|
Post by rizdek on May 7, 2019 13:05:21 GMT
Well, when one religion is pitted against another, especially in a region that is extremist within itself about its beliefs, it only shows again the intolerance and danger of Islam regarding anyone who goes against its grain. However, in the west, extremist Christians can also adopt certain control issues with its attitude and ideology, they just can't fully act on it due to the protection of secular law and legislation. Again, religion at the forefront of many of the worlds trials and tribulations. If Christian “extremists” had 100% control in the West how many non-Christians do you think would be physically persecuted? I think if Christian extremists had 100% control in the west, many non-Christians would be physically persecuted just as happened in medieval times. Even people within Christianity were persecuted.
The thing that protects me and probably even you is that the US strives to be a secular govt and the constitution says the govt can't establish one religion over another. That keeps...or helps to keep one religion from dominating other religions.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 7, 2019 14:47:15 GMT
I know this question was aimed at another poster, but first and foremost, the radical left can promote their tolerance and acceptance of others beliefs, lifestyles and cultures, even if it can clash and be of detriment to their own freedom of choice and way of life that they endorse and cherish.
I don't entirely side with Shapiro on his politics because he is a staunch conservative and can be wrongheaded and not emphatic in approach to certain issues and he would control others if he could, but he has to be given his due where he does make an argument based on common sense and using solid facts. Both sides of the political partisan scale can use common logic and decency, I just don't think that wrapping up the religion of Islam in cotton wool is going to help or solve anything.
I just re-listened to the video and realized the problem I had is with how Cody described what Shapiro said. Shapiro and even the guy who hosted the Shapiro video never used the term hypocritical or hypocrisy. That was Cody's word. The guy that hosted the video only claimed Hillary and Obama were being inconsistent....ie inconsistently identifying the victims in one case by their religion in Christchurch and then only calling them Easter worshipers and travelers in Sri Lanka. I don't even see that as being inconsistent. Best I can tell, they are being consistent...ie certainly NOT hypocritical in what they said. It's just that what they said and how they said it rankles certain people.
What I did notice about the guy making the video is that he is being illogical in that he claims the left is pandering to Muslims (and he added the LGBT group) to gain tons of votes. But wait, these people are in the extreme minority...so how is someone gaining tons of votes catering to these groups? If one is only currying favor with voters, they would do what the Republicans and the right seems to do...cater to the majority in the US...cater to the white, straight, Christians.
He says that politicians are next to useless in reducing hate crimes based on race or religion. Maybe so, but then why does it matter what Hillary and Obama say if they are next to useless? The truth is, and the guy admits it later on, that politicians stoke the flames to stay in power. Now, what could be more flame-stoking than calling out Muslims because there are Islamic terrorists? And who is the politician stoking the flames? Seems that Trump is doing that more than Obama when Trump emphasizes that the terrorists are Islam and Obama is trying to avoid stoking the flames by NOT emphasizing their religious affiliation. Obama might be wrong in that strategy, but he's NOT the one stoking the flames, so to speak.
As I keep asking. What is the point of highlighting the Islamic aspect of these radical terrorist groups? Do these people seriously think that some day the Christians will wage an all out war to destroy all the Muslims...physically kill them all? I think not. Will it help moderate Muslims in their cause? Maybe, I don't know. Does it actually make the terrorists themselves feel less like committing terrorist acts? I doubt it..specifying they are doing it for their religion only emboldens them because that's what they want to be seen as doing...committing these acts FOR their religion and for their God. Does it make other Muslims not want to be Muslims or want to be Muslims less? Perhaps, but Islam is fast growing and it doesn't seem that a few politicians (who the guy said were useless anyways) calling out these terrorists in the name of Islam is going to make these Muslims stop being Muslims. I don't even know if it will stop people from converting to Muslims.
The word hypocrisy is literally in the title of the guy’s video. And if you can’t see the hypocrisy from Obama & Clinton and all the other leftist political darlings then it’s probably because you do not want to.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 7, 2019 16:21:44 GMT
I just re-listened to the video and realized the problem I had is with how Cody described what Shapiro said. Shapiro and even the guy who hosted the Shapiro video never used the term hypocritical or hypocrisy. That was Cody's word. The guy that hosted the video only claimed Hillary and Obama were being inconsistent....ie inconsistently identifying the victims in one case by their religion in Christchurch and then only calling them Easter worshipers and travelers in Sri Lanka. I don't even see that as being inconsistent. Best I can tell, they are being consistent...ie certainly NOT hypocritical in what they said. It's just that what they said and how they said it rankles certain people.
What I did notice about the guy making the video is that he is being illogical in that he claims the left is pandering to Muslims (and he added the LGBT group) to gain tons of votes. But wait, these people are in the extreme minority...so how is someone gaining tons of votes catering to these groups? If one is only currying favor with voters, they would do what the Republicans and the right seems to do...cater to the majority in the US...cater to the white, straight, Christians.
He says that politicians are next to useless in reducing hate crimes based on race or religion. Maybe so, but then why does it matter what Hillary and Obama say if they are next to useless? The truth is, and the guy admits it later on, that politicians stoke the flames to stay in power. Now, what could be more flame-stoking than calling out Muslims because there are Islamic terrorists? And who is the politician stoking the flames? Seems that Trump is doing that more than Obama when Trump emphasizes that the terrorists are Islam and Obama is trying to avoid stoking the flames by NOT emphasizing their religious affiliation. Obama might be wrong in that strategy, but he's NOT the one stoking the flames, so to speak.
As I keep asking. What is the point of highlighting the Islamic aspect of these radical terrorist groups? Do these people seriously think that some day the Christians will wage an all out war to destroy all the Muslims...physically kill them all? I think not. Will it help moderate Muslims in their cause? Maybe, I don't know. Does it actually make the terrorists themselves feel less like committing terrorist acts? I doubt it..specifying they are doing it for their religion only emboldens them because that's what they want to be seen as doing...committing these acts FOR their religion and for their God. Does it make other Muslims not want to be Muslims or want to be Muslims less? Perhaps, but Islam is fast growing and it doesn't seem that a few politicians (who the guy said were useless anyways) calling out these terrorists in the name of Islam is going to make these Muslims stop being Muslims. I don't even know if it will stop people from converting to Muslims.
The word hypocrisy is literally in the title of the guy’s video. And if you can’t see the hypocrisy from Obama & Clinton and all the other leftist political darlings then it’s probably because you do not want to. But he never mentions it in his monologue and doesn't explain why it is hypocritical. Shapiro didn't say the word hypocrisy. I bet Shapiro, while clearly pointing out that he doesn't like what Obama and Hillary said, doesn't think it is hypocrisy. He probably just thinks they are wrong...which is fine. We can't talk about that. So, since you think they are being hypocritical, explain what the hypocrisy is. What are they espousing one time and then not living up to the next time. You don't like that they don't tend to call radical Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism. But why is that hypocritical. Where/when are they saying or suggesting one SHOULD call out Islamic terrorism but then not doing it?
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 7, 2019 22:02:26 GMT
Cody has undergone the usual brainwashing of believing his preferred religion to be the exemption from the rule. ANY religion which claims 'god' is on its side, given absolute social control, will persecute any and all whom they deem as heretics or non-believers. Cody presumably has never heard of the Inquisition, where a Christian sect, granted complete freedom by the rulers, proceeded to unleash genuine 'holy terror' throughout parts of Europe, and predominantly Spain, for more than a century --with Jews and Muslims getting the worst of it: www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisitionReligion in the driver's seat invariably calls forth the worst of what Mark Twain referred to as "damned human nature", regardless of the persuasion of the followers involved in the atrocities. Islam is currently the chief culprit in this regard, due to the lack of any secular checks and balances where its' worst manifestations flourish, but Christianity, when given that same atmosphere of unregulated control, has fared no better. And the problem lies therein, that extremist religious believers are not operating on all cylinders, in thinking that their God— whom they cannot possibly prove—knows better, not only for themselves, but for everyone else, when it is all about power, corruption and control. Religion always has been and always is 'power by subterfuge'. If you claim that the power comes from some 'god' then people are fooled into thinking it somehow has more credence. It is amazing in this day and age that people still cling to this.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 8, 2019 15:31:28 GMT
Shapiro is far too smart for his detractors on this page. Yes he's smart, but explain why the "left" is being hypocritical? They might be wrong about Islam...they might be wrong about how to best address Islam extremism, but why is it hypocritical? The left are hypocrites because while they profess to stand for progressive liberal principles and happily and proudly criticise religious ideologies such as Christianity and Judaism yet remain largely silent or vague when it comes to critiquing Islam and in many cases actually bend over backwards to defend or make excuses for it.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 8, 2019 16:41:39 GMT
Yes he's smart, but explain why the "left" is being hypocritical? They might be wrong about Islam...they might be wrong about how to best address Islam extremism, but why is it hypocritical? The left are hypocrites because while they profess to stand for progressive liberal principles and happily and proudly criticise religious ideologies such as Christianity and Judaism yet remain largely silent or vague when it comes to critiquing Islam and in many cases actually bend over backwards to defend or make excuses for it. IF they are doing as you say....i.e criticizing Christianity and Judaism and NOT criticizing Islam, that means they just have a different view of Christianity, Judaism and Islam than you do. IF that is what they are doing, where is the hypocrisy? Where do they veer from that worldview?
But more importantly, show me where Hillary or Obama criticized current Christian and Jewish religious ideologies. Best I can tell, the worst he's done is criticize what Christians used to do, the crusades, slavery and probably inquisitions. But then every sane person should criticize what Christians used to do...don't you agree? Because most Christians NOW agree that what the Christians were doing then was wrong wrong wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 8, 2019 16:54:04 GMT
The left are hypocrites because while they profess to stand for progressive liberal principles and happily and proudly criticise religious ideologies such as Christianity and Judaism yet remain largely silent or vague when it comes to critiquing Islam and in many cases actually bend over backwards to defend or make excuses for it. IF they are doing as you say....i.e criticizing Christianity and Judaism and NOT criticizing Islam, that means they just have a different view of Christianity, Judaism and Islam than you do. IF that is what they are doing, where is the hypocrisy? Where do they veer from that worldview?
But more importantly, show me where Hillary or Obama criticized current Christian and Jewish religious ideologies. Best I can tell, the worst he's done is criticize what Christians used to do, the crusades, slavery and probably inquisitions. But then every sane person should criticize what Christians used to do...don't you agree? Because most Christians NOW agree that what the Christians were doing then was wrong wrong wrong.
And what would that difference in view be exactly, that terrorism is only ok when it’s done in the name of Islam?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 8, 2019 17:05:40 GMT
I just re-listened to the video and realized the problem I had is with how Cody described what Shapiro said. Shapiro and even the guy who hosted the Shapiro video never used the term hypocritical or hypocrisy. That was Cody's word. The guy that hosted the video only claimed Hillary and Obama were being inconsistent....ie inconsistently identifying the victims in one case by their religion in Christchurch and then only calling them Easter worshipers and travelers in Sri Lanka. I don't even see that as being inconsistent. Best I can tell, they are being consistent...ie certainly NOT hypocritical in what they said. It's just that what they said and how they said it rankles certain people.
What I did notice about the guy making the video is that he is being illogical in that he claims the left is pandering to Muslims (and he added the LGBT group) to gain tons of votes. But wait, these people are in the extreme minority...so how is someone gaining tons of votes catering to these groups? If one is only currying favor with voters, they would do what the Republicans and the right seems to do...cater to the majority in the US...cater to the white, straight, Christians.
He says that politicians are next to useless in reducing hate crimes based on race or religion. Maybe so, but then why does it matter what Hillary and Obama say if they are next to useless? The truth is, and the guy admits it later on, that politicians stoke the flames to stay in power. Now, what could be more flame-stoking than calling out Muslims because there are Islamic terrorists? And who is the politician stoking the flames? Seems that Trump is doing that more than Obama when Trump emphasizes that the terrorists are Islam and Obama is trying to avoid stoking the flames by NOT emphasizing their religious affiliation. Obama might be wrong in that strategy, but he's NOT the one stoking the flames, so to speak.
As I keep asking. What is the point of highlighting the Islamic aspect of these radical terrorist groups? Do these people seriously think that some day the Christians will wage an all out war to destroy all the Muslims...physically kill them all? I think not. Will it help moderate Muslims in their cause? Maybe, I don't know. Does it actually make the terrorists themselves feel less like committing terrorist acts? I doubt it..specifying they are doing it for their religion only emboldens them because that's what they want to be seen as doing...committing these acts FOR their religion and for their God. Does it make other Muslims not want to be Muslims or want to be Muslims less? Perhaps, but Islam is fast growing and it doesn't seem that a few politicians (who the guy said were useless anyways) calling out these terrorists in the name of Islam is going to make these Muslims stop being Muslims. I don't even know if it will stop people from converting to Muslims.
The word hypocrisy is literally in the title of the guy’s video. And if you can’t see the hypocrisy from Obama & Clinton and all the other leftist political darlings then it’s probably because you do not want to. But you didn't address the other inconsistencies I mentioned in the videos. What about his claim that politicians while mostly useless to solve the problems of racial and religious hatred can stoke the flames to stay in power. NOW, which politicians do you think are stoking the flames? I think Trump is. I don't think Hillary or Obama are. You may not agree with their strategies, but they don't seem to be stoking the flames....unless NOT saying what some of the US population wants them to say is risking making that disgruntled segment of the population violent. Is that the fear...ie that those who wish Obama, and others who have been reticent to identify the terrorists with Islam, would speak out more explicitly will become violent if he doesn't?
Also, don't you think he's drawing an absurd conclusion that the politicians who he claims are pandering to Islam and Muslims (if they are) are doing it to get tons of votes? Whose votes do you think they are winning by pandering to that VERY MINOR group? The Islam population in the US is at 3.4 million. That's a little over 1%. Do you seriously think politicians are garnering tons of votes by catering to 1% of the population? And per this website, most Muslims in the US and in many other countries do not support/believe in the bombings ISIS is carrying out.
So I'm not even sure the politicians who have been reluctant to tie terrorism to Islam are actually currying any favor with the US Muslim population. So that is a double absurdity in the guy's conclusions about why the are doing it. I am not sure I agree with them...those politicians who refuse to highlight the Islamic aspect of terrorism, but I can see where they are coming from and what they are trying to do. I think they are trying NOT to stoke the flames or to lend credibility to the terrorists by saying they are doing it in the name of their religion and to please their God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 9:18:03 GMT
I agree. I think if you're going to use Easter worshippers instead of Christians here then it more likely means that you're purposely trying to avoid mentioning Christianity as actual victims of these terrorist attacks. So the likely Jewish author of this piece about Jews wishes to avoid calling them Jews?
"Homeless couple attacks synagogue worshippers in Buenos Aires"
My comment was meant for its specific circumstance that the same people, Clinton and Obama, were acknowledging one religion (Islam) but not the other (Christianity). So this example isn't the same. First, the author does call them Jews within the article even if they aren't mentioned in the title, and second, has the same author written a separate article about another religion being attacked in a similar circumstance but chose not to call them by their religion? If so, it would imply the author is refusing to acknowledge that specific religion because they are somehow okay with acknowledging others
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 17, 2019 5:38:43 GMT
So the likely Jewish author of this piece about Jews wishes to avoid calling them Jews?
"Homeless couple attacks synagogue worshippers in Buenos Aires"
My comment was meant for its specific circumstance that the same people, Clinton and Obama, were acknowledging one religion (Islam) but not the other (Christianity). So this example isn't the same. First, the author does call them Jews within the article even if they aren't mentioned in the title, and second, has the same author written a separate article about another religion being attacked in a similar circumstance but chose not to call them by their religion? If so, it would imply the author is refusing to acknowledge that specific religion because they are somehow okay with acknowledging others The example I gave is identical. In the case of Obama and Clinton their entire messages were tweets. In other places both have used "Christians" in referencing followers of Christ. But the usage appears not to even come from either of them, they simply were using the same term that the AP had used earlier, an article carried by several other media sites including the Washington Post. Unlike the right-wing conspiracy types trying to make a case for agitation over this, they simply were offering condolences with no political agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 21:53:21 GMT
My comment was meant for its specific circumstance that the same people, Clinton and Obama, were acknowledging one religion (Islam) but not the other (Christianity). So this example isn't the same. First, the author does call them Jews within the article even if they aren't mentioned in the title, and second, has the same author written a separate article about another religion being attacked in a similar circumstance but chose not to call them by their religion? If so, it would imply the author is refusing to acknowledge that specific religion because they are somehow okay with acknowledging others The example I gave is identical. In the case of Obama and Clinton their entire messages were tweets. In other places both have used "Christians" in referencing followers of Christ. But the usage appears not to even come from either of them, they simply were using the same term that the AP had used earlier, an article carried by several other media sites including the Washington Post. Unlike the right-wing conspiracy types trying to make a case for agitation over this, they simply were offering condolences with no political agenda. I wouldn't call it identical because of what I said previously. Obama and Clinton showed recognition towards Muslims but not Christians, and that's the only point here. Mentioning separate articles using the same terminology is irrelevant, and copying the term from the AP doesn't somehow make them look any better or justify why they chose to use that term specifically.
|
|