What is the true face of Islam?

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 19, 2013, 7:24:09 PM5/19/13

to

What is the true face of Islam?
http://tinyurl.com/ap2vl5y

--
Islam Delenda Est

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 19, 2013, 8:34:37 PM5/19/13

to

On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:24:09 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What is the true face of Islam?
>http://tinyurl.com/ap2vl5y

Here is the true face of Islam --
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/islam.htm

It is sad when I see humans try to justify Islam and the
obvious terrorism associated with Islam, rather than just
admitting that Islam's ship has sailed; accepting that the
only thing left for Muslims who really believe in a peaceful
world, is abandon that ship totally and absolutely, and
"submit" that there is no God who gives a shit about our
entire species.

If Islam is so "good," why is it filled with such corruption,
depravity, immorality, murder, perversion, wickedness, and
sinfulness? Why is it considered "Allah's will" that certain
people be publicly beheaded for nothing other than refusing
to follow Islam?

Remember that gun-control advocates argues that it's guns
that kill, and people who use those guns are just "users."
Contending that if we abolished guns we'd go a long way
toward eliminating murder.

The same can be applied to Islamic terrorism... it's Islam that
kills, and Muslims who use Islam are just "users." Contending
if we abolished Islam we'd go a long way toward eliminating
terrorism.

Planet Visitor II

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 19, 2013, 8:54:11 PM5/19/13

to

Another accurate description of the "Religion of Peace" is at:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

--
Islam Delenda Est

Islander

unread,

May 19, 2013, 8:56:21 PM5/19/13

to

Bad analogy. It is religion that kills (as well as discriminates
against anyone who disagrees with their particular dogma).

Why not simply argue to eliminate religion? Ah, not PC!

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 19, 2013, 8:58:11 PM5/19/13

to

You are indeed a PC advocate-just look at your stance on religion in
general and Christianity in particular.

--
Islam Delenda Est

wizardr...@msn.com

unread,

May 19, 2013, 9:39:00 PM5/19/13

to

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:21 PM UTC-4, Islander wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 5:34 PM, Planet Visitor II wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:24:09 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What is the true face of Islam? >> http://tinyurl.com/ap2vl5y > > Here is the true face of Islam -- > http://www.targetofopportunity.com/islam.htm > > It is sad when I see humans try to justify Islam and the > obvious terrorism associated with Islam, rather than just > admitting that Islam's ship has sailed; accepting that the > only thing left for Muslims who really believe in a peaceful > world, is abandon that ship totally and absolutely, and > "submit" that there is no God who gives a shit about our > entire species. > > If Islam is so "good," why is it filled with such corruption, > depravity, immorality, murder, perversion, wickedness, and > sinfulness? Why is it considered "Allah's will" that certain > people be publicly beheaded for nothing other than refusing > to follow Islam? > > Remember that gun-control advocates argues that it's guns > that kill, and people who use those guns are just "users." > Contending that if we abolished guns we'd go a long way > toward eliminating murder. > > The same can be applied to Islamic terrorism... it's Islam that > kills, and Muslims who use Islam are just "users." Contending > if we abolished Islam we'd go a long way toward eliminating > terrorism. > > > Planet Visitor II > Bad analogy. It is religion that kills (as well as discriminates against anyone who disagrees with their particular dogma). Why not simply argue to eliminate religion? Ah, not PC!

Ah yes, the baby with the baby water...............The Islamic religion is bad, so all religions are bad........perfect logical conclusion, Sherlock.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 19, 2013, 10:30:07 PM5/19/13

to

No proof offered. Your claim fails. The bad analogy was when
you presented the views of two Muslims to contend that Islam
is not by its very nature, VIOLENT. I'd love to see one of those
Muslims argue a defense of Islam with Michelle Malkin.

> It is religion that kills

and Islam "isn't a religion"???

Not that I give a fuck about Christianity, or am defending
Christianity -- BUT --
if one takes my analogy further, it is a fact that NOT ALL
guns are bad by their nature. Only the ones that are used
for bad purposes. One could argue the same about religion.
NOT ALL religions are bad. Only the ones that are used for
bad purposes.

> (as well as discriminates
>against anyone who disagrees with their particular dogma).
>
>Why not simply argue to eliminate religion? Ah, not PC!

I'm all for it. But as the Chinese saying goes... the longest
journey begins with the first step. Apparently your opinion is
that Christianity is responsible for more terrorism and murder
than Islam. But anyone can have an "opinion." Even when
facts exist that dispute such an opinion.

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 19, 2013, 10:39:31 PM5/19/13

to

Mea Culpa... I thought you were the author of the original post, which
was actually from Jim Higgins. However, the rest of my argument
stands... since you certainly seem to be defending Islamic
terrorism, by including it with "all religion." Doing so is rather
like including pickpockets with "all murderers." My suggestion is
that the bigger the crime, the more need to do our utmost to
reduce the damage that crime does.

Further, I suspect Jim Higgins wasn't trying to defend Islam, it just
came across to me that way. I have the feeling he feels about Islam
the same as I do.

Planet Visitor II

>Planet Visitor II

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 11:18:26 AM5/20/13

to

We all get confused with age. Welcome to the club!

It seems really strange to me that someone who claims that all religions
are bad is immediately charged with defending Islam. That is not
logical, but reveals the depth of hatred of one religion over all
others. IMV, that is as bad as insisting that one religion is the only
true religion. A pox on all of them.

It is hard for me to imagine how someone can claim that any religion is
good, especially the particular brand that Jim practices which not only
denies basic human rights to those who happen to be different from them
(his stand on homosexuals) but also believes deeply that those who do
not share his belief are doomed to an eternity of torture in the fires
of Hell.

If you want to argue about which is worse, compare a terrorist act with
eternal torture. How do you excuse either?

Message has been deleted

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 2:20:06 PM5/20/13

to

On 5/20/2013 11:07 AM, Em...@nospam.com wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:18:26 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> It is hard for me to imagine how someone can claim that any religion is
>> good, especially the particular brand that Jim practices which not only
>> denies basic human rights to those who happen to be different from them
>> (his stand on homosexuals) but also believes deeply that those who do
>> not share his belief are doomed to an eternity of torture in the fires
>> of Hell.
>>
>> If you want to argue about which is worse, compare a terrorist act with
>> eternal torture. How do you excuse either?
>

> Terrorist attacks are real, unlike Hell.
>

Jim certainly believes that Hell is real. Yet, he somehow rationalizes
his religion and eternal torture if you don't comply as somehow
excusable whereas terrorist attacks are not.

Neither is excusable!

El Castor

unread,

May 20, 2013, 4:27:55 PM5/20/13

to

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:56:21 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

Haven't you figured out yet that Islam is not a religion? You and I
are not threatened by Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism,
or Judaism. Those are religions. Islam is a political, economic,
legal, and social system rolled up in the guise of a religion. It is
God on steroids.

El Castor

unread,

May 20, 2013, 4:40:50 PM5/20/13

to

On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:06 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

I doubt that your argument would be particularly convincing to a woman
facing the choice of leaping to her death from the World Trade Center,
or simply being incinerated in the terrorist's inferno.

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 5:06:07 PM5/20/13

to

If that were true, then there would be no discrimination against
homosexuals. There would be no debate over woman's rights.
Christianity keeps nipping at the heels of government and would impose
it's belief system on us just as Muslim insistence on Sharia Law does.

Why do you not argue against all religions?

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 5:08:05 PM5/20/13

to

So, then you agree that some religions have the right to intimidate
people with threats of eternal torture if they do not adhere to their
belief system? How is that acceptable in a modern world?

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 20, 2013, 6:36:29 PM5/20/13

to

Been patronizing "Build A god" again I see. A god built to you exact
requirements and specifications. Sad for you but the choice is yours.

--
Islam Delenda Est

Josh

unread,

May 20, 2013, 6:46:17 PM5/20/13

to

On 5/20/2013 5:08 PM, Islander wrote:
>
> So, then you agree that some religions have the right to intimidate
> people with threats of eternal torture if they do not adhere to their
> belief system? How is that acceptable in a modern world?

As someone who usually agrees with you (and I agree that Islam is a
religion - Jeff's counter argument that Christianity isn't a political
system is weak), I find this argument to be unpersuasive. The "threat"
to internal torture is nor more than words protected by Freedom of
Speech. Terrorist attacks aren't words.

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 7:57:37 PM5/20/13

to

True, but a distinction without a difference. Christian activism to
deny individuals their rights is more than words. Human rights are
fundamental and should be made available to all. Further, when
Christians act against homosexuals, they do so in more ways than words.
Likewise, when they actively deny women the right to make decisions
about their own body by denying them access to clinics, it is more than
words.

It is one thing to exercise your first amendment rights and quite
another when you forcefully deny people their rights.

Fundamentalist Christians use fear of Hell to keep their followers
captive. I suppose that might be considered to be freedom of speech,
but it is not a lot different from intimidation, IMV.

Beyond legality, I personally a lot of difference in a belief that it is
OK to imagine eternal torment in Hell but not OK to imagine killing
someone because of one's belief.

Josh

unread,

May 20, 2013, 8:08:27 PM5/20/13

to

On 5/20/2013 7:57 PM, Islander wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 3:46 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 5:08 PM, Islander wrote:
>>>
>>> So, then you agree that some religions have the right to intimidate
>>> people with threats of eternal torture if they do not adhere to their
>>> belief system? How is that acceptable in a modern world?
>>
>> As someone who usually agrees with you (and I agree that Islam is a
>> religion - Jeff's counter argument that Christianity isn't a political
>> system is weak), I find this argument to be unpersuasive. The "threat"
>> to internal torture is nor more than words protected by Freedom of
>> Speech. Terrorist attacks aren't words.
>>
> True, but a distinction without a difference.

Wow! You don't see a difference between words and acts of terror, for
example only the latter causes death?

> Christian activism to
> deny individuals their rights is more than words. Human rights are
> fundamental and should be made available to all. Further, when
> Christians act against homosexuals, they do so in more ways than words.
> Likewise, when they actively deny women the right to make decisions
> about their own body by denying them access to clinics, it is more than
> words.

I agree with that argument, although I wouldn't put those two denials of
rights on the same par as terrorism.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 20, 2013, 8:22:54 PM5/20/13

to

I surrender. I failed to observe the first rule of posting -- RTFQ! I haven't
felt this embarrassed since I first realized I don't know what Lady Gaga
is all about.

>It seems really strange to me that someone who claims that all religions
>are bad is immediately charged with defending Islam. That is not
>logical, but reveals the depth of hatred of one religion over all
>others. IMV, that is as bad as insisting that one religion is the only
>true religion. A pox on all of them.
>
>It is hard for me to imagine how someone can claim that any religion is
>good, especially the particular brand that Jim practices which not only
>denies basic human rights to those who happen to be different from them
>(his stand on homosexuals) but also believes deeply that those who do
>not share his belief are doomed to an eternity of torture in the fires
>of Hell.
>
>If you want to argue about which is worse, compare a terrorist act with
>eternal torture. How do you excuse either?

That would be like comparing torture on a REAL torture rack with flogging
by IMAGINARy pixies. We KNOW terrorist acts kill our fellow man. We
imagine the threat of eternal torture, since nothing is eternal. Nor is it
the idea of an "excuse," but the well-known ethical and moral theory of "a
greater or lesser evil." Killing is considered an "evil," but if you personally
were faced with either killing or be killed, there is no question of which
you would consider the "lesser of two evils." The "ethical and moral" dilemma
has been tested in thousands of examples in which one is faced with the
choice of a lesser or greater evil, and no possibiity to escape making one
of those two choices, while both are far from palatable.

The idea of whether you would prefer to be killed by a Muslim or by a
Christian, with both killings being committed in the "name of their
respective God," also isn't the issue, because you would rather that neither
kill you for any reason. The issue is which of those two, the Muslim
or the Christian, do you think represents a greater threat to our
FELLOW MAN, in respect to either of those two killing our FELLOW
MAN, "in the name of their respective God." If you personally feel
yourself more threatened by Christians, than by Muslims, it's because
you have only Christians within your sphere of influence. But how do
you think you would feel, as an atheist, if you found yourself with only
Muslims within your sphere of influence?

Planet Visitor II

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 8:50:01 PM5/20/13

to

I suspect that is because you value life above living, not unexpected in
our culture. But, if that were always true, we would not see so many
suicides among homosexuals. They clearly made a choice in the other
direction. Christians can, by their actions, make life a living Hell
for those who disagree with their dogma. How different is the act of
tormenting someone until they commit suicide from actually putting the
gun in their mouth? Not much, IMV.

Islander

unread,

May 20, 2013, 8:55:12 PM5/20/13

to

So, you are reduced to the argument of which is worse. Given a choice
between the two, I choose none of the above.

rumpelstiltskin

unread,

May 20, 2013, 10:07:02 PM5/20/13

to

I'm gay, and Christian ideas completely ruined my
adolescence. I really didn't have any adolescence at all.
I was in hiding, leading a phony existence for those years.
I look back on that time, before I fled to California to get
away from that phony life, with no affection at all.

So I don't buy that killing people is completely different
from destroying their entire lives, or destroying the early
part of their lives before they escape. I'm not recovered -
I expect my detachment from most people derives from
the phony life I felt I had to live in those early days. If I
hadn't hidden in a phony life then, life would have been
even worse. One kid I knew when I was in my early 20's,
who was 16 and gay and a really great kid, killed himself
by jumping off a bridge because he couldn't take it
anymore. DAMN Christianity! DAMN it!

I don't hate people, but I do hate Christianity. I REALLY
hate Christianity. I have completely just cause to do so.
There's no excuse for treating people in such a lousy way,
just on the excuse of phony "beliefs" that are really just a
pile of s**t.

After writing the above, I refreshed my newsgroup list
and saw that Islander had posted a reply making the
same point. That's especially admirable IMV because
he understands the deprivation without having
experienced it himself. When I say that, I don't mean
to denigrate you, since I've also formed a high opinion
of your postings.

Josh

unread,

May 20, 2013, 10:35:35 PM5/20/13

to

On 5/20/2013 10:07 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:08:27 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christian activism to
>>> deny individuals their rights is more than words. Human rights are
>>> fundamental and should be made available to all. Further, when
>>> Christians act against homosexuals, they do so in more ways than words.
>>> Likewise, when they actively deny women the right to make decisions
>>> about their own body by denying them access to clinics, it is more than
>>> words.
>>
>> I agree with that argument, although I wouldn't put those two denials of
>> rights on the same par as terrorism.
>
> I'm gay, and Christian ideas completely ruined my
> adolescence. I really didn't have any adolescence at all.

There is not excuse for Christianity's affect on your life, but it still
isn't 9/11.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 20, 2013, 10:54:31 PM5/20/13

to

All non-trivial choices in life are reduced to the argument of which is worse.
Including even a few trivial choices such as wanting to play golf but it's
been raining a drizzle all day. Do you play through the drizzle or stay dry
and watch the Golf Channel on cable??

>Given a choice between the two, I choose none of the above.

Well, let's test that with another "moral dilemma" and see where it leads
if choosing "none of the above." SUPPOSE: You and your friend are stranded
on an island. Unfortunately, you are both fatally ill. It just so happens that
you have an antibiotic that can cure the illness both of you suffer from. Sadly
enough, there is just enough antibiotic to save only one person. 1) Should
you take the antibiotic and watch your friend die? 2) Should you give the
antibiotic to your friend, knowing you will thus die? 2) "None of the above."
Knowing that both you and your friend will die, and the antibiotic will be unused?

Is "none of the above" actually a productive choice in respect to human life?

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 20, 2013, 11:50:21 PM5/20/13

to

I'm not here to pick an argument with you... really, I'm NOT!
But I need to say that you do not have your eyes on the big
picture. You may feel it is... but truly, it's not all about YOU.

Both logically and morally no one can focus solely on the impact
religion (any religion) has had on his personal life, and ignore
the very obvious impact religion (any religion) is having on
humanity. That's the moral side. The logical side is the clear
fact that anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. It's cherry
picking your own experience, which is the result of a small
sample (in fact, ONE sample), while ignoring any evidence
within a much larger sampling. You were emotionally affected
by Christianity because of your sexual orientation, but untold
hundreds perhaps even thousands of those having your same sexual
orientation have been murdered by Islam BECAUSE of their
sexual orientation in very recent times, not "historical times."
The brutal reality is that the emotional upheaval you might have
suffered is TRIVIAL compared to the total loss of life because
of a HUMAN BEING'S sexual orientation.

I'm not here to defend Christianity, but I am here to condemn
Islam. Both Christianity and Islam have about the same number
of idiot members (all in need of an emotional crutch), but one
only needs to make himself aware of the world as it is today to
realize why a small sample of one individual is like a teardrop
in an ocean.

You may feel emotionally scarred, and I don't feel anyway near
qualified to quantify just how painful that experience might have
been for you. But you are here... you exist... you have the
possibility of picking up the pieces. While just today, it can
be shown that 95 human beings will never be able to reclaim
their lives, because ISLAM has murdered their dreams, their
aspirations, everything they were, and everything they could
become. Now some will try to use political chicanery to put
the blame on something other than Islam... but clearly, ISLAM
is the sole source of that damage to 95 human lives in a single
day. If there were no Islam those 95 human beings would still
be alive. See ==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-officials-twin-car-bombings-in-southern-city-of-basra-kill-at-least-10-people/2013/05/20/e5a3ca72-c11b-11e2-9aa6-fc21ae807a8a_story.html

Hate Christianity if you feel like it... I hate it as well. But let's
not lose sight of the bigger picture, blinded by our personal
hate, unwilling to see the countless faceless victims of Islamic
physical violence taking place each and every day. My problem
when I see hate expressed for Christianity is that it always is
presented in a form which goes toward defending Islam, insisting
that Christianity is "worse." Tell that to the 95 faceless victims
of Islam, murdered in the name of that religion just today.
Juxtapose those 95 victims, murdered just in one day because
of Islam, next to your singular emotionally damaging experiences
with Christianity. They were human... just as you and I.

Planet Visitor II

rumpelstiltskin

unread,

May 21, 2013, 12:05:02 AM5/21/13

to

I'd agree Islam today is worse than Christianity today,
but over the ages since Islam was created, I'd guess that
Christianity would win the competition for the most torture
and bloodshed, perhaps in every century before the 19th..

Christianity is only better today because it doesn't
have the power it used to have. It doesn't have that power
anymore because most people don't believe in it as
uncritically as they used to, and a growing number in
Christendom don't believe in it at all. Islam isn't there
yet. It still has the power to impose itself on everyone
living under it by threat of torture and death.

Christianity still needs to become part of the past
though, and as quickly as possible. Its behaviour
is still completely inexcusable, not only to gay people,
but to women where it still has enough power, and
that's just for starters. Even if it didn't do any of that
stuff, its source is still a genetic/memetic defect of
intellect, likely evolved either as a means of bolstering
solidarity in wars against rival villages, but why live
with that forever? It's been observed that if a man
becomes successful, he's likely to come to despise
the means by which he achieved that success. The
same might be said of whether we must always
consent to be uncritically ruled by our genes. As
Pinker wrote, after writing that he and his wife had
chosen not to have children,

"By Darwinian standards I am a horrible mistake�
But I am happy to be voluntarily childless, ignoring
the solemn imperative to spread my genes. And if
my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake.�

�How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/644146.html

(I like the poem that follows that quotation at that
URL I found via google. In the poem, the poet
presents his challenge to Pinker's position, rooted
of course - nobody would deny it - in "instinct".)

unread,

May 21, 2013, 8:02:12 PM5/21/13

to

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:21:07 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>

I don't wish to renew the argument here, but I am not religious, and
like a majority of Californians, voted for Prop 8. I did so for basic
societal reasons -- reasons that would also lead me to be against
codifying governmental approval of polygamy or polyamory. Religion had
no influence whatsoever on my decision.

>Putting the Constitution aside, I believe that one cannot make
>superstition illegal except in the case of superstitious acts that harm
>others.
>
>But, I'm also interested in your answer to Josh's question posed in
>parallel here.

By now, you have probably read my reply to Josh. At the end of my
answer I posed a question to Josh. I would be interested in your
response to that question.

Josh

unread,

May 21, 2013, 8:06:47 PM5/21/13

to

On 5/21/2013 12:47 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:58:32 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 3:47 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:06:07 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you not argue against all religions?
>>>
>>> The Constitution aside, do you believe the practice of religion should
>>> be criminalized?
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> The Constitution aside, do you believe the practice of Islam should be
>> criminalized?
>
> Interesting that you should step in to save Islander. That does seem
> to put you on an even footing with him, but to return to your
> question, you pose a question that does not have a simple answer. Yes
> and no. I would not criminalize practices of Islam that are not
> already illegal, but I would not change our legal system to
> accommodate or legalize common practices of Islam that are legal
> elsewhere, but are already illegal in the United States ...

That sounds just like Islander's answer to your question. You two think
alike.

Josh

unread,

May 21, 2013, 8:07:30 PM5/21/13

to

On 5/21/2013 12:21 PM, Islander wrote:
> Likewise, we
> will hopefully soon hear whether or not basic human rights denied on the
> basis of religious belief by DOMA and Prop8 are legal in the upcoming
> SCOTUS decisions.

I do not know how SCOTUS will rule, but religion will play no part in it
either way.

Josh

unread,

>More relevant, all are prohibited by our laws and as much as you might
>want to believe that we are threatened, it is not likely that we will
>ever succumb to Sharia law in any form. Even the laws that are a
>consequence of hatred of homosexuals is likely to be overturned by SCOTUS.

Why, when confronted by incessant demands, should we believe that
multiculturalist lefties will not succumb? They have in Europe.

"Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic
justice behind closed doors"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

"Antwerp: Shariah4Belgium opens Shariah court"
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2011/09/antwerp-shariah4belgium-opens-shariah.html

" Crossing Borders with Shariah: The Role of Islamic Law in German
Courts"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/crossing-borders-with-shariah-the-role-of-islamic-law-in-german-courts-a-722477.html

"An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration:
Sharia Courts in Canada and England"
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf

>The best defense against superstition is education and in today's modern
>world education seems to trump even efforts to impose Sharia law and the
>dictates of the Vatican. Overt hatred of Muslims and adoption of
>policies that isolate and alienate them is counterproductive.

We shouldn't hate Muslims, but we should be extremely wary of Islam.

>Should we limit immigrants from Muslim lands? Sure, just as we should
>limit immigrants from any country. Our decisions on who to admit should
>be primarily based on what they bring to our nation.
>
>Would you deny admission of a Muslim who is an expert in some advanced
>technical field and who has been offered a job with a high-tech company?
> That would be stupid, IMV.

I would not disagree. To completely bar Muslims would be too overt. By
the same token, during the four year period 2007 - 2011, the number of
Muslims living in the United States increased by 400,000. That is a
lot of "experts in some advanced technical field".

El Castor

unread,

May 22, 2013, 2:50:55 AM5/22/13

to

On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:27:59 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

I lack your expertise in basic human rights, so I would like to call
upon your wisdom in these matters. As you may know, polygamy is common
in some parts of the world -- that would be one man, more than one
wife. Wives with more than one husband (polyandry) are less common,
but also to be found. Is polygamy a basic human right? Polyandry?

Josh

unread,

May 22, 2013, 6:52:39 AM5/22/13

to

On 5/22/2013 1:51 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:08:54 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 8:59 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:13:33 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would-be immigrants from some Muslim countries should undergo the
>>>> highest of scrutiny in background checks.
>>>
>>> Ah, an appropriately vague answer. Should a belief in amputations as a
>>> punishment for theft or death as a punishment for adultery be enough
>>> to exclude a possible immigrant?
>>
>> No. There should be no tests based on political belief. That is part
>> of what Free Speech is about.
>
> Actually, that is religious belief -- if you consider Islam to be a
> religion.

Yes, it implicates both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion which
makes it even more undesirable. Yet, it appears you think we should
screen immigrants on this basis.

> Maybe we just need to quietly restrict immigration from Muslim
> countries

As I said above, I agree through the highest scrutiny in background
checks (without changing the criteria for what in a background check
causes refusal) for immigrants from some Muslim countries not done for
immigrants from other countries.

In your answer to Islander you said you wouldn't prevent all Muslims
from immigrating. On what basis would you distinguish letting people in
from non-Muslim countries versus Muslim countries?

Josh

unread,

May 22, 2013, 6:55:53 AM5/22/13

to

On 5/22/2013 2:50 AM, El Castor wrote:
>
> I lack your expertise in basic human rights, so I would like to call
> upon your wisdom in these matters. As you may know, polygamy is common
> in some parts of the world -- that would be one man, more than one
> wife. Wives with more than one husband (polyandry) are less common,
> but also to be found. Is polygamy a basic human right? Polyandry?

Polygamy is behavior. Sexuality, including homosexuality, is a trait.
When you outlaw same-sex marriage, an entire class of people is denied
the ability to marry anyone for whom marriage makes sense. When you
outlaw polygamy, you force people to change their behavior.

Islander

unread,

May 22, 2013, 10:15:35 AM5/22/13

to

On 5/21/2013 11:40 PM, El Castor wrote:
> I would not disagree. To completely bar Muslims would be too overt. By
> the same token, during the four year period 2007 - 2011, the number of
> Muslims living in the United States increased by 400,000. That is a
> lot of "experts in some advanced technical field".

Pew estimates that about 10% of the 1M legal immigrants to the US are
Muslim who otherwise constitute 20% of the world population. So, we are
already discriminating against Muslims, all other things being equal
which they are not.

What is not shown in this is the reason Muslims are immigrating to the
US. While some are admitted on the basis of needed skills, others are
admitted to join their families, to escape political oppression, even to
be free to escape oppressive Sharia law.

Islam, like most religions is not simply based on a literal
interpretation of the Koran any more than Christianity is based on a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Ask any American Muslim about any
of the scary things in your list and you will get the same kind of
answer that you would get from a Catholic about birth control or a whole
range of similar issues.

brian

unread,

May 22, 2013, 12:52:58 PM5/22/13

to

I like your enthusiasm for believing in the success of mandated
change.

El Castor

unread,

May 22, 2013, 3:47:45 PM5/22/13

to

On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:52:39 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 5/22/2013 1:51 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:08:54 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/2013 8:59 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:13:33 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would-be immigrants from some Muslim countries should undergo the
>>>>> highest of scrutiny in background checks.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, an appropriately vague answer. Should a belief in amputations as a
>>>> punishment for theft or death as a punishment for adultery be enough
>>>> to exclude a possible immigrant?
>>>
>>> No. There should be no tests based on political belief. That is part
>>> of what Free Speech is about.
>>
>> Actually, that is religious belief -- if you consider Islam to be a
>> religion.
>
>Yes, it implicates both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion which
>makes it even more undesirable. Yet, it appears you think we should
>screen immigrants on this basis.

No, I don't think that, but amputations and death as a punishment for
adultery are common Sharia punishments. When we admit a Muslim, we are
almost certainly admitting a desire for Sharia -- if not in that
particular Muslim, then in his or her sons and daughters, brothers,
sisters, and parents to follow. As Muslim numbers increase in a
country, so do demands for Sharia and all the other trappings of
Islam. Violence is often the result as frustration builds when various
demands are not met -- and they can never be fully met. A few weeks
ago, Sweden, in a gesture of multi-cultural equanimity permitted the
call to prayer to be broadcast from the 104' minaret of a mosque near
Stockholm. And yet, as I write, fires are burning, and rioting is
spreading through the suburbs of Stockholm. The annual burning of
thousands of cars in France by "immigrant youth" has become such an
embarrassment to the French government that they no longer publish the
statistics.

So, don't restrict immigration of Muslims, per se, just quietly
restrict immigration from Muslim majority countries.

>> Maybe we just need to quietly restrict immigration from Muslim
>> countries
>
>As I said above, I agree through the highest scrutiny in background
>checks (without changing the criteria for what in a background check
>causes refusal) for immigrants from some Muslim countries not done for
>immigrants from other countries.

Administering a background check to a Muslim is about as useful as
administering a background check to a flu virus that would like to
make it's way up your nose. You know it's the flu. What more do you
need to know?

>In your answer to Islander you said you wouldn't prevent all Muslims
>from immigrating. On what basis would you distinguish letting people in
>from non-Muslim countries versus Muslim countries?

Since for appearances sake, if for no other reason, we have to let in
a few, make sure they are well educated and bring useful skills.

Just as importantly we need to look at foreign (largely Saudi)
financing of Muslim recruitment of prison inmates, as well as foreign
funding of mosques and Islamic cultural centers. When Muslims seek
converts, they do not send Mother Theresa to heal the sick, they
typically start with disaffected prison inmates.

"France struggles to fight radical Islam in its jails"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-france-radicalisation-insight-idUSBRE9460OQ20130507

"Radical Muslims recruit criminals in U.S. prisons"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/radical-muslims-recruit-criminals-in-us-prisons/?page=all
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/prison-radicalization-the-environment-the-threat-and-the-response

Josh, I realize that I am wasting my time and yours. You will not be
convinced. I am sure you believe that if we deal with Islam and
Muslims, fairly and decently, we will have nothing to fear. We will
all get along and live in peace -- and they will vote Democrat. If we
Unfortunately, that is not the way it works. Look at what is happening
in Europe. We are fortunately a few years behind. Those of us who care
will perhaps take notice and act before it's too late.

El Castor

unread,

May 22, 2013, 4:15:12 PM5/22/13

to

On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:15:35 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

I see, we get the good Muslims. Those who are currently rioting in
Sweden? I guess they got the bad ones. A 2007 Pew poll of American
Muslims aged 18-29 found that 26% believed that suicide bombing was
justified under some circumstances. That tied us with German and
Spanish Muslims of the same age group -- and we look a little better
than the British and French, but hardly something to celebrate.
http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

El Castor

unread,

May 22, 2013, 4:32:15 PM5/22/13

to

On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:55:53 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Huh? OK, sexuality is a trait, but is marriage a trait? Are marriage
or polygamy needed in order to engage in sexuality? I don't think so.
So why is polygamy a "behavior", but marriage is not a "behavior"?

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 22, 2013, 4:55:31 PM5/22/13

to

The results of British multiculturalism:

'Soldier beheaded' in Woolwich machete attack: latest
http://tinyurl.com/q58aeu3

(good instruction for Josh & Islander)
Andrew Klavan: How to Behave During an Islamic Massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKerbOi_mrI

--
"Guarded by a tired cohort of Roman Heavy Infantry"

Josh

unread,

May 22, 2013, 6:31:06 PM5/22/13

to

On 5/22/2013 3:47 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:52:39 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, an appropriately vague answer. Should a belief in amputations as a
>>>>> punishment for theft or death as a punishment for adultery be enough
>>>>> to exclude a possible immigrant?
>>>>
>>>> No. There should be no tests based on political belief. That is part
>>>> of what Free Speech is about.
>>>
>>> Actually, that is religious belief -- if you consider Islam to be a
>>> religion.
>>
>> Yes, it implicates both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion which
>> makes it even more undesirable. Yet, it appears you think we should
>> screen immigrants on this basis.
>
> No, I don't think that, but amputations and death as a punishment for
> adultery are common Sharia punishments. When we admit a Muslim, we are
> almost certainly admitting a desire for Sharia
>

> So, don't restrict immigration of Muslims, per se, just quietly
> restrict immigration from Muslim majority countries.

So, when it comes to whether "a belief in amputations as a punishment

unread,

May 23, 2013, 6:57:56 AM5/23/13

to

Gays = exhibitionists, child molesters and rapists? Democrats say a
prayer every night that Republicans adopt this argument.

Message has been deleted

Alias

unread,

May 23, 2013, 9:29:03 AM5/23/13

to

On 5/23/2013 3:26 PM, sordo wrote:
> Welfare checks, they make you wealthy

False, very false, unless, of course, you're talking about corporate
welfare but a racist asshole like you isn't worried about the billions
Exxon, etc. receive, now are you?

--
Alias

The only real problems are avarice, anger and stupidity.

Josh Rosenbluth

unread,

May 23, 2013, 11:43:57 AM5/23/13

to

Moreover, "exhibitionists, child molesters and rapists" are behaviors,
not traits - and even then those who exhibit such behavior can marry.
It just that gays (a trait, not a behavior) cannot marry.

El Castor

unread,

May 23, 2013, 12:33:01 PM5/23/13

to

On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:57:56 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 5/23/2013 3:10 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:32:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marriage is a behavior. But, current marriage law limits marriage to
>>> only straights, not gays - a trait-based distinction.
>>
>> Yes it is. Works for me. Exhibitionists, child molesters, and rapists
>> -- more pesky sexual traits. If three or four exhibitionists want to
>> live together and stick things up their wazoo, I really don't care,
>> but please don't ask me to vote for them getting married.
>
>Gays = exhibitionists, child molesters and rapists?

Check this out. Just another day in San Francisco.
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Gays have their own
institutions. Gay marriage is not about marriage, it's about Gay
resentment of heterosexual institutions and their desire to destroy
the traditional moral order.

El Castor

unread,

May 23, 2013, 12:46:48 PM5/23/13

to

What is marriage? It's a symbol of commitment and the basis of the
heterosexual family unit. Gays don't want to get married, they want to
diminish it and in the process tear down the heterosexual social and
moral order. I hope you clicked on that Zombietime link I posted.
Behavior, trait, or both? See anyone there who wants to get married?
Nice environment to raise children?

In any event,

Josh Rosenbluth

unread,

May 23, 2013, 2:28:19 PM5/23/13

to

On May 23, 12:33 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:57:56 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On 5/23/2013 3:10 AM, El Castor wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:32:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Marriage is a behavior. But, current marriage law limits marriage to
> >>> only straights, not gays - a trait-based distinction.
>
> >> Yes it is. Works for me. Exhibitionists, child molesters, and rapists
> >> -- more pesky sexual traits. If three or four exhibitionists want to
> >> live together and stick things up their wazoo, I really don't care,
> >> but please don't ask me to vote for them getting married.
>
> >Gays = exhibitionists, child molesters and rapists?
>

> Check this out. Just another day in San Francisco.http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

>
> Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Gays have their own
> institutions. Gay marriage is not about marriage, it's about Gay
> resentment of heterosexual institutions and their desire to destroy
> the traditional moral order.

The Democrats' prayers are being answered. Amen!

El Castor

unread,

May 23, 2013, 7:56:07 PM5/23/13

to

Aieeeee!! The GOP has lost the Gay vote!!!! I wonder if that includes
the Gay maggot who tried to molest me when I was 14?

Josh

unread,

May 23, 2013, 8:20:04 PM5/23/13

to

If they are as hostile as you, the GOP is in danger of losing the vote
that finds such hostility disgusting.

Jim_Higgins

unread,

May 23, 2013, 8:33:00 PM5/23/13

to

Hostility to moral decline and decay? Votes flying away? Only in the
minds of the PC crowd.

Josh

unread,

>>There is not excuse for Christianity's affect on your life, but it still
>>isn't 9/11.
>
>
> I'd agree Islam today is worse than Christianity today,
>but over the ages since Islam was created, I'd guess that
>Christianity would win the competition for the most torture
>and bloodshed, perhaps in every century before the 19th..

And yet we're no longer in the past. Considering the present
day, I'd suggest that Islam is on it's way in the FUTURE to
quickly surpass the total number of killings attributed to
Christianity, since they hung that imaginary guy on a cross.
Isn't the FUTURE more of our concern, than the past? And
after all, Christianity had a 600 year head start on Islam.
So I imagine that the Islamophile will argue that we shouldn't
worry about the murders Islam commits for the next 600
years, giving Islam "time to catch up."

> Christianity is only better today because it doesn't
>have the power it used to have.

Well, I don't consider that a _bad thing_, so why shouldn't
we accelerate taking away the power held by Islam in today's
world? After all, half the world practices Islam... why should
they have all the power? When is Islam going to give some power
to us atheists, rather than shouting out "slay them wherever
ye find them"??

The Moral Mind would suggest that religion should have NO
power in anything other than the spiritual world. Because one
man's religion often brings about the murder of another man.
Sometimes even someone of the _same religion_; as in the case
of Islamic schism; and of course, the hate that religion engenders
against those who appear to violate the strange ritualistic beliefs
in religion, such as killing gays, even if they are of the same
religious beliefs.

Planet Visitor II

Planet Visitor II

unread,

May 23, 2013, 10:27:24 PM5/23/13

to

On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:15:35 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2013 11:40 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> I would not disagree. To completely bar Muslims would be too overt. By
>> the same token, during the four year period 2007 - 2011, the number of
>> Muslims living in the United States increased by 400,000. That is a
>> lot of "experts in some advanced technical field".
>
>Pew estimates that about 10% of the 1M legal immigrants to the US are
>Muslim who otherwise constitute 20% of the world population. So, we are
>already discriminating against Muslims, all other things being equal
>which they are not.
>

>Islam, like most religions is not simply based on a literal
>interpretation of the Koran any more than Christianity is based on a
>literal interpretation of the Bible.

Rubbish, and Islamic apologist untruth. A person who does not
believe in a LITERAL interpretation of the Koran is NOT a "true
Muslim." Are you totally unaware of the five pillars of Islam,
whereby one is NOT a true Muslim unless one SUBMITS to those
five pillars? The most important of which is the FIRST pillar. I
don't need to refer you to an article that is negative to Islam... I
can simply refer you to an article FROM a Muslim describing the
FIRST Pillar. See --
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/193/

I'm not here to argue that Christians DON'T believe in the literal
interpretation of the Bible... since if you did try to argue that - it
would be a totally transparent strawman and anyone with an
ounce of sense would be able to see through it. Christians are
NOT going around murdering those who are non-believers in Christianity.
Muslims ARE going around murdering non-Muslims and calling
such murders "self-defense of Islam." Demanding that all non-Muslims
leave lands that they declare are only for Muslims, while living off
the dole in lands that are non-Muslim. Why is it that western
liberals believe that WE have to accept all Muslims regardless of
their propensity for violence in the name of Islam, while Muslim
countries can simply say "we don't allow non-Muslims"? It appears
to me that as a group western liberals fulfill the prophesy of Aeschylus,
in his epic poem:

So in the Libyan fable it is told
That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft,
"With our own feathers, not by others' hands,
Are we now smitten."

Western liberals, with their own feathers fashioning the shaft that
strikes at the heart of western civilization, have become the enemy
of western civilization because of the "tolerance" that was supposed
to be the greatest of all solutions to the problems of mankind. It
only works when everyone is TOLERANT!! It NEVER works when
only one side is tolerant. Turning the other cheek when the other
side only uses it as an excuse to slap you up the side of the head
has never been a productive solution. This is nothing but Psychology
101.

But I am here to argue PROOF that all Muslims MUST BY DEFINITION
accept the Koran as the word of Allah... in absolute terms. The best
some Muslims can attempt is to redefine those words to make Islam
appear more palatable when it is not palatable to any member of our
species who is NOT an Islamist. No TRUE MUSLIM would state that
the words in the Koran are NOT the LITERAL words of God.... PERIOD!!

They hem and they haw and they make excuses, and try to shift the
blame upon those who are "abusing those poor Islamists," as if
those who are _abusing Islam_ would only stop _criticizing Islam for its
excesses_ Islam would stop committing murder. As they try to claim that
they only want to commit murder of non-Muslims in "self-defense." As
if self-defense is defined as murder.

>Ask any American Muslim about any
>of the scary things in your list and you will get the same kind of
>answer that you would get from a Catholic about birth control or a whole
>range of similar issues.

Ask any of the Christians in Saudi Arabia who secretly keep a Bible
hidden away if they find Islam "scary"? Oh, wait... you can't... Saudi
Arabia doesn't permit Christians or Jews at ALL. See how easy that
makes it? This means that Muslims in Saudi Arabia have no Christians
to murder... meaning they have to export their Islamist murderers.
Why don't we do the same? Oh, wait... I know the answer to that one.
It's because we're TOLERANT... and they aren't. But it's okay for
them to not be tolerant, because we need to feel warm and toasty
about our own TOLERANCE to murder, and not make any demands
of Islamists to stop murdering in western nations.

You're an atheist I believe... as am I --

First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Christians,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Christian.

Then they came for the Hindus,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Hindu.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Planet Visitor II
Not feeling very "tolerant" today.

Josh

unread,

May 23, 2013, 10:31:25 PM5/23/13

to

On 5/23/2013 10:04 PM, Jim_Higgins wrote:

> On 5/23/13 8:40 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>>> Hostility to moral decline and decay? Votes flying away? Only in the
>>> minds of the PC crowd.
>>
>> I don't think you have been paying attention to how the votes have
>> changed in just a short time on gay marriage. As the older generation
>> dies and a new one grows up, the GOP will have to accept gay rights or
>> go the way of the Whigs.
>
> Morals, what is right or wrong, is not decided by counting noses.
> Relative morality is decided by counting noses. It will surprise you
> Josh but there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong-which is not
> subject to the mood of the time.

I agree. But I suppose we disagree in that the absolute right is being
gay is not immoral.

That disagreement notwithstanding, it at least appears you accept your
side has lost in the court of public opinion.

Josh

unread,

May 23, 2013, 10:31:53 PM5/23/13

to

On 5/23/2013 9:09 PM, Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:40:05 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you have been paying attention to how the votes have
>> changed in just a short time on gay marriage. As the older generation
>> dies and a new one grows up, the GOP will have to accept gay rights or
>> go the way of the Whigs.
>

> I wonder why it is that after all these thousands of years, Western
> Civilization suddenly gets a generation who approve of homosexual
> behavior ? I find that most puzzling. Why are they so gullible ?
> Who gulled them ?

Facts. Having been freed from the dogma of religion, people have come
to realize that sexuality is primarily not a choice. All along, all
they had to do was ask people - but that dogma blinded them.

Planet Visitor II

unread,

Message has been deleted

Josh

unread,

May 24, 2013, 5:28:54 PM5/24/13

to

On 5/24/2013 5:21 PM, Gary wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:04:40 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> We come down to one last point. Marriage is not forbidden to gays.
> They can marry anytime they wish.

They cannot marry their lover, and hence anyone for whom it makes any
sense for them to marry.

> how many other victims of mental illnesses are
> encouraged to marry each other ?

You, and the other sickos who think being gay is a mental illness, are
encouraged to marry.

Message has been deleted

Josh

unread,

May 24, 2013, 8:26:18 PM5/24/13

to

On 5/24/2013 5:41 PM, Gary wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:28:54 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2013 5:21 PM, Gary wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:04:40 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> We come down to one last point. Marriage is not forbidden to gays.
>>> They can marry anytime they wish.
>>
>> They cannot marry their lover, and hence anyone for whom it makes any
>> sense for them to marry.
>

> That happens to a lot of people. Not all of us marry the lover of
> our dreams. So how does that make the gay so different ?

Many cannot marry the person of their dreams. But gay people cannot
marry *ANYONE* for whom marriage makes sense.

>>> how many other victims of mental illnesses are
>>> encouraged to marry each other ?
>>
>> You, and the other sickos who think being gay is a mental illness, are
>> encouraged to marry.
>

> I didn't say they are all actually crazy. But they do have a mental
> problem.

No, you have the mental problem.

Message has been deleted