lot of Muslims; they are not unlike other people.