The Religion of Selflessness, Empathy, and Courage.

[AnonymouseUser]

Jesus, you're stupid. Get someone with an IQ over 75 to explain the gist of my OP to you. Even in grade school, your present level of reading comprehension would get you crucified.

I knew immediately that it was anti-Christian but pro-moslem.

 

[Perknose]

I knew immediately that it was anti-Christian but pro-moslem.

You fail basic reading comprehension, too. This puts you on a level with piasbird, which should alarm you.

Is it fear or stupidity that drives you? Both? Is it both? Clinging to your "War on Christmas" idiot victim mentality much?

Even glenn1 gets my basic message, for all religions, including Islam:

Wow, religions with hundreds of millions of followers aren't monolithic and completely represented by their most fringe elements? Who'd have thunk it?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

You fail basic reading comprehension, too. This puts you on a level with piasbird, which should alarm you.

Is it fear or stupidity that drives you? Both? Is it both? Clinging to your "War on Christmas" idiot victim mentality much?

Even glenn1 gets my basic message, for all religions, including Islam:

It's the liberal's coordinated and incessant bashing of Christians and Christianity while apologizing profusely for every terrorist act moslems commit. It's gotten to be quite old and predictable: moslem terrorist act? > blame Christians

Countless horrific acts have been done in the name of Jesus, down unto today. Just ask the doctors and nurses murdered for being pro-choice.

This was your opening statement, bashing Christians.

Wholesale demonization of the entire religion of Islam and its adherents is wrong, ignorant, and most important, not in our own self interest.

Followed by moslem pandering.

 

[brycejones]

AnonymouseUser - WHoosh the sound of the OP sailing right over your head. But don't worry if you're really fast you might catch it.

 

[Zstream]

AnonymouseUser - WHoosh the sound of the OP sailing right over your head. But don't worry if you're really fast you might catch it.

I think it went over yours just as well. There is no relation between Christian violence and the modern day extreme Islam that's rampant in so many countries. It's a perk thread, so guess all the crazies come out.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

AnonymouseUser - WHoosh the sound of the OP sailing right over your head. But don't worry if you're really fast you might catch it.

No, I get it. Perknose is trying to convince us that the percentage of "extreme" moslems is as minimal as the percentage of "extreme" Christians, which is patently false. Here is one example, playing on the stoning pic above:

Of the moslems living in the following countries that favor sharia law (like Khizr Khan from Pakistan does), the percentage who favor stoning adulterers (as polled in 2013) is as follows:

The fact that any of those numbers is higher than 1 should be extremely disturbing to any civilized person living in a civilized country. While it is possible to find a few "extreme" Christians that believe adulterers should be stoned to death, the numbers here clearly show it's the moderate moslems that support stoning. Full report here.

Wholesale demonization of the entire religion of islam and its adherents is completely justified in my opinion. Once islam's had it's own reformation, then I'll reconsider my position.

 

[retrospooty]

It's the liberal's coordinated and incessant bashing of Christians and Christianity while apologizing profusely for every terrorist act moslems commit. It's gotten to be quite old and predictable: moslem terrorist act? > blame Christians

Seriously... Where did this happen? Other than in your twisted mind who is actually apologizing for terrorists. The only thing people are getting at is that you cannot blame a whole religion of 1 billion people for the acts of a small percentage of extremists. All Christians arent seen as Nazi's or the KKK < that is a direct correlation right there. Get a clue. I know it's hard, but at least give it a try.

 

[interchange]

I knew immediately that it was anti-Christian but pro-moslem.

Here's another graph of interest:

I wonder if you might consider that Islam is a religion that has more than extremism, considering there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does one terrorist attack for each 3.5 million Muslims justify your views?

 

[glenn1]

Seriously... Where did this happen? Other than in your twisted mind who is actually apologizing for terrorists. The only thing people are getting at is that you cannot blame a whole religion of 1 billion people for the acts of a small percentage of extremists. All Christians arent seen as Nazi's or the KKK < that is a direct correlation right there. Get a clue. I know it's hard, but at least give it a try.

Yes but you should likewise spend more time condemning the relatively higher number of "small percentage of extremists" on the Muslim side than the Christian side; both sides are small percentages but one is even smaller than the other. It does more to obscure reality when you bring up similar outliers from other groups than honestly talk about those in the first group. It's not someone denigrating all Muslims when you talk about Muslim extremist without feeling some stupid obligation to say "well Christans do it also!" The entire practice reminds me of some folks taking about gays 20 years ago where they thought adding "...but there's nothing wrong with that" to the end of a statement talking about gay persons would someone prove you weren't bigoted. It's a load of crap in both cases - there's bad gay people, evil Muslims, etc. and we don't need to say "but look at all the good Muslims!" to prove something.

 

[MongGrel]

It's the liberal's coordinated and incessant bashing of Christians and Christianity while apologizing profusely for every terrorist act moslems commit. It's gotten to be quite old and predictable: moslem terrorist act? > blame Christians

It still amazes me somewhat some people seem to equate Christianity solely with Conservatism to begin with. That itself is a fallacy. Some of the most Liberal countries on the planet are Christian.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Here's another graph of interest:

I wonder if you might consider that Islam is a religion that has more than extremism, considering there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does one terrorist attack for each 3.5 million Muslims justify your views?

I'm condemning 100% of moslems based on the beliefs of at least 50-60% of moslems worldwide. The idea that these "radical" moslems are a tiny minority is patently false. Here is a good example (from moslems themselves) about just how radical "moderate" moslems are.

 

[retrospooty]

Yes but you should likewise spend more time condemning the relatively higher number of "small percentage of extremists" on the Muslim side than the Christian side; both sides are small percentages but one is even smaller than the other..

Not to be an ass about it, but that is pretty narrow. What if hypothetically 5% of all white people were violent criminals. Should we condemn all white people, even ones 1/2 way around the world that never met anyone in that 5%, or should we just condemn the 5%?

The problem that we have as a society is that we are grouping people together, people that never met and associating them with extremists. What we should be "condemning" is the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts. It's really not difficult.

 

[retrospooty]

I'm condemning 100% of moslems based on the beliefs of at least 50-60% of moslems worldwide. The idea that these "radical" moslems are a tiny minority is patently false. Here is a good example (from moslems themselves) about just how radical "moderate" moslems are.

[/QUOTE]

Yet another ridiculously moronic comment. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. If 50% of Muslims were extremists there wouldn't be a safe corner to live in. The entire world would look like Mad Max. It would be absolute insanity. Try well under 1%. But, the percentage isnt the point. Even if it was 50% you cant condemn innocent people for the acts of others. Again, you need to condemn the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts.

 

[glenn1]

Not to be an ass about it, but that is pretty narrow. What if hypothetically 5% of all white people were violent criminals. Should we condemn all white people, even ones 1/2 way around the world that never met anyone in that 5%, or should we just condemn the 5%?

The problem that we have as a society is that we are grouping people together, people that never met and associating them with extremists. What we should be "condemning" is the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts. It's really not difficult.

I'm going to give you credit that you misunderstood what I wrote rather than deliberately distorting it. To use your hypothetical numbers I'm not advocating we condemn the 95% of whites who aren't extremists. I'm saying that it's both disingenuous and counterproductive to say that if the equivalent number of Asian extremists was 1%, to ignore the fivefold difference in white vs. Asian extremists and focus on "well both whites and asians have extremist elements."

 

[retrospooty]

I'm going to give you credit that you misunderstood what I wrote rather than deliberately distorting it. To use your hypothetical numbers I'm not advocating we condemn the 95% of whites who aren't extremists. I'm saying that it's both disingenuous and counterproductive to say that if the equivalent number of Asian extremists was 1%, to ignore the fivefold difference in white vs. Asian extremists and focus on "well both whites and asians have extremist elements."

OK, now I see what you are getting at, but I am not seeing the point of it. Rather than discuss the actual issue and/or the actual people committing the acts, or even the innocent people condemned by association, you are really only concerned with identifying which group commits worse acts per capita? OK, you got it... I am not sure exact #'s because no such study exists, but I am fairly sure that per capita, there are quite alot more Muslim extremist violent psychos than there are Christian extremist violent psychos. Not sure what that realization gets us though. Lets say .1% of Christians are extremist violent psychos, and 1% of Muslims are extremist violent psychos... Gasp, that is 10x the amount of extremist violent psychos per capita. We still cannot condemn the 99.9% of Christians or the 99% of Muslims.

 

[brycejones]

Yet another ridiculously moronic comment. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. If 50% of Muslims were extremists there wouldn't be a safe corner to live in. The entire world would look like Mad Max. It would be absolute insanity. Try well under 1%. But, the percentage isnt the point. Even if it was 50% you cant condemn innocent people for the acts of others. Again, you need to condemn the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts.[/QUOTE]

Look if you want to know how far down the rabbit hole of crazy that poster has fallen just click on his bring back the crusades link:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

This is the website's own description:

Grass-roots community group raising consciousness and action among white British people of their ethnic and cultural interests in an ever more hostile world.

 

[interchange]

I'm condemning 100% of moslems based on the beliefs of at least 50-60% of moslems worldwide. The idea that these "radical" moslems are a tiny minority is patently false. Here is a good example (from moslems themselves) about just how radical "moderate" moslems are.

Your numbers are ridiculous, although it is not the most pertinent discussion point here.

I will readily concede that the religion of Islam contains text and tenets that can readily be interpreted as justifying extremist violent action, and that cultures built around strict adherence to a literal interpretation of this are prone to gross human rights violations and potential terrorism.

Despite this, we are left with a question: is the problem a religion which might be interpreted to support such action? Or is the problem a culture which aims to punish teaching moral flexibility and promotes dehumanizing?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yet another ridiculously moronic comment. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. If 50% of Muslims were extremists there wouldn't be a safe corner to live in. The entire world would look like Mad Max. It would be absolute insanity. Try well under 1%. But, the percentage isnt the point. Even if it was 50% you cant condemn innocent people for the acts of others. Again, you need to condemn the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts.

Non-Christians are far safer in Christian nations and non-Buddhists are far safer in Buddhist nations than non-Muslims are in many Muslim nations. I won't say 50% support others being killed for X, Y, and Z, but there are many Muslim nations where I would not want to visit as a non-Muslim. Malaysia? I'd probably feel reasonably safe there since I'm incapable of committing apostasy. Egypt? Only as a tourist, and not now. Algeria? Never. There are entire nations built on fundamentalist Islamic values currently existing; the closest you get to that in the Christian world is maybe Ireland.

 

[nexus5rocks]

Countless horrific acts have been done in the name of Jesus, down unto today. Just ask the doctors and nurses murdered for being pro-choice.

What doctors and nurses were murdered for being pro-choice "today" (recently)?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Yet another ridiculously moronic comment. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. If 50% of Muslims were extremists there wouldn't be a safe corner to live in. The entire world would look like Mad Max. It would be absolute insanity. Try well under 1%. But, the percentage isnt the point. Even if it was 50% you cant condemn innocent people for the acts of others. Again, you need to condemn the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts.

The 50% aren't extremists, they are moderates, and moderate moslems are barbarians. Look what happened in Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, when a woman was falsely accused of burning a book:

NSFW

That's not Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq wa Belaad al-Sham, Boko Haram, Al Queda, or any other extremist group, those are your average, everyday moslems. They are barbaric people who kill indiscriminately because their holy book says it's justified.

 

[interchange]

That's not Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq wa Belaad al-Sham, Boko Haram, Al Queda, or any other extremist group, those are your average, everyday moslems. They are barbaric people who kill indiscriminately because their holy book says it's justified.

What is your stance on violence in video games?

 

[Zaap]

All 11 of them. In the last 23 years.

It is interesting how we're led to believe there would be a lot more than that.
I wouldn't have known the number was only 11 in 23 years. I'd bet the average person on the street would guess 100's even thousands.

Just the way abortion clinic murders are brought up a lot as a parallel to Islamic Acts of terror, makes it seem like a common occurrence, when really it's pretty rare.

There is of course, no real logic in pretending that the Islamic world doesn't have a far bigger problem with terrorism than the Christian world. Hell, all the Muslims I know are the last people to have a problem admitting that FACT, it's alway P.C. cowed, western non-muslims who feel compelled to draw a moral equivalence to that fact.

BTW, I think it's silly and absurd to state that even *most* moderate Muslims are okay with the extreme violence of the Jihadists. I don't believe that for a second. It's not really even logical.

All these things are regional and are blown out of proportion by the distortion of distance. For example, not all that long ago in this country, you could find lynch mobs of Americans stringing up other Americans for racial and religious differences. Just imagine what that would look like had YouTube existed back in the day. People could easily think all of America was like that, and that all Americans agreed with it.

To be sure, there was much more racism and prejudice in the US in the past- but to believe that you could have a lynch mob string someone up from a tree in say, downtown Los Angeles, vs. Bumfuck, Mississippi, and therefore conclude all Americans had the same attitude about such shit is ridiculous.

Point is just: pointing to crowds of violent morons in the Middle East and saying it's representative of the whole region is probably equally as skewed. (But just that ALL of America had a problem with racism back in the day, SO TOO does ALL of the Muslim world wrestle with the issue of terrorism.)

I'd submit the most OBVIOUS case is the fact that most of the time it's Muslims themselves who are the victims of Islamic violence and terror. Does anyone think it's logical that the Muslims who are the victims of bombings, shootings, beatings, etc. cheer their attackers on? If there weren't Muslims who disagree with the extremists, they wouldn't constantly be their targets.

 

[retrospooty]

The 50% aren't extremists, they are moderates, and moderate moslems are barbarians. Look what happened in Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, when a woman was falsely accused of burning a book:

NSFW

That's not Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq wa Belaad al-Sham, Boko Haram, Al Queda, or any other extremist group, those are your average, everyday moslems. They are barbaric people who kill indiscriminately because their holy book says it's justified.

You keep responding with more closed minded hate, yet ignoring the important part of what was said. You need to condemn the acts and the people that committed the acts... Not other people that look similar to the people that committed the acts. The percentage is not what is important, the fact that the Muslim world is far more violent than the western world is not important., What is important is that you dont look down on an entire race or religion based on the acts of a few.

 

[retrospooty]

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/[/URL]

This is the website's own description:

Grass-roots community group raising consciousness and action among white British people of their ethnic and cultural interests in an ever more hostile world.

Wow... Just wow. I see your point. I am trying to talk sense to an absolute nutjob. Bring back the crusades? WTF? Talk about being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Bring back the crusades? WTF? Talk about being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You obviously don't understand that the Crusades were a reaction to moslem invasions. The entire world would look like the middle east does now if not for the Crusades, with technology set back a few hundred years to boot. The current invasion that is being forced on Western Civs must end.