NationStates Jolt Archive

Should moderate muslims have to apologize for the actions of a few who feel they must perform terrorist activities against "infidels"? At the same time, should moderate christians have to apologize for the extremist christians who have bombed abortion clinics, and the ones who are say, pushing intelligent design into the school curiculum? Or preventing stem cell research?

I mean, it's only fair that if one religion has to apologize for their extremists, they all should.

Yup. In fact, they have a moral obligation to do so if they don't want to be tarnished with the same brush.

Yup. In fact, they have a moral obligation to do so if they don't want to be tarnished with the same brush.
Dead right. If the Muslims are expected to do so, the Christians are obliged to as well.

i don't really care if they apologize or not, if you push them into apologizing they might get angry like so :mad: and like do something stupid and blow me up!!

They shouldn't apologize, because that makes no sense.

That's the same as making Jack Welch apologize for scumbags like Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers...they have nothing to do with it and don't need to apologize for the crimes of others. (Along the same lines are slave reparations, but that's another debate)

Moderates should at least condemn the actions of extremists, and leaders in the religion should vocally and publically condemn the actions of these extremists.

However, things like stem-cell research, intelligent design, and the like don't even remotely compare to terrorism or murder and don't deserve an apology at all.

Yup. In fact, they have a moral obligation to do so if they don't want to be tarnished with the same brush.
At the same time, though, isn't it a rational person's responsibility to assume that the actions of the few don't always speak for the feelings of the whole?

I mean, I voted no only barely, after a lot of consideration, but I think that whereas in some circumstances it's the place of moderates to apologize for extremists, I also think it's the other side's place to acknowledge that they are, in fact, extremists.

They should not have to apologize for somebody else's actions...however it is their responsiblity (as is everybody else's) to confront these extremists.

However, things like stem-cell research, intelligent design, and the like don't even remotely compare to terrorism or murder and don't deserve an apology at all.
They do compare to terrorism and murder. What if stem cell research leads to cures of all sorts of disease, yet it's being held back by religious fundamentalists?
Teaching intelligent design is forcing an ideology on other's children and seriously fucks up science education. How are kids supposed to know what science is if they're taught pseudoscience as science?

There is no such thing as moderate muslim or moderate christian.
If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.

Carry this to it's logical extreme. I'm a moderate human being. Do I have to apologise for what extremists do in the name of humanity?

They do compare to terrorism and murder. What if stem cell research leads to cures of all sorts of disease, yet it's being held back by religious fundamentalists?

But they believe that using embryonic stem cells (even if they are really unviable for fertilization) is the same as murder and so is immoral, so they wouldn't see it as wrong to prevent the killing of human beings.

A logical argument for stem-cell research is the only way to counteract the claim, but a logical argument doesn't necessitate an apology.

Teaching intelligent design is forcing an ideology on other's children and seriously fucks up science education. How are kids supposed to know what science is if they're taught pseudoscience as science?

It savages science education and is nothing more than illogical theology but that isn't terrorism. Like stem cell research, this is a logical argument rather than a moral one and so doesn't require an apology.

There is no such thing as moderate muslim or moderate christian.
If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.
First of all, we're not talking about just religious extremists. Second of all, a "moderate" in terms of religion is anybody who is a practicing individual but NOT an extremist, ergo there are such things, so get over that. Third of all, regarding my emphasis of your post, IF you're a Christian who supports gay marriage and are in opposition from the Pope, then that doesn't make you not a Christian. It makes you socially liberal and not a Catholic, respectively (edit: didn't mean Catholics can't support gay marriage). Think about what you say before you post it.

There is no such thing as moderate muslim or moderate christian.
If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.
There's a lot more to being muslim than not eating pork (by that logic, jewish people who keep kosher are muslim)
There's also a lot more to being christian than being opposed to gay marriage (or for that matter, supporting the pope, by that logic, protestants and orthodox christians aren't christian)

If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.

You are correct but at the same time there is a difference between things like dietary habits, which are specifically outlined in the Koran and Torah, and the ideas of fundamentalists, which often come from misinterpretations or outright fabrications of ideas from the most nebulous parts of the text.

Things like gay marriage are also iffy; the Bible outright condemns homosexuality in Leviticus and the writings of Paul, but it never mentions the state's role in marriage at all. So, it's feasible to support gay marriage on legal grounds rather than religious ones and never really conflict with your beliefs.

apologize for something they haven't done?

no, that's retarded.

It savages science education and is nothing more than illogical theology but that isn't terrorism.

Correct - it is MUCH worse. Terrorists only kill and scare people.

No, but I think 'apologise' is the wrong word. Moderates of any stripe should (not 'be forced to', but morally, 'should') condemn the wicked actions (if any) of their extremist brethren, but not apologise - after all, they didn't do it.

Elgesh']No, but I think 'apologise' is the wrong word. Moderates of any stripe should (not 'be forced to', but morally, 'should') condemn the wicked actions (if any) of their extremist brethren, but not apologise - after all, they didn't do it.
which many do already

They should denounce them, struggle against them, but not apologize.

The same way we, democratic communists, denounce the crimes against human rights commited in the name of communism, but don't have to apologize for them, because we didn't either support nor commit them.

There's a lot more to being muslim than not eating pork (by that logic, jewish people who keep kosher are muslim)
There's also a lot more to being christian than being opposed to gay marriage (or for that matter, supporting the pope, by that logic, protestants and orthodox christians aren't christian)
You are probably right, but I don't get it. What is it to be christian or muslim? Is that about having your christian card? Can you be christian and not believe jesus walked on water?

There is no such thing as moderate muslim or moderate christian.
If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.
I bolded it just to rile up the protestants! :D

I disagree that being Christian or Muslim is about following the doctrine to the letter. Being Christian is about accepting Christ as your saviour. I think being Muslims is about believing in Allah.

Correct - it is MUCH worse. Terrorists only kill and scare people.
Are you serious?

It bugs the hell out of my how most liberals view Christian fundamentalists as being worse than Muslim fundamentalists. It also bugs me how most conservatives view Muslim fundamentalists as being worse than Christian fundamentalists. Both ideologies are equally bad. Why is that so hard to understand?

Elgesh']No, but I think 'apologise' is the wrong word. Moderates of any stripe should (not 'be forced to', but morally, 'should') condemn the wicked actions (if any) of their extremist brethren, but not apologise - after all, they didn't do it.
I agree. Not apologise, just condemn.

which many do already
Who are you referring to here?

Correct - it is MUCH worse. Terrorists only kill and scare people.

I would say murder is far worse than intelligent design in the classroom, but the damage it would do to science education is undebatable.

I would say murder is far worse than intelligent design in the classroom, but the damage it would do to science education is undebatable.

Which is why it is worse. Murder is not cumulative; the way one mis-educates their young is. One can see a similar thing when looking at religions: people doing the right things for wrong reasons can eventually lead to them doing very, very wrong things indeed while believing they are right.

Elgesh']No, but I think 'apologise' is the wrong word. Moderates of any stripe should (not 'be forced to', but morally, 'should') condemn the wicked actions (if any) of their extremist brethren, but not apologise - after all, they didn't do it.
this is how i feel.

any apology made by moderates would be insincere. not because THEY arent sorry but because those who actually did it arent sorry. the apology would have to come from those who did what is being apologized for

at the same time, they need to wake up and condemn those who warp religion into an excuse for politically motivated violence. too many moderates of any belief admire those who would go that extra mile for their beliefs. they excuse them with talk of "oh they are keeping abortionists from killing more babies" or "they are supporting the palestinian faithful against the infidels".

they need to stand up and say wrong is wrong.

You are probably right, but I don't get it. What is it to be christian or muslim? Is that about having your christian card? Can you be christian and not believe jesus walked on water?
I'm not sure about what it takes to be a muslim, but to be a christian usually it takes belief in Jesus as the son of god and make some sort of attempt to follow his teachings (though by that logic, most of the extremist christians aren't christian...). One doesn't have to believe that he performed the miracles that were ascribed to him necessarily, I think.

You are probably right, but I don't get it. What is it to be christian or muslim? Is that about having your christian card? Can you be christian and not believe jesus walked on water?
If you "don't get", by your own admission, what it is to be Christian or Muslim, then maybe, just maybe, you're not really in a position to define what is moderate or extreme in those cases, hmmmmm?

:rolleyes: Would've thought that was simple logic

And yes. You can be a Christian without believing that every word of the Bible is to be taken as a literal fact.

There's also a lot more to being christian than being opposed to gay marriage

And I do know many christian who don't oppose gay marriage. I have know a bishop who don't oppose it: Mgr Jacques Gaillot.

Who are you referring to here?

The reference is to Moderate Muslims who do already condemn the acts of extremists :)

By refusing to resist extremists, with the exception of cases of totalitarianism or grave mortal danger, moderates tacitly condone what extremists do.

This is more of an issue in developed countries where moderates are not at risk of being killed by extremists.

pushing intelligent design into the school curiculum

not a smart thing to group with terrorism don't you think (could you be an extreme atheist!)

no I don't think anyone should have to apologise if someone in one of there groups finds a reason to fight and any talk of forcing others to apologise will only end in more trouble heck if anyone tries to make someone apologise for one of there groups behaviour I will be the first on that plane...to the area to have a protest

Which is why it is worse. Murder is not cumulative; the way one mis-educates their young is. One can see a similar thing when looking at religions: people doing the right things for wrong reasons can eventually lead to them doing very, very wrong things indeed while believing they are right.

Even so, the problem would still be reversible if they go to a university, since there is literally no way in hell Intelligent Design will ever be part of a biology class at a reputable institution. However, if it is forced in to the collegiate curriculum, there is going to be a serious problem.

not a smart thing to group with terrorism don't you think (could you be an extreme atheist!)
lol. No, I'm an agnostic. However, I am a scientist and intelligent design is on par with terrorism when it comes to the scientific community.

Even so, the problem would still be reversible if they go to a university, since there is literally no way in hell Intelligent Design will ever be part of a biology class at a reputable institution. However, if it is forced in to the collegiate curriculum, there is going to be a serious problem.
Most people don't go on to take a biology class at the university level though, so highschool is as far as they get..

And I do know many christian who don't oppose gay marriage. I have know a bishop who don't oppose it: Mgr Jacques Gaillot.
Oh, I know that many christians support gay marriage. It was more in direct response to the other poster's post.

Simonist']At the same time, though, isn't it a rational person's responsibility to assume that the actions of the few don't always speak for the feelings of the whole?
It is, but every time I have a look at this forum somebody's talking about the latest evil liberal conspiracy because they can't get it through their pointy little head that the liberals don't have a hive mind. If they're incapable of differentiating between various American flavours of liberalism, surely it's foolishness to expect them to be able to tell muslim ideologies apart?

I'm not sure about what it takes to be a muslim, but to be a christian usually it takes belief in Jesus as the son of god and make some sort of attempt to follow his teachings (though by that logic, most of the extremist christians aren't christian...). One doesn't have to believe that he performed the miracles that were ascribed to him necessarily, I think.
That sounds reasonable. Now I get what is a christian. He is a follower of the christ. A muslim is probably a follower of Muhammed.
What is it to be extreme then?

Which is why it is worse. Murder is not cumulative
Yes it is. The more people you kill, the more time you have to spend in jail.

Which is why it is worse. Murder is not cumulative; the way one mis-educates their young is.
Surely teaching an idiotic theory does not deserve as great a punishment as taking someone's life away entirely? The former is just butchering biological education, the latter is butchering the entirety of life.

I am a scientist and intelligent design is on par with terrorism when it comes to the scientific community.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements ever. Reminds me of a critic who called Aphex Twin "sonic terrorism". Intelligent design, unlike terrorism, does not cause death and extreme suffering.

I am an art student and this would be like me claiming that those art academics who believe that painting should no longer be taught are as bad as terrorists who kill thousands of people. Completely ridiculous. Such people, will, at the absolute worst, cause a few thousand people to lose a fully rounded education. Terrorists cause people to lose their lives.

That sounds reasonable. Now I get what is a christian. He is a follower of the christ. A muslim is probably a follower of Muhammed.
What is it to be extreme then?
Well, to be an extreme christian, you would do something like picket abortion clinics, murder abortion doctors, beat gay people to death, try to force your religion on others through legislation, basically listen to what Pat Robertson and the like tell you...
Extreme muslims would be the ones calling people to defeat the infidels and you know, doing the suicide bombings and the like...

It is, but every time I have a look at this forum somebody's talking about the latest evil liberal conspiracy because they can't get it through their pointy little head that the liberals don't have a hive mind. If they're incapable of differentiating between various American flavours of liberalism, surely it's foolishness to expect them to be able to tell muslim ideologies apart?
You must admit, though, as I do (though originally it pained me to be this open-minded about the conservatives), that for every case of a conservative touting liberal conspiracy and the evils of socialism (which seems to get brought up a lot these days), there are liberals who are just as willing to assume that all conservatives are either rich uber-Christian pricks who want to oppress the rest of society, or under-educated farm-boys who sleep with their cousins. That's why no progress is ever made -- people don't want to leave their comfort zone and view the "enemy" as a real person.

That sounds reasonable. Now I get what is a christian. He is a follower of the christ. A muslim is probably a follower of Muhammed.
What is it to be extreme then?
I think in this context extremism is defined as the territory you occupy once you've crossed the line that seperates harmless eccentricities of belief from clinical schizophrenia (a territory that appears to have been occupied by a great many prophets and religious leaders). And once you've gone over to the dark side, there's no way back into the real world...

Simonist']You must admit, though, as I do (though originally it pained me to be this open-minded about the conservatives), that for every case of a conservative touting liberal conspiracy and the evils of socialism (which seems to get brought up a lot these days), there are liberals who are just as willing to assume that all conservatives are either rich uber-Christian pricks who want to oppress the rest of society, or under-educated farm-boys who sleep with their cousins. That's why no progress is ever made -- people don't want to leave their comfort zone and view the "enemy" as a real person.
This is true. While I was being facetious, you're onto a very good point there. If people aren't capable of dealing with specific examples of liberalism or neocon doublethink as events in their own right, rather than an excuse to start generalising about liberals and neocons, there is no way in hell they're going to be able to get their head around the notion of people from a wildly dissimilar cultural background viewing the world in a different light.

Well, to be an extreme christian, you would do something like picket abortion clinics, murder abortion doctors, beat gay people to death, try to force your religion on others through legislation, basically listen to what Pat Robertson and the like tell you...

Extreme muslims would be the ones calling people to defeat the infidels and you know, doing the suicide bombings and the like...
Why only target the American extreme Christians? What about the African groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistant_Army) who commit actual acts of terrorism, rather than mere common crimes motivated by religion?

Why only target the American extreme Christians? What about the African groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistant_Army) who commit actual acts of terrorism, rather than mere common crimes motivated by religion?
My guess would be, the motivation behind explaining it to somebody who said they don't understand would be to use examples that they understand from the world around them. The link you provided certainly paints a broader picture of Christian extremists on a wordly scale, but if we'd started with that it would possibly be a bit harder to think of that in the same mindset, whereas now they know that it's not just the LRA that represents "Christian extremist".

This is one of the most ridiculous statements ever. Reminds me of a critic who called Aphex Twin "sonic terrorism". Intelligent design, unlike terrorism, does not cause death and extreme suffering.
Not yet it doesn't, but when nobody's left who understands basic biological processes and people can't say, develop new antibiotics then many people will die. Furthermore, given that science is damn important in modern society, the attempted destruction of science education through intelligent design is just as bad as the attempted destruction of civilization through terrorism.

Why only target the American extreme Christians? What about the African groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistant_Army) who commit actual acts of terrorism, rather than mere common crimes motivated by religion?
They're not as well known, most people don't know what the hell I'm talking about whenever I've brought them up.

lol. No, I'm an agnostic. However, I am a scientist and intelligent design is on par with terrorism when it comes to the scientific community.

is it HS I never fought a few students getting together to protest something was terrorism what scientific community are you talking about?

anyway getting back top the debate on the point of religious teachings of "evil" how can we define what is “evil” its not like we haven’t been brainwashed as children to share and such.

the people supplying the bombs and telling children to do it maybe could be classed as evil but we cannot arrest someone for spreading hate these people just need to be talked about the subject by there fellow Witches/Buddhists/other apologising will not do this “moderates” need to become involved with there communities if we are going to stop any vicious cycles developing

There is no such thing as moderate muslim or moderate christian.
If they are muslim, they are muslim and if they are christian, they are christian. If you are muslim, you don't eat pork. If you eat pork and pretend to be a moderate muslim, you aren't muslim and if you say you are a moderate christian and support gay marriage and are in opposition with the pope, you are not christian. What is the point of calling yourself a moderate muslim or moderate christian? Muslims don't eat pork, that's why they are muslims.
What the hell are you talking about? Not all Christians are Catholic, yah know. And also, the only actual criteria to be a Christian is to be lieve that Juesus was God.

What the hell are you talking about? Not all Christians are Catholic, yah know. And also, the only actual criteria to be a Christian is to be lieve that Juesus was God.

really! I never heard of the Juesus chap sounds more like a son of God

it also involves the father the son and the holy spirit

What the hell are you talking about? Not all Christians are Catholic, yah know. And also, the only actual criteria to be a Christian is to be lieve that Juesus was God.
Thank you. I got it explained more than one time already. I've understood I think.

They should not have to apologize for somebody else's actions...however it is their responsiblity (as is everybody else's) to confront these extremists.
I don't think that apologizing is ever to be expected from moderate Muslims. However I do think it would be good for them to make sure the public knows they don't approve of what extremists are doing. It is like when Christians let people know that Pat Robertson does not share the views of most Christians.

Not yet it doesn't, but when nobody's left who understands basic biological processes and people can't say, develop new antibiotics then many people will die. Furthermore, given that science is damn important in modern society, the attempted destruction of science education through intelligent design is just as bad as the attempted destruction of civilization through terrorism.
I also wonder what effect it's likely to have on the economy if biotech firms can't hire any American researchers in another twenty years time.

No, they should not have to apologize, the moderate or, as I put it "normal muslims" have very little, if nothing, to do with the actions of extremists.

If they did, I wouldn't even forgive them, there's nothing to forgive.

Well I don't think muslims are that conserned about muslim extremists.
jews are conserned about muslim extremists because they are hit by them.
Likewise, jews are not that conserned about jewish extremism. The christians are not that conserned about the actions of christians far from their home. They are conserned when it is about their schools and the likes, but they american christians barely talk about the IRA and things far from their home.

Well I don't think muslims are that conserned about muslim extremists.
jews are conserned about muslim extremists because they are hit by them.
Likewise, jews are not that conserned about jewish extremism. The christians are not that conserned about the actions of christians far from their home. They are conserned when it is about their schools and the likes, but they american christians barely talk about the IRA and things far from their home.

I don't think that generalisation holds up.

Muslim extremists blow up xxxx no. of folk in America, normal muslims in London are concerned that a few british nutters'll go paki bashing in retaliation, etc etc etc.

World's more interconnected now.

No. They shouldn't apologize. They should condemn. Something which moderate Muslims and Christians do already.

Elgesh']I don't think that generalisation holds up.

Muslim extremists blow up xxxx no. of folk in America, normal muslims in London are concerned that a few british nutters'll go paki bashing in retaliation, etc etc etc.

World's more interconnected now.
Quite a few nutters did go paki bashing, so they were right about that one

Moderate muslims shouldn't apologize, they should condemn the actions of the extremists.

Elgesh']I don't think that generalisation holds up.

Muslim extremists blow up xxxx no. of folk in America, normal muslims in London are concerned that a few british nutters'll go paki bashing in retaliation, etc etc etc.

World's more interconnected now.
That's because muslims are a minority in London.
The muslims in indonesia aren't conserned about the london bombings.

Not yet it doesn't, but when nobody's left who understands basic biological processes and people can't say, develop new antibiotics then many people will die.
I think you're overreacting a bit. I don't think that we'll ever be in such a bad position as to have forgotten about the scientific approach to biology. That's pure speculation. However, when I say that terrorists cause lots of death and suffering, that's umm, not speculation.

You seem to be of the mindset that a bunch of Christians trying to change education are a more serious threat than a bunch of (heavily armed) Muslim extremists trying to revive ther Caliphate. I doubt they approve of evolution, to say the least.

It's a really ridiculous position to argue that possible suffering in the future, based on speculation, is worse than actual suffering in the present reality. Though I don't think you really believe this crap. You just seem to be really paranoid about the Christian Right-Wing:

It bugs the hell out of me how most liberals seem to view Christian fundamentalism as being worse than Muslim fundamentalism. It also bugs me how most conservatives view Muslim fundamentalism as being worse than Christian fundamentalism. Both ideologies are equally bad. Why is that so hard to understand?

They're not as well known, most people don't know what the hell I'm talking about whenever I've brought them up.
The less you talk about them, the fewer people will hear about them, and they will be opposed less. Their victims are people just as much as you, me or anyone else.

Umm no. Why should anyone apologise for something they are not to blame for?

If they can't condemn, they must apologise; the reason being that this is false publicity, and it's ethically unjustifiable to allow their faith to ride on the back (or be publically humiliated, but then again, all publicity is good publicity!) of the actions of those who wish (or even do) harm upon their fellow man.

If I have minor children who have done something wrong, I will apologise for them. If I have done something wrong or harmful, I will apologise for my own actions. I will not apologise for the actions of some nut job. I will do my damnedest to stop the nut job.

People need to be responsible for their own actions. If they're not going to take responsibility for their actions, then they're acting like children and need to be treated as such. If they are dangerous children, as many religious extremists are, then they need to have their toys taken away from them and they need to be isolated from the rest of humanity.

You seem to be of the mindset that a bunch of Christians trying to change education are a more serious threat than a bunch of (heavily armed) Muslim extremists trying to revive ther Caliphate. I doubt they approve of evolution, to say the least.
As the twig is bent, so grows the branch. In the long term the creationists are likely to be a lot more succesful in fucking up science education in public schools than Bin laden is going to be in reviving the Ottoman empire. (That isn't ever going to happen without some strong centripetal leadership subsuming the rest of the bickering ideologues in the middle east, and only Israel looks like it could be up to that. I doubt the fundamentalists would go for that, somehow.)
I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there rather a shortfall in students going on to study the sciences in higher education at the moment already?

They should not have to apologize for somebody else's actions...however it is their responsiblity (as is everybody else's) to confront these extremists.
Especially since they can get into the Mosques and confront the Clerics Koran-to-Koran where us Satan-Loving-Infidels can't.

I think being Muslims is about believing in Allah.being a Christian is about believing in Allah.
being a Jew is about believing in Allah.

allYourBaseAreBelongToAllah :D

Bah ....

Perspective: Should average Americans apologise for the actions of Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy, or Ken Lay? No, of course not. That would be stupid.

I will not apologise for Osama. I have nothing to do with anything he has done or will do. If someone thinks I should apologise, then I think they should go cram it with gravy.

I think enough outrage has been expressed by enough of the world's Muslims to prove, without a doubt, that we do not condone terrorism. If you still doubt, go to google.com and search muslims against terrorism.

As for fighting them in the Mosque, or calling out their clerics, here's what would happen:

Cleric: Death to Infidels! Jihad America!
Me: Ummm ... hey ... Qur'an says that murder is a sin and the Prophet said if I hurt non-Muslims, he would be my adversary at judgement.
Cleric: Apostate! Liar! Jihad Keruvalia!

Then I get beheaded on AlJazeera. Mission accomplished.

They don't like me any more than they like you.

Is there any truth to this story that Bush has been taking an interest in doing over Qatar as al jazeera is based there?

Should moderate muslims have to apologize for the actions of a few who feel they must perform terrorist activities against "infidels"? At the same time, should moderate christians have to apologize for the extremist christians who have bombed abortion clinics, and the ones who are say, pushing intelligent design into the school curiculum? Or preventing stem cell research?

I mean, it's only fair that if one religion has to apologize for their extremists, they all should.


I don't think they need to apologize for them. What they need to do is work hard to denounce and mitigate their influence within their own communities.

Why should anyone have to apologize for the actions of others? It makes no sense. People shouldn't stay silent about such things as this can be construed as a sign of complicity. But apologizing almost lends credibility also. Indeed, when someone apologizes it implies that they have something to apologize for. And moderates don't have any culpability for the actions of the extremist.


Case in point: As a normal (or "moderate" if you prefer) man, I don't apologize for male rapists or child molesters.

I might castrate them with a rusty pitchfork if given the chance.

But I won't apologize for them.


And if you asked me to I would be somewhat offended as it implies that I have some measure of culpability in their actions.


So no, I don't expect moderate Muslims to apologize for extremists. And if they want to borrow my pitchfork.... well, they're welcome to it.

As the twig is bent, so grows the branch. In the long term the creationists are likely to be a lot more succesful in fucking up science education in public schools than Bin laden is going to be in reviving the Ottoman empire.
I doubt it. There are al-Qaeda cells all over the world, whereas creationists have been rather unsuccessful everywhere outside Kansas. (btw, the origin of man does not constitute the entirety of science education.) As long as the sensible people of America resist the theocrats, it will wash over soon enough. The terrorism problem is certainly more of a lethal, clear and present danger. Much more complicated too.

I don't like the Republican party either, but I'm not deluded in my partisanship.

being a Christian is about believing in Allah.
being a Jew is about believing in Allah.

allYourBaseAreBelongToAllah :D
Yeah pretty much. All Abrahamic religions are basically the same.

Moderates of any group shouldn't have to apologize for the extremists in their group, just because it's a waste of time. People intent on discrediting that group will ignore the moderates' objections, and continue to treat the extremists as the group's true representatives.

I doubt it. There are al-Qaeda cells all over the world, whereas creationists have been rather unsuccessful everywhere outside Kansas.
And there has been a global campaign of terror since the September of 2001 as well. America is in flames, it's shattered and hopeless people cling forlornly to the ruin of their earlier lives and the Caliphate is all but reborn already...

(btw, the origin of man does not constitute the entirety of science education.) As long as the sensible people of America resist the theocrats, it will wash over soon enough.
Perhaps not, but in this case it looks like the thin end of a wedge: a precedent has been set for slinging facts out of science classes because they offend some cretin with a bible stuffed up their arse.

The terrorism problem is certainly more of a lethal, clear and present danger. Much more complicated too.
This is why the chimp's current attempts to resolve the matter with farcical crudity aren't helping matters any.