Hate? Hate's a strong word. It's one thing to think Christianity and all religions are stupid. It's another to hate Christianity. And in this case, it goes far beyond him questioning an ideology - it's a systemic effort to demonize and tar Islam & Muslims. I mean, the guy doesn't post anything else. Further more, if his issue was with Islam, he'd be posting philosophical arguments based on the Koran and the teachings. But he doesn't. He doesn't talk about mainstream Islamic thinking. He goes for the violent actions and preachings. That's not hating an ideology. That's denigrating it by resorting to associate it with its worst elements. Big difference.
He is posting factual information, does it matter if the corresponding thread in those posts is Islam? Nope, he is simply pointing them out. If you don't like them, ignore him...... DD
You do have hate in you. You hate my guts - it's pretty obvious or you wouldn't continue to try to insult me at every turn Just like you try to insult and denigrate Muslims at every turn. You are obsessed with Muslims and Islam. You have some chip on your shoulder. You never post about moderate Muslims, and you never post topics about other religions murderers. So at best you are a hypocrite but that is giving you way too much credit. I hope you wake up someday and realize you aren't really all that different from the crazy extremists you seem to go after with such zeal.
If you post a thousand negative facts about blacks dada, and no one else, I'm going to venture you don't like blacks. I don't like this sick campaign against a particular group of people, under the guise of "posting facts". I think calling his crap out is fair game.
I don't think him posting credible articles is crap, thematic? Sure, but it is good solid cooberated information. DD
You don't find it odd that all of it is about painting the negative side of Islam by flaunting the extremists actions without any balance of any sort????? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/search.php?searchid=231623
No, I disagree with that. I strongly believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they want. If they want to worship a golden anteater, I am fine with that. That does not mean I should feel obliged to concern myself with why they believe in whatever they believe and read whatever book they think is their holy book. The moment I start to concern myself with a religion is when I can notice that it - or versions of it - is starting to pose a threat to freedoms I cherish. That is not the case with Buddhism or 7th Day Adventists or Mormons or whatever. I might think people are nuts to believe what they believe, but I would fight for their right to believe what they believe. However, when people, because they follow an ideology or religion, start to try and restrict freedom rights of others - like the arsonists in France, like the axe murderer in Denmark, like the mass murderers in Nigeria - and when they all claim to do it because their religion/ideology mandates it - so, basically, when their intolerance starts to interfere with rights and freedoms I cherish, and when I see a pattern (as opposed to a single lunatic going crazy), then I believe it is absolutely necessary to point it out and speak up. Doing that (saying "this is the line that must not be crossed, regardless of what you believe") does not require reading their holy book or concerning myself with details of their ideology. I can do that to try and see how they have been brainwashed to commit these crimes, but I should not be required to do that to make the assessment that, objectively, their acts of intolerance are not to be tolerated. Why would I? I have no problem with any ideology or religion, as long as it does not pose a threat to other people's basic rights and/or freedoms. I don't talk about mainstream Buddhism or mainstream Confucianism or mainstream Methodism or mainstream Mormons either - I don't care - I am happy for people to believe whatever they want to believe - I only talk about what I see as a problem. I don't "go for" these things, they happen, there is a pattern, and that is why I point it out. I do not see a pattern like that with, e.g., Buddhism. It is simply not there. Once again, you got it backwards. I am not the one who "associates it with its worst elements". On the contrary, these worst elements are the ones who consider themselves the most pious followers of the religion. I am not associating anything. I am pointing out that there is a threatening pattern, and, unfortunately, it is almost exclusive to the radical elements of one particular religion, which happens to be Islam. That is a fact. You don't see radical Buddhists burning down a French cartoonists' office, you don't see radical Jehova's witnesses enacting "blasphemy laws" and you don't see radical Confucianists murdering scores of people because they believe in something else than they do.
But you see, I don't post negative facts about Muslims because they are Muslims. I post about a pattern of intolerance that happens to be prevalent in one particular ideology, and I criticize that ideology. Again, you fail to understand that that does not mean that I hate the followers of that ideology. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have the intellectual capacity to make that distinction.
You are not relevant enough to hate you, as much as you would be craving that kind of attention. The only reason I notice you is because your contributions are dumber, but more frequent and, with your multiple personas, obviously more inconsistent than most other posters' contributions. Nope, I do not, no matter how many times you try to repeat that. Why would I post about moderates? I have no issues with them. Why would I? It is obvious that there will be crazy and violent people in any religion in the world (and among agnostics and atheists as well). But it's the percentage and the degree that it seems to be inherent to the ideology itself and the pattern in which it manifests itself that worries me. You can rest assured that that will never happen, because I am entirely different.
Who are "they"???? You are pointing out the acts of a small percentage of Muslims and using it to define the entire ideology. The vast vast vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. And you group them all in with the extremists - and blame the ideology without considering any socio economic element or history. That my friend is demonizing a group. Whether you deny it or not, it's pretty clear to most of us. I'm surprised you have any defenders really. No one disagrees with you that the crazies are crazy. But to say they represent Islam just plays into the very same brainwashing the crazies have. they will say Christianity is violent and a threat to their freedoms. That Christians oppress them and steal their oil, and wish to contain them and keep them poor. It's an illusion. Just as you judge all Muslims by the acts of a few, they do the same thing. You are just perpetuating intolerance on all sides with your own intolerance. You claim to be intolerance of intolerance, but you gladly turn a blind eye to all the other crimes done in god's name all over the world. It's a bunch of b.s. you are spewing here.
And in my opinion, this is the exact indicator that makes it so easy to see just how delusional they are. Of course the ones who are going out there and killing others and committing sins are the ones who label themselves as the "most pious". It grants their actions the validation, both politically and spiritually, that they so desperately desire. It's what keeps them going and reassures them that what they're doing is right, even when they start to feel doubt about killing innocent people. Killing simply becomes easier when you have something to believe in and believe that that "something" is justifying your actions. E.g., Zen Buddhism became popular amongst the Japanese Samurais for this very reason. Fighting and killing and dying is easy to do when what you believe in is telling you that life and death are naught but one. Bernard Lewis himself pointed out that suicide is considered an unforgivable sin in Islam, yet suicide bombers run rampant. This is an irreconcilable sin within the Qur'an, yet these "most pious" Muslim terrorists are doing it. Clearly it's not coming from Islam, so who is it coming from? Other "pious" Muslims, no doubt. Suicide is considered forgivable by these polarizing Imams because the whole "logic" behind suicide bombing is that this sin will be forgiven by Allah due to the victims being heretical and deserving of death. So instead of it being "suicide", it's "martyrdom". Islam didn't do that, people did that. Africa has deeper territorial and ethnic issues beyond just religion, though religion is yet another catalyst in a continent that needs less of that. As someone else pointed out, this is just as much about the setting being Nigeria than it is about the religion being Islam.
There are a lot of times I wish I were incredibly stupid so I could go through life not worrying when other people are so unintelligent.
Weakest link. I would not do it if it was one lunatic here or a few crazies there. But, to me, an ideology is defined also by its overall level of tolerance. And, quite clearly, it's not like only the hundreds of people who issued death threats to the cartoonists and the few who actually burned down their offices are "outraged", but they are just the spearhead of a constant, general feeling of "outrage" and "being offended and thus condoning violence". There is clearly a pattern that nowadays, there is more intolerance and violence committed in the name of Islam than in the name of other major religions. First, I do not at all group them all in with the extremists - you made that up, once again. What does that have to do with anything? I care about how it affects the world I live in. I don't care about what socio-economic or historical excuse someone has for burning down my cartoonists' office or for committing an attempted "honor killing" in my office neighborhood (happened just a short time ago). I care about recognizing the ideological and cultural underlying pattern that leads to these acts, and the common theme behind them. "Most of us"? You mean, 100% of Sweet Lou and New Yorker? Or what other personas of yours are you referring to? I do not say they represent Islam. They say that they represent Islam. I tend to think that there is an inherent part to the ideology of Islam that, at the very least, allows such a widespread type of misinterpretation of the ideology that it is more than just isolated acts of crazies, but an actual pattern of intolerance within a non-negligible percentage of the followers of the ideology. (Sorry if this went over your head.) I understand that some of them say that, and perhaps there is a bit of truth to the oil part (although I do not think buying equals stealing). But if they say that, then I see a good bit of unjustified self-victimization by those who say it. But I do not - I do not judge all Muslims by the acts of a few - again, you can repeat it a million times, and it is still not true. Nope. Being intolerant with murders, arson, mutilation, honor killings does not perpetuate intolerance.
Great post. I don't disagree that religion (or the way people abuse it as a justification for their crimes) is just one of many catalysts in this conflict. But it clearly seems that religion, and Islamism in particular, does play a more significant role in this conflict than people were initially saying in this thread.
The irony of you saying this after posting a chart which completely misses the point of the discussion (i.e. violence committed in the name of religion) is incredible, but based on your posting history, sadly not unexpected.
What balance is needed? These are heinous acts, that are committed with a central theme of Islam. The truth is the truth. DD
Sure, and you of all people know you can use facts to distort. To say that Muslims are the sole cause of all religious violence is a lie. Why doesn't he call out other heinous acts? Why doesn't he condemn the crusades, the KKK, and Christian violence. Where is the IRA? Hindu violence against Muslims? Jews colonizing Palestine in the name of god? Where is all of this? No, it's just about attacking muslims. Solely focusing on one group. Why? Because to create fear and turn more people against that group. ATW is spreading hate and sowing intolerance in a personal campaign against Muslims. Frankly, it's wrong and he should stop. It's enough. It's a stain on the BBS.
A great deal of support from the invasion of Iraq comes from the religious right in this country who are indeed anti-Muslim. While it isn't a complete apples to apples comparison - there is some validity to it as well.
