Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world’s

[Greatest I am]

Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world’s first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?

Our collective leadership must lead by honor. Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy. This is irrefutable, in terms of morality.

Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society.

The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, and decide if it is better to have all these little wars that disrupt our cities and countries, or declare a real ideological war against the barbaric and non-progressive ideology that the Eastern hordes are trying to force down the Wests throat.

As usual, religions are trying to grow themselves by the sword. A redirection is in order and quite necessary if peace is to be achieved.

We, the collective of the free world, must move the war to one of words that judge the ideologies for their moral worth, and seek to live by the best one. That verdict will determine the will of the free world as to which direction we free people wish the world to evolve to; in terms of the limits of freedom and the duty of free people.

The free world has forgotten that its first duty to the world is to work to have the whole world share in that freedom.

A war of words tends to kill fewer people than the murderous religious insurgencies we now suffer.

I think our legislators ought to consider such a strategy.

Do you?

Regards
DL

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't forget to include kristianity.
" Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy."
Blowing up their countries is of course the best way to give them 'freedom'. That doesn't feed radicalism at all.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world’s first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?

Our collective leadership must lead by honor. Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy. This is irrefutable, in terms of morality.

Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society.

The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, and decide if it is better to have all these little wars that disrupt our cities and countries, or declare a real ideological war against the barbaric and non-progressive ideology that the Eastern hordes are trying to force down the Wests throat.

As usual, religions are trying to grow themselves by the sword. A redirection is in order and quite necessary if peace is to be achieved.

We, the collective of the free world, must move the war to one of words that judge the ideologies for their moral worth, and seek to live by the best one. That verdict will determine the will of the free world as to which direction we free people wish the world to evolve to; in terms of the limits of freedom and the duty of free people.

The free world has forgotten that its first duty to the world is to work to have the whole world share in that freedom.

A war of words tends to kill fewer people than the murderous religious insurgencies we now suffer.

I think our legislators ought to consider such a strategy.

Do you?

Regards
DL

You are a bore. You can say this about any fucking religion.
In actual FACT.
The "core" of Islam is Judaism.

[HexHammer]

Problem is good trade contracts, as long as there's good trade contracts from an islamic state/country, then we'll always praise it.

[Belinda]

"Islam's ideology"is not islamism's ideology. It matters quite a lot that people understand that Islam is not islamism.

Religions can be hi-jacked by politicians who aim to acquire extra power from claims that they are supported by God. This is what islamism is, it's one sort of religious hi-jacking. The history of Christianity is largely one of a religion being used for worldly purposes, and christianism may become once again as destructive as islamism.

[OuterLimits]

Whatever Islam is "really at core", whatever Christianity is "really at core", Jesus appears to be a mostly harmless hippie drama queen. Islam's prophet was a murderous slaver warlord. Or do I have it wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

[Belinda]

Whatever Islam is "really at core", whatever Christianity is "really at core", Jesus appears to be a mostly harmless hippie drama queen. Islam's prophet was a murderous slaver warlord. Or do I have it wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

While OuterLimits' picture is a popular one of both of those prophets it's a simplistic view. The historical Jesus and the historical Muhammad should be viewed within their political and cultural ambiences. Jesus was a Jew who suffered like most other Jews under Roman occupation of their country plus a particularly brutal and stupid local ruler.
Muhammad was a much travelled man of the world of trade who saw that a version of Judaism would civilise the Arab tribes people. How was Muhammad to reform pagan Arabia without some of that violence which came naturally to people then and there?

[Trajk Logik]

The problem with religion is that anyone can make any claim that they want and say it is the standard for any known religion. Who can really claim that they are the true follower of any religion? Who really knows what the true beliefs and practices are of any one religion? The texts of any major religion are so vague and written so long ago that the meanings of some of the terms can only be interpreted from an more modern mindset, which leads misinterpretations and/or cherry-picking to make one religion fit one's own lifestyle. All religions have an equal chance of being true - none - because not one religion provides any proof of anything - just rules to follow and the promise of damnation or everlasting life based on how one interprets and follows the rules. Most don't seem to understand that the rules were designed to control massive amounts of people because having large standing armies/police forces costs a lot of money.

[Belinda]

The problem with religion is that anyone can make any claim that they want and say it is the standard for any known religion. Who can really claim that they are the true follower of any religion? Who really knows what the true beliefs and practices are of any one religion? The texts of any major religion are so vague and written so long ago that the meanings of some of the terms can only be interpreted from an more modern mindset, which leads misinterpretations and/or cherry-picking to make one religion fit one's own lifestyle. All religions have an equal chance of being true - none - because not one religion provides any proof of anything - just rules to follow and the promise of damnation or everlasting life based on how one interprets and follows the rules. Most don't seem to understand that the rules were designed to control massive amounts of people because having large standing armies/police forces costs a lot of money.

Religions were not usually founded upon need for social control but upon moral codes of one sort or another. Social control is often a by -product of religious beliefs and practice but social control is a by -product of any human social activity whatsoever. Religions are not true like scientific propositions are true. Religions are true because they improve people's lives.

In answer to your question "Who really knows what the true beliefs and practices are of any one religion? " the answer is that religions contain core myths which explain the core beliefs. Those myths might be changed in details but the core structure of them remains. Religions also contain core devotional practices without which they would be not that religion at all. Thus Islam contains specified observances that must be done. Christianity is a little different from Islam as Christianity's necessity is attitude of faith rather than devotional actions.


In a manner of speaking it's sort of true to say that "the rules were designed to control massive amounts of people" . However this anthropological fact is true of all sociopolitical relations, not religion alone.

[bobevenson]

Religions are true because they improve people's lives.

Please name a religion that has improved people's lives.

[Belinda]

Bob, I'd rather have said "religions are true insofar as they improve people's lives".I trust that would have been more acceptable.

[bobevenson]

Bob, I'd rather have said "religions are true insofar as they improve people's lives".I trust that would have been more acceptable.

Yes, that theoretical possibility is certainly acceptable, but highly improbable.

[Greatest I am]

Don't forget to include kristianity.
" Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy."
Blowing up their countries is of course the best way to give them 'freedom'. That doesn't feed radicalism at all.

True that both Christianity and Islam have grown by the sword instead of good deeds.

From the looks of things, Islam, being an intolerant religion that wants to kill all who are not Muslim, violence may be our only recourse if we are to say that our ideology of freedom should be spread, as it should be.

Lest you forget, intolerant Muslims have been at war with each others sects forever.

Are you willing to have what are basically slave nations abusing human rights while we do nothing?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world’s first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?

Our collective leadership must lead by honor. Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy. This is irrefutable, in terms of morality.

Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society.

The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, and decide if it is better to have all these little wars that disrupt our cities and countries, or declare a real ideological war against the barbaric and non-progressive ideology that the Eastern hordes are trying to force down the Wests throat.

As usual, religions are trying to grow themselves by the sword. A redirection is in order and quite necessary if peace is to be achieved.

We, the collective of the free world, must move the war to one of words that judge the ideologies for their moral worth, and seek to live by the best one. That verdict will determine the will of the free world as to which direction we free people wish the world to evolve to; in terms of the limits of freedom and the duty of free people.

The free world has forgotten that its first duty to the world is to work to have the whole world share in that freedom.

A war of words tends to kill fewer people than the murderous religious insurgencies we now suffer.

I think our legislators ought to consider such a strategy.

Do you?

Regards
DL

You are a bore. You can say this about any fucking religion.
In actual FACT.
The "core" of Islam is Judaism.

And since many Muslims hate Jews, that shows just how immoral that religion is as it hates it's roots.

Christianity with protestants hating Catholics is showing us just how foolish all religious bigotries are.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Problem is good trade contracts, as long as there's good trade contracts from an islamic state/country, then we'll always praise it.

I do not hear many praising Islam at all.

Sure, some call it a religion of peace but they are basically stupid because Islam has grown itself by the sword and not by peaceful means or good deeds.

You are quite correct that we are putting trade ahead of good moral actions.

Regards
DL