quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
See, no matter how reasonably I invite the left to discuss the actual point - they defer. Why do arabs hate the west? Is it at all possible they hate the west because their religion is at odds with western values?

How exactly did I defer? Seems to me you're the one being disingenuous here. But let me help you out. Sure, religions are great ways to start wars. That's always been true.

Now that I've agreed with you, how do you assess blowing up people's kids as a way to start a war? Because honestly that's always been pretty damned effective also.

You are suggesting that there's no way past this religious problem and I'd argue that history shows us otherwise. Combative religions have been [mostly] tamed in other instances. Why not here? But I gotta tell you that history is not filled with examples of people ignoring getting blown up and generally trampled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And yet when people provide facts about Arab culture that prove you wrong, you flip-flop over to 'Muslims' as though they were a single monolithic group
When people call you on that, you run back to talking about Arabs.

The two groups aren't the same thing, and your assertions have been debunked at both ends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
We are obliged to do all that to take your claims seriously, or we can reject your 'argument' (such as it is) and take reality seriously. Simple choice.

*chuckles* And for all that, who knows? Maybe Phydeaux is right? But I, for one, think it'd be wise to stop doing all those reprehensible things and THEN see how "Arabs" feel about us. I think it's a pretty safe bet that whatever animosity might exist theologically is probably going to be exacerbated by murdering their children and generally being atrocious.

See, no matter how reasonably I invite the left to discuss the actual point - they defer. Why do arabs hate the west? Is it at all possible they hate the west because their religion is at odds with western values?

So there are three possible choices: You can advance the argument that muslim theology is consonant with the west, and that the conflict is a result of other factors.

You can advance the argument that muslim theology might be consonant. Or you can advance the concept that perhaps muslim theology isn't consonant with western values.

How we argue (and how nations should act) will then depend on which of these three choices is correct. If muslim ideology is intractably hostile to western values, then invetably there will be conflict.

Frankly, I think the west is pretty screwed. Muslim immigrants as a percentage of european population is increasing rapidly. Muslims are vastly increasing their share of the world population. And islam is more and more becoming rdicalized.

quote:

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Laughable stuff indeed. Pay no attention to actual *math*. What is freakin amazing is your inability to understand exponential growth, or math, and an unwillingness to call a spade a spade. Lets use your words - doubling every decade.

4.8% in 2011
9.6% in 2021
19.2% in 2031
38.4% in 2041
76.8% in 2051

this says that the muslim population becomes a majority - not in 50 years - but in less than 40. Which is what the *freak* I said.
And if you go to actual estimations of muslim growth in england - you know people that actually study this crap. They say the same thing.

I am so tired of posts such as yours - providing no facts, no supporting evidence and then just ridiculing whose documented evidence disagrees with your position.

You won't even have the intellectual honesty to say. Damn. You were right - the math really does say that. And then since you won't concede the point - you won't even bother to find competing evidence - you'll just say that I'm a racist therefore it can't be true. Or wiki is a know inaccurate site or....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And yet when people provide facts about Arab culture that prove you wrong, you flip-flop over to 'Muslims' as though they were a single monolithic group
When people call you on that, you run back to talking about Arabs.

The two groups aren't the same thing, and your assertions have been debunked at both ends.





Powergamer: Your only attempt at debunking had nothing to do with the question of theology. Plus no quotes no attributions and I have thereby ignored it as I will continue to do absent any kind of evidence.

I do not pretend that Shia muslims are the same as Sunni. Or that Sufi or Druze or anyother muslim sect you care to name are the same.
However, while Muslim inheritance rules may be of vital interest to muslims, I don't think they make a hill's bit of difference to the question - is muslim theology and western civilization compatible?

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization. Cuz, ya see, I don't see it. Seems like several of those are fundamentally at odds. Pretty sure the supreme court doesn't like Poll taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization.

Actually you have just described the reality of life for women in 'Western civlisation' until the last century. That is to say, the situation as its was for the entirety of 'western civilisation's' history bar the last century or so. The current situation - that of legal equality, possessing the right to vote etc - came about as a result of political action by women at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. The current situation of women in the West is very much the exception rather than the rule if one views the question from a historical perspective.

To put that another way, all the complaints you have about Muslim attitudes towards women - "not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law" etc. - are the historical norm in the West.

That seems to answer your question about whether these 'values' are compatible with 'Western civilisation' - for most of western history, these 'values' were the very fabric of 'western civilisation'. Which underlines just how stupid and ill-informed the argument you are advancing is.

It is also worth noting that the advances in status of women in 'western civilisation' were OPPOSED bitterly by the same right wing ideologues who now trumpet the superior status of women in the West in an attempt to make the rest of us share their hatred of Muslims. A glance at the USA tells us these same ideologues are still at it today, trying to turn the clock back and reverse the political/legal/social advances made by women in the West. Which underlines just how hypocritical the argument you are advancing is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Getting desperate in your gaming... Childishly misspelling my name? Seriously? That's your big 'win'? How many more of those before you level up?

I've already provided direct links to the quotes you claimed you never posted, and you ran away... now you are back claiming no quotes. How boring.

You can't even explain what you mean in your supposedly 'core' question. As others have repeatedly asked... What western values? Scripture? War? McDonalds?

What is 'Western'? Turkey? Bosnia? California? Or is it only white people in some imaginary suburb someplace?

By 'Muslims', do you mean Arabs? Egyptians? Indonesians? Uighurs? People from various countries in Africa?




quote]ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And yet when people provide facts about Arab culture that prove you wrong, you flip-flop over to 'Muslims' as though they were a single monolithic group
When people call you on that, you run back to talking about Arabs.

The two groups aren't the same thing, and your assertions have been debunked at both ends.





Powergamer: Your only attempt at debunking had nothing to do with the question of theology. Plus no quotes no attributions and I have thereby ignored it as I will continue to do absent any kind of evidence.

I do not pretend that Shia muslims are the same as Sunni. Or that Sufi or Druze or anyother muslim sect you care to name are the same.
However, while Muslim inheritance rules may be of vital interest to muslims, I don't think they make a hill's bit of difference to the question - is muslim theology and western civilization compatible?

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization. Cuz, ya see, I don't see it. Seems like several of those are fundamentally at odds. Pretty sure the supreme court doesn't like Poll taxes.

quote:

Fact......And you will love this one..... If we stopped bombing the shit out of these places then the refugees wouldnt need to leave home

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I will say the same thing I said the last time you tried this ploy.

You are welcome to advance any significant, mainstream Islamic religion to make your argument. If you question what is meant by "Western" (really??) then to simplify the question for you to answer I would say you are free to use any g-7 civilization that you wish to make your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Getting desperate in your gaming... Childishly misspelling my name? Seriously? That's your big 'win'? How many more of those before you level up?

I've already provided direct links to the quotes you claimed you never posted, and you ran away... now you are back claiming no quotes. How boring.

You can't even explain what you mean in your supposedly 'core' question. As others have repeatedly asked... What western values? Scripture? War? McDonalds?

What is 'Western'? Turkey? Bosnia? California? Or is it only white people in some imaginary suburb someplace?

By 'Muslims', do you mean Arabs? Egyptians? Indonesians? Uighurs? People from various countries in Africa?




quote]ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And yet when people provide facts about Arab culture that prove you wrong, you flip-flop over to 'Muslims' as though they were a single monolithic group
When people call you on that, you run back to talking about Arabs.

The two groups aren't the same thing, and your assertions have been debunked at both ends.





Powergamer: Your only attempt at debunking had nothing to do with the question of theology. Plus no quotes no attributions and I have thereby ignored it as I will continue to do absent any kind of evidence.

I do not pretend that Shia muslims are the same as Sunni. Or that Sufi or Druze or anyother muslim sect you care to name are the same.
However, while Muslim inheritance rules may be of vital interest to muslims, I don't think they make a hill's bit of difference to the question - is muslim theology and western civilization compatible?

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization. Cuz, ya see, I don't see it. Seems like several of those are fundamentally at odds. Pretty sure the supreme court doesn't like Poll taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization.

Actually you have just described the reality of life for women in 'Western civlisation' until the last century. That is to say, the situation as its was for the entirety of 'western civilisation's' history bar the last century or so. The current situation - that of legal equality, possessing the right to vote etc - came about as a result of political action by women at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. The current situation of women in the West is very much the exception rather than the rule if one views the question from a historical perspective.

To put that another way, all the complaints you have about Muslim attitudes towards women - "not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law" etc. - are the historical norm in the West.

That seems to answer your question about whether these 'values' are compatible with 'Western civilisation' - for most of western history, these 'values' were the very fabric of 'western civilisation'. Which underlines just how stupid and ill-informed the argument you are advancing is.

It is also worth noting that the advances in status of women in 'western civilisation' were OPPOSED bitterly by the same right wing ideologues who now trumpet the superior status of women in the West in an attempt to make the rest of us share their hatred of Muslims. A glance at the USA tells us these same ideologues are still at it today, trying to turn the clock back and reverse the political/legal/social advances made by women in the West. Which underlines just how hypocritical the argument you are advancing is.

Certainly and thats about the best argument anyone has advanced in the argument tweak.
However, the question (again) isn't what happened 200 or 100 years ago. Western civilization has evolved past denying women the vote, property ownership etc. Muslim religion hasn't. Thats one of several legs of my argument.

Your answer seems to boill down to - "muslim religion isn't compatible now, but it might evolve to be so in a few hundred years."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

That wont wash. You cant tar every Muslim as a fundamentalist, just as you cant tar every Christian as a fundementalist.

How far back would you go before you consider something not to be "current events" 10 years, 20, 50 ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Laughable........ 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Americas inquries after 9/11 admitted that. Yes, you got me on the Muslim/Arab thing.....Just.

quote:

How far back would you go before you consider something not to be "current events" 10 years, 20, 50 ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And where exactly does 'the Muslim religion' deny women the right to vote?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_women%27s_suffrage_in_majority-Muslim_countries

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization.

Actually you have just described the reality of life for women in 'Western civlisation' until the last century. That is to say, the situation as its was for the entirety of 'western civilisation's' history bar the last century or so. The current situation - that of legal equality, possessing the right to vote etc - came about as a result of political action by women at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. The current situation of women in the West is very much the exception rather than the rule if one views the question from a historical perspective.

To put that another way, all the complaints you have about Muslim attitudes towards women - "not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law" etc. - are the historical norm in the West.

That seems to answer your question about whether these 'values' are compatible with 'Western civilisation' - for most of western history, these 'values' were the very fabric of 'western civilisation'. Which underlines just how stupid and ill-informed the argument you are advancing is.

It is also worth noting that the advances in status of women in 'western civilisation' were OPPOSED bitterly by the same right wing ideologues who now trumpet the superior status of women in the West in an attempt to make the rest of us share their hatred of Muslims. A glance at the USA tells us these same ideologues are still at it today, trying to turn the clock back and reverse the political/legal/social advances made by women in the West. Which underlines just how hypocritical the argument you are advancing is.

Certainly and thats about the best argument anyone has advanced in the argument tweak.
However, the question (again) isn't what happened 200 or 100 years ago. Western civilization has evolved past denying women the vote, property ownership etc. Muslim religion hasn't. Thats one of several legs of my argument.

Your answer seems to boill down to - "muslim religion isn't compatible now, but it might evolve to be so in a few hundred years."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You are free to provide examples of why you think muslim theology is compatible with western civilization. Feel free to show how / why muslim jurisprudence is compatible with western civiliation. Or why rules like not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law, poll taxes for non muslims.

Show me how these are good for western civilization.

Actually you have just described the reality of life for women in 'Western civlisation' until the last century. That is to say, the situation as its was for the entirety of 'western civilisation's' history bar the last century or so. The current situation - that of legal equality, possessing the right to vote etc - came about as a result of political action by women at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. The current situation of women in the West is very much the exception rather than the rule if one views the question from a historical perspective.

To put that another way, all the complaints you have about Muslim attitudes towards women - "not working outside the house, remaining covered at all times, inability to own businesses, half shares of inheritance, unequal treatment under the law" etc. - are the historical norm in the West.

That seems to answer your question about whether these 'values' are compatible with 'Western civilisation' - for most of western history, these 'values' were the very fabric of 'western civilisation'. Which underlines just how stupid and ill-informed the argument you are advancing is.

It is also worth noting that the advances in status of women in 'western civilisation' were OPPOSED bitterly by the same right wing ideologues who now trumpet the superior status of women in the West in an attempt to make the rest of us share their hatred of Muslims. A glance at the USA tells us these same ideologues are still at it today, trying to turn the clock back and reverse the political/legal/social advances made by women in the West. Which underlines just how hypocritical the argument you are advancing is.

Certainly and thats about the best argument anyone has advanced in the argument tweak.
However, the question (again) isn't what happened 200 or 100 years ago. Western civilization has evolved past denying women the vote, property ownership etc. Muslim religion hasn't. Thats one of several legs of my argument.

Your answer seems to boill down to - "muslim religion isn't compatible now, but it might evolve to be so in a few hundred years."