The Islam Thread

[LuvRPgrl]

Catholic women aren't allowed to be priests. Orthodox Catholic women aren't allowed to use birth control and are forced to bear child after child...

Orthodox/fundamentalist Judaism doesn't allow women to be rabbis, sit near men during prayer (which usually means being segregated behind a wall). Orthodox men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not their wife, including the shaking of hands, because she might be "unclean"... meaning she has her period.

In fundamentalist Christianity, women are taught that they are supposed to be "subservient" to their husbands and are told this is somehow being a "good Christian".

Shall I go on?

Thats the best you got???? HAHHAHAHHA, pathetic. Hardly anything very torturous. Can you compare that to women being clothed from head to toe and wearing a vail over their face, and not being allowed out of the house without an escort? ANd that it is illegal for them to learn to read and write, or to have a job? And thats just some of the smaller stuff, how about women who are merely ACCUSED of adultery receive a stoning to the death.

As for your last paragraph about subservient, LIKE A GOOD LEMMING LIB, you convienentlly fail to mention that the same section commanding women to be subservient to their husbands, COMMANDS the husbands TO LOVE their wife.
Kinda puts a different perspective on it, eh?

 

[nt250]

NT, the reason is because liberals want power and control of the people here in the states. They also idolize communits leaders like Castro. The Beatles had a song, "back in the USSR".
The Christians stand in the way of the libs making the US a socialized state, run and controlled by the govt. The snobbish libs really think they know best what is good for the people.
As one liberal stated, he knew more about the problems in IRaq than a foot soldier marine in Iraq, because he, the superior, READS 17 newspapers a day, then he asked, "do you think that soldier does that?" Fucking pompous ass.
They dont see Islam as a threat to their desire for power and control in the US, thats why they defend it.
They hide behind the ideals of "we support the minorities, the small guy, the poor and middle classes". The reason is because they can get votes that way, but fact is, if you watcch their actual ACTIONS, they dont support those groups.
Even though a majority of black parents want school choice, the libs wont give it to them, because they want to see the kids in public schools where they have control, not in private schools where they have no control.
They also favor illegal immigration, even though the mexicans and guatamaleans take jobs away from blacks.
They condemn Bush for his invasion of Iraq even though it freed millions of women from the misery induced upon them by the regime. Same with Afghanastan.
They support minimum wage, even though it is PROVEN that it causes many minimum wage earners, who are on the bottom of the income ladder, whom the liberals claim to support, TO LOSE THEIR JOBS.
They claim they are for womens rights, but yet a majority of women want to see partial birth abortion and roe v wade overturned, yet the libs defend both of those, because it gives them power and control.
Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, two die hard libs, made friendly and sang the praises of Castro recently, even though Castro, just last year jailed 32 librarians. Their crime? READING BOOKS by Martin Luther King and Orwell. Hmmm, so much for free speech eh?
The list goes on and on. Fact is, the DONT support the groups they claim to represent, when the issue that those groups need supported will harm the power base of the dems/liberals.

I'd say that pretty much covers it. I disagree about the majority of women wanting Roe V Wade overturned. But that's another subject.

But I do think you are right about liberals purporting to defend people that they really have an unconscious contempt for. Such as blacks and other minorities.

Even Muslims. They defend Islam on principle, but they also have contempt for Muslims and show it in inadvertent ways. For example, when the Nick Berg video first surfaced on the internet the board I was posting on at the time was discussing it. Liberals decided that the video showed that Berg was dead before he was beheaded. In their minds this meant that the CIA was behind it.

Seriously. All the usual liberals kept posting links to blogs, and other "proof" that Berg was dead when they cut his head off and that meant the CIA had to be the bad guys. What they never considered was that by saying that, what they were actually saying was that only a Muslim would cut off the head of man who was alive. They never even considered it from that angle. No, if they could say Berg was dead, then they could blame the Bush administration and that was all they thought about. Liberals don't think things through too much.

Also, the fact that none of them watched the video themselves, and criticized those of us who did as being ghoulish, just added to the hypocrisy. Liberals just don't think like normal people. Maybe it's a bad gene or something.

 

[Dr Grump]

In that quote you decided to compare Islam to Judiasm in an attempt to prove that Judiasm is just as bad as Islam.

No she did not. She said "were", past tense. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Orthodox Jews do not do those things now. She has always stated that Islam is worse than Christianity - well in the posts I read. How come certain people have this dreadful habit of distorting what people mean, or in this case, deliberately misinterpret something that is written in plain English and try and add qualifiers to the post, and then try and attribute those qualifiers to the poster when they have said no such thing. It's called putting words in peoples' mouths. Stop doing it NT - it makes you look bad and takes away from some of the good points you do make. And stop generalising.

There is a lot of anti-Semitism among liberals, but they are usually very careful about saying it in any kind of obvious way. They usually just call them neocons.

Considering most Jews are liberals I find that hard to believe. Just ask the Jewish retirees in Palm Beach during the 2000 election who apparently voted for Buchanan (even he said they weren't his votes). I use the term neocon to describe somebody's political persuasion, not ethnicity/religion. Last time I looked Bush was a Christian.

 

[nt250]

No she did not. She said "were", past tense. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Orthodox Jews do not do those things now. She has always stated that Islam is worse than Christianity - well in the posts I read. How come certain people have this dreadful habit of distorting what people mean, or in this case, deliberately misinterpret something that is written in plain English and try and add qualifiers to the post, and then try and attribute those qualifiers to the poster when they have said no such thing. It's called putting words in peoples' mouths. Stop doing it NT - it makes you look bad and takes away from some of the good points you do make. And stop generalising.



Considering most Jews are liberals I find that hard to believe. Just ask the Jewish retirees in Palm Beach during the 2000 election who apparently voted for Buchanan (even he said they weren't his votes). I use the term neocon to describe somebody's political persuasion, not ethnicity/religion. Last time I looked Bush was a Christian.

I call it as I see it. If you do not want to defend Islam, then deal with it in it's own right and stop comparing it to Christianity and Judiasm in an attempt to make it look not so bad. That may not be your intent but that's the result.

And yes, there is blatant anti-Semitism in liberal circles. And yes, I have seen it many, many, times. There are many liberals out there who think that Bush is promoting his "end of days" agenda and that the Jews are in on it. It's quite maddening that liberals are so willing to believe that bullshit about Christians and Jews and their motives, while they excuse what Muslims do today and everyday, and there is proof of it all around the world to anybody who can fucking read.

So excuse me for getting pissed off at those of you who absolutely refuse to recognize it because you'd rather blame a conservative.

 

[Dr Grump]

I call it as I see it. If you do not want to defend Islam, then deal with it in it's own right and stop comparing it to Christianity and Judiasm in an attempt to make it look not so bad. That may not be your intent but that's the result.

I am not defending Islam in any way, shape or form. You use all-encompassing stereotypes to make your point. The world is not black and white - it is various shades of grey. Islam itself sucks, but not all those that follow it do. Simple.

There are many liberals out there who think that Bush is promoting his "end of days" agenda and that the Jews are in on it. It's quite maddening that liberals are so willing to believe that bullshit about Christians and Jews and their motives, while they excuse what Muslims do today and everyday, and there is proof of it all around the world to anybody who can fucking read.

Well Jill ain't one of those who believes that "ends of days" agenda. If you can point to one post where that has been said by Jill or I please do so. Take you time (hint, you'll be looking a long time). And please, don't give me any of this "oh, while you don't actually say it, but..." BS either. Either I have said what you say I've said, and believe it, or I don't. It shouldn't be hard to prove. You neocons really know how to twist and squirm...:arabia:

So excuse me for getting pissed off at those of you who absolutely refuse to recognize it because you'd rather blame a conservative.

I refuse to recognise over the top BS with no facts to back it up, instead all we have is your interpretation on posts that are pretty straight forward when read just as they were written. YOU are the one saying Jill is trying to lessen fundie Muslims impact on the world. All she is trying to do is show that while, yes, fundie Muslims suck big time, so do other fundie religious types. Is Islam a crappy religion? Yep. I think all religions are. I think Islam is the worse by far simply because it is stuck in the dark ages, but that doesn't mean other religions get a free pass when discussing the subject. I could easily say "NT250 gives Christianity and Judism a free pass. They are perfect religions that do no wrong. They have a clean history and anybody who has been part of those two religions have been swell folk". Thing is, that would be twisting your post, so I'll leave that type of carry on in your expert hands...

 

[glockmail]

Don't apply your lack of moral values to me, dear. :cof:

You, a liberal, with morals?

 

[glockmail]

....Just the way Islam treats women should be enough to set a liberals teeth on edge. But for some reason it doesn't. They would still rather trash another religion in comparison. I just do not understand why.

This is fact- liberals do defend Islam. Because of this, we can be sure that Liberalism's goal is not as stated, and that its true goal must be in line with goals of Islamic leaders. What do y'all suppose those goals are?:dev1:

 

[glockmail]

Well, I say he's not a buffoon also. :funnyface

Thanks, sweet cheeks!:kiss2:

 

[glockmail]

..... Liberals just don't think like normal people. Maybe it's a bad gene or something.

Dr. Savage has diagnosed it as a mental disorder.

 

[glockmail]

....How come certain people have this dreadful habit of distorting what people mean, or in this case, deliberately misinterpret something that is written in plain English and try and add qualifiers to the post, and then try and attribute those qualifiers to the poster when they have said no such thing. It's called putting words in peoples' mouths. Stop doing it NT - it makes you look bad and takes away from some of the good points you do make. And stop generalising.

[And in the same post:]

Considering most Jews are liberals I find that hard to believe. Just ask the Jewish retirees in Palm Beach during the 2000 election who apparently voted for Buchanan (even he said they weren't his votes). I use the term neocon to describe somebody's political persuasion, not ethnicity/religion. Last time I looked Bush was a Christian.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, except his case the kettle was clean!

 

[glockmail]

..... Islam itself sucks, ....

For this we are in complete agreement, and such is the sole purpose of this thread.

 

[jillian]

You, a liberal, with morals?

Jesus was a liberal.

 

[glockmail]

Jesus was a liberal.

By todays' definition?

 

[mattskramer]

Sure, I'll admit that I lied: "I did not, have sex, with that woman. (Points off toward somewhere.) Miss Lewinsky."

*(rolls eyes)*

What does having sex with a woman (Miss Lewinsky) have to do with the fact that you made an un-true statement concerning the history of Christian activity? It amazes me that members on this board simply refuse to admit that they are wrong with they make an un-true statement.

 

[mattskramer]

Funny, I'm getting a similar reaction from libs in this very thread.:clap1:

jill: post 114 (although she gets the prize for most tact among these three)
matts: posts 78, 101
Grump: post 61

Looks like you nailed it NT. Now if we could just get you to join the 700 Club....

If people here would be willing to own up the their errors as readily as Ann supposedly does.

 

[mattskramer]

You certainly like taking things out of context, eh?

Using that technique, I could make a math book seeminly to be constantly in error.

You are either driven by a hatred for Christianity or are reallly stupid, or both. But either way, you are certainly dishonest to others by trying to spread the ideas of how you supposedly interpet those passages to mean.

That was a nice attempt at mind reading and name-calling. You are wrong on both counts. Applying carefully scrutiny, I don’t see the passages as having been taken out of context. There are many examples of cruelty and intolerance in the Bible. People could easily discover them if they approach the Bible analytically from different perspectives.

 

[glockmail]

What does having sex with a woman (Miss Lewinsky) have to do with the fact that you made an un-true statement concerning the history of Christian activity? It amazes me that members on this board simply refuse to admit that they are wrong with they make an un-true statement.

Wow!, you're off track.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow!, you're off track.

Just admit that you were wrong. In post number 97, you said that Christianity has never been spread by the sword. You did not say that the Bible does not instruct followers to convert people to Christianity by means of the sword. You said that Christianity has never been spread by the sword. I brought up examples to the contrary. Why won’t you simply behave like Ann Coulter and admit that you were mistaken.

 

[nt250]

I am not defending Islam in any way, shape or form. You use all-encompassing stereotypes to make your point. The world is not black and white - it is various shades of grey. Islam itself sucks, but not all those that follow it do. Simple.




Well Jill ain't one of those who believes that "ends of days" agenda. If you can point to one post where that has been said by Jill or I please do so. Take you time (hint, you'll be looking a long time). And please, don't give me any of this "oh, while you don't actually say it, but..." BS either. Either I have said what you say I've said, and believe it, or I don't. It shouldn't be hard to prove. You neocons really know how to twist and squirm...:arabia:



I refuse to recognise over the top BS with no facts to back it up, instead all we have is your interpretation on posts that are pretty straight forward when read just as they were written. YOU are the one saying Jill is trying to lessen fundie Muslims impact on the world. All she is trying to do is show that while, yes, fundie Muslims suck big time, so do other fundie religious types. Is Islam a crappy religion? Yep. I think all religions are. I think Islam is the worse by far simply because it is stuck in the dark ages, but that doesn't mean other religions get a free pass when discussing the subject. I could easily say "NT250 gives Christianity and Judism a free pass. They are perfect religions that do no wrong. They have a clean history and anybody who has been part of those two religions have been swell folk". Thing is, that would be twisting your post, so I'll leave that type of carry on in your expert hands...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend Jillian when she is perfectly capable of doing it herself, but since you brought up my sweeping generalizations, I'll explain to you why I make such generalizations when it comes to posters like you and Jillian.

You and Jillian are classic examples of liberal posters on message boards. You can't get any more classic than you two. The source of something is always more important than what the source says, and there is NO source that either one of you would EVER consider valid unless it's from a source that you already agree with. You rely on blogs, use other peoples opinions to back up your own, and let's not even get into the Wikipedia argument again.

You come to each others defense, and you resort to insults and name calling at the slighest provocation but you don't see it that way because to you if it's true, it can't possibly be considered an insult. You both think telling someone they're stupid is an insult when it's directed at you, but you have no qualms about calling anybody else stupid as long as you don't actually come right out and say the word "stupid". You insult people in the worst ways you can insult people, but you think as long as you don't call them an asshole or use any other obvious epithet you're not really insulting them and cannot for the life of you understand why they get insulted.

For example: it is extemely insulting for a grown woman to be called 'Dearie". Now, do you think Jillian knew how insulting that was when she called me 'Dearie" in one of her posts? Maybe not. I think Jillian is a lot younger than I am, so maybe she didn't know how insulted I would be by that. But now that she knows how insutling it is, do you think she'll stop using it? I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.

I call people stupid, but it's based on what they post. I happen to think all religious people are stupid. If you post something religous, you're stupid.

A lot of people think I'm stupid because I'm a huge Buffy The Vampire Slayer fan. You can call me stupid for that all you want, but it won't bother me because I know that anybody who thinks my obsession with all things Buffy is is stupid is just clueless so I don't let their opinion matter.

 

[glockmail]

Just admit that you were wrong. In post number 97, you said that Christianity has never been spread by the sword. You did not say that the Bible does not instruct followers to convert people to Christianity by means of the sword. You said that Christianity has never been spread by the sword. I brought up examples to the contrary. Why won’t you simply behave like Ann Coulter and admit that you were mistaken.

You and I have a disagreement with regards to the interpretation of history.

The fact is that the wars collectively and popularly known as "The Crusades" the Muslims took over the middle east, including Jerusalem, then invaded parts of Europe. The purpose of this invasion is cited in the Koran; to summarize: ‘spread Islam throughout the world, and kill all those who resist’. The European Christians to fight back, driving the invaders south, on to Jerusalem and then east. Those are the facts, and they are undeniable.

My interpretation is that the Christians drove the Muslims as far back as they could, in order to protect Europe, as well as the Holy Land of Jerusalem. If the Muslims had stopped at Jerusalem, The Europeans may or may not have become involved. Did some individual soldiers, or even commanders, attempt forced conversions of Muslims to avoid killing them? Common sense alone tells me yes. Was this the reason the Europeans fought? History and common sense also tells me that it was not.

Your interpretation appears to be that the reason that the Europeans fought in “The Crusades” was to spread Christianity to Muslim lands; to summarize: ‘spread Christianity throughout the world, and kill all those who resist’. And this, historically as well as intuitively, is incorrect.

Now you ask me to "act like Ann Coulter" and accept your interpretation. I assure you, that both Ann and I would be happy to meet with you AND KICK YOUR ASS rather than change our opinions.:2guns: