Something vaguely interesting in the wake of recent terrorist attacks.

[Sir C]

No-one worth listening or talking to has ever said there are no good muslims, that the whole religion is inherently evil and must be banished, so this is a big fat straw man.

Without wishing to ecome hysterical, though, one does the suspicion that the day will come when one will have to choose sides. Everyone will have to choose sides.

[Monty92]

A few AWIMBER's have said that all Muslims should be expelled from this country... the fact 1 of them was Rich does help your "no-one worth listening to" comment

I think we can all be forgiven for expressing bigoted anti-muslim sentiments in the heat of the moment, given what we've had to endure at the exclusive hands of Muslims.

The difference is that apologists like Peter spout their damaging and dangerous views as part of a sober analysis of the situation.

[Burney]

I don’t think I am pretending that. I think I am saying that some religions have been exposed to a lot more light and moderate thought and have managed to find themselves a civilised place in the background of our societies- apart from parts of American where bible bashing ****s constitute a worryingly large political lobby.

We can all argue about how common the fundamental interpretation of Islam is, and how dangerous. However, if you wish to argue that there are no good muslims, that the whole religion is inherently evil and must be banished…well, then I am afraid I have to disagree. I can live with the ridicule.

Societies and cultures don't exist independent of their religious foundations.

The fact is that the west has evolved into a better, more just, kinder and more liberal place to live precisely because of the inheritance of Christ's teachings and their emphasis on justice, kindness, pity, self-sacrifice and mercy and the way in which those ideals have informed our laws.

By contrast, many Islamic societies are worse places to live precisely because many of the teachings of the Koran are abhorrent, misogynistic, violent and barbaric.

[Ash]

As they put it themselves: 'Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.'
It's pretty much already happening. They have been allowed in in ever greater numbers (and are still coming), they are out-breeding us and, as their numbers increase, so will their political weight, meaning it will become ever less likely that there will be the political consensus to stop the immigration of more and more of them. Equally, their democratic weight will start to fundamentally alter our political, cultural and intellectual landscape to suit them. Eventually, no democratic government will be able to act to prevent the inevitable.

Sort-of what happened to Kosovo. Once the heart of Serbia.

[Burney]

I think we can all be forgiven for expressing bigoted anti-muslim sentiments in the heat of the moment, given what we've had to endure at the exclusive hands of Muslims.

The difference is that apologists like Peter spout their damaging and dangerous views as part of a sober analysis of the situation.

I don't have anything against individuals, but if you said I could press a button that meant this country had never had a significant muslim population, I'd press it like a shot.

I'd miss the shawarma, but one has to make sacrifices.

[Peter]

To quibble about whether it is the religion or the interpretation of that religion is a total red herring and would not be applied in any other context than a discussion about religion.

Imagine if someone said Mein Kampf should not be blamed for its role in the rise of the Third Reich because it said some positive things about the importance of national identity and social cohesion and it's not the author's fault that a load of people have taken all the bad stuff literally.

The one thing we can agree on is that Islam could potentially, conceivably, change and reform. The irony is that your attitude, in twisting yourself in knots to absolve the core religion itself of its direct role in creating Islamic fundamentalism, is making it much, much harder to undergo such a reform.

What a thoroughly ludicrous example that is. And the argument does exist outside of religion. Is Karl Marx solely to blame for Stalin? Is Jeremy Corbyn all the fault of the Fabian Society?

And no, it is not a red herring at all. For ****'s sake, you live in a nation that saw centuries of internal conflict revolve around two schisms in the same religion. It isn't my fault that you can't see the difference between the fundamental 'word of God' approach and the modern, scholarly interpretation. Nor how religions are hijacked to justify a status quo or a belief- is Christianity to blame for the KKK? You want to blame Dot Cotton for that?

You now seem to be saying that the religion itself played a direct role in creating its fundamentalist interpretation which is akin to acknowledging the central role of beef in creating a burger. My original point to you was that if you insist on blaming the core religion for everything done in its name then it is only fair to acknowledge the same point with every religion.

[Peter]

No-one worth listening or talking to has ever said there are no good muslims, that the whole religion is inherently evil and must be banished, so this is a big fat straw man.

Hence, IF. IF.

And the only way to avoid this straw man is to acknowledge the difference between interpretations of the religion, and the existence of modern, civilised muslims. Unfortunately, you claim that is a red herring.

[Peter]

I think we can all be forgiven for expressing bigoted anti-muslim sentiments in the heat of the moment, given what we've had to endure at the exclusive hands of Muslims.

The difference is that apologists like Peter spout their damaging and dangerous views as part of a sober analysis of the situation.

Apologist??

**** me.

[SWv2]

I think we can all be forgiven for expressing bigoted anti-muslim sentiments in the heat of the moment, given what we've had to endure at the exclusive hands of Muslims.

The difference is that apologists like Peter spout their damaging and dangerous views as part of a sober analysis of the situation.

What have you had to endure?

[Burney]

What a thoroughly ludicrous example that is. And the argument does exist outside of religion. Is Karl Marx solely to blame for Stalin? Is Jeremy Corbyn all the fault of the Fabian Society?

And no, it is not a red herring at all. For ****'s sake, you live in a nation that saw centuries of internal conflict revolve around two schisms in the same religion. It isn't my fault that you can't see the difference between the fundamental 'word of God' approach and the modern, scholarly interpretation. Nor how religions are hijacked to justify a status quo or a belief- is Christianity to blame for the KKK? You want to blame Dot Cotton for that?

You now seem to be saying that the religion itself played a direct role in creating its fundamentalist interpretation which is akin to acknowledging the central role of beef in creating a burger. My original point to you was that if you insist on blaming the core religion for everything done in its name then it is only fair to acknowledge the same point with every religion.

But I'm happy to acknowledge that point about every religion. However, that does not absolve Islam. Equally, no other religions today represent a threat to me or to my society except Islam, so why would I bother equivocating about the iniquities of other faiths that don't threaten me or my way of life?