If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I think that you know.
Dislike of muslims is, using Matt argument, in part a reaction to the tiny minority who are terrorists - just as there was once a tiny minority of catholic (and protestants) who were terrorists in Ireland.
To suggest that such an argument has any place in a disucssion about right to benefits is bollocks.
You mean apart from students, flatmates etc?
At the risk of going totally off-topic the cases are totally different. With Islamic terrorism the justification is religion (not that many Moslems would support them).
In Northern Ireland the justification was politics (either a United Ireland or a United Kingdom). It was lazy media short-hand to describe groups as either Catholic or Protestant
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that pologamy has been banned in Mormonism since 1904.
If anybody does dislike or judge a person because they happen to identify themselves as a 'Muslim'... then they're a stupid discriminatory prejudiced ignorant warped individual.
Disliking polygamy or any other teaching of Islam does NOT mean that you dislike people who identify themselves as 'Muslims'.
Don't worry you're not the only person on these forums who is having difficulty distinguishing between "Islam" and "people who identify themselves as Muslims".
Tibet?
Victims?
I think so. There was a Radio 4 program about 6 months ago.
I don't remember any details, sorry.
tibet and a nepalese minority practice it
Oh good - I didn't make Tibet up
They don't have good reason to dislike muslims. They have good reason to dislike terrorists.
The two are not the same.
AND... they should have good reason to dislike the ideology, or cult, or teachings which inspire such behaviour too.
So obvious that you missed the clearly stated point earlier, you mean.
My point is that this is another example of media obsession with pushing an anti-muslim message. Incidentally, one which you are happy to help with.
The reality of this story is different to the way it is being reported.
It's very interesting though... I wonder if women who have more than one husband would have the same legal rights as men who have more than one wife.
During the reformation of Christianity many centuries ago, were the reformers and intellectuals pushing an anti-Christians message or were they pushing an anti-elements-of-Christianity message? Baring in mind that these reformers were Christians themselves?
Can you PLEASE make the distinction.
When anyone criticises elements of Christianity, NOBODY assumes that they're being anti-Cliff Richard or anti-Dot Cotton or anti-John Smith or anti-70%-of-the-UKs-Christian-population.
^ Please enlighten us. That is what this discussion is for.
I made the point that this isn't as unfair as people seem to think it is too over HERE.
Sorry, what reality - it certainly isn't one I recognise.
The vast, massive, majority of muslims are not, have never been and will never be terrorists. Simple as. What you are supporting is hatred of an entire religious group based on the actions of a minority and that is reprehensible.
Not one person has become the "victim of theire religion", the are a number who have become victims of terrorists, but as I said before the two things are not the same. It doesn't matter how many time you say that they are, the simple fact is that they aren't.
You are also (and in part I thank you for this) proving my point to sanitize about how dangerous threads like this (and media reporting generally) is because it has given you a screwy view of the faith and it's followers. You seem more than happy to pick up on the negative propaganda and less to pick up on the reality.
Your comment...
... is part of that problem. There are terrorists from all religions, some claim that they religion is part, others it is more a coincidence that there are same religion - but they may well be same nationality.
It could be argued that you should hate all Irish because, at one time, all of the terrorism in this country was perpetrated by people from Ireland. It could also be argued that Muslims have every right to hate Jews and Christians because most of the attacks on muslims nations is perpetrated by those religious groups.
Let me ask you a simple question - are you personally responsible for every death caused by the Iraq War or the Afghanistan conflict?
If the answer is no, and thos acts are being carried out by people from your country with your religion, then how can you argue your point?
No, what is reported in our media is that it's the vast majority, whereas the reality is different.
Can't you see the difference. You are not being told the whole truth, just a small part of what is happenening and it clouds your perspective.
Muslims are the new bogeyman - it used to be nazis, commies, jews, blacks, irish, catholics, cavalier or roundheads. There is always a bogeyman and at the moment it's muslims.
It's more the former than the latter.
And regardless of any of that argument it still has fuckall to do with whether anyone is entitled to benefits in this country.
The funniest thing is that you believe what you are being told without question.
Point of fact - there are approximately 1bn muslims in the world.
What proportion do you think are terrorists?
And why do you think that what happens in another country should affect people in this country and their rights to benefits?
What I see, given that I work in a sector which has a high proportion of ethnic minoroties, is just how offended they are by the action of a minority. Actions ebing carried out in the name of their religion.
What I also see are actions being carried out in my name which I cannot agree with.
Generalisations are never accurate- or a good idea.
Yet many others have not. So if you think it is unfair for many in the Middle East believing we in the West are all blood-thirsty dangerous warmongering criminals, try to think whether it is fair for us to think Muslims are terrorists and violent.
You CANNOT generalise against an entire people and religion. Simple as.
No there isn't. Are you aware of the atrocities peddled in the book 'we all read from' in Christian countries?
Naturally most Christians dismiss and ignore the more unsavoury passages of the Bible. Just as most Muslims do with the Koran.
No difference at all.
I am sick and tired of this recurrent STRAWMAN which seems to feature in every single discussion involving Islam.
You know the one...
Someone talks about any negative aspect of Islam or terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, only to be confronted with the recurrent STRAWMAN of...
"Not all Muslims are terrorist"!
"How can you generalise over 1 billion people"!
:rolleyes:
For Gods sakes NOBODY is saying that ALL Muslims are terrorists so STOP SAYING THAT THEY ARE SAYING THAT!
This is probably the ONLY subject in which we are confronted with this strawman over and over and over and over and over again.
When we discuss "teenage binge drinkers", do we just reassure ourselves that not ALL "teenagers" are "binge drinkers" in order to solve the problem?
When we try to tackle the problem of "illegal immigration", do we just solve the problem by reaffirming to ourselves that not ALL "immigrants" are "illegal"?
Do we stifle every debate about "football fan hooligans" because not ALL "football fans" are "hooligans"?
Do we stifle every debate about, say, the "Oldham riots" by saying that not ALL of "Oldham" were "rioting"?
Man Of Kent, in this thread you said that Australians are a "racist society". Shall I hit back at you with this strawman too?
"Man Of Kent, there over 20 million people in Australia. How many of them are racist? Stop generalising over 20 million people!" :rolleyes:
This is an insult to every single 'compound term' that has ever existed.
You're right, they have become victims of terrorists. In particular, a terrorist by the name of 'Muhammad' who lived 1400 years ago, and whose example still lives on.
- By 2003 Saddam Hussein's forces were no threat to an old people's home- let alone other nations. He had a demoralised, ill-equipped conscript army with antiques as weapons, no spares for his aging and vulnerable tanks and no airforce and navy to speak of. He was simply no risk to others.
- By 2003 Saddam Hussein had no WMDs whatsoever. This was a fact and was known to just about anyone, not least the US and British governments, who went as far as lying and fabricating evidence to claim the contrary.
- The UN inspectors were pulled out because they were going to declare just that.
- Most of the killing and butchering Saddam carried out took place while he was shaking hands with the US State Secretary and buying weapons from the British government. Funnily enough our righteous rulers didn't didn't concern themselves much about the plight of the Iraqis at the time. What do you think Middle Easterns thought of Britain and America when we tried to justify the war on Saddam's human right records? They're not stupid you know...
- Saddam Hussein had precisely fuck all to do with 9/11. That the US government tried to claim otherwise is not only an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the ME and indeed the world, but a disgraceful insult on the victims of that atrocity.
- Saddam Hussein had also fuck all to do with terrorism. In fact there was zero terrorist activity, Al Qaida presence and religious extremism in Iraq under his rule. Women in Iraq were able to wear Western clothes and make-up and go about their business without the fear of being killed by religious extremists. Look at where they are now... wearing burqas and unable to leave their house without a male relative. Thanks, Christian Crusaders!
- The Coallition of the Killing had no contingency plans whatsoever for the situation after Saddam's regime was removed. Their thinking only extended as far as getting their greedy, blood stained hands in Iraq's oil fields and government. In fact some observers think the resulting anarchy and civil was exactly what the neocon movement in America had in mind. That way they can justify their military presence in the province for decades to come, while using the bogeyman of muslim extremism they have unleashed in the region to justify other imperialistic enterprises and antidemocratic 'security' legislation at home.
When you think about it, Arabs and Muslims have far better reason to think all Christian Westerners are evil murdering bastards than we have of believing they are all terrorists. Both assumptions are completely wrong of course.
Really? I wasn't aware the Old Testament is no longer printed in Holy Bibles and that it has been officially rejected by the Christian faith.
In fact Christian fundies are using that very text to justify their continuing hate campaign against homosexuals, amongst other things.
I think it is fair to say organised religion has done far more harm than good to humanity, yes.
But even though I have no time for religion I'm happy to declare that the majority of religious people are decent human beings, even if I disagree with their beliefs.