Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Pro Muslims

Posted 2 years ago on March 4, 2012, 11:04 p.m. EST by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I have to admit I'm surprised at the amount of pro Muslim/anti Christian posts on this site. I never knew so many members of OWS were lovers of Islam. I'm humbled..

121 Comments

121 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

I'm not pro Muslim!

Or amateur Muslim either!

[-] 6 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

I'm not anti Christian.

Or uncle Christian either.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're a professional damn shame.

Though mostly just shameful.

[-] 2 points by GreatBallzOfFire (34) 2 years ago

You're a professional Goodness Gracious

but not to Goodness

so mostly Gracious

[-] -3 points by hdean (-29) 2 years ago

The OWS represents the US Industrial Prison Complex.

Most people in prison are people of color. Most OWS is white.

Muslims tend to be people of color.

The OWS hates non-whites.

Christians tend to be stupid fucking white trash, ..

Muslims tend to be educated sincere, god fearing lovely people.

Christians hate people that aren't stupid like themselves and wish to make everyone else stupid, thus they created the US education system.

The christians want to keep everybody in prison because they're control freaks.

Muslims just want the USA parasite assholes to stay away from their oil, lands and familys.

Nobody is asking for much other than the white-christian go to to hell and soon.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, yeah okay .... psycho-babble is always productive :)

**as a secularist, I think ALL religion is absurd, but some crazier than others.

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

Your cataloging people, your a fucking hypocrite hdean loser

[-] 1 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

I was once in a catalogue.

[+] -7 points by hdean (-29) 2 years ago

The OWS represents the US Industrial Prison Complex.

Most people in prison are people of color. Most OWS is white.

Muslims tend to be people of color.

The OWS hates non-whites.

Christians tend to be stupid fucking white trash, ..

Muslims tend to be educated sincere, god fearing lovely people.

Christians hate people that aren't stupid like themselves and wish to make everyone else stupid, thus they created the US education system.

The christians want to keep everybody in prison because they're control freaks.

Muslims just want the USA parasite assholes to stay away from their oil, lands and familys.

Nobody is asking for much other than the white-christian go to to hell and soon.

[-] 3 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

da hell is this crap?

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The world would be a better place without any religion, although the desert religions are particularly absurd (speaking of the stuff flowing from that legendary cough mythical dude, Abraham) :)

Conversations with burning bushes, seeing visions in caves, the fish from the basket trick .... I mean, WTF? Let's just call it what it is, silly.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

You tell that to all the Russians and Chinese that where killed in the name communism. In the last 100 years more have been killed by that none religion then all the wars in history in the name of religion.

Just because you do not understand something does not make it silly. If i traveled back in time and took a flash light with me it would be a power item of God or of the gods.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Communism as it was practiced at the time would fall under the definition of a religion in the sense that Francis is talking about; it was simply the last of the great state religions. Swap out God for the State, the holy text for the Little Red Book, the state's founder for the founding prophet (Jesus, Mohammed, whoever), and the current dictator for some sort of papal figure and there you go. As far as I'm concerned death due to communism (or any -ism for that matter) is still philosophical persecution (of which religious persecution is a subset), and is completely unacceptable.

On your last sentence: "If I traveled back in time and took a flashlight with me it would be a power[sic] item of God or of the gods." That is precisely why I don't subscribe to religion or believe that religious doctrine holds the answers to the fundamental questions of life. As far as I'm concerned everything can be known or understood or made sense of in a quantitative, scientific manner if your model is sufficiently complex. On a practical level there comes a point where the modeling required is currently beyond our reach, but I'd much rather say "We don't know but we're trying to figure it out" (atheism and/or agnosticism) than "We can't know because it's God's work" (organized religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, if taken beyond a certain point).

As far as morals, figuring out who you are, what you value enough to live by, and what you want your life to stand for is an intensely personal process and while religion can serve to provide general guidelines in the end you still have to choose who you want to be and what values you want to have. I've had the privilege of knowing several amazing people who were profoundly religious; for them religion was about providing a context and a meaning for the good works they perform, big and small, and their religious preferences are in no way a "strike" against them in my book.

However, it is highly important that we should keep in mind that a large number of Catholic priests used religion as a means of keeping their prey unsuspecting until it was too late. Ted Haggert didn't just go to church, he ran a church (until his sexual preferences became publick knowlege, of course), and we all know about Fred Phelps & Co. At the end of the day, your faith really depends on what you make of it, and to claim otherwise is rather ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, what the hell do the Russians or Chinese have to do with anything? You know, Stalin was an atheist, but before that he was studying to be an Orthodox priest (so who knows why he snapped, but to say atheism, "non-belief" in something, causes anything, is ridiculous ... more of that silly shit religion teaches people to keep them coming back for more of their silly bullshit, hopefully with a donation).

With religion, what's to understand? People were gullible enough to believe it, they're still gullible (I mean, we don't even need to look at religiosity to know that), so okay ... I get it :)

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Because you foolishly claim that the world would be a better place without religion. I simply pointed to one group that was not a religion and it is NOT better. In fact it is much worse.

But some would say Atheism is a religion. Atheism only does not believe in a higher order or God or gods. They do believe in man. There is no higher order then man. Because man makes the laws that governs man then man can change the laws when the majority want it changed.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well ... that's how it works out anyway.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I will say it this way. We have rules that are written down saying do not do this and but do it this way. We claim that come from GOD. Now these rules are hard to live up to and no fun at all if you want to do what ever you want to do. Now a law from GOD is higher then a law from man. Man can change his laws when ever he wants to simply to make life easier. The law from GOD does not change, We may not follow it but it is still there in our face all the time. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The problem is, those rules were most likely invented by man.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Lets say that was true. But when you know it was just a man that made the law it is weak and can be changed because it was only limited man that made the law. Now if you believe that the law came from God that created everything then what is man to claim the law is some how wrong. It is a level of magnitude of authority that man can not change. The laws of man can be changed by man or God. The laws of God can only be changed by God. Do you understand the differences? The power is in belief. You do not believe in a God so there are no Law from a God you need to follow. I believe in a God and not matter if you follow the law or not the law is still there and I and you can not change it.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Very well said.

[-] 3 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

So feeling bad for the death of some innocent people (who happen to be Muslim) makes someone pro Muslim?

Feeling hatred for some dude who takes pleasure in killing innocents (who happens to be Muslim) makes someone anti Muslim?

Personally I don't give a shit what religion anyone claims to belong to. If they are a bully, then THEY are a fucking bully. No one else. Religion has nothing to do with it. It does not mean that everyone who practices the same religion is a bully.

You find bullies of all kinds, in all races and in all religions and countries.

Before anything else, you and everybody else are human. Or should be at any rate.

Being a member of a different religion/race/nationality, ANY religion/race/nationality, should not be an excuse to judge people with a different moral or legal yardstick.

I believe in the existence of God but do not subscribe to any religion. I for one believe that God judges people on their conduct and their belief in the existence of God. Not what name(s) we choose or do not choose to call God.

God created humans, by whatever means you choose to believe. It was Humans who created religion.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm pretty surprised at the amount of those threads that are actually started by so called "conservatives".

Do you have an explanation for that?

[-] 2 points by PenIsFine (4) 2 years ago

Where did you even read that here?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Gosh. You must be new here.

Yepperz, you are.

[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Said as if Ms Shooz was in this since way back when, maybe even 3 or 10 years ago. Nope, back then shim was quite busy poisoning her nearly dead wife.

[-] 2 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

I have to admit, I'm surprised at the lame attempt at stirring up religious strife that isn't there in a group you clearly misunderstand.

I never knew so many people were still trying to stir up the post 9/11 fear craze and move us towards unilateral hatred and bigotry against anything remotely outside of the mainstream.

Do you know what the difference between a cow and 9/11 is? A cow you stop milking after 11 years.... Jog on douchebag.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

im not sure i understand motives that moves uS against Iran. but i understand Israel mission in those matter. Before we heard about connections between CIA and Al-Qaeda, now information reveals that Hamas is product of Israel. If Obama wouldn't come up with solid solution against Iran the tragic outcome could happens. even against their own compatriots. Israel has their tentacles everywhere in US lobby. The organizations like 8 pack and Jay street pumping more pressure to congress. what? it couldn't be serious =) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street

[-] 2 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

You are trying to stir differences between OWS members based on religion.

Nice try!

OWS members should be vigilant with regard to the divide-to-conquer strategy used by the 1% Zionists.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

So it's Zionists that make up the 1%? Who's using the fatuous d&c technique here now? Mowat?

[-] 2 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Pro Muslim does NOT mean Anti Christian, & it's deceitful, malicious & divisive to imply that it does. Indeed, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to respect Christians, Christianity & their symbols (the same goes for Jews, Judaism & their symbols, too).

As OWS & the Occupy Movement was inspired by, & modeled on, Egyptian Muslims' Tahrir Square-based revolution, it shouldn't be surprising that Muslims support OWS & Occupy.

Also, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to OPPOSE warmongering; hatred & division among people; fraud, usury & deceit; prodigality, greed & selfishness; oppression; treachery; & other evildoing - all traits that are endemic in the 1% - so, again, it shouldn't be surprising that Muslims support OWS & Occupy.

[-] 3 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

RESPECT

This is for all of the idealistic idiots who believe that one can win the hearts and minds of devout Muslims, or devout Catholics, or devout environmentalists or devout anything for that matter. Their minds and hearts are in their beliefs and nothing one can do will change them; not logic; not threats of death nor bodily harm will change their minds.

The more their beliefs are coddled by those who do not believe as they, the more those holding that belief will treat others with total disrespect. The only way one can claim their respect is to treat their respective beliefs the same way they treat others; with total disregard.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world not brutally murdered that day in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible burning or crushing death that day or didn't they?

Do you think I care about four U. S. Marines urinating on some dead Taliban insurgents?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a nation they are fighting against in a brutal Insurgency.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called insurgents in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in Mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the Canadian and AMERICAN media stop pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN or AMERICAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don't care. Shoot him again.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it.

I don't care!!

One last thought for the day: Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

  1. Jesus Christ

  2. The British Soldier.

  3. The Canadian Soldier.

  4. The US Soldier, and

  5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other four for you and your children's freedom.

Do not suffer me with cries of religious freedom when those very religions, Christian, Muslim or whatever, kill in the name of their religion. That is not religion. That is adhering to a cult or, at worst, an ideology masking itself as a religion and using God as an excuse for their evil ways. Do not, either, suffer me the excuse that this has always been the case, for that makes religions; all of them; little more than monstrous shams and a shame on all mankind.

[-] 2 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

We get it - You Don't Care. And it's people like you - on both sides of every conflict - who feed the conflict.

Your ruthless inhumanity makes you no better than the psychopathic terrorists who willfully distort, pervert & ignore the teachings of Islam, Christianity, etc. that they claim to profess, BECAUSE they are psychopaths, who are psychologically incapable of understanding humanity, compassion & mercy, & only capable of hatred, intolerance & cruelty.

Conflicts can only be resolved when the 99% of people on both sides who are NOT psychopaths reach out to each other & recognize & acknowledge each others' humanity, tolerance & common values with mutual respect.

Until then, the 1% psychopaths on both sides are winning.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

You'd best study the problem a bit closer. 90% of Muslims believe in Shariah law--Take a long look at what that is...70% believe that suicide bombers are just all right, and a good portion believe that honor killings are OK. Wake up...smell the roses...I am NOT criticizing your reasoning, just your naivete.

Turning the other cheek will bring you instant disrespect sonny.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Nahh, you underestimate the stupifying effect of religion. I mean, if everyone became a bunch of Quakers, well okay, maybe ... but ain't gonna happen. But no worries, religion has no future. Eventually, it will die. It will no doubt kick and scream along the way, but absurdity, even if it promises you an eternal stay in a celestial theme park, only has so much staying power. There will be peaks and valleys, an occasional resurgence or whatever, but the long term trajectory is down.

Imagine no religion .... no need to wonder if I can :)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Only one problem with this otherwise rational thought. When your spirit is quiet, and you no longer see death as the enemy; when you feel the connectedness of your life to every budding evergreen, when you forgive those who have troubled you, when you reach into the totality of yourself and forgo the rational mind that keeps you trapped in a painful alienation, you will start to hear it. It is like a freight train passing on the other side of your bedroom wall, and you will know it is so powerful that if you reach out to nothing more than the slightest tendril of it's power it will gather you in, and you will be no more.

That's when you will know spirituality.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

When the sales pitch is to suspend rational thinking ... my default position is, no thanks. I mean, as if religion doesn't see "death as the enemy" (why else would they concoct all sorts of fairy tales about things like a celestial theme park). It's atheists who in fact accept mortality for what it most likely is (we don't invent fairy tales to comfort ourselves). If you're talking about Yoga or meditation (or something along those lines) ... that's different I suppose. If you're talking about some sort of obscure life force, okay, I might think it's wishful thinking, but it's a benign enough idea (I've never heard of a deist terrorist or abortion clinic bomber). If you're on a quest to understand why men have these yearnings, okay, interesting (but I think sociobiology provides a pretty good theoretical understanding of this). If you like the virtues of men like Jesus, forgiveness, love, care for the poor, and so on, join the club, but we don't have to believe in magical god-men to acknowledge the merit of these very common sense virtues (and it seems like a very poor foundation for these virtues anyway).

I think it was Martin Luther who said "reason is the devil's whore" ... virtually every holy book warns its readers of the dangerous influence of the intelligentsia. I mean, has there ever been such a mind numbing load of shit concocted in human history? People think they can reason with the unreasonable, reason with something that rejects reason. I mean, good luck with that (seriously), but you guys definitely have an uphill battle on your hands. Infighting among Christians lasted for over 1,000 years, and it was only tempered by the ENLIGHTENMENT (thinkers who were mostly secular).

People all over the world hate each other based on what reduces to absolute absurdity. Who's guy had a vision of an angel in a cave (that conveniently, no one else witnessed), who's guy came back from the dead (that conveniently, we have no substantiation for), who's guy had a meaningful conversation with a burning bush (and of course, you guessed it, while "alone" on a mountaintop), etc. Why is this stuff any more or less compelling than myths of Thor, or Zeus, or Mithra, or whatever? Objectively speaking, it's not. There's tiny bits of truth even in some Greek myths. I mean, we don't have a hard time believing Alexander the Great was in Egypt or Persia, but we don't believe the myth that says his mother conceived him during a dream, where she was impregnated by Zeus's thunder bolt. We reject this story for good reason, it's obviously bullshit, and it's easy to reject, because we don't have the baggage of lifelong indoctrination clouding our thinking. It hasn't become the "tribe" we identify with. We don't have any emotional investment in myths concerning Alexander the Great.

I'm not saying atheism is necessarily better or worse than anything else, atheism is simply the rejection of one idea, it's not an affirmative idea in itself. There's conservative atheists, liberal atheists, anarchist atheists, Marxist atheists, etc. We have the full spectrum of human thought.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

There is more to humanity than just a mind. Although reason is essential, and a great thing, it is not the totality of our potential, and if we make it so we unnecessarity deny the totality of being, and also most of those things that make life worth living.

So I agree about not suspending reason, when reason is the tool of the soul that is called for, but to say that we are only reason, or that reason is the most important part of the great rainbow of expierience in this great mystery of myteries is really crazy, in a way, at face value. And yet it is a widely held view in our society, a sort of god.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That's not really a "god" (or at least not a GOD) :)

But okay ... I feel what you're saying (but of course this isn't exactly what religion is). We can put a poetic spin on it I guess, but it comes from our pre-scientific past. When we didn't know how lightening formed, where rain came from, when people attributed misfortune to more than physical or sociological or tactical circumstances etc.

But, we no longer need mysticism to explain these things. Today, the only thing sustaining religion is the residue of our irrationality. Our natural inclination for nostalgia, our tribal instinct, in some respects our crude intuition for pattern seeking is still influential, and unfortunately, religion is used as a tool of manipulation and power.

It may be difficult to look at the complexity of nature and realize that its emergence was most likely caused by very simple laws. Particles attract, even in the vacuum of space there's virtual particle formation, universes form, and evolution happens as a matter of sheer statistical inevitability. This idea isn't very satisfying for many people, but real science is about discovery, not merely inventing stories to fill gaps in our knowledge.

I agree that we're not only reason, but reason is our highest attribute, everything else is just animal. Reason and intellectual capability is what distinguishes us from the rest of nature. Maybe we want to think that things like love and grieving loss comes from something other than our neurobiology, but when we learn about nature, we learn things like elephants mourn their dead, they can even develop PTSD, apes have highly developed social systems, canines can experience emotions in a manner somewhat similar to people, and so we're not as unique as we like to think we are. But again, "reason" is what sets us apart. Without it, we'd be no more developed than any other animal, and maybe we wouldn't even be here (because evolution is a very impersonal process).

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The knowledge of how things appear to work in the physical world is valuable, and it gives us power. But without the recognition of the the multifaceted and mysterious nature of consciousness itself, and the totality of what we are, well, let me give you a quote if I can find it:

                                David Herbert Lawrence


                        DEATH IS NOT EVIL, EVIL IS MECHANICAL

Only the human being, absolved from kissing and strife goes on and on and on, without wandering fixed upon the hub of the ego going, yet never wandering, fixed, yet in motion, the kind of hell that is real, grey and awful sinless and stainless going round and round the kind of hell grey Dante never saw but of which he had a bit inside him.

Know thyself, and that thou art mortal. But know thyself, denying that thou art mortal: a thing of kisses and strife a lit-up shaft of rain a calling column of blood a rose tree bronzey with thorns a mixture of yea and nay a rainbow of love and hate a wind that blows back and forth a creature of beautiful peace, like a river and a creature of conflict, like a cataract: know thyself, in denial of all these things-

And thou shalt begin to spin round on the hub of the obscene ego a grey void thing that goes without wandering a machine that in itself is nothing a centre of the evil world-soul.

[D.H.Lawrence Last Poems (1929).]

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Poetry is nice, but it's not a replacement for science. I mean, a poet, like a philosopher, takes from anecdotal experience. I'd much rather have the results of a controlled study to inform my thinking.

Philosophers and poets have no obligation to conduct rigorous research to back up their claims. There is no peer review, no mathematics, no computer analysis, just basically someone's opinion, dressed up with elegant language and rhythm :)

I mean, I like poetry and philosophy as much as the next guy, and in some cases it is valuable (when it doesn't overreach and step into the realm of science). But when it does overreach, to be honest, I find it somewhat worthless (and worse, it can have a bad influence). Scientists also have big dreams, in fact I'd say, bigger than most. Science doesn't restrict itself to dreaming about what is currently possible, sciences dreams about making what is currently impossible, possible.

Science isn't trying to merely comfort people who have diseases like cancer, they're trying to cure cancer. Some scientists believe we'll eventually be able to view human aging as a treatable disease, there's even some scientists who think we may be able to one day traverse time.

What does the poet tell us? They might argue for change, but the change they argue for is just a rearrangement of our current physical state. Don't get me wrong, we need that too, but science can change the game altogether. With just a single invention, science can change the world, in ways poetry and philosophy isn't even equipped to dream of. Poets have fun in college, scientists don't have that luxury, because science is harder than anything else.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Science has the flaw, for one thing, of not taking into account human nature. Science, even that sought out through the most altruistc motives, inevitably falls into the hands of humans, who have the broadest spectrum of motives. Einstein, who was a scientist, was also a philosopher, and a musician, and so he warned us.

I have great respect for science, and even a strong apptitude for it, but I come from a line of scientists, and I have seen scientists advocate the most morally repugnant ideas in their justification of expidiency.

The other problem, as far as I'm concerened with science, apart from it's having become a sort of god in it's own right, and a bloodless one at that, is it's outright rejection of direct apprehension - a belief so rediculous based upon shared expierence, that it will some day be seen as laughable.

Please don't take these comments personally. I once held the same view that you do, and I am largely in agreement with you about established religion. I see spitituality as something entirely personal, and I am opposed to all forms of spiritual dogma, believing it to be antithetical to true spirituality.

But of the existance of spirituality as part of the rainbow of human expierence, and of the immortality of the soul, my personal sojourn in life has has left me in no doubt.

Direct apprehension is really all that we have, and we largely create the world through our interpretation of it. But only a crisis can jar most people lodged in their left brain out into the world of true human fulfillment.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Science not only takes human nature into account, the only way we "really" learn about human nature, is through science. If your point is that all scientists aren't perfect, well, okay (no argument on that point), but "science" isn't a person, it's a method. But you know, there is some research on spirituality (Sam Harris, a prominent atheist and neurobiologist, would agree with your observations regarding human experience and spirituality, and he's done a great deal of research on the topic), so I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point (although it's most likely true that these experiences have an empirical explanation).

Anyway, you're in good company, I think Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with your take on things (at least insofar as disliking organized religion, but finding the need for some sort of belief and spirituality). Hey, I say, if it works for you, and you're a peaceful person, then I certainly wouldn't disparage you or think less of you for it.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

And I feel the same way about you. Thanks for the very interesting conversation. What a relief from all this debunking of Rush Limberger!:)

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes indeed & likewise. And, human consciousness remains an intricate, very hard to solve puzzle, and who knows what we'll discover (so do know that I keep an open mind) :)

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

:) !!!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Very nice. Feed the inner thought process. Feed the dreamer. Feed the spirit.

While giving every troll who reads it a migraine due to incomprehension.

Who knows you may very well have fed an awakening.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks DKA. What we need is an awakening from the dream of material insufficiency, into a spiritual rennassance focused on the sacredness of life, and our duty as caretakers of that life; of art and beauty and truth and justice. These, and not mere technical prowess, and our enslavery to it, represent the highest of human aspirations.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe so too. The spirit and fellowship have been severely starved. Technology should enhance not separate. We can achieve so much if we head in the proper direction.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

The Communists tried to eradicate religion through "rationality" in the Soviet Union for 70 years, & in China for 50 years, but, as soon as their dead hand was lifted, people flocked to religion in their hundreds of millions - because religion/spirituality is innate in the human mind.

Your extremist atheism is no better than Soviet & Chinese Communist tyranny.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

People really didn't flock back to religion in Russia or China. Many did gravitate to it when restrictions were lifted (but of course any system that would legally restrict religion, is obviously a tyranny, so no argument from me on that one). But when a state restricts something, and then subsequently allows it again, there will be an initial spike in interest (sort of like what happened after we lifted prohibition).

Nevertheless, if you're argument is religion is good because a bunch of people believe it ... argumentum ad populum.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Actually, atheism is merely the product of self-centered, selfish egoism - which has been nurtured & encouraged by Western governments for decades, in the guise of "Individualism", & in the service of consumerism & materialism - & we all know where that's left the Western world.

[-] 1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I just felt a wave of nausea because for once I agree with you. But when you're right you're right.

[-] 2 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

It isn't that atheists are inherently bad. It's just that they don't have as much of a reason to be good.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

or more reason

because atheist don't think good comes from above

[-] 2 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

Well, there be some good in people, but not nearly as much as people want you to believe. "Follow your heart" is a horrible, horrible idea because it usually winds you up in more trouble than anything else.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I've found them to be very bitter, unhappy people.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Such bigotry and ignorance among those who espouse virtues like tolerance and inclusion. Ahhh good old hypocrisy (I guess it can sneak up on anyone) :)

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Most of them? You are sure about that? And "brilliant"? Who was an avowed atheist and is considered "brilliant?"

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

You're kidding right? Here's a good Wiki article for starters, happy reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

When pressed, even the great, modern "Prophet" of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, has admitted on BBC television more than once (I witnessed them) that all his deep knowledge of cosmology, quantum physics, gene science & evolution led him to an inescapable belief in an Intelligent Creator & Sustainer of the Universe, but he just couldn't bring himself to believe in Revelation.

Thus, Atheism is nothing more than an unrevealed, amoral, monotheistic religion.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

LOL ... well, I guess you guys invent everything else, why not just invent shit about atheists. You guys love taking stuff out of context. I think at one time he averred that it's remotely possible there could have been some other, maybe extraterrestrial, precursor to biological life on earth (for example, nucleic acids have been found on meteorite fragments). This isn't impossible, but any life form would have had to emerge through Darwinian means, and we already know that (for instance) organic chemicals can form from a prebiotic (inorganic chemical) environment (in a variety of ways), and indeed certain types of rock (containing montmorillonite minerals, like clay) can catalyze nucleic acid formation. We also know how membranes can emerge from an inorganic environment. And we understand processes like endosymbiosis fairly well (the evidence really is striking).

From there, the fossil record provides a solid evidentiary foundation supporting Darwinian evolution.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

judism, christianity, islam

are about male rulers are profits

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Atheists have a long and noble intellectual tradition. That some of our ideas were hijacked by the mentally unstable throughout history, doesn't dilute this. Yes, Ayn Rand was an atheist, but so was John Stuart Mill.

The world would be astonished if it new how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments, of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue, are complete skeptics in religion. -- John Stuart Mill

Another good one:

It is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honor. -- John Stuart Mill

And one of my personal favorites:

Christian morality (so called) has all the characters of a reaction; it is, in great part, a protest against Paganism. Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than action; innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinence from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good: in its precepts (as has been well said) "thou shalt not" predominates unduly over "thou shalt." -- John Stuart Mill

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

You love your brother has you love God. If this was done then there would be no killing, no hate. no problems. That is a Pursuit of Good. Even the very smart can miss the simple truth.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, okay. I mean, I'm not gonna argue with you about. If you like religion, and you interpret it as requiring good and peaceful conduct, then far be it from me to disparage your views.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

There is nothing more absurd than an egoist expounding, oxymoronically, on society, ethics or morality - except, perhaps, an atheist pronouncing, ex ignorantia, on spirituality or religion.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Oy .... LOL!

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, can you prove a guy named Jesus died for you? I bet you have about as much proof for that proposition as Muslims have for their prophets encounter with an angel while alone in a cave ... exactly zero, nodda, zilch, the big giant donut :)

Nonetheless, yes, the hysteria about the burning of a book is just about as primitive as it gets (no argument from me on that one).

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

So if you do not see it then it never took place?? So written text about event means nothing because you where not there to see it happen? Science can not prove anything. It simply gives an answer to what it understands at the time, and that can and does change over time with new understanding. To PROVE something is not that simple.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Sorry for my insensitivity, but no ... of course you're presenting a false dichotomy. There are logical ways of scrutinizing claims, which I'm quite sure you'd agree with in any other context, save your favored religious views. If someone tells us they saw a bunch of people protesting in New York City, we wouldn't be inclined to question the veracity of that claim, because for one thing protesting doesn't violate the laws of nature. If someone tells me their favorite guru was floating while he raised a man from the dead, I will automatically dismiss it as either a joke, a fabrication, a hallucination, or worse.

Why did people believe Joseph Smith when he told them an angel of god handed him golden tablets, but only he was allowed to view them, his followers had to take notes while he read from the tablets while staring into a hat (that he claimed contained the tablets)? I have no idea why people can be so damn gullible, but I'm quite sure Joseph Smith was full of shit.

Maybe other self proclaimed prophets had less dubious motives, I don't know (nor will I try to guess), but I know bullshit when I hear it :)

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

You not not need to apologize for i am not insulted in any way.

I have never seen anything that can not be explain yet, But I have family members living and dead that has seen things that defy nature and can not be explained by science. It is easy to just say they are mentally ill for a short time, or joking, or what ever. Just because we did not see it or it make no logical sense with what we understand about the law of nature does not mean it did not happen just like they said it happened. Saying that, you will have people claim things to gain power for them selves or over other people. And if the conditions are right you can get a following to believe this.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Someone's senses could fool them, without it being something like mental illness. Good people experience bad things, and sometimes it can cause things to happen that may appear to lack an explanation. But of course, maybe it doesn't have a good explanation, I don't know, but my opinion of religion is that its emergence is very explainable (without an appeal to the supernatural). But of course even if convention religion is explainable, it still wouldn't preclude the existence of something beyond our current comprehension.

That said, there's probably many good reasons why people gravitate to religion, at least in the west (where we're not forced into it). It's a gathering place, somewhere we can form good relationships with others, so like I said, I don't disparage it, but it can take on some ugly forms.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I do not find anything you said here wrong. and yes it can get very ugly when a person of power and charisma gets a group together and starts something that says we have to go kill because god said so or it is the betterment of the social group that those that do not agree with us be removed so that the collective can grow with without their discourse corrupting the salvation of man.

Everything is supernatural until you can understand it. I tell you i saw a man flying around my house yesterday but i do not have any proof. Now we all know that ,man can not fly so what i saw was not what i saw. the fact is the man was had a jet-pack on and was flying around by house. it was very cool.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Proof, in this case, is about as tenuous as faith. Good point. Personally, I have very little of what the devout enjoy calling "Faith". If I can't see it, I usually don't believe it, or at least look for some proof. I find it difficult to believe in ghosts, bigfoot, the devils triangle or UFO's from space. And I find myself, at my age, having little to do with those that do! lol

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

How about Buddhists? Are they idiots too?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I don't think anyone is an idiot, or at least I don't automatically presume idiocy based on religious views. I understand that being raised in a particular tradition from birth, makes one inclined towards it (and religion holds a very powerful influence over many people).

I was raised a Christian. I just don't think the claims are true, and that's about it. You can debate me about it if you like, or we can just agree to disagree.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Forget it. These liberals aren't going to understand a thing you said. But good post anyway.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Well said.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

And Jesus said love your enemy, but the inquisition still happened. Point is, it really doesn't matter what a holy book says. Very few adherents actually behave consistent with the writings of their holy books, so we shouldn't appeal to the language in those holy books when examining religious groups. There's a few notable exceptions (e.g. the Amish, Quakers, etc.), but they're few and far between.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

You may think you know & understand Christianity & Christians (though I'm sure many Christians would dispute your sweeping, dismissive generalizations).

But your comments make it clear that you definitely do NOT know or understand Islam & Muslims.

Ignorance is NOT a Point of View!

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I know their beliefs are equally absurd .... which is all I really need to know when it comes to examining the merit of their religious views. That said ... I'm quite sure there's plenty of very pleasant Muslim people on earth, just as there's plenty of very pleasant Christians and Jews on earth. But don't expect me not to be amused when you guys start telling me the story of the "angel encounter" in the cave, or the guy who had a meaningful conversation with a burning bush, or the fish from the basket trick :)

Religion is something people are indoctrinated in from birth, and mostly, they're so clouded by the tribal aspects of it, they never scrutinize in the ways they scrutinize everything else. It's not easy for intellect to transcend the tribe ... nature selected for tribalism (so it is an attribute of human nature). But, it is possible for us to overcome our animal instincts.

Religion also exploits our natural fear of death, and our grief at the loss of loved ones. I think it was inadvertent, at least at first, but the point is, there are very understandable reasons why people gravitate to this sort of stuff ... but it is still objectively absurd.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

I refer you to my responses elsewhere in this thread:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/pro-muslims/#comment-667778

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

which Qur'an are you reading. Christians and Jews are treated, if lucky not to be killed, as second class citizens in a muslim land. what rubbish.

[-] 2 points by FaceHumper (-1) 2 years ago

If you read the Quran in chronological order (Muslims decided to order the chapters by length, WTF) you'll notice it gets progressively more violent. The Bible is the opposite.

And yes, that's taking everything into account, not just a couple verses here and there.

[-] 0 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

I've read the actual Qur'an with an open mind - not relied on hate-filled, malevolent distortions, deliberate misinterpretations, & flagrant lies, like you have.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

the koran is as bad as hitler's mein kamph

Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Your quotation is from hadith, not Qur'an, so it does not support your extremist, hate-filled assertion.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

well I thank God every day that i wasn't born a Muslim. But the quotes are still part of your faith. Own up to it, Islam is a violent, hateful religion that needs reforming. Muslims constantly play the victim (especially in the U.S.) but never acknowledge the violence they are committing. The U.S. is a judeo-christian nation and we don't appreciate crazy ass religions like Islam.

[+] -4 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

You're taking it out of context!! It means, "kill him with love"!!!

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

: ) . the religion of peace, of course i should have known that.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Thank you. If there's any more scriptures you want me to interpret in their rightful context, let me know. Like in the violent New Testament, when it says to "cut off fellowship with thieves" it actually means "Cut off the heads of thieves"

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

please translate the below Koran quotes. enlighten us “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah”

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.”

[-] -1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!" - Luke 12:49

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

oh you are so smart! islam is great i'm so sorry!! I haven't seen any Christians lately screaming God is Great then killing Muslims. Come on you know your religion is crazy and violent. Look at the muslim countries in the world, most are violent and self destructive.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

If you haven't seen Christians killing Muslims lately, you can't have been watching the news from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Philippines, etc., etc.

Btw, Christians traditionally scream "God wills it" ("Deus vult" in Latin) before they kill Muslims.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

But it' different when it's done to honor either me or Satan Republican.

Maybe Allah will show up with his side of the parable.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

all of those countries have muslim terrorist and the brave U.S. forces are killing them. If you like Muslim terrorist or are a terrorist please tell me and i will ask the FBI to track you down. Please tell me one instance of a U.S. soldier yelling God wills it, while killing a towelhead.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Darn it, pick some easier ones!!!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

yeah, right, and i believe in the tooth fairly still.

[-] 5 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

Clearly, from your posts in this Forum, what you actually believe in is spreading hatred & division - you're probably a psychopath with a well-deserved inferiority complex.

[+] -4 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

That's funny a muslim accusing someone of hatred. Remember 9/11, remember the 1st twin tower bombings, remember the gun attack at the CIA headquarters in Virginia, the gunman attack at the Empire State Building, the underwear bomber, the LAX attempted bomber, the attack at El Al counter at LAX, the attempted Times Square bombing, the Fort Hood killings, the Iranian running over nine UNC - Chapel Hill, A Muslim-American man angry with Israel barged into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle Friday afternoon and opened fire with a handgun,.and so on... do you understand why we hate Muslims,

[-] 5 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

I stand corrected - you're DEFINITELY a psychopath with a well-deserved, MASSIVE, inferiority complex.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

can't handle the evidence and you resort to lashing out. You are probably in the 1st stage of grief; shock and denial, but maybe you skipped a bit to stage 3, anger? Anyway you are on the road to realize that Islam is not the religion of peace. I can give you more examples when you are ready.

[-] 4 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

You vastly over rate your powers of persuasion - that's typical of hate-filled psychopaths like yourself.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i'm not trying to persuade you or any terrorist lover. i'm trying to stop Muslim misinformation from (cuss word) like you.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

I refer you to my response to Budcm, above:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/pro-muslims/#comment-666573

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

But I don't understand what point you "true believers" are making. Would our nations be better off adhering to Muhammeds teaching?

[-] 3 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

The Islamic nations can not even agree what the teaching are. Also there are the two main sides that at at odds with each other. In the end even if all nations where Islamic there would still be no peace. Oh and there also would be no questing Shariah Law either.

[-] -2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Too true. But try telling the Muslim lovers and protectors that.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Site one example, not actually from a Moslem here, you fucking liar. And since when did you appoint youself the thought police anyway, trying to frame the debate so that it is completely one-sided, and therefore of no value at all. I hate Orwellian fucks like you.

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

What about Stitutes?

Who amongst ye shall rise in defense of their honor?

Either professional or amateur.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Wat?

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Dayumit, everyone knows what Pro Stitutes are.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

[psst] He's talking about elected representatives.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Ahh..now I get it!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I remember penguin publishing put put a book in the 90's

that supposedly upset Islam fundamentalist.

.

Bombs threat were called in.

Anyone can call in a bomb threat.

So there's no proof that these "radical" actually called in the threats.

.

Sometimes, I wonder in the media is exaggerating

when it reports a religion that would kill over a book.

.

or at the very least "cherry picking" what to apologize about.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (2724) 2 years ago

This post is incoherent, unclear, accusatory, and insinuative

[-] -2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah by Warner MacKenzie 30 April, 2007

Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]

The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See endnotes)

Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide 'the enemy’.

A favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the post-pubescent males.

The core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in perceptions of "honour and shame". At all times, he (it's usually a male) must avoid having his face "blackened" by words or actions which are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family or broader social / tribal group. To be open, frank and forthright or to make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that so-and-so has lost his "manliness" and status. In short, he is no longer worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death itself.

The higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male's perceived loss of honour and status, must be redressed and his face "whitened", i.e. his honour regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for causing the initial humiliation. When taqiyya is used to avoid making an admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for generations. Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]

Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'….. Defence by offence.

Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:

Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) 'condemning' the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .

Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)

Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?

However, a direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!

Demanding 'evidence':

Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as 'cognitive denial' by repetitive and persistent demands of 'where is the evidence!' and 'prove it!' whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the defendant receiving a fair trial--grounds for a mistrial” default position.

Exploiting cognitive dissonance:

Islamic spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences as they resort to double talk, 'clichés and platitudes' concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance (i.e. holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them) is therefore induced in viewers and readers as they attempt to mentally process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion despite the indisputable evidence before them of Islamist involvement in terrorist acts or criminal conduct.

The Islamic 'defence' script:

Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”. In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”, and that, for reasons known only to them, these symbols of submissive exclusion offer them more freedom than Western women, thereby implying that women in Muslim countries are somehow 'freer' than women in the West. This ruse is designed to preclude further examination into the well documented inferior status of females in Islamic societies. Being put on the spot, and having to admit their true obedient and subservient status, would be embarrassing and therefore shame inducing so resorting to denial and exaggerative taqiyya is their only option.

There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).

Islamic falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other apologist dupes, for example "A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great and noble religion”. This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the 'hijacking' of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic 'spokesman' in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated, ad nauseum, ever since.

The "Islam has been hijacked” myth is now a clichéd media and political reference which serves to deflect attention from the empirical proof of a fourteen hundred year continuity of the doctrinal, political and religious nature of Islamic jihad.

A related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by 'small minorities' or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys consistently reveal that between 10-15% of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180 million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?....you decide!

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

it is true that liberals, and muslims have a strange alliance. Muslim are against everthing that liberals want, and liberals are against everything that muslims want, yet they link up. Liberal lawyers defend terrorist, liberals flock to Iran to kiss muslim butt. doesn't make any sense.

[-] -3 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Anti-Christian posts?

These would be solely emanating from Tel-Aviv: haters of everything!