I really like this YT blogger because he dares to say what's on everyone's mind when it comes to Muslim Councils who constantly complain about public perception of Islam.
Printable View
I really like this YT blogger because he dares to say what's on everyone's mind when it comes to Muslim Councils who constantly complain about public perception of Islam.
Dude looks like Richard Dawkins with shorter hair.
In regards to the topic question: no one should cater to bullshit.
I think it's clear we shouldn't. Why should anyone cater to demands about how they should dress or act?
I would say this is more of a political issue than a spiritual one. Moved to Extended Discussion.
Well with Islam it's a bit of a mix of other because They get their primary laws from their religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
That may be true, although the question of whether 'the west' should cater to them is mostly a political issue in my opinion. If you really want it moved back I won't care too much about it.
nah it's alright!
Political freedom from religion. Pretty basic.
does this guy have no other interests? or things to talk about?
This, we shouldn't cater to anyone's religion. We can't discriminate against them or anyone else, that's as much catering as anyone getsQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Should get*Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
It's not the reality, I'm afraid.
This seems like a non-issue.. You may as well ask if anyone should cater to anyone's demands. Unless someone's health or life is at risk, are we not free to choose on our own terms? Doesn't really seem like there's a lot of room for discussion or debate here.
Of course we shouldn't cater to crazy and insane islamic demands. We should cater to crazy and insane christian demands. What's wrong with you? Isn't that obvious?
I can't comment on the video in too much depth (an error occurred, try again later). I will say, however, that the title "A word to Islamofascists" marks it as a loaded question posed by an extremely biased commentator. Its similar to saying, "do you think all greedy murderous Jews are bad?" Well, obviously all greedy murderous people are bad, but a yes answer implies that all jews are bad as well. The guy is most likely just a racist asshole, and I don't think "catering" to "islamofascists" is really an issue at all.
Actually this is not the case. Most of his videos, especially the earlier ones, are in fact very balanced and fair. More than once he makes the point that it's actually just a few fanatics giving Muslims everywhere a bad rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
There are many Muslims who think their religion endorses something akin to fascism. Nothing is ever gained from dancing around the truth... that's absurd. This is a real phenomenon and the two are patently entwined. Saying, 'ooh don't say that, you might make people think they are the same!' is a load of namby-pamby denialist claptrap. If people are that soft in the head then let them be; don't ever cater to them by putting a spin on the truth to those who value it. He makes it quite clear in that video that he thinks racists are just as bad. What about 'religious extremism'? Is this also a term not to be used because it 'implies' all religious people are extremists? What do we say instead? Back in the 1930s should people have refrained from using the terms 'German nationalism', or 'Nazism' even? Oh no, some people might get the mistaken impression that Germany as a whole is belligerent and that would be bad; we should just talk about 'evil of humanity' in general without any alarmist references to Germany in particular.
If you'd just read the koran you'd see that there is just as much material to justify violence in it as there is in the bible and the torah. Most of the Koran is actually the exact same stories that are in the bible and the torah.
Of course, I know that more than anyone. As a book, the Koran has just as much violence as many other religious texts (which is plenty). Claiming this as a sanction for violence is of course ridiculous; conversely claiming a particular religion promotes peace more than another is nonsense; and trying to determine who 'truly follows' a religion (be it peace or warmongers claiming the title) is a non-issue. The entire thing is nonsense and cannot be rationalised like that, as if it's objective. I'm just saying, pragmatically, sociopolitically, that there are a large number of men, chiefly characterised by practising Islam (again, whether or not they 'actually are' is not determinable, but objectively this is the characterisation), who think that people should be subjected to authoritarian rule by a religious elite, who want to drive out religious minorities, subjugate women, etcetera. And I'm saying that the way to address such issues is to never be scared to talk about it openly, never to censor oneself; this kind of taboo, I think, can actually encourage an undercurrent of prejudiced sentiment among a population. Rather, one should always be as open as possible, and tackle the issue head on, with clarity; delineate exactly who you are talking about ('Islamofascists'), and who you aren't (Muslims).