Why is it impossible to be liberal yet anti-muslim? (multiculturalism, Iraq, middle east)

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by blind melon

You can be liberal and anti Islam but you cant be liberal and anti Muslim. Likewise a trur liberal is not agsinst Christians

Opposing a belief is not the same as opposing a person

Nope.

There is nothing wrong with Islam on its face, but the problem lies with its followers.

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Nope.

There is nothing wrong with Islam on its face, but the problem lies with its followers.

The problem is that what Islam exhorts its followers to do creates a continuous state of wars. Proof is now and the last 1300 years.

[Wynternight]

I'm a Pastafarian. Pasta and beer, what's not to love! Besides, none of us are boiling people for their sins! No! He boiled for our sins!!

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

[LS Jaun]

Originally Posted by Tall Traveler

The problem is that what Islam exhorts its followers to do creates a continuous state of wars. Proof is now and the last 1300 years.

The problem lies in the fact that Islam was created by a Pedophile Slaver who killed people who wrote poems about him. Then they use terms like PBUH

[allenk893]

Perhaps you need to examine what the origins of the Liberal Party is and it's intended purpose in the modern day world. It has nothing to do with being progressive. The liberal party's main purpose is to destruct the nuclear family unit and traditional mores of society to usher in the new world order. Total absolute control is the goal. Christianity is the biggest barrier to their objective because it's values and ethics (based primarily on procreation, morals, and love of God) is firmly entrenched in almost every sector of society and socio-economic group worldwide. In addition to being the most powerful and wealthiest, it still remains the largest religion on Earth. This is very well understood by the liberal genus. So the goal is to take it down by whatever means necessary. Including the tolerance, acceptance, and societal introduction of a religion that is the complete antithesis to their own values.

[whogo]

The Democrats wish to import as many minorities as they can to dilute the white Christian vote regardless of how much damage it does to our country.

[Vacanegro]

Originally Posted by whogo

The Democrats wish to import as many minorities as they can to dilute the white Christian vote regardless of how much damage it does to our country.

..and the Republicans wonder why people say they are the party of racists.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by charliemagne

I brought this up in another thread.

I am neither minority religious or communist, but I support secularism and prefer an ideology that leans towards athiesm. My view is what liberalism is usually about - the type that bans creationism and removes school prayers.

So why is the liberal establishment being so supportive of muslims? The religion is worse than the religion liberals usually hate (Christianity) and is pretty much against all liberal values.

I can't imagine what these people would be like in Muslim countries. Would they back the conservative party?

I want a party that does no more than just tolerate Muslims. I wouldn't mind a party that was anti-muslim either, since the religion is so toxic.

Well now, charlie...

As a fellow atheist, I agree with your view on the damage caused by religion.

But your hasty generalization is a fallacy.

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

Carry on, n00b.

[Icy Tea]

Liberals are, at heart, bullies. And all bullies are cowards. Don't pick a fight with a moslem if they'll turn and hand you your intestines. Go for those who you know won't fight back or stoop to your level.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by blind melon

You can be liberal and anti Islam but you cant be liberal and anti Muslim. Likewise a trur liberal is not agsinst Christians

Opposing a belief is not the same as opposing a person

This is a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance which seems to be so commonly suffered among liberals.

The first thing I would point out to you is that neither you nor I have ever met a "belief", but only people with beliefs. Beliefs are not some autonomous entity, but a thought held in the mind of the believer. Suffice it to say that a belief is nothing more than the same thought you keep thinking, over and over again.

There are two basic types of beliefs ...one type is based on one's own thoughts formed from experience, evidence, and personal observations, (this is rare, in today's world) while the other type are based on the thoughts of others the believer blindly accepts, without evaluating such things as personal experience, evidence or observations. This is the dangerous type which is solely based on "group think".

Religion is a good example of "group think", though education, as it is has evolved today is also another good one. Our education system, for example, no longer teaches kids how to think, but only what to think, which perfectly prepares them to be the maleable mess we've become today, acting out not of our own accord, but reacting based on conditioning we've received, and the beliefs that have been implanted. That also seems to be an accurate definition of how religions operate, no?

Now, if the ideas implanted are positive ones, the beliefs are likely to produce beneficial results, though if they are negative, then the results will be destructive.

Cognitive dissonance is the situation created when a person accepts two or more beliefs which are contradictory, and this is indeed the situation suffered by liberals who defend Islam, with such circular reasoning inherent in attempting to separate Islam and Muslims. You might just as well try to separate birds and feathers ...as that would be equally assinine.

Now, to the real point ... If you compare the two ... political ideology and religion, they both share a great deal in common. And from that standpoint, the mystery of liberals defending Islam finds its answer, just as conservatives defending Christianity does.

Just as Islam and Christianity have their own core foundations ... liberalism and conservativism do too, and it is at this foundation we find the flaws, and positive aspects. The job is to measure the positive and negative aspects, BUT, most importantly, the RESULTS. That is what liberals REFUSE to do, relative to their own political ideological results, as well as Islam's results.

Whether one chooses to defend a religion as "peaceful" in spite of the extreme violence being perpetrated around the world by it's followers, or examine why an ideological group whose overt disdain for religion chooses to defend the most destructive form of a thing they claim to oppose, you cannot find any semblance of rational thinking .... and this is common ground shared by Liberals and Muslims. Both have accepted destructive beliefs, and consequently, the results are destructive.

So, for all of you liberals out there who defend Islam, please explain how you do this, without your heads exploding? Here we have the liberal champions of homosexuals, and staunch defenders of women who are also anti-religion, yet defend the most extreme version of religion who believe homosexuals should be executed, and women subjugated to the extent that they cannot even appear in public without being covered head to toe, nor can they even converse with a male who is not their husband/owner, or family member?

The explanation is simple. Liberalism is a form of mental illness, whose primary symptom is cognitive dissonance. And the examples are so numerous, exceptions are difficult to find.

We have liberals who want to legalize marijuana and outlaw tobacco. Liberals want to ban firearms in response to 20 children murdered by a maniac, yet they march in parades celebrating the right to murder over a million children annually in abortion clinics. We have liberals who cringe at the mere sight of a Christmas tree, but would roll up their sleeves to help build a new Mosque for their Muslim friends who are taught in those Mosques to hate homosexuals and treat women like property less valuable than livestock.

By the way, have all you defenders of the religion of peace heard the latest outrage coming from the Supreme Islamic Authority out of Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti? Well, according to him, it is consistent with Sharia Law that if a Muslim man found himself starving, he is allowed to eat his wife, since her main purpose is to serve him and his well being. He didn't go into recipes or method of killing ... I'm sure it would require some form of humane and compassionate preparation.