With so much at stake & everything going on in the world...
I'm no better than ignorant muslims? Well I assure you that I never blew myself up with other people, I never stoned a woman for being raped, I never walked around calling for the killing of jews because they are jews, I never flew a plane into a building filled with people, I never slaughtered Christians because a priest burned a book.
Did you know also that not every nazi killed jews. Hey but the media only shows the concentration camps and ditches filled with corpses right? Yet we had to stop nazism, because even though not every nazi killed jews they were part of a community where killing jews was the norm. Same thing with islam; we have to stop it because even though, as you say, "not every single muslim is a flag burning, shoe throwing, machete yielding murderer" they are part of a religion where flag burning, shoe throwing, and murder are encouraged. Encouraged against us, and ignoring the problem wont make it go away.
Terrorists are not true Muslims. Also, there are plenty of Christian terrorist groups, perhaps most notably the National Liberation Front of Tripura. It cannot be said that Christian terrorists truly represent Christianity, and neither can it be said that Islamic terrorists truly represent Islam.
I'm pretty sure the terrorists disagree. Note however that such a group as the NLFT is more of a political terrorist group than a religious. Of course there is a big influence of Christianity in it, but compare it to a group like al qaeda, with barely any political purpose. Their goal is to kill us for not being muslims, not declaring the independence of a territory as the NLFT.
And even if you take into account the terrorists doing it strictly for religious motives, like w:Joseph Kony, the numbers are just incomparable. How many die every month because of Christian terrorists? perhaps a hundred at the very worst. Islam on the other hand (despite being a less numerous religion):
Monthly Jihad Report March, 2011 Jihad Attacks: 146 Countries: 15 Religions: 5 Dead Bodies: 766 Critically Injured: 1190 (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
The muslim population in my country is 0.00014% of the total. Yet a few weeks ago a muslim guy entered a school and killed 12 children. Christians are at 89.2%, but children being shot in the name of Jesus are unheard of here.
So, lemme get your stats straight. Five deaths from Islamic extremists in March, versus "perhaps a hundred" from Christian extremists. Hmmm.
NLFT may brand itself as declaring independence as a main cause, but believe me, they want to do it to establish a "Kingdom of Jesus" - hardly non-religious.
Of course you don't see Christian attacks in majority Christian countries, because they are not a minority there and only minorities are persecuted.
BRS, you just used the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Example: "No true Scotsman would *ever* do <insert action here>, therefore anyone who does that isn't a Scotsman". Details here: w:No true scotsman.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Both "Scottish" and "Muslim" are extremely broad words. Attempting to artificially narrow those words based on personal opinion is what causes this logical fallacy. I might say, "no true Scotsman would eat icecream!", but icecream is in no way related to being Scottish. Saying "No true Muslim is a terrorist" is just as stupid. It is entirely possible to be both a "true" Muslim and be a terrorist. To be Muslim merely means that you believe in Allah and accept the words of the Prophet Mohammed and the Koran as truth (and 2 other holy books too, usually). That's it. You can do both of those things and *still* be a suicide bomber. Just like you can have 3000 years of Celtic ancestry in Scotland and still like icecream (or **** sheep, or be a Jew, or believe in unity with England, or hate alcohol, or whatever else is seen as not "Scottish" enough:P).
No, I disagree. I view religions ('christianity', 'Islam') as broad concepts covering a range of beliefs. For example, amongst Christians it is now quite popular as I understand to reject all mainstream interpretations of any given concept and form an individual view - but people who do thus are still as Christian as someone who, say, takes the Bible literally, or a stereotypical Catholic or Protestant, etc.
I feel when faiths are twisted into extremist things they are so far removed from the original as to be something new entirely. Thus, I don't actually categorise 'Islamic terrorism' as anything to do with Islam proper but rather as an entire faith all on its own, based on Islam.
In this light, I feel my logic holds regardless of wether you agree with it.
The problem with that logic is that Islam wasn't written to be a pacifist or anti-terrorist organization. *If* Islam had been conceived of as being a religion that specifically excluded those who would engage in military action in its name, then you would be correct that it was being "twisted" by terrorists in order to justify their position. But the Quran specifically calls on Muslims to spread Islam via force (in multiple locations throughout the book), including calling for unbelievers to be forcibly converted or, if they resist, killed. Here's part of one of the passages in question (it's a long and overly windy book, like all religious texts):
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
It also specifically mentions things like... (paraphrased for brevity) "Any Muslim who leaves Islam *must* be executed. Any Muslim who does not execute them is as guilty as they are." It's an intrinsically violent religion, even when you ignore the made up (recently added) bits from Sharia Law. If you read those things in your holy book (and you actually believed in the whole God thing, heh), wouldn't you feel justified in attacking non-believers?
I occasionally hear a liberal Imam in a western country claim that people who engage in military action in support of Islam are "twisting the words of Muhammad", but I've read enough of the Quran to know that that is not the case. Just like the literal Christians aren't "twisting the words of God" by actually attempting to adhere to their Bible rather than imagining what they'd like it to say, following that, and still calling themselves Christian.
One thing that I will add: the Quran specifically disallows any form of suicide, regardless of the situation. Therefore anyone who straps explosives to themselves and blows themselves up (for any reason) won't get their 72 virgins. Various Sunni organizations have attempted to interpret the bits of the Quran that speak of "dying in the name of Allah (and being rewarded for such action)" as giving a blanket justification for *any* death in the service of God, but they don't. That's one of the few instances of the "twisting" of Islam in order to allow banned military actions that I've seen.
It's also interesting how most of the major (and minor) terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.
I certainly get what you're saying; but, as an outsider, I view religions as essentially untangible and undefinable. Partly, of course, exact definitions shouldn't be any of my business unless it harms people who did/do not sign up for such...
Really, the article was not clear enough apparently. The issue was the US constitutional right of free speech. The specific instance in this case was a pastor who wanted to demonstrate against a particular religion and was being required to post a bond for police protection in order to do so. The issue of religion seems to distract people from the fundamental right of free speech whether it be about religion or any other topic.
I'm curious as to why that was directed as a reply to me, since the conversation was already on a tangent by the time I entered. Indeed, it was the tangent I was keen to comment on.
It wasn't directed at you. I am sorry if it seemed so, and I apologize. (I just now clicked on the message thingie at the top of the page (I have been wondering what on earth it referred to) so I am answering here. Again, I apologize if the effect was such that it seemed directed at you.
I'd be careful with using a Nazi analogy because it may just reinforce my point that these problems are exacerbated by countries such as the US, UK and France. The cruel punishments enforced against Germany arguably nutured conditions under which Naziism could breed - I could equally say that the foreign policy of the US and UK are doing the same for muslim fundamentalism.
Nobody is attempting to be an apologiser for the terrible things that have been committed under the name of Islam.
But what is your solution? If we were to assume that all of Islam was dangerous to western perception of how a life should be lead, what should we do about it? Kill every single muslim in the world? good fucking luck, we can't stabilise one country in a decade its not going to be possible to exterminate half the planets population. I think you need to realise that most people dont fly planes in to buildings or blow themselves up - muslim, christian or otherwise. But the approach of the US - be democratic and like us or else is not helping matters.
No, I don't want to kill them all (how did you even get this idea?). Keeping them away from western Countries is good enough.
I'm bored of this argument. Burn as many religous texts as you want mate, spend your time rounding up people that have settled in your country and kick them out, good luck.
For the record it is much, much, much easier to exterminate the population of a country (or a continent, or a planet) than it is to conquer and subdue a population, which is what they've effectively been trying to do in Afghanistan for the past decade.
Both of those types of action are, of course, stupid. No argument there.