British Values

[LionLooking]

Your second sentence contradicts your first one to an extent. You're on the one hand saying we ought not to call Islam a religion of violence but we can interpret it as being violent. That's confusing.

But the same can be said of Christianity and Judaism. It's not the religion that's violent - it's a small minority of its followers.

Yet if Islam is the perfect religion it claims to be then it wouldn't need to be sort ridiculously tribalistic nor would it need to 'other' non-believers in such strong & vindictive terms.

I know Muslims. I'm friends with them.- We have no problem about me being 'other' as you suggest.

The problem is with people, not any specific religion. Some are violent and intolerant whatever their faith. That's human nature - just look at all the hatred being spat out by anti-Muslims on this thread for example.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

But the same can be said of Christianity and Judaism. It's not the religion that's violent - it's a small minority of its followers.

Then say that about Christianity & Judaism but it's not a point against this applying to Islam. I don't understand why whenever somebody says this about Islam that whataboutery ensues. Also, Christianity & Judaism are not so nearly as often advertised as "The Religion of Peace".

I know Muslims. I'm friends with them.- We have no problem about me being 'other' as you suggest.

I didn't suggest that at all. I suggested that Islamic doctrine 'others' the rest of us in strong & vindictive terms. Muslims in the Western world are not the problem as a whole since not all of them adhere to the entire thing and aren't actively involved in defining it - but they are part of the problem if they're not willing to:

a) challenge the violent/intolerant aspects of their faith such as its violent spread throughout history;
b) admit there are any problems with this allegedly 'perfect religion' to begin with.

The problem is with people, not any specific religion. Some are violent and intolerant whatever their faith. That's human nature - just look at all the hatred being spat out by anti-Muslims on this thread for example.

If the problem is with people then you shouldn't have any problem with people treating Muslims the same way we treat Christians, Jews, Hindus etc by calling them out for any chicanery they indulge in or that their religious beliefs encourage. Religions are created by people and tend to exacerbate underlying personality traits; i.e. if a person is peaceful & charitably minded they will emphasise these aspects of their faith. The same if they're violent. The problem with Islam arises from the fact that

1. so many people don't seem to think violent/intolerant aspects of the religion exist but;
2. if they admit even this, that they're not nearly as big of a problem as they are;
3. whenever problems with Islam are mentioned, whataboutery ensues as people rush to show a religion that claims to be better than all others ought to be defended by treating it the same as all others (except when it comes to criticising it).

 

[LionLooking]

Then say that about Christianity & Judaism but it's not a point against this applying to Islam. I don't understand why whenever somebody says this about Islam that whataboutery ensues.

Well, Christians and Jews are not the ones being victimised here - if they were I would just as enthusiastically defend them.

Also, Christianity & Judaism are not so nearly as often advertised as "The Religion of Peace".

That's because they are not being targetted as violent religions - Islam is, despite its followers being, for the most part, peaceful.

I didn't suggest that at all. I suggested that Islamic doctrine 'others' the rest of us in strong & vindictive terms.

If this were true then my friends would not be my friends would they?

If the problem is with people then you shouldn't have any problem with people treating Muslims the same way we treat Christians, Jews, Hindus etc by calling them out for any chicanery they indulge in or that their religious beliefs encourage.

I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people calling a religion or its followers violent, when the truth is something different.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well, Christians and Jews are not the ones being victimised here - if they were I would just as enthusiastically defend them.

Well if it's not a valid comparison after all I'm not sure why you brought it up.

That's because they are not being targetted as violent religions - Islam is, despite its followers being, for the most part, peaceful.

Because overall Islam creates conditions of intolerance towards non-Muslims whenever it is in control of a society. Look at how many Jews there are in Muslim majority countries these days; look at how Christians and Zoroastrians are treated in Muslim countries. Look at how Confucians are treated in Indonesia. This is specifically caused by the Islamic tendency towards aniconism and iconoclasm. How many Islamic or even just Muslim majority countries are there where polytheists can safely & openly worship? Hindus have been putting with Muslims vandalising their temples for years.

It may be a minority actually committing violence but they're getting their justifications from Islam without a whole lot of twisting, and the rest are doing not much of anything to even recognise there's a problem. Multiple mosques in the UK have been investigated because they invited speakers who espouse 'extremist' forms of Islamic belief - and these aren't extremist mosques either. The Glasgow Central Mosque is (or was) being investigated because it apparently has links to a Pakistani political group whose raison d'etre is 'kill/convert all Ahmadis to mainstream Islam'. A London mosque was investigated by Channel 4's Dispatches programme several years back which found it was inviting speakers who engaged in inflammatory statements against non-Muslims.

If this were true then my friends would not be my friends would they?

I said "Islamic doctrine", not "Muslims". Also, not all Muslims emphasise the same aspects of Islamic doctrine which is why I don't have a problem with Muslims as a group. By making this statement you're (probably unintentionally) inadvertently and ironically implying that Muslims are a monolithic group who mindlessly believe exactly the same things which is what you were supposed to be arguing against.

I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people calling a religion or its followers violent, when the truth is something different.

Well ask Copts, Middle Eastern Jews, Zoroastrians like MD (if he ever comes back), Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians and atheists how they're viewed & treated in societies governed by laws stemming from Islamic theology, then tell me I have nothing to worry about. For being 'The Religion of Peace' there is an awful lot of intolerant shenanigans being perpetrated with convincing links to Islam.

 

[Notanumber]

Well, Christians and Jews are not the ones being victimised here - if they were I would just as enthusiastically defend them.


That's because they are not being targetted as violent religions - Islam is, despite its followers being, for the most part, peaceful.


If this were true then my friends would not be my friends would they?


I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people calling a religion or its followers violent, when the truth is something different.

Has the KKK published a document that is as hate filled as the Quran?

 

[ChristineM]

Has the KKK published a document that is as hate filled as the Quran?

A picture is worth a thousand words, here's ashore essay

 

[Notanumber]

Is that a no then or do you have a link to it?

 

[LionLooking]

Well if it's not a valid comparison after all I'm not sure why you brought it up.

It is a valid comparison - only, for some reason, you are only anti-Muslim and quite tolerant of those two faiths.

Because overall Islam creates conditions of intolerance towards non-Muslims

No more so than Christianity or Judaism

It may be a minority actually committing violence but they're getting their justifications from Islam without a whole lot of twisting,

Again, Christians and Jews who are violent (less of them - probably because the West isn't bombing and invading their countries) do not have to twist the words of their holy books much either. Why are you picking on Muslims?

and the rest are doing not much of anything to even recognise there's a problem.

Are you real?
There are peace marches and a whole lot more going on. Open your eyes.

Multiple mosques in the UK have been investigated because they invited speakers who espouse 'extremist' forms of Islamic belief

And universities have had white nationalist speakers - should we close them down too?

I said "Islamic doctrine", not "Muslims". Also, not all Muslims emphasise the same aspects of Islamic doctrine which is why I don't have a problem with Muslims as a group.

I'd find that easier to believe if you targetted Jews and Christians for the violence endoresed by their Holy books and didn't just pick on Muslims. Your singling out of just one faith makes me wary as to your motives.

By making this statement you're (probably unintentionally) inadvertently and ironically implying that Muslims are a monolithic group who mindlessly believe exactly the same things which is what you were supposed to be arguing against.

I'm saying no such thing - That's my point which you have obviously missed.

Well ask Copts, Middle Eastern Jews, Zoroastrians like MD (if he ever comes back), Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians and atheists how they're viewed & treated in societies governed by laws stemming from Islamic theology, then tell me I have nothing to worry about.

You can't blame a faith for a system of government can you? If so, atheist, Christian, pagan, Hindu, Shinto and Jewish governments have all been despotic.
Edward II cast out all Jews from his realm - even drowning several hundred. Why no mention? Or do we look to our King for British Values?

 

[Altfish]

Edward II cast out all Jews from his realm - even drowning several hundred. Why no mention? Or do we look to our King for British Values?

I stand to be corrected but wasn't Edward II a 13C King of England? If we are going back that far, yes, Britain was a despotic country that killed witches, had murderous crusades and was Roman Catholic.
The reason there is no mention is that it is 800-years ago, the Human Race in the UK has progressed for the better

 

[LionLooking]

I stand to be corrected but wasn't Edward II a 13C King of England?

13th-14th Century, yes.

If we are going back that far, yes, Britain was a despotic country that killed witches, had murderous crusades and was Roman Catholic.
The reason there is no mention is that it is 800-years ago, the Human Race in the UK has progressed for the better

But Edward did this foul deed because he was a Christian. That's what I'm trying to get across - Islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism. All three can be interpreted as peaceful or as violent.
At this point in history, there are more violent interpreters of Islam than of the other two religions mentioned. This doesn't mean it's more violent though. But those who despise Muslims would have us believe it is.

 

[Notanumber]

13th-14th Century, yes.

But Edward did this foul deed because he was a Christian. That's what I'm trying to get across - Islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism. All three can be interpreted as peaceful or as violent.
At this point in history, there are more violent interpreters of Islam than of the other two religions mentioned. This doesn't mean it's more violent though. But those who despise Muslims would have us believe it is.

Just because someone back in the 14th century did something barbaric, we have to suffer barbarism today. Is that the argument?

 

[Altfish]

13th-14th Century, yes.

But Edward did this foul deed because he was a Christian. That's what I'm trying to get across - Islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism. All three can be interpreted as peaceful or as violent.
At this point in history, there are more violent interpreters of Islam than of the other two religions mentioned. This doesn't mean it's more violent though. But those who despise Muslims would have us believe it is.

Fair comment; Christianity is about 500-years ahead of Islam, Humanism is about 200-years ahead of Christianity. Rees-Mogg is about 200-years behind Islam

 

[LionLooking]

Just because someone back in the 14th century did something barbaric, we have to suffer barbarism today. Is that the argument?

Absolutely not.
What I'm saying is that Christianity and Judaism can be interpreted violently, not just Islam. So why single out Muslims rather than the other Abrahamic faiths?

 

[ChristineM]

Is that a no then or do you have a link to it?

So you expect me to investigate the kkks hate propaganda and because i provided horrendous images of kkk action instead you consider you have won? You want the comparison, get of your right wing xenophobic high horse and do you own honest research

Here, I'll help you out
Category:Ku Klux Klan crimes - Wikipedia


So now lets turn it round you provide images of Mohammed preaching hate

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is a valid comparison - only, for some reason, you are only anti-Muslim and quite tolerant of those two faiths.

First off, I am anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim. Please learn the difference and stop both muddying the waters & misrepresenting my position. Second, you clearly have not read back through my post history. I do post against Christian intolerance. The reason I don't have much to say against Judaism is because the Jewish members here are mild-mannered, reasoned, and don't often subscribe to a worldview that non-Jews should be made to conform to their beliefs.

No more so than Christianity or Judaism

It's possible to constrain the other two with secular forms of governance; as shown in both post-Enlightenment Europe and the modern state of Israel. Islam does not tolerate secular forms of governance as it is a complete, all-encompassing way of life.

Again, Christians and Jews who are violent (less of them - probably because the West isn't bombing and invading their countries) do not have to twist the words of their holy books much either. Why are you picking on Muslims?

I call out Christian violence and, to a lesser extent, Jewish violence such as religiously-minded Israeli settlers on the rare occasion it crops up. I'm not picking on Muslims; there are concerns I have with Islam that I don't have with Christianity & Judaism. When was the last time, for instance, you heard of someone being murdered as an 'apostate' for leaving Christianity? When was the last time

Are you real?
There are peace marches and a whole lot more going on. Open your eyes.

And because these people are a tiny minority of Muslims then I can, using your logic, dismiss what you're saying because they're not the majority.

And universities have had white nationalist speakers - should we close them down too?

Universities are public institutes which have until recent decades been subject to far greater scrutiny than your average mosque. This is still true to a certain extent because of the tendency of some to start throwing out accusations of Islamophobia & racism which dampens conversation and raises fears of being conflated with actual racists who just hate everything that's foreign. Further, universities do actually tend to de-platform white nationalist speakers. Unfortunately, because people tend to engage in the disingenuous conflation you have, by accusing people who are anti-Islam of being anti-Muslim, they also tend to de-platform ex-Muslims who have legitimate concerns about the faith they grew up in like Maryam Namazie.

Last year the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was accosted by the police for marching at a London Pride event with an 'Allah is gay' sign while protesters marching with a 'Jesus is gay' sign were not bothered. The East London mosque filed a complaint (though, strangely, only about the 'Allah is gay' sign and not the Jesus one even though Jesus is supposedly a holy figure in Islam) and there has been talk of banning CEMB from future marches.

I'd find that easier to believe if you targetted Jews and Christians for the violence endoresed by their Holy books and didn't just pick on Muslims. Your singling out of just one faith makes me wary as to your motives.

I'd find it easier to sympathise with your suspicions if you had read back through my post history to see that your misgivings are unfounded. For instance I've stated publicly that I think the Catholic Church is a criminal organisation that should be disbanded, its assets seized and its high-ranking members subject to arrest in relation to the global child abuse scandal, as well as other criminal activities like money laundering.

I'm saying no such thing - That's my point which you have obviously missed.

Well that's what it reads like when you try to say I'm being anti-Muslim rather than anti-Islam. Muslims are not all religious in the same way and have varying degrees of faith. This is why I don't have a problem with Muslims as a group.

You can't blame a faith for a system of government can you?

I absolutely can if that system of government is theocratic, or relies on religious institutes to suppress the masses/protect the existing power structure.

If so, atheist, Christian, pagan, Hindu, Shinto and Jewish governments have all been despotic.

Atheism isn't a faith and I doubt you can find a core doctrine of atheism that motivated, say, Stalin to send people to Siberian gulags. I can't imagine him shouting 'In the name of non-existent gods!' when he did that.

As to the rest, you are correct in most cases (I'm not implictly disagreeing re: Hinduism for the simple reason I'm not that clued up on Indian history). So make those criticisms. But not as a deflection from ones we're making now because that's an invalid attempt at argument. So many people who defend Islam from any & all criticism would be fine with us criticising the above belief systems but think Islam uniquely should be protected from any such treatment; even while simultaneously arguing that we ought to treat Islam & Muslims the same we do as other faiths.

Edward II cast out all Jews from his realm - even drowning several hundred. Why no mention? Or do we look to our King for British Values?

The fact you're having to go back 600-700 years to find a deflection away from Islam towards Christianity is interesting. You don't need to go back that far to be honest. Also, I don't look to any unelected sponger as an exemplar for any sort of values aside from a lesson in what will happen if we grant undeserved wealth, power & privilege into anybody's hands.

 

[LionLooking]

First off, I am anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim.

Why, when their Holy book is no more violent than that of the Jews?

Please learn the difference and stop both muddying the waters & misrepresenting my position.

There is no difference.

...you clearly have not read back through my post history

I'll admit to that. I joined this thread in its later pages. My responses to you have been to your words I have quoted.

The reason I don't have much to say against Judaism is because the Jewish members here are mild-mannered, reasoned, and don't often subscribe to a worldview that non-Jews should be made to conform to their beliefs.

And, if you talk to Muslims, you'll find they're just the same.

It's possible to constrain the other two with secular forms of governance; as shown in both post-Enlightenment Europe and the modern state of Israel.

And, in the secular society we live in here in Britain, Islam is also constrained.

Islam does not tolerate secular forms of governance as it is a complete, all-encompassing way of life.

Rubbish. The Muslims here live under a secular government.

I call out Christian violence and, to a lesser extent, Jewish violence such as religiously-minded Israeli settlers on the rare occasion it crops up.

And do you condemn their religions, as you condemn that of Muslims?

I'm not picking on Muslims; there are concerns I have with Islam that I don't have with Christianity & Judaism.

Well you should. Those two religions are just as prone to violent interpretations as Islam is.

When was the last time, for instance, you heard of someone being murdered as an 'apostate' for leaving Christianity? When was the last time

Here in Britain - a couple of hundred years. Hundreds or thousands of them at the hands of our government. But no Muslim has suffered the same fate at the hands of the government here.

And because these people are a tiny minority of Muslims then I can, using your logic, dismiss what you're saying because they're not the majority.

Not dismiss - just stop blaming the religion and instead blame those individuals.

Universities are public institutes which have until recent decades been subject to far greater scrutiny than your average mosque

My point is that we have a right to free speech as Britons. Only if our words inspire hatred (as we see in this thread) is that right taken away. That applies to Nazis as well as extremists of any faith.

Last year the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was accosted by the police ...

Your source is an American right wing 'news' site. It's not even in their news section but their comments section. How reliable is that may I ask?

I think the Catholic Church is a criminal organisation that should be disbanded, its assets seized and its high-ranking members subject to arrest in relation to the global child abuse scandal, as well as other criminal activities like money laundering.

I disagree with you heartily. If I'd seen your post I would have leapt to the defence of Catholics.

Muslims are not all religious in the same way and have varying degrees of faith. This is why I don't have a problem with Muslims as a group.

Then stop saying that Islam is evil. That's no more the case than it is of Christianity or Judaism.[/quote]

 

[ChristineM]

Why, when their Holy book is no more violent than that of the Jews?

There is no difference.

The Bible is actually considerably more violent and angry than the Qur'an
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Of course christian groups have responded claiming the Qur'an is 40 times more violent by applying the formula 10x Repetitions multiplied by 2x for Density of Violence multiplied by 2x times Frequency of Repetitions. = 40x. Wonder if they applied the same formula to the bible, i can find no mention of such fairless

A muslim is a follower of islam, Mr the Emperor of Mankind seems to be able to differentiate the two somehow, rather like saying i loath British values but have no problem with those who live British values.

 

[Altfish]

The Bible is actually considerably more violent and angry than the Qur'an
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Ooops. There goes that arguement

 

[LionLooking]

The Bible is actually considerably more violent and angry than the Qur'an
Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Tell that to NAN and the self-styled Emperor of Mankind.

 

[ChristineM]

Tell that to NAN and the self-styled Emperor of Mankind.

Told nan, it's one of the many posts he ignores because it pops his bubble