Charter Of Fundamental Freedoms

[Alborz Taha]

What is a realistic solution to get rid of extremist fascists in the name of Islam? This speech suggests a new aspect to confront Islamic fundamentalism. Please post your comment after reading it.

PMOI - Details

[Bluesman]

Sounds great to me. Sounds like a threat to the ayatollahs. They'll fight it all the way down into the worst depths of human misconduct and depraved bestiality toward their fellow citizens.

Because NObody in this sad old world is capable of the savagery of a religious fanatic.

[tankie]

Sounds great to me. Sounds like a threat to the ayatollahs. They'll fight it all the way down into the worst depths of human misconduct and depraved bestiality toward their fellow citizens.

Because NObody in this sad old world is capable of the savagery of a religious fanatic.

Well said .

[Shamus]

Because NObody in this sad old world is capable of the savagery of a religious fanatic.

I don't know,you've never seen me at 0600 hrs B.C.(Before Coffee)

[Amled]

Almost every sentence of the Declaration is a direct affront to everything the Mullahs Theocracy stands for.
Most important, the concept of freedom is an anathema to them.

[tankie]

I don't know,you've never seen me at 0600 hrs B.C.(Before Coffee)

You should have seen 1rtr when called out at early.o.clock , to go to some mosquito infested swamp to set up a defensive position, 2/3 hours after having partaken of night time refreshments , horizontal and liquid type , and when in position only to find we didnt have any coffee , or sod all alse that was remotely drinkable or edible , but we persevered , ohhhh yes , we sang jolly old stiff upper lip camp fire songs like , there,l be bluebirds over ,the white cerrrrrliffs of dover , and keep right on to the end of the road , and the fav was , pack up your troubles in your old bag Kit :))

[ArmchairGeneral]

Because NObody in this sad old world is capable of the savagery of a religious fanatic.

The victims of Robespierre, Stalin, and Pol Pot might disagree with that statement.

[HistoricalDavid]

Initially I was going to caution this and say it's only words. But then I remember what should happen in Britain - it's not so much that moderate Muslims must face up to their fanatical counterparts, as if they're held partially responsible by vaguely having the same religion, but that we must all face up to the bastards with a coherent philosophy of freedom for freedom's sake and not for personal interest.

I mean by this two problems. The first is of people actually getting in a muddle about what freedom means; I'm sure you've all met the whiny runt who complains, when you criticise his beliefs, that his freedom is being abridged - as if there is a freedom from offence. Freedom is primarily freedom from force and lies, and anything else should be confronted like an adult. If they weren't powerful and savage, the religious tyrants of this world who are terrified of certain thoughts or lifestyles would be considered petulant children by a sane adult. Likewise, our own beliefs should be debated without resort to hate speech laws because we need the mummy of the state to shield us. That is the truest freedom.

The second is selfishness. Just because you're not a woman, for example doesn't mean you should stand on the sidelines concerning women's rights. After all, when the bastards come for you, why should the women (or indeed anyone else) fight for you? The Christian adoption agencies who cried 'freedom' over the question of homosexual adoption or homosexuals staying in their hotels hardly cry freedom for anyone else - indeed, they wanted to stop Jerry f-ing Springer the Opera airing on the BBC, or R:FOM's Manchester Cathedral scene, because it's offensive to their beliefs.

A universal and simple charter of freedom, and more importantly a freely sought consensus on it, is the first step to effective counterattack - after all, you can't do anything without knowing it in advance.

[crooks]

It's excellent as an idea to move Islam forward, but nigh on impossible to implement, due to the undeniable fact that the moderate majority of Islam doesn't have the gonads to stand up to the loud minority intent on extermination of non-Muslims and the constant violation of Human (particularly female) rights.

[Repatriated Canuck]

Polygamy is banned


Damn and just when I was about to move on over to Iran so I could have a harem and get yelled at by women more than I do now.

[Bluesman]

The victims of Robespierre, Stalin, and Pol Pot might disagree with that statement.

Well, Stalin was a type of secular religious zealot, and Pol Pot made himself a cult of one, so in a way...

And Robespierre? He was amatuer hour, compared to the killings of the faithful.

[Repatriated Canuck]

And Robespierre? He was amatuer hour, compared to the killings of the faithful.

Who is this guy you speak of?

Never heard of him.

[crooks]

Who is this guy you speak of?

Never heard of him.

France's most hated tyrant - Maximilien Robespierre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatta guy!

[ArmchairGeneral]

Well, Stalin was a type of secular religious zealot, and Pol Pot made himself a cult of one, so in a way...

And Robespierre? He was amatuer hour, compared to the killings of the faithful.

Secular religion is an oxymoron. But I know what you mean, and you're right. Basically, any form of ideological zealotry can lead to extreme evil. For all practical purposes, an ideology like communism is indistinguishable from religion. Or a personality cult like Pol Pot, or Stalin, for that matter. Or the worship of Reason, a la Revolutionary France.

That said, it would seem to me that, while ideological zealotry is probably the leading cause of mass killing (and within that group, religious zealots have historically taken the leading role through sheer numbers, at least until the rise of Communism), other factors can lead to mass depravity just as well.

For example, I would find it hard to categorize the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda as motivated by religion or ideology. The violent racism, hatred, jealousy, and greed that motivated the killers can hardly be described as an ideology, let alone a religion. Nor can Saddam's genocidal tendencies be ascribed to his religious beliefs; it would appear that he was simply power hungry, and just liked hurting people, to boot.