Should muslims be treated equally?

[Genivaria]

Is this really horrible satire? Not only did you use The Onion to help your shitty excuse for an argument, but you're advocating for something terrible. Burleson, you cannot in any way, call yourself a supporter of freedom of religion. You've done it before, and it's highly hypocritical. You also cannot call yourself a supporter of freedom in any sense.

I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.

And the truth comes out+

[Genivaria]

>american satirical newspaper
>article explicitly takes place in america
>american OP speaking from american perspective
Forgive me father for I have sinned :'-(

Yes, God forbid that an American should ever talk about something from his own viewpoint...

You kinda disqualified yourself from being called an american.

[Greater-London]

1. Considering that much of our Greek philosophy comes from translations and interpretations of "Islamic Civilization"? Considering that few people would dispute the Greek pantheon as part of Western civilization despite having a far lesser influence than Islam? Considering that Western civilization has only been characterized by liberal thought post-WW1?

2. Who the hell is talking about burkas and niqabs? Considering that such practices are pre-Islamic Persian in origin and the headscarf is the most common form of Muslim dress in the West (And in much of the rest of the world)? You can't say "Candy is different from pie, therefore, the latter is not sweet." That was my main point.

3. You presented the difference as the factor between differentiating between Muslim and Christian dress, yet I pointed out such differences between Mennonite and Catholic religious dress doesn't exclude one or the other from being part of Western civilization. Differing from a religious tradition in an aspect, or even many aspects, is not enough to exclude it. You admitted that Muslim dress was not fundamentally different, just more noticeable and common, yet when confronted with counter-examples you assert an inherent kind of difference in the practice in order to try and put distance between Christian religious traditions (Which you see as Western) and Muslim religious traditions (Which you do not)

4. If you only talk about Christianity when discussing Western civilization, you're missing a big part of the foundation. Jewish and Muslim thought has been incredibly influential on Western civilization. Indeed, one might say that they're a... PART of it!

As I keep on saying I don't think that "Islamic" and "Western" culture are two huge monoliths with no influence on each other or diversity within them. Nor do I pretend that the terms are especially useful as their is crossover; my point has always been if you talk about what we traditionally consider Western culture and Islamic culture you can see differences. This argument is pretty fruitless on my behalf as whilst I think that when you talk about traditional notions of Western culture Islam isn't a part of it I think its unimportant.

1. The answer is no they wouldn't because those myths are European in origin, they where established in Europe. They undoubtedly are linked with other cultures and other pantheons but those particular gods, stories, ideas come from Europe. Liberal thought predates WW1 by a long way and has influenced "Western Civilization" - for want of a better term MORE than the faith Islam has. It's taken root in a way that Islam has not. That's not to say that there is no Islamic influence just that the precepts of contemporary Western civilization have much stronger ties to ideas that were adapted or created in Europe.

2. Why can't we talk about Burkas and Niqabs, they are traditional Islamic dress and millions of Muslims wear them every single day. It's a noticeable form of Islamic dress that is warn in Europe that most people don't see as "European". Does that matter? no but its still true. I'm not saying candy is different from pie therefore its not sweet. I'm saying just because they are both sweet that doesn't mean they are noticeably different in flavor, look ETC.

3. The inherent differences lies int he fact that they are two faiths which despite similaraties are not the same thing. I consider one "Western" because the west in predominately one and has been for a long time. I consider the other "Isalmic" because the Middle East and North Africa are majority Muslim and have been for a very long time.

4. We shouldn't only talk about Christianity just that its something that's probably bears the greatest significance when your talking about religion in the Western World. Jewish and Muslim communaties in what we consider the Western world are historicaly and still are small and despite their influences are not "Key Points" of our civilization.

[Devvo Mate]

For example, measures to prevent muslims from owning firearms could have potentially prevented the Charlie Hebdo attack

Yeah, because the attack was carried out with legally owned and registered guns.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Since Islam is not a race, nationality but only a religion, and I see that OP's point is about the Arab muslims and not the white or Asian ones, I say this thread is wrong and stupid.

[Southern Hampshire]

No. Islam never belonged to Europe and therefore has not built the European society we see today. Islamic religious clothing is against integration. Christian religious clothing is European, though also shows some people haven't grown secular at the same speed as European society. Nevertheless, Priests wearing religious outfits are fine, so are Imams. How many Christians do you see that wear religious clothing daily? I see hundreds of muslims. Unless you live in an Amish city, the answer is zero.



Do I know? A few.

Do they walk around with religious clothing? Yeah, all the women and more or less more than half of men. I live in a city with 8% Muslim population.

Religious drums, whatever it is, also known as Adhan, is blazed through the city every time there is time for prayer.

And how do you know these 'Hundreds of people' you see are Muslims? Because they are Middle Eastern in appearance? The West is no longer a soley whities only place, it is a multicultural, multiethnic, secular place that is inclusive of all.

That is such a stupid politically correct question.

Because Catholic women cover up all bits of their skin and men wear Halloween ghost outfits from poundland, and obviously, they all attend a mosque.

Totally realistic.

I was not aware of those. Although you did prove Jews aren't exactly peaceful, smashing bus windows is hardly comparable to burning a car or killing tens of people.

Nope. Not comparable.

I just told you, in the last 10 years. And you give me links of 35 year old terrorist attacks.

In the last 10 years, overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks (terrorist attacks being attacks carried out with the purpose of incurring mass death or fear) were carried out by Muslims.

I mean, we might as well use the Holocaust as an example of Christian terrorist attacks or the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem in 1200 AD as an example of Christian terrorist attacks if we want to be PC..

35 years is a HUGE timeframe in modern society as a sign of evolution. Computers were barely off the shelves.

---

Should Muslims be treated equally?

Yes, but with certain caution. Muslims should not be excluded from certain aspects of society per se, such as voting or healthcare, but they should not be treated equally in terms of law and order or intelligence gathering.

To say that Muslims are no more dangerous than Catholics is pure wrong.

@ Jewish protection
Stop being so PC about it. If there were multiple terrorist attacks by Londonian nationalists on Mancunians, why the fuck would you send police to Bristol rather than Manchester?

It's the same concept here. If a particular group of people are being attacked, you focus your resources on that group because clearly there is danger in that group. You don't spread your resources around just so you can appear friendly and act as if nothing weird is going on. With ISIS, Al Shababa, Boko Haram and Muslim Indian terrorist cells rampant in 2015, and with widespread anger at drawing that mohamad sky fairy on a cartoon, there is quite a CLEAR reason to focus resources specifically on muslims.

The last time I heard an Anglican blowing up a shop in the name of Allah was never.

[The New Sea Territory]

....Why are we even having this conversation?

[The New Sea Territory]

>american satirical newspaper
>article explicitly takes place in america
>american OP speaking from american perspective
Forgive me father for I have sinned :'-(

Yes, God forbid that an American should ever talk about something from his own viewpoint...

Why don't you take that nationalistic fervor and throw it out a window?

[Slavialand]

no

[Talvezout]

no

Elaborate what we should do then.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Are you serious? I should have less freedoms because there are a couple dickheads in the world who share my religion?
In that same logic we should give pro-lifers less freedom because they're more violent than pro-choicers.
Fuck this.

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Are you serious? I should have less freedoms because there are a couple dickheads in the world who share my religion?
In that same logic we should give pro-lifers less freedom because they're more violent than pro-choicers.
Fuck this.

lol
feminism and islam

[Kravanica]

Being Muslim (though mainly nominal), I'm offended.

are u triggered, m8?

And on topic, yes, Muslims should be treated equally.

[Southern Hampshire]

Are you serious? I should have less freedoms because there are a couple dickheads in the world who share my religion?

short answer, yes.

[Gauthier]

OP must be sorely disappointed that nobody else in the thread seriously said "YES, WE NEED TO MONITOR THOSE DIRTY MUSLIMS! AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT WE NEED TO ROUND THEM ALL UP AND LOCK THEM UP IN CAMPS OR DEPORT THEM!"

[Southern Hampshire]

OP must be sorely disappointed that nobody else in the thread seriously said "YES, WE NEED TO MONITOR THOSE DIRTY MUSLIMS! AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT WE NEED TO ROUND THEM ALL UP AND LOCK THEM UP IN CAMPS OR DEPORT THEM!"

did you read anything else than page 1

[New Socialist South Africa]

Should Muslims be treated equally?

1) Yes, but with certain caution. Muslims should not be excluded from certain aspects of society per se, such as voting or healthcare, but they should not be treated equally in terms of law and order or intelligence gathering.

2) To say that Muslims are no more dangerous than Catholics is pure wrong.

3) @ Jewish protection
Stop being so PC about it. If there were multiple terrorist attacks by Londonian nationalists on Mancunians, why the fuck would you send police to Bristol rather than Manchester?

It's the same concept here. If a particular group of people are being attacked, you focus your resources on that group because clearly there is danger in that group. You don't spread your resources around just so you can appear friendly and act as if nothing weird is going on. With ISIS, Al Shababa, Boko Haram and Muslim Indian terrorist cells rampant in 2015, and with widespread anger at drawing that mohamad sky fairy on a cartoon, there is quite a CLEAR reason to focus resources specifically on muslims.

4) The last time I heard an Anglican blowing up a shop in the name of Allah was never.

1) "Person A: Shall we devote our intelligence gathering to extremists of all religions, like christian white supremacist Wade Michael Page, or just focus on all Muslims, regardless of whether they are extremists, moderates or Malala Yousafzai?'

Person B: "Muslims, definitely Muslims".

Seems legit.

2) Well surely that actually depends on the Catholic and Muslim in question?

Person A: "Look out! That IRA fighter has a gun!"

Person B: "No, its chilled, he's a Catholic, everyone knows all Catholics are harmless."

Person A: "Ok sure. Oh look, a little Muslim baby."

Person B: "F*CKING RUN!!!"

3) Ya sure, but you wouldn't immediately suspect all Londonians, even all Londonian nationalists, simply because they are a Londonian or Londonian nationalist of being a terrorist. Similarly you don't immediately start thinking no one else can possibly commit a crime. That would be absurd.

4) Well it would take a very confused Anglican to kill in the name of Allah.

Anglican specific, an Anglican vicar called Evan Pederick was involved in the 1978 bombing of Sydney’s Hilton Hotel, which killed three people.

http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/diocese-of-perth/anglican-vicar-turns-from-terrorism-to-eco-agitation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Hilton_Hotel_bombing

Speaking broadly on Christian terrorism, Wade Michael Page of the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting stands out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

[SuperFruitland]

Is this really horrible satire? Not only did you use The Onion to help your shitty excuse for an argument, but you're advocating for something terrible. Burleson, you cannot in any way, call yourself a supporter of freedom of religion. You've done it before, and it's highly hypocritical. You also cannot call yourself a supporter of freedom in any sense.

I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.

*so much facepalm i cannot even*

[Gauthier]

Speaking broadly on Christian terrorism, Wade Michael Page of the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting stands out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

And he was another classic fucknut case of "Indian = Muslim" violence.

[Twilight Imperium]

Speaking broadly on Christian terrorism, Wade Michael Page of the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting stands out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

And he was another classic fucknut case of "Indian = Muslim" violence.

Poor guys. Sikhs are cool.

[Zeinbrad]

Expect Muslims. As we all know that all muslims are heartless demons planning to take over the world and are not humans.

Proof-The Burka,

What the hell man? Are you seriously going to look down on MY religion?

I'm not serious.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Speaking broadly on Christian terrorism, Wade Michael Page of the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting stands out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

And he was another classic fucknut case of "Indian = Muslim" violence.

Oh yes, definitely.

The evil Indian / Muslim / Sikh / Atheist / Satanists must have provoked him into doing it. Somehow. And therefore they are to blame, of course.

[Cymrea]

Are you serious? I should have less freedoms because there are a couple dickheads in the world who share my religion?

short answer, yes.

I'm certain there are Muslims who think the very same thing about Christians and Jews.

Sadly, it's because of these narrow-minded, xenophobic, and bigoted viewpoints (including the entire premise of this thread) that there likely will never be an end to inter-faith violence. To pretend that Christians are less violent than Muslims is inexcusable blind ignorance from an egregiously biased perspective.

To advocate anything less than complete equality for all humans runs counter to the teachings of Christ, to adhere to the aforementioned narrow-minded, xenophobic, and bigoted viewpoints makes one a shitty Christian at best, or perhaps not Christian at all and deserving only of that which you would inflict on others.

[The Alma Mater]

Expect Muslims. As we all know that all muslims are heartless demons planning to take over the world and are not humans.

Proof-The Burka,

What the hell man? Are you seriously going to look down on MY religion?

Nothing wrong with looking down on muslims. It is only human - most people tend to believe that their own views are superior; and therefor deem others inferior.

Giving them less rights otoh is indeed pretty wrong.

[The Emerald Dragon]

Yes, of course.

I'd rather have daily terrorist attacks than seeing them be treated any worse off.