Real World

I think principles would mean treating people, or issues, similarly. Basically, calling a spade a spade. If you're going to call Jesus in a jar of piss art, and not offensive to christians, then you should apply the same "principle" to islam. They should put Mohamed in a jar of piss, and say the same. The problem is, people don't. Obviously principles can't apply 100% of the time. I know that, and have argued that with people who feel they should. My position has always been to try to stick as close to principle as is humanly possible.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

Certainly, liberals don't support their high profile name callers (can you name any?) nearly as much as conservative embrace their's (e.g., Michale Savage, Howie Carr, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter,....). In this forum, I think it's pretty evenly split.

iguide

That may be. I was not refering to news media. I was refering to everyday people whom I have had a personal experience with. Altough how about Michale Moore for one, Harry Belifontie for another. I can probally name more if I am needed to.

Turk

The fundemantal mistake within your argument is that the comparison is not apples to apples.
Muslim Nations have been targeted for centuries by Western colonists who invaded their lands / collobarated with local greedy, corrupt rulers in those lands and fed religion to the masses.
When the average Muslim questioned as to why fellow human beings, just because they were from the West, could suck out the life blood of his country while his own people lived in extreme powerty, the answer was that it was Allah's will and that he would be rewarded even more generously in the next life.
Thus, the West prospered because they got to enjoy Indian silk, Arabian fruits, Chinese spices, etc. and finally the ME oil.
Now, we wonder why those fanatics that we helped create are fanatics?
Wasn't it us in the Western world that fed them that opium called religion and thus kept them quiet as we sucked out their life blood?
Now, we wonder why they, in their extreme fanaticism and ignorance, act the way we trained them to act, holding their religion sacred and above all else?

PATRIOTS-80

Sorry, Mohammed was not a reactionary to colonialism. The references to killing infidels in the Koran was not because of colonialism or the crusades (both happened after). Islam would have overran Europe if Charles Martel in 732 did not defeat the Muslims at Tours in Spain.

Patters

Michael Moore is a good example. John Stewart might be another. But, let's face it, liberal talk radio hasn't caught on, which I think is good reflection on liberals. I would guess the main reason that your personal experience has shown you more liberals than conservatives who are rude is that you are conservative. You're obviously not going to find yourself in a situation too often where a conservative is calling you names!

iguide

That is a very good point. I must go do something’s now and will return later. I will ruminate on this and the subject at hand. I look forward to more intellectual exchanges with you in the future.

Take Care

Turk

Where, in my post did I state that Mohammed was a reactionary to colonialism? Nowhere.
My post has nothing to do with moral highground, or a comparion of religions, either.
It simply states the fact that these Muslim fanatics today, are the result of many many years of being fed religion while trying to survive under the most brutal of regimes and extreme poverty.
Many centuries ago, had the Arabs been successful or had the Chinese or the Turks or the Mongols in defeating European armies and colonizing them, today's situation would probably be the other way around, you are correct, but what difference does that make to the discussion at hand which is why the Muslim Nations are the breeding ground for fanatics, today? None.
As far as the reference in the Qoran, that you mentioned in your post, I would ask that you be more specific and not rely on hearsay!
For every one reference that you can come up with from the Qoran, I will come up with a similar one from the OT, so where does that take us?

PATRIOTS-80

The fanatical behavior (that some, not all) Muslims exhibit outdates colonialism.

Turk

For example?