I commend everyone

[DigitalBuddha]

Looks like people are getting pissed at this shit and organizing.........

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30774114

[Hominid]

...as they should.  I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked.  But that's me.

[DigitalBuddha]

...as they should.  I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked.  But that's me.

>>> THIS is islam; perhaps it's time to designate islam as an International Terrorist Organization and Movement, and then outlaw it's practice, just as nazism was in Germany?

Yes, I know...freedom of religion, most of us believe in it, as I do. But the freedom to murder, oppress and terrorize under the influence of your religion?

Just a Reminder: African Boko Haram Terrorists Killed an ENTIRE Town of People Last Week...

http://www.libertynews.com/2015/01/just-a-reminder-african-boko-haram-terrorists-killed-an-entire-town-of-people-last-week/

[DigitalBuddha]

What does the Religion of Peace Teach About...

Violence

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Nuff said...IMHO.

[meekon5]

It worries me when I see this line of conversation.

I do not condone what happened in Paris, nor the African situation, neither am I making excuses for the extremists, but let's remember this is a few ass hats conveniently choosing what they do and don't comply with in a book they choose to make significant.

from The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west :

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

I recommend

J.K. Rowling takes Rupert Murdoch to Hogwarts School over his Islamophobia

please see also (from Rowling's tweet).

It is easy to quote inflammatory passages of the quran, but there are some just as inflammatory passages in the bible.

No one has mentioned Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism.

Also try to remember you are tarring almost a third of the worlds population (23.20% by 2010 figures) with the same brush .

And finally look again to your own government.

I remember how quickly the media ramped up just after the Oklahoma Bombing, and how fast the US state was to point fingers at Islamist Extremists even then, only to look a bit sheepish when they found out it was a domestic Caucasian guy with a problem with local government.

What are they up to whilst they have you gnashing you're teeth and shouting about the Muslim threat (not a new theme for governments).

Look closer at the "measures" and legislation they "have to" bring in for your "safety".

Police in London major rail stations are now openly and obviously armed.

(Just thought that there is another point of view, not just the Islamist Extremist and the Anti-Islamist Extremist one).

[BikerDude]

Both conservatives and liberals do this, though for different reasons. Liberals because they worship multiculturalism, reflexively favor any minority over its majority, and can't bring themselves to make value judgments. Conservatives because they are too closely bound to similarly flawed belief systems - they've just had a few more centuries to stop killing people who disagree with their imaginary friend.

Well stated!
We generally get to choose between 2 realities.
1.The "Rose Colored Glasses" version of liberal reality where ideas become sacrosanct and interchangeable with identity For instance Ben Affleck's ridiculous insistence on comparing criticism of Islam to racism which is obviously absurd. You can convert to Islam but can't convert to being black. Beliefs are beliefs and as such open to criticism without charges of racism.
2. Out crazying the crazies. Ann Coulter saying  "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Well actually you can pick any of a huge number of quotes. That is just appropriate in this context.

This is what you get in a world with this sort of Religious lunacy.
If there is any hope for change it is a slow change in perception to a place where religious ideas are evaluated in the same way as any other type of idea. Where the absurd is required to stand some type of basic test of credulity and acceptance of the absurd is treated the same in all contexts. Belief in Big Foot being equivalent to belief in the resurrection.
In other words we are probably fucked in a country so full of Idiots.
Never happen. We are probably more likely to eventually imprison people who even suggest it. They win.

[DigitalBuddha]

It worries me when I see this line of conversation.

I do not condone what happened in Paris, nor the African situation, neither am I making excuses for the extremists, but let's remember this is a few ass hats conveniently choosing what they do and don't comply with in a book they choose to make significant.

from The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west :

The establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria poses a far greater threat to Muslims than it does to the west. Western government may worry sleeper cells at home or radicalised Muslims travelling back from Iraq, but it is Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have most to worry about from the Islamic State. Even the brutal and horrifying decapitation of the journalist James Foley doesn't change anything - the number of Iraqis executed by Islamic State fighters is far, far more.

I recommend

J.K. Rowling takes Rupert Murdoch to Hogwarts School over his Islamophobia

please see also (from Rowling's tweet).

It is easy to quote inflammatory passages of the quran, but there are some just as inflammatory passages in the bible.

No one has mentioned Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism.

Also try to remember you are tarring almost a third of the worlds population (23.20% by 2010 figures) with the same brush .

And finally look again to your own government.

I remember how quickly the media ramped up just after the Oklahoma Bombing, and how fast the US state was to point fingers at Islamist Extremists even then, only to look a bit sheepish when they found out it was a domestic Caucasian guy with a problem with local government.

What are they up to whilst they have you gnashing you're teeth and shouting about the Muslim threat (not a new theme for governments).

Look closer at the "measures" and legislation they "have to" bring in for your "safety".

Police in London major rail stations are now openly and obviously armed.

(Just thought that there is another point of view, not just the Islamist Extremist and the Anti-Islamist Extremist one).

There is always the danger of attacking people in an organization simply because of the behavior of a few within it. I agree with that. But, being overly concerned for that problem can also blind people to recognizing and dealing with a real threat coming from the organization. I'm sure there were nazis in WWII that were more or less peaceful, but nazism was certainly not.

Check this out.............

The 'peaceful Muslims' question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSS-dR5dmk

[DigitalBuddha]

Largest Demonstration in History: 3.7 million March in France to Honor Attack Victims

https://heiscomingblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/largest-demonstration-in-history-3-7-million-march-in-france-to-honor-attack-victims/

[BikerDude]

It worries me when I see this line of conversation.

It worries me not to see it enough.
Or that making the obvious observation that these jerks are telling the truth when they say that they are motivated by Islam is tantamount to being a member of the Klan.
As an atheist I increasingly resent being told that I need to differentiate one version of religion x from another version. When I see people acting on verses in a holy book that are not in any way vague or ambiguous and I'm told that I need to not hate the beliefs just some subset of the believers. It's like some guy leaving a loaded gun laying around on his front porch and when somebody picks them up and shoots a bullet through the wall of my house I should not blame the guy who left the gun out. Personally I don't care about parsing through the meanings of these books. I think it's pretty clear that they are metaphorically a loaded gun and I personally resent  the way people of religions duck responsibility for acts done in the exact spirit of the "teachings" contained in them. Why should the world suffer for this lunacy. Telling me that most people don't practice it is like telling me that most people walk past the loaded gun and don't pick it up. It's beside the point.

And I don't reserve my Ire for Islam. I believe that there is a huge upswing in the "Death Cult" version of evangelical Christianity. At least in the US. There is a version of Christianity that truly stands as a looming threat.
Something like half the population of the US truly believing that Christ will return in their lifetime and bring about the end times with all of the Apocalyptic tongues of fire and death to non Christians.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/
A portion of the population would  cheer as the missile trails rise from the prairies of Kansas so long as they were adequately certain that it was Jesus behind it.

Most chilling, though, is the willingness to engage in what?s known in the Word of Faith world as ?revelation knowledge,? or believing, as Copeland exhorted his audience to do, that you learn nothing from journalism or academia, but rather just from the Bible and its modern ?prophets.? It is in this way that the self-styled prophets have had their greatest impact on our political culture: by producing a political class, and its foot soldiers, who believe that God has imparted them with divine knowledge that supersedes what all the evil secularists would have you believe.

Last week CNN?s Jack Cafferty asked, ?How much does it worry you if both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to dominionism?? That worry crops up every election cycle. If people really understood dominionism, they?d worry about it between election cycles.

And a significant number of the republican candidates for President were self affirmed to be of the part of the faith that embrace this stuff.(Now you can include Ted Cruz,Ralph Reed,Sam Brownback, and even Rand Paul)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2013/10/06/christian-dominionists-in-the-us-congress-today-or-a-book-review-of-christian-nation-by-fredric-c-rich/
And the idea the Christians should establish a theocracy to make ready for the end times. It's really not tin foil hat stuff.
They are open about it. How did we get to a place where a significant number of Candidates for the Presidency of the largest nuclear power in the world, with the largest standing army in the world truly believe it is their duty to make ready for the end times and nobody really is very disturbed by it? Wow!
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/21/posner_nar_dominionism/

[BikerDude]

...as they should.  I say cull the herd of any such assholes, no questions asked.  But that's me.

Well I've heard people take note that they do gather at Mecca every year.

[Hominid]

Great find DB.  And M5: yes, there are as many examples in the bible showing Christianity to be anything BUT peaceful.  The issue isn't whether we should give safe harbour to the peaceful Muslims, Jews, or Christians... the real issue is that ALL these old-world religious writings should be seen for what they are: contradictory and violent. You'll get one chapter espousing peace, and another one espousing violence, misogyny, you name it.  If a Muslim or a Christian decides to interpret their religion to be peaceful, that is telling of their personality.  Same for the ones who decide to be violent, as there is more than enough in the Quran (and the bible) for anyone looking for inspiration to be evil and violent.

[BikerDude]

Great find DB.  And M5: yes, there are as many examples in the bible showing Christianity to be anything BUT peaceful.  The issue isn't whether we should give safe harbour to the peaceful Muslims, Jews, or Christians... the real issue is that ALL these old-world religious writings should be seen for what they are: contradictory and violent. You'll get one chapter espousing peace, and another one espousing violence, misogyny, you name it.  If a Muslim or a Christian decides to interpret their religion to be peaceful, that is telling of their personality.  Same for the ones who decide to be violent, as there is more than enough in the Quran (and the bible) for anyone looking for inspiration to be evil and violent.

Then I'll ask the same "Silly" question I always ask when people take this track.
Then what good is any of it?
I naively thought they were all supposed to suggest some type of answers or guidance.
But apparently you might as well be reading my little pony.

And I reject the idea that it is interpretation. It is a matter of ignoring parts.
Some things just aren't open to interpretation.
It's like the pathetic dodge that moderate Muslims use where the say that Jihad is actually supposed to be an "internal battle". Cmon. Give me a break. Or when Christians insist that they "used to treat slaves better in those days" despite all of the instruction about the ways you can beat your slaves to the edge of death.

It's like if you can get past the fact that you are taking advice from people who kept slaves, advocated the whole sale extermination of people of other tribes, treated women like cattle, clearly believed in magic etc etc then there is some real wisdom to be gained at the core. Sorry I seriously doubt it.  In the market for a credo to live by I'd say getting any of that stuff so completely wrong sort of eliminates said credo from any serious consideration.
These just are not small details. It would be like going half way around the world and finding a Witch Doctor in deepest Africa and asking him for investment advice.

[Hominid]

You're right; we don't need any of it. That's kinda my point: the fact that these writings are self-contradictory should keep any sane person away from them.  I've always said that the best evidence against the bible is the bible itself.  Same for the Quran.  But these belief systems are so entrenched in society, leaving them behind isn't going to happen overnight.

[BikerDude]

You're right; we don't need any of it. That's kinda my point: the fact that these writings are self-contradictory should keep any sane person away from them.  I've always said that the best evidence against the bible is the bible itself.  Same for the Quran.  But these belief systems are so entrenched in society, leaving them behind isn't going to happen overnight.

Oh yeah. We're fucked.
That is beyond any doubt. Do they have a rapture in Islam?
Maybe all of em will get raptured.
Aren't they all supposed to go into a big hole somewhere and come out after the first of the tribulations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=186Hvzh6II4

OK.
I'm out.
I promise.
I don't need to sweat this shit.

[jgiffin]

Here's the problem: islam is a religion of conquest and subjugation, with an overtly theocratic worldview, followed by roughly 1 billion people, possessed of texts and oral histories (not just the koran, look also to the hadiths and sunnahs) which mandate or condone oceans of violent absurdities. Even if the percentage of those acting on a literal reading of the texts is small (and it likely is - else they'd already have suicide bombed themselves into extinction or formed a caliphate susceptible to traditional warfare against a nation state) a substantially larger sect endorses or tolerates their actions and none take up arms against them based on their beliefs. Yes, of course muslims are fighting muslims (see, e.g., perpetual war between sunnis and shiites), but it's not - to my knowledge - ever been a war to "moderate" their beliefs or, gasp, reform their outmoded ways. The more common reasons for inter-muslim war are the usual suspects everywhere: power, money, land, resources, ancient disputes, control, etc.

I'm not persuaded by statistics demonstrating muslims pose more danger to themselves than the rest of the world. It's true enough but not the question. If they posed "no" danger to the western world I'd say fine and leave them to it. That's not the case and, given globalization, integration, and vigorous western imperialism, won't be the case in my lifetime. Speaking of the latter element, the rest of the world (US, especially) doesn't help things. Just look at the past 150 years - we've invaded, colonized, arbitrarily apportioned, attacked, occupied, destroyed, rebuilt, propped up, destroyed (redux), and rebuilt muslim lands ad nauseam. If we could learn from our own histories, then "isolationist" wouldn't be viewed as an epithet; it would be acknowledged as a world view affirming the inherent capacities and moral responsibilities for people to manage themselves.

Muslims have legitimate criticisms of western action; but cartoons depicting a bigamist, slave-owning, pedophile prophet (see, e.g., Aisha and ten or eleven other wives, the counts vary) isn't one. And this brings it all home - islam is simply different at this moment in time. Batshitcrazy as christian fundamentalists and rapture-hatted doomsdayers might be, they're not routinely engaged in wholesale premeditated murder, supported by the "moderate" of their faith, and promising to convert, enslave, or kill the rest of the world.

Sam Harris pointed out we just can't afford to tolerate a religion like this given the clear and deadly risks it poses. I agree. I'm not willing to continue risking my life so muslims can freely practice a religion of hate. The only rational counter to "convert or die" is "renounce your faith or be exterminated."