Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.
 
 
 
 

 

« Previous | Next »


Don’t call us violent

x
Share


Obama pictures McCain pictures

Don’t call us violent or we’ll kill you!

Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments

picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Gibbles

» Recaption This

» See All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

This funny political picture was posted on Sunday, February 1st, 2009 at 6:00 am.

» 419 comments

Leave a Comment
  1. jadien says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:04 am

    2 votes?!

    Reply
  2. jadien says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:04 am

    hah i made it three! ok never mind no sleep is not good for a person.

    Reply
  3. Blinky says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:07 am

    A bunch of sick misguided Homosexual Pig F*ckers living with a mindset right out the 3rd Century.

    Reply
    • icanhasdoublecheeseburger? says:
      February 1, 2009 at 6:57 am

      well would you be offended if someone made fun of your beliefs

      Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        February 1, 2009 at 6:58 am

        Political or Religious?

        Reply
        • rhorho says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:44 am

          The difference being…

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 1, 2009 at 12:10 pm

            none… and it’s worse in Islam… it took the lessons learned from the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity as an organ of state, and made it clear that it was a religion to rule from the outset, utilising some the tricks the Tribes of Israel used in merging religion and overarching statehood.
            From a political POV, Islam is a masterwork of crowd control, but with no centralised power centre to control it… and warring factions just to keep everyone on their toes when there isn’t any other enemy to hand…

            Reply
            • rhorho says:
              February 1, 2009 at 2:48 pm

              Yes, triple-trouble there. Partitioning is impossible, secular
              government implausible, and constant “civil war” is inevitable.

              Reply
            • sciophobik says:
              February 5, 2009 at 6:25 am

              The Islamic state as it is commonly known now is not the authoritarian regime you understand it to be. Please check your facts.

              Reply
              • DV8 says:
                February 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm

                Its not the state of Islam that worries us. Its the nutters who blow themselves and other up and claim to BE representing Islam that bother us.

                Reply
      • Mrs. Garison says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:12 am

        Now put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim: it’s Friday night, you can’t have sex AND you can’t jack off. There’s sand in your eyes and probably the crack of your ass and THEN some cartoon comes along from a country where people ARE getting laid and mocks your prophet! Well y’know what? I’d be pretty pissed off too!

        (link)

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 1, 2009 at 7:18 am

          Explains a lot of the Israel problem too…

          Reply
          • slan agat says:
            February 1, 2009 at 7:40 am

            Not actually. Sex on shabbos is a double mitzvah. :P

            Reply
          • mek says:
            February 1, 2009 at 8:32 am

            No, the problem with Israel is that the Christian majority felt so darn bad about killing off the Jews that they simply took the land of the Muslims and gave it to the Jews.

            Reply
            • Uncle Fester says:
              February 1, 2009 at 9:52 am

              Can’t fault that… there again, people like Windgate sold out a lot of dead pbirsith soldiery who died at the hands of Zionist ‘Freedom Fighters’…

              Reply
            • Scum says:
              February 1, 2009 at 11:20 am

              That, and they were trying to force god into starting up the end times clock so they could get their lazy asses out of here.

              Reply
            • Anniee451 says:
              February 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm

              Typical Anti-Semite with no knowledge of events or history.

              Anti-Semitism is more than alive and well: {link behind name} But even if they weren’t chanting “Death to filthy Jews” in the streets we’d have people spouting anti-Semitic nonsense like mek.

              Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm

                Some of us remember the noble freedom fighters slotting English soldiers…
                but that makes me an anti-Semite… Reality seems to be a place
                you’re just visiting, you auto-didact.

                And I love the high moral tone taken by someone who managed to call a black woman ‘ape like’… typical hypocritical little girl…

                Reply
              • Pheemz says:
                February 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm

                Oh don’t be so bloody silly. Mek may or may not be antisemitic, I don’t know them so I can’t comment, but their statement in that post did not provide any evidence at all of antisemitism.

                The statement Mek made is largely accurate. After the end of WW1 the League of Nations placed Palestine under a British mandate with express instructions to create a Jewish state in the territory, never mind that it was full of Arabs.

                After WW2 the UN drew up a partition plan dividing the land, both sides said no and tried to take more land from the other. Israel succeeded, carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing to scare off the Palestinians and then went on to take even more land from the Arabs in 67.

                And, like Fester said, let’s not forget that when they wanted a homeland the Jewish population of Palestine were quite happy to commit terror attacks. For instance, I have a cousin who lost a leg to a land mine placed by Zionist terrorists.

                Let me guess, you’re gonna try to dismiss this as just typical antisemitism and ignorance of history. I guess Gerald Kauffman is an antisemite for saying his grandmother didn’t die to to excuse Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers. Yeah, that’s typically antisemitic, never mind the fact the guy’s from an Orthodox Jewish background and his grandmother was murdered in the Holocaust. I’d guess organisations like Jews for Justice for Palestine and Rabbis for Human Rights are a bunch of antisemties too, huh?

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 2:09 pm

                  Thank you Pheemz… I’ve been fighting this battle alone for a long time…

                  Reply
                • Anniee451 says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm

                  Yeah, end the Unjust Jewish Occupation of Muslim Land! {link}

                  Reply
                  • Pheemz says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm

                    There’s about 250,000 settlers on the West Bank, out of something like 14 million Jews world wide. That means less that 2% of Jewish people in the world are involved in the unjust occupation of ‘Muslim land’. So it’s not like we’re talking about a significant percentage of the world Jewish population here.

                    It would be much more accurate to view the occupation as what it is, a political occupation. But I guess countering a criticism of a political action is a whole lot less easy than just crying antisemitism.

                    Reply
                • slan agat says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm

                  It is a relevant point, however, that the Israeli “ethnic cleansing” took the form of repelling repeated attacks launched by the surrounding Arab countries.

                  Reply
                  • Pheemz says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm

                    In some cases, yes, in many cases it was simple aggression with armed thugs targeting civilian populations.

                    The idea that everything Israel has ever done was defensive is total nonsense.

                    Reply
                    • Scum says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 5:45 pm

                      Absolutely true, but if you say that in some circles here in the US, you’re automatically worse than Hitler.
                      -
                      People here have this blind support for Israel and most of them have no idea why.
                      If you don’t show blind support, you’re labeled an anti-semite or a racist, simply because you might not think it’s right to support everything they do.
                      We do not and never have shown that kind of unqualified support to any other nation.

                      Reply
                      • Pheemz says:
                        February 1, 2009 at 5:58 pm

                        My theory on it is the mythology surrounding the creation of Israel closely matches that surrounding the creation of the US. A brave band of pioneers struggling to colonise the wilderness, in the face of a brutal enemy and forging a great democracy against all the odds. As such, Israel can be viewed as America Jr, so support for Israel is a form of patriotism for Americans and criticising Israel is seen as tantamount to criticising the US.

                        I’ve had plenty of idiots accuse me of antisemitism for criticising Israel, it’s nothing new for me. Can’t say I give a crap about such juvenile nonsense. I know the idiots who cry antisemitism simply do it because they lack the intellectual capacity to debate the subject on the facts. That said, given the history, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to try to defend Israel’s apartheid system and war crimes.

                        Reply
                        • Scum says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 7:11 pm

                          I never thought of it as a mini-me syndrome. Interesting. I just always assumed that it’s primarily due to the belief that they’re ‘gods chosen people’ and if we don’t support them, we’re toast. This is obviously a selfish reason to support them, which just lends credence to the idea. The support for the state of Israel in the US has grown along side the zealotry of christians here.
                          -
                          Selfishness is one of the main reasons people believe in a god to begin with. It’s an attempt to be able to either avoid bad things or to at least pray them away, and of course for the rewards afterwards, so selfishness as a reason shouldn’t be a big surprise.

                        • Isengrim says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 7:35 pm

                          Yeah, I had always seen it having some kind of religious roots, too, especially after Reagan’s brand of apocalyptic Christianity began voicing
                          itself more and more strongly in American government.
                          I’ve heard fundamentalist preachers (that Hagee fellow seems to be at the forefront of it at the moment; my recent ex (I have decided to flee before he is able to come back here) was rather a fan of even his more stupid statements. so I was forced to sit through his idiocy about Isreal being natural, how there was never such a place as Palestine, ad nauseam.

                          The gist I get from this stuff is that support for Isreal is
                          part and parcel of end-times prophecy. I get the feeling
                          sometimes that the US (or rather, the right-wing Christian part of it)
                          WANTS to goad the neighbouring Muslim nations into
                          attacking Isreal in some big way, that will allow the US to
                          attack them in an even bigger way – nukes, say. Or to prod
                          “God” into doing something to protect Isreal, or otherwise
                          “starting the end-times clock” as someone mentioned above, a la that silly movie “Left Behind”.

                          (damn, I wish the word-wrap was better on this thing).

                          I find this a really scary prospect. Yeah, I agree the mini-me
                          syndrome might have a lot to do with it, but the (ridiculous)
                          religious reasons are frightening. I have always said that
                          fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are
                          two sides of the same coin. I’m wondering if their ends aren’t
                          actually the same, which makes the situation even MORE scary.
                          Those of us who don’t buy into religious lunacy are going to
                          suffer because of these two idiotic factions, and I am against them both.

                • Emil Aragundi says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 7:18 am

                  Not to be picky on trivial things like ‘facts’ or other nonsense people sometimes tend to miss but a lot of your statements are grossly inaccurate, such as:
                  1) Before the creation of Israel the land was full of Arabs, when there’s evidence of Jewish settlements in the area as old as 1880’s, you can look at the history of Tel-Aviv, which was legally purchased and founded by Jewish settlers during the reign of the Ottomans.
                  2) That the League of Nations gave Palestine to the British, the British confiscated the land from the Ottomans, including present day Jordan and Iraq, as well as the French confiscated what we now know as Lebanon.
                  3) It’s not that both sides tried to take land from the other; it’s that both in 47 and 67 the Arab countries had the bright idea of invading Israel, but lost. Hence the “occupied territories”.

                  Granted, Israel is not without its faults and has committed several actions worth of reprimanding, but the skimming of the facts that the supporters of Palestine get into is really hard to bear sometimes.

                  As to anti-Semitism/Zionism confusion, granted, there’s a difference between the two, any western supporter of Palestine will tell that. However, for most Muslims in the ME and the West it’s still a Holy War between Jews and Muslims, as noted by the several speeches of Osama bin Laden and associates, as well as Muslim demonstrators in Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe chanting “Heil Hitler” and “kill all Jews”.

                  Reply
                  • Uncle Fester says:
                    February 2, 2009 at 7:25 am

                    Can’t say I disagree with much of this… but then, the “they’re all a bunch of bastards” point is usually mostly correct…

                    Reply
                  • Pheemz says:
                    February 2, 2009 at 11:53 am

                    1) no-one is denying there were some Jewish residents in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel, but my statement is totally accurate. The majority of people in the region were Arabs.

                    2) The LoN did NOT ‘give’ Palestine to the British. It was placed under British rule by a League of Nations mandate, it was not sovereign British territory. And the mandate was explicit that the mandatory power was responsible for establishing conditions conducive to the creation of a Jewish state. See article 2 of the mandate, click the link in my name.

                    3) Whether it was the official Plan Dalet or the unofficial atrocities, such as the Deir Yassin massacre carried out by the Irgun scum, it’s bleeding obvious the Jewish side was no more willing to accept only what the UN partition plan gave them than the Arab side was.

                    If you want to accuse me of skimming or distorting facts then at least have the sense to know and understand them first, it will stop you making a fool of yourself.

                    Reply
                    • Emil Aragundi says:
                      February 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm

                      1) Backpedaling is quite an interesting pastime. Granted, you chose the appropriate wording but it’s interesting to point how you went from it was “full of Arabs” to “okay, there were some Jews there”. Most supporters of Palestine tend to forget the later.

                      2) Yeah, it wasn’t sovereign British land. Yeah, they just had political, economic and administrative control of the place . Seriously, do you even know what the word means?

                      3) Backpedaling again. I never said they didn’t, but when you said “ […]and then went on to take even more land from the Arabs in 67.” You’re putting it as if ‘teh evil zionists’ when it was in fact the result of ill-conceived plans of the Arab leaders to wipe Israel of the map. An endeavor they’re still pursing, I might add.

                      Reply
                      • Pheemz says:
                        February 2, 2009 at 1:34 pm

                        1) clarifying something is not backpedaling. You attempted to distort what I said to suit your agenda, I simply clarified what I meant a little.

                        2) Don’t embarrass yourself. Read the mandate text I linked, it’s clear Britain did not have sovereignty over the area and was governing it on a temporary basis on behalf of the League of Nations. There were clearly defined restrictions on what Britain could or could not do in and with the territory, if Britain had had sovereignty over the territory those restrictions would not have been in place.

                        3) It’s nice that you accuse me of backpedaling and then contradict what you said in an earlier comment. I’ll refresh your memory. You said “It’s not that both sides tried to take land from the other; it’s that both in 47 and 67 the Arab countries had the bright idea of invading Israel, but lost”. so yes, yes you did quite clearly say that Israel didn’t attempt to, successfully, take more land than it was granted in the partition plan. I notice you’re now focusing only on 67 not 48, why is that I wonder… scared that I actually know too much for you to be able to get away with lying about what happened?

                        Reply
                        • Emil Aragundi says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 1:48 pm

                          1) I never distorted anything, just pointed out how your selective wording suggests other instances of what actually happened.

                          2) Sovereignty in case you didn’t know is to have control the administrations of the land. Obviously they had restrictions, but guess what? All democratic governments have restrictions, the very concept of civil liberties revolves around the idea of limiting the government control. Only dictatorships and absolute monarchies have complete control over their territories, the old mandate was neither of the later. But the fact remains that the old mandate was sovereign British territory, and you have done nothing to argue otherwise.

                          3) I mentioned 67 and 47 because you did first, remember? As I’ve said before (this being the third time) your selective wording made it seems that on 67 Israel purposely and illegally invaded the Arab countries and took their land, when in fact it was the Arab countries that invaded them and lost. Maybe if you worried a bit more in comprehensive reading and less into bragging about a superior knowledge that you evidently don’t have, we wouldn’t have this little misunderstanding.
                          Maybe if you worried a bit more in comprehensive reading and less into bragging about a superior knowledge that you evidently don’t have, we wouldn’t have this little misunderstanding.

                        • Pheemz says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:17 pm

                          1) That there was a small Jewish population in Palestine doesn’t change that the UN gave away a whole lot of land that had a whole lot of Arabs on it.

                          2) Yes, it is to have control. The British DIDN’T have control. They were subject to the terms of the mandate. That’s not sovereignty. Let’s make it nice and simple. Sovereignty is basically when you own it, Britain didn’t own it, they ran it. They were managers, nothing more.

                          3) While entering the territory in a war may well have been legal, keeping it certainly was not. Since you obviously didn’t bother to read the LoN mandate I linked I won’t bother quoting all the UN resolutions confirming the occupation is illegal, but we all know they’re there. If you wish to disprove my claim I know more about this than you do, then try arguing fact, it takes a bit more effort than the approach you’re taking, twisting what’s been said and ad hominem crap. But if you try real hard you just might be able to manage it.

                        • slan agat says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm

                          Emil, don’t strain yourself. Pheemz has claimed above that a relative of his was wounded because of the “Zionists” – his mind is as closed as Abu Nidal’s ever was.

                        • Emil Aragundi says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:44 pm

                          1) “Small” is quite an understatement for a lot of Jews immigrated to the region during the British Mandate.
                          2) You contradict yourself; in order to manage you have to have control. Having ‘absolute’ control is another thing. Hence the restrictions. I take that your argument is that since there terms set by the mandate meant the British held a secondary place, never mind that those who won WW1 including in great deal, the British, comprised the Mandate.
                          3) Obviously, not even Israel dares to claim Sinai and the Golan Heights as legitimately theirs but as occupied territories, but they have their reasons to occupy them despite whatever symbolic resolutions the ever incompetent UN may cast them with. But the fact of the matter is they occupy them after the Arabs sought to destroy, which was the point I was getting at from the beginning. Can we at least agree on that?

                          Well, I will log off for a while now so if you want to have the last word go ahead and have it, but bear in mind that though I admit to my innate cynicism and sarcasm, I have never resulted to name calling nor distorting facts as you falsely accuse me of. If you style of arguing comprises of basically consists of trying to coerce the other with alleged superior knowledge, then you’re giving me more reasons to render this an absolutely pointless argument. Even so, have a good day, sir.

                        • Pheemz says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm

                          Oh how fun! Someone else wants to join the party.

                          First off, don’t pretend you know my mind, you do not and can not.

                          Secondly, there’s no need to put Zionists in quotes. It’s a perfectly accurate and acceptable term for people who adhered to a particular 19th and early 20th century political ideal, ie, the nationalist belief in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

                        • Pheemz says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 3:10 pm

                          Silly thing won’t let me reply to Emil, so replying here.

                          2) I get where you’re coming from on this. But, having control and managing are not the same thing as having sovereignty over. For instance, until a few months ago most of Basra in Iraq was under effective control of the British military. That didn’t make it British sovereign territory. Yes, I’m well aware that the British mandate in Palestine gave a significant degree of political power that the example of Basra didn’t have, but hopefully you get the point. The situation in Palestine was very, very different to that in India, for instance. There Britain had absolute control to do whatever it wanted within its own laws, ie, it had sovereignty. Thhat wasn’t the case in Palestine, Britain had only that power which the LoN gave it.

                          3) Erm, Israel withdrew from Sinai in the early 80s. I’ll assume you meant Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights and Sinai was simply a mistake. Thing is though, you’re wrong. Israel disputes the designation of Gaza and the West Bank as occupied territory. You see, if they accepted it was occupied territory then they’d be forced to comply with the Geneva Convention, which they don’t want to do as it would impose a duty of care for Palestinians that they don’t wish to be burdened with. Of course, the Geneva Convention DOES apply whether Israel likes it or not, as it is almost universally recognised as occupied territory.

                          If you say you were not attempting to distort what I said, then I’ll take your word for it. It seemed to me you were doing so, so I guess I misjudged the situation and reacted based on that misjudgment. I apologise for that.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm

                          Emil, don’t strain yourself. Pheemz has claimed above that a relative of his was wounded because of the “Zionists” – his mind is as closed as Abu Nidal’s ever was.

                          Helpful… in a trollboy kind of way…

                        • VmKid says:
                          November 11, 2009 at 7:33 pm

                          Don’t you just love it when there’s a war and neither of the participants are willing to resort to name calling?

        • mek says:
          February 1, 2009 at 8:34 am

          Who says Muslims can’t have sex on Friday? You fail at trying to be funny.

          Reply
        • JrO says:
          February 1, 2009 at 9:46 am

          LOL!!

          Reply
        • Isengrim says:
          February 1, 2009 at 11:24 am

          Mrs Garrison – ROFL! I loved South Park when I was able to see it. Gads, I miss that show.

          Cartoons are about the funniest thing on TV nowadays (the ones directed at grown-ups, of course). They also don’t seem to be afraid to tell it like it is.

          Reply
      • Blinky says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:19 am

        no

        Reply
      • Trainwreck Chaser says:
        February 1, 2009 at 11:36 am

        Certainly would call for there death.

        Reply
      • violet says:
        February 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm

        I might be, but that doesn’t mean I should threaten to kill someone, or blow up two skyscrapers and kill 3000+ people. Does it?!

        Reply
      • Anniee451 says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:35 pm

        Happens every day. In case you hadn’t heard, Christian fundamentalism is perfectly acceptable to mock in the most disparaging of terms.

        Reply
    • Billy says:
      February 1, 2009 at 9:01 am

      Try 7th century.

      Reply
    • Kia says:
      February 10, 2009 at 12:42 am

      blinky u do relise that over 85% of muslims disagree with these douche bags right.

      in the quran it clearly sates that sucide is NOT PERMITTED. no exceptions. osama’s just some moron who probably can’t read properly and thought the quran says otherwise.

      Reply
    • hypastpist says:
      December 28, 2010 at 6:25 pm

      6th actually 3rd is constantine(everybody is Smart) 6th is the dark ages(everybody is mindfked)

      Reply
  4. AC says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:14 am

    Protesting about Europe? Is this over the Danish cartoons?

    Reply
    • n8 says:
      February 1, 2009 at 6:23 am

      Yes, but this pic is from right about the time that the Danish Cartoon row was getting started. It’s certainly not current.

      Reply
      • viking gal says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:34 am

        The press found out late in the game, that some imams had inserted three extremely offensive cartoons in with the more moderate ones which had actually been published (as a test of freedom-of-press). The imams had added these three cartoons in an effort to better ‘mobilize the masses’. Somehow, this fact hasn’t gotten much attention in the US press.
        (link)

        Reply
        • Isengrim says:
          February 1, 2009 at 11:28 am

          Yes, I read your link (and a couple of others as well). It seems to me they did it as both a “test” of the freedom of press, but were hoping to crush it at the same time – ie, showing the Danish press (and anyone else who reprinted the real cartoons) as to be so vile they must be gagged.

          Now. Doesn’t that look like a threat to our liberties to anyone? It sure as hell does to me.

          Fortunately, their stunt didn’t work. The imams are just as free to depict Mohammed as a French clown at a pig festival as a Dane is to depict
          Mohammed (as a symbol of radical Islam) with a turban on his head.

          The thing is, allegory and metaphor tend to be lost on so many people nowadays, it’s pathetic.

          Reply
        • lowly grunt says:
          February 1, 2009 at 6:39 pm

          Huh. What d’ya know. Thanks for this viking gal.

          Reply
  5. teh dewd says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:18 am

    Yeah, probally…

    Reply
  6. dazoob says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:18 am

    oh man, that are natural responses to the overpopulation of humankind.
    thinking about all that wack sick shit thats goin on, makes me not rofl or lol.
    just simple sad bullshit and the fact that too many people on this planet are
    completly insane idiots.

    Reply
  7. Evertide says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:41 am

    Old meme as of 2001. But still pretty damn funny when it gets a reaction.

    Reply
  8. Mogan says:
    February 1, 2009 at 6:42 am

    From a poetic point of view it’s pretty clever rhyming “cancer” and “answer”, even if the people in these photos are complete morons.

    Reply
    • Uncle Fester says:
      February 1, 2009 at 6:57 am

      It’s the effect of a lot of Gangsta Culture people going into the Nation of Islam in jail…

      Reply
      • Mogan says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:54 am

        The Nation didn’t exist in Europe. A lot of the militant behavior in Islam comes from both trying to live by the Qu’ran, and trying to live like Muhammad (pbuh) did.

        The prophet himself lost sight of Islam in the end because, as the Qu’ran states, if a person of another religion doesn’t want to join, then don’t force it upon them. That’s what started his militant jihad so long ago, trying to force Islam on the world. Many Muslims today find it hard to live by the teachings of the prophet in the Qu’ran and the examples he led in his life.

        Tsk. Makes me sad to live in such a world.

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 1, 2009 at 8:01 am

          I’d simplified the terminology for Americans. No, there’s no major NoI presence in the EU, but there is a definite drive in Prisons to actively recruit Black men to Islam (usually with some Kunta Kinte type ‘Islam never oppressed your ancestors’ crap)

          Reply
          • Mogan says:
            February 1, 2009 at 9:50 am

            Ohh, I see what you mean. Sorta like the, uh…Five-Percenters, I think they were called, in Hollis and other parts of New York. Kinda like the Nation, but differing a little bit.

            Reply
            • Uncle Fester says:
              February 1, 2009 at 9:57 am

              It’s misselling Islam, since without the Ottoman traders, there’d have been no white slave trade to speak of. In fact the Ottomans and the other Arab Islamics were so important to the slave trade that the European governments ignored the slaver raids on the European coast until the early 1800s.

              Islamic ‘Black Wood’ trade continued sub rosa to the Americas for some time, but by then there was a pretty solid breeding project going on, which reduced profits.

              Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 1, 2009 at 9:58 am

                *White Slave should read Western Slave.

                and the Islamics simply reduced the operation to supply their continuing domestic needs.

                Reply
              • Mogan says:
                February 1, 2009 at 10:04 am

                One of my favorite stories about slave trade comes from one of my classes in high school.

                I was buddies with this guy named Mastajabu (everyone called him ‘Bill’, I was the only one who could properly say his name) who hails from the Congo. One day this ignorant black kid walks into our maths class wearing the black-red-green Africa pendant, and Mastajabu gets up, storms over to him, rips the pendant off and starts yelling at him:

                “You’re not true black man! Not true African! WE put you on the boats, WE gave you to the white man, WE didn’t want you there! You disgrace my people with this!”

                It was quite possibly the most exciting thing to happen at my school that year.

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 10:07 am

                  It’s always amusing when one strips off the white man’s guilt and looks at the damned history…

                  Reply
                  • Mogan says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 10:17 am

                    “White man’s guilt” is one of my favorite phrases ever. It’s like white people are trying so hard to make up for what they did, they don’t bother to look that we were just a piece of the problem.

                    Aagh! When will the world SEE?

                    Reply
                    • Uncle Fester says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 10:55 am

                      It’s the way we’re taught history… it’s a collection of Pocket Universes that had no interaction at all, ever… honest.
                      The Tin and Lead trade didn’t exist
                      There was no Silk or Spice Road
                      Genghis Khan didn’t rule an empire that extended from the Pacific to the Ukraine, with trade links anywhere…
                      I could list more, but people start throwing around the ‘revisionist’ tag, which usually means they’re pretty uncomfortable with history being a hologram of links across time and space.

                      Reply
                  • Isengrim says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 11:36 am

                    Thank you, Uncle! It’s been biting me for a while how those of us of European extraction are represented as being the only “bad people” in the world who ever did anything wrong. Here in Canada, it’s translating into the idea that we should just roll over and let other cultures wash over us, no matter how repugnant or ridiculous their demands are. Meanwhile, if a Canadian (or Brit, in your case?) were to go to the countries where these folks were coming from, and demanded that they change to suit us, that they weren’t “multicultural” enough to suit us, we’d be shot in the street, and rightly so.

                    Please see the new link in my name for an EXCELLENT example of this.
                    The real gems are in the comments – pay close attention to what Yussi is trying to demand.

                    Reply
                    • Uncle Fester says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 11:57 am

                      On thing that pissed me off about the Canucks was there were some whining about the Sikh Uniform Turban for the RCMP. Seems some folk forget that the Sikhs served with distinction in both Wars. I don’t mind adaptations that are earned. No one has earned the right to Sharia or Cannon law.

                      Reply
                      • Isengrim says:
                        February 1, 2009 at 2:30 pm

                        Actually, I did find that insulting. If a Canadian was to join the Sikh religion (and there are many who have) they are expected to wear the Sikh turban. Threfore, if anyone wants to join the RCMP, they should wear RCMP headgreat. Plain and simple. This is not limited to the Stetson; it can include a regular cop’s hat or, in the case of far north, a badged baseball cap.

                        Also, keep in mind that the Sikhs aren’t really that fussy over their own followers wearing a turban. The Nova Scotian fellow I knew who converted )who was a very delightful person) went around mostly with a kind of shawl on his head, or sometimes .. a baseball cap. He explained the point really was to have one’s head covered, it really didn’t matter what the covering was, but that a turban was traditional. Others have come forth in press over turban issues (in sports, mostly) to note the exact same thing (other Sikhs, that is, Sikhs were embarrassed about the issue being pressed for political
                        reasons – which it is.)

                        The demand to allow Sikh RCMP members to wear turbans was just that – politcal. It was a deliberate gambit to erode just that little much more of traditional Canadian identity, which they don’t think is valid (see the fuss over the Komagata Maru incident: http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=3528

                        There’s a few other articles about it there too. There’s a quote somewhere that I can’t find now where one the people demanding an apology from the government about it (which they got) angrily said that if the quee-jumpers on the Maru had stayed here, “Canada would not be a white country today”. Now there’s a racist statement for you, and also lets slip a certain intent.

                        Reply
                      • Isengrim says:
                        February 1, 2009 at 5:07 pm

                        Sigh, I replied to this a couple hours ago, but it still seems to have been swallowed.

                        Anyway, the move to allow Sikh RCMP to wear turbans was not a matter of “tolerance”, it was a purely political move. Firstly, the RCMP do not habitually wear the big Stetson; they rarely wear the dress red uniform except on formal occasions, in Ottawa, and in Whitehorse. Normally, they dress
                        like any other cop, with the usual “cop hat”. Occasionally, they might even wear a baseball cap with the RCMP crest on it, especially in, say,
                        small villages north of 60 (first time I saw this was in Ft Liard, NWT).

                        Now. I once met a fellow in northern Alberta who was a white guy from Nova Scotia who came into a spot of trouble and was helped by the Sikhs. He converted, and was quite loyal to his new faith, and had worked hard to learn everything about Sikhism, even to the point of learning Punjabi
                        and eating the same diet as the immigrant Sikhs he went to temple with.
                        I never once saw him wear a turban; he often wore either a shawl around his head, and sometimes .. a baseball cap. He explained that the
                        point was covering your head – the turban was simply traditional. I have heard other Sikhs admitting this when the issue of wearing a turban came up on the TV. It would be no skin off their nose to have worn the same kinfdof headgear as any other RCMP officer, as long as they wore SOMETHING on their heads.

                        This was just the first volley (which they won) in the campaign to erode the Canadian identity. Since Trudeau’s multiculturalism push came in, students in school have been told that “Canada has no culture of its own, there is no such thing as a Canadian identity”. This is a vicious lie, and one
                        I, too, was subjected to in school. The RCMP turban thing might look small and petty to anyone outside the country – and it looked small to many Canadians at the time – but it had enormous implications for the future. That is how and why so many court cases over turbans and Sharia have managed to get as far as they did. When Sharia was struck down by Ontario, it was a signal that they simply pushed too far, too fast, and have gone back to nibbling.

                        Canadians are currently in the position of being frogs in the pot of water, and too many of us aren’t feeling the heat increasing, bit by bit.

                        Please see the link behind my name in this post, and pay special attention to what “Yussi” has to say. He is basically demanding that Canadians of traditional extraction – French, English, Native (and including
                        the long-standing populations of people of Ukrainian, German,
                        Italian, Chinese and other extraction that helped build this nation and
                        managed to integrate) simply roll over and allow new immigrants to flood the country and let their cultures take over the collective traditional Canadian culture.

                        I find this completely odious, myself; I don’t know if Canada is unique in this situation, but we seem to be the worst off because of Quisling politicians who are allowing – even ecouraging – this to happen.

                        Reply
                        • PiMan says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 11:42 pm

                          Again, overt racism. People should be allowed to immigrate to the country of their choosing and still be able to practice their own religion and wear clothes of their choosing. They aren’t imposing their way of life on you, they are coexisting with you.

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:27 am

                          I disagree. The RCMP have a uniform. If anyone wants to be a member of the RCMP, part of the duty is to wear the uniform in order to be recognized as the authority you are. If it’s a major stumbling block to you personally, don’t become a RCMP.
                          -
                          But it’s just a hat you say, it’s just clothing. This case sure.
                          Are you familiar with the ‘right of conscience act’? On the surface it’s about a woman’s reproductive rights, but it goes far beyond that by leaving the door open for any staff member of any medical facility to refuse medical care of any kind for any reason, as long as they claim it in the name of their religion. If a gay man or woman needs an emergency appendectomy, the surgeon can refuse on religious grounds. Under the new rules, they can apparently just walk away, refuse help and refuse to make arrangements for another surgeon or any additional health care.
                          If a woman walks into a pharmacy to get a prescription filled for ‘the pill’, if the pharmacist is against it for religious reasons, they don’t have to fill it. If this happens in a bigger city where there are many pharmacies maybe you don’t see it as an issue, but how about in a small town where there is only one? If you try to make an dentist appointment and the receptionist has an issue with your ethnicity garnered from your last name, she doesn’t have to even make an appointment for you, as long as it’s her religious beliefs she’s upholding.
                          -
                          How about the cab driver whose religion says he can’t pick up unmarried male/female couples. Should they be allowed a hack license?
                          -
                          How about the male carrier whose religion is against unmarried couples sharing the same residence and so refuses to deliver their mail? Should they be allowed to be a mail carrier?
                          -
                          No offense meant to you specifically PiMan, but this is the part of liberalism that I can’t stand.
                          “OMG How can I slit my wrists today in order for you to feel like you’re not a victim.” No, the world is not a perfectly even playing ground for everyone. We all make choices in our lives and we all live with the consequences. If I choose to wear a blindfold, I don’t think I should be able to successfully sue for the right to drive a car on public roads.
                          -
                          I don’t think we can or should homogenize everything.

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:30 am

                          Sorry, the preceding post is to PiMan.

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:33 am

                          oops, and of course I meant ‘mail carrier’ not ‘male carrier’, but that could be an interesting career choice too.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:46 am

                          The UK army have had a uniform turban since the Mutiny. To me, they earned it, whether the choose to wear or no. The Defence of the Realm (whoever’s Realm that may be) earns the right of recognition.
                          Tell me scum, is that ‘Liberal’?

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:47 am

                          Ok, if the job is male carrier and your religion says that you can only carry women, should you be allowed to be a male carrier when you won’t, you know,actually carry males?

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:48 am

                          and the ‘right of conscience’ act is Right Wing Bullcrap. If you don’t want to sell the pill, then don’t become a Pharmacist…

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:58 am

                          @UF
                          I guess my point is where do you draw the line? There is also a huge difference between earning the recognition or the right of something and simply demanding it for your beliefs which have nothing to do with the task at hand. I have fewer problems when something is earned. But do the Indian women in the army have a right to wear a Saree? If they sued to be allowed to, would you support that?
                          -
                          For the purpose of this discussion, “Liberal” (far far left really is what I was addressing) is accepting that someone is a victim just because they say they are a victim; stating that everyone has a right to everything; that all things should be equal for all people, and damned if we aren’t going to screw ourselves and others in order to try to accommodate that.

                        • Scum says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:59 am

                          Yes, it is right wing bullcrap, but that’s my point. They can be pharmacists.
                          Where do you draw the line?

                        • PiMan says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 6:08 am

                          Let them wear whatever the hell they like, but don’t let them do whatever the hell they like. Answering your examples one by one:
                          -For emergency surgery, they should be obligated to operate, for non-emergency surgery, they should be obligated to at least make a referral.
                          -A store clerk should be able to refuse to serve a customer (regardless of religious differences), but the consequence is having one less customer, and if they are not the manager themselves the possibility of getting fired.
                          -To garner something from your last name is racism and is illegal in any location with freedom of religion.
                          -Taxi driver can certainly do that, but they risk losing their job or merely the commission from that one fare (which would be the difference between eating and not eating for the taxi driver or two that I know).
                          -He shouldn’t be paying attention to who is living there. He wouldn’t know if they are actually living there, or if it is just an out of date mailing address. Perhaps they are married but the wife decided to keep her own name.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 6:33 am

                          @ Scum… depends on the circumstance. IF the Army chose to issue uniform Sarees then fine. I doubt anyone would sue for one since, operationally speaking, it’s impractical. I objected to the hoo-ha over here about some bloody woman complaining she wasn’t allowed to wear a cross OVER her BA cabin crew crew uniform, when Sikh pilots had a Unform turban and Islamic women cabin crew had a uniform headscarf option… note the word ‘UNIFORM’… Also, Islamic female cabine crew serve alcohol, btw, and that ghastly cat meat bap that passes for in flight meals these day.
                          If BA issued Uniform crosses, it’s fine by me… For me, she could wear the bloody thing… having it grabbed by pissed-up travellers a few times would have softened her cough… However, the problem was twofold -

                          1) anything around the neck that is loose is a danger to the wearer in that kind of job
                          2) IT’S NOT UNIFORM! The Sikh Turban is UNIFORM, the optional Islamic scarf is UNIFORM. Has been since forever (at least since we started having Bengali and Pakistani speaking Cabin Crew on BA flights… back in the day they were recruited from abroad) and neither are an impairment to safe operatial use.

                          Where do we draw the line – at safety. If it’s not safe to wear operationally, it’s not safe for uniform.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 6:37 am

                          Yes, it is right wing bullcrap, but that’s my point. They can be pharmacists.
                          Where do you draw the line?

                          Which ‘they’… most of the day after pill problems and other dispensing of contraceptives are from white Fundie Christians….

                        • froofrou says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 8:42 am

                          @ Unc: IIRC, you have to be wearing a recognizable uniform that represents your home country or military unit in order to fall under the Geneva Convention, and some type of unique modification would not follow that rule.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 11:26 am

                          BA – British Airways. It’s a corporate uniform Froo… but there are unifrom standards in the contract you sign. Airline uniforms, at least in the UK, tend to be practical and safe. The cross was neither… quite how someone with that much air time wouldn’t think of a drunken yob grabbing it (or even a small child) defeats me still…

                          In the Mil, there are a few ‘variations’ – like uniform turban, or the Gurkha hat… both tokens earned with blood, and I’d not care to see what happened to an enemy who decided that a Gurkha or a Sikh was ‘outside the Geneva Convention’. There are always stories of the fate of those who mistreated our Indian regiments members… and based on my limited contact with those particular fighting men, I could quite believe the tales are true…
                          In combat conditions, both sides ‘specialists’ modify their combat uniform, to allow them to do their job more efficiently.

                        • froofrou says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 11:29 am

                          As far as a corporate uniform, you know what you’re getting when you sign up for the job, no sympathy here for those who want to buck a system. I have to deal with idiots who apparently didn’t listen during orientation and can’t remember they were told to wear no jewelry while out on the production floor.
                          -
                          Sorry about the misunderstanding about BA being British Airways vs British Army. I admit I was kind of just scanning the threads. :-)

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:09 pm

                          Official DWN statement for those that give half a damn, for those mildly interested, and for those that give a full damn. Reminder for those that give a full damn, you forgot your medication or take something stronger.

                          When it comes to a job or uniform or duty on the job. If there is a specific uniform, wear the damn thing or don’t come to work. If your job is to dispense medication, do your damn job. If your job is to carry males, then by God/Nongod/Flying steak knife, you carry those damn dudes. If you’re a surgeon, then you do the damn surgery that was scheduled by your damn office. The only time you should freak out about your duties is if your boss asks you to do something completely out of left field. If you work at a pharmacy, expect to dispense medication of all kinds. If it was prescribed, you fill it if they can pay for it. Now if they come in and ask you to sacrifice a goat during work hours, then you can whine about religion or how it isn’t in your job description.

                          Logic will work the atheists, nonAmericans, and the Americans who prefer logic to whining.

                          For those patriotic sorts, using religion to shirk your job is UnAmerican. The piss weak religious whining not to do your damn job is just another way people make this damn country weak, besides all the normal pansy crap we do that weakens our national strength. Freedom of Religion means keeping your damn religion to your damn self. If you feel your religion and job will conflict, get another damn job.

                          /official DWN Statement about religon and the workplace with extra added patriot sauce to cover all the bases.

                        • froofrou says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm

                          *standing ovation*

                        • dissimilitude says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm

                          Ovation seconded. Awesome.

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm

                          *blushes* The pharmacy part really galls me from when I handled prior authorizations for medication. Birth control was almost never authorized while erectile disfunction medication was very easy to get authorized. They didn’t get a bunch of the pills but they still got them with very little fight.

                          But that aside, too kind ladies.

                        • dissimilitude says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:33 pm

                          My one caveat on “you’re the darn pharmacist, fill this prescription” is the situation where a pharmacist takes a scrip for something frequently abused (Lortab, Xanax, etc.) and then has reason to suspect it’s either altered, forged, or obtained from the doc under false pretenses (i.e., doc had no idea this guy’s got the same prescription from 2 other doctors). Sometimes they have to check it out, and if it’s on a night or weekend, they can legitimately tell you you have to wait until they can verify it.

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:37 pm

                          However, that IS his job. To make sure the medication isn’t abused or that the script is legit. It isn’t his job to be the patient’s doctor and/or priest and say they can’t have it just because. That being the slightly aggressive way of stating that I agree with you. :D

                        • dissimilitude says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 12:44 pm

                          :-) I like it when you agree with me aggressively.

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm

                          Flattery will get you everywhere but mostly places you didn’t want to visit…

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 4:21 am

                          DWN – Best post on the thread…

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 12:09 pm

                          An honor and a privilege, sir.

                        • Isengrim says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 2:49 pm

                          Oh, and if anyone’s interested, I have added a link behind my name here to the RCMP’s own history site. I forgot to include it in the previous post (which hasn’t even shown up yet, so if this is out of order, forgive me.)

                        • rhorho says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm

                          @DWN: Coming in late, but congrats on the
                          post. It is crystal clear to me that I’m not
                          qualified to do *many* jobs. It amazes me
                          how, for example, someone could go all the
                          way through pharmacy school without
                          knowing that the job description includes
                          something s/he could find objectionable.

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 3:11 pm

                          Thank you. I can only assume they thought they could just have their little pill dispensing dream in some kind of Pleasantville without those horrid sl*ts who dare take reproductive responsibility or at least precaution. :roll:

                  • Tessie says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 12:35 pm

                    Onion article re this; only partly funny despite intending otherwise.

                    Reply
    • lolo says:
      February 1, 2009 at 6:58 am

      Well they got women to write the signs…yay :P

      Reply
  9. yoyo says:
    February 1, 2009 at 7:31 am

    They’re no different than the Christian nutcases.

    Reply
  10. IPG says:
    February 1, 2009 at 7:38 am

    So?

    Reply
  11. soo says:
    February 1, 2009 at 7:40 am

    Funny, Christ never said to kill those who disagree or don’t accept His views or teachings. And neither do the teachings of Buddhism or Hinduism. Kinda makes Islam all the more radical imho.

    Reply
    • scott says:
      February 1, 2009 at 7:46 am

      Im sure there are those who will twist it around to make christanity a bad, killers religion.

      Besides, the crusades were pretty much making war in the name of christ.

      Reply
      • Mogan says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:57 am

        The Crusades were pretty much making war to try and reclaim the supposed “holy land”. And by “pretty much” I mean “exactly”.

        Christ had it right with that whole “Love as I have loved” thing, but like any great revolutionary (which is what he was, let’s face it), his message got twisted by those that followed him (Him?).

        Reply
    • Uncle Fester says:
      February 1, 2009 at 7:47 am

      The parable in Luke 19 can be read such that he did, but you beleive what you want to…

      Reply
    • mek says:
      February 1, 2009 at 8:45 am

      First of all, Islam does not teach you to kill those who don’t share you view. And if you’re thinking about that particular incident with the drawings it’s just as easy as this: Muslims actually believe in respecting their prophet and their God. This is because there is and actual culture worth keeping in Muslim countries where they tend to respect their elders and important religious figures. As far as Hinduism and Buddhism is concerned, there is a lot of respect involved when it comes to their religious figures. As far as Christianity is concerned, it’s only in the west where people don’t really have a culture that they can’t fathom how people actually get angry when people mock their religion. In Christian countries in Africa you do find the same kind of respect for Christ among Christians, almost like those crazy Muslims.

      Reply
      • Aedriel says:
        February 1, 2009 at 9:39 am

        it’s only in the west where people don’t really have a culture

        Clearly you are from the west… we most certainly do have a culture, you probably just don’t notice it because you’re so accustomed. We’re not a collectivist culture…

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 1, 2009 at 9:47 am

          I’d say we’re a secular culture… other than America, where God seems to be invoked with nauseating regularity…

          Reply
          • Mogan says:
            February 1, 2009 at 9:53 am

            ‘Tis true. God gets in the way of a lot of things here. I always find my arguments boiling down to, “No, the Founding Fathers were NOT Christians…Jefferson swore in with a Qu’ran!….” and other stuff, but it seems that the simple fact that I align myself with a certain religious viewpoint, they don’t care what I think.

            But we’re a young country. Well, young-ish. I think religion is part of the growing pains all nations have to go through. Like England. I hear-tell they’re pretty proggy with religion, but that wasn’t always the case.

            Reply
            • Uncle Fester says:
              February 1, 2009 at 11:01 am

              It soaked most of our little Island with blood, and the ramifications of the Roman Church are still present in Northern Ireland.
              These days, we can elect atheists and no one cares… Blair waited to leave office before ivoking God this and God that since he’d have been branded a nutter and probably thrown out. Even MPs with overtly religious remits (Alton springs to mind) doesn’t invoke God in their machinations to make Cannon (be it Roman or Piscy) law part of English Law.

              Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 1, 2009 at 11:02 am

                *doesn’t – read ‘don’t'… the sentence started as a reference to one MP, but then I remembered a couple more god botherers…

                Reply
              • AC says:
                February 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm

                You can use anything as an excuse to spill blood. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with God. Honestly, the sectarians who see my school uniform and shout “proddy unionist b*stard” have at least one thing in common with sectarian “protestants”: they hate us “bible bashers” more than they hate each other. It’s not even political: even the neds who claim to be unionist will tell you how much they hate the English. People will cling to the name of an ideology just to give themselves an identity.Religion has rarely been the reason, only the excuse.

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 1:58 pm

                  Glasgow has always been an annexe of Hell…

                  Reply
                  • AC says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:13 pm

                    Hey! I’m not a wegie! I’m a bairn. I’m from a town in Stirlingshire!
                    Yeah, sectarianism is worse in the west of Scotland and Glasgow but you’ll find that it’s a widespread as idiocy.
                    Anyway, I like Glasgow. It’s “the friendly city” and it’s been getting really pretty recently.

                    Reply
                    • slan agat says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm

                      You think Glasgow’s friendly? Give us a kiss then…

                      *bonk*

                      Reply
                    • Uncle Fester says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm

                      The Scots have never really taken a lot of persuading to kill each other.
                      It took an Irishman to unify the Scots tribes… Niall of the Nine Hostages made Scotland a problem the the Romans…

                      Reply
                      • AC says:
                        February 2, 2009 at 5:36 am

                        … Or an enemy other than each other. So, really, we have the English to thank for national identity… :p

                        Reply
                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 4:48 am

                          Niall, actually… prior to him the Scots tribes
                          would kill each other rather than an
                          outlander… So, it was an Irish King who
                          manipulated you into becoming a PITA to
                          the Romans and thus let him get back to his
                          major hobby of warring against other Irish
                          kings.

                        • AC says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 6:18 am

                          Well, Scots are half Irish anyway… A nice mix of Picts and Gaels… Constantine was Irish/Gael backed when he was reclaiming the throne… I think..

                • Scum says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm

                  Everything, all of it, whether it takes on a religious tone, a political tone or economic tone, it’s all about power and self-worth.

                  Reply
                  • AC says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:14 pm

                    Doesn’t mean that religion, politics or economics should be gotten rid of, tho…

                    Reply
                    • Scum says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 2:27 pm

                      No it doesn’t. Doesn’t mean that they should be kept around either.
                      -
                      - Are they doing more good than harm?
                      - Are they contributing to the betterment of mankind or the world in general?
                      - Is there something better with which they can be replaced?

                      Reply
                      • AC says:
                        February 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

                        Interesting questions….
                        Obviously I’m going to say “yes” to 1 & 2. We can agree to disagree or start an absolute beast of a thread…
                        The 3rd question I shall ponder….

                        Reply
                        • Scum says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm

                          The easy response to your answering ‘yes’ so easily to #’s 1 & 2 is to say that it’s not that easy (but you know that).

                          The 2nd part to #3 of course is, does it need to be replaced at all or has it served its purpose?

                          I think the answer to #3 part 1 is: There is always something better even if we don’t know what it is right now. There is no such thing as perfection, and as things change, we need to change right along with them or suffer because of it.

                          #3 part 2, I won’t try to tell you what has or has not outlived it’s usefulness, but I will say if something has, we only harm ourselves by trying to keep it important in our lives and not allowing ourselves to continue to move forward.

                          I’m told that in Sweden, religion has become mostly a thing of tradition and ceremony, not a real set of beliefs or a system by which people choose how they should live their lives. I like that. I see no harm in traditions per se (I’m sure there are some that aren’t too healthy), I just think it preferable that people at least attempt to live in the real world and make decisions for their lives and the lives of others based on this world, not some mythical magical world from storybooks.

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 2:17 am

                          I’m told that in Sweden, religion has become mostly a thing of tradition and ceremony, not a real set of beliefs or a system by which people choose how they should live their lives.

                          I think this is quite accurate and I also think it’s largely for the better. It has some strange (for me unwelcome) side effects. For instance, I am prone to argue against schools having their “last-day-of-the-school-term” gatherings in churches, which is a tradtion here and there, including the singing of psalms. Quite often, people think me oversensitive, and they mean that a church is basically not a religious house, and that psalms aren’t very religious at all. So far, my best response tends to be an “Eh?”.
                          .
                          It’s also rather common that couples wish to get married in a church because, it’s traditional and “pretty”, I guess, but they ask the priest to “tone down all that God-talk”. Fine by me, of course, but I think this (hmm, I know which word I look for in Swedish, but can’t think of an English word, sorry) “thoughtlessness”/”cluelessness”/”naivity” about religion, secular religion, and agnosticism/atheism might be a slightly bad thing.
                          .
                          I don’t know, basically. It’s hard to analyse a society that you’re a part of, I think. :)

                        • PiMan says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 5:47 pm

                          I think cluelessness might be the right word.

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 10:52 pm

                          Yes, I can’t think of a better word still. My only problem with “cluelessness” is that it’s a more negative word than what I was looking for, it feels to me to imply a certain amount of uneducation and stupidity, which is not exactly what I’m looking for. But yeah, it’s probably the closest term.

                        • rhorho says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 11:06 pm

                          I think it’s more like “not seeing the forest
                          for the trees.”

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 3, 2009 at 11:13 pm

                          I think it’s down to religion not meaning much to quite a f ew people, and they think that if they aren’t bothered about it, no one else needs to be either. They don’t react to singing hymns to the glory aof the lord, why should anyone else care?
                          .
                          Another tricky part of the fight to keep kids being hauled off to church a couple of times a year is that it has become a matter of “we shall not change our ways to accomodate those damned muslims”, which makes it a much more touchy subject. :p

                        • rhorho says:
                          February 4, 2009 at 12:16 am

                          I’m not sure I follow. So far, I’ve got politics
                          via religion, religion for heritage, and heritage
                          for heretics?

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 4, 2009 at 12:20 am

                          Hmm? Now I’m confused! :)
                          My ramblings are only related to what happens to religion when it’s largely (or at least for a large amount of the population) reduced to filling traditions and ceremony, and why this still causes some issues.

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 4, 2009 at 12:21 am

                          “filling traditions and ceremony” seems like a strange way of expressing what I meant. I think I was going to write “filling the role of tradition-bearer and ceremony-… something”. :p

                        • rhorho says:
                          February 4, 2009 at 1:36 am

                          Pomp and circumstance, maybe? I thought I
                          had that covered in the “religion for heritage”
                          bit, but that’s okay. Old churches are great
                          for creating the aura of solemnity and pur-
                          pose. They support the whole “hallowed halls”
                          racket. Granted, what passes for “old” in the
                          U.S. isn’t much more than “gently worn” to
                          you and your peeps.

                        • Danbala says:
                          February 4, 2009 at 1:55 am

                          Yeah, you probably had. I was mostly thrown by you saying you’re not sure you follow…
                          And yes, church buildings are often quite wonderful.

            • Sproiing says:
              February 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm

              Nope, sorry. While Jefferson indeed *owned* a copy of the Qu’ran, he did NOT take his oath of office on it. Unless perhaps you have a legitimate citation?

              Reply
    • IPG says:
      February 1, 2009 at 10:45 am

      Now if you could show me where exactly he said that the OT and everything that came before him are irrelevant, I wouldn’t think you are quite so big a moron.

      Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        February 1, 2009 at 11:04 am

        I think it’s implied in a Pauline letter and in the exegesis of ‘fulfil the law’…
        You need an apologist for this crap, since they can argue that black is white…

        Reply
        • Pheemz says:
          February 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm

          Galatians is largely about how Old Testament law doesn’t apply to Christians.

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 2, 2009 at 1:11 am

            but that’s only one letter, to one group, at one place, at that time… that’s the justification I’ve heard for ignoring 1 Tim 2 here….

            Reply
            • AC says:
              February 3, 2009 at 6:22 am

              Did you not read what Froo and OMG were saying to you?
              That was ONE of the things they were saying and it made perfect sense in context. Also, it’s not “ignoring” 1 Tim 2 -it’s ignoring idiots’ use of it as a way to opress women.

              Reply
              • AC says:
                February 3, 2009 at 6:23 am

                *oppress

                Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 3, 2009 at 7:50 am

                No, it was quite unequivocal… it was something that was written to one group and one place at a specific time…that was the exegesis there… cna’t be one exegesis for one bit and another for another… I’d suggest you go and find the posts made… it was very, very clear…

                Reply
                • AC says:
                  February 3, 2009 at 8:19 am

                  No, the bit about specific place and time was because you have to understand the context to understand the meaning.
                  The context was a society where women weren’t educated AT ALL Paul said they could be educated but they should go about it with dignity -something that shouldn’t really be “ignored.”
                  It’s a lesson about not placing responsibility on the shoulders of those who aren’t ready for it. How could women teach when they were only just beginning to be taught?
                  Both these things are important. Like I said, it’s not about ignoring the passage -it’s about ignoring those who’re using it to oppress others?

                  Reply
    • OgreMagi says:
      February 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm

      The quran disagrees with you. Here’s just a few of many verses from that unholy book:

      Sura (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

      Sura (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

      Sura (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

      Sura (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way”

      Reply
      • rhorho says:
        February 1, 2009 at 7:54 pm

        Sura sounds pretty pissed off…

        Reply
      • Anony MOuse says:
        February 1, 2009 at 9:03 pm

        Huh… all I see there is a call to arms… nothing about actually killing anyone. With the exception of the second quote… all those are saying is to stand up for what you believe in.

        And why is the Quran an unholy book? Because it’s not the book you believe in?

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 2, 2009 at 12:54 am

          Check the body count… Neither Qu’ran nor the Bible has much claim to ‘Holy’ looking at their fruits…

          Reply
        • OgreMagi says:
          February 2, 2009 at 1:14 am

          In the context that they were written, they are orders to go out and kill nonbelievers. At the beginning, mohammed did say that religion could not be forced. However, later on when his powerbase had grown, he did a complete turn-about and went on a rampage of conquest using religion and forced conversion as an excuse. Don’t try to sugar coat it. Either you are naive about your own religion or you are purposely covering up the true meaning because you know westerners would not much care for the message.

          If your god can not stand human satire, then your god is weak and impotent.

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 2, 2009 at 1:44 am

            your god is weak and impotent.

            You know Mr Dooley’s definition of a ‘fanatic’ I assume, but for those who don’t
            “A fanatic is a man who would do what the Lord would do, if he had the facts of the matter.”
            And a bit of doggerel from a late friend of mine…

            Satan never had a fall
            He really never was at all
            And if you’d care to look within
            You’d see there never was a sin
            There really was no sin at all
            An offended god is much too small…

            Reply
      • hornyhornyhippos says:
        February 1, 2009 at 9:56 pm

        Umm…Ain’t the Suras from the whole Life and Times of the prophet thingamajig? (I’m purdy sure the Qu’ran is a different one >.<). May be my own ignorance, but from what I’ve heard, You’ve got Suras and you’ve got Qu’ran, the first being like a biography of Muhammad and the second more like the New-new testament : P

        Reply
      • rhorho says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:33 pm

        Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

        Exodus 22:20: “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

        Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

        Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “If there arise among you a prophet, … saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them…And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death…So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee….”

        Psalms 79:6: “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.”

        ******************************

        Matthew 27:24-25: “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”

        John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

        1 Corinthians 10:20-21 “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”

        2 Corinthians 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

        1 Thessalonians 2:14-15: “…ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.”

        Reply
        • froofrou says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:36 pm

          If you’ll notice, God got a little more relaxed in the New Testament. He kind of backed off on the talk of killing, and more toward shunning.

          Reply
          • PiMan says:
            February 1, 2009 at 11:54 pm

            Jesus wasn’t always as nice as that.
            Luke 19:27-28 – But as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!’”
            After Jesus had said this, he traveled on and went up to Jerusalem.

            Reply
          • n8 says:
            February 2, 2009 at 3:45 am

            Almost like they were two different beings… but that would just be silly.

            Reply
            • Uncle Fester says:
              February 2, 2009 at 3:55 am

              I count three… There’s the one who slums with Abraham and
              has anger management issues, the one who won’t give Moses
              his name, and kills people at random, then the lad that
              Jeremiah spoke of…

              Reply
            • froofrou says:
              February 2, 2009 at 8:43 am

              I attribute it to the creation of Prozac.

              Reply
              • rhorho says:
                February 2, 2009 at 10:12 am

                So, froo, you’re saying God’s on Prozac? I guess it follows,
                since Rush is on Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Viagra, and
                whatever else.

                Are any of your heroes/deites drug-free?

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

                  “There ain’t no devil, it’s just god when he’s drunk…”

                  I think Tom Waits should be made the Poet Laureate of the US…

                  Reply
                • Literal says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 10:23 am

                  Speaking of violence … looks like UF didn’t find that linkie I left to the sock puppet calling him out on ROFLRazzi … hopefully he’ll click this link, and we’ll get a good laugh out of it …

                  Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 10:38 am

                  Are any of your heroes/deites drug-free?

                  One thing I’ve noticed about the Conservative Right – A very ‘healthy’ streak of existential and self loathing that requires huge amounts of drink and opiates to dull to a dull roar… Same with their god, whoo seems to be some sort of psychotic stalker who’ll chain you in the cellar and torture you for minor transgressions, because he loves you…

                  Reply
        • rhorho says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:37 pm

          [LINK] Source for above, annotated.

          Reply
        • OgreMagi says:
          February 2, 2009 at 1:19 am

          So what? How many terrrorist attacks in the name of christianity have occurred in the last eight years? A few, I’m sure. There are always a few nut jobs in any group. How many terrorists attacks in the name of islam in the last eight years? 12,669. There were over 2000 attacks in 2008 alone in the name of islam. How many in the name of all other religions combined? I can’t think of one, but I’ll accept that there may have been one or two.

          I’m not a christian, but even I can see that trying to compare the violence of islam to christianity is stupid.

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 2, 2009 at 1:46 am

            Actually, no it’s not… They’re poisoned shoots from the same poisoned tap root…

            Reply
          • PiMan says:
            February 2, 2009 at 1:59 am

            The deaths in the name of other religions have usually been against Islam. But more often, the crime ends up being vandalism rather than murder.
            It isn’t usually publicised (not a conspiracy, just the media not caring about vandalism that much), but I have heard of mosques being torched or the windows being smashed.

            Reply
  12. scott says:
    February 1, 2009 at 7:45 am

    Aint that the truth

    Reply
  13. T says:
    February 1, 2009 at 8:07 am

    That is not a LOL, it´s too true to be funny :(

    Reply
  14. blah says:
    February 1, 2009 at 8:29 am

    i like this one…it’s sort of true…in a sad way…

    Reply
  15. EmbalmaMama says:
    February 1, 2009 at 8:54 am

    I have never been able to understand why people just can’t leave each othe the hell alone. Do my beliefs actually affect others? Practice your belief and let your neighbor do the same. What’s the freaking problem? People who use their beliefs to beget violence show their ignorance with every action. Sadly, this syndrome is across all systems.

    Reply
    • Uncle Fester says:
      February 1, 2009 at 9:25 am

      People would would do well to ty something that used to be the practice in the UK.
      One would no more discuss one’s religion with others, than one would comment on the state of their bowels…

      Reply
      • rhorho says:
        February 1, 2009 at 9:38 am

        I think most of the general populace still practices that rule in the western
        world. In my area, part of “The Bible Belt,” the work of sidewalk proselyti-
        zing is largely left to those who have slipped through the cracks of the
        mental healthcare system. Hate spew is otherwise employed in the pulpits
        and radio and TV broadcasts. So far, listening is not mandatory.

        When I first moved to the area, some people politely inquired as to whether
        I had found a “church home.” Other than that, I’ve been left in peace.

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 1, 2009 at 9:45 am

          I had found a “church home.”

          Over here, that sort of question is more akin to ‘have you shagged on the kitchen table’ than polite conversation…

          Reply
          • rhorho says:
            February 1, 2009 at 10:36 am

            Interesting cultural difference, there. In case it wasn’t clear, the only
            inquiries happened when I was new to the area, and the people
            asking were quick to back off when I displayed awkwardness. If I
            had been a Christian (as was the religion of all inquirers) looking for
            a place of worship, I may have considered each inquiry (followed by
            the predictable worship service invitation) to be a warm welcome.

            Considering the high percentage of Christian churchgoers in this
            area, the inquiries seemed only mildly ethnocentric, nothing more.
            Ironically, I believe the inquiring people felt they were being nice.
            Though caught flat-footed, I didn’t get my hackles up. My brilliantly
            executed answers (along the line of “Uh, well, uh, no, but that’s not
            my thing”) seemed to work.

            Reply
        • Aedriel says:
          February 1, 2009 at 9:52 am

          At one point when I was a young teen my family moved to a really religious own. My dad’s… well, I’m still not sure what he believes, but he hates church, and my mom didn’t like most of them (hypocrites, all!), and I hadn’t gone since I was about 6 when grandpa told me the Bible was bunk after I asked him about evolution vs genesis… (Fester would have loved him)

          EVERYONE immediately ostracised our family once my mom said “I haven’t found a church I like yet.” Apparently it shouldn’t have mattered if she liked it or not, she was just supposed to go to one. We were heathens!

          I was amused. My mother not so much. Between that and my autistic brother she became borderline suicidal. :(

          Reply
          • Aedriel says:
            February 1, 2009 at 9:52 am

            *town

            Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 1, 2009 at 11:09 am

            Nice people there… least they didn’t try an intervention…

            Reply
            • Aedriel says:
              February 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm

              We did have a social worker come by a few times, actually… but I think most people were too disgusted with us to do much else.

              Reply
              • Scum says:
                February 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm

                Wait, what!?! You had a social worker come by because you are atheist??Holy mother of g.. (oops, freudian vestments showing. You can take the boy out of the catholic [and the baptist and the pentecostal]…).
                -
                Back to my point, a social worker is a representative of the state. If I understood you correctly, what the hell were they doing checking up on a family
                simply because they’re sane enough to not hold to the mythology of ancient cavepeoples??

                What year was this, and was there something else going on that would have brought them by?

                Reply
                • AC says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm

                  Presumably the social worker was there because of the autistic brother.
                  Aedriel?

                  Reply
                  • Aedriel says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm

                    Actually my family isn’t atheist, just me – my mother is a devout christian, and I’ve no idea what my father is, personally I think he’s atheist but doesn’t want to admit it to his own mother. My brother is also atheist.

                    They called social services because he hadn’t been diagnosed yet and the school thought he was delinquent – ignorant assholes. Also, when asked, I told the school that we didn’t have “rules” at my house. I was raised on common sense, rules were for classrooms and larger groups of kids where they actually became necessary. Not to mention we didn’t go to church! So my mother was “unfit.” That’s what really drove her toward the edge. We moved to Atlanta then and it’s better here but I’d rather get back out of the US…

                    This happened in Texas, by the way. Under G. W. Bush. The education system there was all kinds of f*cked, if that’s any surprise…

                    Reply
                    • Scum says:
                      February 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm

                      Sorry, I misunderstood. It sounds like you live in a rather sane family. It also sounds like you’ve been exposed primarily to one type of America. Sorry about that. The rest of us are trying, but, well, you’ve seen a lot of what we have to work with.
                      -
                      It’s funny. for the last 20+ years, I’ve lived in areas of the US that, while not historically the msot tolerant of others, have become great believers in pluralism. I’ve now moved to an area where there’s a church on almost every corner. Where three churches contacted me by mail as soon as I moved in. Where more people strongly profess their belief in gods than there are those who don’t bring it up. (I do not, could not and will not ever live in the Bible Belt). It’s a very interesting change for me, and I think might stress my ability to keep my mouth shut – not exactly something I’m known for anyway.
                      -
                      May I ask what country you’re from? Is there any chance you’ll be moving with your family again to a better area of the US?

                      Reply
                      • Aedriel says:
                        February 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm

                        I was born in the UK, lived west of London briefly, moved to Atlanta when I was
                        really tiny, moved to Dallas for a few years until my mother went nuts, then moved back to Atlanta. I’ll never understand why they stay in the south. Temperature maybe? In any case, I don’t think they’ll be moving any time soon. I currently am still living here because my parents are trying to get my little brother on his own feet, so I’m more or less taking care of him, trying to wean them off the parental tit. In exchange they’re paying for me to return to University after some life problems I had a few years ago.

                        I plan to escape within a year or two.

                        Reply
                        • Scum says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm

                          If you’ve considered staying in the US for any period of time and are interested in living in or simply checking out more tolerant areas, consider these in no particular order:
                          -
                          Minnesota
                          parts of San Francisco / Bay Area of California.
                          parts of San Diego
                          parts of the greater Boston, MA area
                          parts of the greater NYC area
                          Las Vegas (I couldn’t live there, but some people love it)
                          Austin, TX (I’m told)
                          Portland, OR
                          Chicago, IL
                          Hawaii In spite of the abundance of churches and the us vs them mentality of some locals, I can’t imagine being anywhere else right now. We really do have the best weather of anywhere in the world. The people are wonderful and the very laid back.
                          -
                          I wish you well with all of the stuff currently going on. I hope it all works out quickly and happily for everyone.
                          -
                          On that note, I’m going to walk to the beach and go for a swim…

                        • rhorho says:
                          February 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm

                          Tell the fishies I said hi, Scum! ;-)

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:33 am

                          Rho, don’t most of your enemies sleep with them?

                        • viking gal says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 9:40 am

                          You could add Ann Arbor, MI, Tucson, AZ, and also Philadelphia and Pittsburg—but NOT the rest of PA.

                  • Scum says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm

                    Thanks AC, I completely missed that.

                    Reply
                  • Aedriel says:
                    February 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

                    Early 90s btw.

                    Reply
                • slan agat says:
                  February 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm

                  oops, freudian vestments showing. You can take the boy out of the catholic

                  But to get the Catholic out of the boy takes a class action lawsuit.

                  Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

                By Interevention, I meant dragged to church by force and anointed…

                Reply
        • Mogan says:
          February 1, 2009 at 9:57 am

          Ten points to rhorho for using “proselytizing” correctly.

          Reply
    • IPG says:
      February 1, 2009 at 10:52 am

      “Do my beliefs actually affect others?”

      Dunno, you tell me. What are your believes re legislating morality, abortion, stem cell research, teaching creationism in science class and all the other things that usually get people worked up?

      Reply
  16. meh says:
    February 1, 2009 at 9:08 am

    i can slander whoever i want and just because you choose to be offeneded because of your beliefs it doesnt make me wrong to do so. the moment you give way to anger and violence you have just lost your ‘jihad’. thats my personal opinion and im entitled to it, it doesnt matter if you think its wrong or that i shouldn’t have the right because you have the same rights too. i personally dont care if someone slanders my beliefs or my familly or the peice of dirt that i was born on. i guess this comes from that old playground rhyme that i so often said to myself ‘sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me’. whatever. ill crawl back under my stone now.

    Reply
    • rhorho says:
      February 1, 2009 at 9:27 am

      i can slander whoever i want and just because you choose to be offeneded because of your beliefs it doesnt make me wrong to do so

      Slander is wrong. You made a bad word choice there. Of course, you can crawl out from under your stone, spew hate, and crawl back. Nobody here is denying you your right to be an idiot, even a hateful one. Nobody here is denying your right to be a coward, either.

      Was that your entire point? “I can do whatever I want?”

      Reply
    • Mogan says:
      February 1, 2009 at 9:58 am

      Funny thing, calling them “jihad-ists” (or referring anything they do to as a jihad), is actually empowering for them.

      Reply
    • Isengrim says:
      February 1, 2009 at 10:59 am

      Yes, watch with the word “slander” because slander (spoken libel) is a criminal offense. However, “making fun of (something)” is fully within the law, and has a big part in North American culture (and possibly European, but I’m too shaky there, I’ll let Uncle Fester handle that.)

      Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        February 1, 2009 at 11:29 am

        It’s not an issue… these days…
        James Kirkup’s poem, The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name was sued under Blasphemy laws… Happy times… but that was regarded as pretty much a local insanity…

        Reply
        • PiMan says:
          February 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm

          You exaggerate the intentions and numbers of extremist Muslims outside of Islamic nations. I know many Muslim people and have never found them to be more or less violent than everyone else. They are just people.

          Reply
          • Isengrim says:
            February 1, 2009 at 7:49 pm

            Yes, they are just people. However, people can disguise their intentions; and what I say (unless declared otherwise) refers to Canada, which, as stated elsewhere, is a rather special case, as it is quite vulnerable, and has been for a while.

            However, when it comes down to brass tacks, I wonder how many supposed “moderates” will take the side of their co-religionists rather than the side
            of their adopted country(ies). After all, there doesn’t seem to be much
            Muslim backlash against those with radical views. Not all of them are
            going to be as stupid as the Khadr family who openly declared how much they hate Canada, western values, etc and are only here for the free health care, at the same time the Canadian government is trying to get their scumbag son of out Gitmo.

            Reply
            • PiMan says:
              February 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm

              I don’t see how Canada would be much different from Australia. A similar percentage of the population are Muslims (~2%), we both have parliamentary democracies.
              .
              What are these laws you refer to that have been changed to suit Muslims?

              Reply
              • Isengrim says:
                February 2, 2009 at 9:58 am

                Well, last election, the government allowed Muslim women to vote with their faces covered. Keep in mind, when I went to vote, I was never asked for ID, even though the press releases said everyone would be. However, ID
                doesn’t do much good when your face is covered, does it? I will grant that many Muslims spoke out against this; Harper (who announced this personally)
                was probably influenced by some of the more vocal and powerful radicals, along the lines of the fellow who started the trouble for the publisher, Levant.
                And speaking of Mr Levant, it’s quite telling that the imam went to the police (presumably the Calgary Police Service) three times to get Levant arrested, and was refused each time. He only had to ask the Alberta Human Rights Commission once.

                We had the spectacle of a Sikh trying to force the Alberta court system to allow those ceremonial daggers into courtrooms. He claimed that they are allowed in the Supreme Court, which I find shocking. When I went to court to see my ex, I was subjected to a VERY thorough search, and I know if I had had anything even remotely dangerous on my person, I would have been arrested on the spot. I don’t think religion should be an out for carrying items dangerous to the public. If I can’t carry a short sword for my own protection, then why should you to display?

                Most of Sikh and Muslim attempts to change rules have been, well attempts at rule-changing, rather than outright law changing (but sports rules can be a testing ground for bigger things, I think.) We Albertans were also treated to the spectacle of a young Muslim girl in a hujab whining that she couldn’t wear her hijab on the soccer field. She was crying and holding a cell phone
                in front of the cameras. The soccer league caved in.

                Also remember this is a country where the Air India bombers walked,
                after their trial was delayed for 20 years. We had a leader of an opposition party, Jack Layton, in a Sikh parade in which the participants were weaving signs with not only the Air India bombers, but also known and convicted Sikh terrorists from other countries.

                The 17 Muslims charged in trying to blow up the CN Tower all walked, too.
                The RCMP had discovered their plot, that they had ordered 3 tons of the same fertilizer used in blowing up the Murrah building in the 90s. THe cops replaced it with fake stuff, and arrested them when they laid hands on the stuff.
                These men had also threatened to “storm Parliament” and cut off Stephen Harper’s head (I don’t like Harper, either, but I’ll be damned if I want to see him get beheaded by the likes of these!) Yes, the accused were either mostly tor all born here, but they were goaded into action by their imams, similar to the London tube bombings.

                The last major incident had to do with Sikhs. A deportee went and hid in a Sikh temple and his buddies prevented the police and immigration officials from getting at him for months – you should have seen their faces; they were basically _daring_ Canada to send him back to India. Here’s the aftermath of the whole ridiculous pony show: http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/?p=117

                It’s a matter of nibbling around the edges. The frog in the pot of water. And while StatsCan dosen’t seem to release data related to religion, please see this link, and take a look at the tables. Keep in mind that many Muslims and Sikhs get here via Europe (which is then listed as their area of origin) and many SouthEast Asians are Muslims. And I mention Sikhs and Muslims together because both groups, while different, and presumably not liking one another, are the most vocal in trying to change things here to suit themselves, and lobby hardest against any change in immigration policies that would affect them negatively. My hometown did have a huge influx of Mexicans a year or so ago, but they were duped into thinking they would automatically be given jobs and homes here by crooked immigration lawyers – which are operating all over the world and selling the idea that Canada is a free-for-all. And they seem to operate with the knowledge of the federal government.

                I am simply noticing patterns. The pattern that has emerged over the past few years is not a healthy one. The attitudes I have been seeing by certain groups of immigrants is that Canada _must_ be changed, and that the host population is nothing but a pile of crap to be disregarded and disrespected – IOW, bald racism against Canadians. Anyway, here’s the StatsCan page:

                http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=E&SP_Action=Result&SP_ID=30004&SP_TYP=5&SP_Sort=1&SP_Mode=2

                Reply
                • PiMan says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 5:23 pm

                  Why shouldn’t a girl be able to wear a Hijab on the soccer field?
                  The 17 charged with trying to blow up the CN Tower would have walked because there wasn’t sufficient evidence against them or for some other legal reason. Not because they are Muslim.
                  .
                  I agree about the ceremonial knives. No weapon should be allowed inot a courtroom (unless it is appropriately handled as evidence).
                  .
                  I have religious data for you [link in my name]. Taken from the 2001 census.
                  .
                  You also see these events as special, as though no Christian or atheist has ever tried to manipulate the legal system.

                  Reply
      • Danbala says:
        February 2, 2009 at 4:25 am

        I think satire has a fairly important role here too. Then again, it’s not too far ago that “we modern westerners” were quite nutcase-y as well, with laws here and there that said “blasphemy” was illegal. I mean, just look at the fate of Life of Brian when it came.

        Reply
      • nonzerosum says:
        February 2, 2009 at 7:57 am

        Although slander can amount to a criminal offence, it usually results in a civil claim, Not all slander is criminal, which is the (incorrect) impression given by your post.

        Reply
  17. Isengrim says:
    February 1, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Firstly, it doesn’t matter what the original founder says about a religion – what really matters is what the followers have made of it today. That goes for everything.

    Secondly, keep in mind that these people are up in arms over a CARTOON. Anyone who doesn’t see how retarded it is to run and protest and threaten death and destruction over a mere cartoon (or a movie, or book, for that matter) is in danger of his losing his own freedoms to people like these. And don’t think for a second that the wave of mass Muslim immigration to western democratic countries (especially those with wide-open immigration policies that aren’t very choosy about who they take in) isn’t an attempt at a sort of re-colonization; if they can get enough people to come vote their way, the rest of us are doomed.

    As a cartoonist myself, yes, of course, I find dickheads like these highly offensive, threatening and dangerous, not only to life and limb, but to our traditional North American freedoms.

    See: “The Unicorn’s Image” on my page, accessible behind my name. It isn’t strong enough, IMO, but was done on the fly at the time this came out. I plan to redo it better at a later date, to be released when something like this happens again (notice, I said when, not if).

    also: http://immigrationwatchcanada.org

    also, well anything to do with the reprinting of the Danish cartoons in Canada by Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard Magazine (it’s now only on-line). He was actually hauled up before a human-rights tribunal for reprinting them in an article about censorship.

    Reply
    • Mogan says:
      February 1, 2009 at 10:10 am

      Firstly (is that a word?) Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t create Islam. Islam started off as a polytheistic religion based mostly on desert lore and superstition, and wasn’t even called “Islam” in the beginning.

      Secondly (again, citation?), it is a long-held belief that you’re not allowed to portray the prophet in any way but words. It’s not about following religious rules, it’s about manners. They don’t run around calling Jesus a homosexual ’cause he hung out with 12 dudes all the time.

      Your xenophobic attitude is no matter than their hatred. And your shameless self-promoting is sort-of…stupid. In my opinion, of course.

      Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:16 am

        “Firstly” is a word… ‘pbuh’ is up there with arses who type ‘G_d’…and Jesus hung with 12 dudes and there was a naked youth in the garden at Gethsemane… suspicious to me, but most ME cultures have a tendency to be on the ‘down low’

        Reply
        • Mogan says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:28 am

          I wasn’t sure ’cause when I go to type it in, my browser gives it the red underlining that indicates a misspelled word.

          I say “pbuh” out of habit, mostly. I used to be a Muslim, but I decided that if I can go to Hell for believing in the wrong thing, I’m just gonna go to Hell for believing in nothing. Of course, being an atheist and explaining that to people, it feels like some of the power behind the reasoning is lost. Also, I do it out of respect, same as capitalzing the word ‘him’ when referring to God.

          Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:22 am

        And manners is not killing people or death threats in the name of their imaginary friend… soon as all the Cults of Abraham slap down the asses who do that crap, and keep them down, then I’ll respect them… until then… seems all their gods are mighty easily POed for something that supposedly made the obseravble universe… and may as well be called ‘Dave’ and live in the cracks in one’s toilet ceiling…

        Reply
        • Mogan says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:30 am

          No, the threats are not very mannerly, but these nutbags are just a small part of Islam. Most of the Muslims I know (here, at least) were pissed off at the cartoon, but forgiving because they acknowledged free speech and stuff.

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            February 1, 2009 at 11:44 am

            Tutting loudly really doesn’t wash it…I don’t cut that slack with Jesus’ freakshow, I don’t see that I should with anyone else’s :)

            IF the cult wants respect, then shut the mofos down. Christians don’t, Jews don’t, Islamics don’t… they tut, and waft their hands…

            Reply
            • AC says:
              February 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm

              Freedom of speech, perhaps?

              Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 2, 2009 at 1:27 am

                What freedom? It’s shades of Merneptah

                The princes, prostrated, say “Shalom”;

                None raises his head among the Nine Bows.

                Now that Tehenu has come to ruin, Hatti is pacified.

                Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe.

                Ashkelon has been overcome.

                Gezer has been captured.

                Yano’am was made non-existent.

                Israel is laid waste (and) his seed is not.

                Hurru has become a widow because of Egypt.

                All lands have united themselves in peace.

                Who do you want to kill, since you seem to have a reason to defend their rights to declare war? And, of course, the Freedom of speech extended to religions is basically the right to tell other people why it’s ok to hate someone.. I don’t see them extending the right to anyone else… So, I think you can take your Bronze Age superstition, warmed over by the twilight of Late Antiquity and, cordially, stuff it up your ill informed arse until you grow up… That speech free enough? or did I offend your imaginary friend…

                Reply
                • AC says:
                  February 2, 2009 at 2:27 am

                  Fester, there is no need to speak like that.
                  You asked why people were disapproved of instead of being “shut down.” I don’t know what you meant by that, but it sounds awfy like something you’d find in a fascist dictatorship. That’s why I mentioned freedom of speech.
                  I don’t see them extending the right to anyone else
                  Just because they behave badly does it mean that we should too?

                  Reply
                  • Uncle Fester says:
                    February 2, 2009 at 2:38 am

                    I think by shut down I meant loud and vociferous
                    denial of association.

                    But, I still wholly believe that the body of the church
                    tacitly supports such behaviour…

                    TBH, the various cults of Abraham have been trying
                    for a Theocratic Dictatorship since before Eusebius
                    finished the Nicene Creed… So, it’s not like it’s a
                    strange idea, eh, Christian? And as I said, Religions
                    only have an interest in the Freedom of Speech when
                    it’s their speech that is free… Want respect? Clean your
                    own damned house.

                    Reply
                    • AC says:
                      February 2, 2009 at 3:14 am

                      Religions only have an interest in the Freedom of Speech when it’s their speech that is free
                      It seems that the same could apply to certain atheists.
                      -
                      Denial of association? I thought we had that covered. However, you put it down as they tut and waft their hands.
                      -
                      Theocratic dictatorship?
                      Theocratic -obviously.
                      Dictatorship – well, in the bible, the original law had a system of judges and elders untilthe Israelites asked for a king like the other nations…
                      -
                      Want respect? I’d settle for politeness….

                      Reply
                      • AC says:
                        February 2, 2009 at 3:15 am

                        *until the

                        Reply
                      • Uncle Fester says:
                        February 2, 2009 at 3:43 am

                        I’d settle for politeness….

                        That’s nice… try someone else…

                        Dictatorship – well, in the bible, the original law had a system of judges and elders untilthe Israelites asked for a king like the other nations…

                        You’re really so unfamiliar with the New Testament to believe that Christianity wants anything other than complete, despotic, rule? What do they teach the youth of today? Christianity is like Islam; it wants power and hegemony. If it ever managed it, the edifice would then turn in on itself in a sectarian holocaust.

                        Reply
                        • AC says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 3:55 am

                          You’re really so unfamiliar with the New Testament to believe that Christianity wants anything other than complete, despotic, rule?
                          You’re going to quote Luke 19 AGAIN, aren’t you?
                          -
                          sectarian holocaust? As I’ve said in an earlier thread, we Christians are amongst the few that sectarians hate more than each other. Anyway, most Christians I know don’t believe in letting politics get in the way of religion.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:05 am

                          You think being called a ‘Proddy’ isn’t by a Christian Sectarian?
                          And no, most Christians are canon fodder, that’s the whole point, it’s the power hungry ones who want you have to watch…

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:07 am

                          You have no idea of the meaning of the word ‘Sectarian’ and are mixing it up with ‘Secularist’…

                        • AC says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:17 am

                          Definitely not… I don’t think sectarians would know Christianity if it jumped up and slapped them in the face.
                          For example:
                          “My dad wouldn’t want me to join the (protestant) church: he’s an Orangeman.”
                          “I don’t believe in God -church is stupid. I’m a protestant because I hate catholics.”
                          “What’s the difference between a Christian and a Protestant?”
                          “What’s the difference between a Christian and a Catholic?”
                          “I cannae stand bible bashers”
                          Basically, they hate anyone who tells them to be tolerant and stop fighting…

                        • AC says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:23 am

                          No, I’m not mixing the terms up. Sectarians cling to a name without knowing what it means -nothing to do with secularists…

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:46 am

                          So we have the ‘True Christian’(tm) great… which sect is that?

                        • AC says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 4:53 am

                          Christian = follower of Jesus, more or less. Catholics and Protestants sometimes disagree over how to do this, but hey: close enough.
                          Sectarian = has no respect or love for Jesus, does not follow his teachings, defines themself through hatred of another, clings to an old loyalty that they don’t understand, cares about a sect or gang rather than a church or fellowship.

                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 5:05 am

                          Ah, now semantics…

                        • AC says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 5:07 am

                          Yes, Fester, they are different things.

                        • DeathWyrmNexus says:
                          February 2, 2009 at 10:15 am

                          And thus why I don’t get involved with organized religion. One mob wants you to take over the world. One mob wants you police your own without any kind of authority to police your own. One mob wants to yell about how and why you are wrong, for reasons true and untrue. And finally there is the mob of people who just get on your nerves within the own community thus preventing the fellowship you are supposed to feel.

                          So basically religion is flawed because it allows people into it at any and all levels of authority.

      • Isengrim says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:46 am

        The rule about not portraying Mohammed in “anything but words” is a MUSLIM restriction. I am an atheist, and not bound by Islamic rules any more than I am bound by Christian rules of any kind. I am bound by the secular laws of my nation-state.

        And many people have alluded to Jesus possibly being an homosexual – it would have been VERY suspicious in his day and age for a man such as him NOT to be married (plus the fact that anyone called “Rabbi” is supposed to have been married as a mater of course! IMO, yeah, if one does not want to acknowedge that he was married and the information covered up, then one must consider the possibility (even probability) of homosexuality.

        As for the idea of Jesus’ marriage, this concept pops up briefly in The Last Temptation (of Christ), both book and movie. The author of the book was excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church. There were mass protests about the movie. Btu there were no death threats against either the author or the maker of the movie, like there was against the Danish cartoonist and Salman Rushdie (remember him)?

        As far as your accusation against me, I am called racist when I point out the barbaric nature of a culture someone is trying to blindly defend. However, has anyone happened to notice the VERY BLATANT RACISM inherent in “Europe is a cancer”? It’s racism to want to crush western culture, too. Frankly, I don’t care if they keep their Islamic idiocy TO THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. There are enough theocratic Islamic nations out there, they don’t need to try to make mine one. A good example of this is, a few years ago, an Islamic group in Ontario tried to push the provincial government to recognize Sharia law so that Muslim men could not be legally persecuted for murdering their wives.

        Also, keep in mind that those cartoons came in the wake of 9/11. The people who did this horrendous act (anyone remember what that was? Cripes!) proclaimed to be doing so in the name of Islam. Had Christians done it, yes, there would have been cartoons about a killer sadist Jesus, I’m sure, that would have come from the US itself. However, not as much attention would have been made to the kerfuffle because it wouldn’t have been “brown people” from backwards country feeling the butt-hurt.

        As for self-promotion, I am not spamming. I will direct people to relevant items whether I am the author of them or not. I enjoy freedom of speech (at least for now!)

        Reply
        • Isengrim says:
          February 1, 2009 at 8:17 pm

          All, right, for clarification, we ARE talking about the sorts of DICKHEADS you see in the picture above. Whether you want to simply call them “Muslims” or the longer “Fanatical, fundamentalist radical Muslim”. Yes, I am sure there are
          quite a few decent ones, who want nothing to do with these twits. However,
          why they don’t disassociate themselves from these twits by declaring themselves
          fully secular (which the radicals think the moderates are, anyway, in both Christianity and Islam) so as to not be painted with the same brush.

          I don’t know what country you live in; here, Muslims in general have
          started forming their own separate communities, in both Toronto and now
          Calgary, centered around huge mosques. And, as stated elsewhere, they have shown signs of starting idiotic lawsuits designed to challenge the Charter of Rights and force the government to change Canadian laws in a way that suits themselves. I know my Canadian history; I know that the Native tribes were basically swamped before they knew what was going on. Our only “Indian Wars” had to do with Native support for a Metis Member of Parliament for Manitoba (which consisted of the Winnipeg area at the time) named Louis Riel who was hanged for murder. THere wasn’t much white settlement on the prairies until the railroad came through, and then, boom, all of a sudden, whites everywhere. Yeah, I think I see the same signs happening now, except with southwest Asian immigrants. I have also noticed that Muslim and Sikh groups are the most vocal against any changes in immigration law which would allow fewer people (in general) into the country, or make it harder to sponsor more and more family members to come in.

          As you have so kindly noted, there are over a half-a-billion people in that part of the country. Canada has maybe 32 million at the moment (and the population rose amazingly between the last couple of censuses, all because of immigration – from about 28 million to 32 – and people wonder why our social services and infrastructure can’t keep up!) We could be swamped, quite easily, within a few decades if the current situation keeps up.

          Also, the selection process leaves much to be desired; many people are fastracked without proper background checks to ease the massive backlog in applications. The refugee system is also heavily abused. We had at least one Muslim woman get refugee status just for being “abused by her husband”. Her daughters then sued OUR government for not letting them in here fast enough because some men were bothering them. There are many people here that the government knows are criminals and need deporting, but they either can’t find them, or the criminals tie up their deportation proceedings for years.

          Canada’s politicians are too stuck on the idea that “more immigrants means more voters for us” that there is only talk of increasing immigration rather than reducing it, or bringing in stronger screening processes.

          As for their representation in government, well, we have quite a few Sikh and Muslim (I think most are Pakistani) who are, in fact, immigrants. If you read
          one of the Ezra Levant article I have linked in my name, the guy who wrote up his Human Rights assessment had an East Indian name. I believe this beaurocrat would have nailed Levant to the wall, except that Levant really did not break any Canadian law and there wasn’t anything he could do about it, though he did express his “personal opinion” quite a lot – and that opinion supports what I just said about him.

          That said, I really don’t give a shit what people do in their own countries. There are plenty of Muslim countries out there where Muslims can live the way they want to. Yes, I feel sorry for the Palestinians – they got a bloody raw deal! And I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong – they didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, and Saddam was their problem, not ours. The US would have been more right to invade Pakistan, but I know no matter what Pakistan does – even if they parade Bin Laden in the streets – the US will do nothing because Pakistan has nukes. However, they can beat all their women, and cut off each others hands for stealing bread, or whatever the hell they want to do, just as long as they _stop trying to bring it here_.

          I think I have a right to be worried about the future of my country. I do not want to see it become de facto Muslim because there are too many sheep around and in government who bleated about tolerance, and then woke up one day to find themselves suddenly living under Sharia law. Ifd that makes me racist, fine. I shall wear it proudly. I’d rather die a Canadian, fighting the Islamification of my own country than live at their hands. As a female, I’ve dealt with WAY too many abusive men to want to have anything to do with these people.

          Reply
          • PiMan says:
            February 1, 2009 at 11:34 pm

            You are extremely racist and ignorant. Non-Muslims outnumber Muslims 50 to 1. The population of Christians in Canada is greater than than the total population of North and South America was in 1492.
            .
            You are not being overrun just because there are immigrants. You get more immigrants from Europe than from the Middle East, and you have more people being boor in Canada each year than immigrating there.
            .
            Perhaps you should move to the Canadian countryside. There are very few Muslims there, you might be happier that way.

            Reply
            • Isengrim says:
              February 2, 2009 at 10:30 am

              For one thing, I do live in a rural area. And I have no problem with immigrants who come here to be Canadians. However it is mainly Muslim and Sikh immigrants who come and DO NOT want to integrate – they want to keep as many of their ways as possible.

              I recounted the story of the girl who wanted to play soccer with a hajib on, who was paraded on the news with a cell phone in her hand. It occurred to me what this was really about. Muslim parents do not want their Canadian-born children becoming Canadian. They do not want to see their females realizing they can be free, that they don’t have to wear hijabs and burkhas here (and you see many of them in the cities dressed this way). They want help from Canadians and our institutions to keep their women covered up. There’s been a few other brief news stories about other girsls in other sports demanding that they be allowed to keep themselves covered.
              Also as mentioned above, the PM himself announced that it would be allowable for female Muslim voters to vote with their face covered.

              No, these two groups are not alone in such idiocy, but they’re the most vocal and the most often reported. I give two other examples from other groups.

              A Jewish group housed across from a fitness centre in Toronto was appalled to see people exercising with shorts and muscle shirts on. They demanded that the fitness centre cover its windows, because the scantily-clad bodies were offensive to them. The fitness centre complied. Why should they have? Why didn’t the Jewish centre simply cover ITS windows?

              A Chinese corporation came in and bought a mall in Burnaby The cornerstone store was a TNT supermarket. There were many smaller, mom-and-pop businesses in there. The Chinese owners proceeded to cancel the leases of any business that was not “Asian-oriented” enough, including a woman’s beauty salon. She pleaded with them, said she’d hire more Chinese, even, but no go. She was kicked out.

              I could probably do a search and go on and on; there is a lot of racism against Canadians from new immigrants. And I’m saying “new”. This problem is only recent, perhaps starting within the past 15 years or so, and it has only been getting worse. Immigration fraud is rampant. The immigration industry here is trying to spread an idea that Canada MUST be open to ANYONE who wants to come in, and that we have no native culture to which they must adapt.

              A commenter in the National Post article (I think it was Yussi) pointed out that “white people” make up 8% of the total population of the world. Look at how much influence that 8% has had. Imagine what influence 8% of a culture determined to work its will within a single country can have. And keep in mind that the global 92% is jealous of what the global 8% has wrought, and wants what we have. Modern technology or not, it’s still all about natural resources, which Canada still has at least some of.

              Our government is of the mind that the way to help the third world is to let their populations come here instead. Where do you think this policy will lead?

              Yes, I see endless capitulation as a danger. What if Muslims one day decide the press the point that they find loose hair on women offensive? Will womeon like myself be forced to cover up, in a sense of “being fair” to other
              cultures? In the spirit of “not offending” other cultures? It started with turbans on Mounties. It’s gone through showing your face at the polling booth. Where will it stop? The “overwhelming” I speak of may not happen in my lifetime. It may not happen for a couple of more lifetimes after that. But if Canada “stays the course” (as Harper promised) it WILL happen one day.
              It WILL happen because the people in charge WANT it to happen, thinking this is a good, fair, open-minded thing to do.

              Reply
              • PiMan says:
                February 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm

                Almost all that you have mentioned thus far have been people wanting to adjust themselves. They want to wear a turban, they aren’t telling everyone else to wear a turban.
                .
                And you make it even clearer here: You are a white supremacist.

                Reply
              • VmKid says:
                November 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm

                On the Jewish Center asking a fitness center to cover its windows- While I do agree that the Jewish Center could have covered its windows, I think the owners of the Fitness center decided to comply to avoid complications, loss of customers who might happen to go to that JC, and hours of emails saying “Come oooooon” in a very formal way.

                Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          February 2, 2009 at 1:33 am

          Actually SE Asia has its own Islamic problem, parts of Thailand becoming more and more dangerous to tourists and local Buddhists and Christians.

          Reply
      • IPG says:
        February 1, 2009 at 11:14 am

        “It’s not about following religious rules, it’s about manners.”

        Yes, I guess that is pretty much everybody’s point. The cartoonist knowingly committed an act that can be described as bad manners. Art often does. However, the use of the word manners indicates that it is something you personally disapprove of, but would not want to see forbidden by law.

        That’s pretty much all there is to it. The cartoonists acted within their rights, even if some people did not approve of the actions (though no democrat would disapprove of the right to act as they did). The reaction of many Muslims was unacceptable.

        Reply
    • FaileV says:
      February 1, 2009 at 10:26 am

      That’s the thing, we have different belifs in what is right, or the most right. Respect for your holy deity, or the right of some guy to make fun of it.
      “Secondly, keep in mind that these people are up in arms over a CARTOON. Anyone who doesn’t see how retarded it is to run and protest and threaten death and destruction over a mere cartoon…is in danger of his losing his own freedoms to people like these.”
      ~Sometimes it is the smallest most silly things that have the most power to sway minds. Sure cartoons are normally for entertainment, but what a cartoon mocks becomes silly in our minds, less of something, and hurts it. It can always be another form of propaganda, just look at the comic industry during WW2. Every other issue showed Superman beating the shit out of hitler or the japanese. Movies, books, and cartoons are the trojan horse of ideas, they are Othello’s Iago planting ideas in people’s minds to sprout and grow. I personally adore my freedoms, and I will be damn sure to protect them, but disregarding such a potent weapon will only lead to having it brought against you.

      Reply
      • Mogan says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:35 am

        I’m completely down for protecting free speech and all of the other freedoms we as Americans have, but the thing that makes the propaganda from WW2 different than now is that there were definable enemies then. Italians, Japanese, and Germans. Those were the bad guys. What we’re fighting now is an idea, and fighting an idea is more difficult because you can’t simply slap a face on it when it’s something as complicated as religion.

        Reply
        • Isengrim says:
          February 1, 2009 at 10:49 am

          Yes, and the only “face” that can be given to Islam, graphically, is Mohammed, as there isn’t any animal or anything that it identifies with. There’s nothing much else useful or immediately identifiable if one wants to represent “Islam” as a picture.

          Reply
          • FaileV says:
            February 1, 2009 at 11:49 am

            Oh i know the WW2 things were different in that we had an enemy, I was just pointing out that it is a powerful tool, not one that we need right now. My point was simply that we use cartoons as weapons, and being offended isn’t that uncommon in war propaganda.
            ~to Isengrim’s point below. Are you offended by the anti-jewish cartoons, do you think people being offended by them are just as silly? it’s just a mere cartoon after all. I wasn’t saying one is in the right and one isn’t, I’m just saying if you think one group off people has a right to be offended by something, and another doesn’t, then perhaps you are biased.
            ~I’m not sure why we need a “face” to fight Islam. I don’t personally feel that Islam is a threat to me, or our culture anymore than any other religion. It is the extremists we are fighting, and i think we’ve done well enough with the image of the crazed man in a turban (think, Achmed the Dead Terrorist). Just as when a crazy cult pops up believing jesus lives on a comet and if they off themselves they can follow him to heaven, we don’t use Jesus to make fun of them, we use the image of silly people in robes drinking koolaid.

            Reply
            • Isengrim says:
              February 1, 2009 at 4:01 pm

              Frankly, I support the _right_ of the Muslim cartoonists to make their cartoons, too. My point is that these Muslim arseholes are being absolute hypocrites demanding death to the Dane for his Islamic cartoon, while they publish stuff that would probably really fall under a hate crime in Canada (at least given the nebulous nature of a hate crime. I’ve been trying to find out exactly what that means, but when it comes to something more like a cartoon rather than, say, firebombing a synagogue and painting it up with Nazis symbols, it becomes indefinable, which is, well, legally dangerous.

              Reply
              • Uncle Fester says:
                February 2, 2009 at 12:12 am

                which is, well, legally dangerous.

                and inept.

                It’s like the ‘Dangerous Dogs’ act over here… an arbitrary selection of dogs are classed as ‘dangerous’ when it’s actually the arses who owned them that were the problem.

                Reply
            • Isengrim says:
              February 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm

              I don’t know what country you live in, so you might not feel a threat from outside forces. However, Canada may be kind of unique in its position of having a wide-open immigration policy, and a lot of hand-wringing; also the immigration industry is very powerful. There have been quite a few cases going through court the past few years regarding changing this or that rule to suit Muslims or Sikhs. It’s a matter of nibbling around the margins, taking tiny little steps so that hopefully we won’t notice what’s happening. When they failed to get Ontario to recognize Sharia law, the Muslims and others realized that major steps aren’t going to get them anywhere, and people will push back.

              As for giving a “face” to something, when you are a graphic satirist, well, a thing NEEDS a face. And anyone in a beard or turban that represents Islam is immediately taken to be Mohammed, anyway. Look how those imams in that article someone linked to above were able to present a French clown in a pig outfit as a slander against Mohammed!

              In western secular culture, neither Jesus nor Mohammed, Christianity
              nor Islam, nor anyone else’s religious leader or religion, is above being an object of satire, any more than our politicians and business and social leaders are. Hell, South Park made loads of fun of Jesus, God, and Satan, as well as Tom Cruise and the Scientologists. I don’t remember hearing of a big outcry against South Park, but then, there’s so much dirty language in it, they wouldn’t watch it anyway; they wouldn’t confuse it as a “family show” like they did The Simpsons or Married: With Children.

              Reply
              • PiMan says:
                February 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm

                No religion should be above satire, but there are certain things you just shouldn’t do.
                Just as the Danish cartoons went too far, some of the stuff “satirising” Christianity goes too far.
                .
                It is just like in war there are some things you don’t do. Which is why the US never bombed Kyoto in WWII.

                Reply
      • Isengrim says:
        February 1, 2009 at 10:48 am

        Well, of course it’s a potent weapon. And the Japanese at the time were the enemy (and way more racist in their portrayal than anything coming from the west now).

        However, have you ever taken the time to search for anti-Jewish cartoons penned by Muslims?

        Reply
  18. Nulono says:
    February 1, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Religion must die!

    Reply
  19. Mena says:
    February 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Everyone shall die!

    Reply
    • scum-bot says:
      February 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm

      it’s called human mortality :P

      Reply
    • Aedriel says:
      February 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm

      Not me. I’m going to live forever.

      I’m doing great so far!

      Reply
      • OMG says:
        February 1, 2009 at 11:34 pm

        ha ha ha. you should do standup

        Reply
        • Aedriel says:
          February 2, 2009 at 8:59 am

          I really appreciate your input, however I feel my talents are best used elsewhere. My social ineptitude and normally dry, incomprehensibly obscure humour doesn’t usually fare me well in such situations. Not to mention the fact that I hate people, and interacting with them in such a broad manner really wouldn’t suit me.

          It’s really nice that you’ve started using a new email address to harass us with, do you not think we’re able to figure it out?

          Reply
  20. Mikail Moolla says:
    February 2, 2009 at 12:53 am

    Here’s my opinion:

    See these from the Qur’an:
    Chapter 2, Verse 256
    Chapter 109

    Reply
  21. Wolvie says:
    February 2, 2009 at 4:52 am

    Ha ha ha. Finally a good one.

    Reply
  22. 1984 says:
    February 2, 2009 at 9:17 am

    religion poisons everything

    Reply
    • Pheemz says:
      February 2, 2009 at 3:29 pm

      It would be more accurate to say people poison everything. If it’s not religion, it’s something else that’s used to justify control. Sure, religion is a popular choice, but it’s not the only one. Nazis and Communists were pretty much devoid of religion, even to the extent of being criticised by religious groups. They still managed to maintain control either through personality cults, nationalism or class loyalty. So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that without religion we’d all be happy shiny people holding hands.

      Reply
  23. Pheemz says:
    February 2, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    I believe jihad translates more accurately into struggle, not war. It’s viewed by some Islamic scholars as having two elements, the internal and the external. The internal is the struggle to overcome evil within yourself and to lead a good life, and is considered the greater jihad. Of less importance is the external, the fight against those who oppress Muslims. Of course, some obnoxious pricks take a whole different view and think jihad is about killing women and children because they’re the wrong religion or wrong sect within Islam.

    Islam’s like many other faiths, it has it’s arseholes. The biggest difference between Islam and, for instance, Christianity, is less people are inclined to judge Christianity on things like the Oklahoma City bomb, IRA and Loyalist terrorism in Northern Ireland etc etc than are inclined to judge Islam based on things like 9/11.

    Reply
  24. Jonathan says:
    February 7, 2009 at 7:25 am

    As a representative of Europe may I apoligise for making fun of your imaginary friend.

    We cool?

    Reply
    • sorryguys says:
      February 19, 2009 at 10:36 am

      And as a representer of muslims i just want to apologize, cuz ppl i really agree with you ‘wat the hell r these guys doin’ first of al its not even their country, and wats up with ‘Europe is the cancer islam is the answer” no one is holdin a gun and tellin u to stay in Europe, if u hate it sooo much well then LEAVE, and ‘exterminate those who sla..slan..hate islam’ of course they’re gonna hate islam, if ur holdin a gun on someone’s head dont xpect them to love u cuz thats dump n stupid.
      guyz were sorry but plz plz plz dont judge islam bcuz of wat thyr doin, cuz islam said fight with who ever is figthin u, not kill every one u cuz theyr not muslim!, did u no that if a muslim said tp a christian or jewish ur goin 2 hell cuz ur not muslim then their not muslim any more,cuz god said that the choise of who’s goin to hell n who’s not is up to god not HUMANS. these ppl just want an excuse to fight or to go to jail.
      And the only thin i hop is that u’ll no who we really r befor judgin us, and sorry !

      Reply
  25. assia101 says:
    February 19, 2009 at 9:21 am

    stop it You little F*ers you’re makin ‘em think WE’re ALL violent!

    Reply
  26. assia101 says:
    February 19, 2009 at 9:22 am

    i’m talkin to the muslims

    Reply
  27. Lexi says:
    October 23, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    Did anyone see “exterminate” on the sign and think of a Dalek?

    Reply
Go to Top

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up