Then there’s the rest of us Christians, who tend to be a damn sight more accepting and tolerant of other faiths than many KB commenters.

How do some of you feel about the burqa, for example? Reckon we should ban it? What do you think Christians might feel about it? Well here’s one viewpoint:

… as a Christian, I find it hard to find a reason to ban the burqa in New Zealand. Our Muslim community has never threatened New Zealanders as in other nations. Indeed, the small number of Muslims in New Zealand are peace-loving citizens. The Christian faith calls for Jesus’ followers to accept people despite their sin, let alone their clothing.

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/comment/1631-the-burqa-should-nz-ban-it-mark-mckeown.html

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

Privately seething my ass. Winston Peters is eagerly anticipating the latest poll results whilst rubbing his hands together in glee awaiting to see the boost in numbers (probably from the large segment of retarded fundamentalist Christian Kiwiblog commenters) as happened with his anti-Asian rants in 1996.

No no no. All that will happen then, terrorist groups of whatever ilk will recruit Western youth to perform their terrorist acts. Already happening of course. The motivation to do evil comes from within a person’s mind, not from the faith they carry with them. Doesn’t matter what faith a person has, the potential to commit an evil act lies in everyone.

Promoting policies such as banning Muslim young men from flying would simply raise the sense of injustice felt by Muslims in our country. Those who seek to incite others to commit violence are evil people. Evil people will say whatever they need to to persuade others to do their deeds.

Blaming religion for evil acts is too easy. Look beyond it to understand why a person might be so angry/ill treated that they decide to act in an evil way.

The content ,(surprise/surprise) of this topic ranges from rational to rant, but such is the nature of FREE SPEECH!

Now here is “the nut”. People must be free and will make up their own minds as to what side of this particular fence they are camped at.

And in a perfect world, commentators would act so as not to trash the whole process.

Lets not miss the real point though, merely because of the variable quality of the debate.

That said, What I/We? really then need to consider is the merit (if any) of the “nut” argument, namely a central proposition hopefully one couched in polite and reasoned terms.

I would consider the basic human right of Free Speech should/must always allow for the airing of the basic! (nut) proposition! of the/any argument, (setting aside the inevitable mess of noise/predjudice/ill informed views) … supported by inarguable facts, in this case namely …

“Most airline disasters due to terrorsim are the results of (call it) the illegal inhuman actions of Middle Eastern Males”.

Now THIS is the key point of the topic. Forget the other noise/rubbish (race/religion/prejudice/world view) … the Lot! … Focus!

Soooo … It is therefore true is it not? … “That if you are a Middle Eastern Male then terrorist official profiling will inevitably involve you in inconveniences at airport check ins, Right”?.

Tuff! … as, to be fair, most of you are not terrorists, but hey them’s the breaks,’ its called rational, legally mandated risk management OK?

Oh BTW … “Others” … non-MEM’s, leave your dinky Swiss Knifes at home fella’s …. and get-a-life.

This obviously happens both ways. Can any of you think of a major civil/international conflict free of brutality against the defenceless on all sides?

Much of the western media, overseas and here, is owned by people who don’t care too much about balance. This is why we now have some people on this blog who don’t seem to understand that so-called ‘Muslim terrorists’ are simply criminals, nothing more. A crime is a crime, no matter the motivation of the criminal. Religion might be claimed as a motivation, but in a pure system of justice it’s a defence argument, nothing more.

Overall a significant fail for NZ First and so early in the year

Muslims are a threat, and Richard Prosser is right to point it out.

The politically correct lefties, Winston prominent among them, are so eager to stomp on him.

Hey it’s a simple observation. You can see it above on this thread. You can see it anytime any discussion of contemporary terrorism comes up. I didn’t invent it, I simply observe it as a real, actual phenomena. If the shoe fits…

Are you criticising Prosser or joining him?

I’m observing Prosser is reflecting the same attitudes I have been pointing out.

It doesn’t mean they aren’t either. Your point borders on a truism. If some bunch of terrorists engage in a terrorist attack somewhere and then issue a statement about their motives there is, of course, always a logical possibility that they are lying about their motives. But most of the time they turn out to be telling the truth.

chiz the key point is as I said at the beginning. Just because they claim they’re doing it in the name of religion “x” doesn’t make it so. Even if they themselves in fact truly believe they’re doing it because in their minds, their religion approves and authorises it, this still doesn’t mean that in fact, their religion actually does.

The “truth” is not something subjective notwithstanding Kirekegaard’s rather brilliant observations on the subject. Most people think the “truth” is something that stands apart from perception, it’s inherent in itself. So no, even if they believe it or even if they say it (which is in fact more commonly the case), this doesn’t make what they are telling us, the “truth.”

It doesn’t mean they aren’t either. Your point borders on a truism. If some bunch of terrorists engage in a terrorist attack somewhere and then issue a statement about their motives there is, of course, always a logical possibility that they are lying about their motives. But most of the time they turn out to be telling the truth.

Three years after the White House arranged a hero’s welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

“Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact they’ve been neglected.”

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley’s allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight’s broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the “workplace violence” designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as “combat related.”

MORE from ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024

But yet, apparently, with Muslim terrorism, billions of westerners fail to make that elementary distinction and apparently, really do actually truly believe that it’s not a few individuals with a problem, it’s the entire religion.

Interesting that while lecturing us on distinctions, you lump “billions of westerners” (one assumes all of them bar you) as idiots with the exact same view.

Are you criticising Prosser or joining him?

Yes, the distiction is easy to make. Those who are out of arguments and losing the debate are the ones that constantly claim the other side is stifling the debate.

It’s the piss weak, last restort argument of sore losers.

Actually I’m pretty sure sore losers’ last resort is to wave away the substantial points of the other side as inconsequential.

“I do this in the name of Islam”

Bellum iustum or just war theory sounds awfully like Jihad.

The point is mate, that just cos they say they’re doing it in the name of “x” doesn’t make it so, does it.

But yet, apparently, with Muslim terrorism, billions of westerners fail to make that elementary distinction and apparently, really do actually truly believe that it’s not a few individuals with a problem, it’s the entire religion.

You oppose Morgan, you’re a child killer and hate children and kittens and fluffy bunnies and are next to Hitler.

Funny that you should mention Hitler, because the pro-gun lobby usually brings him up. “Look Hitler took the guns too.”

Actually, the distinction is easy if you look at the gun control debate in the US.

Yes, the distiction is easy to make. Those who are out of arguments and losing the debate are the ones that constantly claim the other side is stifling the debate.

It’s the piss weak, last restort argument of sore losers.

Steve makes the same mistake many make. He completely and utterly fails to distinguish between Islam the religion and terrorist organisations who claim to do what they do in the name of the religion.

An admirable distinction. I’ve seen many of the “all wars are caused by religion” crowd label anything a “religious war” if the two opposing factions appear to have a different religious view. Of course, wars are usually about someone wanting something they don’t have and the other group not willing to give it. A careful examination shows that only a minority of wars are for religious motivations.

The diff of course is that for over a decade now, the western media have pretended that every time a terrorist who happens to be Muslim commits an act of terrorism, they did it because of their religion.

Actually, it’s been pretty much the opposite from the conservative perspective. There have been cases where a Muslim man has all but stood up and said “I do this in the name of Islam” and started shooting everyone in sight and we find the media saying things like “his motivations were a mystery”.