Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kali wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

Well a fundamental problem with your claim is that Muslim societies also stigmatize homosexuals and not only commit great levels of criminal violence against them but often have laws which severely punish people simply for being homosexuals. Obviously the West isn't perfect, but the ideal type here is a secular-rational or secular-modern society, which the West approximates FAR more closely than predominantly Muslim societies. Again, though, we don't need to punish people for behaving according to their own laws on their own land. The real issue comes into play when it happens in our own societies because of a failure to assimilate.

Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance

That's simply false. Security, I agree, is a weak issue. Abuse of women is not.

or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'.

I don't think that's even an ulterior motive. It's the express motive. People should behave in accordance with reason and virtue, especially in public spaces. That doesn't leave any room for religious dogmatism or traditional attitudes about the way in which you treat your fellow citizens.

Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

I think it's entirely the opposite. We create universal (or near as we can get) norms about how people should treat one another and then we have the state apply those principles as stringently as possible. I don't want violence or hate against immigrants, I want people to integrate and become part of the same civic community that I belong to, where qualities like race and sex are understood to be irrelevant.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.

The problem with that strategy is that education is being used as the chief tool of the multicultural agenda. I strongly support a curriculum which emphasizes dedication to the national community and a chief identity as "Citizen" rather than "WASP" or "Arab Muslim" or whatever else.

I can't tell if you are a time traveler from 1940's Europe or a Hollywood dystopian future plot. When Education, Freedom and Melting pot merging the best of all cultures for mutual benifit is seen as 'bad', I would have to pull a farnsworth.


You are a disturbing person if you honestly believe some of your own words... They are more filled with hate and intolerance than any Islamic extremist.

Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

nkelsch wrote:
But Our culture gives people the freedom to choose how they practice their religion and support them and their choices...

In the US, we do not have a tradition (legal or cultural) of allowing people to do whatever on a religious basis. As for "support them and their choices," I have no idea where you got that idea. The overwhelming attitude toward other people's religion in the US is "not my business" rather than "I support your choice."

I also think it is a bit strange to talk of religion as a choice considering the status of women in Muslim societies. Does one not recall that a pregnant woman was just recently jailed and sentenced to 100 lashes for adultery (because her Christian marriage was deemed invalid) and to death for apostasy (even despite being raised Christian) in Sudan -- and saved only thanks to international (read: Western) pressure?

Westerners (Muslim and otherwise) are absolutely kidding themselves if they think Islam can be a welcome part of free society AND keep this barbaric attitude toward women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

"Melting pot" is code for "assimilation." It is not actually about preserving anyone's traditions but rather reconciling yourself as a newcomer to whatever is acceptable to people where you are. Whether that's good or bad or both is a separate question.

Multiculturalism is a funny thing. It trumpets the logical perspective that no culture can be objectively defined as being 'superior' to another culture, so all should be accepted equally. But it also ignores the inherent problem within that reasoning, in that all cultures also cannot also be proven objectively 'equal'. Therefore using the same logic, one must accept that supremacism is objectively equally valid as multiculturalism. Thus, it is just as logical to believe that one culture is superior to another as it is to believe that all cultures are equal in every way.

Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

So are you suggesting Westerners already use and preserve the worthy legacy of Arab culture? That is the implication there.

nkelsch wrote:
I can't tell if you are a time traveler from 1940's Europe or a Hollywood dystopian future plot. When Education, Freedom and Melting pot merging the best of all cultures for mutual benifit is seen as 'bad', I would have to pull a farnsworth.

I hardly see what's dystopian about desiring a society where people think of themselves chiefly as members rather than begrudgingly acknowledging they share the same spaces with "Others". Education and freedom are obviously good, but not if they're twisted into mockeries of themselves.

You are a disturbing person if you honestly believe some of your own words... They are more filled with hate and intolerance than any Islamic extremist.

You're the only one spouting hate and intolerance here. I want the same for my fellow citizens as I want for myself.

 RatBot wrote:
Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities.

Oh, absolutely, I agree. It's not that these people or places are inherently worse, far from it. In fact, some of the best examples of secular-rational governance come from the post-colonial governments of North Africa, where people like Tunisia's Bourguiba made it a central priority of his administration to uplift women and end sex-based discrimination. He too banned the veil, and is well remembered for embracing "Western" (actually, secular-rational/secular-modern) values in education, health, administration, and elsewhere.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

So are you suggesting Westerners already use and preserve the worthy legacy of Arab culture? That is the implication there.

Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.

Have an exalt!

I've got nothing to add...

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.

What exactly did I blow up?

 Bullockist wrote:
You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?

Which culture are we talking about exactly? Saudi ultra-orthodox culture?

nkelsch wrote:
Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like

You know, I would be pretty happy to be allowed to be intolerant toward and demonize some cultural aspect of my own culture and other, foreign cultures too.

 RatBot wrote:
Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities. I saw a pretty significant ratio of uncovered to covered women in Amman. The majority were covered but there was a not-insignificant number of women who looked like they'd be just as at home in Europe or North America, and I know for a fact that some were Muslim, and it's pretty safe to assume that most of the rest were also Muslim.

Best Muslim-majority country on that regard is afaik Albania <3.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

Conflating Arab culture with Islam? Nice. Also Arabic numbers actually look like this:
٠
١
٢
٣
٤
٥
٦
٧
٨
٩
(Persian use slightly different script).
If you had ever been in a country that uses Arabic script, you would know.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

So... not much then

I think the difficulty in today's world is that when you see/deal with a mid-large scale Muslim immigrant population, there is inevitably a call for Sharia Law from that group. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO WAY a society can successfully integrate/assimilate while the "new" group is demanding the existing/status quo group bend fully to it's will... And there's no fething way that the Status Quo group will "welcome" the new group while those sorts of demands are being made.

 whembly wrote:
Have an exalt!

As you know Whembly, I am one of those whites who routinely expresses righteous anger on behalf of non-whites. I just don't do so on the basis of multiculturalism. Subscribing to multiculturalist ideology does not automatically prove one is not a racist (quite the reverse IMO). Multiculturalism is not synonymous with the hope that different kinds of people can live together peacefully, although that is certainly the pretense.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So... not much then

Aaaaaand apparently we already had it covered a long, long time ago.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.

What exactly did I blow up?

Well, not you specifically, your government. My statement might have been a little brash.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Have an exalt!

As you know Whembly, I am one of those whites who routinely expresses righteous anger on behalf of non-whites. I just don't do so on the basis of multiculturalism. Subscribing to multiculturalist ideology does not automatically prove one is not a racist (quite the reverse IMO). Multiculturalism is not synonymous with the hope that different kinds of people can live together peacefully, although that is certainly the pretense.

And I respect you greatly for that.

Sorry... I'm overly sensitive with these subject matters due to my proximity to Ferguson. There are some things that brings the crazies out of the woodworks.

nkelsch wrote:


I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.

nkelsch wrote:


Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.

You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.

Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.

Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Well, not you specifically, your government. My statement might have been a little brash.

I agree. But even so, what did the US government blow up that qualifies as the "nice parts" of Islam or Arabic culture?

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

Those all predate Islam by many centuries (as does the burqa interestingly). One of the assumption we make about advanced extraterrestrial civilizations is that they would need to have some concept of binary, which would imply that positional counting systems are somewhat inevitable. In the long run I would say the arabic decimal system has done more harm than good. The fact that we still say the word 'twelve' and not 'twoteen' suggests that Europeans used to count in dozens. That would have been much better, as would the Aztec system, but instead we ended up with silly finger counting, in a base that doesn't work for division.

well, actually, IIRC the numbers we use are, in fact, Arabic numerals, but I can't remember if we changed them to their modern Western form, or if the Arabs changed them at some point after the West adopted them. Also, IIRC, the ultimate origin of these numerals is actually Hindu. I mean, ٠ could easily turn into 0, ١ already looks like 1, and turn ٢ and ٣ on to their left sides and they look like 2 and 3. Not sure how the rest of them, other than 9 and 7 came about, though ٦ is actually 6 which was confusing as hell for a little while when I was learning Modern Arabic numerals.

EDIT: Should've quoted Hybrid's post, this is obviously in response to his.

 Mr Nobody wrote:


Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

Islam != Arab Culture. Islam is practiced all over the world.

Second, those contributions were hundreds of years ago. Since then they have contributed absolutely nothing. While the rest of the world has progressed, the Islamic world has regressed to the dark ages. The only difference is that now they've come up with news ways of murdering and subjugating non-Muslims, or Muslims who are the "wrong type" of Muslims.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

Math, your numbers are Arabic. Also, the basics of science.

So... not much then

Also, the Arab culture which provided all those nice advancements in science and math no longer exists. So no, they do not have math and science to offer us.

If anything, thats what we have to offer them.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis.

Zionist political violence in Europe up to and including terror bombings and assassination is a historical reality. Of course, it can in no way justify anti-Semitism much less Nazism and the Holocaust. The point being, even considering some Jews did terrible things to advance their political cause the answer is not to develop anti-Semitic social attitudes or pass anti-Semitic laws.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So... not much then

Aaaaaand apparently we already had it covered a long, long time ago.

Math is the root of all evil.... And if you listen to any politicians, you'll know that science is.... "flexible"


I tend to view things in a more historical context, and in that light, just about the "only" truly good thing the Arab world from the fall of Rome through around the Renaissance period was in the realm of medicine. Some of the other "discoveries" such as celestial navigation, had been in use in areas of Europe for a good while prior to the Crusades.



@RatBot IIRC we (Western Peoples) changed the numerals from a pure Arabic state to their current form, however the origin of writing our numerals in the form of 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. did come from the Arabic speaking peoples. Obviously, prior to this, we used the Roman numeral system which can get... big, quickly.

Coffee bean...they gave us the coffee bean

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.

nkelsch wrote:


Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.

You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.

Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.

Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.

You speak of intellectual dishonesty and then disregard how a majority of common american garb easily conceals suicide vests and one wishing to do harm could easily do so regardless of pointless societal dress codes.

And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them. I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens. It is unnecessary and a threat to those who believe in free speech and expression.

There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be. The same way there are Jews and Christians who are not murdering people by the thousands the way past interpretations of those religions were taken even though they have had similar past teachings which are deemed violent or oppressive. To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.

To claim that we need to be wary of burkas because there is a greater risk of concealing suicide bombs in the US or Australia is absurdity and the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks. It is bigoted motivation and pointless harassment for no reason. If you want to ban religion, the stand up and take that idea to the arena of ideas and argue it on its merits. I don't trust 'the enlightened' to decide what is best for 'the true culture' and to criminalize anything which doesn't meet that vision.

 Manchu wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis.

Zionist political violence in Europe up to and including terror bombings and assassination is a historical reality. Of course, it can in no way justify anti-Semitism much less Nazism and the Holocaust. The point being, even considering some Jews did terrible things to advance their political cause the answer is not to develop anti-Semitic social attitudes or pass anti-Semitic laws.

None of that ever took place in Germany as far as I know. The two situations aren't really equitable...

The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.

nkelsch wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

The behavior of a few drunk idiots is incomparable to institutionalized violence. The people who beat up the gay man in Philadelphia will be held accountable for their actions by the state. Homosexuals in Iran, on the other hand, are executed by the state. This is what you fail to understand.

nkelsch wrote:


Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.

You are still failing to understand the situation. Islam is intolerant. This intolerance is often expressed as physical violence. I'm intolerant of intolerance. If you want to run down the street wearing a rainbow jumpsuit to meet your gay male lover at the end of the street, go for it. I'd like to see a world where men and women, gay and straight, could do what they want without stigmatization. These views are completely incompatible with Islam.

Your attempts to connect my position to that of the Nazis are as disgusting as they are absurd. Jews in Europe never beheaded Germans, never practiced suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Germany, and never really caused any problems for Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Nobody in 1930's Germany was worried about a Jew walking into a school wearing a suicide bomb vest and blowing himself up. However, a Muslim woman walking around in attire that could easily conceal a suicide vest is viewed as a security threat because of the actions of her fellow Muslims, which have occurred in practically every country in the world. But hey - it's not their fault, it's our fault for stigmatizing terrorists.

Your contributions to this topic have consisted of nothing but intellectual dishonesty and modern liberal multicultural sugarcoating.

You speak of intellectual dishonesty and then disregard how a majority of common american garb easily conceals suicide vests and one wishing to do harm could easily do so regardless of pointless societal dress codes.

And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them. I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens. It is unnecessary and a threat to those who believe in free speech and expression.

There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be. The same way there are Jews and Christians who are not murdering people by the thousands the way past interpretations of those religions were taken even though they have had similar past teachings which are deemed violent or oppressive. To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.

To claim that we need to be wary of burkas because there is a greater risk of concealing suicide bombs in the US or Australia is absurdity and the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks. It is bigoted motivation and pointless harassment for no reason. If you want to ban religion, the stand up and take that idea to the arena of ideas and argue it on its merits. I don't trust 'the enlightened' to decide what is best for 'the true culture' and to criminalize anything which doesn't meet that vision.

I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.

So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?

 Jihadin wrote:
Coffee bean...they gave us the coffee bean

I don't think that counts.

That's like saying the Sioux gave us Buffalo Burgers.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.

So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?

When the shoe fits...

And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.

If you deem all of Islam intolerant and savage due to the actions of a fringe few, then there is no other position to take than to also say all of Christianity and Judaism is intolerant and savage due to a fringe corruption of those faiths in the past and today. That is why it is a bigoted position to take the 'all of Islam is barbaric and bad' position as that argument has been made against most cultures and religions at one time to justify barbaric recourse against them by the 'civilized' peoples.