What if other ideas were defended the same way?

[jesus_wept]

I see a lot of the tu quoque fallacy whenever people start talking about Islam. Whether or not Christians were/are as bad as Muslims is beside the point and no excuse for anything.

[DeistPaladin]

Islam and nazism aren't the same,

I never said they were. Re-read my OP.

[simplemoss]

Islam and nazism aren't the same,

I never said they were. Re-read my OP.

that is true, but u did compare islam and nazism I was simply saying a more appropriate comparison would be Islam vs. Christians or jihadists versus nazis. White christians whether they're German nazis or English monarchists have caused more death and destruction in hopes conqouring the world and all this not too long ago. Apartheid in south Africa didn't even end till the 90's. So comparing nazis vs jihadists you're point is moot and Christians versus Muslims you're point is also moot.

I do agree with youre overall point that the conversation on the topic should be focused on ending religious violence. Rather than Republicans "screaming Islam is the devil and we should nuke em all" and Democrats just responding quitely that your being "islamophobic"

I also find it extremely annoying when people say the word "racist" when they mean "islamophobic" and some asshole says "Islam is not race" and the other person responds by facepalming

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm still waiting for those alleged "moderates and ordinary adherents" to demonstrate that they are willing to denounce the ones who have the guts to act. Mostly they seem to admire them.

I've already given you plenty of links to moderate condemnations. You clearly ignored them; you dismissed them by calling the men who made the denunciations "self-proclaimed leaders". You're not waiting for anything; you're engaged in confirmation bias.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/...e-muslims/

From that same article:

There is much too much pussyfooting around the issue for fear of upsetting the extremely sensitive Muslim lobby, not to mention their left-wing (read: “useful idiot”) supporters in the media. We need to know how a Muslim who follows the teaching of Muhammad, which presumably they would all claim to do, can be moderate in the way we understand the term. What do they believe? How do they contort the words of the Messenger to their own worldview?

Are we to assume that the author is unaware of cherry-picking?

It's no secret that Islam is at the root of more terror than other faiths. But this idea that the overwhelming majority of Muslims support it is silly. A 2012 poll of Indonesians points out that while 12 % of Indonesians support encouraging militant attacks on Australia (which is an appallingly high number, agreed), --

Other key findings:

88% of Indonesians say the suicide bombing attacks that have occurred in Indonesia are never justified, but 7% say they are sometimes justified, and 2% that they are always justified.

62% of Indonesians say democracy is preferable to any other kind of government and there is near universal agreement on three core democratic values – the rights to a fair trial, freely express yourself and vote in national elections.

58% of Indonesians back the United States to be the leading military power in Asia in 20 years compared with only a quarter (25%) who say it will be China.

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publication...ign-policy

Clearly the picture is not so simplistic or one-sided.

[Firewalker]

Oddly enough, this is the same strategy we see with the NRA. Mass shootings don't happen because of the plentiful accessibility of guns in the US. There are always other causes of the tragedy, from violence in video games to how we treat mental illness in this country. Any discussions of the availability of guns is shut down.

You are equating ideologies with inanimate objects? That is a curious idea.

That is the point exactly. The NRA DOES equate inanimate objects with ideology.

[Brian37]

The older I get the more I understand how over conflated humans, including atheists can make an argument. It is obvious, or at least should be, to humans, that we are always going to be diverse and disagree. Humans really need to simply separate rights from credibility of a claim. I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. Human rights should be protected because that is what we want for ourselves as individuals, but ideas should never be free from scrutiny.

What made the Holocaust wrong is the same thing that made slavery wrong, that made genocide of native Americans wrong. Which makes ISIS oppression of non Muslims and other Muslims wrong. Which made the Christian dark ages wrong. Which made the state religion of Stalin wrong.

Humans all want the same thing in the end. Why we do not have peace more widely is because we look locally at the micro level instead of looking at our species entire history. The only key to increase problem solving is the concept of sunlight to every idea and claim, and anti monopoly concepts that insure no idea can be manipulated to the point of oppression of others.