Is Religious Bigotry off the table?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Arabic is so crude there can be no other word for non-Muslim? Strikes me as unlikely.
It's bigoted not to capitalize 'Christian', actually: Tiassa and Bells were quite insistent about this sort of thing, as I recall.
Arabic is crude?, You surely have not studied the etiquette. How do western people greet each other?, how do they say goodbye?.
Western English - "Hello" "Bye" Meaning? Not much really..... erm yeah not alot.
Arabic - "Salam" Meaning? Peace and health be with you..... (This is standard common greeting for strangers)
"As Salaam Alaikum" This is like a 5 fold blessing used to greet Friends and relatives etc. Meaning? Peace be upon you, Health and blessings be upon you, I trust that you will not lie to me, I promise I will not lie to you. Most pleased to see you.
Can you see how Crude Arabic is?
Wisdom.
It's patently obvious that Whites Only signs pointing in one direction next to Obligatory for non-Whites signs pointing in another direction is Bigoted. One would think that people reading such signs would stop, take pause, and question themselves as to how they came to accept their Bigoted view of other humans. Oh, but I suspect most Bigots are pretty happy about those signs. I mean, come on, of course we're not letting in Blacks. They're... ... ... ...Unclean... By the Gods, I hope one didn't touch you. For Gods sake, don't shake one of their hands. Or if you do touch one, be sure to do your Ablution.
1. Make the intention/blessing. Wash both elbows three times.
2. Rinse nose with a handful of water 3 times.
3. Sniff water into the ear 3 times.
4. Wash butt 3 times from right rear to left rear.
5. Wash the right kankle, then the left 3 times each.
6. Wash over head from foreskin to scrotum just once.
7. Rub wet fingers into the grooves of the arse.
8. Pass over nape of big toe with wet hands.
9. Wash both wrists to the finger 3 times.
Note: The last I read you can be Muslim and visit St. Paul's Cathedral in Vatican City.
1. Make the intention/blessing. Wash both elbows three times.
2. Rinse nose with a handful of water 3 times.
3. Sniff water into the ear 3 times.
4. Wash butt 3 times from right rear to left rear.
5. Wash the right kankle, then the left 3 times each.
6. Wash over head from foreskin to scrotum just once.
7. Rub wet fingers into the grooves of the arse.
8. Pass over nape of big toe with wet hands.
9. Wash both wrists to the finger 3 times.
Note: The last I read you can be Muslim and visit St. Paul's Cathedral in Vatican City.
Not a problem. So what if kafir is the word for unbeliever as in :
We can adapt. We'll change masihi [small m] and yahudi [small y] to mean "not a Muslim" - we can even use them for atheists since they are not Muslims. There is still Masihi {Christian} and Yahudi {Jew} for those professing the faith although the latter also has the problem of being considered an epithet like Jesus Christ. Maybe we'll combine Masihi for Christians and Jews since Jesus was a Jew. Thats a twofer
Problem solved, they have a different meaning now! The common noun vs the Propah noun. masihi being the new kafir. Its unbigoted enough? Or we'll just decide its dar al Islam and everyone is of the ummat ul momineen.
Welcome to the faith brothers - you are now all Muslims since none of you wish to be counted among those who turn away from it.
I'll even write a fatwa for it: henceforth all those who do not wish to be considered as kafir, will be considered as Muslims.
I'm pretty sure that will hold up in any Islamic jurisprudence.
!kafir=Muslim
Last edited:
Is this a step forward? I'm not sure. Your last comment is a tad bit snide.
The first step towards treatment SAM is recognizing a problem exists. You do want to get better don't you? *lol*
In this case, it's recognizing that treating people discriminatorily based on their personal superstitious beliefs is inherently bigotry. To recognize the injustice, all one has to do is ask onself Would "I" want to live as a second class citizen? I really don't see what's so hard about this. Can't Muslims try leading on a social issue for once - instead of being dragged along into modernity kicking and screaming. Wouldn't it be NICE for a change to actually have Muslims take the lead on social injustices? I hope to see Egypt style marches against bigotry in the future. We'll see. No more excuses.
While for now we use terms like White and Black, its only to deal with the social issues at hand (to try to recognize racism is not the correct way to think and eliminate it). Think about it: We do not refer to people by their eye color. We don't call people Blue and Brown, Green and Hazel. I hope we will get to a point where White and Black is no longer used because people will see as much difference between so-called "White and Black People" as between Blue and Hazel People.
Right now I can be legally murdered in Iran, Pakistan, KSA, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and many other Islamic nations for my belief. Because my belief breaks their Islamically inspired Apartheid Laws against common sense. I find it sad that of 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world, so few are willing to take a stand. There's no need for terms like Kaffir and Bigoted Laws banning their free movement in places like KSA. The notion that Kaffir are forced to take separate highways is sickening. The fact that Kaffir are legally discriminated against in LAW in most Islamic countries is pathetic. Stop being an apologist and take a stand.
As Bells said, there's 1.2 Billion Muslims - where are all the hundreds of millions Muslims out there taking a stand against Blasphemy Laws? Where are they?
The first step towards treatment SAM is recognizing a problem exists. You do want to get better don't you? *lol*
In this case, it's recognizing that treating people discriminatorily based on their personal superstitious beliefs is inherently bigotry. To recognize the injustice, all one has to do is ask onself Would "I" want to live as a second class citizen? I really don't see what's so hard about this. Can't Muslims try leading on a social issue for once - instead of being dragged along into modernity kicking and screaming. Wouldn't it be NICE for a change to actually have Muslims take the lead on social injustices? I hope to see Egypt style marches against bigotry in the future. We'll see. No more excuses.
While for now we use terms like White and Black, its only to deal with the social issues at hand (to try to recognize racism is not the correct way to think and eliminate it). Think about it: We do not refer to people by their eye color. We don't call people Blue and Brown, Green and Hazel. I hope we will get to a point where White and Black is no longer used because people will see as much difference between so-called "White and Black People" as between Blue and Hazel People.
Right now I can be legally murdered in Iran, Pakistan, KSA, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and many other Islamic nations for my belief. Because my belief breaks their Islamically inspired Apartheid Laws against common sense. I find it sad that of 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world, so few are willing to take a stand. There's no need for terms like Kaffir and Bigoted Laws banning their free movement in places like KSA. The notion that Kaffir are forced to take separate highways is sickening. The fact that Kaffir are legally discriminated against in LAW in most Islamic countries is pathetic. Stop being an apologist and take a stand.
As Bells said, there's 1.2 Billion Muslims - where are all the hundreds of millions Muslims out there taking a stand against Blasphemy Laws? Where are they?
Last edited:
Of course it is. But the fact remains that we have to still describe it. If everyone were a Muslim there would be no need for a word that describes the state of not being one.
So I am definitely a Muslim - its a description of my belief system. Now its up to you to describe your beliefs. The only limitations are that you have to use a description which is not equivalent to "not a Muslim" because according to you that is discriminatory. So how would you describe your belief system?
So which bathroom do you use? The one with the symbol for Men or the one with the symbol for Women?
Probably with the cops arresting the men who enter the womens restroom.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Ah yes. Nothing tests for bigotry like toilet signs. South Korea wins hands down in that department. You're not even considered human there..
For all the whining about bigotry in religion and being barred, Michael forgets that in Bali for example, the inner sanctum of their most sacred Temples are barred to all non-Hindus. The main Mormon Temple in Salt Lake also does not allow non-Mormons to enter the Temple itself. The same applies for pretty much all religions, where they will ban people from entering certain sites if you are not of that particular religion. And yet, no one complains about those. He hasn't said boo about those..
And I am still waiting for you to back up your claims that over 1.5 billion people (Muslims) believe such abuses are warranted and acceptable. It's been several pages now Michael. Where is your proof?Michael said:
As in a fine bit of Sicher heil! hysteria? :shrug:
Yes, the perfect parallel.
FIDO.
Bells
Staff member
Depends on how it is used. I use the term often.. Usually when cooking. Kaffir lime leaves are wonderful in Indonesian cooking.
And his complaints about 'nigger' is funny. Really. A white man complaining about nigger.. I laughed out loud. Really, I did. Tell me, is it racist when SOAD say it? Or when Wu-Tan Clan say it?
Michael has been crying about kaffir for a while now and yet, how much do you want to bet that he's probably a Rolling Stones fan?
Yes. There's little doubt about how Chi means it, for example: although generally it's a word one should avoid.
I'm sure your cooking is fairly innocuous.
That actually applies to all Mormon temples, as far as I understand.
But restricting access to a literal "inner sanctum" (and, at least in the US, such being on private lands) is not on the same level of imposition as the entire segregated cities in Saudi Arabia. When you need an entire extra freeway to yourselves, something has gone screwy. That's a major imposition on everyone else, seemingly by design. And all that goes double, when you consider that Mecca was historically a center of tolerance and coexistence between various religions (before a certain prophet showed up, that is).
I don't care to advance any prejudicial blanket statements about Muslims in general, if that's what the local posse is worried about. But something is definitely screwed up about Saudi Arabia, and a certain conservative, monotheistic religion, and its intersection with the state, has a lot to do with that. There is a real problem with intolerance there, and it really has real consequences for real people, and not just inside Saudi Arabia.
Bells
Staff member
Just like all Mormon Temples are deemed holy to Mormons, Mecca is deemed a holy site and access is restricted only to Muslims. It is a large area because of the amount of people who go there for pilgrimage every year.
I am sure if you put all Mormon Temples together, the area would probably be as large as the Muslim only zone at Mecca. The same would probably apply to Hindu only Temples and even Scientology Temples/Churches.
That's not a nice thing to say about Israel!
Visitors can go there. They just can't walk in the inner sanctum. Hence the two highways.. But tell me something, when you travel to the airport and say the highway exit splits in two depending on if you wish to go to the Departure or Arrival, do you deem that bigoted?
I say Americans and any other Western country should not be complaining about bigotry when they expect their leaders to hold Christian only values. Such as the President of the US for example.. Why are so many obsessed with what God he prays to? And why does religion even come into the Presidential election in the US? Why do Presidents have to be Christian?
There is a real problem with intolerance everywhere.
Last edited:
Which witch is which?
I went back and looked up the "Pope combats witchcraft" thing: actually, from the tone of this article he seems to be saying that people need to not freak out about 'witchcraft'. The article seems a bit sketchily titled, frankly.
Maybe there was more to it that wasn't cited here? Seems more denial than denigration.
I went back and looked up the "Pope combats witchcraft" thing: actually, from the tone of this article he seems to be saying that people need to not freak out about 'witchcraft'. The article seems a bit sketchily titled, frankly.
Maybe there was more to it that wasn't cited here? Seems more denial than denigration.
Firstly, I posted a, far from exhaustive, list of Islamic countries with Blasphemy Laws. While some of the countries, like KSA, are dictatorships, many others like Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran etc... are republics. You can't have such a wide ranging Islamic Law without widespread support. Blasphemy Laws do have widespread support. As a matter of fact, many Islamic countries want Islam to play a larger role in politics, not lesser.
Support for Blasphemy Laws IS evidence of Religious Apartheid and Religious Bigotry. This is indeed the case. In some countries a person such as me, could be (or more likely would have been) put to death for Apostasy.
That's Bigotry Bells, I really don't know why you are having a hard time dealing with it? You keep touting this 1.2-1.5 Billion Muslims around as if somehow due to the sheer numbers THAT many people couldn't be bigoted. Well, you're wrong. Blasphemy Laws have widespread support.
Even on the EXTREME end of the Religious Apartheid spectrum - there's massive support. Note this poll from 3 months ago. Last column specifically says DEATH. You know when you see those groups of Muslims all chanting "Death to the Infidel" in Hollywood Blockbusters and you think to yourself.. Here we go again, stereotyping Muslims. Well no. Actually hundreds of millions go so far to the right they out and out support not just legal fines, or legally banning free movement along the nations highways, not just passing restriction on speech, tax and employment - they're calling for DEATH!
That's 131 MILLION in Pakistan alone. Nearly 75 MILLION Indonesians support DEATH. My Gods! We're talking about taking someone out and murdering them. Jabeezus Bells, this isn't a little slap in on the wrist here, this is complicit support for Blasphemy Discrimination it's out and out MURDER.
Kill the Infidel!
What? Are we living in the Bronze Age?!?!
The reason you don't see hundreds of millions of Muslims taking a stand against Religious Apartheid is because they support Religious Apartheid!
Now that this is settled, care to explain to me why we see such overwhelming support? IMO it's stems from the fundamental notion monotheism. What are your ideas?
Yeah, that was clear the first time around, thanks.
But I find the whole premise of an entire city being holy as fairly preposterous. An inner sanctum in a temple: sure. That's a relatively limited area, well within the abilities of a small collection of clergy to monitor and ensure the holiness of. But an entire city, slums and sewage treatment plants and seedy neighborhoods and all? Seems a bit of a stretch, unless the "holiness" means simply that only people of the "correct" faith live there. Which is about all it does seem to mean, frankly.
Moreover, let me make it clear that I do not view the prohibition on unbelievers as violating the sanctity of holy spaces with their mere presense as benign or acceptable, whether it's Mormons or Hindus or whoever. But extending such supremacism to the level of sealing off entire cities - hell, the entire country is overtly hostile to the "wrong" faiths - is on another level entirely. Supremacism doesn't become okay just because it's part of some recognized religious faith: rather the opposite.
That's circular. The rationale for exclusivity was that it's a holy space, and that's why people go there. It can't also be that the extent of the holiness depends on how many people then show up.
And let's, again, bear in mind that a big part of the theological reason for the place's holiness is that it represents the replacement of a secular, inclusive space with an exclusivist, Muslim-dominated one. The supremacism on display here is not even covert - it's central to the veneration, and openly aknowledged and celebrated. And that is ugly.
And they'd still be a bunch of separate, private properties that don't require anyone to be barred from an entire city, or really much of any noteworthy imposition on anyone (non-Mormon relatives who can't attend Mormon weddings is about the only thing I can think of, but even that is not some blanket imposition on the general public). There is no corresponding imposition to Mecca/SA, coming from the Mormons. SLC is a normal city, with all manner of people of various faiths living together. That the Mormons have some small private space that they gather in once a week for a few hours is not even remotely comparable to barring everyone else from an entire city.
Yeah, real cute. I'll recall your gleeful endorsement of segregated highways for keeping unclean non-believers away from one's Holy Land, next time the issue of settlements come up.
We're still talking about Mecca, right? Visitors cannot enter the city at all - the "inner sanctum" is the entire city limits.
Yes, one that goes around Mecca, and another that goes to it. Look at the signs - the one route goes to Mecca, the other to Riyadh.
I'm hoping that the above was a poorly-executed attempt at a troll, or some sort of self-effacing joke, or something. Because if that was a serious response, it's one of the stupidest I've ever seen. Like, in the "am I wasting my time talking to a 6-year-old?" category of facepalm.
And since I do not expect my leaders to hold "Christian only values," that does not apply to me. So how about you actually deal with what I've said, and in the meantime, stuff all of the nationalist browbeating back up your ass? Probably makes a decent troll when used on actual Christian nationalists, I'm sure, but what sort of foolish amateur would try such a tack against the likes of me?
Isn't that sort of broad-brush strawmannery supposed to be the sort of thing that you oppose, at least when applied to whichever identity groups you've elected yourself savior of? A little consistency would be nice, if you expect all the heroic posturing to impress anybody.
Indeed, but it's worse in some places than in others. In some cases, incomparably so - while we're all duly outraged that some tool in Australia might suggest a ban on Muslim immigration (and no doubt fail at such), this doesn't compare with Saudi Arabia's long-standing de facto ban on non-Muslim immigration. SA is a state that expressly forbids the public practice of any other religion or the burial of non-Muslims on Saudi soil. That a liberal democracy will inevitably contain some reactionary elements does not make it comparable to a theocracy that openly, proudly discriminates (and has for generations). Obviously - you'd have to be really dumb to go in for such an equivocation. So you've again raised no more issue than the one of whether you really are as dumb as you act, or if you just think your audience is.
Mostly I use a Unisex bathroom (one toilet).
When I HAVE to chose I use Male, as that is obviously the law. There once was a unisex multiple toilet at a tending Bar in the city. It was sort of interesting using a toilet in the same room as females using the toilet. It was kind of embarrassing for the females (I think) but as the night went on, it seemed like everyone was fine. These stalls were huge massive Neolithic stone monoliths, and so in the privacy of the cubical it was pretty private. Unfortunate it wasn't long before the local perverts, who are a little off in the head, were in said unisex bathroom jerking off. So, the whole experiment came to an end.
Which is why we have male and female bathrooms.
Are you suggesting that because we have male and female bathrooms, that White and Non-White bathrooms are acceptable? Or that you must have segregation because all Kaffirs are akin to Perverts who like jerking off in unisex bathrooms. You know, you wouldn't want Mecca soiled by dirty unclean Kaffirs.
I figured it out, You guys don't like other people thinking "You" are the dirty savage ones.
You deep down think we are the savage ones and it confuses your brain when we then refer to you as unclean. because you think we are all ancestors of Sand Monkeys who roll around in Taliban Caves with goats.
Forgetting that We had magnificent Temples and Monolithic structures 4000 years ago while you guys were pagans living in stone round houses and Garden sheds.
I see how White western people act towards Pakistanis, you think they smell and are dirty, and when they call you unclean it offends you and you think "Wtf how can those monkeys call us dirty"
Blunt-ness
You deep down think we are the savage ones and it confuses your brain when we then refer to you as unclean. because you think we are all ancestors of Sand Monkeys who roll around in Taliban Caves with goats.
Forgetting that We had magnificent Temples and Monolithic structures 4000 years ago while you guys were pagans living in stone round houses and Garden sheds.
I see how White western people act towards Pakistanis, you think they smell and are dirty, and when they call you unclean it offends you and you think "Wtf how can those monkeys call us dirty"
Blunt-ness