This would all be relevant if anyone was defending the murder of the nun or the attack on the churches, or any of the other acts of violence. Nobody here has claimed that the violence should be protected as peaceful protests. But luckily there are some of us that can tell the difference and don't lump protestors in with those that are murdering and causing the violence. I am sorry if there is a problem for you or anyone else making that distinction. You are correct about the small percentage of Muslims causing the problem.
Luckily there are some who can see the connection between those two and don't try to foolishly pretend that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Imagine if the pope had really gone after Islam by saying something crazy like Jesus was God, Muhammed was not really a prophet of God, and that alchohol was not only allowed, but a significant part of one of our most important rituals.
You have yet to show any real connection. They are both upset by the same issue. They are the same religion. Just like with those opposed to abortion. There is a difference between those who peacefully and lawfully demonstrate against it, and those that blow up clinics. To say the two groups are connected or that protesting abortion leads to blowing up clinics is stereotyping and an over generalization. It is also inaccurate, and unjust to those that protest without violence.
Yeah it is totally silly. The Pope didn't say anything against any religion and yet look at the outrage. There has to be someway to get better communication before things spiral out of control.
Their hate and anger is stirred by the same hate preachers. Their spirit of intolerance is the same. Basically, everything is the same except for how far they go to express their spirit of intolerance. You are correct when you say that some of them violate laws while others don't. But they are both wrong. The protesters not for the fact that they protest something, but because their protest and outrage is not only unjustified, but also demonstrates a mindset of intolerance. Why wave fists and scream in anger at someone who encouraged a dialogue of religions? You keep trying to distort the fact that everything is the same except the - important - distinction that some use violence while others don't. That doesn't change my opinion that it is a fact that they are both equally wrong regarding their motivation. The protesters are "peaceful" only insofar as there might be an absence of violence. But the underlying aggression is not peaceful, because it is a display of wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
can't it be said that all protestors generally have some sort of hate and intolerance to the issue they are protesting aginst? whether it be pro/anti war or pro life or pro choice or whatever?
I was talking about the people who protest with a menacing demeanor because of the speech of the pope...not about all protesters in general.
thats what I'm saying.. the picture you showed and ridiculed didn't really show any manacing behavior.. they had beards, looked unkempt, and one was talking on his cellphone.. what's meacing behavior in there? then you say that they have hate and intolerance which is no different from other protestors..
ROBBIE, I am pointing out that if the US is to declare itself a "Christian" nation then why is it a fact that we go out of our way to only help countries that they can get something out of...natural resources...leaders that hurt their people but are on our side...etc.....ITS NOT CHRISTIAN! (OTHER RELIGIONS SEE THIS) When we preach democracy and our own institution puts a person in the oval office who did not win the popular election..DOES DEMOCRACY WORK? (the rest of the world sees this!) When we are a country that stresses a seperation between church and state and Christian sensibilities affect our laws (gay marriage, stem cell, opposion to abortion) then doesn't seem that there is a greater CHRISTIAN agenda?...Is that tolerant to non-christians in America? Isn't it hypocritical for a nation based on freedom of religion to create domestic policies that support Christian ethics and impose them on non-believers? (The rest of the world sees this.) Why can't Christians make it important to end homelessness and poverty and discrimination when morality is their platform everyday? (The rest of the world sees this.) The fact is American Christians are uninformed about Islam as Islam is as uninformed about Christians in America. THERE IS MUCH MORE COMPASSION TO GIVE AND SHOW IN LIFE THAT SURPASSES WHAT ANY RELIGION CAN TEACH. PEOPLE HAVE TO SEEK OUT SOCIAL COMPRIMISES instead of expecting others to adapt to them....the fact is only acts of compassion are going to bridge the gap between all of these religions. IMO ironically American Christians are slow to sacrifice and Islam is slow to tolerate...so both religions could teach the other a thing or two. When it comes to Americans being lazy...I refer to the fact that Americans do not try hard to educate themselves about others that share the world with them but they educate themselves well over trivial things and knowledge that allow them to further themselves economically. Therefore until it personally affects them they don't care and IMO this war on terror came to late and is too broad because of our neglect. POINT BEING IF YOU CLAIM THAT YOU ARE A CARING MORAL PERSON BACK IT UP WITH ACTIONS...and when your actions do not represent what you claim to be....Do not surprised when people are suspicious of your intentions and are not afraid to point out your hypocrisy. HERE SOMETHING FOR YOU GUYS Israel has been supplying their forces with a device that scrambles IED's, America has decided intead of buying these products now they will wait until 2010 when a cheaper version arrives. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN with disgust and also LOBBY for more security in the ports of this country if you want to be safe. American companies have been envioronmentally unsound because of the costs and now we are allowing them to put our lives at risk once gain because they do not want to foot the bill that would thwart terrorism hiding behind the concept of commerce. THIS IS A NEW WORLD AMERICA AND MONEY IS NOT AS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU ARE NOT SAFE......
Because they are both wrong doesn't even tie them together, because while they are both wrong, one's actions are allowed and the other's isn't. If a skating fan hoped a judge would have given Nancy Kerrigan low scores because he wanted Tanya Harding to be on the team, he would have been wrong to hope for less than fair scores. But that person isn't connected to Tanya Harding who had people go and take a pipe her competitor's leg to get her off the team. Both want the same things to a degree, and both were wrong. But the extent to which they act on it makes all the difference. The two aren't connected.
You have a point, but I still think your focus is irresponsible. Fine, go ahead and protest - you have the right to advocate your ignorant and ass-backwards views. But don't expect me to sympathize, or understand, or even acknowledge your pitiful attempt at civilization. As far as I'm concerned your "rights" are a moot point - since you sided with those who are diametrically opposed to said rights.
I agree what they are protesting is ridiculous, and I don't think anyone should take their point, and pretend like it is anything other than ridiculous. On that much SJC, you, and I are all in agreement. But because someone is wrong, it doesn't connect them with murdering criminals. Lord knows I've been wrong so many times, that if each of those connected me with some sort of crime I would be facing multiple life sentences in jail now.
Well they are stupid, because of how stupid I am, but they do fit exactly. Your argument was that they are connected because they are both wrong and about the same thing. I gave you a scenario where two parties could both be wrong, but act on it in two very different ways and so they aren't connected. I was arguing that your premise and logic behind your supposed connection is flawed. I know it probably doesn't match the scholarly thesii(is that right? Plural of Thesis) that you normally read, by all the greatest intellectuals of the day, but if you can look at it from a plain simpleton's point of view you will see that it does actually make sense.
Plural is theses. And your attempt at making sense gets an F. You state my argument incorrectly by saying "Your argument was that they are connected because they are both wrong and about the same thing.", then you try to present an analogy which is flawed. If you want to talk about analogies, look at this one, which is closer to the situation at hand: There are some right-wing neonazis. 1) Some are the "intellectual leaders". They stir the hate against people of other races. These can be compared to the Mullahs and propagandists among the extremist Muslims, those people who compare the pope to Hitler and Mussolini. 2) Then there are the violent ones who kill people of other races, burn houses of foreigners and who beat up people just because they have a different skin color. These can be compared to the islamists who killed a nun and who burned churches. 3) Finally, there are those who do not become violent themselves, but who share the same racist ideology and march in demonstrations which are meant to incite hate against people of other races, and who possibly burn dolls of black people. These people are comparable to islamists who march and spew hate against the pope because of a harmless speech and who burn effigies. By your logic, the people from this group are "peaceful" and "we need more of that" . Obviously, all three groups among the neonazi types I just described are connected. They share the same racist ideology. The people from group 1) stir the hate in the people from group 2) and 3). One important distinction is that the people in group 3) do not themselves become violent. But they share the same intolerant ideology, and that is what connects them with group 1) and 2). It's exactly the same with people who march and threaten the pope and everyone who does not share their beliefs in a menacing fashion. The neonazis, even those who are not yet violent themselves, march to threaten others based on their belief in racial superiority, the islamists, even those who are not yet violent themselves, march to threaten others based on their belief in the superiority of their religion. To say that just because they do not kill anyone by their own hands, they are "peaceful" and we "need more of that" is ridiculous.
