Anti Mosque Rally shows the true racist colors of these idiots

Yes. I defined two words for you.

Is this a public forum? YES or NO.

 

so you didn't read exactly what I was talking about when you butted in

next time follow your own suggestions first

 

Paul makes a ton of sense on foreign policy and military issues at least.

As was pointed out in this thread you can mush stronger evidence of Christianity used to justify the Holocaust or the Native American massacre than Islam for 9/11.

 

You were debating points about the Holocaust with someone else. I just defined nationalism vs prejudice. I didn't say anything about the Holocaust because I don't see how it's relevant/comparative to 9/11.

But you keep on truckin' if it makes you happy.

 

Uhh, no.

The existence of Christian influence in Nazi Germany does nothing to remove, or diminish, the blatant and powerful influence of Islam on the perpetrators of 9/11.

 

you lied? I thought you "wasn't aware"

 

I've only been skimming this thread since I last posted but this seems to be a flaw in your argument. You basically admit that there were many other factors driving 9/11 and also that Islam isn't a unified religion yet you continue to take a stand that collectively demonizes Islam. Considering that only a minority of a minority of Muslims are violent have you considered that perhaps the other factors that you cite, geo-politics, hatred and etc.., are more factors involved in 9/11 than Islam and that it is men who have perverted the message of Islam out of hatred and geo-politics? If it was primarily religion then wouldn't most Muslims be violent?

 

I don't collectively demonize Islam, there is no "collective" Islam. Islam is Islam. Christianity is Christianity. They are a static series of texts, that are regarded as the infallible word of God. It cannot be changed. The texts are broken and serve no place in a civilized world.

Just because Islam is fractured in terms of sects who choose to selectively interpret the religion, doesn't mean that *some* of them have to be right and *some* of them have to be wrong. In my eyes, they are *all* wrong.

And yes, we've beat the geo-political, economic thing to death. There are tons of people on the planet who are poorer and less educated than the violent Muslims we see in today's world (and in some cases, even more religious than Muslims, their religion just happens to have a more peaceful doctrine). The hijackers were college educated and lived comfortable lives. And more like them have come and are to come. You can't keep ignoring the violent directives of Islam and excusing it. Even if you know a lot of Muslims who are great, peaceful people, if 1 person dies because of a religion, it is 1 person TOO MANY. Pointless, needless death and suffering that is easily identified as a byproduct of religion that we could so easily do without.

 

So you first say you are not collectively demonizing Islam and agree that it is fractured but then go on to say they are all wrong and then talk about the violent directives of Islam.

As far as 1 person dying because of religion that is bad but do you apply that to everything. Dylan Klebold was influenced by the music of Trent Reznor and a fan of The Matrix so does that mean that Trent Reznor and the Matrix should be Demonized?

 

Saying the faith is wrong and "demonizing" are two different things. I suggest you use that term a little more judiciously.

You're doing that whole "I don't know the difference between causation and correlation thing" again. You are impossible to talk to until you figure that distinction out, Judoka.

Somebody decided to shoot John Lennon because of The Catcher in the Rye, but is it REASONABLE to think that one who reads Catcher in the Rye would kill someone because of it? Answer: No

Read the Quran. God tells you that you will be rewarded for killing infidels in heaven. Is it REASONABLE to think that someone who reads what is regarded as the infallible word of God, with very explicit violent directives, might act on it? Answer: Yes

 

I would saying saying that Islam is inherently violent is demonizing.

Are you saying that Dylan Klebold wasn't influenced by the music of Trent Reznor and The Matrix?

 

I am not expert on the Qu'ran but I have seen Muslims on this board say that the Qu'ran doesn't say that.

 

Selective interpretation, nothing new around here.

 

So you as a non-Muslim are a better judge of what is the correct interpretation?

Also that argument punches a hole in "causation" vs "correlation" argument if it can just be dismissed as selective interpretation.

 

Pointing out the violent directives of Islam is not "demonizing". Am I saying Islam is evil or diabolic? Am I invoking morality in this discussion? No. I've acknowledged that Islam contains both good and bad. So knock it off. Criticism does not equal demonization.

Can you please explain to me how Trent Reznor and The Matrix gave the Columbine kids the motivation/directives to go shoot up their school? Please, show me the causality. Be specific. Feel free to throw in shoot 'em up video games while you're throwing things out there.

Before you reply, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Not trying to be a condescending dick, but at this point, it's impossible to avoid it. You've done this crap for years now... it's getting old... I'm tired of waiting for you to grasp this very, very basic concept that is essential to rational thought.

 

My interpretation is irrelevant. The interpretation that matters is the millions of people whose interpretations cause suffering. It's needless and pointless. We could do without religion, Islam included, and be better off for it.

And no, it doesn't have any affect on Causation vs. Correlation.

 

And what about the millions of people where it doesn't cause suffering but is a comfort in their lives?

This is my problem with you argument is that it is about your bias. Sure religion causes a lot of misery but so does capitalism, communism and etc.. You like to say that your argument is rational but it is a biased argument where you have only chosen to emphasize the negative about religion and dismiss its importance to humanity completely. A rational argument would consider both the positive and negatives of religion along with why it persists and its importance to the human condition.

Yes it does because I can say that you are just engaged in selective interpretation if you fail to see the correlation Once you open that door you are pretty much admitting that your position is subjective.

 

Humanity may not exist if where not for it's belief in the spiritual. You may not agree it's part of our evolutionary makeup from a genetic standpoint...

...but it's not a strech to believe that early man endured extreme hardships - high infant mortality, diesease, pain and suffering. It made sense that believing in something greater would make enduring that much easier and may have been key to developing deeper intelligence.

Much of morality and community comes from religious beliefs...our society may be a lot more brutal and cold. Be careful what you wish for.

 

I was not debating the relevance of the holocaust to 9/11. YOU were debating the relevance of the holocaust to 9/11. With someone else.

You can't possibly be this dense.

 

I'm losing faith in this country. We're losing everything that we stand for.