Ridiculous Things that Idiots Believe About Islam

[cloudy]

First, why do you call me an ignorant clod when I cite historic fact? Can you point to any error I made in my previous post on this thread?

Second, why do you call the Mongols of that period pagans? They were largely Buddhist, at least their leaders were. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/mongol-txt.htm

Third, I am merely refuting Cloudy's ignorant OP. She described Muslims as being kind to their captives, and I refuted her claim. I certaiinly don't consider Saladin to be the only leader in history to kill or enslave prisoners taken in battle.

Fourth, I mostly agree with your last paragraph. However, and without defending anybody, I strongly believe fundy Muslims are worse than the fundies of any other faith. Fanatics are only a fringe, but I believe the Muslim fanatical fringe includes a higher percentage of followers of that faith than can be said about any other major religious group.

Yep, you're still stupid. And you STILL don't know how to use the quote function even after, what, 9 years?

Your ignorance isn't even amusing, just disgusting.

 

[JackLuis]

That all resistance to Allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is based on Muslim fundamentalism.

Some of the people in both countries just don't like foreigners, didn't like the previous government, don't like the present government, hate their neighbours even if they are Muslim, disagree with anyone who challenges their traditional way of life (and in Afghanistan that includes producing opium)and object to interference in their age-old tribal feuds by outsiders.

Og

Much of the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is because of Foreign Invaders, that they are "Christians" is just the topping on the cupcake. If Nato invaded the USA because our Government lost control, you can bet the NRA and allies would be sniping the hell out of them.

The Mid-east is and has been a crazy place, probably won't change either. Kind'a like Texas.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yep, you're still stupid. And you STILL don't know how to use the quote function even after, what, 9 years?

Your ignorance isn't even amusing, just disgusting.

It has been almost eight years, and I thought I used the quote function perfectly, both in the response to your OP and the response to CD. Now I will ask you the same question he wouldn't or couldn't answer. Did I make any errors of fact in any of the comments I included in the responses to you. I also asked him some questions, and he failed to respond to them. Therefore, I make the same queries of you.

 

[sr71plt]

Much of the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is because of Foreign Invaders, that they are "Christians" is just the topping on the cupcake. If Nato invaded the USA because our Government lost control, you can bet the NRA and allies would be sniping the hell out of them.

True for Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, however, is built on the foundation of the West as the "Crusader," for which the religious aspect has to be pretty central.

You lost me on NATO invading the USA and "allies" sniping at them. Most of the U.S.'s effective allies (as is the United States) are members of NATO, so they'd be sniping at themselves?

Also, sorry but my image of NRA members in such times is them robbing supply stores at gunpoint and going to hide in the woods and firing on anyone at all who comes close.

 

[JackLuis]

True for Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, however, is built on the foundation of the West as the "Crusader," for which the religious aspect has to be pretty central.

You lost me on NATO invading the USA and "allies" sniping at them. Most of the U.S.'s effective allies (as is the United States) are members of NATO, so they'd be sniping at themselves?

Also, sorry but my image of NRA members in such times is them robbing supply stores at gunpoint and going to hide in the woods and firing on anyone at all who comes close.

You get lost easy.

 

[sr71plt]

You get lost easy.

I guess that means you can't explain yourself (or didn't realize what countries were in NATO, including the senior member).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I guess that means you can't explain yourself (or didn't realize what countries were in NATO, including the senior member).

"NRA and allies," to me at least, means The National Rifle Association and other organizations associated with them.

I don't see how the USA can be the senior member of NATO. An organization of nations has to have at least two to start with, so there must be at least one other nation equally as senior as the US.

 

[sr71plt]

the[/U] senior member of NATO. An organization of nations has to have at least two to start with, so there must be at least one other nation equally as senior as the US.

I guess that shows (once again) what you know about international relations. The United States OWNS NATO and always has (in functional terms).

Who are the allies of the NRA?

And I still say that when push comes to shove, NRA members are heading for the woods, every man and Sarah for him/herself, and shooting at everyone walking by.

 

[ishtat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

Did you ever hear of the Battle of Hattin? Here is a link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin Read the Aftermasth. This is an example of how Muslims treated Crusaders who were taken prisoner - enslavement or death or eventually being ransomed.




First, why do you call me an ignorant clod when I cite historic fact? Can you point to any error I made in my previous post on this thread?

Second, why do you call the Mongols of that period pagans? They were largely Buddhist, at least their leaders were. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/mongol-txt.htm

Third, I am merely refuting Cloudy's ignorant OP. She described Muslims as being kind to their captives, and I refuted her claim. I certaiinly don't consider Saladin to be the only leader in history to kill or enslave prisoners taken in battle.

Fourth, I mostly agree with your last paragraph. However, and without defending anybody, I strongly believe fundy Muslims are worse than the fundies of any other faith. Fanatics are only a fringe, but I believe the Muslim fanatical fringe includes a higher percentage of followers of that faith than can be said about any other major religious group.

Box, Cold diesel was rather rough with you but I regret to tell you he was more correct than you were.

Firstly you went to a Budhist site to establish whether Mongolia was a Budhist country. That is roughly the equivalent to asking the Pope whether he thinks catholic christianity is important. The answer in either instance is predictable because the source is biased.

Secondly no nation state called Mongolia existed at that time. The Mongols were a loose confederation of tribes which travelled fought and ruled across central Asia from Northern China to Syria

We know what the religion of the Mongols was because Genghis Khan issued edicts, records of which survive demanding religious toleration. In those records it is recorded that the religions of his people included Shamanism, Manicheism, Christianity and Islam. Shamanism was the religion of GK and the ruling class and although Islam eventually became the religion of that ruling class it was and is affected by Shamanism and tribal custom to this day.

Incidentally Budhism was never strong in the territory comprising modern Mongolia. The main Budhist strength was to the south in what is known as Inner Mongolia which of course lies within the borders of modern China.

Now to the Battle of Hattin. Saladin acted entirely within the rules of engagement for wars at that period. He executed Reynald personally, not because he was a christian, nor because he was a murderer, robber or looter, but because he was an oathbreaker. In the 12th century world where the rule of law was precarious, peace depended on fealty, homage and above all keeping ones oath. The other Christian leaders he also released after ransom the custom of the time. He executed the Templars and Hospitaller's because these men too had broken treaties with him

The only people to criticise Saladin after the event were churchmen, not opposing war leaders ...because they would have done exactly the same.

If you are determined to believe that Muslim fundamentalists are worse than others I cannot help you but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that fundamentalists of all persuasions are bad news.

 

[JackLuis]

I guess that means you can't explain yourself (or didn't realize what countries were in NATO, including the senior member).

It means that I choose not to justify my comments. No matter how you misinterpret them.

I'll bet you are a hella editor.

 

[driphoney]

1. If you're a Muslim woman, you have to wear a veil (burqka).


Both absolutes are absolutely wrong. Forget that stupid notion, mmkay? There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them.

Seems to be a lot of telling women what to do either way. But then The Koran 4. Women does say: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient." Think that might be where they get the idea? Maybe my translation is bad.

It is dangerous dragging a particular religion's source document into a discussion, I know, but I couldn't resist.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, Cold diesel was rather rough with you but I regret to tell you he was more correct than you were.

Firstly you went to a Budhist site to establish whether Mongolia was a Budhist country. That is roughly the equivalent to asking the Pope whether he thinks catholic christianity is important. The answer in either instance is predictable because the source is biased.

Secondly no nation state called Mongolia existed at that time. The Mongols were a loose confederation of tribes which travelled fought and ruled across central Asia from Northern China to Syria

We know what the religion of the Mongols was because Genghis Khan issued edicts, records of which survive demanding religious toleration. In those records it is recorded that the religions of his people included Shamanism, Manicheism, Christianity and Islam. Shamanism was the religion of GK and the ruling class and although Islam eventually became the religion of that ruling class it was and is affected by Shamanism and tribal custom to this day.

Incidentally Budhism was never strong in the territory comprising modern Mongolia. The main Budhist strength was to the south in what is known as Inner Mongolia which of course lies within the borders of modern China.

The dispute was about the Mongol Empire, not the current nation of Mongolia. He referred to the Mongols as pagans, and I took issue with that, and I see you are essentially in agreement with me. In such a huge empire, there were many religions practiced, including Buddhism. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw09mongolreligion33030814.htm

Now to the Battle of Hattin. Saladin acted entirely within the rules of engagement for wars at that period. He executed Reynald personally, not because he was a christian, nor because he was a murderer, robber or looter, but because he was an oathbreaker. In the 12th century world where the rule of law was precarious, peace depended on fealty, homage and above all keeping ones oath. The other Christian leaders he also released after ransom the custom of the time. He executed the Templars and Hospitaller's because these men too had broken treaties with him

The only people to criticise Saladin after the event were churchmen, not opposing war leaders ...because they would have done exactly the same.

I am glad you essentially agree with me here too, but do you believe the enslavement of the ordinary foot soldiers was just? I cited the Battle of Hattin to refute the claim Cloudy made in her first post that, during the time of the Crusades, the Saracens were benign and benevolent toward those they captured in battle, and the Crusaders were not. I certainly don't believe killing and enslaving captured soldiers is being benign and benevolent toward them.

Actually, all this is rather beside the point. In her opening post, Cloudy advanced some rather silly ideas that were supposed to be about the here and now, but somehow wandered back to a time hundreds of years ago. I still say that now prisoners of war who are captured by NATO and the western allies are much better treated than prisoners who are captured by the enemy. What I mean is they are not tortured and beheaded.

If you are determined to believe that Muslim fundamentalists are worse than others I cannot help you but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that fundamentalists of all persuasions are bad news.

Here, I agree with you. ALL fundies are bad news, and the cause of most of the suffering the world has endured. However, I still say those of the Muslim faith are the worst of all, and I will continue to say so until fundies of some other faith hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people. There are many other atrocities committed by Muslim fundies, and we know about most of them alrready, so I will not enumerate them. The Olympic bombings in Atlanta and the bombings of medical clinics and murder of doctors pale when compared to the deeds of Muslim extremists.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll bet you are a hella editor.

But you certainly beat me in tap dancing.

 

[3113]

Seems to be a lot of telling women what to do either way. But then The Koran 4. Women does say: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient." Think that might be where they get the idea? Maybe my translation is bad.

It is dangerous dragging a particular religion's source document into a discussion, I know, but I couldn't resist.

What a coincidence!

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

As you say. Dangerous to drag in a particular religion's source document.

 

[driphoney]

What a coincidence!

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

As you say. Dangerous to drag in a particular religion's source document.

Since I didn't think this was a thread about the Bible, I left it out. I thought we were talking Islam here.

But it is risky as it's so easy to inflame people and run off-topic, even if giving a supposition as to the why of a matter.

 

[ishtat]

I am glad you essentially agree with me

:

No Box I do not agree with you, and so long as you put belief (your word) before evidence as a justification for prejudice the disagreement will continue.

 

[JackLuis]

But you certainly beat me in tap dancing.

I took lessons as a boy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No Box I do not agree with you, and so long as you put belief (your word) before evidence as a justification for prejudice the disagreement will continue.

If you mean evidence of the savagery of Muslim extremists, it's all around you. There was 9-11 and the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber and the Fort Hood killings and the bombs on the London and Madrid subways. Have any other religious fanatics recently attempted wholesale slaughter like that? I suppose you cold count Hitler and the Nazis, but that was over 55 years ago. As I have said several times, I am referring to the here and now.

 

[3113]

Since I didn't think this was a thread about the Bible, I left it out. I thought we were talking Islam here.

Hm...did you miss this part of the thread?

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/2/38402.jpg?v=1

As you pointed out where Fundie Islamics might have gotten the idea for such treatment of women, I thought it only apt to point our where the Christian folk insisting on the pastels might have gotten their ideas, and show how interesting it was that the two are remarkably alike, almost word for word. How could it be off topic when the emphasis of this is that misconceptions about Islam based on such extremes as burkas are equal to misconceptions about Christianity based on cults that treat women like that?

I had thought my point apt and obvious with the "coincidence" remark, but I guess not. In short, to quote the Koran to suggest how Islam feels about women is equal to quoting the Bible to suggest how Christianity feels about women.

I make no condemnation of your doing that, by the way. I think that every religion should question what it's following if there exist such quotes. I just wanted to make sure we kept on topic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hm...did you miss this part of the thread?

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/2/38402.jpg?v=1

As you pointed out where Fundie Islamics might have gotten the idea for such treatment of women, I thought it only apt to point our where the Christian folk insisting on the pastels might have gotten their ideas, and show how interesting it was that the two are remarkably alike, almost word for word. How could it be off topic when the emphasis of this is that misconceptions about Islam based on such extremes as burkas are equal to misconceptions about Christianity based on cults that treat women like that?

I had thought my point apt and obvious with the "coincidence" remark, but I guess not. In short, to quote the Koran to suggest how Islam feels about women is equal to quoting the Bible to suggest how Christianity feels about women.

I make no condemnation of your doing that, by the way. I think that every religion should question what it's following if there exist such quotes. I just wanted to make sure we kept on topic.

Those dresses do somewhat resemble Burkhas, except they are more colorful and do not include coverings for the face and hair. Conceivably, the Mormons might have copied the Muslims, but it's more likely these were inspired by the "Mother Hubbards" Christian missionaries tried to foist off on the women of Polynesia. Islam did not copy from Mormonism, because the latter has only been around for less than 200 years.

There are other differences, but I will refrain from citing them.

 

[amicus]

I scribbled some notes for an idea last night: "It was but a mere ten by ten years ago that we warmed ourselves by coal and wood fires and rode horses..."

Intended in the context of science and medicine and computers and 4g whatchamacallits, considering the fullness of time, mankind is but a breath away from the dark ages and before.

In our modern age, all religions are evil as their foundations arise from befuddled men of high intellect who tried to make sense of reality by imagining a creator as the source of all things.

It will be another thousand years, at least, before the depravity of religion is exorcised from rational thought. In the meantime, it should be the province of all rational men to limit and restrict the influence of all religions in all places and currently, Islam, is the evil afoot in all parts of the world and must be countered.

To further the conflict between competing religions is futile; a more proper use of the mind would be to consider how to replace the moral and ethcial foundations of faith with reason and rationality.

With an understanding of history, one can understand that faith, religion, was man's first attempt to conceptualize the reality he occupied. The next step has been long in coming; a recognition and knowledge that there was no creator, is no creator and that man, with only his mind to guide him, must establish and defend a new reason, a new rationality, a new concept of what is right and what is wrong, by focused thought, not by dependence upon one of a thousand different faiths that claim to have all the answers.

Don't think your single voice doesn't count, it does....and I sense from the words of several, that you know full well of what I speak.

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

I scribbled some notes for an idea last night: "It was but a mere ten by ten years ago that we warmed ourselves by coal and wood fires and rode horses..."

Intended in the context of science and medicine and computers and 4g whatchamacallits, considering the fullness of time, mankind is but a breath away from the dark ages and before.

In our modern age, all religions are evil as their foundations arise from befuddled men of high intellect who tried to make sense of reality by imagining a creator as the source of all things.

It will be another thousand years, at least, before the depravity of religion is exorcised from rational thought. In the meantime, it should be the province of all rational men to limit and restrict the influence of all religions in all places and currently, Islam, is the evil afoot in all parts of the world and must be countered.

To further the conflict between competing religions is futile; a more proper use of the mind would be to consider how to replace the moral and ethcial foundations of faith with reason and rationality.

With an understanding of history, one can understand that faith, religion, was man's first attempt to conceptualize the reality he occupied. The next step has been long in coming; a recognition and knowledge that there was no creator, is not creator and that man, with only his mind to guide him, must establish and defend a new reason, a new rationality, a new concept of what is right and what is wrong, by focused thought, not by dependence upon one of a thousand different faiths that claim to have all the answers.

Don't think your single voice doesn't count, it does....and I sense from the words of several, that you know full well of what I speak.

Amicus

I believe that one of America's greatest contributions to civilization is the Separation of Church and State.

It prevented a monopoly on the Religion Racket and reduced the influence of the crazies. If the Islamic world adopted such a philosophy think about what a revolution it would be!

Unfortunately, Islam does not allow such a separation, for too many bloodsucking parasites would loose their meal tickets.

I have thought for a long time now that we shoud change the name of "The War on Terror!" and call it the "Roundup of the Crazies".

If we tell it like it is, then people won't got all wonky like the Baggers, many of whom are motivated to end the corruption of the Modern Corporatism, which is why the Repub's adopted them, to re channel their zeal into 'more constructive' channels.

 

[3113]

If you mean evidence of the savagery of Muslim extremists, it's all around you.

Well, Box, does that mean that I can now discuss the "savagery" of the Tea Party? For the congress woman who is in critical condition and a nine-year-old girl dead? This party has urged it's members to "target" those who don't agree with them--and have thrown bricks, issued death threats, and made lawmakers fear for their lives and safety. This political party has held rallies advocating violent means to achieve their ends, insisting that they can't get them via votes and other civilized means.

Now it's very likely you'll say to me, 'That guy was nuts!" And indeed he was. I tend to think that a lot of political and religious extremists are nuts. The question then becomes: at what point does the actions of such nuts stop being their sole responsibility? At what point is it the "fault" of the religion or politics that we might say "urged" them to do this?

Let me ask you a few questions:
(1) Have you ever read the Koran--not read quotes from it, read it?
(2) Have you ever taken a class or study in the religion of Islam from a non-bias source, like a college class taught by a a scholar in the subject?
(3) Outside of people answering you on websites...do you know any Muslim's personally? I mean, you work beside them, they're neighbors, one is your mailman?

If you answered "no" to these three, then how can you blame the religion for the acts of these extremists rather than deciding that the extremists are "nuts" rather than the religion being "nuts"? Am I to assume that all conservatives, yourself included, want to shoot those who disagree with them because this crazy conservative did that? If I shouldn't assume that, then how can Islam be faulted for the nuts who took down the towers?

Did you know, by the way, that the nine-year-old who was shot was born on 9-11?

(4) Exactly which sect of Islam do we blame for 9-11? Putting it another way, if a Christian in the name of Christianity destroyed a tower and killed 2000 innocents, do we blame all Christians or just the branch of Christianity he belongs to? If you say we get to blame the Taliban for the crazy Islamic who took down the towers, that's fine with me. But that does let all other sects of Islam off the hook--hence, you can't blame Islam. Just the Taliban.

You do know that Islam has many different sects just like Christianity has many different sects...right?

(5) How many have to die to make a group "savages?" Will six people including a nine-year-old do, or does it have to be 2000? What number makes the political party/religion of the killer a political party/religion of "savages" rather than crazies?

I know you want to think that groups "evolve" and that somehow religions other than Islam have gotten beyond savagery into civilization, and poor Islam is still locked in the dark ages, but the evidence seems to indicate that savagery isn't exclusive to Islam. If it was, a nine-year-old girl, who did NOT die by the hand of any Islamic, who did die by the hand of someone from a civilized, Christian democracy would not be dead.

And if it was true that all Islamics were savages, then a small group of nuts would have been able to murder more Christians in Egypt, rather than being prevented by thousands of civilized Islamics willing to die to protect them.

Your evidence isn't evidence. It's prejudice because it's based on the actions of "nuts" rather than on knowledge of the religion or of the majority of its people. Were I to go along with your evidence, I would now hate you on the assumption that you belong to a group (conservatives) that advocated the murder of a congresswoman and got six innocents killed in the process. That's what prejudice is. Assuming that everyone who calls themselves something--Islamic, Christian, Conservative--is cut from the same cloth as the very craziest, the very worst of that sort you're met or seen.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
If you mean evidence of the savagery of Muslim extremists, it's all around you.

Well, Box, does that mean that I can now discuss the "savagery" of the Tea Party? For the congress woman who is in critical condition and a nine-year-old girl dead? This party has urged it's members to "target" those who don't agree with them--and have thrown bricks, issued death threats, and made lawmakers fear for their lives and safety. This political party has held rallies advocating violent means to achieve their ends, insisting that they can't get them via votes and other civilized means.

Do you really know that and are able to prove it or are you just speculating? As for "targeting" it's a common term used by political parties and many others. Have you ever heard of a target date or targeting certain potential customers or other use of the term? If you look at the map held by Sarah Palin, you will see the targets are congressional districts, not people. The opposing candidates are listed by name, but the crosshairs are on the districts, not the people. Whatever staffer might have said those were not crosshairs is strictly not believable.

Now it's very likely you'll say to me, 'That guy was nuts!" And indeed he was. I tend to think that a lot of political and religious extremists are nuts. The question then becomes: at what point does the actions of such nuts stop being their sole responsibility? At what point is it the "fault" of the religion or politics that we might say "urged" them to do this?

I believe all adults are responsible for all their actions, including the nut in question. You seem to believe the same thing but, if so, why are you blaming the TEA Party for his actions? If you are, you seem to be disagreeing with your own contentions. I agree with you that violent religious fanatics are nuts, just as the killer in this case is nuts. However, if you say he was driven by the TEA Partiers to commit his foul deeds, then I put a question to you. Who or what drives Muslim fanatics to commit their foul deeds? Well, what else? ISLAM, of course. What I am saying is this: If you believe a nut can be incited to kill by the TEA Party, you must also believe that crazy Muslim extremists are incited to kill by some influence, and the influence they all have in common is their faith.

Now, I don't actually believe Islam as a whole is responsible for the actions of a relatively small number of fanatics any more than I believe any political movement is responsible for the nut in this case shooting up Safeway. The terrorists essentially act on their own, and what they do is contrary to the teachings of Islam, just as the nut acted on his own contrary to what the TEA Partiers stand for.

Let me ask you a few questions:
(1) Have you ever read the Koran--not read quotes from it, read it?
(2) Have you ever taken a class or study in the religion of Islam from a non-bias source, like a college class taught by a a scholar in the subject?
(3) Outside of people answering you on websites...do you know any Muslim's personally? I mean, you work beside them, they're neighbors, one is your mailman?

If you answered "no" to these three, then how can you blame the religion for the acts of these extremists rather than deciding that the extremists are "nuts" rather than the religion being "nuts"? Am I to assume that all conservatives, yourself included, want to shoot those who disagree with them because this crazy conservative did that? If I shouldn't assume that, then how can Islam be faulted for the nuts who took down the towers?

No, no, and probably. I say "probably" because I have worked with many people, and some of them were probably Muslims, but I consider their faith to be their personal business, and I would not ask about it, any more than I would ask a married couple how much they fuck. (Well, this is a porn site, you know)

I don't blame the religion, as a whole, for the acts of the extremists. I have said this repeatedly, and even the one sentence you copied from the post you are apparently citing refers to Muslim extremists. That post refers throughout to Muslim fanatics or fundies or extremists. I don't blame Islam for the acts of a few lunatics any more than I blame the TEA Party for the acts of this lunatic.

By the way, I don't think of myself as a Conservative. I agree with some of their stances, but I also support same sex marriage, legalized abortions, separation of church and state and some other things I could probably think of if I tried harder.

Did you know, by the way, that the nine-year-old who was shot was born on 9-11?

Yes.

(4) Exactly which sect of Islam do we blame for 9-11? Putting it another way, if a Christian in the name of Christianity destroyed a tower and killed 2000 innocents, do we blame all Christians or just the branch of Christianity he belongs to? If you say we get to blame the Taliban for the crazy Islamic who took down the towers, that's fine with me. But that does let all other sects of Islam off the hook--hence, you can't blame Islam. Just the Taliban.

You do know that Islam has many different sects just like Christianity has many different sects...right?

I am aware of that.

I wouldn't blame Islam or any sect of Islam, and I would not blame Christianity or any sect of Christianity. I don't blame The Taliban for 9-11 because it was another group of Islamic extremists who were responsible. Both groups are fanatics, but the Taliban is more into abusing women and killing anybody who disagrees with them while Al Qaeda is into killing Americans and other westerners, although they will also kill anybody who disagrees with them.

(5) How many have to die to make a group "savages?" Will six people including a nine-year-old do, or does it have to be 2000? What number makes the political party/religion of the killer a political party/religion of "savages" rather than crazies?

This is strictly an opinion, because I believe nobody has an answer for that. I believe it would depend more on the intent of the individual. Those who kill or try to kill at random, such as this nut and the 9-11 hijackers and the underwear bomber and Timothy McVeigh were or are savages because they wanted to kill total strangers in wholesale lots for no fathomable reason. The Olympic Bomber was probably another one, but the man who murdered Dr. Tiller was not, because he was after one individual, and he had a reason. A twisted reason, but a reason nonetheless. I know ths nut was after one person too, but he then started shooting randomly, so I include him among the savages. This is strictly an opinion.

I know you want to think that groups "evolve" and that somehow religions other than Islam have gotten beyond savagery into civilization, and poor Islam is still locked in the dark ages, but the evidence seems to indicate that savagery isn't exclusive to Islam. If it was, a nine-year-old girl, who did NOT die by the hand of any Islamic, who did die by the hand of someone from a civilized, Christian democracy would not be dead.

I do agree essentially with what you suggest about evolving. Hundreds of years ago, Christianity was about as bad as Islamic fundamentalism is now, with the oppression of women and The Inquisition and witch hunting and pogroms and Oliver Cromwell and some other savages, if you like to continue using that word. Then came the Reformation, and things changed for the better. They didn't become perfect, just better. Islam had no equivalent of The Restoration, and, at least in contries ruled by Islam, they continue to blindly follow the word of one pedophile, and still stone women for adultery and otherwise act the fool.

As for the little girl, I agree. She was murdered by a savage.

And if it was true that all Islamics were savages, then a small group of nuts would have been able to murder more Christians in Egypt, rather than being prevented by thousands of civilized Islamics willing to die to protect them.

I can't comment on this statement because it is based on a fallacy. Not all Islamics are savages, just some of the most fanatical ones.

Your evidence isn't evidence. It's prejudice because it's based on the actions of "nuts" rather than on knowledge of the religion or of the majority of its people. Were I to go along with your evidence, I would now hate you on the assumption that you belong to a group (conservatives) that advocated the murder of a congresswoman and got six innocents killed in the process. That's what prejudice is. Assuming that everyone who calls themselves something--Islamic, Christian, Conservative--is cut from the same cloth as the very craziest, the very worst of that sort you're met or seen.

Judging by your wording, you are referring to something I said in my last post here. My contention there was that Muslim fanatics or extremists - call them nuts if you want - are worse than Christian fanatics or extremists - you can call them nuts too. I stated well-known facts in support of that contention, such as 9-11, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and others. All the people involved acted in the name of their faith. Christian fanatics have never done anything remotely as evil as these other acts, at least not for many years. Do not mention Timothy McVeigh. His evil deed was comparable to those of Muslim fanatics, but he did not act in the name of any religion, which is what my contentions were about.

By the way, do you honestly believe that any political group actually advocated the murder of Congresswoman Giffords?

 

[amicus]

Trivia...angels on the head of a pin, useless waste of thought and energy.

Since before the Crusades, Christians versus Muslims, Religon, faith in a God, insistence on a single creed and death to all who do not follow, is the Hallmark of all religions and one can not apologize, rationalize or justify any atrocities they commit in the name of God.

Nor are there any innocents; if you call yourself a Christian or a Muslim, you bear the guilt of the entire religion.

Truth.

Amicus