Just two. first question; do you think you'll enjoy your life more living under sharia or less than you enjoy your life now? Or do you think things will be pretty much the same for you? While you're contemplating the question perhaps you should revisit your own posts from one to two or so years ago and reacquaint yourself with how Muslims like to treat pagans like yourself. I have another question; why do you consistently overlap the entirety of the blue circle with the red circle in your posts? Full Disclosure; I don't consider myself a Christian, I call myself a non-practicing Catholic beacuse that's what I am, but I don't really care much about religion at all. But I do have a big hair up my ass for fairness and you seem to have lost your objectivity. You seemed to go to great lengths to find something nice, anything nice, to say about Islam while you were going through the Koran and the pickings were undeniably slim. The Christian Bible doesn't seem to get the same consideration from you. Why?
@ Anonymous Are you saying all Muslims are fanatics?Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to satirize/critique Christianity. It's not like we have to choose between bullies (Christian vs Islamic).http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/
@ andyOf course I'm not saying ALL Muslims are fanatics, in fact very few are; however, all Muslims have the potential to become fanatics since the central dogma of their religion revolves around a supremecist, xenophobic, and frequently racist (chck out the Sira) idealogoy that seeks the total subjugation and/or annihilation of all competing idealogies throughout the world by any means necessary, including the most unimagineably brutal and violent means. And that includes the total subjugation of our own Western culture. It's all there in Surah 9 and throughout the Qur'an, and there even more notably in the Hadith and the Sira. It takes very little to radicalize a Muslim; for instance, a few silly caricatures of Muhammad sufficed for millions of 'em not too long ago, and there is next to nothing in Islamic literature or history to urge restraint on a Muslim's part in response to even the slightest affronts, either imagined or real. Uzza knows this so he ought to know better. As for criticizing or caricaturing Christianity? I have no problem with it. I'm a huge fan if Monty Python's Life Of Brian, take that for whatever it's worth. The tenor of Uzza's blog since he's resumed writing has been one of flat-out condemnation of Christianity and it is he who is painting all Christians as bullies. Unlike his posts from the time when he blogged the Qur'an, he parses only the negative, idiotic, and impossible passages from the bible and simply ignores anything positive. Granted, it doesn't help that he's started with the most troubling of all four Gospels, Matthew, but that's besides the point. What I'm accusing him of is unfairness, not of anything to do with satirazation or cirticism of Christanity. I couldn't care less about anuy of that. Many of his posts on Matthew are spot on but some are wild stretches and he counter-balances it with nothing in what I believe is a biased effort to leave his readers to believe that the central dogmas of Christiantiy are every bit as extreme as those of Islam, if not worse. It is Uzza who would have us believe that all Christians are thugs and it was that one quote from a day or two ago that prompted my response. Re-read that quote. It equates ALL Christians with the few most extreme, readical, and violent of Muslims and I found that hugely unfair. When I tried, unsuccessfully it seems, to point that out, I was met with a condescending Venn Diagram that is frankly unrepresentational of Uzza's own message circa 2010.And I choose to reamin anonymous because I literally am afraid of any given Muslim who might read my stuff and get good and pissed off by it. I'm familiar with their history.
oops, sorry for the dreaded triple-tap. I'm not sure what happened there.
No problem, happens all the time; I fixed it up. Thank you for the comments. I'm very glad to have your input, and your points deserve a serious response, so expect a post. :-) Don't take the Venn diagram personally, I've been having the same conversation with several other people lately.
I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but have you noticed that your Venn Diagram implies that you have no problem at all with Islamic fanaticism? I get the point you're trying to get across with it, I just think you did a pretty ham-fisted job with it.
Mind explaining that?
Sure. "that is the problem" points to the area of the Venn that is fanaticism alone, neither Christian nor Muslim. The area that intersects fanatacism with Islam you specifically point to with the label "not that" as if to say Islamic fanatics are specifically not the problem. You should have left that "not that" indicator off entirely because with it you specifically indicate that Islamic fanatics aren't a problem to you. They most certainly are a problem. A big one. If you leave just the "that is the problem" pointing to the red circle and don't indicate to either intersection at all you make it far more clear that you consider ALL fanatics to be a problem regardless of persuasion. that is the point I believe you were trying to make. Or perhaps I was wrong with that assumption and you really don't have a problem with Islamic fanatics?
Post a Comment