Evangelicals & ISIS Feel Fine About the End of The World

My mom never accepted that excuse and I still got my butt kicked when dad got home.

 

Defense of what? Pointing out consistencies or inconsistencies is not a defense, it is merely a statement of fact.

People want to say Islam = evil or violence. That's the argument being put forward. So the next logical question is if that is true, then it would mean that in history Islam is the only religion in which people have acted violently in the name of. That simply isn't true.

How that is excusing terrorist acts is just non-sensical. Terrorist acts are not defensible. The left isn't defending these attacks, they are merely saying don't blame 1.6 billion Muslims for them.

 

But you aren't saying that. YOU are saying "Islam is just as peaceful(or violent) as any other religion" which is an objectively false statement.

And a large part of the left is also mimicking your statements in a naive manner.

Your initial statement "Don't blame 1.6 billion Muslims" is something I agree with and ATW and pretty much everyone you are arguing against agrees with. So to say that "All we are trying to say is don't blame all Muslims" when you clearly are stating far more than that is a flat out lie.

 

You can't be serious? Why is anyone trying to equate radical militant Islam with all of Islam?

 

would these statements be radical to most believers of Islam?

Women are less than men
Gays deserve to die
Apostasy is a capital offense
insulting the prophet Mohamed is a capital offense
theft is worthy of losing your hand
women should be covered head to toe because men can't control themselves

they are radical to me

 

In the United States, yes, those would be radical notions for Muslims that live here.

For Muslims in many parts of Europe and most of the Middle East, no.

 

Maybe a bit of a tangent, but I'd like to understand how you can say it is "objectively" false. I am familiar with many arguments as to why the statement is false, and they can be characterized as reasonable or rational, but not "objective."

I also can't quite understand how you can reconcile the two ideas that "Islam is, objectively-speaking, a more violent religion" and "we shouldn't blame the Muslims." If Muslims adhere to an objectively more violent religion, then why shouldn't we blame them?

 

I explained this many times. As an ex-Muslim I can personally attest to this. Most people who are Muslims were BORN INTO IT. That means there are going to be be some inherent tendencies. Since most were born into it, most just practice it 'culturaly' as in they practice all the ritualistic aspects of the religion(salat, jummah, hajj, zakat etc) but when making moral decisions they just use common sense and their natural empathy. They just assume their natural empathy and common sense coincides with Islamic doctrine. That's pretty much the vast majority of Muslims in the States.

 

Very well said! I am not one to pull out the Christian flag and cry "Go Christians", however I certainly prefer to stick to the facts. When Islam chooses to start treating every human fairly, i'll change my views .... and I'll certainly be fair, Christians (American) are finally starting to come around to doing the same.

 

When you say Islam = violence then you are to some degree condemning all muslims and opening the door to discrimination. That is what I am against... Nothing more.

 

Well, that explains question 2, though I didn't see an answer to question 1, where I'm highly skeptical. Even so, on question 2 (and forgive me if you've posted on it before), would you say the cultural Muslims are not 'real' Muslims (the way I would say cultural Christians are not real Christians, i.e. not bound for heaven given my interpretation of the Bible when I suspend my disbelief)? And, if they are 'real' Muslims regardless, do you judge the objective violence of the religion by the real practice of the 1.6b Muslims, or by your interpretation of the text of the Quran, or the common teachings from the mosques, or something else? I guess I'm still trying to drive back to what is 'objective.'