Mosques protests

[Robert Monroe]

That's dumb thinking. The reason is simple. If you burn your hand on a hot pan, you learn "Oh. I better not touch that hot pan." You dont go "Oh, that was a bad experience, but I'm sure it won't happen again." *touchs pan.

As a result, I have learned to assume all hot pans burn until proven otherwise. That's called learning. Same with femanists, same with chavs, same with emos. Logically they are not ALL arseholes, but it's generally better to assume arsehole until proven innocent.

People aren't hot pans. They are in control of themselves, a hot pan is entirely dependent on the stove to be hot. Just because it is better to assume assholes does not justify hating an entire social goup. Jumping to conclusions like this is what causes violent rifts between people in the first place.

Not this crap again. You sound like an emo going "My tradgedy is bigger then yours! BAWWWWW!" 911 was over years ago, but it's the only recent justification for attention and acting like a twat, failing to realise that by doing that you are letting the terrorists win.

Funny, I don't recall using it to justify anything, so nice asshole move there. I was merely stating the scope of the two tragedies is far too large to compare them. It's like telling someone to stop crying over losing a limb, because they stopped crying over a broken/sprained one.

...even after 9 years.

*shrugs* Don't look at me for answers as to why its taking so long.

I'm sick of tolerance and "sensitivity"...Society is quick to defend Muslims, yet they got no qualms about Christians being mocked, ridiculed, or discriminated against.

I'm quick to defend ANYONE'S beleifs, because I feel it to be uncalled for to stereotype and mock anyone's culture based on what other people have done. Just because you're butthurt about Christians being mocked does NOT justify mocking other people's religions. It serves only to show you are just shallow. And for the record, there is a difference between being a wishywashy baby who doesn't want to step on other people's toes, and respecting other people and not holding ill towards them because of other's actions.

Again, this is mainly what my ex-Muslim friends said, and I agree with them...

I have spoken with local Imams and Muslims, and your ex-muslim friends are wrong. They have come from societies that have warped and corrupted Islam, and are not faithful followers. Middle-Eastern Westboro Baptists, really. Islam is, going by the Koran, a religion of peace, and Muhammed himself was an oppoent of violent conversion. The terrorist Muslims of today are modern-day Crusaders, and are not even close to a semblence of what the faith actually preaches.

With all due respect, it wasn't THAT long ago since Christianity was at the same place. Would be a bit like two guys bullying others equally bad, and then the next day, one stops and start scolding the other for STILL hanging on to it.

That's exactly it. Just because some members are hatemongering, does not justify hatemongering back to the entire group as a whole.

But Christianity stopped that, Islam never stopped, and never will....

When Europe was a land of ignorant kings and greedy lords, I'm sure the at the time more civilized Muslims were saying the same thing. The middle east, at the moment, is a hell-hole. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the lack of unity among Arab nations, has pushed the region into a third-world hell hole. It is NOT the religion, but the people misinterperting the religion, and they do so largely in part because they live in a very violent and chaotic landscape. Enviroment is playing a large part here. And making the claim that Islam will NEVER stop is just complete bullshit. You can not see the future, you can not judge an entire religion, let alone its followers, and determine what its people will do in the future. Don't make such ignorant claims.

Strangely enough, it wouldn't have surprised me if some muslim had said the same, except turned around, back in the days of the spanish inqusition. The Middle East used to be a centrum for science and culture once, if not THE centrum, and several necesary parts of our modern society which we take for granted, we can trace the roots of back to them.

Most modern science and medicine had roots in the Middle East at the time of the Crusades. Ironically, its because of the crusades the West got this technology, because it was brought back as spoils of war.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

And making the claim that Islam will NEVER stop is just complete bullshit. You can not see the future, you can not judge an entire religion, let alone its followers, and determine what its people will do in the future.

...and neither can you.  You can not see the future either, you can not judge an entire religion, let alone its followers, and determine what its people WON'T do in the future. 

In all seriousness...guess maybe I should've said "But Christianity stopped that, Islam never stopped, and [probably] never will...." in that post...

[Robert Monroe]

...and neither can you.  You can not see the future either, you can not judge an entire religion, let alone its followers, and determine what its people WON'T do in the future. 

In all seriousness...guess maybe I should've said "But Christianity stopped that, Islam never stopped, and [probably] never will...." in that post...

The problem with that statement is it is still false. There are violent extremist Christians (I recall some wingnuts attempting to plot a violent coup in Texas not too long ago), and in most any developed nation, Muslims are no more or less violent than the Christians, or most any other follower. Again, the violence is more to blame on the civil unrest and political turmoil of the Middle East, with Islam being used as a scapegoat, not the religion itself.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

The problem with that statement is it is still false. There are violent extremist Christians (I recall some wingnuts attempting to plot a violent coup in Texas not too long ago), and in most any developed nation, Muslims are no more or less violent than the Christians, or most any other follower. Again, the violence is more to blame on the civil unrest and political turmoil of the Middle East, with Islam being used as a scapegoat, not the religion itself.

....well, violence and/or exploitation of religion as a means to get what one wants or "justify" their actions.

[Guest DRL]

....well, violence and/or exploitation of religion as a means to get what one wants or "justify" their actions.

That is true, but please keep it mind

that it is not the Religion's fault.

I am not Christian, but the rest of my

family is Roman Chatolic (for 99% the

most part), and have never done such

thing as 'religious violence' - nor have

done any of our citizens until these

homsexual marriage talks began to take place.

I do see your point Julius: Muslims have been

acting like dummies lately (to avoid using the 'a' word),

but I see Robert's point too. Just because they are dummies

now, does not means they can not 'grow up' and change

their ways. Christianity did. So did Sunnites. Maybe Shiites

change too? Let's wait and see.

[Sabre]

Funny, I don't recall using it to justify anything, so nice asshole move there. I was merely stating the scope of the two tragedies is far too large to compare them. It's like telling someone to stop crying over losing a limb, because they stopped crying over a broken/sprained one.

That's exactly what it's like. There are 2 kinds of problems. Stuff you can do something about and stuff you can't, either fix it or deal with it. My dad lost his finger before I was born, he doesn't sit in the middle of the room crying about all the time.

Just because you're butthurt about Christians being mocked does NOT justify mocking other people's religions. It serves only to show you are just shallow.

The Jews do.

Also, reated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tsgmuD6eDg

[Robert Monroe]

That's exactly what it's like. There are 2 kinds of problems. Stuff you can do something about and stuff you can't, either fix it or deal with it. My dad lost his finger before I was born, he doesn't sit in the middle of the room crying about all the time.

And again, the scope of the tragedies is different. You are comparing a run of the mill terrorist bombing to a damn airplane slamming into a national landmark. One killed 60 people, the other killed 2000. You are in no position to tell people to get over their pain because you don't understand their pain. What I will agree with is that they don't need to be WHINY, but to tell them to get over it is being a flatout tactless asshat.

The Jews do.

Also, reated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tsgmuD6eDg

Not sure what you mean by the Jew comment. If its serious, that doesn't man shit, so what if Jews think mocking someone is justified because someone mocked them? You can never justify an attack on someone on the basis of they attacked you first. That isn't to say you don't defend yourself, but just because someone breaks into your house doesn't make it ok for you to break into someone else's house.

As for the video, woohoo, look, another run of the mill atheist comedian who wins over the hearts of every dumbass self-enlightened prick on the internet with his barely witty scathing criticisim of the bad things that have been done in the name of religion. Allow me to shit myself at the originality of it all. though I did lol at some parts

[Sabre]

And again, the scope of the tragedies is different. You are comparing a run of the mill terrorist bombing to a damn airplane slamming into a national landmark. One killed 60 people, the other killed 2000. You are in no position to tell people to get over their pain because you don't understand their pain. What I will agree with is that they don't need to be WHINY, but to tell them to get over it is being a flatout tactless asshat.

Not sure what you mean by the Jew comment. If its serious, that doesn't man shit, so what if Jews think mocking someone is justified because someone mocked them? You can never justify an attack on someone on the basis of they attacked you first. That isn't to say you don't defend yourself, but just because someone breaks into your house doesn't make it ok for you to break into someone else's house.

As for the video, woohoo, look, another run of the mill atheist comedian who wins over the hearts of every dumbass self-enlightened prick on the internet with his barely witty scathing criticisim of the bad things that have been done in the name of religion. Allow me to shit myself at the originality of it all. though I did lol at some parts

No comment.

[Fana McCloud]

And again, the scope of the tragedies is different. You are comparing a run of the mill terrorist bombing to a damn airplane slamming into a national landmark. One killed 60 people, the other killed 2000. You are in no position to tell people to get over their pain because you don't understand their pain.

I don't care what context it is in generally - I think that telling people that they can't understand another's pain is one of those lines that shouldn't be crossed because I think it's generally NOT true.

And telling people to get over their pain is one thing, you could argue that, but getting angry and interfering in other peoples' lives because you're upset (as in the case of the mosque) is a completely different matter.

[Robert Monroe]

I don't care what context it is in generally - I think that telling people that they can't understand another's pain is one of those lines that shouldn't be crossed because I think it's generally NOT true.

And telling people to get over their pain is one thing, you could argue that, but getting angry and interfering in other peoples' lives because you're upset (as in the case of the mosque) is a completely different matter.

That is true. Again I cite my original thoughts on the protests: I am undecided on whose side I stand, because I find the Mosque to be insensitive, and the protestors to be overreacting.

[Sabre]

5 mins into this has a funny section about this topic.

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2010/07/amateur-scientist-podcast-episode-111.html

[Konchaski]

I finally have some composure and thought about this topic. As I studied it more, the mosque is not on Ground Zero itself, it's two blocks away. And it's more like a community center with a prayer room. I mean it serves other purposes in that respect - it's not just Muslims who can go in it but everyone and anyone.  If we don't allow it to happen, we are showing various groups like Hamas that we're afraid and hate everything about them. And I don't think that's the message we want to send.

Plus, there's a mosque near there and it's been there for something like 30 years.

Really, the huge thing that makes my head spin is that the national politicians moving to block this community center were the same people who just blocked a bill offering aid to 9/11 victims suffering from medical complications from the event.

[DZComposer]

There is a significant group of people in this country who believe "religious freedom" should end at what Christian denomination you are. That is completely against what the founders thought. The founders even mentioned Islam in their writings about religious freedom, and how they would allow it. They called it "Mohammadism" back then.

That said, we also have freedom of speech. So, if someone wants to protest a religion, they have the right to do it. I'll protest any religion. I personally believe religion is the worst thing the human race has ever come up with, as it has lead to more oppression and death than any other thing. But that's for a different thread.

Protesting is fine, so long as it does not impair people from exercising their religious rights.

[Sabre]

There is a significant group of people in this country who believe "religious freedom" should end at what Christian denomination you are. That is completely against what the founders thought. The founders even mentioned Islam in their writings about religious freedom, and how they would allow it. They called it "Mohammadism" back then.

That said, we also have freedom of speech. So, if someone wants to protest a religion, they have the right to do it. I'll protest any religion. I personally believe religion is the worst thing the human race has ever come up with, as it has lead to more oppression and death than any other thing. But that's for a different thread.

Protesting is fine, so long as it does not impair people from exercising their religious rights.

It depends on the right. I'm going to butcher spelling here, but lets take the burqa. Fine. If you wont remove it in a garage where everyone has to remove helmets and so on you can't hide behind freedom of religeon. Otherwise a delivery guy could just say "God says I don't have to remove this helmet when delivering here" or another, using preying as an excuse to leave or avoid an exam.

Ultimatly, pratical laws and rules trum religeus freedom I think.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Ultimately, practical laws and rules trump religious freedom I think.

Yup! I agree.

[Robert Monroe]

It depends on the right. I'm going to butcher spelling here, but lets take the burqa. Fine. If you wont remove it in a garage where everyone has to remove helmets and so on you can't hide behind freedom of religeon. Otherwise a delivery guy could just say "God says I don't have to remove this helmet when delivering here" or another, using preying as an excuse to leave or avoid an exam.

Ultimatly, pratical laws and rules trum religeus freedom I think.

Dude with the helment can gtfo then and go do something where he is safe to use his helment in peace :P

["User"]

It depends on the right. I'm going to butcher spelling here, but lets take the burqa. Fine. If you wont remove it in a garage where everyone has to remove helmets and so on you can't hide behind freedom of religeon. Otherwise a delivery guy could just say "God says I don't have to remove this helmet when delivering here" or another, using preying as an excuse to leave or avoid an exam.

I don't know how the law works in the U.K., but in Canada (with over 9000 religions and cultures) it's not that simple to just use the freedom of religion clause in our Charter by stating something like that.  A case was tried like this recently where a group got busted with a whole bunch of hash and they (the defense) used freedom of religion because their "religion" allowed them to do illegal drugs but the prosecution insisted that their religion in question wasn't a religion at all.  It had no core teachings/principles or formal "rules" or background that any legitimate religion would have to have to actually quality to use this defense.  Heck there were not even 100 or so members in their entire belief structure.

Point being, the freedom of religion has it's restrictions - and that's to prevent anyone from doing anything they want and claiming it as their "religion".

[Robert Monroe]

I don't know how the law works in the U.K., but in Canada (with over 9000 religions and cultures) it's not that simple to just use the freedom of religion clause in our Charter by stating something like that.  A case was tried like this recently where a group got busted with a whole bunch of hash and they (the defense) used freedom of religion because their "religion" allowed them to do illegal drugs but the prosecution insisted that their religion in question wasn't a religion at all.  It had no core teachings/principles or formal "rules" or background that any legitimate religion would have to have to actually quality to use this defense.  Heck there were not even 100 or so members in their entire belief structure.

Point being, the freedom of religion has it's restrictions - and that's to prevent anyone from doing anything they want and claiming it as their "religion".

Hasahashins!

[Sabre]

I don't know how the law works in the U.K., but in Canada (with over 9000 religions and cultures) it's not that simple to just use the freedom of religion clause in our Charter by stating something like that.  A case was tried like this recently where a group got busted with a whole bunch of hash and they (the defense) used freedom of religion because their "religion" allowed them to do illegal drugs but the prosecution insisted that their religion in question wasn't a religion at all.  It had no core teachings/principles or formal "rules" or background that any legitimate religion would have to have to actually quality to use this defense.  Heck there were not even 100 or so members in their entire belief structure.

Point being, the freedom of religion has it's restrictions - and that's to prevent anyone from doing anything they want and claiming it as their "religion".

But then you hit the issue of a religion only works if you pick one of the big religions. 7th day adventists, Scientoligests, are those religons?

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Point being, the freedom of religion has it's restrictions - and that's to prevent anyone from doing anything they want and claiming it as their "religion".

Yeah, that sounds about right. :yes:

["User"]

But then you hit the issue of a religion only works if you pick one of the big religions. 7th day adventists, Scientoligests, are those religons?

Not really...Look up the difference between "religion" and "cult" - there's a distinct different.

[Sabre]

Not really...Look up the difference between "religion" and "cult" - there's a distinct different.

Such as?

[Fana McCloud]

Not really...Look up the difference between "religion" and "cult" - there's a distinct different.

To quote one of the definitions of "cult" on Dictionary.com:

"6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

...So does that mean that Evangelical Christians are a cult? XD If you need some reference to understand why I say this, watch Jesus Camp - the people in that movie do everything they can to insulate their kids against mainstream culture, including homeschooling them, and have some rather frightening beliefs. Granted, they probably aren't fully representative of Evangelicals as a whole in all their aspects, but the government probably wouldn't have any problems with recognizing them as a religious group.

["User"]

To quote one of the definitions of "cult" on Dictionary.com:

"6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

A cult is usually defined as a "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader", is also often considered as a "obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing". It is also characterized for being "young in years of existence" and having usually "only relatively few followers".

A religion in change is defined as a "personal or institutionalized system grounded in the belief, worship and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe". It also has a "set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader". Religions are usually "ancient or very old in years" and have "millions of followers".

A cult is usually characterized by radicalism, oddness, obsession, short number of years, small number of followers and guidance by a founder who almost all the times tend to be authoritarian. Another particularity is that in cults, you found that in many cases the cult-followers worship the founder as God himself.

...So does that mean that Evangelical Christians are a cult?

Every religion in history started off as a cult, and yes that includes Christianity as a whole.

[Sabre]

A cult is usually characterized by radicalism, oddness, obsession, short number of years, small number of followers and guidance by a founder who almost all the times tend to be authoritarian. Another particularity is that in cults, you found that in many cases the cult-followers worship the founder as God himself.

Every religion in history started off as a cult, and yes that includes Christianity as a whole.

So, you admit them that the only difference between cult and religion is numbers? Religious people act as you describe a cult, and if even christians were a cult, that means all cults should be equally valid.