Well, at least we’ve established that mankind is a violent, hateful bunch of creatures for all sorts of bad reasons, and some individual members of the human race get more excited about that than others.
Well, that has been my point. I really am happy to see that there is agreement on that. Progress.
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
Is it because that far more acts of violence, today, though not historically are committed by Islam?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. There really is no point in debating which religion was more violent in the past, since we aren’t living in the past. And it looks like we have more agreement that Islam—today—os the most violent religion.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
“Worse” in what reference frame, and on what timescale?
I would agree that, for example, nowadays in US politics conservatives on average and overall are more irrational and destructive in their politics than liberals are. Likewise, I agree that nowadays there is more and worse religiously-motivated violence worldwide associated with Islam than with any other major religion.
[/QUOTE]
More agreement on Islam being the most violent religion in today’s world. Excellent. This is a good start to the day.
What a crock of shit! And this is just the kind of nonsense that I was alluding to earlier that gives radical Islam quarter. You craft a string of bullshit like this in order to create a scenario to not condemn the acts of radical Islam or shine a light on Islam for being the most violent, barbaric religion on the face of today’s world.I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Luci, you should go back to spitting out you sophmoric fail-to-be-funny one-liners.
Oddly, you seem to have missed that the OP was crafted talking about a story in which the victim was a fourteen-year-old Muslim girl. And there have been plenty of posts and cites by us “brethren” talking about the Muslim victims of Islam.
Now if we can get agreement on the equally obvious fact that the current situation doesn’t automatically imply that Islam has always had the most religious violence, or that Islam is somehow intrinsically and essentially more violent than other faiths, then the day will be even better.
And by condemning and attacking Islam as a whole, setting up an us (Western, white) agaisnt them (Eastern, brown) scenario, you alienate the people who have (a) the best chance of controlling ‘radical Islam’; and (b) the greatest interest in controlling ‘radical Islam.’ You make the claims of the extremists that America is trying to eliminate Islam credible to the recruiting targets. You make it harder for the Bangladeshi government to act against crimes such as these.
Through the posturing of people like you, which serves no purpose other than making you feel better, you strengthen the bad guys. You put lives in danger in a very real way. And you have the chutzpah to say it is other people who are giving succor to ‘radical Islam.’
You’ve already said you think of posting an OP as being for the benefit the oppressed. That’s laughable. Why don’t you actually do something useful. Get involved in groups to show that America isn’t seeking a new crusade. However, when people like you do support a new crusade, that’s going to suffer some credibility problems, isn’t it?
Agreed.
Um, no. Tell that to the Bosnians.
By your standards then we should agree that Anglicans are more violent and radical than Muslims or Catholics because proportionately, they commit far more violence and encourage more violence as anyone familiar with Peter Akinola knows.
No reason to be bitterly jealous, Mags, lots of folks hereabouts are laughing at you.
Um, no.
[/QUOTE]
But you said:
(bolding mine)
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
Is it because that far more acts of violence, today, though not historically are committed by Islam?
[/QUOTE]
You really need to make up your mind on what you believe.
Whew! That’s better. Your little nuggets of stupid are easier to take than the big steam piles.
I do agree. It does not automatically imply those other things. They may or may not be true. I don’t really know. The only other one that is even of interest is the degree to which it is intrinsically barbaric. Not murderous, but barbaric. What I mean is that while I absolutely agree that you can strip away the terrorism and still have Islam, to what degree can you strip away the subjugation of women, their response to homosexuality, etc., and still have Islam. I am optimistic in these regards, but it necessitates that Muslims purge their religion of such behavior. And I’m not to optimistic about that happening.
Well, there are certainly lots of radical extremist Islamist fanatics in various sexist and homophobic Islamic societies who would argue vehemently that you can’t.
On the other hand, majorities of both male and female Muslims surveyed in many Muslim countries around the globe support equal legal rights for men and women. And millions of Muslims in, say, Turkey and India seem to be perfectly fine with having full legal equality between men and women.
Likewise, although homosexuality is condemned by most modern Muslims worldwide (as indeed it is by most modern Christians as well), there are plenty of individual Muslims who support gay rights, including US Muslim politicians such as Rep. Saqib Ali of Maryland and Ako Abdul-Samad of Iowa. And of course, historically there have been many Muslim cultures in which homosexuality was not only tolerated but normal.
So personally, I’m not inclined to let the radical extremist Islamist fanatics assume the role of de facto spokesmen for “Islam” per se when it comes to “Islam’s” attitudes towards women, homosexuality, etc. I prefer to support and encourage the vision of Islam espoused by Muslims whose views on human rights are more aligned with my own. And in fact, though they don’t show up in the news as much as the radical extremist Islamist fanatics do, there are actually a hell of a lot of them.
I said that more acts of violence are associated with Islam today, meaning now, 2011, not over the past twenty years.
If you go by the past twenty years, thanks to the Serb atrocities, Christians racked up a bigger body count due to violence.
Moreover, as I already mentioned, when you take a look at the way so many Christians have interfered with trying to prevent the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, the body count rises ridiculously higher.
Sanity never makes the front pages. Radical Islam does all to often. Also, it’s one thing to not approve of or condemn homosexuality. It’s quite another to say, if he’s gay, let’s kill him.
Do you really think that the intent of the interference you refer to was to kill people? Of course, it wasn’t. And that is crucial. Also, there is a string of logic that argues that IF you could instill a great enough degree for abstinence, that more lives would be saved than through condom use. again, that goes to the “why” they did what they did. I’d love to hear you present a rationale for the animals in Iraq driving a truckload of explosives into a grammar school killing and maiming I don’t remember how many children.
Oh, and do you really wish to restrict this comparison to 2011 only? How about 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, etc?
Like I said, if we go back over the course of the past twenty years, even if we ignore those killed by coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, aggressive Christians have slaughtered far more Muslims than aggressive Muslims have killed Christians as the victims of the Serbs can testify.
Yeah, it brings to mind the wonderful days when Rush Limbaugh discovered womens’ rights—when he could use the concept to bash liberals for defending Bill Clinton. I’m not impressed at all when conservatives suddenly discover womens’ rights and concerns----they’re only angered when the offender is somebody they hate. Let the attacker be their bro, however, and suddenly she’s nothing but a bitch, a slut, whatever.
I’ve seen too many reichwingers go, “But what about the women of Afghanistan! We have to free them!” only when it justified some action they approved of. When there wasn’t a war at stake for them to vicariously experience, they could give less of a shit.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit about the “intent” because anyone with a working brain knows both that abstinence is a fantasy and that condoms save lives. End of.
Animals indeed. But where is your outrage when invading armies kill innocents by the hundreds of thousands?
While I advocate condom use for the prevention of AIDS in Africa, I think an abstinence message helps. But the fact that you do think “intent” matters does not surprise me. You want to give the animals a degree of cover.
War sucks. Happy? But the people who wage it for noble purposes are honorable. Unlike the animal radical Islamists. But, hey, to each their own…