Posted on 09/16/2003 7:55:14 AM PDT by Lance Romance
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:08:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You are still embracing ignorance. This had nothing to do with "hatred". If Islam were merely some religious belief that espoused silly irrational doctrines or demanded that its followers perform certain generally harmless duties (wear certain clothing, don't eat certain foods, whatever), then I would have no problem with it.
But the beliefs of Islam do not fall into that category; it is a "religion" that demands that its followers do me harm, both to my fundamental rights as well as to my actual body if I do not submit to its beliefs. Your mind appears to be so muddled that you cannot grasp the pertinence of that distinction. When a religion demands that its followers "kill the infidels wherever you find them", that religion is a threat. When a religion demands that the United States government, the most progressive foundation of law to have ever graced this planet, be overthrown and replaced with a regressive system of oppressive theocratic rule (sharia law), then that religion is a threat; not only to me personally but to the national security of all of us, in spite of your foolish rejection of historical facts.
Again...I'll side with President Bush
Now you have gone from argumentum ad ignorantiam to argumentum ad verecundiam. Both are logical fallacies, and poor substitutes for thinking.
Sorry not to be able to answer specifically, It was two years back. But he submitted reports on Global Warming and Capitalism. He used the search engine on the FR site to supplement class assignment material to see the "other side". He of course had to show citations both to FR and the source.
There were times when debating the teacher that he had to debate most of the students too. On one occasion he was arguing against the Estate Tax and he pointed out to the kids who lived in Hilsboro that the sale of any of their parents homes would trigger the tax, thereby bringing the debate home to them.
I don't see that you have made any point at all. You have demonstrated that you are informed by your emotions and not by factual information. You feel that I am being intolerant because I disagree with you while you ignore what I say and assume what I think. You feel that Islam is a 'good' religion because some Muslims you know are good people while you ignore the text of their religious doctrine and the history of its founding. You feel that Christianity is morally equivalent to Islam because some Christians have done evil things while you ignore the fact that evil acts cannot be linked to a straightforward reading of Christian doctrine. Yet at the same time murder and lying are directly expressed as virtuous acts in Islamic doctrine. That is not my feeling or opinion it is a fact.
I have compassion for those who believe that barbaric acts for the sake of religious unity are virtuous. I pray that they will have the veil of ignorance removed from their eyes. There is no compassion, but true hatred, in being accepting of a fellow man's ignorance to the point of validating and defending his unprovoked hatred and desire to harm others. You care so little for his well being that you would not voice your objection to his consuming, like poison, an irrational and self-harming worldview. In the name of 'tolerance' your multiculturalist viewpoint demands that all religions, without distinction as to their values, be accepted and considered equal and indistinct from each other.
The Aztecs had a rich and profound worldview, in their religion, that allowed for a very ordered and successful society. Much good came from it in terms of societal order, economic stability, scientific achievment and national security. Who are we to place our value system above theirs and condemn their practice of human sacrifice? How is that really different from the human sacrifice Muslim fundamentalists practiced on 9/11? Those acts are fully supported and even demanded as duty in the Koran. In fact we are hypocrites if we condemn them for that, right? After all we have our own system of human sacrifice called "a woman's right to choose". Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their version? They at least have a 'good' religion to back them up. All abortion has is the cult of SCOTUS.
I do not judge Muslims who have modified their view from a strict adherence to the teachings. I have compassion for the confusion they suffer from finding the teachings to be at variance with the truth they have found in their hearts. I do not hate the fundamentalists either. 'Fundamentalist' does not mean 'kook' it means 'one who adheres to the strict meaning of doctrine'. Their confusion is even deeper, having rejected love and compassion for fellow men, based on a teaching that extolls the virtues of savagery and tyranny over unbelievers. They cannot be condemned for being poor disciples for they have bent their backs and given their lives to uphold the teachings. They deserve compassion. But not acceptance of a teaching that is itself intolerant.
If keeping to the teaching means committing evil then it follows that the teaching is at fault. No such comparison can be made with the teachings of Judeaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Native American Church and others. Followers of those traditions who do evil have strayed from the teachings. Aztecs and Satanists who commit human sacrifice have upheld their teachings. Head hunters who shrink their enemies heads for power objects have upheld their traditions. Muslims who kill 'infidels' have followed their teachings to the letter. Yet you find all religion to be morally equivalent. "All religion adds good to the world."
You may feel good about the things you are saying but you don't know much about the subjects you speak of. You may feel like I want to hurt you with insults but you don't know what I think. Your feelings about me, about Muslims and about Christianity will change and new emotions will arise like colors in a kaleidoscope. But the text of the Koran and the text of the Bible are what they are and always have been.
And after having his incredible arrogance pointed out to him here he still has the gall to say this to Technogeeb:
A Broken Glass Republican to Technogeeb: Your arrogance knows no bounds.
What we have here is an unrepentent Democrat. Accuses other of the things he has done. Places more importance on emotional feelings than facts. Refuses to debate, just repeats same platitudes ad nauseum. Claims to 'know things' from personal experience and puts that forward as having greater weight than researched history and fact. Denies that cause and effect arguments have merit. Failing in that accuses others of biases and prejudice. Failing in that claims 'victory' as if claiming it makes it so.
Seems like there's a lot of glass left unbroken here. ; )
Didn't Socrates say that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.