Great post Mudbone.
Sadly most folks get their history from network news and abridged Internet 'history' sites ... bad idea.

I generally agree with Mudbone, but lets not forget that Islam was super aggressive when it was born, so it is not true that the "extreme" version was born 300 years ago, it was born at the very beginning, muslims conquered much of Asia and Africa, and it is more less "proved thing" that they killed over 100 million people in the process.

There are good muslims, but there are also good satanists. Both "religions" can without much regret be condemned as evil, filthy and just generally bad. We can just appreciate, that some muslims are "so bad in their religion" that actually they are good people.

Let's be honest, they're gonna have the best designs!



Great post dude, you clearly know way more about this most of us do. Tbh, I didn't even intend to post any views at all about Islam, IS and gay cakes but I didn't wanna see this thread quickly go down the route of West vs Islam because we know better than that, hence my attempt to separate the role of religion and people.

Even as you say here, religion is involved sure but still it's a direct link between what an individual wants to get out of it, what they want to use it for. In this case Abdulwahab wants to use violence as his method to get what he wants. He would have done this regardless of the cause because fundamentally this violence is part of who he is. Even if it were Shinto or Bhuddism one can still make a violent cause out of it because it's the person who can make it happen.

Of course, it might take external source material such as religious text or teachings to inspire one to want to to fight but it's only other people who do that, surely? Or is it true what people say and that Islamic text is inherently more violent than any other religion? That's a serious question btw, I genuinely haven't read any of them. I would have thought that most people in the modern age know not to take the scriptures literally and to ignore blatantly ridiculous and unrealistic text, such as certain outdated punishments and whatnot.

To me, the responsibility of behaviours starts and ends with the person. Am I too harsh? Should I let people blame books?

This post has been edited by Ben Higgins: Jul 8 2015, 03:56 PM

I agree - that's why I only watch Fox News and read Wikipedia - I'm all about the facts

Personally I don't care about where a bloke wants to stick his willy or where a woman wants to place her chuffer. As long as they are nice, helpful, considerate people that's all I need to know.

This post has been edited by Phil66: Jul 9 2015, 08:46 AM

+1



Great post, I live in a muslim country and didn't know any of that

Before commenting on islam further, every religion has blood in its history some way or another. Budism seems to be the most peaceful (from tv etc.) but they are killing muslims Burma, Myanmar...

Islam in Turkey might be helpful for members to gain perspective on what it is. Struggles aside, there is democracy here and as with relations its one of the first members of NATO...also check out how Iran was in the 70's with a google search and research how it become what it is today;

https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=iran+in+...mp;ved=0CBoQsAQ

As for Isis, the violence they do is beyond my understanding and hated here. Isis to some here is more of a conspiracy, the north of ıraq was a complicated place (kurd's, turkmens, yezidi's...) before isis and now only Kurd's are left there. This leads some to believe this war between them is helping to form a kurdish country.

Also 75% of the Turkish army is settled on north boarder of Syria, we're are worried of being involved in such war

I don't think anyone (except a small percentage of fringe cases) cares whether gays are married or not. Did anyone read Scalia's dissent, or just listen to MSNBC et.al. mock his tone and misrepresent what actually happened?

Scalia's Dissent

Prior to this ruling, we were a representative government ; meaning social issues not covered by the Constitution needed to be voted on by the population - debating issues in the civil realm is how we the people learn. The process is supposed to be a LONG process, to prevent mob-mentality judgments. Instead, 9 jurors representing perhaps 1% of the population, decided to take the case and actually change the meaning of a word that for over 200 years in America, and thousands of years worldwide, meant - thereby imposing that meaning via dictate. That is NOT how a Republic is supposed to work. The threat here is that now an un-elected group of robes have done the job of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government, bypassing the reason for their existence in the first place - separation of powers! Keeping the King in check! That is the *only* issue in this debate. Anyone importing hate of gays is just trolling or naive.

Ben: 9 judges became the King of America! - watch out England -> we're on way back to the motherland for that cup of tea!

Love you all!




This post has been edited by SirJamsalot: Jul 9 2015, 12:08 AM

they may or may have not done violence , I am not sure, but aren't the Palestinians Arab, and one of the reasons they are in Israel is because Jordan kicked them out and Israel let them settle, hence thats why they are called settlements


I beat you never thought this would happen with this thread

I didn't - I don't know if I should have any regrets or start making popcorn

And Phil:

"Chuffer"

I look forward to your posts because I am always learning new words from you

In other areas of this land it is just "chuff", as in ; "I couldn't give a monkey's chuff"

This post has been edited by Phil66: Jul 9 2015, 12:52 PM

You are aware that Turkey is a very bad representation of the muslim world? In order to change Ottoman Empire into a "western style" country, there was death penalty even for using traditional clothes. Turkey is nice, because it left as much Islam as possible behind. It couldn't be left behind completely, because how strongly religion is intertwined with culture.

And even before that Ottoman Empire was very unorthodox in compare too other muslim states.

Also there is no such thing as "killing muslims" in Burma or Myanmar. There is a civil war there, and even if I don't know for sure I will blame muslims. Buddhists have no difficulty to coexists with others, so it is easy to assume which group "started" the war.

Ben: I think that it isn't as simple. Of course every person should be responsible for his actions, but if we raise someone in a culture that states killing infidels is good? There can be no dialog and no understanding, because we won't agree on the fundamental things. We won't agree what means good, bad, black, white, right, wrong.

Hypothetically you can meet one of the immigrants, have a small chat with him, agree that both of you shall make the right thing, and than you will extend your hand for a handshake and he will chop your head off with a machete. Then he will be responsible - he will be rightfully honored and will expect to have a retinue of virgins at his disposal after gloriously passing away (preferably with a BOOM).

That is why the book is the enemy. Of course I am operating on a political, global level, not personal, individual one...

Popcorn

Sadly, no. to quote crsn again (all in good fun and with no malice intended)

.."Being born nude and being born black are the same thing"....

I feel I must point out here that being born black and being born nude are not in fact the same
thing. No liberal twisting intended.

just quoting you. For example, if you replace "black" with "white" then your sentence becomes "Being nude? isn't that the same as being white? Your born like that!" So then business folks have the right to refuse anyone who has ever been born? Black or White? Nude or not? Sadly, the supreme court disagrees and rightly so. There's that sorted then, simple answer, no mockery intended. Your choice of words was just funny is all



+2 great post by mudbone And yeah, you gotta be careful watching too much FOX NEW (faux news). They will have you thinking ISIS is taking over Mexico and heading into Texas by next week



EGAD. The entire state of ISRAEL was created in something called the BALFOUR DECLARATION where the Brits basically just "Declared" that Palestine was now the "jewish homeland" and the Palestine folks had to all go away and be held in a small settlements. Here is the exact text.

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Despite language to the contrary, the palestinian folks were "resettled" in to their current ghettos and walled in for "security reasons" which is why they still call it and "occupation". It's been a shooting war ever since.

in 1948 it turned in to full on hot war when every Arab country surrounding Israel attacked when they found out Israel had declared itself a country. The good news for Israel is they kicked the crap out of every Arab nation that tried to attack them. The Arabs call the war "The Catastrophe".




This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jul 9 2015, 11:38 AM

You are quite right, Mr Rojewski.

The environment that one grows up is hugely influential to the thoughts and beliefs of an individual. Thoughts and beliefs largely influence behaviour. But what is culture and environment but the sum collective of people? It still comes back to the common link of people and their influence.

Are we responsible for our upbringing in this world? No, we can't control that. Are we responsible for how we go into the world and conduct ourselves? Yes, without question. The level of how much choice we have to overcome any mental programming done to us is largely down to how intense and powerful said abuse, and it is abuse, was.

Someone with the modern tools and support of therapy and psychology may be able to overcome a damaging upbringing full of indoctrination. But they also have to be willing. Now imagine somebody who has none of those things and no desire at all to change? That's where you have the religious fundamentalists. Do they still have a choice? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely they will ever come to that realisation? No it's not. But they are still responsible.

That's where I maintain that a book or an idea can inspire, sure, but it still takes the man or woman to act on it. It's still a people problem as I see it.

Btw, this reminds me. A wise Polish man once said something along the lines of "Arguing on the internet is pointless. Everyone still goes away with the exact same points of view they entered with anyway."

I guess you guys are trying to go to deep with the question .The intent that I meant it was in both circumstances the being can not change how it was "Being born". You can not change being born , being black, being white and since you can not change, in that way, that is how I meant it was the same.
Sorry for the confusion, But for the life of me I can not figure out how else it could be interpreted

But I will clarify where I was going, I don't think Sexual preference is in the same league of needing civil protection as , Race , Color,Sex or Creed (which is in the 64 ruling). And as bigoted as it might be, it is not illegal to put up a sign that says no gays
http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/07/01/news/ma...d-store-sign/#1 , but as the article says let his busines rise or fall based on this

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jul 9 2015, 07:16 PM

Depends on view point, why not more ideal instead of bad? no ones hands are chopped off cause of stealing bread or no woman is stoned to death etc. here...also other muslim countrys though may not approve (I guess), so many visit here (specially İstanbul) for ramadan or vacation. I understand what you mean politically by that sentence but culturally Turkey is not so alien to them either.



True, changing the laws, entire alphabet and separating politics etc. from religion wasn't easy.

The traditional clothes things is a bit complicated though and still is debated here. Usually in many country's, symbols indicate a persons political or religions beliefs like a cross or nazi symbol. Religious fanatics or any form of terrorists here in the past and today (usually) preferred common things like a certain shape of mustache or traditional cloths...makes it harder to identify who's the enemy inside and who's innocent specially a century ago, so the style had to change completely. Not the best solution, even failed in many ways I'd say but it was very complicated matter back then and still is...



I also didn't remember the details and had to make a web search; http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

Anyway, to me problem of muslims is the Kur'an is extremely specific in life style (%80 of it is actually all about lifestyle). Considering the Arab world almost 1500 years ago, it was a huge improvement but now outdated today of course. I believe as time past its more manipulated than evolved today.

More importantly, something like a French revolution never happened in the muslim world to "balance" things. Or (maybe) closest thing to it is the conversion from Ottoman Empire to Turkey.

This post has been edited by Mertay: Jul 10 2015, 01:17 PM

Yup! Believe it or not, In 28 states it's perfectly legal to refuse service based entirely on bigotry. Of course, just like marriage equality and the right for women to vote, it's something that just takes time for everyone to admit that it's just plain wrong

--
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tennessee-no-gays-sign-law/
In Tennessee, just as in 28 other U.S. states, it's perfectly legal to post a "no gays" sign in the window of a store. It's legal to tell an LGBT person to get out of a public park, to refuse to serve them a meal in a restaurant, to deny them care at a doctor's office, or to decline to open a bank account for someone because they are gay or transgender. In those states, it's all 100 percent legal.

Also legal in 28 states: denying housing to LGBT people. A landlord can legally send an eviction notice that says "you have to leave because you're a lesbian." A real estate agent can say, "sorry, but I won't sell this house to a gay couple." A broker can blatantly tell you there's no apartments for rent for transgender folks.

Guess what else is well within the legal rights of residents in 28 U.S. states? Firing an employee because they are LGBT—or simply not hiring them. It's entirely legal to say, "No thanks. You're qualified, but we just don't want your kind working here."

-----

Bigoted or not, I think we need to tread carefully on giving a "preference " the same civil liberties as race ,creed, sex as these can not change , but preference changes. Like I said if it changes it won't affect me as I did work for a mixed black couple and bid a bathroom remodel for a gay couple, I don't understand why a business would want to loose money.
I would much rather let the states handle a changeable preference issue than the supreme court force .
I will ask you though, should A minister be forced to marry someone whom he does not want to marry?

+1, its extremely rude here to deny service. If I felt I didn't want to (never happened but anyway...) I'd ask x10 price than usual so they could find someone else

Should a minister be "forced" I'd say no No matter what the "law" says, a minister still has the choice to marry or not marry anyone he likes. Civil disobedience is a good thing IMHO. However, ministers that won't marry gay couples honestly need to read a bit deeper on the scriptures IMHO. Jesus didn't people himself with what we would think of as "good people" instead, he hung out with "tax collectors", "harlots", "zealots", "leppers", etc. In his example, his action show that judgement belongs only to the Father above. For us here on this hunk of rock spinning around the sun, all the really matters is acceptance and forgiveness. That's the core of Christian faith that seems to have been lost over the hundreds of years since the Nazarene himself (Jesus) lead by example. I consider myself a modern Gnostic in the same spiritual line of the Essene/Nazarene faith as it transitioned from the legalism of Jewish practice to the personal relationship with God that Jesus tried to share with anyone who'd listen.