Muslims Rioting in Sweden

[Uncle Gizmo]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Islam's intransigence makes them incredibly dangerous. Since they cannot accept criticism, they INVITE criticism. It is human nature. Winston Churchill was clear in his dislike of Islamic practices.

 

[Mike Krailo]

There is no love one another principle going on there.

 

[Steve R.]

Liberal left-wing elites want to destroy our social fabric and society: Legal philosopher | Fox News Video

Eva Vlaardingerbroek tells 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' about the violent riots that have broken out in Sweden.

video.foxnews.com

I had previously posted this video in the thread "Fox News - Reliable Source?". The overarching theme here is that Sweden, the rest of Western Europe, and the US are "destroying" their cultures.

Islam's intransigence makes them incredibly dangerous. Since they cannot accept criticism, they INVITE criticism. It is human nature. Winston Churchill was clear in his dislike of Islamic practices.

As a follow-up. Islamic nations formally designate Islam as the nation's religion. Under that "legal" (theocratic) authority, other religions such as Christianity are figuratively "put to the sword". Consider this atrocious footnote in history as one example: "Hagia Sophia: Turkey turns iconic Istanbul museum into mosque". The entire Western world has shamefully turned it's back on both Chriatianity and Judasim in the Near East. While it is considered, in Western culture to be humanitarian to "accommodate" people of different religious persuasions, the Islamic culture does not reciprocate. Given that, Islam may continue to push further into Western Europe and even the U.S.

 

[KitaYama]

Islam's intransigence makes them incredibly dangerous.

People keep criticizing Moslem but nobody asks why a political leader burns a religion holly book and starts a rally and invites others to burn more.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

People keep criticizing Moslem but nobody asks why a political leader burns a religion holly book and starts a rally and invites others to burn more.

It is an aspect of Freedom of Speech. You might wish to consider something said by Winston Churchill over 100 years ago.

The treatment of women under Islam is unacceptable to any civilized country that has ANY concept of civil rights.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

People keep criticizing Moslem

I agree with you that burning a religious symbol is offensive.

Many would also be similarly upset if the Bible, Stars & Stripes, Union Jack were burnt. Indeed, some may be so offended as to resort to violence, or even murder, and I suspect that has happened on occasion.

It is NOT good, NOT acceptable that such symbols are defaced. Unfortunately, it is allowed and a nasty, uncouth minority do it to provoke.

However, it is not acceptable for the offended to resort to violence.

 

[KitaYama]

I really didn't expect this reply. Specially from a wise man like you.

It is an aspect of Freedom of Speech.

Burning a holy book is not speech. It's deed, action or whatever you call it in English.
And when a political party's leader asks his follower to gather on a specific date to burn more holly books, it's a movement.
It's declaring war on Islam. Me and you are ashiest. It's our choice. But I believe our Freedom of Speech doesn't give us the right to burn Bible, or call for a gathering to burn all Qurans in the town just because we don't like its contents.

The treatment of women under Islam is unacceptable to any civilized country that has ANY concept of civil rights.

Are you trying to tell me it's fair to Burn Quran because the treatment of women under Islam is unacceptable?

Rapists have parental rights in seven states.
Sexual consent cannot be withdrawn in North Carolina.
In Michigan, a wife must obtain her husband’s permission before she can cut her hair.
A woman can be fired for a period leak in Georgia.
In North Carolina, a woman cannot withdraw consent and call subsequent actions ra**.
Women cannot wear sleeveless tops or dresses to Congress.

 

[KitaYama]

Looks like it's not my keyboard going flaky, it's the fourm.

I don't have any problem here. You may want to try other themes.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Kita, burning a book, even a holy book, and burning a country's flag is offensive and is not a war on that religion or country, it is freedom of speech. If the USA treated the burning of our flag to be declaring war, we'd be in a constant state of war. The laws that are mentioned, maybe still on the books, but if someone was arrested over them, lawsuits would be flooding our courts.

 

[KitaYama]

Kita, burning a book, even a holy book, and burning a country's flag is offensive and is not a war on that religion or country, it is freedom of speech. If the USA treated the burning of our flag to be declaring war, we'd be in a constant state of war. The laws that are mentioned, maybe still on the books, but if someone was arrested over them, lawsuits would be flooding our courts.

My use of the word "War" didn't mean a real war. I meant a conflict 0r something of the sort.
I don't insist on my beliefs, but I don't really think it's correct to push all the blames on them.

Let me ask you something. If a very high American politician asks people to gather and burn all Bibles found in a town and they actually do it, what does Vatican think? Do they think this behavior as freedom of Speech?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But I believe our Freedom of Speech doesn't give us the right to burn Bible, or call for a gathering to burn all Qurans in the town just because we don't like its contents.

Actually, it does. It is the ultimate statement of disagreement with the principles exposed in that book. You might also have to take into account that as an atheist, I judge a book by the hatefulness of its contents regardless of anyone's claims of "holiness." To me, NO book is holy. To me, saying the Quran is a holy book is actually a smoke screen. Those people who take to rioting in the streets are people who DARE NOT question the nonsense offered within that book's pages. They are brainwashed zealots who riot because if they didn't, they would be exposed to ideas that they don't want to contemplate, which is to say that their upbringing in Islam was based on lies about Allah or Muhammad.

Because of Sharia, the Quran includes mandates to kill certain classes of people. First, those who are apostate as in atheist, Christian, or who are "weak" or non-practicing Muslims. Second, those who are homosexual or who are bisexual. Third, those women who are accused of adultery, and they are specifically called out to be stoned to death. Apostasy, sexuality, and adultery are NOT valid reasons to kill a person. The Quran promotes a Dark Ages or Middle Ages mentality that is centuries out of date and so radically unforgiving that it leads to atrocities. Things like Female Genital Mutilation are not merely condoned, but prescribed for "frisky" young women. The ones who get frisky enough are buried up to their waist and then used as target practice for a rock-throwing party. In the Dark Ages, we understood brutality. But in the 21st century there is NO excuse for such barbaric treatment. My step-daughter, who is gay, would have been killed long ago (after her same-sex marriage).

I apologize, KitaYama, because I started to rant a little. You don't deserve that and it is not directed at you. But I won't erase it because it is important for you to know why I take the stance that I do.

I myself would not burn the Quran because I know the difference between a book and person who is totally a slave to a hateful religion. But if that kind of violence ever occurs around my home, I WILL protect my family for as long as I can. I've got enough ammunition to send a few religious extremists to see their maker. The folks in Sweden are finding out just whom they have allowed into their country and what kind of mistake it was.

 

[AccessBlaster]

And when a political party's leader asks his follower to gather on a specific date to burn more holly books, it's a movement.

Hi KitaYama, who is the leader that promotes this?

 

[Jon]

I really find it quite strange the level of offence and hate caused by Elon who wants to give everyone a voice. I always thought that a certain political party was heavily opposed to any form of oppression. Yet here we have the same side repulsed by the very lifting of that oppression. Does holding these two conflicting values not cause a short-circuit of the mind? What kind of values do you need to believe that your voice can be heard, but not others?

 

[KitaYama]

Hi KitaYama, who is the leader that promotes this?

Sunday's violence in Norrkoping came after Rasmus Paludan said he planned to hold a rally there. However, he never showed up in the city.

In a statement posted by his far-right, anti-immigrant Stram Kurs (Hard Line) party, Paludan said he cancelled the rally because Swedish authorities had "shown that they are completely incapable of protecting themselves and me".

Protests against plans by Stram Kurs to burn the Quran have turned violent in Sweden before. In 2020, protesters set cars on fire and shop fronts were damaged in clashes in Malmö.

From :

Dozens arrested at Sweden riots sparked by planned Quran burnings

There have been clashes between police and people angry at a far-right group's plan to burn Qurans.

www.bbc.com

 

[KitaYama]

But I believe our Freedom of Speech doesn't give us the right to burn Bible, or call for a gathering to burn all Qurans in the town just because we don't like its contents.

Actually, it does.

Then nothing to discuss. We differ on the core of our beliefs.
It seems you can not respect others because they are wrong. Me? I believe everybody deserves to be respected. I don't believe in Bible or Quran. But I try to respect these books because others believe in them.

 

[Jon]

For me, freedom of speech is weakly linked to the right to burn a Bible. It is more strongly linked to the right of an oppressive leader or power to burn ALL Bibles. When you burn one particular book in a sea of the same books, the other books continue to convey the message. Therefore, there is virtually no reduction in the conveyance of the message and therefore freedom of speech. But when you take them all down, you have suppressed the message via that medium.

Ghosting or reducing the ranking of most tweets from one political party amounts to a suppression of freedom of speech, because the effect is cumulative and on a large scale. The suppression of these tweets is analogous to the burning of Bibles, or perhaps more accurately, the burying of Bibles, since they still exist, if you can find them!

 

[Jon]

Cognitive dissonance

And how does this cognitive dissonance manifest itself?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Then nothing to discuss. We differ on the core of our beliefs.
It seems you can not respect others because they are wrong. Me? I believe everybody deserves to be respected. I don't believe in Bible or Quran. But I try to respect these books because others believe in them.

I disrespect any and all "holy" books equally, but it happens that I don't go burning them. I have the freedom to do so - but not the particular desire. In my own way of thinking, to burn the books would be to grant a level of power that I don't think they should have. But there are those people who wish to make a strong statement. If that is their desire, I will not stand in the way. Besides, burning a copy of the Quran is like the old Doritos commercials. They'll just make more.

My complaint with Islam is specifically that they have not learned the concept of letting the punishment fit the crime. So some jerk goes out and buys a Quran and burns it. So what? Instead of rioting, looting, and widespread arson, just go out and buy a Bible or a Torah or the Analects of Confucius or the Bagavad Gita or something similar and publicly burning that in response. But no, the Swedish Muslims have to go out on a destructive rampage.

When someone draws an image (even a respectfully done image) of Muhammad, how about drawing a picture of Jesus or Moses or King David or the Buddha or... you get the idea. But NO, the Muslims issue a fatwah, a death threat against the artist or cartoonist and they riot and do property damage to the building of the publisher of that image. One of Salman Rushdie's assistants was killed because of the fatwah issued against him.

Look at modern Christian churches in the USA. You do something that the congregation doesn't like? They expel you from their membership and perhaps go through a formal excommunication. No killing. No injuring physically. No property damage. They just say "go away and don't come back." But Islam? If THEY don't like you, they kill you. No moderation.

In the USA we believe that the punishment should fit the crime, so we put people in jail or make them pay restitution or make them pay a fine - or all of those options combined. We are not like the Red Queen from Alice In Wonderland. We don't say "Off with his head" and then call out the executioner with his huge axe. We still have problems here, but we are at least trying to fit the punishment to the crime.

THAT is why I have absolute disrespect for Islam. With them it is "do it their way or die." Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. You say I should respect the ideas of others. But if I have watched continued disrespect for the rights of others by the Islamic world for over 70 years, WHY should I respect them? You say everyone deserves to be respected. To which I reply that everything with people is a reflection. If you cannot show respect, you do not deserve respect. It is the Golden Rule (which pre-dates the Bible). It is the old version of "what goes around comes around." The Islamic community does not show us respect because they always seem to over-react. After repeated cases of this, I have finally lost my patience.

 

[Jon]

We studied Cognitive Dissonance in one of my psychology modules while at university. That was many years ago and I am sure they understand the topic a lot better nowadays.