DescentBB

Fox News is reporting a Christian family of four was executed in New Jersey. Police are theorising that muslim extremist may of killed them for the fathers outspoken rhetoric against muslims over the internet.
So taking this to heart:
Screw extremii muslim espousers of koranic manipulation and the magic carpet they try to ride around in.

Screw high-and-mighty Republican elitists!

Seriously, what's the difference between the Christian crusades of Olde and the Muslim terrorist activities today? Nothing, 'cept the roles have been reversed. By no means am I saying it's right for them to do that. What I'm saying is that it's not right for *either* to do that kind of stuff.

Just take a look at your own religion before insulting the religion of others.

<-- is nondenominational, not Muslim

Woah. You've turned the thread from "Muslim extremists might have killed a Christian family" to "Well look at what Christians did!"

It's like whenever anybody says anything about any religion other than Christianity it requires an immediate disclaimer and apology for events that happened a thousand years ago. We've progressed a bit since then.

And just so you know, it was the Catholic Church that executed the Crusades, and we all know how religious of an institution the Church is.

Well, let's see... the way the Crusades happened was that, within a couple hundred years of the start of Islam, they started conquering territory (note that Christianity had been around for 600+ years before that and never, to my knowledge, launched a territorial war against another religion.) Muslim armies conquered not only Israel, but much of Europe, with their armies at one point nearly reaching Vienna (Austria). Catholic armies responded with counter-invasions, and over the next few hundred years, the two groups fought back and forth. (Note, as DCrazy said, the Catholic church is not a particularly religious institution; it, like Islam, is a political institution with a religious name.)

People tend to phrase their discussion of the crusades as if the peaceful Muslims were just minding their business when the warmongering Catholics attacked them. Somehow they forget that Muslims had managed to conquer a great deal of territory and were making offensive strikes against various European kingdoms.

How is "some individual Muslims killed some individual Christians over their words" different from "some big armies with religious names fought each other, and each was trying to conquer territory from the other"? If it's not immediately obvious to you that the situations are not at all comparable, you need to spend some time in deep thought.

Also: history is different from present times. We can spend all the time in the world discussing what a group did hundreds of years ago, or even a few decades ago. What that group, and its members, are like *right now* is what really matters, though. How is what happened in the Crusades different from what happened right now? Even if the actions were the same (which they're not), one difference is that one of the things happened long ago and doesn't happen any more, while the other is going on right now.

And, again: why do you say this thread is "insulting the religion of others" because it mentions the behavior of extremists, specifically labelling them extreme twice? It seems, if you point out the wrongdoing of a single Muslim or of a small group of nutjob Muslims, somehow people want to say you're insulting the entire religion. It's a cheap excuse for not engaging in dialogue -- "oh, you said something bad about one person from religion X, so you're obviously a hateful anti-religion-X person and I'm going to ignore your point!"

If you want me to look at my own religion before I dare "insult" the religion of others, you'll have to show me where the Mennonites did anything bad. The Mennonites, in case you don't know, were slaughtered by both Protestants and Catholics, in part because they refused to serve any king or fight in any war.

Sorry, but your attempt to deflect attention off of modern-day extremist Muslims who engage in bad stuff in the present age onto other religions is simply not going to work.

If it was really some extremists who killed the family in New Jersey because they don't like people talking bad about their religion, well, screw them.

For all we know it could be some psycho that went on a rampage. But since christians are involved, it looks like the natural knee-jerk reaction is to blame the muslims. Nice going.

Lothar wrote:And, again: why do you say this thread is "insulting the religion of others" because it mentions the behavior of extremists, specifically labelling them extreme twice? It seems, if you point out the wrongdoing of a single Muslim or of a small group of nutjob Muslims, somehow people want to say you're insulting the entire religion. It's a cheap excuse for not engaging in dialogue -- "oh, you said something bad about one person from religion X, so you're obviously a hateful anti-religion-X person and I'm going to ignore your point!"

Lothar wrote:Islam, as it exists in much of the world today, is the primary problem. The religion / ideology that says "kill the infidels", and whose leaders define all of us as "infidels", is the problem (and this is what Islam *is* in much of the world, unfortunately.)

Ferno wrote:But since christians are involved, it looks like the natural knee-jerk reaction is to blame the muslims. Nice going.

The reaction I've seen thus far is not of blaming "Muslims" but the "Islamofascists". There's a difference.

You use the term 'muslim extremist' enough and people start to think all muslims are extremists.

Just like when you use the term Fundamentalist Christian enough, everyone begins to think that all Christians are Fundamentalists.

Lothar, I'm going to disagree with your evaluation of the Catholic Church as a mostly political, not religious organization, but otherwise, good post.

Ferno, I've seen that sentiment before; in fact, after posting a rant against extremist Islamic terrorists on another, much more leftist forum, I was immediately accused of hating all Muslims. The two terms are absolutely not equivocal, and that association only occurs if you allow it to. Many people also seem to jump to the same conclusion that DCrazy mentions, that Christian automatically equals fundamentalist. Indeed, having been accused of being a "Christofascist" by a particularly egotistical and loudmouthed forum-goer, I've experienced this same sentiment myself. Once again, a grain of intelligence overcomes the knee-jerk reaction.

yea exactly.

they say 1+1=3; but we know 1+1=2, as it were.

Ferno wrote:For all we know it could be some psycho that went on a rampage. But since christians are involved, it looks like the natural knee-jerk reaction is to blame the muslims.

Heh, no... since a Christian who was outspoken about his religion in Muslim chatrooms and recieved death threats in those chatrooms was involved, the knee-jerk reaction is to suspect the people who threatened him might be involved in his killing. That's pretty reasonable, isn't it?

For kufyit, I've done some highlighting (note that we already had this discussion in the original thread, where I clarified this over and over again. I suggest you reread my posts in the original thread and pay attention to my clarifications, rather than ignoring them and appearing, well, ignorant...)

Lothar wrote:Islam, as it exists in much of the world today, is the primary problem. The religion / ideology that says "kill the infidels", and whose leaders define all of us as "infidels", is the problem (and this is what Islam *is* in much of the world, unfortunately.)

To quote myself from later in that thread:

Lothar wrote:I think you need to be more careful with your selective quoting.

I think it's funny (pathetic) that you like to throw the personal insults into these discussions Lothar. You've done it a number of times, with me particularly. I don't say things about you personally, never have and I never will. So, I'll say again...cool it dude. Of course, you'll ignore this part of the response, like you always do, because to this day I have never once on this board seen you either admit that you're wrong or apologize for anything.

Second of all, the tone of the original discussion was me saying that it is important to note that these are extremists, not the religion in general. You said, in disagreement with me, that it was the ideology of the religion that was fueling the extremist personalities.

I find it satisfying that you're a bit more careful now with how you speak about Islam and extremism.

Screw extremii muslim espousers of koranic manipulation and the magic carpet they try to ride around in.

I missed the "extremii" in there, my apologies.

Mostly what I'm trying to say is that a huge majority of deaths that have occured in history were because of religious differences, and saying stuff like ^^ doesn't really help much. Maybe you didn't mean it. What about the next person that comes along and reads it? I mean hell, the religions really aren't even that different anyway. Just try to show a little respect. That goes for both sides, Islam or Christianity.

I mean, just an inkling, but I bet that a few Christians weren't just on Muslim message boards minding their own business, they were probably saying things like "Screw extremii muslim espousers of koranic manipulation and the magic carpet they try to ride around in", and it didn't really pay off for anybody, did it?

Contrary to what some may think, this was not intended to be christian/muslum angst kinda post. Please read the title.
If (notice how I say If) the situation is one of extremist reprisal for dialog over the internet, the murdering of the whole family may be ushering in a new phase of terrorism. America enjoys the very fundamental enjoyment of being able to speak their minds whenever or however they wish. A attack on our first amendment rights through terrorism as may (notice I said "may")
be evident vis-a-vis the killing of the american family. If true, I suspect we will see more of this occurance. I hope not.

Was this what you were talking about woodchip?

Some people are too confrontational, without accepting the practical consequences of their conduct. You don't walk into Lincoln Financial Field cheering for the Atlanta Falcons while pissing on anything Eagles like with lots of drunk Philadelphia fans around. You would not do the same for a chat room where you promote your own faith while talking down to another faith flamboyantly. In that regard, both participants in the chat room are at fault.

I'm not justifying the murder of a family. Nor do we know what really happened. If this is the case, the Muslim guy still should not go killing people because of something on the internet.

Zoop, it is one thing being confrontational in a face to face scenario, quite another when "talking over the internet. Over the years we've had many confrontational discussion here on this board and I've yet to have murderous inclinations with the liberal weenies on this board. If you can't control your temper over something as removed as the internet then you have real psychological problems.

...well in that case you seem to be a lot more mature at arguing on the internet then some people.

I'll agree that psychology played a part in it. But I'm pretty sure the religious "I am Right and you are wrong" mentality was used as justification. These murder based on an internet conversation cases are rare, but had this converstation happen in an open area, there would be a riot. Psychology or not, I'm not to fond of these religious fanatics.

Why can't we all just get along?

Zoop! wrote: Why can't we all just get along?

Human nature.

Lothar wrote:Heh, no... since a Christian who was outspoken about his religion in Muslim chatrooms and recieved death threats in those chatrooms was involved, the knee-jerk reaction is to suspect the people who threatened him might be involved in his killing. That's pretty reasonable, isn't it?

Yea, but also consider how people that are not directly involved will react. People will go from 'muslims directly involved' to 'muslims involved' to 'muslims'. Like the way a rumor spreads. And the cycle of hate continues on from this point forward.

Ferno wrote:...also consider how people that are not directly involved will react. People will go from 'muslims directly involved' to 'muslims involved' to 'muslims'. Like the way a rumor spreads. And the cycle of hate continues on from this point forward.

For me, that's the crux of the matter.

I'm a Christian, raised in a Christian household, and my family did an excellent job when it came to education about various religions. I grew up with some understanding of what the Islamic faith is based on, so I am careful about the distinction between mainstream Islam and the extremists.

As a young person, I got the chance to witness many occasions where people from my home church associated with people of other faiths (including Islam); generally, the Christians exemplified Christ-like love for those people. My own family even took in a young Laotian refugee for a year.

But from what I've seen in the past couple of years, that's started to change. Ever since 9/11, I've often noticed a change in the way Christians react to people who appear to be from the Muslim world. Even at my own church, when my pastor chose to talk about compassion using the example of children caught in the violence in Iraq, he was bad-mouthed by a couple of church members for "supporting those heathens".

I've heard everything from hate-filled sermons about how all Muslims are fanatical murderers to people advocating using nuclear weapons on the Middle East. The popular Christian media sources aren't much better, often vilifying almost any religious group associated with that part of the world.

I know I'm over-stating this somewhat, mostly because it's been on my mind lately, so please don't get me wrong; I'm not saying this is true of all Christians. If I was saying that, I'd be as wrong as the attitudes I'm talking about. I live right smack in the middle of the so-called "Bible Belt" (the area in the central US where the Christian culture is most prevalent), so maybe things are a bit exaggerated here, but it's a trend that still really disturbs me.

Ferno wrote:Yea, but also consider how people that are not directly involved will react. People will go from 'muslims directly involved' to 'muslims involved' to 'muslims'. Like the way a rumor spreads. And the cycle of hate continues on from this point forward.

It isn't his fault if people can't read and keep things into context. Who's perpetuating the hate then? The person writing said words or the people who read said words or phrases out of context?

It is being totally ignored by the MSM, but people are still looking into it.