quote:

Secondarily, over time there are peaceful Islamic regimes, sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Secondarily, over time there are peaceful Islamic regimes, sure.

And how do these peaceful Islamic regimes come about? Do you think there might be political, economic, cultural and other factors involved? Such factors being stronger than the religion, in fact? Because that's what *I* think happens. People, whatever their religion, tend to know a good thing when they see it, and not getting brutalised or killed are two of the best things for pretty much everybody the world ever. So people try to keep their societies working that way ... until some people turn up who fuck it all up for everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

The clear information here is; non-secular countries are far more peaceful and prosperous than secular countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

The clear information here is; non-secular countries are far more peaceful and prosperous than secular countries.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think you may be right, ronnie.

The one, truly non-secular country that I know of that isn't governed by Sharia Law (which I believe to be emanating from evil, instead of any deity) is VERY non-violent and save for a couple of movies that were filmed there, there hasn't been a violent death in hundreds of years (except Pope John Paul I).

and, certainly, the country to which I allude is VERY prosperous. Some claim it to be gluttonously so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
The USSR was as nonsecular as nonsecular gets, and they slaughtered millions and millions and millions

Other nonsecular nations such as China and North Korea etc, are no better

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
The USSR was as nonsecular as nonsecular gets, and they slaughtered millions and millions and millions

Other nonsecular nations such as China and North Korea etc, are no better

Actually, Bosco, I was trying to point out an obvious flaw when I posted that.

"Secular" means "earthly/non religious" so, "Non-secular" indicates "religious"



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

You are right. I had that backward.... Though I am correct about the USSR etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Wow! How on earth did I miss this little nugget?!?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I can't recall ever commenting on hate crimes legislation. If I did, I'd have been cautious, because that's a subject fraught with problems. Obviously I do care about Islamic extremism, which is why I've tried to work out why and how it comes into existence. But I just do not get this assumption RWNJs have that all one needs need to do is jab one's finger furiously at this or that page in the Koran, or the Hadith or the Sira, and say 'Look, look - this is why Muslim terrorists are as they are and do what they do!'

So, according to the PPLs, the RWNJs think they look at a book and assign a motive for bad behavior, at the same time the PPLs can look at a political party and establish a motive of hating people that aren't white or opposing a woman's "right" to an abortion or ...

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
It takes no account of political, economic, cultural, psychological - etc, etc, etc - factors. And of course - the bleeding obvious - it doesn't explain why most Muslims aren't terrorists. Or even good honest murderers, like Christian murderers are. It's a nonsense.

quote:

Of course not all Muslims are Jihadis. Some are too old, some are too young (Incredibly, there is such a thing. I think the cut-off age is 11 or 12), some work in "support" as opposed to actual carrying of weapons. However, by just about any poll of Muslims, a very high percentage believe Sharia law should be the law of ANY land, even the western ones and, by definition, if they support Sharia, they are extremists. If they support Sharia, they're not likely to work against those trying to impose it.

quote:

Also, did you just suggest that people like Sammy The Bull are: 1) Christian or 2) Terrorists?

quote:

Please tell me I read your second-to-last sentence wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I have no idea how you read my last sentence. You don't like mind-readers - as you've often said - and fortunately for you I'm not one. ;)

Which is why I asked for clarification instead of taking the common douche-canoe route of assigning a false belief/statement to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

The clear information here is; non-secular countries are far more peaceful and prosperous than secular countries.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think you may be right, ronnie.

The one, truly non-secular country that I know of that isn't governed by Sharia Law (which I believe to be emanating from evil, instead of any deity) is VERY non-violent and save for a couple of movies that were filmed there, there hasn't been a violent death in hundreds of years (except Pope John Paul I).

and, certainly, the country to which I allude is VERY prosperous. Some claim it to be gluttonously so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

So, according to the PPLs, the RWNJs think they look at a book and assign a motive for bad behavior, at the same time the PPLs can look at a political party and establish a motive of hating people that aren't white or opposing a woman's "right" to an abortion or ...

Basically, yes: A conversation about violence by Muslims with RWNJs does tend to degenerate into one of 'hey, look what's in their holy books! It's all there!'. And then it becomes a dick size convo about who is the most knowledgeable regarding said holy books (which usually means whose voraciously read most widely on the RWNJ anti-Islam websites). As for 'PPLs' looking at a political party and establishing a motive of hating people that aren't white - why yes, this can happen too. Sometimes justified - because there's a closer relationship between party-policy and what its proponents do - than with a religion, and what its adherents do. (You'd have trouble arguing that Christians do what the Bible says, wouldn't you? I mean - all that stuff about kindness, not murdering, not being gluttonous?) What's your point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Again: If only 2.4 per 100, 000 people in mainly-Muslim countries are on average murderers, whereas the figure is 5 per 100, 000 in the USA - how does it make sense to talk of the bulk of them being Jihadis or supporters of those jihadis? The terms you're using - 'jihadis' and 'extremists' are designed to evoke an image of a brooding monster, ready to wake up and attack at any point. The reality is that more than twice as many Americans are actual murderers than the average of people in mostly-Muslim countries. I get that your view of Islam is such that Muslims *should* be more murderous but the fact is ... they aren't. They're less murderous. For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Again: If only 2.4 per 100, 000 people in mainly-Muslim countries are on average murderers, whereas the figure is 5 per 100, 000 in the USA - how does it make sense to talk of the bulk of them being Jihadis or supporters of those jihadis? The terms you're using - 'jihadis' and 'extremists' are designed to evoke an image of a brooding monster, ready to wake up and attack at any point. The reality is that more than twice as many Americans are actual murderers than the average of people in mostly-Muslim countries. I get that your view of Islam is such that Muslims *should* be more murderous but the fact is ... they aren't. They're less murderous. For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk
and you are always wrong poofie, but I point that out. Non-secular countries include the US, China, Cuba, Honduras, Russia to name just a few. To the extent that the US is secular it is violent. Those secular rightists like to kill moozlems abroad. Even the non secular ones turning them into secular ones, no reason to allude, I am speaking of Iraq.

Nice try at a British term, this time, ronnie.

You must not be able to read, very well. I'll repeat: "secular" means "NON-religious"

So, the US, China, et al. are hardly "non-secular"

quote:

ORIGINAL: American Heritage Dictionary
sec·u·lar

adj.
1.
a. Worldly rather than spiritual: the secular affairs of the parish.
b. Not relating to religion or to a religious body; nonreligious: secular music.
c. Not bound by the full monastic rule of a religious order. Used of clergy.
2. Relating to or advocating secularism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk
wait now, so you are now agreeing that countries who havent any religious frameworks are not violent like religious countries. Oh, dear that is what the data shows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk
Non-secular countries include the US, China, Cuba, Honduras, Russia to name just a few. To the extent that the US is secular it is violent. Those secular rightists like to kill moozlems abroad...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

yet another mnottertroll word...

and also more broad evidence in that he doesn't know what he's talking about.