Muslims are Wonderful People

[Forty Two]

People who can't touch their nose with their tongues are definitely suspect, that's for sure.

[Feck]

I'm still really angry with atheists protecting Islam from criticism .I'm sick of the excuses, the stupid comments "not all muslims....." "christianity was equally bad......" "that's racism...." "not all muslims are terrorists"
By definition ALL Muslims glorify the evil Mohammed and his rapist companions .

[Forty Two]

I'm still really angry with atheists protecting Islam from criticism .I'm sick of the excuses, the stupid comments "not all muslims....." "christianity was equally bad......" "that's racism...." "not all muslims are terrorists"
By definition ALL Muslims glorify the evil Mohammed and his rapist companions .

By definition, they follow a bullshit religion, great factions of which are homophobic, xenophobic and misogynistic.

The Islam-defenders generally have no problem leveling those same allegations against Christianity or Judaism. The reason they are reticent to make such statements about Islam is that Islam managed to convince intersectional progressives to list them high on the Progressive Stack. They are a marginalized group, traditionally oppressed, etc.

That's why left-leaning folks will tend to decry "hate speech" against Muslims in the form of cartoons and artwork, but they will defend the free speech of cartoonists and artists who mock Jesus, Mary, Moses, or the Christian God. When South Park depicts Mary, Mother of God, bleeding from her ass, that's funny and free speech. Depict Mohamet with a bomb on his head or with a pig nose, and it's hate speech against a marginalized group.

[Sean Hayden]

I gave an excellent reason for their behavior. I view them as a speed governor. Please consider that even with their opposition Muslims seem to be mistrusted by no small number of people, especially in the US.

I'm sure you appreciate how this can be dangerous.

[JimC]

I'm still really angry with atheists protecting Islam from criticism .I'm sick of the excuses, the stupid comments "not all muslims....." "christianity was equally bad......" "that's racism...." "not all muslims are terrorists"
By definition ALL Muslims glorify the evil Mohammed and his rapist companions .

Seth has hacked Feck's account!

[Brian Peacock]

I'm still really angry with atheists protecting Islam from criticism .I'm sick of the excuses, the stupid comments "not all muslims....." "christianity was equally bad......" "that's racism...." "not all muslims are terrorists"
By definition ALL Muslims glorify the evil Mohammed and his rapist companions .

By definition, they follow a bullshit religion, great factions of which are homophobic, xenophobic and misogynistic.

The Islam-defenders generally have no problem leveling those same allegations against Christianity or Judaism. The reason they are reticent to make such statements about Islam is that Islam managed to convince intersectional progressives to list them high on the Progressive Stack. They are a marginalized group, traditionally oppressed, etc.

That's why left-leaning folks will tend to decry "hate speech" against Muslims in the form of cartoons and artwork, but they will defend the free speech of cartoonists and artists who mock Jesus, Mary, Moses, or the Christian God. When South Park depicts Mary, Mother of God, bleeding from her ass, that's funny and free speech. Depict Mohamet with a bomb on his head or with a pig nose, and it's hate speech against a marginalized group.

I have no problem 'leveling [sic] those same allegations' against the Muslims whose views and actions I object to. But I do try to resist falling to the fallacy of the hasty generalisation when expressing my disgruntlement with, and objections to, religious (or political for that matter) ideology. The charge that 'all Muslims are X' is no more reasonable or accurate than the charge that 'all atheists are Y' or 'all republicans are Z'.

If I am to be accused of defending Muslims on account of this then I guess I am, but it's pretty clear I'm not defending Islam at large or 'all Muslims' in general, only those who reject or resist the excesses and horrors that invariably follow from pernicious dogmatism. There's more to be said on this of course, and I imagine that any subsequent misreading of my remarks will afford me ample opportunity to qualify my view further.

[JimC]

All religious people cherry-pick. Jihadists cherry-pick the holy writings of islam by concentrating on sections which urge violence against unbelievers, apostates or muslims with a different interpretation. (It must be said that they have no difficulty in finding plenty of material)

Many other muslims who are not interested in violence cherry-pick by ignoring those sections, and I'm glad that so many do.

Christians cherry-pick by ignoring the violent past of their religion, and the nasty bits in both testaments.

Atheists cherry-pick by finding a cherry tree, and picking buckets of those delicious, ripe cherries...

[Brian Peacock]

[Hermit]

All religious people cherry-pick. Jihadists cherry-pick the holy writings of islam by concentrating on sections which urge violence against unbelievers, apostates or muslims with a different interpretation. (It must be said that they have no difficulty in finding plenty of material)

Many other muslims who are not interested in violence cherry-pick by ignoring those sections, and I'm glad that so many do.

Christians cherry-pick by ignoring the violent past of their religion, and the nasty bits in both testaments.

Atheists cherry-pick by finding a cherry tree, and picking buckets of those delicious, ripe cherries...

[JimC]

Those guys cherry-pick the canon of the Sith, no doubt...

[pErvinalia]

Atheists cherry-pick by finding a cherry tree, and picking buckets of those delicious, ripe cherries...

[NineBerry]

Atheists cherry-pick by claiming they are unrelated to the violence done in the name of atheism by anti-religious regimes in the 19th and 20th century.

[JimC]

Atheists cherry-pick by claiming they are unrelated to the violence done in the name of atheism by anti-religious regimes in the 19th and 20th century.

Seth, what have you done to NineBerry?

But, can you really document evidence that the violence was done in the name of atheism? Stalin killed church people because they were a threat to his regime - he did this universally, not as part of a focus against the church specifically. I suppose his personal atheism removed any twinges of doubt in terms of killing orthodox priests who dared oppose him, but it was for pragmatic reasons of power, not to bring in a new, shiny age of atheism...

[NineBerry]

I said "in the name of". And you just have to study the history of revolutions in Europe in the 19th and 20th century (mostly France and Russia) only a bit to see how deeply opposition to religion was embedded in the used ideologies. Both the Jacobines and the European communists were really big on being anti-religion and pro rationality.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of ... t_Atheists

[JimC]

I still assert that the opposition was because the church of the time had major influences over a significant part of the population, and were inevitably crushed in the name of consolidating power, not for emotional reasons of detesting religion per se, whatever the rhetoric was...