"Islamophobia is the last remaining acceptable prejudice." Yes or No?

No source citation to back the statement of "The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent, according to all intelligence services around the world,". To elivate this to a fact will require source citation... lest it is just an opinion. Since you made it clear I another thread that you do not cite your sources I did the research myself and found no evidence backing the claim.

 

You miss the main point and focus on innuendo, perhaps intentionally.

The point is that there are many examples of the active minority taking control of the passive "peaceful" majority. Whether the number of Islamic radicals is 5% or 25% is irrelevant, what is relevant is they are a minority driving the majority.

You are on a crusade for sources which drives you to miss the point of the post and focus on minutia - what good are sources to a person who cannot keep focus on the discussion?

 

I see that people are still using the idiotic "but, but, but, Christians did bad things hundreds of years ago" argument.

The fact is that there is literally only one Christian region on the world today where they are committing crimes en masse against other people and that is in parts of Africa where gays are being imprisoned or killed. Of course since that is the only area that indicates that is it more of a problem with the culture than with the area being Christian.

The facts are that the most free countries are secular and Protestant countries and the least free countries are the Islamic countries. Not a single Islamic country has a good score on the freedom index.........not even one.

Islam is blight on humanity and the sooner that it is rejected or at least severely reformed the better.

The reason that liberals won't criticize Islam is based entirely on their racism. They are so involved in judging people by their skin color instead of their actions that they can't bring themselves to be critical of a religion that kills gays in their holiest cities and treats women like cattle all over the world, simply because many of Islams adherents are brown skinned. Liberals would rather throw women and gays under the bus than risk being called a racist by some of their friends. Liberals live for the pat on the back affirming them of being enlightened and better than everyone else for not being judgemental. Liberals are idiots.

 

so, back to justifying what happens today to the activities that occurred over two hundred years ago......right, gotcha
psssssssssst, it was ok then, so it's ok now...or is that it wasn't ok then, but it's ok now.....
typical Liberal thinking....... two wrongs make it right

 

In my 10 years here this is a first. Are you arguing for innuendo and against facts? Just because a movement starts out small does not mean it will grow to take over the country. I argue that it is more likely that atheism will overtake America than Islam. Your arguments are based upon speculation and conjecture and strawman arguments of Stalin. Your rejection of the need of source citation shows that you only have opinion... which is a silly basis for an argument against any religion.

 

So Islam is good because most adherents are not devout followers of it? That makes no sense.

Islam is a religion that is comprised of mainly non-white, non Western minorities, who vote Democrat, so you feel "icky" singling them out for criticism. Your default urge, as a white progressive, is to defend.

 

They haven't killed anyone, and they have had plenty of opportunity. Your accusation is baseless.

>>>MOD EDIT Rule 2 Removed<<<

 

Hatred of Islam is definitely based on rational things. Take a look at what members of the religion of Islam did to that Jordanian pilot. The video was released today.

Projection. The left thrives on conflict. That's why Marx's sociological perspective is called "conflict theory".

 

Just wait for more experience with Hindu Nationalist.

Many times I have warned friends / neighbors -
If You See One Hindu Physician - You Will See Two More !
So their regular, American M.D. sends a consultation to a Hindu specialist who then - - yup, 2 more.
Although that Hindu specialist could have chosen from a wealth of ethnicities.
And neither of those two were necessary or illuminating to the patient's condition.
Neighbor / friends Lib attitude is shock when I tell them and then, sheepish confirmation later. Really!

Also, if you should have a Hindu office manager, watch other Hindus get promoted around YOU.
When the influence of Hindu clannishness is more widely experiences, Anti Hindu may be another acceptable bias.
And a justified one too. Just like Islamophobia or Blackphobia.
Internal housecleaning is in order before I will extend myself to "accepting". Experience teaches. Try it.


Moi
Recovered Liberal
if any Liberal can truly be termed, recovered.


r > g

The Real Threat​

 

In 10 years, this is a "first"? Are you kidding? You must not discuss such subjective issues as religion very often. You think the world is completely quantitative, objective, and foot-noted? You think that an outside source gives something legitimacy, as if the internet isn't full of footnoted and "sourced" crap?

Personally, I've been through this "Give me sources!" crap many, many times, and I have almost always answered with sources. But a lot of times the person doesn't read the sources, or rejects the source, or isn't convinced and wants more - it accomplishes nothing and its a waste of my time. Its easy to ask for sources and proof, it puts all the burden on the other person, and frequently the "discussion" degenerates into one person doing all the work while the other person asks for ever more.

A discussion is 2 way, it requires both parties to invest in the interaction. I am not as willing to spend time on people who are not willing to devote a minimal amount of effort into getting up to speed on a subject. That means when someone won't spend 3 minutes typing "Phil Robertson gay comment" and reading a couple of articles, but will take the time to complain about my not filtering the same data for them, then I have the scent of being jerked around and wasting time.

 

I discuss religion all the time. But arguing numbers and percentages as you have done goes into the tangible realm of statistics which I argue can be backed by source citation. Still waiting for the source citation on that 15% to 25% claim from the vid you posted.

No.

Yes as not everything on the net is crap. If you are not into sources then why did you use the video as a source?

Indeed, welcome to debate where if all you have is opinion people like me will not take you seriously. I fear a world where all we offer is opinion as I think when we label groups we should have some empirical evidence and be as objective in our claims as humanly possible... else it's a world of free for all where anything goes.

The burden of proof is upon he who makes the initial claim... this case you and others in this thread in your argument on Islam. To shift the burden of proof to me is a logical fallacy and shows me that the initial claim cannot be back up by evidence.

How do you know how much time people spend getting up to speed? Who gets to decide if someone is up to speed? You? Me? Someone else and by what authority? If someone rejects your claim does that mean that they are not up to speed?

 

I've heard those argument before, that the burden is on the writer. That's just your opinion, and I don't subscribe to it. You are not helpless, but you want me to do all the work.

I knew you did not take even a token amount of time getting up to speed when you did not simply search the Phil Roberts question, but took the time to complain about sources.

I don't need any special "authority", this forum is anonymous and voluntary and free, how I spend my time is my decision based on my criteria.

Many people reject my position in many subjects, and I provide very detailed responses many times. Lately, for reasons already mentioned, I skip some posts which I decide are not worth it.

 

Spoken from a position of ignorance.

Spoken from a position of ignorance. Please provide proof that I allegedly did no search of Phil Roberts before I answered the question.

Nor did I imply otherwise. Please reread the question.

 

oh, sure, the Muslims aren't dragging their garbage here with them...peaceful my ass......
Vandals set fire at Florida church, write 'Allahu Akbar'

By Daniel Dahm, Managing Editor of ClickOrlando.com

MELBOURNE, Fla. -
A possible hate crime is under investigation after a fire was set at a Central Florida church, where vandals also spray-painted "Allahu Akbar."
The incident happened around 3 a.m. Monday at the New Shiloh Christian Church in Melbourne on Sarno Road. About 1,500 members attend the church.

Melbourne police said officers and firefighters discovered the blaze after a fire alarm sounded. Arson was the expected cause, police said.

Fire sprinklers helped contain the flames to a storage unit connected to the 125,000-square-foot building.

The words "Allahu Akbar" were spray-painted on the storage unit. "Allahu Akbar" is an Arabic phrase typically translated as "God is great" and is a common expression used in various contexts.

A swastika was also scrawled on church property.

"To find something like that in 2015 is unbelievable. It's just disheartening," said New Shiloh Christian Church Bishop Jacquelyn Gordon. "They told us that this is definitely a hate crime and that they're going to patrol our area even more and just look out for us and they thought it was senseless and I feel the same way."

Police have not confirmed to Local 6 that the case is being investigated as a hate crime, but say they are investigating the fire and vandalism as arson and criminal mischief.

"I would just say that everything is being looked at. All avenues are going to be explored. If it meets that criteria, that would be something that would be looked at," said Lt. Cheryl Trainer.

Police tell Local 6 they are hesitant to label the case as a hate crime because they don't want to alarm the public. They said they will determine if the graffiti was done at the same time as the vandalism and arson to determine if it is, in fact, a hate crime.

Damage to the church property was estimated to be about $5,000.

Gordon said her staff tried to spray paint over the message to hide it.

"It really took a lot out of me when I drove up and I saw that sign on the side of the building because I'm preaching God is love, why would someone take the time to put a sign up to show hatred," Gordon said.

No information about the arsonist or arsonists was known, and a police investigation is ongoing. The FBI told Local 6, &#8220;We are aware of the incident and reviewing the matter.&#8221;

Gordon said is the second time in less than two weeks that vandals have targeted her building, which is in the process of being remodeled.
http://m.clickorlando.com/news/vandals-set-fire-at-brevard-church-write-allahu-akbar/31313628

..........cowboys and mooslims ..it's getting closer

 

70% of terrorist related deaths in 2012 were attributed to Sunni Muslims. It's not Islamophobic to call the religion out for being the world's most violent today