PC Dead in Australia?

Andy;

I do not have blinders on. I am aware of the disenfranchised radical moslem movement. However, your call for awareness is dangerously close to reactionism, as when you make statements like;

<<<<< Unfortunately there are no active terrorists around the world who aren't muslims. >>>>>>>

Utterly wrong. Tell that to various groups in Africa and the 'maoists' in Nepal.

Now, I'm not going to have a discussion which starts from this premise. Period.

It is wrong, it is wrong hearted and wrong headed. I am a conservative. I am aware of coddled PC beliefs in this world of ours and have said so on numerous occasions.

But your premise is wrong. And no one has said you are a bigot.

thank you,

munk
 
Um...please note that this is the Cantina and *Off topic* is our topic.

There is *still* a Political Forum as well as the Whine & Cheese available for exactly this stuff.

Please take it there.
 
My dear Mother used to warn me of conversations that start with premises like; " A few Germans are OK, but they enjoyed roasting Hebrews; yes or no?"

She told me not to discuss anything phrased like that.

thank you, Nasty.



munk
 
Hmm.....we have a saying here........kill one to warn a hundred......I don't know whether that's right or wrong.

But kill 98 to warn the other 2........Na.

Be prepared....don't over react though.
 
There is a revolution in Nepal. An ugly one. That isn't the same. There are, however terrorists in Africa, usually they have power and are governmental. Those are local to their area, have no global influence, .

No one here has answered my call for examples or even tried to refute my argument. Acknowledged the facts about womens rights? Pointed to peaceful historical events?

To say Mohammed was a good guy and compare him to Jesus is ill informed. He was a warlord, a religious zealot, and an oppressive dictator. Did his empire allow religious freedom? What was the penalty of having other beliefs?

Again, I am not trying to kill this thread or anger anyone, but I made an argument and you guys are skirting it. No one has answered it. I don't accept "I am wrong" without logical, factual refudiation.

I conceede the point that 100% of terrorists are muslims. Good point. If I'd said 98% you would have no argument. If I had said Global terrorists you have no argument.

This is what a discussion is all about. Refudiate my argument, or it stands.

Andy
 
However the truth of the matter is that that book contains mandates by Muhammad, a warlord himself, to spread Islam through any means necessary including Jihad (his word).
Click to expand...

Along with a few other statements in your post I don't believe this is true. It was my understanding from listening to "experts" on news programs (so take that with a grain of salt) that the word "jihad" was crafted by the CIA and used to incite some group or another to war on our behalf...has anyone else heard that?

I have to admit that I agree in principle with what Australia is saying. THey are not saying all Muslims must leave the country, rather they are saying that any muslim who refuses to acknowledge the system of laws in place as the Supreme law of the land, should go elsewhere.

I don't think the U.S. should tolerate ANY group within it's borders that doesn't acknowledge the laws of the land----IF/and especially if, that group's beliefs are violent in word or deed. Skinheads, Nation of Islam, Daughters of the American Revolution, or the 4-H club--doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me who blows up my kids, or for what idealogy, or if they wear a turban or a beret while they do it. I don't want anyone to spout hate and encourage violence in this country. Period.

I do think we have to be REALLY careful to avoid a Knee-jerk reaction. We can very quickly find ourselves advocating hate crimes, and even committing them if we let fear take over. This is VERY hard for me to do as I am quite afraid for my kids, and believe me there is a part of me that wants to stock up on supplies and guns and get ready. But I know deep down that we can't go this way without losing any shred we have left of credibility---in other words we won't be able to "walk the walk" with respect to what this country was founded on.
 
Mauirob that is heresay and conspiracy theory and relies on a liberal media that is insane to get power back and knows no limits to their zeal.

I am not advocating hating all Muslims. You guys have me wrong.

I am scared of my daughter falling in love with a Muslim. ie no womens rights.

And I am saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

There has been no attempt to refudiate those arguments with facts. The sum of the Koran is peaceful, like the immense majority of Muslims. That, however is the new position in Islam. The conservative position in the Muslim world is that that was held by Muhammad and his successor and best friend Abu Bakr. Their regimes make Saddam Hussein look like Mary Poppins! Look it up!

I'm not for any Knee Jerk Reactions, I don't want anyone rounded up in groups. All I have done is point out the rediculously obvious, and my Muslim coworker and close family friend agrees.

Andy
 
Andy how do you define a "terrorist"? It's not accurate to say that the Maoist are not terrorists. They use fear or death, torture, and exploitation to gain a political foothold in the country. That, to me, is a terrorist. What about whacky right-winged anti-governement crazies that want to overthrow the government here because it has "wronged" them some how, sometime? The active KKK (the few violent haters left, not the toothless wonders that hold prayers in public for forgiveness and our "ignorance") are terrorists. Just because they do not try to bully me, a white Christian American male, does not mean that they do not instill fear in the hearts of blacks, jews, or anyone else they decide to hate. It sounds like you're saying "100% of Muslim fundimentalists terrorists are Muslim...and that is a fact." Which would be true.
Who cares if Islam WAS a violent religion. Religions get perverted over time. That's why Uncle Bill used to say "Take what you need, and leave the rest". The idea of what Jesus taught 2000 years ago and what the Church became in the middle ages are two VERY different things.

Jake
 
Although over time they have not been I'd have to say that of the well known ones Buddhisim and Christianity, reading the sacred books, the actual words are almost pacifist.

However the Hindu, Jewish, and Islamic sacred books have a lot about war and killing.

Of all the ones mentioned, I'd have to say that based on the worldwide violence today that Islam is the one that has moved the LEAST from the ancient violence. For instance the Taliban doing public execution and mutilation. A lot of the Old Testament Hebrew texts condone similar stuff but you don't see the state of Israel practicing it. The weapons like the trishul used to be used in fighting between sects of Hindus but now they have moved to being ceremonial.

Really the whole thing is for the leaders in that religion to stand up and emphasize the aspects of the religion that promote social order, morality and wellbeing rather than the establishment of some sort of religious state.
 
Really the whole thing is for the leaders in that religion to stand up and emphasize the aspects of the religion that promote social order, morality and wellbeing rather than the establishment of some sort of religious state.
Click to expand...

Good point. I really think Australia is just trying to weed out radical clerics that teach/preach hate which breeds violence.
 
Jake---Good argument. The definition of a terrorist can certainly be argued. I like that. Kink George called the acts of the colonists Terrorism. Was the French resistance terrorism? I know only the basics about the Nepal Maoist problem. I don't like communism, so I tend to lean the other way. I have heard bad things about the king too. The terrorism I refered to is on a global scale. The Islamist extremists are the only group targeting peaceful citizens worldwide. With worldwide goals...the same goals as Muhammad. That was my point.

Someone earlier said Islam was peaceful. In truth the majority of its followers are peaceful I agree. The religion, however, has its roots in violence and oppression. Jesus (I am not a Christian) lived a peaceful life and spread his message through his great sacrifice. Muhammad was a warlord who spread his message through oppression. This is the fundamental difference. Of course there are no perfect religions, and HUMAN zealots have distorted the message throughout history. To say this generation of Islamists is the first with these extreme views is false. Its the first generation of extremists who are not the majority.

Andy
 
This thread does not appear to be turning hostile or blowing up so thus far it is left running. Thank you all for keeping your heads.



munk
 
You can read an intepretation/translation of the Koran online:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

From the excerpts that I've had to read for my history class, it seems that the Koran is tolerant to other "People of the Book" - that is, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, but does not speak favorably of pagans or heretics. (but neither do most monotheistic religions).

aproy101, you say that
"The religion, however, has its roots in violence and oppression. Jesus (I am not a Christian) lived a peaceful life and spread his message through his great sacrifice. Muhammad was a warlord who spread his message through oppression. This is the fundamental difference."

I don't believe this was true, at least from a historical perspective.

During the Muslim conquests of the early middle ages, the Muslims were much more tolerant of other religions than the Christian empires had been.

The Orthodox Christians, under the Roman Empire or the Pope, would come down hard on heretical Christians with even slightly different beliefs regarding the nature of God. Anti-semitism was widespread in the Christian empires of that time, if you read some of their law codes.

Muslims viewed the other "People of the Book" as misguided, but not necessarily enemies. In some situations, they were quite friendly towards other religions (they helped the Coptic Christian church in Alexandria).

Muhammad was both a warlord and spiritual leader. He did fight to unite the Arabian tribes around Mecca, although I would not say he was attempting to oppress other religions.

Claiming that Muhammad was particularly bloodthirsty or violent for doing so would not make sense - even the Popes played political games to increase their power. It is a common thing in the history of organized religion.

Later, the Muslims would conquer more territory. The Roman and Persian empires were both weak at that time and it left a power vacuum, but that was after Muhammad's death.
 
There is no doubt that the Popes were misguided. That does not change the historical facts about Muhammad. The fact is that he spread his message in a totaly different way than Jesus. There is a fundamental difference there. My coworker Saheed, a close family friend, agrees that major portions of the Koran are peaceful. You must look at religious texts, including the Bible, and realize that there are darker parts to all religious texts. Fundamentalists in each religion believe these texts word for word. Many modern peaceful Christian religions in America operate this way. Fundamental Muslims are no different. The darker parts are just as sacred to them, even though outdated, as the peaceful parts. I have not studied the Koran, but I trust my friend Saheed who fled Saudi Arabia with his family (2 daughters, 1 son) in order to find a more peaceful, profitable, and much less fundamentalist environment to surround his family in. He says there are parts of his holy book he very carefully teaches his family are barbaric. Islam is mandaded to be the state religion. If you live in a secular state then you must try to change that state to Shira Law. Once accomplished you must try to change neighboring states in the same way. This is the type of teaching the Australians are railing against. Those radical Islamists also teach martyrdom as a means of achieving Heaven (12 virgins) in the afterlife. This philosophy until recently was the Majority opinion of Muslims.

During Muhammad's reign religious persecution of other religions was common. Also the rights of people with other beliefs were severly restricted. ie. no property rights, no weapons etc. Abu Bakr was worse! Ask the Indians who fell under Muslim domination on several ocasions!

Yesterday I was wrong to persue this argument so aggressively. I apologize to everyone who has read this thread. I feel that our society is so focused on inclusion and sensitivity that we have lost our ability to meet a threat. I don't condone any overreaction, only the readiness and the willingness to die for liberty that our forefathers showed and put in the great US Constitution. I believe this readiness is no longer PC and so I rail against PC as un-American.

Again I apologize if I offended. Saheed has read my posts and chastized me for some of my statements. So, no excuses, I am sorry.

Andy
 
No problem Andy:) I have done my share of angry posting and regretted it--we all make mistakes. That's what's great about HI forum/Cantina, we're all human and we forgive most things:cool: I often get disgusted with things that are said and done in this country in the name of PC. And I completely understand your concerns about radical Islam here and abroad, because I have them too.

These are scary times. Of course every time I say that I realize that every generation (or most) has said the same thing.
 
aproy1101 said:
That does not change the historical facts about Muhammad. The fact is that he spread his message in a totaly different way than Jesus.

...

During Muhammad's reign religious persecution of other religions was common. Also the rights of people with other beliefs were severly restricted. ie. no property rights, no weapons etc. Abu Bakr was worse! Ask the Indians who fell under Muslim domination on several ocasions!
Click to expand...

What you say is true, I am simply trying to make the point that what the Muslims did was not bad for the standards of their time. I'm sure that no empire in early history allowed anything close to the freedoms we have today.

I also think you are correct in that the early Christians tried to spread their religion peacefully, up until the point where religion got entangled with the state. After emperor Constantine, it seems like the "Christians" in power became less tolerant of other religions, and more likely to use force. You know what they say with power and how it corrupts... a good reason to keep church and state seperate, pehaps?

Islam and the Muslim state were kind of entangled from the beginning, which might explain the more warlike spread.
 
Thank you all for understanding. True, Khuk Monster, as an empire when compared with their peers they were at least average. Hell as an empire when copared with more modern empires not so bad (Soviet Union, British, Spanish). But as an religious movement? I'll leave the judgement up to you. Saheed gives an average to poor grade. I will respectfully withhold my opinion here.

Andy
 
You can always look to ancient texts and see justifications for violence, and that's true of both Christians and Muslims. But the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are not violent, and neither are their religions. And if you look at what is happening now, you will acknowledge the start of a challenge to the radical elements- as you have emerging democracies in both Afganistan and Iraq and Lebanon. The middle class in Iran has long been the biggest obstacle for the extreme religious zealots in control of Iran.
It is not true that Muslims are violent. It is not true that their religion teaches violence. You can always quote out of context.

Having a single friend who is a Muslim answering these questions for you is not a good reference. Joe says and he's a Moslem so it must be so.

We are bearing the fruit of many decades of ignorance. Entire generations of young Moslem have been raised to use the US as a whipping Boy. Looking at these disenfranchised youth does not count for hundreds of years of relative peace.

Our enemy has always been radical Wahhabism. The Wahhabis have been historically despised by other Moslems- because the Wahhabis blow other Moslems up just like they are blowing up Night clubs across the world.

It is true we have a European press that is sympathetic to anti Western and anti Washington beliefs. That will change if things get real bad, and they may have to get real bad before France and Germany see the truth.

But the truth is our battle is not against Islam, but against murderers who would use Islam as a pretext for violence. This is a familiar story.

There is a temptation in thinking to simplify things to make them understandable. Simplifying Islam to a the single problem is neither accurate nor beneficial. It is the same hysterical 'easy solution' every generation is offered and every generation must turn down. The Nazis once thought eliminating Jews would be such an answer.

For those of you who would point to the poor place Islam seems to have put it's Women- I would point out to you it was only recently in the US women had the right to vote.

So, if a hundred years seperation is 'proof' Islam is ignorant and violent, then you are not a student of history, you are a student of fashion. And if you are a student of fashion, then you are subject to whatever bandwagon and bright promise seems best at the time.

If you were a baby, we'd call these bobbles and nothings.

That some media and academic outlets are casting a blind eye to the ills of radical Islam is true. Where is the praise for women voting in Afganistan and Iraq from our libreral press? It is muted because any thing that gives credit to Bush and the Republicans is deemphasized.

But to lump tens of millions of innocent men, women and children into 'Islam is a violent religion" is an insult to the intelligence of everyone on this forum.

It is along the lines of, 'Southern Baptists are bigots"

And this is truly, all I have to say about this matter.

Dissenters are welcome to respond, but I will not be responding again. And remember to keep it friendly, because I will probably have to 'recuse' myself from moderating this thread if things go wrong. And if that happens, you can bet this thread will be dropkicked out of here by mods with far less patience for politics!


munk
 
Good & balanced books (including "What Went Wrong?") have been written on this subject by Bernard Lewis. :thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top