Is it actually justifiable to be Islamophobic?

You are. You cite a verse about how people should speak yet you violate the same verse. Now if you do not believe in the Bible, don't cite it. That way you won't be called a hypocrite.

 

more dares and challenges from an atheist..............the proof is in your Life..........
I just read it and lightening came from nowhere....you are just another atheist

 

No...you are INCAPABLE of quoting Titus 3:2....because you violate it constantly, while claiming that you "believe and adher to the Bible".

I don't claim the latter....so I'm not the hypocrite. Only a person who SAYS one thing...but DOES the opposite is.

- - - Updated - - -

Same as publican, stjames.....it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to quote Titus 3:2.

Because your post would be saved...by....someone....and be thrown back at you when you blogged.

You know it (same as publican). So does everybody else.

 

tell us why any of us should listen to the words of an atheist?

 

Is it Islamophobia when they actually ARE out to get you? Just asking....It is like reading Mein Kampf and then being shocked when the silly Austrian Corporal did exactly what he preached.

Sometimes ones enemies are pretty clear about their desires and plans. Worse, sometimes they carry it out.

 

No it is not....your example deals with one(1) Italian....mine deals with an Idea and an object with millions of possible failures combined with four possible chances for disaster.

 

If they actually were out to get you that would a totally rational fear. I think anti-islamism would be a better word for that, given that a phobia is per definition irrational.

- - - Updated - - -

It fails because all religious people are not as likely to be genocidal fundamentalists. Did I really have to say that?

 

No...you did not, I thought I had made it relatively clear that I am referring to a religion rather than the individuals that follow it.

The Religion of Islam is a disgusting and hatefully evil fairy tale, the people that believe in it can be pleasant as pie or nasty as Ebola.

 

Referring to a religion as such is pointless though, that's my point.

 

Actually when people are raped, enslaves, decapitated, terrorized, subjugated, tortured, and generally subject to what can be termed as hell on earth by people that profess and commit these things in the name of a religion, I think it safe to assume said religion has one hell of a lot to do with it.

Thus is it disgusting to me.....religion of peace my ass.

 

So what do you make of the fact that most followers of that religion do not do such things? Those are the actions of a minority. You're not really logical about this.

 

I do not wear that, but non-Jews have to keep only the Seven Laws of Noah.

 

White (Aryan) Supremacy is absolutely central to Nazi "doctrine". It is, in fact, one of Naziism's most consistent defining characteristics. If you are really not a white supremacist may I respectfully suggest you're probably just a Fascist, of the same stripe as the pre war Italian Fascists. The Nazis, in fact, stole most of their political "philosophy" (such as it was) from them.

 

Seriously? did you not read anything I have posted here?

Okay..;let me simplify:

A religion is a generalized belief, and those that are devoted to it follow this belief.

The individuals who do so are obviously unique and in most ways separate from the Religion, yet they are still a part of it.

If the Religious belief can be considered in a certain way....those within it would fit his criteria also.

Individuals do not come into play..we are dealing with the Macro.

 

If one is to determine using objectivity and current events, then it would be quite irrational NOT to be Islamophobic.

Not a day goes by without another incident of Islamic caused mayhem becoming evident.

The following simple thought experiment illustrates the irrationality of the contemporary liberal perspective.

If 2 groups of people are approaching, one consisting of 3 Jehovah Witnesses and another of 3 religious Islamics; which group would cause apprehension?

The self evident answer (considering recent events) would be the religious Islamics.

The liberal perspective would have us believe that any apprehension should be EQUALLY given to each group; because to do otherwise would be racist, stereotypical, ect.

One must wonder what the degree of apprehension felt by the person espousing said liberal view, upon encountering the 2 hypothetical groups would be. Actually one wouldn't have to wonder for too long.

This illustrates the underlying motivation of today's liberal. "No matter how perverse my thought, it's more important that I portray self righteous indignation, than espouse the "Common Sense" of Thomas Pain.

A liberal response to the OP implication would be an immediate denunciation of the today militantly neutered Christianity. (knowing that is a safe "cheap shot" and no penalty will be incurred.)

 

Yes I get that, but with my little run in with the American Nazi Party, they may be white supremacists, but they don't follow the Nazis' political stuff. In fact, the American Nazi Party may as well be the same as the KKK, I mean they hate the same people, and want the same things. You did say Aryan supremacy, which I tip my hat to because most people think that means blond hair blue eyes, but in fact this was Allied propaganda to give the people a picture, but in actuality, the Nazis wanted the Caucasoid race, which did not include the Semites, the Negroids (I don't know what the politically correct word is so please be so kind as to tell me ), the East Asians, and the Native Americans. Skin colour didn't matter, so long as you were part of the race. Furthermore, this had nothing to do with the Nazis' political philosophy, as you said it did mostly come straight from Fascism. The thing I am saying though is that I am not just a Fascist, or else I would say I was a Fascist. The thing about the Nazis is that they were Fascists, but they picked and chose elements from the Left that was correct, instead of just preaching Fascism. If you read some of the Nazi laws that were passed and changed when Hitler took over Germany, you'll see that the Aryan Supremacy was a byproduct of Hitler's obsessions, and were only actually acted upon after the Nuremberg Laws were passed. Anything before that was just political. To sum it all up, the Nazis may have been Fascists but they were quite unique from the Italian Fascists as they combined elements from the Left and added it to their political philosophy, and that is what I choose to follow.

 

so, if you're not kissing Muslim ass, you're a Nazi......................

 

White supremacy was certainly a defining characteristic of the National Socialist Party of 75 years ago.

Fast forward to contemporary times and we find its ugly antithesis (White inferiority) assuming the mantle of intellectual thought.

The media's almost maniacal pursuit of alleged White deviancy, whilst suppressing the atrocities and crimes of non-white perpetrators, lends obvious credence.

(i.e. the NBA billionaire owner (who turned out to be of Judaic descent); the sensationalized Martin-Zimmerman case where, upon the disappointing realization of Mr. Zimmerman's ethnicity, a new term, White Hispanic was born; the maligned Ferguson police officer having to do his job; and just about any television commercial where the white male is portrayed as the effete, fumbling fool, while the non-white participant exudes a SUPERIOR poised wisdom)

One can only speculate, with dire consternation, the Zeitgeist of tomorrow.

 

That's not true, I even put in quotations the lines from the Quran which state not to dispute with people of other religions. The Quran even permits Muslims to marry non-Muslims, and states that the Muslim spouse must respect their religious rights to prayer and attending their own church. This notion that the Quran says it is okay to kill people merely for being a non-Muslim is a myth. Every section of the Quran which permits Muslims to kill other human beings are only when they themselves are at harm or at war

all you need to do is read the entire chapters, and not just the selected lines

as long as we're going to select single lines out of context, then here's a quote from Moses/the old testament "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"

 

I'd say that if you are kissing Muslim ass, you're a Nazi.

 

Mohamed had sex with a nine year old. What part of the statement is a lie?

 

Inb4 Margot claims Aisha was 17.

 

My understanding is that she was nine. If she was 17 then that would be hemophillia which is, imo, arbitrary and benign in comparison to pedophilia.

 

You mean ****philia?

 

Probably. Too much micro brew.