The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pigeon-holes weren't made for housing humans > Comments

Pigeon-holes weren't made for housing humans : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 26/6/2008

People have layers of identity and a wide range of views, whether they identify as Christian or Muslim.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
SP, are you suggesting non-white Muslims were responsible for the Holocaust?
Posted by BOZO_DAGWOOD, Friday, 27 June 2008 1:26:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

I'm quite sure Irfan is a really nice bloke when he is making his own decisions. The problem is that he doesn't trust himself to make the most important decisions in his life, but has announced that he intends to rely on the words and behaviour of a sixth-century tribesman, as interpreted and passed on by generations of ignorant fanatics. My questions are intended to establish how much he actually depends on those words and actions. If I let Irfan into my home, am I letting Mohammed in too?

All self-professed religious believers have explicitly repudiated reason and common sense as a guide to decision making, and as a result, I have no way of knowing how far I can trust them. I just can't predict what particular triggers will switch off the rational educated civilised person and channel the savage ignorant tribesman, and unless and until I can be quite sure these triggers are well buried and are not going to be accidentally tripped, I am not about to trust a religious believer with my spouse, my children, my property or my future.

If I announced that for one out of every ten decisions, picked at random, I would act according to the precepts and example of Genghiz Khan, and proceeded to do so, how far would you trust _me_?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 27 June 2008 8:10:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOZO_DAGWOOD on Friday, 27 June 2008 at 1:26:35 AM
"SP, are you suggesting non-white Muslims were responsible for the Holocaust?"

No, of course not and you KNOW that I have not suggested that at all. But why is it OK for you to tar and feather all "white Christians" with the crime of the Holocaust or of turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims in the mid-1990s? You haven't answered this at all.

Have you ever heard of the White Rose group? Here's a bit of history for you ... The White Rose (German: die Weiße Rose) was a non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany, consisting of a number of students from the University of Munich and their philosophy professor. The group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, lasting from June 1942 until February 1943, that called for active opposition to German dictator Adolf Hitler's regime. (Wikipedia)

The six core members of the group were arrested by the Gestapo, convicted and executed by beheading in 1943. The group's members were motivated by their Christian beliefs. They had witnessed the atrocities of the war, both on the battlefield and against the civilian population in the East, and sensed that the reversal of fortune that the Wehrmacht suffered at Stalingrad would eventually lead to Germany's defeat. They rejected fascism and militarism and believed in a federated Europe that adhered to principles of tolerance and justice. (Wikipedia)

Today, the members of the White Rose are honored in Germany as great heroes who opposed the Third Reich in the face of deadly danger for such resistance. (Wikipedia)

Numerous other Christians in Germany were opposed to the Nazi regime as you should well know. Yet you think it is OK to slander their memory for some nasty political point.

And by the way I have used "tar and feather" as a rhetorical flourish - not a literal usage.
Posted by Savage Pencil, Friday, 27 June 2008 2:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J, Gengis Khan was a Buddhist. Would you allow Buddhists into your home?
Posted by BOZO_DAGWOOD, Saturday, 28 June 2008 12:19:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozo!
Either your logic is clouded or you're engaging in a purile baiting game. Either way you tend to be poor at logic and discussion. Did you have the observation of your teachers "doesn't play well with other children?" one suspects so.

FYI Ghengis Khan (a self proclaimed title...like Willian the Conquerer) real name Temujin was a follower of Mongolian Sharmanism i.e. he worshiped the spirits in objacts of nature mountains streams trees etc. not Buddhism.
After he returned he set up his Capital at Ulan Batur and many religions had representation there again including Christians. He died prematurely as a result of being a drunk.

The Mongol Hordes'(3 seperate armies)their conquests happened after he had died and were clearly were for reasons other than religion. In fact there were some Christians amongst the Horde that plundered the middle east.
Wiki is fine but has errors. Do us and youself a favour expand your reading to something more eclectic.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 29 June 2008 3:18:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy