You seem to take any oppositional posting as "snarling, snorting and
chewing..."

Ad hominem, much? My post is clearly articulated, and without rancor. I do
believe you're being falsely self instructed.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:

> It is instructional to note the snarling, snorting and chewing at the
> red meat when a simple copy/paste is presented.
>
> On Dec 3, 8:10 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > More of Orn's favorite...bifurcation!
> >
> > The reality is, .01% may be truly active terrorists (and I sincerely
> doubt
> > the number is that low...), but 60% live in countries where Islamic
> > Theocratic Rule mandates beatings and executions for renouncing your
> faith,
> > or converting to another faith, and horrifying "punishments" for women to
> > have the audacity to go out alone, drive, be educated, choose whom to
> share
> > their body or lives with, or Allah Forbid, be raped. Overwhelmingly, the
> men
> > of those countries support said policies, and Sharia law.
> >
> > Interesting to me that you think of the liberties in the west, which
> include
> > equality between genders, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of
> the
> > press, etc, as:
> > "Western society demand(ing) its right to be
> > intoxicated and irascible to the point of outright destructive
> > behaviour afterwards and the duty to oppress one another through usury
> > and other ways (in the name of 'Survival of the Fittest', a euphemism
> > for maintaining that animal instincts are the way forward!!) and
> > Muslims don't understand why Western, supposedly civilised people,
> > demand the right to act like idiots, screw up the environment and take
> > as much as is possible from those who have the least.  Muslims don't
> > view that as civilised behaviour."
> >
> > Hmmm...so, it's not the CORE differences in our liberty based society
> that
> > offends them, it's the excesses of the minority. Interesting. I
> personally
> > don't view burying 12 year old girls to their necks and stoning them to
> > death for the crime of being raped as civilized, but hey, perhaps we just
> > have a different perspective. I'm not sure why it is you think Muslims
> will
> > be left with the moral high ground...perhaps you find Sharia law to be an
> > attractive rule set and world view to live under? Surprising to me that
> > someone in such a modern environment would have such a barbaric
> > perspective.
> >
> > It's one thing to note that the tenets of a religion do not match the
> > actions of the followers; hell, that's the problem with religions the
> world
> > over. It is, however, very much a case of sticking your head in the sand
> to
> > deny that the general actions of a vast majority of a religion's
> followers
> > (who live in Sharia based societies), reflect on that religion as a
> whole.
> > Would you be so passionately apologetic of Christianity? I'm guessing
> not,
> > but feel free to correct me.
> >
> > Compare human rights in any Muslim controlled country to any of the
> Western
> > secular controlled countries. Compare the general standard of living of
> the
> > masses. Compare the number of atrocities perpetuated in the name of
> religion
> > between the two. Moral high ground? Ludicrous.
> >
> > The twelve apostles of Christ had some interesting ideas. The religion
> since
> > then has been a blood thirsty, backwards, barbaric organization
> responsible
> > for the deaths of millions. Only in the last century has Christianity
> made
> > ANY forward movement in social evolution. Islam is still 300 years behind
> > that.
> >
> > P.S. Here's some good reading about the history of Islamic Militancy. It
> > goes back FAR further than you apparently seem to think.
> >
> > http://islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Pat <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3 Dec, 01:53, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Interesting development.  Perhaps, despite tremendous efforts from
> the
> > > > PC crowd, some folks are beginning to see the connection between
> > > > Islamic militant terrorism and your friendly neighborhood mosque.  In
> > > > the chatter in the control room(water cooler) I heard something about
> > > > some politician offering to allow it when Saudi Arabia allows
> > > > Christian churches to be built there.  No going, apparently.
> >
> > > > Another problem is the Islamic schools popping up all over western
> > > > culture.  All funded by rich Arabs for the most part.  A study done
> on
> > > > the text books supplied these kids was a little alarming.  Little
> > > > Osamas are being indoctrinated on our home soil.  Unless laws are
> > > > changed this problem will increase.  I'm still flabbergasted we
> didn't
> > > > start profiling at the airports after 9/11.  I'm shocked folks are
> > > > still whining about the Patriot Act.
> >
> > > It could just be a numbers game.  Given a Muslim population of 1.6
> > > Billion (1,600,000,000), if 0.01% of them are militant terrorists
> > > (i.e., 99.99% good people), then there are 16,000 problems out there.
> > > And 16 thousand people can, if organised, cause a great deal of
> > > trouble.  However, that shouldn't paint the other 99.99% of good
> > > people with the paintbrush called 'Terrorist Potential'.  We are ALL
> > > potential terrorists, given the right impetus, so the profiling should
> > > be for ALL.
> >
> > > > If we could get these other countries to open their borders and allow
> > > > freedom of religion I'd feel a lot better about allowing them to
> build
> > > > more here.  I am not, by the way, in favor of interment camps or
> > > > shutting down the mosques already here that have proven themselves
> > > > peaceful and are a compliment to the community.  I have to say that
> or
> > > > some of you would be jumping down my throat accusing me of genocide.
> >
> > > > -Don
> >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM, fran the man <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 2 Dez., 17:58, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Fantastic news and, despite what you say, very progressive! :)
> >
> > > > > Er, Ian, I don't believe I personally put forward any opinion as to
> > > > > the progressive, or otherwise nature of the decision of the Swiss
> > > > > people in my original post. I simply formulated some of the
> questions
> > > > > which are being publicly discussed in Europe following the
> referendum.
> >
> > > > > Formally, the Swiss simply decided to forbid the building of
> minarets
> > > > > in their country. No more, no less. Symbolically, of course,
> writing
> > > > > this prohibition into Swiss law means much more - indeed, many
> > > > > different things to different people. Personally, I would incline
> to
> > > > > the view that what can and cannot be built is more a matter for
> local
> > > > > authorities and their procedures for granting planning permission.
> A
> > > > > well-designed mosque with minaret may well improve certain urban
> > > > > landscapes from an architectural/aesthetic perspective, just as
> many
> > > > > badly designed and situated Christian churches are simply ugly and
> > > > > just don't fit in where they are.
> >
> > > > > The much deeper question of Islam and the relationship between it,
> as
> > > > > a religious-cultural-political Weltanschauung and western societies
> > > > > and the values they (we) see as being basic to their (our) self-
> > > > > understanding is complex and multi-facetted. My hope is that this
> > > > > thread may take up some of these issues.
> >
> > > > > Francis
> >
> > > > > --
> >
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]>
> <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups­.com>
> > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]>
> <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups­.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
>
>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.


Reply via email to