Pope's quote/comments on Islam
 

I'm not sure I understand the fuss. The western news sites seem to have the quote but don't explain the context of why the Pope quoted the book (see below).


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213930,00.html

On the surface, if the Pope quoted a passage of the book, I don't understand the problem and will chalk this up to an overreaction.

Does anyone know the context of why the Pope quoted this text?

The headline starts "Religious leaders across mideast rage..."

So you know it's probably not about anything important.

They're gonna riot over anything, so it's not surprising this does it.

When a group of people throw a fit over a cartoon, they're not all there to begin with.

St. Cronin and WVUFAN Your quotes above seem to indicate a 'contempt' for the muslim indignation. Is this correct?

Not exactly. Look, it's perfectly ok for anybody to feel aggrieved or insulted by whatever. I have my sensitive spots as well. My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.

In my case, it's entirely correct. It's a small group of people (Islamic extremists) making an entire religion look bad.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of the religion to begin with, but this certainly doesn't endear it to the general populace when they bitch over ANYTHING remotely derrogatory towards the religion. This is in many ways similar to extremist Christians (that moronic group in Kansas who pickets funerals as an example -- snakehandlers in my area as another example) doing quite frankly idiotic things that casts a shadow over everyone who follows that same religion.

For a group that demands that others be respectful of what they are, they have no tolerance for criticism. You don't get it both ways.

Full text of the speech here.

Key excerpt:

I don't see a single thing wrong with what he said. He's teaching against forced conversion. Makes sense to me.

You'd think with all the fuss he drew a picture of the guy or something...

Benedict is just making a power play so he can control the gallactic senate.

These guys are fucking pissed~!

1) If a non-muslim even says the word Muslim or Mohammed there will be a riot.
2) The Pope and the Catholic church have their heads up their asses regardless.

Sits back and prepares to be char broiled in flames.

I still can't understand how someone says Islam is all about violence and the next day people are buring flags and images of that person in name of Islam. It almost makes me think these people have been told "He said we don't do violence, show us we are all about it!"

Dudes, the Pope just said Muhammad was evil. Don't you think they would be a little pissed? When a pre-eminent muslim holy man says Jesus was evil, I think you will understand just how far down these things go.. we'd have riots here in the US over that. The Pope is supposed to be smart enough not to start crap like that, unless he's of the opinion Jesus can't come until the big war starts, and W hasn't been pulling his own weight..

Organized religions are a lot of trouble lately..

No, we absolutely would not.

Yes, we absolutely would. I can't believe you don't know the people you live with!

There's people who say negative things about Christianity and Jesus constantly, and you don't see riots.

Oh, ok. When was the last time something like that happened here? I must have forgot about it.

I agree with WVUFAN and st.cronin, we absolutely would not "riot".

I can't help but feel the Muslim faith is going through their era of 'crusades' whereas Christianity has progressed beyond.

This is NOT to say one faith is better, more correct etc. than the other. It is to say one faith's follower's has progressed and evolved beyond violence and the need to impose its will by the sword/threats.

I think I come down on the side that feels that followers of Islam have every right to be angry and have every right to protest. When those protests turn violent however, as in the case of the riots over the infamous cartoon, it feeds the stereotype and makes Islam look bad.

I don't believe that Christianity or Christian leaders are particulary more tolerant or peaceful than Islam, and there are the fundamentalist nutjobs that give the religion as a whole a bad rap.

That being said, if the Pope or an Islamic leader were to speak out strongly against Protestant Christianity, you'd hear a backlash, and maybe some ridiculous banter from the Pat Robertsons of the world, but I cannot for a minute believe there would ever be rioting in the streets.

Well, John Lennon almost derailed his career here with the remarks about being bigger than Jesus, and his were taken more out of context than anything Benedict said.

I don't know if I would agree with either one of those statements. The "crusades" were not purely aggresive wars waged by Christians. The actual reality is more nuanced than that; there were aggresions and atrocities committed by Muslims in that era as well.

And while I am reluctant to say that one faith is better than another, there is something disturbing about the way Islam is presented, particularly it's emphasis that God only speaks/understands Arabic, and also it's emphasis on material and sexual rewards for righteousness.

I suspect/hope that what is happening in Islam now is more like the changes Luther brought to the Church, where the religion was no longer 'working' at the social level, and needed to adapt.

dola ...

Mojo Jojo posted the excerpt for what he said. If you read it, you would know that's NOT what the Pope said. What he said, and I agree, is that any religion that believes in conversion by violence is not doing God's will.

But it seems you, Muslims (not surprising), and the media didn't bother to read his speech and take his comments in context.

Well, if you wanted riots in the streets, we had a few big ones in the 60s, but not for religious reasons. Since then, there have been various riots in reaction to, if memory is still working, perceived police misbehavior in California and Philladelphia. And there are the "after Superbowl" celebratory riots. So rioting is not foreign to us. During the 2000 Florida debacle, there was a small, but well publicized "riot" while the counts were going on. Americans like to assemble and yell, but that's not the worst that would come of it.

Yes, people do criticize Christianity, but we're looking for an equivalent to a Pope here. I don't know if you can find one easily now, but the Ayatolla Khomeni (sp?) would have been comparable in his day.

I mean, we're not too far away from "freedom fries" and that whole "Kick Iraq's butt because we are angry, and we can!" Right now Americans are skeptical of any more war, but if someone over there started dissing Christ, a lot of opinions would change over night.

Now, if your point is that we wouldn't riot like them because we are civilized and they are not..

Yes, it was so upsetting when we renamed our french fries. That really horrified the world.

I did read it, and the context of the words is this:

1. The Pope said them in his official capacity as Pope
2. The Pope said the words in public

Any idiot could have detected in advance the passage that would inflame the Muslim world. Do not for a second believe that, if the Pope didn't see this coming, one of his advisors didn't. You can't say, particularly in the world climate as it is now, that Mohammed brought evil when he uttered his divinely inspired words and not understand that you are causing problems.

Sorry dbd1963, your rebuttal about riots in the US has nothing to do with your original premise.

That's not really all that went on, is it? Wasn't there a lot of nationalistic "rah rah" going on then, renaming French fries being a symbol of it? Not to say anything about the misdirection play that was at the root of it all, which never could have worked if the nation wasn't seething with (justifiable) rage.

I thought it showed that Americans would riot, but maybe that wasn't at issue after all. I'm not a history buff, but I can't think of any religious riots in the last decades, so perhaps I'm all wrong. Nobody would riot if Jesus got dissed.

I bet we'd get our war on tho.

You have a hard time staying on topic.

Well that was the general theme of his speech, but in fairness he did employ and endorse (without any qualifications) a quote that said that Mohammed's only contributions were evil and inhuman. If he had qualified the quote to note that he didn't agree with that part, you could argue that it was taken out of context, but as it is I don't think you have to read it out of context to find it offensive. That part of the quote was entirely unnecessary to the point he was making, and seemed a rather gratuitous cheap shot...

That isn't unusual with trolls.

So, lemme get this right:

We're all (and this includes religious leaders) supposed to never criticize any aspect of Islam for fear of riots, but Islamic leaders are free to say, for example, that all Jews should die, or that the Holocaust never happened, or any such nonsense?

Bullshit. The Pope was RIGHT in his words, and I'm glad his refuses to retract them.

I'm a troll all of a sudden? That's kida riotous of you all, ganging up on poor little me.. There's a riot in this thread!

Look, I believe there'd be lots of trouble if the Muslim Pope, whoever that is, called Jesus the bringer of evil. I think it's defensible, but maybe nobody would riot in the streets, maybe it'd just be a lot of noise on internet chat rooms and bbs.

JonInMiddleGA I sincerely would like to hear more from dbd1963. I think his point of view on this event is probably shared by the rioters and I want to understand their pov.

I take it you don't know much about Islam. Or, for that matter, Christianity.

. If I'm reading this right, you just said that saying Jesus is the bringer of evil is "defensible". If that's right, I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

And, no, there wouldn't be riots on the street if a high cleric of the Islam faith said something negative about Jesus (which would NEVER happen, since Jesus is a Prophet in Islam, but I digress). There wouldn't be riots on the street if a cartoon depicts Jesus as an evil figure (which has happened MANY times).

But you miss the point -- the Pope never said Muhammed was evil. Read the entire snippet.

I see why trolls like to troll because then people keep asking you questions and they get all the attention. Frankly, I don't want your attention if you are going to say things like that.. because the Pope is just the Pope, not all religious leaders (and I don't think anyone said anything about all religious leaders doing this or that, did they?) and the Pope wasn't criticising Islam, he flat out said Muhammed was evil. He didn't say (or didn't stop at saying) "You ought to try to get your people to, you know, be more peaceful." That would be (good) criticism.

You understand, I hope, the vast difference between you saying something about Islam and the Pope doing it? I believe the Pope should never say words that would inflame people, as it is his job to convert them. I think Paul said something about that, in a totally different context, about never doing that thing that will upset the converts, even if it is a thing permitted to you, because we are in this for the converts.

Well, nobody is stopping him from posting, nor you from listening to the troll if you choose to.

I think it seriously calls your judgement into reason, but hey, that's your biz too.

What?

Thus endeth my time in this thread. :rolleyes:

This, I think is absolutely correct. These reactions are revealing. I recently Lawrence Wright (author of The Looming Tower) speak on Al Qaeda and Islamic militants, and part of the discussion centered on the deep-seated sense of cultural humiliation felt by Arabs and Muslims. According to Wright the history of this starts as far back as the defeat of Sultan Suleiman at Vienna in the 16th Century, and proceeds through colonial domination and Cold War manipulation to the present day. The humiliation of Islam by the West is apparently a favorite topic for Bin Laden and a strong draw on the young men who join him. It is also the reason for the powerful reactions to perceived Western insults against Islam.

It seems to me that some sensitivity is warranted, not because we should bow to extremism, but it seems irresponsible to needlessly throw fuel on the flames. Muslims need to get over this humiliation, and I'm not sure we help them with that by providing them with more evidence of our contempt. Moderate voices are hardest to hear when people have their blood up.

Except that isn't what he said.

More the pity, 'cause it's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject, but he didn't.

So you didn't say this? You're saying you didn't say this?

Or perhaps I took it out of context from what your intent was.

That sounds eerily familiar ...

dola --

And, for what it's worth, the Pope's job ISN'T to "convert" people.

The pope is out of touch (duh!) and some fundamentalists love to riot.

That picture of the guys going ape is hilarious.

WVU: I don't agree. Isn't it the Pope's job to bring souls to God and doesn't he believe the surest route to God is through the Catholic church?

Out of curiosity, in what way is the Pope out of touch? That he isn't afraid to speak (GOSH!) the actual truth?

I agree with Jon -- he didn't go far enough.

Good post.

Do you think the pope should be promoting peace or a Crusades mentality? He should know how imflammatory hiscomments would be.

Here's a quote from the story:

""The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy."

I don't believe you read the Pope's comments. He was explicitly arguing FOR peace!

Weird, I thought Bucc was the only one here old enough to have actually met Mohammed, and know whether or not he was evil. Guess I was wrong. :P

Because we all know that when you're arguing for peace, you should degrade someone who one group reveres.

Ok, you definitely didn't read the Pope's comments.

I read exactly what he said. I agree with him that spreading a message through violence is unacceptable.

However, Yes or No: The pople quoted a piece that degrades Mohammed?

Good to see some support of B-16 here. If anyone wants to look into what the Pope was truly saying. They could do a little research about the who the Pope was quoting and see the circumstances of the Byzantine Emperor's remarks. He is at his military camp outside Constantinople - his capital city is under seige by Turkish Muslims. He is trying to have a civilized rational discussion with a Muslim (one of the enemy) about the very thing that is threatening his 1000+ yr empire and capital. Perhaps he was trying to find some way that the two religions could live in real peace.

I wish we could read the rest of the conversation in that book from which the quote came. I wonder if in modern lingo the Emperor is trying to say: Why are you attacking us and saying that God approves of this violence? Isn't that what all of us in the US are wondering today since 9/11?

I.E. Explain yourself: why the heck are you attacking us and saying that your God wants you to do it to spread his faith ("by the sword')?

Benedict wants the Muslim world to think about that and give us a thought-out answer so that we can enter a dialogue about our differences based on reason. If the Muslim world can't do that, then how the heck can we make real "peace" and avoid all-out clash of civilizations?

Degrading Mohammed and all forms of faith,including his own, that force conversion by the sword.

1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't.

I think I know your answer to this, nevertheless care to expound on how the 'clash of civilizations/religion' will play out?

It is the decisive people who have become civilised; it is the indecisive, otherwise called the higher sceptics, or the idealistic doubters, who have remained barbarians." GK Chesterton

Jon - I saw your signature was a quote from Chesteron, who is my favorite author, and had to quote something by him....All is possilbe , we must try to keep dialogue open and communicate which is what the Pope was trying to do. Whether you or the rest of the world believe it.

I like your direct questioning. The answer is Yes.

But lets be fair. Quoting a piece that degrades Mohammed in a speech that he (Pope) does not say he agrees with does not mean he (Pope) is degrading Mohammed himself.

Can you not agree that this distinction is lost on the Muslim masses (and some on this board) in Karachi et al? Yes or No?

All depends upon whether the targets of Islam pull their heads out of their asses in time to adequately defend themselves. At this point, I'd rather not hazard a guess on which way that'll turn out

Evidently it's a distinction lost on some members of this board.

Unlike our enlightened leaders, who take full responsibility for everything :rolleyes:

I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here. Benedict shouldn't have said it and not expected a reaction. C'mon, he's the Pope, you can't just be going around quoting someone calling the founder of a major world religion evil and inhuman and not expect a backlash. I can see why Muslims are upset (look at some of the comments here to see where propoganda like that leads). Obviously some have taken it too far, I'm not defending all of their actions. But that is not a quality singular to Muslims. Any group that feels that they are a minority or disadvantages behaves in the same way. For example the Rodney King riots in LA, the Stonewall riots in NYC, etc. I don't think a day goes by where I don't see a story about Christians over-reacting to some perceived slight. God forbid Wal-Mart says, "Happy Holidays".

There are a good number of Christians like JIMG that would say we have to kill all the Muslims because they are a violent people. That doesn't make all Christians bloodthirsty savages.

Maybe the Pope should treat Muslims the way Muslims treat other religions.......like those of Jewish faith........errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe not. Telling the truth anymore does nothing but stir up those that don't want to own up to the idiots they have become.

The problem with the above is...........those "bloodthirsty savages" aren not at the forefront representing the Christian faith, nor are they out there ACTUALLY killing people on a basis that is large enough to be representative. If they were, the rest of the Christian faith would put a cap in their ass.

What does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Or do you just want to take potshots at them just because you can?

Clinton sucks. There, we're even. :)


And I love how when someone call extremist Muslims to task for their ridiculous behavior than suddenly we're "racist". No, when someone is acting stupid, Christian, Muslin, Jew, regardless of who they choose to worship, they they deserve what they get. I said in my initial post that I akin the people who are throwing a fit over this to the extremist Christians. Both are making the entire group look bad.

The word "racist" gets tossed around much more than it should. Heaven forbid you have a negative thing to say about someone, even if they deserve it.



He spoke the truth.


SOME Muslims are upset because they WANT to be upset. They're looking for something, anything to riot and protest over. They (the people who are protesting and rioting) are a violent culture that has no redeeming value whatsoever.

The plain truth: These extremists are some of the same people who have beheaded Americans just because they're Americans, but we don't riot about that. They are some of the same people who have stated time and time again they want to eradicate every single Jew off the face of the Earth, but they're not rioting about that. They deserve NO respect -- NO mercy -- NO consideration. They deserve NOTHING but to simply die.


And they're wrong too.


Different discussion, since the issue wasn't that they said "Happy Holidays", but that they couldn't say "Merry Christmas".

But, you're right, you saw mass rioting and demonstrations over that. Wait ... no, you didn't.


I don't remember JIMG ever saying that. Could I get a quote?

The world's largest Christian nation recently launched a war that has killed tens of thousands of Muslims. This war was supported by and cheered for by that country's largest Christian leaders. The Christian world has the luxury of large dominating armies that can help propogate their worldview.

He clearly endorses the quotes in a general sense (they are central to his argument) and in no way disclaims the part referring to all of the teachings of Mohammed as evil and inhuman. That part simply did not need to appear in his speech and contributes nothing to the point the Pope was trying to argue (other than to ensure that those who most needed to hear his speech would reject it outright).

I might be able to help with that (I figure it'll save some time).

If that's what it takes to end terroristic campaigns conducted by Muslims, I'm all for it.

Who/what/how they choose to conduct their spiritual life is a matter between them and God ... except when their religion calls for, condones, or willingly facilitates the murder of my countrymen and/or our allies. At which point, I don't believe they can be killed fast enough to suit my taste.

That ought to be plenty enough to suit anybody who wants to invest time in flaming me.

I wasn't taking potshots at Bush, I was speaking in a general sense: our leaders don't take responsibility and they blame someone or something else. Bush does have that reputation though, doesn't he? It's human nature, and it's wrong no matter who does it. It's relevant because st.cronin was taking a common human failing and attributing it to one group, something that pops up very very often in situations like this generally, and with Muslims specifically.

I wasn't calling anyone racist that said what certain Muslims are doing are wrong, I was referring to people that were calling Islam evil, or something even worse, since one person said that Benedict didn't go far enough.

"I'm not racist, but Islam is evil and inhuman," is a kind of contradiction.

Would you say the same about Americans that want to kill Muslims? I wouldn't, I think there are redeeming qualities, and that their views merely reflect a certain ignorance that could be cured. And, 'just because they are Americans'?
We did invade and occupy their country and kidnap and torture their countrymen after all, I'm not justifying the acts, but let's get the motivations correct here.

"1) They can't.
2) We can't.
3) We can't."

To be fair, that's not saying "kill all Muslims", that's expecting Muslims to ask like human beings and not monsters. You respect Human Beings, you kill Monsters. How a Muslim behaves is up to them, but there are consequences to their actions.

There's plenty of Muslims that live in peace and conduct themselves properly while still being spiritually strong. Those people have my respect. Its the others I have issue with.

Well there you go: JIMG, in order to stop terrorist attacks that occur every 5 years or so, is willing to kill millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. You are going to be hard pressed to find a more morally bankrupt stance, and he is a Christian. Muslims don't have a monopoly on hate. If we got rid of them, we'd just find some other group to hate. It's not like everyone in the world would get along if only it weren't for that inhumane Mohammed.

Boy, the rhetorical hoops people are willing to jump through to defend lunacy is just absolutely astounding. How is this about America, at all? The Pope has nothing to do with America.

Funny, that's not how I read what he said at all. I think you read it that way because you prefer to imagine him a horrible racist, instead of somebody who might possibly have some ideas which are different than yours.

Have you forgotten the vast Judeo-Christian conspiracy?

See WVU, I told you that would be plenty to suit the purposes of our left wing trolls ;)

I think he expects Muslims to act civilized, and if they don't, then do something about it.

So, what is the solution to those extremist Muslims out there, Bigglesworth? Should we never do anything that might get them mad? Think that'll stop them?

Or maybe we should try to "share" and "understand" what they're feeling. Because I'm sure they will go with that.

So, what is your solution, then?

His solution is to accuse people of being morally bankrupt racists, even when it's clearly a lie, because for some reason it gives him satisfaction.

Heh. Doesn't take much.

Okay, trying to get this back to topic at hand instead of another MrBigglesworth vs st.cronin.

I don't agree with "clearly endorses". He is quoting an historian's passage on an historical conversation to setup his further discussion on a delineation of the 2 religions, one bound by reason the other "not bound up with any of our categories".

If this delineation is NOT correct, that's what Muslims should be in uproar about (ex. misquoting Mohammed's teachings), not the Pope's quote on a historian's quote on a historical incident.

I agree with you here. Another example probably could have been used. However, I am not sure another example specific to Islam/Mohammed could have been used without being another reason for an uproar.

It did contribute to the discussion as it delineated differences in the religions (again, if this delineation is incorrect that's a different issue).

Germans in WW2 were trying to kill Americans and their allies but that doesn't mean all Germans needed to die. That a small percentage of Muslims advocate killing innocent people to further their twisted view of their religion doesn't mean all Muslims must die. That would make us as extreme as the extremeists.

I don't think Jon is a racist. If he had said all muslims are evil terrorists then that would be more racist. However, to suggest wiping out an entire religion to prevent a small percentage of wackos from killing is extreme. Why not just say if the police can't get black people from committing crimes we jail or kill them all?

Which is pretty much what I said up the thread. Read it again.

My point was/is "ever how many it takes". The objective is to put an end to their role in terrorist activity against the U.S. and our allies. If that requires one more dead, fine by me. And if it's every single one, so be it.

The biggest place you & I seem to disagree may not be on whether stopping them will involve killing but rather on what the percentage of Muslims who support terrorist activity is.

It's hard to take the Muslims seriously with the way they treat their women. The Catholics on the other hand, oh wait never mind.

It is sad that once again a debate (just like almost every debate in the past 5-10 years) seems to come down to being on one side or the other. How about we agree that people who become in involved in religion to help others and spread the word of love and community = good. People (even sometimes the Pope) who use religion to tear apart groups of people who don't think exactly like they do = bad. Then there is a lot of gray area in the middle.

Unfortunatly there are quite a few posters on this board who have some great insight in the sports and business related threads who feel they must choose all of the views of one side or the other in the political/religious threads and end up coming across as very ignorant and uninformed.

It is obvious the number of muslims that support terrorist activity is too high, even 1 is too high but there are over a billion muslims in the world. What percentage do you think supports terrorist actions? 5%? Hell even at 1% if that were true we'd be ass deep in an all out war against the muslims and we are not. There is approaching a million muslims in Canada where I live and I would bet that a very small number of those support terrorist activities.

Muslim is not a race!!!!!

Personally, I love how whenever someone who is not a Muslim even mentions the word, there is a riot of some sort by the Islamic radicals. "They say we are violent, how dare they, they must die! That'll show them how non-violent we are!"

Just FTR, I meant both active & passive support, i.e. I'm not just talking about the bombers & shooters, but those who hide them, turn a blind eye to their activity and otherwise render aid to their crimes.

If you want to talk about people supporting and aiding those committing crimes, I would venture to guess that, as a percentage, the numbers of white folks supporting and aiding those who were members of lynch mobs back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, is comparable to or exceeds the percentages of Muslims supporing Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al. Good thing all of those whities weren't systematically wiped out to curtail racism.

Tell you what cartman, when those folks climb up out of their graves & start flying planes into the WTC, I'll give that more weight as an argument.

In the meantime, we're at war.

:rolleyes:

That has what to do with this situation?

I know there was some sarcasm involved but not sure if you seriously believe what you wrote...

I think the % of whites supporting lynch mobs back then is far less than the % of Muslims support Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah et al. Doubt there are any studies to quote but here's my logic.

Assume we are talking about passive/active support of these terrorist groups.

Total pop of US in 1900s = Today approx 300M. I'm just guessing approx 150M back then. Split the US into 3 (North, South, West), presume 33% supported lynch mobs.

Total pop of Muslims in the World = I think I heard 1B plus. Vast majority live in non-Western countries. Assume 50%+ support.

% wise and pure #s, I can easily believe your argument to be false.

... and of course, most of us agree those lynch mobs were wrong. Would you care to concede these terrorist supports and groups are wrong?

Of couse pure #s-wise the amount is much higher for the Muslim community. That is why I referenced percentages. And yes, there are no studies that can accurately say what is the % of those practicing Islam that support terrorists, versus the % of whites that supported lynch mobs. However, there is/was a great amount of support for the evil doers in both instances, with an overlap of their ranges of possible support. I completely agree that terrorists and those that actively support them are wrong. I never mentioned that this was not my position. What I was trying to get across is that wholesale killing of the supporters of the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah/etc. is not a valid response to the situation, no more than if all of the whites that supported lynch mobs were killed en masse.

Yes that is fair. I think you will find passive support for all kinds of insidious behaviour. For example, not everyone in America was actively involved in slavery but passively alot of people didn't complain much.

Bullshit.

This is the politically correct thing to say, and the same sentiment being echoed by politicians and others, but if you closely examine Islam as a religion, and the Koran as it's "Bible", you'll see that it really isn't the case of a a few bad eggs, or a few rotten tomatoes. Islam as a religion DOES in fact preach violence and DOES in fact encourage it against infadels. Here is a poll number to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, and to in essence show you the plans Islamos have for the future, and how the plan to root themselves within western democracy. (It's funny, it was the Solviets who told the U.S. they would "take us over from within") 44 percent of Muslims living in London say they felt the attacks on the London subways were "warranted." 44 PERCENT!!! .....Now these are supposed to be westernized muslims who are supposedly less secular and perhaps even life long residents of the UK. Yet 44 percent of them STILL felt the bombings were justified. Now I don't know how much stock we can always put in poll numbers, but I will admit that is scary!! So, when you say it's a few bad people making an otherwise peaceful religion look bad, I really think you might want to do some more historical (and contemporary) research. This just isn't the case, but it's what you will hear every politician say in order as not to offend anyone.(simply because politicians today have no balls) So it's really a case of: "if you repeat a lie long enough, eventually it becomes truth."

Funny how you left off the rest of the sentence I wrote.

It appeared to me that the quoted part was your basic premise.

Cartman, you seem to be attempting to make this something it isn't. If that floats your boat, so be it, but only damned fools are going to buy into it. If that's the company you choose to keep ...

And PSUColonel provides another voice of reason in the wilderness.

And, to draw another parallel between my points, and what PSUColonel wrote, he said 44% of the Muslims in London agreed with the attacks on the subways. No one in their right mind is going to argue that all 44% of those are Al-Qaeda, and they all need to be killed. That is just ignorant. To draw the parallel, those that supported the lynch mobs weren't all members of the KKK. Is it really THAT tenous of a link between the two? No, and for you to argue that it is a ranting of a "damned fool" is completely off base.

I really am worried the mental state about some supporting Stalin-esqe purges of entire swaths of people. Instead of going after those who are doing the evil, let's just take an easy way to make ourselves feel better and execute anyone who might be sympathetic towards the evil doers. Yep, that will definitely make those Al-Qaedas see the light, and give up their arms.

Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.