Koran burning will endanger US lives: Petraeus

[tzor]

SOME Muslims attack Christians and SOME Christians attack Muslims.

Attacks on Christian churches in Indonesia increase

From January to July, there were 28 cases of religious freedom violations by "intolerant groups targeting Christians," up from 17 for the whole of 2008 and 18 in 2009, the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace said in a report.

Based on reports by churches and the media, the violations -- mostly by radical Muslim groups -- include forced closure of churches, revocation and delays in issuing building permits, and attacks such as torching and damaging churches, the institute said.

Pakistani Muslim Mob Attacks Christian Family: Attack Comes as a Result of a Thirteen-Year-Old Christian Refusing to Read the Qur’an

ICC says that Pastor Mubarak Masih and his family were assaulted after Shaid Masih, the pastor’s 13-year-old nephew, refused to read verses from the Qur’an (the Muslim holy book) despite pressure from his teacher.

“The Islamists beat the pastor’s head with sticks and rods; almost killed his brother when they shot him, grazing his head and causing a minor injury; and broke their mother’s left arm,” an ICC spokesperson told the ASSIST News Service (ANS).

In a statement to ICC, the family said that Zufair Gujhar, Shaid’s teacher, is a fundamentalist Muslim who routinely forces Christian students to read the Qur’an and other Islamic books. He pressures his Christian students to accept Islam.

News summaries of Hindu and Muslim terrorism against Christians in July, 2010

DAGESTAN

PASTOR IN RUSSIAN REPUBLIC KILLED ***

July 28 (Compass Direct News) - A pastor in the Russian republic of Dagestan known for founding the biggest Protestant church in the region and for successfully reaching out to Muslims has been killed by unidentified gunmen, local authorities have confirmed. Artur Suleimanov, 49, pastor of Hosanna Christian Church in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, was shot on the evening of July 15 while leaving his church building. The identity of the shooters remains unclear, but in the weeks leading up to the killing Dagestan media broadcast calls for people to take measures against Suleimanov because he was too "active" and converted ethnic Muslims. According to a letter Suleimanov wrote to Compass several years ago, 80 percent of the congregation is made up of former Muslims. The church distributes food and other aid to residents of the poverty-ridden country. His death follows the shooting of Orthodox priest Daniil Sisoev of St.Thomas church in Moscow last November; a Muslim group claimed responsibility for the slaying. Suleimanov is survived by his wife, Zina, and five children.

I'll end this with wikipedia

Persecution of Christians has continued in modern Turkey. On February 5, 2006, the Catholic priest Andrea Santoro was murdered in Trabzon by a student influenced by the reactions following the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[80] On April 18, 2007, 3 Christians were murdered in the bible publishing firm in Malatya,[81][82] coincidentally, the hometown of Mehmet Ali Ağca, the assassin who shot and wounded Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981.

In Sudan, it is estimated that over 1.5 million Christians have been killed by the Janjaweed, the Arab Muslim militia, and even suspected Islamists in northern Sudan since 1984.

Muslims in India who convert to Christianity have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and attacks by Muslims. In Jammu & Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, a Christian convert and missionary named Bashir Tantray was killed, allegedly by militant Islamists in 2006.

[BigBallinStalin]

I must admit, I do not understand the whole "you burn our paper book, and we are going to murder people" thing

Well, look at it this way. A lot of people over there take their religion very seriously (unlike in general people in the "West"). Also, say for example, I'm Mr. Ahmed, and I run a suicide bombing business. I need some propaganda to get my recruits and money coming in. Ah, yes, "Quran burning Man in US wants to burn Qurans." Now I got something to fire up the people and get my business booming.

You've got realize that there are some people with excellent entrepreneurial skills running the businesses of terrorism. But what gets filtered through the US mainstream media generally is just a mirror reflection of the propaganda being show over there, so you've got to step back and look at the bigger picture.

But only when it comes to terrorism, because anything from right wing politicians has to be real?

I'm not even sure what you're nitpicking at.

...

Care to expand on your question? And please show how it's relevant.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't see how burning a book is doing something "unto" another person.

It pisses people off, doesn't it?
What does anger typically lead to?


Also, let's use a more personal example than some burning book. Suppose someone takes a copy of someone's thesis or research work, tears it up, smears it with feces, and talks about how it's complete crap and completely useless.

--Do you think the writer of that thesis will take that well? How will he be affected?

[AAFitz]

I think most Christians would care very much if there were a Bible-burning.

There was a Bible-burning.. A few of them actually

Yes. But we let it pass, and therefore rob the event of its power. Muslims need to learn that same lesson. However, it is not for you or I to teach it at the moment.

Also, I should have clarified, I would care if it happened here, with people I see in my town, etc. I am not concerned that someone on the other side of the world dislikes my religion in the same way. Mostly, I believe it indicates more about how they feel they have been treated by Christians and the US. The solution is to change that picture.

Did you mean to suggest all muslims need to learn that same lesson, or just some of them? My signature really should warn all of the dangers of making such sweeping accusations of an entire religion or any group of people. Its almost more sad to see you do it, though I have no doubt it was an oversight.

A little of both.

In truth, I see harm in giving objects that much power. It is one reason I firmly reject the Roman Catholic Faith and yes, I feel they,too should move away from that. However, as long as it doesn't extend to violance and as long as they are not out forcing everyone else to bow to their will, I don't get into how other people believe (except in debate, with willing debaters).

Look around what is happening here in the US, though. Look at all the fights and protests from people "offended" by everything from art exhibitions to public displays of various sorts, etc. There are very fine lines that have to be constantly defined. Right now, in the US, people are generally allowed to put up any display they wish in private, just not to use taxpayer dollars to do it. That is fine with me. I am irritated by the number of people who see that freedom and tolerance as an outright attack on their belief, because it is an EXTREMELY dangerous road to go down. But, we are definitely at risk of going down that road.

Right now, the real fight here in the US is not over symbols as much as over the ideas our children must be or even are allowed to be taught in public schools. Sadly, many feel there is no real fight, but that is because the biggest objectors have simply left the system.. but only temprorarily, forming their own schools or home-schooling. And, I mean people on many extremes (as well as some who homeschool for specific personnal reasons like living far from school, "personality" issues with one or more teachers, and disabilities/special abilities in a child that the school is just not able to satisfy, etc.) If the right wingers and liberaterians get their way, and we have voucher systems or Charter schools where kids are assigned by lottery systems.. then the inequities and plain lack of understanding of people who think differently, have different views and understanding of WHY they have different views... all that gets lost. It is a VERY scary world I see coming.

Anyway, the bottom line is that people will always disagree. The problem comes when they take disagreement and decide that their disagreement is so justified, that their reasoning is so much more correct that they have the right to tell everyone else how to live. THAT is when things get dangerous. I oppose that in ANY belief. I probably take a harsher stance against Christianity because I am operating from within the church, because they claim to represent MY God.

As to "painting a brush". ALL religions have these elements, but some do give objects more power. Roman CAtholics within Christianity do and most all Muslims do. It is inherent to the Islamic faith that Mohammed is sacred, though people here in the US have learned a kind of "grit their teeth" tolerance, which means we can live side-by-side. I see the same danger in New agers who look to crystals, etc., except that often times the power they percieve is more of an inherent power, not a symbolic holding of "God's power". Also, most strong Pagan believers have simply been eliminated over time. Some Native Americans absolutely hold parts of the land sacred, though. It is very similar, different in that the truth is we all do depend upon the land, whether we hold it with the same sacred view or simple practicality.

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

[PLAYER57832]

I am absolutely not a critic of christians as a group per-se. For all intensive purposes, I am a christian, was raised christian and have adopted the principles of christianity in my own life. I fail often, but truly believe in the teachings. I may very well question the deity aspect, but that, while you may disagree, is less relevant than you might think. I am absolutely against many of the things some christians do and say, but I myself know it is them to blame and not their religion.

What you are saying was that it is the religion has made those people act as they have, which ignores the many thousands of muslims, who believe in the exact same religion, and denounce the very practices of violence you suggest their religion caused. You simply see a group of people acting a certain way, that happen to be a particular religion and are wrongly assuming it is the religion to blame. That is what is pathetic, and arguably, unchristian.

I could say the same thing about Christianity though. There are more Christians, so there should be more crazy violent fundamentalists, right? Yet Islam perpetuates more violence in our world today than Christianity. And you can't say it's because Islam is a "younger religion". You know full well that humanitarian values and morals extend worldwide and have little to do with what religion you are (unless you're willing to claim that atheists cannot have morals because they don't have a religion). The religion itself, and perhaps the culture surrounding it, must have some elements that advocate actions that are considered immoral by mostly everybody else. I could see you making a case that it's not the religion, just the culture... but something still needs to be done.

Sorry john9blue, but you only show your bias here.

Judge individual based on individuals. WE, right now, hear more about Islamic terrorists because WE are their target. Go to the mideast, and you hear about all the crimes committed against Islam by Christians and Jews.

Also, the plain fact is that for the past few decades, we have experienced economic prosperity. When people are well fed, warm and generally have the things they need, then its a lot easier to be tolerant. When your kids are starving or cannot get cured of even the most simple illness.. it becomes all to easy to point fingers at anyone else.

Sadly, that is why so many people are expresing hatred against Islam now. It has nothing to do with the religion itself. Most don't know enough about Islam to make such a judgement about it. They are looking for targets and a religion largely based across the world, in a people with a very differant culture, with some opposing fundamental values.. they make all to convenient targets.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

I am QUITE sure that some Muslims do understand this. Even so, this idea that the physical K'ran has power and that Mohammed cannot be in any way, shape or form criticized or dealt with in a less than fully respectful way is far more fundamental to and extreme than within modern Christianity. It is actually pretty akin to the way some Jews view Torah scrolls. This is not "painting the whole religion with a broad brush", it is a description of belief as the religion exists today.

[AAFitz]

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

I am QUITE sure that some Muslims do understand this. Even so, this idea that the physical K'ran has power and that Mohammed cannot be in any way, shape or form criticized or dealt with in a less than fully respectful way is far more fundamental to and extreme than within modern Christianity. It is actually pretty akin to the way some Jews view Torah scrolls. This is not "painting the whole religion with a broad brush", it is a description of belief as the religion exists today.

Again, the point is that you posted that Muslims must learn this, as if all muslims must learn something as a group, and you stereotype all muslims at once, which is simply unsound. The fact that many or even most do is irrelevant. It is clear all do not, so suggesting they ALL must learn is simply wrong per-se. You are arguing all around the basic fact that you unfairly stereotyped an entire religion of individuals, which is something you yourself usually argue against, and its getting to the point of ridiculous to be honest. My complaint could have been handled by one statement, and that was, I did not mean all muslims, and should have specified as much. Instead, a diverting argument distracts from the issue at hand, and its the same thing people do to justify such actions as racism all the time. Its just sad to see from someone who really should know better.

[john9blue]

Sorry john9blue, but you only show your bias here.

Judge individual based on individuals. WE, right now, hear more about Islamic terrorists because WE are their target. Go to the mideast, and you hear about all the crimes committed against Islam by Christians and Jews.

Also, the plain fact is that for the past few decades, we have experienced economic prosperity. When people are well fed, warm and generally have the things they need, then its a lot easier to be tolerant. When your kids are starving or cannot get cured of even the most simple illness.. it becomes all to easy to point fingers at anyone else.

Sadly, that is why so many people are expresing hatred against Islam now. It has nothing to do with the religion itself. Most don't know enough about Islam to make such a judgement about it. They are looking for targets and a religion largely based across the world, in a people with a very differant culture, with some opposing fundamental values.. they make all to convenient targets.

So you're saying that Christians treat Muslims just as badly? Really? I need some evidence of this, besides you saying that I'm biased.

I'm not saying we need to suppress the Islam religion, I'm just saying that we can't push this issue aside in the interest of "tolerance" or any BS like that. This will most likely continue until something is done. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile. Hunger and well being can be used as reasons for actions, but they shouldn't be used as justifications.

[PLAYER57832]

I must admit, I do not understand the whole "you burn our paper book, and we are going to murder people" thing

Well, look at it this way. A lot of people over there take their religion very seriously (unlike in general people in the "West"). Also, say for example, I'm Mr. Ahmed, and I run a suicide bombing business. I need some propaganda to get my recruits and money coming in. Ah, yes, "Quran burning Man in US wants to burn Qurans." Now I got something to fire up the people and get my business booming.

You've got realize that there are some people with excellent entrepreneurial skills running the businesses of terrorism. But what gets filtered through the US mainstream media generally is just a mirror reflection of the propaganda being show over there, so you've got to step back and look at the bigger picture.

But only when it comes to terrorism, because anything from right wing politicians has to be real?

I'm not even sure what you're nitpicking at.

...

Care to expand on your question? And please show how it's relevant.

No. I was brief to the point that I don't remember my own point.

However, I was likely trying to get at the idea that what is filtered, what is propaganda has a lot to do with where you sit. There used to be a time when at least within a particular region, folks largely got the same basic information. Now, with the internet, people pick and choose. You have no idea what your neighbors think they know, what they believe.. nothing. It makes conversation rather difficult.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry john9blue, but you only show your bias here.

Judge individual based on individuals. WE, right now, hear more about Islamic terrorists because WE are their target. Go to the mideast, and you hear about all the crimes committed against Islam by Christians and Jews.

Also, the plain fact is that for the past few decades, we have experienced economic prosperity. When people are well fed, warm and generally have the things they need, then its a lot easier to be tolerant. When your kids are starving or cannot get cured of even the most simple illness.. it becomes all to easy to point fingers at anyone else.

Sadly, that is why so many people are expresing hatred against Islam now. It has nothing to do with the religion itself. Most don't know enough about Islam to make such a judgement about it. They are looking for targets and a religion largely based across the world, in a people with a very differant culture, with some opposing fundamental values.. they make all to convenient targets.

So you're saying that Christians treat Muslims just as badly? Really? I need some evidence of this, besides you saying that I'm biased.

Study history, please.

I'm not saying we need to suppress the Islam religion, I'm just saying that we can't push this issue aside in the interest of "tolerance" or any BS like that. This will most likely continue until something is done. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile. Hunger and well being can be used as reasons for actions, but they shouldn't be used as justifications.

This is not about one religion versus another. It is about poor economic conditions and desperate situations making it easier to believe someone who comes in with a bit of food and "the answer". And, if you don't think desperation IS the justification, the reason for most of these travesties, then you are ignorant of the world. Feed people, clothe them, allow them some choice and you don't get such extremism. Take that away and you see, here or there, bigots who blame the "other guy" or "other religion" for their problems.

[AAFitz]

Sorry john9blue, but you only show your bias here.

Judge individual based on individuals. WE, right now, hear more about Islamic terrorists because WE are their target. Go to the mideast, and you hear about all the crimes committed against Islam by Christians and Jews.

Also, the plain fact is that for the past few decades, we have experienced economic prosperity. When people are well fed, warm and generally have the things they need, then its a lot easier to be tolerant. When your kids are starving or cannot get cured of even the most simple illness.. it becomes all to easy to point fingers at anyone else.

Sadly, that is why so many people are expresing hatred against Islam now. It has nothing to do with the religion itself. Most don't know enough about Islam to make such a judgement about it. They are looking for targets and a religion largely based across the world, in a people with a very differant culture, with some opposing fundamental values.. they make all to convenient targets.

So you're saying that Christians treat Muslims just as badly? Really? I need some evidence of this, besides you saying that I'm biased.

I'm not saying we need to suppress the Islam religion, I'm just saying that we can't push this issue aside in the interest of "tolerance" or any BS like that. This will most likely continue until something is done. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile. Hunger and well being can be used as reasons for actions, but they shouldn't be used as justifications.

Hunger is one thing, but try telling a mother and father their children's hunger is not worth getting angry over, or fighting for. Hell, you are usually arguing about a couple percentage points on some taxes. They are effectively arguing about a few margins too....the margins between life and death of their children. Perhaps its selfish of them to want their children to get food and water, and blame the countries in the world that essentially have plenty of it, but its hardly reasonable to expect any other reaction at the same time.

Too much of the worlds resources are in the hands of too few. Every time this happens there is revolution and fighting. One can either ignore the needs of the masses and deal with the inevitable revolution, or be prudent and make it more equitable. Supressing the revolution is the other option, but in the age we live now, its impossible to stop them all as 9/11 proved. All everyone wants in this world at a basic level is love food water and a place to live. When you take those away from them, there is no end to their fury. There's no arguing it away, and certainly you have to ignore large parts of your entire religion to suggest the problem can be ignored without sin. You can block it out to function and justify your position all you want, but no one is so blind as to not know the truth of the world, so the whole religious aspect is just pure hypocricy.

Hell, we have protests in this country because we think things are so tough. Imagine any of those people living in the mideast for a few months and how their perspective might change. Personally, I think the whole muslim distraction is just a diversion, somebody to hate, in a country that has some serious problems to deal with, and unfortunately, hate is much easier, than productive reasoning and decision making. Well, by easier, I mean its easier to do, not make a postive difference. But continue to claim your love for your God and His children, as long as it doesnt cost you anything, or you dont have to do anything to help them out or protect them. Just hope Hes as forgiving as you think he is at the same time, or its all for naught.

[john9blue]

- Unless it happened in the past 100 years or so, history is largely irrelevant. The world as a whole has changed too much. That's like putting political labels on someone who lived in the 1800's.

- So what you are saying is that extremism has everything to do with economic conditions and nothing to do with ideology? Should be easy enough then to point me to poor, predominantly Christian countries who cause the kind of mayhem that Middle Eastern Muslim countries do. I'll be waiting.

- Feel free to think I'm a heartless bastard... If you want to improve the economic conditions of these countries then go ahead. It's obviously an undesirable situation. But that's no reason to have a massive double standard when it comes to Christians vs. Muslims. The difference between you and me is that I feel no guilt at all for examining the facts and concluding that a religion different than mine is causing problems. I'm not scared to be called a bigot, so long as what I say is grounded in reality.

[BigBallinStalin]

- Unless it happened in the past 100 years or so, history is largely irrelevant. The world as a whole has changed too much. That's like putting political labels on someone who lived in the 1800's.

Right, what could possibly be gained from examining said issue while ignoring anything that happened 100+ years ago?

- So what you are saying is that extremism has everything to do with economic conditions and nothing to do with ideology? Should be easy enough then to point me to poor, predominantly Christian countries who cause the kind of mayhem that Middle Eastern Muslim countries do. I'll be waiting.[/quote]
It's attributed to both, and there are more factors than just those two.


- Feel free to think I'm a heartless bastard... If you want to improve the economic conditions of these countries then go ahead. It's obviously an undesirable situation. But that's no reason to have a massive double standard when it comes to Christians vs. Muslims. The difference between you and me is that I feel no guilt at all for examining the facts and concluding that a religion different than mine is causing problems. I'm not scared to be called a bigot, so long as what I say is grounded in reality.[/quote]
Like I said, it's not just the a small extremist sect of a certain religion that's responsible for the problems. Granted, they cause their own problems, but there's much more going on then you're willing to see or admit from this post.

[tkr4lf]

oh jesus christ...f*ck both of the religions and their "prophets". f*ck christians and muslims! there is no god.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

I am QUITE sure that some Muslims do understand this. Even so, this idea that the physical K'ran has power and that Mohammed cannot be in any way, shape or form criticized or dealt with in a less than fully respectful way is far more fundamental to and extreme than within modern Christianity. It is actually pretty akin to the way some Jews view Torah scrolls. This is not "painting the whole religion with a broad brush", it is a description of belief as the religion exists today.

Again, the point is that you posted that Muslims must learn this, as if all muslims must learn something as a group, and you stereotype all muslims at once, which is simply unsound. The fact that many or even most do is irrelevant. It is clear all do not, so suggesting they ALL must learn is simply wrong per-se. You are arguing all around the basic fact that you unfairly stereotyped an entire religion of individuals, which is something you yourself usually argue against, and its getting to the point of ridiculous to be honest. My complaint could have been handled by one statement, and that was, I did not mean all muslims, and should have specified as much. Instead, a diverting argument distracts from the issue at hand, and its the same thing people do to justify such actions as racism all the time. Its just sad to see from someone who really should know better.

AAFitz-- is pretty much like saying Roman Catholics consider the Pope above other human beings. Sure, there are exceptions, but it is still very much a tenant of Roman Catholocism that the Pope is Christ's earthly representative and "spokesperson" (and yes.. I DO realize that is a gross generalization of complex concepts).
And, I don't like the power Roman Catholics give the Pope, find it harmful, too.

[PLAYER57832]

- Unless it happened in the past 100 years or so, history is largely irrelevant. The world as a whole has changed too much. That's like putting political labels on someone who lived in the 1800's.

- So what you are saying is that extremism has everything to do with economic conditions and nothing to do with ideology? Should be easy enough then to point me to poor, predominantly Christian countries who cause the kind of mayhem that Middle Eastern Muslim countries do. I'll be waiting.

Undersanding requires studying a bit of HISTORY.
But, you don't even have to go back 100 years. Just examine the rise of Nazism in Germany, and particularly the way the churches were used early on. Or, look at Northern Ireland, for that matter.

I will leave it to others to give you further lessons.

-
- Feel free to think I'm a heartless bastard... If you want to improve the economic conditions of these countries then go ahead. It's obviously an undesirable situation. But that's no reason to have a massive double standard when it comes to Christians vs. Muslims. The difference between you and me is that I feel no guilt at all for examining the facts and concluding that a religion different than mine is causing problems. I'm not scared to be called a bigot, so long as what I say is grounded in reality.

Ironically enough, racism has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is just plain stupidity on your part.

to quote "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it". You may be perfectly happy to return to McCarthyism, or to go back to the days of witch burnings and "conversion by the sword", etc. I am not. And, sadly, too many people like you, who choose to blithely ignore history might just make sure we DO return.

[AAFitz]

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

I am QUITE sure that some Muslims do understand this. Even so, this idea that the physical K'ran has power and that Mohammed cannot be in any way, shape or form criticized or dealt with in a less than fully respectful way is far more fundamental to and extreme than within modern Christianity. It is actually pretty akin to the way some Jews view Torah scrolls. This is not "painting the whole religion with a broad brush", it is a description of belief as the religion exists today.

Again, the point is that you posted that Muslims must learn this, as if all muslims must learn something as a group, and you stereotype all muslims at once, which is simply unsound. The fact that many or even most do is irrelevant. It is clear all do not, so suggesting they ALL must learn is simply wrong per-se. You are arguing all around the basic fact that you unfairly stereotyped an entire religion of individuals, which is something you yourself usually argue against, and its getting to the point of ridiculous to be honest. My complaint could have been handled by one statement, and that was, I did not mean all muslims, and should have specified as much. Instead, a diverting argument distracts from the issue at hand, and its the same thing people do to justify such actions as racism all the time. Its just sad to see from someone who really should know better.

AAFitz-- is pretty much like saying Roman Catholics consider the Pope above other human beings. Sure, there are exceptions, but it is still very much a tenant of Roman Catholocism that the Pope is Christ's earthly representative and "spokesperson" (and yes.. I DO realize that is a gross generalization of complex concepts).
And, I don't like the power Roman Catholics give the Pope, find it harmful, too.

That is actually a stupid analogy. And that is not a gross generalization on my part.

[AAFitz]

Well, my point was that I am certain quite a few muslims have already learned that, and that it is dangerous to suggest that because someone is muslim, they react the same way personally to the same event, simply because they worship the same religion. There are no doubt similarities, but it is still reckless to treat all muslims as if they have one set of ideals and one set of responses, just as its reckless to suggest all christians do. You even highlight this by discussing the various factions of christians that act differently as groups within the main group, but still essentially claim that mulims all act the same or need to learn the same things, simply because they are in a most massive and diverse group, and that is what is really dangerous, and actually, somewhat ignorant on your part. Its unfortunate that you dont see that, and it is the essential problem we face in the world today it seems.

I am QUITE sure that some Muslims do understand this. Even so, this idea that the physical K'ran has power and that Mohammed cannot be in any way, shape or form criticized or dealt with in a less than fully respectful way is far more fundamental to and extreme than within modern Christianity. It is actually pretty akin to the way some Jews view Torah scrolls. This is not "painting the whole religion with a broad brush", it is a description of belief as the religion exists today.

Again, the point is that you posted that Muslims must learn this, as if all muslims must learn something as a group, and you stereotype all muslims at once, which is simply unsound. The fact that many or even most do is irrelevant. It is clear all do not, so suggesting they ALL must learn is simply wrong per-se. You are arguing all around the basic fact that you unfairly stereotyped an entire religion of individuals, which is something you yourself usually argue against, and its getting to the point of ridiculous to be honest. My complaint could have been handled by one statement, and that was, I did not mean all muslims, and should have specified as much. Instead, a diverting argument distracts from the issue at hand, and its the same thing people do to justify such actions as racism all the time. Its just sad to see from someone who really should know better.

AAFitz-- is pretty much like saying Roman Catholics consider the Pope above other human beings. Sure, there are exceptions, but it is still very much a tenant of Roman Catholocism that the Pope is Christ's earthly representative and "spokesperson" (and yes.. I DO realize that is a gross generalization of complex concepts).
And, I don't like the power Roman Catholics give the Pope, find it harmful, too.

That is actually a stupid analogy. And that is not a gross generalization on my part. In any case, defend your mistake arrogantly as much as you need. Youve lost all respect on this end for fighting what is plainly obvious. I honestly didnt realize now that you just made stuff up and posted it out of the blue. You need to get out more if you think most Catholics think the Pope is more than just a Pope. Thank God I dont live in the bible belt.

And thanks for another example of completely avoiding the subject at hand, and simply going on to discuss an irrelevant one, and incorrectly at the same time. You unfairly said all muslims had to learn not to idolize the Qran and mecca, and its just flatly wrong, no matter how many words you throw at your mistake. The only ones that were needed, was yes, that was a gross generalization, but hey, its no surprise youve been overcome by the tactics of those you argue against so often, and simply cannot accept when you are wrong at this point. Tragic, but understandable.

[PLAYER57832]

That is actually a stupid analogy. And that is not a gross generalization on my part. In any case, defend your mistake arrogantly as much as you need. Youve lost all respect on this end for fighting what is plainly obvious. I honestly didnt realize now that you just made stuff up and posted it out of the blue. You need to get out more if you think most Catholics think the Pope is more than just a Pope.

I thank God I do not live in that Bible belt of yours.

Not sure what you mean by "the Pope is just a the Pope". Rather Axiomatic, that.
Per Roman Catholic teachings, he IS more than an ordinary human being. He is more than an ordinary Priest. It is true that many Roman Catholics in the US don't hold him with much sanctity ... and this is considered a problem within the faith. (and I DO know of what I speak in this!).

The problem here is that you took a statement that does apply to the general faith and are trying to say that I am being derogatory to those individuals who take exception to or don't necessary agree with what the majority of the faith asserts. You can argue that not all Christians believe Christ died on the cross and, debateably be correct (the debateable part is a matter of how you define Christianity). However, it is not a misstatement to say that Christians believe Christ died on the cross. At some point, generalizations are not only allowed, but required.

I never insisted that every last person who subscribed to the Muslim faith is going to strap bombs on themselves because an idiot in the US burns a K'ran.

But, to hold the K'ran as holy and to have many rules about Mohammed is part of Islam. The comparison to the Roman Catholic Faith is valid because in years past, that is very much how various symbols were seen within Roman Catholicism. AND, "desecration" of those symbols sparked more than a few conflicts. Protestants and Roman Catholics are now able to co-exist peacefully because both sides have acceded that these things are NOT as important as they once were held. For the most part, followers of Islam have not come to that realization. This has to do with isolation (both physical isolation and "cultural" isolation), the power structure in those countries versus ours. Islam has not had anything like the Protestant revolution to say that individuals can form their own destiny in the same way that Protestants have impacted both the entire Christian faith and Roman Catholicism. What we see in Islam might well be where Roman Catholicism would have gone had it not been for Protestantism. OR, it could be that another movement within Roman Catholicism would, inevitably have changed the faith in similar ways. One cannot redo history. Its all to easy to say that what we see is what was "supposed to be" or is "best", simply because that is what we have.

Many Islamists look at these changes in the west and see great harm. Many Christians now want to go back to some extent as well. It is a constant battle. However, this one lesson was learned (may be unlearned, who knows.. and I am not saying it was perfectly learned) in modern Christianity and has not really spread much within Islam.. namely that giving objects and specific words (Mohammed) so much power is harmful. And that is what I said from the beginning.

Either Islam will experience something "akin to" the Christian Protestant revolution, where individuals are given more power and individual thought is encouraged more, OR, Islam will change us and what we are. We may find ourselve with more and more rules, more restrictions (superficial -- such as dress and deeper, such as associations between men and women). Then again, atheism could alter the entire picture. If intolerant fools are allowed to dominate religions, then many people will simply turn their backs on the whole mess.

But this is spinning pretty far off the topic.

[john9blue]

To avoid a wall of text battle with you two, I will simply say that I only appear stupid because I believe that an issue such as this does not require a wall of text from any of us. I find that people who do this are trying to convince themselves that they are correct using circuitous and hazy reasoning. It is quite simple, I judge all religions (and people) by their actions. I will not defend myself from accusations of bigotry and stupidity because I personally know that I am neither, and that I will continue to receive such accusations from whomever disagrees with me about anything at all.

[Nobunaga]

... Check this out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rning.html

... In the UK, burning a holy book (or maybe just a Koran) means jail time.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

... Check this out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rning.html

... In the UK, burning a holy book (or maybe just a Koran) means jail time.

...

Woe is them. All's they wanted to do was incite hatred of some group and burn what they identify with. Kind of like someone taking the quintessential books of Black Americans and burning them then follow it up with some rhetoric about how bad black people are.

And they got arrested for it? Aw, shucks, why am I not outraged?

[PLAYER57832]

To avoid a wall of text battle with you two, I will simply say that I only appear stupid because I believe that an issue such as this does not require a wall of text from any of us. I find that people who do this are trying to convince themselves that they are correct using circuitous and hazy reasoning.

Easy to say since you won't be bothered to read.

It is quite simple, I judge all religions (and people) by their actions.

So do I , but knowing history, I am better able to understand their actions and find solutions.
You may try to "judge people by their actions", but without understanding of history and culture, you won't know how to judge those actions, not truly. You are like the ignorant missionaries of the past who decided that they had to "teach" ignorant natives "western ways".. never mind that the way native folks did things was often far, far more sensible. AND, not at all really what the Bible specifies.

But then, not knowing history.. you will remain ignorant of all that, and much more.

I will not defend myself from accusations of bigotry

Only you mentioned bigotry.

and stupidity

Ignoring history IS stupid.. no way around that.

because I personally know that I am neither,

Up until now, I would agree. However, claiming that you don't need history is just ignorant and stupid and the only way you could possible say that is if you had failed to study history in any reasonable manner. That is, knowing more than just a few facts and figures.

and that I will continue to receive such accusations from whomever disagrees with me about anything at all.

Nice try, but get off your post. You are just wrong. Studying history will show you that. Until then.. you will continue to show yourself ignorant in many ways.

[AAFitz]

That is actually a stupid analogy. And that is not a gross generalization on my part. In any case, defend your mistake arrogantly as much as you need. Youve lost all respect on this end for fighting what is plainly obvious. I honestly didnt realize now that you just made stuff up and posted it out of the blue. You need to get out more if you think most Catholics think the Pope is more than just a Pope.

I thank God I do not live in that Bible belt of yours.

Not sure what you mean by "the Pope is just a the Pope". Rather Axiomatic, that.
Per Roman Catholic teachings, he IS more than an ordinary human being. He is more than an ordinary Priest. It is true that many Roman Catholics in the US don't hold him with much sanctity ... and this is considered a problem within the faith. (and I DO know of what I speak in this!).

The problem here is that you took a statement that does apply to the general faith and are trying to say that I am being derogatory to those individuals who take exception to or don't necessary agree with what the majority of the faith asserts. You can argue that not all Christians believe Christ died on the cross and, debateably be correct (the debateable part is a matter of how you define Christianity). However, it is not a misstatement to say that Christians believe Christ died on the cross. At some point, generalizations are not only allowed, but required.

I never insisted that every last person who subscribed to the Muslim faith is going to strap bombs on themselves because an idiot in the US burns a K'ran.

But, to hold the K'ran as holy and to have many rules about Mohammed is part of Islam. The comparison to the Roman Catholic Faith is valid because in years past, that is very much how various symbols were seen within Roman Catholicism. AND, "desecration" of those symbols sparked more than a few conflicts. Protestants and Roman Catholics are now able to co-exist peacefully because both sides have acceded that these things are NOT as important as they once were held. For the most part, followers of Islam have not come to that realization. This has to do with isolation (both physical isolation and "cultural" isolation), the power structure in those countries versus ours. Islam has not had anything like the Protestant revolution to say that individuals can form their own destiny in the same way that Protestants have impacted both the entire Christian faith and Roman Catholicism. What we see in Islam might well be where Roman Catholicism would have gone had it not been for Protestantism. OR, it could be that another movement within Roman Catholicism would, inevitably have changed the faith in similar ways. One cannot redo history. Its all to easy to say that what we see is what was "supposed to be" or is "best", simply because that is what we have.

Many Islamists look at these changes in the west and see great harm. Many Christians now want to go back to some extent as well. It is a constant battle. However, this one lesson was learned (may be unlearned, who knows.. and I am not saying it was perfectly learned) in modern Christianity and has not really spread much within Islam.. namely that giving objects and specific words (Mohammed) so much power is harmful. And that is what I said from the beginning.

Either Islam will experience something "akin to" the Christian Protestant revolution, where individuals are given more power and individual thought is encouraged more, OR, Islam will change us and what we are. We may find ourselve with more and more rules, more restrictions (superficial -- such as dress and deeper, such as associations between men and women). Then again, atheism could alter the entire picture. If intolerant fools are allowed to dominate religions, then many people will simply turn their backs on the whole mess.

But this is spinning pretty far off the topic.

I agree, and youre the one who brought it up. All I did was mention that you said all muslims had to learn something, and blatently stereotyped an entire religion, and by doing so, showed it was you who had the learning to do. You used alot of words and changed the topic quite a bit to explain it away in the process as well.

[AAFitz]

To avoid a wall of text battle with you two, I will simply say that I only appear stupid because I believe that an issue such as this does not require a wall of text from any of us. I find that people who do this are trying to convince themselves that they are correct using circuitous and hazy reasoning. It is quite simple, I judge all religions (and people) by their actions. I will not defend myself from accusations of bigotry and stupidity because I personally know that I am neither, and that I will continue to receive such accusations from whomever disagrees with me about anything at all.

Actually, to me it seems like a complex situation with many facets of reasoning on a deep level. Its very similar to the fact that a religion has many individuals and sub groups and cant possibly be described easily by one set of criteria, much like any race cannot. It is the stupid bigot that thinks otherwise, and its why he is both stupid and bigoted.