Ulgundo, i talked about that many times ,even Bear agreed to see the Islam in that view but majority here is tend to argue and talk bigotedly getting their knowledges about Islam mostly on TV.
Should Canada revoke freedom of religion for Muslims?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Ulgundo, i talked about that many times ,even Bear agreed to see the Islam in that view but majority here is tend to argue and talk bigotedly getting their knowledges about Islam mostly on TV.
Just a mild and gentle reminder to those who forgot:
This thread poses the question: Should Canada revoke the freedom of religion for Muslims.
The answer, of course, is NO.
At least no more than typical Muslim countries deny the freedom of religion to those who have the unmitigated nerve to be other than Muslims.
Fair is fair, NO?
This thread poses the question: Should Canada revoke the freedom of religion for Muslims.
The answer, of course, is NO.
At least no more than typical Muslim countries deny the freedom of religion to those who have the unmitigated nerve to be other than Muslims.
Fair is fair, NO?
Yes. And TV is the most unreliable source of any information. The News is just propaganda to sway mindless people into supporting wars against a people by making villains out of them. Just like in WWII they called Germans Krauts and Japanese Nips, in the Vietnam war, Vietnamese were called Gooks and in Iraq, Arabs are called ragheads and terrorists. Industry and governments hire the most expensive public relations firms to spread hatred to marginalize the enemy and justify their atrocities.Ulgundo, i talked about that many times ,even Bear agreed to see the Islam in that view but majority here is tend to argue and talk bigotedly getting their knowledges about Islam mostly on TV.
Oh, absolutely.
Following that logic, most African countries would have been well within their right to suppress white people because of what South Africa was doing to blacks. And it's only reasonable for Canadian law to discriminate against Jews because Israeli law discriminates against non-Jews (Religion in Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), right?
Now that logic only works if you equate Islam with certain Middle Eastern states and Judaism with the state of Israel. If you consider faith and State to be separate issues though, then certainly such laws are not acceptable since they're not necessarily punishing the perpetrators of these laws and might even punish those who oppose such laws themselves, some of whom are converts who have zilch to do with those countries.
The same of course would apply to equating state with race in Apartheid South Africa in its time.
Just a minor point, but I see this error so often I feel compelled to correct it. The Crusades started as a defensive war. It was a response to Islamic Jihad in the Holy Land.
I revealed my source, Gibbon's Decline and Fall. And I've found it online too for your convenience. Is is the precursor to the Crusades:
Chapter 57:The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
You'll see how the Christians in Jerusalem were in fact granted their freedom of religion.
And here's the next chapter discussing the beginning of the first Crusade:
Chapter 58:The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
You'll notice how the taste for war arose twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem. Twenty years. Certainly the Turks were way out of line to have invaded in the first place, but seeing that any desire for war on the part of Rome came only 20 year later, we cannot reasonably conclude that it was just a continuation of a war started by the Arabs, but a separate war. If the Christians wanted Jerusalem, they should have fought back immediately, or if they were to wait, then at least have just cause such as the oppression of Christians.
Now the Arabs did murder many Christian in taking Jerusalem twenty years earlier, but seeing that that was no longer the case and that Christian pilgrims were free to visit and that local Christians had been granted their freedom of religion, any legitimate reason to attack at that stage no longer existed, thus we must conclude that Rome had started that war.
By the way, Gibbon is a well respected historian.
Thanks I'll check it out. I disagree with what you said though. Granting visitor rights wouldn't placate me at all. We hear this same nonsense about "tolerant" Andelus. Yet, if we expected others to live as second class citizens the way we exalt the Muslim world for "allowing" Christians and Jews to exist, we would surely be condemned as xenophobic racists who oppress those who long for freedom.
By modern standards, indeed it wouldn't pass muster. By the standards of the day though, they were still a shining light of coexistence. Also, local Christians of the time certainly were not required to relocate but could remain as Christians, even if they were not granted entirely the same rights as Muslims. In the Christian world, in relative terms, the situation was worse. A reversal of the situation today overall, where now Muslims have become the fanatics for the most part.
So that justifies our suppression of blacks in Canada who may have nothng to do with those countries?
That's my whole point. Just as a Jew might have nothing to do with Isreal, a Muslim might have nothing to do with Arabia. So why would we oppress a Muslim or a Jew here in Canada because of what some country across the ocean does to Christians? What they do is wrong, and yet you propose we stoop to their level?
Actually, no. Maybe it was 'fair' in the Europe that you left, but sorry - not here. I deplore the way non-Muslims are treated in many Muslim countries but do I want MY country to reciprocate in like manner? No! We slam the fundamentalists for their repression - if we do that, then morally we are no better.
What SHOULD happen, is that the system ensures that the legal rights of Muslims are treated the same as the legal rights of everyone else - and also ensure that Muslims - or any other religion - behaves in a way that does not abide by Canadian law.
But to 'revoke freedom of religion' for Muslims? I believe the religion to be bogus, but as long as it operates within the perimeters of Canadian law? No ban.
We should stop the immigration of muslims until we see how the ones we now have assimilate and integrate into the western society. We should also watch how other western countries with larger muslim population are dealing with there muslims and watch to better understand if muslims will ever benefit Canadian society. So far it has not, they have only caused problems and costs for Canadians.
Really? I'm not a fan of Islam, but the whole 'and watch to better understand if muslims will ever benefit Canadian society. So far it has not, they have only caused problems and costs for Canadians.' statement? kind of broad, if you ask me. I know Muslim teachers, doctors, business men and women and just normal people who live in Canada and contribute to society - and just happen to be Muslim.
I know nice Muslims and I know egregious Muslims i know Muslims with a great work ethic and I know some who are lazy - seems to me they aren't much different than the rest of Canadian society.
Tell me, are you also for watching all those 'other' immigrants - the ones that look like you? from what I've seen, they have the same tendencies to bring their own cultures to the Canadian table as the Muslim immigrants do, and quite frankly, I'm not a fan of a lot of what they bring. But eventually they adapt - just like your ancestors did when they came here. It takes more than a generation usually but it happens. - but I also know nice
Come on - take your blinders off. You make a sweeping statement like that, you should at least back it up with some stone cold facts.
"Would you support banning Islam as it's described in the OP?"
No. If we ban one religion, we should ban all of them.
No. If we ban one religion, we should ban all of them.
No... what other countries do bears no weight on the freedoms we grant people. Other countries don't allow all sorts of human rights, even Christian countries. That doesn't mean we should strip our populace of those rights.
Just a thought to those that have said that to punish all Muslims for the actions of a few would be unfair, this is why most laws exist in the first place. I am not saying we should ban Islam, but that argument seems to make little sense if you support most freedom limiting laws. An example of this is that everyone is punished for speeding because of the accidents caused by a few, relatively speaking.