Pics From Muslim March/Demonstration in London - Disturbing

[miracleriver]

[quote="boostNslide"]

It would be similar to me arguing that since germans who are responsible of the holocaust are europeans, the english are also responsible for it b/c they are europeans.

Lol no. It would be similar to arguing that since german Nazis are were responsible for the holocaust, then all Nazis are responsible for the holocaust no matter where they live in now. They still chose to believe the same stuff.

lol if you knew anything about wwII history, you would understand how silly this is.

I am not sure if this is directed to Pelion or me. In case it is directed to me,

this is exactly the point now, isn't it?

[miracleriver]

I dont want to show how awful christians are. I want to show how awful (the majority of) christians ARENT despite the fact that their holy book and history includes an awful lot of violence.

When you sarcastically say that the battle of Jericho is "lovy dovy christian stuff", I certainly don't hear you say "christian scriptures contain acts of violence", but rather that "the battle of Jericho is somehow an example of christian violence" -- which is, of course, an absurd proposition.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that christian history doesnt contain acts of violence. The argument, however, was that the *bible* contains christian acts of violence. (my recollection is that someone said in the thread that the bible contains worse acts of violence than the qu'ran and then you gave deut. and battle of jericho as your favorite example and your assigning it to christians.) So it seems you are changing your argument a bit here.

So the point still stands. If you want to show how the bible contains *christian violence* in contrast to how non-violent most christian are nowadays, you would make a much *stronger* case by pointing out in the bible violence committed by people who believe in the christian doctrines, or passages in the bible where God instructs christians to violence.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

its really said that you all believe that islam is way worse in terms of radicals than other religions. Like someone else said, the media has fooled you, gg.

I'm not arguing that they're more radical. I'm arguing that they're more violent.

humm yes

how unlike our wise american freinds. State killings? Easy acsess to firearms? Obviously.

Starting more wars that, like, any liberal democracy ever. Yep.

What is the point of your statment? You're taking a political entity and comparing it to a religious one. Your mention of the United States is irrelevant to my comment. Anyways, you're only supporting my notion of Muslim violence with your innappropriate analogies to US policy.

No really muslims are ALL bad, they are ALL 'nutters' like in the photos above ...

I don't think anyone has stated that all Muslims are violent. It's absurd to say there are and I don't know people keep bringing up a point of non-contention.

(anyone with any subtextual inference ability would observe that eithier all muslims write in the same script and share a single black pen between them, or one, possibly two people went to the trouble of drawing them up) ...

Does it matter? Regardless if one person created the signs, there certainly was no shortage of people willing to march around waving them above their heads.

and there is no parralel with specfic neo conservative trends that foster a Christian morality as a backbone...

I have yet to see a solid argument as to why Muslims aren't more violent than other groups, only that there are violent tendencies shown by other groups as well. Again, no one is arguing the latter.

[Renton]

Religion is a farce.

[Pokernub]

I'm not arguing that they're more radical. I'm arguing that they're more violent.

how unlike our wise american freinds. State killings? Easy acsess to firearms? Obviously.

Starting more wars that, like, any liberal democracy ever. Yep.

What is the point of your statment? You're taking a political entity and comparing it to a religious one. Your mention of the United States is irrelevant to my comment.

With the greatest respect, IR (international relations) theory is very rarly understood in "realist" (a misleading sounding word) terms these days.

And my mention of the good old USA was to describe a society that I percive to be 'violent' , more so than many other lib democs. Note that rather than your brash statement that "muslims are more violent" (than what? lemons?) I give three eaxmples that back up what i am saying.

You wrtie about how one cannot compare the USA to Al-Q. Both are socio-political constructs - indeed rather ironicaly you (i infer) label the USA a 'political' body and (for the sake of arguement) Al-Qaeda a 'religious' one. It would be most difficult to reasonably refute that each is rather both.

Anyways, you're only supporting my notion of Muslim violence with your innappropriate analogies to US policy.

First, you have no idea what my personal views are on this subject. Second, please explain what this waffle means. If anything.

No really muslims are ALL bad, they are ALL 'nutters' like in the photos above ...

I don't think anyone has stated that all Muslims are violent. It's absurd to say there are..(snip)

But it is perfectly rational to make a sweeping statement that 'muslims are the most violent'.... could you explain the difference between the two unsubstanciated genraliozations above? thanks

(anyone with any subtextual inference ability would observe that eithier all muslims write in the same script and share a single black pen between them, or one, possibly two people went to the trouble of drawing them up) ...

Does it matter? Regardless if one person created the signs, there certainly was no shortage of people willing to march around waving them above their heads.

Indeed yes. There are many, many wallies around.

and there is no parralel with specfic neo conservative trends that foster a Christian morality as a backbone...

I have yet to see a solid argument as to why Muslims aren't more violent than other groups, only that there are violent tendencies shown by other groups as well. Again, no one is arguing the latter.

Well, you ignore what you quote from my post and start talking about how you "have yet to see a solid argument as to why Muslims aren't more violent than other groups"

Ive yet to see a solid argument as to why People who join FTR are not more violent than other groups.

[Pelion]

Lol @ your indirectly saying that Jews are christians.

read what I said again.

Christians and Jews believe in the same God. The two religions are not the same but they are based around following the same rules laid down by the same God in the same texts. The only reason there are two seperate religions is because the two groups decided to interpret their shared stories in different ways AFTER the events I talked about. Like it or not these are CHRISTIAN stories that christians tell to each other through the bible as a historical example of carrying out gods work. The difference between extremist christians and regular normal christians is only in how literally they take these stories and in how strictly they decide to carry on the good work these days.

Im going to try really hard one more time to make this even more obvious

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

In the passage above, God says "If your family, or anyone else in fact, tells you to belive in a different God then kill them straight away."

From this passage I conclude that the bible tells christians to be violent to people who arent christians.

Now, if you like you can keep saying that God was talking to Jews and not to christians when he said this, but really all you are doing then is saying that the old testiment is not a christian book.

[fasin8ing]

Here.. I hope this ends this thread.

I have been to Guantanamo Bay Cuba 7 times last year. I have been in Iraq all over the country for more than a year, been to Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The islamists folks there hate westerners period.... All of them... If you havent been to any of those places... Do not say shit or another thing.. Your opinion will never measure up to someone from that region. There is nothing more to discuss. The pictures of the demonstration are disturbing like the topic states... Agreed...

I really think western muslims should be sterotyped because some choose to live in a westernized cultural atmosphere but at the same time are entitled that right because of freedom. However; they do not choose to go back to the roots of islam such as the middle east. But they deem their religion to be so important, they offer to kill themselves...Its bullshit.


Muslims hate Americans and other Westerners that arent practicing Islam. As a Christian, I do not hate muslims for not being Christians.. Only an idiot couldnt tell the difference between the two... civilizied ... and uncivillized.

They beat themselves during Ramadan, we do not beat ourselves because that just stupid and insane. Who am I to say whats sane and whats not? Dudes... You beat yourselves.... Sane or not ? Chrisitans or other religions do not enforce pain on themselves...... Thats crazy and your using your religion as a shield because the vast majority of your followers are broke as fuck and not respected. I just cant see this conversation amounting to anything ever..

[Pelion]

I have been to Guantanamo Bay Cuba 7 times last year. I have been in Iraq all over the country for more than a year, been to Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

I assume you are a soldier which means you are talking about being an occupation force in someone elses country. Try to put yourself in the position of being a person living in your country with an occupying iraqi (or w/e) military presence.

The islamists folks there hate people invading their country period....

surprised?

If you came to my country with the same attitude you have already expressed towards muslims in this thread I would be pretty pissed if you decided you were going to start telling me what to do here.

[Pokernub]

I have been to Guantanamo Bay Cuba 7 times last year. I have been in Iraq all over the country for more than a year, been to Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The islamists folks there hate westerners period.

People in Guantanamo Bay hate westerners? Seriously? People dont like invading armies? There cannot have been an occupatiional force in the history of the world that was appriciated by the invadees

I really think western muslims should be sterotyped because some choose to live in a westernized cultural atmosphere but at the same time are entitled that right because of freedom. However; they do not choose to go back to the roots of islam such as the middle east. But they deem their religion to be so important, they offer to kill themselves...Its bullshit.

your argument: western muslims all are suicide bombers? What about 17 year old kids who are persuaded to into it? what about losers like richard reed? I could persuade losers and the feebleminded to blow themselves up with the promise of blowjobs.

There are MANY people living in my country who if i was working for the goverment i would have my eye on. But this stupid attitude of everyone who is a muslim wants to blow themselves up panders both to al-q and the admionistration of the usa.

Muslims hate Americans and other Westerners that arent practicing Islam. As a Christian, I do not hate muslims for not being Christians.. Only an idiot couldnt tell the difference between the two... civilizied ... and uncivillized.

well i do not hate you for being a christain, but i regard you as less civilised than myself as you moral code is pescribed arbitarily. Both christan and muslim teaching is barbaric and hypocritical. Both are full of hate for women, gays, minorites, heathens. Both higlight differnces where there are similarites (ie the kind of person you might be, a christan, is closer to a muslim than to me. imho)

They beat themselves during Ramadan, we do not beat ourselves because that just stupid and insane.

Flagellantism was cooked up by some christan movemenet about 800 years ago. I died out faily reacenlty, and i think its the shiites who are most keen on it today. I lived with a couple of muslim guys last year and i dont remember them whipping themselves.

Thats crazy and your using your religion as a shield because the vast majority of your followers are broke as fuck and not respected.

what is the financial status of the average american who lives in between the coasts?

[miracleriver]

Lol @ your indirectly saying that Jews are christians.

read what I said again.

Sure. Here it is

They [christians] are labeled christians because they chose to follow the same god who ordered the fall of jericho.

Statements of the type "A because B" are syllogisms in which the major premise is assumed. For example, when I say "Socrates is mortal because Socrates is a man", I assumed the major premise that "All men are mortal" from which the conclusion follows. The major premise in this example is certainly obvious enough that saying the longer and more akward "Since all men are mortals and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal" doesn't seem necessary.

Now, why are christians labeled christians? From your statement, the answer is "because they believe in the same God that ordered the fall of Jericho." Now call me crazy but the obvious assumed premise from which your conclusion would follow is "if someone believes in the God that ordered the fall of Jericho, he is labeled a christian." From such a premise, we have to conclude that Jews are christians since they believe in that same God. And so indirectly you are saying the Jews are labeled christians.

Christians and Jews believe in the same God. The two religions are not the same but they are based around following the same rules laid down by the same God in the same texts.

The only text judaism and christianity share is what christians call the old testament. Thus the body of rules you are talking about must be the mosaic law -- of which the passage from Deut. you quoted belong. And thus you must be saying that christianity is based around following the mosaic law. That exposes your ignorance of basic christianity.

A concept in christianity -- exposed in the new testament, i.e. not shared by Jews -- is that Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law and thus freed his followers from its yoke. As a consequence christians do not follow the mosaic law. An example you may be familiar with: christians do eat pork contrary to the mosaic law forbidding its consumption. Anyhow, it is clear the premise that christianity is based around following the mosaic law is invalid.

Now the jist of your argument is
premise 1: There is a law in the old testament that say that unbelievers must be killed.
premise 2: Christian beliefs are based around following the laws in the old testament
conclusion: Christians believe they must killed unbelievers

Since the validity of a conclusion in a deductive argument relies on the validity of its premises, and premise 1 is not quite valid and premise 2 is invalid, you can figure out for yourself the validity of your conclusion.

Like it or not these are CHRISTIAN stories that christians tell to each other through the bible as a historical example of carrying out gods work. The difference between extremist christians and regular normal christians is only in how literally they take these stories and in how strictly they decide to carry on the good work these days.

It is not a question of likes and dislikes; it is a matter of being factual. Clearly, the battle of Jericho is historically a jewish battle; it has a jewish identity, not a christian identity. The story being part of the christian bible doesn't change that. That is not to say that the story is not part of some collective christian consciousness, but it is not a christian story.

Im going to try really hard one more time to make this even more obvious

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

In the passage above, God says "If your family, or anyone else in fact, tells you to belive in a different God then kill them straight away."

In the passage above, the list is: one's brother, the son of one's mother -- clearly a fillial relation --, one's son, one's daughter and one's wife. Although I am not sure what is meant by "your friend, which is as your own soul", it clearly sounds quite restrictive. So where did you get that it applies to anybody that entices them to serve different gods? Beats me.

From this passage I conclude that the bible tells christians to be violent to people who arent christians.

Obviously you can conclude whatever you please. If you'd conclude from this text that God instructs christians to eat sauerkraut every Tuesdays except in August if it didn't rain in July of that year, you are free to do so.

You cannot force your interpretation upon people, however, and say, for example, that because you conclude that the passage tells christian to be violent towards unbelievers, christians conclude likewise. And as a matter of fact, they don't.


Now feel free to respond and disagree with me -- as I am sure you will. As for me, I have already spend too much time on this thread, and from now on I will simply agree to disagree with you.

[Pelion]

You still havnt read all of it. I explained quite clearly what I meant over about 2 posts and you pick one line out of that to tell me what I said and then tell me its wrong. Stop telling me I said something I didnt and then arguing with it because, quite frankly, its boring. I obviously dont think christians and jews are a part of the same religion.

Is the old testiment a christian book or not? Thats the only point that matters.

In the passage above, God says "If your family, or anyone else in fact, tells you to belive in a different God then kill them straight away."

In the passage above, the list is: one's brother, the son of one's mother -- clearly a fillial relation --, one's son, one's daughter and one's wife. Although I am not sure what is meant by "your friend, which is as your own soul", it clearly sounds quite restrictive. So where did you get that it applies to anybody that entices them to serve different gods? Beats me.

Ok I think the meaning is pretty clear but just to prove the point lets do it your way and say that it only applies to family. Isnt killing your own family just because they tell you about another God slightly violent?

From this passage I conclude that the bible tells christians to be violent to people who arent christians.

Obviously you can conclude whatever you please. If you'd conclude from this text that God instructs christians to eat sauerkraut every Tuesdays except in August if it didn't rain in July of that year, you are free to do so.

I could conclude that if I wanted, but it would be pretty insane. Instead I will try to draw a slightly more sensible conclusion.

thou shalt surely kill him

I conclude that this line is talking about killing someone. You conclude it isnt. Ok.

You cannot force your interpretation upon people, however, and say, for example, that because you conclude that the passage tells christian to be violent towards unbelievers, christians conclude likewise.And as a matter of fact, they don't.

Once again you are making up something that Ive said and arguing with that, rather than addressing the actual point. This last passage Ive quoted is my ENTIRE POINT and has been all along. Christians read the texts that Ive shown and decide how to apply it to the world they live in. A very tiny minority of extremests decide to apply it literally and go out and kill unbelievers. The vast majority decide for one reason or another that it doesnt apply so they dont go out and kill people just for not being christians. It is exactly the case the other main religions. Alot of their histories and stories are violent but most people decide not to carry over that violence into their own lives.

Now feel free to respond and disagree with me -- as I am sure you will.

But you see I dont disagree with you about any of the major points. You seemed to come up with this idea that im hating on christians and saying all christians are terrorists, when actually I was saying the exact opposite. People interpret religious texts in different ways. Some people will take everything literally and decide to follow them in very strict ways, some will decide the stories are merely metaphors, and others will decide they are true but wont bother to follow the rules anyway.
Applying your argument to muslims says everything Ive been saying all along

You cannot force your interpretation upon people, however, and say, for example, that because you conclude that the passage tells muslims to be violent towards unbelievers, muslims conclude likewise.And as a matter of fact, they don't.

See.

[Renton]

um no, the old testament is a jewish book

[mrhappy333]

So I ask, "where have we gotten from all this?"
Nothing changes, people still kill people, People still believe their God is the only true God. Their Religion is the right one, you should believe what they believe.
I like a good spirited debate, but it seems it never changes anything.

[Warpe]

http://www.muhammaddressup.com/

[Renton]

i love how Jesus is emphatically and sensually shining his ball, but his partner is just handling his business quietly and subtley.

[miracleriver]

They are labeled christians because they chose to follow the same god who ordered the fall of jericho.

Lol @ your indirectly saying that Jews are christians.

I explained quite clearly what I meant over about 2 posts and you pick one line out of that to tell me what I said and then tell me its wrong. Stop telling me I said something I didnt and then arguing with it because, quite frankly, its boring. I obviously dont think christians and jews are a part of the same religion.

I am not, and was not, suggesting you believe or said Jews are Christians. Rather, the logical conclusion of that particular argument of yours is that Jews are labeled Christians. Thus you are INDIRECTLY saying Jews are labeled Christians IN SPITE OF obviously believing otherwise. Finding funny that you made a statement which implies something you don’t believe, I LOLed at it, or rather I LOLed at its implication (to point out to you why I find it funny). It is clear that if you had realize at the time the implication of your statement, you would have rephrased it. So I didn’t say you said something you didn’t; rather, I said that something you did say implies something else – hence your indirectly saying it – that you obviously don’t believe.

What I will say, though, is that the following statements you’ve made seems to indicate you clearly have no basic understanding of neither Judaism nor Christianity.

The two religions are not the same but they are based around following the same rules laid down by the same God in the same texts.

The only reason there are two seperate religions is because the two groups decided to interpret their shared stories in different ways

People who follow that God today are either called christians or jews depending on what part of the world they grew up in.

I find the last one particularly amusing.

Now, you said

There is a problem when your religion calls for you to kill "unbelievers" […] the vast majority of christians and jews dont believe it despite the old testiment calling for violence against unbelievers.

Clearly, you are saying that the Old Testament calls Christians to violence against unbelievers and in a follow-up post you mentioned Deut 13 as an example of just that.

Where I disagree is in your saying that Deut 13 is an example of the old testament calling Christians to whatever it says. The reason is that regardless of what Deut 13 calls for, Christians believe that it is not addressed to them, it doesn’t apply to them. Hence, they are not not (*) doing whatever Deut 13 calls for DESPITE it, as you said. As I have said you are forcing your interpretation of the bible (Deut 13 is a command to Christians) upon them. (*) yes, I am aware this is a double negative!

I leave you with the following as support for what I said, and will leave it at that:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Regarding the battle of Jericho, you insist on it being a Christian story purely on the ground that it belongs in the bible and that Chrisitans believe in the bible. So be it. It seems clear to me it is a jewish story on the ground of its historical context, and its jewish character and identity.

In the passage above, God says "If your family, or anyone else in fact, tells you to belive in a different God then kill them straight away."

In the passage above, the list is: one's brother, the son of one's mother -- clearly a fillial relation --, one's son, one's daughter and one's wife. Although I am not sure what is meant by "your friend, which is as your own soul", it clearly sounds quite restrictive. So where did you get that it applies to anybody that entices them to serve different gods? Beats me.

Ok I think the meaning is pretty clear but just to prove the point lets do it your way and say that it only applies to family. Isnt killing your own family just because they tell you about another God slightly violent?

If the “meaning is pretty clear” means that it is pretty clear that the passage implies to kill any unbelievers, then by all means – and actually please – explain how it implies it.

You cannot force your interpretation upon people, however, and say, for example, that because you conclude that the passage tells christian to be violent towards unbelievers, christians conclude likewise.And as a matter of fact, they don't.

Once again you are making up something that Ive said and arguing with that,

I haven’t made up anything. When you say that the majority of Christians are decent folks because they don’t go on killing people despite Christianity commanding them to (as exemplified in Deut 13), you are forcing upon them your interpretation of Christianity. Why? Because instead of understanding Christians actions according to their interpretation of the bible, you understand them through the lens of your own interpretation of the bible. And so you come up that most Christians don’t go on killing people DESPITE Deut 13 commanding them to (your interpretation), where in fact they don’t go on killing unbelievers BECAUSE as Christians Deut 13 doesn’t apply to them (their interpretation). In others words, after reading Deut 13 Christians don’t go on killing people IN VIOLATION of Christianity but IN ACCORDANCE to Christianity.

So all I am, and was, saying is that Deut 13 – and any part of the Mosaic Law, for that matter -- is not an example of the bible commanding Christians anything. That is why I told you that if you wanted to find a example of the bible commanding Christians to violence, you’d be better off finding a passage in the new testament as any of its commands are obviously binding for Christians.

You seemed to come up with this idea that im hating on christians and saying all christians are terrorists, when actually I was saying the exact opposite.

No, I do not think you are hating on Christians. I understand you are actually saying the majority of them aren’t bad people. I did say in an earlier post something like “if you want to show how awful Christians are, […].” You corrected me; I have stood corrected since then. But in fact it didn’t matter whether you said that Christians are or aren’t awful as it was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Applying your argument to muslims says everything Ive been saying all along

You cannot force your interpretation upon people, however, and say, for example, that because you conclude that the passage tells muslims to be violent towards unbelievers, muslims conclude likewise.And as a matter of fact, they don't.

See.

I am in total agreement with this statement up to the last sentence. As for the last sentence, I simply can't say because I don’t know, out of ignorance, how muslims interpret the verses in the Qu’ran that, at face value, look as calls to violence.

It is irrelevant whether or not non-muslims think that the Qu’ran calls for the killing of unbelievers. What matters is whether or not muslims themselves interpret the Qu’ran as calling them to kill unbelievers, because they are the people that will – or at least should – abide by it, regardless of what non-muslims think it says. This actually goes for all religions.

[boost]

Here.. I hope this ends this thread.

I have been to Guantanamo Bay Cuba 7 times last year. I have been in Iraq all over the country for more than a year, been to Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The islamists folks there hate westerners period.... All of them... If you havent been to any of those places... Do not say shit or another thing.. Your opinion will never measure up to someone from that region. There is nothing more to discuss. The pictures of the demonstration are disturbing like the topic states... Agreed...

I really think western muslims should be sterotyped because some choose to live in a westernized cultural atmosphere but at the same time are entitled that right because of freedom. However; they do not choose to go back to the roots of islam such as the middle east. But they deem their religion to be so important, they offer to kill themselves...Its bullshit.


Muslims hate Americans and other Westerners that arent practicing Islam. As a Christian, I do not hate muslims for not being Christians.. Only an idiot couldnt tell the difference between the two... civilizied ... and uncivillized.

They beat themselves during Ramadan, we do not beat ourselves because that just stupid and insane. Who am I to say whats sane and whats not? Dudes... You beat yourselves.... Sane or not ? Chrisitans or other religions do not enforce pain on themselves...... Thats crazy and your using your religion as a shield because the vast majority of your followers are broke as fuck and not respected. I just cant see this conversation amounting to anything ever..

you sound like an idiot, stop posting.

[boost]

I have been to Guantanamo Bay Cuba 7 times last year. I have been in Iraq all over the country for more than a year, been to Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The islamists folks there hate westerners period.

People in Guantanamo Bay hate westerners? Seriously? People dont like invading armies? There cannot have been an occupatiional force in the history of the world that was appriciated by the invadees

I really think western muslims should be sterotyped because some choose to live in a westernized cultural atmosphere but at the same time are entitled that right because of freedom. However; they do not choose to go back to the roots of islam such as the middle east. But they deem their religion to be so important, they offer to kill themselves...Its bullshit.

your argument: western muslims all are suicide bombers? What about 17 year old kids who are persuaded to into it? what about losers like richard reed? I could persuade losers and the feebleminded to blow themselves up with the promise of blowjobs.

There are MANY people living in my country who if i was working for the goverment i would have my eye on. But this stupid attitude of everyone who is a muslim wants to blow themselves up panders both to al-q and the admionistration of the usa.

Muslims hate Americans and other Westerners that arent practicing Islam. As a Christian, I do not hate muslims for not being Christians.. Only an idiot couldnt tell the difference between the two... civilizied ... and uncivillized.

well i do not hate you for being a christain, but i regard you as less civilised than myself as you moral code is pescribed arbitarily. Both christan and muslim teaching is barbaric and hypocritical. Both are full of hate for women, gays, minorites, heathens. Both higlight differnces where there are similarites (ie the kind of person you might be, a christan, is closer to a muslim than to me. imho)

They beat themselves during Ramadan, we do not beat ourselves because that just stupid and insane.

Flagellantism was cooked up by some christan movemenet about 800 years ago. I died out faily reacenlty, and i think its the shiites who are most keen on it today. I lived with a couple of muslim guys last year and i dont remember them whipping themselves.

Thats crazy and your using your religion as a shield because the vast majority of your followers are broke as fuck and not respected.

what is the financial status of the average american who lives in between the coasts?

I wish I had the patience to do this, but its tiring trying to argue with people whos brains lack the capability to process information logically.

One thing that just popped into my head, I remember seeing a thing on the discovery channel about these christians that would do some forms of self injury. I dont remember the details and google isnt bringing up much. The point is though, yes there are some crazy christians out there, but I know not all of themself are cutting themselves thinking its what jesus wants.

Also dont you realize the hypocrassy of all this? "those stupid crazy violent muslims hate us for no fucking reason!" You are expressing hatred towards them yourself. You have claimed not to hate them, yet its clear that you think of them with extreme prejudice. This is like whats going on with israel and palestine, they both hate each other, yet its for something that happened generations ago. The hatred is recipricated for no reason. The thing is its pretty clear that the west is the cause of the initial hatred.


bah, I waste so much time and effort on this stupid threads, even when I dont try to.

[Vihtavuori]

is it just me or do all muslims look the same?

Is it just me or does all slogans seem to be written in same handwriting?

[pgil]

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of god, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

just one example, saying that certain people are worthy of death, not exactly commanding followers to go out and kill them sure, but its a first step.

I believe it was in Egypt in the mid 80's (maybe early 90's) when a group called the Islamic Jihad attempted to overthrow the egyptian government and replace it with an islamic state. They attempted to do this through widespread violence, but the rest of the Muslim population rejected this wholeheartedly, leaving the group without public support. Just one example of ordinary muslims rejecting violent extremists. it does happen.

I really don't see much of a difference between the demonstration pictures shown in this thread and the demonstrations of 'crazy christians' (to use a phrase that has appeared in a different context throughout this thread) at abortion clinics. Where they blow up clinics and all who work inside, and attempt to assassinate doctors who perform abortions. And I am sure that I have seen signs calling for homosexuals to be killed held up by 'crazy christians'.

the violence exists on all sides. it should be pointed out that groups such as al-quaida are not allowed to declare jihads according to muslim laws. they also do not follow the clearly stated rules for a jihad which state that infrastructure cannot be destroyed. clearly bin laden and his men arent really that interested in following the rules of islam, and would be the way they are regardless of what religion they claimed to be a part of. since they don't really follow the rules of islam, it seems unreasonable to label them muslims.

[magneticskull]

Ok,
Pelion et al... ,
I think you have some interesting points, but to my understanding, Islam ALSO takes its roots in the very same old testament. I believe the key here is the amount of emphasis on the various books being placed by CURRENT spiritual leaders within the various religions.

However, in the spirit of MASSIVE OVERSIMPLIFICATION that seems to be the theme whenever dealing with this issue, I will defer just one of my issues with Islam.

Islamic society, and Sharia law specifically, is responsible for the systematic repression of women in every area of the world in which they are allowed to implement their "religious freedoms" within the cloak of a "democratically (or otherwise) elected goverment." (democratically elected by the men...)

For example, a few weeks ago, Jordan, one of the most "liberal" of the Muslim countries (and barely a democracy, if at all) tried to pass a law making "honor" killings of female relatives punishable as MURDER. The passage of this bill is in doubt, as there is significant resistance from within their establishment, particularly from (majority) religious conservatives. I'm sorry, but any country that has a problem making killing women MURDER has serious morality issues. And this is a "progressive" regime. (with incidentally, the most beautiful Queen on the planet, do a search on "Queen Rania").

It boggles my mind that this facet of Islam is given a free pass by liberals of all stripes, who work so fervently for equality and equal opportunity for "minorities" who then systematically oppress 51% of their own population.

Equating the Christian Right and Radical Islam is easy when you aren't the one who isn't allowed to leave the house without a male escort, have your husband picked out for you by age 12 and aren't allowed to learn any trade beyond cleaning or child rearing. Enforcing that brand of "religious freedom" is a contradiction in terms.

So much of the violence directed against western peoples is do to outrage over "cultural pollution" (i.e. women wearing pants, dancing, singing, women speaking, women making decisions about their own lives, choosing their own sexual partners, etc.. etc... ad infinitum).

So is it "freedom of religion" to allow people to suppress their daughters?
Personally, If people think fighting against "oppression" is justifiable, then I say, fighting against any country trying to enforce or make accomodation with Sharia law is also justifiable.

Do it for the ladies. Free Rania!!! FREE RANIA!!!!
(NSFW Margaret is the ultimate weapon against terror... they can't bear to look upon a hot woman)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument about stereotyping vs. actually solving problems, already in progress.

BTW, I think that stereotyping cannot exist in an environment in which all the people being stereotyped STOP ACTING LIKE THE STEREOTYPE...
For example,
When was the last time anyone accused the FRENCH of being imperialists? They pretty much stopped after Vietnam (remember that? It was Actually a FRENCH war that we picked up when they lost). So, no more imperialist Frenchy comments.
(of course, Chirac will probably earn it back in the coming years while campaigning for his global environmental government and tax thingy)

Dear Muslims,
Stop blowing yourselves up and cutting of the heads of innocent journalists for a minute, stop oppressing your wives and stoning people to death in public events and I promise to stop calling you "islamofascists".
Really. Even better, dodge the bullet entirely and choose Zen Buddhism.

Sincerely,
The Amazing Magnetic Skull

[thenonsequitur]

magneticskull, I just have to say, the arguments you made strike me as both correct and more relevant than any others made in this thread.

[Phantaroth]

I think it is important to establish the difference between government and religion and a mixture of the two. When we examine Islam in relation to other religions I think we can all pretty much agree its textual basis is not any worse. When it is applied by a variety of governments it certainly does have many negative results, as does the west implimenting christian ideals into our own governments. Comparativly, one is worse than the other - but only in the same way that killing 5 innocent people is "better" than killing 10.

[magneticskull]

Here's a fun link about Sharia Law... I particularly recommend the very bottom section on "why women aren't allowed to testify in court"...
http://www.jeansasson.com/law_and_government.htm

[magneticskull]

Another classic from our friends in Saudi Arabia...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730810/posts

[miracleriver]

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of god, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

just one example, saying that certain people are worthy of death, not exactly commanding followers to go out and kill them sure, but its a first step.

For argument’s sake, suppose this verse was to be interpreted as God condoning – if not commanding – his followers to go out and kill people which “commit such things” since committing such things makes them worthy of death. Then we would have to conclude that God would also be condoning – if not commanding – his followers to kill each other and even themselves. I don’t know about you, but I have yet to meet a Christian that, since becoming a Christian, has never been at times full of greed, or envy, or strive, or deceit, or malice, or been gossiping, or unloving, or unmerciful, etc…

Ironically, the point of Rom 1:16-3:20 is to show the unrighteousness and the worthiness of death of ALL men; first of the people who don’t have the Law (Rom 1:18-32), then of the people who have the Law (Rom 2:1-3:20). And so it actually puts all men on equally ground in contrast to putting men being on different strata (some being worthy of death, some not), as suggested.

[spoonitnow]

How is this any different from my relatives at church meetings talking about how "we should just nuke ever last one of those motherfuckers"?

There's whackjobs of every color, religion, sex, and level of education.

That having been said, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

That is all.

[Rondavu]

I don't care who you are, or what you believe in. If you try killing people who don't believe the same way, it's time to light you on fire and throw you into acid, because you're all done here on earth. You're too fucking stupid to live amongst civilized human beings.

[boost]

youre insinuating violence against those who dont believe in everyones freedom to hold thier own beliefs... see the problem?

[Renton]

I don't care who you are, or what you believe in. If you try killing people who don't believe the same way, it's time to light you on fire and throw you into acid, because you're all done here on earth. You're too fucking stupid to live amongst civilized human beings.

LIVE AND LET LIVE. Thats what I say, 'live and let live', anyone who doesn't believe that, take him out back and shoot the motherfucker.

[fasin8ing]

I wish I had the patience to do this, but its tiring trying to argue with people whos brains lack the capability to process information logically.

I wish I had the patience to understand what you are trying to explain logically.

[boost]

I wish I had the patience to do this, but its tiring trying to argue with people whos brains lack the capability to process information logically.

I wish I had the patience to understand what you are trying to explain logically.

drink a 12 pack and go for a drive..

[martindcx1e]

hello thread