Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan
- Thread starter Balerion
- Start date
- Status
do we now need to start posting all the christan hate crimes?
Sure I can find ALOT of news stories for you of hate crimes against Muslims and Gays perpitrated by Christans in the west too
Or shall we post Jewish hate crimes like the attacks on Palistine on a regular basis
Why do all the soft-minded trolls require every negative post about Islam to be accompanied by one accounting similar atrocities by Christians?
Look, most of the religion-themed posts on this forum are on the subject of the ills of Christianity, and nobody has a problem with it. Make one post saying that Islam is just as bad--and much, much worse in many cases--and out come the PC police.
Grow the hell up.
In societies there are two ways to respond to vice: punish those that commit vice or destroy the sources of vice. All societies utilize both responses but modern Muslim societies are particular to the latter when the vice is sexual or religious difference. When a man rapes a women in Muslim society it is generally regarded as the women's fault, to the point of requiring the women be killed; when someone speaks of religious ideals different from that of the clerics, by Islamic law he must be killed, certainly so if he has converted. If other religions exist around Muslims they are prone to attack and destroy, segregate and isolate them. In modern non-Muslim societies we tend to allow more vice and temptation to exist, we are tolerant of other peoples religions, if a women is raped we usually blame the rapist and don't punish the women, etc, etc.
The thing about it is that people (mostly liberals) who hear things that cast Islam in a negative light immediately jump to accusations of bigotry or intolerance, but for the most part, what's happening in Islam today isn't any different than what happened in Christianity centuries ago. Yeah, it's origins are quite a bit rockier, and since it's essentially a reaction to Christianity, it's a lot more hard-line in some respects, but the most relevant aspect is its youth. It's younger than Christianity and Judaism, and it's going through the same pains that they did.
Like it or not, this is a pretty big news story. Like it or not, it was a group of Muslims who did it. Posting the article doesn't make me a bigot.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Especially considering that Christianity has been relatively mellow lately, by historical standards. They haven't imprisoned any scientists, burned any witches, persecuted any Jews or obliterated any civilizations for several decades. Islam really is taking up the slack: persecuting "uppity" women, outlawing music, declaring the Holocaust a hoax, assassinating filmmakers. And even killing each other: in Pakistan, Sunnis are murdering Shiites.
That's because almost all of us live in Western countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. We're much more aware of it, more educated about its history, and simply more pissed off because of the lame shit they pull. Such as picketing military funerals because "God is angry at the United States because we tolerate homosexuality." Or erecting a Creation Science Museum in Kentucky.
In France people run into Muslims all the time: more people in Paris attend Islamic religious services than Christian. Here they haven't established that beachhead yet.
On the other hand, that is just silly. We all keep up with the news and we all know what the militant wing of Islam is doing, even if they're not doing it here. Oh wait, they are doing it here. I seem to remember something really bad happening in September 2001.
When I first arrived here in Washington in May 2002 I took a job with a company that's close enough to the Pentagon that the employees could see it burn from their roof.
Abrahamic religions: Fuck 'em all!
Bells
Staff member
No, posting the article does not make you a bigot.
However, tagging it with:
Does make you look like a raging bigot.
Plus, when you add the history of how you view Muslims, if your posts here in the past are to be taken seriously...
The irony, of course, is that your link is full of stories of Muslims who actually went out of their way and risked life and limb to save the Christians. Religion of peace indeed..:m:
Given your history, I'm not at all surprised you've taken up the mantle of throwing accusations like this around so carelessly. "Raging bigot?" I mean, are you for real? Because your spiel could totally pass for satire. Seriously, the only way you aren't completely embarrassing yourself right now is if this is just some undercover critique of the idiots who only take umbrage with religious criticism when it's directed at Islam.
But by all means, let's hear you explain how Islam had nothing to do with the ransacking of that neighborhood. I'm interested to hear how the religion had no role in this. Or are you suggesting that one being critical of a religion that promotes such behavior makes me a bigot?
Also, I'd like to challenge your comment "how you view Muslims." I don't have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam. I have a problem with its leadership and its foundational texts. I don't have a negative view of Muslims as people, I don't say anything disparaging about them because I don't make character judgments based on people's faith. I can't believe I overlooked that sneaky little misrepresentation, but I'm not at all surprised you try something so low. I'd ask for an apology, but you've never shown integrity before, and I doubt you'd start now.
Here's the difference, and why it isn't irony: I can show you how and to what extent Islam influenced the actions of those criminals. I can't tell you what role it played in the kindness of the people who helped afterwards. If the mosque sent them all, then great. It wouldn't diminish Islam's role in the violence, nor make "The religion of peace" any less of a misnomer.
Last edited:
Citing relevant facts about Islam? Bigot.
I'm aware of the reasons why. My point was that the forum is saturated with criticism of Christianity, but you don't see Bells jumping into those threads calling people bigots. I think it must have something to do with a perceived "foreignness" of Islam to these people. They don't quite understand it, so they assume that no one does, therefore anyone who is critical of it must be doing so because they're a bigot. Or maybe I'm giving people like Bells too much credit. Maybe they just like to chase popular causes. Who knows?
I agree. And so long as "'em all" only includes Judaism and Christianity, Bells probably won't call you a bigot for saying it. Throw Islam into the mix, on the other hand...
Is she stirring her usual crap backstage over this?
As he balls said every village has an idiot , in this situation he identified himself.
Given the grammatical nightmare that is that sentence, I'm going to have to agree.
And who is "He balls?" Is that like He-Man's father, or something?
View attachment 6136
One can dream Stoniphi...one can dream.
I am sick and tried of ALL of the religions, wish they would all just shut up and go away.
One can dream Stoniphi...one can dream.
Generally true. The question regarding Islamism is the extent to which it's officially involved in the political process. That and the huge conservative streak, and the willingness to translate that into direct action. A lot of apologetic talk circles the issues of sharia: but rarely do the penalties and particulars of religious injunctions differ among Islamic or Islamist nations in anything but degree. That's how theocracy goes. No need to pretend it's anything else.
Bells
Staff member
I know you prefer it if I remained the frigid individual and not respond at all, but alas..
Is this where I pop gum and say "like yeah" with my head tilted to the side?
This coming from you, I am amused!
A little bit from column A and a bit from column B.
You see Balerion, the issue I have with threads like this one is that instead of looking at the cause, trying to find why mobs form to do horrendous things like this, you jump straight to "AMG IT'S ISLAM".. Completely disregarding your own link which focused quite a bit on the fact that Muslims went out of their way to shelter and protect Christians as the rampaging mob was running rampant and attacking the Muslim police officers who tried to stop them.
Of course, if you had lowered yourself to consider what caused mobs like this to form and what led to that kind of mob mentality, you might find it is not religion but something that happens all the time in all societies - soccer hooligans is a prime example..
But no, the best thing is to just blame Islam and be done with it, while ignoring and disregarding that Muslims also went out of their way and risked their own property and lives in sheltering the Christians who were the target of the rampaging mob.
So Islam is to blame for all mobs who form who commit such crimes?
Heaven forbid you consider that Pakistan is being bombed by drone attacks by a predominantly Christian country and that breeds resentment and hence, many of the populace might feel resentment towards Christians, add to this the fear being generated by some Imam's who push their flock into a more radical direction and add to this, the abject poverty of some of these areas and the frustration and the fact that the region is still suffering from the Partition. It's not "Islam". It is a whole ugly kettle.
It was a riot. One of many in a region being bombed by the West - a Christian West.
It isn't just religion at play here. It is personal vendetta's and people using their religion to try and exact revenge by pushing a crowd into a froth, and when one considers their living condition, the political ramifications and all the rest of it.. Do you honestly thing it is just religion? Really? This is what you are pushing here?
I think Americans are all fat, racist, Christian fundamentalist, homophobic gun obsessed slobs with an idiotic leadership that is hell bent on war. I'm not criticising Americans here, just America. I don't have a problem with Americans, just America. Because America is full of murderous racist people.
Stereotyping is fun, isn't it?
Of course you can't. It wouldn't help your little whining rant here, would it?
And that is the most ironic thing about this.
You start this thread, malign a whole religion and post a link that is mostly full of how Muslims risked their own lives to shelter and protect the victims of this riot and then you say 'well I can't tell you if religion played a role in the people who were kind and helped before, during and afterwards'.. You can't tell that because if you so much as acknowledge what was in your own link, your whole "AMG IT'S ISLAM" whine goes right out the window and you have undermined your whole argument.
And just blame Islam..
No one is discounting the religious aspect here. How can we?
However this is just a minute part of a larger puzzle and a giant piece of that puzzle is to look at why Pakistan is becoming so radicalized. And part of the answer to that question lies in the US drone program. They are angry and yes, they will be wary of anyone who is deemed an outsider (your article even touches on this).. add to this abject poverty.. It is a keg and someone just had to light the fuel and instilling fear and distrust through religion is a prime way to do it.
But no, we'll just blame Islam and be done with it.
So carry on..
I can give you a shovel if you wish to dig a bigger hole for yourself?
It's about to be a what? - Geoff vs. Bells fight
Hello, Bells. Let's dance through the minefield.
If that were the case then the crowd transferred their anger onto Pakistani Christian minorities. The only difference between them -saving perhaps that of the poverty of the Christian minorities in Pakistan due to institutional or societal discrimination - is religion. Even if that hatred was ascribed to the assault by the 'Christian' West, the tie would still be religious in nature. One can take the position that it was just an arbitrary difference, but that's not the read one gets from the article, and your point underscores this. It was mostly about religion.
You've dropped directly into correspondance here: Balerion's contrast is between Islam and Muslims. It's perfectly possible to criticize the inept, warmongering leadership of America - which is perfectly true, as a matter of fact - but your first point makes a direct correspondance to Americans themselves, which is not actually a parallel to Balerion's argument.
As a rule, it's possible and ethical to criticize institutions - the Catholic Church, for example - without meaning such criticisms to necessarily connect to its adherents. This is an important social tool:
And othersuch nonsensicalities.
There might be a grey area in which that might be true: say, if those adherents supported, accepted or at least ignored the failings of their institutions. If most Mormons supported child polygamy, say, could one conceivably criticize Mormons as a body? (I.e. "Hey, you Mormons, stop all that child polygamy!") I'm not sure. If most Muslims supported the same, could one criticize them? Not sure. If one does, does one mean the reformers or liberals within those bodies as well? Well, probably not.
Well, why not? Islamic orthodoxy promotes the precedence of religious social structure, which leads to the above riot. Would it be incorrect to blame the Catholic Church for pedophilia among priests? Or for the protection of same? Or what is meant by such criticism: the abjuring of the social structures these institutions create, or of their fundamental values and mores? Or are some of those mores, to borrow a classical phrase, fucked in the head? What is meant by "Islam" in this instance? I suppose it might be better to say "Islamism" or "Islamic orthodoxy".
Also, I'm sorry, but I didn't see in Balerion's link where other citizens helped the displaced Christians afterward. Have I missed something?
I agree that no one is discounting it - the difference is that Balerion considers its primacy, while you disagree. I think the distinction as not quite phrased is academic: Islamism or Islamic religious mores have created a social situation in Pakistan, and elsewhere, in which it is permissible to persecute non-Muslims. I think that really is what needs to be said.
Well, maltreatment of Pakistani Christians far predates American drones. You've touched on this yourself, above: they are wary of those deemed 'outsiders', and this includes those who have lived among them for centuries. But these are not outsiders: they are Pakistanis themselves. So what causes this separation that permits such repression and discrimination? Well, religion and social status. What causes the difference in social status? Religion. :shrug: As it so often is, religion lies at the rotten heart of failed equality and sociality. Saying that religion is not the major factor in this outrage would be like saying race was not the basis of racial discrimination in the United States: sure, there may be complicating factors further up the line, but race is at its heart.
Exeunt.
Hello, Bells. Let's dance through the minefield.
If that were the case then the crowd transferred their anger onto Pakistani Christian minorities. The only difference between them -saving perhaps that of the poverty of the Christian minorities in Pakistan due to institutional or societal discrimination - is religion. Even if that hatred was ascribed to the assault by the 'Christian' West, the tie would still be religious in nature. One can take the position that it was just an arbitrary difference, but that's not the read one gets from the article, and your point underscores this. It was mostly about religion.
You've dropped directly into correspondance here: Balerion's contrast is between Islam and Muslims. It's perfectly possible to criticize the inept, warmongering leadership of America - which is perfectly true, as a matter of fact - but your first point makes a direct correspondance to Americans themselves, which is not actually a parallel to Balerion's argument.
As a rule, it's possible and ethical to criticize institutions - the Catholic Church, for example - without meaning such criticisms to necessarily connect to its adherents. This is an important social tool:
"Equal rights now! No more oppression against women from the... well, the other... from the body that constitutes... from those people that.... Look, you have a set of humans who are women, and you have a body of humans - and by this, just to be clear, I mean Homo sapiens - who are not being suppressed, on virtue of the different and relatively static genetic characters of their sex-determining regions, and it is to this latter group and their sense of liberty that we are appealing"
"... you mean men?"
"Well... yes."
"Sexist! Equal treatment now! No more oppression from... er..."
"... yes?"
"... you mean men?"
"Well... yes."
"Sexist! Equal treatment now! No more oppression from... er..."
"... yes?"
And othersuch nonsensicalities.
There might be a grey area in which that might be true: say, if those adherents supported, accepted or at least ignored the failings of their institutions. If most Mormons supported child polygamy, say, could one conceivably criticize Mormons as a body? (I.e. "Hey, you Mormons, stop all that child polygamy!") I'm not sure. If most Muslims supported the same, could one criticize them? Not sure. If one does, does one mean the reformers or liberals within those bodies as well? Well, probably not.
Well, why not? Islamic orthodoxy promotes the precedence of religious social structure, which leads to the above riot. Would it be incorrect to blame the Catholic Church for pedophilia among priests? Or for the protection of same? Or what is meant by such criticism: the abjuring of the social structures these institutions create, or of their fundamental values and mores? Or are some of those mores, to borrow a classical phrase, fucked in the head? What is meant by "Islam" in this instance? I suppose it might be better to say "Islamism" or "Islamic orthodoxy".
Also, I'm sorry, but I didn't see in Balerion's link where other citizens helped the displaced Christians afterward. Have I missed something?
I agree that no one is discounting it - the difference is that Balerion considers its primacy, while you disagree. I think the distinction as not quite phrased is academic: Islamism or Islamic religious mores have created a social situation in Pakistan, and elsewhere, in which it is permissible to persecute non-Muslims. I think that really is what needs to be said.
Well, maltreatment of Pakistani Christians far predates American drones. You've touched on this yourself, above: they are wary of those deemed 'outsiders', and this includes those who have lived among them for centuries. But these are not outsiders: they are Pakistanis themselves. So what causes this separation that permits such repression and discrimination? Well, religion and social status. What causes the difference in social status? Religion. :shrug: As it so often is, religion lies at the rotten heart of failed equality and sociality. Saying that religion is not the major factor in this outrage would be like saying race was not the basis of racial discrimination in the United States: sure, there may be complicating factors further up the line, but race is at its heart.
Exeunt.
Last edited:
The difference is that most Christians don't take the bible as the rule of law anymore but rather give that authority over to a secular state which generally has separation of church and state. Most Islamic countries on the other hand claim the Koran as their source for laws, have religious clerics dictate goverment policy and allow sharia law
- Status