NationStates Jolt Archive

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

As a Christian fundamentalist (which is different from a militant, just fyi), I think that last statement constitutes a flame upon my character and I request that a moderator take appropriate action.

You must be new to NationStates if that last comment offended you. Get used to it, you have a lot worse to read. Trust me.

I wouldn't be suprised whatsoever that you would down political correctness, yet depend on the "authorities" whenever you are offended.

I stick by my statement.

You must be new to NationStates if that last comment offended you. Get used to it, you have a lot worse to read. Trust me.



I've seen much worse, but never has anyone actually called me a name that I can recall. Perhaps they implied it or alluded to it, but you're the first person to outright flame me...excluding Lyric, she might have done it amongst her incoherent cursing sprees.

As a Christian fundamentalist (which is different from a militant, just fyi), I think that last statement constitutes a flame upon my character and I request that a moderator take appropriate action.The mods will only take action if you do something terrible like post a plus one spam.

I agreee with you though, it was a flame. I just don't expect anything to be done about it.

I've seen much worse, but never has anyone actually called me a name that I can recall. Perhaps they implied it or alluded to it, but you're the first person to outright flame me...excluding Lyric, she might have done it amongst her incoherent cursing sprees.
Meh, I wouldn't exactly call that a flame, which would be far more personal.

Now if I called YOU an asshole, that would be uncalled for (and I wouldn't... I don't know you). I'm not going to apologize for the statement, but I do wish you had a thicker skin so generalized comments wouldn't hurt you. That wasn't my intention.

Perhaps you could try to change the awful image your religion suffers from by being a nonjudgemental, open-minded individualist. That would be far more productive. Being offended didn't exactly help your team any.

Of course, you might be that type of person, but from experience, I'd have to doubt it.

I agreee with you though, it was a flame.

Jesus taught us that we should care for the poor, but that seems to be lost on far too many Christians today. They put their five dollars in the plate on Sunday and think it's all good. They believe that all poor people are lazy and deserve to be poor, because that's what the leaders of the Republican Party want them to think. If they would simply stop and read the New Testament, they would see that the Republican Party does not support the biggest values of Christianity; they just make it look like they support Christian values by saying God bless America over and over. They are, in fact, doing a lot of the devil's work for him. Where in the Bible did Jesus say "screw the poor!" or "immigrants are servants of the devil and should be turned away?"


Hillarious! I'm sure you can't see why the above statement is (in every way) far more offensive than using the PG-13 word asshole.

Kneejerk reactionism at its finest. :p

To get back to the original point: I agree.

People shouldn't try and hide their actions behind the color of religion, and nor should we feel embarrassed to critize for fear of offending a certian religious group.

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

Right on. This is mostly because now it's Christians that have the money and the power. In the Dark Ages, when the Muslims held sway over the Old World, Christian fundamentalists dispatched crusaders to wreak terror on Muslim lands and Muslim leaders organized traditional military invasions of Christian areas of Europe. Maybe in another few thousand years we can look forward to Christians blowing themselves up in Riyadh and Israelis struggling to create a state and find an identity in the face of Palestinian oppression.

nothing else, and will find a way, no matter what.

Religious fundamentalism is almost always destructive. It was so in middle ages Europe, I don't think I need to even go into it there, it was in Salem in the 1600's, and it still is causing misery in the middle east and in the US.

It doesn't matter what religion it is, when people become so absolute, rigid and unquestioning in their beliefs that they stop thinking, bad things happen. This is especially so when they start seeing anyone who disagrees with them as an "enemy of God" or some similar thing. The level of cruelty that humans are capable of when they think that God is on their side is simply astounding.

The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives.
I'll take manipulative political initiatives over bombs any day of the week.

That's cool. And I'll take death before freedom-hating theocratic police states any day.

Glad that's all out in the open. :rolleyes:

Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

Now see, there is one key difference between the two and thier views on how to run things...
First of all, the extremist muslims (which is a misnomer, as they do not really represent the muslim faith) wish to rule by terror and destruction. Those crazy individuals think nothing of others, and only promoting their own goals.
Similarly, the neocons (which aren't Christian fundamentalists, becuase those existed back during the crusades) are also promoting their agenda. They go and kill many who stand in their way. What is their agenda you may ask; It is to spread freedom and remove those who stand against it.

While both sides are having to kill, by choice or by obligation, to promote their sides, we must look at the ends in both cases. The "muslim" extremists want to have a few with complete rule. The neocons want to have a state run by all, as is the way freedom works.

Now really don't look only at the means, but also at the end.
(Oh, and btw, aren't racist remarks like "heathen raghead" are against the forum rules..)

Now see, there is one key difference between the two and thier views on how to run things...
First of all, the extremist muslims (which is a misnomer, as they do not really represent the muslim faith) wish to rule by terror and destruction. Those crazy individuals think nothing of others, and only promoting their own goals.
Similarly, the neocons (which aren't Christian fundamentalists, becuase those existed back during the crusades) are also promoting their agenda. They go and kill many who stand in their way. What is their agenda you may ask; It is to spread freedom and remove those who stand against it.

While both sides are having to kill, by choice or by obligation, to promote their sides, we must look at the ends in both cases. The "muslim" extremists want to have a few with complete rule. The neocons want to have a state run by all, as is the way freedom works.

Now really don't look only at the means, but also at the end.
(Oh, and btw, aren't racist remarks like "heathen raghead" are against the forum rules..)
I'd have to disagree with the assumption that the neocons even fathom the concept of liberty, since they've been busying themselves with authoritarian, big-brother style initiatives nonstop that threaten freedom.

The Patriot Act, banning gay marriage, banning medical marijuana in the SCOTUS, etc.

In fact, I don't think there's a single conservative left in the Republican party anymore.

The Patriot Act
I'm going to do what a guy who testified to congress pleaded all Americans to do, and stop you here, and ask you what, SPECIFICALLY, is so deplorable about the Patriot Act?

And if you don't answer quickly, then I hope I remember this thread tomorrow so I can check and see if you explained, as well as included direct text from the Patriot Act backing your claim.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

For referencing.

By the way, I just realized that the word "PATRIOT" is actually a pneumonic device...

I'd have to disagree with the assumption that the neocons even fathom the concept of liberty, since they've been busying themselves with authoritarian, big-brother style initiatives nonstop that threaten freedom.

The Patriot Act, banning gay marriage, banning medical marijuana in the SCOTUS, etc.

In fact, I don't think there's a single conservative left in the Republican party anymore. Save Ron Paul, who's just borrwoing the party's name to get elected (my favorite member by far).

*fears how much this can grow if I touch the things you've brought up, but I will*
The Patriot Act was built with a sunset claue for a reason.. it died after time as was originally meant. Few will support the Patriot Act II, even the republican party is unsure of it.
Banning Gay Marriage, I agree, is unground and too far.
Medical Marijuana will not be passed for a while becuase it is an easily addictive drug and it is hard to decide who needs it, and who will abuse it and become addicted.

But to claim they are authoritarian and don't know liberty is a bit too far. For one, the only reason they have power is because of freedom, and the right to vote. They benifit from a system of voting, and as such want to keep it in place. This voting leads to the possibilities of all freedom.

Now we do agree on one thing, that an authoritarian government is bad. Thats why I agree with the Neocons and the ones going to war becuase they want to spread to other nations, the freedoms we take for granted in the US. Now if you really want to fight against those who support the war, then you are only supporting freedom-hating governments in other nations.

I'm going to do what a guy who testified to congress pleaded all Americans to do, and stop you here, and ask you what, SPECIFICALLY, is so deplorable about the Patriot Act?

And if you don't answer quickly, then I hope I remember this thread tomorrow so I can check and see if you explained, as well as included direct text from the Patriot Act backing your claim.

You are exactly right. If you look into the past, you will find that government agencies had all the powers outlined in the PATRIOT Act already when monitoring drug lords and organized crime. The USA PATRIOT Act did little more than extend the monitoring freedom to those suspected of terrorism as well.

I'm going to do what a guy who testified to congress pleaded all Americans to do, and stop you here, and ask you what, SPECIFICALLY, is so deplorable about the Patriot Act?

And if you don't answer quickly, then I hope I remember this thread tomorrow so I can check and see if you explained, as well as included direct text from the Patriot Act backing your claim.
Remember that almost all of congress didn't even read the 300+ page Patriot Act, and neither have I in its entirety, but it doesn't take long for something fishy to piss me off. Take this gem for example:

"An act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."

And for "other purposes"? What kind of shit is that? I believe it was Penn Jilette who said "You shouldn't even allow that kind of loose language in a fucking gym membership contract!" I'd have to agree.

It's not so much what has been expressed concretely that worries so many people, it's what isn't expressed so clearly. Ya ken?

Oh, and I shall stop now before I become entrenched in something that will eventually turn to flaming...

Similarly, the neocons (which aren't Christian fundamentalists, becuase those existed back during the crusades)

There are still Christian Fundamentalists in Government. Why else would Intelligent Design (A form of Creationism) be taught in several states? Just because they aren't invading the middle east anymore... oh sry they are.

While Fundamentalism for any religion isn't bad in and of itself, it does become a bad thing once you try to impose your beliefs on others - especially if you do so by force of arms.

"But to claim they are authoritarian and don't know liberty is a bit too far. For one, the only reason they have power is because of freedom, and the right to vote. They benifit from a system of voting, and as such want to keep it in place. This voting leads to the possibilities of all freedom."

From the outside it appears you only have the freedom to vote for the people that big business puts forward in an orchestrated voting farce, and if you still get that wrong, then with the right connections and a bit of dosh spread around behind the scenes they can get a winning vote ignored and the dubious runner up (their puppy) put in power (with a vote count that looks suspicious because of certain restrictions put on the public votes). And with some unbelievably good PR and a well timed war or two (which also turn out to be incredibly profitable for big business, surprise surprise) you can have the same below average iq leader back again.
But that was not my point that was just rant.
Allot of people do not think the USA has free and fair voting, and some of them don't want big business running the world

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit. .You are actually ignorant of what fundamentalism means it seems. It's a relative term. Relative to the stated beliefs of the religion, or collectively stated ideology. A fundamentalist christian has very different beliefs to a fundamentalist muslim. It's like trying to say fundamentalist democrats work towards the same end as fundamentalist marxists.

Please, before you spout off your rants, learn what the differences between the faiths are, and what the meaning of the words you use are. Of course the fundamentalist christian who posted below was offended. You're an idiot.

While Fundamentalism for any religion isn't bad in and of itself, it does become a bad thing once you try to impose your beliefs on others - especially if you do so by force of arms.

Surely anyone willing to blindly accept without question an irrational and unprovable set of ideas is dangerous in any position of power whether that be government or the ability to build bombs

Right on. This is mostly because now it's Christians that have the money and the power. In the Dark Ages, when the Muslims held sway over the Old World, Christian fundamentalists dispatched crusaders to wreak terror on Muslim lands and Muslim leaders organized traditional military invasions of Christian areas of Europe. Maybe in another few thousand years we can look forward to Christians blowing themselves up in Riyadh and Israelis struggling to create a state and find an identity in the face of Palestinian oppression.

Oh boy.. another one. Why don't you actually research history? The christian fundamentalists... yes, even in the time of the crusades... were and are nonviolent pacifists. Following Jesus example of turning the other cheek. Modern Mennonites are a good example of ultra-conservative fundamentalist christians.

Basically, St.Bernard convinced the Papacy to go in a RADICAL NEW DIRECTION, and allow the formation of the Templar Knights - a wierd and unprecedented merger of a Christianist warrior - to go and crusade in the middle east. The Templars ended up being decried and executed as Satanists many years later back in France interestingly enough.

Certainly they destroyed the name of Christ for many people, even to this day, where people like yourself, consider the hypocritical action of going to war in Jesus name "fundamental" to the teachings of a man who willingly went to die in the place of every human.

Boggles the mind.

http://yakimagulagliterarygazett.blogspot.com/

you might want to have a look here for another take on this business.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

For referencing.

By the way, I just realized that the word "PATRIOT" is actually a pneumonic device...

This link didn't work

http://yakimagulagliterarygazett.blogspot.com/

you might want to have a look here for another take on this business.
Why don't you quote the Hadiths and the Qu'ran instead of an incorrect blog from an ignorant.

His/her comments about Muhammad are grossly incorrect. Muhammad was a warrior who spent his life attacking cities and using a sword. This person is clearly unfamiliar with his words - that I have read - that extol warcraft, deem a place in paradise for martyrs killed in battle, and are quite clear about how to live apart from other faiths, or other "people of the book". (Jews and Christians)

There is a reason why a huge number of Muslims are martyrs. What is written is written. It's a tragedy, but I have read the words with my own eyes. Kudos though to the Muslim who chooses a life of peace. I'd hope more continue to do so...

Actually, my apologies for my harsh tone and language... misinformation frustrates me, but that's no excuse for rudeness. Apologies all around.

Cheers

Oh boy.. another one. Why don't you actually research history? The christian fundamentalists... yes, even in the time of the crusades... were and are nonviolent pacifists. Following Jesus example of turning the other cheek. Modern Mennonites are a good example of ultra-conservative fundamentalist christians.

Basically, St.Bernard convinced the Papacy to go in a RADICAL NEW DIRECTION, and allow the formation of the Templar Knights - a wierd and unprecedented merger of a Christianist warrior - to go and crusade in the middle east. The Templars ended up being decried and executed as Satanists many years later back in France interestingly enough.
Boggles the mind.

Sweet god in heaven....bad boy! no biccit! (Joking, Joking.)
The Templars were formed way after the beginning of the crusades. originally, they weren't even meant to fight in battles. the Templars were...originally...a group of monks recruited from younger sons of nobility mainly, who were an order formed to protect the few christian pilgrims who were actually pilgrims and defenceless. the templars were some of the most accepting christians in the Holy Land, going so far as to adopt the fighting methods, costume, and learn the language of the moors they were defending against. The order was broken up much later, mainly in france where they had their headquarters, because they had grown rich and the government was AFRAID of them. the satanist stuff was made-up excuses to confiscate the massive Templar riches.

The Crusades were also mainly run because of money. the Vatican in those days, and its subsidiarys, were money-hungry, and the Holy Land was rich. If you dont believe that the church was corrupt and money-hungry, read the Three Musketeers. the Cardinal, Richeliu? that often happened in France, the church gaining power and money equal to or surpassing the state. The Pope convinced Europe to Crusade because he wanted money. Pacifism or not really had nothing to do with it. however, most of the crusaders were quite religious, and believed that fighting the infidel would garuntee a place in heaven. you could compare them to today's suicide bombers, especially as both believed that death in battle against the 'infidel' was the only way to go.
Christian fundamentalists could be just as violent as non-christians. some of the instegators of the fighting may not have believed, but the ones fighting sure belived what they were being told, which was that fighting the infidel didnt count towards the 'do not kill' thingy.

cheers

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

Well said.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about terrorists whoare so cowardly they try to use the whole islamic faith as a sort of political shield, putting in danger the very people they claim to fight for. One mention of christianity and then theres about 3 pages of crap about neocon, fundies, the patriot act, ect. I agree and we must maintain that these people may claim to be muslim but their only aim is destroying the west and they seem willing to sacrifice the islamic faith doing that

While those who perform heinous acts in the name of Islam are not representative of the Muslim population as a whole. This whole though is horrifically SILENT when people get their noggins lopped off with dull kitchen implements. The vast bulk of decent muslims must speak out against this barbarity & the mullahs must decry it in their services.

Otherwise they have NO RIGHT to complain when other nations do something about it. Islam is in DIRE need of a Reformation.

Christian fundamentalists could be just as violent as non-christians. some of the instegators of the fighting may not have believed, but the ones fighting sure belived what they were being told, which was that fighting the infidel didnt count towards the 'do not kill' thingy.

There is one important difference, though. That was a long time ago, and Islam is the current extremist threat to world stability.

Also, don’t confuse extremist and fundamentalist. A fundamentalist Christian is an extremely peaceful and self-sacrificing person. An extremist is an intolerant bigot who will attempt to force his/her beliefs on you in whatever way is viewed to be the most effective in a given society.

All religion is wrong and should be made illegal, all it does is cause war and insight hate. thw world would be a much happier and safer place without religion!

As a British Muslim I send my condolences to all the families of victims and condemn terrorism in any shape or form. I wouldn't say true Islam was to blame for it as if a Christian commits a crime thinking it is in the name of Christianity I wouldn't blame Christianity nor the decent majority of Christians.

Al Quai'da keep on changing their agenda, one minute it's about Israel and Palestine, the next it's about Iraq, Afghanistan or Kashmir , it all boils down to hate and envy. The attack in Aldgate in the heart of the Bangladeshi Muslim community in London showed that these terrorists don't care who they kill be it non-Muslim or Muslim.

Peace
*Sai*

As a British Muslim I send my condolences to all the families of victims and condemn terrorism in any shape or form. I wouldn't say true Islam was to blame for it as if a Christian commits a crime thinking it is in the name of Christianity I wouldn't blame Christianity nor the decent majority of Christians.

Al Quai'da keep on changing their agenda, one minute it's about Israel and Palestine, the next it's about Iraq, Afghanistan or Kashmir , it all boils down to hate and envy. The attack in Aldgate in the heart of the Bangladeshi Muslim community in London showed that these terrorists don't care who they kill be it non-Muslim or Muslim.

Peace
*Sai*

agreed and a well made point

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

You didn't have to bring Christianity down to Muslim radicalism to prove Islam's innocence. You have just accused two religions instead of clearing the accusation for one. Care to raise the acceptance levels of both religions?

The attack in Aldgate in the heart of the Bangladeshi Muslim community in London showed that these terrorists don't care who they kill be it non-Muslim or Muslim.

One of the bombs blew up on a train at Edgware Road station. Edgware Road is filled with Arab and Iranian shops, restaurants and homes.

It appears to me that one of the reasons behind the attack may have been to induce the feeling of danger and discomfort among the British Muslim community in order to increase their alienation from the British society.

It appears to me that one of the reasons behind the attack may have been to induce the feeling of danger and discomfort among the British Muslim community in order to increase their alienation from the British society.

How astute of you. That is quite possible.

THe bottom line is this; Muslims don't do this sort of thing. These people might claim to be muslims, but they aren't.

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

And that's why I bash them both.

THe bottom line is this; Muslims don't do this sort of thing. These people might claim to be muslims, but they aren't.

They are in fact doing it in the "name of Islam". This is where I believe that the Muslim nations and peoples of the world need to do a better job of weeding out these people. Muslims have there head in the sand still about these radicals. When the Muslim world faces this threat along with us. Then we will see a positive resolution to this pure evil. Mind you some nations have helped. But the main culprit nations Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with there extremist schools need to step up more.

Anyone who kills in the name of religion, especially those who kill scores of innocent civillians are arseholes. Pure and simple.

Muslims have there head in the sand still about these radicals.

That would have been my second guess.

As one one of my friends sang as part of a protest...(to the tune of Don't blame it on the boogie)

"Its not about Islam
Its not about Saddam
Its not about Iran
Its about Power"

Well, I came into this thinking that I was going to completely disagree with the original post. I was mistaken. I do agree to a certain extent. The media does give Islam a free pass. (That is because they hate our nations's Judo/christian heritage) Also, the terrorists are hiding behind Islam. But you know what the thing is? The Islamic community is letting them. All it would take is for just half of moderate mulsims to stop simply saying they condem these attacks, and to stand up and demand that the terrorists stop slaughtering inocent people in the name of their religion. Why don't they do that?! They could stop the terrorism in its tracks if they had the will and desire to do so. There's something the media didn't tell you.

Sweet god in heaven....bad boy! no biccit! (Joking, Joking.)
The Templars were formed way after the beginning of the crusades. originally, they weren't even meant to fight in battles. the Templars were...originally...a group of monks recruited from younger sons of nobility mainly, who were an order formed to protect the few christian pilgrims who were actually pilgrims and defenceless. the templars were some of the most accepting christians in the Holy Land, going so far as to adopt the fighting methods, costume, and learn the language of the moors they were defending against. The order was broken up much later, mainly in france where they had their headquarters, because they had grown rich and the government was AFRAID of them. the satanist stuff was made-up excuses to confiscate the massive Templar riches.


The Crusades were also mainly run because of money. the Vatican in those days, and its subsidiarys, were money-hungry, and the Holy Land was rich. If you dont believe that the church was corrupt and money-hungry, read the Three Musketeers. the Cardinal, Richeliu? that often happened in France, the church gaining power and money equal to or surpassing the state. The Pope convinced Europe to Crusade because he wanted money. Pacifism or not really had nothing to do with it. however, most of the crusaders were quite religious, and believed that fighting the infidel would garuntee a place in heaven. you could compare them to today's suicide bombers, especially as both believed that death in battle against the 'infidel' was the only way to go.
Christian fundamentalists could be just as violent as non-christians. some of the instegators of the fighting may not have believed, but the ones fighting sure belived what they were being told, which was that fighting the infidel didnt count towards the 'do not kill' thingy.

cheers

Well no... not quite, the Templars were definitely formed years before the second crusade. Their forebears which became the Templars, were indeed formed before the first. Hugo de Payne, one of the founders, was fighting as a "Militia of the Poor Knights of Christ" in 1119AD

The "Knights of Christ" were as I said, unprecedented. Yes they later evolved into the Templars and the Hospitaliers, and the Chapter of the Holy Sepelchre, with the Hospitaliers and Templars being merged; but the point I made still stands about church endorsed "Christian warriors" being a radical shift AWAY from fundamental Christianity. St. Bernard was a key player in his petitioning of the Papacy.

The whole protestant movement was a move back towards fundamental christianity that the Roman Church had seriously deviated from.

And no you ARE wrong about money being the reason why the Roman Church were involved in crusades. You've put the cart before the horse I believe. Being involved in the crusades meant the church NEEDED money. One solution was to endorse these POOR knight-monks. (Taking the vow of poverty)

Who can know the mind of medeival men. I think FEAR would have been the primary cause, just as I believe it is now. Pre-emptive strikes anyone? If Austria and France are being threatened by Islamic Invasion, why not take the battle to the heartland!

Additionally, the Orthodox church had lost substancial, very substancial sections of it's territory. The Orthodox Church, was at one point the key church in the more populous and influencial part of the Greco-Roman sphere. Rome had dwindled in influence, Byzantium, Antioch, Alexandria and Jeruslalem were all Orthodox.

Money or no money, the church had lost all those centres except Byzantium. Land confiscated, people massacred, books burned. The Islamic invaders destroyed what the Orthodox were building.

I think the Roman Church, smaller and less powerful until then, would have seen what happened and panicked.

I really do believe FEAR drove these men to do these things, not greed. One does not take a vow of poverty and go and fight a war for money.

The end result of course included the crusaders sacking Constantinople/Byzantium, and later the Islamic Turks destroying what was left of the Eastern Empire, moving up to the gates of Vienna and Budapest.

Looking at the arguments FOR Christian warriors taking up arms, one can read between the lines at what horror, fundamentalist Christians of the day must have had to see the name of Jesus misused so... as a means of rallying up the poor to fight EARTHLY wars, that the bible explicitly said Jesus did not come to fight.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

All religion is wrong and should be made illegal, all it does is cause war and insight hate. thw world would be a much happier and safer place without religion!
All heil the religion of secularism.

If we used the word "worldview" instead of religion, you would see that everyone has a religion. France is now legislating their religion of secularism in similar fashion to the legislation of Catholicism in times past. All that changed is the content, not the process.

And that's all you're extolling. One worldview over another.

Well, there have never been Catholic terrorists.

And don't say that the IRA are because, IMO, they were terrorists who happened to be Catholics, some more sincere in their faith than others but, ultimately, just terrorists that are Catholics rather than actual Catholic terrorists.

Well, there have never been Catholic terrorists.

And don't say that the IRA are because, IMO, they were terrorists who happened to be Catholics, some more sincere in their faith than others but, ultimately, just terrorists that are Catholics rather than actual Catholic terrorists.

Glad to see your just trying to score points over other religions

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,896715,00.html
http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html
http://www.borrull.org/c/noticia.php?id=34219
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/cis/2001/11/08/20444.html
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/defeat01.htm
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-10/20/article5.shtml

I think that's enough reading for now.

WE ARE NOT SILENT!

Anyone who says we are has their head in the sand about it.

All religion is wrong and should be made illegal, all it does is cause war and insight hate. thw world would be a much happier and safer place without religion!



You are wrong and you speaking/typing should be made illegal, as all you are doing is causing hate. The world would be a much happier and safer place without you :p

Muslims have there head in the sand still about these radicals.

That would have been my second guess.

Why did you bold the word "sand"?

Why did you bold the word "sand"?
Aha...

Aha...

I'm assuming it's some supposed witty comment about desert dwellers. Only desert I've ever been to is the Mojave. I've been to the beach a few times ... I guess there's sand there. How about you? Spend a lot of time in the sand?

I'm assuming it's some supposed witty comment about desert dwellers. Only desert I've ever been to is the Mojave. I've been to the beach a few times ... I guess there's sand there. How about you? Spend a lot of time in the sand?
I used to have a sandbox out back. We removed because we needed to fit the pool in and extend the patio.

I used to have a sandbox out back. We removed because we needed to fit the pool in and extend the patio.

Nice to see we've crawled out of the 11th century long enough to extend the patio. Muslims everywhere should be proud. Then we must crawl back into our caves, wrap a towel around our heads, and beat our many wives like all good Muslims are supposed to do because certain Americans say so.

*coff*

Now where's that C4 vest ...

Well, I came into this thinking that I was going to completely disagree with the original post. I was mistaken. I do agree to a certain extent. The media does give Islam a free pass. (That is because they hate our nations's Judo/christian heritage) Also, the terrorists are hiding behind Islam. But you know what the thing is? The Islamic community is letting them. All it would take is for just half of moderate mulsims to stop simply saying they condem these attacks, and to stand up and demand that the terrorists stop slaughtering inocent people in the name of their religion. Why don't they do that?! They could stop the terrorism in its tracks if they had the will and desire to do so. There's something the media didn't tell you.
Exactly. The same goes for the Christian faith. We often give the majority a free pass or excuse their behavior because we feel that "deep down the message is good". Who gives a shit what is at the heart of Islam or Christianity? Let's face it, there are about as many "kindhearted, openminded, nonbigoted" sweetheart Christians (honestly nonjudgemental) as there are black, gay, vegetarian Republicans. We've found this out the hard way, in both recent elections.

The Christians have voted, and we've heard them loud and clear. Faggots suck and are dangerous to OUR only right way of life.

The liberals are just excersizing cheesy PC by saying (in the next breath after downing the religion) "but the Jesus thing is really beautiful on the inside." Oh, please. :rolleyes:

And yes, the Islamic community in the Middle East is giving the terrorists the same kind of wishy-washy free pass, if not offering their outright support.

Screw half-truths for fear of offending somebody. The truth is, these people are a bane to freedom and civility. Until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll call a fish a fish, and an apple an apple.

The only thing I can apologize for is not being able to put that more elegantly, but sometimes poetic flair isn't the most honest means of communication for social or political issues like this.
Oh well.

Exactly. The same goes for the Christian faith. We often give the majority a free pass or excuse their behavior because we feel that "deep down the message is good". Who gives a shit what is at the heart of Islam or Christianity? Let's face it, there are about as many "kindhearted, openminded, nonbigoted" sweetheart Christians (honestly nonjudgemental) as there are black, gay, vegetarian Republicans. We've found this out the hard way, in both recent elections.

The Christians have voted, and we've heard them loud and clear. [I]Faggots suck and are dangerous to OUR only right.

Screw half-truths for fear of offending somebody. The truth is, these people are a bane to freedom and civility. Until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll call a fish a fish, and an apple an apple.

That is both wrong and offensive. I am a Christian, and I don't think that homosexuals should be denied rights by the government. Our personal feelings on the subject are another matter, but in the end it is only our personal morality and we can't legislate that.

Christians legalized gay marriage in many places, and it's only the mixture of politics and religion in the US that prevent it here. Again, the problem lies with this mixture, not with the religion.

Oh, and I forget the fact that atheism has led the way in civil rights and personal freedom. How many people did the USSR murder, starve, and conquer? Or how about the PRC? Or North Korea? Atheism, when it becomes a state doctrine, is as equally repressive to human rights as a fundamentalist theocracy.

That is both wrong and offensive. I am a Christian, and I don't think that homosexuals should be denied rights by the government. Our personal feelings on the subject are another matter, but in the end it is only our personal morality and we can't legislate that.
I applaude your defense of civil liberties, and feel that you probably set an excellent example for others who've chosen to lead that lifestyle.
Unfortunately though, you seem to be in the minority of opinion. You couldn't be more wrong about that last line... You most certainly can and do legislate morality as a group. And you've been doing it a whole hell of a lot lately!
Don't try so hard to deny the obvious.


I'm often offended myself, and I often offend others. That's the consequence of having freedom of speech. Learn to live with it.
You have a right to speak your mind. You don't have a right not to be offended.


As for the last paragraph, you're comparing secularism in a democracy with a state-enforced ban of religion, commie style. Apples and oranges.

I applaude your defense of civil liberties, and feel that you probably set an excellent example for others who've chosen to lead that lifestyle.
Unfortunately though, you seem to be in the minority of opinion. You couldn't be more wrong about that last line... You most certainly can and do legislate morality as a group. And you've been doing it a whole hell of a lot lately!
Don't try so hard to deny the obvious.

I'm often offended myself, and I often offend others myself. That's the consequence of having freedom of speech. Learn to live with it.
You have a right to speak your mind. You don't have a right not to be offended.

As for the last paragraph, you're comparing secularism in a democracy with a state-enforced ban of religion, commie style. Apples and oranges.

I was stating that I was offended, and nothing more. You have a right to do it, and I can do nothing more than state that.

Those who legislate morality are wrong, because they violate the command of Jesus (to remove the plank in your own eye before the splinter in another's, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar...) and will end up only corrupting religion. They will suffer retribution for their sin against religion, in a way humbling to them.

You stated (if I interpreted correctly) that the Christian religion is a bane to civility and freedom. It is, but only when the state corrupts it and controls it. The same goes for any belief system, and I was illustrating that with a mandatory atheist government.

Government should always be secular, and its laws should be as well. It's okay for one to make decisions based upon your beliefs, but not when they conflict with the inherent secular nature of government. We agree that state mandated morality is wrong.

I was stating that I was offended, and nothing more. You have a right to do it, and I can do nothing more than state that.

Those who legislate morality are wrong, because they violate the command of Jesus (to remove the plank in your own eye before the splinter in another's, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar...) and will end up only corrupting religion. They will suffer retribution for their sin against religion, in a way humbling to them.

You stated (if I interpreted correctly) that the Christian religion is a bane to civility and freedom. It is, but only when the state corrupts it and controls it. The same goes for any belief system, and I was illustrating that with a mandatory atheist government.

Government should always be secular, and its laws should be as well. It's okay for one to make decisions based upon your beliefs, but not when they conflict with the inherent secular nature of government. We agree that state mandated morality is wrong.
Vetalia, honestly, so far you've been the best representation of a model Christian I've heard in a long, long time. I think you're doing far more for the image of your faith by just living your life than the louder, more publicized members do with all of their money and PR prowess.

If there is a heaven, I think there's already a seat with your name on it.
;)

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.


Beautiful!
One of the few times the word "always" applies is "Religious fundamentalism is ALWAYS bad...regardless of what religion is used to practice the fundamentalism."

The mods will only take action if you do something terrible like post a plus one spam.

I agreee with you though, it was a flame. I just don't expect anything to be done about it.

Might I point out, Neo Rogolia...that you saw fit to insult ME and impugn MY character...in this thread...when I had yet to be a part of this thread.

THAT is something that ought to warrant Mod action.

You had no business impugning me, or bringing my name up...in a thread in which I had yet to be a participant. See post #4 in this thread.

I've seen much worse, but never has anyone actually called me a name that I can recall. Perhaps they implied it or alluded to it, but you're the first person to outright flame me...excluding Lyric, she might have done it amongst her incoherent cursing sprees.
Bolds my addition.
This was uncalled for, Neo Rogolia, and I demand an apology or Mod action...THIS is clear flamebait.

Vetalia, honestly, so far you've been the best representation of a model Christian I've heard in a long, long time. I think you're doing far more for the image of your faith by just living your life than the louder, more publicized members do with all of their money and PR prowess.

If there is a heaven, I think there's already a seat with your name on it.
;)

Thank you very much! :)

In the end however, I'm only doing as God commands us and nothing more. Humility and service are the most important of all, because one can shout about their faith all day and still be as immoral as the worst sinner (these people were the ones who killed Jesus, after all).

Your conscience dictates what is right, and if you feel your beliefs lead to you doing good and helping others, than by all means follow it. Don't let someone preach the superiority of their beliefs to you; we are saved through works, and one can have faith without belief through them.

If you do good to others and strive to live in accordance with your conscience, you will go to heaven as well (it's existence permitting, of course).

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.

Correct on all counts. The "religions don't kill people; people do" argument is bullshit, plain and simple.

NO-ONE has blown themselves up on a bus because they are a bit irritated with people, or because they have lost their job. They do it because the imam tells them they should. It is preachers who encourage people to shoot doctors who carry out abortions. It is the cross and crescent worshippers who make Jerusalem into a hot-spot of violence. Any religions that is capable of such interpretations is at fault, NOT the people who are following it's instructions. They are being coerced.

I don't care who reads this; I will support anyone who has the guts to pin the blame on religion, of whichever stripe. If they are willing to burn every place of worship in the country, I will support that too. It is time for the god fairytales to die, before more people do.

Correct on all counts. The "religions don't kill people; people do" argument is bullshit, plain and simple.

NO-ONE has blown themselves up on a bus because they are a bit irritated with people, or because they have lost their job. They do it because the imam tells them they should. It is preachers who encourage people to shoot doctors who carry out abortions. It is the cross and crescent worshippers who make Jerusalem into a hot-spot of violence. Any religions that is capable of such interpretations is at fault, NOT the people who are following it's instructions. They are being coerced.

I don't care who reads this; I will support anyone who has the guts to pin the blame on religion, of whichever stripe. If they are willing to burn every place of worship in the country, I will support that too. It is time for the god fairytales to die, before more people do.

You can't blame religion. You blame the extremists who take it out of context and manipulate the emotions of those who are desparate and turn them in to murderers and engines of hatred. Religion doesn't kill anyone because it is a concept, not a person. Any ideology can be misinterpreted in to a source of cruelty, and religion is no exception.

Buring places of worship and barring peoples' right to worship as they please within the law makes you on a level equal with the fundamentalists who want to destroy the secular government America has prospered under. People died under atheist regimes equally as they do under religious regimes; the only thing in common is that they were both corrupted by the state and used to gain power over others.

Religion isn't a fairytale to those who believe and actually follow the things they preach; your perception of religion seems to be drawn from the negative face put on it by the vocal extreme who are nothing more than powerbrokers for their extreme ideology. Look at the saints of the Church, or Gandhi, or any of the other great religious figures to see what religion is when it is properly followed.

Correct on all counts. The "religions don't kill people; people do" argument is bullshit, plain and simple.

NO-ONE has blown themselves up on a bus because they are a bit irritated with people, or because they have lost their job. They do it because the imam tells them they should. It is preachers who encourage people to shoot doctors who carry out abortions. It is the cross and crescent worshippers who make Jerusalem into a hot-spot of violence. Any religions that is capable of such interpretations is at fault, NOT the people who are following it's instructions. They are being coerced.

I don't care who reads this; I will support anyone who has the guts to pin the blame on religion, of whichever stripe. If they are willing to burn every place of worship in the country, I will support that too. It is time for the god fairytales to die, before more people do.
I'm glad that you agreed with me for the most part, but the last paragraph came off as incredibly authoritarian, and freedom-hating.

I would not want to live in a country that tells people what to believe in, or what not to belive in.
Both options sound arrogant and antilibertarian, and I have to reject them both.

I don't care who reads this; I will support anyone who has the guts to pin the blame on religion, of whichever stripe. If they are willing to burn every place of worship in the country, I will support that too. It is time for the god fairytales to die, before more people do.

Burn down all the churches, mosques, and synagogues you want ... you can't burn down God. It's not the building that matters.

Burn down all the churches, mosques, and synagogues you want ... you can't burn down God. It's not the building that matters.
Exactly. You'd just be creating martyrs, and renewing an interest in martyrdom in the west.

For everyone arguing in all of these threads about the state of Islam, whether the faith should be blamed/not blamed for terrorist attacks, I think the argument is framed incorrectly.

The problem is religious fundamentalism. Plain and simple. The Islamic faith is just the most obvious culprit.

The liberals aren't afraid to bash Christianity and all of the fucked up things Christian fundamentalists are pushing in sweet Jesus's name. But why excuse, or even lightly pad the Islamic flavor? Unbelievably inconsistent.

The neocons have no problem putting holes in a few heathen ragheads, but fail to see how similarly twisted modern Christianity has become. Their God supposedly gave us all free will. Seems like they're doing everything they can to overturn His naive decision.

Neither have dibbs on claiming the other commits flagrant violations of civil and political liberties in the name of their God. They just have different styles.
The radical muslims do it with bombs, and the radical christians do it with manipulative political initiatives. Both think that they alone should decide how the "other half" should live. Neither have a clue.

And that's why they're both assholes.


I am inclined to mostly agree. However, don't forget that no matter how much you hate christianity (I'm not saying that you personally do, its just as an example), and there are many christian related things that I don't agree with, you can't forget that Christians didn't attack us on 9-11. Christians don't continue to blow themselves up in Iraq to kill americans, they haven't been capturing and beheading inocent civilians very often, and they don't send out videos and leaflets threatening to bring down our civilization, even the most radical of them. (The KKK are an exception, but they are not active, and they never indiscriminately killed non-christians, they mainly went after blacks) So just as a general statement to everyone, stop trying to say that christians are as bad as terror supporting muslims.

Down with religion! If there were no religions in the world, the world would be so much less complicated, not to mention safer.

Never going to happen, but it is an interesting thought.

I'll take manipulative political initiatives over bombs any day of the week.


Are you of the opinion that bombing innocents is terrorism? Then how can you support your own government, that shells Palestinian refugee camps? Or bulldozes homes that have been legally purchased without providing reparations?

I just fancy picking on Israel. I think this whole mess is mostly a result of their conflict.

Down with religion! If there were no religions in the world, the world would be so much less complicated, not to mention safer.

Never going to happen, but it is an interesting thought.

Safer? So tell me what the answer to human greed, fear, hatred, hunger for power, money, sex and jealousy are then? World conflicts, macro or micro, are all caused by these basic elements, not by religion.

If a religious person becomes involved in a conflict, it's usually because they have FAILED to adhere to their religion's code of conduct (with some exceptions of course).

Religion is ammoral, in that it is a process. You have a religion. A set of beliefs and structure in your life that determine actions and emotions.

A religion like Buddhism or Christianity seeks to curb the violent and conflict-causing character traits. Do away with these and the world will be LESS safe and MORE violent. I know without my faith, I would be more dangerous, violent and aggressive. And I am just one person.

Correct on all counts. The "religions don't kill people; people do" argument is bullshit, plain and simple.
Ignorant. You're wrong of course. A religion is an abstract set of ideals in a persons head, completely incapable of effecting any physical change. Moron. Of course people kill people. Usually because of impetuses religions try to curb or prevent. Violence is due to the FAILURE of religions to change everybody from their animal instincts of fear, greed and selfishness. (i.e. evil)


NO-ONE has blown themselves up on a bus because they are a bit irritated with people, or because they have lost their job.
Sure they have. All the American kids who take guns and kill their fellow students and teachers proves that. Where are the preachers telling them to do that? Think before you write.


They do it because the imam tells them they should. It is preachers who encourage people to shoot doctors who carry out abortions. You have a remarkably small understanding of faiths if you believe people do everything a preacher or Imam says.

Also, in 26 years of hanging out in churches in numerous nations and denominations (from Irish Catholic Churches, Swedish Pentecostal, various American Churches, Australian Anglican, Baptist, Pentec, Uniting etc. to Singaporean, Italian, and English churches) I have never ONCE heard any preacher anywhere encourage any violence towards anyone. Even in Ireland the Catholic Priest was urging peace. If the IRA went out and killed a Unionist after mass, it certainly went against the sermon that day.


It is the cross and crescent worshippers who make Jerusalem into a hot-spot of violence. Any religions that is capable of such interpretations is at fault, NOT the people who are following it's instructions. They are being coerced.The conflict is between Jews and Arabs, and is actually more racial than religious, and based on fear on both sides (to be grossly over simplistic)


I don't care who reads this; I will support anyone who has the guts to pin the blame on religion, of whichever stripe. If they are willing to burn every place of worship in the country, I will support that too. It is time for the god fairytales to die, before more people do.And you're a hypocrite advocating the perpetuation of the violence you claim to detest.

Beautiful!
One of the few times the word "always" applies is "Religious fundamentalism is ALWAYS bad...regardless of what religion is used to practice the fundamentalism."

Right... so a fundamentalist pacifist is bad...

ai ai ai

Have you even read the posts here?

FUNDAMENTALISM is a RELATIVE term. It is relative to the stated beliefs. It's like saying commitment is bad, or actions. Commitment to what? which action? Fundamentalist what?

The CONTENT of the beliefs, whether fundamentally applied, liberally applied, or conservatively applied is paramount to determining any sort of individual morality.

The opposite of fundamentalism, is liberalism. (A different liberalism to Liberal economics, as per the British and Australian political parties, or Liberal social policies as per America)

You need to be more careful with your broad generalisations. Please read previous posts, as this has been raised repeatedly by others.

thanks

It's a funny thing how people often have to box and label something. So convenient. Means you don't have to think or hold off on prejudice. Far better to box everyone up into little packages of "fundamentalism" and "extremism" instead of taking the time to take people on their individual merits.

I'll take manipulative political initiatives over bombs any day of the week.
Bombs kill less people.

To quote the Qu'ran, "Oppression is worse than murder."

I am curious, where does it say that in the Qur'an?

THe bottom line is this; Muslims don't do this sort of thing. These people might claim to be muslims, but they aren't.

Well wtf are they ?