Bob24 wrote: » Sadly when people are doing this terrorists are wining their ideological war.
Above all, politicians should avoid the trap of saying or implying that violence was really the fault of provocateurs, or that religious insult was to be equated with physical injury. Giving in to that sort of relativism would be letting down those followers of Islam who were brave enough to stand up for free speech, and indulging in a sort of "bigotry of low expectations", said Mr Mchangama, whose paternal forebears were Muslims from the Comoros Islands. A good point.
Donkey Oaty wrote: » This is true. Egginacup and others have already fallen for this propaganda. It is a Danish human-rights activist who has come up with the correct term for this phenomenon, which is "bigotry of low expectations". Here's how The Economist describes his viewpoints:
BuilderPlumber wrote: » There should always be a separation of church and state. This is a problem with most Middle Eastern countries at present: nearly all identify themselves through religion be it Sunni, Shia, Hinduism or Judaism. The following Middle Eastern countries are founded on religions and emphasise a certain religion: Afghanistan = Sunni Islamic republic. Pakistan = Sunni Islamic republic. India = Hindu republic. Iran = Shia Islamic republic. Saudi Arabia = Wahabbist Sunni absolute monarchy. Other Gulf Kingdoms (Qatar, Kuwait et al): ditto as for Saudi. Israel = Jewish republic. Iraq = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS. Syria = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS. ISIS = aspiring, fascist, absolute monarchy styling itself as an 'Islamic' Caliphate. Libya = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS-style fascists. Turkey is perhaps the only one that is not based on or does not have a strong militant 'Islam' rebel group.
KingBrian2 wrote: » The very term Middle East is condescending. A more valid word describing the region with greater accuracy would be the Muslim World as it encompasses the entire of North Africa, West Asia, Levant and East Mediterranean.
Dan_Solo wrote: » LOL, we'll go with "Muslim world" when we start calling the West the "Christian world".
KingBrian2 wrote: » That is what I like about Syria. It does not pretend to be something its not. It is not a Christian country it is a Muslim country with laws for Muslims. Now once you accept that the whole Shi'ite, Sunni or Christian divide does not matter. They have Ramadan and prohibition of certain goods that we in the west take for granted. Try to foster western values on them and they will react hostile. They have to work out their own societal problems on their own. It does not help when we support the most authoritarian regimes over there eg Musharraf in Pakistan who protected Osama Bin Laden and Yemen which is falling apart.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Not all Muslim states are terrifying places. Syria, Jordon, Morocco, Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia and Indonesia have secular Muslims that repudiate violence just like you and me.
Sociopath2 wrote: » He's right though. Those countries are predominantly Islamic and run on Islamic principles just as the West is predominantly Christian and our laws and values are based around Christian beliefs.
K4t wrote: » Christianity should still be the primary recipient of criticism and satire and insult in the West in the context of religions. We can never forget; and we should never forget, just because the worst of it is hopefully in the past. Now of course we should also show the same attitude towards Islam, but we should see it more as foreign aid than as the bigger threat to us in the West. Above all, what we should not do is cave to our own faux liberal tolerance and apology, and self-censor, by restricting criticism and satire of Islam; nor throw around words such as Islamophobia at any hint of offense towards Islam the religion; that does a disservice to both people of the West and the Middle East. It discourages an Islamic enlightenment, as well as forgetting that modern Christianity is only the way it is today because we had an enlightenment in the West.
nokia69 wrote: » Islam definitely should be considered as something foreign to Europe.
reprise wrote: » There are posters to these threads that are quite at ease with violence.
K4t wrote: » Then quote them and criticise or question them.
K4t wrote: » and that everybody is equal under the law (except in Ireland where Gay people can't marry each other!)
reprise wrote: » No point. It's wired in.
reprise wrote: » Silly point and off topic, however, straight people cannot marry people of the same sex either.
K4t wrote: » And that's wrong. They should be allowed marry whoever they like, just as a lot of gay people already can.
reprise wrote: » Sure, why not. Whoever you like, whatever you fancy and as many as you please.
K4t wrote: » I didn't say that, nor did I suggest it. Why do you want people to be allowed to be married to more than one person? What does it have to do with same-sex marriage? Seems a very odd thing to say.
reprise wrote: »
reprise wrote: Sure, why not. Whoever you like, whatever you fancy and as many as you please.
