Unfortunately she's interviewing an idiot, but at least she's asking the right question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS2vCXczyEg

And here she interviews Pamela Geller about the Islamisation of America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAwGULFa2ng

Smart girl. Stay tuned.

Lol "Islamisation of America." Islam provides plenty of real threats. Let's not go making up imaginary ones.

Moronic. This whole islamisation this or that hogwash is talking about 4 to 5 percent of the general population in any given western country.

And as for Islam advocating violence - which Abrahamic religion doesn't?

Same shit different day. Just another turn of the scaremongering screw.

Just like the Bible: yes and no.

Ask any Muslim "scholar" anthing like "Is Islam violent/misogynist/homophobic etc etc?" you'll never get a straight answer. They know Islam is all of those things, but they won't admit it because they don't want the backlash. Instead they'll twist and sugar-coat it to make it sound nicer or they'll blatantly change the subject. At least the guy in the video has a bit more honesty than most do, I actually don't think he's an idiot, I think there's a fair amount of sense in what he's saying even if he's off on some things.

I think there's something to be said about "the morality of religion" if different people are getting different morality from the same text. If one person reads the Qur'an and genuinely believes it makes them a better, more loving person, while another reads exactly the same text and ends up joining al-shabaab, that means they've already picked their morality and are looking to the religion for validation. That means morality doesn't come from religion.

What, no one's gonna mention how incredibly hot she is?

OK

I wouldn't fuck her with your dick.

(July 24, 2015 at 11:15 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Ask any Muslim "scholar" anthing like "Is Islam violent/misogynist/homophobic etc etc?" you'll never get a straight answer. They know Islam is all of those things, but they won't admit it because they don't want the backlash. Instead they'll twist and sugar-coat it to make it sound nicer or they'll blatantly change the subject. At least the guy in the video has a bit more honesty than most do, I actually don't think he's an idiot, I think there's a fair amount of sense in what he's saying even if he's off on some things.

I think there's something to be said about "the morality of religion" if different people are getting different morality from the same text. If one person reads the Qur'an and genuinely believes it makes them a better, more loving person, while another reads exactly the same text and ends up joining al-shabaab, that means they've already picked their morality and are looking to the religion for validation. That means morality doesn't come from religion.

Morality exists because of our evolutionary process and it is a form of preserving our species and surviving. I think morality is strictly connected with what we call "harm" and "damage" - Meaning that what damages something or someone is usually considered immoral unless it is justified (like self-defense) - Obviously the idea and concept of what constitutes harm or damage changes with culture and social norms - Homosexuality is seen by some as perfectly normal because it doesn't hurt anyone, but for those who believe god dictates moral laws it is bad because it violates god's laws. Personally I don't think only pointing guns at people (metaphorically) speaking is immoral, there are things that do not affect me directly but I'm still interested in interfering with them and solving connected problems.

More than saying it is not violent, proponents of religion usually don't consider harmful or evil what we are now provocatively labeling as such - For example, the idea that women should be covered up is seen by most of us as harmful (only as a mandatory rule and not as a voluntary behavior which should be respected as everyone is the sole owner of their bodies and clothing habits) but for Islamic scholars it is helping women and protecting them, so it's good. For Christian priests who defend the idea that women shouldn't preach, that's correct because we are protecting women from being naive and innocent. For anti-gay preachers, being against LGBT is good because they are genuinely saving those people from eternal damnation. It is a truly fascinating moral position of self-righteousness

(July 24, 2015 at 11:20 am)Napoléon Wrote: What, no one's gonna mention how incredibly hot she is?

That's irrelevant, sexist, immature and ..... completely correct.

Definitely no "Stacy alert!" ...

Okay, for one, almost every Muslim apologist I hear defending the repugnant language used against non-Muslims, including its advocacy of violence, found in the Qur'an resorts to the tu quoque fallacy: "Yes, but just as in other holy scriptures." When I hear Christians confronted with the shit that is written in their texts, they don't say, "Yes, but it's also in the Qur'an..." Why? Well, they don't believe that holy book contains any divinely inspired truth (whereas even Mohammad obviously held the Bible in high esteem) but also because they seek to justify or delegitimize its violence by using what they perceive to be the proper historical or theological context of such barbarism. Even though that ultimately fails to persuade an outside observer, at least it's a serious effort to reconcile their moral impulse with their religious belief. But I don't hear even a significant minority of Muslims trying to say, "That language is metaphorical," or "Here, the context is clearly historical, and offset by these other passages which disavow such acts in today's world." No, instead, it's a fucking lousy tu quoque. Every goddamn time.

And then he wants to say that if you removed the religious component from the Middle East, these terrorist groups would look and behave exactly the same with regards to their violent policies because their motivated by political and socioeconomic factors? Bull-fucking-shit. Lots of people are oppressed. That doesn't typically result in mass beheadings, rapes, crucifixions, etc., for petty crimes, heaped upon their fellow oppressed who just so happen to share different views about... well, in this case, obviously theology, for which I have no idea what equivalent this Muslim apologist believes exists in the minds of jihadists that allows him to exculpate Islam from their behaviors.

And the claim that scriptures are just words on paper that each individual simply interprets and injects their own meaning into... right. As if religious tradition and the texts own clarity about how Allah and his followers ought to regard non-Muslims do not adequately explain the actions of those seeking to establish a global Caliphate. And yes, I'm aware that most Muslims do not behave this way, and it's not because they're less acquainted with their scriptures. It's because they recognize, even if unconsciously, that secular morality is far superior to the revelations of the "Prophet."