Another Expression of Love and Tolerance By The Religion of Peace

[Darts]

oh wow I think I was a little optimistic about religion of peace lol

"Muhammad has been accused of sadism and mercilessness—including the invasion of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina[20][21][22][23][24][25]—sexual relationships with slaves, and his marriage to Aisha when she was six years old,[19][26][27] which according to most estimates was consummated when she was nine.[28]"

Also,

The sexually abused dancing boys of Afghanistan

The BBC's Rustam Qobil uncovers the exploitation of "bachabaze" - young boys made to dance for money.

www.bbc.com

 

[Frankfooter]

I think I found an answer to your question.

‘I didn’t move. I was afraid’: Sexual abuse by clerics pervasive in Pakistan’s madrassas

The AP found hundreds of cases of sexual abuse by clerics reported in the past decade, and officials suspect there are many more within a far-reaching system that teaches at least 2 million children in Pakistan.

www.hindustantimes.com

Hmm, a record similar to residential schools here.
Of course you're planning a thread about their records next, right?

 

[Darts]

Hmm, a record similar to residential schools here.

That was over 100 years ago. Doubt any of the people responsible are alive now.

 

[nomos]

for sure, eh?

Suspect in teacher’s beheading in France was Chechen teen

PARIS - A suspect shot dead by police after the beheading of a history teacher near Paris was an 18-year-old Chechen refugee unknown to intelligence services who posted a grisly claim of responsibility on social media minutes after the attack, officials said Saturday.

www.thestar.com

Well, I am glad the Toronto Star and the Leftist media has the decency to publish a newsworthy and relevant article a few days later after the event occurred. :-D

 

[Darts]

Back in the days, Egypt and Persia were fairly well advanced, then they were conquered by the Muslim Arabs and the shit hit the fan.

Turkey is the only Muslim OECD country. Not sure why?

Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa, who are OECD Key Partners.

 

[nomos]

Hi Mandrill

You got an article where that irresponsible leftist media propaganda source, The Toronto Star supports Islamic extremism?

You got an article where that irresponsible leftist media propaganda source, The Toronto Star says that Islamic extremism and Catholic fundamentalism are similar?

Last time I checked, the irresponsible leftists were within their rights deploring an obviously ideological appointment to the USSC and no irresponsible leftists were supporting beheading people who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. But maybe I'm missing something?

You got an article where that irresponsible leftist media propaganda source, The Toronto Star supports Islamic extremism?

My point is simple. If you are going to dislike religion then, show consistency and dislike all religions. My beef is when you have media like the rag that is the Toronto Star ridiculing somebody's religion and creating a sense of hysteria about some imaginary scenario that you fear she will create because of her beliefs. Then, you go silent or refuse to use words (Islamic terrorism) to accurately describe a situation such as the event that happened in France.

Last time I checked, the irresponsible leftists were within their rights deploring an obviously ideological appointment to the USSC and no irresponsible leftists were supporting beheading people who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. But maybe I'm missing something?

Of course, they are within their right. That is the beauty of living in a pluralistic society. Again, my point is that if you do an honest analysis of what is covered and the language used you begin to see the biased animus that the Left media has against specific institutions but not other similar ones.

 

[nomos]

Well actually Nomos, I'm thanking YOU for thanking Catholicism for making our lives all a little better in 1150 AD. 850 years later, we can all feel ashamed for ever opposing that church and its beliefs, either current or present.

Mandrill, that was not the intention of my comment. Perhaps, I should have written it better.

 

[nomos]

Some expatriate Muslims are much more critical of Islam and Muslim countries than the Star and western liberals will ever be.

When the lefty NDP proposed bringing in Sharia law, it was mainly Persian (Iranian) women who told the NDP and their fellow lefties they were raging idiots.

Muslim women protesting female oppression in Muslim countries.
View attachment 21811

Hi Dart, I fully agree with you. I do remember that about the failed attempt to impose a Sharia court in Ontario and how it was the courageous Iranian women groups that came out to protest those plans. If I recall well, that happened during the McGuinty government though, not the NDP, just to be fair.

 

[Darts]

If I recall well, that happened during the McGuinty government though, not the NDP, just to be fair.

It was NDP Marion Boyd who was the proponent of Sharia law. It was the Liberals (to their credit) who killed it.

There's a lesson for all of us from the sharia issue

The Globe and Mail offers the most authoritative news in Canada, featuring national and international news

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[nomos]

I'd consider Catholic Charismatic Renewal as part of the fundamentalist tradition and "fundamentalist" is easier than getting into the weeds.
But fair, you can make an argument it shouldn't be considered so and it isn't worth the time.



I'm sure the French media is reporting on it quite a bit. The US is notoriously self-centered and they aren't going to trumpet a murder in France when they've got more than enough American news to report.
It will get a mention and then people will move on, like with most murders.



No. She's an originalist.



Please show me where this happened? I didn't watch the whole three days so maybe I missed it.



Probably in the late 80s, early 90s, personally.
Outside of that, I can't remember which of the terrorist organizations operating in Africa and South Asia identify as Catholic, so I wouldn't be able to tell you.

Hi Valcazar, thank you for those points. I agree with most of them. My only two responses would be the following:

From my understanding, being an originalist, "asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five".

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree with you about the use of terrorist tactics by groups such as the IRA in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. From what I understand those attacks were aimed at military elements not as a way to sow terror in the general population. However, I do not say this to justify terrorism as an acceptable strategy at all. Also, the difference here would be that you did not have Orthodox Christian or Catholic religious leaders advocating terrorism as a way to respond to grievances the way fundamentalist imams actually do.

 

[nomos]

oh wow I think I was a little optimistic about religion of peace lol

Leimonis, in addition to what was shared by Jerimander, see this too. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3
This is to show you how no religion is immune to this issue, unfortunately. Suspiciously, that is not the impression you get from media such as the Toronto Star which is obsessed with painting it as if this had been a problem exclusive to the Catholic church, by how they report it and how they omit to mention it in relation to any other religion.

 

[nomos]

It was NDP Marion Boyd who was the proponent of Sharia law. It was the Liberals (to their credit) who killed it.

There's a lesson for all of us from the sharia issue

The Globe and Mail offers the most authoritative news in Canada, featuring national and international news

www.theglobeandmail.com

View attachment 21846

Cool. Thank you for that clarification. Why am I not surprised it was the NDP that came out with the brilliant idea? (eye roll)

 

[mandrill]

Hi Dart, I fully agree with you. I do remember that about the failed attempt to impose a Sharia court in Ontario and how it was the courageous Iranian women groups that came out to protest those plans. If I recall well, that happened during the McGuinty government though, not the NDP, just to be fair.

Seriously, dude. The Sharia Law nonsense never had the slightest likelihood of making headway in this province and was opposed by virtually the entire family law bar, myself included. It was a non-issue that died after a couple of weeks in the early 2000's and never resurfaced.

 

[mandrill]

Hi Valcazar, thank you for those points. I agree with most of them. My only two responses would be the following:

From my understanding, being an originalist, "asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five".

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree with you about the use of terrorist tactics by groups such as the IRA in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. From what I understand those attacks were aimed at military elements not as a way to sow terror in the general population. However, I do not say this to justify terrorism as an acceptable strategy at all. Also, the difference here would be that you did not have Orthodox Christian or Catholic religious leaders advocating terrorism as a way to respond to grievances the way fundamentalist imams actually do.

Dude!!!!

There was a terror bombing campaign aimed at British fucking pubs!!!!! I had family in Liverpool and the placed was virtually locked down for several months!

Boy, those Jesuits certainly fucked with YOUR head!

 

[mandrill]

Hi Mandrill



You got an article where that irresponsible leftist media propaganda source, The Toronto Star supports Islamic extremism?

My point is simple. If you are going to dislike religion then, show consistency and dislike all religions. My beef is when you have media like the rag that is the Toronto Star ridiculing somebody's religion and creating a sense of hysteria about some imaginary scenario that you fear she will create because of her beliefs. Then, you go silent or refuse to use words (Islamic terrorism) to accurately describe a situation such as the event that happened in France.

Last time I checked, the irresponsible leftists were within their rights deploring an obviously ideological appointment to the USSC and no irresponsible leftists were supporting beheading people who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. But maybe I'm missing something?

Of course, they are within their right. That is the beauty of living in a pluralistic society. Again, my point is that if you do an honest analysis of what is covered and the language used you begin to see the biased animus that the Left media has against specific institutions but not other similar ones.

Again the equivalence eludes me. The Star - if I found and read the article - likely avoided stigmatizing an entire religion by calling it Islamic Terrorism because that simply triggers people like the half-dozen right wingers on this forum who immediately trolled the board by posting about the incident. And to be fair, the vast number of Muslims now living in Toronto have no connection with terrorism, "Islamic" or otherwise.

If a Muslim fundamentalist was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada bench, there would be an outcry. The appointment would simply not be made or announced or considered.

And if a Catholic beheaded someone for disrespecting Francis Xavier, mainstream media would refrain from saying this was "Catholic Terrorism" for the same reason it doesn't call the same act "Islamic Terrorism".

 

[jerimander]

Hi Valcazar, thank you for those points. I agree with most of them. My only two responses would be the following:

From my understanding, being an originalist, "asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five".

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree with you about the use of terrorist tactics by groups such as the IRA in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. From what I understand those attacks were aimed at military elements not as a way to sow terror in the general population. However, I do not say this to justify terrorism as an acceptable strategy at all. Also, the difference here would be that you did not have Orthodox Christian or Catholic religious leaders advocating terrorism as a way to respond to grievances the way fundamentalist imams actually do.

The IRA and the British were not fighting over theological matters, but over political power. The conflict was was divided along religious lines because the British had long oppressed Catholics in Ireland, but it wasn't a religious conflict. Both sides held similar Christian beliefs, so there was no conflict about that. Now that power is more evenly shared, the conflict has ended.

 

[Frankfooter]

Again the equivalence eludes me. The Star - if I found and read the article - likely avoided stigmatizing an entire religion by calling it Islamic Terrorism because that simply triggers people like the half-dozen right wingers on this forum who immediately trolled the board by posting about the incident. And to be fair, the vast number of Muslims now living in Toronto have no connection with terrorism, "Islamic" or otherwise.

If a Muslim fundamentalist was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada bench, there would be an outcry. The appointment would simply not be made or announced or considered.

And if a Catholic beheaded someone for disrespecting Francis Xavier, mainstream media would refrain from saying this was "Catholic Terrorism" for the same reason it doesn't call the same act "Islamic Terrorism".

There are extremists in every religion, just like there are right wing and left wing extremists.
You just don't want those ones in power.

Revealed: ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse

Revealed: ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse

People of Praise hire lawyers to investigate historical sexual abuse allegations as former members speak of ‘emotional torment’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Valcazar]

Hi Valcazar, thank you for those points. I agree with most of them. My only two responses would be the following:

From my understanding, being an originalist, "asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five".

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's the assertion but it is a lie. If you look into originalists and their actual decisions, they don't believe anything like that. The actual method is "decide the result you want, then go back and find text you can interpret to mean that".
That isn't something I am going to convince you of on this forum, but if you go out and read some criticisms of originalism and textualism you will find it and then you can decide if that is an unfair criticism or not.

I agree with you about the use of terrorist tactics by groups such as the IRA in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. From what I understand those attacks were aimed at military elements not as a way to sow terror in the general population. However, I do not say this to justify terrorism as an acceptable strategy at all. Also, the difference here would be that you did not have Orthodox Christian or Catholic religious leaders advocating terrorism as a way to respond to grievances the way fundamentalist imams actually do.

I'm not convinced you didn't, but it has been a long time and would take an archival search which I don't have the resources for.
I'd be especially dubious of there not being any Orthodox churches preaching violence given how conflict ridden some of their sphere of influence is. Protestant churches in the West, of course, have a long history of preaching support for terrorism, although usually somewhat indirect.

The suicide bomber as terrorist tactic really is something that only took off in the 80s/90s anyway. Its hard to tell what other religions would do about it since they haven't been in the same situation when the tactic became widespread.
I've never met a religion that wasn't willing to preach violence. Obviously, religions are complicated and have massive subdivisions and sects - it is never all parts of a religion that do so. There are large portions of Christianity that have always been rigorously pacifist, despite the overall religion's intensely bloody history.

 

[Darts]

The IRA and the British were not fighting over theological matters, but over political power. The conflict was was divided along religious lines because the British had long oppressed Catholics in Ireland, but it wasn't a religious conflict. Both sides held similar Christian beliefs, so there was no conflict about that. Now that power is more evenly shared, the conflict has ended.

Long story short. The Orangemen invaded and occupied Ireland and along the way killed and starved over 2 million Irish civilians to death.

Northern Ireland is still occupied territory as we speak.

 

[Valcazar]

The IRA and the British were not fighting over theological matters, but over political power. The conflict was was divided along religious lines because the British had long oppressed Catholics in Ireland, but it wasn't a religious conflict. Both sides held similar Christian beliefs, so there was no conflict about that. Now that power is more evenly shared, the conflict has ended.

Most religious based terrorism is actually over political power.
The idea that protestants and catholics haven't killed each other over theological differences is weird.