DescentBB

null0010 wrote: clip/ scotish football hooligans
175 year old morman fueds
ATF raids on Klansmen resulting in injury
etc.
David didn't-kill-anyone Koresh
etc.
Etc.
/clip

I could go on....

Please do! Wake me when you get to the modern day Christians killing in the name of god like the Islamofscists do today then we can start to compare apples to apples since that was the point you are supposed to be challenging.

Just don't google list of islamic terrorist attacks and start to tally the death toll whatever you do because you might encounter a buzzkill and I don't want to spoil your fun....lol!

I'm not just talking about Christians, Will.

null0010 wrote:I'm not just talking about Christians, Will.

No, you are right, I said Islam has more murderous fundamentalists than any other religion so please continue to include the religious football hooligans of Scotland and David Koresh (who did he kill by the way?)

But remember I was talking about in recent times as in, Islam hasn't evolved the way Western religious groups have. So a bunch of Mormon cowboys on the plains of America nearly 200 years ago just doesn't seem to carry the weight I feel you need to tip the scales. After all the Islamofscists have modern day ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe just as one example...maybe you can conjure up some trashy Christians on the Jerry Springer Show to add to your numbers?!? How about the LAPD?!? Maybe the ones who beat up Rodney King went to church a few times....Lol!!

I'm not trying to prove anything to you, Will. You've shown many times to be resistant to a change in opinion.

Bettina wrote:I'm surprised you fell into one of Spidey's many webs Kilarin. First, Obama reminded an outraged public that Muslims have a constitutional right and a permit to build a mosque there. Then, when the public, still outraged, began to question Obama's personal feelings, he clarified them.

How is that playing politics? How would you have handled it differently?

Like I said, I AGREE with Obama's statements. It's legal (and thank goodness for that!), it probably wasn't wise.

I agree whole heartedly with Obama's statements. Praise God we live in a country where it is still none of the governments business which particular denomination decides to build a church on privately purchased land that was zoned appropriately. I can look up cases where locals tried to kick Christian churches out of the neighborhood for reasons just as bad or worse.

It's none of the governments business. Of course, the extremes on both the right AND the left would like to change that. I'll gladly raise my voice against them each time they try.

The reason I think Obama is playing politics is because he is a politician. I'd LIKE to believe that he doesn't try to change his point of view just to please the public, but, well, he's a politician. It's just not likely.

But I freely admit that there is no evidence here to prove that he did so.

Please note, I'm an equal opportunity offender. The right wingers play politics too. It is VERY rare to find anyone in politics who isn't playing the game.

So, while I think that Obama may have modified his statement about the "wisdom" of the move to try and appease right wingers. I also happen to agree with the way he modified it. AND, he is still standing firm on the important issue. Muslims have just as much of a right to build a religious meeting place on private property as any Christian church, or Buddhist, or Hindus, or Atheist.

So thats the important points. He's RIGHT, whether he is playing politics or not.

In keeping with the discussion about the proposed mosque in New York ... While reporting about this subject, CNN could use some proofreading help. (anyone need a job?)

http://bonehead.oddballs.com/bonehead.rss -- Check the Aug 16 item \"Well, It's Not Exactly How I Would Have Said It. But The Point Is Made. NSFW CNN typo\" (forum's swear filter blocks the direct link)

null0010 wrote:I'm not trying to prove anything to you, Will. You've shown many times to be resistant to a change in opinion.

Riigghhhtttt! Like the way I changed my opinion in this thread about the motives of the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, posted the link to the website that shows why I did and conceded that maybe he does have healing the wound and moderate Islam as his goal...

I like to think I'm resistant to the group think and definitely resisted the ridiculous stuff you are pushing but willing to admit I'm wrong when I find out I was and it looks like maybe I was wrong about his intentions even if not about his sensibility.

I think if we find out the bulk of the money to build this center comes from Iran/Hezzbollah/Hamas/etc. then it will be very hard to believe the imams intentions are to 'shove this center in the face' of the very radicals he secured funding from...

But if that doesn't happen I'm going to take him at his word...not that I have any say in the matter anyway..but maybe he isn't the pro-Sharia law kind of radical he comes off to be.

Here you go Null I'll help you out look for Christian Church proposed in Mass. John C. Salvi III, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols. All you need for your campaign against Christian beliefs. Remember this can also work against you in your defense for building a mosque at ground zero.

I'll give you one link but you really need to look up the others,

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... d-in-m.php

Null, Will,

Unless I'm mistaken, this was the original claim:
\"Islam has a higher percentage of murderous fundamentalists than any other religion\"

Note that a long list of murderous fundamentalists or actions is not a valid proof or disproof of this statement. To prove or disprove it, one would need to show they all belong to a particular religion, and present stats for comparison.

IMO, neither of you have proven or disproven the claim; I'd call that a draw.

However: Null, I find it bothersome that you badly misrepresented Will's statements, by inferring that he held broad conclusions about entire populations. I'm sorry, but that tactic doesn't earn you any points around here. We already have members who revel in twisting people's meanings - you would do well not to join that crowd.

I drew an incorrect conclusion. However, I have provided some evidence, he has provided none. I don't know if you've looked, but I can't seem to find a simple comparison chart lying around on Google showing deaths caused by religion A, religion B.... I'll attempt to, at least, catalog some modern wars/conflicts generally agreed to have been caused by religious differences:

(totals using low estimates)

Chinese: (40,036,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion (36000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao (40,000,000)

Soviet: (23,001,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_pogroms (between 1,000 and 5,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_civil_war (between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin (20,000,000)

Christianity (20,081,500)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War (25,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion (between 40,000 and 70,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_W ... dependence (13,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles (3,500)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion (between 10,000,000 and 20,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_c ... e_Americas (at least 10,000,000)

Holocaust: (4,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust (between 4 and 6 million)

Islam (1,470,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War (between 75,000 and 100,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babis (20,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War (64,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_W ... dependence (8,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian-Pakistan_War (I cannot find a split of deaths by side so I'm going to cut the death toll in half - 250,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks (about 3000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war (1,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_war (50,000)

Hindu: (250,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian-Pakistan_War (I cannot find a split of deaths by side so I'm going to cut the death toll in half - 250,000)


Israel: (65,000)
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat4.htm#Israel


Heretic, I do not \"campaign\" against belief systems.

Sure look like you were trying to wage a campaign against Christianity. Why else go through all that searching to prove Christianity is just as violent as Islam.

Heretic wrote:Sure look like you were trying to wage a campaign against Christianity. Why else go through all that searching to prove Christianity is just as violent as Islam.

I'm trying to make a point that all people are equally violent, with only slight modifiers for religion and culture, etc. To try to blame violence or other aberrant behavior wholly on factors like religion, race, culture, nationality, or silly hats is to miss the point.

The mosque is considered a problem, but apparently no one minds all the strip clubs near ground zero.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/ground-zero-strip-club

null0010 wrote:I'm trying to make a point that all people are equally violent, with only slight modifiers for religion and culture, etc. To try to blame violence on other aberrant behavior wholly on factors like religion, race, culture, nationality, or silly hats is to miss the point.

Except that this is just not true. Now, obviously violence is a HUMAN problem, but culture is NOT a minor influence, it is a MAJOR influence.

A culture that encourages looking at outsiders (or any sub group) as less than fully human is ripe for violence. For historical examples consider the Nazis and Japan during WWII. For modern examples look at the various White supremacists movements, the violent branch of the anti-homosexual movement, and much of fundamentalists Islam.

Another problem is the attempt to combine Church and State. When Europe felt most strongly that church and state should be combined, they committed horrible atrocities. The west has moved forward (a bit) on that now, with less religious persecution. But a large percentage of Islam still supports Sharia law, and that will inevitably lead to violence and persecution.

Violence is STRONGLY connected to culture.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I mentioned culture, I meant it in the context, \"violence is not more strongly connected to one culture than another.\"

null0010 wrote:"violence is not more strongly connected to one culture than another."

Perhaps you need to define how you are using culture?

Either of these definitions would fit the way I am using the term:

the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group

The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.

Under those definitions, radical fundamentalist Islam a specific culture. So is radical fundamentalist Christianity.
Of course, culture is a very vague term with a LOT of overlap. Perhaps it would be best defined using venn diagrams.

Consider Islamic culture as a "whole" the outer circle of the venn diagram. Within it there will be many smaller circles. Radical Fundamentalist Islam is a pretty good sized circle within Islam. In one poll, sponsored by pro Islam people, showed that 7% of Muslims think that the 911 attack was completely justified. Thats a fairly small circle within the "Islam as a whole" circle. But another 29.6% in the same poll thought that the 911 attack was at least partially justified. That's a pretty big circle.
<linky>


So what we have is a culture grouping where the majority are not radical, BUT, they tolerate a VERY radical sub group that is nearly a tithe of their population, and a pretty radical sub group that, when added on top of the very radical adds up to over a third of their population.

This is a problem. Are all Muslims bad? Of course not, but any culture group where more than 1 in 3 people think flying planes into buildings of civilians was at least partially justified has a SERIOUS problem.

I don't have hard numbers on how Muslim's treat women, but I suspect you would see groupings that were similar, or very likely larger on the radical side. A significant portion of the Islamic culture views women as lesser creatures, and mistreats them terribly. A larger percentage gives women very few rights, although they are not terribly abusive. And the majority tolerates both views. Again, this indicates a serious problem in this culture.

Islam is not the ONLY culture with these kinds of problems, by any means. But they are a very large culture which makes the problem quite big.

Kilarin wrote:...

So what we have is a culture grouping where the majority are not radical, BUT, they tolerate a VERY radical sub group that is nearly a tithe of their population, and a pretty radical sub group that, when added on top of the very radical adds up to over a third of their population.

This is a problem. Are all Muslims bad? Of course not, but any culture group where more than 1 in 3 people think flying planes into buildings of civilians was at least partially justified has a SERIOUS problem.

I don't have hard numbers on how Muslim's treat women, but I suspect you would see groupings that were similar, or very likely larger on the radical side. A significant portion of the Islamic culture views women as lesser creatures, and mistreats them terribly. A larger percentage gives women very few rights, although they are not terribly abusive. And the majority tolerates both views. Again, this indicates a serious problem in this culture.

Islam is not the ONLY culture with these kinds of problems, by any means. But they are a very large culture which makes the problem quite big.

Bingo! We have a winner! The culture by and large sustains the higher percentage of violence done in the name of their god. And using their religion is often just a sham to try and justify it to their peers..."Oh they are saying God willed it, even the imam says so... we don't want to criticize Ossama for the massacre we would look unfaithful...end up stoned to death or dishonor the family at the very least...just cheer instead and get back inside Azeeza..and cover your face you wannabe harlot of a daughter !...'

I can't believe anyone thinks any other group, belonging to any other religion, has come even close to the number of violent attacks that Islamic fundamentalist/radicals have perpetrated in the last two or three decades!
I never thought anyone would question that statement, I figured it would spark debate as to why that is, that's where I thought we were going to get into controversy with my comment...but I never thought anyone would challenge the obvious.

I will grant you that there is a religion that is credited with more bloodshed by the media than any other whenever one of these discussions pops up and that is Christianity but that doesn't mean the deflection tactic proves modern Christianity is on par with modern Islam on the violence scorecard. It only means they want you to think it is.

Maybe Null's reaction was knee-jerk driven by his programming by the pop-culture's endless anti-conservative stream of groupthink. He reads what fits the template of muslim bashing by a conservative so he reacts based off of feelings and ideology without really reading the words and thinking it through for himself first.

Will Robinson wrote:I can't believe anyone thinks any other group, belonging to any other religion, has come even close to the number of violent attacks that Islamic fundamentalist/radicals have perpetrated in the last two or three decades!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I can't believe anyone thinks any other group, belonging to any other religion, has come even close to the number of violent attacks that Islamic fundamentalist/radicals have perpetrated in the last two or three decades!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Refugees overrunning your borders and warlords vying for power and world politics may be as confusing to you as religion is but it is not the same.

You have proven that there are other reasons man will kill in large numbers you haven't proven that my assertion of Islam producing the higher percentage of deadly radicals is untrue.
You have also proven that you are either desperate or thick as a brick!

Here, let me throw you a bone... here is your 'out'. Politics is a religion therefore our country's army has killed more than Islamic radicals have. I think we have killed that many anyway...maybe not!

That's a tired argument, politics isn't a religion. The Congo is 90% Christian. Also, please see my post on the bottom of the previous page.

So I thought you wasn't on a campaign to discredit Christianity?

null0010 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Like I said, Islam is certainly not the only culture to have problems with violence and abuse.

Christianity has plenty of sub cultures with SERIOUS problems. But the violent sub cultures are currently a smaller fraction of Christianity than they are of Islam. And I'm not just trying to defend Christianity. Hinduism has it's problems, but the violent sub cultures among Hindus certainly seem to be a much smaller percentage than Islam.

Step back in time a bit and those numbers change. There was a time when Jews ran TO Islamic nations to avoid persecution by Christian mobs.

Christianity has a past that is, unfortunately, quite violent and bloody. But Christianity is most popular in the west and western culture has moved a bit closer to separation of Church and State while Islam has moved to further entangle the two. I see this as the root of most of their problems.

But civilization is a thin veneer. Scratch it and you get right back to the barbarism underneath. It SCARES me how many Christian Americans have come to view Muslims as "less human" than we are. They set the value of a Muslim life pretty low. And a frightening percentage of Christians are ready to tear down the wall of separation between Church and State. They want to "Bring God back to American public schools and government". And they think the government should stop an Islamic mosque from being built somewhere they consider offensive.

Right now, the Culture of Islam has some serious problems that makes them dangerous. But the Culture of western Christianity is teetering on the edge of reversing our forward progress and sliding back into the pit from whence we came.

you know what the easiest solution is if a person doesn't like mosques?

don't go to them.


don't tell people that you can or can't build a mosque or whatever you don't like in a place just because you don't like it. If you do, you end up looking like a complete a-hole.

I'm pretty sure if you wanted to build a place of worship or in this case, a cultural centre, and people told you that you couldn't because they 'found it offensive', i'm pretty sure you'd end up telling them they could go take a long walk off a short pier.


kiliarian: it has nothing to do with the culture, but it has everything to do with the batcrap crazy extremists that somehow manage to get a mouthpiece. The other part of the problem is these mouthpieces are amplified by the sensationalist reports right from your mainstream media. So of course you guys are going to think 'islam is the problem' if all you hear are the crazies talking all the time.

Heretic wrote:So I thought you wasn't on a campaign to discredit Christianity?

If Shinto provided the best examples for my arguement, I would "campaign" to "discredit" Shinto.

It’s the culture, it's always the culture…because culture is the rich fertile ground, where all thinking springs from.

Ferno wrote:kiliarian: it has nothing to do with the culture, but it has everything to do with the batcrap crazy extremists that somehow manage to get a mouthpiece.

That sounds like the culture to me. Would you mind clarifying?

Ferno wrote: So of course you guys are going to think 'islam is the problem' if all you hear are the crazies talking all the time

The reason I pointed at the culture instead of the religion is that I'm not trying to blame the religion. Religions are frequently overridden by the culture they are engulfed in.

Like I said previously, there was a point in history where the culture of Islam supported religious tolerance while the culture of Christianity was hunting down and burning every heretic, jew, saracen, or pagan they could get their hands on.

Violence is a HUMAN problem, but some cultures encourage it more than others.

My Dad thinks they are bringing freedom to Arabs... he watches far too much TV.

That's a tired argument, politics isn't a religion.

Wrong- when it comes to islam. Islam is an entire package. It is a religion, law, political structure and 'culture.'

So sayeth the expert on all things Islam.

ThunderBunny wrote:

That's a tired argument, politics isn't a religion.

Wrong- when it comes to islam. Islam is an entire package. It is a religion, law, political structure and 'culture.'

The argument I was referring to was relating the United States political system to a religion. Please read posts more carefully.

Then why mention the Congo in the same statement? you should also know that there are two countries with the name Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo, so which Congo are you talking about.

You should educate yourself on Political Religion

A political religion often elevates its leaders to near-godlike status. Displays of leaders in the form of posters or statues may be mandated in public areas and even private homes. Children may be required to learn the state's version of the leaders' biographies in school.

null0010 wrote:..The argument I was referring to was relating the United States political system to a religion. Please read posts more carefully.

Yes and it was a joke when I offered our politics as a religion because it would take something that ridiculous to make sense of your defense of radical Islam.

And you really could benefit from taking your own advice about reading the posts more carefully.

Now I read the developers of the center won't rule out taking money from Iran to build it.

Game over.

You don't \"push back against the radicals\", as the developer claims is their intent, by having the worlds largest purveyor of radical Islamic terrorism finance the project.
As far as I see it they are full of ★■◆●.

Don't you know they are more worried about how the opposition to the mosque is being funded rather than how the mosque is being funded.

Nancy Pelosi Questions Funding of NYC Mosque Criticism

Heretic wrote:Don't you know they are more worried about how the opposition to the mosque is being funded rather than how the mosque is being funded.

Nancy Pelosi Questions Funding of NYC Mosque Criticism

There was a time when a comment like that from a representative would be shocking and certainly mark the end of their career....and a time before that where that representative might be hung or shot!
But now it's probably worth 2 million in campaign donations to her from the looney left and anyone who complains will be ridiculed by the left leaning media....and probably investigated as well.

I think the best days of our representative republic are behind us and either the end or the next revolution is looming up ahead.

Heretic wrote:Then why mention the Congo in the same statement? you should also know that there are two countries with the name Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo, so which Congo are you talking about.

You should educate yourself on Political Religion

A political religion often elevates its leaders to near-godlike status. Displays of leaders in the form of posters or statues may be mandated in public areas and even private homes. Children may be required to learn the state's version of the leaders' biographies in school.

Yes, I know about political religion and personality cults, those things happened in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and are happening in North Korea, but are certainly not happening, and to be best of my knowledge never have happened, in the United States.

The articles I link note which Congo I'm talking about, right there in the first paragraph. Democratic Republic of the Congo.

When it comes to funding terrorism, I'm fairly sure that the top dollar still comes from Saudi Arabia.

So were you absent from the last election where the far left was portraying Obama as the messiah?

A political religion often elevates its leaders to near-godlike status.

OBAMA BE THY NAME

THY CHANGE SHALL COME

THY WILL BE DONE ...

\"Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?\"

-- Daily Kos

\"Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul\"

-- Commentator @ Chicago Sun Times

\"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.\" | \"I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event.\"

-- Chris Matthews

\"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus.\"

-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)

Yep no Political Religion going on in America.

Heretic wrote:"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."

-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)

ROFLOL

Heretic wrote:"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."

-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)

Ahh, but is he greater than Chuck Norris?

"Why do we celebrate Christmas on December 25 instead of in late September? Chuck Norris sent Jesus a birthday card on Dec 25, and Jesus was too scared to correct him."

roflmao

Lothar wrote:

Heretic wrote:"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."

-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)

Ahh, but is he greater than Chuck Norris?

"Why do we celebrate Christmas on December 25 instead of in late September? Chuck Norris sent Jesus a birthday card on Dec 25, and Jesus was too scared to correct him."

I wonder what would happen if some Christians were to take real offense at that?

Oh I know, they would, forgive the infidels!