• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

Who said anything about a SUCCESSFUL civil war? If, however, they were actually the kind of troublemakers people like you insist on painting them as (and if they're constantly being painted as such, I wouldn't blame them for living up to it sooner or later); we'd have way worse problems than we actually have.

Once they start reaching pluralities and majorities then their true culture starts manifesting in a society. In the US we have less than 1% and of course they aren't a problem. As you get around the 10% mark like France then they start rioting and demanding sharia courts etc.

Except that's not actually what's happened, is it? The riots in France you're probably thinking about had absolutely NOTHING to do with islam; and have been oversimplified in the non-French press; religion played just about zero role in them, and they were primarily the result of high unemployment among minority groups. Numerous investigations into them have turned up no religious influence.
You are absolutely correct and once more we can see how much the US media will propagate misinformation. The 2005 rioting in our housing projects were triggered by Sarkosy's(Ministre de l'Interieur at the time) unfortunate depiction of 2 youths who died while being chased by the police as "racaille". It was the straw on the camel's back for our youth of immigrant ancestry (Northern African and Sub Sahara origins) already bearing the socio economical consequences of my government's failed politic of integration. Indeed, an unemployment rate of 30% affecting their category.Such state of stagnation created a climate of despair and frustration for our youth contained in those housing projects. Projects we used to refer to as "cages a poules" (chicken cages).





And let's not overblow 'demands for sharia courts'; that's a typical right-wing talking point based on an irrational fear and distortion of what's actually being talked about.
To add that when it comes to France, our French Muslims are quite aware that the 1905 Secular Law would in no way accommodate any demands or requests allowing for courts of ANY religious origin to cohabit within the French judiciary system. Laïcité prevails in all 3 branches of our government, executive, legislative and judiciary.


As to the French Census Bureau (l'INSEE), when doing a census of our population (to include our overseas territories and departments). the information they will collect will NOT contain data regarding religion and ethnicity. Age, gender, family situation,place of birth, nationality, residence, professional formation, education, yes. Meaning that numbers thrown out in the media do not have a Government sponsored official source to support them. The most accepted estimate is between 7 and 8.5 %.
 
I took the time to fully read both the Sam Harris interview, and the original interview Warpoet alluded too.

Things make a lot more sense in full context.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...g-item-lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia/page5

My Cherry Picked parts of the interview that someone else cherry picked first~!

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali:No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

Reason: When I read Ian Buruma’s review of your book in The New York Times, I felt he wasn’t being fair to you when he wrote that you “espouse an absolutist way of a perfectly enlightened west at war with the demonic world of Islam.” But maybe that’s a pretty apt description of what you believe.

Hirsi Ali: No, that’s not fair. I don’t think that the West is perfect, and I think that standing up and defending modern society from going back to the law of the jungle is not being absolutist.

I don’t know what Buruma saw when he went to Holland [to research Theo van Gogh’s assassination for his book Murder in Amsterdam], but Theo rode to work on his bicycle one morning, and a man armed with knives and guns took Theo’s life in the name of his God—and that same man, Mohammed Bouyeri, wasn’t born believing that. The people who introduced this mind-set to Bouyeri took advantage of the notion of freedom of religion and other civil liberties.

Samir Azouz, another young man in Holland convicted of terrorist plotting, attended a fundamentalist Muslim school in Amsterdam which is still open. He had maps of the Dutch parliament. He wanted to kill me and other politicians. He wanted to cause murder and mayhem congruent with the set of beliefs that he was taught in school using Dutch taxpayers’ money. Now go back in time a little. Isn’t it extremely cruel when you put yourself in the shoes of that little boy? He was just going to an officially recognized school in a multicultural society. Everyone approved—and now he’s being punished for it. He’s in jail.

Reason: One of the things in your book that struck me was that many of the women in the book made religious choices that seemed entirely free. Your childhood teacher, Sister Aziza, chose to cover herself “to seek a deeper satisfaction of pleasing God.” You described dressing in an ankle-length black cloak yourself, and how it made you feel sensuous and feminine and desirable and like an individual. There’s also the scene where many women in your own Somali neighborhood, including your mother, began dressing in burkas and jilbabs after encountering a preacher named Boqol Sawm. You and they apparently did so of their free will, without any obvious coercion. So what’s the problem with that?

Hirsi Ali: I really thought Sister Aziza was convincing, and I wanted to be like her. And she talked about God and hell and heaven in a way I hadn’t heard before. My mother would only scream, “Pray, it’s time to pray!” without ever explaining why. Sister Aziza wasn’t doing that.

But she did teach us to hate Jews. I must confess to a deep emotional hatred I felt for Jews as a 15-, 16-, 17-year-old living in Kenya. You almost can’t help it; you become part of something bigger. I think that’s how totalitarian movements function and that’s what’s wrong with them. You lose your faculty of reason. You’re told, “Don’t think for yourself. Just follow the leader.”

“Hate people.” OK. “Kill people.” OK, fine.

Reason: Having lived in the United States for about a year now, do you find that Muslims in the United States have by and large integrated better here than they have in Europe?

Hirsi Ali: Since I moved here, I’ve spent most of my time in airports, in airplanes, in waiting rooms, in hotels, doing promotion for Infidel all over the world, so the amount of time I’ve actually lived in the U.S. is very small. But yes, I have the impression that Muslims in the United States are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. Of course, being assimilated doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t be a jihadist, but the likelihood of Muslims turning radical here seems lower than in Europe.

For one thing, America doesn’t really have a welfare system. Mohammed Bouyeri had all day long to plot the murder of Theo van Gogh. American Muslims have to get a job. What pushes people who come to America to assimilate is that it’s expected of them. And people are not mollycoddled by the government.

There’s a lot of white guilt in America, but it’s directed toward black Americans and native Indians, not toward Muslims and other immigrants. People come from China, Vietnam, and all kinds of Muslim countries. To the average American, they’re all fellow immigrants.

The white guilt in Germany and Holland and the U.K. is very different. It has to do with colonialism. It has to do with Dutch emigrants having spread apartheid in South Africa. It has to do with the Holocaust. So the mind-set toward immigrants in Europe is far more complex than here. Europeans are more reticent about saying no to immigrants.

And by and large, Muslim immigrants in Europe do not come with the intention to assimilate. They come with the intention to work, earn some money, and go back. That’s how the first wave of immigrants in the Netherlands was perceived: They would just come to work and then they’d go away. The newer generations that have followed are coming not so much to work and more to reap the benefits of the welfare state. Again, assimilation is not really on their minds.

Also, in order to get official status here in the U.S., you have to have an employer, so it’s the employable who are coming. The Arabs who live here came as businessmen, and a lot of them come from wealthy backgrounds. There are also large communities of Indian and Pakistani Muslims, who tend to be very liberal. Compare that to the Turks in Germany, who mostly come from the poor villages of Anatolia. Or compare it to the Moroccans in the Netherlands, who are for the most part Berbers with a similar socio-economic background. It’s a completely different set of people.

Reason: Tolerance is probably the most powerful word there is in the Netherlands. No other word encapsulates better what the Dutch believe really defines them. That makes it very easy for people to say that when they’re being criticized, they’re not being tolerated—and from there it’s only a small step to saying they’re being discriminated against or they’re the victims of Islamophobia or racism or what have you.

Hirsi Ali: We have to revert to the original meaning of the term tolerance. It meant you agreed to disagree without violence. It meant critical self-reflection. It meant not tolerating the intolerant. It also came to mean a very high level of personal freedom.

Then the Muslims arrived, and they hadn’t grown up with that understanding of tolerance. In short order, tolerance was now defined by multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures and religions are equal. Expectations were created among the Muslim population. They were told they could preserve their own culture, their own religion. The vocabulary was quickly established that if you criticize someone of color, you’re a racist, and if you criticize Islam, you’re an Islamophobe.

Reason: The international corollary to the word tolerance is probably respect. The alleged lack of respect has become a perennial sore spot in relations between the West and Islam. Salman Rushdie receiving a British knighthood supposedly signified such a lack of respect, as did the Danish cartoons last year, and many other things. Do you believe this is what Muslims genuinely crave—respect?

Hirsi Ali: It’s not about respect. It’s about power, and Islam is a political movement.

Reason: Uniquely so?

Hirsi Ali: Well, it hasn’t been tamed like Christianity. See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don’t interfere with their religion, and they don’t interfere with the state. That hasn’t happened in Islam.

But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.

The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional.
The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.

I pretty much agree with Sam and Ali. Danged that rhymed.

BTW, did sayeed make it over here with us?
 
Last edited:
I took the time to fully read both the Sam Harris interview, and the original interview Warpoet alluded too.

Things make a lot more sense in full context.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...g-item-lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia/page5

My Cherry Picked parts of the interview that someone else cherry picked first~!

Oh, I see. So she's not just advocating stripping Muslims writ large of their constitutional rights, she's advocating stripping Muslims of their constitutional rights based on fearmongering overgeneralizations about how they are subversive leeches on society and alarmist rhetoric about how we have to destroy our liberal values in order to save them.

Yeah, that's a whole lot better.
 
Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslim therefore a threat.

A highly debatable claim, but irrelevant to the disgusting ideas Ali is promoting.

I guess if most criminals are black (or aboriginal), it's therefore OK to discriminate against all of them because they collectively constitute a threat?
 
I took the time to fully read both the Sam Harris interview, and the original interview Warpoet alluded too.

Things make a lot more sense in full context.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...g-item-lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia/page5

My Cherry Picked parts of the interview that someone else cherry picked first~!

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali:No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

Exactly. It's not about religious freedom, it's about using that freedom to aid the enemy.

We are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam and will remain so for the foreseeable future (radical Islam does not permit peace with non-believers.)
 
but most terrorists are muslim therefore a threat.
Um, most?
Can you source that claim?

Because according to this source, they're not.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

Attacks on US soil.

Furthermore, most of these attacks are directed at objects, not people. Less than 10% killed anyone, just over 10% hurt someone.

When you look at it by the death toll you get a very different picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...iolent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

80% of the top 30 are Islamist.
 
but most terrorists are muslim therefore a threat.
Um, most?
Can you source that claim?
Because according to this source, they're not.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

Attacks on US soil.
Well, yeah, that's what the chart shows. Of course, attacks is not equal to membership.
But neither is death toll. It was just the first site to show up in google and it does show that the fear of muslim terrorists seems to be an artifact of very weighted coverage, at least in the US. So it might be understandable to be hesitant to just accept a claim that 'most terrorists are muslim.'

Does angelo have access to any sort of table that supports the claim that 'most terrorists are muslim.' I don't care if it's world-wide, or country specific (as long as angelo can credibly claim that the statement was obviously with respect Ireland, or England or to whichever country is chosen). SOME sort of support.

When you look at it by the death toll you get a very different picture:
80% of the top 30 are Islamist.
So maybe Islamists are more efficient killers. That's still not support for the actual claim angelo made.
Unless it's a known thing that Islamists just suck worse than any other terrorist groups at killing? And maybe everyone agrees you need twenty Islamic terrorists to kill one innocent person, while the Irish have a 1:20 rate? That WOULD mean the death toll is proportional to membership, and a high death toll means lots of people on the roster...

But still, I'm just hoping angelo can reveal his source for the claim.
 
I took the time to fully read both the Sam Harris interview, and the original interview Warpoet alluded too.

Things make a lot more sense in full context.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...g-item-lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia/page5

My Cherry Picked parts of the interview that someone else cherry picked first~!

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali:No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

Exactly. It's not about religious freedom, it's about using that freedom to aid the enemy.

We are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam and will remain so for the foreseeable future (radical Islam does not permit peace with non-believers.)

I usually find myself defending Muslims (and others) from hate mongerers, but I can't say I disagree with anything Zeluvia quoted above.

Islam is a problem, just as fundamentalist christianity is a problem. It isn't them blowing up buildings that I fear, and equating muslims with terrorists is bigotry. What I fear in Islam is the herd mentality and authoritarianism that runs so deep in Islamic religion and culture. When people push that their God is the only God, and their way is the only proper way, trouble is brewing. Especially when evangalism is an important part of the religion. The more strictly muslim, or fundamentalist christian, somebody is, the more I would like to avoid them, and the less I would want them in my society.
 
Here is a face of the US which vastly differs from some of the prejudiced comments made in this thread....

http://www.upworthy.com/a-boy-makes...american-soldier-the-soldiers-reply-priceless

To note that only one of the "social experimented tested" folks approved of the comments made by the prejudiced role actor to the actor playing the role of a Muslim employee. It is worth watching the video especially as we come to the reaction of a US service member in uniform. Good for him.
 
Sabine, I don't hate people because they are Muslim. I don't treat them different when I meet them. I don't treat fundy Christians different when I meet them. Heck I dont even treat members of the Aryan nation different when I meet them. Or the American Nazi party.

But to ignore what the ideology these people, all of them, follow, and the threat it is to everyone else's freedom is just stupid. Not to speak out against those ideologies is criminal.

Conflating prejudice against people with a real concern about the social effects of their ideology is disingenuous. But these ideologies wouldn't exist if there weren't people following them. And they won't change without critical conversations.
 
I usually find myself defending Muslims (and others) from hate mongerers, but I can't say I disagree with anything Zeluvia quoted above.

So, you think we should single out Muslims and strip them of their rights to free speech and close down all of their schools? Because that's still what Ali is saying we should do, and it's still just as repugnant a suggestion as it was the first time I posted it.
 
Religion based schools should go back to being something you go to after you attend public school. Not a substitute for primary education.

I blame the Catholics for that screw up.

And it was J.F. Kennedy who had to answer the anti-Papists when they asked if he was fit to be president because as a Catholic, he had sworn to put God before Country. It was a serious problem to his run for president.

That was about 50 years ago or so.

Anyway, Warpoet, I learned your tactic months ago. You take the worst thing you can find, out of context, then repeat it over and over. You answer no questions, you do not discuss, you just beat people over the head with the smelliest dead horse you can find. You post in no threads but ones about Islam. You do not seem to be an atheist. And you choose Warpoet as your handle. As though there is something poetic to be found in war.
 
Last edited:
I took the time to fully read both the Sam Harris interview, and the original interview Warpoet alluded too.

Things make a lot more sense in full context.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...g-item-lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia/page5

My Cherry Picked parts of the interview that someone else cherry picked first~!

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali:No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

Exactly. It's not about religious freedom, it's about using that freedom to aid the enemy.

We are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam and will remain so for the foreseeable future (radical Islam does not permit peace with non-believers.)

I usually find myself defending Muslims (and others) from hate mongerers, but I can't say I disagree with anything Zeluvia quoted above.
As if shutting down religious schools where there are teachings which incite the abidance to hatred towards Jews and other hatred sentiments towards our way of life(the West) would somehow prevent the underground existence of groups indoctrinating children. The value of an open marketing of ideas is that it exposes those hatred ideologies and facilitates the identification of the source. It also means an exposure to counter argumentation attacking those hatred based ideologies.

Back in the early 2000's, several European nations were able to identify a major cause of the problem of radicalization of their Muslim populations. The fact that the majority of imans were imports, meaning not trained into the social mores and laws of their host nation. France officially launched a training for future and new Imans program a few years ago :

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/02/01/french-student-imams-study-at-catholic-university/

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/10/france-mosque-and-catholic-university.html

Note that the education is provided by a private institute to preserve our strict separation of Church and State. Remaining compatible with the 1905 Secular law.

Islam is a problem, just as fundamentalist christianity is a problem. It isn't them blowing up buildings that I fear, and equating muslims with terrorists is bigotry.
Thank you for being evenhanded. It is truly appreciated.:)

What I fear in Islam is the herd mentality and authoritarianism that runs so deep in Islamic religion and culture. When people push that their God is the only God, and their way is the only proper way, trouble is brewing. Especially when evangalism is an important part of the religion. The more strictly muslim, or fundamentalist christian, somebody is, the more I would like to avoid them, and the less I would want them in my society.
When looking at the source of radicalization in my country, it is not happening in Muslim schools and Mosques. It is happening in our housing projects (low rent and income "zones) where the majority of our youth of immigrant ancestry (sub Sahara and Northern Africa) live. It is orchestrated by Salafist groups whose sole purpose is to recruit such youth by exploiting their anger and frustration with the French State while a portion of them have been involved in criminal activities which had nothing to do with religion.. Mind you that only a minority of that youth of immigrant ancestry would originally define themselves as practicing Muslims.

Below a typical profile of a young man of immigrant ancestry raised in one of our housing projects plagued with socio economical issues :

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/french-gunman-mohamed-merah.html

I wrote "typical" because it starts off with criminal activities.(those housing projects are referred to in France as "Zones sensibles" or"Sensitive zones" in English due to their high crime rate). Then, contacts and socialization with Salafist groups who infiltrate those projects. Then trips in Islamic nations hosting "training camps" for future jihadists. That is how the process of radicalization takes place. Then, we have a catastrophe.

Typical also because he certainly did not show any exterior signs via his lifestyle, socialization at work and with his neighbors of what what think a radical fundamentalist Muslim "looks like". No long beard. No Muslim style clothing. No membership in a regular Mosque.

As to Muslim schools in Europe and because this article will give everyone more insight as to private Muslim schools in several European nations than a rant portraying Muslim schools as teaching children that "Jews are pigs and monkeys" :

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/education/
 
Sabine, I don't hate people because they are Muslim. I don't treat them different when I meet them. I don't treat fundy Christians different when I meet them. Heck I dont even treat members of the Aryan nation different when I meet them. Or the American Nazi party.

But to ignore what the ideology these people, all of them, follow, and the threat it is to everyone else's freedom is just stupid. Not to speak out against those ideologies is criminal.
No one is suggesting to not speak against those ideologies. The problem is when you make a statement like this one, from post # 14 :

Except when you google Islam and democracy, you get 100 papers discussing whether they are compatible or not, and no consensus. If Islam in general is having issues with democracy and the idea of constitutional rights that don't come from Sharia, or are in some cases contradictory to Sharia, then why should it get the benefit of democracy and constitutional rights?


which echoed Hirsi Ali's ranting suggestions IMPLYING that ALL Muslims be treated as second class citizens. You questioned the Constitutional Identity of persons who are adepts of Islam. Meaning Muslims in general.

Conflating prejudice against people with a real concern about the social effects of their ideology is disingenuous.
Your statement above is prejudicial where you target all persons adept of Islam. Which does not surprise me as so many Americans tend to have little knowledge as to the diversity of schools of thoughts within Islam. While some go as far as denying that there are liberal and moderate Muslims. I had to correct Loren earlier when he portrayed moderate Muslims as "siding with the radicals".


But these ideologies wouldn't exist if there weren't people following them. And they won't change without critical conversations.
No one is suggesting that critical conversations do not take place. Hirsi Ali is going after ALL Muslims no differently than the content of your statement quoted above.
 
When you look at it by the death toll you get a very different picture:
80% of the top 30 are Islamist.
So maybe Islamists are more efficient killers. That's still not support for the actual claim angelo made.
Unless it's a known thing that Islamists just suck worse than any other terrorist groups at killing? And maybe everyone agrees you need twenty Islamic terrorists to kill one innocent person, while the Irish have a 1:20 rate? That WOULD mean the death toll is proportional to membership, and a high death toll means lots of people on the roster...

But still, I'm just hoping angelo can reveal his source for the claim.

The death toll is a good representation of the threat.

Looking at those same 30 events if you died in one it's at least 84% likely that it was a Muslim that did it. (There's a 2% unknown factor.)

- - - Updated - - -

Islam is a problem, just as fundamentalist christianity is a problem. It isn't them blowing up buildings that I fear, and equating muslims with terrorists is bigotry. What I fear in Islam is the herd mentality and authoritarianism that runs so deep in Islamic religion and culture. When people push that their God is the only God, and their way is the only proper way, trouble is brewing. Especially when evangalism is an important part of the religion. The more strictly muslim, or fundamentalist christian, somebody is, the more I would like to avoid them, and the less I would want them in my society.

Yeah, the herd mentality is a big part of the problem. Non-violent Muslims rarely report the violent ones to non-Muslim authorities.
 
As if shutting down religious schools where there are teachings which incite the abidance to hatred towards Jews and other hatred sentiments towards our way of life(the West) would somehow prevent the underground existence of groups indoctrinating children. The value of an open marketing of ideas is that it exposes those hatred ideologies and facilitates the identification of the source. It also means an exposure to counter argumentation attacking those hatred based ideologies.

The reason the schools are worse is that they keep the kids isolated from other viewpoints. It's the same problem that we have with fundie Christian home schooling but the Islamist schooling isn't just about hate but also about violence.

Back in the early 2000's, several European nations were able to identify a major cause of the problem of radicalization of their Muslim populations. The fact that the majority of imans were imports, meaning not trained into the social mores and laws of their host nation. France officially launched a training for future and new Imans program a few years ago :

But you're assuming that the trouble is just because they don't understand the societies they have moved into. The reality is they know they can't win the hearts and minds in a fair competition, the hatred isn't due to misunderstanding and thus can't be fixed by education.
 
[
The death toll is a good representation of the threat.
Yes, and if angelo had said that the islamists are the greatest threat, then that would support his statement.
I was asking if there was any actual support for his actual statement.
Looking at those same 30 events if you died in one it's at least 84% likely that it was a Muslim that did it.
Why do you suggest i might have died in one?
People already died in those.
Are you trying to make it personal?
Going for an emotional response to 'the threat?'
Am i supposed to be more afraid of the Islamic threat if i can internalize the idea that they may be a threat to me, too?




All i'm asking is if angelo has any support for the statement he made.
Not support of other statements that he didn't make, however poignant those statements might be.
 
Religion based schools should go back to being something you go to after you attend public school. Not a substitute for primary education.

I blame the Catholics for that screw up.
Actually you need to blame the government and its own administration for cutting spending in the public education. Resulting in private religious schools offering a BETTER education. It is a private Muslim school in France which has ranked among the top 5 schools in France in 2013. How about that? Based on the results of the French Baccalaureate Degree alone (mandated graduation exam at the end of the Terminale grade and entry into our Universities), it ranked FIRST.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130329-france-first-private-muslim-school-tops-ranks-averroes/

And it was J.F. Kennedy who had to answer the anti-Papists when they asked if he was fit to be president because as a Catholic, he had sworn to put God before Country. It was a serious problem to his run for president.
That has nothing to do with the reality that religious private schools provide better education. I hope that you dedicate your time to political activism promoting and supporting a better public education in the US.



Anyway, Warpoet, I learned your tactic months ago. You take the worst thing you can find, out of context, then repeat it over and over.
Actually he has been hammering a point in this thread drawn from what Hirsi implies in her suggestions and what you echoed in your own statement.

You answer no questions, you do not discuss, you just beat people over the head with the smelliest dead horse you can find.
He did point to Hiris' comments and understood perfectly well what she is implying. I recall very well the number of times Warpoet was among the very few posters on FRDB who had the necessary academic knowledge to refute the anti Muslim propaganda driven folks who would flood GRD with their fear/hare mongering crap. I do not recall you being the party who challenged in the Formal debate Forum a poster who was boasting about Spencer. Warpoet was. Do not recall you being the party who had any knowledge of the data accumulated by the Southern Poverty Law center and documented it several times. He was.

You post in no threads but ones about Islam. You do not seem to be an atheist. And you choose Warpoet as your handle. As though there is something poetic to be found in war.
Inappropriate. Am I to be suspected to not be who I claim to be too as I have been as much as Warpoet has been involved in threads starting with an OP feeding on anti Muslim fear/ hate mongering propaganda? Should I dig them up from the FRDB archives?
 
Back
Top Bottom