Attack Islam, not Christianity.

[Gawdzilla]

Basically my main concern with religion is that it hurts society as a whole. Now, all religions have a negative impact in one way or another. Even Hinduism with its "nature is sacred" and "karma" concept led to the Cast system that is plaguing India's social structure.

My concern is that i see a lot of attacks on Christianity overall on these forums and in society as a whole. But the worst thing Christianity does today is molest children, which, yes, gives them horrible emotional scarring, but some pull through and no one dies.

Islam kills people. A LOT of people. Women are, in the book itself, worth less than men. And although homosexuality is as criticized as is Christianity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church changed this position to make homosexuality a disease that has to be prayed away, and homosexuals should not be held responsible for their behavior. Islam did not change, and keeps the death punishment very much alive.
Even worse, the descendants of the Prophet hold a divine right to leadership that goes against all of what Democracy is for.

If you look at Africa, the countries where Christianity is the main religion do better socially and economically, treat women and homosexuals better than in countries where Islam is the main religion.

Christianity has been attenuated by centuries of democracy and rationality. Islam has not. If there is one religion that people need to oppose, i'd say it's Islam.

The "A is a bad or worse than B" argument doesn't make "B" any better.

[Zenith]

---

And for the records, christianity can get nasty too given the certain conditions.

We know.

---

Min, wasn't that more an evolutionary thing than a christian thing? I mean, it was a fight against an inferior race, and most people in europe & usa were christians. If most people had been atheists, are you 100% sure that they would have acted differently? Are you sure it wasn't an initial appliance of the theory of evolution instead ? (a thought like, the unevolved is dragging us down) If it was, then it was obviously applied be christianity - as christianity seems to have always adapted itself to any new theory that appeared.

---

The "A is a bad or worse than B" argument doesn't make "B" any better.

Imagine this scenario: you are a policeman and you have two criminals in front of you that want to escape - you are alone with them. One of them is a murderer (whom did not murder for the first time) and the other is a thief (whom did not steal for the first time). The murderer runs to the left, the thief to the right. Whom do you pursue? Do you really think that the thief is not better than the murderer, for the simple fact that both are "criminals"? So, would you really try to catch the thief first?

[leo-rcc]

So, would you really try to catch the thief first?

Even by that example, it is important both must be caught, neither suddenly becomes more agreeable just because of circumstances.

[Zenith]

Even by that example, it is important both must be caught, neither suddenly becomes more agreeable just because of circumstances.

if you can't catch both at the same time, then who is your first target? If you chose to run after the thief and catch him, then the murderer may escape and be free. But if you run after the murderer and catch him, the thief may escape and be free. Doesn't it matter at all whom you run after first?

[Epimethean]

You are angling there, and the fish are not biting. That sort of argument works in a vacuum. In reality, not so much. You catch whichever one is easier to catch first, then coordinate to catch the other one with resources.

[Gawdzilla]

The "A is a bad or worse than B" argument doesn't make "B" any better.

Imagine this scenario: you are a policeman and you have two criminals in front of you that want to escape - you are alone with them. One of them is a murderer (whom did not murder for the first time) and the other is a thief (whom did not steal for the first time). The murderer runs to the left, the thief to the right. Whom do you pursue? Do you really think that the thief is not better than the murderer, for the simple fact that both are "criminals"? So, would you really try to catch the thief first?

Not the point. They're still criminals ("but innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"). If I decide to chaser the murderer the thief will still be a thief.

[Zenith]

Not the point. They're still criminals ("but innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"). If I decide to chaser the murderer the thief will still be a thief.

Obviously, the thief would still be a thief, and needs to be caught. But the fact is that the focus (the first, most important enemy, on whom you spend most of your energy) is the murderer.

[Epimethean]

Not necessarily. Expediency has a great deal to do with law enforcement.

[Gawdzilla]

Not the point. They're still criminals ("but innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"). If I decide to chaser the murderer the thief will still be a thief.

Obviously, the thief would still be a thief, and needs to be caught. But the fact is that the focus (the first, most important enemy, on whom you spend most of your energy) is the murderer.

So you're suggesting police departments spend their entire time finding criminals in descending order of threat, first one, then the next, but not the next until the first is eliminated? That's just silly. I'll fight whomsoever shows up, when they show up.

---

Not necessarily. Expediency has a great deal to do with law enforcement.

True. They have major crime unit, burglary squads (that catch burglars, not commit the crimes. ) etc. We fought Japan AND Germany in WWII. Whopped both, us Allies did!

[Zenith]

Not necessarily. Expediency has a great deal to do with law enforcement.

yeah, I assumed there are the same chances of catching the murderer as there are of catching the thief.