CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Freedom of expression maybe, but the provocative flaunting of a symbol which represents one of the vilest political/military movements in world history would, and should be regarded as a willful act of blatant disrespect for the great sacrifice our military personnel made to defeat the Germans, and also to the some 70 million who died during the Nazi conflict of WW2.
Such displays would without doubt inflame emotions and almost certainly result in violent reactions.
Symbols of communist or extreme left political parties have no place in a free democratic society as they challenge the very freedom which enables them to parade their fanatical views.
Wearing a Swastika IS protected under the 1st Amendment.. That means he won't be arrested for it.. But, it doesn't mean he won't get an asswhuppin for wearing it..
Whom is to do the asswhuppin since you already made clear a Swastika is protected under the Bill of Rights. The individual that commits a crime goes to jail. Do you enjoy being the resident fool of this site.
You don't understand the Constitution.. You NEVER understood the Constitution. Listen up.. The Constitution protect you FROM the government - NOT Nazi haters.
Wearing a Swastika IS protected under the 1st Amendment..
Of course you are right and correct too that a person exercising his right to wear a Hakenkreuz may expect to get beaten for exercising his constitutional right. America can be a dangerous place and I would advise caution about provoking others.
Yes, that's why I clarified the Nazi symbol as opposed to the more ancient meaning of the symbol. Unfortunately the original meaning was bastardized by the Nazi's to what we know today but I did want to make that clarification.
You wrote, Unfortunately the original meaning was bastardized by the Nazi's
It is interesting that the entire world accepted that change to assume the swastika has the new meaning. The old meaning lasted for possibly more than 4,000 years, then after about 15 years of Nazism, the assumed meaning changed.
Contrast that to the cross, which has represented Christianity and the associated grace of God for less than 2,000 years, but after 150 years of Klansmen burning it in conjunction with horsewhippings, beatings, arson, and lynchings, it retains its older positive meaning.
One might argue that the swastika got a new negative connotation while the cross retained its old positive connotation because the the scope of the damage Nazism did was much greater than the regionalized havoc of the Ku Klux Klan. The problem is that the violence and oppression associated with the cross actually touched more of the world for a longer period of time than did that of the swastika.
Prior to the founding of the KKK, the cross presided over countless acts of violence and oppression for more than 2,000 years.
-- -- For centuries the Roman Empire used it to torture insurgents and dissidents to death.
-- -- Beyond that, as a symbol of Christianity, the cross presided over countless atrocities, including, but not limited to the following:
• The Spanish Inquisition.
• The Crusades (wars named after the cross, (Crux) no less!)
• Witch trials, which sometimes included torture.
• The justification of oppressive military regimes (Divine Right of Kings) and the connected enslavement of the non-noble classes of Europe for over 1000 years.
• Torture and murder of Protestants by Catholics during the Reformation.
• Torture and murder of Catholics by Protestants during the Reformation.
• The theft and oppression of Latin America through forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement.
• The forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement of Native Americans in North America.
• The forced conversion of enslaved African-Americans in North America, and “Biblically supported” justifications for slavery.
-
I don't know what this says about symbols and politics, but it sure points out that despite being an abysmally stupid animal, people sure are interesting.
The meaning hasn't changed throughout the world, as you say.. in India, the swastika is a holy symbol and is used whenever needed, this might not be very apparent in the west, as the symbol has been introduced in the west in a particular way.. It should be redefined in the west.
I stopped in a motel in Needles, CA almost 15 years ago. The owner-operators were obviously Hindu (wore bindis, dhotis, saris, etc.) Behind the front desk, 6 feet across a swastika was painted on the wall.
A few years ago, I heard about a take-back-the-swastika movement in Britain. Enough people have emigrated from the Subcontinent that they may actually be able to fight the prevailing Western interpretation, but I honestly doubt it.
What you said is very true... it's lack of enthusiasm to make a change, among Indians, I'd say.. not that It's necessary for them to relate and feel for the symbol, but yeah, they could if they want to..
It's also an interesting note that the inverted cross used by many Satanist/anti-Christian persons is actually a Christian symbol for St. Peter's crucifixion. He insisted that his Crucifixion be carried out upside down because he didn't believe himself to be worth being crucified in the manner of Jesus. So those who wear it are actually saying they feel unworthy of Jesus.
It's always interesting how a symbol can mean one thing for centuries but can be changed from their original meaning to suite something else, either through ignorance or for a desire to represent the original meaning but be utterly horrific in doing so.
It's always interesting how a symbol can mean one thing for centuries but can be changed from their original meaning to suite something else
This mutability is inherent to symbols (and images in general) because, unlike verbal statements, they are unable to be explicit.
Consider the image of Kathy Griffin holding a bloody Trump head. That could be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways.
-- 1 -- A call to do violence to Trump.
-- 2 -- A comment that media figures who criticize Trump are in some ways villainously similar to ISIS/Jihadi John who decapitate worthy people for shock effect.
-- 3 -- A critique of Kathy Griffin as being about as funny as a bloody severed head.
This is why the yelling and screaming about the "Confederate" flag and what it means (always racist, not racist, Southern pride, etc. ad nauseum) is so ridiculous.
I believe people should be able to say anything, write anything, and wear anything they want.
But I also believe they then are responsible for what happens next. Meaning if you're found guilty of libel or slander you pay for it, if you're caught committing treason or seducing children as a pedophile you pay for it, if a jury finds that wearing a KKK hood or Swastika somehow violated someone else's Constititutional right to exist then you pay for it.
Currently though I don't believe the Swastika itself is banned. It's allowed under free speech. If you believe in what the Swastika stands for then please do, go ahead, wear it, so I and others who disagree with what it stands for can call you out for it.
Of course it should be protected, not allowing people to wear what they want will be quite hypocrite and fascist.
& Swastika means different things to different people.
The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) has been and remains a sacred symbol of spiritual principles in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.
But since the 1930s, people think of it as a main feature of Nazi symbolism, and as a result, it has become stigmatized in the West by association with ideas of racism, hate, and mass murder which isn't correct becuz the name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक), and denotes a "conducive to well being or auspicious"
The misinterpretation of swastika is simple hypocrisy since 20th century.
How can you even be free in a country when you can't wear whatever you want
OK so let's say that the far-right started a "punch a communist" meme to mirror the far-left "punch a Nazi" meme. Would the irrational violent response to anybody wearing the hammer and sickle symbol mean that wearing communist regalia is inciting criminal acts?
To me it's quite obvious that the actual incitement to violence occurred when the "punch a Nazi" meme was propagated.
OK so what about if the religious radicals start a "punch an atheist" meme? Would people wearing atheist clothing or espousing atheist opinions be inciting violence against themselves?
Nahhh... That doesn't upset me either.. I'm sure there's lots of people, who want lots of other people, to get punched for lots of different reasons. I say eh..
I don't think the meme got the Nazi punched. I think WEARING it got him punched..
"I don't think the meme got the Nazi punched. I think WEARING it got him punched.. "
In a political climate where atheists get attacked for wearing atheistic clothing, would you think the atheists were being attacked because they were wearing atheistic clothing? Or would you think they got attacked because of the political climate?
Anyway YES, they do have that right, and liberals have the right to peacefully protest against them. Anyway, those with the communist flags were likely Breitbart infiltrators. (Kind of like the Breitbart "pimp and pro" that infiltrated A.C.O.R,N. and that MS Democratic political office to tap the phones). They're well known for those tactics, "bait and switch" is their stock in trade.
Sure free speech for all. That doesn't constitute orthodox belief in the subject among all the subjects that lie therein subject to that belief system.
I always have to come down on the side of free speech but this is a tough one. My impulse is to want to beat the crap out of anyone wearing one.
To the nothinghead closet Nazi's that keep repeating each other and mindlessly pointing out that the swastika is or was a peace symbol, yeah I know that it was at one time. I also know that NOW AND FOREVERMORE it's a symbol of genocide and Adolf Hitler and a billion other horrible things so pretending it's ok because it started out as peace symbol is lame and without merit cause it ain't THAT anymore and will be NEVER AGAIN. Did that sink in?
If it is illegal to wear a swastika then who decides where to draw the line? I could see people trying to get their opposition put into the same category as Nazism, so that their support is outlawed. The best way to prevent this is through unlimited freedom of speech. The only things not allowed under freedom of speech like this should be threats or speech that directly encourages illegal actions (I'm sure I forgot something there). I don't think wearing a swastika qualifies as this.
If swastikas were outlawed I could just imagine some 'social justice warrior' trying to outlaw public support of Trump or something like that.
I will answer from the German perspective.. in Germany it is illegal to display that simple. There is nothing to be gained from tolerating a philosophy that is so intolerant.
If it is perfectly legal for a person to express even support for ISIS, then your political enemies will identify themselves for you. A Nazi without a Swastika is still a Nazi. The difference is that you don't know it.
I don't think it is legal to support ISIS here. You have a point about making it easier to identify neo Nazis if you allow them to express their views but still the net outcome would be more support for Nazism. Germany has the Verfassungsschutz (protectors of the constitution)0 to monitor such people.
You have a point about making it easier to identify neo Nazis if you allow them to express their views but still the net outcome would be more support for Nazism.
While there might be more support for Nazism per se as the net result, I doubt there would be any increase in the problematic antisocial attitudes (and resulting behavior) that underlie Nazism. Organizations like that do not make decent and loving people into frustrated and hateful people. They merely get frustrated, hateful people to come to picnics where they all congratulate each other on being so hateful and frustrated.
There are plenty of racists who are not Nazis, and their racism is no less problematic simply because they are neither socialists nor nationalists.
There are plenty of people who think that the rest of society should be enslaved to their needs and desires, and their selfishness and willingness to steal and enslave is no less problematic because they are not socialist (National Socialist or otherwise).
Etc. You see what I mean.
The main difference between sociopaths with a philosophy and sociopaths without a philosophy is simply whether you can only call them sociopaths or you can also call them socialists, Nazis, etc..
The primary difference between sociopaths with a named organization and sociopaths without an organization is whether people can identify and monitor the sociopaths , and effectively counter any havoc they plan or attempt.
We see this clearly when we try to address the problem of identifying "lone wolf" terrorists. It sure would be helpful if these folks would have meetings and thereby made it easier to catch them before they killed concert-goers or ran over tourists.
There is nothing to be gained from tolerating a philosophy that is so intolerant.
I understand your point, and that is a solidly pragmatic reason to prohibit Nazism, Islam, communism, etc..
Please allow me to insert my particularly American bias into the analysis of your solution.
One problem with this is that, as I am sure Germany is currently experiencing along with so many other European countries, a pass is generally granted to beliefs that are intolerant for religious reasons. This refusal to prohibit expression of religious beliefs, many of which are indeed intolerant, is the result of long experience with theocracies and painful lessons about religious oppression.
Another problem is that once one is intolerant of one set of beliefs, there tends to be scope creep, so that gradually more and more philosophies and ideas are prohibited based on the beliefs, fears, and ambitions of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Generally, the prohibitions become increasingly broad and invasive. It starts with speech, adds practice, and ends with mere suspicion/accusation of belief. More horrifically, the penalties become increasingly draconian.
When the power changes to some other group, there is a backlash. A perfect example of this is the sectarian violence between Protestants and Roman Catholics under King Henry VII, King Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Ultimately, it is safest to institute strict laws that make expression of all ideas by everyone foundational to the society. That is the lesson taught by the violence of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Nazi Concentration camps, the Communist gulags, and countless other attempts to prevent people from expressing some "dangerous" idea or other.
Who do you expect to be the most dangerous problem, intolerant citizens or an oppressive government? There is no third choice, and ultimately you have to pick one.
Comparing Islam with Nazism? ... Hitler was a Christian, not a Muslim.
Obviously, you are correct that Hitler was not a Muslim.
Obviously, in most respects, Islam and Nazism are very different.
However, we were discussing/comparing them only in the context of intolerance, and whether intolerant people should be prohibited by law from preaching intolerance or expressing intolerant ideas. Both Islam and Nazism are violently anti-gay, anti-Jew, etc., but Islam goes much further than even Nazism in its level of intolerance.
Nazism is primarily intolerant of particular types of people, and of particular sorts of behavior.
Islam is primarily intolerant of different types of thought and a much larger set of "unacceptable" behavior.
There is a Quranic mandate to convert all the people in the world to Islam, and to kill, or enslave or blackmail all who do not convert.
(And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the infidels wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and pay tribute tax, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." - Quran 9:4-5 ")
So, I appreciate your outrage at the comparison. Mohammed makes Hitler seem both tolerant and unambitious, by comparison.
-
True, not all Muslims believe all of the following, or intend to do all of the following. However significant percentages of Muslims favor imposing Sharia on entire nations (including Britain and the US), as multiple polls have indicated, and as the behavior of Muslim organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and nations like Saudi Arabia clearly demonstrate.
Here is a quick digest of Sharia (minus the rules on women/marriage, etc..)
1. Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
2. Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
3. Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death.
4. A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
5. A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
6. A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
7. Muslims are to subjugate the world under Islam (see Quran 9:29 and Palestine Issue).
8. Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
Certainly there are more liberal Muslims who do not buy this, but there are also Nazis who are not socialists (ironically) and who do not intend to exterminate all non-whites.
Cool. Here is a quick digest of the Christian Bible:-
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
So for the third time: Why did you use the crimes of despotic Christian fascists as a weapon to attack Islam with?
"Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf (My Struggle) by Adolph Hitler."
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Of course we both know that you intentionally didn't quote the New Testament, Jesus or the apostles, of which Christianity teaches from. You quoted the Jewish Torah. You also intentionally ignored what the Quran, the hadith, and the Sunna, which are used to teach in Islam, have to say because you are a religious Preogressive hack.
Why did you use the crimes of despotic Christian fascists as a weapon to attack Islam with?
I apologize if I did not make my point clear enough through the thread of the conversation.
I did not attack Islam. I used it as an example of why the Swastika should be tolerated.
Like it or not, ISIS, the Taliban, and multiple governments, including Saudi Arabia are much more despotic, oppressive, and brutal than Hitler ever dreamed of being. The degree of the application of Sharia is the degree of the despotism.
In order to demonstrate that tolerance of Islam supports tolerance of people wearing the swastika I demonstrated that Islam, as hundreds of millions of people practice it, is even more intolerant than Nazism.
I even stated that people in Europe who favor such applications of Sharia should be tolerated.
Earlier, Atrag wrote: There is nothing to be gained from tolerating a philosophy that is so intolerant.
My response was in part:
This refusal to prohibit expression of religious beliefs, many of which are indeed intolerant, is the result of long experience with theocracies and painful lessons about religious oppression.
Despite being extraordinarily intolerant, conservative Muslim beliefs are being tolerated in Europe and the United States for valid reasons, and this tolerance should be protected.
That is all Old Testament stuff, so it also applies to Judaism and Islam, in addition to Christianity.
As far as your digest applies particularly Christianity, I have never actually heard of any Christian who lived by all of these, or even advocated that people live by them by applying such punishments to such "sins." Have you?
Neither have I ever heard of a Jew in modern times living by them all or advocating such punishments for such violations of religious law. Have you?
By contrast, there are thousands of instances on record within the last decade of modern Muslims actually enforcing Sharia with death penalties. As I stated in a previous post, significant percentages of Muslims favor imposing Sharia on entire nations (including Britain and the US), as multiple polls have indicated, and as the actual execution for such infractions of Sharia by Muslim organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and nations like Saudi Arabia clearly demonstrate.
Pew Research Center polls (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) indicate that anywhere from 8% to 99% of Muslims in 38 countries, including in Eastern Europe, favor Sharia being implemented as the law of the land. Of those who favored this, between 19% and 74% favored Sharia being applied also to non-Muslims in their respective countries.
This yields a range of 2% to 49% of Muslims favoring the Muslim brand of intolerance being forced on non-Muslims. Although the Pew poll indicates far higher numbers, let’s apply just the low end number (2%) to the whole Muslim population as our measure of the popularity of this particular version of intolerance. A mere 2% of an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims means at minimum there are 30,000,000 Muslims who favor enforcing the Islamic version of intolerance on whole societies.
Do you have any polls to indicate the current number of Nazis who favor forcing National Socialism on their nations?
Between 4% and 86% (by country) of Muslims polled favor the death penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy).
I forget. What is the penalty for leaving Christianity?
What about the penalty leaving the Nazi party?
If you want to look at other polls: (http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#sharia)
To tie all this to the thread:
The intolerance common (though NOT universal) to Islam is spreading into Europe and the Americas. As Western republics deal with immigration, one of the things we have to address is how (or whether) to be tolerant of intolerant people like Nazis, ANTIFA, and those Muslims who favor applying Sharia to whole societies.
This is a critical question societies need to address. As I stated previously, intolerance of intolerant people is most likely to result in scope creep and government oppression of everyone in the society.
That is all Old Testament stuff, so it also applies to Judaism and Islam, in addition to Christianity.
That is precisely the point. It applies to all major monotheistic religions, so why are you only attacking Islam? Why are you comparing Muslims to Nazis when your own country is stuffed full of fundamentalist Christian Conservatives who literally believe Hitler was right? You are writing long walls of text because, when expressed simply and precisely, what you are saying is stupid. It is the very definition of hypocrisy and double standards.
By contrast, there are thousands of instances on record within the last decade of modern Muslims actually enforcing Sharia with death penalties.
So again, what you are saying is that the only religion which follows the Christian Bible is Islam, yes? You are a complete and total retard, a bare-faced liar and everything you say contradicts itself. You began your post by claiming an equivalence between the monotheistic religions, and within a single paragraph you are back to attacking Muslims again.
How is it even possible that you could be so much of a hypocrite to attack Muslim countries for having the death penalty, when your own Christian Conservative country also uses the death penalty? I'm interested in how such total, wanton abandon of reason is even possible? Are you somehow under the impression that Christians no longer do bad things? Perhaps you would like to have a look at these?
Christian militias in Central African Republic burnt witches at stake
The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide[7] (Bosnian: Masakr u Srebrenici; Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 genocide[8] of more than 8,000[1][9] Muslim Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.
How is it even possible that you could be so much of a hypocrite to attack Muslim countries for having the death penalty, when your own Christian Conservative country also uses the death penalty
False equivalency. The Sharia deals the death penalty for nonviolent offenses like adultery, minor theft, or apostasy. Western death penalties are generally only obtained by being a proven murderer.
However, we were discussing/comparing them only in the context of intolerance
If most Nazis were Christians, and the Nazis were intolerant, then why would you not follow up with Christianity as your next example of intolerance? Why Islam? You completely ignored the most relevant and obvious example of religious intolerance following from your own argument, and instead used the Nazis to springboard into a non-sequitur, guilt-by-association attack against Islam. I'm pretty sure that comparing the Nazis with Muslims is strong evidence of your own intolerance.
I'm pretty sure that comparing the Nazis with Muslims is strong evidence of your own intolerance.
Actually, many Muslims, Hezbollah for example, give the Nazi salute. Point of fact, they were doing it pre-Nazism, and Hitler started using it because it was an antisemitic salute of Fundamentalist Islam and those who followed the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, whom he was allied with. The point? The Nazi Heil Hitler salute is a symbol of antisemitic Islam.
If most Nazis were Christians, and the Nazis were intolerant, then why would you not follow up with Christianity as your next example of intolerance?
I had previously written the following:
When the power changes to some other group, there is a backlash. A perfect example of this is the sectarian violence between Protestants and Roman Catholics under King Henry VII, King Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Ultimately, it is safest to institute strict laws that make expression of all ideas by everyone foundational to the society. That is the lesson taught by the violence of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Nazi Concentration camps, the Communist gulags, and countless other attempts to prevent people from expressing some "dangerous" idea or other.
And as a part of the conversation in the left-hand column of this thread, I wrote,
-- -- Beyond that, as a symbol of Christianity, the cross presided over countless atrocities, including, but not limited to the following:
• The Spanish Inquisition.
• The Crusades (wars named after the cross, (Crux) no less!)
• Witch trials, which sometimes included torture.
• The justification of oppressive military regimes (Divine Right of Kings) and the connected enslavement of the non-noble classes of Europe for over 1000 years.
• Torture and murder of Protestants by Catholics during the Reformation.
• Torture and murder of Catholics by Protestants during the Reformation.
• The theft and oppression of Latin America through forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement.
• The forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement of Native Americans in North America.
• The forced conversion of enslaved African-Americans in North America, and “Biblically supported” justifications for slavery.
Every one of these are examples of intolerant Christianity.
I'm pretty sure that comparing the Nazis with Muslims is strong evidence of your own intolerance.
If you read my previous posts on this thread (and on other threads), you would notice that I favor extending freedom of expression for all ideas to all people including Nazis and Muslims.
I consistently state that no people should be subject to violence, incarceration, or seizure of their property for any idea/belief they think, say, write, wear, or express in an artwork.
I am even against you being banned from this site for insulting people with whom you disagree, including me.
The only thing that might explain it is if you are Muslim, and take any objective observation about Islam personally.
Let me get this straight a second.
You believe that the only thing which could explain me having a problem with you spreading pernicious lies about Islam is if I am a Muslim? I'm an atheist you despicable little hypocrite. Using a thesaurus to find words like "vituperation" does not make what you are saying any less self-contradictory or stupid. The Nazis were white Conservative Christians, and instead of comparing them to modern white Conservative Christians, you are trying to compare them to black Muslims. As if that were not stupid enough, you are furthermore trying to argue that modern white Conservative Christians "have a completely different set of values" from their Nazi predecessors.
Literally everything you say is stupid, false, and pretty much the polar opposite of the truth.
As if that were not stupid enough, you are furthermore trying to argue that modern white Conservative Christians "have a completely different set of values" from their Nazi predecessors
You forgot to mention that many of Hitlers followers were rabid Communist atheists and that he later villified Christianity while praising Islam.
You aren't interested in ideas. I would welcome ideas. Using the crimes of despotic Christian fascists as a weapon to attack Islam with is not an idea. It's idiocy.
Using the crimes of despotic Christian fascists as a weapon to attack Islam with is not an idea.
Read my posts.
-- 1 -- I did not attack anyone. I pointed out the extremity of intolerance by conservative Muslims, the demonstrated despotism and brutality of conservative Muslims (ISIS, the Taliban, the Saudi government, etc.), and the degree to which Muslims worldwide want those intolerant interpretations of Sharia to be imposed on all people.
-- 2 -- This set of facts about Sharia and Islam were the basis for the idea I expressed that because Islam and Muslim expression should be tolerated, the the swastika and Nazi expressions should likewise be tolerated. I also discussed the value of this level of tolerance, even of intrinsically intolerant ideas.
-
I see that you lost the thread of the idea somewhere, but it is there. Truly, I try hard to ensure that what I write is reasonable, supported, and expressive of complete ideas. Sure, sometimes it develops over the course of the conversation, but I do the work to respect my debate partners enough to give you something to work with.
-
You will also note that despite your unwillingness to read the entire conversation and all of what I wrote (or misunderstanding of it), nobody called you any names.
There is no need to be unpleasant or combative or rude. We are supposed to be on friendly terms. It is just a conversation. Conversations tend to work better when people disagree without trying to be disagreeable.
You are obviously unhappy when people disagree with you, and when you read things you disagree with, so I am confused as to what it is you want from other participants on a debate site.
Just because I find your comments stupid does not mean I have not read them. I responded to your comments in some detail. Should I not have bothered?
I did not attack anyone
Yes, you very clearly did. You attacked Nazis and Islam with an accusation that they are both intolerant. That is an attack and a guilt-by-association fallacy.
I pointed out the extremity of intolerance by conservative Muslims,
OK, then by that same logic it isn't an attack if I point out the extremity of your balls-out stupidity and irrational hatred against all things Muslim. Might I also point out the extremity of your mother's long list of one night stands.
And what exactly is a "Conservative Muslim" anyway? How can you be a Conservative and use the accusation of Conservatism as a form of attack? You are just utterly, utterly ridiculous. You would literally say or do anything to defend your nonsensical bigotry against Muslims.
his set of facts about Sharia and Islam
You haven't posted a single fact. All you have done is throw accusations at Muslims.
You're a bigoted, nonsensical retard. Please grow up.
Yes, you very clearly did. You attacked Nazis and Islam with an accusation that they are both intolerant. That is an attack and a guilt-by-association fallacy.
"Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf (My Struggle) by Adolph Hitler."
And what exactly is a "Conservative Muslim" anyway? How can you be a Conservative and use the accusation of Conservatism as a form of attack?
Conservative indicates favoring or believing an original or earlier belief, way of life, or set of values. It can also mean or favoring or believing an earlier or original version or interpretation of a philosophy/religion/political model.
For example Islamic conservative means a person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith, and the assumption of seventh century social structures and mores. This means rigid gender roles, death as the common penalty for blasphemy, apostasy, or contributing to either, strict enforcement of a literal interpretation of Sharia, and a belief that violations of Sharia must never be tolerated.
The term American conservative uses the conservative in the exact same way to mean a completely different set of values. As an American conservative, I believe in the original/foundational values and philosophies of the United States of America. I am a strict Constructionist in interpreting the US Constitution. This results in belief in small, limited Federal government, with most responsibilities resting on the individual, the municipality, or on the states. This includes a belief in the maximum possible degree of freedom balanced by personal responsibility and accountability, self-reliance, and rugged individualism. As such I believe in free-market capitalism and personal endeavor and reward as the primary engines of progress and betterment of both the individual and society at large.
American and Islamic conservatives have antithetical beliefs precisely because they are conservative, but reach back to different times, places, and beliefs, he cores of which have incompatible views of freedom.
You attacked Nazis and Islam with an accusation that they are both intolerant.
That is like saying that a midget is short is attacking a person for being short. In order to qualify as an attack, the statement must either be purposefully misleading, or there must be a presupposition that intolerance or shortness are intrinsically bad, not merely disadvantageous for achieving some particular purpose.
Nazis do not tolerate Gypsies, Jews, Blacks, communists, homosexuals, criticism of Nazism, etc., and advocate killing them, or at least removing them from society. Conservative Muslims (e.g., ISIS, the Taliban) do not tolerate homosexuals, adulterers, any who criticized or reject Mohammed, Islam, or Sharia, but rather espouse and carry out the death penalty for not agreeing with or obeying their interpretation of Sharia and Islam.
Intolerant means "does not tolerate those who are different or disagree." Neither Nazism nor Conservative Islam tolerate different views, which makes them, by objective definition, intolerant.
Just because I find your comments stupid does not mean I have not read them.?
and
You haven't posted a single fact. All you have done is throw accusations at Muslims.
Your second sentence indicates that you clearly did not read them, or that you failed understand them. Before you respond, please go back and read all my posts on this thread.
Conservative indicates favoring or believing an original or earlier belief, way of life
I know what a Conservative is. What I don't know is why, as a Conservative yourself, you are using the word to attack Muslims with. Islam is a religion, not a political ideology. So far you have tried to link Islam with both Nazism and Conservatism, despite the fact that most Nazis and Conservatives were/are Christians.
For example Islamic conservative means a person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Quran
No, it doesn't mean that. As I've just explained to you Conservatism is a political ideology. It is simply impossible to have a conversation with you because you are such a bigoted idiot. The word you are looking for is fundamentalist, not Conservative.
The term American conservative uses the conservative in the exact same way to mean a completely different set of values.
Your language exposes you as being completely intolerant of Muslims and you are a self-confessed American Conservative. You just compared Muslims to Nazis, ignored that the Nazis were Christians, and now you are saying Conservatives are only intolerant if they also happen to be Muslim?
Jesus Christ. You are so stupid it borders on mental illness. Everything you have thus far said has contradicted itself.
The word you are looking for is fundamentalist, not Conservative.
No. The words you use are "right wing", which Islam is the prime example of. Nationalist, tribal, anti feminism, homophobic...yep that describes Islam to a "T".