France under attack by Islamists (including Erdogan)

I really don't know enough about European politics to offer an opinion but I can sort of see where they're coming from with the idea that you can't be a religious practitioner of Islam while simultaneously promoting hate.

I feel that way when I read about the KKK or radical Christian organizations that espouse hate while simultaneously claiming to be Christian. It's just not possible to be both in my opinion.

And again this all under the pretense that you believe both Muslim and Christian religions are peaceful religions that have a portion of radical participants that weaponize their religion to justify committing horrible atrocities. I realize some posters here simply believe the entirety of Muslim religion is violent and not peaceful and therefore should be eliminated. I'm not in that camp but given the fear and tragedy some of you have experienced with the radical side of terrorism I do empathize. I guess I'm still one of those snowflakes that would like to believe the majority of Muslim practitioners are peaceful and wish to remain peaceful. At the same time I'm not blind to theocratic governments that weaponize Islam to again justify committing horrible atrocities against others and some refugees from those countries have migrated to European nations to indoctrinate others in their hate. It's always a tragedy when people like that are successful.

It's one of those instances where you'd think peaceful practitioners would be whistle blowers to their radical contemporaries, but then I think to myself that I'm a peaceful person that avoids radical people without thinking of calling the cops on them. I denounce the KKK, and atrocities people like Timothy McVeigh did, but that still doesn't stop these atrocities from happening. Is the expectation that peaceful practitioners of Islam that don't speak up, are also secretly rooting for their radical contemporaries?

It makes me think of a Catholic church group for stay at home mom's my oldest sister briefly participated in years ago. It was a group to discuss Christianity and make friends but really it was about **** talking other Catholics, and telling stories of all the charitable deeds they did for the week and what great people they are and it was an immediate turn off for my sister, because it didn't feel like what Christianity was all about to her. Now being self centered and ego driven isn't a crime worth reporting anyone to, but I do think it's an example of the type of reaction peaceful practitioners of their faith do. They walk away, dis-associate from their radical contemporaries and move on with their life, without needing to justify their denouncing publicly to anyone. Why hold peaceful practitioners of Islam to that type of standard? That Christian mom group externally looked like a good meet up, only to find once the curtains were closed that they were mostly all miserable people. I don't find it surprising that people's tunes change once the cameras are off and they feel comfortable expressing their true beliefs in a setting they think won't come back to harm them. I actually expect it.

I mean we've all had that scenario where you reach a level of comfort with a new friend that they start speaking off the cuff and what you're hearing sounds bizarro world to the point it makes you question who the person you're talking to actually is. I walk away from them without denouncing. Maybe that's a poor example.

 

Police stopped him from flying to Syria to fight for ISIS, so he was very serious about it.

 

But how is that true when the Quran is full of passages that call for murder and violence, like the ones listed in the reply to that tweet?
How can a religion with a holy book that is full of that content be considered a religion of peace?
And it's not like the Bible that mostly contains historical stories, whereas the Quran is explicitly meant to be followed.

Are you seriously comparing chattering Bible moms to preachers that call for violence and murder?
This isn't about people blabbering out what 50yr old Christian Karen spitefully said about her neighbor, it's about Muslims needing to report when preachers are actively raising extremists.

 

Like I said, I'm aware there are posters in this thread that think the entirety of Islam religion should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I understand you're in that camp. I personally find that a radical take considering that would be eliminating over 1.8 billion people that might be willing to die for their faith. Is that really the road you wanna go down? Wouldn't it be better to assume the radical side of Islam doesn't make up the majority of religious practice for nearly 2 billion people?

But let's play yours and AroundtheWorld's game and do a thought experiment. How do you plan to get rid of Islam in a way that doesn't make you worse than the terrorist you're upset at? You're talking about convincing 1.8 billion people that they're wrong and you're right and you gotta do it peacefully or maybe you're in the camp that thinks you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette. What are your sound and reasonable solutions to eliminating a religion that doesn't turn you into a monster?

My comparison was that peaceful practitioners of their faith tend to quietly skirt away from their radical contemporaries without being held to an expectation that they also must publicly denounce them. That was the whole purpose of the example. Not compare which one is worse. Clearly the terrorist attack is worse Yung-T.

 

Have you read the Old Testament? Waging wars.... sacrificing first born sons..... killing first born sons...... all types of archaic rules....

Any religion can be dangerous.

 

Again...... you should read the Old Testament. How do you think Christians committed atrocities? How did they go from Jesus is love to killing? Coincidence slavery and Jim Crow occurred in the BIBLE BELT of the US?

I prefer being objective and calling out Christianity and Islam. It just so happens we are in a cycle where Islam is back in the dark ages.

 

Not the entire religion, but unless they eradicate all the violent parts and stop worshipping a prophet that was a pedophile murderer, it's clearly not suited for a modern world and a hotbed for terrorists.

But it's pretty much nonsense to even remotely compare denouncing or reporting harmless Christian wife chat to official Mosque preachers that promote violence and raise extremists.
The Christian wives aren't hurting anyone, while the preacher's thoughts could directly lead to the loss of lives and are extremely dangerous.
The moral obligation to report the two things couldn't be more different.

 

As an agnostic in Austin TX.... I worry more about Christian extremists than radical islamic extremists.

 

I already said it, the religious handling of these two books is meant to be completely different and it's explicitly stated.

The Bible is mainly a book to understand the acts of God and interpret them, while the Quran directly calls for Muslims to follow its teachings and enact them in their actual lives.

Terrorists follow explicit Quran verses without needing to interpret or twist them in any way, as the Quran and the prophet want them to.
This can't be compared to Bible stories mentioning the existence of slavery, but not at all telling Christians to possess slaves.

 

Uhhhhhh.... two religions were created from the Bible. The Old Testament is very different than the New Testament with the OId Testament most resembling the Quran. You do understand Orthodox Jews and other fundamentalist sects treat the Old Testament like the Quran?

Again.... we are back in a cycle where Islam is in a dark age.

 

There is a big problem with this analogy.
The problem is that the one spewing the hatred is the PRIEST himself inside the mosque.

Are you a peaceful practitioner?
Good that means you go to the mosque for the prayer.

If so you are in front and listening to the man who is saying kill the infidels.

Words that aren't just to be said but lead to actual murder.

If I go to church at Sunday and the priest is screaming murder the non Christians I don't care how I want to avoid trouble.
I am going to report it to the higher ups.

Why don't they?

 

As a practical matter, which is what I'm talking about, it doesn't matter where it "originates". Getting sucked into that debate is a great way to not make actual progress.

You assess the predictable consequences of your actions and act accordingly. It's the same point I've made over and over through the years whenever we've discussed this topic. My view has not changed.

 

yeah..
you see christian and christian are different. Over there in america there are the evangelists who take the Bible for word not just "to interpret" them.
This here in our church would be considered bat **** crazy.

 

I agree that there is a moral obligation to call out extremism when confronted by it. You call your local law enforcement, Euro versions of the FBI and do your due diligence to hopefully prevent a future terrorist attack. I wish that would happen every time.

 

You are just doing pure whataboutism really, I replied to someone acting like the religion itself isn't a cause and reason for terrorism, when in reality it clearly is and is also meant to be enacted in everyday life.

Also, I dislike all religions and think they are a reason for separating people and being stuck in the middle ages, so I couldn't care less what book contains more sh**.
It's still a fact that the vast majority of terrorism is commited in the name of Islam, there's no weasling out of it or acting like the religion itself isn't the main contributor.

 

If I get what you are saying right.

You are proposing that France should abandon their close guarded and long established secularism to accomodate the muslim minority?

Let me remind you that these civil liberties have been won with actual blood and they are the pride and honour of the French.

It is what makes France, France. So France should stop being France and become a state taken orders by illegal immigrants.

 

If their secularism has no room for pluralism, which I think is what you're getting at, then they should kick out all the Muslims or force them to convert. Which of those options do you prefer?

 

I guess the easy analogy would be:
I start to draw picture books for children that on many pages depict calls for hate/murder/violence, while also containing some peaceful parts.

Now I hand these books out to 100 kids.

If some of these kids start to shout the hateful rhetoric of that book and in some cases even start to get violent, how do I react?

Would I say that:
A) The majority of kids are still peaceful and didn't do anything wrong, so solely the hateful and violent kids are at fault and the book shouldn't be questioned.

or B) Seeing how the kids were peaceful before and started to become hateful and violent after directly following the messages of the book, I realize that the book is dangerous in the wrong hands and should therefore be either destroyed or have all problematic content erased.

Currently, the vast majority of the world is following route A and absolving the book/religion of all blame, instead only pointing fingers at the perpetrators.
But this is by far the worse solution and will ensure countless new generations of kids following the terrible message of that book.

 

eh?
Of course it has. Muslims can go satIrise Christianity all they want and curse at it.

What's not tolerated is the absence of tolerance.

You are saying that France should become less tolerant and limit their freedom of speech to accomodate offended muslims.