Despite Jesus being anti-violence in a way that Mohamed never was Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
What facts are these?
Despite Jesus being anti-violence in a way that Mohamed never was Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
It turns out that we are not back to the days.....
Back then it seemed that .....
*Yeah, the fear. Remember? Back when having a flag on your car or house or lapel was required, and anyone who asked questions or cautioned restraint was part of the "other" and maybe on a list? Remember plastic sheeting and duct tape?
*Daniel Pearl. The Chavez coup attempt. The DC snipers. Sharks. Colin Powell lying to the UN and the world. The invasion, again, and Mission Accomplished. Mad cow. Madrid. Abu Ghraib. Nick Berg's head. Jeddah. The 9/11 Commission and whitewash for all, because "No one could have anticipated." Bush wins again. Giuliana Sgrena is assassinated. London is bombed. The Danes deal with Mohammed riots. Bali. The Kashmir earthquake. Bird flu. Mumbai. Lebanon. Katrina. Haiti. Oil hits $100 a barrel. The US economy collapses.
I've seen it from day one at sciforums. No matter, simply being a Muslim is enough to convict people of all crimes.
Like Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulated the world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars?
I haven't seen any evidence either way there
Jews and their defenders are often particularly sensitive people, for a host of reasons. Ignore such idiosyncrasies at your own peril.
Shadow1, you were totally right to see and criticize the Sciforums community for it's bias against the Middle East and Islam.
They can call you a troll. They can call me a troll but their bias is real and ugly.
Despite Jesus being anti-violence in a way that Mohamed never was Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
I just call you a space cowboy.
What facts are these?Despite Jesus being anti-violence in a way that Mohamed never was Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
There are several points to be made:Despite Jesus being anti-violence in a way that Mohamed never was Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
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.
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.
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.
Christians killed far more people for Christan reasons than Islamic people ever killed for Islamic reasons.
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.
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.
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.
To what degree was Suni versus Shia violence in Iraq religious? To what degree was Catholic versus Protestant violence in Norther Ireland 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 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?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.
The crusades certainly were not exclusively religious. Politics, plunder and adventure were involved as well/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.
Meanwhile Iran gets lots of negative attention. Why?
The European Christians would not even have taken on the Crusades, but for Jerusalem.
One of the main reasons for the break in Christian factions was the use of unleavened or leavened bread in their ceremonies.
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.
Is this what you guys want for every bloody post? Is this concrete enough for you? I have also reported this, is anything going to happen or be done about this? Hmm?
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).