NationStates Jolt Archive

In Nigeria on Saturday a violent mob, protesting carricatures printed in an obscure danish newspaper, went on a rampage, massacering 15 Christians and burning shops, houses and 15 churches.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060218/libya_cartoon_060218/20060218?hub=CTVNewsAt11

And I was beginning to think that it was calming down....

2012 can't arrive soon enough for this World.

Tell you what, Kossakja--why don't you do a side by side comparison of the body counts of the major religions over the past 1,500 years or so and then jam that snarky "religion of peace" bullshit up your ass. Every major religion has rivers of blood on its hands, none more so than the so-called Christian religions (outside the very marginal pacifist sects). Quit acting like Christianity or the west occupies some kind of fucking moral high ground here.

Tell you what, Kossakja--why don't you do a side by side comparison of the body counts of the major religions over the past 1,500 years or so and then jam that snarky "religion of peace" bullshit up your ass. Every major religion has rivers of blood on its hands, none more so than the so-called Christian religions (outside the very marginal pacifist sects). Quit acting like Christianity or the west occupies some kind of fucking moral high ground here.

How many did the Druids kill?

In Nigeria on Saturday a violent mob, protesting carricatures printed in an obscure danish newspaper, went on a rampage, massacering 15 Christians and burning shops, houses and 15 churches.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060218/libya_cartoon_060218/20060218?hub=CTVNewsAt11


Meh.

Religion and little or no education is a dangerous mix.....

How many did the Druids kill?By major religion I was talking about the ones that make up the majorities today--Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism. The Druids didn't quite make my list.

Tell you what, Kossakja--why don't you do a side by side comparison of the body counts of the major religions over the past 1,500 years or so and then jam that snarky "religion of peace" bullshit up your ass. Every major religion has rivers of blood on its hands, none more so than the so-called Christian religions (outside the very marginal pacifist sects). Quit acting like Christianity or the west occupies some kind of fucking moral high ground here.
Some proof of this would be nice, even just a bare-bones recounting of the "body counts" of the various religions.

The only mention he made of "Christians" was in explaining how many had died, not that various "Christian" religions had any sort of "moral high ground."

Some proof of this would be nice, even just a bare-bones recounting of the "body counts" of the various religions.

The only mention he made of "Christians" was in explaining how many had died, not that various "Christian" religions had any sort of "moral high ground."

You have to admit that the ones spouting condemination with "religion of peace" tend to be Christians. Christianity's track record hardly gives it the right to judge others....

Some proof of this would be nice, even just a bare-bones recounting of the "body counts" of the various religions.

The only mention he made of "Christians" was in explaining how many had died, not that various "Christian" religions had any sort of "moral high ground."Even you know enough history to know that the cause of most of the bloodiest wars ever is religion. Hell, in WWII, you had Christian churches on both sides telling soldiers that to kill the enemy--fellow members of the same church at times--was God's will. And let's not forget places like Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa in Ireland for, oh, the last few hundred years. Hindus and Buddhists have been killing each other in India in just the past decade.

His lack of a mention of Christianity is irrelevant to me--it's the snarky tone about Islam being a "religion of peace" that pisses me off, because it intimates that violence is endemic to Islam, and that, by extension, it isn't to other religions.

You have to admit that the ones spouting condemination with "religion of peace" tend to be Christians. Christianities track record hardly gives it the right to judge others....
They may criticise though if they recognise that Christianity is not a religion of peace, at least not in practice.

His lack of a mention of Christianity is irrelevant to me--it's the snarky tone about Islam being a "religion of peace" that pisses me off, because it intimates that violence is endemic to Islam, and that, by extension, it isn't to other religions.
Hardly. It's merely that Islam has been flirting with this notion more than any other religion recently. So it's more than likely it will undergo criticism for this. Christianity and other religions did, and still are.

Tell you what, Kossakja--why don't you do a side by side comparison of the body counts of the major religions over the past 1,500 years or so and then jam that snarky "religion of peace" bullshit up your ass. Every major religion has rivers of blood on its hands, none more so than the so-called Christian religions (outside the very marginal pacifist sects). Quit acting like Christianity or the west occupies some kind of fucking moral high ground here.
Yeah I guess the Spanish Inquisition means that we should just kill Christians with impunity. I'm so sick of these stupid historical arguments. I'll tell you what. Since we're all alive now and not 1,500 years ago how about we do a body count over the last 10 years and see what the problem is now, in our world, today. I love this stupid reasoning. Because some witches got burned in Salem 150 fucking years ago Christians in Nigeria deserve to get butchered by Muslims today.

Yeah I guess the Spanish Inquisition means that we should just kill Christians with impunity. I'm so sick of these stupid historical arguments. I'll tell you what. Since we're all alive now and not 1,500 years ago how about we do a body count over the last 10 years and see what the problem is now, in our world, today. I love this stupid reasoning. Because some witches got burned in Salem 150 fucking years ago Christians in Nigeria deserve to get butchered by Muslims today.
I agree wholeheartedly. Learn from History, but do not try and use it as an excuse. What matters is the present.

Yeah I guess the Spanish Inquisition means that we should just kill Christians with impunity. I'm so sick of these stupid historical arguments. I'll tell you what. Since we're all alive now and not 1,500 years ago how about we do a body count over the last 10 years and see what the problem is now, in our world, today. I love this stupid reasoning. Because some witches got burned in Salem 150 fucking years ago Christians in Nigeria deserve to get butchered by Muslims today.Nobody deserves to get slaughtered these days, and if you'd actually read my comment, you'd have noticed that I didn't have to go back a hundred-fifty fucking years to make my point. Nobody has clean hands, my friend. Nobody.

Nobody deserves to get slaughtered these days, and if you'd actually read my comment, you'd have noticed that I didn't have to go back a hundred-fifty fucking years to make my point. Nobody has clean hands, my friend. Nobody.
Which means the claim of being a "religion of peace" will undergo criticism all the more often. So why attack the OP? He/she never said anything that inferentially states Christianity to be the one and only religion of peace.

Which means the claim of being a "religion of peace" will undergo criticism all the more often. So why attack the OP? He/she never said anything that inferentially states Christianity to be the one and only religion of peace.
Because Kossakja never mentions Islam without taking that sneering tone and I decided, this time, to call bullshit on him. There's a history here.

1. Even you know enough history ...

... it's the snarky tone about Islam being a "religion of peace" that pisses me off, because it intimates that violence is endemic to Islam, and that, by extension, it isn't to other religions.
Son, everything pisses you off. You really should consider some anger management classes.

So "even you know enough history" isn't "snarky?" Hmm.

Because Kossakja never mentions Islam without taking that sneering tone and I decided, this time, to call bullshit on him. There's a history here.
Regardless, he made no such statement in this particular thread to that effect.

Son, everything pisses you off. You really should consider some anger management classes.

So "even you know enough history" isn't "snarky?" Hmm.
With you, Eutrusca, snark is my default setting, but hey, it's the same for you toward me, so I figure we're even.

Yeah I guess the Spanish Inquisition means that we should just kill Christians with impunity. I'm so sick of these stupid historical arguments. I'll tell you what. Since we're all alive now and not 1,500 years ago how about we do a body count over the last 10 years and see what the problem is now, in our world, today. I love this stupid reasoning. Because some witches got burned in Salem 150 fucking years ago Christians in Nigeria deserve to get butchered by Muslims today.

Ok if you want modern example. Malaysia. Christians and Muslims have been hacking each other up for years....

Nobody deserves to get slaughtered these days, and if you'd actually read my comment, you'd have noticed that I didn't have to go back a hundred-fifty fucking years to make my point. Nobody has clean hands, my friend. Nobody.
No they don't. It just seems that everytime a Muslim atrocity is meantioned someone chimes in with, "well christians did such and such" or "teh West did such and such." Why can't you all just look at a slaughter like this and say, "This is just wrong. Period." Rather than making some argument about historical perspective? Right now, in our world, in our lives, in our time I don't think there's anyone who can make a cogent argument that Islam is not the most brutal religion in the world. Christianity went through its reformation and enlightenment because good people looked at what they were doing and said, "HEY! This is wrong! Stop torturing human beings! You need to hold yourselves and your religion up to a higher standard! You need to understand that all human beings deserve dignity!" No one has any problem pointing a finger at Christianity for its past barbarity and its present ridiculousness regarding science and censorship, but point out that Muslims all over the world are killing each other and others because of some fucking cartoons and everyone's ready to say, "well, Christians killed wicthes, blah, blah..."


"hey! MUSLIMS! IT'S TIME TO STOP THE BARBARITY! Its not okay to cut off people's HEADS because they have differnt beliefs than you! It's not an acceptable strategy of liberation to kill AID WORKERS!!!" It's Time to HOLD yourselves to a HIGHER STANDARD! MUSLIMS WHO DISAGREE WITH EXTREMISTS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE CHARGE! Your barbaric extremists are MAKING A NAME for your religion and its TIME FOR YOU TO STAND UP!"

No they don't. It just seems that everytime a Muslim atrocity is meantioned someone chimes in with, "well christians did such and such" or "teh West did such and such." Why can't you all just look at a slaughter like this and say, "This is just wrong. Period." Rather than making some argument about historical perspective? Right now, in our world, in our lives, in our time I don't think there's anyone who can make a cogent argument that Islam is the most brutal religion in the world. Christianity went through its reformation and enlightenment because good people looked at what they were doing and said, "HEY! This is wrong! Stop torturing human beings! You need to hold yourselves and your religion up to a higher standard! You need to understand that all human beings deserve dignity!" No one has any problem pointing a finger at Christianity for its past barbarity and its present ridiculousness regarding science and censorship, but point out that Muslims all over the world are killing each other and others because of some fucking cartoons and everyone's ready to say, "well, Christians killed wicthes, blah, blah..."


"hey! MUSLIMS! IT'S TIME TO STOP THE BARBARITY! Its not okay to cut off people's HEADS because they have differnt beliefs than you! It's not an acceptable strategy of liberation to kill AID WORKERS!!!" It's Time to HOLD yourselves to a HIGHER STANDARD! MUSLIMS WHO DISAGREE WITH EXTREMISTS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE CHARGE! Your barbaric extremists are MAKING A NAME for your religion and its TIME GOR YOU TO STAND UP!"
Agreed on both accounts.

How many did the Druids kill?

Didn't they practice human sacrifice?

Blegh, this happens in Nigeria all the time. Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, tribes kill each other. Very sad, but true.

In Nigeria on Saturday a violent mob, protesting carricatures printed in an obscure danish newspaper, went on a rampage, massacering 15 Christians and burning shops, houses and 15 churches.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060218/libya_cartoon_060218/20060218?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Yes, since this violent mob included about 1.3 billion people, we can safely say that their actions truly represent the entire religion of Islam. OH WAIT it didn't, and it doesn't, but hey why miss an opportunity to generalize based on the actions of a few? Especially if it's anti-Muslim.

Amazing how versatile the world is. In Ancient Rome, it was anti-Christian. In the 1930's and 40's, it was anti-Jewish. Today it's anti-Muslim.

What's next? Hindus? Hey there's about 900 million of those. Let's look at the actions of less than 0.005% of the Hindu population and then claim how evil Hinduism is! It's about time!

Ok if you want modern example. Malaysia. Christians and Muslims have been hacking each other up for years....

Actually, almost everyone gets along well there, for the most part.

(Unless you were being sarcastic, hard to tell via a computer screen :()

Amazing how versatile the world is. In Ancient Rome, it was anti-Christian. In the 1930's and 40's, it was anti-Jewish. Today it's anti-Muslim.


aye, but neither christians nor jews were condemned for barbarism.

To play devil's advocate though 'christian' countries get away with barbarism all the time by calling it the 'rules of war'. But now they face a kind of warfare that has never been seen before in history, a kind of propaganda that can finally reach every person on the planet. Almost. It's all well and good to send our girls and boys off to war, but to see people actually dieing, well, that's just not good for business.

And anyways, while I concur that these rioters need to chillax, two additional points: (1) the media loves a circus, (2) as was already mentioned elsewhere religion + poverty = bad news.

"hey! MUSLIMS! IT'S TIME TO STOP THE BARBARITY! Its not okay to cut off people's HEADS because they have differnt beliefs than you! It's not an acceptable strategy of liberation to kill AID WORKERS!!!" It's Time to HOLD yourselves to a HIGHER STANDARD! MUSLIMS WHO DISAGREE WITH EXTREMISTS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE CHARGE! Your barbaric extremists are MAKING A NAME for your religion and its TIME FOR YOU TO STAND UP!"

Hmmm what about Christianity and



Michael F. Griffin
Paul Hill
Eric Rudolf
James Kopp
Clayton Waagner
The fellow that killed Dr. George Patterson
Neal Horsley
Rachelle Shannon
Donald Spitz
......

aye, but neither christians nor jews were condemned for barbarism.

Thats true, but it should be noted that at the times they were being persecuted thye weren't realy doing anything barbaric, the christians were still in their peace and love phase and the Jewes were a paltry minority of the population with little power, it should also be pointed out that the period for their persecution should be expanded from the 30's/40's to much of the past 1000 years.

Hmmm what about Christianity and



Michael F. Griffin
Paul Hill
Eric Rudolf
James Kopp
Clayton Waagner
The fellow that killed Dr. George Patterson
Neal Horsley
Rachelle Shannon
Donald Spitz
......
Not sure who those are, but going off of the Fundementalist radicals here in the US and the way they are twisting peoples perspective in regards to Christians, going of the attitudes displayed on this board, I'd say that moderate Christians needed to do the same thing and tell the idiots and radicals in their ranks to shut the hell up.

Hmmm what about Christianity and



Michael F. Griffin
Paul Hill
Eric Rudolf
James Kopp
Clayton Waagner
The fellow that killed Dr. George Patterson
Neal Horsley
Rachelle Shannon
Donald Spitz
......
Ummm... here (http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm)

Not sure who those are, but going off of the Fundementalist radicals here in the US and the way they are twisting peoples perspective in regards to Christians, going of the attitudes displayed on this board, I'd say that moderate Christians needed to do the same thing and tell the idiots and radicals in their ranks to shut the hell up.
Many usually do. The radicals are regarded as loonies usually. Yet there is still the freedom of speech, so no one really silences them. They are nevertheless criticised for their idiocy.

aye, but neither christians nor jews were condemned for barbarism.

I'm not really sure that "barbarism" is much worse than "subhumanoid" and whatnot. The point is that it's becoming "us versus them" where "Them" are all the practitioners of a world's major religion. The last time this happened, it sorta ended badly - in fact, it also ended with the creation of the State of Israel, which some might point to as the cause of all these problems in the Middle East today. Shit, what happens when someone slaughters most of the Muslims and the survivors are given their own nation in India? Oops, then the Hindus get upset. 50 years of Hindu terrorism ensues and eventually the processs actually IS repeated, with Hindus instead.

Jesus.

Ummm... here (http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm)

LOOK UP INTO SKY!

*WHOOOOSHHHHH*

That's the point fly over your head!

Many usually do. The radicals are regarded as loonies usually. Yet there is still the freedom of speech, so no one really silences them. They are nevertheless criticised for their idiocy.
Yeah, I know however, they like the moderate muslims obviously need to due a beter job of it, so people stop equating chrisian with creationist gay bashing and muslims with bloody killers.

LOOK UP INTO SKY!

*WHOOOOSHHHHH*

That's the point fly over your head!
It didn't fly over my head. It was a stupid point. Because some idiot Christians who are roundly and routinely panned by Christianity as a whole commit a crime does not make them comparable to Muslim extremists who are called martyrs and held up as heros in the Muslim world. A Christian goes and kills an abortion doctor and Christians distnace themselves from him completely. A Muslim kills thousands of people and Muslims all over the world by T-shirts with his picture. Children are taught that he is a hero and they should look up to him. I get your point. I also get that its a stupid comparison.

Yeah, I know however, they like the moderate muslims obviously need to due a beter job of it, so people stop equating chrisian with creationist gay bashing and muslims with bloody killers.
There is only so much they can do without exceeding the limits of the freedom of speech. Yet, there are no fundamentalist Christian states really. There are Islamic ones though. I will agree that both groups have to do more against those who would want secular states to be turned into theocracies. What does annoy me is when moderate Muslims leave Islamic states and then wish their host country to be turned into one.

Ummm... here (http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm)
What are we doing? Playing, “Who’s got the worst religion?”

The acts committed by those rioters were barbarous, but their actions were just that, their actions. They are in no way descriptive of the entire Muslim community. The disclaimer should really not be necessary, but apparently irrationally jumping down somebody’s throat rules the day.

There is only so much they can do without exceeding the limits of the freedom of speech. Yet, there are no fundamentalist Christian states really. There are Islamic ones though. I will agree that both groups have to do more against those who would want secular states to be turned into theocracies. What does annoy me is when moderate Muslims leave Islamic states and then wish their host country to be turned into one.
Could you realy consider them moderate Muslim's in such a case?

Could you realy consider them moderate Muslim's in such a case?
Hardly, yet they define themselves as such. People of this kind are more like parasites trying to turn wealthy countries into theocracies.

Not sure who those are, but going off of the Fundementalist radicals here in the US and the way they are twisting peoples perspective in regards to Christians, going of the attitudes displayed on this board, I'd say that moderate Christians needed to do the same thing and tell the idiots and radicals in their ranks to shut the hell up.

Rudolph was a bomber(remember the olympics?) and did a few things.

The others shot abortion providers and support people.

Speitz called one of them a hero.

But you get the point of the message. ;)

What are we doing? Playing, “Who’s got the worst religion?”

The acts committed by those rioters were barbarous, but their actions were just that, their actions. They are in no way descriptive of the entire Muslim community. The disclaimer should really not be necessary, but apparently irrationally jumping down somebody’s throat rules the day.
No, we're playing it's time to hold a religion to task. Just as the Christian religion was held to task during the reformation and enlightenment when people of good conscience said STOP!. Its time for that to happen in Islam but as long as people keep responding to Muslim atrocities with, "But you have to understand the Christians did this..." it will never happen. It's interesting. A post comes up detailing a Muslim atrocity. Someone responds with a Christian atrocity. When someone else responds with a Muslim atrocity you ask, "What are we playing “Who’s got the worst religion?” Why did you not respond that way when he posted this:
Hmmm what about Christianity and



Michael F. Griffin
Paul Hill
Eric Rudolf
James Kopp
Clayton Waagner
The fellow that killed Dr. George Patterson
Neal Horsley
Rachelle Shannon
Donald Spitz
......

How come when someone responds to a Muslim atrocity with a Chritian list do you not ask the same question?

No they don't. It just seems that everytime a Muslim atrocity is meantioned someone chimes in with, "well christians did such and such" or "teh West did such and such." Why can't you all just look at a slaughter like this and say, "This is just wrong. Period." Rather than making some argument about historical perspective? Right now, in our world, in our lives, in our time I don't think there's anyone who can make a cogent argument that Islam is not the most brutal religion in the world. Christianity went through its reformation and enlightenment because good people looked at what they were doing and said, "HEY! This is wrong! Stop torturing human beings! You need to hold yourselves and your religion up to a higher standard! You need to understand that all human beings deserve dignity!" No one has any problem pointing a finger at Christianity for its past barbarity and its present ridiculousness regarding science and censorship, but point out that Muslims all over the world are killing each other and others because of some fucking cartoons and everyone's ready to say, "well, Christians killed wicthes, blah, blah..."


"hey! MUSLIMS! IT'S TIME TO STOP THE BARBARITY! Its not okay to cut off people's HEADS because they have differnt beliefs than you! It's not an acceptable strategy of liberation to kill AID WORKERS!!!" It's Time to HOLD yourselves to a HIGHER STANDARD! MUSLIMS WHO DISAGREE WITH EXTREMISTS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE CHARGE! Your barbaric extremists are MAKING A NAME for your religion and its TIME FOR YOU TO STAND UP!"


Take charge? Yeah, just like the Jews who 'declared war on Germany' had a duty to take charge. No my friend, they saw the tidal waves of anger being thrown at them and were looking for a way to survive. After 9/11, how many people were on about "nuking the entire Middle East?" WAY TOO MANY. You may sit there smugly talking about how barbaric it is to decapitate someone, but WAY TOO MANY supposedly non-barbaric westerners wanted, and continue to want, war in which every fucking Muslim on the planet is exterminated. Just look at the "Do you want war with Islam?" thread.

Personally, I think invasion of countries and the threat of killing, or deporting, or persecuting someone based purely on their religion is barbaric.

If I was a Muslim, I might try to "take charge." Yeah, and be slammed by people like you screaming about how the fanatical Muslims just want to dominate the world. But lets say I just protest. Yeah, I protest. Then what? Oh thats right, nothing happens. Because the news media only likes the violent protests, the tragedies and disasters, the burning buildings, the attention-getting placards. "Kill the infidels" gets a shot in the news, "Stop the war" does not. "Quit blaming 1.3 billion people for the actions of 1, or 12, or even 50,000" is just far too much math for the average journalist. And not a good 'story' anyway.

So maybe you can tell me what to do? You see your essential argument here is not that Muslims don't disagree with the extremists - it's that they don't have as good PR, as good damage control, as good media connections as the Christians and Jews do.

*snip*
All good points. It seems extremely hypocritical. Anyone care to answer?

What are we doing? Playing, “Who’s got the worst religion?”

The acts committed by those rioters were barbarous, but their actions were just that, their actions. They are in no way descriptive of the entire Muslim community. The disclaimer should really not be necessary, but apparently irrationally jumping down somebody’s throat rules the day.
No it isn't, but that this is not an isolated incedent and that there are riots like this going on all over the muslim world, admitedly those seem to have been less bloody than this example though still destructive, added to the fact that their seems to be little condemnation of these actions in some of these countries, I say seems b/c their is the posibility that we just aren't seeing the condemnation though that again beggs the question as to why they aren't louder in their condemnation, should be a matter for some concern and can't be dissmissed as the actions of an insignificant handful of extreamists. I'm mean they are mass riots involving large mobs of people spontaneously taking to the streets , If the majority of muslims are appaled by these actiones howcame we dont see even larger counter protests taking to the streets condeming these actions?
edit: Just relized I should point out that I don't think that these radicals represent all muslims, just that it bothers me that those who oppose them don't seem to be willing to take strong action in shuting them up.

What does annoy me is when moderate Muslims leave Islamic states and then wish their host country to be turned into one.

Those that do that are not moderates.

Rudolph was a bomber(remember the olympics?) and did a few things.

The others shot abortion providers and support people.

Speitz called one of them a hero.

But you get the point of the message. ;)
And the Christian world started selling T-Shirts with their names on them and tehy were hailed as heros all over the Christian world. :p

Oh, sorry. That didn't happen. No one praised their actions. Everyone in the Christian world attacked them and they were sent to jail. Mohamed Atta's face shows up on T-shirst all over Saudi Arbia now. And everyone in the Middle east loves Osama.

Those that do that are not moderates.
And yet 40% of Muslims in the UK want Shiara law there. You're right. It's just a few extremists...

And yet 40% of Muslims in the UK want Shiara law there. You're right. It's just a few extremists...
Although it would be neat to see the exact questions. Sharia Law is AFAIK not one single set of codes, but largely open to interpretation by religious authorities.
So there could be non-extremist Sharia Law.

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

And the Christian world started selling T-Shirts with their names on them and tehy were hailed as heros all over the Christian world. :p

Oh, sorry. That didn't happen. No one praised their actions. Everyone in the Christian world attacked them and they were sent to jail. Mohamed Atta's face shows up on T-shirst all over Saudi Arbia now. And everyone in the Middle east loves Osama.
You should probably avoid over generlizationes like this it just serves to hurt your position in the long run. It would probably be less devisive to say something like many, although I'm not sure how accurate even that would be.

Although it would be neat to see the exact questions. Sharia Law is AFAIK not one single set of codes, but largely open to interpretation by religious authorities.
So there could be non-extremist Sharia Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Yet what if the questions were of such a nature to suggest a very fundamentalist approach towards Sharia? Wouldn't it be worrying then? It would also show that a large number of UK Muslims are no longer moderate in their outlook.

Although it would be neat to see the exact questions. Sharia Law is AFAIK not one single set of codes, but largely open to interpretation by religious authorities.
So there could be non-extremist Sharia Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
I don't know trying to govermentaly instiute any type of religous law can probably be regarded as a tad extream/ woorysome.

P.S. I say the same thing about Christians who try to do this so don't go off on me for any double standered crap.

And yet 40% of Muslims in the UK want Shiara law there. You're right. It's just a few extremists...

40% of those polled, not 40% of Muslims. I'm pretty sure the number of Muslims polled was pretty small. And how do we know the pollsters weren't biased and only polled extremists?

40% of those polled, not 40% of Muslims. I'm pretty sure the number of Muslims polled was pretty small. And how do we know the pollsters weren't biased and only polled extremists?
There is no evidence pointing either way so by that same logic they could have polled a group that was mostly moderate and the percentage of extreamists could be even greater out among the general populace. Frankly we just have to make the judgment based on the data available.

Yet what if the questions were of such a nature to suggest a very fundamentalist approach towards Sharia? Wouldn't it be worrying then? It would also show that a large number of UK Muslims are no longer moderate in their outlook.
Aryavartha made the suggestion already, and I'll pick up on it. The majority of the Muslims (or at least the vocal ones) in the UK are from Pakistan. They get their teachings from Pakistan.
Pakistan is also the cradle of the thing we're "fighting" these days. So it shouldn't surprise that the same sort of thinking that is taught in Pakistani Madrassas pops up in the UK.

Nonetheless, moderation and Sharia law can in theory go together, and unless we have seen the actual questions, we shouldn't make decisions on details.

I don't know trying to govermentaly instiute any type of religous law can probably be regarded as a tad extream/ woorysome.

P.S. I say the same thing about Christians who try to do this so don't go off on me for any double standered crap.
Worrysome? Yes. Extreme? Not necessarily.

But that depends on what you define "extreme" as.

Nonetheless, it's a graphic illustration that there is something foul in the state of Great Britain.

There is no evidence pointing either way so by that same logic they could have polled a group that was mostly moderate and the percentage of extreamists could be even greater out among the general populace. Frankly we just have to make the judgment based on the data available.


No, actually, here's the really magical part: we don't HAVE to make a JUDGEMENT on all Muslims based on a poll. OMG!

Worrysome? Yes. Extreme? Not necessarily.

But that depends on what you define "extreme" as.

Nonetheless, it's a graphic illustration that there is something foul in the state of Great Britain.
To use an example in my area I judge the actions of US christians to inforce their religous beliefs by outlawing gay marriage as extream, so thats basicly what I'm getting at.

No, actually, here's the really magical part: we don't HAVE to make a JUDGEMENT on all Muslims based on a poll. OMG!
Whose making a judgment on all muslims, most people I have seen are mearly saying that given that this information is acurate it is a mater about which concern is warented, which strikes me as an accurate assesment.

Whose making a judgment on all muslims, most people I have seen are mearly saying that given that this information is acurate it is a mater about which concern is warented, which strikes me as an accurate assesment.

It was 75 people on this board alone, last time I checked the poll, who want war with Islam. That strikes me as being a judgement against all Muslims. Maybe you're not making it, but you did say we "have" to make a judgement based on this "information." And I'm saying no, we don't, and if people held off on making judgements a little more the world wouldn't be quite so shitty.

It was 75 people on this board alone, last time I checked the poll, who want war with Islam. That strikes me as being a judgement against all Muslims. Maybe you're not making it, but you did say we "have" to make a judgement based on this "information." And I'm saying no, we don't, and if people held off on making judgements a little more the world wouldn't be quite so shitty.
I said in regards to the discusion at hand we need to make any judgments we make based on the info presented in this thread. However I think that I might have been mixing parts of this discusion up with the UK muslim poll discusion so I'm going to drop this for a bit an try to get my thoughts inregards to these subjects properly organized again.
edit: Alright I see what happened Psychodan brought up that poll and the topic shifted for a bit, hwe I was confused their for a second.

Its only going to get worse.

This Killing, these murders, its wrong. I do not offer any suggustions of peace though, only violence.

Because, I want things to get worse. I want more, more suffering, more violence, more pain, more death, more of everything that is "wrong" with the world today.

Why?

Because I want peace. Peace cannot be achieved through talking. Enough talk. I want things to escalate to the point to where, something has to happen, a change has to occur.

And at the rate society is heading, I will get my wish, and soon, so deliciously soon.

The change? It will prove Religion right, or wrong. Whatever anyones beliefs, the only way for the entire question of religion to be solved, is to bring the whole of humanity to the knife point destruction, to where no one survives.

If God or any other deity exists, it would force action, it would force them to prove themselves as real to the whole of humanity, because deities cannot exist without believers. If we all cease to be, then they cease to be.

I propose to do the impossible, and hold all of religon hostage, and then banish the falsehoods.

Take charge? Yeah, just like the Jews who 'declared war on Germany' had a duty to take charge.thank you. Finally someone admits that the "moderate" muslims are hopelessly out numbered by the "extremists." You're right. The Muslims who don't want a total world Islamic revolution are hopelessly outnumbered by those that do.




No my friend, they saw the tidal waves of anger being thrown at them and were looking for a way to survive. After 9/11, how many people were on about "nuking the entire Middle East?" WAY TOO MANY. You may sit there smugly talking about how barbaric it is to decapitate someone, but WAY TOO MANY supposedly non-barbaric westerners wanted, and continue to want, war in which every fucking Muslim on the planet is exterminated. Just look at the "Do you want war with Islam?" thread.Didn't happen. though, did it? See, there may have been WAY TOO MANY, but they were never the majority. As you so eloquently pointed above out the same is not true of Muslims. According to what you just said, Muslims who are not extremists are so outnumbered that they dare not speak out.

Personally, I think invasion of countries and the threat of killing, or deporting, or persecuting someone based purely on their religion is barbaric.

If I was a Muslim, I might try to "take charge." Yeah, and be slammed by people like you screaming about how the fanatical Muslims just want to dominate the world. But lets say I just protest. Yeah, I protest. Then what? Oh thats right, nothing happens. Because the news media only likes the violent protests, the tragedies and disasters, the burning buildings, the attention-getting placards. "Kill the infidels" gets a shot in the news, "Stop the war" does not. "Quit blaming 1.3 billion people for the actions of 1, or 12, or even 50,000" is just far too much math for the average journalist. And not a good 'story' anyway.

So maybe you can tell me what to do? You see your essential argument here is not that Muslims don't disagree with the extremists - it's that they don't have as good PR, as good damage control, as good media connections as the Christians and Jews do.
yes. that is exactly my piont. "Extremists" enjoy broad public support in the Muslim world. At leats as braod as teh Salem wicth burners enjoyed and the Nzis enjoyed.


Wait, i know...


Only germans are capable of broadly supporting an ideology of hate. Muslims never would...

because deities cannot exist without believers[/B]. If we all cease to be, then they cease to be.

I propose to do the impossible, and hold all of religon hostage, and then banish the falsehoods.
Uh, why would a deity need believers to exist when most religons that worship a deity proffess the idea that that deiy created life, meaning it would have had to be around before anyone believed in it, meaning all such destruction would nesecitate(sp) is that said deity create itself a new set of believers.

Hindus and Buddhists have been killing each other in India in just the past decade.

No. There is hindu-muslim violence but no other violences. There is no conflicts surrounding the little no. of Buddhists in India.

You are also wrong about Malaysia. It is largely peaceful even though the natives (boomiputras) are outnumbered by Indian and Chinese ethnicity. If I have to live in a muslim country, I would chose Malaysia anyday.

thank you. Finally someone admits that the "moderate" muslims are hopelessly out numbered by the "extremists." You're right. The Muslims who don't want a total world Islamic revolution are hopelessly outnumbered by those that do.


Wow, way to completely misinterpret what I said to somehow reinforce your own point. I said,

Take charge? Yeah, just like the Jews who 'declared war on Germany' had a duty to take charge.

I fail to see how that's "admiting that moderate muslims are hopelessly outnumbered by the extremists."

I don't even see how you can possibly have interpreted it as being even related to discussion of proportions of extremists:moderates at all.


Didn't happen. though, did it? See, there may have been WAY TOO MANY, but they were never the majority. As you so eloquently pointed above out the same is not true of Muslims. According to what you just said, Muslims who are not extremists are so outnumbered that they dare not speak out.

No, that's NOT what I just said. That you're basing your whole argument here on something you pulled out of your ass is not helping your credibility.

I did not point out, and you haven't made the case, that extremists outnumber the moderates. Period. But maybe you have statistical data? like, a survey of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world to show that "extremists" make up greater than 650 million of all Muslims? Let's see it.


yes. that is exactly my piont. "Extremists" enjoy broad public support in the Muslim world. At leats as braod as teh Salem wicth burners enjoyed and the Nzis enjoyed.

Again, you either deliberately misinterpret my point or you're too stupid to comprehend what I was saying. It's not "public support in the Muslim world" that extremists enjoy. It's public support in the Western media. Maybe because the media, like you, enjoys misinterpreting reality to fit your slant.


Wait, i know...


Only germans are capable of broadly supporting an ideology of hate. Muslims never would...

Strawman. But thanks for the attempt.

Comparing the entire religion and culture of Islam to Nazi Germany is stupid at best anyway, and I'm starting to think you wouldn't recognize the reasons why even if I explained them to you verrrry slowly.

The majority of the Muslims (or at least the vocal ones) in the UK are from Pakistan.

Yes, Pakistani descendants are the majority amongst muslims in UK and in that the Mirpuris (Pak side of Kashmir) are the most dominant group.

The Kashmiri jihadi groups operating out of Pakistan have great support base amongst UK Mirpuris.

As recent as 3 years ago, I know of instances where funds for jihad were openly sollicited in mosques. I dunno abt now, many of my friends moved out of the area (due to intimidation by the said gangs).

Religion has the power to sustain life, but it can also be the root of unspeakable evil. There has been more blood and death in the name of "Religion" than in the name of any political agenda.
-Some Manual.

All religions are religions of War, so everyone loses. A person can no more call Christianity a religion of Peace than they can call Islam a religion of peace. Because neither is about peace. While Christanity has 'grown up' they still do the same acts as they did in the past, they just do it more covertly nowdays. Instead of killing people the Zealots of Christanity minpulate people instead. Same goal different means. So everyone accept that, and deal with it.

How many did the Druids kill?They skewered the guy riding next to St. Patrick on a chariot once...

How many did the Druids kill?

You are aware the Celts practised human sacrifice, right?

Druids, being the religious class amongst them would of played a significant part in these proceedings.

How many did the Druids kill?

Didn't the druids sacrifice a load of people? I know there's theory that the Romans just made that up as propaganda, but I don't think Druids were all like modern day hippies as they are often portrayed as. RTW proves how agressive they can be ;)

Oh, and, yeah - this has being happening to a far bloodier extent in Christianity for ages. Bartholemew (sp?) days massacre anyone? You can say 'Oh! But that happened so long ago!" but countries like Nigeria and Libya are pretty backward still, and I don't see these massacres happening in the more modern states.

Uh, why would a deity need believers to exist when most religons that worship a deity proffess the idea that that deiy created life, meaning it would have had to be around before anyone believed in it, meaning all such destruction would nesecitate(sp) is that said deity create itself a new set of believers.

Because we created religion to fill a need, answer a question, banish a void. We didn't know everything, and it was so simple to create a deity and say that he/she created everything. It was simple to use them answer the unanswerable.

Now where are they, such deities also professed love for their children, and promised to help them.

Daily we ask for help, daily we pray for aid. They have to do something, if their real. If not, well then, at least we manged to get rid of a weakness.

You have to admit that the ones spouting condemination with "religion of peace" tend to be Christians. Christianity's track record hardly gives it the right to judge others....

Just so you know, I'm Athiest. I think religion is dumb.

But some religions are dumber than others.

There are no religions of peace, if you ask me.

All religions are religions of peace. As long as you're in the religion.

If not, they might have to fucking kill you. :p

All religions are religions of peace. As long as you're in the religion.

If not, they might have to fucking kill you. :p

Hmmm what religion if any do you follow?

For that matter, where do you live? :p

Hmmm what religion if any do you follow?

For that matter, where do you live? :p

None. I'm a non-religious christian.

I consider organized religion(along with nationalism which so often goes hand-in-hand) to be one of if not the main source of evil on Earth.

P.S: I live (approximately) in Connecticut.

How many did the Druids kill?did you read de bello gallico? in book 6, chapter 16 caesar gives some insight, because he believes "Since we have come to the place, it does not appear to be foreign to our subject to lay before the reader an account of the manners of Gaul and Germany..." (book 6, chapter 11) anyway, here is what he writes:
The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases, and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods can not be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offense, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent.

Nonetheless, moderation and Sharia law can in theory go together, and unless we have seen the actual questions, we shouldn't make decisions on details.
I'll agree on this. If the questions were to indicate a positive response towards fundamentalist Sharia, it would be worrying. If, on the other hand, it was open-ended, it would give little information.

How many did the Druids kill?
most likely in the thousands to hundreds of thousands depending on how long they were along. if I remember correctly they used to fill wicker men with their enemies then light it afire. I am assuming that none survived the fire.

Ok people. The Druid post was a lame attempt of a joke. I know they practiced sacrifice....

:)

Hardly. It's merely that Islam has been flirting with this notion more than any other religion recently. So it's more than likely it will undergo criticism for this. Christianity and other religions did, and still are.
I think our problem with the debate of islam being violent is that we don't separate islam from arab. Is islam the religion peaceful look around at other cultures that now practice. Granted in this case...well it wasn't the arabs. It was africans so hmmm....maybe it is the religion. Or maybe the religion has been hijacked.

I did not point out, and you haven't made the case, that extremists
Strawman. But thanks for the attempt.

Comparing the entire religion and culture of Islam to Nazi Germany is stupid at best anyway, and I'm starting to think you wouldn't recognize the reasons why even if I explained them to you verrrry slowly.

Both blame Jews for their problems: Check
Both wish to eliminate Jews: Check
Both denied the holocaust was happening/happened: Check
Both deny rights to anyone not of their race/religion: Check
Both have centralized authority figures: Check
Both use hate and fear to further goals: Check

Did I miss any?

I think our problem with the debate of islam being violent is that we don't separate islam from arab. Is islam the religion peaceful look around at other cultures that now practice. Granted in this case...well it wasn't the arabs. It was africans so hmmm....maybe it is the religion. Or maybe the religion has been hijacked.
Probably a religion that has been hijacked, much how some Christian fundamentalists hijack the Bible.

Another thing many people forget with Christianity is that many, and perhaps now a majority, of its worshippers are black and hispanic. So this common association with Christianity being a "white" religion is foolish. That said, blacks and hispanics can be equally racist and equally bigotted when it comes to religion. It's an element of human nature it would seem. People will by default assume a Christian is white though. Odd.

Both blame Jews for their problems: Check
Both wish to eliminate Jews: Check
Both denied the holocaust was happening/happened: Check
Both deny rights to anyone not of their race/religion: Check
Both have centralized authority figures: Check
Both use hate and fear to further goals: Check

Did I miss any?

Wrong. You see, Nazi Germany was a political entity for which it's behaviors could be collectively described, as a result of the domestic and foreign policies of that entity.

Islam, however, is an entire fucking religion. It isn't a single political entity. It is inaccurate to ascribe the actions of a few of it's practitioners to all of them. "Denied the holocaust was happening," for example. Yeah, because the Iranian President does and he represents all Muslims, right? OH WAIT HE DOESNT.

It is a bullshit comparison.

Try again, or shut the fuck up.

Both blame Jews for their problems: Check
Both wish to eliminate Jews: Check
Both denied the holocaust was happening/happened: Check
Both deny rights to anyone not of their race/religion: Check
Both have centralized authority figures: Check
Both use hate and fear to further goals: Check

Did I miss any?

You missed on all of them. Most of these aren't true of Islam. Others, like "centralized authority figures," is also true of Roman Catholism and Ford Motor Company.

Wrong. You see, Nazi Germany was a political entity for which it's behaviors could be collectively described, as a result of the domestic and foreign policies of that entity.

Islam, however, is an entire fucking religion. It isn't a single political entity. It is inaccurate to ascribe the actions of a few of it's practitioners to all of them. "Denied the holocaust was happening," for example. Yeah, because the Iranian President does and he represents all Muslims, right? OH WAIT HE DOESNT.

It is a bullshit comparison.

Try again, or shut the fuck up.

hmm...move by muslims to govern by islamic law..seems political. Once religion starts moving into public policy of a nation. hey guess what they are political.

hmm...move by muslims to govern by islamic law..seems political. Once religion starts moving into public policy of a nation. hey guess what they are political.
I hardley see how Iranians = All Muslims.

You missed on all of them. Most of these aren't true of Islam. Others, like "centralized authority figures," is also true of Roman Catholism and Ford Motor Company.

who said the Ford Motor Co and the Roman Catholic Church weren't hateful. But my point was that it isn't off base to compare the two. Unless you can shoot down the statements with fact...I think with a little searching I can back them up pretty easy. hmm what did Iran say a couple of months ago...oh yeah the holocaust never happened...what did the Nazis say at Nuremburg...we didn't know the holocaust was going on.

I hardley see how Iranians = All Muslims.

Induction

There are no religions of peace, if you ask me.

Yes and no, depending on how one interprets them.

I think buddhism is pretty peaceful...not for me but peaceful

Right, now lets go blow the fuck out of an abortion clinic because Jesus says it's ok. :)

Right, now lets go blow the fuck out of an abortion clinic because Jesus says it's ok. :)

Maybe the Jesus a few select people WANT Him to be.....:rolleyes:

Maybe the Jesus a few select people WANT Him to be.....:rolleyes:

Burn in hell, evil communist immoral fag!

[:p ]

Even you know enough history to know that the cause of most of the bloodiest wars ever is religion. Hell, in WWII, you had Christian churches on both sides telling soldiers that to kill the enemy--fellow members of the same church at times--was God's will. And let's not forget places like Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa in Ireland for, oh, the last few hundred years. Hindus and Buddhists have been killing each other in India in just the past decade.

His lack of a mention of Christianity is irrelevant to me--it's the snarky tone about Islam being a "religion of peace" that pisses me off, because it intimates that violence is endemic to Islam, and that, by extension, it isn't to other religions.

Actually the church in germany did very little they didnt help either side.

Hindus and Buddhist??? last time i checked it was Hindus and Mueslims.

It's only the minority of irish that support these attacks just like we only ever hear about a islam minority infact the news only shows people the minority groups the MAJORITY usally have nothing to do with these events.

P.S. Hitler was a atheist so that means Atheist have blood on there hands.