Home & Garden1 min ago
Invitation To The Left.
67 Answers
If you consider yourself left wing, or Antifa, would you tell us why the left support immigration, are so vocal in support of Muslims, oppose Brexit, and shout " racist " at people who wish to protect our borders and our culture?
Addressing other issues I have not mentioned would be welcome.
This is a thread of genuine interest.
Addressing other issues I have not mentioned would be welcome.
This is a thread of genuine interest.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From Danny's link called "Killing Non-believers":
John 3:16-17 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
Nothing there about Christ or his followers killing anyone.
Matthew 28:18-20: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying...
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
It is not the Christian's job to judge the world, but to save souls by preaching the Gospel. God is the judge and executioner.
Compare that with “I [Mohammed] have been commanded to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah”. Which is exactly what Islam has been doing in the most literal way ever since.
John 3:16-17 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
Nothing there about Christ or his followers killing anyone.
Matthew 28:18-20: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying...
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
It is not the Christian's job to judge the world, but to save souls by preaching the Gospel. God is the judge and executioner.
Compare that with “I [Mohammed] have been commanded to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah”. Which is exactly what Islam has been doing in the most literal way ever since.
-- answer removed --
Theland - // To those sympathetic to Islam, make the effort to find out exactly what the Koran teaches.
It is shocking, and thank goodness many Muslims are apostates and don't follow it all. //
The same applies to Christians, which is why you don't see huge numbers of people with right eyes plucked out and right hands cut off because they have 'offended'.
It's amusing how you, as a Christian, accept without question that the majority of Christians do not follow the bible literally, but you seem to struggle with the notion that most Muslims likewise do not literally follow the Koran.
It is shocking, and thank goodness many Muslims are apostates and don't follow it all. //
The same applies to Christians, which is why you don't see huge numbers of people with right eyes plucked out and right hands cut off because they have 'offended'.
It's amusing how you, as a Christian, accept without question that the majority of Christians do not follow the bible literally, but you seem to struggle with the notion that most Muslims likewise do not literally follow the Koran.
Maybe “Theland” is concerned about the fact that Islam makes a bold claim for itself. So bold a claim that it outstrips anything the Bible, Torah, Vedas, etc. has to say about their authenticity or veracity.
The Koran claims that it is unquestionably the last revelation of God to mankind. No more religious teachings will be revealed to anyone ever. If anyone claims that they have been contacted by God, they are liars. God has made his final choice and His choice is Islam. Full stop. The end.
That's Islam's claim. Convenient eh? All other religions are bogus and Islam is the last and final pronouncement of God. The Koranic texts also say that the Koran is inerrant. No mistakes, contradictions or logical errors exist in those texts and if you think they do then you are in error.
Now that's arrogance writ large.
But no, says Andy-Hughes. No with a capital NO. Many other religious texts also include odious passages he says. And he's right; they do. But not one of them teaches its adherents that they should violently attack and kill those who oppose them. None of the other world religions teach their adherents that it's fine and dandy to knowingly tell lies to those who don't believe (taqiyya). None of the other world religions prescribe oppressive and unjust tax arrangement for those who don't believe (jizya). None of the other world religions claim to be a religion of peace and then violently suppress and subdue those who simply have another view on the matter.
Andy-Hughes is like millions of other non-muslims in this country and abroad. Misinformed, naive and gullible, wringing his hands at any perceived slight to the Religion of Peace. Uneducated in Islamic scripture. Never having read the Koran nor the Hadiths. An Islamic apologist without a shred of credibility. A person who would happily endorse Sharia Law in the UK and then be shocked and appalled when his basic human rights were tramped on. Like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming car, he wouldn't understand what was happening to him and why. In the language of soviet Russia, “A useful idiot”.
https:/
“... a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware..”
How apposite.
The Koran claims that it is unquestionably the last revelation of God to mankind. No more religious teachings will be revealed to anyone ever. If anyone claims that they have been contacted by God, they are liars. God has made his final choice and His choice is Islam. Full stop. The end.
That's Islam's claim. Convenient eh? All other religions are bogus and Islam is the last and final pronouncement of God. The Koranic texts also say that the Koran is inerrant. No mistakes, contradictions or logical errors exist in those texts and if you think they do then you are in error.
Now that's arrogance writ large.
But no, says Andy-Hughes. No with a capital NO. Many other religious texts also include odious passages he says. And he's right; they do. But not one of them teaches its adherents that they should violently attack and kill those who oppose them. None of the other world religions teach their adherents that it's fine and dandy to knowingly tell lies to those who don't believe (taqiyya). None of the other world religions prescribe oppressive and unjust tax arrangement for those who don't believe (jizya). None of the other world religions claim to be a religion of peace and then violently suppress and subdue those who simply have another view on the matter.
Andy-Hughes is like millions of other non-muslims in this country and abroad. Misinformed, naive and gullible, wringing his hands at any perceived slight to the Religion of Peace. Uneducated in Islamic scripture. Never having read the Koran nor the Hadiths. An Islamic apologist without a shred of credibility. A person who would happily endorse Sharia Law in the UK and then be shocked and appalled when his basic human rights were tramped on. Like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming car, he wouldn't understand what was happening to him and why. In the language of soviet Russia, “A useful idiot”.
https:/
“... a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware..”
How apposite.
One only has to meet moderate Muslims to know that just because a religion's ancient extreme views exist in it's books it doesn't follow that all followers of that religion take those extreme views seriously. One is in danger of demonising a whole group of folk simply because their religion hasn't gone through any official reformation/enlightenment whilst many of the people clearly have.
I think the vast majority of people are quite happy to travel abroad and experience the culture of the countries they visit. In answer to Chris, (Fri 22nd June 23.28), why would anyone want to "broaden our culture"? Throughout most peoples' lives, they never come into contact with foreign cultures, unless travelling abroad. Where we do come into contact, it's because we have no choice to accept it because if we don't we are called racists. And I feel that some people take great delight in accusing others of that.
The question doesn't make any sense because "the left" is not one homogenous bloc of people who share the same ideas any more than the right is. It's even questionable as to whether that old distinction is meaningful anymore. On AB anyone who isn't to the right of Genghis Khan counts as left-wing or fellow-traveler.
//Throughout most peoples' lives, they never come into contact with foreign cultures, unless travelling abroad//
Or going to the cinema, or going to museums, or buying foreign foods, using foreign words that have "migrated" into our language (at a stretch one could even say following foreign religions like Christianity). Depending on how old your house/flat/whatever is (or how recently it has been renovated), there's a not-insignificant chance that you live in a place following foreign design aesthetics. Ditto for lots of major architectural features in our towns/cities.
Or going to the cinema, or going to museums, or buying foreign foods, using foreign words that have "migrated" into our language (at a stretch one could even say following foreign religions like Christianity). Depending on how old your house/flat/whatever is (or how recently it has been renovated), there's a not-insignificant chance that you live in a place following foreign design aesthetics. Ditto for lots of major architectural features in our towns/cities.
Kromo, "correcting" 10 Clarion Street's "...never come into contact with foreign cultures, unless travelling abroad", replies:
"[Unless] ... going to the cinema, or going to museums, or buying foreign foods, using foreign words that have 'migrated' into our language... following foreign religions like Christianity..."
Not quite sure you're doing justice to Clarion Street's point, Kromo, or maybe he's not doing justice to himself. However, you're not trying to make the case for multiculturalism and mass migration, are you?
Remember Trump's great speech in Poland in praise of Western civilisation:
"We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers".
Open societies are curious and innovative. They are "progressive" - in the best sense of that word. They advance because they observe, learn from and copy other cultures. For instance China gave us paper, gunpowder and the printing press. Europe exploited all these inventions without ever seeing the need to import ten million Chinese.
Closed societies based on fixed ideologies constrain curiosity and innovation. That is why the West is rich and continually inventive while the Islamic world is economically backward and scientifically and intellectually moribund.
"[Unless] ... going to the cinema, or going to museums, or buying foreign foods, using foreign words that have 'migrated' into our language... following foreign religions like Christianity..."
Not quite sure you're doing justice to Clarion Street's point, Kromo, or maybe he's not doing justice to himself. However, you're not trying to make the case for multiculturalism and mass migration, are you?
Remember Trump's great speech in Poland in praise of Western civilisation:
"We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers".
Open societies are curious and innovative. They are "progressive" - in the best sense of that word. They advance because they observe, learn from and copy other cultures. For instance China gave us paper, gunpowder and the printing press. Europe exploited all these inventions without ever seeing the need to import ten million Chinese.
Closed societies based on fixed ideologies constrain curiosity and innovation. That is why the West is rich and continually inventive while the Islamic world is economically backward and scientifically and intellectually moribund.
//One only has to meet moderate Muslims to know that... [not] all followers of that religion take those extreme views seriously. One is in danger of demonising a whole group of folk...//
It is so tiresome to listen to this mantra time after time, after time, after time, OG. After time, after time, after time...
The mantra is used by the intellectually dishonest to vilify critics of Islam and to avoid addressing one of the biggest issues of our time. You don't belong in that camp and should not be using its tactics.
Nobody who criticises says "all Muslims", or is trying to "demonise" a whole group. (Although they may ask important questions like "How many Muslims? Who are the imams? What flavour of Islam is being taught? Who are those people who claim to speak for Islam?")
For starters people who criticise Islam are not usually people who think in terms of "whole groups". The "all Muslim" classification (like other generalisations such as "the LGBTQ community", or "the Black, Asian and minority ethnic community") belongs to the realm of identity politics. It's the multiculturalists who use these simple-minded categories. Personally if I were any one of the above I'd be rather insulted to be described as the member of a group and have opinions ascribed to me because I'm in that box rather than some other.
Anyway "all Muslims". Who is it who's criticising Islam who's saying this?
It is so tiresome to listen to this mantra time after time, after time, after time, OG. After time, after time, after time...
The mantra is used by the intellectually dishonest to vilify critics of Islam and to avoid addressing one of the biggest issues of our time. You don't belong in that camp and should not be using its tactics.
Nobody who criticises says "all Muslims", or is trying to "demonise" a whole group. (Although they may ask important questions like "How many Muslims? Who are the imams? What flavour of Islam is being taught? Who are those people who claim to speak for Islam?")
For starters people who criticise Islam are not usually people who think in terms of "whole groups". The "all Muslim" classification (like other generalisations such as "the LGBTQ community", or "the Black, Asian and minority ethnic community") belongs to the realm of identity politics. It's the multiculturalists who use these simple-minded categories. Personally if I were any one of the above I'd be rather insulted to be described as the member of a group and have opinions ascribed to me because I'm in that box rather than some other.
Anyway "all Muslims". Who is it who's criticising Islam who's saying this?
//That is why the West is rich and continually inventive while the Islamic world is economically backward and scientifically and intellectually moribund. //
I think that's a bit of a crass simplification. Societies develop in very different ways for a huge number of long and short-term reasons. Islamic societies clearly are not necessarily innately hostile to innovation because in centuries past they were quite capable of being centres of learning in ways that they don't tend to be now.
Re: multiculturalism, I think it's more normal and historic than people assume. But "multiculturalism" is an inherently slippery idea that is notorious for meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean. So I feel a bit cautious about being dragged into arguments about it. The only point I wanted to make is that encountering foreign cultures is more common than 10CS suggested.
I think that's a bit of a crass simplification. Societies develop in very different ways for a huge number of long and short-term reasons. Islamic societies clearly are not necessarily innately hostile to innovation because in centuries past they were quite capable of being centres of learning in ways that they don't tend to be now.
Re: multiculturalism, I think it's more normal and historic than people assume. But "multiculturalism" is an inherently slippery idea that is notorious for meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean. So I feel a bit cautious about being dragged into arguments about it. The only point I wanted to make is that encountering foreign cultures is more common than 10CS suggested.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Food & Drink9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Definitely A Change In The Climate
News14 mins ago
