This shit is articulately idiotic. He has not a clue about the areas that he's talking about-the 'beat your wife and mutilate your daughter bit' in particular pisses me the hell off. It's basically equivalent to someone making an decision on the mores of western society by looking at the crime links of LS- (AKA westerners fuck dead dear and shoot each other at random-they're kids are drunk at school!). Racist, in the extreme, and typical.

um, i think you forgot one thing

british accent

heh, schooled you with articulation, bitch

he's a comedian!

how the fuck can a guy like this call himself a comedian

Racist how?

Sell your € while you can bitches.
The Eurozone's welfare state won't survive polygamy and sharia.

Sell your $ while you can, America will never survive the influx of these filthy potato eaters.

Sell your $ while you can, America will never survive the influx of these greasy dagoes.

Sell your $ while you can, America will never survive the influx of these dirty beaners.

your racism runs in cycles. when my dad was a kid in SF, people used to pick fights with him because he is italian.

when islam is no longer a sufficiently violent scapegoat, you'll just find another group to raise the alarm about, you dumb faggots.

Whatever you liberal piece of shit. Irish, Italians and latins aren't polygamous are they?

Whatever you liberal piece of shit.

i'd rather be a liberal piece of shit than a dumb, racist piece of shit

Irish, Italians and latins aren't polygamous are they?

sometimes, racism comes from ignorance. how about you do some good ol' learnin' today.

Polygamy for Muslims, in practice and law, differs greatly throughout the Islamic world, where polygamous marriages constitute only 1–3% of all marriages.[1] In some Muslim countries, polygamy is relatively common, while in others, it is rare or non-existent. Tunisia, for example, is an Arab country where polygamy is not legal.

looks like mormonism to me, and america's doin' a-ok

LIke Polygamy is the worst thing that can be said about a society.

so your cool with Akmed and his 5 wifes all being on welfare then?

so your cool with Akmed and his 5 wifes all being on welfare then?

oh cool you actually are a dumbass racist, i would hate to wrongfully accuse you

nocal, your willful blindness to material reality is sad.

Religion is a disease. This goes for all religions. They prey on lonely people, giving them a community, brainwashes them into believing in fairy tales and imaginary friends. Where religion comes in, reason goes out.

If they aren't born into it, then that's how people get sick with religion. But the real damage begins when one tries to adopt to the morality of their religion of choice.
Take Christianity for instance, a religion we all know pretty well. They impose limitations on some of the most basic behaviors of humankind, namely our sexuality (no sexual training/masturbation and no sex before marriage).
Now, to be successful it is enough to live in harmony with one's surroundings, which many christians succeed in. But to be happy, you have to live in harmony with one's self, and that is not possible if you deny aspects of your life.

There are many other areas where religion forces unreasonable conditions upon individuals, but sexuality seemed like a good example.

This is how religion damages the individual believer. On a global scale though, the threat of religion becomes even more obvious.
Every religion touts love as a virtue, yet this world we live in is torn asunder by religious conflict.

Where religion comes in, reason and common sense goes.

^ I like what he said.

nocal is just talkin' all dookie headed. He's currently plotting the destruction of all the lesser humans (the religiously infected) and the above commentary is simply a smoke and mirror bit.

^^^ What nocal said.

Crapalicious: so your cool with Akmed and his 5 wifes all being on welfare then?

Hey shitforbrains,

PROTIP: In those cultures that DO practice polygamy, the man MUST be sufficiently wealthy in order to provide EQUALLY for each of his wives. This is law, and if the man is not able to provide this, the wives are allowed to divorce.

What this means, is that if there are going to be any Muslim burdens on the welfare system, these burdens will not be coming from (as you so articulately stated) 'Akmed and his 5 wifes'.

Nocal: when islam is no longer a sufficiently violent scapegoat, you'll just find another group to raise the alarm about, you dumb faggots.

Crapalicious: Whatever you liberal piece of shit.

This is lolsome.



Nocal: when my dad was a kid in SF, people used to pick fights with him because he is italian.

WOAH WOAH WOAH, OFF THIS WEB-BOARD YOU IMPURE PIECE OF SHIT, I THOUGHT YOU WERE 100% CAUCASOIDAL, FUCKKKKKKKK

Nocal: when my dad was a kid in SF, people used to pick fights with him because he is italian.

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

Ok this thread continues ONLY in limerick form

there once was a boy named crapalicious
whose views on race were capricious
akhmed has five holes
and they're all on the dole
to him that just sounded delicious

I don't see how you can expect
These dolts to truly erect
A lyrical screed
But if one should succeed
You'll have to give him respect

mstrlance made it known he's a skeptic
that rhyme schemes obscure and neglected
should by swarmers be used
with their heads full of booze
they'd simply laugh at the use of 'erected'

Nocal seems to be on it,
Since he was able to spawn it.
It must give him an erection
That Infection Connection
Didn't post hers as a sonnet.

Condell is a bit over the top but I'd rather live in a country of people like him than most of the Muslim world. Ever been to a Muslim country? Most of them suck. We know it and they know it.

I think the crux is this- give them an inch and they'll take a mile. This goes for any religious organization. I personally don't give a damn about religion one way or the other. If you want to do bends and squats on rugs thats cool. If you want to drink booze on sunday with your crackers I don't care. However, the line is crossed when you violate human rights whatever your particular faith. Condell's right about refusing to kowtow to Muslims or any religion for that matter. Freedoms are hard won by brave people, but a coward can give them up in an instant. And once they're gone, good luck getting them back.

Skymt Fri Mar 14

words

Excellent post that should not be overlooked.

yes i would rather live with a group of humorless people that tell me that women are not allowed to cover their faces than a group of humorless people that tell me that women have to cover their faces

First, referring to an entire religion the way that this guy, and most people do-is completely idiotic. We tend to gloss over the Muslim world, and make it seem like its the same. There is female circumcision in Sudan (I think) and other parts of northern Africa, beatings and such in Saudi Arabia, fucked up shit happens in Afghanistan-etc.

But Morrocco is not like Libya, Libya is not like Egypt, Jordan is not like Lebanon, and Yemen is nothing at all like the UAE. All of these countries are all over the spectrum on respect for human rights-they also happen to all be Muslim. But so is much of South Asia, which doesn't have a great human rights record, but we almost never talk about them as Muslim countries.

So first, talking about the 'cowtowing' to Islam is nonsensical. The whole context of the debate is flawed and uneducated. When this guy talks about 'subsidizing Muslim culture'-I think he's talking about British multicultural initiatives to work on-its completely nonsensical to me unless he's talking about some specific legislation I don't know of.

As an aside, everyone brings up Saudi Arabia as an example of the worst country-the most beatings, stonings, etc. happen there-and it receives more US financial/military support than any Muslim country-by far. It's an open question as to whether the whole government might start to fall apart if we stopped giving them missiles.

I think this guy has a point when he's expressing the reticence of people to express opposition to aspects of Islam-but only terrorists and ideologues actually believe there is a single 'Islam'-there are huge variations in practice and ideas all over the world. But now we have this unique situation where violence by Muslims can occurr almost anywhere-it is all fed by this idea that the West is racist towards Muslims and Arabs. People need to look at the ugly post-colonial history of the region to understand why attitudes are so negative. All of these movements can basically be traced back to anti-colonial attitudes-not racism towards westerners or jews.

But when this guy says 'Muslims hates jews. Their holy book tells them to hate jews.' and 'even if Israel didn't exist they would hate jews'-this just seems purposely inflammatory. Jews are people of the book, protected under 'Islam' doctrine as far as I knw- I think all of this jew hating has to be viewed through the history since 1948-which forced around 800,000 people out of their homes, and pissed them off.

Personally, I also like to appear as tolerant and open to multi-culturalism and the existence of other religions as the next pansy-ass, bleeding heart liberal do-gooder, be this a hypocritical attitude or not I'm not sure, but I AM by nature tolerant.

The problem is, afaic, and here Condell is right ... the problem is when people of one religion start feeling empowered to tell other people what they can say, do, or even think, and what they can't.

The real dilemma in this world is: do non-religious people have any obligation to respect the rights of the religious, or is it in fact, vice-versa?

Will we ever get along, or will those of different religions who are fundamentalists ever really get along? I think it may be easier for fundamentalists of different religions to get along than for hardcore secularist/atheists to get along with religious fundamentalists, because the former will always insist on having the right to make cartoons and jokes about the latter, and their religions. The latter, on the other hand, can do nothing else other than tolerate the former, because secularism and rationalism are in fact the REAL bottom line in the western world, whatever religious fads may come and go with time. Apart from that of course, imo it's right also that the rationalism (as heir to 'the enlightenment' of the 18th-19th century) should be the leading light of global civilisation too.

Somebody else said it here maybe recently: as a rule, whenever and wherever religion dies down a bit, people become more elightened, and less ignorant.

Wow!

This is the most comments I have seen in sometime now.
In general, I noticed any Islam related link draws lots comments.

As a side note, if Polygamy was legal, Spitzer would not have to have a Whore on the side. He would have two wifes (an old one & a young one). That's what I would do!

'The real dilemma in this world is: do non-religious people have any obligation to respect the rights of the religious, or is it in fact, vice-versa?'

See, I don't care to debate the philisophical grounds for all of this. I think there is a straight constiutional answer: yes. In an inclusive society.

People should keep in mind that this is more than just Islam hating the West-there are real reactions to intense Western foreign policy moves, and more than anything, a reaction against Colonialism.

'Somebody else said it here maybe recently: as a rule, whenever and wherever religion dies down a bit, people become more elightened, and less ignorant.'

I think a lot of people in the Arab world would not agree with that. When the Quran spread it started a whole series of empires, increased literacy, formed governmental systems-the Ottoman empire was a highly sophisticated beauracracy. More than that Quranic culture was behind the leading philosophical movements that had huge contributions to Western civ, the continued discourse with greek philosophers, gigantic leaps in science, medicine and the arts.

When you start talking about the blood-thirsty conquering of nomads, you just have to turn around to look at the Conradesque effects of colonialsm around the world to argue that the two imperial movements weren't morally better, or worse than the other. The Arab world's renaissance STARTED with religion. The same kind of monothestic renaissance that shaped Europe post-Constantine. The Arab world is different from the West. They don't have to believe in our values-but the societies have a LOT more in common than they have different. And you can't realize that until you actually study it, which is exactly what everyone should be doing.

'The real dilemma in this world is: do non-religious people have any obligation to respect the rights of the religious, or is it in fact, vice-versa?'

No, you are wrong. There is no dilemma. The voice of reason must rule. A case based on facts and reality must ALWAYS take precedence above a case based on morale (which is just an extension of what disgusts many people at the moment, like the current global rage against all pedophiles. It's not more their fault that they are pedophiles than it is the homosexuals fault that they are homosexual. We don't help them by beating them to death in some mob-justice. We help them by letting them live out their fantasies privately in a non-violent manner, like most pedophiles already do (with cos-play and the like, that is, not involving real children. Rape of children shall and must always be prohibited, just like all forms of rape)).

But in all else, you are correct. I too believe the politics and the mass-delusion called religion is too intermingled. I suppose religion often is the easy way out (like my father, who raped my sister, and never cared to ask forgiveness from us even though he repented. He got his fucking forgiveness from jesus and fuck them all for it.) and this probably works the same way in politics. (Oil companies want me to invade iraq and cause countless millions of people to suffer. But it's ok... god forgives me!).

What happens now in America happened a long time ago in the middle east. As Acheron said, the first leaps in human civilization was spawned in the middle east, but using fear, the priests and despots took over society and stopped all scientific progress (because religion can not survive in an enlightened mind, and non-thinking, god-fearing sheeps are easier to control). And now the middle-east is backward, brutal and fanatic.

'As Acheron said, the first leaps in human civilization was spawned in the middle east, but using fear, the priests and despots took over society and stopped all scientific progress'

This smacks of generalization to me. First the 'priests' and 'despots' shouldn't be paired-some of the biggest recent despots in the Middle East have been more or less secular. Just remember that what we call 'radical Islam'-suicide bombing, institutionalized brutality (a la Taliban, Wahabbis) all took power in the 20th century. Don't wrap history up history in a box to make some overarching argument about the 'danger' of religion.

Heh.. when we are dealing with things so long ago, it's quite hard to be detailed. But I must admit that I wrong. I was thinking about the 'islamic golden age' during the 8th to 13th (I think) century, and not the cradle of civilization around the rivers tigris and euphrates much earlier.

It was ended by the Mongolian invasion, which transformed the society to a nomadic one. The priesthood saw their chance to increase their influence (which had been declining as science progressed) and claimed that the invasion was a punishment from god.

Nomadic traditions existed before the Quran, before the dynasties, before Jesus, etc. etc. Arabic does have its root in Beduoin language groups, but I think you're wrong to claim that there was any real proliferation of nomads after the invasion. A lot of the Mongolian invaders created independent Islamic dynasties in what is now Iran, Pakistan, sections of India-they converted and established ongoing dynasties.

Baghdad, after being completely razed by the Mongols, reformed in roughly the area it is now and remained a big cultural center. Plus keep in mind Spain was perhaps one of the richest per capita Muslim areas and was majority Muslim for hundreds of years-finally ousted in 1492. Spain-Pakistan-Iraq-VERY different histories. The Ottoman empire, a large modern beauracracy, broke up in the 20th century. Also: I have not a clue what you mean when you refer to the 'priesthood'. But anyway, we can call it quits here since this won't be entertaining for anyone unless we start viciously insulting each other.

What good things are there to say about the Ottoman Empire, apart from the fact that 'it was a large, modern bureaucracy'? This is true, but otherwise it was a stagnating, corrupting influence, which taxed people in a big way, unless they converted to Islam. It even demanded tribute in the form of young people, for jannisary armies, or whatever other heinous objectives.

I don't believe that even the Arabs had much to benefit from it, as it eroded their ethnic and cultural identity, and made them feel like 2nd class citizens even though they were also Muslims. Why are so many Muslims now 'Sunni' Muslims even? The whole Sunni thing actually comes from the Ottoman empire,too, so this I don't understand.

Vlad the Impaler had the answer, not only for the Ottomans, but also for people like pedophiles, who Skymt says 'should be allowed to live out their fantasies privately in a non-violent manner'.

If too much corrupt or funny stuff goes on for too long a time in any society, the danger grows that someone (or some movement) will come along and 'clean out the bad blood', possibly taking a lot of innocent people along for the ride, as 'collateral damage'.

Apart from that, the only good thing you can say about the Ottomans is that they respected churches (while heavily taxing Christians), unlike Crusaders, who wouldn't usually hesitate at burning down a mosque.