Muslim prayer hall set on fire in Corsica

[Napkiraly]

True, this is NSG.

I'm waiting for the "DEUS VULT"s and "AVE EUROPA"s right now.

The Deus VULT crusader dimwits and SJWs on NSG are two sides of the same pants on head retarded coin.

If you say "DEUS VULT" or "MICROAGGRESSIONs" in a non ironic fashion, you're probably quite stupid.

Deus Vulting Microaggressions

[-The West Coast-]

Europe is a hostile environment for Muslims. If anyone is surprised that there is and will be more anti-Islam attacks, then that's just ignorant.

[The Peoples of Xaer]

Europe is a hostile environment for Muslims. If anyone is surprised that there is and will be more anti-Islam attacks, then that's just ignorant.

America isn't a whole hell of a lot better about it, for that matter.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Anti-Islam crusaders, unite!

[Jochistan]

What did I tell you. Only a matter of time.

[Napkiraly]

What did I tell you. Only a matter of time.

I'm pretty sure UCE isn't being serious.

[Kriga]

What did I tell you. Only a matter of time.

I'm pretty sure UCE isn't being serious.

A serious anti-islam advocate would criticise the religion itself, not slander the people who worship it, or disrespect them.

An islamophobic bigot on the other hand, would go out of his way to slander Muhammad, shout pejoratives at Muslims and nitpick at their religion without critically analysing Islam's scripture.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm pretty sure UCE isn't being serious.

A serious anti-islam advocate would criticise the religion itself, not slander the people who worship it, or disrespect them.

An islamophobic bigot on the other hand, would go out of his way to slander Muhammad, shout pejoratives at Muslims and nitpick at their religion without critically analysing Islam's scripture.

Why bother debating the scripture of scientology when its patently nonsense, when you can simply point out that it's qualitatively different in social effects?

Debating theologically on it is giving it a level of credence. It has none.
Islam is no different.
It's adherents thinking otherwise is besides the point when it comes to demanding institutions, the public, and the media oppose these religions.

Come to think of it, Scientology is more compatible with the western world than Islam, because it just abuses its followers human rights, and infiltrates institutions to demand tax breaks, no different from a corporation there then.
It doesn't on top of that, result in shit blowing up, rape gangs, infiltrate institutions to drag them kicking and screaming back to the 9th century, and mutilate childrens genitals.

And Germany banned scientology.
Why not Islam?

The winged donkey is more credible than aliens?
If you say so.

If the religion is a regressive religion, then ofcourse it will effect the behavior of its adherents. That's why we're talking about it and them.
I think any one religion is as silly as any other, but only some of them cause public policy concerns due to the behavior and mentality of their adherents.

I think the real disrespect for muslims comes from the Islamophiles insisting they aren't a threat, who grossly underestimate the agency of determined individuals.

[Jochistan]

A serious anti-islam advocate would criticise the religion itself, not slander the people who worship it, or disrespect them.

An islamophobic bigot on the other hand, would go out of his way to slander Muhammad, shout pejoratives at Muslims and nitpick at their religion without critically analysing Islam's scripture.

Why bother debating the scripture of scientology when its patently nonsense, when you can simply point out that it's qualitatively different in social effects?

Debating theologically on it is giving it a level of credence. It has none.
Islam is no different.
It's adherents thinking otherwise is besides the point when it comes to demanding institutions, the public, and the media oppose these religions.

Come to think of it, Scientology is more compatible with the western world than Islam, because it just abuses its followers human rights, and infiltrates institutions to demand tax breaks, no different from a corporation there then.
It doesn't on top of that, result in shit blowing up, rape gangs, infiltrate institutions to drag them kicking and screaming back to the 9th century, and mutilate childrens genitals.

And Germany banned scientology.
Why not Islam?

The winged donkey is more credible than aliens?
If you say so.

If the religion is a regressive religion, then ofcourse it will effect the behavior of its adherents. That's why we're talking about it and them.
I think any one religion is as silly as any other, but only some of them cause public policy concerns due to the behavior and mentality of their adherents.

I think the real disrespect for muslims comes from the Islamophiles insisting they aren't a threat, who grossly underestimate the agency of determined individuals.

That's definately the case with some Muslims. I don't see why it's so hard to focus on the actual problem of fundamentalist.

Then again, you basically consider any Muslim less liberal than you to be a fundamentalist. So maybe theres not really a point in arguing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why bother debating the scripture of scientology when its patently nonsense, when you can simply point out that it's qualitatively different in social effects?

Debating theologically on it is giving it a level of credence. It has none.
Islam is no different.
It's adherents thinking otherwise is besides the point when it comes to demanding institutions, the public, and the media oppose these religions.

Come to think of it, Scientology is more compatible with the western world than Islam, because it just abuses its followers human rights, and infiltrates institutions to demand tax breaks, no different from a corporation there then.
It doesn't on top of that, result in shit blowing up, rape gangs, infiltrate institutions to drag them kicking and screaming back to the 9th century, and mutilate childrens genitals.

And Germany banned scientology.
Why not Islam?

The winged donkey is more credible than aliens?
If you say so.

If the religion is a regressive religion, then ofcourse it will effect the behavior of its adherents. That's why we're talking about it and them.
I think any one religion is as silly as any other, but only some of them cause public policy concerns due to the behavior and mentality of their adherents.

I think the real disrespect for muslims comes from the Islamophiles insisting they aren't a threat, who grossly underestimate the agency of determined individuals.

That's definately the case with some Muslims. I don't see why it's so hard to focus on the actual problem of fundamentalist.

Then again, you basically consider any Muslim less liberal than you to be a fundamentalist. So maybe theres not really a point in arguing.

I don't deny there's such a thing as a moderate and modernized muslim. I deny they are a majority. As a consequence, the go to defence of "That's only a minority of them!" that people typically have for migrants is... well, wrong.
Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of whether the problem should be debated theologically or not.

There are, hypothetically, such a thing as Scientology moderates. It wouldn't make it a theological matter. Talking about the religion and its negative effect on reality and such. "What are the drawbacks of this existing?".

I think that it isn't all of them isn't relevant.
"What effect does smoking have on it's users?"
"Well, not all of them get sick and die."

[Jochistan]

That's definately the case with some Muslims. I don't see why it's so hard to focus on the actual problem of fundamentalist.

Then again, you basically consider any Muslim less liberal than you to be a fundamentalist. So maybe theres not really a point in arguing.

I don't deny there's such a thing as a moderate and modernized muslim. I deny they are a majority. As a consequence, the go to defence of "That's only a minority of them!" that people typically have for migrants is... well, wrong.
Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of whether the problem should be debated theologically or not.

There are, hypothetically, such a thing as Scientology moderates. It wouldn't make it a theological matter. Talking about the religion and its negative effect on reality and such. "What are the drawbacks of this existing?".

Well, they might be a large number of the migrants and almost half of muslims. Sure. Focus on them.

And Islam, or any world religion, is not comparable to Scientology. In structure, function, doctrine or anything else. Scientology is barely a religion. It distances itself from the term. Calling itself a form of alternative healing. It's not similar to Islam, Christianity or Judaism any more than really any highly centralized New Age Movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't deny there's such a thing as a moderate and modernized muslim. I deny they are a majority. As a consequence, the go to defence of "That's only a minority of them!" that people typically have for migrants is... well, wrong.
Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of whether the problem should be debated theologically or not.

There are, hypothetically, such a thing as Scientology moderates. It wouldn't make it a theological matter. Talking about the religion and its negative effect on reality and such. "What are the drawbacks of this existing?".

Well, they might be a large number of the migrants and almost half of muslims. Sure. Focus on them.

And Islam, or any world religion, is not comparable to Scientology. In structure, function, doctrine or anything else. Scientology is barely a religion. It distances itself from the term. Calling itself a form of alternative healing. It's not similar to Islam, Christianity or Judaism any more than really any highly centralized New Age Movement.

That's what i'd prefer. How do you seperate them though? (Not the migrants.)

Fair enough about scientology.

[Jochistan]

Well, they might be a large number of the migrants and almost half of muslims. Sure. Focus on them.

And Islam, or any world religion, is not comparable to Scientology. In structure, function, doctrine or anything else. Scientology is barely a religion. It distances itself from the term. Calling itself a form of alternative healing. It's not similar to Islam, Christianity or Judaism any more than really any highly centralized New Age Movement.

That's what i'd prefer. How do you seperate them though? (Not the migrants.)

Fair enough about scientology.

Whether they have fundamentalist views, such as extreme literalism, extreme legalism based on said extreme literalism and advocacy of death towards "apostates and deviants" and the like because if the extreme literalism and legalism.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What France needs to do is teach refugees and Europeans about each other's culture and how each one lives so that they might understand each other.

[Kriga]

What France needs to do is teach refugees and Europeans about each other's culture and how each one lives so that they might understand each other.

Or perhaps assimilation would work better. Being unified by one culture is better than having a multitude. The latter invites friction and potential tension. If Arab countries demand that a westerner follows their traditions, we may as well start trying to assimilate refugees to western values and standards.

Educating them to think critically would be a start, as well as introducing them to liberal trends. They cannot simply stick to their culture in another country. it won't work, and those who try and do it, usually end up witnessing their grandchildren become integrated with society. Of course, this doesn't happen all the time, since the Nationalists like to make things difficult with their constant whining and dogmatic belief that immigrants cannot be integrated.

We don't need to understand the refugees' culture. Why should we be forced to do that? We are not in their country, they are coming to ours. They should learn about us.

[Kriga]

Why bother debating the scripture of scientology when its patently nonsense, when you can simply point out that it's qualitatively different in social effects?

Debating theologically on it is giving it a level of credence. It has none.
Islam is no different.
It's adherents thinking otherwise is besides the point when it comes to demanding institutions, the public, and the media oppose these religions.

Come to think of it, Scientology is more compatible with the western world than Islam, because it just abuses its followers human rights, and infiltrates institutions to demand tax breaks, no different from a corporation there then.
It doesn't on top of that, result in shit blowing up, rape gangs, infiltrate institutions to drag them kicking and screaming back to the 9th century, and mutilate childrens genitals.

And Germany banned scientology.
Why not Islam?

The winged donkey is more credible than aliens?
If you say so.

If the religion is a regressive religion, then ofcourse it will effect the behavior of its adherents. That's why we're talking about it and them.
I think any one religion is as silly as any other, but only some of them cause public policy concerns due to the behavior and mentality of their adherents.

I think the real disrespect for muslims comes from the Islamophiles insisting they aren't a threat, who grossly underestimate the agency of determined individuals.

That's definately the case with some Muslims. I don't see why it's so hard to focus on the actual problem of fundamentalist.

Then again, you basically consider any Muslim less liberal than you to be a fundamentalist. So maybe theres not really a point in arguing.

Problem is, most Muslims are very socially conservative, and Muslim countries are less liberal in freedom of religion and expression than other countries. I am not saying that Christian countries aren't incapable of that, but Muslim countries are a far cry from Liberal democracies.

Thats why those who do criticise Islam are labeled islamophobes without any rhyme or reason. That prevents debate and understanding, which is very dangerous. If we allowed critical thinking and reasoned men to discuss the topic of Islam further, perhaps we could truly see a more Liberal Islam come about in Europe, as opposed to the Wahabbis and Twelvers. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be likely.

[Holy German Realm]

What France needs to do is teach refugees and Europeans about each other's culture and how each one lives so that they might understand each other.

Or just reject muslim immigration. It is more simple and less expensive.

I like you already.

Based on all this we can conclude Europe is going to retain it's Islamophobic propagandas for now.
Poland is feeling the same heroism it did in 1683, when they were part of the Holy League defending Vienna from Ottoman invasion, but even then, Poland isn't going to suddenly strap on their armor, mount horses, wings fluttering, and gallop into Saudi Arabia, massacring Muslim towns.

Same goes for these other countries,
France and England aren't willing to don their Crusading armour again, Germany won't plan to reestablish a Gestapo-esque Anti-Terrorism unit anytime soon.

The only countries I see fit as of now and why are :

• Austria - Shotgun purchases skyrocketed from this Muslim entrance.
• Hungary - Wonderful border guarding.
• Poland - Ready to reenact 1683 in modern era.
• Russia - The bear awakens at some point from hibernation.
• Britain - Preparing to slash the shackles of the EU upon John Bull's trousers and run free.


The EU is crashing in on itself trying to make the subcontinent a better place for Muslims, but a good portion of the countries in Europe either retain Islamophobic feelings, hatred, or necessarily just don't want to get slammed by this sudden change of demography.

cont.?

[-The West Coast-]

Europe is a hostile environment for Muslims. If anyone is surprised that there is and will be more anti-Islam attacks, then that's just ignorant.

America isn't a whole hell of a lot better about it, for that matter.

Oh well. That's not America's problem.

[Reilor]

Thank god no one was hurt
my god, don't people realise this sort of thing will only lead to more violence, and probably even help isis or other terrorist groups.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What France needs to do is teach refugees and Europeans about each other's culture and how each one lives so that they might understand each other.

Or just reject muslim immigration. It is more simple and less expensive.

So let Muslims get killed in their home countries? Unfortunately, Europe's the only place that's partially active in letting refugees in.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What France needs to do is teach refugees and Europeans about each other's culture and how each one lives so that they might understand each other.

Or perhaps assimilation would work better. Being unified by one culture is better than having a multitude. The latter invites friction and potential tension. If Arab countries demand that a westerner follows their traditions, we may as well start trying to assimilate refugees to western values and standards.

Educating them to think critically would be a start, as well as introducing them to liberal trends. They cannot simply stick to their culture in another country. it won't work, and those who try and do it, usually end up witnessing their grandchildren become integrated with society. Of course, this doesn't happen all the time, since the Nationalists like to make things difficult with their constant whining and dogmatic belief that immigrants cannot be integrated.

We don't need to understand the refugees' culture. Why should we be forced to do that? We are not in their country, they are coming to ours. They should learn about us.

That's cultural imperialism. If a country calls itself democratic, it must let people express themselves. Culture is one way of it. Besides, how do you expect people to throw away who they are? It not going to happen, so both sides must learn about one another.

[Kriga]

Or perhaps assimilation would work better. Being unified by one culture is better than having a multitude. The latter invites friction and potential tension. If Arab countries demand that a westerner follows their traditions, we may as well start trying to assimilate refugees to western values and standards.

Educating them to think critically would be a start, as well as introducing them to liberal trends. They cannot simply stick to their culture in another country. it won't work, and those who try and do it, usually end up witnessing their grandchildren become integrated with society. Of course, this doesn't happen all the time, since the Nationalists like to make things difficult with their constant whining and dogmatic belief that immigrants cannot be integrated.

We don't need to understand the refugees' culture. Why should we be forced to do that? We are not in their country, they are coming to ours. They should learn about us.

That's cultural imperialism. If a country calls itself democratic, it must let people express themselves. Culture is one way of it. Besides, how do you expect people to throw away who they are? It not going to happen, so both sides must learn about one another.

We're not expecting them to throw it away, but again, how do you foster cohesion and unity? Do you let them have their own schools? If you think my proposition is cultural imperialism, then the alternative would be to segregate them.

We shouldn't change our schooling to meet their religious or cultural demands. That distorts unity and breeds tension. I am not saying we should outright convert them to Western values, but as a western, liberal, secular society, we should at least follow the same system we have before they came here, and not change it for their needs. If they come here, they should learn the language and understand the values their host country wants. Otherwise, it breeds nothing but tension and hatred on both sides.

[Waldriech]

I don't feel sorry. How about Muslims stop murdering Christians, and killing mass amounts of people.

[Federation of Allied States]

It seems Europe is slowly becoming more and more toxic to innocent muslims who have made their home there. This Islamophobia disgusts me.

[The Alma Mater]

It seems Europe is slowly becoming more and more toxic to innocent muslims who have made their home there. This Islamophobia disgusts me.

For the record: for each incident against muslims there are still a few 100 incidents by muslims.
Viewed like that, there is no toxicity problem