Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did Liberals forget their own beliefs?

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:16:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

- Semantics. You tolerate parts of Shari'a, & not others.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:18:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

It is pretty simple really. Anyone is free to self opt into any moral code or standard. If you don't want to have sex with men go for it. If you want to imprison or kill others for having homosexual sex then f you. It doesn't matter if one is conservative Christian muslim or general d-bag.

With that said, there are many gray areas such as can parents self opt a child in? Say for example genital mutilation?

Moral of the story is that people should not concern themselves with others sexuality. It is like the old lady peeking through the curtains complaining about everything the neighbors do.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:26:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Which one?
BaronFranzdEpinay
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:44:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
It's because the modern left is characterized above all else as being anti-white, and will make all of their other platforms secondary to racial issues.
"This is what happens when a nation is an amorphous "proposition" run by an adversarial, traitorous globocorp elite instead of a binding contract and divine expression of blood and soil native stock ruling the country for the benefit of their posterity."
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:32:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

It doesn't matter that it's derived from the religious precepts of Islam. Shariah and Islam are fundamentally different. Shariah is a legal system and Islam is a religion. Generally people should be able to do what they want so long as they aren't harming other people. Shariah as a legal system is a particularly restrictive and brutal exercise of state power. Merely practicing Islam isn't coming anywhere close to that.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:39:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:16:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

- Semantics. You tolerate parts of Shari'a, & not others.

I'm sure there are parts I agree with and parts I do not agree with. Fundamentally though, the source of the law is religious in nature. I don't like that.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:39:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

+1
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:41:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 12:32:36 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

It doesn't matter that it's derived from the religious precepts of Islam. Shariah and Islam are fundamentally different. Shariah is a legal system and Islam is a religion. Generally people should be able to do what they want so long as they aren't harming other people. Shariah as a legal system is a particularly restrictive and brutal exercise of state power. Merely practicing Islam isn't coming anywhere close to that.

Incorrect. Sharia is a moral system under Islam. Without Islam, there is no Sharia. They are both intertwined. Also, Islam is not a religion, but rather a cult.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:46:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 12:41:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 12:32:36 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

It doesn't matter that it's derived from the religious precepts of Islam. Shariah and Islam are fundamentally different. Shariah is a legal system and Islam is a religion. Generally people should be able to do what they want so long as they aren't harming other people. Shariah as a legal system is a particularly restrictive and brutal exercise of state power. Merely practicing Islam isn't coming anywhere close to that.

Incorrect. Sharia is a moral system under Islam. Without Islam, there is no Sharia. They are both intertwined. Also, Islam is not a religion, but rather a cult.

One requires the power of the state. One does not. That's a pretty significant difference, but I guess you can just ignore that.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:47:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?

I'm a Moderate. Both ideologies are extremism to me. Common sense says there are times an abortion is neccessary but Republicans won't budge. Homosexuals are human beings but Conservatives won't budge. There are obviously times you may need a gun but Dems won't budge. Syria is the hotbed of extremism in Islam and bringing in Syrian refugees is insane but dems won't budge. But on this thread about Liberals, why do Liberals support a group that is more antigay and anti womens rights than the group they detest so much(conservatives)?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:49:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 12:46:51 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 12:41:03 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 12:32:36 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

It doesn't matter that it's derived from the religious precepts of Islam. Shariah and Islam are fundamentally different. Shariah is a legal system and Islam is a religion. Generally people should be able to do what they want so long as they aren't harming other people. Shariah as a legal system is a particularly restrictive and brutal exercise of state power. Merely practicing Islam isn't coming anywhere close to that.

Incorrect. Sharia is a moral system under Islam. Without Islam, there is no Sharia. They are both intertwined. Also, Islam is not a religion, but rather a cult.

One requires the power of the state. One does not. That's a pretty significant difference, but I guess you can just ignore that.

Sharia doesn't require the power of the state, it just requires the power of some majority, but it is most often channeled through the state. It's also inarguable that Sharia is a derivative of Islam, as Islam is the umbrella term of a couple denominational sects, which mostly all believe in some level of Sharia. It just happens to be that Sharia is a radically authoritative form of moral and legal conduct, which is true with most religions.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:53:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 12:49:19 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

Sharia doesn't require the power of the state, it just requires the power of some majority, but it is most often channeled through the state. It's also inarguable that Sharia is a derivative of Islam, as Islam is the umbrella term of a couple denominational sects, which mostly all believe in some level of Sharia. It just happens to be that Sharia is a radically authoritative form of moral and legal conduct, which is true with most religions.

Law is the expression of the will of the state. Shariah is a legal system. I don't see how Shariah can be practiced without it being an exercise of state power.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:01:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 12:53:55 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 12:49:19 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

Sharia doesn't require the power of the state, it just requires the power of some majority, but it is most often channeled through the state. It's also inarguable that Sharia is a derivative of Islam, as Islam is the umbrella term of a couple denominational sects, which mostly all believe in some level of Sharia. It just happens to be that Sharia is a radically authoritative form of moral and legal conduct, which is true with most religions.

Law is the expression of the will of the state. Shariah is a legal system. I don't see how Shariah can be practiced without it being an exercise of state power.

There's quite a lot of parts of the world where the state is unable to protect its people, or even allows for violence to continue. It doesn't necessarily need a state to be there.

Also, when a law is so unjust that it perpetuates an almost ownership of others, it's a law that needs to be repealed. Unfortunately, many of these nations are ruled as theocracies, which is terrible.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:45:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:01:44 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

There's quite a lot of parts of the world where the state is unable to protect its people, or even allows for violence to continue. It doesn't necessarily need a state to be there.

I would argue that the actors practicing Shariah in that situation would be operating as a de facto state in spite of the fact that another state may be recognized as having dominion over the particular area. My problem with it would be the same and you're missing the point; Practicing Shariah requires the use of force. Practicing Islam does not.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:52:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:45:44 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:01:44 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

There's quite a lot of parts of the world where the state is unable to protect its people, or even allows for violence to continue. It doesn't necessarily need a state to be there.

I would argue that the actors practicing Shariah in that situation would be operating as a de facto state in spite of the fact that another state may be recognized as having dominion over the particular area. My problem with it would be the same and you're missing the point; Practicing Shariah requires the use of force. Practicing Islam does not.

I never disagreed with you on that front. I merely stated that without Islam, there wouldn't be Sharia, which is arguably a terrible moral and legal code of conduct.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:58:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Which one?

Trump?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:02:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:58:28 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Which one?

Trump?

Visit? He has business in the middle-east (at least businesses that put the "Trump" name on crap.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:02:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:58:28 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Which one?

Trump?

And less we forget, "Trump" branded clothing made in China.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:03:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:02:21 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:58:28 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:19:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:48:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Sharia Law poses the death penalty on homosexuals and forces women to cover up and be submissive to men, and Liberals are tolerant of Islam why again? If Conservatives proposed that we keep women in their place and show any sense of antihomosexual rhetoric, there is an uproar. Where are the Liberals on this issue flaring their fists towards an obviously full fledged homophobic and sexist belief system? I'm confused.

Not to mention, only one Republican went after Saudi Arabia, one of the most vile countries on earth. Why did they forget their own beliefs?
Which one?

Trump?

Visit? He has business in the middle-east (at least businesses that put the "Trump" name on crap.

He also said Saudi should be paying us for protection.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:25:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is a legal concept, Islam is a faith. What you tolerate is the peaceful exercise of the latter not the implementation of the former. They're separable.

Really, at the root of this disagreement between liberals and conservatives on the subject of Western-Islamic cohabitation is a nuance of language and attitude . . . You have one group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and another that doesn't. No one denies that there are verities of islamic fundamentalism that are irreconcilable with Western values, but in many cases these are shed, reinterpreted, or modernized. It is out of recognition that there are scores of moderate Muslims that we temper our language and that we don't allow the religion's most radical elements to define how we approach it (and indeed what definition we accept for it).

You alienate so many people by saying things like "I don't tolerate Islam" .... besides being wrong and unnuanced, it's unfair. Take the most charitable and inclusive definition for a systematic decantation of the religion's factions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:56:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Why do people insist on painting the issue in such black & white terms? It's stupid to be totally for or against Islam in its entirety. People should be (and generally are) tolerant of the parts of Islam which are compatible with Western culture. Muslims who reject the incompatible elements (i.e. moderates) are welcome to live among Westerners, and shouldn't be discriminated against.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:02:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:25:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is a legal concept, Islam is a faith. What you tolerate is the peaceful exercise of the latter not the implementation of the former. They're separable.

Really, at the root of this disagreement between liberals and conservatives on the subject of Western-Islamic cohabitation is a nuance of language and attitude . . . You have one group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and another that doesn't. No one denies that there are verities of islamic fundamentalism that are irreconcilable with Western values, but in many cases these are shed, reinterpreted, or modernized. It is out of recognition that there are scores of moderate Muslims that we temper our language and that we don't allow the religion's most radical elements to define how we approach it (and indeed what definition we accept for it).

You alienate so many people by saying things like "I don't tolerate Islam" .... besides being wrong and unnuanced, it's unfair. Take the most charitable and inclusive definition for a systematic decantation of the religion's factions.

For whatever it is worth, I have never said "I don't tolerate Islam", I say over and over, I dislike Islam and all other religions. The nuance seems to escape all but a few.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:12:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:02:27 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:25:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is a legal concept, Islam is a faith. What you tolerate is the peaceful exercise of the latter not the implementation of the former. They're separable.

Really, at the root of this disagreement between liberals and conservatives on the subject of Western-Islamic cohabitation is a nuance of language and attitude . . . You have one group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and another that doesn't. No one denies that there are verities of islamic fundamentalism that are irreconcilable with Western values, but in many cases these are shed, reinterpreted, or modernized. It is out of recognition that there are scores of moderate Muslims that we temper our language and that we don't allow the religion's most radical elements to define how we approach it (and indeed what definition we accept for it).

You alienate so many people by saying things like "I don't tolerate Islam" .... besides being wrong and unnuanced, it's unfair. Take the most charitable and inclusive definition for a systematic decantation of the religion's factions.

For whatever it is worth, I have never said "I don't tolerate Islam", I say over and over, I dislike Islam and all other religions. The nuance seems to escape all but a few.

I'm an atheist. I don't like religions either, least of all the barbaric species of Islam present in some Middle Eastern states in sordid petrifaction. So, I understand that distinction very acutely.

You now say (in effect) that you do tolerate Islam, but your language and the sympathies you've expressed here betray that impression. How else does one interpret the following statement? : "You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah."
Do you tolerate Sharia TBR?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:17:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:12:11 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:02:27 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:25:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is a legal concept, Islam is a faith. What you tolerate is the peaceful exercise of the latter not the implementation of the former. They're separable.

Really, at the root of this disagreement between liberals and conservatives on the subject of Western-Islamic cohabitation is a nuance of language and attitude . . . You have one group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and another that doesn't. No one denies that there are verities of islamic fundamentalism that are irreconcilable with Western values, but in many cases these are shed, reinterpreted, or modernized. It is out of recognition that there are scores of moderate Muslims that we temper our language and that we don't allow the religion's most radical elements to define how we approach it (and indeed what definition we accept for it).

You alienate so many people by saying things like "I don't tolerate Islam" .... besides being wrong and unnuanced, it's unfair. Take the most charitable and inclusive definition for a systematic decantation of the religion's factions.

For whatever it is worth, I have never said "I don't tolerate Islam", I say over and over, I dislike Islam and all other religions. The nuance seems to escape all but a few.

I'm an atheist. I don't like religions either, least of all the barbaric species of Islam present in some Middle Eastern states in sordid petrifaction. So, I understand that distinction very acutely.

You now say (in effect) that you do tolerate Islam, but your language and the sympathies you've expressed here betray that impression. How else does one interpret the following statement? : "You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah."
Do you tolerate Sharia TBR?

That was an observation. You can not "respect" islam in total and square that with not respecting Shariah. The one in contained in the other.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:18:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:12:11 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:02:27 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/19/2016 3:25:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:08:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/18/2016 10:54:59 PM, Death23 wrote:
Islam and Shariah are not the same thing. I tolerate Islam. I do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is derived entirely from the religious precepts of Islam. You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah.

Shariah is a legal concept, Islam is a faith. What you tolerate is the peaceful exercise of the latter not the implementation of the former. They're separable.

Really, at the root of this disagreement between liberals and conservatives on the subject of Western-Islamic cohabitation is a nuance of language and attitude . . . You have one group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and another that doesn't. No one denies that there are verities of islamic fundamentalism that are irreconcilable with Western values, but in many cases these are shed, reinterpreted, or modernized. It is out of recognition that there are scores of moderate Muslims that we temper our language and that we don't allow the religion's most radical elements to define how we approach it (and indeed what definition we accept for it).

You alienate so many people by saying things like "I don't tolerate Islam" .... besides being wrong and unnuanced, it's unfair. Take the most charitable and inclusive definition for a systematic decantation of the religion's factions.

For whatever it is worth, I have never said "I don't tolerate Islam", I say over and over, I dislike Islam and all other religions. The nuance seems to escape all but a few.

I'm an atheist. I don't like religions either, least of all the barbaric species of Islam present in some Middle Eastern states in sordid petrifaction. So, I understand that distinction very acutely.

You now say (in effect) that you do tolerate Islam, but your language and the sympathies you've expressed here betray that impression. How else does one interpret the following statement? : "You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah."
Do you tolerate Sharia TBR?

Further, I don't respect Islam. I dislike Islam. I can tolerate and not like or respect.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:37:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:18:41 AM, TBR wrote:

You now say (in effect) that you do tolerate Islam, but your language and the sympathies you've expressed here betray that impression. How else does one interpret the following statement? : "You, in effect, do not tolerate Islam if you do not tolerate Shariah."
Do you tolerate Sharia TBR?

Further, I don't respect Islam. I dislike Islam. I can tolerate and not like or respect.

In the context of a political discussion on cultural differences, "tolerate"; "tolerance"; etc usually means to recognize and respect.