As far as Islam and its blood-lust, again I largely agree with you, but I think that is a trait that is inherent to all the Abrahamic religions. Two have largely (but clearly not completely, as the constantly attempt to impose themselves on others) been broken while one in particular has not.

Whatever your view on ‘original’ Christianity, you agree that, in your words it has been “largely subjugated to enlightened western ethics.” Although I would put it differently, I agree! And that IS the issue with Islam – it is nowhere close to being subjugated, it is relentless in its bloodlust, its being defended by clueless useless idiots in the West and other places, and moderate Muslims feel no heat to defeat the Jihad.

And any of what you have said means what exactly in reference to Scott’s silly claims that 1) there are no Christian terrorists and 2) said terrorists are not forcing people to convert/attempting to impose their worldview under threats of violence? Nothing, that’s what. You can rail on about the evils of Islam all day, and I will generally agree with you on all of it, but pointing out how bad one religion is does not change the fact that another is just as bad. Christianity has much of the same violent, missionary (as in the core tenant of converting all to your religion) aspect as Islam. The main difference is that Christianity has, luckily, largely been subjugated to enlightened western ethics.

I am not sure exactly what it is you think my views on Islam are (as you state something “in my defense”) but I am fairly sure you have them wrong. As far as the original point of all of this, there are Christian t

The issue is not what Christians at one point did. The issue is what Muslims are upto today. And that by itself is not enough of an issue. What makes the issue so massively screwed up is precisely that ‘moderate’ Muslims are nowhere in the picture to theologically defeat the Jihadis.
Yes most Muslims probably do not believe in the mainstream interpretation of their religion. But to defeat a purity-based interpretation within a faith, the defenders have to master their own theology and show that the radicals are mistaken theologically. And this is not even close to BEGINNING. There are hardly any renaissance-mongers in the Muslim world THEOLOGICALLY (this word is key here).

And David, you would do well to read the charters of Jihadi organisations around the world – anywhere from Philippines to Britain. They all share the same universalist jihadi language and anti-semitism is rampant in places where Jews have never lived. Ask yourself, why are Muslim jihadists beheading Buddhist monks in Thailand? Did Thailand invade Iraq?

Longtime lurker here, jumping in for Scott in AZ 100% with him. I’m still anti-war and I think Pipes here is mistaken.
In Les and David’s defense it IS technically true that a religion is whatever its adherents believe it to be. If every Christian interpreted the Bible as preaching environmentalism, then thats what christianity ‘is’ (essentialism etc etc).

And its really elementary good faith for folks (me included long ago) that theres no way that what the terrorists believe is mainstream or widespread. But here is the relevant fact which you can study on your own from any good college library research – EVERY LEGAL SCHOOL OF ISLAM (Sunni and Shia included) PREACHES OFFENSIVE WARFARE AGAINST NONMUSLIMS.
And I do mean EVERY. There is no exception. The ones that do not preach offensive Jihad are marginalized sects like Vohris in India and Eastern Pakistan, and Ahmadiyas who only believe in ‘spreading the word’ like Jesuits do. And for this tolerance Ahmadiyas and Vohris are massively discriminated against in the Muslim world and accused of being non-muslims.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, and the hatred for non muslims there was unmistaken in the things little kids said when playing outside – 10 yr old kids would spit out religious insults calling us kaafirs, dogs and what not.
Anyway thts just an anecdote.

Are you really attempting to argue that Christians have never used violence to convert people to their religion? Really? Outside of the fact that the link I provided you explicitly states modern Christian groups have been reported using violence to force conversion the history of Christianity is -just- as violent and repressive as Islam. You claimed that there were no Christian terrorists and then when provided with several clear cases to the contrary you simply wave you hand and act as if they do not exist? How obtuse can you be is the real question.

And just so its clear, using violence like that murderer in Kansas to attempt to frighten people into conforming to his backwards world view is just as much an act of terrorism as any the Muslims have been carrying out. He may have only murdered one person but terrorism is still terrorism, Christian or Muslim. Despite what you may like to think, just because they “did it for Jesus” does not mean it wasn’t a cowardly act of terrorism.

A

There aren’t any “Christian terrorists” attempting to convert the world to Christianity by violence which would be analogous to the Islamic violence which has been going on since 700AD and has the specific goal of converting, subjuating, or killing all non-Muslims.

How obtuse can people be.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Arpaio is being investigated for violating the civil rights of Hispanics with his mass, indiscriminate immigration raids.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think there’s a legal term we use to describe what you’re doing if, while under federal investigation, you destroy any evidence of the possible crimes for which you’re being investigated.

Please, Please, Please quote the section of the Constitution that gives the federal government investigative/punitive powers.

I know you can’t EXCEPT in the cases of 1) counterfeiting current coin and securities, 2) piracies and felonies on the high Seas and offenses against the Law of Nations, and 3) treason. Since these had to be explicitly granted, the evidence and the proof is that the feds have NO LEGITIMATE authority to act in the areas of investigation/punishment of crimes outside these explicit delegations of power. The police power was left to the States. So the separation of powers was that the feds might pass a law and the states would enforce the law IF the states felt the law to be constitutional.

Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not make it right. Slavery was perfectly acceptable for 10s of thousands of years.

There is no good intentions clause in the Constitution so please do not claim the laws are necessary because the law is “good”.

Spend some time reading Article I, Section 8. Study the language, ask why and use root cause methods to fully evaluate the why. This means ask why, the ask why the first why, then ask why the second why, and continue for five iterations each time addressing the why to the previous answer.

Any time one reads one clause of the Constitution with such an interpretation that another clause is rendered unnecessary, the reading is WRONG.

I guess we all know that “Christian terrorists” and “Muslim terrorists” are sort of oxymorons. It has been reported that neither side believes in taking innocent lives. Yet, they do.

Remember the guys that killed abortionists? Although it might be justified (not by me) in some Christian venues, it is still not consistent with Christian teaching and loving your brother. Is it not strange that there are, so many, Christians and Muslims, who would murder innocents, against what is believed in their own scriptures? Then, how can we blame the religions for the problem? People choose which teachings they want to follow! People can also do some very insane things!

Hypocrites? Bigots? ALL OF US!

I wonder if we are the only country that allows freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice (including atheism and satanism)and no restrictions on the free practice thereof! Was that not one of the reasons the persecuted Christians left Europe for the colonies? I don’t think that right exists in the Muslim countries, right now. I think our country is better because of this. At least we have a choice! So far!

No Christian terrorists? Well I guess Catholics are not Christians then as the IRA is clearly a terrorist organisation. Well what about protestants? I’m fairly sure they just found a terrorist guilty of murder for shooting that doctor out in Kansas. What about those terrorists in America bombing doctors offices and other such places? Are they not terrorists? What exactly is your definition of terrorist? If it is someone using violence to achieve a political end (hint, that is actually what it is) then those three examples are clearly of Christian terrorists.

If your going to say something as stupid as “there are no Christian terrorists” then at least do a basic wiki search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

And that list does not even include the conflict in Yugoslavia where a small scale genocide was carried out along religious lines (Christians killing others).

Sure, Islam is terrible for promoting terrorism. No sane person is going to argue that with you, but the truth is Christianity is only “better” in the sense that western secularism has managed to chain down it’s violent nature. I can assure you looking back over history Christianity is just as violent, misogynistic, xenophobic and backwards as any sect of Islam. The extent to which you no longer hear about it is the extent to which it has been shackled and, thankfully, subjugated to contemporary western ethics.

I would have thought that someone with your keen perceptive abilities would have noticed that I addressed both parts of the definition of a bigot in my response to Les – strong opinions, and intolerance. I consulted a hard copy of the Thorndike-Barnhardt 1951 comprehensive dictionary (since I have a fondness for old things).

Now, despite Les’s nice comment made under the influence of alcohol, I still ask how am I being intolerant? I disagree with Less that my statements are bigoted. Therefore I reject your, and Les’s characterization of me as a bigot. But at least Les has admitted that under his definition he is a bigot. So I guess that would make us all bigots in our own way, even you since you seem to be intolerant of my opinions. So be it. I’ll be a proud bigot towards the idea that women should be subjugated as slaves and all the other nasty things found in Islam.

Now as to my statements about what Islam is, you do your own wet work, I’m not going to make up for your laziness. The evidence is easy to obtain, and I disagree with Les’s characterization of Islam as being determined by its followers. Under that rational we would also have to be tolerant of Nazi Facism too, which I doubt Les would really advocate.

The Koran is a very specific document, and it says that Muslims are to spread Islam across the world by violence if necessary and that all non-Mulsims are to be converted, subjugated and taxed, or killed. Its pretty straightforward, and modern day Muslim jihadists routinely use the Koran to justify their violence. I can make that statment about a political concept known as Isllam, without claiming anything about any individual Muslims or Muslims.

Now I would like to see your thesis that Christianity is somehow just as bad as Islam. That ought to be a hoot. Please tell me how Christian terrorists justify their acts of terror. Oh, there aren’t any? Too bad, that kind of takes the punch out of your punchline doesn’t it.

To address your complaint that I made an obscure referecne to a statement by the Prime Minister of Turkey. I pointed that out in response to Les claim that Islam is this rich diverse population of different branches of Islam. I find that laughable, and so does the Turkish Prime Minister. But I guess under Les’s definition then there may be 1.2 billion versions of Islam since it all depends upon the nature of each individual follower. But I’m only worried about the ones that find justification in the Koran to fly jet airliners into buildings or put bombs in their underwere. It doesn’t take long before you are talking some real serious problems.

But just to make you and Les happy, I’ll make this bigoted statement.

The next underwear-bomber won’t be Amish, a Buddist, a Druid, or even a Southern Baptist. It’s virtually certain it will be someone calling himself a Muslim, and he’ll have found justification in the Koran – in Islam.

You and Les can deny that reality. The army did too and 13 soldiers couldn’t avoid the effects of the army denying reality.

It will happen again. Think about that.

Bigotry doesn’t mean “having strong opinions.” Bigotry doesn’t mean “being intolerant of others’ opinions.” It’s about judging individuals without knowing them, based on preconceived notions about the group those individuals belong to.

I don’t know if you’re a racist. Until I know more about you, I’m going to assume you’re not a racist. But your attitude toward Islam, and therefore Muslims, is, technically, bigoted. I have bigoted feelings towards prosecutors and police officers, which I struggle with.

To suggest that you’re only saying that it is Islam which is evil and not the people who have made Islam a major part of their lives is, literally, nonsense, and it reflects a backpedaling on your part. A Muslim is someone whose faith is that of Islam. That’s a simple fact.

The Bible is very clear that adulterers, homosexuals, and people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. The Bible condones slavery and mass-murder (even, explicitly, of children). But if someone says that the Judeo-Christian philosophy is that of mass-murder and slavery, then that person is willfully ignorant of the complexities of the Jewish and Christian faiths and the individuals who practice them. If someone picks out the parts of the Koran that are as barbaric as parts of Bible and decides that those parts define Islam, then that person is willfully ignorant of Islam and the individuals who practice it.

You have repeatedly made statements about what Islam is. You’ve quoted a politician to justify your statements that Islam means one thing, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

But if you’re actually saying (#71) that Muslims aren’t anti-human, then it only follows that Islam doesn’t have to be anti-human (despite the barbaric parts of the Koran). By recognizing that a faith is defined by the people who practice it, instead of the centuries-old scripture which started it, you are nullifying any points you’ve been making about what Islam “is.”

Islam, like every other faith, is defined by the way that individuals practice it. The vast majority of Muslims practice Islam peacefully. Therefore, and contrary to your assertions (and the Turkish politician you mysteriously referenced), Islam cannot be one thing.

The reason it’s important, however, to understand that Islam is not and has never been one set of beliefs, is that cowardly, sick motherfuckers like Daniel Pipes (I’m happy to call that cowardly piece of shit as many names as I can think of and I’d have to struggle not to break his nose if I met him) use this baseless belief to dehumanize the innocent men, women, and children who would be burned alive and blown to pieces should his fondest wishes come to fruition.

I’m a devout secularist, but it is an objective fact that some of the kindest, smartest, gentlest people in the world are thoroughly devoted to Islam or Christ or Jehovah or Vishnu, et al. No faith is a single thing. Every individual redefines it.

And I, quite apparently, have been drinking. Good night, and, I hope, no hard feelings.

big·ot·ry (bĭg’ə-trē)
n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

empahsis mine

Textbook example provided. Also, you have not provided any sources for these bigoted statements:

“Pointing out that their “religion” commands them to conquer the world and kill, convert or subjugate all non-muslims, and that all the main threads of Islam preach exactly those things is not racist. Its the truth.”

Even calling Mohammed an epileptic pedophile who invented a death cult to justify his own lust for child rape, theft, violence and murder is not racisist. It too is the truth.

So, are you gonna be a hypocrite on top on being a bigot or will you provide us the evidence? I really hope you won’t, because that will mean I have to look up bible citations ‘proving’ that Christianity commands christians to conquer the world and kill, convert or subjugate all non-christians.

It would also be in it’s place if you answered Les’ rather relevant critique:

scott, come on. I’m saying, “Not all Muslims believe the same thing. Not all Muslims interpret the Koran in the same way.”

And you respond by telling me that a politician in Turkey said something vague — and, ultimately, meaningless — about Islam and he should know; so that shows that Muslims, unlike Christians and Jews and Hindus and every other religious group, believe in the same thing.

You can do that and yell ‘ad hominem, ad hominem’ at the same time you know? But I guess you didn’t because you can’t? And then you chose to play the victim instead to try and gain some percieved moral high-ground? Tell me if I am way of the mark here.

If you are going to fight with me don’t make up things that I’m not saying.

I have strong opinions, yes, guilty as charged. So do you, Radley, and the posters on this board. Are we all bigots?

Or are you saying I’m intolerant of others opinions? How so? Like you, or the other posters on this board?. Or more so? How? Are we all bigots, even you?

You did look up the word before you accused me of be of being a “textbook example” didn’t you.

Or perhaps, you were really calling me a racist? Do you want to clarify your opinion Les?

Are you engaging in the “last refuge of scoundrels” by playing the racist care?

If so, how does criticizing a violent political philosophy masquerading as the “religion of peace” constitute racism? Remember, Islam is not a race, nor are Muslims.

Pointing out that their “religion” commands them to conquer the world and kill, convert or subjugate all non-muslims, and that all the main threads of Islam preach exactly those things is not racist. Its the truth.

Even calling Mohammed an epileptic pedophile who invented a death cult to justify his own lust for child rape, theft, violence and murder is not racisist. It too is the truth.