A Simple Rule

[abaris]

I've already pointed out how that's unfair because Judaism IS a race and a culture and a religion. I can insert "Christian" into what I've posted about Islam and I'm perfectly comfortable with it. Nobody has ever accused me of bigotry even with my most scathing reviews of Christian absurdities and abuses.

OK, judaism is also a religion. As Parker said, you appear to be rather smart, so I have to assume you're willfully dodging the issue.

And if we're playing the race card you seem to be so proud of, look up the definition of semitic people and race becomes rather irrelevant when talking about jews. They're just one of that ethnicity.

[DeistPaladin]

Because when someone born into a Muslim society stops being a Muslim, they no longer have a Muslim heritage? How does that work? I'm no longer a Christian but I certainly still have a Christian heritage.

...and THIS is the point where our communication breaks down.

There is no such thing as a Christian "heritage" or a Muslim "heritage". You can have an Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, North African, Bosnian, Somalian, Chechen or Indonesian heritage but not a "Muslim heritage".

Ideas are not a heritage. Religion is a collection of ideas. It can be adopted, changed or abandoned at will. Genetic makeup cannot.

I recently took a test that used my genetic material to determine my "heritage" to certain parts of the world. There is no such test for a religious heritage. Neither do I feel any affiliation with "Christianity" simply on the basis of my heritage.

Ideas must be subjected to inspection, criticism and ridicule with bad ideas tossed aside and good ideas needing no protection. People of genetic backgrounds, on the other hand, do need to be protected by society from discrimination or abuses on that basis. To describe religion as a heritage is to conflate these unrelated categories and offer protection to certain ideas.

---

He didn't say it was a race, or genetic;

He was conflating Islam with "German", that just as it is unfair to criticize Germans for Nazism, it is unfair to criticize Islam for radical Islam. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I am saying that German, as a heritage, is a genetic matter. Islam is a religion. The two are separate.

he said it was an accident of birth.

Which I also contend it is not. You may indoctrinate a child to a Islam but there is no such thing as a "Muslim baby".

We all know that being born into a religion is a fact;

I'm drawing a subtle but important distinction. One is indoctrinated to a religion but not born into it. I think we agree on the main points but I don't agree that any ideas are part of a protected identity.

Otherwise, any idea might be regarded as a "heritage" since children can be indoctrinated into any collection of ideas.

---

OK, judaism is also a religion.

With the distinction that we're criticizing the Jewish religion, I have no problem doing so.

Antisemitism as I have understood it from history targets the people, not the belief in Yahweh. You couldn't escape the Nazi persecution or similar pogroms that were an ugly part of Christian history everywhere (not just Austria/Germany) if you became a non-practicing Jew.

Hence why I think your proposed "find/change" is unfair. Change to "Christianity" or "Scientology" and I have no problem.

As Parker said, you appear to be rather smart, so I have to assume you're willfully dodging the issue.

No, I'm distinguishing ideas from a people.

[Mister Agenda]

Because when someone born into a Muslim society stops being a Muslim, they no longer have a Muslim heritage? How does that work? I'm no longer a Christian but I certainly still have a Christian heritage.

...and THIS is the point where our communication breaks down.

There is no such thing as a Christian "heritage" or a Muslim "heritage". You can have an Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, North African, Bosnian, Somalian, Chechen or Indonesian heritage but not a "Muslim heritage".

Ideas are not a heritage. Religion is a collection of ideas. It can be adopted, changed or abandoned at will. Genetic makeup cannot.

I recently took a test that used my genetic material to determine my "heritage" to certain parts of the world. There is no such test for a religious heritage. Neither do I feel any affiliation with "Christianity" simply on the basis of my heritage.

Yes, one of the points where our communication breaks down is where you fail to understand what the word 'heritage' means.

[her-i-tij] /ˈhɛr ɪ tɪdʒ/ IPASyllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin noun
1.
something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion:
"a heritage of poverty and suffering; a national heritage of honor, pride, and courage."
2.
something reserved for one:
"the heritage of the righteous."
3.
Law.
a.something that has been or may be inherited by legal descent or succession.
b.any property, especially land, that devolves by right of inheritance.

Ideas must be subjected to inspection, criticism and ridicule with bad ideas tossed aside and good ideas needing no protection.

It doesn't seem to operate in the real world that often for something that 'must be'. Perhaps 'should be' would be more accurate.

People of genetic backgrounds, on the other hand, do need to be protected by society from discrimination or abuses on that basis.

But it's okay to discriminate against them or abuse them on other bases? I don't think you believe that. I just think you're not taking much care with what you post.

To describe religion as a heritage is to conflate these unrelated categories and offer protection to certain ideas.

It's not conflation to use the plain meaning of the word. 'Heritage' is what you inherit. There is no requirement that the word be applied solely to genetic inheritance. It's not like we were talking about evolution and I suddenly started using a word that we had been using all along to indicate genetic inheritence in a new way. People rarely make up entirely new religions out of whole cloth, they usually practice the culture and religion they inherited from their parents, almost universally before they've been exposed to the idea of critically evaluating claims.

You're usually the last person to make a bad argument. Maybe should should think about why you resort to them so quickly when talking about Islam.

He was conflating Islam with "German", that just as it is unfair to criticize Germans for Nazism, it is unfair to criticize Islam for radical Islam. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Apparently among the mental tools you discard in this disxussion is the difference between conflation and analogy.

I am saying that German, as a heritage, is a genetic matter.

You shouldn't say that, unless you misunderstand the analogy. Genetics or not, the main thing that makes someone German is being born in Germany. You wouldn't say someone born in Germany to naturalized citizens (say, an Italian father and Russian mother) isn't German. Would you? It would be fairer to accuse you of doing the conflating, since it's obvious from context that I was not talking about genetic inheritance. But I think that what is actually happening is that your Islam blinders are preventing you from processing the words you are reading as what they plainly mean.

Islam is a religion. The two are separate.

Yes, they are. If they were exactly the same, it wouldn't be an analogy. In an analogy, one compares things that are different in some ways and similar in others. For instance, DNA is somewhat analogous to a code and is often described that way, but it is not actually a code. To think that DNA is actually a code is to over-extend the analogy. Being Muslim and being German are similar in both being largely a circumstance of birth.

Which I also contend it is not. You may indoctrinate a child to a Islam but there is no such thing as a "Muslim baby".

Yet a baby born to Muslim parents is almost as likely to wind up Muslim as a baby born to German parents is to wind up speaking German.

I'm drawing a subtle but important distinction.

It's neither subtle nor is it important. For practical purposes, a baby born to a Palestinian family has little more choice in their early years about becoming a Muslim than they do about speaking Arabic. Small children absorb their culture, language, and religion so readily that it's tempting to conclude that the few exceptions are due to unusual brain wiring.

One is indoctrinated to a religion but not born into it. I think we agree on the main points but I don't agree that any ideas are part of a protected identity.

So only people with ideas of which you approve deserve protection? Again, I don't think you really believe this, but it's only because I think well of you from past experience, not because the things you are saying don't imply it. Muslims, particularly in Western secular States, deserve protection from having their mosques vandalized, from being accosted (or worse) in the street for dressing differently, and from being treated as though they are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the law. They do not, of course, have protection from criticism. No group does. But you insist that everyone accept your characterization of Islam as accurate and fair a priori or complain that we're 'shutting you down' before you can get to your substantive criticism. Perhaps you should consider opening with substance and saving the caricatures for last.

Otherwise, any idea might be regarded as a "heritage" since children can be indoctrinated into any collection of ideas.

It seems that this is the first conversation in your entire life in which the idea of cultural heritage has been introduced to you. I find that hard to believe. I really do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because when someone born into a Muslim society stops being a Muslim, they no longer have a Muslim heritage? How does that work? I'm no longer a Christian but I certainly still have a Christian heritage.

...and THIS is the point where our communication breaks down.

There is no such thing as a Christian "heritage" or a Muslim "heritage". You can have an Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, North African, Bosnian, Somalian, Chechen or Indonesian heritage but not a "Muslim heritage".

Ideas are not a heritage. Religion is a collection of ideas. It can be adopted, changed or abandoned at will. Genetic makeup cannot.

I recently took a test that used my genetic material to determine my "heritage" to certain parts of the world. There is no such test for a religious heritage. Neither do I feel any affiliation with "Christianity" simply on the basis of my heritage.

Ideas must be subjected to inspection, criticism and ridicule with bad ideas tossed aside and good ideas needing no protection. People of genetic backgrounds, on the other hand, do need to be protected by society from discrimination or abuses on that basis. To describe religion as a heritage is to conflate these unrelated categories and offer protection to certain ideas.

Do you think heritage can only be genetic? Is evolution only genetic?

Anthropologists have long understood that humanity's biggest leap was the leap to cultural evolution. Because the human mind is a blank slate at birth, culture is more important than genetics when it comes to matters like outlook. To think that you can simply shuck off the weight of years that went into one's upbringing on a decision, without carrying baggage from that upbringing around, is unrealistic.

He didn't say it was a race, or genetic;

He was conflating Islam with "German", that just as it is unfair to criticize Germans for Nazism, it is unfair to criticize Islam for radical Islam. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I am saying that German, as a heritage, is a genetic matter. Islam is a religion. The two are separate.

Of course they don't share the same cause; one is genetic, the other, ideological. But they both share the fact that each is terribly hard to escape. That was his point. If you read the definition of heritage in the OED, you will not see the mention of genetics at all. He is using the word correctly; you are not.

We inherit much more than genes from our parents, and from our cultures.

he said it was an accident of birth.

Which I also contend it is not. You may indoctrinate a child to a Islam but there is no such thing as a "Muslim baby".

You're being obtuse. The fact is that a person born in Saudi Arabia is much more likely to be indoctrinated into Islam and thus become a "Muslim baby" than a person born in Alaska. Given that babies typically cannot decide where they are born and into which faith, and given the fact that faith is handed down from parents, "accident of birth" is exact wording.

[DeistPaladin]

I confess two mistakes which I'd like to correct now.

First is my misunderstanding of the definition of the word "heritage". Based on the definition cited for me, it does appear to be so broad as to include ideas you were raised to believe ...or seemingly anything else associated with the human experience. Everything is a heritage. If I was raised by conservative GOP parents (I wasn't but hypothetically) then I have a conservative GOP heritage. I was raised by atheists but my grandparents were Christian so maybe I do have a "Christian heritage" even though I am by no means a Christian.

Second was I allowed myself to get distracted by a moving topic. I'm not accusing anyone of shifting goal posts because I don't think it was deliberate. Topic drift is a natural thing and I should have been more focused.

The original point, to which I had so passionately responded "NO! IT'S! NOT!" is the proposed analogy that just as it's unfair to hold a German responsible for what the Nazis did, so to it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for radical Islam. Do I have this right? I don't want to straw man anyone. Assuming it is, I'd like to return to that topic and break it down:

• Proposed analogy: Just as it is unfair to take a German to task for what the Nazis did, it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for the actions of radical Islam.
  
• Definition: Radical Islam is an ideology.
  
• Definition: Nazism is an ideology.
  
• Definition: "German" is a race and/or a nationality.
  
• Therefore: according to this analogy, Islam is a....
  

If you did not intend to say "Islam is a race" you, to be frank, used a sloppy analogy.

It doesn't seem to operate in the real world that often for something that 'must be'. Perhaps 'should be' would be more accurate.

I demand it so I'm using the word "must". Society may not comply for now but perhaps if more of us demand it as well, that may change.

But it's okay to discriminate against them or abuse them on other bases? I don't think you believe that. I just think you're not taking much care with what you post.

I do and we as a society do.

There's a reason why if someone talks to invisible, undetected beings, we treat that person as if they are crazy. If someone thinks feeding ice cream to a computer helps it run faster, that person is not going to have much chance of landing an I.T. job. If someone talks openly about their experience in a UFO abduction but can't generate any evidence that it happened, that person is unlikely to be elected to office. And there's nothing wrong with this.

I'm not saying Islam approaches this degree of insanity. I'm simply pointing out that people who believe crazy things are considered suspect in our society. We hold people to account for what they believe and why and consider carefully how this might either influence their actions (past, present and future) or affect their competence at certain jobs. This is at least how we operate in all areas of our discourse with the special exception we've arbitrarily created for socially accepted religious beliefs.

Consider:
One man with crazy beliefs is an asylum inmate.
Two men with crazy beliefs are a cult.
Three men with crazy beliefs are a respected religion.

You wouldn't say someone born in Germany to naturalized citizens (say, an Italian father and Russian mother) isn't German. Would you?

If it's anything like in America, we'd say "Italian/German" but this is getting off topic.

Yet a baby born to Muslim parents is almost as likely to wind up Muslim as a baby born to German parents is to wind up speaking German.

Key phrase being "wind up". Babies are all born atheists. They only become Muslim when artificially indoctrinated. But since we agree Islam is not a race, this is beside the point.

So only people with ideas of which you approve deserve protection?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Muslims, particularly in Western secular States, deserve protection from having their mosques vandalized, from being accosted (or worse) in the street for dressing differently, and from being treated as though they are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the law.

I agree.

They do not, of course, have protection from criticism. No group does.

I agree.

But you insist that everyone accept your characterization of Islam as accurate and fair a priori

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Here's what I am saying:
I have studied Christianity in, I think it's fair to say, great detail, at least as much as one who doesn't have a divinity degree. I've read the Bible, read many apologietics, studied the history from multiple perspectives and debated many apologists.

Now to focus on one topic for brevity, Christianity is anti-gay. Fred Phelps' "church" is not a perversion of Christian doctrine but an expression of it. Liberal-minded Christians can tie themselves into knots and perform mental gymnastics to reinterpret scripture as they like. Most often, they have (1) not read the scriptures (2) cherry picked them (3) come up with obtuse interpretations that border on making up their own religion.

Now most Christians I personally know are very nice people. They are not anti-gay bigots. Saying the religion is doesn't necessarily mean they personally are. Some of them do harbor anti-gay prejudice, in my view likely the result of the effect of indoctrination by their religion. I have little doubt that they would not participate in any anti-gay violence. And yet, the religion has an effect on society overall, fostering anti-gay bullying and violence and making gay rights a harder struggle than it might be with a more tolerant religion.

Hence, I am able to criticize a religion without calling for any violation of a Christian's rights.

Shifting to the topic of religious violence, I have no problem placing the blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of "witches" on Christianity. I can see a clear cause and effect between believing that the world is divided between stark good and evil (the former being the embodied in the god they serve) allowing for no neutrality, along with the dire consequences of their faith-based scheme of salvation, and the subsequent outbreaks of violence.

I don't know as much about Islam. I'd like to have an honest discussion about it.

Can we have such a discussion? It seems to be as similar to the NRA and gun violence in my country. Every time there is a mass shooting, you can almost count "3... 2... 1..." before the NRA swoops in to divert attention from the obvious problem of the plentiful and easy availability of guns in my country and from the obvious question "how did this crazy person get a gun?" Other excuses are offered. It must be video games. It must be violence in movies. I must be the music the shooter listened to. It must be anything but the readily available guns in America. Yet there is violence in movies, video games and music everywhere in the world.

That's why we'll never have sensible gun control in America anytime soon.

Similarly, Islam is never to blame for its outbreaks of sectarian violence. It's imperialism. It's oppression. It's lack of economic opportunities. It's anything but Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. You're a bigot if you even question whether it has anything to do with Islamic theology. Yet there is imperialism, oppression and poverty everywhere in the world.

Hope this clears up what I am saying.

[Mister Agenda]

I confess two mistakes which I'd like to correct now.

First is my misunderstanding of the definition of the word "heritage". Based on the definition cited for me, it does appear to be so broad as to include ideas you were raised to believe ...or seemingly anything else associated with the human experience. Everything is a heritage. If I was raised by conservative GOP parents (I wasn't but hypothetically) then I have a conservative GOP heritage. I was raised by atheists but my grandparents were Christian so maybe I do have a "Christian heritage" even though I am by no means a Christian.

Sure, and this is more like the DeistPaladin I know and love. No worries, no one is perfect, and respect to somebody who can admit a mistake.

Second was I allowed myself to get distracted by a moving topic. I'm not accusing anyone of shifting goal posts because I don't think it was deliberate. Topic drift is a natural thing and I should have been more focused.

That's true, thanks for thinking it through. I may have lost focus myself.

The original point, to which I had so passionately responded "NO! IT'S! NOT!" is the proposed analogy that just as it's unfair to hold a German responsible for what the Nazis did, so to it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for radical Islam. Do I have this right? I don't want to straw man anyone. Assuming it is, I'd like to return to that topic and break it down:

Sure. That's the gist of it, holding Islam responsible for the Islamic fundamentalism and extremism the West has deliberately fostered in the Middle East and North Africa for over a century is akin to blaming German culture for Naziism, as though 'that's what you get with Germans', as if (for example) a vengeful treaty wasn't a much more likely and direct cause of the rise of the Nazi movement.

[*]Proposed analogy: Just as it is unfair to take a German to task for what the Nazis did, it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for the actions of radical Islam.
[*]Definition: Radical Islam is an ideology.
[*]Definition: Nazism is an ideology.
[*]Definition: "German" is a race and/or a nationality.
[*]Therefore: according to this analogy, Islam is a....
[/list]

If you did not intend to say "Islam is a race" you, to be frank, used a sloppy analogy.

There's no such thing as a perfect analogy. By focusing on the differences between the two things being compared rather than the similarities, you're putting in a lot of effort to miss the point. The similarity in question has been explained in painstaking detail. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you don't understand the point. I believe you are evading it, so you're dissecting the analogy instead of responding to it. To me, that indicative of lacking a cogent response. Again, I don't see you behaving this way on other topics.

I demand it so I'm using the word "must". Society may not comply for now but perhaps if more of us demand it as well, that may change.

That might be more effective if you stomp your foot while you're at it.

But it's okay to discriminate against them or abuse them on other bases? I don't think you believe that. I just think you're not taking much care with what you post.

I do and we as a society do.

How do you discriminate against them and abuse them? I'm having trouble accepting that you actually do this, and suspect you're doing something like considering mere criticism 'abuse'. I suppose name-calling and rudeness could be considered mild abuse, provided the people you're haranging are not part of your household or subordinate to you at work (then it would be a much more serious situation). Are you in a position to hire people, and if an otherwise qualified person with religious ideas you don't like applies, you give the job to a less-qualified person whose thinking you find agreeable?

There's a reason why if someone talks to invisible, undetected beings, we treat that person as if they are crazy.

Actually, as a rule, most people do not treat such people as crazy, unless they are adults and the being to whom they are supposedly talking is not a supposed deity or spirit to whom the people of that person's religion pray.

If someone thinks feeding ice cream to a computer helps it run faster, that person is not going to have much chance of landing an I.T. job.

People who think that are not the topic, are they? The people we're talking about are more likely to think a momentary silent prayer will give them an edge in completing a task successfully. Someone like that can be as effective an I.T. person as an atheist, if their skill level is the same. Better, if their skill level is higher.

If someone talks openly about their experience in a UFO abduction but can't generate any evidence that it happened, that person is unlikely to be elected to office. And there's nothing wrong with this.

There's so little wrong with it that it's not actually an example of discrimination. A politician's job one is to get elected, and if they are not capable of discerning what sort of behavior will prevent that from happening, they lack sufficient competence to do that job. It's not the belief that prevents a successful campaign though, it's not keeping their mouths shut about things the electorate won't appreciate.

I'm not saying Islam approaches this degree of insanity.

Hence, the Islamic presence in the IT world.

I'm simply pointing out that people who believe crazy things are considered suspect in our society.

People who believe certain crazy things are considered suspect in our society. Some crazy things people believe are not only usually not considered suspect, they're expected.

We hold people to account for what they believe and why and consider carefully how this might either influence their actions (past, present and future) or affect their competence at certain jobs. This is at least how we operate in all areas of our discourse with the special exception we've arbitrarily created for socially accepted religious beliefs.

The exception isn't arbitrary. As a society, and in the study of psychology, we recognize an essential difference between holding a belief that was indoctrinated into you from a young age that nearly everyone you admire, trust, and respect also holds, and some crazy stuff you made up on your own and really believe.

Consider:
One man with crazy beliefs is an asylum inmate.
Two men with crazy beliefs are a cult.
Three men with crazy beliefs are a respected religion.

Yes, and there are pertinent reasons for that. For example, the single man with crazy beliefs has them for reasons other than having been indoctrinated in them from the time he could talk. There's a good chance he has the belief because he's crazy, while the people in the religion are more likely to be sane people with some crazy beliefs.

Yet a baby born to Muslim parents is almost as likely to wind up Muslim as a baby born to German parents is to wind up speaking German.

Key phrase being "wind up". Babies are all born atheists. They only become Muslim when artificially indoctrinated. But since we agree Islam is not a race, this is beside the point.

They're also born not speaking German. Becoming Muslim is no more artificial for a young child than learning German. Imitating their parents is what small children do. The vast majority of them put no more thought into accepting their parent's religious ideas than they put into accepting their meaning for words. And that's unlikely to change much until they're teenagers (if then) when most of them will still be unequipped to evaluate claims critically.

So only people with ideas of which you approve deserve protection?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Glad to hear it.

Muslims, particularly in Western secular States, deserve protection from having their mosques vandalized, from being accosted (or worse) in the street for dressing differently, and from being treated as though they are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the law.

I agree.

I thought you would.

They do not, of course, have protection from criticism. No group does.

I agree.

We're on a roll!

But you insist that everyone accept your characterization of Islam as accurate and fair a priori

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I was hoping that.

Here's what I am saying:
I have studied Christianity in, I think it's fair to say, great detail, at least as much as one who doesn't have a divinity degree. I've read the Bible, read many apologietics, studied the history from multiple perspectives and debated many apologists.

You're clearly one of the most knowledgeable posters here on the topic of Christianity, as I've noticed many times.

Now to focus on one topic for brevity, Christianity is anti-gay. Fred Phelps' "church" is not a perversion of Christian doctrine but an expression of it. Liberal-minded Christians can tie themselves into knots and perform mental gymnastics to reinterpret scripture as they like. Most often, they have (1) not read the scriptures (2) cherry picked them (3) come up with obtuse interpretations that border on making up their own religion.

Yes. And so have the fundamentalists. They're reacting to modernity and its uncertainties, not practicing some 'pure' form of their religion. A pure form is impossible when scriptures are contradictory and open to multiple interpretations. For some reason, you've decided the fundamentalists are the ones who are interpreting their religion 'correctly', but there really isn't such a thing. As any congress critter knows, it's very difficult to write a lengthy document that at least some parts of can't be interpreted more than one way. And the most you can really say is that they're interpreting it correctly, in your opinion. To say Christianity is anti-gay, and getting there by basically saying the Christians who aren't anti-gay don't count because you think their interpretation is wrong just shows that for some reason you want to say Christianity is anti-gay and you won't let a little thing like prominent Christian denominations that are pro-gay keep you from your over-generalization.

Now most Christians I personally know are very nice people. They are not anti-gay bigots. Saying the religion is doesn't necessarily mean they personally are. Some of them do harbor anti-gay prejudice, in my view likely the result of the effect of indoctrination by their religion. I have little doubt that they would not participate in any anti-gay violence. And yet, the religion has an effect on society overall, fostering anti-gay bullying and violence and making gay rights a harder struggle than it might be with a more tolerant religion.

And if they are, say, United Church of Christ, their religion has an effect on their opposition to anti-gay bullying and violence and so forth.

Hence, I am able to criticize a religion without calling for any violation of a Christian's rights.

Well, you've given a fair criticism of a portion of a religion and pretended it's the whole thing.

Shifting to the topic of religious violence, I have no problem placing the blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of "witches" on Christianity. I can see a clear cause and effect between believing that the world is divided between stark good and evil (the former being the embodied in the god they serve) allowing for no neutrality, along with the dire consequences of their faith-based scheme of salvation, and the subsequent outbreaks of violence.

Hmm. Those things didn't really change, did they? Yet the violence in the name of Christianity all but vanished. Clearly, Christian beliefs played a role in the expression of violence, but perhaps other factors were closer to the root cause. It's worth noting though, that in mostly neutralizing Christian-based violence, not much about Christian beliefs were changed.

I don't know as much about Islam. I'd like to have an honest discussion about it.

Me, too.

Can we have such a discussion?

It seems not, and your next paragraph illustrates why.

It seems to be as similar to the NRA and gun violence in my country. Every time there is a mass shooting, you can almost count "3... 2... 1..." before the NRA swoops in to divert attention from the obvious problem of the plentiful and easy availability of guns in my country and from the obvious question "how did this crazy person get a gun?"

Yeah, yeah, your arguments are real arguments, the things other people say are just diversions and excuses, so your time is best spent complaining about that rather than attempting to refute them.

Other excuses are offered. It must be video games. It must be violence in movies. I must be the music the shooter listened to. It must be anything but the readily available guns in America. Yet there is violence in movies, video games and music everywhere in the world.

That's why we'll never have sensible gun control in America anytime soon.

Because those excuses stymie the part of your brain that discusses things?

Similarly, Islam is never to blame for its outbreaks of sectarian violence. It's imperialism. It's oppression. It's lack of economic opportunities. It's anything but Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.

Please excuse this comparison, but you could make a near-identical objection to your responders if you were complaining about black people rioting.

Some versions of Islam could reasonably be described as religions of peace, but clearly the religion as a whole fails to be, despite that being a disappointment to many of its adherents.

You're a bigot if you even question whether it has anything to do with Islamic theology.

You seem to start by asserting that rather than by questioning it. Perhaps like you start by asserting that too many guns or lax gun laws are the cause of gun violence, and don't think you should have to justify your position in the face of objections, because it's so obvious, so you wind up just repeating it over and over rather than address the substance of the objections? Just guessing based on what you do when tthe topic is Islam.

Yet there is imperialism, oppression and poverty everywhere in the world.

And where it's the worst, you get violence.

Hope this clears up what I am saying.

I think we're getting there.