Comment on new MOsque in Toronto we should be more tolerant

Discussion in 'Religion' started by RoadRash, Oct 9, 2012.

  1. RoadRash

    RoadRash Member

    414
    0
    RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN TORONTO . . . .


    What a well thought-out plan!!!!!

    This is one from NHL Hall of Fame broadcaster Jiggs McDonald in Orillia .

    Tolerance

    I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in Toronto.

    I think it should be the goal of every Canadian to be tolerant regardless of their religious beliefs.
    Thus the mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

    That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque,
    thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque.

    We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, "The Turban Cowboy ",
    and the other a topless bar called "You Mecca Me Hot."

    Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and
    adjacent to that an open-pit barbeque pork restaurant, called "Iraq o' Ribs."

    Across the street there could be a lingerie store called "Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret ";
    with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.
    Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, "Koranal Knowledge ",
    its name in flashing neon lights and on the other side a liquor store called "Morehammered."

    All of this would encourage Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us,
    so their mosque issue would not be a problem for others.

    If you agree with promoting tolerance, and you think this is a good plan, please pass it on...
     
  2. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    I wouldn't want that trash next to my Church either. So what is your point?

    I am one of those Christians often accused of intolerance. In fact, I believe that tolerance (of evil) is un-Christian!

    Further I believe that Islam is false and a Demonic ploy against Christianity.

    All that being said in general I believe in the Dignity of every human person that comes from their creator who endowed them with certain unalienable rights including the right to pursue happiness, which includes intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, and the right to do whatever you want with your private property!

    What part of that don't you agree with?
     

  3. Meerkat

    Meerkat Seeking The Truth

    7,938
    998

    You seemed to have forgotten the 'UNITED' part of this.
    Muslims do not care about any of the things you mentioned above,they don't seperate religian from government.

    Islam is therocratic,just like nazism.No place in a republic or even democracy for any muslim on this earth,There is no such thing as a moderate muslim,like there was no such thing as a moderate nazi when the time comes to pick sides,they will stay united and protect theri beliefs,unlike Americans,sad to say.

    Islam uses it enemies freedoms against them to grow until it can submit as the name emplies ,Islam means Submission.
     
  4. *Andi

    *Andi Supporting Member

    6,660
    8
    Moved .........
     
  5. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9

    Ah, so if I use my inalienable right to speech to promote theocracy I no long have this unalienable right? Sounds pretty alienable.

    Others will use your illogical words against you. Either its universally true that we have human rights or its not. Acknowledging freedom, like God did in the beginning, means risking bad behavior.

    Those who sacrifice freedom for security ultimately will have neither, nor deserve either!
     
  6. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    In both practice and principal, Islam is the enemy of all free people. If anyone doubts this, put a bumper sticker depicting an image of Mohammed on your car and drive around in virtually any city -- see what happens.

    As other posters have stated in other threads, Islam might eventually "mature" into a more tolerant religion but even if true, the next few hundred years could be pretty rough on us "infidels". :eek:
     
  7. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4

    You know how liberals never fault their ideology when what they touch turns to crap and instead blame the failure on poor implementation of their perfect ideology, well the same dynamic is in play with those who believe that Islam will reform. Islam has been around 1,400 years, reform in the West began 500 years ago, and while religion and culture could be isolated from external influence centuries ago that's no longer the case today in a globalized world where Western influences have no trouble finding their way into the lives of Muslims and still they resist and cling to their barbaric views.

    The only way that any mutated form of peace can arrive is after Islam rules the world, either by direct force or by threat of disruption that those who remain free still submit to Islamic dictates in order to buy peace.
     
  8. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    That's nonsense. The difference between Christianity and Islam is that while there are both good muslims and bad christians, the foundations of Christianity, i.e. Christ, are (IMHO true) good, while the foundations of Islam, the writings and actions of Mohammed are anti-human (FALSE). You can't judge a religion by its adherents, but rather by what at its core it claims!

    Because ultimately a turd will always remain a turd, no matter how much you gussy it up!

    The point is not that Islam, Nazism, Communism, Homosexism (yeah I made that up, it means the ideology of homosexuality, which is really a subset of just hedonism), etc. [insert evil idea HERE] are good, but that the PEOPLE who hold these erroneous ideas still have human dignity, rights, and duties.

    I may die at the hands of a muslim terrorist one day, but today I will stand up for his right to practice his faith, not because all faiths are the same or of equal worth, but he has a duty to his God to seek his creator, and worship his creator, and although Islam is not the true faith, it may be his sincere attempt to find God and a stepping stone to the TRUTH. On my part, by fighting for his rights I develope a relationship with him through which HOPEFULLY I can convert his heart to the TRUE GOD!

    But even if he never converts, it is never justified for me to take pre-emptive action against him because his ideology might threaten my safety (sorry, but thank you for playing Mr. Bush). Force, violence, exerted by me or the state, or anyone, in any form is not moral or justified until he has ACTUALLY done some morally culpable action, even if that means I or some innocent must die because of our respect for anothers rights!

    "No greater love is there to lay down your life for a friend." "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you."

    The ends do not justify the means, that is the American way, which America gets from the Christian moral tradition, quite different from the preceding pagan tradition or the muslim tradition, but having the benefit (again IMHO) of being true.
     
  9. Bobbb

    Bobbb Well-Known Member

    3,290
    4
    Exactly. I'm sure that many Nazis and many liberals were actually nice people to know - they cared for their elderly parents, they had nice things to say about strangers, they helped cats get out of trees, etc but that doesn't wash away the stain on their souls from adhering to, and working to implement, evil philosophies.

    From my perspective it's not so much the issue of freedom to profess one's faith rather the key point in play is WHERE this profession of faith takes place. A Muslim wanting to inject Islam into his host society is completely fine with me so long as we don't share the same society but if that Muslim is seeking to infect MY SOCIETY with Islamic principles then I'm going to work to stop him. Many people make the mistake of equating all religions to the form of religion that they know from witnessing Christianity, which is a religion of a personal contact between the person and God. That's not Islam - one can't be a good Muslim while restricting one's faith to the private, internal space of thought and personal action. Islam demands its place in realms that go beyond one's relationship with God, it demands a role in jurisprudence and governance, it demands subjugation of non-believers, it demands expansion.

    I can live alongside a good Christian and his practice of his Christianity doesn't call on him to do anything towards the greater community, his primary focus is on his life and his bond with God. The same dynamic doesn't apply to Islam, for a good Muslim needs to work towards expanding Islam into legal and governance issues. Jesus declared "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" and there is no direct analog of this principle in the Koran.

    Islam is not practiced as Christianity is practiced so to treat the two in the same way is going to lead to trouble.

    One of my mentors, this one in the business world, once declared to me and then demonstrated the following principle in negotiation - "You name the price and I'll agree so long as I get to set the terms." The point here was the the principle (price of business purchase) can be attained or followed but the terms allowed so much flexibility as to render the principle moot. The same applies to your formulation in that how one defines "morally culpable action" is the deciding factor in whether preemptive action is morally justified. For instance, the Iranian President has publicly declared that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. The Israeli Prime Minister can take him at his word and assume a very grave threat now exists for when leaders of nations declare that their goal is to obliterate another nation then this is not just some yahoo shooting off his mouth in a local bar after having drunk some liquid courage. How one defines a "morally culpable action", in this case public declarations of genocide, can clear the way for preemptive action based on morally justified reasons. This way everyone's conscience is clear.
     
  10. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    "Pre-emptive action"?! Padre, taking action against the Muslim threat is not pre-emptive! It is reactive. It is a reaction to Muslim violence and Muslim threat of violence against us.

    Having said that, I would not condone violence against the entire Muslim world - nor have I ever. But let's not confuse action and common sense with violence. Islam is no more a religion than Nazism, yet because of the "religion" label, we give Islam a free pass for the horrible atrocities commited in it's name.

    The old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" can be applied here. How often does Islam have to bloody our nose until we decide to recognize it for the threat that it is?
     
  11. Asatrur

    Asatrur Well-Known Member

    444
    0
    Please explain your comment on the preceding Pagan tradition? To my knowledge followers of most true Pagan faiths and by this I do not mean non-christian, as christians have morphed the term to be a negative, have never and never will be interested in the conversion of others. We leave that to the desert faiths.
     
  12. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    Where do you people come from. No wonder the US is so far up the creek when even the marginally sane have such statist, totalitarian ideas.

    I judge the ideology evil, other than that I defer to Almighty God to judge souls.

    Fine, stop him, that's my goal too, but stop him with the power of your arguments and the example of your way of life, not by the force of Government. The government does not have the right to use violence against an individual unless the individual commits a crime--and thoughts are not crimes, ever! Even if you declare thoughts a crime (like the hate crimes law) the fact is that when you fight thoughts with violence, history shows you inevitably loose, so tactics would suggest that you better come up with some ideas that are more attractive than Islam.

    I think what Westerners fear is that the only ARGUMENT that can compete with Islam, which is so attractive because it offers order, simplicity of life, retreat from the noise of the secular world, and satisfies (partially) man's desire for God, is Christianity. And not just nominal Christianity, but Christianity lived in re.

    I thought we believed in individual rights? So now because a member of a group committed an act of violence the whole group can be denied rights? I hope no gun owner ever commits an atrocity, because then all gun owners will be painted as nuts. Opps, the media already did that. And you are agreeing with that philosophy (really sophistry)!
     
  13. BillS

    BillS Well-Known Member

    4,569
    119
    What stinks about this is that Muslims use our own tolerance against us. They build a mosque and they don't believe in tolerance. If they have their way we'll be forced to bow the knee to Allah or die. That's what happens to all religious minorities in every country in the world once it's controlled by Islamic Fundamentalists.

    In countries that still have religious freedom there are raids across the border from Muslim countries where they murder men, rape women, and sell girls as young as 9 into marriage, and the boys into slavery. Muslims have murdered millions in the Sudan and Indonesia in just the last decade or two. As usual, atrocities against Christians or atrocities committed by Muslims never make the news.

    All we hear about China is their suppression of Falun Gong and never about their oppression of Christianity. While the church in the West has become largely worldly, biblically illiterate and composed mostly of the lukewarm and the unsaved, the Chinese church has been purified by persecution. If our world were to continue for another century we'd see a time when the majority of the world's Christian missionaries are Chinese. And they can go places where it's too dangerous for Americans to go.
     
  14. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    What do you mean by true pagan faiths? The word pagan was popularized by Christians and simply means folksey (paganus: rural, from the country). There is no such thing as a true pagan faith a) because paganism is not one thing but many contradictory things and the truth can not contradict b) pagan faith is anthropomorphic and as the Greek Atheists (aka Plato, Aristotle, et. al) note God can not be a creature and therefore is totally other than creatures (semper maior est disimilitude).

    It's true, paganism never was interested in converting others (and I don't think I suggested that), because paganism is a way of man attempting to understand and control god (aka Nature). Of course pagan rulers did insist that the state god's be worshiped along side their personal god(s) The gods of paganism do not demand anything of man, because they are not really gods, rather pagan sacrifices were attempts to appease and demand something of god (i.e. the forces of nature). A true God is perfect and therefore not CHANGED by prayer, rather He changes us by prayer helping us to see His plan for us which is the CERTAIN way to happiness.

    My point was that because paganism is predicated on the idea that man was created as a slave to the gods, rather than as a beloved son of God made in His image and likeness, it is illogical given that premise to defend human dignity--this is true also of Islam BTW. As a result while many pagans extolled the virtues as the means to a good life, what was essential to the pagans (in general) was the outcome of "happiness" (determined by the individual) not how they got there, virtue for the sake of virtue, i.e morality, and therefore they were willing to violate human dignity to attain a predicative good. That is the essential difference between ethics and moral theology. It's just a logical result of the presupposition about the origin and nature of man.
     
  15. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    Have a little faith

    Bill, have a little faith. Christianity has the benefit of being true.

    We are losing the debate with Islam because in a theistic debate atheism is a certain looser, Muslims are people who have made the choice to believe in God. American culture is effectively atheist and thus can not effectively converse with Islam. Christianity can not, ethically , punish this Godlessness, because as you note Christianity promotes human dignity and a respect for human freedom (something the OP does not), but "all things work for good for those who love God." Atheists ignore the goodness of Christianity, and think that exiling Christianity there are no other competitors to Christianity. The reality is that people are intrinsically religious, and while institutional Christian religion is failing (through our own fault) in the US and Europe, other types of religion are on the move all around us, and Islam is one of the strongest (particularly in Europe). Having rejected Christianity, atheists will be chastised by non-Christian religions which will clarify the Christian difference--the reason why Christianity took hold of the Empire in the fourth century--and suddenly make Christianity so much more attractive. I believe that the result of the spread of Islam will in many places be either a rediscovery of Christianity and a pushing back of Islam, or the conquest of atheist western culture, the renewal of persecutions of Christianity, which itself is the fertilizer of the Church.

    The Blood of the Martyrs is the seedbed of the Church.
     
  16. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  17. Padre

    Padre The Black Pilgrim

    1,339
    9
    Horseman, the OP, suggests that tolerance is nonsensical, and that because its Muslims building a building on private property we should oppose it, or failing to block the construction of the mosque should follow through with the ideology of TOLERANCE and intentionally offend these Muslims.

    Did I misinterpret the OP? In fact, I would argue that tolerance is immoral, but not nonsensical.

    By your post I assume you do indeed propose VIOLENCE, which is all Government regulation, zoning, and laws are, to stop these Muslim (which no one has shown to be violent--therefore I assume you suggest using legal violence against all muslims) from building on their private property with their private money.

    If I misinterpreted your comment then please clarify that you do indeed oppose the OP, because you believe each individual person ought to be judged by their personal actions and therefore that these particular Muslims ought not be judged and denied property rights or their religious liberty.
     
  18. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    Padre, you did indeed mis-interpret my many, many posts on this subject.

    My last post directly refers to the PC issues which the gubermint imposes, e.g. Fort Hood.

    We simply need to apply common sense and the laws equally to all.

    However; targeted violence is absolutely necessary to respond to and prevent Islam's terror campaign. Do you really think we should have waved a white flag on September 11, 2001? Maybe asked them if they'd like to come to tea, and discuss our differences? Maybe send the some aid money?
     
  19. BlueShoe

    BlueShoe ExCommunicated

    1,242
    0
    Islam didn't attack us on 9-11-01, a political movement and terrorist group did and they openly stated it. AL QAEDA attacked. The group that was thrown out of Saudi Arabia. The Israeli Mossad sent people to monitor the exact terrorists which attacked us, and got caught dancing and high fiving each other while taking pics of the burning twin towers in the background. Remember, the only people arrested that day were Israelis and it opened a chapter whereby about 200 Isr spies were arrested. You're never going to fix the problem if you can't identify it. The MSM cable channels have won your minds, obviously. It wasn't Islam.

    Christians and Muslims share Jesus. No other religion gives Him any value.

    The ignorance still abounds on this topic in this forum. I've known many, many, many Muslims and none have ever tried to school me, preach to me, convert me, harm me. I've come into contact with Yemeni and Albanians and many in between.

    Nobody has ever shown where Christians are infidels. That's just Christians looking for a reason to feel persecuted or to behave in a manner against Christ's teachings.

    The exception to all that would be Albanians. I found them to be violent people whether they are Christian or Muslim. They just wanted to fight in gangs, wear shiny, pointy toed shoes, slick back their hair while grabbing their crotch and speaking in ghetto slang.
     
  20. Asatrur

    Asatrur Well-Known Member

    444
    0
    Interesting. Have you heard of the Vikings and their belief and honoring of the Gods of Odin, Thor, Freya, Heimdall, and others? They never fashioned themselves as slaves to their Gods in any way. One of the first rules of law and how to apply it was known as the Allthing and it was created by the Vikings long before the Christian faith headed North on it's conversion fest, so Christianity does not have the market on morality. Pagan was also turned into a derogatory comments by the Christians to mean anyone not believing in their God.