Posted on 10/30/2011 6:49:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s not the religion it’s the imams and their followers.
islam, in ALL its forms is, and has been, a declaration of WAR on civilization. That is all it is and that is all it has ever been. It is an evil force that seeks to dominate the world with its insanity and hateful perversion.
Those who accept it and enable it are just as insane and equally as perverse becsuse it frees them from their conscience and justifies their own hatred and perversions.
It justifies homosexuality, pedophiia, bestiality, murder, torture, slavery, brutality, barbarism, ignorance, dishonesty, suicide, and any other abnormal urge one night ever have. It is a sickness of the mind and body; a destructive force that destroys everything it touches.
It is not a religion. It is an illness. It is insanity personified and intensified by its practitioners.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!”
-Winston Churchill
islam has no ‘values’. That is why it exists. To justify the lack of anything resembling a ‘value’ or a moral compass. It completely obliterates the conscience and expands a culture of mindless psychopaths.
It seems to me that he is saying that there are less literal forms of islam that we should be encouraging for tactical reasons i.e. they are a weapon against the islamic extremist fundamentalists.
I had an old circa 1850 book. There was a memorable picture of a man with wild eyes riding a horse...the caption was "A sword in one hand and the koran in the other". Nothing has changed!!!
Elegantly put. Maybe Islam attracts dangerous people because it hasnt fully grown up yet. Face it, most of its adherents are living in second or third world nations now. They have never had an equivalent to the renaissance, or anyone like John Locke.
Appropriate here, this is another re-post of my “Islam = Cancer” screed.
Anyone sick of it can skip it and use their time more wisely to burn a Koran.
Think it through with me - the parallels are significant, and denial is a dangerous option.
First, cancer cells are very similar to our own. You can’t quite say they are not human cells, or “our very own cells.” They spring up from our own cells. They are genetically identical in almost every way.
But they have some odd, unusual “thoughts” and “behaviors”. They multiply rapidly. They invade surrounding areas, and spread to distant areas to set up enclaves, pushing aside noncancerous cells and structures.
They use the body’s own mechanisms and resources against it. They insert themselves into key structures and disable or destroy them. They overwhelm the body’s natural defenses and immune system. The body cannot effectively wall them off, keep them in check, change their inherent nature and behavior, or “make peace” with them in any way. Ultimately, left unchecked, the natural history of cancer is to wreak havoc on the body, causing much suffering, and eventually death.
The only known cures are extreme, aggressive, destructive ones - radical cures: surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. There is always collateral damage, death of healthy cells, sometimes removal of entire functional tissues and organs.
But often enough there is improvement, either improved functioning and quality of life, or often a complete cure, which entails permanent and complete removal of all cancer cells from the body. Although not all cancer cells are always invading and destroying vital structures, it is important to aim for complete eradication of all cells as the goal of treatment, or the cancer will return with time.
I agree on the moral compass thing. Islam has no conception that God is good. Instead it puts it the other way round. Good is what God says is good (according to the Quran). His laws and dictates (as described by the Quran) are not to be questioned. Period. As a result, Moslems don’t have to defend God’s character. They would never have a discussion with an unbeliever on the lines of “one of the ten commandments is ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and yet in parts of the OT the same God orders the Israelites to exterminate entire peoples and cultures, so what kind of God is that?”
But immature or unstable people need structure and lots of it. Then, on top of that, they need validation, which they only get by seeing others also adhering to that structure.
Totally disagree.
I keep a copy of the koran (fart gas be upon it) next to the toilet. I read a stanza or two while taking care of business.
izslum is not a religion, its a cult of 7th century barbarians. izslum is a thugocracy comprised of a gang of knuckle headed, knuckle dragging Neanderthal hell bent on world domination.
(I have suspicions that izslum was started by the ghost of Nimrod, here to rebuild the Tower of Babel, but that’s only my opinion.)
Anyone with even half a brain could read the koran (dog doo be upon it) and figure out that it was a screed penned by a mad man pedophile, trying to figure out a way to justify his own self indulgent excesses while getting rich by looting everyone around him. Moohammer (pig doo be upon him) used this so called religion, to get his useful idiots to run head long into battle with little regard for their own lives, so that he could stay in the rear and pork (pun intended) little girls and boys.
I agree with an earlier poster and I have often said myself: there is no such thing as a moderate muzslime, you believe that bull dung at your own peril.
This whole story is another attempt by some do-gooder westerner to use pretzel logic to justify and deem reasonable, that which cannot be justified nor deemed reasonable.
Reasonable ADULTS, I meant.
Its unsettling. Its also very dangerous.
There are a couple of paragraphs I found particularly fascinating:
“Nevertheless, the question raised by Robert’s unyielding position is whether there are, and can be, other viable interpretations of Islam. The answer is yes. They are not as cogent as we’d like them to be, and they do not compete with classical Islam as effectively as we wish. Most of the time, they are less a refutation of classical Islam than a choice — conscious or unconscious — to ignore its supremacist, political elements. But even a passive choice can change a doctrine or a social system, and can do so even if the ignored elements remain on the books.”
and
“My argument with Islam’s Western apologists is not that this kind of evolution is out of the realm of possibility. It is with their absurd insistence that it has already happened. Not just that it could conceivably happen — about which there are lots of reasons for pessimism — but that it has already happened. This is not only self-evidently untrue; it may be fatally counterproductive. By failing to shine the light of inquiry on supremacist, political Islam — by failing to force Islamists into the position of publicly acknowledging and defending their noxious beliefs — we deprive pro-Western Muslims of the platform they need to promote reform and marginalize the supremacists. This only empowers faux moderates like the Muslim Brotherhood, enabling them to push sharia as if it were unthreatening and promote Hamas as if it were an ordinary political party. “
I also was interested to read his conclusions in the last two paragraphs. IMHO the whole article was a worthwhile read. Thanks for the post.
THanks for the McCarran Act to our attention.
I like your metaphor. We always get into trouble when we do not respect the other person’s free will and try to exert our own.
McCarthy is a poor theologian, a closeted postmodern, and a coward. Words mean things, and “interpreting” Islam in a more “contextual way” when the meaning of the text is plain is nothing but an invitation to Mohammedans to play “let’s pretend”. I can understand and even, in a way, admire the Mohammedan refusal to embrace that intellectual dishonesty.
What McCarthy wants is not to have to truly confront Mohammedanism. That would involve breeching all sorts of postmoderm/gramscian shibboeths. It would be ever so much more convenient if Mohammedans would just simply become like Episcopalians, Methodists (UMC), or Unitarians. Of course, this is rather like it would have been to hope in prior generations that the Communists or Nazis would abandon their creeds through “contextualization” and become Franciscan friars.
Distinguishing between a “religion” and an “ideology”, as some try to do, is absurd. “Religion” is just another word for metaphysics and worldview. Everyone has both of these, whether he realizes it or not. While metaphysics provides an ontology, a system of values, and other fundamental beliefs for interpreting the world, “Ideologies” are just the worldview applied to social/political issues. Again, everyone has an ideology whether he knows it or not.
Here McCarthy is squeamish. The issue isn’t whether a worldview is “supremecist” or not; the issue is whether it is true. What McCarthy doesn’t want to do is take on the “truth” issue. I suspect that he lives in a milieu in which the background assumptions are postmodern, and claiming that there is a true metaphysics would be viewed even in his circles as “unsophisticated”....or worse - de classe.
We live in an age in which the best - or at least those who believe they are the “best - lack courage. This is why we can’t deal effectively with any public policy issue, whether it be illegal immigration, Mohammedanism, spending, taxing, or anything at all related to sexuality.
Through generations of control of education and the media the left has managed to produce elites and a general populace without genuine conviction. Consequently, we continue to slowly slide toward our own destruction, fully aware that it is approaching, but too cowardly to say and do the things necessary to avert it.
“There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam” The former president of Eqypt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.