Kyle Kulinski on Obama's "Religion Doesn't Kill"
February 21, 2015 at 12:52 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2015 at 1:20 am by mralstoner.)
Kyle Kulinski, of Secular Talk Radio, comments on Obama's address to the Countering Violent Extremism summit.
My comments below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WW7ZTRHg0A
I agree with Kyle's suggestion of substituting the word "cult" for religion, to see how absurd Obama's claim is that "Religion doesn't kill, people kill". It's patently obvious that a cult/religion has a set of clear ideas that influence their followers.
But I disagree with his suggestion that liberals and moderate Muslims should call ISIS what they are i.e. Muslim fundamentalists or Islamic extremists.
Yes, liberals can and should do this.
But moderate Muslims, generally speaking, will not do so, for the simple reasons that (a) it immediately opens up Islam to a debate about "Who's interpretation is correct? i.e. Who are the true Muslims?" and then (b) there is way too much material in favour of the ISIS interpretation that makes it very hard for moderate Muslims to defend.
Generally speaking, you find moderate Muslims very evasive when it comes to these sensitive matters such as the mountain of violence committed by Mohammed. They won't debate, they avoid the topic. Only a few crazy moderate Muslims will debate.
For instance, in a BBC debate, Douglas Murray raised the fact that Mohammed sanctioned the killing of a poet, and immediately the moderate Muslim shut the debate down, and the BBC wiped the question from the broadcast:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenf...er-of-poet
And this gets back to Obama's motivation. I don't think it's only strategy that is motivating Obama. Obama's identity is partly Muslim, and he is acting like a moderate Muslim here i.e. shutting down debate for the reasons mentioned above.
The bottom line is: don't look to moderate Muslims, or Obama, for the solution, because they can't face the reality of looking honestly at Islamic doctrine, because the consequences are HUMILIATING for them i.e. the weight of evidence is in favour of the ISIS interpretation, which implies that moderate Muslims might be flag bearers for a truly repulsive head-chopping religion.
Forget moderate Muslims. Forget Islamic reform. It will never happen. No moderate or reformer would go anywhere near Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed. No moderate would base anything on the lineage of Mohammed.
Instead, Westerners must act to isolate and contain Muslim populations. That is the only sane solution to the existential threat of Islam. This doesn't involve containment camps, and it doesn't involve returning Muslims to their homelands, as some hysterical opportunists try to demonise me with, but it does involve a clear separation of Western and Muslim populations. Build them a freaking Disneyland state to live in, if you want to, but Islam and the West are inherently antagonistic and must be devolved into separate areas.
My comments below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WW7ZTRHg0A
I agree with Kyle's suggestion of substituting the word "cult" for religion, to see how absurd Obama's claim is that "Religion doesn't kill, people kill". It's patently obvious that a cult/religion has a set of clear ideas that influence their followers.
But I disagree with his suggestion that liberals and moderate Muslims should call ISIS what they are i.e. Muslim fundamentalists or Islamic extremists.
Yes, liberals can and should do this.
But moderate Muslims, generally speaking, will not do so, for the simple reasons that (a) it immediately opens up Islam to a debate about "Who's interpretation is correct? i.e. Who are the true Muslims?" and then (b) there is way too much material in favour of the ISIS interpretation that makes it very hard for moderate Muslims to defend.
Generally speaking, you find moderate Muslims very evasive when it comes to these sensitive matters such as the mountain of violence committed by Mohammed. They won't debate, they avoid the topic. Only a few crazy moderate Muslims will debate.
For instance, in a BBC debate, Douglas Murray raised the fact that Mohammed sanctioned the killing of a poet, and immediately the moderate Muslim shut the debate down, and the BBC wiped the question from the broadcast:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenf...er-of-poet
And this gets back to Obama's motivation. I don't think it's only strategy that is motivating Obama. Obama's identity is partly Muslim, and he is acting like a moderate Muslim here i.e. shutting down debate for the reasons mentioned above.
The bottom line is: don't look to moderate Muslims, or Obama, for the solution, because they can't face the reality of looking honestly at Islamic doctrine, because the consequences are HUMILIATING for them i.e. the weight of evidence is in favour of the ISIS interpretation, which implies that moderate Muslims might be flag bearers for a truly repulsive head-chopping religion.
Forget moderate Muslims. Forget Islamic reform. It will never happen. No moderate or reformer would go anywhere near Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed. No moderate would base anything on the lineage of Mohammed.
Instead, Westerners must act to isolate and contain Muslim populations. That is the only sane solution to the existential threat of Islam. This doesn't involve containment camps, and it doesn't involve returning Muslims to their homelands, as some hysterical opportunists try to demonise me with, but it does involve a clear separation of Western and Muslim populations. Build them a freaking Disneyland state to live in, if you want to, but Islam and the West are inherently antagonistic and must be devolved into separate areas.
