Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #1 

In one of those stereotyped "collective guilt" articles, The Gazette gives front page status to the theory that we are all somehow guilty for the massacre in Orlando, Florida.

Apparently we all harbour an intolerance for the gay community and therefore according to their rationale (in contrast to logic) we encourage and enable violence against the gays. It is rather sad to see people exploit a tragedy and distort the facts to promote their own personal political agenda.

The undisputed facts are that some American, whose family emigrated from Afghanistan, was by his own admission, motivated by sharia law [as distinguished from the Muslim religion] to punish and kill homosexuals. In the 10 Middle East countries which practice Sharia law homosexuality is punishable by death and this rather ghoulish practice occurs consistently. Whether this man was directed by Middle East terrorist groups or acted on his own inspiration, remains unknown. However, it seems he was following the council of one of Sharia's most influential authorities named Sistani who recounted, when asked, “What is [Islam's] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?” Sistani replied: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.”

So instead of attempting to lay some collective guilt on Canadians, place the blame where it belongs. An overwhelming % of Canadians take the view "live and let live" when it comes to the question of homosexuality. In fact, in Canada, homosexuality is not a crime and our police authorities are mandated to protect the gay community. In fact, in Canada, violent crimes against the gay community are almost non-existent. In 2014 there were a sum total of 124 reported crimes against gays which were characterized as involving violence. It is not the attitude of Canadians which fostered this massacre in Orlando, Florida. If anything, it was the adherence to Sharia Law which needs to be radically changed to comport with the 21st. Century.

Possibly it is time for some people to take their "politically correct" blinders off and call a spade a spade.

0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #2 
the blind left and media do all they can to protect the root cause, and yes, that goes for the ladies in their burkas here in town.  They believe the punishment for gays should be death.   In this list, note the country awarded the 2022 World Cup. Sickening really.  Islam is in fact, the root cause.  And please, don't differentiate between so called radicals and moderates.  It's an all in "religion"
Note where we accept refugees from

In 13 countries, being gay or bisexual is punishable by death. These are; Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, parts of Nigeria, parts of Somalia, parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

2014 Refugess into Canada by number rank...  Why?

1. Iraq
3. Iran
5. Somalia
6. Syria
7. Afghanistan
9. Pakistan
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #3 
To say Islam is an all-in religion to infer all those who practice it are radicals is absurd.

To deny that the mass murder in Orlando was partly a result of radical Islamic beliefs is also absurd.

To say that all Muslims support the killing of gays based on the laws of the countries they live in is also absurd.

You conveniently leave out Islamic nations where being gay is not illegal, such as Jordan, Turkey and Indonesia. Not to say that those a great places to be gay and that gay people are perfectly safe there, but it does show that maybe advancement in human rights is possible in Muslim nations.

You also conveniently leave out Nations like Uganda and Brazil, Christian nations where being gay or transgender is extremely dangerous.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #4 

Observer said in part:
"To say Islam is an all-in religion to infer all those who practice it are radicals is absurd.
To deny that the mass murder in Orlando was partly a result of radical Islamic beliefs is also absurd.
To say that all Muslims support the killing of gays based on the laws of the countries they live in is also absurd. "

It seems he left one out equally absurd statement namely the opening remark in the Gazette article titled "We can't let hatred win" namely .... "We’re all complicit in last weekend’s mass shooting in Florida, ..... "

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #5 
Have not read the article. I would agree that statement is absurd.
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #6 
I also think fighting over where to cast the blame and how to assign motive does no one any good. Especially when that is done through mass generalizations.

I read last week there is an openly gay imam. Perhaps that will be a bridge between that religion and the LGBT community.

We need more bridges.
1
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #7 
Observer said in part:  "I also think fighting over where to cast the blame and how to assign motive does no one any good."

Ahhh yes ... it would be terrible to actually look at the killing of some 49 people and the grave injury of 49 more ... which the shooter proclaimed was being done in the name of ISIS an Islamic terrorist organization and make the judgement call that this was evil and place the blame accordingly. 

That would involve a critical rational analysis involving an assessment of right and wrong ... good and evil and to do so would be "judgmental."

In this Postmodern world of "progressivism" any attempt to conduct that type of assessment would fly directly in the face of those sacred pillars of moral relativity and ethical equivalency..... and leave one open to the charge of bigotry.

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #8 
Nope. Not what I said. But far be it for you to look at my statement critically and instead use it to repeat your political view point, which you do ad nauseum.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #9 
Since you were quoted directly, it's a bit difficult to argue it is not what you said ... but whatever.
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #10 
Observer, Islam - based on the Quran - demands Gays be killed. You can't have it any other way.  Muslims are not compatible - for many reasons - with Western Values of Democracy, Women Rights and Gay Rights.   There can be no Bridge built as long as Islam exists.   Look at Germany, Sweden, Austrailia, Denmark, France and Britain - the push for Sharia, no go zones, ie. ISLAM as commanded by the Quran.  They are to Jihad until all lands are under Islamic rule.  

To state otherwise is false.

You can learn about Islam here : http://ramblingsdc.net/IslamThreat.html

Interesting note : Answer is not Islam...

Can you name Origin Religion of these?
1. pray five times a day
2. perform ablution
3. prostrate while praying
4. practice
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #11 
You cannot build bridges with Radical Islam. They are so entrenched in their beliefs that they have blinders on. These people have one goal..to make the world Islamic. It made me sick to read the life of their blood thirsty prophet Mohammed. Isis is following his actions to a T.
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #12 
Obviously I was not referring to building bridges with radical islam. That would be impossible.

Also. There are Muslim LGBTQ groups and openly gay Muslim leaders. Obviously that demonstrates a willingness of some to change. It also defeats your argument that all Muslims think gays should die.
1
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #13 
You are wrong Observer. Find me a Mosque that would perform a Gay marriage in North America or UK.  Or even let the women sit with the superior males? HA!
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #14 

Although the Democratic Party is working hard in their attempt to spin this tragedy as a case of domestic violence involving an attack on gays, it is obvious that this should be recognized as part the Islamic political Jihad against the West because they hate our values.

After all, this Islamist terrorist also, I understand, cased out Disney World ... so the victims could just as easily been a whole bunch of straight people who were visiting Disney World. The fact that this Islamic terrorist chose a gay bar, which Western cultures tolerate, is just one of the many targets that they feel epitomizes Western secularism which they consider to be depraved.

So discussions about building bridges between our Society and Muslims who eschew terrorism seems to be just a distraction from the real concern which is the Islamic terrorist attack on Western civilization and its values.

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #15 
The bridges comment was meant to refer to the right, the left and Muslims who eschew terrorism. It is not a distraction. Islamic terrorism needs to be defeated, but that can't be done by infighting and using it as a means to promote personal political agendas. The attack in Orlando can be an attack on gays as much as it can be an attack on western values and safety as whole. Fighting about which is more the case is pointless. We instead be focused on how to stop these attacks in the future.

Since2000, I am assuming that is when you were born based on your childish responses. Up until a decade ago, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian church that would perform a gay marriage.

I do know of mosques, actually, that do forego the separate entrances for women and do allow men and women to pray together. Yes. A lot of Muslim practices continue to be backward and there are many abuses to human rights. There are also many Muslims who preach tolerance and try to spread a different interpretation of Islam than is demonstrated by ISIS or countries like Saudi Arabia.

Change has to start somewhere, dismissing people's efforts to fix the problems they see in their own religion and lump them together with extremist psychos does everyone a disservice. Those efforts should be encouraged and supported.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #16 

Although the Orlando shooter calmly proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS and one of the leaders of Islamic terrorism, the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media seem intent on changing the subject and imputing blame to almost any other social problem.

The Obama Administration attempted to change the narrative to gun control and attempted to censor any reference to Islamic terrorism in the press release of the terrorist's public statements. The New York Times blamed "Republican bigotry" as the root cause. CNN attempted to change the discussion from terrorism to the same sex marriage issue. The Daily News blamed the NRA for opposing gun control legislation. "The View" blamed Donald Trump. And at home, the St. Albert Gazette attempted to blame everyone for this massacre on the pretext that we all promote hatred of gays.

So why are we witnessing such a concerted effort to avoid talking about Islamic Terrorism and such a transparent attempt to change the subject to almost any other perceived social problem?

The answer SEEMS to be because these acts of Islamic terrorism expose the Achilles heel of cultural and moral relativity. Can one credibly look at the Orlando massacre and say "well, everyone's cultural values are equally valid and we should tolerate the values of the Islamists?" Can one credibly look at this belief in killing to attain political goals and say it is morally equivalent to "love thy neighbour as thy self?"

This terrorism exposes the fundamental flaws in moral and cultural relativity and since that is a foundational block of western Postmodernism, the tendency is to change the subject rather than admit the fundamentals of our world view are flawed.

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #17 
Is it that or is it an attempt to try and stop people from painting all Muslims with the same brush as Islamic radicals?

Personally, I don't think we should be legitimizing the radical component by calling it a culture or a state or anything more than the band of blood thirsty psychos that they are. Obviously we should not ignore the root cause of their religious beliefs, but we should also not assume every Muslim shares those beliefs because they practising the same religion. Many religions have different sects and different denominations. Unfortunately Islam has the most dangerous extreme branch. But that does not mean all Muslims share those values. No more than most Christians would not join the Westboro Baptists.

I also think people from the right continuously saying things like, "Can one credibly look at the Orlando massacre and say "well, everyone's cultural values are equally valid and we should tolerate the values of the Islamists?" Is equivalent to the political rhetoric of those who say the attacks were about homophobia.

Really? Does anyone honestly think there are those that think we should tolerate the dangerous ideals of radical Islamists? That is just absurd.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #18 
Observer:  

Since the vast vast majority of people are fully aware that there are peaceful Muslims and are not attempting to paint "all Muslims with the same brush as Islamic radicals?", this is nothing more than a straw man argument. However, I do recognize that it does seem to give the Political Left a talking point and a feigned intellectual transcendency because they repeat it endlessly.

Secondly, the suggestion that ISIS is little "more than the band of blood thirsty pyschos" seems not only to belie the facts, it seems to be indicia of a state of denial. The best estimates indicate that about 5% -7% of the worldwide Muslim population are , in some sort of active support, planning or implementing of terrorism. Since the Muslim population is about 1.5 billion that translates into 75 million (75,000,000) who are actvely involved in some phase of violent Jihad. Surveys have shown that an average of 25% of the Islamic population supports or condone some form of violent jihad. That 25% translates into only 375 million people who condone some form of violent jihad in certain circumstances. So your "band of blood thirsty pyschos", according to empirical studies, is slightly larger than the average motor cycle gang. And further, given the size and extent of the terrorist movement, it would logically follow that your concern about "giving them legitimacy" would seem to be rather disconnected from reality as events have long since left that port of call.

Thirdly, although you attempt to belittle my critique of cultural and moral relativism, you post is remarkably absent as to any explanation as to why all these "progressives" from Obama down to "The View" seem incapable of admitting that the Orlando massacre was a case of Islamic terrorism and trundle off into their comfort zones ranging from gun control to homophobia.

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #19 
Actually this time I was in no way trying to belittle your critique, I honestly can't fathom anyone being stupid enough to think cultural relatism could apply to Islamic radicals. Maybe I give people too much credit.

Also. I am in no way in denial of the severity of the threat radical Islam presents. I just think legitimizing them as any more than how i characterized them gives them too much credibility.

It is as much a war of propoganda as it is of body count.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #20 
Observer:  You said in part  "I honestly can't fathom anyone being stupid enough to think cultural relativism could apply to Islamic radicals"  Does that mean that in your mind that there are some values which transcend culture and have a universal quality?  Just curious.
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #21 
I think there are values that should transcend culture, unfortunately they don't. If they did, the world would not be the shit show that it is.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #22 
So if values do not transcend culture and the values of two cultures conflict in a manner which precludes compromise, what is the appropriate immigration policy of the host nation vis-a-vis the culture having the uncompromising conflicting cultural values?
0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #23 
Your question blankets all people of a culture under one umbrella. Experience and evidence shows that the values of people from different cultures and indeed within the same culture differ wildly. 

Many people fight within their culture for change to systems and practices they find distasteful, antiquated or (insert -ist word here).

Applying an immigration policy to a set of people based on religion, race, or cultural practices based on the worst of that demographic is a slippery slope. What applies to one group could easily apply to another group later.

That being said, wisdom would dictate vigilance. Personally, I think immigration screening should be stringent for anyone wanting to move to Canada. I don't agree with barring people from wanting to move here, as long as they pass the checks and balances.

Really though. Anyone at anytime of any race or colour of origin can be a threat or become a threat. Fortunately I do not walk around afraid of everyone on the street.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #24 

Since you said "That being said, wisdom would dictate vigilance. Personally, I think immigration screening should be stringent for anyone wanting to move to Canada. I don't agree with barring people from wanting to move here, as long as they pass the checks and balances."

This creates the obvious question ..... so when your immigration officials inform you that they have no means, techniques, or tools, by which they can screen out Islamic terrorists from a state known to produce Islamic terrorists, what is the appropriate policy response?

0
Observer

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 149
Reply with quote  #25 
There are no known tools to screen out any potential threats who have no criminal history. So if you think you are going to goad me into saying we should close the borders to people from certain places, you won't.

I am pretty sure the majority of terrorists attacks from in Canada and the US have been perpetrated by people born here anyway.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.