Why Liberals Admire and Romanticize Islam

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369

If someone wants to argue that Glen Beck owns The Blaze, he might have a point.

But because Glen Beck owns the Blaze, and even if glen beck himself penned it in the blood of tortured animals, doesn't make what was written wrong, invalid, irrelevant, or pathetic.

Don't you guys hold any standards of thinking?

No but you can be pretty certain that anything on that site is always going to be far far right and incredibly biased. As sources go its going to be one of the worst and says a lot about anyone that sources it.

However even if what's in the article is indeed 100% true then surely it'll be available elsewhere on many websites, I cant imagine Glenn Beck's website is the type to have any kind of exclusive story on anything too factual...

FFS. I just rolled my eyes so hard I almost disfigured myself. I can't believe I even clicked on such a ridiculous thread but since I did:

I think all three of the goat-herder religions are ridiculous fantasies. Equally. However there are people all over the world who follow any of the three who are decent human beings just trying to live and let live.

And you've got a lot of bigoted ignorant people around here who love to start their hateful little threads so they can hi-five with their like-minded friends about the evil insidious Muslims and their "dangerous religion" which is basically holding up a banner declaring your stupidity because anyone who has studied all three religions and read all three holy books could tell you that all three are damn near identical in message. It's like arguing coke vs Pepsi.

And people point to atrocities in the middle east as if they are caused directly by Islam and completely not understanding its a cultural problem. But what can you expect from isolated, uneducated, xenophobes I guess.

a reply to: Prezbo369

No but you can be pretty certain that anything on that site is always going to be far far right and incredibly biased. As sources go its going to be one of the worst and says a lot about anyone that sources it.

I can agree the article has some right-wing bias. But to counter that with left-wing bias is absurd. To dismiss something outright because of not only who wrote it, but who owns the website, as tantamount to stupidity.

However even if what's in the article is indeed 100% true then surely it'll be available elsewhere on many websites, I cant imagine Glenn Beck's website is the type to have any kind of exclusive story on anything too factual...

If you can only imagine something is not factual, you've already made a grave error in thought. If you haven't even proven factually that something is not factual, you've failed even before you began. That's why we argue something: to prove it is not factual, that it is an error, that it is absurd; but if you cannot even do that, then we can equally apply your reasoning that you too cannot produce anything factual.

a reply to: Malynn

FFS. I just rolled my eyes so hard I almost disfigured myself. I can't believe I even clicked on such a ridiculous thread but since I did:

I think all three of the goat-herder religions are ridiculous fantasies. Equally. However there are people all over the world who follow any of the three who are decent human beings just trying to live and let live.

And you've got a lot of bigoted ignorant people around here who love to start their hateful little threads so they can hi-five with their like-minded friends about the evil insidious Muslims and their "dangerous religion" which is basically holding up a banner declaring your stupidity because anyone who has studied all three religions and read all three holy books could tell you that all three are damn near identical in message. It's like arguing coke vs Pepsi.

But you did click on it, and you did respond to it, so we will also roll our eyes at your hypocrisy.

And people point to atrocities in the middle east as if they are caused directly by Islam and completely not understanding its a cultural problem. But what can you expect from isolated, uneducated, xenophobes I guess.

ISIS contains people from all sorts of cultures. They are not all from the same place, same country, and same culture. Some are even from the west. The only common thing they share is the religion. Why is that? Because it is the religion and not the culture.

But what can you expect from isolated, uneducated, xenophobes I guess.

Blaming culture is the most isolated, uneducated and xenophobic statement in this whole thread.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Glenn Beck nor any of his publications, radio/tvshows or websites should be taken as valid source, his reputation as a fraud and dangerous faker of news is well known. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt despite all that then that's your prerogative.

Not every source is as valid as the next, and Beck is a notorious lair.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Glenn Beck nor any of his publications, radio/tvshows or websites should be taken as valid source, his reputation as a fraud and dangerous faker of news is well known. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt despite all that then that's your prerogative.

Not every source is as valid as the next, and Beck is a notorious lair.

Then what exactly is this source faking, and where is it invalid?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then what exactly is this source faking, and where is it invalid?

The article revolve around the point #4. That point might as well have been the main point of the article, the rest are just footnotes.

Everything in the world ultimately revolves around Christianity. Christ’s death and resurrection were the single most important events in the history of the universe, and now all people and all nations are finally defined by their acceptance or rejection of that truth. Liberalism rejects the truth, and it’s rejection is central to its existence, just as our acceptance is central to ours.

There are Christians who are liberals. So that pretty much make that quote false.

Liberalism is, then, nothing more than a protest against Christianity. It hates what is Christian and embraces or tolerates whatever is not.

Let's see... liberalism means liberty and equality. So obviously it isn't against Christianity. Unless you want to say that Christianity is against liberty and equality?

The article makes an assertion that Christianity is the truth and the rest of the world are just evil and rejects the "truth".

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Everything in the world ultimately revolves around Christianity. Christ’s death and resurrection were the single most important events in the history of the universe

So the blaze and Onion are pretty much the same thing now, except some people haven't realized it.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Trying to dialogue about something from such an incredibly biased source is next to impossible - the parameters of "reality" are so firmly planted (as in "...now all people and all nations are finally defined by their acceptance or rejection of that truth..." and "Liberalism is, then, nothing more than a protest against Christianity. It hates what is Christian and embraces or tolerates whatever is not.")

Those aren't words you can rationally discuss, as the conclusion is from an entirely different reality; the reality of fundamentalist Christianity. Not only are these words WRONG by any measure outside the narrow confines of the author's personal beliefs, they are damaging, divisive and so full of assumptions as to make no sense.

My beautiful Christian friends who are also Liberals are not, in the author's eyes, REAL Christians. ONLY THE AUTHOR, who is somehow extra blessed, is able to say what a REAL Christian is...and is not. Apparently.

Case closed. This is where I smile awkwardly and tell the nice evangelist it was good to meet them but I have to go now.

- AB

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Spare me. 99.9% of ISIS are individuals who hail from the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc. While there are of course differences between the cultures of all countries, often countries which occupy locations close to each other have many similarities. Canada and the US for example. And as far as people outside the middle east joining up so what? There are lunatics all over this crappy planet. And the treatment of women in many middle eastern countries has nothing to do with Islam, because Muslim women all over the world live free and independent. Not in the middle east for the most part though. Because the culture there is super conservative and draconian about some things.

a reply to: Malynn

So true.

Islam teaches equality between women and men. However, in some Muslim countries and societies a patriarchal culture dominates, and women are denied of their God-given rights.

Islam recognizes women as individuals with specific rights. Among these are: the right to life, the right to learn; the right to earn, own and dispose property; the right to choose a husband; the right to a marriage gift; the right to retain her maiden name; the right, as a wife, to her pre-marriage standard of living; the right to be treated equally; the right to seek divorce; the right to inherit; and the right to a final will.

discoverislam.com...

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: UKTruth

I did go back and read your post again, you said:

I think it is important to state that there are many who would consider themselves liberal that do abhor the extremist practices carried out by some muslim minorities.

That said, the second point in the OP does describe, in my view, a growing number of people that delight in championing some very selective causes

So in fairness to you, you did give an "out" before discussing and expounding on the dreaded "liberals are selfish" quote. My apologies, I read your post, but by the time I got to the end of it, the liberal bashing part (quoted from the OP and continued in terms of a particular breed of extreme liberal) stuck in my mind more than your opening statement. My mistake. Still, what you are talking about (and rightly so) is extremism.

The word "extreme" can be used wherever "extremism" is found. Thus "extreme" conservatives are "my way or the highway" types too, no? Let's take "liberal" and "conservative" out of the equation all together and just say "extremists of any ilk" are self-righteous, intolerant folks, generally speaking. That would be more accurate in my opinion than dwelling on a particular brand of extremist.

The problem is when one man's normal is another man's extreme.

That's why I wanted a clearer definition of "extreme liberal" because it seems one could move the goal-posts on that depending on where one started from. One person's "woman working for equal pay" is another person's "evil radical liberal feminist," for example. Or one person's "responsible fiscal conservative trying to reign in spending" is another's "evil social-darwinist 1% lover." See?

- AB

I think we can actually dispense with 'extreme liberal' and just refer to 'extremist', thinking about it, because extremists operate at both ends of all spectrums whether political or not.

My personal view of an extremist is not someone who might be shocking or have crazy ideas, but those that want to 'bend' society in a direction that creates significant imbalances for any group.

I said on another thread that any fair society can only, at best, create a sustainable and 'fair for all' framework. It can never create equality in all things for all people. That is impossible, so there will always be some imbalances when taking about specific subjects. I think extremists want to go beyond what is fair for all and skew society in their favour - whether that is in ways of thinking or behaving. In other words they want it all their own way all of the time. That is why I think extremism is inherently selfish and is not at all isolated to right wingers, left wingers or centrists.

You made what I think is a key point here:

The problem is when one man's normal is another man's extreme.

That to me is the problem - there are far too many exponents of 'individual rights' taken to the extreme level - the 'everything my way' type of person. I think if you take those views to the extreme then you have anarchy. So the question should not be about 'one mans normal is another mans extreme', rather that 'normal' is what works best for all and 'extreme' is what works only for a few and prejudices the many.

In its most simple terms what I am saying is that extremists do not compromise and any society where there is no compromise fails through division and infighting

a reply to: Malynn

Spare me. 99.9% of ISIS are individuals who hail from the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc. While there are of course differences between the cultures of all countries, often countries which occupy locations close to each other have many similarities. Canada and the US for example. And as far as people outside the middle east joining up so what? There are lunatics all over this crappy planet. And the treatment of women in many middle eastern countries has nothing to do with Islam, because Muslim women all over the world live free and independent. Not in the middle east for the most part though. Because the culture there is super conservative and draconian about some things.

Romanticizing Islam.

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion [committing a religious sin], admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

What about adulterers? What about sorcerers? And what do you have to say about how does Islam treat it's apostates? How does Islam treat its homosexuals? How does Islam treat the Jews?

You guys are de facto apologists for theocracy and the inhuman treatment of other human beings.

As for ISIS:

Foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq
As of early 2015, journalist Mary Anne Weaver estimates that half of ISIL fighters are made up of foreigners.[270] A UN report estimated a total of 15,000 fighters from over 80 countries in ISIL's ranks as of November 2014.[271] US intelligence estimated an increase to around 20,000 foreign fighters in February 2015, including 3,400 from Western countries.[45]

Statistics gathered by nation indicate up to: 3,000 from Tunisia,[272][273] 2,500 from Saudi Arabia,[272][273] 1,700 from Russia,[274] 1,500 from Jordan,[273] 1,500 from Morocco,[273] 1,200 from France,[273] 1,000 from Turkey,[275] 900 from Lebanon,[273] 700 from Germany,[276] 600 from Libya,[273] 600 from the United Kingdom,[272][273] 500 from Indonesia,[277] 500 from Uzbekistan,[273] 500 from Pakistan,[273] 440 from Belgium,[273] 360 from Turkmenistan,[273] 360 from Egypt,[273] 350 from Serbia,[278] 330 from Bosnia,[273] 300 from China,[279] 300 from Kosovo,[280] 300 from Sweden,[281] 250 from Australia,[282] 250 from Kazakhstan,[273] 250 from the Netherlands,[273] 200-300 from Azerbaijan,[283] 200 from Austria,[284] 200 from Algeria,[273] 200 from Malaysia,[277] 190 from Tajikistan,[273] 180 from the United States,[45] 150 from Norway,[285] 150 from Denmark,[273] 140 from Albania,[278] 133 from Spain,[286] 130 from Canada,[287] 110 from Yemen,[273] 100 from Sudan,[273] 100 from Kyrgyzstan,[273] 80 from Italy,[273] 70–80 from Palestine,[288] 70 from Somalia,[273] 70 from Kuwait,[273] 70 from Finland,[273] 50 from Ukraine,[273] 40–50 from Israel,[288][289] 40 from Ireland,[290] 40 from Switzerland,[273] at least 30 from Georgia,[291] 23 from Argentina,[292] 18 from India,[293] 10–12 from Portugal,[294][295] and 3 from the Philippines.[296]

According to a statement of a former senior leader of IS, these fighters receive food, petrol and housing but do not receive payment in wages, unlike Iraqi or Syrian fighters.[297]

Islamic State Foreign Fighters

What connects these people is one thing, but you won't admit it.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Let's see... liberalism means liberty and equality. So obviously it isn't against Christianity. Unless you want to say that Christianity is against liberty and equality?

So liberals are against the unequal treatment of minorities, of gays, of women, of non-believers. If this is the case, why do you tolerate Islam?

My beautiful Christian friends who are also Liberals are not, in the author's eyes, REAL Christians. ONLY THE AUTHOR, who is somehow extra blessed, is able to say what a REAL Christian is...and is not. Apparently.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Absolutely right. With this same rationality, ISIS is Islam. Boko Haram is Islam.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Let's see... liberalism means liberty and equality. So obviously it isn't against Christianity. Unless you want to say that Christianity is against liberty and equality?

So liberals are against the unequal treatment of minorities, of gays, of women, of non-believers. If this is the case, why do you tolerate Islam?

What makes you think I tolerate that?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Because of this statement:

Let's see... liberalism means liberty and equality. So obviously it isn't against Christianity. Unless you want to say that Christianity is against liberty and equality?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, what about my statement?

I do not tolerate unequal treatment from anyone, and that includes Christians and Muslims.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

That isn't a red herring.

That's called HYPOCRISY!

And it fits so well into this topic cause only liberals THINK they are better than conservatives.

Truth be told ?

They are not even CLOSE TO BEING.

Neo, dude...someone should go through all your posts and collate all the words you use in caps, it is like an exercise in psyops!!!!!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Romanticizing Islam.

No pseudo-intellectualism to convey on any of my points? Which are true and accurate. You've got nothing left to say so you spew some nonsense.

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion [committing a religious sin], admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Seriously? You're going to quote Islamic scripture at me to defend your twisted point of view? Two can play that game sweetheart:

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Furthermore I'm not impressed by your wall of text. All your statistics show is that MOST of the ISIS members are from the middle east. And the fact that there are people foreign to the middle east joining I already covered: there are lunatics everywhere. However, it would be very interesting to see if the people included in your statistics as "from" western countries how many generations there family had been in these western countries.

But, as I knew I would when I clicked on a thread that would only be worthy if it was printed out and used as toilet paper, I will be taking my leave now. I rest easy in the fact that in America at least we have laws to protect our Muslim citizens from bigots of all stripes and colors. From extremist Christians to racists to anyone else who does nothing but spread hate, fear, and prejudice. All they can do is gather in their little enclaves and get each other off with hateful rhetoric that will achieve nothing. Because the majority of people are moving forward to a new and brighter future where equality and justice gain ground all the time. Regressives will be left in the dust where they belong.