Priest Beheaded By Islamists In France

[Warhippy]

49 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

You're using these incidents to further your own agenda.  Humankind has never needed religion as an excuse for genocide.  Politics, land, nationality, family pride etc.  The list is endless.  Religion is just a convenient tool to use to rile up a group who feel disadvantaged and are looking for something to follow.  It could just as easily have been a Nazi uprising. 

 

BTW - do you include the Great Spirit in your trashing of all religious beliefs?

What agenda is that exactly?  By pointing out the truth?  

 

With all due respect barring Chinese ans russian communism and guys like Pol Pot and Pinnochet the most egregious atrocities in history have been faith based or caused by because of or for religion and or religious reasons.

 

As for the great spirit, or creator as its known in first nations legends.

 

There's no mention of wealth, status, greed or possessions in ANY of our teachings.   Nor killing or revenge.   We respect the land we take what we need and give thanks to that which we must take from in respect.  So unless you actually understand how first nations culture and spirit reverence works just stop trying to compare something so simple to organized religion 

[Kragar]

51 minutes ago, Toews said:

Sharia is common in some Islamic nations. If Sharia were as much of a threat as you make it sound then there wouldn't be sectarian states with Muslim majorities. Why hasn't Sharia taken over there? Why do people in those countries oppose Sharia replacing sectarianism? All of your Sharia related rants are utter BS. 

In those sectarian states, how many are recognized as being democratic?  That makes a difference.

 

While it is down the road and probably won't be an issue in my lifetime, there is valid concern regarding birth rates between Muslim people and non-Muslim people in European countries, and to a lesser extent North America.  As the demographics even out over time, what is to stop the legal adoption of Sharia law in any democratic country?

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Kragar said:

In those sectarian states, how many are recognized as being democratic?  That makes a difference.

 

While it is down the road and probably won't be an issue in my lifetime, there is valid concern regarding birth rates between Muslim people and non-Muslim people in European countries, and to a lesser extent North America.  As the demographics even out over time, what is to stop the legal adoption of Sharia law in any democratic country?

Can democracy and Sharia coexist?

[Kragar]

12 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Can democracy and Sharia coexist?

If the majority of the population wants to live under Sharia law, sure.  Not sure what the rest of the people will do if that happens and it is decided that Sharia affects everyone in that jurisdiction.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

If the majority of the population wants to live under Sharia law, sure.  Not sure what the rest of the people will do if that happens and it is decided that Sharia affects everyone in that jurisdiction.

Doesn't Sharia state that democracy is against the laws of Islam though, or some such thing?  Could there be open and free elections in a ?Sharia state?

[Kragar]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Doesn't Sharia state that democracy is against the laws of Islam though, or some such thing?  Could there be open and free elections in a ?Sharia state?

That depends on how Sharia is implemented.  Not all places that have implemented Sharia follow it to the letter.  It could have minimal impact on non-Muslims, or it could be a ground-breaking shift in how the country is run.

 

Personally, I don't want to find out.

[taxi]

39 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

What agenda is that exactly?  By pointing out the truth?  

 

With all due respect barring Chinese ans russian communism and guys like Pol Pot and Pinnochet the most egregious atrocities in history have been faith based or caused by because of or for religion and or religious reasons.

 

As for the great spirit, or creator as its known in first nations legends.

 

There's no mention of wealth, status, greed or possessions in ANY of our teachings.   Nor killing or revenge.   We respect the land we take what we need and give thanks to that which we must take from in respect.  So unless you actually understand how first nations culture and spirit reverence works just stop trying to compare something so simple to organized religion 

So if you ignore all the other reasons people kill people, religion is the only reason. Brilliant.

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, taxi said:

So if you ignore all the other reasons people kill people, religion is the only reason. Brilliant.

No, he said 

 

Humankind has never needed religion as an excuse for genocide.  Politics, land, nationality, family pride etc.  The list is endless.  Religion is just a convenient tool to use to rile up a group who feel disadvantaged and are looking for something to follow.  It could just as easily have been a Nazi uprising. 

 

And I replied that by and large religion has been the root cause of most of history's most egregious attacks against their fellow man.

 

But hey, way to try to turn this in to an argument by forcing this to extremes of black and white.

[Hobble]

Just discard the whole religion thing already.

 

It was just invented as a way to control the ignorant masses, unite people in conflicts against "non-believers" and accumulate wealth, power and influence for a select "holy" few. The fact that any religion may have parts that support the killing of anyone should be huge red flags.

 

Now, science has debunked practically everything religion mythologies were based on, so it no longer is based on anything.

 

I don't need the fear of going to hell to prevent me from walking across the street and murdering a bunch of people, or sleeping with a neighbor's wife.

 

Those are moral lessons that I just as easily learned from my parents while growing up.

 

[DIBdaQUIB]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

What agenda is that exactly?  By pointing out the truth?  

 

With all due respect barring Chinese ans russian communism and guys like Pol Pot and Pinnochet the most egregious atrocities in history have been faith based or caused by because of or for religion and or religious reasons.

 

As for the great spirit, or creator as its known in first nations legends.

 

There's no mention of wealth, status, greed or possessions in ANY of our teachings.   Nor killing or revenge.   We respect the land we take what we need and give thanks to that which we must take from in respect.  So unless you actually understand how first nations culture and spirit reverence works just stop trying to compare something so simple to organized religion 

Simply ignoring major atrocities not related to religion in order to support your argument is the agenda I alluded to.  rad more history and you will see there are more cases of violence against our fellow humans not related to religion than those that are. Your statement that the most egregious atrocities have been faith based is totally wrong and not backed up by history.

 

Are you trying to say First Nations did not pray to the Great Spirit for victory over their enemies?  If you have proof, please provide it.  and who was talking about wealth and greed?

 

You seem to be a major historical revisionist.  I suppose First nations never invaded each others lands or committed violent acts either?  You make First nations history sound like the Bambi story.

[TheAce]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

The only difference between Islam and their radicals and Christianity and it's greed building super churches while ignoring the poor is the body count.

 

You're right though.

 

None of them see themselves as wackos.  They all believe they're right and just in their actions

Not sure if im reading that correctly but are you saying that Christians who build super churches are equally as bad as Islamic radicals who are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people ? 

[cabinessence]

39 minutes ago, TheAce said:

Not sure if im reading that correctly but are you saying that Christians who build super churches are equally as bad as Islamic radicals who are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people ? 

Why do we never hear christian radicals. We just seem to read about Muslim radicals (which is now being shortened to radicals versus Christians. It's ok to paint all Christians with the same brush?

 

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

Lucius Annaeus Seneca
 

"Cue bass solo," Cabinessence

 

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

No, he said 

 

Humankind has never needed religion as an excuse for genocide.  Politics, land, nationality, family pride etc.  The list is endless.  Religion is just a convenient tool to use to rile up a group who feel disadvantaged and are looking for something to follow.  It could just as easily have been a Nazi uprising. 

 

And I replied that by and large religion has been the root cause of most of history's most egregious attacks against their fellow man.

 

But hey, way to try to turn this in to an argument by forcing this to extremes of black and white.

I couldn't agree less.  Greed and power are the most common cause.  Religion can be a reason, but is often a convenient excuse.

[Red Light Racicot]

5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Give it a rest bud

 

I am not saying that every religious person is a wack job with an agenda and thirst for blood

 

But it seems that every wack job with an agenda and thirst for blood seems to be religious

 

Do not sit and poke fingers at just islam, it's all of them.  

We've been sold this idea that Islam is like any other religion, and/or it is a religion of peace; unfortunately and somewhat ironically, many have bought it. In truth it presents a unique problem, for example it doubles as a political ideology. 

 

Islam means "submission" or "surrender"; it's actually largely antithetical to our own ideals, freedom, tolerance, etc.

[riffraff]

5 hours ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

I couldn't agree less.  Greed and power are the most common cause.  Religion can be a reason, but is often a convenient excuse.

[taxi]

7 hours ago, Warhippy said:

No, he said 

 

Humankind has never needed religion as an excuse for genocide.  Politics, land, nationality, family pride etc.  The list is endless.  Religion is just a convenient tool to use to rile up a group who feel disadvantaged and are looking for something to follow.  It could just as easily have been a Nazi uprising. 

 

And I replied that by and large religion has been the root cause of most of history's most egregious attacks against their fellow man.

 

But hey, way to try to turn this in to an argument by forcing this to extremes of black and white.

But that's really incorrect. Humans have been killing eachother in large numbers for a long time for all sorts of reasons. Religion is just the excuse for one tribe to wipe another tribe out and take their resources. Here's a list of wars by death toll:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

 

Almost none of the top have anything to do with religious beliefs. 

[Salmonberries]

9 hours ago, Kragar said:

If the majority of the population wants to live under Sharia law, sure.  Not sure what the rest of the people will do if that happens and it is decided that Sharia affects everyone in that jurisdiction.

The Islamic state provides dhimmi status for non believing peoples of the book  The interpretation of this is up to each state to determine. Always though, certain restrictions are placed upon the dhimmis, payment of the jizya is almost universal.

[Mustapha]

On 26/07/2016 at 11:59 AM, Toews said:

Sharia is common in some Islamic nations. If Sharia were as much of a threat as you make it sound then there wouldn't be sectarian states with Muslim majorities. Why hasn't Sharia taken over there? Why do people in those countries oppose Sharia replacing sectarianism? All of your Sharia related rants are utter BS. 

Sharia and sectarianism go well together, so it's very easy to imagine 'sectarian' states with Muslim majorities. (Did you mean secular? The two words have very different meanings.)

 

Sharia is applied to varying extents across the majority of the Islamic world. Even in it's 'most liberal' applications it is literally centuries behind the Western concepts of individual rights.

 

Not to mention, there has been a growing trend for a more fundamental application of Sharia in several nations in the last two decades. Apparently, there is too much freedom to be had. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art07.shtml

 

The only Islamic nation that I would consider 'secular' in any reasonable descripion would be Turkey, and secularism is going the way of the dinosaur there under Erdogan.

 

So no, this is a real issue, not BS like you claim.

[Tortorella's Rant]

The French have nobody to blame but themselves here. At least one of these guys was being monitored with an ankle bracelet because he tried to join extremist forces in Syria. Instead they stop him, they slap a piece of plastic around his ankle, and let him go on with life as usual. I don't know if this is political correctness, or they're just retarded. Both of which often go hand in hand..

[Salmonberries]

You really have to admire the creativity of the twisted, pretzeled logic of today's dedicated modern Western globalist.

 

Your government and a host of others deliberately destroy one of the oldest civilizations on the planet -- cricket noises.

 

The refugees from this conflict, included among them terrorists, flee the land to settle in your country in the hundreds of thousands -- and this becomes something to admire of your leader and, even, an indication of the 'tolerance' of your country toward the homeland of the refugees.