Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

Also, this just happened:

Iran has seized on widespread Muslim outrage over a film insulting the Prophet Mohammad to revive the death threat against Salman Rushdie, raising the reward for killing him by US$500,000 (£320,000).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9546513/Iran-resurrects-Salman-Rushdie-threat.html

19 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^bobknight33:

You never read about the framers of our county.
The were deeply devout.
You are deeply miss informed.>> ^fuzzyundies:
quantummushroom, stop defending bigots in the name of freedom. Your position represents neither the word or spirit of the framers of the Constitution (which doesn't even mention a god) or the signers of the Declaration of Independence (which barely mentions a creator).



For people who believe that our founding fathers always intended the United States to be a christian nation, I have to ask, why didn't they just come out and say that? Why bother with nonsense about in the Constitution about 'making no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.

>> ^bobknight33:

You never read about the framers of our county.
The were deeply devout.
You are deeply miss informed.>> ^fuzzyundies:
quantummushroom, stop defending bigots in the name of freedom. Your position represents neither the word or spirit of the framers of the Constitution (which doesn't even mention a god) or the signers of the Declaration of Independence (which barely mentions a creator).



You can keep repeating lies, but it won't make them truth.

>> ^bobknight33:

You never read about the framers of our county.
The were deeply devout.
You are deeply miss informed.>> ^fuzzyundies:
quantummushroom, stop defending bigots in the name of freedom. Your position represents neither the word or spirit of the framers of the Constitution (which doesn't even mention a god) or the signers of the Declaration of Independence (which barely mentions a creator).


Their own personal beliefs are completely irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to be deeply miss ing the point. Next.

You never read about the framers of our county.
The were deeply devout.
You are deeply miss informed.>> ^fuzzyundies:

quantummushroom, stop defending bigots in the name of freedom. Your position represents neither the word or spirit of the framers of the Constitution (which doesn't even mention a god) or the signers of the Declaration of Independence (which barely mentions a creator).

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

So you'd be cool with a banner that read "There is no God, and those that believe in him are delusional" hanging next to it?>> ^quantumushroom:

It's preposterous that a banner donated by one of the school's graduating glasses--a banner no one is required or coerced to read--is equated with establishing a state-sponsored religion. But then, this is the ACLU hard at work.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. ---ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

What is it about this banner that makes you think that it isn't school sponsored? That they didn't pay for it? But they still display it on their property- property which the state pays for, and which the students are forced to attend. It doesn't matter that it can be ignored, or who paid for it. Its presence is a violation of the First Amendment.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's preposterous that a banner donated by one of the school's graduating glasses--a banner no one is required or coerced to read--is equated with establishing a state-sponsored religion. But then, this is the ACLU hard at work.

Death threat:

I love her.. to death!

>> ^Stu:

Aren't atheists supposed to be amused by banners like this not offended? I don't get why it was even an issue in the first place. I blame those dirty hipsters.


It's not a question of offence or amusement, but of upholding the separation of Church and State as established in the US constitution (you know, that text which, like the Bible, the Religious Right hypocritically swear by until it disagrees with them).

Jessica Ahlquist simply confronted the school about their violation of the Establishment Clause (and rightfully so). The only ones making a deal about this are the persecution-complexed and hateful religitards.

I agree. And I'm a "religious person."

The vast majority of religious people are nothing like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. I have no problem with your general sentiment about being kind and loving to everyone. I have a problem when you say "religious people glorify in the hatred of others."

That's just a hateful thing to say about me.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Just because he didn't say hate doesn't mean it isn't in him. To act like that, to willfully turn away a customer because you look down upon them and their lifestyle? That's bigotry, intolerance of another. Especially in light of the bible explicitly saying not to judge others.
Terrorism, really? You're silly.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
I bring this up because I feel that servicing a customer is part of operating inside of society and being an obedient and humble person, just as your religious text wants you to be.
Wielding judgement is for your god alone.
>> ^deedub81:
" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."
Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."
I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert

>> ^shinyblurry:

I love that this is your reasoning as to why they shouldn't send death threats, not that it's wrong, but that they may interpret it in a particular way you don't like.
>> ^TheJehosephat:
Gotta say it, if you are a supporter of gay rights, don't call in death threats to those who are against it. They are (likely) all religious and therefore will take it as "persecution" for their beliefs.



You really want to go down this road? Are you incapable of making any real arguments? fringe elements on both sides make death threats and they're universally reviled and not accepted.

Try again

I love that this is your reasoning as to why they shouldn't send death threats, not that it's wrong, but that they may interpret it in a particular way you don't like.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Gotta say it, if you are a supporter of gay rights, don't call in death threats to those who are against it. They are (likely) all religious and therefore will take it as "persecution" for their beliefs.