White Muslims?

Page 6 of 10 [ 160 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

jb814
Deinonychus

Joined: 3 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Glasgow Scotland

09 Aug 2005, 2:53 pm

I seem to use the word tolerance in it's engineering sense I think. How far to breaking point sort of thing, not really what everyone else means I suppose.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

09 Aug 2005, 2:58 pm

I need to look into more detail what Blair has in mind exactly but I dont think anyone should be deported for their political beliefs or thoughts no matter how distasteful to the majority they are. If someone commits a crime you bring him/her to trial. If your country is under regular attack then you think about internment. I think Blair is collapsing in to the right wing press in this country and is being a bit reactionary. We need to debate about everything so as everyone becomes more knowledgable about whats going on.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

09 Aug 2005, 3:02 pm

vetivert wrote:

jb814 wrote:

I have trust problems and so I need to find out what the "other" side thinks rather than just accept what I'm told.
P.S. is the practice of listening to the opinion of others still legal in our tolerant society?

well said, jb814. but then, i doubt anyone will fall to the floor in shock at my agreement, as i've posted the same thing often enough.

i personally have a slight problem with the word "tolerance", as to me, it suggests "i will tolerate you/your belief", which sounds a bit superior to me. i prefer to go for "understanding", so that i understand another person's beliefs, without necessarily agreeing with them.

If someone doesnt want to learn about your belief then to tolerate it is a good enough word. Personally i am interested in religion and politics but not everyone is so tolerance is good enough a word for the majority.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

09 Aug 2005, 10:55 pm

jb814 wrote:

Tolerance is a two way street, I frequently compare the way news is reported in Asia and the same stories here and its often difficult to realise that they cover the same topic. I'm certainly not having a go at you, I just happen to think that with the information "issued" to us its a bit difficult to be impartial. I have trust problems and so I need to find out what the "other" side thinks rather than just accept what I'm told.
The problem here is that the "other" side everyone here is angry at is an illusion, exactly as "the west" that the extremist portrays is an illusion. I don't blame Christianity, although I do blame individual christians and economic imperialism for the way things are.
Even now with a hardliner elected democratically in Iran and the promise of closer ties between Iraq and Iran the press here are still trying to say what a wonderful "victory" this will be in the end. It's a sick world and there are faults on all sides. I'm not going to jump into one camp just for the sake of it, or, because Blair outlaws opinions sympathetic to any particular way of thinking.
P.S. is the practice of listening to the opinion of others still legal in our tolerant society?
P.P.S. can we have some examples of Islam causing the sorts of problems that christianity caused when entering the Americas? As important can we hold modern day christians responsible for the blinkered way their ancestors acted?

If you look in the history books you will find mass murders done by people of pretty much all the major religions. Kosovo for instance is an example of muslims doing wrong by invading and slaughtering the native christians and more recently the christians practicing genocide there. I think the evidence backs up my argument of the west being more tolerant on average, thats why there is a lot of people fleeing muslim countries to come to the west and not much the other way round. Yes there are some bad things being done by our governments and we should know about it and try to change it but again at least we can protest about it without being locked up or killed as more muslim countries do and we can vote our politicians out. I find it silly though that there is a lot of fighting about religion going on in the world then everyone will all just die and thats it imo. Waste of time that they could have used enjoying themselves.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

10 Aug 2005, 3:08 am

the fighting isn't about religion, i think you'll find - it's about power. and personal power, or power over others.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 3:16 am

vetivert wrote:

the fighting isn't about religion, i think you'll find - it's about power. and personal power, or power over others.

It might be about power but you cant deny religion plays a major part in conflicts all over the world in the past and presently too. It is religion that is helping in giving the extremists on all sides the power to commit terrible acts. Religion does lead to divisions that wouldnt exist otherwise. How can anyone deny that religion has caused or at least contributed towards wars. If anyone wants to be religious thats up to them and it should be tolerated but i dont believe in any religion having state power. It leads to no good imo.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

10 Aug 2005, 3:33 am

true, but i'm sticking to my point.

not sure about all this "trying to justify paganism" stuff (i.e., giving it historical credibility). margaret murray (author of how pagan practices date back to neolithic times) is pretty much discredited amongst realistic pagans. and wicca is about 50 years old, end of.

one has to wonder at some pagans, though - apparently, there is a flourishing group who are (and i quote) "Klingon Wiccans". *shrug* whatever does it for you, say i. cool outfits, though

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 3:39 am

If you agree its true then you should backtrack or at least modify your point because you wrote that its not about religion when some of it clearly is. You would have been better saying that its not just about religion because a lot of people are using religion for power for themselves and/or over other people.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

10 Aug 2005, 3:58 am

good point. i'll say that then

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 4:11 am

testing

Last edited by eamonn on 10 Aug 2005, 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

rumio
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 22 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 257
Location: uk

10 Aug 2005, 4:13 am

eamonn wrote:

When are you going to learn that extremism breeds extremism from the other side.

pretty much exactly my point

one sovereign nation invading another one that has not perpetrated an aggressive international act, forcibly removing the regime and installing its own approved leaders, would you not call that extreme? International law certainly would. Funny how it doesn't get labelled as 'extremism' though isn't it? Even when the original reasons for the invasion have been proved to be false.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Long afloat on shipless oceans,
I did all my best to smile...
-----------------------------------------------------------

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 4:29 am

rumio wrote:

I thought there was a vote for the leaders though as i understand the sunnis didnt turn up in significant numbers and so not making it representative. The fact that WMD proved to be false is worrying for the so called intelligence services and for the credibility of anything the extremist Bush or his slightly more moderate sidekick Blair say again when it comes to going to war. I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was extreme and i was against it. It is good that an evil person like Saddam Hussein is out of power but as Iraq wasnt proved to be a threat to other nations i would have thought the invasion was ilegal. It would be interesting to see what the majority of Iraqi people think as regards to the invasion. After all it is them that paid the most in terms of lives.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

10 Aug 2005, 5:49 am

eamonn wrote:

I thought there was a vote for the leaders though as i understand the sunnis didnt turn up in significant numbers and so not making it representative.

bit like the elections in the UK and US, then

jb814
Deinonychus

Joined: 3 Aug 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: Glasgow Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 7:16 am

I think we're all getting carried away ( I know I am, I posted a rant in another forum and now I cant find it to edit it), Decent people are decent people no matter what the colour or creed. You might find some aspects of someones way of life, or thinking a bit out of step, but most can accommodate that. It's when blinkered intransigent hardliners take control and feed myths to the general public that things go wrong and badly so.
Eamonn, the scale of intolerance in the Americas is way beyond Kosovo, although I'd have another look at that if I were you. The majority of mass graves I've heard of were full of muslims.After the Spanish there were tribes of "Indians" wiped out because they had been "contaminated" by contact with the French and Spanish (ie they had been briefly exposed to Catholicism), One of the most devastating wars in the history of Mexico ( it literally decimated the population ) was between Scots Rite and Yorkist Masons. Intolerance of anyone non waspie in the Southern 'States is still not unheard of and all this after the Spanish destroyed their culture and used the masonery from the temples to build churches, did a brilliant job of thinning the population out and eventually conceded that "Indians" were human, not livestock. The Christian world had a way of calling anyone non-christian " savage".
You live in the West of Scotland, I'm sure you have some idea of just how callous and blinkered people can be in these matters even now.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

10 Aug 2005, 7:30 am

rumio wrote:

...one sovereign nation invading another one that has not perpetrated an aggressive international act, forcibly removing the regime and installing its own approved leaders, would you not call that extreme?

I've lost track of what's been happening in this thread, but I guess you're refering to Iraq. If that's the case, get your facts right! Firstly, there's been a coalition of countries involved in the military side of things; over 30, I think. Secondly, Iraq had been involved with a number of aggressive actions against it's neighbours. The recent military action was, to all intents and purposes, a result of those. Iraq appeared a threat, it was being obstructive as far as the inspections were concerned — inspections that were a result of their little excursion into Kuwait, and part of the ceasefire agreement that ended military action in 1991. Lastly, the aim is to establish a democratic government — you can criticise the way it's being done, and question the likelyhood of success, but that is the aim. And a bloody fine one, too!

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

10 Aug 2005, 1:25 pm

jb814 wrote:

I realise that most of the major religions have a bloody past and as the most powerful countries have been Christian then they have probably been the most opressive in terms of treatment of other races and religions. Muslims have had their own bloody Empires as well however such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire but i agree that Christians have a worse record ( im not a Christian though).

All i am saying is that you have been a bit overzelous in your condemnation of the Christians and talk of muslims being more tolerant when you and i know we would both rather live here or in any other Christian country and you dont see many muslims too eager to go back.

It seems to me there are people condemning the west and Christians or Arab countries and Muslims but nobody wants to point out the faults in both cultures. Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but it is easy to tell most people seem to be one sided on both sides.

Page 6 of 10 [ 160 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

White Muslims? Post Reply New Topic

White Muslims?