Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If not, you do understand that he wasn't chastised for being a Christian, he was chastised for hating on gays and blacks.
So what-- if someone insults you directly you're just supposed to say 'oh, well that's okay... let's be tolerant of these people who think I'm s%^t?'
I know for a fact that you would be throwing an enormous 8-year-old-girl-style hissy fit if someone even suggested that conservatives were wrong about anything. For example: this entire board.
And, if you go back a few centuries, people were busy committing genocide in the name of God and Christianity - and that was just in Europe. I haven't studied as much Asian history, but it wouldn't surprise me if various groups over there used religion as part of their wars, too. So, should all religions be condemned? Should all be judged as "terrorists" because of the actions of a few?
The modern Middle East is a hotbed of tyranny and oppression - none of which is acceptable to Islam. It should come as no surprise that out of the fires of such tyranny comes brainwashing and violence. The tyranny is the problem, not the religion they are hiding behind and falsely representing.
nice one, but please remember we are not living in the 1500's, we are living in the 21st century.
It's religious fundamentalism that it is the problem whether it be Islamic Fundamentalism, Jewish Fundamentalism, Christian Fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, Mormon Fundamentalism, Buddhist Fundamentalism or any other form of fundamentalism including Atheist Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists take many religious texts literally or are orthodox and entrenched in their views and beliefs, often seeing others who don't share their beliefs as evil or morally disreputable. They also use old texts to justify the oppression of groups such as women and even to justify horrendous actions such as stoning people to death.
I personally dislike any form of fundamentalism, indeed there is definitely no fun in fundamentalism.
I'm not a liberal, but the average Muslim is not a threat, it's only radical Muslims who are. Radical Christian's, Radical Jews, Radical Atheists, pretty much Radical Anything can be just as dangerous as Radical Muslims.
I respect the freedoms of all religions, even the one's I disagree with.
Instead of posting ludicrous, MSM-driven soothing nonsense pablum, why not look at the polls in muslim nations regarding terrorism and suicide bombings. Some muslim nations support it up to 80% or more.
Even if only 25% of muslims were radical, which is likely low, that's still 400 million people, hardly just a "few rotten apples."
Lost? What are you even talking about? I don't scream anything bub, and I live in Florida where women can drive all they want, so who cares? Saudi women will have to fight for themselves, just like women here did. And btw, they are not killed for driving. The RWNJ websites all, and I mean ALL, ran the same story where a woman defied the ban and drove but was klled in a car accident. Every rightwing headline said "Woman killed defying driving ban." Lol--Only she was killed While defying driving ban, not For defying the driving ban. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided conclusions.
Blather on? Bush blathered on about how peaceful Muslims are, not "liberals."
So you take one story from the US and want to use that as your example of how Muslims are misunderstood? lol
Read away hero...........or should I say infidel....
Instead of posting ludicrous, MSM-driven soothing nonsense pablum, why not look at the polls in muslim nations regarding terrorism and suicide bombings. Some muslim nations support it up to 80% or more.
If you break it down to "suicide bombings against noncombatants" your number will decline precipitiously.
There are many Americans here, probably a majority, who defend such horrors as the aerial destruction of Dresden--a deliberate mass incineration of noncombatant men, women, and children. Is that deemed to be better because the pilots did not commit suicide in the process?
If you break it down to "suicide bombings against noncombatants" your number will decline precipitiously.
Uh, no they don't. The polls only asked if they supported suicide bombing/terrorism done in the name of islam, and the percentages only came down in Jordan after they were almost hit, and then attacked:
There are many Americans here, probably a majority, who defend such horrors as the aerial destruction of Dresden--a deliberate mass incineration of noncombatant men, women, and children. Is that deemed to be better because the pilots did not commit suicide in the process?
First off, stop with the strawmen, this thread is about muslims. Second, most americans have never even heard of dresden, couldn't find it on a map, and have no clue whatsoever about its history. Nice re-direct attempt, trying to obfuscate and excuse away the massive muslim support for terrorism and murder.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-08-2014 at 05:50 PM..
Reason: Personal attack
Uh, no they don't. The polls only asked if they supported suicide bombing/terrorism done in the name of islam
Precisely. They did not specify "suicide bombings against noncombatants" as opposed to military targets. Surely if you think a suicide bombing against a military target is worse than any other sort of attack on a military target, you have some explanation as to why that would be?
Quote:
First off, stop with the strawmen, this thread is about muslims.
Yes, and I am asserting that they are no worse than Christian Americans. And proving it.
Radical Christians on the other hand are notorious for telling people what they can and can't do, opposing science, opposing sexual freedom, etc... and from time to time it gets so annoying that someone loses it and says 'well, look at your religion and tell me it makes sense'.
Other than the common example of Westboro Baptist, Who would be these "Radical Christians" that you speak of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
I suppose you could say the same about Christianity if we're going back to the seventh century. The Thirty Years' War alone killed 8 million, and that was Christians killing each other.
That's just it, you have to go back to the DARK AGES, which is why they are called the DARK AGES. There have been plenty of battles waged by lunatics under the guise of religion, and today is no different. It just happens to be under the banner of the Muslim God in the modern era. I guess you could say that Christianity has progressed well away from violence, except for a very few outliers.
The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, has more than 2 million members. I read somewhere that there could be as many as 20M radicalized Islamists. I think this is probably low.
Precisely. They did not specify "suicide bombings against noncombatants" as opposed to military targets. Surely if you think a suicide bombing against a military target is worse than any other sort of attack on a military target, you have some explanation as to why that would be?
Yes, and I am asserting that they are no worse than Christian Americans. And proving it.
Ah so only the evil Christians manned the bombardier spot on planes? LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
