UnderCover Mosque: The Return

[unozero]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIYkLWY4Fc



very good video




in before: but the christians look at them!!:E

 

[Sulkdodds]

Aha. A welcome return. I shall watch this later.

 

[Solaris]

I hate the way they try and make it out as if these people are not actually following what the quaran says. Rather they make a loose translation of it becuase they are bigots. This makes the people the problem, rather than the religion.

And it's not, it is the fault of the religion. It is far more bigoted and violent than christianity or any other majour religion.

The problem is Islam, it a stupid, horrible thing. People who believe it should be openly mocked. Mosques where the kind of extremist filth is proffessed as in the video should be raised to the ground. Religious schools banned and all children banned from religious institutions.

Then we should send the SAS to pakistan to shoot every dickhead imam that thinks honour killing is acceptable.

**** cultural relativism - our culture is better than yours.

 

[Polaris]

Good post Solaris.

Inb4 Solaris hates brownies ololol.

 

[Tagaziel]

I hate the way they try and make it out as if these people are not actually following what the quaran says. Rather they make a loose translation of it becuase they are bigots. This makes the people the problem, rather than the religion.

And it's not, it is the fault of the religion. It is far more bigoted and violent than christianity or any other majour religion.

The problem is Islam, it a stupid, horrible thing. People who believe it should be openly mocked. Mosques where the kind of extremist filth is proffessed as in the video should be raised to the ground. Religious schools banned and all children banned from religious institutions.

Then we should send the SAS to pakistan to shoot every dickhead imam that thinks honour killing is acceptable.

**** cultural relativism - our culture is better than yours.

You're an idiot Solaris, we know, you don't have to prove it to everyone at every single post you make.

Why are you an idiot? Because you're a hypocrite and aren't even aware of it. Bigots like you should stop stating that they fight bigotry and actually do something about it for once.

 

[Solaris]

How am I a hypocrite?

Please show where I contradict myself.

And don't bother digging up old posts. This is the new and improved west loving, free-market endorsing, pro coallition Solaris 2.0.

 

[lefty]

All the "kill all the killers" bullshit is pretty hypocritical.

 

[unozero]

we must deny freedom to those that want to take it away from us.



he's not being a hypocrite imho.

 

[Nomad]

I hate the way they try and make it out as if these people are not actually following what the quaran says. Rather they make a loose translation of it becuase they are bigots. This makes the people the problem, rather than the religion.

And it's not, it is the fault of the religion. It is far more bigoted and violent than christianity or any other majour religion.

The problem is Islam, it a stupid, horrible thing. People who believe it should be openly mocked. Mosques where the kind of extremist filth is proffessed as in the video should be raised to the ground. Religious schools banned and all children banned from religious institutions.

Then we should send the SAS to pakistan to shoot every dickhead imam that thinks honour killing is acceptable.

**** cultural relativism - our culture is better than yours.

char

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

While this is very scary, especially since it is happening in the country I live in, it is important that we retain logic and do not judge all Muslims like this. I happen to be good friends with a Muslim who is very tolerant of homosexuals and women. Born and raised in this country.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Ever heard of jail Piggy?

 

[Escaep]

Bigots.

Bigoted
.

Bigots

Bigotry.

Bigotsssss!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Ever heard of jail Piggy?

wat

I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

 

[Mr Stabby]

When someone interferes with another persons freedom they get put in jail and have their freedom taken away from them.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I understand what jail is, though I don't know what relevance that has to my post. You may be referring to the post I had before editing, but I abandoned that. I was making the point that Solaris is being a hypocrite, claiming to support freedom and yet advocating we remove others. He also has know ****ing idea what he is talking about when it comes to Islam. There are many moderate peaceful Muslims, and if Solaris cannot except that then he is a idiot and a bigot himself.

Oh and before all the "oh but you criticize Christianity and shit" bitches come in, I am not saying that Islam is exempt from criticism, but just like Christianity to believe that all believers are automatically fundamentalists is silly.

 

[Tyguy]

You're an idiot Solaris, we know, you don't have to prove it to everyone at every single post you make.

Why are you an idiot? Because you're a hypocrite and aren't even aware of it. Bigots like you should stop stating that they fight bigotry and actually do something about it for once.

Hey look, Mikeal's being a prick again!!!! :thumbs:

Islam is the problem. They way it dehumanizes women is proof enough. As far as societal progression is concerned, islam is taking a step back in the wrong direction.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The problem with the Bible and presumably the Koran, is that they are vague and self contradicting, you can justify just about any belief from either of those texts.

 

[Tyguy]

which is true, yet you would probably agree that islam has a greater tendency to be taken out of context in a violent way.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Hey look, Mikeal's being a prick again!!!! :thumbs:

Islam is the problem. They way it dehumanizes women is proof enough. As far as societal progression is concerned, islam is taking a step back in the wrong direction.

You have read the Koran? FFS have you even watched all the videos in that series? It specifically shows that many of the worst parts of the Koran are found only in the Saudi version, and the good parts are made redundant in footnotes. Yes Islam mistreats women, homosexuals, and Jews, but 200 years ago western society considered Jews and women inferior, and homosexuals demented.

 

[99.vikram]

Islamic society has been insulated from the world throughout the imperial age. This is the natural consequence.

 

[Nomad]

I understand what jail is, though I don't know what relevance that has to my post. You may be referring to the post I had before editing, but I abandoned that. I was making the point that Solaris is being a hypocrite, claiming to support freedom and yet advocating we remove others. He also has know ****ing idea what he is talking about when it comes to Islam. There are many moderate peaceful Muslims, and if Solaris cannot except that then he is a idiot and a bigot himself.

Oh and before all the "oh but you criticize Christianity and shit" bitches come in, I am not saying that Islam is exempt from criticism, but just like Christianity to believe that all believers are automatically fundamentalists is silly.

Pretty much how I feel about fundamentalists. I mean ffs, they shouldn't even be preaching Islam, let alone pushing it off on other people. They twist around the Qu'ran as much as racist bigots all over the globe, and they shoud be put in a deep dark hole and covered with cement.

PS: Only ranting because I'm fasting and haven't had anything to eat for a while.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The problem with the Bible and presumably the Koran, is that they are vague and self contradicting, you can justify just about any belief from either of those texts.

I agree, although it's worth noting that the Qur'ran is especially known for using very poetic - that is to say, ambiguous - language, which perhaps gives it more of a tendency towards wider interpretation. There is also the problem that what we now call the Qur'ran may be mistranslated from a much older form of the language.

On the other hand, differences in how the holy books are interpreted (ie the claim that 'Islam is more likely to be fundamentalist than Christianity') is doubtless more due to the socioeconomic condition under which the religions currently operate rather than any particularity of their structures.

 

[Solaris]

I was making the point that Solaris is being a hypocrite, claiming to support freedom and yet advocating we remove others.

Clearly this is not a valid point. Can you find me anybody in the world who "Advocates freedom" yet does not also believe others should be "removed". Surely, as a lover of freedom, do you not believe paedophiles should be removed (from society or the gene pool it doesn't matter) and/or terrorists? Does that make you a hypocrite? No, because we don't advocate freedom for everyone. I believe in the right of all human beings to do what they want till that infringes on the freedom of others.

Imams who encourage and partake in honour killings of women, for the 'crime' of being infertile or disobedient or whatever disgusting reason they have are violating this principle. I do not believe in the death penalty, I was ranting a bit earlier, but such sexist violence and discrimination because of a religious text makes me so angry. As it should any decent, freedom loving person with an ounce of compassion and human solidarity across the gender line.

He also has know ****ing idea what he is talking about when it comes to Islam. There are many moderate peaceful Muslims, and if Solaris cannot except that then he is a idiot and a bigot himself.

Tell me, where have I said/or implied there are not many peaceful Muslims? I do however affirm it to be an outdated, primal and downright ridiculous belief system. I too have a few Muslim friends and whenever we discuss their faith, their reasons for their beliefs are so poorly constructed and childish it literally makes me cringe hearing my friends disrespect themselves like that.

Oh and before all the "oh but you criticize Christianity and shit" bitches come in, I am not saying that Islam is exempt from criticism, but just like Christianity to believe that all believers are automatically fundamentalists is silly.

No-one believes this. You're building a straw man and attacking it.

On the other hand, differences in how the holy books are interpreted (ie the claim that 'Islam is more likely to be fundamentalist than Christianity') is doubtless more due to the socioeconomic condition under which the religions currently operate rather than any particularity of their structures.

My esteemed colleague, when reading your post I am reminded of the Karl Marx quotation:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

However, I have recently broken away from my Marxist chains ( )and do not think this attribution between religious fundamentalism and socio-economic status stands up. Christianity over the centuries has undergone many reforms. The church line has been forced backwards by the great standard of intellectual honesty set by Martin Luther "Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders" and the untruths in church doctorine unvealed by great scientists like Galileo and Newton.

Islam simply hasn't undergone this which is why it is as backward as it was at it's incarnation. Christian nations don't actually stone people anymore, Islamic ones do. And it is worth noting, Saudi Arabia is ruled by the richest people in the world.

Yours etc.
Solaris

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Clearly this is not a valid point. Can you find me anybody in the world who "Advocates freedom" yet does not also believe others should be "removed". Surely, as a lover of freedom, do you not believe paedophiles should be removed (from society or the gene pool it doesn't matter) and/or terrorists? Does that make you a hypocrite? No, because we don't advocate freedom for everyone. I believe in the right of all human beings to do what they want till that infringes on the freedom of others.

I was talking about this primarily:

mosques where the kind of extremist filth is professed as in the video should be raised to the ground.

How can you possibly justify burning mosques to the ground simply because they preach something you dislike? The video itself states that while they may be teaching extremism, they also speak out against terrorism. Whats more (and this is somewhat unrelated) you also claim that Islam is the problem, even though the video points out that many of the teachings being taught there are from the Saudi version of the Koran, which has many edited and tampered parts, as well as footnotes explaining they're interpretation.

Imams who encourage and partake in honour killings of women, for the 'crime' of being infertile or disobedient or whatever disgusting reason they have are violating this principle. I do not believe in the death penalty, I was ranting a bit earlier, but such sexist violence and discrimination because of a religious text makes me so angry. As it should any decent, freedom loving person with an ounce of compassion and human solidarity across the gender line.

I was ranting a little too . I agree with you fully here that people like that are disgusting animals.

Tell me, where have I said/or implied there are not many peaceful Muslims? I do however affirm it to be an outdated, primal and downright ridiculous belief system.

What religion isn't? Also, I have no idea why I said that, though it was implied in your post (you say that Islam is inherently violent - this implies that the only way to interpret the Koran is the way you have, meaning that all Muslims would thus have to follow that rigid interpretation.

I too have a few Muslim friends and whenever we discuss their faith, their reasons for their beliefs are so poorly constructed and childish it literally makes me cringe hearing my friends disrespect themselves like that.

welcome to religion.

No-one believes this. You're building a straw man and attacking it.

Not exactly. I think Islam is just as illogical and stupid as any other religion, but I do not think it can necessarily said to be worse than any other.

 

[jverne]

this is a prime example of how moderate religion indirectly breeds extremism.

combine that with an evil religion and impotent wealthy shakes and you got yourself a time bomb.

don't see how one could argue against this...

america is another perfect example of moderate religion, it's the same thing, a large pool of moderate religious folk makes a breeding ground for the likes of Pat Robertson and Kent Hovid.
look at europe...since Christianity lost it's grip religious extremist nutjobs are almost non existant.

and i'd love anyone to prove me wrong.
moderate religion without extremists is like a dog with no fur...it might survive for a short time but it will soon die. extremists are what is keeping the integrity of religion otherwise people would just forget about it eventually.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That's nonsense. It's misleading to use the term Christian like that, there is no Christian church. How does the existence of moderate Christian churches like Anglicans have any bearing out an entirely separate church with it's own interpretation of the bible, like westboro Baptists.

 

[Sulkdodds]

My esteemed colleague, when reading your post I am reminded of the Karl Marx quotation:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

However, I have recently broken away from my Marxist chains ( )and do not think this attribution between religious fundamentalism and socio-economic status stands up. Christianity over the centuries has undergone many reforms. The church line has been forced backwards by the great standard of intellectual honesty set by Martin Luther "Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders" and the untruths in church doctorine unvealed by great scientists like Galileo and Newton.

Islam simply hasn't undergone this which is why it is as backward as it was at it's incarnation. Christian nations don't actually stone people anymore, Islamic ones do. And it is worth noting, Saudi Arabia is ruled by the richest people in the world.

Yours etc.
Solaris

I think it is naive to imagine the progress of Christianity as a simplistic battle between reason and unreason, in which the old ritual church was eventually conquered by the "intellectual honesty" of the humanist tradition. That dimension is present, but deeper financial, economic, technological, structural causes are always going about their work, which is of even greater profundity. The modern world did not displace the religious world by defeating it. The modern world has evolved in utter complicity with religion in its Protestant form, which itself (as a more individualistic and humanist denomination, even if humanism does not seem to have been seen as incompatible with catholicism) arose out of a variety of intellectual but ultimately structural causes (eg. money, the printing press).

It's rather ironic that, though claiming to have abandoned Marxism, you have drawn so heavily on Marx's theory. Just like he claimed that this society had been a grand and inevitable progress through feudalism, capitalism, and then eventually to a communist utopia, you conceive of the religion as a linear continuum: it starts primitive, then it grows in power, becomes more abusive, and can finally be defeated by stern intellectuals. Christianity is more benign because it has gone through this process, whereas Islam, you suppose, is more 'primitive', has not progressed beyond its original incarnation, and not so far along the line.

You're dreaming! In reality the relative kindness of religions has always been dependent (if not wholly, then at least to a large extent) on their positions in the world. The Islamic Empire was once one of the most powerful and tolerant societies on earth, innovating far beyond the western Medievalists in the fields of mathematics, science, philosophy, technology (gunpowder, the printing press, early machine programming). This is a society in which thinkers pursued humanistic and rational discourses, open to the ideas of individualism, liberalism, skepticism and even secularism (not to mention some of the first known instances of environmentalism). In a reather stunning contrast to modern Islamic views on free speech, the scholar al-Hashimi writes:

Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!"

These are not the words of a man immersed in a debased culture, steeped in a religion which has not come as far as Christianity has along the road to secular enlightenment. This isn't backwards.

Al-Hashimi and his culture could afford to talk like this because they lived in a geographical and temporal position we tend to call the Islamic Golden Age; they were flourishing. It's the same deal with Protestantism: although the praise that men like Martin Luther deserve for their intellectual bravery and diligence should not be with-held, it is also true that our society has liberalised (to an extent) because it has been able to afford to.

If times are good, men are more likely to praise the benevolence of their God, permit tolerance and understanding, be generous with their ideology. If times are bad, they may blame the mores of the devil, find scapegoats, crush an enemy, tighten their belts and their nooses.

Look at the Islamic world today. Between Palestine, Afghanistan, Egypt and the gulf, Muslims would be forgiven for feeling that they have spent much of the last century as bartering chips in other people's destinies, and even if this claim has its holes, there's no question that this is no Golden Age for the arab world; four things have characterised the recent history of the middle east, and the first three are social deprivation, war, and slaughter.

The fourth thing is oppression, and that is both a cause of and a product of the other three. Bad times produce fundamentalism - just look at the preoccupation of fundamentalist Christianity with the 'culture wars', the counterculture waves of the 50s, 60s and 70s, that have loosened its monopoly on morals. This is always especially bad because power interests get involved: it is desirable for a threatened monarch to preach violence to his people.

I said earlier that the Qur'ran, of all holy books, was particular succeptible to interpretation, and that's very relevant here: there are words for peace, and there are words for war. In times of plenty, you will read it the nice way, but in times like these, you are always more likely to take the aggressive reading, and mentally add "(this means Jews)" after the phrase "enemies of Islam", as Wahhabist Saudi Arabia does in its printed editions. It's not a hard and fast rule, but the contrast of modernity with the Golden Age, in which the middle east was more advanced in almost all ways than Europe, speaks volumes.

The potential is absolutely inherent in the Qur'ran, as it is in the Bible, for oppression and horror divinely justified. And, as with all Abrahamic religions, the central faith-based supplication to a wispy intangible divine figure is a sleep of reason that is apt to produce monsters. But that all such religion is fundamentally (ha) problematic is not an excuse to think simplistically about the workings of religion, nor for your degradingly theological (that is, teleological) interpretation of religious history.

 

[jverne]

That's nonsense. It's misleading to use the term Christian like that, there is no Christian church. How does the existence of moderate Christian churches like Anglicans have any bearing out an entirely separate church with it's own interpretation of the bible, like westboro Baptists.

because...it's acceptable for this kind of mentality to perpetuate even if in different ways. i mean the religious mentality. every now and then some jerk comes along that likes to take it too seriously.
actually the westboro nutjubs are a great example of that.
in a society where moderate religion would be considered silly...one could wonder hot they might take the extremist idiots.
look at scientology...same thing. moderate religion softens the people to be more susceptible and less opposed to such ideas.

face it man...moderate religion is dragging extremism along itself.

the same thing can be used to explain why in an existing racial intolerant society, racial segregation might spawn sooner or later (Nazism).

i mean come on the evidence is almost overwhelming, how can you deny that!?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Actually moderate Christians hate westboro baptists, so they provide a tolerant climate form them how?

Care to provide some of this 'overwhelming evidence' that moderate religion creates extremism.

Your Racial analogy fails because your saying that there is such a thing as moderate racism and extremist racism. Your also comparing theism to racism, theism itself is a harmless idea, racism is not.

 

[Solaris]

Sulkdodds, you make a strong case and I must concede.

 

[jverne]

Actually moderate Christians hate westboro baptists, so they provide a tolerant climate form them how?

Care to provide some of this 'overwhelming evidence' that moderate religion creates extremism.

Your Racial analogy fails because your saying that there is such a thing as moderate racism and extremist racism. Your also comparing theism to racism, theism itself is a harmless idea, racism is not.

it doesn't matter if they hate them or not...they share a decent amount of beliefs.
it's not that the moderate Christians created them, the westboro belivers used the situation where religious practices are common only they enhanced them to the extreme. hoping they might go uncriticized or something similar. maybe they didn't choose the right way to forward their message, but it doesn't matter we have many more nutjobs to fill the gap. look at the relative success Kent Hovid had or Pat Pobertson. they advocate quite extreme messages but they do it so that it does not piss out everyone.
but it is the same thing. they used the situation to gather people from a similar religious background.

no i never said moderate racism...i said intolerance to other races. an environment where something is prejudiced against.
ever wondered why the KKK is more successful in the south US rather than the blue states?

 

[Absinthe]

It is not literally that moderates accept or condone extremism. On the contrary, many despise the latter. The problem is that the same arguments they use to legitimize their faith apply just as equally to their savage, backward kin. The moment you say "But my holy book is open to interpretation!" to euphemize morally questionable sections of it, you implicitly afford the same defense to head-sawing fundamentalists who don't share the same "civilized" view of your religion that you do. When you say that a careful consideration and respect for your faith must be given, you offer no competing theological reason as to why the same should not be accorded to religious barbarism. And when the line becomes blurred, that's when you get terms like "Islamophobia" thrown around with useless abandon. The shield placed around moderation makes it difficult to criticize extremism.

Extremism is often more bloodthirsty, dysfunctional, and harmful. And it must certainly be argued that religious moderation is miles ahead of it in its compassion and civil conduct. But that must be argued on a moral platform independent of religion. You cannot discredit it with "Oh, but they have a flawed understanding of it!". You can't even argue that moderation is theologically better than extremism because it plays nice according to today's moral standards. They are following God's rules, and yours frankly don't matter.

 

[jverne]

It is not literally that moderates accept or condone extremism. On the contrary, many despise the latter. The problem is that the same arguments they use to legitimize their faith apply just as equally to their savage, backward kin. The moment you say "But my holy book is open to interpretation!" to euphemize morally questionable sections of it, you implicitly afford the same defense to head-sawing fundamentalists who don't share the same "civilized" view of your religion that you do. When you say that a careful consideration and respect for your faith must be given, you offer no competing theological reason as to why the same should not be accorded to religious barbarism. And when the line becomes blurred, that's when you get terms like "Islamophobia" thrown around with useless abandon. The shield placed around moderation makes it difficult to criticize extremism.

Extremism is often more bloodthirsty, dysfunctional, and harmful. And it must certainly be argued that religious moderation is miles ahead of it in its compassion and civil conduct. But that must be argued on a moral platform independent of religion. You cannot discredit it with "Oh, but they have a flawed understanding of it!". You can't even argue that moderation is theologically better than extremism because it plays nice according to today's moral standards. They are following God's rules, and yours frankly don't matter.

god damn...why can't i express my self as good as this. hmm...probably because i suck at literature.

anyway...nicely put.

 

[Mr Stabby]

When are suicide bombings or stonings ever justified with 'respect their faith'. No one judges a religious nut's actions purely by their theology.

It seems to me that your argument against suicide bombings is that religion and faith are stupid, no that argument won't work in a moderate religious society but it's a terrible argument anyway.

The theological beliefs moderates and extremists share about god's existence are harmless and irrelevant. Moderate religious people don't create tolerance for stonings or suicide bombings, or any of the actual problems with religion.

 

[jverne]

When are suicide bombings or stonings ever justified with 'respect their faith'. No one judges a religious nut's actions purely by their theology.

It seems to me that your argument against suicide bombings is that religion and faith are stupid, no that argument won't work in a moderate religious society but it's a terrible argument anyway.

The theological beliefs moderates and extremists share about god's existence are harmless and irrelevant. Moderate religious people don't create tolerance for stonings or suicide bombings, or any of the actual problems with religion.

you're thick you now that?

i didn't say create tolerance for extremists. altough when you think of it, they indirectly do. i gave you two perfect examples and the whole video even proves this point. there was just one girl that questioned the teachings of that preacher (or whatever they call it).
you are also in the wrong with the stoning and suicide bombings. stoning was pretty popular back in those days it is just that today we see it as immoral. as for suicide bombers there are quite alot of people that condone it. just look at the mass cheering of Palestinians when the israeli frees a former bomber or stuff like that.

and you didn't even answer me on the racist part...which i think is a good analogy.

you have to be blind or stupid not to see that extremism piggybacks itself on moderate religion.

 

[Mr Stabby]

you're thick you now that?

When calling someone stupid try not to make spelling mistakes.

i didn't say create tolerance for extremists. altough when you think of it, they indirectly do

So they do or they don't, make your mind up. If moderate religious people don't create tolerance for the nutty ones, what is the problem with moderate religion?

. i gave you two perfect examples and the whole video even proves this point. there was just one girl that questioned the teachings of that preacher (or whatever they call it).

You didn't. If you believe that moderate religion created a tolerant climate for the ideas of the westboro baptists, then you have no idea what your talking about. Westboro baptist and your other example Scientology are some of the most hated groups in America. Clearly it's not the case that moderate religion creates tolerance of such groups.

you are also in the wrong with the stoning and suicide bombings. stoning was pretty popular back in those days it is just that today we see it as immoral. as for suicide bombers there are quite alot of people that condone it. just look at the mass cheering of Palestinians when the israeli frees a former bomber or stuff like that.

Back in those days, before moderate religion ever existed. Moderate religion is a modern invention, nutty religion is a far older. In fact you could say nutty religion providing the groundwork of moderate religion. Are the people who condone suicide bombings moderate, if you think yes, you're an idiot.

and you didn't even answer me on the racist part...which i think is a good analogy.

It's a stupid analogy. A racist society creating segregation is like an Islamic society creating sharia law, those who support sharia law are not moderate, for an majority of society to support it then, it's a fundamentalist society. Modern day American racism is comparable to modern day religious extremism, fringe movements. The majority of Americans are opposed to segregation and a few people support it. The majority of Christan's are moderate a few are fundamentalists.

you have to be blind or stupid not to see that extremism piggybacks itself on moderate religion.

Some actual examples please.

 

[Absinthe]

When are suicide bombings or stonings ever justified with 'respect their faith'. No one judges a religious nut's actions purely by their theology.

It seems to me that your argument against suicide bombings is that religion and faith are stupid, no that argument won't work in a moderate religious society but it's a terrible argument anyway.

The theological beliefs moderates and extremists share about god's existence are harmless and irrelevant. Moderate religious people don't create tolerance for stonings or suicide bombings, or any of the actual problems with religion.

Because extremists never ever commit acts of violence and repugnance while citing verse.

 

[Mr Stabby]

What's your point? Moderate religious people, don't accept scripture as a justification for violence anymore than atheists do. How do religious moderates have any relevance to the actions of extremists.

 

[Absinthe]

I believe I just illustrated their relationship in a previous post...?

It seems like you're trying to spin my words into something really stupid like "Moderates want you to love and hug extremists just the same!".

 

[jverne]

When calling someone stupid try not to make spelling mistakes.



So they do or they don't, make your mind up. If moderate religious people don't create tolerance for the nutty ones, what is the problem with moderate religion?



You didn't. If you believe that moderate religion created a tolerant climate for the ideas of the westboro baptists, then you have no idea what your talking about. Westboro baptist and your other example Scientology are some of the most hated groups in America. Clearly it's not the case that moderate religion creates tolerance of such groups.



Back in those days, before moderate religion ever existed. Moderate religion is a modern invention, nutty religion is a far older. In fact you could say nutty religion providing the groundwork of moderate religion. Are the people who condone suicide bombings moderate, if you think yes, you're an idiot.



It's a stupid analogy. A racist society creating segregation is like an Islamic society creating sharia law, those who support sharia law are not moderate, for an majority of society to support it then, it's a fundamentalist society. Modern day American racism is comparable to modern day religious extremism, fringe movements. The majority of Americans are opposed to segregation and a few people support it. The majority of Christan's are moderate a few are fundamentalists.




Some actual examples please.

when did i call you stupid?

they do

please stop repeating yourself and stop putting words in my mouth. it is not really about making a tolerant environment, but about the exploitation of people with similar beliefs.
stop throwing the westboro crap, what about the other two i mentioned...how come they flourish so much, eh?
i stated my position on westboro..read it

moderate believers were always present it is just that the fundamentalist weren't considered fundamentalists back then...they were the the norm.
wonder why we today call them fundamentalists?


if we want to argue this analogy you have to define what moderate means to you.
100 years ago a person could be considered moderate if he didn't beat up black people.


my examples were the middle east, europe, USA, nazi germany. you on the other hand gave none whatsoever.
in all these cases is the same...mild predisposition to something/someone, every now and then spawn some extreme examples.