"I'm a gay man and mass Muslim immigration terrifies me"
Discussion
Nice example of why freedom of speech must be absolute or acknowledged not to exist at all.
Yes Anjem Choudary should be allowed to spew forth his bile but when Tommy Robinson is essentially gagged as a probation condition for mortgage fraud and bookish American geek Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK lest he disrupt the peace, let alone some silly girl from Swansea stating her opinion on disabled people, it rings a bit hollow.
We are already in the realm of approved opinion and I am not sure I like the way the approvals are going.
Yes Anjem Choudary should be allowed to spew forth his bile but when Tommy Robinson is essentially gagged as a probation condition for mortgage fraud and bookish American geek Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK lest he disrupt the peace, let alone some silly girl from Swansea stating her opinion on disabled people, it rings a bit hollow.
We are already in the realm of approved opinion and I am not sure I like the way the approvals are going.
A quick point on surveys showing X% of Muslims want Sharia law and are therefore extremists. It's not quite that simple.
Sharia is not just about stoning people to death. It's the entire legal system which comes from Islamic teachings and Islamic jurisprudence over the centuries. A Muslim can themselves live by Sharia law without stoning or beheading anyone. A bank can offer Sharia compliant loans (I understand they usually just have a fee roughly equivalent to the interest that would be payable on a normal loan?) and it's not endorsing honour killings. People get worked up about Sharia courts but if they just settle some family dispute then it's no different to any other arbitration provided both parties freely agree to this arbitration.
I'm not sure you could claim to be a Muslim at all if you reject Sharia entirely. But that doesn't mean that the same proportion of Muslims who want Sharia law actually want to see people beheaded in town squares in England.
In my opinion it makes more sense to approach the question from the other side, rather than trying to find what proportion of Muslims are extremists, look at what proportion are actually true moderates. How many believe a secular state is preferable to an Islamic one? How many will accept that we have a right to criticise and mock their religion and a violent response is never acceptable? How many will say unequivocally that the huddud punishments are always and everywhere wrong? How many will defend the right of Muslims to renounce their religion?
I suspect that this will seem a depressing exercise at first because the answer will be 'not that many.' However if you set this against the proportion of those who will actually go out and commit acts of terrorism or enforce their take on Islam through honour killings then it starts to look a bit better.
Sharia is not just about stoning people to death. It's the entire legal system which comes from Islamic teachings and Islamic jurisprudence over the centuries. A Muslim can themselves live by Sharia law without stoning or beheading anyone. A bank can offer Sharia compliant loans (I understand they usually just have a fee roughly equivalent to the interest that would be payable on a normal loan?) and it's not endorsing honour killings. People get worked up about Sharia courts but if they just settle some family dispute then it's no different to any other arbitration provided both parties freely agree to this arbitration.
I'm not sure you could claim to be a Muslim at all if you reject Sharia entirely. But that doesn't mean that the same proportion of Muslims who want Sharia law actually want to see people beheaded in town squares in England.
In my opinion it makes more sense to approach the question from the other side, rather than trying to find what proportion of Muslims are extremists, look at what proportion are actually true moderates. How many believe a secular state is preferable to an Islamic one? How many will accept that we have a right to criticise and mock their religion and a violent response is never acceptable? How many will say unequivocally that the huddud punishments are always and everywhere wrong? How many will defend the right of Muslims to renounce their religion?
I suspect that this will seem a depressing exercise at first because the answer will be 'not that many.' However if you set this against the proportion of those who will actually go out and commit acts of terrorism or enforce their take on Islam through honour killings then it starts to look a bit better.
Another piece by the journalist who wrote the original article in the OP.
The Left Chose Islam Over Gays. Now 100 People Are Dead Or Maimed In Orlando
1 - It's on breitbart.com who are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
2 - Milo Yiannopoulos, the writer, is a self-confessed troll so I wouldn't take everything he writes seriously.
BUT, I think it's an interesting debate to have - the left does not tolerate, and rightly so, homophobia from neo nazis and the far right yet when it comes to religious based homophobia they are all too often silent.
The Left Chose Islam Over Gays. Now 100 People Are Dead Or Maimed In Orlando
1 - It's on breitbart.com who are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
2 - Milo Yiannopoulos, the writer, is a self-confessed troll so I wouldn't take everything he writes seriously.
BUT, I think it's an interesting debate to have - the left does not tolerate, and rightly so, homophobia from neo nazis and the far right yet when it comes to religious based homophobia they are all too often silent.
Countdown said:
Blacklabel, when did the "left" "choose" Islam?
I'd like to claim the label of biggest lefty on PH and I hate homophobia where ever it comes from. And I really do think that most lefties feel the same. It's only angry right wingers that say otherwise. And I'm quite happy to point the finger at anything in a Muslim country that I dont like. Such as this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-365160...
The article is just another angry right-winger writing yet another story about how he hates the left.
Edited by Randy Winkman on Monday 13th June 18:27
Countdown said:
Blacklabel, when did the "left" "choose" Islam?
When Labour decided to metaphorically "send out search parties" in the words of Mandleson so they could rub the rights noses in it with diversity.The radical feminists, usually on the far left have the same dilemma with this all inclusive idea but can't speak out about the imported misogyny and sexual offenders.
JoeMarano said:
I think the answer to the problem is to set off every single nuclear weapon in the world. That should solve every problem the human race currently has.
Glad im not alone and some wretched hermit nihilist. It would be nice to see the bright flash and know mankind will cease to be a constant source for stupidity. HD Adam said:
When Labour decided to metaphorically "send out search parties" in the words of Mandleson so they could rub the rights noses in it with diversity.
The radical feminists, usually on the far left have the same dilemma with this all inclusive idea but can't speak out about the imported misogyny and sexual offenders.
WHAT on earth are you on about? The radical feminists, usually on the far left have the same dilemma with this all inclusive idea but can't speak out about the imported misogyny and sexual offenders.
I've just seen a video of a Sky News presenter and some actor, I don't know her name, who are firmly of the opinion that the attack on the gay club in the US by a homophobic nutter was not an attack on gays. They were shouting down a Stonewall guy, don't know his name either but I've seen him before, who got up and left.
Jockman said:
JoeMarano said:
I think the answer to the problem is to set off every single nuclear weapon in the world. That should solve every problem the human race currently has.
Unless of course the original problem is nuclear weapons. John145 said:
Jockman said:
JoeMarano said:
I think the answer to the problem is to set off every single nuclear weapon in the world. That should solve every problem the human race currently has.
Unless of course the original problem is nuclear weapons. Derek Smith said:
I've just seen a video of a Sky News presenter and some actor, I don't know her name, who are firmly of the opinion that the attack on the gay club in the US by a homophobic nutter was not an attack on gays. They were shouting down a Stonewall guy, don't know his name either but I've seen him before, who got up and left.
If it was carried out because of the murderers religious beliefs towards gays then there is a sensible argument that it was an attack on western culture and not gays specifically. Muslim nut jobs attack various sections of Western civility which they take objection to not because they don't like that particular thing but because it is part of non-Muslim culture.The savages who attacked the Bataclan weren't attacking it because they had a problem with Heavy Metal music or public joviality, they did it because Heavy Metal music and public joviality are things they see as incompatible with true Islamic beliefs. If the latest nutter did it because he saw being gay as contrary to Islamic beliefs then it was no more an attack on gays than the Bataclan was an attack on popular music.
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
I've just seen a video of a Sky News presenter and some actor, I don't know her name, who are firmly of the opinion that the attack on the gay club in the US by a homophobic nutter was not an attack on gays. They were shouting down a Stonewall guy, don't know his name either but I've seen him before, who got up and left.
If it was carried out because of the murderers religious beliefs towards gays then there is a sensible argument that it was an attack on western culture and not gays specifically. Muslim nut jobs attack various sections of Western civility which they take objection to not because they don't like that particular thing but because it is part of non-Muslim culture.The savages who attacked the Bataclan weren't attacking it because they had a problem with Heavy Metal music or public joviality, they did it because Heavy Metal music and public joviality are things they see as incompatible with true Islamic beliefs. If the latest nutter did it because he saw being gay as contrary to Islamic beliefs then it was no more an attack on gays than the Bataclan was an attack on popular music.
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
I've just seen a video of a Sky News presenter and some actor, I don't know her name, who are firmly of the opinion that the attack on the gay club in the US by a homophobic nutter was not an attack on gays. They were shouting down a Stonewall guy, don't know his name either but I've seen him before, who got up and left.
If it was carried out because of the murderers religious beliefs towards gays then there is a sensible argument that it was an attack on western culture and not gays specifically. Muslim nut jobs attack various sections of Western civility which they take objection to not because they don't like that particular thing but because it is part of non-Muslim culture.The savages who attacked the Bataclan weren't attacking it because they had a problem with Heavy Metal music or public joviality, they did it because Heavy Metal music and public joviality are things they see as incompatible with true Islamic beliefs. If the latest nutter did it because he saw being gay as contrary to Islamic beliefs then it was no more an attack on gays than the Bataclan was an attack on popular music.
"If this [nutter] opened fire on a congregation in a synagogue then would it be denied that it was an antisemitic attack?"
The chap said that there were various ways of interpreting cause: it was a terrorist attack. It was also an attack against gays. I can see no argument against that. To suggest any terrorist attack has just one simple cause is quite clearly wrong.
Derek Smith said:
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
I've just seen a video of a Sky News presenter and some actor, I don't know her name, who are firmly of the opinion that the attack on the gay club in the US by a homophobic nutter was not an attack on gays. They were shouting down a Stonewall guy, don't know his name either but I've seen him before, who got up and left.
If it was carried out because of the murderers religious beliefs towards gays then there is a sensible argument that it was an attack on western culture and not gays specifically. Muslim nut jobs attack various sections of Western civility which they take objection to not because they don't like that particular thing but because it is part of non-Muslim culture.The savages who attacked the Bataclan weren't attacking it because they had a problem with Heavy Metal music or public joviality, they did it because Heavy Metal music and public joviality are things they see as incompatible with true Islamic beliefs. If the latest nutter did it because he saw being gay as contrary to Islamic beliefs then it was no more an attack on gays than the Bataclan was an attack on popular music.
"If this [nutter] opened fire on a congregation in a synagogue then would it be denied that it was an antisemitic attack?"
The chap said that there were various ways of interpreting cause: it was a terrorist attack. It was also an attack against gays. I can see no argument against that. To suggest any terrorist attack has just one simple cause is quite clearly wrong.
head in the country.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff