Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "Unrest in Sweden over planned Quran burnings - BBC News" video.
-
31
-
7
-
@Tactical5 I’m not anti-immigration, but it should be done carefully, and while immigrants should be free to follow their own cultural practices, within the law of course, it seems that only certain strains of Islam have a problem with making that necessary effort to integrate. I would also add, that most Muslims I’m aware of in my own traditionally non-Muslim country, do make that necessary effort, as do all the other cultures I can think of. Militant Islam on the other hand seems to actively not want to be part of free, open, liberal democracies, quite simply as Islam appears to be a religion not particularly conducive to the values the West upholds, for all the West’s faults.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@carlgrove8793 I tend to agree, up to a point. I’m an upholder of absolute free-speech, meaning that I personally would advocate anyone being able to say absolutely anything they want to say, yes, including what others would perhaps claim as incitement to violence. I accept that in the real world, that that, perhaps, isn’t going to float, but my line is when words are turned into actions. So, you can say what you want, if you want, but make sure you have the evidence for your claims. As to burning ‘holy’ books: on the one hand, I can see this as incendiary from a certain point of view, from another absolutist free-speech point of view, I don’t particularly have an issue with it, although it’s not necessarily conducive to the operations of a peaceful civil society in the long run. I suppose what this all boils down to is what are you offended by? Most, if not all, people have certain triggers, but these triggers vary from person to person. Nothing particularly triggers me, as I have trained myself not to be offended; by anything, really. However, if you’re going to stray into the realms of slander/libel, then make sure you have the evidence, that’s all. Free-speech as long as you are not inciting violence is perhaps the best we can hope for here in the real world. That means all religion should be open to criticism. Personally, I have an anathema to all the acknowledged monotheistic religions, seeing the literal adherence to medieval, barbaric, primitive texts unworthy of thinking human beings. The Bible and the Koran, in my opinion, are horrendously brutal texts if you read them literally. However, I read them as I read the Greek/Roman myths; as repositories of fanciful, but sometimes instructive tales; but the last thing you want to do is be taking any of it literally, for that way madness lies, as the past 2000 years demonstrate, and as the current events in Malmö demonstrate.
2
-
@carlgrove8793 You need to look again at both books, I fear. Certainly, the Old Testament is dripping blood virtually cover to cover, and the Koran is not far behind. I’m no atheist, but Richard Dawkins nailed just what we are dealing with in the Old Testament God: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. This depiction is in no way hyperbole. More’s the pity.
2
-
@carlgrove8793 I can tell you categorically having been brought up in a quite strict religious tradition, that Dawkins’ description is in no way over the top. The Old Testament God is a horrendously brutal character and I’m just glad he doesn’t actually exist! As for the Koran, well this is not a pleasant book, particularly if you’re not Muslim. Infidels are brutally condemned, jihad is openly sanctioned, women often come off second best, homosexuals and homosexuality are demonised, and so it goes on. Neither book is particularly conducive to the creation of open, tolerant, decent people, to say the least. Look at the Koran again if you don’t believe me. I’ll give you this almost at random concerning jihad: The believers who stay at home - apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment - are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him … He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God … the unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. (Koran 4:95-101) This stuff is chilling quite simply because Islam never underwent any kind of Reformation whereby this toxic, dangerous crap might not be taken quite so literally. As it is, if I’m a Muslim reading these words, it’s explicitly exhorting me to go and fight others for my religion. It can’t be read any other way. I repeat, I’m no atheist, but I’m most certainly against these rigid, primitive, barbaric, monotheistic texts that have benighted humanity for 2000 years. Organised religion, along with nationalism are the two most baleful disasters humanity ever had the misfortune to invent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2