by kpop 233 Replies latest watchtower bible
^^^^^ ^^^^^^
The people in the vigil that the Huff Post reports on are holding signs that read "love for all, hate for none".
"... hate for none" is very, very wrong.
We should hate jihadists.
Every time the authorities arrest or shoot a jihadi dead, we (secular people, integrated Muslims) should be celebrating.
LUHE,
Why hate? Does that help?
Interesting that the muslims who are protesting (despite the claims of the OP) are not protesting in the right way, perhaps it is time to look at what you really object to.
I would rather that terrorists were punished for their crimes.
I think the main problem is not so much that people don't condemn a specific act (which I believe most times is done out of the best intentions, but can also Islamic principles of Taqiyya & Kitman) but its that they cannot prescribe responsibility to their religion and nor should anyone else. That is too taboo, and there is your problem.
Would those people dare hold up signs criticizing Islam itself? No f-cking way! A JW can say they condemn child abuse, but at the same time absolve their "tribe" from accountability in it, claiming any who criticize watchtower are evil.
Are they there to show support for the victims? or to try and separate themselves from the evil?
Why hate? - our governments should hate both jihadi ideology and the people inflicting it onto the world.
Does that help? - yes, I think it does.
Sixty or seventy years ago, decent people hated Nazis and Nazi ideology. This motivated them to defeat Nazism and wipe out Nazis.
Do you hate Jihadis and Jihadism, Caedes?
I would rather that terrorists were punished for their crimes - in an ideal world they all would be. Every jihadi would be arrested before they pulled the trigger or detonated the Semtex sweater. You don't need me to tell you why this doesn't happen in every case.
There's nothing wrong with hate, when it's done in the right situation and in the right way.
I hate bloodthirsty Jihadis, child sex offenders (and the religions that cover it up) ...
No biggie.
caedes
1) Nobody here is saying to kill anybody because of their religion; shameful of you to even suggest such a thing.
2) We have every right to question, critique, expose and criticize Islam as any other religion. We should and we must do so.
3) Congratulations, you found all of the moderate Muslims in all of England. It took two minutes to find pictures of the actual vigil on the bridge and it looks like the majority are white British people. Many police, people of other faiths filled the majority of the crowd. Were you easily fooled by the Muslim pawns they rotated to the front for a photo op? If you were then that explains much. From my estimate there were maybe 2500 people in total and of that total, maybe 100 Muslims that I identified by their religious gear.
4) Hashtags, vigils, candles. We've had this before, dozen times already. Did it do anything?
5) What will you say when the next terror attack occurs? More hashtags? More candles? More Facebook profile filters?
6) Did you read my post that 500 Muslims showed up to mourn the death of a terrorist in Denmark? 500! What does that say?
7) I could go on and on.
The one thing they won't do, criticize their own beliefs.
And why hate? This idea leads us to a utopian ideology that is not achievable. I am having a mental picture from the 'The Giver' of them getting their injections.
The people of Jonas's community don't understand genuine emotion or pain, because their lifestyles allow no opportunity to experience it. Birthmothers are not allowed to raise their own children. Sex is forbidden and sexual urges medicated away. Adults are not allowed to choose their own spouses. Identical twins are not both allowed to survive because they would be too close emotionally. Every decision made in the community serves a purely practical purpose and is based on the rules set down at the time of the community's establishment, promoting Sameness and leaving no room for sentimentality.
Well the question really is why do we want to save it? What does it add to humanity or civilization?
Very little, obviously outweighed by the harms... I don't want to "save" Islam at all.
I think Islam need to be annihilated or at least diminished enough not to be a threat for a few decades.
Assuming you are talking about something non-violent, I agree that the long-term goal is the diminishing of Islam as well as all other forms of harmful superstition. Where we disagree is with how that is accomplished. I agree with e.g. Hirsi Ali that the best way to accomplish this is from within, i.e. similar to how the Catholic Church of medieval time was reformed.
Having studied it a bit more, I also think that those seeking to reform it are well intentioned but doomed to failure. There zero evidence that it can ever be reformed or will ever be reformed and part of that is the obstructive behavior of the left to even having rational discussion on the matter.
I think that the existence of actual reformers such that Majiid Nawaz is an example that there are Muslims who are promoting a more benign form of Islam; at the very least I think it should be tried and these efforts supported. But okay, let's accept that Hirsi Ali or Majiid Nawaz got it all wrong with the idea we should and can reform Islam. We still got to do something:
If not reform, how do you propose we annihilate or diminish Islam?
We can't fix Islam because people insist on wasting all the time debating if there is even a problem with it (when there clearly is). People like you do that bohm when your ideological conditioning to deny all issues kicks in.
How can I convince you that I believe the things I write again and again?
I agree with e.g. Hirsi Ali that the best way to accomplish this is from within, i.e. similar to how the Catholic Church of medieval time was reformed.
That's a good theory, I just don't see how you can do that. Islam is growing, fast. In places/countries that could be considered central to its theocracy not just reform, but free speech is a life and death matter, how could someone even survive to the point of reform if speech and thought is so controlled through violence? The reality is they are more like a Cult than just a religion, I think this makes them pretty impervious to reform. Their central most figure (cult leader) and example is not a living person, but a dead prophet who was a degenerate. I just can't wrap my head around reform, I just can't see what you would reform.
When Mohammed said this, ignore that, but follow this, and who will say it? You have an imam on this side of the street that wants peaceful Islam and one on that side that wants jihad.
Anyway, I am sure you and I more than agree on most this Islam business. I am not arguing against that idea, just that I don't have a lot of faith in its plausibility.
That's a good theory, I just don't see how you can do that.
Okay, Ali is wrong. What do you propose to do then?
I wasn't being confrontational. Just I don't have as much faith as you and I don't think there is an easier answer.
My point, we can't expect reform if we (society) are shitting on the reformers along with their death cult. We need to give them a real voice first.
