Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Greatest I am, Sep 30, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world’s first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?

    Our collective leadership must lead by honor. Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy. This is irrefutable, in terms of morality.

    Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society.

    The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, and decide if it is better to have all these little wars that disrupt our cities and countries, or declare a real ideological war against the barbaric and non-progressive ideology that the Eastern hordes are trying to force down the Wests throat.

    As usual, religions are trying to grow themselves by the sword. A redirection is in order and quite necessary if peace is to be achieved.

    We, the collective of the free world, must move the war to one of words that judge the ideologies for their moral worth, and seek to live by the best one. That verdict will determine the will of the free world as to which direction we free people wish the world to evolve to; in terms of the limits of freedom and the duty of free people.

    The free world has forgotten that its first duty to the world is to work to have the whole world share in that freedom.

    A war of words tends to kill fewer people than the murderous religious insurgencies we now suffer.

    I think our legislators ought to consider such a strategy.

    Do you?

    Carcano likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No. It is not inherently immoral, nor should we "declare war" on it.
    Absolutely. Honor also demands we stand together against bigots who attack someone else for their race, religion or sex.
    Kittamaru, wegs and exchemist like this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Evangelizing "freedom" is no better than evangelizing religion.
    Forcing ones moral code, even if that involves freedom, upon another is exactly what oppression is. (force = oppression)

    War it self is immoral regardless of justification.

    Perhaps the Hague and UN can make a ruling about paranoia as well?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Jaw jaw jaw better than war war war.
    This reads like something written by a hopeful schoolboy who really thinks the world is that simple. ...meanwhile in the real world...
    billvon, Dr_Toad and exchemist like this.
  8. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    No idea is valid simply because its part of a religion...this principle should be taught in school at the earliest age of understanding.

    The US bill of rights should thus be amended according to this principle...it states:

    'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    If the free exercise of Islam means defying established standards of ethics then yes, it should be prohibited by State authorities.

    For more on the origins of Islamic ideology:
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If a religion ( or interpretation of that religion) condones or encourages violence against other religions or people outside their faith then... how does this agree with the bill of rights you mention?
  10. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    It does NOT agree...thats why I say that the first amendment should be amended.
  11. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Greatest I am likes this.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    It (Islam) also contravenes article 18 of the UDOHR (1948)
    (Human rights, charter.. 1948 UN)
    Article 18.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
    src: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

    In many Islamic communities apostasy (renouncement) attracts the death penalty....
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Shall we prohibit Christianity as well, since it also defies existing standards of ethics?
  14. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    If teachings found in the gospels were taken seriously by Christians and actively engaged then YES.

    For example, Jesus tell his followers that if they are tempted to sin by vision they should pluck out their eyes...for it is better to enter heaven with no eyes than to be cast into hell with both eyes.

    However, the unethical nature of Islam is far more serious, considering that its founder was a political military figure, while Jesus was essentially an ascetic...whose kingdom was not of this earth.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    According to whom?

    And compared to what other ideology, for example?

    What makes the UN more just? This is the same UN that has sat on its hands and allowed millions to perish from genocide in several African countries alone in the last 2 decades (alone, and I have not even begun to touch on its non-action in regards to several Asian countries and Middle Eastern countries, Europe, Australia, the US, Russia, and so on and so forth).

    Immoral according to whom?

    Is it more moral to drop bombs on their schools and hospitals in said war? Does that make us more moral? Do you think killing millions of people is moral? Because that is what is going to take in your so called war against what you deem to be an immoral ideology.

    Do you think it is honorable to commit genocide? How about mass murder of millions of people? Because I see no honour in that. Just cowardice and stupidity fed by sheer bigotry.

    Well freedom.. Except if you are a Muslim I guess.

    I take it you do not consider Muslims to be human beings, deserving of their fundamental human right to practice and believe in their deity of choice?

    Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean nothing to you? You know, since you are bringing up honor and the like..

    Article 18.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    Since you appear to be denying Muslims the right to their freedom, in your zeal to declare war on them, and since you seem to not have factored them in to the "all free people" spiel you had going on there, I am assuming you do not consider Muslims to be human beings deserving of their freedom and freedom and fundamental human right to religion?

    You keep declaring morality.. Personally, I do not think declaring war on a religion, wiping out adherents of that religion or forcing them under threat of war (and accompanying death and destruction) to be moral or justified. Perhaps you should define what you mean by morality. Because your proposal is tantamount to genocide and utterly lacking in morals.

    But we are not a moral society. And if we declared war on Islam and saw fit to force our lack of morals to allow millions to die and deny a billion people their fundamental human rights, how could we consider ourselves moral? Because our actions would be immoral and without merit or reason.

    In other words, we would not be a free society..

    Freedom is about allowing people to believe and practice their religion. Declaring war on a religion would not be expressing or spreading freedom. We would be oppressing a billion people. So, pray tell, how would that make us a moral society?

    Someone once displayed similar sentiments..

    A few years later, millions of people were killed, because of their religion and ethnicity.

    Does this mean you consider Hitler to be moral? Or would he only have been moral if his victims had been Muslims instead of Jews, Roma, the disabled, homosexuals, anyone non-Aryan, anyone who opposed his version of morality?

    Do you think committing genocide because of religion, is progressive and not barbaric?

    Because what you are proposing is actually defined as genocide.

    It is also illegal. Under laws around the world, you would be classified as inciting hatred and violence against others based on their religious beliefs and ideology.

    Interestingly enough, you do not seem to see your ideology of declaring war on a whole religion, as not being you and the West forcing your ideology (murderous and genocidal ideology at that) and your lack of morals down the throats of Muslims..

    So you just want to get in on the action?

    What you are proposing is not freedom. It is tyranny. It is forcing your ideology onto everyone. It is also religious genocide. You aren't judging. You are threatening war, because of one's religious ideology and trying to convince yourself that it is freedom.

    What if people do not wish to share in what you view as being "freedom"?

    Because what you are offering is not freedom. It is sheer tyranny.

    Freedom, if you must know, encompasses one's individual rights to one's religious ideology. Freedom does not entail forcing people, under threat of war, to change their religion.

    Right.. So you think 'declaring a verbal war' is the go?

    Because that's how things work, isn't it?

    Inciting hatred, inciting violence, threatening any kind of war because of one's religious ideology, demanding that a billion people divest themselves of their religious beliefs and denying their fundamental human rights, is immoral. It is also illegal.

    I think you should seek help.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    There are varieties of Islam that I respect a great deal, even though I don't believe as they do. I've met Sufis whose spirituality was as pure as any I've ever encountered. I an greatly attracted to Islamic art.

    I do agree that some varieties of Islamic theology contradict most of the values I embrace and represent a tremendous danger to the Western modernist tradition. By that I mean radical jihadism in particular, and the belief that all of human society (including the Western societies Muslim immigrants move to) need to be ordered by the frankly savage dictates of God's divine Law.

    And unfortunately, it seems to be the uglier versions of Islam that are spreading most rapidly and are currently in ascendency thoughout much of the Islamic world. That's a scary thing. It's a wholesale reaction against modernity and a return to a dark ages sensibility.

    I don't think that the world court in the Hague or the United Nations have the desire or the authority to outlaw an entire civilization. If they did, how would they enforce their ruling?

    Who is "we"? Declare war how? And where?

    I don't think that we should set out to destroy the Islamic world, even if we could. (It's a fantasy.) But I do think that we need to defend the essence of our own civilization, the cultural advances that we have gradually won over the centuries.

    It sounds like you are preaching an anti-Islam jihad.

    I disagree vehemently with the idea of enforced morality. (That's why I oppose the West's currently ascendent Neo-puritanism so much.)

    I think that as much as possible, people should be left free to make their own decisions for themselves. If that means people in Muslim countries embracing their traditional Islam, then that's their choice. (A unfortunate choice in my opinion, but theirs.)

    If they threaten us, then we should defend ourselves.

    Even if they don't want to?

    I think that things like the internet are the strongest possible "war of words". That's one reason why Islamic fundamentalism is growing so rapidly, it's a reaction to the threat that many Muslims feel to the essence of their own traditions.

    I think that the Western world should defend itself, but not try to convert the rest of the world in its own image. If other countries admire and want to emulate our culture and traditions, they can adopt them on their own terms at their own rate.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Serving God's Purpose

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do what you want, Christianity's next. The last funny thing in the world will be to see what people say when it's the Jews' turn.

    Because, you know: Let's be honest, your idea is really, really stupid. Dangerously stupid. You know, the kind of stupid that makes others wonder whether the hatemonger spewing such stupidity is dangerous or not.

    No, seriously, the morbidly fun part of these is watching confident people scramble to find excuses for themselves when the standards they demand turn to devour them, as well. The problem is that while evil mugs for the camera and tries to make charming excuses, people still get hurt.

    The thing is that myopic feelgood bullybluster always sounds better to the wannabe bullies before they get their way. For the most part, people schiz out when they are called to answer under their own standard; there is always some reason they forgot to tell us up front, and can't quite think of in the moment, why the rules shouldn't apply to them, and quite often they think it so self-evident they get offended that anyone else doesn't see it.

    Can we decertify Christianity for centuries of lying and thieving and raping and murdering that continues to this very day?

    I make a joke, sometimes, when arguing with my American conservative neighbors about judicial activism. I ask them: If I could convince voters to banish Catholicism because it isn't a "religion" but, instead, a criminal organization targeting children, and won't someone please think about the children, then: Does the U.S. Constitution permit such an outcome? Would a court stop us? Should a court stop us?

    (The answers, for those playing at home, are ▸No; yes; yes.◂)​

    Now, admittedly, you're discussing the U.N. and International Criminal Court. Turn the U.N. against Islam, you lose a lot of people from the functioning assertion of the world community. When we subsequently turn the U.N. against Christianity, we lose a whole lot more. Somewhere in this process, the U.N. will have ceased functioning.

    How convenient. I mean, that's just the thing, it's astounding how much of what a bigot wants they can accomplish with one teeny-tiny ask, like declaring war against a religion―"Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?"

    Watching you try to talk your way back from genocide isn't convincing. I don't believe you're so godforsaken stupid that you don't understand the implications of what happens next. I don't believe you're so stupid as to expect such an Inquisition to remain secure under any institutional control.

    As such, I deplore and denounce, DL, your proposed genocide.

    Well, I deplore and denounce it, anyway, but you need to face up to the depths of your depravity, attempt to comprehend the magnitude of your sin.

    That is to say, if I could believe you were that stupid, well, that's not the sort of thing that makes people feel any better. There are days when the difference 'twixt sinister and stupid seems exactly nil.

    Tell us: When your Inquisition comes 'round to devour you, will you hold your head high like Ignatius of Antioch? Or will you whimper and blubber and try to make excuses like Kim Davis, or Roy Moore, or, Melissa Klein, or Kevin O'Connor, or, you know, pretty-much any other stankassed, two-bit shitemonger looking for martyrdom as a chance to cash in on their fifteen minutes of fame? And that's the thing: When they were putting their lives on the line, the would-be martyrs seemed to take their decisions a bit more seriously.

    One of the great errors of the exclusivists is to presume that when everything segregates again they will somehow come out on top. It's pretty easy if one is a Christian looking through the supremacist lens of American history, for instance, to presume that not only will white Christians do just fine in that scheme, but, actually, prosper―i.e., history (political struggle) as class struggle―but inclusivist coalitions will eventually win out, and then once again the traditional supremacists will complain that everyone else was unfair to them for giving them their way.

    Traditional supremacism is looking for some in-between space, some way to preserve some iteration of civility and necessity about exclusivist class supremacism. One colloquial expression is that traditional bullies are grasping after straws in desperate defense of their fundamental incivility; these are the worst among humans begging for justification that the rest of the human endeavor simply cannot afford, and they pretend to be unable to live without.

    Let them die out, then. Hatred itself won't run extinct; we humans remain human.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  18. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Hanlon's razor, and Dunning-Kruger at work, big time.

    We're some fucked-up monkeys, and God is a tool for hatred.
    Greatest I am likes this.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    They are. Hans Breivik went to a Martyr's Mass before he went on his massacre. The Army of God in the US is a Christian terrorist organization whose goal is, among other things, to "take action against baby killing abortionists." They do this via kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder, and they claim they base their actions on their religion.

    So I will put you down for demanding a ban on Christianity.
    The Bible commands Christians to kill homosexuals. It gives instructions on how to sell women into slavery. It commands that people who believe other religions be killed. If you are determined to be a rapist, murderer or thief it gives you just as much material as Islam does to justify it.
    Dr_Toad and Greatest I am like this.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Yes unfortunately, Christians are stuck with the old testament. Christ himself recommended none of those indictments.
    Most Christians observe the teaching of Christ as being the NEW testament for a reason.
    Name one instance where Christ advocates violence against another and I will stand corrected.
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    this is plain wrong.
    As I mentioned in an earlier post (#9), Apostasy is a crime punishable by Death in many Muslim communities. Traditionally Islam, does not tolerate renouncement (apostasy) or freedom to choose ones religious beliefs.
    Christianity does not seek to harm someone for converting to Islam but Islam traditionally seeks to harm someone for converting to Christianity.
    A direct contravention of article 18!

    If article 18 does not allow apostasy (amongst many other issues) then Islam is incompatible with the Universal declaration of human rights

    Yet in saying so it is obvious that if ones freedom is another's oppression then neither are free.
    Before you go off on accusing me of Islamophobia read my earlier post #3
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If we can agree that traditional Islam is incompatible with the UDHR's then the conversation about why Christian based societies are very uneasy about how to handle the refugee crisis occurring.
    Asking an individual Muslim to sign the UDHR prior to migrating would mean that they would have to renounce Islam to be successful. Thus the dilemma...
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I call bullshit.

    Sorry, but I just spent twenty-five years in a social revolution, and here's the thing: Christ was absent from the Christian argument.

    They relied on the Old Testament and the Pauline Evangelism to seek a mandate to defy Christ.

    And to the other, I'm really uncomfortable with people demonstrating this degree of ignorance about Islam daring to judge it. To wit:

    Why would we agree to something so stupid?

    Seriously, we treat empowerment majorities the way we treat minorities, the empowerment majorities cry foul.

    We hold Christians to answer for everything any one Christian does, Christians cry foul.

    (By the way, I should pre-empt fantasies of an atheist majority; if we hold atheists to answer for everything any one atheist does, there's no point in listening to the evangelism. That sort of thing.)

    Remind me again why we need to single out Muslims? And, you know, this better not go as poorly as American white supremacists trying to explain why we need to single out black people, or American male supremacists trying to explain why we need to single out women; and let me further note that in either of those cases, the phrase "trying to explain" is generally taken to mean "dodging the question" or "utterly failing to make sense".

    I'm trying to figure just why people have to dehumanize Muslims this way. It's kind of weird, and makes discussions sound as if they're simply there for a bunch of supremacists to commiserate about the fact that people they don't like exist in the world.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page