Black lives matter!

[illram]

Yeah I'm not going to play the internet argument game of my poll site vs. your poll site.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a tremendous insight to remember that much of the Middle East was a pawn piece during the Cold War. And that they remember the terrific hypocrisy America showed when creating their anti-Soviet buffer.

So, lots of the "they hate our lifestyle!" rhetoric is false, but it causes people to assume that every bombing is directed at our ability to watch porn and eat bacon.

That said, there's a fundamental evil being expressed in the bombing of mosques and marketplaces. The very dissimilar from bombing a store that services American troops (etc.).

 

[Formaldehyde]

That said, there's a fundamental evil being expressed in the bombing of mosques and marketplaces. The very dissimilar from bombing a store that services American troops (etc.).

Yes. There is something fundamentally evil about it.

That is why it is so critical to remember that Islam specifically forbids killing civilians. These individuals are no more practicing their religious beliefs than Christians who bomb and murder civilians themselves are doing.

 

[illram]

Mass media is doing the legwork for these terrorist groups insofar as they are successfully spreading the version of Islam peddled by these maniacs as the "popular" version Islam. It's not. Islam lacks a formalized hierarchical structure. There is no real clergy, no bishops. There are popular Imams who hold a lot of sway, there are famous scholars, there are some caliphs, but that's about it. It's not a religion conducive to pigeon holing as this or that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is much like Protestantism instead of Catholicism in that regard.

But even so many Catholics simply don't pay much, if any, attention to the Vatican when it comes to personal matters like birth control and abortion. They have apparently come to realize the Pope isn't actually a direct conduit to their god. That they can still be "good Catholics" while adhering to their own personal morals in many instances.

 

[Berzerker]

That is why it is so critical to remember that Islam specifically forbids killing civilians.

unless they leave the religion, or blaspheme it, or...

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Bible says that people should be stoned to death for adultery, rebelling against your parents, blasphemy, and homosexuality. Where is your criticism? Do you think those who no longer do so are bad Jews or Christians?

Such extreme punishments are now only performed in the more backward regions due to Sharia law. While you can certainly argue that it is barbaric for them to still be done anywhere, it isn't like they are all that widespread. That it still remains a major tenet of Islam.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are there stats for what percentage approve of killing apostates?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is higher than I thought it would be, at least according to this Pew poll. You have to multiply the first by the second to get the real percentage:





I could have sworn I saw it being much lower in another recent poll. There is a huge disparity between countries like Turkey and even Egypt and Jordan. Even in Iraq a strong minority are in favor of it.

 

[Borachio]

unless they leave the religion, or blaspheme it, or...

Well, there's the thing, isn't it?

It seems easy enough to me to so arrange things that if you want to kill someone you just make out that their particular brand of religion isn't the "proper" one. That they've somehow "left" "the" religion.

Similarly for blasphemy. Whatever that is.

The trick is not to be on the receiving end of this stuff.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, that is nowhere near as clear. There are only a few countries listed where a majority think sharia should apply to non-Muslims.

 

[Oruc]

The Bible says that people should be stoned to death for adultery, rebelling against your parents, blasphemy, and homosexuality. Where is your criticism? Do you think those who no longer do so are bad Jews or Christians?

Absolutely, Christianity long ago surrendered itself to weakness. Islam though still has some fight about it.

 

[Berzerker]

The Bible says that people should be stoned to death for adultery, rebelling against your parents, blasphemy, and homosexuality. Where is your criticism?

You didn't mention the Bible, you said:

That is why it is so critical to remember that Islam specifically forbids killing civilians.

What you said is wrong and telling me the Bible is guilty too dont make it right - it makes them both despicable. Had you said it is so critical to remember that the Bible specifically forbids killing civilians my reaction would have been the same. But you made that ridiculous assertion about Islam and tried to defend it with a strawman.

Do you think those who no longer do so are bad Jews or Christians?

On the contrary, they've taken a step forward away from a barbaric past

 

[Formaldehyde]

Absolutely, Christianity long ago surrendered itself to weakness. Islam though still has some fight about it.

You mean like how Christians continue to bomb abortion clinics and even murder doctors? How Christian terrorism is still a pervasive threat in the US, just as Jewish terrorism is still all too prevalent in the occupied territories?

I bet a current poll of Christians who want to bring back blesphemy laws in the US and force everybody to live under their Christian version of sharia law wouldn't be all that different from the Muslim response in Western society. Just look at how many Republican presidential candidates are running on a blatantly Christian fundamentalist/evangelist platform in a supposedly secular society while even calling for the abolition of abortions.

You didn't mention the Bible, you said:

That's right. It does specifically prohibit killing civilians in the context of war (and terrorism in particular), which was clearly what was being discussed:

These individuals are no more practicing their religious beliefs than Christians who bomb and murder civilians themselves are doing.

What is so contentious about that?

What you said is wrong and telling me the Bible is guilty too dont make it right - it makes them both despicable. Had you said it is so critical to remember that the Bible specifically forbids killing civilians my reaction would have been the same. But you made that ridiculous assertion about Islam and tried to defend it with a strawman.

So you counter my comment, which wasn't a strawman at all, with an actual one. And then allege I was "wrong"?

On the contrary, they've taken a step forward away from a barbaric past

While the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe and the US haven't "taken a step forward away from a barbaric past"?

This is starting to sound more and more like that all-too-typical Islamophobic hatred of an entire group for the actions of some who still live in the distant past. Try using the same standards to judge Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Western civilization for a welcome change:

In January 2008, a spokesman for prime minister Gordon Brown announced that the government would consider supporting the abolition of the blasphemy laws during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The government consulted with the Church of England and other churches before reaching a decision. The move followed a letter written to The Daily Telegraph at the instigation of MP Evan Harris and the National Secular Society and was signed by leading figures including Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, who urged that the laws be abandoned.

In March 2008, peers voted for the laws to be abandoned.

On May 8, 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolished the common-law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, with effect from 8 July 2008.[42][43]

The Human Rights Act 1998 applies in Scotland as well as England and Wales, and therefore poses similar challenges to the existing Scottish blasphemy laws as those described above. Additionally, some legal commentators believe that, owing to the long time since successful prosecution, blasphemy in Scotland is no longer a crime,[47] although blasphemous conduct might still be tried as a breach of the peace.[48]

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service considered a complaint under the blasphemy law regarding the BBC transmission of Jerry Springer: The Opera but did not proceed with charges.[49]

Blasphemy and blasphemous libel continue to be offences under the common law of Northern Ireland.

On 5 November 2009 in the House of Lords an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was moved, which would have abolished these offences in Northern Ireland, but following a brief debate the amendment was withdrawn.[50]

 

[Berzerker]

That's right. It does specifically prohibit killing civilians in the context of war (and terrorism in particular), which was clearly what was being discussed:

So you counter my comment, which wasn't a strawman at all, with an actual one. And then allege I was "wrong"?

You're right, I apologize for missing the context. But your response was the strawman:

The Bible says that people should be stoned to death for adultery, rebelling against your parents, blasphemy, and homosexuality. Where is your criticism?

Those are not within your context and you expected me to condemn both when the subject was Islam's treatment of civilians. Tell me Form, does Islam specifically prohibit the killing of civilians in war time if they're apostates and blasphemers? Or gays? Or...?

This is starting to sound more and more like that all-too-typical Islamophobic hatred of an entire group for the actions of some. Try using the same standards to judge Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Western civilization for a welcome change

See? Strawman - if anyone criticizes Islam's abuse of people they gotta criticize other religions in the same breath.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

See? Strawman - if anyone criticizes Islam's abuse of people they gotta criticize other religions in the same breath.

You have to remember to use exactly the opposite rule in other situations though. For example, if there's a thread about how sometimes men beat up or abuse women, you're expressly forbidden from mentioning that the opposite happens as well. It's rather annoying how there's no obvious consistency really.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're right, I apologize for missing the context. But your response was the strawman:

I asked for a similar criticism and you provided one. Bravo. But it was a question, not a statement. Now wasn't it?

Those are not within your context and you expected me to condemn both when the subject was Islam's treatment of civilians. Tell me Form, does Islam specifically prohibit the killing of civilians in war time if they're apostates and blasphemers? Or gays? Or...?

Again, there is no such thing as "Islam's treatment of civilians". It obviously depends on the particular sect, the culture, and the location of the group. You are still painting with far too broad of a brush trying to condemn all of Islam.

See? Strawman - if anyone criticizes Islam's abuse of people they gotta criticize other religions in the same breath.

While you continue to try to ignore the obvious. You are clearly using a double standard here. Muslims aren't all the same any more than any other religious group is. To suggest they should be is disingenuous at best. This is particularly true since you apparently don't try openly to condemn all Jews and Christians as you do Muslims whenever the topic seems to comes up.

You have to remember to use exactly the opposite rule in other situations though. For example, if there's a thread about how sometimes men beat up or abuse women, you're expressly forbidden from mentioning that the opposite happens as well. It's rather annoying how there's no obvious consistency really.

Right. Like women beating up men is a similarly serious issue that threatens the welfare and safety of millions of men every day.

 

[Berzerker]

Again, there is no such thing as "Islam's treatment of civilians".

You said Islam specifically prohibits killing civilians, but now there's no such thing as Islam's treatment of civilians?

Muslims aren't all the same any more than any other religious group is. To suggest they should be is disingenuous at best. This is particularly true since you apparently don't try openly to condemn all Jews and Christians as you do Muslims whenever the topic seems to comes up.

We were discussing the tenets of Islam, not the varied beliefs of "all Muslims". Thats another strawman Form, obviously some Muslims believe apostates should be executed and some dont. What does Islam say about it?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And yet somehow...

"Right. Like Christians or Jews committing brutal terrorist attacks is a similarly serious issue that threatens the welfare and safety of [some number of] Muslims every day.

"

... would not be considered an appropriate response to your argument.

Thanks for fleshing out my example for Berserker though. Very helpful.

 

[El_Machinae]

For example, if there's a thread about how sometimes men beat up or abuse women, you're expressly forbidden from mentioning that the opposite happens as well.

Not really, it just can't look like an intentional red herring, in order to downplay or divert.