NationStates Jolt Archive

...I recently got hold of a koran so I can find out what islam's really about. I've been speaking to more muslims. But no matter how much I try to see islam as a peaceful religion, bad stuff keeps popping up. Like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6412453.stm

Any thoughts?

It isn't Islam. It's religion.

Judaism has done this. Christianity has done this. Hell, Atheism has done this.

The weak-willed sheep who worship their religion will always be around to damage the image of those of us who worship our god instead.

:(

All it takes is a few power-hungry leaders to deceive the innocent for people to act foolishly in the name of religion.

Atheism isn't a religion.

The attack on the Mandaeans is probably part of a long tradition of persecution, and it isn't particularly a problem with islam itself. The chances are you are Not going to be particularly impressed by the humanity of Any Abrahamic religion when you read their holy book. http://youtube.com/watch?v=icaseQQO-hs. Christianity may be 'better' but I would argue that it has been enlightenment and secularism that have made it 'better', often while under attack by Christians for doing so, so it is no less repressive in itself.

That said, believing that one's holy book is the word of god rather than a historical record can only encourage violence.

Do we need another Muslim-bashing thread?

It isn't Islam. It's religion.

Judaism has done this. Christianity has done this. Hell, Atheism has done this.

The weak-willed sheep who worship their religion will always be around to damage the image of those of us who worship our god instead.

:(
No, it's not religion: it's humanity and the way we think.

No, it's not religion: it's humanity and the way we think.It's authoritarians & the way they think. Leave me out of it, thank you.

The problem with the world is when people think they are so inorexably right in their beliefs, others are wrong and therefore must be punished/converted. This has happened with all belief systems, and if you look deeper into most forms of evil they are largely the same thing. It is easy to get into that state with religion or atheism which is why there is an Islamic extremist element today.

Religion has been used by the powers that be to solidify their rule and oppress minorities and dissidents for centuries-pretty much ever since religion has been around.

Also, don't let the media's constant stream of horror stories deceive you, they look far and wide for scary/horrifying things.

Do we need another Muslim-bashing thread?

Life is short -
Filled with stuff,
Don't know what for -
I ain't had enough,
I learned all I know by the age of nine -
But i could better myself, if i could only find

Some new kind of kick! Something i ain't had -
Some new kind of buzz! I wanna go hog mad!
I'm lookin' and lookin' and lookin' for -
Something i ain't had before!
I'm lookin' and lookin' and lookin' and lookin' to find -
Some new kind of kick! Some new kind of kick! Gimme a - kick!

Like Baby needs Mom, like Susie needs Dick - this baby needs -
Some new kind of kick! I want some new kind of kick!
I want some new kind of kick! I want some new kind of kick!
I'm lookin' and lookin' and lookin' for -
Something I ain't had before!
I'm lookin and lookin' and lookin'to find -
Some new kind of kick!

Life is short -
Filled with stuff,
Don't know what for -
I ain't had enough,
I want some new kind of kick! I want some new kind of kick!
I want some new kind of kick! Ah-wha-wha-wha-wha-wh-wha!
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Energy!

Barco!

Draino hot shot!

Whack attack!

Alien!

Nitrous Oxide!

Formaldehyde!

Some new kind of kick!

...I recently got hold of a koran so I can find out what islam's really about. I've been speaking to more muslims. But no matter how much I try to see islam as a peaceful religion, bad stuff keeps popping up. Like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6412453.stm

Any thoughts?

There are nutjobs in every religion.

Yeah, I don't really like any religions, but Islam is probably among my least favorite. It seems rather philosophically shallow and brutish from what I've read, more so than most faiths, at least.

Religion isn't to blame here it's extremism some people in all (except maybe Buddhism) religions takes it over the top.

Religion isn't to blame here it's extremism some people in all (except maybe Buddhism) religions takes it over the top.

During the Sengoku period in Japan buddhist monks took over their own Daimyos, usually with military force. Also, ever heard of the Bon religion? No? Thank the Tibetan buddhist kings for that...

Oh, I dunno, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't have the urge to convert or oppress anyone. I guess it can't be religion that causes those things, can it?

Oh, I dunno, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't have the urge to convert or oppress anyone. I guess it can't be religion that causes those things, can it?

I was raised Roman Catholic, too. I have converted, to this date, three people who were heavily against Starbucks to drink Starbucks coffee almost daily. I feel bad about that. I do believe that it was nurture and not nature that turned me into this. Thankfully, I haven't tried to convert anybody over to a religion or a military force or anything like that.

Oh, I dunno, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't have the urge to convert or oppress anyone. I guess it can't be religion that causes those things, can it?

Seconded. Christian as they come and I have no particular urge to convert/kill anyone. Well I suppose I'd like people to believe what I do out of concern for their soul (cheesey line eh? :D) but I'm not gonna force anyone.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.

Hell, Atheism has done this.

When has any atheist killed or thrown somebody into a fire because of their 'religion'? And if you say anything to do with communism I will laugh.

I was raised Roman Catholic, too. I have converted, to this date, three people who were heavily against Starbucks to drink Starbucks coffee almost daily. I feel bad about that. I do believe that it was nurture and not nature that turned me into this. Thankfully, I haven't tried to convert anybody over to a religion or a military force or anything like that.

How dare you! Who gave you the right to use your ideologies as fuel to convert people to Starbucksology? Huh? HUH?

How dare you! Who gave you the right to use your ideologies as fuel to convert people to Starbucksology? Huh? HUH?

I grew up in a heavily Capitalist area, man. You don't know what it was like!


The commercials! ------..... the commercials....

I was raised Roman Catholic, too. I have converted, to this date, three people who were heavily against Starbucks to drink Starbucks coffee almost daily. I feel bad about that. I do believe that it was nurture and not nature that turned me into this. Thankfully, I haven't tried to convert anybody over to a religion or a military force or anything like that.

YOU FIEND!!!


(Venti Skim Chai Latte ftw!) ;)

YOU FIEND!!!


(Venti Skim Chai Latte ftw!) ;)

Bold Venti Coffee.... though I do get that pumpkin spicy coffee drink when it comes out in fall because it makes my mouth and tummy have separate and wonderful orgasms.

YOU FIEND!!!


(Venti Skim Chai Latte ftw!) ;)

My personal favorite Starbucks drink was the Chantico. It was basically pure chocolate melted in a cup and served piping hot.

They stopped serving it about a year ago.

I no longer go to Starbucks.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.

:) QFT -- in my sig.

My personal favorite Starbucks drink was the Chantico. It was basically pure chocolate melted in a cup and served piping hot.

They stopped serving it about a year ago.

I no longer go to Starbucks.

Your quote scares me because I often try to make people believe in absurdities.


My pinky finger is nickelplated.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.

I wonder if you could somehow set up an equation to show how many fucktards will be in a given number of people...

Probably not, but that would be cool.

:) QFT -- in my sig.

Yay!

Your quote scares me because I often try to make people believe in absurdities.


My pinky finger is nickelplated.
pfft mine's platinum

Venti Skim Chai Latte

Bold Venti Coffee...

Chantico.

They're speaking in Tongues! :eek: :p

pfft mine's platinum

well, Mines candy-coated!

mmmmm

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1119/images/16-dr%20evil.jpg

When has any atheist killed or thrown somebody into a fire because of their 'religion'? And if you say anything to do with communism I will laugh.

Commies! Bloody communistic commies!!!

I'll do anything for a laugh. :)

However, both China and Russia(who had their own unique brand of socialism) were well known for atrocities against various religious groups. Hell, look at China's recent acts when dealing with the Falun Gong(However it's spelled).

What I'm talking about, however, is that there are people who worship and will go to extremist measures to forward the cause of atheism. Some atheists are not content in their belief there is no god. They have to attack the faith of others. In that sense, they are every bit as 'evil' as any religious fundamentalist that can't tolerate other faiths.

They're speaking in Tongues! :eek: :p

Though you may walk in the valley of sleepiness, lo there will appear a Starbucks on every street corner and thou wilt stand in line and order according to scripture and move thine ass quickly to the other part of the counter and wait for your beverage and Hark! the barista shall announce your order and it will be good and adjusted to your individual tongue.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.It's undoubtedly true, but usually not relevant. Religion, especially Christianity & Islam, frequently serves as an excuse for social & political control, and opportunism. That, more than anything else, is why so much terror's done in it's name.

well lets keep it simple, the guy who said its humanity is right, and no way you can keep out of it, you'r responsable for what's going around you, either you have the power to change it or not, there's allways another way, like joining forces with other people to overthrowed tyrans for example.

"iraqi extremists try to wipe out other religions"

"lets strike the common threat of communism"

is there so much difference? iraq-vietnam-usa-china-england-russia wherever you go you'll allways find someone trying to wipe out any kind of resistence.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.


Yep. Its that expo-- thing.....like Irish people, drink, and rows. More of one, the more of the other, thus leading to the inevitable.

Semi-conscious Irish people with hangovers :)

Oh, and the bar with no furniture in one piece...

Yep. Its that expo-- thing.....like Irish people, drink, and rows. More of one, the more of the other, thus leading to the inevitable.

Semi-conscious Irish people with hangovers :)

hey junii, were you also Smokey the NSer? I don't get how you were the first Forum Firefighter otherwise...

Your quote scares me because I often try to make people believe in absurdities.


My pinky finger is nickelplated.

*Gets out his sword* Alright, who do you want me to kill?

Though you may walk in the valley of sleepiness, lo there will appear a Starbucks on every street corner and thou wilt stand in line and order according to scripture and move thine ass quickly to the other part of the counter and wait for your beverage and Hark! the barista shall announce your order and it will be good and adjusted to your individual tongue.
Hark! the herald angel sings!

1.1 In the beginning were Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegel, and Gordon Bowker, and fresh coffee beans and water.

1.2 The coffee beans were without form and empty, with green on their face, but the coffee beans' spirits moved on the water's surface.

1.3 And Baldwin, Siegel, and Bowker said, "Let there be coffee," and coffee came into existence.

1.4 Baldwin, Siegel, and Bowker saw that the coffee was good, and divided the light coffee and the dark coffee.

1.5 Then Baldwin, Siegel, and Bowker named the light 'Cafe au Lait' and the dark 'Espresso'. It was Cafe au Lait and Espresso, one menu.

There's more, but that's all I had to recite to become a young Jewish coffee-drinking man :)

So are you saying that anyone who likes Espresso is a minion of darkness?

It's not the book that counts, it's the people.

You have to choose whether you want to look at all the simple decent Muslims living ordinary lives, or the ones who are violent maniacs. The choice is completely up to you.

Reading the bible won't tell you anything about the crusades or the inquisition or the dark ages or anti-abortion and creationist maniacs.

Reading the Torah won't give you any insight into the shooting of Palestinian kids, the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory or the rape of Lebanon last summer.

So are you saying that anyone who likes Espresso is a minion of darkness?
hm, Deus Malum... an evil name...
and chantico is just one short hop from espresso, already the same colour, no?

*Gets out his sword* Alright, who do you want me to kill?

Kevin Costner. We've all seen enough movies out of him. Thank him for his effort, though.

hm, Deus Malum... an evil name...
and chantico is just one short hop from espresso, already the same colour, no?

Yup. Pretty evil.

Not really, chanticos were super-sweet and super-rich and were just all-around awesome.

Yup. Pretty evil.

Not really, chanticos were super-sweet and super-rich and were just all-around awesome.
oh well. that's why i just translated Starbucks Genesis, and leave the commentary to others.

1. This thread was created solely to get thoughts from people - with maybe some more explanations on how and why islam is seen as a peaceful religion

2. Ths really bad stuff in the Bible is in the Old Testament. Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:14) and according to the bible, Jesus stated that the most important commandments are to love God and your neighbour (and possibly to believe in only one God). (Mark 12:29-31)

1. This thread was created solely to get thoughts from people - with maybe some more explanations on how and why islam is seen as a peaceful religion

Because for every militant muslim there are countless peaceful muslims.
The difference is that the peaceful ones never get into the news, so you don't hear much about them.

Oh, I dunno, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't have the urge to convert or oppress anyone. I guess it can't be religion that causes those things, can it?

What about the crusades, or the spanish enquistion(sp?), or what settlers did to the native Americans, or the Ugandian lord's resistance army? All have done these things in the name of Christianity. Islam doesn't have a monoply on people doing bad things in its name.

edit: I forgot about the IRA and that conflict. Again, done by Christians.

What about the crusades, or the spanish enquistion(sp?), or what settlers did to the native Americans, or the Ugandian lord's resistance army? All have done these things in the name of Christianity. Islam doesn't have a monoply on people doing bad things in its name.

True. But the difference is that Christians (or people claiming to be Christians) generally aren't STILL going around doing violent things and trying to oppressively turn everyone Christian in the 21st century.

True. But the difference is that Christians (or people claiming to be Christians) generally aren't STILL going around doing violent things

Of course they are.

Go look at a prison.

and trying to oppressively turn everyone Christian in the 21st century.

Well, I've had more people try to turn me into a Christian than a Muslim. In fact, I can't think of anyone anywhere who tried to turn me into a Muslim at all.

By walking into a local market wearing a suicide bomb, and blowing themselves up along with 20 other people?

No, I can't say I've ever had anyone try to convert me using that particular method. Why is that relevant to what I said?

Well, I've had more people try to turn me into a Christian than a Muslim.

By walking into a local market wearing a suicide bomb, and blowing themselves up along with 20 other people?

By walking into a local market wearing a suicide bomb, and blowing themselves up along with 20 other people?

well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_ben_Yahweh ... some christian cults are hardly blameless

Of course they are.

Go look at a prison.

Not on the scale it was during the crusades (and the scale that islam is STILL on in amount of people claiming to be muslim comitting violent acts)



Well, I've had more people try to turn me into a Christian than a Muslim. In fact, I can't think of anyone anywhere who tried to turn me into a Muslim at all.

As Eve Online suggested, there are accounts of muslims trying to convert people by violence or the threat of it. There have been numerous news reports of this, not even counting the resports of people who have converted from islam to another religion and being threatened with death if they don't convert back. The fact that nobody has PERSONALLY tried to turn you into a muslim doesn't change that. Plus how many of the Christians who tried to convert you were oppressive in the way they did it - eg. "convert or die", "convert or we'll rape your sister", etc?

As Eve Online suggested, there are accounts of muslims trying to convert people by violence or the threat of it. There have been numerous news reports of this, not even counting the resports of people who have converted from islam to another religion and being threatened with death if they don't convert back. The fact that nobody has PERSONALLY tried to turn you into a muslim doesn't change that. Plus how many of the Christians who tried to convert you were oppressive in the way they did it - eg. "convert or die", "convert or we'll rape your sister", etc?

Few times with the "Convert or you will spend your eternal life in helfire" ... Silly if you dont believe in that BS but I can see how it would deffinatly be a threat if you started from the POV of hell being real

No muslem has ever tried to convert me, in any form in real life.

As Eve Online suggested, there are accounts of muslims trying to convert people by violence or the threat of it. There have been numerous news reports of this, not even counting the resports of people who have converted from islam to another religion and being threatened with death if they don't convert back. The fact that nobody has PERSONALLY tried to turn you into a muslim doesn't change that.

It does put into perspective your silly inclination that only Muslims go around trying to convert people. And it doesn't even address your equally silly inclination that only Muslims are violent.

But personally, I'm very skeptical about the aim of suicide bombers being conversion.

Plus how many of the Christians who tried to convert you were oppressive in the way they did it - eg. "convert or die", "convert or we'll rape your sister", etc?

"convert or burn in hell for all eternity" sounds kinda oppressive to me. You meant "coercive" however. And so what if they don't commit criminal acts when they try to convert me? They still try.

Not on the scale it was during the crusades (and the scale that islam is STILL on in amount of people claiming to be muslim comitting violent acts)

I would argue against both defenses. One, how are you comparing the "scale?" How are you even quantifying the level of violence during the crusades?

Two, how are you comparing muslims committing violent acts with christians? Sheer total? Or relative to the each group?

Not on the scale it was during the crusades (and the scale that islam is STILL on in amount of people claiming to be muslim comitting violent acts)





As Eve Online suggested, there are accounts of muslims trying to convert people by violence or the threat of it. There have been numerous news reports of this, not even counting the resports of people who have converted from islam to another religion and being threatened with death if they don't convert back. The fact that nobody has PERSONALLY tried to turn you into a muslim doesn't change that. Plus how many of the Christians who tried to convert you were oppressive in the way they did it - eg. "convert or die", "convert or we'll rape your sister", etc?

Not too familiar with the conflicts in the UK, huh? The problem is and always will be when people are more concerned with forcing their beliefs on you than you as a person. This happens in nearly every ideology. Extremism is scary and pretending it doesn't exist in Christianity is just closing your eyes. Why do you think they burned crosses on the lawns of minorities? Helicopter landing pads? A message to the red cross?

Because for every militant muslim there are countless peaceful muslims.
The difference is that the peaceful ones never get into the news, so you don't hear much about them.

Precisely. When you speak to most Muslims, they are very clear that they do not think Allah or Muhammad would advocate the actions of terrorists, rape, honor killings, etc. Of course, the news doesn't show voices of reason. It shows whatever is most sensationalist. Thus, those who won't bother to actually get to know any Muslims see nothing but the news reports of violence.

True. But the difference is that Christians (or people claiming to be Christians) generally aren't STILL going around doing violent things and trying to oppressively turn everyone Christian in the 21st century.

No, but when Christianity was the same age as a religion that Islam is now, we had things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.

As Eve Online suggested, there are accounts of muslims trying to convert people by violence or the threat of it. There have been numerous news reports of this, not even counting the resports of people who have converted from islam to another religion and being threatened with death if they don't convert back. The fact that nobody has PERSONALLY tried to turn you into a muslim doesn't change that. Plus how many of the Christians who tried to convert you were oppressive in the way they did it - eg. "convert or die", "convert or we'll rape your sister", etc?

Tactics like that used by Christian "missionaries" in the past are precisely why missionary work is technically illegal in some parts of the world - including some countries in Southeast Asia. "Convert or die" has been used by quite a few religions.

I think it's important to note that, in the scheme of things, Islam has been around now for about as long as Christianity had during the Dark Ages. Perhaps organized religion, or maybe all power structures, go through violent stages. At least there are many, many adherents of Islam who would never advocate such practices.

I was gonna quote people to make references, but several people often say the same thing and hopefully I'll be clear enough without doing so.

These threads dealing with the pros and cons of Islam always wind up with a few of the same arguments defending it. It's predictable enough, and looks suspiciously like a bunch of talking points.

The fact is, Islam has not demonstrated itself to be a religion of peace. Sorry, I know that isn't the popular percpective, but it hasn't. For some reason they seem to be the darlings of apologists, and even Atheists defend Islam by citing it as being, at worst, no worse than Christianity. The apologists generally use the following:

Excuse 1, "We only see the really bad ones. The good ones never get any attention."

That's not good enough. When Christian extremists cross the line, they're brought to the mat by other Christians. Not many examples exist in current events of religious-based terrorism by Christians in modern times(Which ought to tell you something right there), but one is the IRA. When they blow up something, other Catholics take action. Both Irish Protestants and Catholics act to bring them to justice.

Excuse 2, "Christians are just as bad. Look at the Crusades!"

The Crusades took place a thousand years ago. At worst, I could say that Christianity WAS violent and militant and all that, but I can also say they've developed beyond that. Islam is still making excuses for the same old BS.

But I'd also say that when one looks at the actual circumstances surrounding the Crusades, one will notice that Islam had been spreading itself by the sword for years even before the First Crusade was launched. (This little detail is often overlooked in order to make it appear that Christianity and Islam were somehow both morally equivalent, or even to show Christians were worse.)

Excuse 3, "They've been invaded and kicked around."

When the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan circa 1980 the Mujehaddin was given support, weapons, training and ammo by the West. They fought their invaders on the soil that was invaded and were engaged in an honest stand up defensive war. That was the last time a Middle Eastern nation was invaded by a Western power until 1989 when the Unites States led coalition went into Iraq after being INVITED by Saudi Arabia to come in. The continued presence of the western armies in SA and Kuwait was at the request of, and with permission of those Governments.

Excuse 4, "Well the Christian Bible/Jewish Torah are just as violent as the Koran!"

So? Christians and Jews are still expected to behave like human beings regardless. (And they do.) Islam gets a pass.

Excuse 5, "Well Christians may be less violent but they still try to force their beliefs on everybody!"

BS. Take the parts of the world where, since the Middle Ages, you've had Christianity and Islam. Go ahead. Draw yourself a map. Now look at the Muslim parts. Show me one country that has good civil rights. Go on. Take your time. Now look at the Christian parts. Show me one that doesn't.

You might find a couple scattered exceptions, but by and large you'll see my point.

Flame me if you want, but I'm just sayin' what a lot of people are thinkin'.

I think it's important to note that, in the scheme of things, Islam has been around now for about as long as Christianity had during the Dark Ages. Perhaps organized religion, or maybe all power structures, go through violent stages. At least there are many, many adherents of Islam who would never advocate such practices.

I should have added this one to my list. This argument implicitly admits that Islam is 1,000 years more primitive than Christianity.

But that's okay because the argument holds no water. Muslims live in the same world as everybody else. Either Islam is a peaceful religion, equivalent to any other, or it isn't. Making excuses for it doesn't make everything alright.

I was gonna quote people to make references, but several people often say the same thing and hopefully I'll be clear enough without doing so.

These threads dealing with the pros and cons of Islam always wind up with a few of the same arguments defending it. It's predictable enough, and looks suspiciously like a bunch of talking points.

The fact is, Islam has not demonstrated itself to be a religion of peace. Sorry, I know that isn't the popular percpective, but it hasn't. For some reason they seem to be the darlings of apologists, and even Atheists defend Islam by citing it as being, at worst, no worse than Christianity. The apologists generally use the following:

Excuse 1, "We only see the really bad ones. The good ones never get any attention."

That's not good enough. When Christian extremists cross the line, they're brought to the mat by other Christians. Not many examples exist in current events of religious-based terrorism by Christians in modern times(Which ought to tell you something right there), but one is the IRA. When they blow up something, other Catholics take action. Both Irish Protestants and Catholics act to bring them to justice.

Excuse 2, "Christians are just as bad. Look at the Crusades!"

The Crusades took place a thousand years ago. At worst, I could say that Christianity WAS violent and militant and all that, but I can also say they've developed beyond that. Islam is still making excuses for the same old BS.

But I'd also say that when one looks at the actual circumstances surrounding the Crusades, one will notice that Islam had been spreading itself by the sword for years even before the First Crusade was launched. (This little detail is often overlooked in order to make it appear that Christianity and Islam were somehow both morally equivalent, or even to show Christians were worse.)

Excuse 3, "They've been invaded and kicked around."

When the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan circa 1980 the Mujehaddin was given support, weapons, training and ammo by the West. They fought their invaders on the soil that was invaded and were engaged in an honest stand up defensive war. That was the last time a Middle Eastern nation was invaded by a Western power until 1989 when the Unites States led coalition went into Iraq after being INVITED by Saudi Arabia to come in. The continued presence of the western armies in SA and Kuwait was at the request of, and with permission of those Governments.

Excuse 4, "Well the Christian Bible/Jewish Torah are just as violent as the Koran!"

So? Christians and Jews are still expected to behave like human beings regardless. (And they do.) Islam gets a pass.

Excuse 5, "Well Christians may be less violent but they still try to force their beliefs on everybody!"

BS. Take the parts of the world where, since the Middle Ages, you've had Christianity and Islam. Go ahead. Draw yourself a map. Now look at the Muslim parts. Show me one country that has good civil rights. Go on. Take your time. Now look at the Christian parts. Show me one that doesn't.

You might find a couple scattered exceptions, but by and large you'll see my point.

Flame me if you want, but I'm just sayin' what a lot of people are thinkin'.

Fine. Let's start with US. The US not that long ago famously beat and brutalized latinos, (in CA where they are the natives, not white people), because they were peacefully requesting reasonable schooling conditions. The US even TODAY doesn't give full civil rights to homosexuals. The US has never had a female, atheist or minority president. Females are still underrepresented in nearly every walk of life, and typically the same can be said of minorities and atheists.

In my lifetime there were still "Christian" nations owning other nations and many African nations are still hellholes because of it. In my lifetime, there were still bombings of medical clinics because "Christians" didn't like what they were doing.

The Vice President of the US is traveling around in a plane named after a man who proudly stood for treating one people as subordinate to another.

So much for taking such things to task. Things are cyclical. Christianity is only a religion of peace if one has a VERY short memory. There is no religion that can hold a candle to the evils conducted in the name of Christianity by any measuring stick.

Does that mean Christianity is evil or perhaps it was just a tool used by evil people? You can't say it about one religion unless you're willing to accept that the religion is not responsible for the actions of certain extremists. Or they are and Christianity is evil. You decide.

The fact is, Islam has not demonstrated itself to be a religion of peace.

The fact is, "Islam" cannot "demonstrate itself" to be anything. It isn't an entity. Like any religion, Islam is as varied as its adherents. For most adherents, it is a religion of peace. For some, it is not.

Excuse 1, "We only see the really bad ones. The good ones never get any attention."

That's not good enough. When Christian extremists cross the line, they're brought to the mat by other Christians. Not many examples exist in current events of religious-based terrorism by Christians in modern times(Which ought to tell you something right there), but one is the IRA. When they blow up something, other Catholics take action. Both Irish Protestants and Catholics act to bring them to justice.

That's nice. How much news coverage do we get of them "being brought to the mat by other Christians"? I, for one, have never seen a single news story about any Christian organization officially speaking out against the IRA or even those who bomb women's clinics. Yes, because I am a Christian and have spoken to many, I know that most Christians condemn such actions. But I have yet to see any news coverage of this.

Likewise, I know that every Muslim I have ever spoken to has condemned such actions. I have also actually seen, on rare occasions, news reports of Muslim organizations officially doing so. In that sense, I've seen more Muslim action in this domain that Christian.

Excuse 2, "Christians are just as bad. Look at the Crusades!"

The Crusades took place a thousand years ago. At worst, I could say that Christianity WAS violent and militant and all that, but I can also say they've developed beyond that. Islam is still making excuses for the same old BS.

Islam is a much younger religion.

Excuse 3, "They've been invaded and kicked around."

When the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan circa 1980 the Mujehaddin was given support, weapons, training and ammo by the West. They fought their invaders on the soil that was invaded and were engaged in an honest stand up defensive war. That was the last time a Middle Eastern nation was invaded by a Western power until 1989 when the Unites States led coalition went into Iraq after being INVITED by Saudi Arabia to come in. The continued presence of the western armies in SA and Kuwait was at the request of, and with permission of those Governments.

Do you have to be invaded by a "Western power" for it to count? The entire Middle East (pretty much) was colonized by Western powers for years, and then largely left to their own devices. There has been constant sectarian strife in that area for the entirety of modern history.

It isn't an excuse for the behavior of terrorists, but it does make it much more understandable. Even without influences of a specific religion, areas with this much violence tend to result in a great number of terrorists, rebellions, etc. And such movements always look for someone to blame and attack.

Excuse 4, "Well the Christian Bible/Jewish Torah are just as violent as the Koran!"

So? Christians and Jews are still expected to behave like human beings regardless. (And they do.) Islam gets a pass.

Huh? This so-called "excuse" is used when those who know little about Islam start citing passages from the Qur'an to "prove" that Islam is violent. No one is giving anyone "a pass" for violent actions.

Just as Christians and Jews can and have realized that the violent passages in the Bible are not to be followed - to "behave like human beings," as you put it. Likewise, most Muslims do the same with the more violent passages in the Qur'an, realizing that violence may have its place, but that place is very, very limited.

Excuse 5, "Well Christians may be less violent but they still try to force their beliefs on everybody!"

BS. Take the parts of the world where, since the Middle Ages, you've had Christianity and Islam. Go ahead. Draw yourself a map. Now look at the Muslim parts. Show me one country that has good civil rights. Go on. Take your time. Now look at the Christian parts. Show me one that doesn't.

Correlation != causation, my dear. Once again, you have to look at the history of the given countries outside of religion as well - and you'll see a pretty huge difference. If we look at other nations with comparable histories to the majority of the Middle East, you won't find many countries at all with "good civil rights," even though many of them are actually Catholic-dominated. Check out much of South and Latin America, for instance. Check out much of Africa - where countries are generally either Catholic or Muslim dominated.

And I can show you the US, where there are currently many fights going on with Christians trying to force religion into public schools and government programs. The overall view of civil rights is good - but there are quite a few extremists who would rather see otherwise - whether we're talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., etc.

Extremists and assholes exist - no matter what religion they are a part of.

You might find a couple scattered exceptions, but by and large you'll see my point.[/qutoe]

A couple scattered exceptions? Are we refusing to count the majority of the world and only focusing on "Western" nations vs. "Middle Eastern" nations?

[quote]Flame me if you want, but I'm just sayin' what a lot of people are thinkin'.

The problem is that you aren't really thinking. You want so badly to attack the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few that your arguments are pretty much completely unreasoned.

Fine. Let's start with US. The US not that long ago famously beat and brutalized latinos, (in CA where they are the natives, not white people), because they were peacefully requesting reasonable schooling conditions. The US even TODAY doesn't give full civil rights to homosexuals. The US has never had a female, atheist or minority president. Females are still underrepresented in nearly every walk of life, and typically the same can be said of minorities and atheists.

In my lifetime there were still "Christian" nations owning other nations and many African nations are still hellholes because of it. In my lifetime, there were still bombings of medical clinics because "Christians" didn't like what they were doing.

The Vice President of the US is traveling around in a plane named after a man who proudly stood for treating one people as subordinate to another.

So much for taking such things to task. Things are cyclical. Christianity is only a religion of peace if one has a VERY short memory. There is no religion that can hold a candle to the evils conducted in the name of Christianity by any measuring stick.

Does that mean Christianity is evil or perhaps it was just a tool used by evil people? You can't say it about one religion unless you're willing to accept that the religion is not responsible for the actions of certain extremists. Or they are and Christianity is evil. You decide.

And in your mind, that gives Islam a complete pass. Do whatever they like, we're not in a position to even suggest it's wrong...

And in your mind, that gives Islam a complete pass.

From being responsible for the actions of members?

Yes. Completely.

Because I believe in personal responsibility. That means blame for the person. A person makes a crime, not some amorphous religion. "Christianity" didn't burn people at the stake and "Islam" doesn't commit terrorism. People, not religions, are responsible for their actions.

But I suppose you have a different view stemming from your own belief in collective punishment and... well, collectivism. ;)

I should have added this one to my list. This argument implicitly admits that Islam is 1,000 years more primitive than Christianity.

But that's okay because the argument holds no water. Muslims live in the same world as everybody else. Either Islam is a peaceful religion, equivalent to any other, or it isn't. Making excuses for it doesn't make everything alright.

Selective memory. There are over 1000 hate crimes a year against homosexuals primarily conducted by Christians and that is in the US alone.

In the week after 9/11, there were reports of literally hundreds of hate crimes against anyone who even looked Muslim. Who do you think committed the majority of those crimes? Buddhists?

Abortion clinic bombings? Must be those damn Muslims again.

And, no, no one is taking these people to task either. Extremists are dangerous. They aren't unique to Islam.

I should have added this one to my list. This argument implicitly admits that Islam is 1,000 years more primitive than Christianity.

And, in a sense it is - just as Christianity is much more "primitive" than Judaism. As a general rule, the adherents are not more primitive, but the power structure and the way in which each religion is used quite often are.

And it's really the power structure that we have to look at when discussing organized religions in this way. The vast majority of people in just about any religion are going to be mostly non-violent, because people simply don't want to get involved in that sort of thing. The question is whether or not the power structure is violent or advocates violence.

In the case of Islam, some of those in power have a violent mentality, and try and convince others to comply. Some do not. In Christianity, it would appear that less of the power structure advocates violence. Of course, Christianity as a whole has (a) had more time to mature and (b) has mostly taken root in countries that do not have current sectarian strife and tribal, war-like social structures.

But that's okay because the argument holds no water. Muslims live in the same world as everybody else. Either Islam is a peaceful religion, equivalent to any other, or it isn't. Making excuses for it doesn't make everything alright.

Once again, "Islam" is not an entity. It is a religion - made up of people from all walks of life. To say that Islam is either a peaceful religion, or it isn't is, well, stupid. There are violent Muslims. There are violent Christians. There are violent Hindus, etc., etc. Quite often, members of a religion who turn to violence or try and convince others to be violent will cite their religion as their reason.

No one is "making excuses" for anything. That's the problem you're having here - you are misinterpreting the entire discussion. People are simply pointing out the differences between the religions that you are missing. Of course, you also seem to be missing the fact that most Muslims - especially those in your oft-cited "Western" countries are very peaceful, and seemingly much less likely to actively try to convert others than the Christians in those countries (although this certainly can be because of the fact that the Christians hold more power there).

[quote=Eve Online ]
And in your mind, that gives Islam a complete pass. Do whatever they like, we're not in a position to even suggest it's wrong...[/qutoe]

And Eve Online makes no pretense about bringing the straw to the table....

Suggest it's wrong all you like. Just don't pretend that (a) all or even most Muslims advocate such actions or (b) such actions are exclusive to followers of a single religion.

And in your mind, that gives Islam a complete pass. Do whatever they like, we're not in a position to even suggest it's wrong...

Nope. In my mind, it means that individuals are to held responsible for the crimes of individuals. My muslims friends are no more responsible for the actions of Al Queda than I am for the actions of Timothy McVeigh. I'm sorry that I don't share your unabashed hatred for a group of people, but I save my ire for the actions of individuals since that is where the responsibility lies.

From being responsible for the actions of members?

Yes. Completely.

Because I believe in personal responsibility. That means blame for the person. A person makes a crime, not some amorphous religion. "Christianity" didn't burn people at the stake and "Islam" doesn't commit terrorism. People, not religions, are responsible for their actions.

But I suppose you have a different view stemming from your own belief in collective punishment and... well, collectivism. ;)

Ah, so you don't believe that a person's beliefs ever raise the odds that they'll engage in a certain behavior...

Fine. Let's start with US. The US not that long ago famously beat and brutalized latinos, (in CA where they are the natives, not white people), because they were peacefully requesting reasonable schooling conditions. The US even TODAY doesn't give full civil rights to homosexuals. The US has never had a female, atheist or minority president. Females are still underrepresented in nearly every walk of life, and typically the same can be said of minorities and atheists.

Are you suggesting that Islam can only be criticized for its violence if the USA is perfect in every way?

And while we're on the subject, go on down that list and compare the lot of each of those groups to what it would be like for them in an agerave Islamic country. I dare you.


In my lifetime there were still "Christian" nations owning other nations and many African nations are still hellholes because of it. In my lifetime, there were still bombings of medical clinics because "Christians" didn't like what they were doing.

Not all the hell in Africa came from colonialization, much as you'd probably like to think so. How about the places where Christian farmers are being killed by Islamic squatters who force them off their land or murder them and are permitted to do this by Muslim Governments who look the other way?


The Vice President of the US is traveling around in a plane named after a man who proudly stood for treating one people as subordinate to another.

Please elaborate. Then explain how that ties to the religion of the Vice President.


So much for taking such things to task. Things are cyclical. Christianity is only a religion of peace if one has a VERY short memory. There is no religion that can hold a candle to the evils conducted in the name of Christianity by any measuring stick.

So you're using excuse #2. Noted. I'd also like to see what you think the Inquisition did 700 years ago that is worse than what's happening TODAY in several parts of the Middle East.


Does that mean Christianity is evil or perhaps it was just a tool used by evil people? You can't say it about one religion unless you're willing to accept that the religion is not responsible for the actions of certain extremists. Or they are and Christianity is evil. You decide.

Look at the OP. It's about trying to somehow force the idea that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion in open defiance of what we see every day. That's intellectually dishonest.

Are you suggesting that Islam can only be criticized for its violence if the USA is perfect in every way?

"Islam" cannot commit violence. Human beings commit violence. Some of them are Muslim, some are not. But you would never stand for anyone criticizing Christianity for the actions of certain Christians. In fact, I've seen you state that they did what they did despite their religion, rather than because of it.

Is it so hard to consider the fact that most adherents of Islam feel the same way about the violent actions taken by some Muslims?

Look at the OP. It's about trying to somehow force the idea that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion in open defiance of what we see every day. That's intellectually dishonest.

No, it means that some of us have actually looked into Islam as a religion - as a whole, rather than just what gets reported in the news. Some of us have *gasp* spoken to Muslims - even befriended Muslims, who will tell us what they think of their religion and what they believe about the types of things we see in the news.

Do you judge Christianity just by what you see in the news? Would it be appropriate to judge Christianity as a whole by Fred Phelps and crew, bombings of women's clinics, beatings of homosexuals, botched "exorcisms" resulting in the death of children and the mentally ill, opposition to possibly life-saving immunizations, attempts to teach non-science as science, and the actions of the IRA? Because that's what you see in the news.

By your logic, the general viewpoints of Christianity you see in predominantly Muslim countries are perfectly justified, since that's what they see in the news every day and on "Western" television shows.....

Islam as just as "inherently peaceful" and "inherently violent" as EVERY OTHER RELIGION. This is because all religions are made up of human beings - some of who will easily turn to violence and some of whom will avoid it.

From being responsible for the actions of members?

Yes. Completely.

Because I believe in personal responsibility. That means blame for the person. A person makes a crime, not some amorphous religion. "Christianity" didn't burn people at the stake and "Islam" doesn't commit terrorism. People, not religions, are responsible for their actions.

Once again, "Islam" is not an entity. It is a religion - made up of people from all walks of life. To say that Islam is either a peaceful religion, or it isn't is, well, stupid. There are violent Muslims. There are violent Christians. There are violent Hindus, etc., etc. Quite often, members of a religion who turn to violence or try and convince others to be violent will cite their religion as their reason.
Nope. In my mind, it means that individuals are to held responsible for the crimes of individuals.
You guys make me proud :fluffle:

Are you suggesting that Islam can only be criticized for its violence if the USA is perfect in every way?

No, I'm suggesting that you're a bigot who wishes to selectively view the world to excuse your behavior. I'm not responsible for other people anymore than individual Muslims are. Do you wish to answer for every bigot? I think you don't.

Actually I would say that bigots are easily the most dangerous and violent group of individuals known to man. I can support with actions throughout recorded history. Since we're making individuals responsible for such things, I would say you are among the most violent and despicable groups in history. Congrats. Muslims will have to work very hard to ever catch up to the group you choose to be a part of. Hitler, Bin Laden, Fred Phelps, Mao and Neo Bretonnia. All bigots. Now, son, are you sure you want to be held responsible for these individuals?


And while we're on the subject, go on down that list and compare the lot of each of those groups to what it would be like for them in an agerave Islamic country. I dare you.

And? What's your point? The origin of the problems in most of the world was the domination of the Christians and their "manifest destiny". India, Africa, South America can have all of their current economic and social problems tied to the agressive behavior of Christians up to and including the 20th Century.



Not all the hell in Africa came from colonialization, much as you'd probably like to think so. How about the places where Christian farmers are being killed by Islamic squatters who force them off their land or murder them and are permitted to do this by Muslim Governments who look the other way?

Again, you're looking at the world selectively. And, yes, ALL of the problems have their origins in the behavior of the colonizers. ALL of them.


Please elaborate. Then explain how that ties to the religion of the Vice President.

It ties to the FACT that in the US we are promoting a man whose record on civil rights is attrocious. Again, you close your eyes and claim that means it's dark out.


So you're using excuse #2. Noted. I'd also like to see what you think the Inquisition did 700 years ago that is worse than what's happening TODAY in several parts of the Middle East.

I'm not talking about the inquisition. I'm talking about up to and including my lifetime. Christianity has an embarrassing history if you are going to hold individuals responsible for the whole. I don't.

I don't have to use excuses. Islam is not a collective force no matter how much you want it to be. No more than Christianity is. I don't answer for Timothy McVeigh, nor should Muslims who are not a part of Al Queda answer for Al Queda.



Look at the OP. It's about trying to somehow force the idea that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion in open defiance of what we see every day. That's intellectually dishonest.

What's intellectually dishonest is pretending like Islam is a collective. It's not just dishonest, it's provably false. Islam is a diverse religion with some violent people and some non-violent people. Your confusion on the matter, notwithstanding, rational people don't expect individuals to answer for the collective as if we're a hive.

The fact is, "Islam" cannot "demonstrate itself" to be anything. It isn't an entity. Like any religion, Islam is as varied as its adherents. For most adherents, it is a religion of peace. For some, it is not.

Of course it's an entity. If we can refer to "it" the nit's an entity. This is a discussin on whether peopl eare being intellectually honest when they do.


That's nice. How much news coverage do we get of them "being brought to the mat by other Christians"? I, for one, have never seen a single news story about any Christian organization officially speaking out against the IRA or even those who bomb women's clinics. Yes, because I am a Christian and have spoken to many, I know that most Christians condemn such actions. But I have yet to see any news coverage of this.

Likewise, I know that every Muslim I have ever spoken to has condemned such actions. I have also actually seen, on rare occasions, news reports of Muslim organizations officially doing so. In that sense, I've seen more Muslim action in this domain that Christian.

I'm not talking only about what we see on the media, as what the media portrays may or may not be objective. For the record though, we do see the Pope speaking out against IRA violence. We see the Government of Ireland condemning it. We hear priests in church condemn it as part of the Catholic church official stand. (I was Catholic during the height of the violence in Northern Ireland)

Having said that, I'm thinking more in terms of law enforcement. IRA terrorists get imprisonment by other Christians and they don't even have to be prodded by an outside Government to do it.


Islam is a much younger religion.
What possible relevance can that hold?


Do you have to be invaded by a "Western power" for it to count? The entire Middle East (pretty much) was colonized by Western powers for years, and then largely left to their own devices. There has been constant sectarian strife in that area for the entirety of modern history.

It isn't an excuse for the behavior of terrorists, but it does make it much more understandable. Even without influences of a specific religion, areas with this much violence tend to result in a great number of terrorists, rebellions, etc. And such movements always look for someone to blame and attack.

If the region needs to fight it out among themselves in order to achieve some sort of equilibrium, then so be it. The problem is that they blame West/Christians/Jews regardless. Our response:Make excuses for them.


Huh? This so-called "excuse" is used when those who know little about Islam start citing passages from the Qur'an to "prove" that Islam is violent. No one is giving anyone "a pass" for violent actions.

Just as Christians and Jews can and have realized that the violent passages in the Bible are not to be followed - to "behave like human beings," as you put it. Likewise, most Muslims do the same with the more violent passages in the Qur'an, realizing that violence may have its place, but that place is very, very limited.
As it relates to those who live peacefully, you are absolutely right. What this means is that the text of religious books i tself isn't a measure of the violence/peace of a religion. This is why I did not cite the Koran as a support for my premise.


Correlation != causation, my dear. Once again, you have to look at the history of the given countries outside of religion as well - and you'll see a pretty huge difference. If we look at other nations with comparable histories to the majority of the Middle East, you won't find many countries at all with "good civil rights," even though many of them are actually Catholic-dominated. Check out much of South and Latin America, for instance. Check out much of Africa - where countries are generally either Catholic or Muslim dominated.
You cite a great example.

South America. Hugely dominanted by Catholics with a respectable population of Protestants, jehvah's Witnesses and Mormons. (In short, Christians.)

What are conditions like in South America right now? Any wars going on at the moment? No. All quiet. Know what life is like in South America?

-You won't be stoned for being Jewish, Muslim or whatever.
-You won't be stoned for being gay.
-Elections

Civil rights exist. I've been there. I have family there. (A LOT of family! :) )


And I can show you the US, where there are currently many fights going on with Christians trying to force religion into public schools and government programs. The overall view of civil rights is good - but there are quite a few extremists who would rather see otherwise - whether we're talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., etc.

Extremists and assholes exist - no matter what religion they are a part of.
Yes those horrible Christians.. fighting for religion in school with bombs and hijacked airplanes and beaheadings... oh, wait... They're fighting in court. How insidious! (Maybe if they DID start cutting off heads and hijacking airplanes they'd get excuses made for them, too.)


You might find a couple scattered exceptions, but by and large you'll see my point.

A couple scattered exceptions? Are we refusing to count the majority of the world and only focusing on "Western" nations vs. "Middle Eastern" nations?

Yes, because Islamic apologists frequently try to deflect attention away from Islamis acts of barbarism by pointing to Christianity.


The problem is that you aren't really thinking. You want so badly to attack the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few that your arguments are pretty much completely unreasoned.

If that's what you must tell yourself in order to dismiss my opinion, do so. You are making an invalid assumption, however.

Ah, so you don't believe that a person's beliefs ever raise the odds that they'll engage in a certain behavior...

Ah, so you enjoy having sex with strawmen after burning them, do you?

I'm talking about responsibility, not statistical probabilities of influences leading to behaviours. It's for that reason that I don't blame Doom for Columbine. But I guess again, you would have a different opinion - or at least you would if it served your obvious bias against Islam.

And, in a sense it is - just as Christianity is much more "primitive" than Judaism. As a general rule, the adherents are not more primitive, but the power structure and the way in which each religion is used quite often are.

Alright so we agree that Islam is more primitive than Christianity.


And it's really the power structure that we have to look at when discussing organized religions in this way. The vast majority of people in just about any religion are going to be mostly non-violent, because people simply don't want to get involved in that sort of thing. The question is whether or not the power structure is violent or advocates violence.

In the case of Islam, some of those in power have a violent mentality, and try and convince others to comply. Some do not. In Christianity, it would appear that less of the power structure advocates violence. Of course, Christianity as a whole has (a) had more time to mature and (b) has mostly taken root in countries that do not have current sectarian strife and tribal, war-like social structures.
Do you not see a correlation between the religious structure and the cultures that embrace it?


Once again, "Islam" is not an entity. It is a religion - made up of people from all walks of life. To say that Islam is either a peaceful religion, or it isn't is, well, stupid. There are violent Muslims. There are violent Christians. There are violent Hindus, etc., etc. Quite often, members of a religion who turn to violence or try and convince others to be violent will cite their religion as their reason.

No one is "making excuses" for anything. That's the problem you're having here - you are misinterpreting the entire discussion. People are simply pointing out the differences between the religions that you are missing. Of course, you also seem to be missing the fact that most Muslims - especially those in your oft-cited "Western" countries are very peaceful, and seemingly much less likely to actively try to convert others than the Christians in those countries (although this certainly can be because of the fact that the Christians hold more power there).

I'm not missing that fact at all, and yes, I can disagree with you without missing it. Remember that in "Western" countries muslims are in the minority, and tend to be more integrated culturally. What does that mean? Well to more conservative muslims it means they've lost some of their identiy as Muslims. What does that tell you?

And yes, people are making excuses.

Bottom line is this:

It's not Islam, as a religion, that is violent. It's people that have religious influence over those who are vulnerable and easily swayed. Rarely is it the true muslims who are doing anything terrorism-related, rather, the people who has been fed lies and propaganda to make them believe that there's no choice but to do such things.

"Islam" cannot commit violence. Human beings commit violence. Some of them are Muslim, some are not. But you would never stand for anyone criticizing Christianity for the actions of certain Christians. In fact, I've seen you state that they did what they did despite their religion, rather than because of it.

Is it so hard to consider the fact that most adherents of Islam feel the same way about the violent actions taken by some Muslims?

Easy to consider, difficult to support given current events. I remember, notably, when 9/11 first happened and the President along with the media and everybody else that could find a microphone were being VERY careful to tread lightly around Muslims, pointing out over and over that they acknowledge that the vast majority are peaceful and that their religion had been hijaacked and so on...

I wanted to hear it from the Islamic community. I didn't.


No, it means that some of us have actually looked into Islam as a religion - as a whole, rather than just what gets reported in the news. Some of us have *gasp* spoken to Muslims - even befriended Muslims, who will tell us what they think of their religion and what they believe about the types of things we see in the news.
I love that you assume I haven't done that, just because my conclusions are different from yours.


Do you judge Christianity just by what you see in the news? Would it be appropriate to judge Christianity as a whole by Fred Phelps and crew, bombings of women's clinics, beatings of homosexuals, botched "exorcisms" resulting in the death of children and the mentally ill, opposition to possibly life-saving immunizations, attempts to teach non-science as science, and the actions of the IRA? Because that's what you see in the news.

By your logic, the general viewpoints of Christianity you see in predominantly Muslim countries are perfectly justified, since that's what they see in the news every day and on "Western" television shows.....


Difference: Christians get vocal in their opposition to such acts. They make themselves heard. The people who do suchthings (in criminal cases) are punished by laws written by people who were probably Christians before them. None of that is codified into laws. Now compare that with Sharia...


Islam as just as "inherently peaceful" and "inherently violent" as EVERY OTHER RELIGION. This is because all religions are made up of human beings - some of who will easily turn to violence and some of whom will avoid it.

It is not now, nor has it ever been as inherently peaceful as any other religion.

No, I'm suggesting that you're a bigot who wishes to selectively view the world to excuse your behavior. I'm not responsible for other people anymore than individual Muslims are. Do you wish to answer for every bigot? I think you don't.
So I'm a bigot because my opinion doesn't coddle and caress Islam. Gotcha. Your strategy is to shout me down and dismiss me as bigoted.

You also completely ignored my challenge to compare to Islamic countries. What are you afraid of?


Actually I would say that bigots are easily the most dangerous and violent group of individuals known to man. I can support with actions throughout recorded history. Since we're making individuals responsible for such things, I would say you are among the most violent and despicable groups in history. Congrats. Muslims will have to work very hard to ever catch up to the group you choose to be a part of. Hitler, Bin Laden, Fred Phelps, Mao and Neo Bretonnia. All bigots. Now, son, are you sure you want to be held responsible for these individuals?

I think equating someone to Hitler is one of the most popular tactics in trying to shout people down. You still have yet to make an actual point.


And? What's your point? The origin of the problems in most of the world was the domination of the Christians and their "manifest destiny". India, Africa, South America can have all of their current economic and social problems tied to the agressive behavior of Christians up to and including the 20th Century.

Ah. the "Blame the Christians" angle.

Hm. so if I blame Islam, I'm a bigot. If you blame Christianity, you're a.... what? Oh, right. You're so enlightened you get a pass.


Again, you're looking at the world selectively. And, yes, ALL of the problems have their origins in the behavior of the colonizers. ALL of them.

Of course. To disagree with you would be to become a bigot, right?


It ties to the FACT that in the US we are promoting a man whose record on civil rights is attrocious. Again, you close your eyes and claim that means it's dark out.
You have yet to answer my question. That's okay no pressure. I wasn't expecting you to.


I'm not talking about the inquisition. I'm talking about up to and including my lifetime. Christianity has an embarrassing history if you are going to hold individuals responsible for the whole. I don't.

I don't have to use excuses. Islam is not a collective force no matter how much you want it to be. No more than Christianity is. I don't answer for Timothy McVeigh, nor should Muslims who are not a part of Al Queda answer for Al Queda.

Wait... so Christianity is to blame for all those probelms: Remember, you said

The origin of the problems in most of the world was the domination of the Christians and their "manifest destiny".
But then you said

Islam is not a collective force no matter how much you want it to be. No more than Christianity is.

Your arguments make no sense. Sounds like you're doing exactly what you accuse me of.


What's intellectually dishonest is pretending like Islam is a collective. It's not just dishonest, it's provably false. Islam is a diverse religion with some violent people and some non-violent people. Your confusion on the matter, notwithstanding, rational people don't expect individuals to answer for the collective as if we're a hive.

Which individuals have I called upon to answer for Islamic violence?

I like you. You're entertaining.

Of course it's an entity. If we can refer to "it" the nit's an entity. This is a discussin on whether peopl eare being intellectually honest when they do.

And you're not. "It"'s not a homogenous entity and you're treating "it" as if "it" is. It makes no more sense than referring to males as herbivores because some men eat only vegetables.


I'm not talking only about what we see on the media, as what the media portrays may or may not be objective. For the record though, we do see the Pope speaking out against IRA violence. We see the Government of Ireland condemning it. We hear priests in church condemn it as part of the Catholic church official stand. (I was Catholic during the height of the violence in Northern Ireland)

I haven't seen it. Ever. Ignorance appears to be a valid argument in your case so if I haven't seen it, it didn't happen. Just like you claim there aren't Muslims leaders out their condemning the violence of SOME muslims.


Having said that, I'm thinking more in terms of law enforcement. IRA terrorists get imprisonment by other Christians and they don't even have to be prodded by an outside Government to do it.

Muslims terrorists are imprisoned as well. By the countries that think they're terrorists. IRA terrorists are not imprisoned in some countries either. Is it surprising that the IRA violence is prosecuted in the country where it is perpetrated? Are you suggesting that England didn't punish anyone who was involved in the train bombings?


If the region needs to fight it out among themselves in order to achieve some sort of equilibrium, then so be it. The problem is that they blame West/Christians/Jews regardless. Our response:Make excuses for them.

We're not making excuses for them. We're making excuses for people aren't involved, just like I don't blame you for the actions of Hitler just because you're both bigots.



As it relates to those who live peacefully, you are absolutely right. What this means is that the text of religious books i tself isn't a measure of the violence/peace of a religion. This is why I did not cite the Koran as a support for my premise.

You brought the Koran up. She simply replied. The fact is there are many, many, many peaceful Muslims. Islam has NOTHING to do with the violence. The problem is that there are wildly oppressed people in certain regions of the world and people who are exploiting those people using religion.



You cite a great example.

South America. Hugely dominanted by Catholics with a respectable population of Protestants, jehvah's Witnesses and Mormons. (In short, Christians.)

What are conditions like in South America right now? Any wars going on at the moment? No. All quiet. Know what life is like in South America?

-You won't be stoned for being Jewish, Muslim or whatever.
-You won't be stoned for being gay.
-Elections

Civil rights exist. I've been there. I have family there. (A LOT of family! :) )

Many people would beg to differ. This is just another example of your selective view of the world. Closing your eyes will never make the light go away.


Yes those horrible Christians.. fighting for religion in school with bombs and hijacked airplanes and beaheadings... oh, wait... They're fighting in court. How insidious! (Maybe if they DID start cutting off heads and hijacking airplanes they'd get excuses made for them, too.)

Oppression is oppression. Who cares what the tools of oppression are?


Yes, because Islamic apologists frequently try to deflect attention away from Islamis acts of barbarism by pointing to Christianity.

Or by pointing out that only idiots group people of a religion together in a homogenous group like you're doing with Muslims. You keep missing the point. The point is not that Christianity is guilty, but that religions are not homogenous groups and that individuals are not responsible for the actions of people they have no actual relation to other than a very broad brush term.



If that's what you must tell yourself in order to dismiss my opinion, do so. You are making an invalid assumption, however.

You're proving it. You've several times completely missed the point of arguments because your head is so stuck on your claims. For example, I mention the actions of the US in response to your claims that Christian countries are pristine and you take as a claim that only when Christianity is perfect can we bash Muslims, rather than the rather clear point that you can't bash Muslims, because Muslims are not, and needn't be, responsible for the actions of people they have no relation to.

So I'm a bigot because my opinion doesn't coddle and caress Islam. Gotcha. Your strategy is to shout me down and dismiss me as bigoted.

No, you're a bigot because you obviously hate Islam and think lowly of all its practitioners. That is why you nearly splooge when you type shit like

Alright so we agree that Islam is more primitive than Christianity.

People like you - bigots, that is - are often about trying to show that they are superior and others are inferior. The "primitive" slam was a tell-tale on that and yet you still maintain enough PC to try to pass it off as argument and not bigotry. So you're a more clever and subtle bigot than someone who just goes "NUKE ALL THE RAGHEADS" but in the end, just as dangerous and stupid.

All religions as a survival mechanism create some form of doctrine damning otehr religions. Christianity has the disgustingyl bigoted first two commandments. Islam has the horrifically easy to misinterpret Jihad. I'm not so sure about Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. but almost all religions have a violent survival maechanism. Its one of the reasons that makes them appealing.

Ah, so you don't believe that a person's beliefs ever raise the odds that they'll engage in a certain behavior...

O its an influence...for instance I've no problem in
saying that some on here could easily be involved shooting down Arabs indiscriminately, or allowing same to happen. Thats not because they're christian, or Jewish though, just scum high on power. They believe that might is right

Of course it's an entity. If we can refer to "it" the nit's an entity. This is a discussin on whether peopl eare being intellectually honest when they do.

Ok, where is the "Islam"? Where can I find it and talk to it or examine it?

I'm not talking only about what we see on the media, as what the media portrays may or may not be objective.

Where else are you hearing about all this violence you say you "see every day"?

For the record though, we do see the Pope speaking out against IRA violence. We see the Government of Ireland condemning it. We hear priests in church condemn it as part of the Catholic church official stand. (I was Catholic during the height of the violence in Northern Ireland)

In the media? None of those are exciting stories. Much like instances of Muslim organizations/mullahs/etc. speaking out against violence, if they are reported at all, it's as an aside between the "juicy" stories.

Having said that, I'm thinking more in terms of law enforcement. IRA terrorists get imprisonment by other Christians and they don't even have to be prodded by an outside Government to do it.

And they get harbored by some Christians. Depending on where they are hiding, they may very well be imprisoned by an "outside government." Of course, the areas in which most Islamic terrorist groups hide don't exactly have wonderful governments, do they?

What possible relevance can that hold?

The same relevance that it holds when we talk about any ideology - or just about any religion. An idea takes time to mature and develop. Quite often, throughout human history, many proponents of any given idea will take to using violence to advocate it. Usually, however, as the idea develops - as more people take a close look at it and possibly adopt it - as the proponents of that idea enter into open discussion with proponents of others, the rate of violence goes down.

If the region needs to fight it out among themselves in order to achieve some sort of equilibrium, then so be it. The problem is that they blame West/Christians/Jews regardless. Our response:Make excuses for them.

They blame the West/Christians/Jews for many reasons. Sometimes it is because Western society has helped cause their problems and they are raised to see "Western society" as equivalent with "Christian" or "Jewish." A lot of it is simply how people are raised and what they are told. Just as many in this country were afraid of the "Reds" through part of recent history, many in predominantly Muslim countries fear "the West" and Christianity. Just as US citizens were told that communists were opposed to everything they believed in, those in Muslim countries are often told this about "the West" and Christianity. The difference, really, is that from a historical viewpoint, there are examples to back that up.

As it relates to those who live peacefully, you are absolutely right. What this means is that the text of religious books i tself isn't a measure of the violence/peace of a religion. This is why I did not cite the Koran as a support for my premise.

No, but you used a response to that argument as one of your so-called "excuses" you wish to refute - taking it completely out of context.

You cite a great example.

South America. Hugely dominanted by Catholics with a respectable population of Protestants, jehvah's Witnesses and Mormons. (In short, Christians.)

What are conditions like in South America right now? Any wars going on at the moment? No. All quiet. Know what life is like in South America?

Are we going to pretend that there is no violence in South America now? Are we going to ignore recent incidents of "freedom fighters" and the like? Are we going to pretend that there are no oppressive governments there?

Wow, you really do have to ignore reality to try and make your point, don't you?

Yes those horrible Christians.. fighting for religion in school with bombs and hijacked airplanes and beaheadings... oh, wait... They're fighting in court. How insidious! (Maybe if they DID start cutting off heads and hijacking airplanes they'd get excuses made for them, too.)

This is irrelevant.

Yes, because Islamic apologists frequently try to deflect attention away from Islamis acts of barbarism by pointing to Christianity.

Wrong. The people you are calling "Islamic apologists" point out that members of all religions commit violent acts, and that no religion as a whole can be judged by the actions of some.

If that's what you must tell yourself in order to dismiss my opinion, do so. You are making an invalid assumption, however.

Really? Then stop backing it up with inane nonsense. If your EXACT logic were applied to Christianity, you'd end up with a pretty ugly view of Christianity. But you won't judge Christianity by the actions of a relative few, now will you?

Easy to consider, difficult to support given current events. I remember, notably, when 9/11 first happened and the President along with the media and everybody else that could find a microphone were being VERY careful to tread lightly around Muslims, pointing out over and over that they acknowledge that the vast majority are peaceful and that their religion had been hijaacked and so on...

I wanted to hear it from the Islamic community. I didn't.

Then you weren't listening.

Difference: Christians get vocal in their opposition to such acts. They make themselves heard. The people who do suchthings (in criminal cases) are punished by laws written by people who were probably Christians before them. None of that is codified into laws. Now compare that with Sharia...

No more or less heard than Muslims. The difference is that, in our countries, there are more Christians. It isn't that Christians, as a whole, are somehow forcing themselves into the media to "make themselves heard." It is much more a factor of the fact that you won't find anyone in this country who doesn't know a Christian. We don't need to try and convince the media to hear them out. We don't even need the media, as we dominate the discussion.

It is not now, nor has it ever been as inherently peaceful as any other religion.

Yes, it is. All religions - all ideologies - are just as "inherently" peaceful and "inherently" violent as all others. This is because neither a religion nor any ideology can be violent or peaceful. Its adherents can. And, since some human beings are violent, some are peaceful, and most fall somewhere in between - the members of any given religion or ideology will likely do the same.

Easy to consider, difficult to support given current events. I remember, notably, when 9/11 first happened and the President along with the media and everybody else that could find a microphone were being VERY careful to tread lightly around Muslims, pointing out over and over that they acknowledge that the vast majority are peaceful and that their religion had been hijaacked and so on...

I wanted to hear it from the Islamic community. I didn't.


You werent listening very hard. Or looking.

Read "The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini.

That's why organised religion, and to an extent, any religion is bad.

So I'm a bigot because my opinion doesn't coddle and caress Islam. Gotcha. Your strategy is to shout me down and dismiss me as bigoted.

You are bigoted. I'm not dismissing you because of it, however. I'm addressing your arguments WHILE rightly pointing out that you're bigotted. Your arguments are biggotted, but they are invalid because they are willfully ignorant. They would still be wrong even if you stop being a bigot. However, at that point, you'd like stop making them.


You also completely ignored my challenge to compare to Islamic countries. What are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything. Muslims are not responsible for the actions of government they didn't empower. The US has more to do with the actions of most Islamic countires than most Muslims ever can or will.



I think equating someone to Hitler is one of the most popular tactics in trying to shout people down. You still have yet to make an actual point.

You missing the point doesn't make it not exist. I can just as easily lump you into a broad brush group, like you're doing to Muslims, and dismiss you because of the actions of some of the more famous members of that group. Or I could treat you as individual. You would prefer that you being treated as a member of the group, or you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.

What's the matter? You don't like being treated like you're treating people. You're a bigot. Answer for everyone who is also a bigot, just like you're suggesting Muslims should.




[QUOTE=Neo Bretonnia;12395748]Ah. the "Blame the Christians" angle.

Again, you miss the point. I'm not blaming the Christians. I'm pointed out why blaming any major group for actions they didn't actually support is ludicrous. I'm a Christian and I'm not at fault for Imperialism or GWB or slavery. I never endorsed any one of those things and I don't have to answer for them. You would have Muslims answer for people they haven't endorsed and do not support and the idea is irrational.


Hm. so if I blame Islam, I'm a bigot. If you blame Christianity, you're a.... what? Oh, right. You're so enlightened you get a pass.

*watches the point fly way, way over your head* Again, the point isn't to blame Christianity. The point is that if you start using such broad strokes then no one is immune.



Of course. To disagree with you would be to become a bigot, right?

What makes you a bigot is that you want to blame individuals for the actions of other individuals.


You have yet to answer my question. That's okay no pressure. I wasn't expecting you to.

You don't get it. You keep missing the point and your questions thus relate to a strawman. I'm not actually blaming Christianity, I'm pointing out that if one doesn't treat individuals as individuals then we must hold Christianity to the fire as well. And you pointed out how wonderful "Christian" countries are and I pointed out that they are hardly blameless.




Wait... so Christianity is to blame for all those probelms: Remember, you said

But then you said


Your arguments make no sense. Sounds like you're doing exactly what you accuse me of.

Again, because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't make sense. Most people could read my arguments and realize that I'm saying that no religion is a homogenous hive entity. Christianity is only to blame if one thinks like you. My examples about Christianity are showing you that once you go down that path we are all impugned and you'll be answering for Hitler, Mao and Fred Phelps.




Which individuals have I called upon to answer for Islamic violence?

I like you. You're entertaining.

All Muslims, actually. You've suggested that Muslims groups must answer for other Muslims groups and the Muslims as individuals must answer for other Muslims groups. You don't get that you're saying that, I guess, but obviously you've said that you've blamed their entire religion for the actions of people they have no control over and have never endorsed.

No, you're a bigot because you obviously hate Islam and think lowly of all its practitioners. That is why you nearly splooge when you type shit like

People like you - bigots, that is - are often about trying to show that they are superior and others are inferior. The "primitive" slam was a tell-tale on that and yet you still maintain enough PC to try to pass it off as argument and not bigotry. So you're a more clever and subtle bigot than someone who just goes "NUKE ALL THE RAGHEADS" but in the end, just as dangerous and stupid.

Wow... so in order to not be considered a bigot by you, I have to refrain from saying anything that could even remotely be a criticism against a religion...

..as long as it's not Christianity.

Meanwhile you've accused me of saying a bunch of stuff I haven't said, but are trying to sneak it in there to justify your shout-down approach.

I'm supposed to feel chastized by that? sure.

Easy to consider, difficult to support given current events. I remember, notably, when 9/11 first happened and the President along with the media and everybody else that could find a microphone were being VERY careful to tread lightly around Muslims, pointing out over and over that they acknowledge that the vast majority are peaceful and that their religion had been hijaacked and so on...

I wanted to hear it from the Islamic community. I didn't.

Your ignorance is precisely that. The "Islamic community" was all over the news stating exactly that. And, by the way, this is precisely where you ask individuals to answer for the actions of other individuals. The "Islamic community" you are talking about is a bunch of individuals with no ties to Al Queda. Al Queda, and groups that DO have ties to Al Queda, obviously wouldn't want to denounce the behavior.



I love that you assume I haven't done that, just because my conclusions are different from yours.

No, we assume you didn't because you keeping saying you've not heard anyone answer for the violence of some Muslims. You can't make this claim and simultaneously claim to have actually discussed this with real-life Muslims.

When you say things that are clearly ignorant of the readily available facts, then the assumption is that you are ignorant of those facts. *gasp*


Difference: Christians get vocal in their opposition to such acts. They make themselves heard. The people who do suchthings (in criminal cases) are punished by laws written by people who were probably Christians before them. None of that is codified into laws. Now compare that with Sharia...

I call Bull. Some Christians speak out against it. Some support it. Just like some Muslims speak out against the violence. And some support it.



It is not now, nor has it ever been as inherently peaceful as any other religion.

Again, I call bull. Either you can show that every Muslim is violent or every Christian is peaceful, or we can accept that neither religion is inherently ANYTHING and that people do with it what they will.

Oh, I dunno, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't have the urge to convert or oppress anyone. I guess it can't be religion that causes those things, can it?

More specifically, it's people who focus too much on religion.

Wow... so in order to not be considered a bigot by you, I have to refrain from saying anything that could even remotely be a criticism against a religion...

..as long as it's not Christianity.

Meanwhile you've accused me of saying a bunch of stuff I haven't said, but are trying to sneak it in there to justify your shout-down approach.

I'm supposed to feel chastized by that? sure.

Embrace the insult. Next thing, he'll say you are Deep Kimchi.

LOL, just noticed that you're from DC - just like Deep Kimchi.

Right there. That right there is why I think you're so full of it it's not even funny anymore. Christian fundamentalists have a problem, they take it to court. Islamic fundamentalists have a problem and they blow up a bus. You say that's somehow morally equivalent. I say you're morally bankrupt for saying it. You call me a bigot for saying it like it is. Say it to the mirror, buddy because you obviously are so bigoted against Christianity that you can't tell the difference between a court lawsuit and a bomb.

I can tell the difference.

Matthew Shepard didn't experience a difference. The victims of the abortion clinic bombings don't experience a difference. The black man tied to a car and dragged through the streets didn't experience the difference, I'll assume. Your ignorance is overwhelming.

Oppression is oppression. Who cares what the tools of oppression are?


Right there. That right there is why I think you're so full of it it's not even funny anymore. Christian fundamentalists have a problem, they take it to court. Islamic fundamentalists have a problem and they blow up a bus. You say that's somehow morally equivalent. I say you're morally bankrupt for saying it. You call me a bigot for saying it like it is. Say it to the mirror, buddy because you obviously are so bigoted against Christianity that you can't tell the difference between a court lawsuit and a bomb.

Embrace the insult. Next thing, he'll say you are Deep Kimchi.

LOL, just noticed that you're from DC - just like Deep Kimchi.

Heh yeah must be a local thing. :D

Right there. That right there is why I think you're so full of it it's not even funny anymore. Christian fundamentalists have a problem, they take it to court. Islamic fundamentalists have a problem and they blow up a bus. You say that's somehow morally equivalent. I say you're morally bankrupt for saying it. You call me a bigot for saying it like it is. Say it to the mirror, buddy because you obviously are so bigoted against Christianity that you can't tell the difference between a court lawsuit and a bomb.

Deep Kimchi! Deep Kimchi!

Obviously, there is only one person in the world who has such a viewpoint, at least according to some of the NS General posters here.

Keep at it, NB. You're not wrong.

Heh yeah must be a local thing. :D

I think that a lot of people in this area think like that, because we've seen the government at work.

Right there. That right there is why I think you're so full of it it's not even funny anymore. Christian fundamentalists have a problem, they take it to court. Islamic fundamentalists have a problem and they blow up a bus. You say that's somehow morally equivalent. I say you're morally bankrupt for saying it. You call me a bigot for saying it like it is. Say it to the mirror, buddy because you obviously are so bigoted against Christianity that you can't tell the difference between a court lawsuit and a bomb.

You're not paying attention. I'm a Christian. I don't hold Christianity responsible for these things. It's ludicrous to do so. Christians are not a homogenous group either. Don't confuse your inability to follow the point with my argument, please. The POINT is that if you hold groups to be homogenous, then Christians are equally impugned and responsible for the majority of trouble in the world. That's a fact. However, most reasonable people don't hold entire groups responsible for the actions of individuals because that's bigotry.

You werent listening very hard. Or looking.

Oh, I was. Believe me. I wanted very badly to believe that they were out there, standing up next to those of other faiths to condemn and stop the terrorists. I wanted to believe it so bad I could almost taste it. I looked, I listened. I waited.

Once in awhile some radio talk show would have an Imam on the phone who would condemn the terrorism, but it was always political pundits who did most of the talking and reassuring.

Wrong. The people you are calling "Islamic apologists" point out that members of all religions commit violent acts, and that no religion as a whole can be judged by the actions of some.

*highlights this in hopes NB will get the point* No religion should be judged as a whole by the actions of some individuals. The examples we give of Christian transgressions is simply to highlight the fact that if such we're true every group would be impugned.

Oh, I was. Believe me. I wanted very badly to believe that they were out there, standing up next to those of other faiths to condemn and stop the terrorists. I wanted to believe it so bad I could almost taste it. I looked, I listened. I waited.

Once in awhile some radio talk show would have an Imam on the phone who would condemn the terrorism, but it was always political pundits who did most of the talking and reassuring.

I love this. So you did hear people out there condemning the terrorism, Muslims, but they don't count because you've somehow dismissed them? This is just sad. So can you please list for me who it is that is supposed to answer for Islam?

Deep Kimchi! Deep Kimchi!

Obviously, there is only one person in the world who has such a viewpoint, at least according to some of the NS General posters here.

Keep at it, NB. You're not wrong.

I knew I'd get flamed when I originally posted. It's just like I know I'll get flamed anytime I don't pussyfoot around when I talk about stuff. Luckily, I don't take my moral cues from NS General.

I kinda miss DK. I didn't always agree with him, (In fact, only about 50% of the time) but I respected him for standing up no matter how much flaming he got.

I knew I'd get flamed when I originally posted. It's just like I know I'll get flamed anytime I don't pussyfoot around when I talk about stuff. Luckily, I don't take my moral cues from NS General.

I kinda miss DK. I didn't always agree with him, (In fact, only about 50% of the time) but I respected him for standing up no matter how much flaming he got.

You're not getting flamed. People are replying to your points. The problem is you're not actually hearing what they're saying. You still think that Dem and I, both Christians, are attacking Christianity rather than pointing out how ludicrous it is to hold individuals as part of a religion responsible for actions they have never endorsed and were not involved in.

Even buddhists have committed violent acts and persecuted religious groups, like the
Bon.

You're not paying attention. I'm a Christian. I don't hold Christianity responsible for these things. It's ludicrous to do so. Christians are not a homogenous group either. Don't confuse your inability to follow the point with my argument, please. The POINT is that if you hold groups to be homogenous, then Christians are equally impugned and responsible for the majority of trouble in the world. That's a fact. However, most reasonable people don't hold entire groups responsible for the actions of individuals because that's bigotry.

Alright, you feel like I'm talking about a whole group based upon the actions of a few individuals. I can understand that, I'd feel the same way. Let's say "no hard feelings" and I'll try and rephrase it to be more clear, so as not to cause a misunderstanding.

I say that Islam is not a religion of peace for exactly the same reason you feel I'm wrong to say so, and that is that I believe people tend to make excuses for the system exactly as if it WERE homogenous and that somehow the militants are a small and isolated disassociated group.

I don't see it that way. Are there peaceful Muslims? Of course. Are there a lot of them? yes, certainly. Have I had Muslim friends? Yep, good, peaceful ones.

My point is that worldwide, the extremists seem to be not an isolated minority but a significant enough proportion to essentially be the defining body of what we see as modern day Islam. Wherever Islamic nations border onnon-Islamic nations, we have conflict. North Africa, Southeastern Europe, Southeast Asia. Maybe it's just the militants doing it, but there seems to be a MASSIVE proportion of militants. They seem to be in control for the most part. Exceptions? Sure, a couple. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt... but even those places aren't exactly bastions of civil rights and religious freedom.

And yes, it rankles me when that's somehow compared with Christians here in the US. I think I'm justified in feeling that way.

Calling someone names if flaming them. Calling me a bigot is flaming me. Are my feelings hurt, no because name-calling is too silly to get under my skin, but let's do call it what it is.

Calling you a descriptive word for someone who condemns a group for the actions of individuals because they are *gasp* condemning a group for the actions of individuals is just using the word properly. Flaming requires a bit more than that, you'll find on this site and every site. I know of no site that disallows the word bigot. It would be like calling me a Christian.

You are a bigot and you openly admit to condemning the group for the actions of some of that group.

You're not getting flamed. People are replying to your points. The problem is you're not actually hearing what they're saying. You still think that Dem and I, both Christians, are attacking Christianity rather than pointing out how ludicrous it is to hold individuals as part of a religion responsible for actions they have never endorsed and were not involved in.

Calling someone names if flaming them. Calling me a bigot is flaming me. Are my feelings hurt, no because name-calling is too silly to get under my skin, but let's do call it what it is.

Oh, I was. Believe me.

But as such condemnations occured, and they have been presented here on a number of occassions retrospectively, no, I don't believe you.

Alright, you feel like I'm talking about a whole group based upon the actions of a few individuals. I can understand that, I'd feel the same way. Let's say "no hard feelings" and I'll try and rephrase it to be more clear, so as not to cause a misunderstanding.

I say that Islam is not a religion of peace for exactly the same reason you feel I'm wrong to say so, and that is that I believe people tend to make excuses for the system exactly as if it WERE homogenous and that somehow the militants are a small and isolated disassociated group.

No, see, this is precisely the issue. You act as if anyone is claiming the peaceful part is a some homogenous group that is seperate from the violent part, but that's exactly the problem with your understanding. There is no homogenous group. It's not a religion of peace. It's not a religion of war. It's a religion that is used by its members however each one happens to use it.



I don't see it that way. Are there peaceful Muslims? Of course. Are there a lot of them? yes, certainly. Have I had Muslim friends? Yep, good, peaceful ones.

My point is that worldwide, the extremists seem to be not an isolated minority but a significant enough proportion to essentially be the defining body of what we see as modern day Islam.

Gosh, I hope not. Because if that's true I have to start answering for all those bigotted idiots who claim the same religion I do. Frankly, since I don't endorse them, I don't see why I should have to.



Wherever Islamic nations border onnon-Islamic nations, we have conflict. North Africa, Southeastern Europe, Southeast Asia. Maybe it's just the militants doing it, but there seems to be a MASSIVE proportion of militants. They seem to be in control for the most part. Exceptions? Sure, a couple. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt... but even those places aren't exactly bastions of civil rights and religious freedom.

And yes, it rankles me when that's somehow compared with Christians here in the US. I think I'm justified in feeling that way.

You're not. If you are going to paint with such a broad brush and worry about a religion being a negative force in the world, I'm much more fearful of Christianity. The power and bigotry of Christians is equally dangerous and much more likely to be encounter in almost all of the Western world. Most gay people have never encountered a problem with Muslims, but have had many issues with Christians. Also true of most minorities and women I know. If you're talking about degree, the more obvious concern would be how rampant the behavior is and if you're comparing the actions of as large a portion of the western world as Christians to the actions of a small group of Islamic terrorists, the degree of difference is obvious.

I'll tell you what, what's the odds that my transvestite neighbor will be oppressed or killed by Muslims? How about Christians? I can tell you the odds. A neither likelihood impugns either religion, because to do so is simply bigotry.

This happens with any large group of people. The larger the group of people, the more likely it will have fucktarded members.

So the Galactic Civilization will have even more fucktards than the Human Race? That's something to look forward to ....

My point is that worldwide, the extremists seem to be not an isolated minority but a significant enough proportion to essentially be the defining body of what we see as modern day Islam. Wherever Islamic nations border onnon-Islamic nations, we have conflict. North Africa, Southeastern Europe, Southeast Asia. Maybe it's just the militants doing it, but there seems to be a MASSIVE proportion of militants. They seem to be in control for the most part. Exceptions? Sure, a couple. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt... but even those places aren't exactly bastions of civil rights and religious freedom.

1% of 1.2 billion people is 12 million people more than enough to do all the damage we see everyday on the sensationalist media. All it took was 19 psychos with box-cutters to change the world as we know it and kill over 3,000 people.

Ok, where is the "Islam"? Where can I find it and talk to it or examine it?
This is becoming a goofy tangent.


Where else are you hearing about all this violence you say you "see every day"?
?


In the media? None of those are exciting stories. Much like instances of Muslim organizations/mullahs/etc. speaking out against violence, if they are reported at all, it's as an aside between the "juicy" stories.

Juicy stories like... Jesus Camp!


And they get harbored by some Christians. Depending on where they are hiding, they may very well be imprisoned by an "outside government." Of course, the areas in which most Islamic terrorist groups hide don't exactly have wonderful governments, do they?

Does that tell you nothing?


The same relevance that it holds when we talk about any ideology - or just about any religion. An idea takes time to mature and develop. Quite often, throughout human history, many proponents of any given idea will take to using violence to advocate it. Usually, however, as the idea develops - as more people take a close look at it and possibly adopt it - as the proponents of that idea enter into open discussion with proponents of others, the rate of violence goes down.
The Ba'hai have been around even less time than Islam. Where is their violent phase?

You must judge these things by the standard of the world in which we live, today, now. I can't fathom how the relative ages of religions somehow justifies their shortcomings. Members of those religions are aware of the world around them, and they're human beings just like you and me.


They blame the West/Christians/Jews for many reasons. Sometimes it is because Western society has helped cause their problems and they are raised to see "Western society" as equivalent with "Christian" or "Jewish." A lot of it is simply how people are raised and what they are told. Just as many in this country were afraid of the "Reds" through part of recent history, many in predominantly Muslim countries fear "the West" and Christianity. Just as US citizens were told that communists were opposed to everything they believed in, those in Muslim countries are often told this about "the West" and Christianity. The difference, really, is that from a historical viewpoint, there are examples to back that up.

Fine. This fits perfectly with my point.


No, but you used a response to that argument as one of your so-called "excuses" you wish to refute - taking it completely out of context.

I think you may have misunderstood my goal here. The point is that people who want to make excused for Islamic violence often try to circumvent criticism of the Koran by comparing it to the Old Testament. I have not made a statement evaluating the Koran one way or the other.


Are we going to pretend that there is no violence in South America now? Are we going to ignore recent incidents of "freedom fighters" and the like? Are we going to pretend that there are no oppressive governments there?

Wow, you really do have to ignore reality to try and make your point, don't you?

What violence do you refer to? You accuse me of ignoring reality yet you haven't even pointed to an example for me to ignore.


This is irrelevant.

Oh no it's absolutely relevant. You wanted to equate Christian activism with Islamic terrism by pointing to occasions when Christians fight to promote their point of view. I showed that they do it peacefully, in accordance with the law as opposed to violently. That's important.


Wrong. The people you are calling "Islamic apologists" point out that members of all religions commit violent acts, and that no religion as a whole can be judged by the actions of some.

Really? Then stop backing it up with inane nonsense. If your EXACT logic were applied to Christianity, you'd end up with a pretty ugly view of Christianity. But you won't judge Christianity by the actions of a relative few, now will you?

[quote]Easy to consider, difficult to support given current events. I remember, notably, when 9/11 first happened and the President along with the media and everybody else that could find a microphone were being VERY careful to tread lightly around Muslims, pointing out over and over that they acknowledge that the vast majority are peaceful and that their religion had been hijaacked and so on...

I wanted to hear it from the Islamic community. I didn't.[/qutoe]

Then you weren't listening.

I addressed these items in another post.


No more or less heard than Muslims. The difference is that, in our countries, there are more Christians. It isn't that Christians, as a whole, are somehow forcing themselves into the media to "make themselves heard." It is much more a factor of the fact that you won't find anyone in this country who doesn't know a Christian. We don't need to try and convince the media to hear them out. We don't even need the media, as we dominate the discussion.
And?


Yes, it is. All religions - all ideologies - are just as "inherently" peaceful and "inherently" violent as all others. This is because neither a religion nor any ideology can be violent or peaceful. Its adherents can. And, since some human beings are violent, some are peaceful, and most fall somewhere in between - the members of any given religion or ideology will likely do the same.
Forgive me for my bluntness but to say that all religions are equivalently peaceful/violent is completely naieve.

But as such condemnations occured, and they have been presented here on a number of occassions retrospectively, no, I don't believe you.

I don't care :)

It isn't Islam. It's religion.

Judaism has done this. Christianity has done this. Hell, Atheism has done this.

The weak-willed sheep who worship their religion will always be around to damage the image of those of us who worship our god instead.

:(

Lunatic Goofballs posted without adding humor...wth is going on?

Oh no it's absolutely relevant. You wanted to equate Christian activism with Islamic terrism by pointing to occasions when Christians fight to promote their point of view. I showed that they do it peacefully, in accordance with the law as opposed to violently. That's important.

Really? So gays are never murdered in the US? Transgenders? Transvestites? Women are never oppressed, even violently? No burning crosses? No Church bombs? No Abortion clinic bombs? Yep, all good and legal.

No, see, this is precisely the issue. You act as if anyone is claiming the peaceful part is a some homogenous group that is seperate from the violent part, but that's exactly the problem with your understanding. There is no homogenous group. It's not a religion of peace. It's not a religion of war. It's a religion that is used by its members however each one happens to use it.

I happen to agree with what you just said (well, excluding your evaluation of my uynderstanding), except with the added point that at this moment, the violent factions are the ones using it the most.


Gosh, I hope not. Because if that's true I have to start answering for all those bigotted idiots who claim the same religion I do. Frankly, since I don't endorse them, I don't see why I should have to.

Except that on some level, you are. There are those who do exactly what you're accusing me of. Tell me, if you saw a self-proclaimed Christian preparing to bomb an abortion clinic, would you try to stop him? Of course you would. So would I. Otherwise you'd be considered part of the problem, and rightly so, correct?


You're not. If you are going to paint with such a broad brush and worry about a religion being a negative force in the world, I'm much more fearful of Christianity. The power and bigotry of Christians is equally dangerous and much more likely to be encounter in almost all of the Western world. Most gay people have never encountered a problem with Muslims, but have had many issues with Christians. Also true of most minorities and women I know. If you're talking about degree, the more obvious concern would be how rampant the behavior is and if you're comparing the actions of as large a portion of the western world as Christians to the actions of a small group of Islamic terrorists, the degree of difference is obvious.

I'll tell you what, what's the odds that my transvestite neighbor will be oppressed or killed by Muslims? How about Christians? I can tell you the odds. A neither likelihood impugns either religion, because to do so is simply bigotry.

Your transvestite neighbor would be dead if they were living in a Sharia controlled country. On the other hand, I'd like you to tell me which traditionally Christian country would put them to death if they lived there.

So what's stopping the remaining 90% from standing up and doing somethign about it?

Just 12 million machine guns, your right why shouldn't they throw themselves into bullets and bayonets?

1% of 1.2 billion people is 12 million people more than enough to do all the damage we see everyday on the sensationalist media. All it took was 19 psychos with box-cutters to change the world as we know it and kill over 3,000 people.

So what's stopping the remaining 90% from standing up and doing somethign about it?

I happen to agree with what you just said (well, excluding your evaluation of my uynderstanding), except with the added point that at this moment, the violent factions are the ones using it the most.

And? What does that have to do with the non-violent parts? Nothing. There is no connection whatsoever other than the one you want to put on it. You ask the non-violent individuals to answer for the violents ones and that makes you a bigot.


Except that on some level, you are. There are those who do exactly what you're accusing me of. Tell me, if you saw a self-proclaimed Christian preparing to bomb an abortion clinic, would you try to stop him? Of course you would. So would I. Otherwise you'd be considered part of the problem, and rightly so, correct?

I would stop HIM, not them. I would condemn Christianity as a whole nor would I apologize for his actions afterward as if I somehow endorse HIM by being a Christian. You have claimed that Islam as a whole is somehow responsible for those actions as if the majority of Islam has ANYTHING to do with the actions of the groups you speak of.

Similarly, I would not hold Christianity responsible for the actions of that individual or even a lot of individuals. I treat people as individuals because that is all we can be responsible for.

Your transvestite neighbor would be dead if they were living in a Sharia controlled country. On the other hand, I'd like you to tell me which traditionally Christian country would put them to death if they lived there.

Sharia-controlled countries are a very small minority in the world. However, is my transvestite neighbor more in danger from this made-up homogenous group called Christianity or the made-up homogenous group called Islam, in most places in the world? The answer is obvious. And if you were to judge on the majority of the homosexuals and the majority of transgenders, transvestites, intersexed, etc., you would find the made-up homogenous group Christianity is the bigger threat by a considerable degree. Because you feel more threatened by Islam does not make it the greater threat.

As an American, I find the actions of some Christians to be FAR more dangerous than the actions of some Muslims. My country is currently losing the war with bigotry and many, many, many more of the bigots are flying the Christian flag than all other groups put together.

Another excuse. Everybody gets an excuse. You're right. Why should they stand up and fight for their own damn freedom?

Are you saying it's cowardly to not want to die? Why aren't in Iraq?

Just 12 million machine guns, your right why shouldn't they throw themselves into bullets and bayonets?

Another excuse. Everybody gets an excuse. You're right. Why should they stand up and fight for their own damn freedom?

So what's stopping the remaining 90% from standing up and doing somethign about it?

Who says they aren't? You act as if they somehow have more responsibility than you do. They don't. Again, this is exactly where you require individuals to answer for other individuals. Why should an individual muslim that is part of the 90% do anything to deal with people that have nothing to do with them any more than you should?

Another excuse. Everybody gets an excuse. You're right. Why should they stand up and fight for their own damn freedom?

Amusing. So now they are not violent enough. How nicely consistent of you.

Who says they aren't?

Like the Imams, those guys don't count, only the violent ones do.

Oh I dunno.. maybe because they're the ones being oppressed?

Again, so the problem is that the oppressed, the victims, are not violent enough, so they are to blame for the ones who are violent? Are you even listening to yourself? So now we aren't talking about the majority of Muslims and we're down to only talking about people living in oppressive regimes? Who do you think had a major hand in setting up many of those regimes? Hint: It generally wasn't the people being oppressed.

Who says they aren't? You act as if they somehow have more responsibility than you do. They don't. Again, this is exactly where you require individuals to answer for other individuals. Why should an individual muslim that is part of the 90% do anything to deal with people that have nothing to do with them any more than you should?

Oh I dunno.. maybe because they're the ones being oppressed?

Like the Imams, those guys don't count, only the violent ones do.

yeah, that's just what I said. :rolleyes:

yeah, that's just what I said. :rolleyes:

You did say that Imams that spoke out about this issue didn't count. You originally claimed that didn't hear any Muslims condemn the actions and then it became that it's not the right Muslims speaking out. And, now, it's that the oppressed Muslims aren't violent enough. You're not making a very consistent argument.

And? What does that have to do with the non-violent parts? Nothing. There is no connection whatsoever other than the one you want to put on it. You ask the non-violent individuals to answer for the violents ones and that makes you a bigot.


You know, I've been trying to have a civil discussion with you but if your tactic is just to keep calling me a bigot like some kind of broken record, it tells me 2 things:

1)You're ignoring the content of what I'm saying, otherwise you'd know better (I can also tell that from the fact that you've ignored times when I"ve specifically replied to statements like the above)
2)You're more interested in shouting down than exchanging ideas. I find that boring.

Excuse 1, "We only see the really bad ones. The good ones never get any attention."

That's not good enough. When Christian extremists cross the line, they're brought to the mat by other Christians. Not many examples exist in current events of religious-based terrorism by Christians in modern times(Which ought to tell you something right there), but one is the IRA. When they blow up something, other Catholics take action. Both Irish Protestants and Catholics act to bring them to justice.
The fact is the vast majority of Muslims do condemn the terrorism and violence committed in the name of Islam, myself include. I'm not sure what much more Muslims can do as a whole to stop this anymore than anyone else.



Excuse 3, "They've been invaded and kicked around."

When the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan circa 1980 the Mujehaddin was given support, weapons, training and ammo by the West. They fought their invaders on the soil that was invaded and were engaged in an honest stand up defensive war. That was the last time a Middle Eastern nation was invaded by a Western power until 1989 when the Unites States led coalition went into Iraq after being INVITED by Saudi Arabia to come in. The continued presence of the western armies in SA and Kuwait was at the request of, and with permission of those Governments.

Afghanistan is not a middle eastern country smart guy. 2nd they were "invited" by puppet regimes that are backed by the US to keep the oil flowing. And what about the most recent Iraq war or all the times Israel invaded its neighbours?

Excuse 4, "Well the Christian Bible/Jewish Torah are just as violent as the Koran!"

So? Christians and Jews are still expected to behave like human beings regardless. (And they do.) Islam gets a pass.
I would argue the Qur'an less violent than the Bible. Whenever violence is talked about in the Qur'an it is in reference to specific battles or to the rules reguarding what Muslims can and can not do in self-defense, or the lesser "Jihad"

Excuse 5, "Well Christians may be less violent but they still try to force their beliefs on everybody!"

BS. Take the parts of the world where, since the Middle Ages, you've had Christianity and Islam. Go ahead. Draw yourself a map. Now look at the Muslim parts. Show me one country that has good civil rights. Go on. Take your time. Now look at the Christian parts. Show me one that doesn't.

You might find a couple scattered exceptions, but by and large you'll see my point.

Wait, poor civil rights in places like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Thats funny because all those places are run by secular dictators 100% western backed who oppress those who preach Islam or political change in the name of Islam. They torture, imprison and kill many whos only crime was their belief in Allah swt. This is not the fault of Islam, it is because of so called civilised western christian nations.

You know, I've been trying to have a civil discussion with you but if your tactic is just to keep calling me a bigot like some kind of broken record, it tells me 2 things:

1)You're ignoring the content of what I'm saying, otherwise you'd know better (I can also tell that from the fact that you've ignored times when I"ve specifically replied to statements like the above)
2)You're more interested in shouting down than exchanging ideas. I find that boring.

Get used to the idea that 3 out of 4 people on NS General think that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is bigoted and wrong.

Christianity, or anything else (well, maybe not Socialism) is fair game, and you can trash that all you like, and it's not bigotry. It's correct.

You know, I've been trying to have a civil discussion with you but if your tactic is just to keep calling me a bigot like some kind of broken record, it tells me 2 things:

1)You're ignoring the content of what I'm saying, otherwise you'd know better (I can also tell that from the fact that you've ignored times when I"ve specifically replied to statements like the above)

You have repeatedly claimed that Muslims should answer for the actions of other Muslims, a claim that is provably bigotted. I'm sorry if that upsets you or if you don't like the term because of the company it puts you in, but you're as provably a bigot as I am a Christian, in that we both claim ideas that put us in that category. The only difference is I admit what I am.

My tactic isn't "just" anything. In addition to pointing out that you're a bigot and explaining exactly how you fit the definition, I've pointed out the flaws in your argument and the rather selective way you hold Muslims to a standard you find upsetting when applied to Christians. Keep crying about what you think is unfair in this debate, but the fact is that you've not addressed the flaw in your argument.

2)You're more interested in shouting down than exchanging ideas. I find that boring.

Shouting down? Who's shouting down? I'm giving you examples of why what you say makes no sense. You've mostly misrepresented the arguments of nearly everyone in the thread in order to claim they are biased against Christianity or "Muslim apologists" instead of simply people who recognize that individuals cannot possibly be held responsible for the actions of individuals they have nothing to do with. Amusingly, while you continue to apply these labels you get upset by being labeled appropriately.

By definition, criticizing an entire group for the actions of individuals they are not actually tied to is bigotry. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Fred Phelps. It's bigotry if you ask Michael Jordan to answer for Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. It's bigotry if you ask Al Gore to answer for George Bush. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Timothy McVeigh. That's bigotry. It has nothing to do with you're claims about Islam and has everything to do with your inability to treat individuals as individuals and to give all individuals the same benefit of the doubt that you give to Christians.

I think the word you should be using more appropriately in the above-mentioned contexts is 'prejudice', but that's just me - and I'm just sayin'.

Get used to the idea that 3 out of 4 people on NS General think that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is bigoted and wrong.

Christianity, or anything else (well, maybe not Socialism) is fair game, and you can trash that all you like, and it's not bigotry. It's correct.

By definition, criticizing an entire group for the actions of individuals they are not actually tied to is bigotry. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Fred Phelps. It's bigotry if you ask Michael Jordan to answer for Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. It's bigotry if you ask Al Gore to answer for George Bush. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Timothy McVeigh. That's bigotry. It has nothing to do with you're claims about Islam and has everything to do with your inability to treat individuals as individuals and to give all individuals the same benefit of the doubt that you give to Christians.

If you were making the same claims about Christians I would be calling you a bigot as well, and have when people were doing it. There is no such thing as a homogenous religious mass worldwide. It doesn't exist.

By definition, criticizing an entire group for the actions of individuals they are not actually tied to is bigotry. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Fred Phelps. It's bigotry if you ask Michael Jordan to answer for Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. It's bigotry if you ask Al Gore to answer for George Bush. It's bigotry if you ask me to answer for Timothy McVeigh. That's bigotry. It has nothing to do with you're claims about Islam and has everything to do with your inability to treat individuals as individuals and to give all individuals the same benefit of the doubt that you give to Christians.

If you were making the same claims about Christians I would be calling you a bigot as well, and have when people were doing it. There is no such thing as a homogenous religious mass worldwide. It doesn't exist.

Then ask them to answer for Sharia Law. After all, it's their universal law.

How about this?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21332543-2,00.html

Sorry, I don't see that balance you're talking about on NS General. The Christians are fucked on this forum by the same people who defend the Muslims.

Then ask them to answer for Sharia Law. After all, it's their universal law.

How about this?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21332543-2,00.html

Sorry, I don't see that balance you're talking about on NS General. The Christians are fucked on this forum by the same people who defend the Muslims.

That's funny. I don't feel oppressed. I encounter bigots against Christians and against Muslims. I also encounter Muslim bigots and Christian bigots. My experience is most of the people complaining about how unfair NSG is to Christians are people like yourself who are busily claiming that Christianity is wonderful and Islam is evil.

And who is "them"? You want each individual to answer for Sharia Law? That's going to take a while. I think Sharia Law is about as universal as the "Christian" condemnation on homosexuality, in that it's not.

I think the word you should be using more appropriately in the above-mentioned contexts is 'prejudice', but that's just me - and I'm just sayin'.

Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


Nope, I think both of them pretty clearly fit the definition.

?

What exactly do you not understand? You told me that the view of Islam as a peaceful religion is incompatible with what you see every day. Are you attacked by Muslims every day? If not, you must be getting your information from the media.

Juicy stories like... Jesus Camp!

huh?

Does that tell you nothing?

It tells me that criminals and terrorists tend to hide where they think they can get away with it. Why do you think the bandit stories in the US often involve someone running to Mexico? Why do criminals tend to live and commit crimes, in the "bad" parts of a town, even when they have made enough money to leave? Why do teens who wish to break the rules go to the houses of the most lenient parents? And so on....

The Ba'hai have been around even less time than Islam. Where is their violent phase?

At the equivalent point of the Ba'hai, Islam was an incredibly peaceful religion overall. Countries dominated by Islam were actually some of the most tolerant countries in the world.

Not to mention that power-seeking members of the Ba'hai religion have not taken over any governments....

You must judge these things by the standard of the world in which we live, today, now.

Why? Do you really think we should ignore all of human history in every discussion?

I can't fathom how the relative ages of religions somehow justifies their shortcomings. Members of those religions are aware of the world around them, and they're human beings just like you and me.

It doesn't "justify their shortcomings." All organized religions have shortcomings, no matter how old they are. All religions have theological and social disputes within them and between them. But a younger religion will have had less time for theologians and leaders to develop their thinking, to see the results of their thinking, and to interact with members of other religions.

And sometimes, that interaction is all it really takes. In 2002 and early 2003, I was planning a trip to Southeast Asia - to a tribal town which was pretty much exclusively Muslim. For several years, this town had been home to an eco-tourism and missions group run by a Christian man - a man whom the town liked so much that they had inducted he and his wife into the tribe. Through this program, they had interacted with quite a few Christian college students. Do you know what most, on either side, reported? Surprise. Surprise that the members of the other religion didn't fit into their nice little stereotypes. Surprise - and joy - that they were all seeking the same thing through religion, despite going about it in a different way. Interestingly enough, when someone in political power decided to lie about this man and his wife to try and get them in trouble, the entire town stood up for them in every way they could. But, that isn't how the power structure works in their politics, so the couple was still kicked out of the country.

Later, after the tsunami, that same man and his wife were doing aid work in various parts of southeast Asia. The stories they told didn't paint a picture of a violent religion, nor did those who they helped see them as enemies. More than once, they were given the blessing of Muslim religious leaders. One man even labeled them "Ones who have surrendered to God through Christ" - essentially, "Muslims through Christ."

When it boils down to it - no matter where you go, no matter what religion dominates in that area - most people are pretty good people just trying to go about their daily lives. Many people harbor prejudice against members of other ethnicities/religions/etc. which have been ingrained in them from birth - but that prejudice is often completely dispelled by a few actual interactions with such a person.

Fine. This fits perfectly with my point.

Does it now?

I think you may have misunderstood my goal here. The point is that people who want to make excused for Islamic violence often try to circumvent criticism of the Koran by comparing it to the Old Testament. I have not made a statement evaluating the Koran one way or the other.

Wrong. You are not following the arguments correctly. It goes like this:

Anti-Muslim bigot: ISLAM IS VIOLENT! I READ THE KORAN AND IT IS VIOLENT, SO THAT JUST PROVES THAT ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION!

Intelligent person: The fact that a religious text contains violent passages does not make an entire religion violent. If it did, we would have to condemn Judaism and Christianity, as the Torah and Old Testament contain a great deal of God-ordered violence.

Anti-Muslim bigot: NO, ISLAM IS VIOLENT BECAUSE OF THE KORAN. LOOK AT THIS PASSAGE!

Intelligent person: Yeah, so? Look at this passage from the Bible? It doesn't prove that all Christians are violent people. In fact, most Christians would not advocate this kind of action. The same is true of most Muslims.

Neo Bretonnia: ZOMG!! YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES FOR VIOLENCE!!!!!

Intelligent person: Huh?

Oh no it's absolutely relevant. You wanted to equate Christian activism with Islamic terrism by pointing to occasions when Christians fight to promote their point of view. I showed that they do it peacefully, in accordance with the law as opposed to violently. That's important.

I didn't "want to equate" anything. I simply pointed out that no religion is blameless. And to suggest that all Christians who wish to force their religion on others do it through the court system is dishonest.

I addressed these items in another post.

Not adequately, you didn't.

And?

Proportionally, just as many Muslims are speaking out and working against those who would be violent. You just don't hear them - apparently at least partially because you simply don't want to.

Forgive me for my bluntness but to say that all religions are equivalently peaceful/violent is completely naieve.

No, it isn't. A religion can't be violent or peaceful. Thus, they are all equivalently violent or peaceful. Human beings can be violent or peaceful - and they can do so no matter what religion (or even lack thereof) they ascribe to. It is people who are violent or peaceful (or, usually, somewhere in between), not religions.

Lunatic Goofballs posted without adding humor...wth is going on?

He had a good point and no joke, and was the first reply.

The snipe at Atheism was apt. Both the Soviets and the current Chinese regime persecute people for having religion.
In both those cases it probably has more to do with the political threat of organized private groups than religious intolerance, but then again, perhaps politics is a religion of sorts.

So what's stopping the remaining 90% from standing up and doing somethign about it?

What's stopping you from noticing that they are - at least in as much as they have any power to do so?

Most Muslims are just as vocal in condemning the actions of violent Muslims as most Christians are in condemning the actions of violent Christians. Of course, most of us aren't in a position to do much of anything about it. We answer these problems with our votes, with our words, and with our prayers, and then we go back to trying to live our lives.

When was the last time you "stood up" and did something about people bombing women's clinics? Have you personally stood in the way of such a person? Have you even had the opportunity?

The Muslims in a small town in a Southeast Asia stood up for a Christian man and woman who were being lied about in the papers, in the mosque, and in between those in power, and was in danger of action by the government. They actually did manage to get a retraction printed in the paper - something that is almost unheard of in this country. And yet, in the end, that couple was still told to leave the country and never return. If they try, they will be in danger. Is that the fault of the Muslims who stood up for them - those who knew the truth and fought for it? Or is the fault of a powerful and corrupt government - one that does not listen to the people - one put in power by the perfect "West" you love to talk about?


Get used to the idea that 3 out of 4 people on NS General think that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is bigoted and wrong.

:rolleyes: You don't even try, do you?

Christianity, or anything else (well, maybe not Socialism) is fair game, and you can trash that all you like, and it's not bigotry. It's correct.

No, you can't trash Christianity as if it were a cohesive whole either. That's the whole point.

You want to condemn the actions of certain individuals? Go right on ahead. And we'll likely be right behind you condemning those actions as well. You want to try and take the actions of certain individuals and condemn the whole of any group they belong to? That is when intelligent people will stand up and tell you where to shove it.

Then ask them to answer for Sharia Law. After all, it's their universal law.

Um.....no, it isn't. Some versions of Islam - some of its adherents - subscribe to Sharia law. Some do not. Many are forced to adhere to it whether they wish to or not.

You have repeatedly claimed that Muslims should answer for the actions of other Muslims, a claim that is provably bigotted. I'm sorry if that upsets you or if you don't like the term because of the company it puts you in, but you're as provably a bigot as I am a Christian, in that we both claim ideas that put us in that category. The only difference is I admit what I am.


You keep reiterating the fact that you're utterly clueless about what I've been trying to get across. Don't think I'm upset or crying because I refuse to beat a dead horse. From the beginning of this sequence of posts you've locked in the idea that I'm being bigoted into your head and I accept that. If you want to think of me that's fine. I've tried, in the interest of open discussion to clarify but you have completely ignored that effort and continue to hammer away at your tired accusation.

What am I supposed to do? Keep wasting my time coming back again and again, essentially talking to a brick wall while you go on mischaracterizing my points? That's stupid.

To everybody else:

If I've inadvertently represented myself as hating people, then I apologize. I believe that there must be some kind of fundamental flaw with Islam that seems to either promote, enable or attach itself to acts of violence but that's neither here nor there. I have no problem with any individual on the basis of his or her race or religion. Take it or leave it.

As to what's been going more recently regarding the 90% of people that I think should take responsibility-I say that in an effort to acknowledge that these people are being oppressed by regimes that enforce laws that throw civil rights into the toilet. They have a responsibility to themselves, if not to the rest of us, to rise up and throw off those who use Islam to justify their actiosn of violence and oppression. If you disagree with me, then we disagree politically. Let's debate it. That doesn't make me, or anyone who feels the same as I do, a bigot.

If you can't understand that, then let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You keep reiterating the fact that you're utterly clueless about what I've been trying to get across.

I reckon its
ISLAMESEZ IS TEH EBVBILL!!111!!!!1 and that there was no "ebvbill" before those muslims popped up.

You keep reiterating the fact that you're utterly clueless about what I've been trying to get across. Don't think I'm upset or crying because I refuse to beat a dead horse. From the beginning of this sequence of posts you've locked in the idea that I'm being bigoted into your head and I accept that. If you want to think of me that's fine. I've tried, in the interest of open discussion to clarify but you have completely ignored that effort and continue to hammer away at your tired accusation.

What am I supposed to do? Keep wasting my time coming back again and again, essentially talking to a brick wall while you go on mischaracterizing my points? That's stupid.

You don't keep coming back to anything. You're not making any points. You've tried to claim that all of Islam should be held responsible for the actions of some of Islam. That's bigotry.

You've claimed that some of Islam aren't violent enough while simultaneously blaming those who aren't violent enough for the actions of those that are too violent. Hmmmm....

But hey, just claim I'm "mischaracterizing your points and call it a day. That'll really help your argument.

Tell you what.

Do you claim that non-violent Muslims need to address the violent Muslims more so that I or you do? I say you did. Am I mischaracterizing what you explicitly said?

Do you claim that the non-violent Muslims should be fighting the violent Muslims more than we should? I say you did. Am I mischaracterizing what you explicitly said?

Do you claim then that non-violent Muslims are at fault for violent Muslims because the non-violent Muslims aren't stopping them violently? Yep. You explicitly said that. Am I mischaracterizing your points.



To everybody else:

If I've inadvertently represented myself as hating people, then I apologize. I believe that there must be some kind of fundamental flaw with Islam that seems to either promote, enable or attach itself to acts of violence but that's neither here nor there. I have no problem with any individual on the basis of his or her race or religion. Take it or leave it.

As to what's been going more recently regarding the 90% of people that I think should take responsibility-I say that in an effort to acknowledge that these people are being oppressed by regimes that enforce laws that throw civil rights into the toilet. They have a responsibility to themselves, if not to the rest of us, to rise up and throw off those who use Islam to justify their actiosn of violence and oppression. If you disagree with me, then we disagree politically. Let's debate it. That doesn't make me, or anyone who feels the same as I do, a bigot.

If you can't understand that, then let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Actually, what you said does make you a bigot by definition of the word as I presented here. Bigotry does not require hatred. It requires prejudice.

Meanwhile, you've been offered debate and you've refused to address many of the reasoned points.

A. You again claim that 90% of Islam isn't violent enough while simultaneously claiming that Islam itself is violent. You don't see the flaw is this claim?

B. You again claim that those in Islam not involved in the violence must answer for it. Something you don't require of Christians. Again, do you deny this? And do you see the flaw in your thinking?

As to what's been going more recently regarding the 90% of people that I think should take responsibility-I say that in an effort to acknowledge that these people are being oppressed by regimes that enforce laws that throw civil rights into the toilet. They have a responsibility to themselves, if not to the rest of us, to rise up and throw off those who use Islam to justify their actiosn of violence and oppression.

Honestly, what do you think you would do if you were in their situation? Would you endanger your own life and that of everyone you love in an attempt that would likely be futile - especially considering that your government is likely backed by the most power nations in the world? If you were struggling just to put food on the table for your family, how concerned would you be with the inner workings of a government you have no power over?

At a BSU meeting once, I heard the story of a man who had been born in Romania. He was too young to understand what was going on at the time, but now he does and he tells his stories to others to explain why he holds so strongly to his faith and his family. His parents were Christians under an oppressive regime. They were about as close as you could get, in Romania, to "middle class" - which is to say they were living in a decent home with decent food/clothing/etc. But they were in danger from the government because of their religious views. Their father risked life and limb to get himself, and all of them, out of the country and to the US, where he and his wife both worked janitorial jobs and raised all of their children in tiny apartments - usually with only one or two bedrooms.

Were these parents bad people? Should they have given their own lives and those of their children to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive government, when they felt they had no power to do so? Are you going to condemn them for doing the best that they could for themselves and their children?

If not, you cannot condemn any who live under an oppressive regime and do not actively fight it - who instead either live within it and keep their heads down or try to get away from it. There is a reason that figures like Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, etc. stand out in our heads. It is because they are exceptional. They were willing to put in all on the line for what they believe in, and we have a great deal of respect for that. How many of us can say that we would do the same?

Honestly, what do you think you would do if you were in their situation? Would you endanger your own life and that of everyone you love in an attempt that would likely be futile - especially considering that your government is likely backed by the most power nations in the world? If you were struggling just to put food on the table for your family, how concerned would you be with the inner workings of a government you have no power over?

At a BSU meeting once, I heard the story of a man who had been born in Romania. He was too young to understand what was going on at the time, but now he does and he tells his stories to others to explain why he holds so strongly to his faith and his family. His parents were Christians under an oppressive regime. They were about as close as you could get, in Romania, to "middle class" - which is to say they were living in a decent home with decent food/clothing/etc. But they were in danger from the government because of their religious views. Their father risked life and limb to get himself, and all of them, out of the country and to the US, where he and his wife both worked janitorial jobs and raised all of their children in tiny apartments - usually with only one or two bedrooms.

Were these parents bad people? Should they have given their own lives and those of their children to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive government, when they felt they had no power to do so? Are you going to condemn them for doing the best that they could for themselves and their children?

If not, you cannot condemn any who live under an oppressive regime and do not actively fight it - who instead either live within it and keep their heads down or try to get away from it. There is a reason that figures like Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, etc. stand out in our heads. It is because they are exceptional. They were willing to put in all on the line for what they believe in, and we have a great deal of respect for that. How many of us can say that we would do the same?

Here's what I find amusing about the line of argument - how can one be complaining about individuals not being willing to violently overthrow their government, individuals who mostly just work and care for their families, and then claim that the group these individuals are a part of is inherently violent. If there was any truth to the irrational violence of the religion wouldn't these individuals be fighting just for the hell of it, oppressed or not?

...I recently got hold of a koran so I can find out what islam's really about. I've been speaking to more muslims. But no matter how much I try to see islam as a peaceful religion, bad stuff keeps popping up. Like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6412453.stm

Any thoughts?

Three thoughts.
Old. Testament. Dipshit.

What exactly do you not understand? You told me that the view of Islam as a peaceful religion is incompatible with what you see every day. Are you attacked by Muslims every day? If not, you must be getting your information from the media.

And yours comes from....?


It tells me that criminals and terrorists tend to hide where they think they can get away with it. Why do you think the bandit stories in the US often involve someone running to Mexico? Why do criminals tend to live and commit crimes, in the "bad" parts of a town, even when they have made enough money to leave? Why do teens who wish to break the rules go to the houses of the most lenient parents? And so on....

Exactly. Now follow that through to its logical conclusion about the governments I originally refered to.


At the equivalent point of the Ba'hai, Islam was an incredibly peaceful religion overall. Countries dominated by Islam were actually some of the most tolerant countries in the world.


Oh would that this were true. On this one, my friend, you are dished. Historically there were regions where religious tolerance on all sides was almost utopian, like in the Iberian Peninsula in the late Medieval period. This by no means was the rule. Conversion by the sword was quite zealously and actively persued through Southeastern Europe, Southern Asia and Africa at the time.


Not to mention that power-seeking members of the Ba'hai religion have not taken over any governments....

Excellent.


Why? Do you really think we should ignore all of human history in every discussion?

It doesn't "justify their shortcomings." All organized religions have shortcomings, no matter how old they are. All religions have theological and social disputes within them and between them. But a younger religion will have had less time for theologians and leaders to develop their thinking, to see the results of their thinking, and to interact with members of other religions.

Because people are responsible for what they do NOW. Not what history might give them an excuse with. The USA is about 200 years old. At this stage in classical history Rome was beginning its conquest of the Italian Peninsula. If the United States suddenly invaded Canada and Mexico shall we justify that by saying "Well, Rome did it when it was around 200ish...why can't we?" of course not. That's ridiculous. We live in the 21st Century and if we are to be judged, we are judged by today's standards, not by the fact that our country is 200 years old. That's utterly irrelevant.


And sometimes, that interaction is all it really takes. In 2002 and early 2003, I was planning a trip to Southeast Asia - to a tribal town which was pretty much exclusively Muslim. For several years, this town had been home to an eco-tourism and missions group run by a Christian man - a man whom the town liked so much that they had inducted he and his wife into the tribe. Through this program, they had interacted with quite a few Christian college students. Do you know what most, on either side, reported? Surprise. Surprise that the members of the other religion didn't fit into their nice little stereotypes. Surprise - and joy - that they were all seeking the same thing through religion, despite going about it in a different way. Interestingly enough, when someone in political power decided to lie about this man and his wife to try and get them in trouble, the entire town stood up for them in every way they could. But, that isn't how the power structure works in their politics, so the couple was still kicked out of the country.

Later, after the tsunami, that same man and his wife were doing aid work in various parts of southeast Asia. The stories they told didn't paint a picture of a violent religion, nor did those who they helped see them as enemies. More than once, they were given the blessing of Muslim religious leaders. One man even labeled them "Ones who have surrendered to God through Christ" - essentially, "Muslims through Christ."


If my personal experience in South America gets thrown out of the discussion because it's not expansive enough to represent the whole, then so does this and for the same reason.


When it boils down to it - no matter where you go, no matter what religion dominates in that area - most people are pretty good people just trying to go about their daily lives. Many people harbor prejudice against members of other ethnicities/religions/etc. which have been ingrained in them from birth - but that prejudice is often completely dispelled by a few actual interactions with such a person.

I have never disputed this concept.


Wrong. You are not following the arguments correctly. It goes like this:

Anti-Muslim bigot: ISLAM IS VIOLENT! I READ THE KORAN AND IT IS VIOLENT, SO THAT JUST PROVES THAT ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION!

Intelligent person: The fact that a religious text contains violent passages does not make an entire religion violent. If it did, we would have to condemn Judaism and Christianity, as the Torah and Old Testament contain a great deal of God-ordered violence.

Anti-Muslim bigot: NO, ISLAM IS VIOLENT BECAUSE OF THE KORAN. LOOK AT THIS PASSAGE!

Intelligent person: Yeah, so? Look at this passage from the Bible? It doesn't prove that all Christians are violent people. In fact, most Christians would not advocate this kind of action. The same is true of most Muslims.

Neo Bretonnia: ZOMG!! YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES FOR VIOLENCE!!!!!

Intelligent person: Huh?

This is how I know you've misunderstood my point. That's not an attack, just an observation.

In your cute little transcript there's one flaw. And this may be just because we're on two different wavelengths so hopefully this will help. I am not knee-jerk reacting like in your transcript there. I'm responding to people who actually do try and use that argument to justify or excuse that violence. That's not what your transcript is portraying so please tell me you're open minded enough to acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding on that.


I didn't "want to equate" anything. I simply pointed out that no religion is blameless. And to suggest that all Christians who wish to force their religion on others do it through the court system is dishonest.

I didn't say they all did. I am only referring tot hose covered by your example. This is what you said:

And I can show you the US, where there are currently many fights going on with Christians trying to force religion into public schools and government programs.
Neither of us said all.

But I do know very well that you equate a vote with an act of force. Perhaps that's what you meant.


Not adequately, you didn't.

Because I haven't convinced you? Newsflash: I wasn't trying to.


Proportionally, just as many Muslims are speaking out and working against those who would be violent. You just don't hear them - apparently at least partially because you simply don't want to.

Look who's talking.


No, it isn't. A religion can't be violent or peaceful. Thus, they are all equivalently violent or peaceful. Human beings can be violent or peaceful - and they can do so no matter what religion (or even lack thereof) they ascribe to. It is people who are violent or peaceful (or, usually, somewhere in between), not religions.

Semantics. When a person evaluates a religion as being "violent" or "peaceful" it's inherently understood they are referring to the people and era in question. Why you're trying to confuse the issue by dragging us through this kind of tangent is beyond me, unless it's merely a tactic.

You don't keep coming back to anything. You're not making any points. You've tried to claim that all of Islam should be held responsible for the actions of some of Islam. That's bigotry.

You've claimed that some of Islam aren't violent enough while simultaneously blaming those who aren't violent enough for the actions of those that are too violent. Hmmmm....

But hey, just claim I'm "mischaracterizing your points and call it a day. That'll really help your argument.
Yes I know it pales in comparison to your "just call them a bigot and call it a day" approach.

If not, you cannot condemn any who live under an oppressive regime and do not actively fight it - who instead either live within it and keep their heads down or try to get away from it. There is a reason that figures like Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, etc. stand out in our heads. It is because they are exceptional. They were willing to put in all on the line for what they believe in, and we have a great deal of respect for that. How many of us can say that we would do the same?

Don't forget every single man and boy that fought in the Continental Army circa 1776. Were they all rich? Did they all have the means to support their families while they were away at war? Did it matter? They stood up. They fought. They fought against a vastly superior enemy. They asked for help when they needed it from a foreign power. They did what they had to under what would be considered a much less oppressive Government than some of the ones we're talking about.

So stop making me out to be an asshole just because I acually regard those people highly enough to believe they CAN do it just like the American revolutionaries did. If the weight of their religion is what crushes them under that heel, making them utterly unable to fight back,then I blame the religion. That's my point. I can't make it any clearer.

Don't forget every single man and boy that fought in the Continental Army circa 1776. Were they all rich? Did they all have the means to support their families while they were away at war? Did it matter? They stood up. They fought. They fought against a vastly superior enemy. They asked for help when they needed it from a foreign power. They did what they had to under what would be considered a much less oppressive Government than some of the ones we're talking about.

So stop making me out to be an asshole just because I acually regard those people highly enough to believe they CAN do it just like the American revolutionaries did. If the weight of their religion is what crushes them under that heel, making them utterly unable to fight back,then I blame the religion. That's my point. I can't make it any clearer.

And many of their strategies and tactics could be considered a form of terrorism of an appropriate technology level of that time period.

When has any atheist killed or thrown somebody into a fire because of their 'religion'? And if you say anything to do with communism I will laugh.

Look at the U.S.S.R., the Warsaw Pact, China, Viet Nam, Laos, "Democratic" Kampuchea, Cuba (prior to the early 1990s), etc.

The fact is the vast majority of Muslims do condemn the terrorism and violence committed in the name of Islam, myself include.

QFT.

Wait, poor civil rights in places like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Thats funny because all those places are run by secular dictators 100% western backed who oppress those who preach Islam or political change in the name of Islam.

ROFLMAO, Saudi Arabia secular!?

*dies*

And yours comes from....?

The media is certainly part of it. Actual Muslims who I, you know, sit down and talk to. The mosque here in town has been pretty vocal about these issues. I have a copy of the Qur'an, although I've barely begun to read it at this point.

Exactly. Now follow that through to its logical conclusion about the governments I originally refered to.

What? That they tend to harbor terrorists? Well, congratulations, you've made a circular argument.

Having a government controlled by religious leaders is pretty much always a bad idea - no matter what religion it is. Such a situation does nothing but corrupt both - and ends up with most of the people oppressed.

Oh would that this were true. On this one, my friend, you are dished. Historically there were regions where religious tolerance on all sides was almost utopian, like in the Iberian Peninsula in the late Medieval period. This by no means was the rule. Conversion by the sword was quite zealously and actively persued through Southeastern Europe, Southern Asia and Africa at the time.

Not in the early years of the religion. That's another thing that's practically universal among religions. After all, you can't really go about converting people by the sword until you have the power and influence to do so.

Excellent.

.....yet.

Because people are responsible for what they do NOW.

Indeed, and nothing I have said disputes this.

But people are also a product of the culture and the ideas they are raised with. They are personally responsible for their actions, but we cannot do anything about those actions if we do not understand where they are coming from.

I went ahead and snipped the rest because it demonstrates that you are completely missing the point. I'm not talking about "judging". That's all you, my dear.

If my personal experience in South America gets thrown out of the discussion because it's not expansive enough to represent the whole, then so does this and for the same reason.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? This is what generally happens when normal people of one culture meet normal people of another. The governments may clash. The extremists may fight tooth and nail. But your normal every day person, no matter where that person is, is just a normal every day person.

I have never disputed this concept.

Indeed you have - every time you have tried to portray Islam as a whole - and thus Muslims as a whole - as violent people, as if they aren't, in reality, pretty much just like the rest of us.

This is how I know you've misunderstood my point. That's not an attack, just an observation.

I didn't say it was an attack. I simply pointed out that your so-called "observation" is a misunderstanding of the actual viewpoint.

Try again.

In your cute little transcript there's one flaw. And this may be just because we're on two different wavelengths so hopefully this will help. I am not knee-jerk reacting like in your transcript there. I'm responding to people who actually do try and use that argument to justify or excuse that violence. That's not what your transcript is portraying so please tell me you're open minded enough to acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding on that.

That's because you are wholly mistaken in that premise. You are mistaking EXACTLY what I portrayed there for an "argument to justify or excuse that violence."

I didn't say they all did. I am only referring tot hose covered by your example. This is what you said:

It's hardly the only examples I've used, but fine.

But I do know very well that you equate a vote with an act of force. Perhaps that's what you meant.

I equate a vote to use force with an act of force, yes.

Because I haven't convinced you? Newsflash: I wasn't trying to.

No, because you haven't done so - period.

Look who's talking.

That retort, while utterly useless at the best of times, makes no sense at all here. I do hear them. That's why I'm telling you what they say.

Semantics. When a person evaluates a religion as being "violent" or "peaceful" it's inherently understood they are referring to the people and era in question. Why you're trying to confuse the issue by dragging us through this kind of tangent is beyond me, unless it's merely a tactic.

Wait? So any time a person evaluates a religion as being "violent" or "peaceful", they are being a bigot by lumping all members of a given religion into a specific mindset that they may or may not share?

How interesting.

So would it be correct, in your mind, to say that Christianity used to be a very violent and immoral religion and is now a religion of those who wish to force their religion on others? Personally, I'd be rather insulted by such a characterization, but you'd apparently agree with it whole-heartedly.

And many of their strategies and tactics could be considered a form of terrorism of an appropriate technology level of that time period.

How many civilians did they target?

How many civilians did they target?

Ever heard the word Loyalist before?

Yes I know it pales in comparison to your "just call them a bigot and call it a day" approach.

Amusing. I post arguments, even kind enough to bullet point them and you make no reply, yet claim it's me "just" calling you a bigot. I called you a bigot because you are.

I also made arguments. You chose to complain about what I called you and ignore the arguments (while simultaneously calling people who disagree with you "muslim apologists").

Now if you're going to take a holier-than-thou approach, how about addressing the arguments

Semantics. When a person evaluates a religion as being "violent" or "peaceful" it's inherently understood they are referring to the people and era in question. Why you're trying to confuse the issue by dragging us through this kind of tangent is beyond me, unless it's merely a tactic.

Exactly the point. You claimed you weren't talking aobu the individuals, now you claim you are. Yet another of your inconsistencies. Meanwhile, I'm sure you realize that when you claim that you can paint the individuals, "the people in question" you are doing exactly what I accused you of and what you used as an excuse to not address a single argument.

Meanwhile, I repeat, why is it that you claim Islam is violent while complaining about a large portion of it not being violent enough?

Don't forget every single man and boy that fought in the Continental Army circa 1776. Were they all rich?

Did any of the poor start the war? Were any of the Founding Fathers poor?

The answer, by the way, is no.

Those who started the war were men of means. There were certainly underground organizations who were not made up of white men with money, power, and land, but they were few and far between.

Most of those who fought in the Revolution would have been at home taking care of their families for generations to come under British rule, if a few representatives hadn't gone and started a war. Even as it was, many did just that - as best they could - while the war raged on around them. Still others joined the military largely because of the benefits to them - they could better provide for themselves and their families by banding together with others and fighting. Were they awful people? I don't think so.

I ask you again, NB. As someone who has been born into a very lucky life indeed, do you think you would do it? Personally, I don't think any of us can say what we would do in a difficult situation unless we're put there.

Ever heard the word Loyalist before?

So in place of an actual reply we get a snarky reference. Please elaborate.

Did any of the poor start the war? Were any of the Founding Fathers poor?

The answer, by the way, is no.

Those who started the war were men of means. There were certainly underground organizations who were not made up of white men with money, power, and land, but they were few and far between.

Which they could only do if they knew they would get enough support from the common folks.

Why must you detract from the sacrifice they made? Were the poor guys risking less, somehow, than the rich?



Most of those who fought in the Revolution would have been at home taking care of their families for generations to come under British rule, if a few representatives hadn't gone and started a war. Even as it was, many did just that - as best they could - while the war raged on around them. Still others joined the military largely because of the benefits to them - they could better provide for themselves and their families by banding together with others and fighting. Were they awful people? I don't think so.

I ask you again, NB. As someone who has been born into a very lucky life indeed, do you think you would do it? Personally, I don't think any of us can say what we would do in a difficult situation unless we're put there.

If you don't think I can answer, why are you asking me?

Which they could only do if they knew they would get enough support from the common folks.

They were the government leaders over those "common folks" - the same "common folks" who went to war when the British ordered it.

Why must you detract from the sacrifice they made? Were the poor guys risking less, somehow, than the rich?

I'm not detracting from their sacrifices. I'm simply pointing out that they weren't abnormal human beings. They weren't saints.

Did the poor risk less than the rich? No. In fact, they were risking more, as the rich had the means to get away, if need be. But they didn't make the choice to take that risk. Their political leaders did.

The same is true now. I commend the men and women in the military for their service to this country. I commend them for being willing to protect this country in any way they are told to. But I don't pretend that they are saints who make the choice to march into war. They are not. Those in power - those who have the least to lose - are generally the ones who choose to wage war.

If you don't think I can answer, why are you asking me?

Oh, you can answer. And you can tell me what you think.

I don't think you can *know*, but you very well might disagree.

Amusing. I post arguments, even kind enough to bullet point them and you make no reply, yet claim it's me "just" calling you a bigot. I called you a bigot because you are.

And yet I've refrained from calling you an idiot. See what civility can do?


I also made arguments. You chose to complain about what I called you and ignore the arguments (while simultaneously calling people who disagree with you "muslim apologists").

Your failure to understand my replies does not constitute a failure to answer on my part.


Now if you're going to take a holier-than-thou approach, how about addressing the arguments

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


Exactly the point. You claimed you weren't talking aobu the individuals, now you claim you are. Yet another of your inconsistencies. Meanwhile, I'm sure you realize that when you claim that you can paint the individuals, "the people in question" you are doing exactly what I accused you of and what you used as an excuse to not address a single argument.

Ok Jocabia stay with me, I know you can do it.

You keep shrilly screaming about me being inconsistent. I keep insisting that you're missing my point. For a time, I even tried to set the record straight. Maybe I wasn't effective because I didn't phrase it well. Maybe I was ineffective because you've already made up your mind and there's nothing I could say that will get you to see it. In either case, I stated a couple pages back that I find your approach boring and that I had nothing more to say that could make it clearer.

Let's see if I can get you to understand this concept. i find your approach to be distasteful. I find bullies like you distateful. You don't like what I say so you find some name to label me with and dismiss everyting after that, then commit intellectual dishonesty by pretending I haven't. I tried to be reasonable with you, you refused to have it. Nothing else I can do. You insist I've ignored your questions, I believe I have not. If you were being reasonable, you'd have enough credibility to be worth it to repeat myself to. As it stands, you don't.

Wait, poor civil rights in places like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Thats funny because all those places are run by secular dictators 100% western backed who oppress those who preach Islam or political change in the name of Islam. They torture, imprison and kill many whos only crime was their belief in Allah swt. This is not the fault of Islam, it is because of so called civilised western christian nations.

lol @ secular dictators. Yeah right, KSA and Pak are ruled by secular dictators. There are several issues in your post.

1. There were no civil rights comparable to today's standards in those countries to begin with.

2. The dictators of the countries you mentioned do have some backing/acceptance in their countries. Else there will be mass unrests and crackdowns on a much larger scale. In the absence of genocidal crackdowns, the survival of a dictatorship means that there is atleast some acceptance to the regime. Case in point - Musharraf. He may not have the mandate from all, but he does enjoy the army's support and the Punjabi-Mohajir combination support.

3. The proposed replacement of your choice - islamist governments would be exponentially worse for civil rights. Case in point - taliban.

4. Blaming the west for everything does not work. Note that I am not saying western policies in muslim countries is unblemished.

5. You sound like Hizbut Tahrir.

lol @ secular dictators. Yeah right, KSA and Pak are ruled by secular dictators. There are several issues in your post.


Perhaps secular was a wrong choice of words, what I meant was unIslamic. Both places have psuedo-Islamic rule at best.

1. There were no civil rights comparable to today's standards in those countries to begin with.
:confused:
2. The dictators of the countries you mentioned do have some backing/acceptance in their countries. Else there will be mass unrests and crackdowns on a much larger scale. In the absence of genocidal crackdowns, the survival of a dictatorship means that there is atleast some acceptance to the regime. Case in point - Musharraf. He may not have the mandate from all, but he does enjoy the army's support and the Punjabi-Mohajir combination support.
Musharraf has little to no support, none of them do. They only reason he is still in power is the fact he's survived a dozen assination attempts and gets backing and funds from the US to be their puppet. He's sold out Kashmir and gone against Islamic law with things like rape.

3. The proposed replacement of your choice - islamist governments would be exponentially worse for civil rights. Case in point - taliban.
A true Islamic government would be far better for civil rights than what there is now. I wouldn't consider the Taliban to be truly Islamic.

4. Blaming the west for everything does not work. Note that I am not saying western policies in muslim countries is unblemished.
I don't blame the west for everything, just the things they've done.

5. You sound like Hizbut Tahrir.
Is that a bad thing?

And yet I've refrained from calling you an idiot. See what civility can do?

I don't fit the definition of an idiot. You are, by definition, a bigot. It's not a judgement call. You exemplify the definition. It's only an insult if you are ashamed of your behavior.


Your failure to understand my replies does not constitute a failure to answer on my part.

Amusing. So you've explained how Islam being too violent jives with your claim that Muslims should be more violent?



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

I did address your arguments. Every one of them. Shall I show how many of your replies consist solely of your complaints about my use of the word bigots.

Amusingly, I'm one of several people you've used the "I know you are but what am I" argument with. When it's everyone reacting to you the same way, what do you think the common factor is?


Ok Jocabia stay with me, I know you can do it.

You keep shrilly screaming about me being inconsistent.

Here's a perfect example. I used the word bigot and you cried about it repeatedly and then you make ridiculous claims about me being "shrill" and about me screaming or yelling or other such nonsense. I assure there is nothing about my argument that suggests I'm upset. Only one of us is complaining about the proper use of a term, and it ain't me.


I keep insisting that you're missing my point. For a time, I even tried to set the record straight. Maybe I wasn't effective because I didn't phrase it well. Maybe I was ineffective because you've already made up your mind and there's nothing I could say that will get you to see it. In either case, I stated a couple pages back that I find your approach boring and that I had nothing more to say that could make it clearer.

You keep claiming it, but then you keep going back to blaming individuals for the actions of other individuals.

A. Islam is violent. You said that explicitly. Are you denying it?
B. Muslims are violent. You said that explicitly. Are you denying it?
C. Muslims are at fault because they don't overthrow the violent Muslims violently. You said that explicitly. Are you denying it?
D.Christians are not held to the same standard and commenting on the similarities is bigotry. You said that explicitly. Are you denying it?

You can't see how this is amusing to me.


[QUOTE=Neo Bretonnia;12396791]Let's see if I can get you to understand this concept. i find your approach to be distasteful. I find bullies like you distateful.

Ha. Now I'm a bully. Why? Because I correctly notice that you are painting Muslims with a broad brush of violence while irrationally noticing that you're calling for the majority of them to be more violent? I find bigots distasteful, but you don't find me complaining.

Prove I'm a bully, and oh, you know, reply to the arguments.

You don't like what I say so you find some name to label me with and dismiss everyting after that, then commit intellectual dishonesty by pretending I haven't. I tried to be reasonable with you, you refused to have it. Nothing else I can do. You insist I've ignored your questions, I believe I have not. If you were being reasonable, you'd have enough credibility to be worth it to repeat myself to. As it stands, you don't.

And, see, here we have it. Not an argument in the bunch. Look above. You'll see that, like every post, I included my summary of your arguments, AGAIN. You seek only to attack me. It's a diversionary tactic and it shows your faith in your argument. You have 30 posts in this thread and dedicate 20% of them solely to complain about my semantically appropraite use of the word, bigot, while using words like bully, shrill, yelling, screaming and various other accusations toward me.

If you've already answered it, I'm interested, post a link. How do you rectify your religion of violence claim with requesting the the majority of Muslims violently overthrow the middle-eastern governments? I notice it was right about the time I asked this question when you stopped posting meaningful replies to me and started getting upset. I suspect it's not a coincidence. I've noticed you claimed several people are "shouting you down" and various other silly claims as well. It seems this tactic is reserved for me, but for all of your critics.

Perhaps secular was a wrong choice of words, what I meant was unIslamic. Both places have psuedo-Islamic rule at best.

But hey, secular = unislamic anyways, right?


Musharraf has little to no support, none of them do. They only reason he is still in power is the fact he's survived a dozen assination attempts and gets backing and funds from the US to be their puppet.

You have little to no clue on this issue. Musharraf would not survive if his corps commanders, the land owning elites and other feudals of Sindh, the Punjabi heartland don't want him to. All his assassination "attempts" were done by alleged Kashmiris - not Punjabis or Mohajirs or Sindhis who are the main groups.

He's sold out Kashmir and .

Nonsense. I will believe he is a sold out when he puts Hafiz Saeed and Massood Azhar behind bars.

gone against Islamic law with things like rape

Really lol. You are digging your own grave here.

The current Pakistani laws (called Hudood Ordnances) calls for a rape victim to prove the case by providing 4 pious male witnesses who witnessed the act of penetration.

Do you even begin to comprehend the absolute travesty behind this law?

Among the few things that slimy Sob does, Musharraf tried to make amends to this law and this was thwarted by the MMA - the mullah party.

So tell us Soviestan - do you support such laws?

A true Islamic government would be far better for civil rights than what there is now. I wouldn't consider the Taliban to be truly Islamic.


I guess not, because of the pesky things such as media etc which have brought out the way they went about being a true islamic government.

But you do agree with the idea behind the taliban (pious holy men establishing a theocracy etc etc). You just cannot justify it in boards like this because of the bad PR they have gotten.

Funnily enough, the best period of civil rights, indeed the 'golden age of islam' was under the Abbasids - who were decidedly not 'truly islamic'. Go on take some real history books and read them.



Is that a bad thing?

Depends.

Depends how one would view a party agenda of subversion of existing nation-states and overthrowing them and forming a Caliphate and establishing a 7th century theocracy - including parts of erstwhile 'muslim lands' such as Spain and India.

Wow... so in order to not be considered a bigot by you, I have to refrain from saying anything that could even remotely be a criticism against a religion...

Going on and on about how "primitive" a group is not something I think is "remotely a criticism." it is a condemnation, a value judgement which implies that x is bad, buy y is superior.

..as long as it's not Christianity.

I'm sure you could be a bigot to Christians as well. But I don't see that it's relevant to what I've said.

Meanwhile you've accused me of saying a bunch of stuff I haven't said, but are trying to sneak it in there to justify your shout-down approach.

I've quoted your own words that you typed presumably under the full control of your physiological processes.

I'm supposed to feel chastized by that? sure.

I dunno what it feels like to be a dirty racist. Chastized, probably not. Guilty, evasive, irrational, hateful? That's how you're supposed to feel... and it looks like things go as they are supposed to.

The current Pakistani laws (called Hudood Ordnances) calls for a rape victim to prove the case by providing 4 pious male witnesses who witnessed the act of penetration.

Do you even begin to comprehend the absolute travesty behind this law?

Among the few things that slimy Sob does, Musharraf tried to make amends to this law and this was thwarted by the MMA - the mullah party.
I thought his proposal was passed in the end?

5. You sound like Hizbut Tahrir.

Who's that?

I thought his proposal was passed in the end?

I followed it until the MMA part boycotted the assembly/parliament. It has been passed after that, although the MMA party is still boycotting. Allah be praised for small mercies.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12702/pakistans_uneven_push_for_women.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_ana lysis
Women’s rights have been a controversial legal issue in Pakistan for nearly three decades. In 1979, during the rule of U.S.-backed military dictator Zia ul-Haq, the Hudood Ordinance was passed, implementing Islamic sharia law. The ordinance required a rape victim to produce four male witnesses to the crime. If a court deemed the evidence lacking, the accuser could be charged with consenting to extra-marital sex, a crime punishable with death by stoning for married individuals. After years of international and domestic pressure from human rights groups to repeal the law, Musharraf proposed a reform leading to the Protection of Women Act, signed into law in December 2006 and allowing for rape cases to be tried in civil courts. Musharraf has pledged to use legal reform to chip away at discrimination against women, despite and perhaps because of his alleged remark that rape in Pakistan was a means to “get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire” during a 2005 Washington Post interview. He later denied the comment.

The Protection of Women Act has left both supporters of the 1979 ordinance and women’s rights activists unsatisfied. Some 20,000 demonstrators protested against changing the sharia law and a religious coalition in Pakistan’s parliament continues to boycott (Dawn) the new act. Mufti Mohammad Taqi Usmani, a retired federal judge on the sharia appellate bench of Pakistan’s supreme court, defended the rape and adultery laws of the Hudood Ordinanance, saying the law had never resulted in the stoning of a plaintiff who accused someone of rape. He writes that the government reformed the law after being “ overawed by catchy slogans” from women’s rights group.

Activists acknowledge the Protection of Women Act as a step in the right direction but continue to demand a complete end to the Hudood Ordinance. Fatima Bhutto, granddaughter of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, says the act fails to protect rape victims or stop the prosecution of women who engage in consensual sex. She calls it little more than the previous sharia law with “a cosmetic makeover” (The News)—or “Hudood Ordinance: the remix.”

What Mufti Mohammad Taqi Usmani forgets to mention is how many instances the victim is intimidated not to report the case - afraid of the punishment awaiting her for zina (adultery).

Here's a copy of the amendment.

http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ministries/women-development-ministry/media/Binder1.pdf

Who's that?

Anti-semitic sunni group with pipe dreams of establishing a new Caliphate and eventually bringing the whole world to Islam

Anti-semitic sunni group with pipe dreams of establishing a new Caliphate and eventually bringing the whole world to Islam

Gross.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9721168&postcount=50

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793165&postcount=51

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793165&postcount=53

and more in that thread.

Thanks. :)

Who's that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9721168&postcount=50

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793165&postcount=51

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793165&postcount=53

and more in that thread.

You have little to no clue on this issue. Musharraf would not survive if his corps commanders, the land owning elites and other feudals of Sindh, the Punjabi heartland don't want him to. All his assassination "attempts" were done by alleged Kashmiris - not Punjabis or Mohajirs or Sindhis who are the main groups.

Oh wow, he has support among a few generals and the elites. And of course the west, he still a tyrant with a distain for Islam. We'd be better off with him gone.

Nonsense. I will believe he is a sold out when he puts Hafiz Saeed and Massood Azhar behind bars.

:rolleyes: please. He's let the hindus and others do whatever they want to Muslims there. Muslims are tortured and killed on an almost daily basis and Musharraf does nothing.



The current Pakistani laws (called Hudood Ordnances) calls for a rape victim to prove the case by providing 4 pious male witnesses who witnessed the act of penetration.

Do you even begin to comprehend the absolute travesty behind this law?

Among the few things that slimy Sob does, Musharraf tried to make amends to this law and this was thwarted by the MMA - the mullah party.

So tell us Soviestan - do you support such laws?
There is growing support to have things like DNA evidence be a considered as a male witness. Islamic law is more just than man made law not because it is easy to get away with rape, but rather to make it hard to have someone convicted who has done nothing wrong.


But you do agree with the idea behind the taliban (pious holy men establishing a theocracy etc etc). You just cannot justify it in boards like this because of the bad PR they have gotten.
more or less, yeah.

Depends how one would view a party agenda of subversion of existing nation-states and overthrowing them and forming a Caliphate and establishing a 7th century theocracy - including parts of erstwhile 'muslim lands' such as Spain and India.

They are not a terrorist organization number one. number two they support things like women's right to vote and will not ban anything except what Allah swt himself has banned. Their goal of uniting all Muslims under a true Islamic government where peace and justice reign is a noble one.

...I recently got hold of a koran so I can find out what islam's really about. I've been speaking to more muslims. But no matter how much I try to see islam as a peaceful religion, bad stuff keeps popping up. Like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6412453.stm

Any thoughts?

And those "muslims you've been speaking to"? Are they committing genocide?

I followed it until the MMA part boycotted the assembly/parliament. It has been passed after that, although the MMA party is still boycotting. Allah be praised for small mercies.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12702/pakistans_uneven_push_for_women.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_ana lysis


What Mufti Mohammad Taqi Usmani forgets to mention is how many instances the victim is intimidated not to report the case - afraid of the punishment awaiting her for zina (adultery).

Here's a copy of the amendment.

http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ministries/women-development-ministry/media/Binder1.pdf
I thought I remembered seeing that it did indeed pass. A small step, but a step nonetheless. :)

Oh wow, he has support among a few generals and the elites. And of course the west, he still a tyrant with a distain for Islam. We'd be better off with him gone.

I see that you have missed the whole thing about his Panjabi constituency. The point is that he does not have the mandate from majority Pakistanis but he does have the backing of significant sections that I mentioned in the post.

The world is grey.



:rolleyes: please. He's let the hindus and others do whatever they want to Muslims there. Muslims are tortured and killed on an almost daily basis and Musharraf does nothing.

Lying terrorist sympathiser.

Yes, I am openly calling you that.

There is growing support to have things like DNA evidence be a considered as a male witness. Islamic law is more just than man made law not because it is easy to get away with rape, but rather to make it hard to have someone convicted who has done nothing wrong.

Gee, I wonder why then it is the woman who gets the short end of the stick all the time and I wonder why there is resistance to the change of laws by the mullah party - the self-proclaimed saviors of islam.

more or less, yeah.

No surprises there for me.

They are not a terrorist organization number one. number two they support things like women's right to vote and will not ban anything except what Allah swt himself has banned. Their goal of uniting all Muslims under a true Islamic government where peace and justice reign is a noble one.

I did not say they are a terrorist org. Why do you feel the need to defend a non-existent charge?

Oh they support women's right to vote.

What am I supposed to say? Oh I know

WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTURY.

I'm surprised that you wouldn't be dismayed by Islam simply from reading the Koran. Same with the Bible for Christianity. Those books are disgusting.

To get anything good out of them, one must ignore countless examples of injustice, intolerance, needless violence, anti-intellectualism and misogyny. Some do so, but for everyone who does there's about ten who glorify in those parts of their holy book.

I see that you have missed the whole thing about his Panjabi constituency. The point is that he does not have the mandate from majority Pakistanis but he does have the backing of significant sections that I mentioned in the post.

The world is grey.



:rolleyes: The world may be grey but Pakistan is run by a dictator with what seems to be a hatred of Islam.

Lying terrorist sympathiser.

Yes, I am openly calling you that.

What are you serious? I hadn't lied nor have I supported terrorists so what are you talking about?

Gee, I wonder why then it is the woman who gets the short end of the stick all the time and I wonder why there is resistance to the change of laws by the mullah party - the self-proclaimed saviors of islam.


short end of stick according to you.

I did not say they are a terrorist org. Why do you feel the need to defend a non-existent charge?

Oh they support women's right to vote.

What am I supposed to say? Oh I know

WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTURY.



I have heard some claim that they are and I just wanted to set the record straight.

What are you serious? I hadn't lied nor have I supported terrorists so what are you talking about?

Yes, you have lied and you are being an apologist for jihadi terrorists.

He's let the hindus and others do whatever they want to Muslims there. Muslims are tortured and killed on an almost daily basis
:rolleyes: WTF is that? You have yet again demonstrated your utter ignorance.

1. Infinitely more civilian muslims have been directly killed by jihadis than by the security setup which includes Kashmiri SPO entirely made up of muslims.

2. Muslim militants, when they take up arms, do not get a free pass to shoot at others. They will be killed and no apologies will be made for that.

3. Have you ever heard of Pandits?


short end of stick according to you.

Yeah, I get raped and then I get punished for zina. Great justice for me. Yay :rolleyes:

Yes, you have lied and you are being an apologist for jihadi terrorists.


Speaking out against injustices done to Muslims is somehow being a terrorist apologist? :confused:



1. Infinitely more civilian muslims have been directly killed by jihadis than by the security setup which includes Kashmiri SPO entirely made up of muslims.
thats simply untrue
2. Muslim militants, when they take up arms, do not get a free pass to shoot at others. They will be killed and no apologies will be made for that.
nice:rolleyes:
3. Have you ever heard of Pandits?

yes, your point?

Speaking out against injustices done to Muslims is somehow being a terrorist apologist?

But you did not do that. You are hiding the actual injustice (jihadi terrorism) and blithering nonsensically.

thats simply untrue

I am not going to bother with links. You are just going to dismiss them. You are beyond salvage.


nice:rolleyes:

Yes. I do think it is very nice of them to become fertilizers for the soil.


yes, your point?

It just went way over your head.

But you did not do that. You are hiding the actual injustice (jihadi terrorism) and blithering nonsensically.

people defending their land is not injustice.

I am not going to bother with links. You are just going to dismiss them. You are beyond salvage.

I could say the same for you.


Yes. I do think it is very nice of them to become fertilizers for the soil.
You sound like a Hindu extremist apologist. Whats a few thousand Muslim lives right? they make good fertilizer.:rolleyes:


It just went way over your head.
right.....

people defending their land is not injustice.



I could say the same for you.



right.....

Carry on buddy. You are a fine example of how religion can screw up a seemingly normal person.

You sound like a Hindu extremist apologist. Whats a few thousand Muslim lives right? they make good fertilizer.:rolleyes:

Yes. Muslim jihadi militants who take up arms and shoot at people do make good fertilizer. I make no apologies for that. I am indeed proud of having contributed via taxes and other support.

Oh and I am not a hindu. I am currently agnostic. You fail again.

The best way to chase somebody away from any of the Abrahamic religions is to actually make them read the handbooks. Those things are chock full of bigotry, ignorance, and hatred, though they also have plenty of warm-fuzzies. Most people only manage to hang on to their "faith" by developing selective amnesia about the portions of their religious text that don't line up with their personal morality.

Cafeteria Christianity is what I like to call it in reference to my biblical literalist friend who, during a conversation about the Old Testament, basically went through Deuteronomy, found all the stuff she liked, decided that it was all right and proper to be in there, and when confronted about the stuff in the exact same book that she didn't like, merely stated, "Oh, that stuff's been put aside anyway, hehehe."

:confused: So what makes the other stuff legitimate?

I used to call it Salad Bar Christianity.

Of course, unless someone is an extreme Fundamentalist (and that's hard, because parts of the Bible or any other religous tome are contradictory in places), you ARE practicing Salad Bar Religion.

The best way to chase somebody away from any of the Abrahamic religions is to actually make them read the handbooks. Those things are chock full of bigotry, ignorance, and hatred, though they also have plenty of warm-fuzzies. Most people only manage to hang on to their "faith" by developing selective amnesia about the portions of their religious text that don't line up with their personal morality.

Cafeteria Christianity is what I like to call it in reference to my biblical literalist friend who, during a conversation about the Old Testament, basically went through Deuteronomy, found all the stuff she liked, decided that it was all right and proper to be in there, and when confronted about the stuff in the exact same book that she didn't like, merely stated, "Oh, that stuff's been put aside anyway, hehehe."

:confused: So what makes the other stuff legitimate?

I used to call it Salad Bar Christianity.

Of course, unless someone is an extreme Fundamentalist (and that's hard, because parts of the Bible or any other religous tome are contradictory in places), you ARE practicing Salad Bar Religion.

Any person who truly believes in and follows any religion - any person who truly has faith - will be, in your words, practicing a "salad bar religion."

Carry on buddy. You are a fine example of how religion can screw up a seemingly normal person.

religion isn't a bad thing you know.

Yes. Muslim jihadi militants who take up arms and shoot at people do make good fertilizer. I make no apologies for that. I am indeed proud of having contributed via taxes and other support.


You know who else makes good fertilizer? Indians who try to take Muslim land and I'm not going to apologise for that

religion isn't a bad thing you know.
It can be in the hands of certain people, you for example.
You used to be cool, man.
You know who else makes good fertilizer? Indians who try to take Muslim land and I'm not going to apologise for that
Indian and Muslim are not mutually exclusive terms. Not by a long shot.

religion isn't a bad thing you know.

It is when it makes people act like you.

And this coming from a religious person.

It can be in the hands of certain people, you for example.
You used to be cool, man.

sorry I'm not "cool" enough for you. :rolleyes:

Indian and Muslim are not mutually exclusive terms. Not by a long shot.

your right, there are actually more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan. One of my best friends is Indian actually. Which is why I said Indians who try to take Muslim land.

religion isn't a bad thing you know.

Never said that. I said you are an example of how screwed up a person can become. There are plenty of people who turnaround in a better way after becoming religious, including becoming muslim. You are not one of them.


You know who else makes good fertilizer? Indians who try to take Muslim land and I'm not going to apologise for that

That's exactly why I called you a lying terrorist sympathiser. Now you know.

Never said that. I said you are an example of how screwed up a person can become. There are plenty of people who turnaround in a better way after becoming religious, including becoming muslim. You are not one of them.

how am I screwed up?

That's exactly why I called you a lying terrorist sympathiser. Now you know.

Guess what pal. People who defend their land from occupation, themselves from being tortured and/or killed and their women from being raped are not terrorists no matter how much spin you want to put on it. My support from them makes me neither a liar nor a terrorist sympathiser. Why don't you and India just let Kashmir go back to the Muslims. It can't that important to you, could it?

Guess what pal. People who defend their land from occupation, themselves from being tortured and/or killed and their women from being raped are not terrorists no matter how much spin you want to put on it. My support from them makes me neither a liar nor a terrorist sympathiser.

I am calling you a lying terrorist sympathiser exactly because you are lying and you are a terrorist sympathiser. I will continue calling you that because that is what you are. I can give you this much. You may not be lying. It is plausible that you completely believe the BS you are saying....but it still does not do you any good. You are still a terrorist sympathiser.

Why don't you and India just let Kashmir go back to the Muslims.

lol. Ghulam Nabi Azad, the current Chief minister of J&K is a muslim.


It can't that important to you, could it?

I dunno.....hmmmmmmm...lemme think.....I am from the same damn country....you are a western recent convert to Islam.....

it is so hard to say who has more stakes in this issue...

lol. Ghulam Nabi Azad, the current Chief minister of J&K is a muslim.
I be he's not Muslim enough for ol' Sovi.
sorry I'm not "cool" enough for you.
You should be.

I be he's not Muslim enough for ol' Sovi.


Oh I can pretty much tell you his response.

Ghulam Nabi Azad is a sell out, an Indian agent etc etc.;)

You see, he cannot even fathom the possibility that muslims can be muslims under a secular. In his worldview, a muslim can be a muslim only under a muslim rule, in a muslim state. For ex, it is not enough that Kashmir is ruled by a muslim party, by a muslim ruler, having a greater degree of autonomy than other Indian states (article 370 of the Indian constitution), but it should belong to Pakistan, simply because Pakistan claims to be an Islamic republic....never mind the 3 million Bangladeshi muslims killed by Pakistan.

He also said in another thread that if parts of a non-muslim country become muslim majority, that alone is a justification in demanding a separate state. And of course, in such a scenario, you are allowed to take up arms because you are defending islam.

And then we wonder why there is xenophobia/islamophobia. Note that I am not justifying that sort of response...

...I recently got hold of a koran so I can find out what islam's really about. I've been speaking to more muslims. But no matter how much I try to see islam as a peaceful religion, bad stuff keeps popping up. Like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6412453.stm

Any thoughts?

maybe thats cause your lying to yourself,and Islam is not a peaceful religion.

I am calling you a lying terrorist sympathiser exactly because you are lying and you are a terrorist sympathiser. I will continue calling you that because that is what you are. I can give you this much. You may not be lying. It is plausible that you completely believe the BS you are saying....but it still does not do you any good. You are still a terrorist sympathiser.

Thats right I'm a terrorist sympathiser, a anti-semite and a nazi. Hell I'm Osama bin Laden and Hitler combined.:rolleyes: I've been called so many names on here. And oddly its usually when people don't really have a point to counter my arguments, funny.

lol. Ghulam Nabi Azad, the current Chief minister of J&K is a muslim.
you already know what I think of him.



I dunno.....hmmmmmmm...lemme think.....I am from the same damn country....you are a western recent convert to Islam.....

it is so hard to say who has more stakes in this issue...

every Muslim in the world is my brother. The ummah is like a body, when one hurts, we all hurt. Please don't pretend as if you have anymore "right" to the issue than anyone else.

every Muslim in the world is my brother. The ummah is like a body, when one hurts, we all hurt. Please don't pretend as if you have anymore "right" to the issue than anyone else.

That's an easy and understandable standpoint for you to take on the matter. However, given that Arya lives in a country that is in a semi-constant struggle with Pakistan over land, I think she's a bit more invested in the issue.

Thats right I'm a terrorist sympathiser, a anti-semite and a nazi. Hell I'm Osama bin Laden and Hitler combined.:rolleyes: I've been called so many names on here. And oddly its usually when people don't really have a point to counter my arguments, funny.

you already know what I think of him.



every Muslim in the world is my brother. The ummah is like a body, when one hurts, we all hurt. Please don't pretend as if you have anymore "right" to the issue than anyone else.


Brother, huh? What about the woman who is to be beaten for being blackmailed? She was of course also raped. Is she your "brother"? Or do you only give such consideration to your "brothers"?

Meanwhile, brother or not, it's far more likely that the person you're arguing with has more familiarity with what is going on than you get in the news.

That's an easy and understandable standpoint for you to take on the matter. However, given that Arya lives in a country that is in a semi-constant struggle with Pakistan over land, I think she's a bit more invested in the issue.

Arya's a female? :eek:

Arya's a female? :eek:

I actually don't know. I actually, in fact, don't know the genders of a lot of people on NSG. I was guessing, based on the nation name.

I actually don't know. I actually, in fact, don't know the genders of a lot of people on NSG. I was guessing, based on the nation name.

S/he got the name from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta).