It's people who commit the atrocities we see done in the name of god.

It's not faith that causes them to do the evil they do but their prejudices and intolerance.

Angelic vision that has shown limits long time ago.

Again, it is not archaic prejudices that guide but their sacred text.

What language should we write for you understand ?

One that's free of prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hate.

One that is based on thinking and not the aforementioned.

Funny you feel this way, since you are championing a worldview which wholly prescribes prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hate, .

If you asked me to define Islam in one word my choice would be, intolerance.

Having lived in Muslim communities ( more than once) I would say that your characterization is both wrong and also demonstrates the intolerance you are decrying.

Just keep in mind that not all Muslim are like the crazy IS that declares war on other religions

Means nothing

Not all Germans or Japanese are crazy like the ones that declare war on other nations but there was enough that clause 100 million to die

We have to worry about only about the crazy ones

Only 7% - 10% of Germans supported Hitlers policies but 6,000,000 Jews were exterminated in Europe. And that number is only the Jews. So don't kid yourself a minority can wreak havoc when, like in Germany, the majority sit back and do nothing.

So you could and would have overthrown Hitler ?

Yes. I would have tried.

I am a bigot; no denial.

I hate everyone equally so can't be a bigot ?

Then -within your logic - Thai Imams are extremely peaceful.

And as they preach Islam, Islam is a peaceful religion, too.

I have met some very humble Imams in my time in Iraq. Who thought nothing about giving water and shelter to the infidels outside and seeing us there stuck with a breakdown invited us inside the mosque for chai, and to shelter in the shade.

Initially I refused his offer, but I guess he felt offended and I have to be honest, his mosque out in the Sunni badlands of Baqouba was breathtaking inside, I was the one who ended up being humbled.

There's is good and bad in all religions, don't forget that it's Muslims killing other Muslims by IS all over the ME just now.

I am more tolerant of other faiths today than I was younger.

Thais have always been bigots. Nothing can change that. Us farangs we live with it, deal with it and come home to our families.

If you have the protection of a Thai family it doesn't really put you in the same league as someone living on their own here and having to deal with Thai bigotry on a day to day basis. 24/7.

I can quite understand why so many get a 'family' or live in big western enclaves so that they can be less visible on the radar.

One that's free of prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hate.

One that is based on thinking and not the aforementioned.

Funny you feel this way, since you are championing a worldview which wholly prescribes prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hate, .

If you asked me to define Islam in one word my choice would be, intolerance.

Having lived in Muslim communities ( more than once) I would say that your characterization is both wrong and also demonstrates the intolerance you are decrying.

I fully admit that I am intolerant of the intolerant. This is why I rail against the Islamist trend. It is psychopathic and antihuman.

Are many Muslims tolerant? Yes of course, perhaps the majority are. But most Christians lead sinful lives and most Buddhists are materialists. But we only want two of these groups to try harder.

Thais have always been bigots. Nothing can change that. Us farangs we live with it, deal with it and come home to our families.

If you have the protection of a Thai family it doesn't really put you in the same league as someone living on their own here and having to deal with Thai bigotry on a day to day basis. 24/7.

I can quite understand why so many get a 'family' or live in big western enclaves so that they can be less visible on the radar.

I am quite content being the only white guy out where I live. Not only am I not dealing with bigotry 24/7, I am treated with respect.

What about an interpretation like this:

Be careful about non-believers, don't trust them too fast. Show them you can and will fight for Islam.

But don't use your swords if you find their intentions are good.

And the same could be said of the non believers to Muslims. Or are you not for equality.

Your reply has little, if anything, to do with my post.

The violent attitudes induced in muslim youths rely on the indoctrination of susceptible young minds by their parents, to believe in the infallible word of god.

If you are saying parents should reject Islam, that's a different matter. Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree. From my knowledge living in a Thai Muslim community Muslim youth will primarily follow an Imams guidance on interpretation of the Koran or if you prefer, indoctrination.

No , I'm not saying parents should reject islam. I am saying that children shouldn't be taught ANY religion until they are old enough to reason for themselves, when most would reject it as BS (IMHO). Young children are genetically predisposed to accept what their elders teach them even if it seems illogical - as in "don't swim in the river even if it is hot, there are crocodiles." And those illogical religious teachings are hard to revoke, and are the basis for violent constructs later introduced.

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" is based on just that concept.

Edited March 9, 201511 yr by halloween

A phrase attributed to the Jesuit Order, ironically.

A phrase attributed to the Jesuit Order, ironically.

. Nothing ironic about it, just another flavour of BS. All religions rely on indoctrination of young children to accept tenets that are unprovable and completely illogical.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Their mooslum first Thai second. They only want their own religion and Sharia law. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I agree and there is only two ways to stop them: 1) not let them in or 2) not let them in.

Their mooslum first Thai second. They only want their own religion and Sharia law. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I'm telling you otherwise.

Indeed.

I wonder if BSJ knows the religion of the guy who was in charge of the 2006 coup?

Hint, he wasn't catholic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonthi_Boonyaratglin

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Their mooslum first Thai second. They only want their own religion and Sharia law. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I agree and there is only two ways to stop them: 1) not let them in or 2) not let them in.

You do know that the people wishing to build this mosque are Thai, don't you?

You know, citizens of this country.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

Actually it's 60 Thais wish to build a mosque.

On land they paid for.

In their country.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

Actually it's 60 Thais wish to build a mosque.

On land they paid for.

In their country.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

Actually it's 60 Thais wish to build a mosque.

On land they paid for.

In their country.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

As I put it? They are Thais and this is their country.

It's also their land and they are entitled to build a mosque on it if they wish.

Objections born out of prejudice are contemptible.

I've lived in the UK, in predominately Muslim areas and had no problems that I didn't face in predominately non Muslim ones.

Edited March 10, 201511 yr by Bluespunk

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

Actually it's 60 Thais wish to build a mosque.

On land they paid for.

In their country.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

As I put it? They are Thais and this is their country.

It's also their land and they are entitled to build a mosque on it if they wish.

Objections born out of prejudice are contemptible.

I've lived in the UK, in predominately Muslim areas and had no problems that I didn't face in predominately non Muslim ones.

We can agree to disagree, but I will never subscribe to the theory that the minority are more entitled than the majority.

How you can call this an objection out of prejudice is beyond comprehension.

It is an objection in the sense that the minority want, the majority do not want. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course, when the Muslim minority want and the non Muslim majority do not want, it comes down to prejudice, same as it does all over Europe.

I await the race card coming out.

Edited March 10, 201511 yr by JockPieandBeans

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

That pretty much goes for any religion. Christians don't need a church, Buddhists don't need a wat, Hindus don't need a temple Sikhs don't need their temple. Iv'e had all these in one place on a construction barge out in the Arabian gulf for periods of up to 11 months. No problems. All managed to say their prayers or whatever its called without hassle or fighting.

It is just in the proper building with the proper minister whatever is nicer. There is also the community aspect of the building, a meeting place for people of the same faith.

Your argument on Muslims being able to worship anywhere so they don't need a mosque is very flawed. If it were the case there would be no cathedrals, churches, wat arun, golden temple etc.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

As I put it? They are Thais and this is their country.

It's also their land and they are entitled to build a mosque on it if they wish.

Objections born out of prejudice are contemptible.

I've lived in the UK, in predominately Muslim areas and had no problems that I didn't face in predominately non Muslim ones.

We can agree to disagree, but I will never subscribe to the theory that the minority are more entitled to the majority.

How you can call this an objection out of prejudice is beyond comprehension.

It is an objection in the sense that the minority want, the majority do not want. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course, when the Muslim minority want and the non Muslim majority do not want, it comes down to prejudice, same as it does all over Europe.

I await the race card coming out.

The prejudice is that they don't want the mosque built because of the faith of it's worshipers.

I'd say the same if it was the other way round.

Intolerance and bigotry are always wrong no matter what faith is involved.

It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities, just religious intolerance.

Race card? What has faith got to do with race? Ridiculous to say it it has any relationship.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

That pretty much goes for any religion. Christians don't need a church, Buddhists don't need a wat, Hindus don't need a temple Sikhs don't need their temple. Iv'e had all these in one place on a construction barge out in the Arabian gulf for periods of up to 11 months. No problems. All managed to say their prayers or whatever its called without hassle or fighting.

It is just in the proper building with the proper minister whatever is nicer. There is also the community aspect of the building, a meeting place for people of the same faith.

Your argument on Muslims being able to worship anywhere so they don't need a mosque is very flawed. If it were the case there would be no cathedrals, churches, wat arun, golden temple etc.

Yes, I agree with you.

This argument is more about the minority against that majority.

Sorry, my argument is not flawed. These are things that I have seen with my own eyes.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

As I put it? They are Thais and this is their country.

It's also their land and they are entitled to build a mosque on it if they wish.

Objections born out of prejudice are contemptible.

I've lived in the UK, in predominately Muslim areas and had no problems that I didn't face in predominately non Muslim ones.

We can agree to disagree, but I will never subscribe to the theory that the minority are more entitled to the majority.

How you can call this an objection out of prejudice is beyond comprehension.

It is an objection in the sense that the minority want, the majority do not want. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course, when the Muslim minority want and the non Muslim majority do not want, it comes down to prejudice, same as it does all over Europe.

I await the race card coming out.

The prejudice is that they don't want the mosque built because of the faith of it's worshipers.

I'd say the same if it was the other way round.

Intolerance and bigotry are always wrong no matter what faith is involved.

It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities, just religious intolerance.

Race card? What has faith got to do with race? Ridiculous to say it it has any relationship.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

As Thailand is at least 90% Buddhist. That being a massive majority. I can understand the majority saying no, whether it be a Mosque, Chapel, Church or any others that you may care to mention.

As I put it? They are Thais and this is their country.

It's also their land and they are entitled to build a mosque on it if they wish.

Objections born out of prejudice are contemptible.

I've lived in the UK, in predominately Muslim areas and had no problems that I didn't face in predominately non Muslim ones.

We can agree to disagree, but I will never subscribe to the theory that the minority are more entitled to the majority.

How you can call this an objection out of prejudice is beyond comprehension.

It is an objection in the sense that the minority want, the majority do not want. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course, when the Muslim minority want and the non Muslim majority do not want, it comes down to prejudice, same as it does all over Europe.

I await the race card coming out.

The prejudice is that they don't want the mosque built because of the faith of it's worshipers.

I'd say the same if it was the other way round.

Intolerance and bigotry are always wrong no matter what faith is involved.

It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities, just religious intolerance.

Race card? What has faith got to do with race? Ridiculous to say it it has any relationship.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

As Thailand is at least 90% Buddhist. That being a massive majority. I can understand the majority saying no, whether it be a Mosque, Chapel, Church or any others that you may care to mention.

And I absolutely disagree with you.

That is the road that leads to the types of conflict we see in every society where intolerance is justified by that "we are strong, you are weak" BS doctrine.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

As Thailand is at least 90% Buddhist. That being a massive majority. I can understand the majority saying no, whether it be a Mosque, Chapel, Church or any others that you may care to mention.

And I absolutely disagree with you.

That is the road that leads to the types of conflict we see in every society where intolerance is justified by that "we are strong, you are weak" BS doctrine.

Then you are living in a dreamworld.

The multicultural utopia that is parts of the UK are testament to that.

Nothing to do with you are weak and we are strong BS.

The atrocities that are being carried out around the world destroys that myth.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

As Thailand is at least 90% Buddhist. That being a massive majority. I can understand the majority saying no, whether it be a Mosque, Chapel, Church or any others that you may care to mention.

And I absolutely disagree with you.

That is the road that leads to the types of conflict we see in every society where intolerance is justified by that "we are strong, you are weak" BS doctrine.

Then you are living in a dreamworld.

The multicultural utopia that is parts of the UK are testament to that.

Nothing to do with you are weak and we are strong BS.

The atrocities that are being carried out around the world destroys that myth.

A: Wrong.

B: For something to succeed, you need to do more than pay lip service to the ideal and expect it to happen overnight.

C: Very wrong. So very wrong.

D: Quite the opposite

Edited March 10, 201511 yr by Bluespunk

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

That pretty much goes for any religion. Christians don't need a church, Buddhists don't need a wat, Hindus don't need a temple Sikhs don't need their temple. Iv'e had all these in one place on a construction barge out in the Arabian gulf for periods of up to 11 months. No problems. All managed to say their prayers or whatever its called without hassle or fighting.

It is just in the proper building with the proper minister whatever is nicer. There is also the community aspect of the building, a meeting place for people of the same faith.

Your argument on Muslims being able to worship anywhere so they don't need a mosque is very flawed. If it were the case there would be no cathedrals, churches, wat arun, golden temple etc.

Yes, I agree with you.

This argument is more about the minority against that majority.

Sorry, my argument is not flawed. These are things that I have seen with my own eyes.

Your argument about not needing a place to worship is still flawed you even said you agreed with my analysis.

I've not discussed minority against majority and would need more time to consider that. It may be flawed it may not be. I'll let you know.

60 Muslims want a Mosque.

800 Thai's demonstrate saying no.

Why is there even a debate about this. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to pray at the sides of roads, creating traffic mayhem, in shopping centres creating pedestrian mayhem. A mosque is not required for prayer, they are perfectly capable of praying anywhere.

Are these 60 Muslims going to pay for the construction of this Mosque, or is the funding coming from elsewhere for reasons that are really nothing to do with these 60 Muslims.

Actually it's 60 Thais wish to build a mosque.

On land they paid for.

In their country.

It matters not a jot if they are Thai or not.

They may well be Thai Nationals, they may well have paid for the land and it may well be their Country as you put it.

That does not give them the right to build a Mosque against the wishes of a substantial part of the Thai population that opposes it.

Have a look at parts of the UK for a precedence on where this leads to.

The protest is being organised & led by Thai Buddhist nationalist monks, not by the 'common people'. Freedom of religion is protected by law in Thailand and by the highest instituion in Thailand. The building and maintenace of mosques are part funded by the Thai government as are a number of other funded supportive actions for the Thai Muslim community; refer URL below for some facts.

http://www.thaiembassy.org/riyadh/en/organize/29025-Muslim-in-Thailand.html

Edited March 10, 201511 yr by simple1