Fundamentalism Doesn’t Discriminate

I thought this article might run in conjunction with the Sam Harris one and stir a few more thoughts:



New Atheism simplicity is the byproduct of collective groupthink, and the internalization of self-congratulatory jingoistic clichés and generalizations. They know because they know, and there’s no reasoning with someone who knows.”
– CJ Werleman





CJ Werleman’s latest book [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1908675349?keywords=the new atheist threat&qid=1445625293&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1]The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists[/url] acts as a nice companion to Chris Hedges’ 2008 book I Don’t Believe in Atheists. In his latest treatise, Werleman takes the reader on an account of his emotional transformation from an atheist with a “live and let live” attitude about religion to a New Atheist “I must erase all religions” fundamentalism after his experience being a witness to the 2005 suicide bombing in Bali, Indonesia. This transformation was later followed by an intellectual return to his former “live and let live” self with the added evidence-based rational justification for doing so. More importantly, Werleman uses his personal journey to issue a warning that although they hide behind slogans of rationalism and humanism, New Atheists are bigoted and provide intellectual justifications for violence against those who do not buy into their worldview.

As opposed to seeing all human on human violence to be primarily driven by religious beliefs, Werleman outlines why such a view is simpleton at best. Human societies are a little more complicated than to reduce their behaviour to a single factor or to see them in a clear good vs. evil dichotomy. Given the subject and the title, it is of little wonder why Werleman would garner negative reviews from those who felt this book was about them. After all, fundamentalists know how to dish it out, but they have a very strong aversion to pushback, especially one that obeys rules they refuse to abide by, such as citing evidence and using logic.

New Atheists, a term that refers to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and their fanboys are a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to spreading the message that eradicating the world of religion is the only way to save humanity. The rise of this form of fundamentalism is not all that surprising. Existence of anything in the world is contingent upon the existence of its opposite. Hence, fanatic religious extremism whether it is in the form of the Christian Right in America or the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia is bound to fertilize the soil from which New Atheists will sprout. Both are sides of the same fundamentalist coin, claiming to be the vanguards of Truth and saviours of humanity. Their message is the same: if everyone believed in exactly the same things we believe in, and precisely the way we believe in them, we would finally achieve the utopia we all dream of living in. Confronted with complexity of reality, atheist and religious fundamentalists become agitated. To their minds, the world must be seen as a constant struggle between good and evil, right and wrong, black and white. To a fundamentalist, the shallow end of the beach represents the depth of the ocean. Their immediate experience is all that matters:

“Educated, predominantly white, and middle class, New Atheists live comfortably in the well-to-do suburbs of developed nations. They might experience the typical hardships that life too often hurls towards all of us, but they don’t know the despair realized in the former Western colonies. They don’t know what it’s like to survive on less than $2 per day under a regime that crushes personal liberty and freedom. New Atheists don’t know what it’s like to be racially vilified, profiled by security agencies, tortured, bombed, occupied, and imprisoned without trial. Nor do they know what it feels like to have absolutely no control over their future, or anything, that resembles third world hopelessness. Instead of seeking to understand the Other, or to put themselves in the Other’s shoes, New Atheists pontificate their material superiority. While they engage in gross generalizations and demonization of the Muslim world, they forget that the comforts of their Western lifestyle are made affordable thanks to the Muslims who work in sweat shops throughout Indonesia and Bangladesh.


‘Affluent, white, male, cishetero, New Atheists have a serious victimhood complex; they constantly complain about how they are supposedly ‘oppressed’ by religious society (but certainly not by imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy). Yet they write for mainstream corporate publications; they work at prestigious institutions or universities; many are household names,’ notes journalist Ben Horton.


The fixation on religion as the root of the world’s problems is completely at odds with reality. In fact, it’s utterly delusional.

This delusion is a byproduct of an obsession with reductive methods of inquiry taken from science with the assumption they will be valid elsewhere. William A. Stahl, Professor of Sociology at the Luther College at the University of Regina, points this out in his essay “One-Dimensional Rage: The Social Epistemology of the New Atheism and Fundamentalism” where he notes how New Atheists assume that “religion can be abstracted and reduced to cognitive beliefs separated from culture…[which] is a one-dimensional and impoverished understanding of religion.” This delusion is further reinforced by the echo chamber they operate within as Werleman points out how New Atheists have constructed an intellectual scene for themselves that excludes everyone but New Atheists, which has made them into a “full-throated cult.” Being a cult, New Atheists are the last people to recognize they are a cult, which also mirrors the state of religious fundamentalists as Stahl observes:

“New Atheism and fundamentalism present us with two totalities: closed, one dimensional, and incommensurable systems of thought, neither capable of persuading the other nor anyone else not already party to their assumptions, and with no common standard of evaluation. Each can only be maintained by the will to power of its adherents. Beneath the rage and polemics of both groups lies nihilism.“

The problem with New Atheists and religious fundamentalists is that neither side believes there is a chance that the problems we face in the world today may just be a reflection of our own internal states. Both proceed from the position that everything and everyone else external to themselves is in disorder and chaos, and only they alone have the solution. The arrogance, self-righteousness, and derogatory language employed to describe those who do not ascribe to their worldview are all signs of total lack of introspection. This may very well be a defence mechanism, because once one engages in such self-questioning, doubts will follow. It is in certainty that fundamentalists find solace. Once again Stahl notes:

“For all their outward differences, the New Atheists and fundamentalists mirror each other in their epistemology. Both are engaged in a quest for certainty, for an authoritative foundation that can ground a normative order. Both claim to find certainty through their beliefs, understood as intellectual assent to a series of propositions. Although obviously the content of their beliefs are different, there is symmetry to the structure of how they go about believing. And both groups display a ‘Cartesian anxiety,’ in that both see deviation from their foundational cognitive order as directly threatening to moral order as well.”

Werleman has deviated from the New Atheist cognitive order, and as a result of his apostasy he has received much anger, backlash, and even threats from New Atheists. As a previous resident of the New Atheist Echo Chamber, Werleman’s understands why he may have difficulty convincing the Dawkins and Harris’ diehard fans. But anyone who is on the edge may be open enough to heed his warning against this pseudo intellectual cult.

There is an important criticism regarding Werleman’s treatment of Islam and Muslims. Although he took an important step towards understanding Islam and Muslims that goes beyond the facile quoting of isolated passages from the Quran or Hadith as Harris’ often does, Werleman has unfortunately restricted his academic investigations to authors on comparative religion like Karen Armstrong and professors like Reza Aslan, who are quoted extensively by Werleman. While Armstrong and Aslan may be considered public intellectuals with published books, neither one can authentically speak for Muslims, and this is more crucial a point to make about Aslan than Armstrong.

The notoriety Aslan has gained among many Muslims over the past year is a byproduct of him speaking up against New Atheists like Bill Maher for their facile arguments against Islam. It is the same reason why Ben Affleck gained more Muslim fans than he ever could have dreamt of after he told Sam Harris and Bill Maher that their views on Islam are “gross” and “racist”. Muslims have been on the receiving end of much stigmatization in the media, and having anyone come to their defence was bound to make them instant celebrities for Muslims. However, outside of his defence of Muslims, Aslan has hardly, if ever, said much on how Muslims actually view their faith at a personal level that would resonate with practicing Muslims. He offers his personal views on religion in general as a valid objective interpretation for results obtained from polls on Muslim beliefs. This became very clear after his tweet this past August, which many average Muslims, scholars of Islamic studies and non-scholars alike, have disavowed:


Aslan’s views on Islam and Muslims and why they say or do certain things may be acceptable in a Western Orientalist academic book or setting. He says what the intelligentsia wants to hear about religion and genesis and influence in society. But much of his statements have no merit for Muslims when asked to assess their veracity to Muslim experience. It would have given Werleman more authenticity and gained him a better understanding of Muslims, the Quran, and how Muslims approach their tradition if he interviewed active imams, scholars, and Muslim community leaders such as Omar Suleiman, Suhaib Webb, and Nouman Ali Khan just to name a few. There is a false sense of objectivity in looking at behaviour and extrapolating one’s own explanations for them. Nevertheless, despite this shortcoming, it does not invalidate everything on Islam and Muslims that Werleman has put forth in this book.

Indeed, The New Atheist Threat is a valuable and necessary contribution to the battle against bigotry and fundamentalism no matter what title it goes under.

http://mohamedghilan.com/2015/10/27/fundamentalism-doesnt-discriminate/

I'm on the way to work Sass, can you summarize? Lol

Not really love, read it when you come back, have a good day now y'all lol

Reza Aslan is a coward and does not want to deal with the problems found with religion.

Harris does and hence why he has colloborated with a Muslim to help deal with the problems

As usual sassy rushes to defend the indenfensible and attack the very people who set are to deal with the problems in Islam

I mean lets face it in countless Muslim majority countries many are persecuted and people like you want to stick your head constantly in the sand

Ah. Aslan. I already lost interest. He is a slanderer who deliberately misquotes Harris and NEVER responds when called out on it.

Sass tell me how it is Sam Harris has such a good working relationship with Nawaz and the Quilliam
Foundation?

Didge wrote:Reza Aslan is a coward and does not want to deal with the problems found with religion.

Harris does and hence why he has colloborated with a Muslim to help deal with the problems

As usual sassy rushes to defend the indenfensible and attack the very people who set are to deal with the problems in Islam

I mean lets face it in countless Muslim majority countries many are persecuted and people like you want to stick your head constantly in the sand

My God    that is the exact thing Abrahamist Said when spreading their religion by the gun   would you destroy all the temples, churches and mosques too?

Example:
DO you support Iran being allowed to Attack secularists in the UK?
If you don't you are a hypocrite.
Cause their right to do so is equal the Brits right to attack religion in Iran.

So IF Atheist are going to 'deal with the problem in Islam' who is going to 'deal with the ever growing list of problem in new atheism'...  Are agnostics supposed to And you can say there is no problems in new atheism but YES there is... any one that is not a new atheist can see and feel it in the attitude of new atheists. they are increasingly looking like the next group wackadoodle fundamentalists.

fucking swings and round-a-bouts


the most accurate statement in the OP

The problem with New Atheists and religious fundamentalists is that neither side believes there is a chance that the problems we face in the world today may just be a reflection of our own internal states

You cant 'fix' something that is already operating as designed. a point seeming lost on new atheists.
man is but an animal, If you believe in Science than there is no evidence to suggest homo sapiens is capable of the sort of logical social cohesion new atheist seem to think is the default state. it has never really existed before now, man has always used tribes, bloodlines, religions and nations to bind our groups together.

Considering you just i9nvented more bullshit Veya, and my non-beliefs  are not a growing problem, as non-beliefs do not have any doctrines that are a problem to anyone.

Stop inventing bullshit

I can certainly speak out on the bullshit religions whih effect the well being and equality of others, where athiesm does not effect anyone.

Eilzel wrote:Ah. Aslan. I already lost interest. He is a slanderer who deliberately misquotes Harris and NEVER responds when called out on it.

Sass tell me how it is Sam Harris has such a good working relationship with Nawaz and the Quilliam
Foundation?

Because this is what Maajid does. He gets inside you to either destroy or nullify your agenda. And there are signs this is working with Sam. Sam has given up on the idea of destroying religious faith and wants to me more pragmatic and would like to see religious reform instead. Maajid will them lead him towards a reform that actually doesn't do anything to Muslims but placates people like Sam.

It's not the first time Maajid has done this. Sam would have had a more honest relationship with Reza.

I was more interested in Werleman's view at the beginning, an atheist himself, who became a, for won't of a better term  'New Atheist' after witnessing the Bali bombings, but who went back to his previous stance of live and let live afte he had had time for reflection.

More importantly, Werleman uses his personal journey to issue a warning that although they hide behind slogans of rationalism and humanism, New Atheists are bigoted and provide intellectual justifications for violence against those who do not buy into their worldview.

As opposed to seeing all human on human violence to be primarily driven by religious beliefs, Werleman outlines why such a view is simpleton at best. Human societies are a little more complicated than to reduce their behaviour to a single factor or to see them in a clear good vs. evil dichotomy. Given the subject and the title, it is of little wonder why Werleman would garner negative reviews from those who felt this book was about them. After all, fundamentalists know how to dish it out, but they have a very strong aversion to pushback, especially one that obeys rules they refuse to abide by, such as citing evidence and using logic.

Les - how come he had a good working relationship with Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation?   So did Tommy Robinson, and look at him now.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Ah. Aslan. I already lost interest. He is a slanderer who deliberately misquotes Harris and NEVER responds when called out on it.

Sass tell me how it is Sam Harris has such a good working relationship with Nawaz and the Quilliam
Foundation?

Because this is what Maajid does. He gets inside you to either destroy or nullify your agenda. And there are signs this is working with Sam. Sam has given up on the idea of destroying religious faith and wants to me more pragmatic and would like  to see religious reform instead. Maajid will them lead him towards a reform that actually doesn't do anything to Muslims but placates people like Sam.

It's not the first time Maajid has done this. Sam would have had a more honest relationship with Reza.

PMSL, like you, Reza, is a deciever  who tries to hide the problems that is found within Muslims and how they easily interpret text to ill effect, of which is the major problem found within the Islamic world.
As if you speak or even understand Maajid, just makes me laugh.
What is needed is to stop pussyfooting around and for Muslims to be counted as all that is happenning is more and more people are seeing them as untrustwrothy and not people who integrate into society.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Because this is what Maajid does. He gets inside you to either destroy or nullify your agenda. And there are signs this is working with Sam. Sam has given up on the idea of destroying religious faith and wants to me more pragmatic and would like  to see religious reform instead. Maajid will them lead him towards a reform that actually doesn't do anything to Muslims but placates people like Sam.

It's not the first time Maajid has done this. Sam would have had a more honest relationship with Reza.

PMSL, like you, Reza, is a deciever  who tries to hide the problems that is found within Muslims and how they easily interpret text to ill effect, of which is the major problem found within the Islamic world.
As if you speak or even understand Maajid, just makes me laugh.
What is needed is to stop pussyfooting around and for Muslims to be counted as all that is happenning is more and more people are seeing them as untrustwrothy and not people who integrate into society.

Don't ever try and pretend that you are not a racist and a bigot again and claim that you are the knight fighting the good fight against racism.  I'm not the only one who has seen what bigot you have become.

If ever anyone wanted proof of the fact sassy is as thick as fuck, see her last post.

So you aprove of the islamic doctrine that casts homosexuals as criminals then Sassy?

You aprove of men being able to beat their wives? Of course being critical of this according to sassy is racism, which shows how thick as fuck the old bat is.

Racism is a view of superiority of a race, of which races are a social construct, showing you have not got the first clue, and it is idiotic apologists like you that stand by and allow prejudice within the islamic faith towwards many groups of people. I am also right more and more people are distrustful of Muslims and this is because people see them do little to stand up and counter these problems.

Take for example ISIS, I mean how many Fatwa's have been issued by imans against them? If anything we should see tens of thousands of them do so, but why is it this is not the case? This is why more and more people are distrustful, we see Muslims be vocal on Muslim issues like the Palestinians or Syria, but do you seem them vocal on many other problems?
No


So it has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with the concerns of people which idiots like you are the worst form of apologist who defends the poor doctrines found in Islam. I do not see Zack or yourself be vocal against apostacy, where many cannot even leave the faith of Islam. I do not see you both denounce the sharia criminal laws in many Muslim countries where countless are persecuted. So spare the racism bullshit, the pair of you do very little to deal with the ongoing issues in Muslim majority countries and you are certainly not vocal about it.

Yes, Didge is a bigot and is increasingly speaking like a Nazi. That paragraph in bold is just one of many indications.

I'm afraid Les is going the same way. Shame.

They are falling for an association fallacy, just like Smelly.

@Didge -

1. Sassy or I don't have to speak out about apostasy - Islamic scholars are doing that just fine. Just because you don't see it does not mean it doesn't happen

2. About Maajid, the results have already and will continue to speak for themselves. Just remember who told you first. Thank you. ;-)

Didge wrote:If ever anyone wanted proof of the fact sassy is as thick as fuck, see her last post.

So you aprove of the islamic doctrine that casts homosexuals as criminals then Sassy?

You aprove of men being able to beat their wives? Of course being critical of this according to sassy is racism, which shows how thick as fuck the old bat is.

Racism is a view of superiority of a race, of which races are a social construct, showing you have not got the first clue, and it is idiotic apologists like you that stand by and allow prejudice within the islamic faith towwards many groups of people. I am also right more and more people are distrustful of Muslims and this is because people see them do little to stand up and counter these problems.

Take for example ISIS, I mean how many Fatwa's have been issued by imans against them? If anything we should see tens of thousands of them do so, but why is it this is not the case? This is why more and more people are distrustful, we see Muslims be vocal on Muslim issues like the Palestinians or Syria, but do you seem them vocal on many other problems?
No


So it has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with the concerns of people which idiots like you are the worst form of apologist who defends the poor doctrines found in Islam. I do not see Zack or yourself be vocal against apostacy, where many cannot even leave the faith of Islam. I do not see you both denounce the sharia criminal laws in many Muslim countries where countless are persecuted. So spare the racism bullshit, the pair of you do very little to deal with the ongoing issues in Muslim majority countries and you are certainly not vocal about it.

Classic deflection and loss of temper. How long before you go "full retard" again?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yes, Didge is a bigot and is increasingly speaking like a Nazi. That paragraph in bold is just one of many indications.

I'm afraid Les is going the same way. Shame.

They are falling for an association fallacy, just like Smelly.

@Didge -

1. Sassy or I don't have to speak out about apostasy - Islamic scholars are doing that just fine. Just because you don't see it does not mean it doesn't happen

2. About Maajid, the results have already and will continue to speak for themselves. Just remember who told you first. Thank you. ;-)

OMG its gets funnier by the minute, you being the one that went mental when gay marriage rightly became a reality and you have the cheek to call others bigots, and stiil defend the wrongs done in the name of your faith and still back the prejudice stance you have against homosexuals.

Well let me make this clear for you

I am bigoted against racism, homophobia, religious extremism.
Does that make me a bad person?

No, it means I will stand up and challenge the idiotic beliefs that lead to the extremism found within your faith.

Well your imans are not doing a very good job are they, which means also that yolu really do not care to do anything yourself

I mean you will happilly go to a protest to back your antisemitism, but will you organise a protest against Saudi, Iran, Isis, the Taliban etc?

No

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:If ever anyone wanted proof of the fact sassy is as thick as fuck, see her last post.

So you aprove of the islamic doctrine that casts homosexuals as criminals then Sassy?

You aprove of men being able to beat their wives? Of course being critical of this according to sassy is racism, which shows how thick as fuck the old bat is.

Racism is a view of superiority of a race, of which races are a social construct, showing you have not got the first clue, and it is idiotic apologists like you that stand by and allow prejudice within the islamic faith towwards many groups of people. I am also right more and more people are distrustful of Muslims and this is because people see them do little to stand up and counter these problems.

Take for example ISIS, I mean how many Fatwa's have been issued by imans against them? If anything we should see tens of thousands of them do so, but why is it this is not the case? This is why more and more people are distrustful, we see Muslims be vocal on Muslim issues like the Palestinians or Syria, but do you seem them vocal on many other problems?
No


So it has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with the concerns of people which idiots like you are the worst form of apologist who defends the poor doctrines found in Islam. I do not see Zack or yourself be vocal against apostacy, where many cannot even leave the faith of Islam. I do not see you both denounce the sharia criminal laws in many Muslim countries where countless are persecuted. So spare the racism bullshit, the pair of you do very little to deal with the ongoing issues in Muslim majority countries and you are certainly not vocal about it.

Classic deflection and loss of temper. How long before you go "full retard" again?

Sorry all I read was baa, baa, baaa, baaaaa.


Now you claim Nazism, and have no clue of history or the doctrine of nazism

Typical clueless Muslim, who does nothing to deal with problems in the islamic faith but promotes antisemitism through the guise of anti-zionism.
You are the racist with your jew hatred and its so effect that jews are now getting attacked on planes and in the streets of the US since the rise of stabbings in Israel.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Classic deflection and loss of temper. How long before you go "full retard" again?

Sorry all I read was baa, baa, baaa, baaaaa.


Now you claim Nazism, and have no clue of history or the doctrine of nazism

Typical clueless Muslim, who does nothing to deal with problems in the islamic faith but promotes antisemitism through the guise of anti-zionism.
You are the racist with your jew hatred and its so effect that jews are now getting attacked on planes and in the streets of the US since the rise of stabbings in Israel.

Lol! You're putting the blame of antisemitism square on my shoulders.

That just shows how ridiculous you are.

You've been angry for how many days now? Please go to a doctor to check your blood pressure.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry all I read was baa, baa, baaa, baaaaa.


Now you claim Nazism, and have no clue of history or the doctrine of nazism

Typical clueless Muslim, who does nothing to deal with problems in the islamic faith but promotes antisemitism through the guise of anti-zionism.
You are the racist with your jew hatred and its so effect that jews are now getting attacked on planes and in the streets of the US since the rise of stabbings in Israel.

Lol! You're putting the blame of antisemitism square on my shoulders.

That just shows how ridiculous you are.

You've been angry for how many days now? Please go to a doctor to check your blood pressure.

You are a jew hater, that is evidenct with your hatred of anti-zionism and it is used as a ploy to get around antisemitism
That is evident when you use it all the time poorly to call anyone who rightful defends the right of Israel to exists.
There is countless of you and other Muslims, that have no connection to Palestine but Islam and with a hatred of jews.
I mean have you once denounced any of the violence towards the Israeli's since all the stabbings started?

No

It has nothing to do with anger you twat, it has everything to do with ousting you for the racist low life that you are.

Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

Its the apologoist get out responsiblity clause, call people who rightly challenge poor beliefs bigots.

Well I rightly am bigoted against racism and homophobia.

Does that makes us bad people Eilzel?

No, its just the pathetic deflection card played by those who wish to deny problems.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! You're putting the blame of antisemitism square on my shoulders.

That just shows how ridiculous you are.

You've been angry for how many days now? Please go to a doctor to check your blood pressure.

You are a jew hater, that is evidenct with your hatred of anti-zionism and it is used as a ploy to get around antisemitism
That is evident when you use it all the time poorly to call anyone who rightful defends the right of Israel to exists.
There is countless of you and other Muslims, that have no connection to Palestine but Islam and with a hatred of jews.
I mean have you once denounced any of the violence towards the Israeli's since all the stabbings started?

No

It has nothing to do with anger you twat, it has everything to do with ousting you for the racist low life that you are.

Why just since the stabbings? Lol! How strange. Do you condone the violence against innocent Israelis before the stabbings?

I condemn murder in all its forms and against any person of any faith.

Your antisemitism is evident when you accuse the same of Jews who support Palestine.

You think you're ousting me as a racist? Lol! I'm not the only poster calling you a bigot and many more are seeing your true colours. And Cindi Lauper was wrong, they're not as beautiful as a rainbow. ;-)

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

Its the apologoist get out responsiblity clause, call people who rightly challenge poor beliefs bigots.

Well I rightly am bigoted against racism and homophobia.

Does that makes us bad people Eilzel?

No, its just the pathetic deflection card played by those who wish to deny problems.

I'm happily bigoted against those things too didge.

^Sass, it is odd how you just about never say a word against homophobia and sexism within Islam.

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

Ive seen your posts in the past.

You just hold it in when SM is around.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

You are a jew hater, that is evidenct with your hatred of anti-zionism and it is used as a ploy to get around antisemitism
That is evident when you use it all the time poorly to call anyone who rightful defends the right of Israel to exists.
There is countless of you and other Muslims, that have no connection to Palestine but Islam and with a hatred of jews.
I mean have you once denounced any of the violence towards the Israeli's since all the stabbings started?

No

It has nothing to do with anger you twat, it has everything to do with ousting you for the racist low life that you are.

Why just since the stabbings? Lol! How strange. Do you condone the violence against innocent Israelis before the stabbings?

I condemn murder in all its forms and against any person of any faith.

Your antisemitism is evident when you accuse the same of Jews who support Palestine.

You think you're ousting me as a racist? Lol! I'm not the only poster calling you a bigot and many more are seeing your true colours. And Cindi Lauper was wrong, they're not as beautiful as a rainbow. ;-)

Epic deflection

Did you actually condemn any of the attacks in the above post?

No

I support a two state solution, which means I back Palestine having a nation, so bang goes your theory on me being anti Jew. I rightly questions some Jews who are maqking idiotic remarks that just incite violence.
The fact is you have been to protests on Israel, but have you on Saudi, Iran, the taliban, Isis?
No, it further proves that you will ignore far worse problems and centre a hate on Jews. You even deny a two state solution, which means you do not belive Israel should exist which is racist in itself.
I have got wise to your racism and Sassy is the same, she does not care at all with Jews dying and has even poorly tries to claim armed ressitance under occupation, which means she tries to justify terrorism. She has presented false maps which argue against Israel existing and I see the stance made by the likes of you BDS muppets who are 100% racist low life;s.


So this cleric the other day said how wrong it was to attack Jews and has since made a u-turn.
Will you condemn  his words?

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5146.htm

Btw: tolerance of intolerance is cowardice means you should be intolerant towards intolerance.

Do you not see how that makes you a hypocrite?

Or at the very least, illogical.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

Ive seen your posts in the past.

You just hold it in when SM is around.

When are you going to stop using sexy, when she is not here to answer for herself all the time, as if you think this will stop me speaking out on the wrongs in your faith?
Its so childish thinking I will not say the same, because believe me, I am not pandering to people who fail to do anything about the problems which are a massive problem within your reliligion and no matter amount of using your immature bigot card, will save you from having to debate this.
Grow the fuck up you silly child and start doing something about the wrongs in your faith, before too many people are turned to hatred against Muslims, the last thing I want to see happen.
Can you not see how this is slaowly happenning, or are you too thick to understand this?

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

I most certainly don't think you are a bigot, because I think you are completely different from Didge, but I do think that you don't see him for what he is, a person who thinks its ok to kill young boys if they throw a stone and use them for organ donation without permission.  He is happy for the Israeli's to kill young women at checkpoints when they have just gone through metal detectors that show they have no metal, pretending THEY are doing the attacking because they don't want to raise their veil and there is a barrier between them, shooting schoolgirls who have just come out of school waiting for a bus etc, and HE THINKS ITS OK TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS!!    You are a really decent bloke, the fact that we don't agree on things in neither here nor there.  Didge is a monster, there is no other word for it.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why just since the stabbings? Lol! How strange. Do you condone the violence against innocent Israelis before the stabbings?

I condemn murder in all its forms and against any person of any faith.

Your antisemitism is evident when you accuse the same of Jews who support Palestine.

You think you're ousting me as a racist? Lol! I'm not the only poster calling you a bigot and many more are seeing your true colours. And Cindi Lauper was wrong, they're not as beautiful as a rainbow. ;-)

Epic deflection

Did you actually condemn any of the attacks in the above post?

No

I support a two state solution, which means I back Palestine having a nation, so bang goes your theory on me being anti Jew. I rightly questions some Jews who are maqking idiotic remarks that just incite violence.
The fact is you have been to protests on Israel, but have you on Saudi, Iran, the taliban, Isis?
No, it further proves that you will ignore far worse problems and centre a hate on Jews. You even deny a two state solution, which means you do not belive Israel should exist which is racist in itself.
I have got wise to your racism and Sassy is the same, she does not care at all with Jews dying and has even poorly tries to claim armed ressitance under occupation, which means she tries to justify terrorism. She has presented false maps which argue against Israel existing and I see the stance made by the likes of you BDS muppets who are 100% racist low life;s.


So this cleric the other day said how wrong it was to attack Jews and has since made a u-turn.
Will you condemn  his words?

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5146.htm

Looks like you being prejudice and answering all the questions for me. Albeit incorrectly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Epic deflection

Did you actually condemn any of the attacks in the above post?

No

I support a two state solution, which means I back Palestine having a nation, so bang goes your theory on me being anti Jew. I rightly questions some Jews who are maqking idiotic remarks that just incite violence.
The fact is you have been to protests on Israel, but have you on Saudi, Iran, the taliban, Isis?
No, it further proves that you will ignore far worse problems and centre a hate on Jews. You even deny a two state solution, which means you do not belive Israel should exist which is racist in itself.
I have got wise to your racism and Sassy is the same, she does not care at all with Jews dying and has even poorly tries to claim armed ressitance under occupation, which means she tries to justify terrorism. She has presented false maps which argue against Israel existing and I see the stance made by the likes of you BDS muppets who are 100% racist low life;s.


So this cleric the other day said how wrong it was to attack Jews and has since made a u-turn.
Will you condemn  his words?

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5146.htm

Looks like you being prejudice and answering all the questions for me. Albeit incorrectly.

Copout bullshit

Look if you cannot debate with adults, then stop wasting my time with your inane replies

So again on two counts you cannot condemn things.

Which further proves your antisemitism

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

I most certainly don't think you are a bigot, because I think you are completely different from Didge, but I do think that you don't see him for what he is, a person who thinks its ok to kill young boys if they throw a stone and use them for organ donation without permission.  He is happy for the Israeli's to kill young women at checkpoints when they have just gone through metal detectors that show they have no metal, pretending THEY are doing the attacking because they don't want to raise their veil and there is a barrier between them, shooting schoolgirls who have just come out of school waiting for a bus etc, and HE THINKS ITS OK TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS!!    You are a really decent bloke, the fact that we don't agree on things in neither here nor there.  Didge is a monster, there is no other word for it.

Young Israelis and old Israelis are dying and I do not see you say a thing denouncing this, in fact you try to justify this by claiming armed ressiatnce under occupation.
So you will forgive me when I and others see you as nothing more than a terrorist supporter and a jew hater.
Yes I think when the body is dead it has no purpose anymore to that person and is just going to decompose. Why are you such a idiot to not see how that the body parts can be put to good use to save people.
It is only idiots who would argue against saving people.

Oh and throwing stones at cars that kill people does not make for innocent 18 year olds, or makes them children, but adults, who if you try to murder you run the risk rightly of having people defend themselves against such barbarity.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Looks like you being prejudice and answering all the questions for me. Albeit incorrectly.

Copout bullshit

Look if you cannot debate with adults, then stop wasting my time with your inane replies

So again on two counts you cannot condemn things.

Which further proves your antisemitism

Did you answer the questions for me? Yes/No

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Btw: tolerance of intolerance is cowardice means you should be intolerant towards intolerance.

Do you not see how that makes you a hypocrite?

Or at the very least, illogical.

Homophobia, racism and sexism are intolerance, Zack. You are simply trying to twist the quote around so that it contradicts itself- which it doesn't. The quote is clear enough for an intelligent person to understand.

The only thing we should stand against is unreasonable intolerance.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Copout bullshit

Look if you cannot debate with adults, then stop wasting my time with your inane replies

So again on two counts you cannot condemn things.

Which further proves your antisemitism

Did you answer the questions for me? Yes/No

Did you answer any of my ponts


errrrr no

Let me know when you answer, I am still waiting for you to condemn, but funny that you cannot

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Who am I bigot against exactly Zack?

I have no problem with individuals. I have a problem with certainly beliefs.

Especially as didge says, if they (those beliefs) promote homophobia, sexism or can be interpreted very easily to incite violence.

I most certainly don't think you are a bigot, because I think you are completely different from Didge, but I do think that you don't see him for what he is, a person who thinks its ok to kill young boys if they throw a stone and use them for organ donation without permission.  He is happy for the Israeli's to kill young women at checkpoints when they have just gone through metal detectors that show they have no metal, pretending THEY are doing the attacking because they don't want to raise their veil and there is a barrier between them, shooting schoolgirls who have just come out of school waiting for a bus etc, and HE THINKS ITS OK TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS!!    You are a really decent bloke, the fact that we don't agree on things in neither here nor there.  Didge is a monster, there is no other word for it.

In fairness it was Zack, not you, who called me a bigot. I'm not interested in talking about didge. We don't always agree with each other (didge and I) but we get on. In any case, discussing didge, or any other poster, is not of interest to me haha.

Can whoever it is stop with the red striping. It is a needless act of spite in a 'mature' debate (I used the world lightly lol).

So, sassy and Zack- about homophobia and sexism in Islam- your thoughts?

Eilzel wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Btw: tolerance of intolerance is cowardice means you should be intolerant towards intolerance.

Do you not see how that makes you a hypocrite?

Or at the very least, illogical.

Homophobia, racism and sexism are intolerance, Zack. You are simply trying to twist the quote around so that it contradicts itself- which it doesn't. The quote is clear enough for an intelligent person to understand.

The only thing we should stand against is unreasonable intolerance.

Well if you're so intelligent Les, you should have no problem explaining the logical premise and conclusion.

But you didn't.

Your quote means we should be intolerant towards intolerance. That's a fallacy and a contradiction.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Did you answer the questions for me? Yes/No

Did you answer any of my ponts


errrrr no

Let me know when you answer, I am still waiting for you to condemn, but funny that you cannot

Answer the question Didge.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Homophobia, racism and sexism are intolerance, Zack. You are simply trying to twist the quote around so that it contradicts itself- which it doesn't. The quote is clear enough for an intelligent person to understand.

The only thing we should stand against is unreasonable intolerance.

Well if you're so intelligent Les, you should have no problem explaining the logical premise and conclusion.

But you didn't.

Your quote means we should be intolerant towards intolerance. That's a fallacy and a contradiction.

Use synonyms Zack. Accepting bigotry is cowardice.

Eilzel wrote:Can whoever it is stop with the red striping. It is a needless act of spite in a 'mature' debate (I used the world lightly lol).

So, sassy and Zack- about homophobia and sexism in Islam- your thoughts?

Define exactly what homophobia and sexism?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Homophobia, racism and sexism are intolerance, Zack. You are simply trying to twist the quote around so that it contradicts itself- which it doesn't. The quote is clear enough for an intelligent person to understand.

The only thing we should stand against is unreasonable intolerance.

Well if you're so intelligent Les, you should have no problem explaining the logical premise and conclusion.

But you didn't.

Your quote means we should be intolerant towards intolerance. That's a fallacy and a contradiction.

I am intolerant towards racism, which is an intolerant belief system.

No contradiction there

Are you saying you are tolerant to racism?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Did you answer any of my ponts


errrrr no

Let me know when you answer, I am still waiting for you to condemn, but funny that you cannot

Answer the question Didge.

lol, answer mine child

I'm not intolarent towards homosexuals, Les.

Whereas by your own quote, are intolarent. Intolerance is what makes bigorty ugly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm not intolarent towards homosexuals, Les.

Whereas by your own quote, are intolarent. Intolerance is what makes bigorty ugly.

So you are saying you are tolerant towards racism and antisemitrism then?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Well if you're so intelligent Les, you should have no problem explaining the logical premise and conclusion.

But you didn't.

Your quote means we should be intolerant towards intolerance. That's a fallacy and a contradiction.

I am intolerant towards racism, which is an intolerant belief system.

No contradiction there

Are you saying you are tolerant to racism?

As you have seen from this board, I tolerate a lot. Including racists.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Answer the question Didge.

lol, answer mine child

I asked first.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm not intolarent towards homosexuals, Les.

Whereas by your own quote, are intolarent. Intolerance is what makes bigorty ugly.

So you are saying you are tolerant towards racism and antisemitrism then?

Look at answer above.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am intolerant towards racism, which is an intolerant belief system.

No contradiction there

Are you saying you are tolerant to racism?

As you have seen from this board, I tolerate a lot. Including racists.

But you are racist through your Jew hatred.

So you tolerate homophobia as well then?

I certainly do not tolerate racism or homophoia, why should any rational minded person?

It seems you are gutless and do not want to speak out against wrongs.

Quell surprise

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you are saying you are tolerant towards racism and antisemitrism then?

Look at answer above.

Whcih means you do tolerate racism

Quell surprise and gutless