Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/13/08 08:59 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote:

That doesn't mean that arabs should be black listed because some arabs are terrorists.

She's a muslim extremist.
And she wasn't kicked out because she was a "terrorist". She was kicked out because she failed to integrate.

Read the post, she wasn't kicked out. Its a little something called "facts".

:She just kept on bringing her medieval values to a modern country where it has no place and she refused to change her ways.

So she can get out, it has nothing to do with terrorism.

So now we're back to thought censorship. She wasn't making an active effort to convince others to follow her beliefs. The government has no place to punish you for what you do in the privacy of your own home.

Its not the job of muslims to control other muslims.

Then they can't complain when some muslims give all muslims a bad name.

Like you giving canadians a bad name? I think I can complain all I want and I don't have to force you into believing what I do to earn the right to bitch about idiots.

Your attempt to associate burkas with swasticas and KKK uniforms is without basis. JUSTIFY why wearing a burka is at all related to wearing a swastica or a KKK uniform.

HAVE YOU READ ANY PART OF THE FUCKING RELIGION???

HAVE YOU??? I CAN TALK IN ALL CAPS TOO AND ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS WITHOUT SUPPPLYING ANYTHING LOGICAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE.

How does that have anything to do with her getting citizenship?

Did you read the article?
She was basically ultra-submissive and liking it and had 3 kids who she probably was educating in the same way.

What does that have to do with her right to be a citizen. She's doing that while shes not a citizen, It doesn't make a difference in how she raises her kids.

It's not a behavior that has any place in a modern country that promotes equality of the sexes and REAL personal freedom.

Its not your place to judge that. People have a right to act how they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Its not an analogy, and you still have failed to make a connection between the two. You just keep spewing your hate speech.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK : KILL ALL NON-MUSLIMS?
How much clearer can the connection get?

LINK??? I dont think you've read the qu'ran. You're just making stuff up.

And people who wear burkas and keep their women at home to beat them BELIEVE THAT VERBATIM, believe you me.

You cannot prove that. You're assuming things without a logical basis. Find me definitive proof that everyone wearing a burka believes that. If I go outside wearing a burka will that suddenly change my mind about that? I think not.

What someone does in their own home is their business. If you are denied anything because of your religious practice, then you are going into a country that is no better then north korea.

She should be allowed in. If now, then all french people should die

At 7/13/08 10:41 PM, DeadSun wrote: What someone does in their own home is their business. If you are denied anything because of your religious practice, then you are going into a country that is no better then north korea.

She should be allowed in. If now, then all french people should die

If not*

"Then all french people should die" is showing the anger that this causes.

At 7/13/08 10:42 PM, DeadSun wrote:

At 7/13/08 10:41 PM, DeadSun wrote: What someone does in their own home is their business. If you are denied anything because of your religious practice, then you are going into a country that is no better then north korea.

She should be allowed in. If now, then all french people should die

If not*

"Then all french people should die" is showing the anger that this causes.

how do you know that all french people agree with what happened.

At 7/13/08 09:27 PM, poxpower wrote: That's how they are in their countries.
That's how they think. Doesn't mean they go out and do it, but that's their world view according to their holy book.

you still haven't proven that those are the thoughts of moderates.

Watch the news?

because the news presents what ordinary people think and do and not outrageous, attention grabbing events and people. oh wait...

At 7/13/08 09:31 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: it seems to me that problems of Islamic extremism are caused more by the men, not by the women.

duh, women are trash in Islam.
If you're an Islamic woman, your role is to submit to the man's will.

By definition an Islamic woman is supposed to do nothing but sit down and shut up. They're slaves basically.

At 7/13/08 08:38 PM, poxpower wrote: blahblahblah
Read their fucking Q'ran, you can't practice Islam "peacefully" in a country full of non-muslims.

Erm, dude, there are a myriad of ways in which you could practice your religion and sometimes these ways even contradict your religion's scriptures, the mainstream Anglican church is now even ordaining gay and female bishops for fuck's sake. I'd call your statement bookish since you're trying to explain people's behaviour solely by what's in their holy texts but since you're asserting that your interpretation is the only correct one I think I could better call it absurd. If we're going to ban all people whose holy books contain parts that could be interpreted as being violent then we might as well deny all practicing Jews and Christians citizenship as well.

The whole issue isn't whether we should deny all Muslims citizenship but whether we should deny Salafists citizenship, which is a substream of Islam to which the couple (including the woman) confirmed to belong. Denying some semi-practicing Hanafite from Turkey citizenship because he's a Muslim is just plain silly but Salafists (they aren't even violent, by the way) invariably reject almost anything that doesn't trace its existence back to Muhammad and the companions, ranging from banks and stock markets to democratic institutions. Their goal is to withdraw themselves from most aspects of Western public life while surviving and propagating Salafism among other Muslims until they are so numerous that power basically falls into their hands so that they can enforce their version of the sharia`. One could wonder if a Council of State should award people citizenship if those people consider that very council to be an illegitimate product of innovation (bid`a). That's the issue here, not whether any Muslim should be banned since plenty are doing fine in Europe and the US.

At 7/14/08 05:27 AM, lapis wrote: Erm, dude, there are a myriad of ways in which you could practice your religion and sometimes these ways even contradict your religion's scriptures[...] If we're going to ban all people whose holy books contain parts that could be interpreted as being violent then we might as well deny all practicing Jews and Christians citizenship as well.

Curses, thats what I was trying to say but clearly you said it much better. I'm going to go ahead and cry in shame now.

At 7/14/08 05:27 AM, lapis wrote:

Erm, dude, there are a myriad of ways in which you could practice your religion and sometimes these ways even contradict your religion's scriptures

Dude, wearing a burka is not a sign of "lightly practicing one's religion".

At any rate I don't know what your were trying to make me say. I know there's no two religious group who practices the religion the same as the one next door.

The whole issue isn't whether we should deny all Muslims citizenship but whether we should deny Salafists citizenship

When was that ever the issue?
That woman is quite clearly a dangerous extremist who refuses to adopt values that are accepted by anyone with half a brain.

A woman who spits on the women rights and the equality of sex? And she's had a decade to comform? Get her out of there. Plus, how the fuck did she get in to begin with?? :O

At 7/12/08 07:18 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/12/08 06:44 AM, Alphabit wrote:
I guess praying 5 times a day doesn't really help the economy.

Neither do smoke breaks

What are you talking about? In a consumption-driven economy, cigarettes are the ideal consumer good.

- They have complementary goods like lighters and cigarette cases
- They have no substitute goods (with the exception of people who want to quit buying anti-smoking nicotine products).
- People who use them use them on a regular basis
- People who use them don't keep them for any appreciable amount of time, they just burn them. This means that there's no need for changes to design or other fashionable alteration to spur continued consumption.

Honestly, smokers do what any profit-driven company would want any customer to do with their product: set it on fire and buy a new one.

At 7/14/08 09:39 AM, poxpower wrote: Dude, wearing a burka is not a sign of "lightly practicing one's religion".

Dude, over 99% of Muslim women in Europe don't wear a burqa`.

At any rate I don't know what your were trying to make me say.

That we should discriminate between extremists (if we consider Salafists to be extremists, I doubt she'll blow herself up) and non-extremists. When you mentioned the Qur'an and said that Islam can't be practiced peacefully in a Western country (the part that I quoted) I assumed you were trying to say that all Muslim who apply for citizenship should be refused. I disagree with that statement.

When was that ever the issue?

When the French Council of State decided to refuse to give this woman citizenship because her views were incompatible with Western values while they probably gave dozens if not hundreds of other Muslim women citizenship since the start of this year. Her views are Salafist, as she acknowledged herself according to the article that was linked to in the first post, and if she's refused then other Salafists should be refused as well. That's why denying Salafists citizenship is the issue.

That woman is quite clearly a dangerous extremist who refuses to adopt values that are accepted by anyone with half a brain.

I doubt she's "dangerous" but I do agree that her religious views are probably incompatible with Western values and our political/economic system and that no Western country should ever let Salafists become a sizeable minority. I can understand why she was denied citizenship but I'm vehemently opposed to some sort of a ban against the Muslim community as a whole.

At 7/14/08 01:04 PM, lapis wrote:

Dude, over 99% of Muslim women in Europe don't wear a burqa`.

Yeah that's why SHE'S getting kicked out.

I assumed you were trying to say that all Muslim who apply for citizenship should be refused. I disagree with that statement.

I'm saying any muslim who isn't trying to enslave women, spread islam all over the world and kill non-believers is not a real muslim.
Which would make the total population of muslims in the world like... a couple hundred.

meh, fuck em', we shouldn't let them constantly redefine their religion. That's another trick they use all the time in debates. They'll swear until they explode that they are from religion X, but anyone of "their" religion who does something bad is "not really a XXX" or "doesn't really understand XXX".

aaaaaaaaaaaaah crazyville

I doubt she's "dangerous" but I do agree that her religious views are probably incompatible with Western values and our political/economic system and that no Western country should ever let Salafists become a sizeable minority.

that's why she's dangerous.

Has everyone forgotten that a conflict of the two cultures nearly tore Paris in half? I think the French government is doing well to bottleneck the influx of Islamic culture. When it comes to preserving your own culture or having your country erupt into civil war, which side do you think the French government is going to take?

Seriously, for all of this bullshit about respecting other people's cultures, how about you give some respect to how the French are handling their own internal affairs? Would that be too much common sense to handle?

At 7/14/08 01:47 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm saying any muslim who isn't trying to enslave women, spread islam all over the world and kill non-believers is not a real muslim.

Meh. I disagree, but the question about what 'real' Islam is is probably beyond the scope of this thread. Let's just say that the Qur'an is open to a lot of interpretation and that most of the Sunna can be disregarded as only being relevant in a specific time and place, even if most theologians don't do this. If we've reached consensus about this woman deservingly not gaining citizenship while other Muslims remain able to do so then I guess we're in agreement for as far as this topic goes.

At 7/14/08 02:29 PM, lapis wrote:

Meh. I disagree, but the question about what 'real' Islam is is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Read the book.
Do what it says.

It's that simple. But religious people don't read books. Religion is about easy answers given to you from above, i.e. whoever the fuck told you about it first. They don't want to spend time reading a long shitty book with a confusing messages and an endless boring story full of made-up shit.

They just want a couple of simple answers.

But you really want to know what it's about? Read the books.

Let's just say that the Qur'an is open to a lot of interpretation

I haven't read it, but I'm pretty sure that this "interpretation" claim probably applies only if you really really stretch it out as much as you can.
That's the general rule of thumb in religions. You start by thinking about what you want, then you go to the text and look for what you want in it.

It's really really easy.

At 7/14/08 02:43 PM, poxpower wrote: I haven't read it

Lmao. Why do you keep going on about what it says then?

At 7/14/08 02:54 PM, Mr-Pope wrote:

Lmao. Why do you keep going on about what it says then?

Do you need to watch Star Wars before you know what it's about?
nnnnnnnnno.

In fact you could only listen to Star Wars fans all your life and never watch the movie and still have a pretty solid and clear idea of what the movie is about and what it contains.

That's how it works.

At 7/14/08 03:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Do you need to watch Star Wars before you know what it's about?

Something about incest and space bears, right?

At 7/14/08 03:02 PM, poxpower wrote: In fact you could only listen to Star Wars fans all your life and never watch the movie and still have a pretty solid and clear idea of what the movie is about and what it contains.

That's how it works.

No that is not how it works. I've only taken A Level english ( high school?) and I know that.

You ever taken english Literature as a class?

You can read a book and know the story and roughly what is said but to know what its ABOUT you need to analyse it. For instance, I had to read Tom Browns School days for my English A level ( shit book, dont read it). I knew the basic story behind the book ( Tom goes to baording school gets up to bits and peices of mischeif, turns into a decent bolke at the end of it.) But it wasn't until I was forced to analyse the book that I was able to pick up on the what book was ABOUT.

It was essentially an instruction manual for boys on how to turn themselve sinto a gentlemen. The actions of the chrahcters were displayed in psoitive and negative ways thus making the young boy reading it think ' Golly gosh! I need to be good at sports to be a true bloke!' and all that sort of shit. To use the phrase that my teacher drille dinto my head ' Attitudes and Values!'

Or to sue a more mdoenr example. Terry Pratchett's ' Thud' has a plot that focuses on fights between Trolls and Dawrves in the city of AnkhMorpork. The book is however ABOUT a critique of racism and religious extremism in modern society, with direct comparison achieveable between the actions of the Dwarves and the Islamic rleigion

Knowing the story of a book, or having the general idea of what is contained does not mean you know what the book is about.

The fact that you even think that Pox displays a HUGE amount of arrogance on your part. Plus your anaology fails big time. Star Wars is a movie, the Quran is a book. Its very hard to interrpret movies to the extent you can interpret literature.

At 7/14/08 03:18 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

You ever taken english Literature as a class?

You can read a book and know the story and roughly what is said but to know what its ABOUT you need to analyse it.

hhhhhhahahahaha
Let me tell you something: read any story you want and try to NOT make it about something.
And then try to make the story "about" something else.
I bet you 100 bucks that I can make any story "about" 20 different things.

The moral of THAT story? Overthinking scripture leads straight to religions constantly splitting up because they each think, JUST LIKE YOU, that the words don't really mean anything, it's the "message/intent/spirit" behind them that counts, and that is something that YOU CAN MAKE UP ON YOUR OWN.

It's called data-searching.
Pick any message you want to enforce, read the book, take the quotes that support your side. Bam, your book is now about that message. I dare anyone to argue you out of that.

At 7/14/08 03:55 PM, poxpower wrote: hhhhhhahahahaha
Let me tell you something: read any story you want and try to NOT make it about something.

Let me re-phrase. To find out what the meaning behind the story is you need to analyse it. Better?

The moral of THAT story? Overthinking scripture leads straight to religions constantly splitting up because they each think, JUST LIKE YOU, that the words don't really mean anything, it's the "message/intent/spirit" behind them that counts, and that is something that YOU CAN MAKE UP ON YOUR OWN.

Words form the logic behind the interpretation. If a charahcter in a story is displayed using negative terms you don't normally start thinking he's the charachter you should be sympathising with. I'm not saying the words aren't important as they are one of the causations of the differing interpretations.

The reason for a lot of splits within Islam is either down to changes which have no basis in the Quran ( such as Shia Islam, which implements a kind of Sainthood principle and almost idolatry worships which isn't found in SunnI Islam) or chanegs in the actual Quran itself as has been activley recorded in Saudia Arabia where, essentially, the Government has put in footnotes explaining what THEY think it means (washabi Islam? Not sur eof the name).

Words have as much pwoer as you give them. Saying ' THIS SAYS THIS!' without lookign at context, historical and also within the text itself, is stupid.

It's called data-searching.
Pick any message you want to enforce, read the book, take the quotes that support your side. Bam, your book is now about that message. I dare anyone to argue you out of that.

Not telling me anything new. But cosndiering you've been saying ' I know what the Quran is about' and here you're basically saying ' but it all coems down to personal interpretation that people are specifically looking for', isn't that kind of hypocritcial to your orignal point of ' I know what the Quran is about'?

You've just admitted that people read the Quran and any book and look for the emanigns they want. Menaing their personal biases and the like will be reflected ( whether theya re searching activley to back up their beliefs or jsut reading passively and picking stuff up). That therefore emans there CAN NOT be a single correct interpretation of the Quran as it varies form individual to individual therefore your claim that you know what the Quran is about it false.

Hell, consdiering you've never even read the Quran, your knowledge is second hand at best, meaning it's been interpretted at least once before its even got to you. Meaning that the chance of the real meaning being communicated has been lost.

At 7/14/08 04:20 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Let me re-phrase. To find out what the meaning behind the story is you need to analyse it. Better?

No, the message doesn't matter.
What's important to religious people are the commands and the facts.

It's VITAL to christianity that Jesus actually existed. They don't care about his message more than they care about him actually existing.

To them, Jesus is not a fictional character.

Not telling me anything new. But cosndiering you've been saying ' I know what the Quran is about' and here you're basically saying ' but it all coems down to personal interpretation that people are specifically looking for', isn't that kind of hypocritcial to your orignal point of ' I know what the Quran is about'?

I know the gist of what's in there.

We've all seen the incriminating lines and they have nothing to defend themselves.
Once again, as with Christianity, they play the deflection game where, if you ask them "what does your book tell you to do when someone tries to leave Islam?" they will just try to change the subject because they know as well as we do that it's not a matter of "interpretation".

At 7/14/08 05:18 PM, poxpower wrote: We've all seen the incriminating lines and they have nothing to defend themselves.
Once again, as with Christianity, they play the deflection game where, if you ask them "what does your book tell you to do when someone tries to leave Islam?" they will just try to change the subject because they know as well as we do that it's not a matter of "interpretation".

Or it's a translation issue.

If you can translate Dostoevsky and still maintain his subtleties, then how hard is it to translate "if this happens, do that?"

At 7/14/08 05:18 PM, poxpower wrote: No, the message doesn't matter.
What's important to religious people are the commands and the facts.

Errr, the entire basis behind the idea of holy Scripture is to put forward the religions message. Saying that the messgae doesn't matter is stupid as it misses the entire point of what the holy scripture is supposed to do. You know, put forth the MESSAGE of God.

It's VITAL to christianity that Jesus actually existed. They don't care about his message more than they care about him actually existing.

Yes, because the mere fact that jesus exists is whats important, not what he was teaching which is in fact the message.

To them, Jesus is not a fictional character.

And?

I know the gist of what's in there.

I know the gist of Lord of The Rings. Doesn't mean I can claim to know exactly what it's about and all the details of how Tolkien formed the Elvish language or whatever.

We've all seen the incriminating lines and they have nothing to defend themselves.

And if you actually read the Quran you see the context and realise that a lot of the stuff that's in there that's used as 'evidence' agaisnt them is taken out of context. Hell there's at least one passage that says that Muslims should stirke down unbeleivers, but in context it should be placed in changes the meaning. The context is that in a time of war when Muslims are under attack. As well the verse in front of it says that in times of peace all other religions should be treated as brothers..

I love the fact that you're applying the same ideas that you're condemening Religious people for. You're looking at the texts ( except you haven't even read them meaning my point that you've got second hand interpretations) looking for ( whether conciously or unconciously) stuff to critciise. You're as bad as them.

At 7/14/08 05:24 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/14/08 05:18 PM, poxpower wrote: We've all seen the incriminating lines and they have nothing to defend themselves.
Once again, as with Christianity, they play the deflection game where, if you ask them "what does your book tell you to do when someone tries to leave Islam?" they will just try to change the subject because they know as well as we do that it's not a matter of "interpretation".

Or it's a translation issue.

This is actually quite releveant with the Quran. Guy called Luxemburg bsically re-translated the Quran using Syrian Aramaic ( apparently some of the phrases in the original Quran are borderline unintelligble ( hence the interpretations and but make sens eif you apply the other language, which historically speaking makes sense as its actually the lanugage that was largely in use at the time the Quran is supposed to have been written ) or something which actually changed the meaning of the text entirely. The one I like si that instead of getting 72 virgins they end up with a bunch of grapes.

But yeah, another is that instead of a veil, women should wear a chastity belt or there abouts.

At 7/12/08 06:19 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/08 03:20 PM, zoolrule wrote: They can choose who they want in their country, who are you to judge?

Yeah. Germany can choose to put who they like in death camps, who are we to judge?

Just because a gross and oppressive act is committed in another country doesn't mean it's not our job to judge it.

What's the fucking connection? She is not french, she has nothing to do with France, they don't have to accept her if she doesn't want.

Germany murdered people that were already assimilated in the society for hundreds of years, and France today didn't accept to GIVE FRENCH CITIZENSHIP TO NON FRENCH WOMAN.

Let's say All of the Chinese in the world want to move to France now, Who are you to not let them? I mean, you yourself said that "Germany can choose to put who they like in death camps, who are we to judge?" It would be a horrible thing not to give a French citizenship to non French person. HORRIBLE.

I just read about this today on the net... It's about time someone took a stand against the stupidity & exploitation of women by that F*&^ UP religion. Too Bad Canada's Government wouldn't do the exact same thing...but we've got a bunch of no nothing minority ass kissers here in this country running & ruining everything they touch !

At 7/14/08 03:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Do you need to watch Star Wars before you know what it's about?
nnnnnnnnno.

if only it didn't require clarification that you were comparing this to knowing Islam through osmosis it would be so delightfully quotable.

At 7/14/08 05:18 PM, poxpower wrote: if you ask them "what does your book tell you to do when someone tries to leave Islam?" they will just try to change the subject because they know as well as we do that it's not a matter of "interpretation".

Or they could quote verses such as:

Let the disbelievers enjoy life and let false hope beguile them. They will come to know! (Al-Hijr 15:2-3)

There is no compulsion in religion. (2:257)

Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (Al-Kahf 18:29)

And talk about how the death penalty is never actually prescribed for apostasy in the Quran. Yeah, they could do that.

For someone who constantly tells people to "read the fucking book", you'd do well to take your own advice.

I mean shit, I think organised religion is teh gay, but criticising it on false grounds through wilful ignorance is just retarded.

I don't follow. What gives people the unalienable right to live wherever they want to?

So France doesn't want extremists running around making demands, unlike most of Europe. That's admirable. They're acting on the pretense that wherever extremist Muslims go, trouble goes. It's not racist or prejudice, but logical.