A Simple Rule

[abaris]

The question remains, what does that Anatolian shepherd DO when confronted with some raving mullah? What we have seen is that generally he does nothing.

Apart from the fact that I've yet to see moderate christians or jews stand up to their raving pastors or rabbis, what's your solution? Do an Adolf on the muslims like some of our august fellow members suggested?

[Mister Agenda]

Given the situation you described, how is this rule helpful?

Because the rallying cry for the coexist crowd is, "What about the moderates? Your painting with a broad brush."

The new rule makes it clear that while moderates may be nice people, they don't represent what their religion really teaches.

The new rule requires the liberals whose position you take issue with to assume what you want to prove. Convenient, that, but I don't think it will catch on.

---

I pretty much totally agree with this. Moderates are better people, but are utter failures as far as their religion goes. The radicals are the ones taking it seriously.

If the moderates want to really show it's "nothing to do with them" they need to stop associating with the very book(s) causing the problem. Until they do that, as far as I'm concerned, they are validating it.

How about you make the Christians do it first, and if that turns out well, you can move on to the Muslims?

[Minimalist]

My solution is to dismiss the alleged 'moderates' as an irrelevancy. But neither will I give them a specific pass every time it is necessary to criticize the radicals because it might hurt their fucking feelings.

[Mister Agenda]

I wasn't suggesting pitchforking anyone. I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. And I feel just as angry towards christian moderates, or any other moderates that are helping to shield the fundamentalist nutcases.

That's something I hear asserted often, with no evidence offered to back it up: that moderates shield or enable fundamentalists. Generally speaking, neither of them even considers the other group to be genuinely part of their religion, whether you're talking about Christians or Muslims. I mean, what exactly is the scenario supposed to be here? Joe Pentecostal wouldn't be a fundamentalist if it weren't for the Quakers shielding and enabling him?

[robvalue]

Make them? I'm first compared to a Nazi, now being treated as I've handed out an edict just for voicing my personal opinion about what moderates say? I think you guys are getting a bit worked up and aiming it at me for some reason.

I'm not making anyone do anything, nor suggesting any violence or any action at all. All I did was voice an opinion. I'm sorry if you disagree with me.

[Mister Agenda]

The question remains, what does that Anatolian shepherd DO when confronted with some raving mullah? What we have seen is that generally he does nothing.

What action do you recommend to this hypothetical shepherd?

"Qui tacit consentire videtur" is a legal maxim meaning he who remains silent consents.

Being a 'legal maxim' doesn't make it true. By that logic, a victim who doesn't cry out or struggle consents to being raped. Silence can mean a lot of things besides 'consent'.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/...-polls.htm

Citing 'thereligionofpeace.com' on Islam is like citing Fox News on the president.

[abaris]

Citing 'thereligionofpeace.com' on Islam is like citing Fox News on the president.

Or answers in Genesis on evolution.

[Mister Agenda]

My solution is to dismiss the alleged 'moderates' as an irrelevancy. But neither will I give them a specific pass every time it is necessary to criticize the radicals because it might hurt their fucking feelings.

That doesn't actually qualify as a solution to the issue of Islamic extremism, so to what is it a solution?

---

Make them? I'm first compared to a Nazi, now being treated as I've handed out an edict just for voicing my personal opinion about what moderates say? I think you guys are getting a bit worked up and aiming it at me for some reason.

I'm not making anyone do anything, nor suggesting any violence or any action at all. All I did was voice an opinion. I'm sorry if you disagree with me.

So what was your comment supposed to contribute? Was it just mumbling and griping that we're not supposed to take at face value? If so, I apologize for taking it seriously, but how am I supposed to tell?

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not really sure, I think it definitely applies to Christian extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church. They are far more of textual literalists that any other Christian group I can think of off the top of my head. Same with Al Queda. They bomb people and quote the Qu'ran for justification that is easy to see. However what about other religions? I'm just not that familiar with Hindu text (Hindu extremists do all sorts of crazy terrorism in India all the time.) or other religions.

[DeistPaladin]

Yes, but not the people. And that's the issue at hand.

I wasn't talking about any people. I was talking about religion.

A shepard in Anatolia doesn't hold the same views as an ISIS activist. The same way some clerk in some American shop doesn't associate with the Southern Baptists or soem jew praying in a synagogue doesn't automatically go out on the streets to spit on little girls for their immodesty.

No argument there. Is anyone saying otherwise?

It's the painting with a broad brush attitude that inflames me. Not everyone is automatically violent and somehow subhuman just because they follow a certain religion.

I don't know of anyone who says otherwise.

How big is your brush?

Noone seems to get it. As long as every muslim is bashed just because they are muslims, that's actually an alliance between christian nuts and atheists.

Who is bashing Muslims? I'm not.

Hating Muslims because you hate Islam makes about as much sense to me as hating slaves because you hate slavery. Christians, Muslims, etc. are the people I'd like to set free.

What's more it's pretty much the same rhetoric used that has been used some 80 years ago by the Nazis.

What?

Not only here, in some cases, but in the public discussion too.

Please point out to me who has used Nazi-like rhetoric to call for the persecution of Muslims. I assure you they will earn my speedy condemnation.

...the suggestion of confining them to some remote reservates to bomb them off and on and starve them by imposing import sanctions.

OK, help me understand here. Are you speaking of internet trolls or radical right wingers or have you heard Sam Harris advocate this?

Being the descendent of holocaust survivors, I certainly won't stand for something like the above.

I won't stand for it either.

Are we talking about the same thing? Help me understand what you're talking about.

I hope at least you do agree that criticizing bad ideas is not the same as calling for the persecution and extermination of an entire people.