Nuke Britain Today, etc.

[Epoetker]

A man has been arrested for quoting Winston Churchill.

All true, though in defense of Mohammed he may have had a point about the women, given what happened next:

she told him "It's disgusting!" and then called the police.

Never, ever, EVER give in to the temptation to white knight, even when denouncing Muslims.

[seer]

All true, though in defense of Mohammed he may have had a point about the women, given what happened next:

[Just Some Dude]

The only appropriate thing that comes to mind is the Psalm 94.

[myth]

That's just shameful. I knew the Brit's weren't big on free speech, but...really?

[firstfloor]

Hold the H-Bomb. It is important to give the liberalizing forces within Islam room to breath at the same time as not antagonizing the extremists because then you give them a reason to fight. They are an enemy who has a very long term stealthy strategy so you need to be thinking in the same way and being effective over several decades. The fight against extremist Islam as it is against any extreme ideology has to be very carefully considered. We need to be better than them at everything and be able to prove it to the world. I would give you examples where we are failing miserably to provide a good example but I am sure you can think of a few yourselves.

[Epoetker]

Hold the H-Bomb. It is important to give the liberalizing forces within Islam room to breath at the same time as not antagonizing the extremists because then you give them a reason to fight. They are an enemy who has a very long term stealthy strategy so you need to be thinking in the same way and being effective over several decades. The fight against extremist Islam as it is against any extreme ideology has to be very carefully considered. We need to be better than them at everything and be able to prove it to the world. I would give you examples where we are failing miserably to provide a good example but I am sure you can think of a few yourselves.

Or, y'know, we could just deport Muslims for being Muslims, and ban immigration from Muslim countries, thereby rendering their long-term subversion strategy immaterial.

[firstfloor]

Or, y'know, we could just deport Muslims for being Muslims, and ban immigration from Muslim countries, thereby rendering their long-term subversion strategy immaterial.

[Epoetker]

No. You need to work on the ideology, not the people.

False dichotomy. The ideology created the people. The ideology evolved the people. i.e., the ideology attracted, promoted, and rewarded the people among them who fit the ideology better. It's a vicious feedback loop, but one of the things about evolution is that isn't not unlimited from every starting point, so removing people who have a particular proclivity for the destructive aspects of their religion puts a cap on its destructive capacity.

The best way to get rid of subversive ideas, whether Islam or cultural Marxism, is to force them to deal with reality, which means in this case quarantining Muslims in their home countries as the barbarians they are and cutting off all outside aid until they yield to reason, force, or the inevitable starvation that their religion forces on them. I foresee epiphanies of philosophically charitable moderation only when the unearned charity is cut off, and those with lying tongues and hardened hearts are dealt with according to their words and deeds.

[firstfloor]

False dichotomy. The ideology created the people. The ideology evolved the people. i.e., the ideology attracted, promoted, and rewarded the people among them who fit the ideology better. It's a vicious feedback loop, but one of the things about evolution is that isn't not unlimited from every starting point, so removing people who have a particular proclivity for the destructive aspects of their religion puts a cap on its destructive capacity.
The best way to get rid of subversive ideas, whether Islam or cultural Marxism, is to force them to deal with reality, which means in this case quarantining Muslims in their home countries as the barbarians they are and cutting off all outside aid until they yield to reason, force, or the inevitable starvation that their religion forces on them. I foresee epiphanies of philosophically charitable moderation only when the unearned charity is cut off, and those with lying tongues and hardened hearts are dealt with according to their words and deeds.

No, no. no. You are far too antagonistic. What you need to do is shake their hand and help them to get a good modern education excised of all the supernatural guff that you learned in Sunday school. I see you left out Christianity from your list of religions with destructive ideas. I would include it.

[Epoetker]

No, no. no. You are far too antagonistic. What you need to do is shake their hand and help them to get a good modern education excised of all the supernatural guff that you learned in Sunday school.

Those without a sense of the supernatural will be in a worse position than those with it, and will glom onto weaker abstractions, darker obsessions and more utterly ahistorical attitudes ('shake their hands' is extremely bad advice for those who have been taught by their history, religion, and culture to respect only power) than those who grow up with the humility of noting that some events may indeed fall outside of any easy human explanation. Man is both made to search out mysteries and offer an approximation of the unknown that others can understand, and you cannot avoid the supernatural, only avoid discussing any strange events.

I see you left out Christianity from your list of religions with destructive ideas. I would include it.

Funny that you should mention this right when I started reading a new blog:

I have talked about the pro-communist terrorist sympathies of Jesuit Ignacio Ellacuria in my politics blog. I was reading a little more about him, and I think I see the source of his error and that of liberation theology.

This idea comes from the church as being the body of Christ. In whatever sense this may be, it is not true in the sense of Jesus as crucified, as the sinless sacrifice for all sin.

There is a Catholic idea that human suffering is part of the redemptive process of humanity. First of all, only the suffering of the sinless Christ can act as atonement for sin. All humans, unlike Jesus, have sin and so are not acceptable sacrifices. Human suffering can and sometimes should produce sympathy in us, but human suffering is the result of sin- either experienced by the sinner as the result of his sin, or by the people he has sinned against- and so cannot atone for sin. The suffering of Jesus was a completely free choice of his own and not involuntary or compelled in any way.

Humans are not Jesus. To set aside any human, or group of humans as being Jesus is to confuse the very important distinction between the two.

The attitude of the man's mother seems to be parallelized in yours. It is a lazy, narrow, and extremely provincial attitude at best, and the kindest thing I can say to those who evince it is that as long as it is held, its holder will accomplish nothing of any importance for God or Man, but may serve as the willing agents for all sorts of evils.

[firstfloor]

The attitude of the man's mother seems to be parallelized in yours. It is a lazy, narrow, and extremely provincial attitude at best, and the kindest thing I can say to those who evince it is that as long as it is held, its holder will accomplish nothing of any importance for God or Man, but may serve as the willing agents for all sorts of evils.

He is speaking about the ideas he formed as a child. Are you suggesting that you and he have never grown up?