Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

Except Islamic countries where sharia laws apply, the laws of allah as told by a paedophile warrior prophet.

NO, there is no exception where a religion with power over the state gave up that power willingly, and sought to enact separation from the state. Every time it has been the state that has limited the power of religious control over the government.

Tell that to the Saudis, Kuwait, Qatar, soon Turks, and the rest of the islamic countries.

 

[Warpoet]

Tell that to the Saudis, Kuwait, Qatar, soon Turks, and the rest of the islamic countries.

What the fuck? Did you seriously even read a god damned word he wrote, or that anyone writes, or do you just lower your head and retype the same bankrupt, one-note argument over and over and over? (Don't answer: it's rhetorical)

Your posts are by far the single worst thing about this forum, and possibly the internet as a whole.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yeah Angelo have you been asleep? We used to burn witches here in America. In Uganda, the religion contributes to serious human rights violations by the government against gay people. Where have you been?

So, when did gays get equal human rights in islamic countries?

They only got them in "Christian" countries 40 years ago. Again... special pleading.

 

[bigfield]

So, when did gays get equal human rights in islamic countries?

They only got them in "Christian" countries 40 years ago. Again... special pleading.

Gays still don't have equal rights in most majority-Christian countries, including Angelo's home country of Australia.

 

[KeepTalking]

NO, there is no exception where a religion with power over the state gave up that power willingly, and sought to enact separation from the state. Every time it has been the state that has limited the power of religious control over the government.

Tell that to the Saudis, Kuwait, Qatar, soon Turks, and the rest of the islamic countries.

What does that have to do with what I said?

My post is a matter of world history. That some governments are still under the thumb of religion has no bearing on the fact that every time religion has been separated from state, it has been the state that has enacted that separation, and not religion.

 

[untermensche]

Let's not be fooled. A great deal of this anti-Muslim hysteria is driven by American Christian fundamentalism.

But this is not an excuse for rationally thinking people to be driven to the level of a American Christian fundamentalist, one of the most ignorant of creatures.

 

[angelo]

They only got them in "Christian" countries 40 years ago. Again... special pleading.

Gays still don't have equal rights in most majority-Christian countries, including Angelo's home country of Australia.

No comparison. Australia is a free and democratic country, in comparison to Islamic countries it's a paradise.

 

[angelo]

Tell that to the Saudis, Kuwait, Qatar, soon Turks, and the rest of the islamic countries.

What does that have to do with what I said?

My post is a matter of world history. That some governments are still under the thumb of religion has no bearing on the fact that every time religion has been separated from state, it has been the state that has enacted that separation, and not religion.

Religion,any religion would never give up power voluntary in the modern era at least. Ialamics would fight to the death for their hold on mostly illiterate backward people. The answer to this dilemma is education. And that's what the UN should be concerned about. But with the present membership of the UN, that's also extremely unlikely to happen as can be seen by giving the chair of the human rights council of the UN to Saudi Arabia.

 

[bilby]

What does that have to do with what I said?

My post is a matter of world history. That some governments are still under the thumb of religion has no bearing on the fact that every time religion has been separated from state, it has been the state that has enacted that separation, and not religion.

Religion,any religion would never give up power voluntary in the modern era at least. Ialamics would fight to the death for their hold on mostly illiterate backward people. The answer to this dilemma is education. And that's what the UN should be concerned about. But with the present membership of the UN, that's also extremely unlikely to happen as can be seen by giving the chair of the human rights council of the UN to Saudi Arabia.

Just to clarify, who is illiterate and in need of education, again?

 

[angelo]

Religion,any religion would never give up power voluntary in the modern era at least. Ialamics would fight to the death for their hold on mostly illiterate backward people. The answer to this dilemma is education. And that's what the UN should be concerned about. But with the present membership of the UN, that's also extremely unlikely to happen as can be seen by giving the chair of the human rights council of the UN to Saudi Arabia.

Just to clarify, who is illiterate and in need of education, again?

More than 70% of Islamics or if you prefer, moslems are illiterate. Those that can read, very few have ever picked up a science book, or a paper that may criticise Islam in any way.

 

[bilby]

Just to clarify, who is illiterate and in need of education, again?

More than 70% of Islamics or if you prefer, moslems are illiterate. Those that can read, very few have ever picked up a science book, or a paper that may criticise Islam in any way.

Citation needed.

According to Wikipedia, and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the only country in the entire world with a literacy rate (for people over 15 years of age) below 30% - and therefore an illiteracy rate over 70% - is Niger.

Every other country - including the countries with the largest populations of Muslims - has a higher than 30% literacy rate; Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation, has a literacy rate of 93.9%. The lowest literacy rate outside Africa is Afghanistan, where illiteracy affects only 61.8% of the population (and only 48% of the male population).

Some other majority Islamic nations, and their overall literacy rates (that is, including both male and female literacy) are:

Saudi Arabia - 94.7
Iran - 86.8
Iraq - 79.7
Syria - 86.4
Pakistan - 58.7
Bangladesh - 61.5
Libya - 91.0
Egypt - 75.2

So basically, the UNESCO data appear to contradict your assertion, which it seems was sourced intra-rectally. Even in Bangladesh, more than twice as many of the population are literate as you claim for the average of all Muslims worldwide. I wonder whether you invented this stupidly easy to refute bullshit, or whether you just swallowed it whole when someone passed it on to you. Either way, you should know better than to try to pass this kind of readily checked 'information' off as fact on Talk Freethought.

When making up statistics, you need to ensure that they are at least close enough to reality to be difficult to refute.

 

[untermensche]

That was too easy.

Meaning you are wasting your time even engaging.

 

[angelo]

More than 70% of Islamics or if you prefer, moslems are illiterate. Those that can read, very few have ever picked up a science book, or a paper that may criticise Islam in any way.

Citation needed.

According to Wikipedia, and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the only country in the entire world with a literacy rate (for people over 15 years of age) below 30% - and therefore an illiteracy rate over 70% - is Niger.

Every other country - including the countries with the largest populations of Muslims - has a higher than 30% literacy rate; Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation, has a literacy rate of 93.9%. The lowest literacy rate outside Africa is Afghanistan, where illiteracy affects only 61.8% of the population (and only 48% of the male population).

Some other majority Islamic nations, and their overall literacy rates (that is, including both male and female literacy) are:

Saudi Arabia - 94.7
Iran - 86.8
Iraq - 79.7
Syria - 86.4
Pakistan - 58.7
Bangladesh - 61.5
Libya - 91.0
Egypt - 75.2

So basically, the UNESCO data appear to contradict your assertion, which it seems was sourced intra-rectally. Even in Bangladesh, more than twice as many of the population are literate as you claim for the average of all Muslims worldwide. I wonder whether you invented this stupidly easy to refute bullshit, or whether you just swallowed it whole when someone passed it on to you. Either way, you should know better than to try to pass this kind of readily checked 'information' off as fact on Talk Freethought.

When making up statistics, you need to ensure that they are at least close enough to reality to be difficult to refute.

You didn't read the post properly. I did say Islamics. Or fundamental moslems Not the general population of Arab countries where many if not most students of rich Arabs get a Western education in Western universities.

 

[bilby]

Citation needed.

According to Wikipedia, and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the only country in the entire world with a literacy rate (for people over 15 years of age) below 30% - and therefore an illiteracy rate over 70% - is Niger.

Every other country - including the countries with the largest populations of Muslims - has a higher than 30% literacy rate; Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation, has a literacy rate of 93.9%. The lowest literacy rate outside Africa is Afghanistan, where illiteracy affects only 61.8% of the population (and only 48% of the male population).

Some other majority Islamic nations, and their overall literacy rates (that is, including both male and female literacy) are:

Saudi Arabia - 94.7
Iran - 86.8
Iraq - 79.7
Syria - 86.4
Pakistan - 58.7
Bangladesh - 61.5
Libya - 91.0
Egypt - 75.2

So basically, the UNESCO data appear to contradict your assertion, which it seems was sourced intra-rectally. Even in Bangladesh, more than twice as many of the population are literate as you claim for the average of all Muslims worldwide. I wonder whether you invented this stupidly easy to refute bullshit, or whether you just swallowed it whole when someone passed it on to you. Either way, you should know better than to try to pass this kind of readily checked 'information' off as fact on Talk Freethought.

When making up statistics, you need to ensure that they are at least close enough to reality to be difficult to refute.

You didn't read the post properly. I did say Islamics. Or fundamental moslems Not the general population of Arab countries where many if not most students of rich Arabs get a Western education in Western universities.

Sure. You did say "Ialamics", and no doubt you think that means whatever you need it to mean to avoid being wrong - despite your earlier definition "Islamics or if you prefer, moslems", which oddly failed to mention 'fundamental'.

And no doubt you are just about to post your reliable sources for this "fact", once you get over the strain of shifting that heavy goalpost.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just to clarify, who is illiterate and in need of education, again?

More than 70% of Islamics or if you prefer, moslems are illiterate. Those that can read, very few have ever picked up a science book, or a paper that may criticise Islam in any way.

I think you nailed it. Extremist religion is a result of shitty education. Which in turn is the result of poverty. Solve the poverty = solve the education problem = no more extremist religion. What this means is that it will go away even if we do nothing. It's just a matter of time. Which, incidentally is what killed Christian extremism in the west.

And it still doesn't explain anything else you've written in this thread

Yes, I'm aware your numbers are wrong. It's not just illiteracy. It has also to do with whether you live in a country with an infrastructure geared toward a predominantly agricultural economy or an industrial economy. The former creates insecurity. And insecurity breeds extremism. But this to is just a matter of time

 

[angelo]

Churchill warned about islam around 65 years ago. Nothing has changed, in fact it's gotten much worse than in his day.

http://blog.godreports.com/2015/01/...-dangers-of-radical-islam-over-100-years-ago/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Churchill warned about islam around 65 years ago. Nothing has changed, in fact it's gotten much worse than in his day.

http://blog.godreports.com/2015/01/...-dangers-of-radical-islam-over-100-years-ago/

When Churchill tried leading Britain after the war it all went to shit. Why? Because he wasn't particularly good at analysis. He was a man of action and had huge balls. At heart he was just a conservative dick. And just like conservatives today he wasn't interested in reality. He knew in his heart what was right and was going to follow it no matter how shallow and stupid it was.

 

[KeepTalking]

What does that have to do with what I said?

My post is a matter of world history. That some governments are still under the thumb of religion has no bearing on the fact that every time religion has been separated from state, it has been the state that has enacted that separation, and not religion.

Religion,any religion would never give up power voluntary in the modern era at least.

Not in the modern era, not in any era, unless I am missing a bit of historical trivia. Your position above, however, is in direct contradiction to the statement you made that led to this side discussion:

There's one huge difference between "religions". Most religions, xtianity included, separate church from state.

Do you care to retract the above statement now?

Ialamics would fight to the death for their hold on mostly illiterate backward people. The answer to this dilemma is education. And that's what the UN should be concerned about. But with the present membership of the UN, that's also extremely unlikely to happen as can be seen by giving the chair of the human rights council of the UN to Saudi Arabia.

Given that you feel that the answer to this issue is education, and I do not necessarily disagree, don't you think that it is more likely that the place where they will receive a beneficial and secular education would be in a Western country, rather than a war-torn Middle Eastern country? Your own logic in this regard should lead you to the conclusion that immigrating to Europe, and subsequently obtaining a European education for themselves or their children, is the best way to counter Islamic radicalization.

 

[untermensche]

Churchill warned about islam around 65 years ago. Nothing has changed, in fact it's gotten much worse than in his day.

http://blog.godreports.com/2015/01/...-dangers-of-radical-islam-over-100-years-ago/

When they bring up Churchill you know they are deluded.

In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.

Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article999.htm

Those nasty Muslims who resisted British colonialism. How dare they!

 

[DrZoidberg]

When they bring up Churchill you know they are deluded.

In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.

Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article999.htm

Those nasty Muslims who resisted British colonialism. How dare they!

Also... there had been European racist stereotypes about Muslims dating back to the siege of Vienna. Churchill and everybody else in Europe who had a university education knew very well how extremely close the Ottomans once came to conquering Europe, all of it. That scared them all. That's where the European Islamophobia has it's roots. If not even earlier, the fall of Constantinople.

I think Churchill was part of this tradition. He was a conservative. So I think that's a safe bet