Europe's Cultural Inquisition Begins. Truth on Trial and Fear of Free Speech in Amsterdam

sure I'm game. Jew haters should be free to wallow in their own filth and the rest of us decent humans need to know who they are.

as a jew, raised knowing an ever present force seeks my head, despite me doing no wrong, i agree.hate me all you want, as long as you are man enough to let it be known.thank you to all the red suspender wearing baldies, and hood wearing klansman.much better than how the liberal media spreads it in subtext.
i would sure love a world with out skinheads and the kkk, but at least they are upfront about it.at least with them i have a fighting chance.

your stance on islam is steeped in stupidity. fortunately there are enough enlightened folks on the right that will hopefully prevent the european/muslim travesty from taking root in this country. come november we'll be well on our way. the rest of you in the minority can wallow in your righteous indignation.

Excellent answer AreOh, however we cannot pretend to have a free society and at the same time put limits on free speech, bigotry not withstanding.

We all know that crystalman's motivations here are to equate global terrorism with those EVIL MOOSLEMS (all of them mind you, no matter how beautiful their culture is, or how their religion is highjacked) but free speech is free speech.

Personally, I prefer open debate to help foster understanding between two opposing sides to achieve a reasonable conclusion.

For instance, I challeged crystalman to site his sources for the quotes that he alleges are from the Koran, since I couldn't seem to find them in an online version of text. To his credit he did, however, using his source I couldn't even seem to find the first quote he lists even though he alledges that his one of his translations was translated by the same one that did the online version.

This leads me to believe that he is full of shit for the most part, even though I did find some stuff in the text that did seem rather objectionable, but no more objectionable that I have found in the texts of the Bible, the Torah, The Babalonian Talmud ect...

SO debate is good!

BUT, there is one group in America and the Western world, a hostile in-group that strictly has a double standard for debate, among other things: one rule for them, and one rul for everyone else.

Discussing some facts regarding this hostile in-group; their history, their financial scams, their machinations within governments, their warmongering ect will get you fired, or thrown in jail in some countries, or WORSE!

Ultimately, it is this group that benefits by perpetuating and propogating all of this Islamic hysteria that crystalman is pushing.

Haha, hi congo. You know, I have come to enjoy your hostile and scatter-brained responses. Always good to hear from you, friend.

What's up, maasanova.

Typically, I would agree. I do believe in free speech and allowing people to speak their minds. However in this particular instance, when a prominent political figure is working on the platform of hate speech, no, I believe he must be held to a higher standard.

Wilders is not an average citizen expressing his views, say in the same manner of a Rush Limbaugh. He is a political figure who is platform is obviously bigotry. Free speech is one thing, but using your status to promote fear, xenophobia and prejudice on a topic that is already on of the most divisive in the world is a powder keg with a short fuse.

I will say it is an impossible choice. However, do I think they are wrong for dealing with him in such a harsh manner? No, I don't. The inflexible nature of his views demand such a response.

so free speech should be limited only to the common man? wow! you even consider that he may be using his status to legitimately warn others of the very reality that his country is being overrun by religious zealots set out to destroy everything they hold dear? its happening all over the world my friend.

thanks, im here to please

there are ways to defeat islamo terrorism without firing a shot and even more humane. it involves pigs blood and a fly over. folks can enjoy the other white meat while the enemy is on the run.

What's up? Can't handle your evil fake religion from being exposed for what it is? Do I detect panic and insecurity? The source is the Koran, whether you like it or not, not some dumb Muslim propaganda site full of distortion and lies.

Where do you get your Koran quotes from and why do they not appear in the Koran if you say that they are legitimate?

BTW it's not my religion, just as it not your religion, but have a good idea why you are always on here posting fake quotes said to be from the Koran.

If you have a beef with the Koran and Islam I have no problem with that, but you are misrepresenting the facts with your fake quotes.

So why don't you give the sources for your fake Koran quotes cystalman?

My sources are The Noble Qur'an by Khan (the one found in most American mosques), and English translations by: Ahmed Ali, Pickthal, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir. Collectively, these represent the five most respected and universally accepted Muslim translations of the book.

The simple truth is that immorality, violence, and idiocy completely dominate the texts of the Islamic scriptures.

It is also important to note, that Muslims have recently published more politically correct versions of the Qur'an and of the Hadith. Although they cannot fix the author's (Muhammad/Allah's) complete lack of moral character and intelligence, the recent renditions have sought to remove many violent verses, rewriting them to suit modern sensibilities. Today's Muslims are obediently following their prophet/god's policy of lying to and deceiving Infidels so as to make us easier prey. Don't let that happen to you.

That's interesting.

The online version of the Koran that I posted, which is sposored by the Digital Library Production Service (DLPS) is translated by M.H. Shakir. Is this M.H. Shakir the same Shakir that you make reference to?

If so, then why do the quotes from the Koran that you post not appear in the online Koran as translated by M.H. Shakir when one puts them into the search function?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0978552881?tag=thereligionof-20&camp=14573&crea...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koran-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449205/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0978552881?tag=thereligionof-20&camp=14573&crea...

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/search...

Why do I bother?

I searched the entire Koran for the quote " have been made victorious with terror" based on the keyword search "victorious," and, no dice. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I did find stuff in there that was violent for sure, just like quotes that can be found in Judaism and Christianity, but I stil think that your quotes are bullshit, or at the very least twitsted to fit your agenda of making Islam out to be the root of all evil.

Carry on with your bullshit though.

it's not islam hate per se it's, the highjacked version used to control the populace and is trying to destroy western culture as we know it. we have enough leftylibs tryin that without throwing muslims into the mix

What does being libertarian have to do with it?

well, he clearly doesn't want the spooky government to come and stop rascism

Islam is a religion, not a race. You aren't making any sense here.

if you buy into that that's your issue.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Well I'm an American and I have plenty of people speaking up for me, whether I want them to or not. No worries there.

yeah and how did that work out for you? a recession, two wars, global warming
america is a fucking joke

Call it a joke it it makes you feel better, but you'd still rather live here than where ever you are. The poor people in America have a flat screen, a cell phone and two cars. The rest of the world is starving, and obesity is our biggest problem. Laugh all you want.

yeah you must hate the social welfare and universal healthcare of Europe, pig

Yes I do, if we have to get neck deep in debt to China to get it. Hell yes I do. I've seen what's happening in Europe. I saw what happened in Greece. No, I do not want to go down that road. Absolutely not.

then please, pick up a book and learn something, stop standing around while the libertarian and conservative dogs eat away at your right to free healthcare

It's not free to me. I work for living. I pay taxes. I have healthcare. It will be free to all the people who will get it because my tax dollars pay for it for them. It will be free for the people who don't pay taxes. My taxes will go up, it will cost me more, for less service. But it will be free for them.

wow, you truly don't care about your fellow man, this is why there are laws making sure everyone will pay taxes and get the healthcare they deserve

oh we care about some of our fellow men, just not the able bodied leeches that bleed the social system

its not a right and i dont want it.

those systems are abject failures with several countries wanting to change the system because of it.

no doubt, by comparison many of the poor in america live like kings

the only problems with global warming is #1 it's a myth and #2 if it were real it's taking way too long to get here. we could grow a lot more crops to feed the world if the temp raised a few more degrees

blah blah blah! ive over used that one myself

not the governments job. its really an individual thing. but with folks like jesse highjackson and al sharleton makin bank off continuing to perpetuate racism its unfortunately not likely to end anytime soon

culturally sensitive to a bunch of ingrates who cant get along with anyone outside of their own religion. not only would they not be willing to sell gays a cupcake but they'd cut their heads off or stone them to death for trying. wow you are tetched.

It's not like they give a shit about me, my life, what's best for John. No no, Johnny's on his own in the great big world.

and that is the true crux of it for us.it is sad, but the truth is way,way too many of us are selfish pigs who wouldnt know compasion if it bitch slapped us.
so what if my tax dollars save a crack heads life, who the fuck am i to judge.id rather save a crack heads life as a side effect to helping everyone, than just saying fuck it.and im far from rich

so as a result of your fear of being taken advantage of by the few, you would deny the many

that is the point.as it is no one gives a shit about john, me, or anyone else.wouldnt it be nice if we lived in a society that gave a shit about everyone equaly.regardless of mistakes and imperfections?

It's not a perfect world, and it never will be. I let that dream go years ago.

take away the fear part and pretty much

so it is all or nothing for you?might as well be homeless because you cant get a mansion.many shades exist in between if you care to evaluate them.im sure glad our founding fathers werent of your mind set, or we would all have the queen on our money and call cookies biscuits.

so you just unapoligeticaly say fuck everyone else, me is all that matters?

no, i'll include those who agree with me

i hope you are in your early 20's, cuz to be an adult with such little empathy truly is sad

I wasn't speaking statistically, that's just a common nickname given to Amsterdam. Either way though, I'm all for legalization. =)

Their taxes are about 50% too, so there is that.

Fair enough. But what do my US taxes pay for, anyway? Most of them end up in the hands of private interests, actually... but all that aside... let's just say that the majority go to funding war. Netherlanders also get free health care, and they have almost 0 poverty and homelessness (you NEVER see homeless people in Amsterdam. Ever.) in their country because of all the programs that help people in need. I mean, we have welfare, but they take it a step further. Some people would argue that it's wrong to give the "slackers" some of our hard earned cash, but in the US, the majority of homeless people are veterans... so I think it's wrong to try and justify that disparity.

They give a shit about their citizens there, and it shows. Culturally, the Dutch place a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility, too.

Just my thoughts, I guess.

Heh. Understood. :)

I'm all for legalization, too. That chart is a good example of how criminalization doesn't actually lower usage, while we're on that topic.

Some emphasis on personal responsibility is sorely needed in this country, that is for sure.

like the personal responsability to our fellow man?
the responsability to feed those who are starving?
the responsability to help those who can not help themselves?
im an athiest and i just know these are right things to do.why so resistant?

that chart leaves England off the list. Cocaine is becoming even more popular there than weed.

why was this downrated?
what I said is factual.

"Personal responsibility to our fellow man"? That makes no sense at all. I am personally responsible for my own actions, I am not personally reponsible for what you do. If I screw up, that is on me, that is my reponsibility to fix. If you screw up, I have no personal responsibility to fix it for you. Or at least I shouldn't have, but welcome to America, no one is ever responsible for their own actions. The evil banks made me sign a mortgage I knew I couldn't afford. The evil fast food companies made me fat. Someone has to fix it for me. Etc., etc..

and that evil obama is trying to make me buy an insurance plan that i dont want

im sorry, but i believe i have a responsability to my fellow man.a responsablty to care for him, as i would hope he would for me.a responsabilty to honor his existance by not judging him quickly or harshly.a responsability to provide him shelter when he is with out.just the responsability of common descency.

you have no responsabilty to fix what i fuck up, but with out your help, as i have clearly shown myself to be a fuck up, how am i expected to not fuck up again.it would be nice if a standard learning curve existed, but it doesnt, and sme people need a little more help than others.just as you wouldnt be so resistant to helping a child, you should also be not resistant to helping adults, as many of them are no smarter or capable than that child.

what if some one would have felt a responsability to help jeffery dahmer, or berkowitz.hundreds of lives would have been saved if just one person had stopped to listen to the sick thoughts that came from these people.they couldnt have cured them, as they are bat shit crazy, bu they could have called the authorities.no man is an island, isnt just a nifty quip, it is existential truth.

we help one another, so that we know we can enjoy our freedom in a polite society, not like the brutal harsh social order of say the soviets or the chinese.in doing this we actively create (for ourselves and each other) a sense of what is right and wrong.the rightiousness of feeding the hungry, while not helping the mcdonalds eating dumbass.in helping one another we create the standard in action, instead of arguing it to no end.

as if you woke up one day with an over whelming desire for auto insurance?

LOL, so I should try to help you not fuck up again. OK, I'm good with that, I'll do my best. I can get behind that.

right-on, John

remember high school politics.factuality is irrelevant

being as you have a degree of access to my existance, yes you should take any oportunity to prevent me from being in error if possible.but more importantly than me, as i am fairly functional, is helping those who arent.dont just help me cuz you know me.the basis should be on need, nothing else.
it is great that madonna's kids are well off.it is way better that she hooked up others, not just her own.based on need, not proximity

good point.

and the political correctness movement has a pretty good hold here as well. we need to squash it like a bug.

What we have to acknowledge is that we need to be tolerant of people and let them be blowhards. Whether they're Muslims, Christians or whatever. You can't punish people for what they say, no matter how ignorant they are.

agreed, and regardless to whether we agree with the opinions of others, the forum to express themselves should never be taken away.

i dont know you from shit, but i know you have a reasonable iq.this guy is spouting hate and fear mongering after his coffe clutch at mcdonalds with the other old codgers, but before his 5 pm bedtime.im so fed up with this guy

yeah that evil political correctness, that has been effecting us negatively all these years by..............................................ooops

havent heard from you in a while, welcome back

Yes, but that's not all he's spouting. He has a point about freedom of speech. Don't let yourself be as blind as him, by emotionally reacting to his fear. No one should be prosecuted for what they say, even if it's hateful. That's not defending the hate, that's defending the freedom.

Political correctness is a problem when the government tries to apply it to policy. The Federal Government can't create blanket rules for such a large region as the US. What's right for a small, rural Alabama school isn't right for a large, urban New York City school. No Child Left Behind was a disastrous policy. No one here is denying that there is inequality, prejudice and racism. The discussion is about how to deal with it and what, if any, should be the government's role. The government's role is to protect us from fraud, so if you're denied a job or a residence or service when a business promises you one, you should have a case regardless of your religion or ethnic background. And yes, Caucasians have had it great for hundreds of years, but there are cases: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/29/connecticut-firefighters-supreme-cou...

i could always pick on ya, but i try to pick my spots as i think you extend me the same courtasy.

i have no idea how the hell we dont hate each other, it is amazing.

ear pollution

but that isnt political correctness, but standardization.
all political correctness is, is an extention of civil rights.if we (american citizenry) didnt tolerate institutionalized hatred niether would need to exist.just as we didnt need legislation to rectify demonization of people with green eyes, if we were a tolerant people we wouldnt need civil rights or its political correctness after glow.

Political Correctness is an extension of Civil Rights? No. Political Correctness is a warped view of Civil Rights that tends to equate someone being offended with someone actually being denied their rights. Institutionalize hatred is part of an institution, usually the government, sometimes a corporation. You can't "rectify" the demonization of people. You can only set the laws where they should be, uphold the law and protect people from fraud. And you can't balance the scales by creating another injustice to fight a previous one. You can't fight hatred by curtailing everyone's freedom of speech.

By who, say it, who. This is current, say it.

I agree. . . Political correctness is nothing less than social tyranny.
However you say;
"Institutionalize hatred is part of an institution, usually the government, sometimes a corporation." . . and much like Islam, I do believe.
You then conclude by saying;
"You can't fight hatred by curtailing everyone's freedom of speech.". . so true, yet many are trying to legislate that very thing.

Ironically, the very "faith" that you are valiantly defending is the foremost that would have you silenced to speak in any fashion other than praise to Allah and subjection to Islams will. . . free will and self determination is an anathema to Islam.

No one has to be a Muslim and even if you are a Muslim, the religion itself doesn't force you to do anything. Christians have all sorts of rules from the Bible they ignore. Lumping all Muslims together isn't just racist, it's inaccurate. Inaccuracy leads to fraud. Fraud is illegal. You conflate Islam with all the actions of all Muslims. The Old Testament tells you how to treat your slave, it doesn't mean you believe in slavery. The Bible, some people argue, says gay sex is wrong and yet there are plenty of Christians that look past that. Americans had slavery enshrined in the Constitution, but got rid of it. Some Muslims can, will and have bypassed some of the more medieval things. Just because some Muslims are religious zealots determined to fight doesn't mean they are right, that I defend that or that all Muslims are just like them. Every religion has zealots.

laws as practiced by most muslims...Laws and practices under Sharia

Marriage laws
The Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator can only marry a Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the book.
The Muslim fornicator can only marry Muslim fornicatress.
The number of wives is limited to four, – Mohammed married 15 women and consummated his marriages with 13. (al-Tabari vol.9 p.126-127)
The Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator.
The Muslim fornicatress can only marry a Muslim fornicator.
The woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian. If she marries, her husband becomes her new guardian.
The guardian may choose to marry the virgin without asking her consent, however she can oppose the marriage and then it is cancelled.
The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn't ask to be married.
The number of husbands is limited to one, the Muslim mistress cannot have sex with her slaves.
Islamic law on marriage differs from one school of thought to another.[6]

Divorce laws
A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.
A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

The penalty for theft
In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed.[2][3]

The penalty for adultery
Main article: Stoning to Death in Islam

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery.[4] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[5]

Dietary laws
Main article: Islamic dietary laws

Sharia dictates that Muslims may only eat from meat that has been slaughtered in the name of God and meets stringent dietary requirements. Such meat is called halal, or "lawful". Islamic law prohibits a Muslim from eating pork, and most juridical opinions also hold monkey, dog, cat, carnivores and several other types of animal as haram (prohibited). For the meat of an animal to be halal it must be one of the declared halal species, and the animal may not be killed by excessively cruel or painful means. The traditional means of slaughter is by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest.

According to the Qur'an, the animal does not have to be slaughtered by a Muslim, but may be slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian (People of the Book) as long as it meets their strict dietary laws. This does not normally apply in modern times as animals are normally not slaughtered by Christians in the name of God. The majority of Christians no longer have rituals associated with slaughter, nor do they ask for God's permission before the kill. The method of slaughter used by most Christian butchers is also considered inappropriate by many Muslims. (Al-Ma'ida 5: "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you.")- this is only provided it is killed in accordance with God's Law, and in His name. Most Muslims will accept kosher meat as halal. (Qur'an 2:173, 6:121)

The role of women under Sharia
Main article: women in Islam

Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. In theory, Sunni Islamic law allows husbands to divorce their wives at will, by clearly saying talaq ("I divorce you"). The divorce becomes permanent if the couple has been divorced three times. Women do not have the same right to divorce. In Shi'a Islam, divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary. In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. [8] Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states. The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be best.

Islam has no clergy, but women may become religious scholars. In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics[citation needed] and was a major authority on hadith.

A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.

could be a jewish thing. how's your mitzvah goin?

It was legal in the United States to beat your wife, but not everyone did it and it didn't mean everyone in the US at the time was a wife beater. Now the law has been changed.

The Bible doesn't give women much of a break either, but not many Christians adhere to that now. Also, it depends upon which sect you're talking about. You have some sects that marry multiple wives and others that don't. Islam has multiple sects as well. Sharia is one, Wahabi is another. And, last time I checked, all religions are voluntary institutions, although some zealots may think otherwise.

Everything you've written, still doesn't justify judging someone with some blanket comment about all Muslims. Freedom of Speech is about the individual and you have to judge individuals by their actions, not by the religions they belong to. That's just common sense. It's the same reason that profiling is banned by law enforcement. Once the criminals get wind of who you're pulling over, they change their tactics and breeze right by you and you end up just harassing law-abiding people.

never said all. if someone is law abiding by the standards of their host country then they are free to come and go and speak freely. but in the european situation many, if not most muslims have been poor examples as guests and or immigrants. as far as im concerned if you intentionally break a law your rights are greatly diminished if not totally taken away. nothing wrong with a little profiling if it saves lives. it wasent catholic nuns hijacking planes on 9/11

You didn't say "all", but then why post Sharia law? It's like posting Bible quotes to prove that Catholics are bad people. It means nothing.

"nothing wrong with a little profiling if it saves lives"? Those who give up a little freedom for the sake of security get neither. You quote is the same sort of thinking behind the draconian Patriot Act.

You can't stop a determined, well-educated, suicide bomber. How bout the Jordanian doctor that waltzed into a CIA camp and blew it up?

9/11 was blowback from the interventionist foreign policy we continue to pursue. Stop the policy, withdraw the troops and you stop the attacks.

And no, it wasn't Catholic Nuns on the plane, but by your logic, if they had dressed as Catholic Nuns, they should just be waved onto the plane with no search. Profiling doesn't work.

Don't think me rude, but in all due respect, you don't even know what the blazes you're talking about. . . If born a Muslim, or to become a Muslim, there is no allowance to forsake Islam - to do so is apostasy.

Muslims are many races, not just a "race."
I do not conflate Muslims actions as terrorism, the fact is though, that almost all acts of terrorism today are by Muslims.

That you point out that slavery was once permissible in the past is true, just as it once was here in America, but is now against the law and best left in the past, as I believe all Americans do agree.
However, the Qur'an endorses slavery, and a number of Muslims nations still practice it today, not to even mention Muslim women treated just like slaves. . . or worse.

The Bible does speak of homosexuals as an abomination and not natural. . . yet I've not seen it said in the Bible that they should be persecuted and killed. . . as opposed to Muslims Sharia law, they are actively doing just that.

Because many religions have zealots is indeed true, yet to ignore and deny the turmoil and violence that is perpetrated upon many societies that host the presence of Muslims and their intolerant monotheism in the name of Islam, is foolishness beyond measure.

You give much credence to the presence of fraud as the cause of much of societies ills today, and I concede that it is anathema to truth. . . as is Islam.

"...the fact is though, that almost all acts of terrorism today are by Muslims." Not true. And you fall into this trap of the word "terrorism". What is terrorism? The definition has become so broad you can apply to anyone. No offense, but you're not thinking logically. You assume that everyone born a Muslim is going to jump onto the zealot bandwagon. It's just like any religion. Some people believe it, some pay lip service, some leave, some merely just never practice.

If you want to believe that every Muslim is out to get you, that's your business. If you want to be so judgmental as to stand on a hill and point down at another religion, well, that's your business too. But it's just your opinion, not the fact. The fact is, most Muslims are nice, law-abiding folk that just want to get through their day, raise their kids and not be bothered, like most people.

You say "I do not conflate Muslims actions as terrorism, the fact is though, that almost all acts of terrorism today are by Muslims." Sounds like your doing a pretty good job of conflating in that sentence. You see things through the tiny prism of your experience. With all due respect to you, you really need to expand your horizons, read about life in other countries and cultures. What you know and what your quoting is just like taking tiny parts of the Bible out of context and making sweeping generalizations about Christians.