Muslims have gone too far

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you really want to know what a great comparison it was, you should go over to one of those Muslim countries and proudly announce to everyone that you are gay. Then you will see how similar those countries are to ours.

For you to even make the comparison is an outrage.

Nobody is talking about free speech here (edited to clarify that nobody = in context of your response to me where I"m certainly not talking about it). It's neat that you like it -- I do too, that's why I love this country, and I like our laws too, I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.

The idea that the quote below somehow only applies to Muslims is the crux of my entire response. To make it about anything more than that is just you having a conversation with yourself, since that's not what I'm talking about. Neat that Muslims shouldn't be able to tell people who aren't in their faith what to do, but other religions should feel free to continue to do so...how that moves into a discussion of free speech and American laws and what areas on Earth I may or may not find myself more likely to get killed is beyond me, but if you want to respond to the actual point I'm making, feel free to do so, I'd welcome that -- but MUSLIMS WILL CUT YOUR HEAD OFF IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!11!!!!! is not a response germane to my point, but thanks for giving it a shot anyway, RP.

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

It's insane logic, they shouldn't be able to tell what someone who isn't part of their faith can and can't do!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Nobody is talking about free speech here. It's neat that you like it -- I do too, that's why I love this country, and I like our laws too, I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.

The idea that the quote below somehow only applies to Muslims is the crux of my entire response. To make it about anything more than that is just you having a conversation with yourself, since that's not what I'm talking about. Neat that Muslims shouldn't be able to tell people who aren't in their faith what to do, but other religions should feel free to continue to do so...how that moves into a discussion of free speech and American laws and what areas on Earth I may or may not find myself more likely to get killed is beyond me, but if you want to respond to the actual point I'm making, feel free to do so, I'd welcome that -- but MUSLIMS WILL CUT YOUR HEAD OFF IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!11!!!!! is not a response germane to my point, but thanks for giving it a shot anyway, RP.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Muslims (or Christians for that matter) stating their opinion. None of us have a problem with that. I don't think that Letswastemoney's point was that he had a problem with Muslims following Muhammad or preaching to others that they should follow Muhammad. I don't think Letswastemoney had a problem with that. I think the problem he had was that they want to force people to behave in certain ways and they want to kill people that don't behave in those ways. I think that was his whole problem.

I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were disagreeing with Letswastemoney's main point.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone has a problem with Muslims (or Christians for that matter) stating their opinion. None of us have a problem with that. I don't think that Letswastemoney's point was that he had a problem with Muslims following Muhammad or preaching to others that they should follow Muhammad. I don't think Letswastemoney had a problem with that. I think the problem he had was that they want to force people to behave in certain ways and they want to kill people that don't behave in those ways. I think that was his whole problem.

I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were disagreeing with Letswastemoney's main point.

I also don't feel that people wanting to force others to behave in certain ways based on the way they believe is a strictly Muslim issue. I have no problem admitting that the extremes that many Muslims take it to including death threats gets ridiculous and there is NO comparison to Christians or other groups -- but to pretend that *only* Muslims get ridiculous or *only* Muslims want to tell other people what to do (which is why I re-quoted that original sentence in the original post...maybe LWM wouldn't have said it quite that way a second time around, either) is an argument that continually gets made. It's not a trading game where one extreme example cancels out another and then Muslims are left with more than other religions -- crazies are everywhere, and it sounded to me like LWM's post was doing what lots of people do in pretending that Muslims are the only ones capable belonging to the pushy beliefs club and the extreme actions club.

[letswastemoney]

I have thought about this some more, and the other main religions do have lots of restrictions as well that affect the lives of people in other religions, such as the issues between Christians and the gay community.

I just thought the examples I came up, restricting what can be seen on South Park and what can be seen on Facebook, were extreme, that's all.

Come to think of it, if there was something offensive to Christians on South Park, some extremist Christian group would probably try to censor the episode as well.

In conclusion, maybe the world would be better off with no religion.

[rpncaine]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

In conclusion, maybe the world would be better off with no religion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I have thought about this some more, and the other main religions do have lots of restrictions as well that affect the lives of people in other religions, such as the issues between Christians and the gay community.

I just thought the examples I came up, restricting what can be seen on South Park and what can be seen on Facebook, were extreme, that's all.

Come to think of it, if there was something offensive to Christians on South Park, some extremist Christian group would probably try to censor the episode as well.

In conclusion, maybe the world would be better off with no religion.

maybe? i think definitely.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I have thought about this some more, and the other main religions do have lots of restrictions as well that affect the lives of people in other religions, such as the issues between Christians and the gay community.

I just thought the examples I came up, restricting what can be seen on South Park and what can be seen on Facebook, were extreme, that's all.

Come to think of it, if there was something offensive to Christians on South Park, some extremist Christian group would probably try to censor the episode as well.

In conclusion, maybe the world would be better off with no religion.

actually not.. Jesus is a character that is frequently on South Park. they've made fun of more Pope's than anyone. No death threats. They made Mohammad dressed as a Bear and now the writers have to live in hiding.. The whole car bomb in front of the Viacom building in NYC? Same place where South Park is written? I do not believe that was a coincidence.. especially considering that the guy who left the bomb had previously spoken out against the "prophet" in that Danish cartoon.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I also don't feel that people wanting to force others to behave in certain ways based on the way they believe is a strictly Muslim issue. I have no problem admitting that the extremes that many Muslims take it to including death threats gets ridiculous and there is NO comparison to Christians or other groups -- but to pretend that *only* Muslims get ridiculous or *only* Muslims want to tell other people what to do (which is why I re-quoted that original sentence in the original post...maybe LWM wouldn't have said it quite that way a second time around, either) is an argument that continually gets made. It's not a trading game where one extreme example cancels out another and then Muslims are left with more than other religions -- crazies are everywhere, and it sounded to me like LWM's post was doing what lots of people do in pretending that Muslims are the only ones capable belonging to the pushy beliefs club and the extreme actions club.

When Christians, Catholics, Jews etc go nuts its "that guy/girl was whacko", but when someone named Mohammed does it it"s "those f'in Muslims".

The Atlanta Olympic bomber, Kansas Abortion Clinic Dr murderer, Oklahoma City Bomber, and on and on....all non-Muslims acting in the name of these bull sh*t "America" Religions...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

When Christians, Catholics, Jews etc go nuts its "that guy/girl was whacko", but when someone named Mohammed does it it"s "those f'in Muslims".

The Atlanta Olympic bomber, Kansas Abortion Clinic Dr murderer, Oklahoma City Bomber, and on and on....all non-Muslims acting in the name of these bull sh*t "America" Religions...

OK, were those alleged Christian perpetrators promised 72 virgins in paradise for their acts?

How about looking at scale: when was the last time 19 Christians killed over 3000 innocent people?

And the people saying "They will cut your head off in the middle east" are correct -- we don't have anything like that on the books over here. When we occasionally do carry out the sentence in a capital case, it's after many levels of mandatory appeals and normally around 25 years after the crime -- and the crimes are not defined by religious offenses.

Is decapitating an infidel considered "measured response" in the middle east? Ask Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, were those alleged Christian perpetrators promised 72 virgins in paradise for their acts?

How about looking at scale: when was the last time 19 Christians killed over 3000 innocent people?

And the people saying "They will cut your head off in the middle east" are correct -- we don't have anything like that on the books over here. When we occasionally do carry out the sentence in a capital case, it's after many levels of mandatory appeals and normally around 25 years after the crime -- and the crimes are not defined by religious offenses.

Is decapitating an infidel considered "measured response" in the middle east? Ask Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg.

How about over the last few thousand years? Some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind were done in the name of Christianity. Surely this fact has not escaped you.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by GBBob

When Christians, Catholics, Jews etc go nuts its "that guy/girl was whacko", but when someone named Mohammed does it it"s "those f'in Muslims"....

Notice how people in the other religions have no problem condemning "whacko" acts, but Muslims are often very slow to condemn these horrible acts. How many of them are complaining about Muslims threatening to kill people over cartoons n' such crap? These people are members of a glorified gang. I will remind you that he told them to kill members who try to leave the faith. Those are gang rules. Just want you to know the rules the scum (your sticking up for) have been given by their thug "prophet." This is a gang. 20-25% of the world belong to a damn gang of scum. Any chance they get, they are gunna bring pain to those who choose not to join this gang. I feel like the legit point people want to make is that nobody should be singled out, and threatened physically for their "religious belefs." That an important point, but somewhere along the line these people have to understand that non-Muslims are no longer gunna put up with their crap. That includes not putting up with their threats to kill people who draw images they don't like. FK THEM. It's called freedom, and their Prophet didn't like Freedom. Fk him, too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Notice how people in the other religions have no problem condemning "whacko" acts, but Muslims are often very slow to condemn these horrible acts. How many of them are complaining about Muslims threatening to kill people over cartoons n' such crap? .

Quite a lot. You just don't care to see it, in your eagerness to condemn millions of people for the acts of a few.

You might try reading the Qur'an, rather than just quoting crazy hate group blogosphere interpretations. I don't care that you hate everyone within one particular religion. You're entitled, I guess. But I sure don't have to suffer the constant repetition of such crap without comment.

I'd rather read the Qdoba menu.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

Quite a lot. You just don't care to see it, in your eagerness to condemn millions of people for the acts of a few.

A few pretty loud and destructive people, it only took a few to kill thousands on 9/11 . The same few that kill their own people everyday but that is ok because its for Allah. If a person of the Muslim faith doesnt want to be lumped in with terrorists that they need to be loud and proud and that doesnt mean just a few lines in the papers saying we denounce their actions . They need to get active and protest their own people in their home lands , hold demonstrations and boycott business or people that are suspected of supporting terrorism . But that wont happen beacuse the few you speak of scare the crap outta the very few that speak up.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Quite a lot. You just don't care to see it, in your eagerness to condemn millions of people for the acts of a few.

You might try reading the Qur'an, rather than just quoting crazy hate group blogosphere interpretations. I don't care that you hate everyone within one particular religion. You're entitled, I guess. But I sure don't have to suffer the constant repetition of such crap without comment.

I hate to break you this news but Osama Bin Laden is fairly popular throughout the Muslim world. It's not as if 99% of Muslims dislike Bin Laden. I don't know exactly what his popularity numbers are amongst Muslims around the world today, but I know his numbers were pretty high fairly soon after 9/11.

You might try reading the Koran. It says that anyone who defames the prophet(Muhammad) must die. I remember when the author Salman Rushdie wrote the book The Satanic Verses. In the book, he mocked Muhammad in some way. There ended up being a bounty put on Rushdie's head for mocking Muhammad. I remember at the time, a reporter went up to the singer/songwriter Cat Stevens (who is a devout Muslim) to ask him what he thought of the bounty being put on Rushdie's head. Stevens responded that the Koran clearly states that anyone who defames the prophet must die. So he was basically in favor of Rushdie being killed.

It's not like only a small number of Muslims thought Rushdie should die. A fairly high number thought he should die.

I think the vast majority of Muslims that live in the US are probably pretty good people. Thankfully most of them don't take the Koran literally.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Nobody is talking about free speech here (edited to clarify that nobody = in context of your response to me where I"m certainly not talking about it). It's neat that you like it -- I do too, that's why I love this country, and I like our laws too, I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.

The idea that the quote below somehow only applies to Muslims is the crux of my entire response. To make it about anything more than that is just you having a conversation with yourself, since that's not what I'm talking about. Neat that Muslims shouldn't be able to tell people who aren't in their faith what to do, but other religions should feel free to continue to do so...how that moves into a discussion of free speech and American laws and what areas on Earth I may or may not find myself more likely to get killed is beyond me, but if you want to respond to the actual point I'm making, feel free to do so, I'd welcome that -- but MUSLIMS WILL CUT YOUR HEAD OFF IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!11!!!!! is not a response germane to my point, but thanks for giving it a shot anyway, RP.

even with this clarified responce its still apples and oranges.

Who cares if Christian try to tell people how to live their lives. They do that because they feel they are helping people be "saved" (aka go to heaven). The book they read tells them to do that. Its easily shrugged off.

The other case is completely different. a "jihad" is completely different than trying to teach people what the Bible (a completely fiction book IMO) says.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Who cares if Christian try to tell people how to live their lives?

But it isn't just telling other people how to live their lives. It is also people making discrimanatory laws (DOMA, etc.) at least in part because they think their religion tells them it is the right thing to do.

Now, I can't wait for someone to respond to this fairly obvious point with some sort of clever retort such as:
"How dare you say that DOMA is the same as 9-11?"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

But it isn't just telling other people how to live their lives. It is also people making discrimanatory laws (DOMA, etc.) at least in part because they think their religion tells them it is the right thing to do.

Now, I can't wait for someone to respond to this fairly obvious point with some sort of clever retort such as:
"How dare you say that DOMA is the same as 9-11?"

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

In some states marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman and in some states its defined by people over the age of 18 and not related or not already married to someone else as marriage. The rules of a game and the rules of life in my humble opinon cant be compared.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can see how some people look at DOMA as a discriminatory law. I don't see it that way.

I heard the same argument with the whole Casey Martin debate on the PGA Tour. In case you're not familiar with the case, Casey Martin is a great golfer but he is disabled and he cannot walk 18 holes. He needs a golf cart. The PGA Tour will not let him use a golf cart, so he can't play.

Because of this, some people make the argument that the PGA Tour is discriminating against disabled people by not allowing them to use a golf cart. A disabled person is basically not allowed to play since he can't play without a cart. I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I don't think they are discrimiating against disabled people. The PGA Tour feels that walking is part of the game. The game of professional golf is hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Disabled people are not being discriminated against. They are allowed to play just like everyone else as long as they walk.

The PGA Tour has defined golf as hitting the ball and walking 18 holes. Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. There is no discrimination in either case.

ugh, your opinion is completely wrong, but you are entitled to it. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and tell me its not discriminatory. DOMA also violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution.

Comparing it to a game that is run by the PGA is very insulting, though I'm sure you didnt mean it to be that way.

Augusta doesnt allow women to be members.. they are a private club and its' their right (just like the PGA). Is it discriminatory though? hell yes.

the USA is different story