Should we be allowed to scrutinise an ideology

[morpheus2]

...especially one which orders its followers to convert, subjugate or kill non-followers. One which orders its followers to strike terror into the hearts of non-followers and to wage ceaseless war on non-followers until all are under its command as either followers or (those who do not convert) as third class citizens - or dead.
An ideology which is immutable from its inception, absolutely cannot be changed. An ideology which has the death penalty for leaving it. An ideology which inspires and encourages the murder of cartoonists, the murder of gays, the genocide of Jews, the murder of anyone who disagrees with the ideology, the murder of children at a pop concert. An ideology which has its own special definition of the word 'innocent'. An ideology which mandates telling lies to advance the ideology.
An ideology so split and confused that it kills more of its own followers than it kills non-followers.
Would we be allowed to talk about and scrutinise this ideology without having the words 'racist' 'dangerousideologyophobe' and 'bigot' banded around? Without measuring it up to some other dangerous or obsolete ideology?
What will it take for people to stop and think for themselves and actually study the manifesto of this ideology instead of living in denial. And I mean study for yourselves rather than having disillusioned useful idiots explaining it to you, or spokespersons for this ideology telling you how good this ideology is and how misunderstanding certain people are of this ideology.
An ideology the founder of which was a warlord who did everything that the most evil group of followers on this planet do and the ideology states categorically that the founder of the ideology is by far the best example for mankind to follow for all time. Are we allowed to scrutinize this ideology and discover what it is that truly inspires its followers to commit evil. An ideology which declares unashamedly that the only one single guarantee to eternal bliss is to kill and be killed in service of this ideology.
An ideology which will soon be a majority in this world.
Are we allowed to talk about it or should we remain silent?

[ClaretAndJew]

The great thing about living in a free land is we can scrutinise whatever we want.

[morpheus2]

Good, let's do it then.

[ClaretAndJew]

Well it depends how you go about it. Scrutiny, yes. Inciting hate, racism and violence, no.

[morpheus2]

Of course the problem here is, normally, as soon as I scrutinise this ideology too deeply on this board in this free land, the thread gets pulled. Usually after people start pulling the race card out even though race has never been mentioned

[Bin Ont Turf]

You'll get reported to the police on here by a white handkerchief waving sandal wearer, like I supposedly was today.

[randomclaret2]

The blowing up of children includes hate , racism and violence.

[ClaretAndJew]

Well, the race card is a perfect card to play, because people often make those thinly veiled rhetorics.

[Sidney1st]

I'm confused, are we talking about early Christianity or Islam?

[randomclaret2]

I'm guessing were talking about what happened in Manchester 2 days ago.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I'm confused, are we talking about early Christianity or Islam?

No, Dyche's framework.

[morpheus2]

I'm confused, are we talking about early Christianity or Islam?

I'd say we were talking about Islam today, not Christianity 700 years ago, what do you think? I did wonder wether or not we could talk about this dangerous present day ideology without bringing other ideologies into it.....don't make me get my bingo card out already.

[morpheus2]

I'm confused, are we talking about early Christianity or Islam?

Without measuring it up to some other dangerous or obsolete ideology?

[cloughyclaret]

I think to scrutinise an ideology you need unbiased as well as scholarly views. UTC probably isn't the best place for that.

[Sidney1st]

You don't need the bingo card.

The current extreme Islanic ideology is where extreme Christianity was a few hundred years ago and in some parts of the world it still is, but they don't wave it around as much as the extremist Muslims.

[tim_noone]

I think in the current climate... We should leave these debates for another time. There's a lot of pain going on at this time.thats my view.

[Guller Bull]

Or the Catholic faith was 20 years ago?

It's not about religion - (which is as tepid as politics) - it's about extremist individuals and brainwashing.

[CombatClaret]

Maybe take some time off from the board and come back with your learned thesis.

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/religious-studies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[randomclaret2]

The chaps doing the killing seem to think its about religion. Tell me about Catholicism 20 years ago ( this I really must hear )

[cloughyclaret]

Even from this tiny messageboard snapshot of life, it looks like the terrorists intentions are working.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Maybe take some time off from the board and come back with your learned thesis.

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/religious-studies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We don't need it to function, survive or to be a decent human being.

How about, be a better person studies.

[morpheus2]

I think in the current climate... We should leave these debates for another time. There's a lot of pain going on at this time.thats my view.

Ah, you think I am striking while the iron is hot.

I do think it would be good for people to inform themselves properly on this subject....as has been mentioned - from unbiased sources, they unfortunately are not too easy to come by, 'unbiased' sources . Early Islamic sources themselves are extremely biased as they tended to be the victors early on and hence wrote the history. But much of this written history is steeped in unashamed grotesque evil and violence committed by Muhammad and his followers which is alas proudly proclaimed as righteous, pious and worthy of following in many houses of worship - it's the 'Sunnah', the example of Muhammad, Sunni Islam is named after this. Knowledge is Islam's kryptonite, it's all there for you to find on the internet, you don't have to go to Christian fundi pages to find the bad stuff, stuff which encourages all this global Jihad, read the early biographies of Muhammad and study the Sahih ahadith, read the Qur'an and learn about the concept of abrogation where the early 'tolerant' verses are cancelled out by the later violent verses. Try not to call people racist for studying this fascinating subject.

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

I think in the current climate... We should leave these debates for another time. There's a lot of pain going on at this time.thats my view.

So when is the right time in your view? How many more innocent people will die while we wait for that time??

When our children are being killed on our streets, the time is now.

[cloughyclaret]

I said unbiased views, Morpheus. Not unbiased sources. I'm sure you will agree there's a difference. On here at least.

[Imploding Turtle]

Good, let's do it then.

Why do you need permission? No one has said you can't scrutinise an ideology, at least no one worth listening to.

But if it's only now that you're starting to scrutinise some ideologies then you've a lot of catching up to do because some of us have been doing it for years. And others for decades.

[tim_noone]

So when is the right time in your view? How many more innocent people will die while we wait for that time??

When our children are being killed on our streets, the time is now.

Well I'll rephrase what I said.. There's currently two threds discussing pretty much the same.. Breaking news.. And Kate Hopkins.why create another?

[morpheus2]

I said unbiased views, Morpheus. Not unbiased sources. I'm sure you will agree there's a difference. On here at least.

Yes you did say that, apologies. It won't be easy to find someone who is not biased one way or the other. I'm anti-Islam as I am anti every other Abrahamic dogma so I am already biased, but I'm perfectly willing to hear other people's informed views on the subject particularly if they stand on the other side of the fence to me and then our views can be debated...or not.

[cloughyclaret]

This thread. This. Its exactly why we wont integrate until we remove faith schools and everything else 'within their faith' that keeps all our kids isolated in their own communities. We should be co-eductating our children together until at least the age of 8.

[Imploding Turtle]

Yes you did say that, apologies. It won't be easy to find someone who is not biased one way or the other. I'm anti-Islam as I am anti every other Abrahamic dogma so I am already biased, but I'm perfectly willing to hear other people's informed views on the subject particularly if they stand on the other side of the fence to me and then our views can be debated...or not.

No one is unbiased, but everyone has it within them to be impartial. The problem is some news organisations refuse to let impartiality ruin their story and it's up to you to determine what these publications are and avoid using them when their lack of impartiality impacts on their reporting of the facts.

[morpheus2]

Why do you need permission?

Because normally when I give my views on Islam the thread is pulled. I suspect that you would rather not talk about the subject though in favour of deflecting onto your usual ad hominem game. Don't make me foe you, you wouldn't like me when I'm foed.

[Imploding Turtle]

This thread. This. Its exactly why we wont integrate until we remove faith schools and everything else 'educational' that keeps all our kids isolated in their own communities. We should be co-eductating our children together until at least the age of 8.

This is how we fight the lack of integration, my starting them off together. Get rid of state funded faith schools, all of them, and kids will get along together from a young age long before dogma has segregated them. We're never going to convince Muslim and non-Muslim adults to integrate, but se can sow the seeds of it in our kids by integrating them before religion can seperate them.

[Imploding Turtle]

Because normally when I give my views on Islam the thread is pulled. I suspect that you would rather not talk about the subject though in favour of deflecting onto your usual ad hominem game. Don't make me foe you, you wouldn't like me when I'm foed.

You think i wouldn't want to scrutinise Islam with you?

Ok. later.

[morpheus2]

You think i wouldn't want to scrutinise Islam with you?

Ok. later.

Can't see what you've said, I foed you.

[cloughyclaret]

This is how we fight the lack of integration, by starting them off together. Get rid of state funded faith schools, all of them, and kids will get along together from a young age long before dogma has segregated them. We're never going to convince Muslim and non-Muslim adults to integrate, but we can sow the seeds of it in our kids by integrating them before religion can separate them.

Absolutely. We have clearly failed our kids. All of us.
Now we need to learn from them.

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

This thread. This. Its exactly why we wont integrate until we remove faith schools and everything else 'educational' that keeps all our kids isolated in their own communities. We should be co-eductating our children together until at least the age of 8.

If you want to go there why not 18 instead of 8? Kids 8 and under don't have radicalised views. The dead loser in Manchester even went to Salford Uni. Schools and educational establishments in this country are not the problem, you make it sound like it's our government education policy that radicalises kids, it's not.

The uncomfortable truth for some is that in fact it's the Muslim communities they come from, their isolationist doctrine, their religious leaders, their families, the people they mix with and the internet that radicalises these young men . And if we don't tackle this for fear of political correctness (which belongs in the bin!) we hand the agenda over to the right wing.

[Imploding Turtle]

If you want to go there why not 18 instead of 8? Kids 8 and under don't have radicalised views. The dead loser in Manchester even went to Salford Uni. Schools and educational establishments in this country are not the problem, you make it sound like it's our government education policy that radicalises kids, it's not.

The uncomfortable truth for some is that in fact it's the Muslim communities they come from, their isolationist doctrine, their religious leaders, their families, the people they mix with and the internet. And if we don't tackle this for fear of political correctness (which belongs in the bin!) we hand the agenda over to the right wing.

No one is saying that the schools are the problem, but they can be the solution. If we stop giving parents the option of what is essentially state-finded religious segregation then kids will grow up being more inclined to mix with people who don't look, think or believe like they do. They'll be more inclined to question their beliefs as they grow older with friends who challenge them.

[cloughyclaret]

Kids 8 and under don't have radicalised views.

Exactly. We need to integrate them as a community, as friends, as companions, as people with a history together instead of separately.

[lovebeingaclaret]

Why do you need permission? No one has said you can't scrutinise an ideology, at least no one worth listening to.

But if it's only now that you're starting to scrutinise some ideologies then you've a lot of catching up to do because some of us have been doing it for years. And others for decades.

Have you published your findings IT? Could you share your scrutiny with us?

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

Exactly. We need to integrate them as a community, as friends, as companions, as people with a history together instead of separately.

'We need' - I accept integration is a two way process and we need to play our part to in encouraging them to integrate but we simpy can't force them to integrate.

I just get the sense that you would much rather put the blame on our educational system and now on our communities than handing any of that responsibility to the Muslim community. You do not empower the Muslim community by absolving them of their responsibility to encourage community cohesion, what your actually doing is taking away their freedom to act to try and solve these difficult issues because your telling them they have no problem.

[Imploding Turtle]

Have you published your findings IT? Could you share your scrutiny with us?

Must i have published what i've learned to have learned it?

[Imploding Turtle]

'We need' - I accept integration is a two way process and we need to play our part to in encouraging them to integrate but we simpy can't force them to integrate.

No, we can't. But we can stop funding the means by which parents segregate their children from others who aren't like them. If parents then want to send their kids to a Catholic school or a Muslim school then they should have to pay for it themselves.

[cloughyclaret]

I put the blame - the sole blame - on that all we - as adults- refusal to integrate.

Where did I blame a particular educational system?

Where on earth did I absolve Muslim responsibility to encourage cohesion?

[lovebeingaclaret]

No, we can't. But we can stop funding the means by which parents segregate their children from others who aren't like them. If parents then want to send their kids to a Catholic school or a Muslim school then they should have to pay for it themselves.

Absolutely agree. The only addition I would make is that ALL schools should be secular.

[tim_noone]

I put the blame - the sole blame - on that all we - as adults- refusal to integrate.

Where did I blame a particular educational system?

Where on earth did I absolve Muslim responsibility to encourage cohesion?

What do you mean we all as adults refuse to intergrate.?

[Imploding Turtle]

Absolutely agree. The only addition I would make is that ALL schools should be secular.

All schools that receive public funding, yes. But it would be a violation of freedom of religion to ban private schools from being faith schools or having a religious curriculum.

[cloughyclaret]

In all these donkeys years of conflicts, we adults as a whole haven't integrated.

[lovebeingaclaret]

There was me thinking that religious curriculum can be more than adequately covered in churches, synagogues and mosques etc.

[Imploding Turtle]

There was me thinking that religious curriculum can be more than adequately covered in churches, synagogues and mosques etc.

Well, we have religious schools all over the place so maybe you could use that to inform your thinking a little.

Clue: Apparently not.

[tim_noone]

In all these donkeys years of conflicts, we adults as a whole haven't integrated.

I like to think I have.... But these are worrying times.

[Imploding Turtle]

In all these donkeys years of conflicts, we adults as a whole haven't integrated.

And many of those who are complaining that Muslims aren't integrating with us also complain about multiculturalism. They're both arguing for and against integration and are oblivious to their double-think.