First Angela Merkel, now David Cameron. If only these fools had used their common sense to work out what most people realized 10 years ago, Europe would be a much richer, more stable place. Within 60 years Europe murdered and drove out the Jews and brought in Muslims to take their place. That qualifies for 'two of the most idiotic actions ever taken in world history'. Look forward to another post on this subject coming soon.
Notice how he even stands up for the Muslims "We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing," but the Muslims are the first to cry foul and bitch about the PM picking on them. They know fully well what's up, and that their gravy train may be coming to a sudden halt. Hence their lamentations against the evil bully PM who just needs to sit down and have a round table discussion to understand why the poor, downtrodden Muslims are so misunderstood.
"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.
"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?
"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."
Here's the full transcript, it turns out he does refer directly to Islam, many times.
People of the UK, including Cliffbyford, you now have a credible leader opposing the way Islam has trodden all over your faces and wiped its ass (arse) on your carpet. You are no longer being forced to either stand by idly or join the ranks of the BNP Jugend. This is a good day for your country, and in turn, Europe.
PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference
Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism.
But first, let me address one point.
Some have suggested that by holding a Strategic Defence and Security Review, Britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world.
This is the complete reversal of the truth.
Yes, we are dealing with the deficit, but we are also making sure our defences are strong.
Britain will continue to meet the NATO two per cent target for defence spending.
We still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.
And at the same time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army.
That’s not retreat, it’s hard headed. Every decision we take has three aims firmly in mind.
First, to support our continuing NATO mission in Afghanistan.
Second, to reinforce our actual military capability.
As Chancellor Merkel’s government is showing here in Germany what matters is not bureaucracy – which frankly Europe needs a lot less of – but the political will to build the military capability we need, as nations and allies, to deliver in the field.
And third, to make sure Britain is protected from the new and various threats it faces.
That’s why we’re investing in a national cyber-security programme and sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.
The biggest threat to our security comes from terrorist attacks – some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens.
It’s important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group.
The UK still faces threats from dissident republicans.
Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and Italy.
And of course, yourselves in Germany were long-scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction.
Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse and warped interpretation of Islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens.
Last week at Davos, I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism.
And today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark.
We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders.
Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries.
Root of the problem
Of course, that means strengthening the security aspects of our response – on tracing plots and stopping them, counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.
But this is just part of the answer. We have to get to the root of the problem.
We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, ‘Islamist extremism’.
And we should be equally clear what we mean by this term, distinguishing it from Islam.
Islam is a religion, observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology, supported by a minority.
At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of sharia.
Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.
It’s vital we make this distinction between the religion and the political ideology.
Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion.
So they talk about ‘moderate’ Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is wrong.
Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist.
We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.
Muddled thinking
This highlights a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat we face: there is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue.
On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say:
Islam and the West are in irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations.
So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion – whether that’s through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe.
These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.
If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo.
Hundreds of thousands people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.
The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not.
Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to confront the former.
On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction.
They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and arguing if only governments addressed them, this terrorism would stop.
So they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say: get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.
But this ignores that fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK have been graduates, and often middle class.
They point to the grievances about Western foreign policy and say: stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.
But there are many people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who are angry about western foreign policy and don’t resort to acts of terrorism.
They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say: stop propping them up and creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.
But this raises the question: if a lack of democracy is the problem, why are there extremists in free and open societies?
Now, I am not saying these issues aren’t important.
Yes, we must tackle poverty.
Yes, we must resolve sources of tension – not least in Palestine.
And yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the Middle East.
On Egypt, our position is clear: we want to see the transition to a more broadly based government with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society.
I simply don’t accept that there’s a dead-end choice between a security state and Islamist resistance.
But let’s not fool ourselves, these are just contributory factors. Even if we sorted out all these problems, there would still be this terrorism.
Identity and radicalisation
The root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology.
And I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.
What I’m about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all.
In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practised at home by their parents whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries.
But they also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.
We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.
We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.
So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them.
But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.
The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone they don’t want to is a case in point.
This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared.
All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.
And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology.
For sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight.
What we see is a process of radicalisation.
Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated.
In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere.
In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.
All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.
You might say: as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what’s the problem with all this?
I’ll tell you why.
As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’ and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.
And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.
And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.
So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.
And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone.
Let me briefly take each in turn.
Tackle all forms of extremism
First, confronting and undermining his ideology.
Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed.
For governments, there are obvious ways we can do that.
We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.
We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism – against people at home and abroad.
Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are certainly, in some cases, part of the problem.
We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with.
Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism.
As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.
So let’s properly judge these organisations:
Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?
Do they believe in equality of all before the law?
Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?
Do they encourage integration or separatism?
These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.
Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations.
No public money. No sharing of platforms with Ministers at home.
At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly funded institutions – like universities and prisons.
Some say: this is incompatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.
I say: would you take the same view if right-wing extremists were recruiting on campuses?
Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believe Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in prison?
And to those who say these non-violent extremists are helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.
Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to lure young white men away from fascist terrorism?
But, at root, challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are –completely unjustifiable.
We need to argue that terrorism is wrong – in all circumstances.
We need to argue that their prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world are rubbish.
Governments cannot do this alone.
The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam.
So let’s give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview.
Let’s engage groups that share our aspirations.
Stronger citizenship
Second, we must build stronger societies and identities at home.
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.
A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.
It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.
It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.
It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.
To belong here is to believe in these things.
Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.
There are practical things we can do as well.
That includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home.
And ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum.
Back home, we are introducing National Citizen Service – a two-month programme for sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together.
I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people.
That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods.
It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too.
It’s that identity – that feeling of belonging in our countries that is the key to achieving true cohesion.
Conclusion
Let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us.
It can’t be ignored or contained.
We need to confront it with confidence.
Confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many minds at their root.
And confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.
None of this will be easy. We need stamina, patience and endurance. And it won’t happen at all if we act alone.
This ideology crosses continents – we are all in this together.
At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.
That’s why this is a challenge we cannot avoid – and one we must meet
PowerSlaveToTheGrind wrote:I admit to being a Tory, but at the same time, great idea to make this speech today Dave, what with the right wing lunatics protesting in Luton...
Yes, that was pretty poor timing from Cameron in deciding to make this speech and I also feel that the argument that he was trying to make was flawed. While I certainly agree that more should be done in the UK to combat extremism, you're never going to achieve total integration into British society because there will always be some who prefer to stick with their ways of life and form their own little communities. The Brits are just as guilty of this. Look at our ex-pats in Spain for an obvious example.
Multiculturalism has little to do with extremism. The latter is the result of inequality - be it a sense of injustice or a lack of education through social or academic reasons - that leads to ignorance. But I'm not convinced that the ConDems will really tackle this problem and are more likely to make it worse. After all, they're too busy destroying what's left of the UK's public sector to concern themselves over certain sections of the country's ethnic minorities.
"Hey Butt-Head. What did people do before TV?" "Don't be stupid, Beavis. There's always been TV. There's just more channels now." "Oh yeah, progress is cool!"
Kerry King's Pentagram wrote:
Multiculturalism has little to do with extremism. The latter is the result of inequality - be it a sense of injustice or a lack of education through social or academic reasons - that leads to ignorance.
Blaming extremism on inequality now.. blame everything but the real cause, that's the way! You couldn't be further from the truth. Here is just one example:
A New York television executive has been convicted of stabbing his wife to death (40 times) and beheading her.
Muzzammil Hassan graduated magna cum laude with an MBA from the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester in 1996.
"How dare she file for divorce? How dare she attempt to gain control over her own life, her own future, and the lives and future of the children?" prosecutor Curtin Gable said. "How dare she expose him for what he'd done to her? How dare she tell him enough is enough? He was not going to let that happen."
Islam decrees that a man owns his wife. Divorce or adultery is punishable by death. It's called honor killing, ask the Harry Potter chick whose dad and brother wanted to kill her for dating a non-Muslim.
The Fort Hood shooter, was he running around shooting soldiers while shouting 'Allah Akbah' because of a lack of education too?
More examples:
2007 Glasgow International Airport attack: Police identified him as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital
On 29 June 2007, in London, two car bombs were discovered and disabled before they could be detonated. Bilal Abdullah was born on 17 September 1980[1] in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire,[2] where his father, also a doctor, worked. He qualified in Baghdad in 2004 and first registered as a doctor in the UK in 2006.
The Times Square Bomber: Shahzad was granted a permanent residence status (a "green card") in January 2006.[21] He bought a new single-family three-bedroom home in Shelton, Connecticut, just outside Bridgeport in 2006, at which the family lived.[3][37][44] From mid-June 2006 to June 2009, Shahzad worked as a junior financial analyst, a position he told a friend paid $70,000, for Affinion Group, an affinity marketing and consulting business[45] then located at 100 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut.
want more?
Blaming extremism on inequality or lack of education is the most piss-weak argument I've heard in a long time. You don't think the extremism might not come from the very book that commands it's followers to kill in the name of Allah? The same book that commands them to kill and destroy everything that stands in the way of their religion? That commands them to oppress women and infidels?
PowerSlaveToTheGrind wrote:I admit to being a Tory, but at the same time, great idea to make this speech today Dave, what with the right wing lunatics protesting in Luton...
Dave wrote:"The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not."
You seem to have trouble understanding this, don't you SmokingGun?
Not at all. Tell me, what is the ideology of Islam, if not extremism? How many dozens of passages command extreme measures and punishments towards infidels, women, Christians, Jews? Rape, torture, death. These commands for Muslims to follow are not extreme?
Kerry King's Pentagram wrote:
Multiculturalism has little to do with extremism. The latter is the result of inequality - be it a sense of injustice or a lack of education through social or academic reasons - that leads to ignorance.
Blaming extremism on inequality now.. blame everything but the real cause, that's the way! You couldn't be further from the truth. Here is just one example:
A New York television executive has been convicted of stabbing his wife to death (40 times) and beheading her.
Muzzammil Hassan graduated magna cum laude with an MBA from the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester in 1996.
"How dare she file for divorce? How dare she attempt to gain control over her own life, her own future, and the lives and future of the children?" prosecutor Curtin Gable said. "How dare she expose him for what he'd done to her? How dare she tell him enough is enough? He was not going to let that happen."
Islam decrees that a man owns his wife. Divorce or adultery is punishable by death. It's called honor killing, ask the Harry Potter chick whose dad and brother wanted to kill her for dating a non-Muslim.
The Fort Hood shooter, was he running around shooting soldiers while shouting 'Allah Akbah' because of a lack of education too?
More examples:
2007 Glasgow International Airport attack: Police identified him as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital
On 29 June 2007, in London, two car bombs were discovered and disabled before they could be detonated. Bilal Abdullah was born on 17 September 1980[1] in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire,[2] where his father, also a doctor, worked. He qualified in Baghdad in 2004 and first registered as a doctor in the UK in 2006.
The Times Square Bomber: Shahzad was granted a permanent residence status (a "green card") in January 2006.[21] He bought a new single-family three-bedroom home in Shelton, Connecticut, just outside Bridgeport in 2006, at which the family lived.[3][37][44] From mid-June 2006 to June 2009, Shahzad worked as a junior financial analyst, a position he told a friend paid $70,000, for Affinion Group, an affinity marketing and consulting business[45] then located at 100 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut.
want more?
Blaming extremism on inequality or lack of education is the most piss-weak argument I've heard in a long time. You don't think the extremism might not come from the very book that commands it's followers to kill in the name of Allah? The same book that commands them to kill and destroy everything that stands in the way of their religion? That commands them to oppress women and infidels?
PowerSlaveToTheGrind wrote:I admit to being a Tory, but at the same time, great idea to make this speech today Dave, what with the right wing lunatics protesting in Luton...
Dave wrote:"The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not."
You seem to have trouble understanding this, don't you SmokingGun?
Not at all. Tell me, what is the ideology of Islam, if not extremism? How many dozens of passages command extreme measures and punishments towards infidels, women, Christians, Jews? Rape, torture, death. These commands for Muslims to follow are not extreme?
Multiculturalism has little to do with extremism. The latter is the result of inequality - be it a sense of injustice or a lack of education through social or academic reasons - that leads to ignorance.
Blaming extremism on inequality now.. blame everything but the real cause, that's the way! You couldn't be further from the truth. Here is just one example:
A New York television executive has been convicted of stabbing his wife to death (40 times) and beheading her.
Muzzammil Hassan graduated magna cum laude with an MBA from the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester in 1996.
"How dare she file for divorce? How dare she attempt to gain control over her own life, her own future, and the lives and future of the children?" prosecutor Curtin Gable said. "How dare she expose him for what he'd done to her? How dare she tell him enough is enough? He was not going to let that happen."
Islam decrees that a man owns his wife. Divorce or adultery is punishable by death. It's called honor killing, ask the Harry Potter chick whose dad and brother wanted to kill her for dating a non-Muslim.
The Fort Hood shooter, was he running around shooting soldiers while shouting 'Allah Akbah' because of a lack of education too?
More examples:
2007 Glasgow International Airport attack: Police identified him as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital
On 29 June 2007, in London, two car bombs were discovered and disabled before they could be detonated. Bilal Abdullah was born on 17 September 1980[1] in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire,[2] where his father, also a doctor, worked. He qualified in Baghdad in 2004 and first registered as a doctor in the UK in 2006.
The Times Square Bomber: Shahzad was granted a permanent residence status (a "green card") in January 2006.[21] He bought a new single-family three-bedroom home in Shelton, Connecticut, just outside Bridgeport in 2006, at which the family lived.[3][37][44] From mid-June 2006 to June 2009, Shahzad worked as a junior financial analyst, a position he told a friend paid $70,000, for Affinion Group, an affinity marketing and consulting business[45] then located at 100 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut.
want more?
Blaming extremism on inequality or lack of education is the most piss-weak argument I've heard in a long time. You don't think the extremism might not come from the very book that commands it's followers to kill in the name of Allah? The same book that commands them to kill and destroy everything that stands in the way of their religion? That commands them to oppress women and infidels?
PowerSlaveToTheGrind:I admit to being a Tory, but at the same time, great idea to make this speech today Dave, what with the right wing lunatics protesting in Luton...
Dave wrote:"The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem. Islam, emphatically, is not."
You seem to have trouble understanding this, don't you SmokingGun?
Not at all. Tell me, what is the ideology of Islam, if not extremism? How many dozens of passages command extreme measures and punishments towards infidels, women, Christians, Jews? Rape, torture, death. These commands for Muslims to follow are not extreme?
um, ever heard of the old testament?
Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
Citing your recent example of Asian gangs in Britain, have you ever considered the fact that these people are just rapists and haven't used their religion as justification? There are plenty of white rapist gangs around too, you've just made an assumption that because they are of Pakistani origin, they are Muslims and are using their religion as an excuse to commit these acts as it fits your Islamophobic agenda.
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
Citing your recent example of Asian gangs in Britain, have you ever considered the fact that these people are just rapists and haven't used their religion as justification? There are plenty of white rapist gangs around too, you've just made an assumption that because they are of Pakistani origin, they are Muslims and are using their religion as an excuse to commit these acts as it fits your Islamophobic agenda.
But a majority are Muslims, and the Koran does allow them to take non-Muslim women as victims. Muslim girls are off limits. Jack Straw worded it carefully, but look where the responses come from, and what they say.
"The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there."
She's talking about Muslim girls, who according to the Koran must be kept pure and untouched until married. Infidel chicks are not off-limits, many Imams and other Muslim leaders have said that the way non-Muslim women dress is asking for trouble. Some even say outright that they are asking to be raped.
--------
(Jack) Straw told the BBC: "These young men... act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.
....
But Straw is now receiving support, not least from members of the
Asian community.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim Ramadhan Foundation youth group, said: "These young men do not see white
girls as equal, as valuable, of high moral standing as they see their
own daughters, and their own sisters, and I think that's wrong. It's a form of racism that's abhorrent in a civilised society."
"I first raised this two or three years ago and I got a lot of stick
within the community from people who said I was doing the work of the BNP and stigmatising them."
.....
The feminist Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has also backed
Straw. Writing in the Independent about the Derby gang she says: "The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there."
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.
The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
which new testament?
quick do a google search. there's like 30 of them .
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
Ha! Once, years ago now, I was on Red State and I mentioned the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. One of the regulars actually said that what Jesus said were jjust suggestions, but that the OT had the Law.
Not all Christians follow the NT....to think that you have to have not paid attention to very much in this country for fucking decades. Where do the fundies default to when they want something banned or not made legal? Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not in the NT last time I looked. Neither are the Ten Commandments, Psalms, and the two Creation myths in Genesis amongst other things.
Me..I like the Beatitudes. And a couple of lines form the Book of Ruth, they were used as a reading in my wedding, because I had left my church (Catholic) for his Epsicopalian (not that hard, same bells and smells ) to marry him.
As for some Jews using the letter of the law in the OT..heh, again, while you focus on the evil Muslims, you ignore the crazy settler fundies in the West Bank.
My bubbie, king of the hill 1999-2013
LJP 2002-2014
Quick beats in an icy heart
Catch colt draws a coffin cart
There he goes and now here she starts
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:“By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”
Those people are crazy, I don't see anyone supporting them, wacko groups are all over the place.
That person speaking was not the #1 religious cleric of a country. The quotes I gave about cats not being at fault when raw meat is left in the sun came from the very top of the Muslim hierarchy in Australia.
At least the moderates denounced him. But he was re-elected and stepped down, he was not removed from his position.
The Council of Islamic Jurisprudence and Research reappointed Hilaly as Grand Mufti on June 10, 2007, however, he declined the position, thereby ending his tumultuous term in office.
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
Ha! Once, years ago now, I was on Red State and I mentioned the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. One of the regulars actually said that what Jesus said were jjust suggestions, but that the OT had the Law.
Not all Christians follow the NT....to think that you have to have not paid attention to very much in this country for fucking decades. Where do the fundies default to when they want something banned or not made legal? Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not in the NT last time I looked. Neither are the Ten Commandments, Psalms, and the two Creation myths in Genesis amongst other things.
Me..I like the Beatitudes. And a couple of lines form the Book of Ruth, they were used as a reading in my wedding, because I had left my church (Catholic) for his Epsicopalian (not that hard, same bells and smells ) to marry him.
As for some Jews using the letter of the law in the OT..heh, again, while you focus on the evil Muslims, you ignore the crazy settler fundies in the West Bank.
As for Genesis, Christians use the OT as a historic reference, they don't say it's not true, just that the rules and commandments are superseded by the NT.
But just like MOMP you focus on a minority, and the views of a minority. Whether it be Christian fundies reverting to the anti-homo line in Leviticus, or the crazy Israeli fundies in the west bank, these are far from mainstream views and make up a tiny percentage of the population. And that wasn't even my argument..my argument was that no Jews or Christians are raping and honor killing in the name of the Bible. The same cannot be said for many Muslims and Islamic states which follow the Koran literally. That's the reason why stonings, honor killings etc are still all too prolific and even enshrined in the laws of these countries.
"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."
SmokingGun wrote:Yes, I have. Christians follow the New Testament which preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and if you could cite some recent examples of Jews following the letter of the Old Testament whereby they rape, torture or kill masses of innocent people because the Bible commands them to (like the Muslims do with the Koran), then you'd have a point. But you'd be hard pressed to find such examples..
Ha! Once, years ago now, I was on Red State and I mentioned the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. One of the regulars actually said that what Jesus said were jjust suggestions, but that the OT had the Law.
Not all Christians follow the NT....to think that you have to have not paid attention to very much in this country for fucking decades. Where do the fundies default to when they want something banned or not made legal? Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not in the NT last time I looked. Neither are the Ten Commandments, Psalms, and the two Creation myths in Genesis amongst other things.
Me..I like the Beatitudes. And a couple of lines form the Book of Ruth, they were used as a reading in my wedding, because I had left my church (Catholic) for his Epsicopalian (not that hard, same bells and smells ) to marry him.
As for some Jews using the letter of the law in the OT..heh, again, while you focus on the evil Muslims, you ignore the crazy settler fundies in the West Bank.
As for Genesis, Christians use the OT as a historic reference, they don't say it's not true, just that the rules and commandments are superseded by the NT.
But just like MOMP you focus on a minority, and the views of a minority. Whether it be Christian fundies reverting to the anti-homo line in Leviticus, or the crazy Israeli fundies in the west bank, these are far from mainstream views and make up a tiny percentage of the population. And that wasn't even my argument..my argument was that no Jews or Christians are raping and honor killing in the name of the Bible. The same cannot be said for many Muslims and Islamic states which follow the Koran literally. That's the reason why stonings, honor killings etc are still all too prolific and even enshrined in the laws of these countries.
looololol that's why christians destroyed so many cultures and artifacts in this world. african temples? ancient egyptian buildings, tombs and artifacts? destruction of the aztec culture? destruction of aboriginal cultures in north america, new zealand, australia... on and on etc.
and if no one is killing in the name of jesus and the bible - why TILL THIS DAY are US soldiers totting armed rifles with bibical passages on them ?
.
) to marry him. 
?