Hey its just another friendly bombing from the peaceful islamic people

basso knows this. I admire your stance against the cable news, I encourage you to take the same stance regarding basso until he starts debating in good faith, stops the intellectual dishonesty.

 

Please Stop. You are making too much sense.

My only beef with your entire post would be the latter end of your argument.

Religious intolerence, particularly in its violent manifestation, is more a product of global politics than anything else. The only difference between religious and secular violence is that one co-opts religious beliefs to validate their particular calling- that doesnt make it right, and is obviously far more sinister when considering what the institution of religion is aimed to do (call people to God, for the most part..), and the other plays on any variety of emotions (hatred, intolerance, racism, etc.), but with the same end.

I personally find certain religious beliefs difficult to understand- for example, I cant see why the Catholic Church bans priests from getting married. To me, it doesnt make sense that they would prevent a natural human endeavor from taking place, one that is permitted to the majority of its constituency, save the most commited. But then again, I dont blame that policy for pedophelic practices by priests as much as I do crooked human beings.

The problem is that you conflate problems of religion with problems of humanity. We are human, and as human, we are subject to falling into gross error. The history of man testifies to that. But I would venture to guess that the billions of human beings across the world that subscribed to a religious doctrine and used it as a positive force to improve morally outnumber those who were agnostic to religion and tried to live with any semblance of a moral standard.

Just my 2 cents, and as I said before, I think for the most part you hit the nail on the head with your post.

 

To me it is obvious that the OP doesn't think that all Islamic people are terrorists. Still, the Pavlov's dog - like reflex of some of the posters here to insult the OP and label him a racist or whatever doesn't change the fact that more significant terrorist acts continue to be committed in the name of Islam as of right now than in the name of other religions. And the automatic reflex of pointing out some random (generally smaller-in-scale) terrorist act committed in the name of christianity does not change that fact either.

 

If he's intentionally trying to be inflammatory than yes, maybe he's not. But then's he's just wasting people's time for his amusement.

If we take what he wrote at face value, there's no question he's making pejorative remarks. There's plenty of people in this country who think Muslims are all terrorists, and it's quite believable that Oddson would be one of them.

 

Not addressing this last post of yours, but if you still haven't realized that Mathloom was sarcastic with his post, then you really are very, very, very slow.

 

Do you understand that when he sarcastically calls Islamic people peaceful, then it is indeed directed at all Muslims and not just the extremists?

I'm not sure how it could be interpreted differently. If you have a different take on it, then please share.

 

It's like me saying the French are quitters and French women don't shave their armpits. That doesn't literally mean that I think all French people are quitters and no French women shave their armpits.

 

But it's still an insult to the French. It still implies that the behavior (quitting or not shaving armpits) is endemic to the French culture which disparages all French even if it doesn't specifically apply to all of them. Similarly, OddsOn is saying that violence is endemic to the religion of Islam which disparages all Muslims even if it doesn't apply directly to all of them. That is why he is being criticized.

 

It is a fact that more significant (by number of casualties) terrorist acts are committed in the name of Islam in recent time than in the name of any other religion. If pointing out that fact is shouted down and those who point out that fact are insulted, that is a bad thing.

Whether the problem is endemic to the religion of Islam or due to other factors that are intertwined with where Islam is practiced today, or both - that would be an interesting discussion to have. But if someone wants to discuss that, they get shouted down and labeled as haters, etc. So I guess some just leave it at sarcastically throwing a thread title out there and not even bothering to deal with the usual defensive/aggressive rhetoric from the PC crowd.

 

That's not what he was pointing out.

 

If someone seriously wants to discuss these things, as I have experienced in the past, one quickly gets labeled an Islam hater and gets shouted down by the same group of posters. So it is much easier to just drop a provocative thread title and let the same group of posters do their routine (including the usual Batman Jones insults), but not respond to it. Can't really blame him for it.

 

Not arguing against that either-all for individual beliefs strengthening moral integrety.

Problem is when people start to get together and collectivize these beliefs and then coalesce into a large organization. Pros-more ability Cons-more potential for abuse. The problem is that throughout history, organized religion has always been abused and has shown little ability to stop true evil-while there has been great good accomplished, one can argue that more harm then benefit has been acheived. It's continued to this day and era. Makes one wonder if the world would be better off without imams and popes and etc.

I, for one though, cannot believe that the world would be better off without the lives of Mohammad or Jesus, two of the greatest teachers of our times. Just that the world would be a better place if the wackjobs and even the mainstream organizations weren't there to interpret their own perverse version of the story.

 

Why are you excusing his thread title? If someone did want to have a serious discussion, the thread title alone shows that the OP wasn't interested in any serious discussion.

 

Apparently you did not understand my last post.

 

I'm talking about Oddson here. Honestly I don't know Mathloom and have no idea when he / she is being facetious or not.

But I think the fact that you want to call me dim-witted or something, some sort of slight kinda makes me feel you're not really interested in the discussion, but rather looking to put me down.

Why do you care if I'm slow or fast anyway? What's it to you? Get a life bub.

 

Yeah, Muslims are terrorists just like the French don't like to shave their armpits...just like Black like to commit crimes and eat fried chicken, just like Chinese have small members, and just like Jews will take your money. Oh, and don't forget about them Latinos - they all know how to salsa and make cocaine.

White people, they are just normal though. No stereotypes about them!

 

You can do that yourself just fine.

Because you create awkward moments in threads. You like to blabber on about almost everything, but it's like someone talking non-stop in a room and everyone else is looking at you and embarrassed for you and you still don't notice it and just keep talking.

 

Has it ever occured to you that this description is so incredibly specific?

Just a thought.

 

you judge a whole religion based on a sector of extremists? the muslims would put down christianity the same way by proclaiming the acts of northern ireland and the terrorism that occurs there. not to mention, the endemic pedophilia in the catholic church. there are bad apples in every religion.

 

Interesting. I can respect that.

Let me ask: would you extend that line of thinking to, lets say, the political arena? I feel that this same argument can be used against the modern nation-state...or almost any institution for that matter.