No, just the interpretation of the writings. If both said kill unbelievers while one is interpreted to be just stories in the past and the other the actual spoken word of god that is as current today as when it was spoken, then it is likely that the latter will be used as a justification more so than the latter.
Only a couple but it seems like a handful of them were set on fire or had someone drive their car into through them.
What apartheid?
[/QUOTE]
I think he’s talking about Palestine.
Its a crime what is going on over there.
I stand corrected. I only read the examples I didn’t realize they were only select examples.
No, what are you trying to get at?
See post #170
Are you under the impression that there aren’t presently Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant spoken word of god?
It’s a question with an unsupported premise. I could just as easily as why Catholicism produced so many terrorsist in ireland, or why Serbian Orthodox Church produced so many mass murderes and rapists.
Prison population might mean a lot of things, but if you told me that most crimes were committed by blacks, I would say that it probably means that the black community has a problem with crime. That no matter how badly we can feel about the raw deal they have gotten in this country we cannot excuse that we crime or pussyfoot around the fact that the crime exists in an effort to spare the feelings of the majority of blacks who are not criminals. We have to say: WTF is causing all this crime in the black community. What we shouldn’t do is pretend that there isn’t a crime problem in the black community and say “well white people commit crime too” Now I think a large part of the prison population in the black community (to the extent that it is not explained by socioeconmic forces) boil down to federal drug sentencing guidelines and rap music but that’s just me.
And most Christian terrorsist quote from the Bible.
I disagree. I think we’re just very selective about what we want to label as “terrorism.”
No you couldn’t. We have not done that, and in fact, trying to STOP them from gathering is what’s going to cause problems (aside from just being ethcally wrong).
The Qur’an doesn’t say to kill unbelievers. That is a myth.
That would not be a supportable conclusion.
Hey its not offensive to me but I can certainly see how it would be offensive to others. If your brother or daughter or lover was killed on 9/11 by people who were citing the Quran as the authority under which they committed that crime, you don’t think there is anything offensive about building a mosque right there?
OK, let me try this analogy (although I’m sure there will be someone who will point out why it is totally inapposite without even trying to get the point I am trying to make):
In 1950, 9 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the some japanese folks in Hawaii decide to build a Shinto temple and Japanese cultural center across the street from Pearl Harbor, don’t you think it would be understandable that some people would get upset?
Some people seem to bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and understand why terrorists and could give fuck all about the sensitivities of the folks who lost loved ones on 9/11.
By terrorism? I’m pretty sure the answer is islamic terrorists.
If you want to include civilian casualties in Iraq and stuff like that I guess I’d have to say Islamic terrorists/insurgents but that’s kind fo besides the point.
No. There’s nothing remotely offensive about it. If you had a loved one killed by an abortion bomber, would you be offended if someone built a church nearby?
No I don’t think it would be understandable at all. The Shinto religion had nothing to do with pearl harbor. Do you think it would be offensive to build a Christian church in Tokyo or Hiroshima?
“Terrorism” is in the eye of the beholder. Killing civilians is, by definition, terrorim as far as I’m concerned.
You would be quite wrong on that. American bombing killed hundreds of thousands.
I doubt if you will get anywhere on that tack.
Damuri Ajashi is quite obviously one of those people who has a mindset that whatever one prefered ‘tribe’ does is naturally right and can never be likened to what another ‘tribe’ does which must be naturally wrong.
If you ask which grouping has flown more things into more other countries and killed more people than anyone else during the last 50 years the answer, by a vast margin, is the US.
And yet you have people obsessing about one act that was performed by some people who are not even representative of the group to which they are being primarily assigned.
I don’t think its a religion problem and unlike you, I don’t think Muslims deserve special scrutiny but why is there so much hesitancy to admit that islam seems to breeding the vast majority of today’s terrorists.
I think there is hesitancy among some muslims to entirely condemn terrorism AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT in light of what is going on in Palestine.
That last point is busllshit. The vast majority of mainstream mosques and Muslim leaders constantly and consistently condemn terrorism. There is no “hesitancy.” That’s completely false.
I don’t think there’s any such hesitancy. There is a question about whether we can, or should, do anything about it.
In other words, literalist Christian churches don’t get singled out for special attention because they breed naughty people. Why should Islam?