I dunno about JohnnyV, but I'm sick of supporting a bloated military industrial complex that also happens to damage or ruin the lives of young promising Americans from the trauma they receive and the treatment we give them when they return. I used to be very open towards military intervention, but now they're predictable boondoggles where we fall into the trap of sunk cost fallacy and try to double down on the risks. Coalitions aren't easy to build anymore and our alliances are ridden with free riders that makes the US look like the big bully among a gang of weak sycophants egging him on. National and global security are VERY important issues, but I'm wary on ambiguous battles that turn into potential quagmires. If only because the US is usually the last foreigner holding the bag.
ATW has his own business and will draw a cat for you. Only $29.95! <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uH6KhNoh-Cc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I am not angry about the cartoon. I will explain my stance on the issue. It is not really difficult. I Judge people individually and I do not Judge an entire group (Not even Trump supporters). I do not have a problem with a person because he is Muslim, Christian, atheist, democrat or republican. I do have a problem with a person when they either treat woman/homosexuals badly, or when they belief they have very negative views on those groups. I refuse to call an entire group as bad. So I react badly on comments like "muslims are bad". However when an individual person has such idiotic stances on gay marriage and woman rights I do see that person as idiotic. I know many people of different faiths that have a world view that is similar to my own. The fact that they believe in a god and I do not does not matter to me. Ofcourse amon certain idiolocigal groups there is a higher percentage of people I disagree with than in other groups, but still I will not think that entire group is bad perse.
We are not talking about individuals but the actual ideology of Islam the way it was intended to be practiced by the founder of the religion. So for all practical purposes, you are actually attacking ONE individual, Muhammad. The double standard does exist in this regard. I see no liberals having ANY issues making fun of people like Joseph Smith who was far more benign than Muhammad. Why is that? Why are white liberals far more comfortable making jokes about Joseph Smith rather than Muhammad?
Libby lib here, I have no problems with criticizing Islam. It's a repressive theology; as are most theologies. "Do unto others" is about all the moral compass people need, accepting life as finite and the why of existence as undefinable from the human perspective would solve a lot of problems.
Surprisingly I disagree:grin:. I have no problems with people making fun of Mohammed, or Joseph Smith or Jesus or whomever. Why should I have a problem with making fun of someone? I have a problem with generalization. I have a problem with saying we should ban all Muslims/Mormons from the US. Or Muslims are evil or not trustworthy. I really do not see why this is difficult to understand.
Not one person here is advocating any of those notions besides troll posters like Rocketslegend. There is a double standard amongst white liberals and I've personally witnessed it. Yes, in general white liberals are FAR MORE comfortable making jokes about Mormonism and Joseph Smith than they are of Muhammad. From my experience white liberals just mimic the talking points of Muslim apologists in regards to Muhammad. They blurt out asinine assertions such as "Muhammad was the first man to instill women's rights."
See this is the problem here. If Islam is criticized by a western liberal it is often followed up conditionally with "just like all other religions". It isn't. The most popular religion in the world, Christianity is not like Islam. One is inherently political and the other is inherently more 'personal'. The most venerated figure of one faith advocated for a personal relationship with their respective deity while the other most venerated figure advocated for a theocratic regime that was to be spread by any means necessary. That is a distinct difference and anyone who wants to point to the Catholic church before the reformation doesn't understand how the reformation happened.
Prime example of what I'm referring to is the "Book of Mormon". It was a great hit and Hillary Clinton herself attended one of the shows. With a straight face, does anyone here think that if a Islamic equivalent to the "Book of Mormon" was produced, would someone like Hillary Clinton attend? Probably not. In fact, she would probably blame the show for a terrorist attack.
Nobody should be upset from constructive criticism. the frustration comes from disparate attempts trying to be a depiction of hatred , insults and deliberate lying on the basis it reflects actual facts and reality for instance ,on this forum, things had been clarified many-times by many individuals who aimed to clear misconception, however deaf ears , and selective memory failed exact members to prevent the same attacks to pop up days later with the same intentional distortion context
I would agree that radical Islam is several degrees more oppressive than Western Christianities. Certainly the sanction for violence is...currently but not historically. I do attribute some of that to political and economic reasons. The perception of being an oppressed minority leads to a self-justification for violence. Muslim countries have certainly been dominated by the West politically over the last 100 years. "If you ain't got nothin', you've got nothin" to lose" But religious xenophobia is sort of required to maintain the unassailable dominion of a particular "truth". Almost every religion does it. If they dopn't the are just philosophies.
His point is that opinion polls often give negative or damning results and have to be taken with a grain of salt (for example, the majority of christians in america believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old). That's not changing the topic, it's making a point.
:grin: Great response. I tried repping this but I have to spread some more rep. This is advice I need to take myself.
Really? The way it was intended? Then why are there two major sects, like Christianity? Was that intended?
I really am not following your logic? Is having different sects somehow mitigates the notion that Muhammad had a view of how Islam was intended to be?
There are a few people besides Rocketslegend. Trump's candidacy shows that some large majority of Americans believe those things--and America has never seen significant protests about the violation of civil liberties for Muslims. And why white liberals? lol. are black liberals too chill? I'm mixed-race so I guess I don't qualify??? dunno The problem with this cartoon is that it divides people into ingroups and outgroups and ascribes a r****ded amount of broadness to their views and composition.
Look, I get that Islam s**t in your bed, or whatever so it needs to be the worst, but your defense of Christianity is puzzling to me. Why is any religion a net good to you anyways? Sure, if you talked about Christianity as like hot yoga or apolitical forms of veganism, something you occasionally annoyingly vent but mostly keep to your goddamned self, that'd be great--but Christianity is and always has been a political force for irrational policy, and defanging it even further in the secular republic America was always destined to be is a net good that helps with defanging Islam in America. I don't get why you feel this need to hold on to any of these belief systems.
