Why Muslims Behead People (second attempt)

[danielsh]

No, that's not what I'm implying. What I'm implying, or rather implicitly stating, is what ACE said: that comparing mainstream Christianity to radical Islam and concluding that it is good is like comparing American foreign policy to Saddam's and concluding that it is good.

And no, Matt, I'm just pointing out that the better parts of our egalitarian society aren't descended from Christianity, so giving it credit for them is a bit silly. (I only chose the First Amendment because I like it so much.)

[Wolf]

Cool, just checking.

So, in answer to your first point, this is like saying... "Well, we gave the man a quarter [as opposed to his nickel], therefore, we are good men!"

[emprworm]

considering Dan replies to 3 of my independent points with the rhetorical "See Nema" demonstrates an inability to respond to them.

Ok, so lets see what Nema said:

"I say Allah rather than Mohammed "

But you see, this is exactly what is wrong with Nema's point.

[SurlyPIG]

Replace "best" with "the limited out-of-context selection that I chose to reply to" and you'll have a semi-accurate statement.

POINT A:  there is no christian theocratic nation currently on earth, no one is currently being stoned by Christians.

Keyword = currently.  The way you define the "true" Islam is the same way I define the "true" Christianity, which is not the same as what Christianity has evolved to become.

POINT B: There is no mandate given by Christ, the Christian leader, to kill anyone.  There is a mandate given by Muhammad, the Muslim leader, to kill.  Therefore any Christian who murders acts outside the teachings of Jesus, hence does not represent the teachings of Christianity.  A Muslim who kills, on the other hand, acts completely within the parameters of Islam.

Romans 1:26-32 (which you ignored last time)

POINT C:  It is much safer for a homosexual atheist to be in Rome, than it is for said homosexual atheist to be in Mecca.

You're right!  Thanks to the secular Italian government, the religous oppression imposed by the Catholic Church in Rome for centuries is no longer tolerated.  Let's hear it for secularism!

POINT D:  It is illegal for a homosexual atheist to be "open" about his/herself in numerous areas on earth where Islam is openly practiced.

Islam is openly practiced where I live, and pleanty of people are open about their beliefs here.

Put another way:  Wherever you find open Christianity, there you will find the legal protection for a homosexual atheist to be true to his/herself (any violent act committed against the homosexual atheist are illegal).  This is NOT the case with open Islam.

Correction: wherever you find a secular government, you will find the legal protection of rights and freedoms.

POINT E: Any comparisons that an anti-christian christophobe makes that Christianity as a theology endorses murder must demonstrate and present the teachings of Jesus that endorse violence.  Simply citing occasions where humans who profess Christianity commit violent acts is antecdotal evidence and as meaningless in implicating Christianity as a violent act by a homosexual implicates homosexuality; or a violent act by an atheist, implicates atheism.  To implicate Christianity, you have the burden of proof of demonstrating the actual teachings of JESUS that endorse violence....and not simply demonstrating a murderer who claims with his mouth to be a Christian, or references to Judaism, mosaic law, apolistic narrative, etc.

Again, Romans 1:26-32

[danielsh]

Two of your independent points (B & E), by my count.

In response to both, I would maintain that no one is trying to attack anyone else's faith. Do you want me to say that Christianity is better than Islam? I brought the issue of Christianity into the argument because I'm aware that not all Christians kill homosexuals, kill each other for collecting wood on Sundays, try to convert or kill all the Jews, and so on ad nauseam, even despite the bits of the Bible that would seem to support such actions. Similarly, not all Muslims follow every bit of the teachings of Muhammad, and I'm sure that most would not lop off my head, even given the opportunity.

And your Point E... I'm pretty sure that Christians follow more than just what came out of Jesus's mouth. The Ten Commandments, for example, are still important, no?

[emprworm]

Replace "best" with "the limited out-of-context selection that I chose to reply to" and you'll have a semi-accurate statement.

Keyword = currently.

[DukeLeto]

POINT A:  there is no christian theocratic nation currently on earth,

Yes, but you're so gosh darn close!

no one is currently being stoned by Christians.

You are absolutely correct.  It would seem they have advanced to tanks.

[emprworm]

Yes, but you're so gosh darn close!

You are absolutely correct.

[nemafakei]

"the best Nema has is "I say Allah rather than Muhammad""

Well, if you bothered to read the remainder of the post, you'll see that actually, I don't mind if you use your version, and that I wasn't much bothered about the Allah/Muhammed question:

"But Mohammed will do, to be honest." - I concede, because it's mostly irrelevant to my argument, and therefore is clearly not 'the best I have'!

You see, 'the best I have' amounts more to:

"...Which af course totally invalidates point A, C, and probably D as well, even if you're don't take the Allah use of the above."

[Edric O]

Islam is about 1300 years old, and (SOME) Muslims behead people.

But please remember that when Christianity was 1300 years old, (SOME) Christians were happily burning heretics at the stake and hanging witches. Would you say that the Christianity of 1300 A.D. was a "barbaric religion", Emprworm?

I would say that the Christianity of 1300 A.D. served as a convenient excuse for a number of bloodthirsty psychopaths to slaughter innocent people at their leisure. Just like the Islam of 2004 A.D. serves as a convenient excuse for a number of bloodthirsty psychopaths to slaughter innocent people at their leisure.

You seem to be ridiculously misinformed about Arab nations, since you don't realize that many of them are secular. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a fully secular nation. Christians and other non-Muslims were not persecuted in any way for their religion, and they could be entirely open about it. The regime was busy persecuting and killing its political opponents, after all...

There are really only 2 demented theocracies in the Arab world, at least as far as I know: Iran and Saudi Arabia. And the funny thing is that Saudi Arabia is the USA's biggest bed-buddy in the Gulf region...

[DukeLeto]

The secular government of America's tanks?

Secular?  Don't make me laugh!  Need I point out everywhere in our society where your god is mentioned; all the times Dubya's mentioned and openly condoned your god in his speeches?

And you think Christians have never used tanks?  How about some of these examples: The not-so-secular US and their War on Islam®, Nazi Germany...

[Apollyon]

England has tanks. England is CoE (christian).

We flog people with them (and a good laugh is had all-round).

[emprworm]

you are misinformed, Edric.

[Apollyon]

"yea, Dukee boy.  little misinformed dukee."

Good point, emprworm.

;)

[emprworm]

thx.

[danielsh]

now, still all 5 of my points remain standing.

[emprworm]

I count two rebuttals on my part, several on ACE's part, several on Dust's part, several on Nema's part, one on Edric's part... tell me, when someone says, "I disagree," do you immediately clap your hands to your ears and hum "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

If you don't like ACE's response to point D, I propose that you imagine what would happen if it were reworded: It is illegal for a homosexual Atheist to be 'open' about his/herself in numerous areas on earth where Islam is openly practiced."

It is illegal for a homosexual Atheist to be 'open' about his/herself in numerous areas on Earth where oxygen is openly breathed."

It is illegal for a homosexual Atheist to be 'open' about his/herself in numerous areas on Earth where water is openly drunk."

It is illegal for a homosexual Atheist to be 'open' about his/herself in numerous areas on Earth where human beings openly live.

Like just about every other one of your points, this doesn't prove anything. You're not logically showing a relationship between cause and effect, you're just saying stuff.

wow, brilliant dan.

[danielsh]

Now, lets correct these non-sequitur fallacies.

Oh, do let's! You've now successfully corrected one of the non-sequiturs that you originally wrote... how about moving onto the other ones?

And while you're at it, how about making specific references to Islamic law, rather than just asserting that it says something?

[Wolf]

Well, Dan, Emprworm is right about blasphemy laws. And, even if those laws aren't in place in some areas, it's still taboo for homosexuality to even be mentioned. Some Muslims have been quoted referring to it as a "crime".

[danielsh]

I'd much prefer to see some specific quotations---even if they're readily available, I want this discussion to be had based upon more than "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!"

[Apollyon]

Just one thing to ask:

Why is it so much worse for a religious construct/heirarchy/order/philosophy to kill than for a governmental construct?

Saddam commits atrocities against his people -

USA (and other) forces go in to aid - commit acts of 'torture' (as evidenced by photographs)

Iraq 'freedom-fighters' behead soldier.

Seems like fairly simple cause and effect, and I don't see it as particularly important that they *beheaded* him. If they had been members of some other religion (the situation would be very different in general - but for the sake of hypothesis) then they would have used some other equally brutal way of killing him, I should think.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

still, we christians don't like homosexuality too much either. we just accept if because we are more liberal than the muslims. the religion, christianity, itself does not approve of it.

[danielsh]

still, we christians don't like homosexuality too much either. we just accept if because we are more liberal than the muslims. the religion, christianity, itself does not approve of it.

Right. That's why I pointed out the Christian Right's opposition to Lawrence v. Texas. But that point was never addressed...

[emprworm]

i know it is very uncomfortable for some people to acknowledge points that are simply factual.

[Apollyon]

Well, what you're saying with Point E, is that if a man who claims to be a Christian kills someone, thereby breaking a teaching of Christ, he is no longer Christian, leaving Christianity as a whole totally free from blame. Given that as truth, there are few Christians on the planet.

I don't really see the point, as it were, of the rest of your points - albeit that they are undeniably true, at least from my perspective.