Of course I’m not claiming that vandalism and threats are equivalent to terrorist violence, and I made that distinction very clear. (Although the Christian death threats, which you carefully ignored in your replies, are arguably closer to terrorist violence than to defunding and vandalism.)
The point is, as Miller noted, that you were wrong in claiming that “blasphemous” art doesn’t provoke outrage in Christians as well as in Muslims. The difference in the savagery of the outcomes isn’t because Christianity is intrinsically more gentle toward blasphemy, but rather because most Christians nowadays live in societies with secular law systems that frown on treating blasphemy as criminal. (In the days before those secular law systems, of course, Christian-majority societies executed blasphemers just as non-secular Muslim-majority societies do now.)
Really? Are you as stupid as you seem to be trying to appear?
There was no insult intended with the use of elephant dung, that is actually a medium employed in images created in Zimbabwe, (the artist was inspired to use it after visiting that country). Despite Giuliani’s lies that it was thrown at or smeared on the painting, the dung was used, (as it was used in a number of Ofili’s works form the period), as one of the materials carefully applied to the piece.
In other words, an artist created a work with no insulting intent and you wish to join the masses of ignorant people who were upset over part of the media used without bothering to discover the actual background of the work–and twenty years later, you are clinging to that ignorance. I am sure that Trump is delighted to have you as a follower.
Tom later ETA: I apologize, I thought this was posted in The BBQ Pit.
Some other examples of Christians committing or threatening violence over art they considered blasphemous, even in societies with secular legal systems:
I think he means that American Muslims are 0.2% of the worldwide Muslim population of 1.5 billion, not of the overall American population (which would be around 1%).
And I cited shooting rates per capita earlier in the thread, and Muslim Americans shoot a lot fewer people on a per capita basis than non Muslim Americans.
What lies? Statistically, on a per capita basis, fewer people are shot by Muslims than by non-Muslims. The statistics I cited take into account mass shootings.
Right, well on that note I think it’s time I bow out of this thread. Our perspectives are clearly far too different for us to reach any sort of consensus. I mean no disrespect, but I honestly find your position to be completely incomprehensible. It might make good grist for another thread at a later date, but it would likely only derail this thread even further.
I don’t have a lot to add other than the fact that until recently homosexuals have been hiding in the shadows and have been reluctant to come out (even in the States). What makes you think that the religious tolerance that you speak of is a true statement, when there is a high high probability that it wasn’t an issue because people didn’t make it one? The scrutiny that you now see is (IMO) due to the high profile that gay rights are now getting in the states. It’s just one more reason for them to bash on the west.
Some Muslims ignore Mohammad’s violence side. For the millions of Muslims who don’t ignore this it creates a problem and that problem is manifested in the high number of Islamic terrorist groups.
3.3 million divided by 1.6 billion is .0001875. Rounded up that’s .2 percent. .2 percent of all Muslims live in the United States.
If that were true there would be far fewer terrorist attacks in the US by Muslims because of the number difference. Which is not the case.
Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous to assume that because a higher percentage of US Muslims than of US Christians commit specifically terror crimes, there must be a higher percentage of US Muslims than of US Christians committing violent crimes overall. There’s absolutely no reason that those two types of crime trends should be correlated.
But we’ve already seen abundant evidence that logical reasoning is not Magiver’s strong point. Just correct him and move on, as usual.
It’s not ridiculous at all to correlate violent behavior with violent beliefs. I’ve cited hundreds of millions of Muslims who hold those beliefs.
What you’ve seen is an abundance of evidence of religiously driven violence that corresponds with a very large number of followers who believe death is appropriate for blasphemy and apostasy.
We’re starting to see the overseas violence coming into the US via the refugee program. That was the sanitized news version of what just happened.
Sure, and in the past, the situation was reversed at times. Why, at certain times in the past, where Christians so much less tolerant and more violent to Jews and homosexuals than Muslims?
Because the Ottoman empire was waning and they were desperate to control more people and not piss off encroaching European powers so they lightened up on the persecution of non-muslims. It’s not like they were all warm and loving. This year’s gay pride parade in Turkey? The police teargassed the participants.
It’s very convenient that circumstances now just so happen to perfectly reflect the true nature of Islam, while circumstances in the past can always be ignored or dismissed.
I don’t see it that way. I look at the sweep of all of history, and Islam looks just like any other religion.