It’s a toughie for Mo.

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (10)¬

  1. disperser says:

    Sadly, I don’t think he would be.

  2. paradoctor says:

    It would be extremist to battle that definition of extremist. It’s a trap!

  3. M27Holts says:

    Islamophobia? Since a phobia is an irrational fear…the genuine fear that an islamic knobhead will randomly kill people for saying their prophet was an Arthur Blunt is not a phobia is it?

  4. Donn says:

    In the US, we have a problem with a large number of people who believe things that are really not true and are ready to support figures who are transparently destructive to the country if not the world.

    And there’s a school of thought, that when we condemn this as it seems we certainly should, we only deepen the divisions in our society and drive the misguided further into the embrace of the forces of mischief. I don’t know what an Arthur Blunt is supposed to be, but I suppose there’s a possible islamophobic aspect to it, and the idea is that if we just treat our islamic brothers and sisters with the same loving acceptance as anyone else, they’ll respond positively and loosen up on the fatwahs etc. and we’re slightly less likely to be put to the sword.

    Not that I endorse this idea, just offering a Devil’s advocacy if you like.

  5. M27Holts says:

    We let them rape young non-muslim women and girls and beat up their wives with impunity and cut bits off their children and shut our pubs. This is done under the get out of Jail free card of cultural relativism….plus lots of illegal muslim schools are allowed to blatantly teach nothing but the koran…this isn’t right wing propaganda since I had contract’s with several children’s services who do not apply the same rules to muslim children as they do for all other denominations….

  6. Rebecca says:

    Well I don’t think Jesus should be throwing any stones

  7. David Featherston says:

    Sorry for being a bit dim. Is it the ideology that is based on violence, hatred, or intolerance, or is it the promotion & advancement that is based on violence, hatred, or intolerance? If the latter, I’d change “based on” to “through”. If the former, then I’m afraid almost every ideology one can name is extremist. Kinda the nature of forced change, which we humans so readily resist.

  8. M27Holts says:

    David, the simple rarionale is distilled into this statement…”Those who can be made to believe in ABSURDITIES can be made to perform in ATROCITIES”. No more no less…

  9. David Featherston says:

    Cheers, Mr. M27. I’ve read that elsewhere. But the UK gov’t & British (ig-)nobility, through the centuries, have made use of that particular strategy, resulting in a sun that never set on the British Empire. Now, however, the UK gov’t seems inclined to assert its moderation via pointing at the extremism of other ‘-isms’ and ‘-ologies’. Which is why I’m keen to know if it’s the (foreign) ideology itself or its mode of distribution that sparks the definition of extremist.

  10. Donn says:

    I believe I agree that if we’re going to argue as Jesus implies, that Islam itself is such an ideology, we’d have a pretty hard time of it in court. But of course the definition wasn’t intended to support that, so there isn’t much of a case for revising the wording to make it work.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.