Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[Passacaglia]

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

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

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?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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?

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

If the Muslim world can't do that, then how the heck can we make real "peace" and avoid all-out clash of civilizations?

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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?

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?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

... care to expound on how the 'clash of civilizations/religion' will play out?

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.

Unlike our enlightened leaders, who take full responsibility for everything

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.

[cougarfreak]

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.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Unlike our enlightened leaders, who take full responsibility for everything

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.

I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here.

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.

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.

He spoke the truth.

I can see why Muslims are upset (look at some of the comments here to see where propoganda like that leads).

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.

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.

And they're wrong too.

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".

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.

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.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

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.

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

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).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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

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

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[st.cronin]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

Have you forgotten the vast Judeo-Christian conspiracy?

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

Heh. Doesn't take much.

[Edward64]

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

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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.

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That part simply did not need to appear in his speech

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.

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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).

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

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

... but that doesn't mean all Germans needed to die.

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.

[panerd]

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.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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 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.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I love how talking about Muslims always brings out the racist crazies here.

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!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

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.

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.

[cartman]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

That has what to do with this situation?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

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?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

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 ...

Bullshit.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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."

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bullshit.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

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 ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

And PSUColonel provides another voice of reason in the wilderness.

[cartman]

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.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And PSUColonel provides another voice of reason in the wilderness.

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