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.
The problem with these Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, is that they're very open to interpretation. You can find passages within scripture that justify just about anything.
Fortunately Christianity has come through the extremist period and a more moderate adversion is now practiced. Islam still has a way to go.
I do think it's easier to interpert Islam in a violent way. Difference is Christianity was an independent and often repressed religion for the first couple centuries. Islam was spread with an army almost immediately. It also codifying more conservative notes from the time more so than Christianity
I do think it's easier to interpert Islam in a violent way. Difference is Christianity was an independent and often repressed religion for the first couple centuries. Islam was spread with an army almost immediately. It also codifying more conservative notes from the time more so than Christianity
I think it's easier to interpret it as violent because Muhammad was a warlord, and violence is a major theme within the Quran. The spread that you alluded to was a continuation of Muhammad's military campaigns. It's never been a religion of peace, even at its birth.
People always talk about the crusades, but forget that they were a direct response to 500 years of constant Islamic aggression against Christianity.
The police were armed. That part of London is full of armed police because of how many politically and culturally sensitive buildings are in the vicinity.
I have always been of the stance that there is both wrong with Islam and that it's just a small minority of terrorsits and extremists. Lumping all muslims into the same category of backwards extremists was unjust and things like Muslim bans were discriminatory and wrong. But as the terrorist attacked mount up, it's becoming harder and harder to think this way. Of course there's nothing wrong with most Muslims, but something needs to be done about the disturbing number of Islamic terror attacks. However, any sort of increased government surveillance as an attempt to stop terrorism is a big no-no to me. A government shouldn't have the power to spy on its citizens, especially when the vast majority are good, law-abiding people.
9/11 killed a lot of people, you live in NYC ... Though recently, just Islamic attacks make up a fraction of attacks. I feel like those that focus on them above all others do so for a political agenda
If you live in a big city in the US you should be more worried about being shot by some idiot gangbanger with no future as opposed to being killed by the Muslim extremists
why are you trying to downplay islamic extermism? i don't get it. the u.s has less muslims than most european countries. why doesn't **** like this happen in poland or other eastern european countries? lol. i think we all know the answer to that.
US has about as many Muslims in total as the uk. I'm not trying to downplay it, but people make it a worse threat than it is, it's not the only source of violence or even main. Eventually the over-emphasis gets tiresome and it's clearly used to justify a political agenda.
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.
