Islam is "The Truth"

[Combustible Lemur]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

I don't think that's true. I am constantly seeing rallies, protests, articles, interviews calling out Muslim countries and misapplied Islam for human rights violations. Perhaps we're looking at different news sources. If you're referring to domestic news, sure, in the US Christian conservatism is by FAR the most active and dominant religion effecting inequality onto those topics.

It's like complaining about the War on Christmas.

[Holman]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

Has "the liberal media" ever run a story that was pro-Islamic-repression on any of these fronts? Is there some way in which traditional Islamic homophobia/misogyny etc. actually has an influence on American culture in ways that the media is failing to report? (I can think of plenty of stories I've heard reported on how bad it would be for progressive causes if radical Islam gained control of this or that region. Pretty much every story on Taliban rule or the education of girls in Pakistan or etc. features this aspect prominently.)

If the question is "Why does the liberal media pick on Christian homophobes and not Islamic ones?" then the answer is pretty much the same reason it picks on corrupt American policy practices more than corrupt Chinese ones. We all know the Chinese gov't is more riddled with corruption than Washington D.C., but which matters more to the American scene?

[Rip]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

I don't think that's true. I am constantly seeing rallies, protests, articles, interviews calling out Muslim countries and misapplied Islam for human rights violations. Perhaps we're looking at different news sources. If you're referring to domestic news, sure, in the US Christian conservatism is by FAR the most active and dominant religion effecting inequality onto those topics.

It's like complaining about the War on Christmas.

I agree and just like the linked articles all of these are attacks or critism of the countries for having laws that enforce the Islamic law, I see none of them calling out the religion itself.


They appear to me as more about opposong theologies than calling out the faith itself for being backwards ass.

Also all of that was addressing the anti-woman issue, so the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion beliefs just have to suck hind tit? I mean the anti-homosexual tilt in Russia sure gets and has gotten more crap in the last few months that the entire muslim faith has gotten in my lifetime over homsexual rights issues. Last time I checked they weren't executing them in Russia. Same cannot be said for a slew of other places.

[El Guapo]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

I don't think that's true. I am constantly seeing rallies, protests, articles, interviews calling out Muslim countries and misapplied Islam for human rights violations. Perhaps we're looking at different news sources. If you're referring to domestic news, sure, in the US Christian conservatism is by FAR the most active and dominant religion effecting inequality onto those topics.

It's like complaining about the War on Christmas.

I agree and just like the linked articles all of these are attacks or critism of the countries for having laws that enforce the Islamic law, I see none of them calling out the religion itself.


They appear to me as more about opposong theologies than calling out the faith itself for being backwards ass.

Also all of that was addressing the anti-woman issue, so the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion beliefs just have to suck hind tit? I mean the anti-homosexual tilt in Russia sure gets and has gotten more crap in the last few months that the entire muslim faith has gotten in my lifetime over homsexual rights issues. Last time I checked they weren't executing them in Russia. Same cannot be said for a slew of other places.

Good times. Yes, I too wish more media stories indicted entire religions for the acts of specific governments and adherents.

[Combustible Lemur]

I agree and just like the linked articles all of these are attacks or critism of the countries for having laws that enforce the Islamic law, I see none of them calling out the religion itself.


They appear to me as more about opposong theologies than calling out the faith itself for being backwards ass.

Also all of that was addressing the anti-woman issue, so the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion beliefs just have to suck hind tit? I mean the anti-homosexual tilt in Russia sure gets and has gotten more crap in the last few months that the entire muslim faith has gotten in my lifetime over homsexual rights issues. Last time I checked they weren't executing them in Russia. Same cannot be said for a slew of other places.

What are you talking about?

If you're suggesting that secularists in the States using christianity as a stand-in for fundamentalists is equitable to anti-defamation groups not equating theocratic policies of nations with the religion as a whole, What?

Are you suggesting that all left leaning people are both hard boiled secularists and anti-defamation advocates and are embroiled in a hypocritical conspiracy with the media to only call out christianity?

I suspect that the reason there may seem to be a greater number of womens' rights groups in Islamist countries is visibility. Gay rights has only in the past fifteen years in the US become a mainstream topic: Nearly a century after women's suffrage, and fifty years after ethnic legal equality. I would only assume that countries that are at least by appearance a century behind the US in social equality, would follow a relatively similar pattern in social priorities.

Or I guess all liberals are sekrit muslim Athiest christian hating hypocrites.

[Rip]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

I don't think that's true. I am constantly seeing rallies, protests, articles, interviews calling out Muslim countries and misapplied Islam for human rights violations. Perhaps we're looking at different news sources. If you're referring to domestic news, sure, in the US Christian conservatism is by FAR the most active and dominant religion effecting inequality onto those topics.

It's like complaining about the War on Christmas.

I agree and just like the linked articles all of these are attacks or critism of the countries for having laws that enforce the Islamic law, I see none of them calling out the religion itself.


They appear to me as more about opposong theologies than calling out the faith itself for being backwards ass.

Also all of that was addressing the anti-woman issue, so the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion beliefs just have to suck hind tit? I mean the anti-homosexual tilt in Russia sure gets and has gotten more crap in the last few months that the entire muslim faith has gotten in my lifetime over homsexual rights issues. Last time I checked they weren't executing them in Russia. Same cannot be said for a slew of other places.

Good times. Yes, I too wish more media stories indicted entire religions for the acts of specific governments and adherents.

It isn't the governments alone. I've never seen a government perform an honor killing, they just enable it.

[Combustible Lemur]

It isn't the governments alone. I've never seen a government perform an honor killing, they just enable it.

Like cross hairs on a website?

Again we're talking about a government using a civic interpretation of a larger religion.

[Rip]

It isn't the governments alone. I've never seen a government perform an honor killing, they just enable it.

Like cross hairs on a website?

Again we're talking about a government using a civic interpretation of a larger religion.

No different than anti-abortion or anti-sodomy laws here. Yet we find a way to criticize the religious attitudes that enble it directly to those religious organizations. Going so fat as to ridicule them, when is the last time you saw an Islamic religious leader ridiculed for their viewpoints on these issues?

The reason IMHO is simple. Fear. Call Billy Graham a homophobic woman hating fool and you probably won't even get an angry response. Say that about a Grand Imam or a Grand Ayatollah and you might just get your ass blown up or shot.

[Holman]

The reason IMHO is simple. Fear. Call Billy Graham a homophobic woman hating fool and you probably won't even get an angry response. Say that about a Grand Imam or a Grand Ayatollah and you might just get your ass blown up or shot.

Call Billy Graham a homophobic woman hating fool and you might provoke debate and influence American opinion. Say that about a Grand Imam or a Grand Ayatollah and you do... what?

It's worth remembering that the reporters on the front lines actually reporting on life (including repression and suffering) in the extreme Islamic world are nearly always members of the "liberal media." Fox people are famous for never leaving the Green Zone.

[Pyperkub]

The West Wing (that bastion of liberalism) attacked this perfectly. Isaac and Ishmael, 10/3/2001 (3-4 mins, well worth it),and it needs to be mandatory watching for everyone in this thread.

[Rip]

The West Wing (that bastion of liberalism) attacked this perfectly. Isaac and Ishmael, 10/3/2001 (3-4 mins, well worth it),and it needs to be mandatory watching for everyone in this thread.

Cute but it isn't just the extremists performing honor killings and treating women like property, and homosexuals forget about it. you would be better off being a camel in most muslim countries than gay.

[Pyperkub]

Josh does address that after the initial point

[Combustible Lemur]

The West Wing (that bastion of liberalism) attacked this perfectly. Isaac and Ishmael, 10/3/2001 (3-4 mins, well worth it),and it needs to be mandatory watching for everyone in this thread.

Cute but it isn't just the extremists performing honor killings and treating women like property, and homosexuals forget about it. you would be better off being a camel in most muslim countries than gay.

It depends on what you define as extremist. Isn't an extremist just someone predisposed to extreme acts caught in a particular socio-cultural situation?

Genetic/socio-developmental vs. God made me that way?

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[El Guapo]

The West Wing (that bastion of liberalism) attacked this perfectly. Isaac and Ishmael, 10/3/2001 (3-4 mins, well worth it),and it needs to be mandatory watching for everyone in this thread.

Yeah, that's well put. I also like the Islamist extremist : Islam :: KKK : Christianity analogy (not exact, but Josh phrases it as the "KKK gone global", which is reasonably fair).

I'd also add that evaluating the popularity of Islamist extremist groups in Islamic countries can be a tricky business, especially in countries where political polling isn't exactly open and free. For a long time Islamist groups have had the same enemies as the populace at large - one of the reasons why the Muslim Brotherhood had significant popular support in Egypt is that they were fighting Mubarak, and Mubarak is an asshole. Once Mubarak's gone and the Brotherhood starts actually implementing their agenda ... well you can see how their popularity and relationship to the people changes.

[Alefroth]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

Maybe you could provide some links to liberal media chastising Christianity for being ass backwards.

[Rip]

What I find surprising is that the liberal media wastes no time at al chastising most any religion except Islam for being anti-women, anti-homosexual, or anti-abortion. Islam it would seem is above the ire that other religions get for beliefs that infringe on these human rights.

Maybe you could provide some links to liberal media chastising Christianity for being ass backwards.

An article on what is essentially that.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/05/31/two ... usa-today/

There is just so much to choose from. That is what makes it weird seeing them flock to be proPope for awhile because they think he is changing the church to meet their agenda. In reality it is mostly marketing, but hey that is pretty much what most news media is these days, marketing tools.

Pun intended.

[Gavin]

The problem isn't Islam per se, it's that some of the current leaders are using it in such as way as to foster martyrs in their search for power, just as some of the Salem witch trials were political in nature, etc.

Well, yeah, you can't attribute the actions of people to the tenets of a faith. People in power will continue to use religion and any other tool at their disposal for their own ends. Atheism has been used the same way too. That's simply human nature. To forever use tools to gain leverage.

But some faiths really do have religious tenets that can be blamed. Where Christianity is a turn the other cheek religion abused by the likes of Spain and Puritans for selfish reasons to do stuff it's against philosophically, Islam is a religion that teaches the same eye for an eye vengeance we saw in Judaism. From my understanding, Islam is a discriminatory religion at best, and a violent one at worst. If you and your associates are not Muslim and not at war, you can expect a special non-Muslim tax as well as some other lesser disadvantages.

If you or any of your associates are at war with Muslim, like... let's say you're America and you're an ally with, let's say, Israel..., then you may also be deemed as a combatant by association.

Make no mistake, there is a reason why a Muslim Army invaded Spain in less than 100 years after Islam's creation (they invaded Spain in 711 after having already conquered the North African continent). It lends itself easily to war in this way. But, they also allowed Jews and Christians to survive in Spain. Just because other religions have also been used for evil doesn't aquit Islam of its own problems.

[El Guapo]

Make no mistake, there is a reason why a Muslim Army invaded Spain in less than 100 years after Islam's creation (they invaded Spain in 711 after having already conquered the North African continent). It lends itself easily to war in this way. But, they also allowed Jews and Christians to survive in Spain. Just because other religions have also been used for evil doesn't aquit Islam of its own problems.

Come on now. Armies invade and conquer countries all the time - people like conquering, because they like glory, loot, and riches. I don't see why Islam appears to be attributed as the sole causal factor here when there's a lot more at work at the same time. Like, one could note the quick Islamic conquests following the rise of Islam and say look, Christian countries didn't invade and conquer anyone for centuries after the rise of Christianity. But... no major rulers / governments converted to Christianity until centuries after the rise of Christianity (until Constantine converted in the 3rd century), so what exactly would that prove? And once the Roman Empire became Christian...it promptly kept on conquering the shit out of people (just as it had before it became Christian).

So what exactly does that episode tell us about Islam as compared to Christianity? And that's on top of the facial absurdity of inferring anything about the billion plus Muslims in the 21st century based on what a few Islamic rulers decided in 711.

And a few centuries later, Christians began killing the shit out of lots and lots and lots of people in the name of God and Jesus during the Crusades. Boy Christians today follow one very violent faith, don't they?

[Gavin]

Make no mistake, there is a reason why a Muslim Army invaded Spain in less than 100 years after Islam's creation (they invaded Spain in 711 after having already conquered the North African continent). It lends itself easily to war in this way. But, they also allowed Jews and Christians to survive in Spain. Just because other religions have also been used for evil doesn't aquit Islam of its own problems.

Come on now. Armies invade and conquer countries all the time - people like conquering, because they like glory, loot, and riches. I don't see why Islam appears to be attributed as the sole causal factor here when there's a lot more at work at the same time. Like, one could note the quick Islamic conquests following the rise of Islam and say look, Christian countries didn't invade and conquer anyone for centuries after the rise of Christianity. But... no major rulers / governments converted to Christianity until centuries after the rise of Christianity (until Constantine converted in the 3rd century), so what exactly would that prove? And once the Roman Empire became Christian...it promptly kept on conquering the shit out of people (just as it had before it became Christian).

So what exactly does that episode tell us about Islam as compared to Christianity? And that's on top of the facial absurdity of inferring anything about the billion plus Muslims in the 21st century based on what a few Islamic rulers decided in 711.

And a few centuries later, Christians began killing the shit out of lots and lots and lots of people in the name of God and Jesus during the Crusades. Boy Christians today follow one very violent faith, don't they?

My point being, mankind will continue to do shit regardless. A point you seem to agree with. But that some faiths have belief systems that actually incur violence. Islam and Judaism have specific tenents that allow and even encourage war with others. The point is that Islam's own prophet was in the conquering business. It's a religion established on war and so it's easy for them to do. I don't think Islam would have been cool with 9/11's assault on civilians. But on the Pentagon? Not so sure.

Christianity was largely a peaceful religion from the start. It's members were largely massacred in every area they entered, including and especially Rome. At some point (after being adopted as a state religion), it began getting controlled by the Roman Empire and other local governments for the Eastern points of the Pentarchy. Rome largely controlled their masses by limiting access to scriptures for over 1,000 years by mandating a dead language (the Latin version of the Bible called the Vulgate) be the only allowable translation. It's hard to know what a religion teaches when you are at the mercy of the few people who went to school and learned a dead language in a time when just knowing how to read in the local language was rare.

There should be a major distinction between a faith that teaches peace but violence happens and a religion that does have war provisions and violence happens.

But, as stated, they are not supposed to attack people they aren't at war with. People would get mad at being taxed and discriminated against and would try to oppose them. Instantly that would open the door for war and conquest. It takes every advantage of retaliation. So I don't think it's necessarily as violent as people think. But it still is largely discriminatory and the thenomistic elements demand executions for things we absolutely don't agree with today. The Christian doctrine isn't from the perspective of governors and so it doesn't have commands to kill and plunder. It's mostly how to respond to being oppressed. To accept it. It's quite interesting in that way.

[El Guapo]

Christianity's early history was about peace and suffering oppression, and Islam's was about conquest, because of their differing historical circumstances. Christianity arose in a world dominated by the unquestioned power of the Roman Empire, which took an unfriendly attitude towards the new religion. Early Christian teachers focused on turning the other cheek and suffering oppression because that's what the world handed them - lessons on being a fair and just ruler really weren't terribly applicable.

By contrast, Islam arose in a time and region with much more fractured power, which enabled people of the new faith to acquire secular power fairly quickly. Hence, questions as to how to be a fair ruler, when it is acceptable to use violence and to conquer, how to treat the conquered, how to treat minority religions, etc. all were very real questions that the early faith and its teachers had to address.

Of course I'm saying this as a non-Christian non-Muslim. But I would think that even most respective believers would have to acknowledge that the world in which each religion arose is going to shape the topics that early teachers of each faith would have to address and focus on.

And of course the judgments that they made in the 7th century / 1st century are often in conflict with 21st century culture (though the fundamentalists would disagree with that).

[Gavin]

Christianity's early history was about peace and suffering oppression, and Islam's was about conquest, because of their differing historical circumstances. Christianity arose in a world dominated by the unquestioned power of the Roman Empire, which took an unfriendly attitude towards the new religion. Early Christian teachers focused on turning the other cheek and suffering oppression because that's what the world handed them - lessons on being a fair and just ruler really weren't terribly applicable.

By contrast, Islam arose in a time and region with much more fractured power, which enabled people of the new faith to acquire secular power fairly quickly. Hence, questions as to how to be a fair ruler, when it is acceptable to use violence and to conquer, how to treat the conquered, how to treat minority religions, etc. all were very real questions that the early faith and its teachers had to address.

Of course I'm saying this as a non-Christian non-Muslim. But I would think that even most respective believers would have to acknowledge that the world in which each religion arose is going to shape the topics that early teachers of each faith would have to address and focus on.

And of course the judgments that they made in the 7th century / 1st century are often in conflict with 21st century culture (though the fundamentalists would disagree with that).

There's nothing in your post I disagree with. Great comment and I very much imagine that had their cultures reversed, we'd likely see them switch modes too. But generally, religions formed where power is gainable are usually violent and religions formed where power seems unattainable are generally how to deal with suffering moreso than power acquisition.

So, I totally agree.

[Moliere]

I am a terrorist according to Saudi Arabia

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

Is it ironic or Orwellian to call critics of Islam terrorists?

[Holman]

I am a terrorist according to Saudi Arabia

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

Is it ironic or Orwellian to call critics of Islam terrorists?

We can call the law stupid and extreme and repressive without turning around and implying that all Muslims are terrorists.

[Unagi]

It's worth remembering that the reporters on the front lines actually reporting on life (including repression and suffering) in the extreme Islamic world are nearly always members of the "liberal media." Fox people are famous for never leaving the Green Zone.

Curious how Rip just blew past this point. Too poignant I'm guessing.

[cheeba]

We can call the law stupid and extreme and repressive without turning around and implying that all Muslims are terrorists.

Only the ones that ask questions about their religion.

[Rip]

It's worth remembering that the reporters on the front lines actually reporting on life (including repression and suffering) in the extreme Islamic world are nearly always members of the "liberal media." Fox people are famous for never leaving the Green Zone.

Curious how Rip just blew past this point. Too poignant I'm guessing.

No, I have just to put more effort into ignoring the countless weak troll attempts that seem to be the limits of so many posters these days. They are just no longer worth my time.

[Holman]

It's worth remembering that the reporters on the front lines actually reporting on life (including repression and suffering) in the extreme Islamic world are nearly always members of the "liberal media." Fox people are famous for never leaving the Green Zone.

Curious how Rip just blew past this point. Too poignant I'm guessing.

No, I have just to put more effort into ignoring the countless weak troll attempts that seem to be the limits of so many posters these days. They are just no longer worth my time.

It's not trolling just because you don't like it.

You'd been claiming that the liberal media never reports on life under extremist Islam. My point was that the liberal media is certainly reporting on life under extremist Islam.

The point matters: most of the good analysis of life under the Taliban, corruption in Pakistan, the continuing crisis in Iraq, etc. comes from serious on-the-ground reporters associated with traditional MSM news outlets. This reporting is way more important and informative than the weird mix of rumor and fantasy we get from Newsmax or the Washington Free Beacon or the Dailycaller or any of the other sites that make up the right-wing echo chamber.

[Kraken]

I am a terrorist according to Saudi Arabia

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

Is it ironic or Orwellian to call critics of Islam terrorists?

Personally, I prefer being called "blasphemer." Terrorists use guns and bombs and box knives and stuff and I don't roll that way. I'm totally comfortable with blaspheming, though.

[Moliere]

Critic if Islam and defender of women's rights has her honorary degree withdrawn.

Brandeis University has decided to withdraw its planned award of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsa Ali, a well-known defender of women’s rights in the Islamic world. A university statement explains: “She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” (Ali, who was raised Muslim but now identifies with no religion, has often criticized Islam, sometimes quite harshly.)

If it’s true that the university wasn’t aware of Ali’s well-known public statements about Islam before it decided to grant her an honorary degree, that’s rather embarrassing. Worse yet, juxtaposing the Kushner and Ali situations, it turns out that the university DOES award honorary degrees based on the potential honoree’s opinions. And apparently, while expressing hostility to Islam conflicts with Brandeis’s “core values,” engaging in vile insults against American Jews who support Israel does not.

[Fireball]

Yeah, that's bullshit. Brandeis made a huge mistake here, in my opinion.

BTW, what happened to Gavin? He hasn't been around in a long time.

[Combustible Lemur]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

CNN notes that, according to a count by the New America Foundation, "right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11" whereas "terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11."

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Rip]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

CNN notes that, according to a count by the New America Foundation, "right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11" whereas "terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11."

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

Of course that kind of discounts what the numbers might have been had even one of the dozens of thwarted attacks not been thwarted. Hasan took out 13 all by himself so it isn't hard to imagine one of those shoe/underwear bombers had they been successful could have pushed the numbers into the hundreds.

I can't think of many white supremacist attacks that have been thwarted. So while the numbers may be accurate they are certainly not an appropriate way to measure the threat to public safety each group poses. That said I would love to see both groups vanish.

[AWS260]

I can't think of many white supremacist attacks that have been thwarted. So while the numbers may be accurate they are certainly not an appropriate way to measure the threat to public safety each group poses. That said I would love to see both groups vanish.

Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver
Derek Shrout's White Supremacist Bomb Plot In Alabama Influenced By Newtown Massacre, Sheriff Says
Asolo Theatre employee accused in white supremacist plot
Members of white supremacist group arrested in Florida
4 White Supremacists Charged in Murder Plot
Another “Patriot” Terrorist Plot Results in Multiple Arrests
White supremacist charged in MLK Day bomb plot
Tea Party-Type Militia Leader’s Domestic Terror Plot Thwarted by Authorities
Georgia Terror Plot's Militia Roots

[Moliere]

[Grifman]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

Since when does white supremacists" equal white Christians?

Quite a broad brush you have there, methinks.

[Combustible Lemur]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

Since when does white supremacists" equal white Christians?

Quite a broad brush you have there, methinks.

Are there atheist white supremacist groups I am unaware of? I thought one of the defining traits of those groups was being a WASP and the group being the superior chosen people.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Rip]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

Since when does white supremacists" equal white Christians?

Quite a broad brush you have there, methinks.

Are there atheist white supremacist groups I am unaware of? I thought one of the defining traits of those groups was being a WASP and the group being the superior chosen people.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It is the equivalent of saying, man those Muslims just want to kill everyone when noting that a radical Islamic group want to kill non-believers. Then when someone notes that those radical Islamists are but a portion of the Muslim population, saying I thought one of the defining traits of radical Islamists was being Muslim. Neither one is a statement that is acceptable. This should be obvious.

[Combustible Lemur]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

Since when does white supremacists" equal white Christians?

Quite a broad brush you have there, methinks.

Are there atheist white supremacist groups I am unaware of? I thought one of the defining traits of those groups was being a WASP and the group being the superior chosen people.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It is the equivalent of saying, man those Muslims just want to kill everyone when noting that a radical Islamic group want to kill non-believers. Then when someone notes that those radical Islamists are but a portion of the Muslim population, saying I thought one of the defining traits of radical Islamists was being Muslim. Neither one is a statement that is acceptable. This should be obvious.

I'm confused, radical religious groups aren't any less religious because they are extreme, they're just not necessarily indicative of the larger population. It is obvious.
That's the point, all religions have their fanatics.


Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Combustible Lemur]

murder capitol of the internet Man, those white Christians just want to kill everyone don't they?

Since when does white supremacists" equal white Christians?

Quite a broad brush you have there, methinks.

Are there atheist white supremacist groups I am unaware of? I thought one of the defining traits of those groups was being a WASP and the group being the superior chosen people.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It is the equivalent of saying, man those Muslims just want to kill everyone when noting that a radical Islamic group want to kill non-believers. Then when someone notes that those radical Islamists are but a portion of the Muslim population, saying I thought one of the defining traits of radical Islamists was being Muslim. Neither one is a statement that is acceptable. This should be obvious.

I'm confused, radical religious groups aren't any less religious because they are extreme, they're just not necessarily indicative of the larger population. It is obvious.
That's the point, all religions have their fanatics.

Edit: you guys realize I was being sarcastic right?

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[GreenGoo]

Is this irony day or something?

Unless I missed something (totally possible) this conversation just went full circle, but only one side was being intentionally ironic.