Or flags. No need for a hypothetical there; Americans freak out all the time when somebody somewhere burns a flag.
You’re ignoring the explicit claim Magellan has made that the ones who become violent because of blasphemy are the real Muslims, and the ones who don’t “aren’t very good Muslims.”
Chessic has also explicitly said that.
He has yet to explain his implication that most Americans aren’t good Christians.
I don’t see why one should have to believe/prove that some thresshold number of Muslims are violent, or worry about what some guy on the Internet claims about Islam in general, in order to be upset that a Muslim physically attacked a person for making fun of Islam and got away with it.
Well… Lots of the more ardent Christians around here do think most Americans aren’t good Christians so I’m not sure they’d take this as a particularly telling point.
This is a technique you use repeatedly, and it’s neither clever nor helpful. You clearly think that Chessic’s argument relies on principles that would lead to other conclusions which he may not be happy with, if he thought it through (ftr, in this case, I agree with you). However, claiming that he’s said something he hasn’t said is dangerously close to a lie about him. It’s not a clever way of getting him to see the error of his ways; on the contrary, he’s far likelier to say, “What the hell’s wrong with you?” and ignore you from then on.
If you want to lay out the flaws in his reasoning–by pointing out, for example, the Biblical passages that have been relied on in the past to justify witch hunts and expulsions of Jews from Christian lands–have at it. But please knock it off with this approach.
I never argued that somebody deserved a beating. That’s disgusting. Please demonstrate where I or anybody else supported the notion that somebody deserved a beating.
All of your posts have the exact same pattern. They start with a preamble that vaguely points toward tolerance or understanding how all your previous posts were fine exhibits of prejudice and then you jump right into the Muslim bashing. Now you got your specific instances, but it doesn’t wipe away the real underlying sentiment, that its “Yet another incident that points to the ill fit between Islam and the civilized world”.
When did hitting somebody that offended you make you a member of the “uncivilized”? They’re people who violated an important principle of our culture and are brought into court to be punished. Especially after reading the judge’s response to the whole thing, it sounds like justice as justice should be performed in our culture. You seem to forget that both men sought out police help. That sure does sound like uncivilized savages to me!
It’s not enough though is it? You need the extra little bit, the salting of the story with anti-Muslim hysteria to really make it what you want it to be.
What does the quote “Yet another incident that points to the ill fit between Islam and the civilized world” mean to you? Is it like hating the sin but not the sinner?
There was, in fact, a claim made about all Muslims and it was responded to.
And charges of harassment were brought against the man that did not understand this about our society. Is there something else you need to see happen?
"It’s as if " so, there’s really no difference between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as far as them being bloodthirsty religions . . . but Islam is still different in how bloodthirsty it compared to Judaism, and Christianity.
It’s not just a difference in how those bloodthirsty religions are currently practiced by a minority of their believers, got it.
And we’re off to the races . . . again, 10 pages of arguing about whether those things are a part of Islamic culture or they’re part of cultures that happen to also be Islamic.
Totally unlike Judaism and Christianity.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Oh, yeah, there is that. Ya know, both religions being based on a god who wasn’t particularly fond of blasphemy. So, yeah, totally different.
CMC fnord!
As Ibn probably knows, I don’t think very much of his posts here. But in this particular case, I think you may have missed something? Chessic said, earlier:
Doesn’t Ibn’s comment in response to me seem to constitute a fair paraphrase of what Chessic said? (BTW it appears I had Magellan mixed up with Chessic in my own post…
Ah–it occurs to me you’re referring to Ibn’s use of the phrase “his implication” in place of the more accurate rendering “the implication that follows from what he said.” Was that what you meant? (“His implication” seems to indicate that he actually intended the inference to be made, but of course, he didn’t. Is that what you meant?)
not really. People would object of course but making fun of Jesus is pretty much a national sport in this country. Strong objections come about when it’s a government funded art project but even then nobody is asking for a head on a platter.
Define “freak out”. If you don’t mean “they go around setting fire to cars and shops and murdering people” then quit trying to draw equivalence between the two.
I didn’t say that he’d said something he hadn’t said.
I said the implication of his post was that most Americans aren’t good Christians.
Chessic claimed:
The implication of this statement is that most American Christians or in fact most Christians in “civilized countries” aren’t particularly good at being Christians.
I’m a Muslim and he’s made some fairly bigoted comments about Muslims so I seriously doubt he’d really care what I have to say. If people who’ve been bigoted ever “see the error of [their] ways” it’s not because of seeing the arguments put forward by someone from a group they hate.
I’m merely pointing out the logical consequences of his argument. He can either agree with that(which he may very well since there are plenty of Islamophobes who would) disagree, or simply ignore me.
For your viewing pleasure: emphasis mine)
Please pay attention to which of your opponents you are insulting. While you will get away with shortening Inbred Mm Domesticus to “Inbred,” using that term to address Ibn Warraq is against the rules.
[ /Moderating ]
Anyway, the reaction in Afghanistan isn’t to the burning of Korans. It’s a reaction to years of violent occupation, murder of children and other innocent civilians, sometimes desecration of the corpses of these victims, and an apparent disregard for any distinction between “terrorist” and “afghan citizen”. PLUS they burned some Korans.
Let’s have the analogous events happen in the States and see how US citizens tend to react.
This.
So which part of of seeking out the police, showing up to court proceedings, explaining his actions, and accepting the verdict of the judge clearly shows that this man is uncivilized?
Or are you just loving the sinner but hating the sin?
Wow, I’ve seen a lot of moderator warnings on not insulting people but this is the first making it clear that there is means for it to be perfectly okay to be insulting toward a poster. I look forward to more than just FinnAgain and magellan01 being insulting. Thanks!
What percentage of assaults in the United States do not involve Muslims?
What percentage of assaults in the United States that originate in religious disputes do not involve Muslims?