Fantastic Discussion about Islam and other Religions

[BaalChatzaf]

Is there a religion that is not based on submission?

I don't think that's relevant if the focus is Islam, unless it's to highlight any differences. Islam brings submission to the fore in a way that I don't think other religions do. It's very name means submission to Allah.

It is also a religion of the sword and incompatible with freedom.

In that case may God (or Whatever strengthen the hand of the Dar al Harb in the forthcoming War of the Worlds.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not that I say bad things about Islam, it's the way I say it that Michael doesn't like.

Nope.

It's not a matter of taste. It's looking at words and actions, not just words. I judge people by what they say, but I judge them much more by what they do.

When someone ONLY shows up to bash within the confines of a specific topic, and he ONLY has the same bashing view that he regurgitates over and over, and if you let him, he will post a gazillion times a day saying the same damn thing from different angles, there is more going on than critique or a discussion of ideas.

That's bigotry.

Life is not summed up by preaching Islam is the root of all evil, but not for the bigot. For him, people who practice Islam are under the spell of Satan and it is his fervor and mission in life to preach hatred of this particular Satan, thus, hatred of the people who worship this Satan.

Just like Southern racists need to fight the Satan of the view that blacks are equal to whites as human beings (thus they hate black people who believe they are fully human and non-blacks who believe they are, too). Just like ISIS needs to fight the Satan of everything outside of their version of Islam (and hate those who do not submit). Just like homophobes need to fight the Satan of homosexuality being a valid expression of love and connection (thus hate homosexuals who believe they are not fundamentally damaged and those who think homosexuals are OK as people).

There is some CYA involved with bigots as they want to claim they are poor little victims of misrepresentation ("Some of my best friends are Muslims," "My hatred is for the ideas, not the people," etc.), so let's say PREDOMINANTLY or OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME or ALMOST ALWAYS instead of ONLY.

Except for one thing. There is always hatred underneath. Hatred is the bigot's driving motor.

The bigot is defined and spiritually shaped by the target people he hates, not by the life he should love.

This guy has been around long enough for anyone to recognize the patterns I just mentioned. Islam-bashing is what he does. That's all he does. That's the only time he shows up. His mission. His religion. His very name is Infidel.

Notice that Tony critiques Islam strongly and makes sweeping generalizations about Muslims, yet he is not a bigot. He constantly talks about other stuff, too. Jerry just showed up to ask questions that seem like he is bashing Islam, yet he is not a bigot. He constantly talks about other stuff. Bob has harsh words to say about Islam and his own odd generalizations at times, yet he is not a bigot. His comments about Islam are few compared to the rest of his posts--and he's Jewish. There are others I could say the same thing about.

Islam to them is one issue among many they wish to discuss on a philosophy forum centered on Ayn Rand and they speak the truth as they see it from their own impressions and conclusions. They are not on a mission from God to eradicate Satan. They are not out to trick people into their hatred if they cannot persuade by reason.

If this Infidel dude changes all of a sudden and starts talking about other stuff at times, I don't know about others, but I suspect this will be camouflage. It will be because I pointed to his behavior, exposing it as the bigotry it is, and stated it so clearly even people deathly afraid of ISIS and Obama's foolishness right now can see it. A possible different posting behavior will not be because he suddenly had a change of heart and decided to become interested in something different than spreading his bigotry.

Like the saying about the duck, if someone looks like a bigot, sounds like a bigot, and acts like a bigot, what do we call him?

A quacking bigot.

Michael

[Selene]

Is there a religion that is not based on submission?

I don't think that's relevant if the focus is Islam, unless it's to highlight any differences.

Really?

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

A...

[Richard Wiig]

Is there a religion that is not based on submission?

I don't think that's relevant if the focus is Islam, unless it's to highlight any differences.

Really?

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I did say, "if Islam is the issue". The reason is because large numbers of its followers are at war with the rest of the world. They explicitly state that they are going to bring the West down, so to my mind that makes it important to determine what sets Islam apart from the rest so that the enemy can be fully understood so that a proper defence can be made. Exercises in equivalence do not achieve that. They serve to hamper that.

[Richard Wiig]

It's not that I say bad things about Islam, it's the way I say it that Michael doesn't like.

Nope.

It's not a matter of taste. It's looking at words and actions, not just words. I judge people by what they say, but I judge them much more by what they do.

When someone ONLY shows up to bash within the confines of a specific topic, and he ONLY has the same bashing view that he regurgitates over and over, and if you let him, he will post a gazillion times a day saying the same damn thing from different angles, there is more going on than critique or a discussion of ideas.

That's bigotry.

I haven't read past here. You assume that my primary reason is to bash, but that isn't me. My primary reason is to defend liberty. My interest in Islam started on 9/11, prior to which I didn't give a damn about it, and still wouldn't if it wasn't for what is going on with it. The reason I bang on about it is because I think it is important that people wake up to it, because I think the threat is being massively underestimated. That can only end in disaster for us if people don't wake up. As for my deeds. You do not know them. My posts here are such a tiny slice of my life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The reason I bang on about it is because...

Obviously--because you are a bigot.

That's what bigots do.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, wouldn't a better appellation be "prejudiced" as in "prejudiced against"? It's hard to introspect as to whether one is a "bigot." Bigot implies a more general negative reflection on character than prejudiced. It's a conclusion so final as to imply it's beyond redemption. Bigot is worse for that reason. If by your standards as stated Richard is a bigot you can also say he's prejudiced. Since you only know him--I hope--for this one prejudice how can you dump him into the deeper can except to grab everyone's attention? (Could be a valid point but also just wrong.)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

If we were talking about someone who just appeared, I would agree with you. But this guy has been doing the same shtick for years. It never changes.

He says he is trying to wake people up, but I don't know of anyone he has "woken up" to the dangers of Islam at Objectivist sites because of his bigoted messages. People who post at these places generally have an opinion way before they read anything by him.

I do know he has prompted a huge amount of negative emotional posting, which is what he wants to do, i.e., spread hatred (which is an emotion).

His goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but instead cause bad vibes among people who already have their minds made up. I base this on observing what he has actually accomplished over the years. Irritating people. Nothing more. (Except at SLOP. )

Bigots tend to avoid actual discussions--they parrot party lines--and prefer to hang out at places where they can spread bad vibes.

So, yeah.

Bigot.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Michael, wouldn't a better appellation be "prejudiced" as in "prejudiced against"? It's hard to introspect as to whether one is a "bigot." Bigot implies a more general negative reflection on character than prejudiced. It's a conclusion so final as to imply it's beyond redemption. Bigot is worse for that reason. If by your standards as stated Richard is a bigot you can also say he's prejudiced. Since you only know him--I hope--for this one prejudice how can you dump him into the deeper can except to grab everyone's attention? (Could be a valid point but also just wrong.)

--Brant

I wouldn't class myself as prejudiced either. I certainly have trust issues with the Muslim community in general in regards to the discourse about Islamic supremacism, but I don't think that means prejudice. I don't prejudge any muslim. I wait until I hear what they have to say. That doesn't mean I don't generalise. Generally, the Muslim leaders keep making excuses for the supremacists. There was another clear example of this on last nights Q & A program here in Australia. It happens time and time again. I certainly make a judgement on that, which is after the fact. In raising this it doesn't mean I am trying to spread hate. So far as I am concerned, Michael is nothing but a bully.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

If we were talking about someone who just appeared, I would agree with you. But this guy has been doing the same shtick for years. It never changes.

He says he is trying to wake people up, but I don't know of anyone he has "woken up" to the dangers of Islam at Objectivist sites because of his bigoted messages. People who post at these places generally have an opinion way before they read anything by him.

I do know he has prompted a huge amount of negative emotional posting, which is what he wants to do, i.e., spread hatred (which is an emotion).

His goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but instead cause bad vibes among people who already have their minds made up. I base this on observing what he has actually accomplished over the years. Irritating people. Nothing more. (Except at SLOP. )

Bigots tend to avoid actual discussions--they parrot party lines--and prefer to hang out at places where they can spread bad vibes.

So, yeah.

Bigot.

Michael

Well, maybe it's time to lock this thread down. See if it travels.

--Brant

yeah, I remember his kind of stuff from SOLO

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So far as I am concerned, Michael is nothing but a bully.

Infidel,

You are free to talk like that anywhere on the Internet but here. That's a warning, and it's the only one because you've already done this before. You know how it works.

If you don't think that is fair, tough.

Like Clint said, get off of my lawn. Go away.

See if I am a bully if you are not here. I won't even acknowledge your existence if you're not around spreading your bigotry and making excuses and manipulating.

Problem solved for you.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael, wouldn't a better appellation be "prejudiced" as in "prejudiced against"? It's hard to introspect as to whether one is a "bigot." Bigot implies a more general negative reflection on character than prejudiced. It's a conclusion so final as to imply it's beyond redemption. Bigot is worse for that reason. If by your standards as stated Richard is a bigot you can also say he's prejudiced. Since you only know him--I hope--for this one prejudice how can you dump him into the deeper can except to grab everyone's attention? (Could be a valid point but also just wrong.)

--Brant

I wouldn't class myself as prejudiced either. I certainly have trust issues with the Muslim community in general in regards to the discourse about Islamic supremacism, but I don't think that means prejudice. I don't prejudge any muslim. I wait until I hear what they have to say. That doesn't mean I don't generalise. Generally, the Muslim leaders keep making excuses for the supremacists. There was another clear example of this on last nights Q & A program here in Australia. It happens time and time again. I certainly make a judgement on that, which is after the fact. In raising this it doesn't mean I am trying to spread hate. So far as I am concerned, Michael is nothing but a bully.

Here is part of what I believe you are missing..

Judy Garland –

Johnny One Note (From 'Words And Music', 1948) Lyrics

Johnny could only sing one note

And the note he sang was this

Ahh

Poor Johnny one note sang out with gusto

And just overlorded the place

Poor Johnny one note, yelled willy nilly

Until he was blue in the face

For holding one note was his ace

Couldn't hear the brass

Couldn't hear the drum

He was in a class, by himself, by gum

Poor Johnny one note got in Aida

Indeed a great chance to be brave

He took his one note, howled like the north wind

Brought forth wind that made critics rave

While Verdi turned 'round in his grave

Couldn't hear the flute

Or the big trombone

Every one was mute, Johnny stood alone

Cats and dogs stopped yapping

Lions in the zoo all were jealous of Johnny's big trill

Thunder claps stopped clapping

Traffic ceased its roar and they tell us Niagara stood still

He stopped the train whistles, boat whistles

Steam whistles, cop whistles

All whistles bowed to his skill

Ahh

Sing Johnny one note, sing out with gusto

And just overlord all the crowd

So sing Johnny one note, out loud

Sing Johnny one note

Sing Johnny one note out loud

Get it?

Maybe if you were more open, you would be perceived differently.

A...

Your call dude...

[Brant Gaede]

I suppose if you're from Australia, a militarily insignificant country, it's easier to think of fighting jihad as fighting people instead of countries. Islam was always spread by the sword. By the sword driven back in Europe. Muslims are Muslims because they were conquered plus the Stockholm Syndrome. The sword on that level of suppression means state power. Everything else is comparatively minor. Even 9/11 was minor that way. Christians can go just as ape as Muslims if only theology needs to be mined for justification. Christianity didn't get on its feet until a Roman emperor made it the state religion. Then it was off to the races--big time. The desire of ISIS to establish the Caliphate is only a desire for state power through terror, conquest and intimidation. As such it will be rather easy to crush. It's the geographical nature of the open country. (Africa is another matter.)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose if you're from Australia...

Come on Brant,

Some of my best friends are Diggers.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I suppose if you're from Australia...

Come on Brant,

Some of my best friends are Diggers.

Michael

They fight as well as anyone, but there aren't enough except to fill in the cracks.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

I suppose if you're from Australia, a militarily insignificant country, it's easier to think of fighting jihad as fighting people instead of countries.

--Brant

I think of it as combating an ideology. It is futile fighting people in any country if the ideology is never to be addressed. In the Fountainhead, Gail Wynand, ended up perplexed and bewildered when he realised what little power he actually had. The West is going down the plughole. Throw all the bombs and troops into Iraq that you want, while going into greater and greater debt, but it won't save anyones bacon.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think of it as combating an ideology. It is futile fighting people in any country if the ideology is never to be addressed...

This is pure horseshit. There's no excuse for bigotry. Ever. The issue about Islamic ideology is raised in the mainstream every day the world over. And on OL often enough.

Well, maybe it's time to lock this thread down. See if it travels.

Good idea.

The repetition has killed this thread anyway. Life is more than responding to bigotry...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The thread is back open.

OL members should not be limited because of one person, so this matter has been handled in a different manner.

Michael