Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by nirakar, Aug 13, 2010.
What facts are these?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
fuck me charlie!
Muslim Sensitivity Training for SciForum:
"Welcome to Muslim sensitivity training. Let's all look at why Muslims are upset. First of all, in the Muslim religion you're not aloud to have what? Sex, good, there is no sex until marriage in the Muslim world. Now this would be fine except in the Muslim religion you also can't, anybody? Jack off, ok jacking it is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion and what do we know about the places Muslims live, they live in? Good, sand, now put yourselves in the shoes of a Muslim, it's Friday night but you can't have sex and you can't jack off, there is sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass and then some cartoon comes along in a country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet, well you know what? I would be pretty pissed off too."
This concludes SciForum Muslim Sensitivity Training.
Congrats everyone, you made it.
Jesus Meets Moh
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Impressive.
Yes: those tiny idiosyncracies like an appreciation of the meaning of Holocaust, and of oppression, and of a word called history.
So replace your divots, people. Don't show them the dirt underneath.
I just call you a space cowboy.
There are several points to be made:
1.) Are you sure that you're separating ``christians'' and ``the West''? Citing the Iraq war doesn't really count in this regard.
2.) I don't know what set of facts this statement is even based on, and it's not clear that it's true. Certainly the amount of violence by Islamist terrorist groups far outweighs the violence by Christian terrorist groups in this decade. I don't think this is debatable.
3.) I don't know of many Christian groups that kill people for not being christian, or any christian countries that have laws against other religions, or any Christian countries whose laws are based primarily on punishments in the Old Testament---for example, the US doesn't mete out the death penalty for crimes like adultery. (Of course there are people like those who bomb abortion clinics, recently there has been an uptick in violence from Irish Catholic sympathizers, and the omnipresent examples of the KKK, the Crusades, and the Inquisition still apply.) This doesn't mean they don't exist, of course, and would gladly concede the point if you were to offer any evidence to the contrary.
4.) Given that you can dig up some statistic somewhere that validates what you are saying, it's not clear what such a statistic even means. Christianity has had far more opportunities to kill people as it is has both been around longer, and is followed by a larger percentage of the world's population.
From what I can see, most people here do a good job of separating violent Islamists from the religion of Islam. Of course, there are ignorant people here (and everywhere), but I don't notice an outright bias against Islam in particular. More succinctly, I would say that SciForums has a liberal slant, and it's not obvious that such a liberal slant is consistent with an anti-Islamic bias.
You won't call me "gangster of love"?
The facts change depending on the standards.
What standard off historical accuracy should we use. A long time ago people used to inflate battle numbers to make the history look more impressive.
What is our standard for deciding whether a war was religious or not? Religious thinking (even if it more a philosophy of morality than a religion even in the person making moral decisions is an atheist) plays a role in the decision making as to whether to participate in war. On the other end of the spectrum even the most religious wars are very much also the products of personal ambition, tribalistic psychology, greed and political intrigue. It is hard to find a purely religious battle.
Was Serbs verses Croats religious? Were Persia's wars withe the Ottomans religious?
You pick the standards and I will find facts to support my position at whatever standards you chose. I may take a while to get my facts together. You list the Islamic killing you want to include and I will find comparable Christian killing to top that.
I notice an outright bias against Islam. I think westerners have a hard time seeing this bias because it is so normal in the West. Even somebody who successfully distinguishes between Islamist violence and the religion of Islam is still being biased if they habitually are more attracted to discussing Islamist violence than they are attracted to discussing all the other violence in the world. They could say it is because the media covers Islamist violence that they discuss Islamist violence. Just because the media led somebody someplace does not mean that they are not participating in the violence.
I bring up Congo so people can see that they are not interested in violence they are only interested in Islamist violence. What is the next defense against the charge of bias? Congo did not attack the West, Islamists did. Why did Islamists attack the West? The disinterest in why Islamists attacked the West is part of the bias. The biased prefer to not understand.
What does a stoning in Iran have to do with Islamists attacking the West? Focusing on the stoning and similar incidents serves to create a narrative to explain away the Islamic world's frustrations with the West as just being Islam's evilness and backwards irrationality. Relatively kind, just, honest and objective people are participating in constructing this ugly image of Muslims without even seeing or being honest about their own actions and motivations. This is all relatively normal tribalistic behavior that we should expect from humans but if the world is to become a better place we humans need to start seeing the tribalism in ourselves.
Even the word Islamist was created by biased people. I don't even like using that word. It is imprecise and the owned by a false narrative.
Point 4 the larger Christian population and it's longer history is very valid. Also for the last few hundred years Christians have had more power. So the per capita and per opportunity adjusted killing for Christianity might not exceed killing for Islam.
Point 3 Christians used to kill people for not being Christian. Muslims do very little killing of people for not being Muslim. Muslims are more likely to attack people for attacking Muslims.
When I was doing my genealogy I discovered I am descended from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman Edward Wightman who was burned alive by Christians for the crime of being the wrong kind of Christian.
I don't know what to think about this statement. Islamist violence is directed at the west, thus we have a reason to be interested. In the Congo, for example, it's not clear that this is violence directed at the west, and even if it were, it's not clear that Congolese people in the West would have the resources to mount an attack on Western interests.
Your contention was that, and I quote:
I consider stoning a woman for adultery, as directed under Shia law, ``killing for Islamic reasons''. Do you not?
A recent poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, would seem to discredit this statement. In particular, 78% of people polled support the death penalty for apostasy, and 80% for adultery:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What's all this killing between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, if it isn't over who is the ``right kind of Muslim''. This seems to be exactly the kind of violence that you're talking about, but conveniently forgetting. I'm not making a claim that Christianity isn't without blood on it's own hands, however, your refusal to accept the same about Islam is a bit...biased.
The two great modern growth spurts in religious parties happened after the felling of the Berlin Wall.
-Eastern Orthodox Christian
-Lutheran (Reform) Christian
Good reason to make Muslims edgy.
The European Christians would not even have taken on the Crusades, but for Jerusalem.
And to oppose the Eastern Christian domination of that area.
The European Christians even allied with some Muslim factions at some point.
One of the main reasons for the break in Christian factions was the use of unleavened or leavened bread in their ceremonies.
Forget about Saddam or the Aitola. This all started centuries ago, over yeast.
I never claimed Muslims don't engage in religious violence.
To what degree was Suni versus Shia violence in Iraq religious? To what degree was Catholic versus Protestant violence in Norther Ireland religious?
Sadr versus Badr created some of the biggest battles in Iraq and both groups were Shia. If that was not religious can we be sure the other violence was religious? When something is partly religious how religious is religious enough to call it religious?
I am confident that I can defend my statement that more killing has been done for Christianity than for Islam if I want to.
I believe that humankind is coming to a long gradual agreement/shared understanding of these things.
As we cultivate a healing on the surface, a deeper natural breakdown of the underlying toxins happens too. It's not a wholly irreverent coverup. Have a little faith in us all, and in what's deeper and greater (just an aside one infidel to another).
/end of golf analogies
I'm not sure if you're saying that the Sunni vs. Shia violence was political in nature? If so, then ok---perhaps. I will admit to not knowing the full situation.
Now we're splitting hairs here. I give you a set of examples which disprove your point, and you dismiss them because there are political underpinnings. The fact that there is a political element to the violence between different sects of Muslims does not excuse that violence. I could likewise claim that the Crusades were political in nature, thus excusing the violence of the Christian invading army.
? Then why don't you do it? You make an outrageous claim, then you should be prepared to defend it. In the absence of any defense of your statements, you're no better than the douchebags who spam the Politics fora.
As it stands, I have given you several examples of Muslims killing Muslims for ``Islamic reasons'', and you haven't responded. I've given you examples of Muslim's killing non-Muslims for ``Islamic reasons'', see for example the fact that apostasy is a crime that warrants the death penalty in many Muslim countries, and the above poll by the Pew Research center about the wide scale belief in Pakistan that apostasy SHOULD be punishable by the death penalty.
I don't know either. If it was like the Catholics and Protestants in in Northern Ireland where religion as it applied to the violence was more of tribal identity than a clash of competing theology does it still count as religious?
The crusades certainly were not exclusively religious. Politics, plunder and adventure were involved as well/
Was the killing in the Crusade that was supposed to go to Israel but sacked Constantinople instead (because the hired Venetian Sailors were part of a Venetian plot to defeat their rival Byzantium) killing for Christianity? Sure the crusaders were Catholics and the Byzantines were Orthodox but looting not religion is believed to have been the crusaders motive after the Venetians took them to the wrong place. Those crusaders would have fought Muslims for Christianity if they were brought to the right place.
What about the Armenian Genocide? Does that count against the Muslims. The Christianity of the Armenians was a factor in why they were targeted but it was not the prime factor. What about the killing of Jews and Gypsies by Hitler? 60 years earlier German animosity towards Jews was primarily religious and secondarily ethnic. The antisemitic German Wilhelm Marr from whom we get the word "antisemitic" was part of a movement to create a German identity where there had been none and to transform the disrespected religious bigotry against Jews into a respectable psuedo-intellectual ethnic bigotry against Jews. I think the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are religious enough to be called Christian and Muslim killings.
What about the Russian Pogroms? What about the Spanish inquisition?
What about the English civil war? The puritan "roundheads" fought for religious reasons though religion and politics were connected.
What about the mistreatment and killing of Native Americans and African slaves. Those people's lack of Christianity was used to justify those actions.
What about the "Lord's Resistance Army" now in the Congo Uganda border. They think their Christians.
What about gay bashing by Christians taught that god hates gays?
What about the "Thirty Years War? was it sufficiently Catholic versus Protestant to be a Christian War or was it to political to be considered killing for Christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll website classifies the "Thirty Years War" as "a religious war" and says 3 to 11 million died from that war.
Many Muslims like the sound of Sharia Law until somebody tries to implement it. Extremism of the Al Qaeda types is what made the Sunis in Iraq toss them out. OK the US payoffs also helped get them tossed out.
In the video linked to below there is a Somali example of the same Sharia law is great until you actually impose it effect. http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3O-w2v_BYA
It is a great documentary. You might really learn something from it.
Are Muslims bias to anyone else - like the Zionsts, the Indians, the Australians, the London people, the Madrid people, the Bali people, the Americans - have I left out any infidels? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And Jerusalem spat out the robbers. I saw a movie called KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Two king kong beating their chests who owns a Hebrew city in a 120 hour flick - and not a frame about Jews. Wow! :shrug:
Better, the break came because of robbery, coveting, mass murders and grotesque desecration of the Hebrew bible.
You catch more flies with honey...And would it kill you to build some bigger walls?...what...one would think you were on a budget.
That picture and many others like it have been posted here for years. Now, it's suddenly a problem you felt compelled to report? What about the insults and name calling you have provided in great amounts? Funny that you are allowed to continue to do so without any problem whatsoever, yet I've been censored to the point where I'm not even allowed to attack an ideology, but you can attack people unabated. Curious that... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And as soon as I see some evidence of that, I'll be happy to sign on to your vision.
And while covering up the problem, no one will have any idea what goes on underneath.
Separate names with a comma.