#Original #GIFS #Funny #Picdumps #Animals #Creative #Photography #History #Celebs #Tech #Movies #Music


#News #Science #Interesting #Space #Sports #TVShows #SciFi #Memes #Gaming #Quotes #Sexy #Ask
PROTIP:  Press the and keys to navigate the slideshow.
Why is it that all it takes is one 15 min independent"movie" about Muslims sends them into a berserk-er death rage.
But make a movie mocking Christianity. . . and we all laugh and smile. What happened there? Any thoughts?
Report this topic to moderators This post already reported
-3Remove
-2Remove
-1Remove
+32
+1Remove
+2Remove
+3Remove
Views: 4202
Posted: 2012-09-20 10:09:08

Responses (142) // Sorted by points

  • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-20 10:56:32
    +3
    When Christians are mocked or attacked, they also often act offended, angry, and lash out. Take the repeated tagline "War on Christmas." Take "Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer." Take the many Christian militia groups that have formed. Take all the anti-muslim hate.

    Religious fervor of all brands, not just Islam, can lead to violence and over-the-top-emotion.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 11:33:44
      +2
      Yes some do get angry, but I don't think Christians kill over a movie. My example would be the pic above, "The Life of Brian."
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-20 15:00:18
        +1
        My example, "Dr Tiller the Baby Killer," shows a Christian killing over the statements of a talk show host. I'd say that's pretty close. And I don't know why someone down rated your reply. Here's a balancing +1 : P.
        Reply
        Report
        • poopiteepoop - replied 2012-09-20 15:41:06
          +2
          The key word here is 'a'. A SINGLE Christian committed this act, not whole communities like the ones that we've seen protesting about hatred and death to westerners throughout the world.

          This must be so embarrassing for much of the Muslim community. I don't care if the movie was a terrible idea in the first place, this is all just disgusting behaviour by the fundamentalists.
          Reply
          Report
          • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-20 16:31:50
            +1
            But that's inaccurate. It took an entire subculture of deception and misinformation to galvanize a man into action. Also, Christian militias are communities of Christians offended by religious commentary that work in tandem, with violence, to silence their detractors. What's the difference?
            Reply
            Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-23 20:52:39
              +1
              A big diffrence to me would be when Christians, us anyway, get mad they march. When these turd dragons get mad they fly airplanes into buildings and kill people over a movie, even if the people they kill didn't have anything to do with the movie.
              Reply
              Report
              • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-24 01:54:41
                +1
                You see, this is exactly the issue. The social stigma is that Christians are pacifist while Muslims are terrorists. This portrait is horrifyingly inaccurate. I just gave you at least one solid example of a Christian murdering people because of misguided Christianity.... even when the peope he was murdering had nothing to do with the murderer's gripe. It's the same. And the fact that religious people can't see that all religions have the potential to breed equally violent extremism doesn't surprise me.

                Between the crusades, militias, the Holocaust, etc. etc. etc... any western religion has done just as much damage as any eastern religion has. To separate the two into terrorists and those who "march" is erroneous and misguided.
                Reply
                Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 09:45:26
                  0
                  Muslims are not terrorist, Middle Eastern Muslims are. Yes you have given me an example. How old is your example? How many people were involved? The crusades happened a long time ago, 911 not so long ago. The holocaust was not a christian war so bad example. You are comparing state sponcered and sanctioned terrorism to the act one one man. Please tell me what have Christians done that is similar to the World Trade Center bombing? (You could argue the Oklahoma city bomber but thats the action of one man vs the action of a group) The World Trade Center jet attack? The attack on the USS Cole? The attack on the embassy? I know you would like to say the crusades are, but that was several hundred years ago and we have changed. Yet the tradition of stoning a woman who wants a divorce from an abusive husband has not changed for the Middle Eastern Muslims since the time of the crusades. Very little about the Middle Eastern culture has changed in that time. Once again we are talking about a culture where heaven is a place where 72 women are sex slaves. Even in death these ass hats wants to rule over some one.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 09:57:31
                    +1
                    Not all Middle Eastern Muslims are terrorists. That is an inaccurate, offensive, sweeping generalization. My example was more recent than 9/11. Whether or not you believe the holocaust to have been Christian in nature, it was claimed to be so by those who enacted it. Who are you to say otherwise?

                    My reply below (my most recent post here before this one) answers some of these questions.

                    Finally, it doesn't make sense to compare the scale of extremist violence... that is simply a matter of resource. Same crazy, different cache. Back when Christians had states, religious violence was just as terrible and terrifying. (And just because an action occurred long ago does not remove it from a discussion).
                    Oh! And "even in death these ass hats want to rule over someone?" What do you think the entire Christian religion is based on?!
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 13:02:18
                      +2
                      I already answered that thread. Now I am waiting on you to answer this one. Once again though please keep the threads topics separate so that each thread may stay on topic.

                      I guess what my question to you would be how do you discount quantity and frequency of attacks and call it the same? Both a grenade and a hydrogen bomb are bombs, but I think we can agree there is a difference.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-26 00:01:34
                      +2
                      I am sorry you can't stay on topic for this thread.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-26 09:23:50
                      +2
                      Let me ask again since you are avoiding the question; I guess what my question to you would be how do you discount quantity and frequency of attacks and call it the same? Both a grenade and a hydrogen bomb are bombs, but I think we can agree there is a difference.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 00:05:32
                      +2
                      The question you have not answered or if you have please do so again so that I may understand, is how can you discount the frequency and quantity?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 22:40:41
                      +2
                      Yes there is a time limit or statue of limitations. I do know about Ira bombs, been a while even fir that.
                      I get it now, you are sympathetic towards them. Some how in your mind something that happened hundreds of years ago make the action of extremest today ok. In your eyes how can you ratify the subjugation of so many people by this religion? Christians are not perfect but we have evolved, not so much in some Islamic countries. Just imagine living in a country where you could not even Mae fun of religion without death threats to your life.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-28 09:13:58
                      +2
                      The only thing you seem confused about is who and what the biggest foreign active threat to US citizens is. My only rationale for it would be you are a sympathizer for them.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-29 11:30:02
                      +2
                      That may be the topic you want but is not the topic of the thread.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-30 12:13:28
                      +2
                      Seems to me you assume to much without asking for clarification.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 00:27:01
                      +2
                      I speak of current event and you speak of something 500 years ago. P,ease try and stay up to date on the world topics.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-03 11:10:23
                      +2
                      First of all, we both know that was unnecessary. You can repeatedly deny prejudice all you want, but it can still be present.

                      I will concede that, from a purely national and defense perspective, muslim extremists are more physically dangerous than most christian extremists. That is why, as you stated, the FBI lists many muslim terrorist groups as nationally threatening.

                      However, my point, which I will concede I failed to accurately make in lieu of focusing on what I perceived (and still perceive) as a consistent prejudice, is that all religions breed extremists. However, those extremists act out in different ways (which I failed to point out before). Muslim extremists happen to be localized in an impoverished area where they have access to weapons that can cause extreme damage. Christian extremists are not. However, Christian extremists fuel the anti-gay movement, fuel the still-existent KKK, ban books (Harry Potter), run Hell Houses that destroy the psychology of little children, murder abortion doctors, engage in terrorist activity (generally in countries other than the US, admittedly), and much more.

                      What I am trying to get at is that I find the actual "crazy" level of the extremists of every religion to be about the same, and I just see a difference in resource that fuels greater threat to the US (on the defense front). Extremist Muslims protest a video, extremist Christians ban, burn, and picket Harry Potter. Both react completely irrationally to anything they deem is any kind of offensive. I think we both can admit that. But, as I said, we can agree that Muslims are more a threat, physically and in a defense perspective, to the US, than Christian extremists.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 10:22:41
                      +1
                      Tell me when you go to christian heaven how many sex slaves will you have? NONE.0. NADA. You think that the Christians who had were part of the crusades are the same ones today? You don't think they have have changed? Well I bet female or homosexual preachers would disagree with you. Gays used to be put to death in the time of the crusades. Today they have can be the head of their own church. Though I do agree with you on one point, the terrorist today have a lot more in common with the Christians of old than modern Christians do. Go look at the typical life of a female or gay in one of these religious countries and their life has not changed since the age of the crusades. On the other hand, the quality of life and respect from the community has changed for women and gays in modern Christian life. Thats a fact.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 11:40:16
                      +1
                      That is not a fact when you take into account all sects of Christianity. And yes, I believe the Christian concept of the afterlife to be abhorrent, but that's another discussion.

                      I am going to leave this discussion until you respond to the other thread, where you continue to condescend and subsequently ignore. However, I will leave with this:

                      It is amusing that below you openly promote religious war, yet you can't see how all religion breeds undue violence.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 12:24:26
                      +1
                      I am sorry you can't accept facts. When that happens your emotion is driving you and I am not here to change how you feel. This is the place for that talk. Please tell me what Christians have that is comparable and applicable to the conversation that Muslim extremest want to have sex slaves in heaven. In no version of Christian heaven I have been show has sex slaves in it.

                      I am not sure what thread you are talking about but I would advise you post on that thread and I will reply.

                      I have not promoted war on any religion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have said nothing about anyone other than Middle Eastern Muslim Extremest. I said nothing about Muslims as a whole. American, European and Asian Muslims have not acted out like these asses have, so I have no problem with them. Please learn to read, and ask questions about things and not just assume.

                      Ill leave you with this. You feel the actions of one Christian in 93 is the same as state religious terrorism that has been going on for 2000 years. I say lets play a game. Ill give you a terrorist attack and you give me what you think is a comparable attack. Lets see if your list is as recent, long, or has as much loss of life.

                      1. So lets start. There was a derogatory picture from the onion showing all the other major religions being lampooned. How many died from that compared to how many people died from this "movie" that came out?
                      2. Now state officials have placed bounties on the head of the movie producers, how many bounties did all the other religions place on the Onion for its distasteful pic?
                      3. Next how many jets have the Christians flown into buildings?
                      4. Next how many warships have the other religions used suicide bombers to blow up?

                      Please try and keep your answers up to date. All of my examples are from the last 10 years, and most from the last week. As a man who is 1/2 black and 1/2 native american I can tell you this country has changed in my life time to be more accepting of everyone. We are not the same country that we were 60 years ago, let alone 600 years ago.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 12:56:48
                      +1
                      I will respond to this after you address the thread involving "New evidence" of Jesus having a wife. I feel as if I won't have a balanced discussion with you until that is rectified.

                      Also, I am not near my laptop at the moment, so this will have to wait.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 23:53:21
                      +1
                      You have not answered that thread, and at the moment your actions in that thread don't make me inclined to continue any discussion with you.

                      All of those questions are obviously loaded. That's a no-brainer. What isn't as obvious is your unwillingness to spell out why recent actions matter more in discussions here than older actions.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-26 00:31:27
                      +1
                      I am staying exactly on topic. Your entire argument relies on the idea that recent events matter more than past events. I don't see why, and you haven't addressed that in the entire discussion. Despite repeated queries.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-26 17:15:54
                      +1
                      I am not avoiding the question. I have answered this a couple times, and your response is always that my examples aren't recent enough. Hence, my question for the fourth time: why this emphasis on recent events? How does being in the past negate an event's relevance?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-27 00:14:00
                      +1
                      By demonstrating that the Christian religion equals that frequency/quantity, if not surpassing it. The crusades, the inquisition, the KKK, Neo-Nazis, much of the ideal behind slavery, etc. etc. etc.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 09:22:38
                      +1
                      You have not demonstrated it at all. So what you are saying is people don't change? By that logic am I to assume you don't trust Germany, Japan, or Brittion or the South? You think the Christians are the same and have not changed since the cursaides? Yet we can see the changes. Just ask a gay or female preacher, is Christians the same as they were during the time of the cursades. Your theory is not very consistant and full of holes. Nazis are not Christians and the comments about slavery is just confusing and makes me question your understanding of history, but not any more than your other comments do.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-27 13:30:12
                      +1
                      For the fifth time, you are making a critical assumption that you have not proven. That past actions of a group are somehow invalid in a discussion about that group's affect on the world. How is this true?

                      Nazis often (not always) consider themselves devout Christians. The Bible was used as the ultimate defense of slavery in the US for quite some time. Many pastors were loud advocates of slavery being morally justified. Please cease attempting to make this discussion about my personal qualifications. It in no way furthers your argument.

                      I am not saying I distrust any of those groups... you are clearly not understanding my main point. All religious ideologies lead to violence and irrationality, almost equally, over the course of history. I can look at a country, for isntance Germany, and say... "Hey, that country was bad for a while." That doesn't mean I distrust them, it just means I can qualitatively recognize that , in the past, that country has been deleterious.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 14:06:37
                      +1
                      So your are argument is there is no diffrence between the past and present? You seem to think that how things are they will always be. That nothing changes. Well it has changed. The frequency of attacks made in the name of Islam is only increasing. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm If you feel that what happened 500 years ago makes it the same, well it was but then we stoped. 500 years ago your agument would had been very persuading, but today it just does not hold water. That was then and this is now. Germany has changed. The middle east is just getting worse. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?pagewanted=2&_r=moc.semityn.www Learn from the past, don't live in it. Today I am more likely to be killed in the name of Islam than I am to be killed in the name of any other relegion. I am more likely to see terrorist attacks in my life time by muslims than i am by any other relegion. That may not had been true a long time ago, and it might not be true in the distant future, but as of today and the world WE live in not, Islamis terrorist are the number one relegious threat the life and libertly for people world wide. I am sorry you are taking it personal but this, beleive it or not, is not about you.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-27 21:54:57
                      +1
                      So, you are simply engaging in a discussion in which you define evidences as having value only if they are extremely recent, at a cut off arbitrarily defined by you to fit your argument?

                      I'll briefly play along. Recent events of explicitly Christian terrorism:
                      -Religious conflict in Ireland is a very recent example of multiple deaths and small-scale conflicts fueled by the Christian religion.
                      -The National Liberation Front of Tripura is currently classified as one of the ten most active terrorists groups currently in existence by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. This includes forcible conversion, often involving rape-until-conversion as a method. There are multiple other organizations related to this group, all which essentially do the same thing.
                      -Anders Behring Breivik

                      The list absolutely goes on.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-27 23:55:02
                      +1
                      Before I respond you will need to clarify some things. Namely pronoun confusion, the misuse of "ratify," and the failure to recognize my statement of recent examples invalidating your point.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-28 18:35:38
                      +1
                      This discussion is not about who the "biggest active threat" is to the US. At all. It is about whether all religions breed violence equally.

                      You still suffer from pronoun confusion.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-30 11:30:28
                      +1
                      OP:
                      "Why is it that all it takes is one 15 min independent"movie" about Muslims sends them into a berserk-er death rage.
                      But make a movie mocking Christianity. . . and we all laugh and smile. What happened there? Any thoughts?"

                      Seems to me like you are specifically asking for thoughts on the two religions and their reactions to things they find offensive. Nothing mentioned about threats to the US, everything pertaining to religions and a comparison between their capacities for violence. Don't try changing the topic, now.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-01 22:40:26
                      +1
                      So, what exactly am I inaccurately assuming? The post title is "Muslims vs Christians," and I treat it as a comparative post. The post literally asks if there are "any thoughts" on why muslims and Christians have been reacting differently to offensive stimuli. So I'm providing my thoughts.

                      Your retort has been to accuse me of being "sympathetic" towards "them." I still don't know who "them" refers to, and my entire argument hinges on treating all religious violence as similarly fueled and essentially indistinguishable, while yours that somehow the Christian violence that has occurred is not relevant, despite its clear existence. How is that not sympathizing with a specific side, here?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-02 12:57:33
                      +1
                      If I may quote myself:
                      "So, you are simply engaging in a discussion in which you define evidences as having value only if they are extremely recent, at a cut off arbitrarily defined by you to fit your argument?

                      I'll briefly play along. Recent events of explicitly Christian terrorism:
                      -Religious conflict in Ireland is a very recent example of multiple deaths and small-scale conflicts fueled by the Christian religion.
                      -The National Liberation Front of Tripura is currently classified as one of the ten most active terrorists groups currently in existence by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. This includes forcible conversion, often involving rape-until-conversion as a method. There are multiple other organizations related to this group, all which essentially do the same thing.
                      -Anders Behring Breivik

                      The list absolutely goes on."
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 14:33:52
                      +1
                      So did these people freak out over The Onion picture that was making fun of every religion other than islam? No. You don't know how to compare apples to apples do you? Though you are very good at comparing apples to oranges. As we all know to compare apples to oranges is a fool's errand.
                      But I will play along with your game. It would seem the FBI has an opinion on who the biggest terrorist threat is. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
                      It would appear that no one on your list shows up.
                      Ok lets be fair, that was the FBI top ten terrorist people. So lets see what the state department has to say about the top terrorist organisations around the world, I wonder if your list shows up.
                      http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
                      Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

                      Date Designated

                      Name

                      10/8/1997

                      Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

                      10/8/1997

                      Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

                      10/8/1997

                      Aum Shinrikyo (AUM)

                      10/8/1997

                      Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

                      10/8/1997

                      Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) (IG)

                      10/8/1997

                      HAMAS

                      10/8/1997

                      Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)

                      10/8/1997

                      Hizballah

                      10/8/1997

                      Kahane Chai (Kach)

                      10/8/1997

                      Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (Kongra-Gel)

                      10/8/1997

                      Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

                      10/8/1997

                      National Liberation Army (ELN)

                      10/8/1997

                      Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

                      10/8/1997

                      Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

                      10/8/1997

                      Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)

                      10/8/1997

                      PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)

                      10/8/1997

                      Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

                      10/8/1997

                      Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N)

                      10/8/1997

                      Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

                      10/8/1997

                      Shining Path (SL)

                      10/8/1999

                      al-Qa’ida (AQ)

                      9/25/2000

                      Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

                      5/16/2001

                      Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA)

                      9/10/2001

                      United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

                      12/26/2001

                      Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)

                      12/26/2001

                      Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT)

                      3/27/2002

                      Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB)

                      3/27/2002

                      Asbat al-Ansar (AAA)

                      3/27/2002

                      al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

                      8/9/2002

                      Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)

                      10/23/2002

                      Jemaah Islamiya (JI)

                      1/30/2003

                      Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)

                      3/22/2004

                      Ansar al-Islam (AAI)

                      7/13/2004

                      Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

                      12/17/2004

                      Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)

                      12/17/2004

                      al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI)

                      6/17/2005

                      Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)

                      10/11/2005

                      Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)

                      3/5/2008

                      Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)

                      3/18/2008

                      al-Shabaab

                      5/18/2009

                      Revolutionary Struggle (RS)

                      7/2/2009

                      Kata'ib Hizballah (KH)

                      1/19/2010

                      al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

                      8/6/2010

                      Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI)

                      9/1/2010

                      Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)

                      11/4/2010

                      Jundallah

                      5/23/2011

                      Army of Islam (AOI)

                      9/19/2011

                      Indian Mujahedeen (IM)

                      3/13/2012

                      Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT)

                      5/30/2012

                      Abdallah Azzam Brigades (AAB)

                      9/19/2012

                      Haqqani Network (HQN)


                      Didn't see your list again. It looks as like the people you are worried about are not on the FBI or State Department list.
                      So I ask, why is it a 15 min video lampooning Muhammad sends people into a death rage but a picture lampooning all other religions has not caused any death?
                      The onion was trying to prove a point, and they did. The rest of the world can take a joke, just not the middle east.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-02 14:57:56
                      +1
                      The US is not the only country. And are you saying that it is somehow more rational/more acceptable to react to a voice in your head rather than an offensive video...?

                      No matter the motivation, the act of violence is generally the same (with standard exception for self-defense, etc). Furthermore, that list is not an example of terrorist organizations reacting to a video, it is a list of extremists in existence currently.

                      You are failing to prove your thesis because it is internally separated. Are you trying to say:
                      1. That the Muslim religion is more harmful to the world than the Christian religion, or,
                      2. That because the muslim religion reacts strongly to images, they are somehow less rational than others acting on "god's will," or,
                      3. That the US is most threatened my Muslim extremists?

                      If you could narrow that down, I think we could focus the discussion a little more. I am being honest here, and no sarcasm or negative tone is meant in this post: we just seem to keep moving away from main points. Focusing the discussion will hopefully help us both make our points more solidly.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 15:38:00
                      +1
                      Not all violence is the same Rape is not the same as murder. Child abuse is not the same as self inflicted abuse. I am sure we can agree that verbal and physical violence is different. Even the court system makes a distinction between murder 1 and manslaughter, due to the fact that not all violence is the same.
                      When it comes to embassy attacks in the name of god, Islam has the market cornered. I am sorry that you seem to think a country where in the name of God you will be killed if you are gay, or if you are a female you must have the permission of your male guardian to leave the house, own property or do just about anything, you think that is the same as living here in the US. As the topic of the post says, one can take a joke, the other will attack people who had nothing to do with the joke just because they are from the same country. I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD. None the less to answer your concerns in order;
                      1. Yes Islamic terrorist are more harmful to the US than ANY other religion. in the US there are thousands of murders done every year, but not in the name of GOD. once again, only islam terrorist caused 911 unless you forgot.
                      2. Anyone who kills in the name of god is not rational.
                      3. the biggest terrorist threat to the US is from Islamic terrorist, according to the FBI and State Department and anyone who reads the news.
                      I am not sure why you think the Middle East is on par with the civilized world. While the US is far from perfect, we (the state) do not kill over freedom of speech. Even if that includes some one being gay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran )
                      Once women are allowed to dress how they like and not like sand ninja's, once people are able to live the life they want even if its not Muslim, then they will have taken a big step to being not part of the problem.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-02 16:02:18
                      +1
                      I never said that I agreed with any part of any religion. Now, before I respond, one last explanatory question: why do you focus only on the US in an international discussion?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 16:11:41
                      +1
                      This is about US citizens being killed over a movie they probably never saw. This is a discussion about why these people can't control them self. One of my favorite examples of that is women in these countries must dress like sand ninja's because a man can not control himself and will rape a woman who shows skin. These people can't control them self.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-02 16:33:12
                      +1
                      So, unlike the OP, the discussion is now supposed to just be Muslim hate from an exclusively American perspective?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 16:38:00
                      +1
                      When you learn to read, let alone read the parts that ARE ALL IN CAPS, then we may continue.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-02 17:02:06
                      +1
                      Sigh. I am reading every post you make, and every post has a consistent thread of anti-muslim sentiment. I'll post on this again later tonight, have to go for now.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 17:11:50
                      +1
                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      I am not sure if you just read every other word and skip half of what I post so Ill put the next part in caps so don't keep asking, get an answer, keep asking, get an answer.
                      ISLAM AS A WHOLE IS NOT BAD. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS IN THIS WORLD

                      CAN YOU READ THIS?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-03 11:49:52
                      +1
                      You are correct. Also note that Christian extremist have issues with people, Muslim extremist have problems with countries and people.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-10-03 17:28:15
                      +1
                      Generally true, although I believe many Christian extremists have issues with middle eastern countries. For example.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-03 18:45:07
                      +1
                      You are correct about that but the differences are not so big that they fly jets into towers or kill diplomats.
                      Reply
                      Report
    • mrcbccadetx0 - replied 2012-09-20 11:09:53
      +1
      I agree. I think you are very much generalizing all Muslims into one group. Most people of any religion are not extremists and can have a sense of humor about themselves. Unfortunately in our media it is most often the dumb fuck extremists yelling the loudest over everyone else making the group, who also believes they are dumb fucks, look bad just along with them.
      Reply
      Report
      • johnecash - replied 2012-10-03 18:46:36
        +1
        And the whole 911 thing does not help either, or the raiding of embassy's and ambassador killing.
        Reply
        Report
  • bioshock123 - replied 2012-09-20 16:40:02
    +3
    The film itself was cheesy and low budget, but incredibly offensive to Muslims. The reason "The Life of Brian" was considered harmless comedy was because a few of the actors were Christian themselves and Monty Python makes fun of everyone. The reason "The Innocence of Muslims" had the reaction it did, was because it was made by non-Muslims in attempt to offend Muslims. Also a minister who publicly bunt a Koran (I forget his name) endorsed the film. So, in a powder-keg country like Libya where people are very religiously radical and might not like the U.S., an offensive film is all it takes.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 22:07:23
      +1
      So you think a more tastefully film would not have sparked the same response?
      Reply
      Report
      • bioshock123 - replied 2012-09-21 11:11:45
        +1
        What do you mean by tasteful?
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 20:18:21
          +1
          Let me ask it another way. Would any other film had been different or was the film just an excuse for the killings.
          Reply
          Report
          • bioshock123 - replied 2012-09-21 21:17:28
            +1
            No, this film crossed the line by portraying their prophet as a child molesting, womanizing, murderous bastard. If you look at a movie like "Team America", they make fun of Muslim culture to an extent but they didn't go that far.
            Reply
            Report
            • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-22 01:43:28
              +6
              Seriously? You're going to blame the film for the actions of murderers? The movie is offensive, sure, but that's perfectly alright. No one has a special right not to be offended.

              And their prophet was a child-molesting, womanizing, murderous bastard, who unfortunately doesn't have a hell to go to. They can go pound sand if they get offended by that, I don't really give a fuck. Few things enrage me more than people excusing the actions of terrorists by saying, "Well maybe you shouldn't have made them mad".
              Reply
              Report
              • johnecash - replied 2012-09-22 13:11:23
                +2
                These people are text book savages who have been fighting for 2000 years. The one thing they are good at are excuses. Their dream of heavin is sex slaves...that's sick.
                Reply
                Report
              • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-24 08:08:00
                +1
                That being said though, the movie's only purpose was to anger people. (Accurate or not.) It wouldn't be the first time extremists got riled up and started killing over something like this (Mohammed cartoons anyone?) My point is, if you've made that video, what reaction did you want/expect? It does nothing to excuse the violence, I'll give you that. But are we supposed to be surprised about the outrage?
                Reply
                Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-09-24 09:32:40
                  +2
                  suprised no, but disappointed yes. nor should we change how we live our life due to these ass hats hating life.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-24 23:54:25
                    +2
                    Agreed.
                    Reply
                    Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-10-03 18:48:19
                  +1
                  Am I the only one who remembers the first super best friends episode of South Park staring Muhammad. No one said anything about it when it aired.
                  Reply
                  Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 21:58:21
              +2
              So where is the line you would draw? How much of your free speech are you willing to give up because others can not controll themselves
              Reply
              Report
              • bioshock123 - replied 2012-09-22 12:33:03
                +1
                I wouldn't give up any of my free speech. However, to them that film is kind of like a westboro baptist church protest, except it invoked a huge overreaction.
                Reply
                Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-09-22 13:05:13
                  +2
                  But there is the problems. Haters gona hate as they say. No matter what we did, it was only an excuse for what they did.
                  Reply
                  Report
                • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-27 10:07:10
                  +1
                  Exactly. There's free speech and then there's being a self-righteous dick.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 10:22:44
                    +1
                    Not sure what u mean my friend.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-27 10:31:55
                      +1
                      When you say/make something for the sole purpose of offending people and then they get offended I see no reason to defend the maker. You have right to free speech but the responsibility to own the consequences. Dump gasoline on a fire and I won't pity you if you get burned.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 10:51:41
                      +1
                      So people are not responsable for what do after reading something? I am not sure if you know this, but a keystone for the US is we may not like what you have to say, but we will fight for your right to say it. Why do we feel so strong about it? As Larry Flynt said in "The People vs Larry Flynt"; "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you." You are always responsable for you, there is no blaming it on what you read. That is a very liberal point of view that puts the burden on the author to be able to predect what every end user of his speech is going to do.
                      Reply
                      Report
  • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-20 21:43:02
    +3
    Well, I can't say I know if anyone's been killed over Monty Python (come on, who doesn't love Monty Python?), but there have certainly been atrocities equal to those of Islam, committed in the name of Christianity (and often in obedience to the Bible, which makes one wonder why it's still used as a moral guide), however, Islam does seem to have the winning number of crimes committed in response to blasphemy (at least in the modern era).

    Why? Because Islam is, in basically every way, a virus. It spreads uncontrollably, and tries to eliminate any other point of view it comes across. Islam assumes it has authority over others, and therefore feels justified in using violence to defend its ideas and beliefs.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 22:10:22
      +3
      So how does it differ from the other major relegions? I like how Jon Stuart put it, who remembers what Christianity was doing when it was only 1400 years old?
      Reply
      Report
      • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-20 22:49:14
        +1
        Because unlike other religions, it still has power over nations.
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 23:16:18
          +1
          I am fairly sure the Jews would disagree.
          Reply
          Report
          • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-21 00:32:48
            +2
            Fair enough, Israel still has a lot of problems from their religion too.
            Reply
            Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 00:45:21
              +1
              Even the Christians have their own "country". The Vatican.
              Reply
              Report
              • triclebickle - replied 2012-09-21 02:35:55
                +1
                and they have really no problems but unlike Israel its not currently a contested region.
                Reply
                Report
                • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-21 03:00:04
                  +3
                  The Vatican has quite a few problems. Not least of which is rampant and protected pedophilia/molestation/rape.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • triclebickle - replied 2012-09-21 04:43:56
                    +1
                    There certainly is that one. I guess I should have been more specific huh, I can't think of any current issue that involves military forces.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-21 10:15:33
                      +1
                      Hmm, you mean an issue the Vatican has that required/requires the use of the military to rectify?
                      Reply
                      Report
                  • triclebickle - replied 2012-09-21 23:34:47
                    +1
                    More or less, that seems to be the gist of what I was trying to get at.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-23 10:50:44
                      +2
                      Well, many issues have required the intervention of law enforcement. The pedophilia/molestation/rape... issue... As well as issues with unsafe exorcism. The Vatican is also extreme enough to have denied those in Africa who are Catholic contraception, contributing dramatically to the AIDS epidemic.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 10:37:48
                      +1
                      There is no denying that the Catholics, not all Christians, but the Catholics screw with their own people. The only thing worse they could do is screw with people that disagree with them, like the Muslim terrorist.
                      Reply
                      Report
  • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-23 17:18:34
    +2
    The thing about Life of Brian: It doesn't directly mock Jesus. Jesus was barely in the movie, it spends more time making fun of the time period than it does trying to discredit Jesus. It's only purpose was to be funny. "The Innocence of Muslims"? It was made to attack Islam. (Regardless of accuracy) Does that justify the reactions in Libya? FUCK. NO. If you think anyone is worth killing over a video, you're an fanatical idiot. Simple as that.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-23 20:45:22
      +1
      Would a better example be the book of mourman? It mocks the relegion yet the Mormons just laugh at it.
      Reply
      Report
      • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-24 07:59:19
        +2
        I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet. But that being said, I'd argue that if done properly, you can make fun of anything and the "targeted group" wouldn't complain. But I will concede that Islam (at least as far as the extremists go) is in a category of it's own. There's just something about that culture. Maybe it's the lack of distinction between church and state, or maybe it stems from living in war-torn borderline desert countries that puts them on edge. Lack of women doesn't help either. Tricklebickle already explained this for the most part, so I won't rewrite his comments.

        It's always worth mentioning that while all of this violence is going on, there are several pro-west anti-violence demonstrations in the middle east, being done by Muslims who condemn the extremists. So lets not write the entire Muslim population off.
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-24 09:41:28
          +1
          I will disagree in this case. No matter what these terrorist will make an excuse for their actions. Just remember their heaven is having 72 sex slaves. Even after death they want to keep some one in slavery. These people are not like the rest of the world. They are a pimple that needs to be popped.
          Reply
          Report
          • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-27 10:03:54
            +2
            Well, the Christian equivalent is Heaven for the believers, and eternal torment in hell for non-believers (people like me) That sounds equally psychotic when you think about it.
            Reply
            Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 10:44:45
              +1
              Ill give you the hell bit but it is not a widley belivd as it once was. When I was 12 I once asked my pastor about that. The question was is Hitler accepted Jesus before he died and Gandi never did and lived a life of peace and harmony with his fellow man, is Hitler in heaven and Gandi in hell? He answer was no. Accepting Jesus and his teachings is not something you say, its something you do. Your actions toward your fellow man are what count. He told me to remeber that actions speak louder than words. That Gandi lived the life Jesus tought us to live, even though he was not Christian. Good people go to heaven even jews, muslims and non belivers, the bad go to hell, regardless of what relegion they are. Ultimaly we may guess where people are going. But only God knows for sure. I must ask you, so in your eyes there are no diffrence in the mentality when it comes to the dream of eternal happyness? In Christian heaven we have no names, we are all equil. To the ratical muslims in their place of eternal happyness they are not happy without sex slaves for eternity. To most people there is a diffrence in how you see life based on what you think heaven is. Do you not see the diffrence?
              Reply
              Report
              • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-27 11:05:21
                +1
                Well that was one pastor, not all of them. Talk to the Westborough Baptists for example and they'll tell you with a smile on their face that being a godless heathen like me is a one way ticket to hell. (Despite me being a relatively moral person.) My Grandpa on the other hand (a devout catholic before he died) would likely say it wouldn't be heaven for him unless all of his grand kids made it up there with him regardless of what we believe/don't. You're getting fixated on the radical Muslims. For each Muslim who wants sex slaves, I'm sure there's several who would be content to be reunited with loved ones in the afterlife. You can take the extreme from both sides and they both look bad. That was my initial point when I made that comment.
                Reply
                Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 11:26:09
                  +1
                  Christian extremest tell you that you are going to hell.
                  Muslim Extremest tell you that you are going to hell, then blow themself up to kill you and everyone around you.
                  Thats the diffrence that makes one annoying, and the other a problem.
                  If westborow does not like something, they use their free speach to denounce it.
                  If extreme muslims don't like a video, they attack and kill people who's only mistake was being from the same country as the video of origin.
                  The Christian extremest attack individual people.
                  The Muslim extremest attack countries.
                  Once again this is not an attack on Mulism. They are good poeple, this is about the terrorist. And in that part of the world there are a lot of them.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • CrazyJay - replied 2012-09-27 18:51:56
                    +1
                    Logos already made this point but the difference is how much political power Islam has in the Middle east VS Christianity in the west. Back in the middle ages, particularly during the Crusades, Christians slaughtered plenty of Muslims. Who's to say extreme Christianity couldn't be used as a force for massive violence again if it had the political means? Search the bible hard enough (particularly the old testament) and you'll find plenty of violence and atrocities.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 20:52:28
                      +1
                      I can't answer hypothetical questions. But I do get what you are saying. Just imagine if Christianity in the west was like Islam in the east. You also helped prove my point, they are different. Christianity does not run the state here, not so much for the Middle East. I never thought I would get as much sympathy for extremest Muslims as some on this site show. Though I do have one off topic tangent/question. If Allah Akbar means god is good, does admiral Akbar mean good admiral in aromatic? Just wondering if anyone could shed some light on this.
                      Reply
                      Report
  • Math - replied 2012-09-25 08:22:52
    +2
    One thing is for sure: If we were without religion there would be a lot less wars!
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 09:28:49
      +1
      We think that, but we don't know that.
      Reply
      Report
      • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-26 04:42:21
        +2
        Um... yes we do. The wars that have taken place due to religion wouldn't have happened, ergo, less wars.
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-26 09:08:44
          +1
          As I said its a popular opinion, but who is to say without religion there would not had been more wars? The deadliest war in US history had nothing to do with religion. WWII was not a war for religion.
          Reply
          Report
          • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-26 21:36:07
            +1
            Besides the ethnic cleansing based in part on Aryan myth, and the attacks by an emperor who fancied himself a god?
            Reply
            Report
            • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-26 23:34:37
              +2
              An "emperor" who repeatedly detailed that he was sent, motivated, and directed by God? Who used Christianity as a vehicle for his entire movement? Who considered himself a devout Roman Catholic?
              Reply
              Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-27 00:02:47
              +1
              I always think of Germany, you are right some axes power but not all fought for religion. But the war itself was not fought over religion, at least from a us point if view. None the less, the US and her allies did not fight WWI or WWII over religion.
              Reply
              Report
  • Vans - replied 2012-09-20 11:33:42
    +1
    well, extreme christians you often find in the US are easily offended. But most christians are either just saying they are christians so they have any religion or they take the religion thing pretty easy and just try to be a good person, which I think is the purpose of a religion.
    But in many mulimic countries the education isn't that good and they believe pretty much everything the koran says or people say that it is in the koran. I am not saying they are stupid but in some countries they are pretty much the way europeans were in the dark ages.
    So there is just some guy saying "hey the west guys declared war against our religion" they are all like oh lets beat their asses.
    And actually most muslims dont even live in those countries they are somewhere else in countries where everyone has internet and can watch liberal news and stuff, but the media only shows us the crazy extreme muslims.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 11:38:05
      +1
      But the question I am asking is why a movie lampooning Christianity is enjoyed and laughed at by all. But a cartoon about Muhammad shuts down schools and embassies.
      Reply
      Report
      • Vans - replied 2012-09-20 11:44:55
        +1
        well because most christians dont think they go to hell for laughing at their prophet.
        And actually the movie really had a couple of problems because some christians thought you cant show jesus singing on the cross.
        But in the christian religion we dont have some like a vendetta or anything like that. There is only one rule but that is from the old testament which is also past of the jewish religion and as far as I know jesus said that it doesnt work that way, I dont know how it is translated in english.
        In germany it is called eye to eye, teeth to teeth or something like that. Which means if someone takes from you, you have to take something similar back.
        However in the muslimic religion there are something like that so if you make fun of their prophet they have to do something about it, at least someone is telling them that their religion works that way.
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 11:49:18
          +1
          As a strict Christian we are not to take the lords name in vain. Many would concede the entire movie was taking the lords name in vain.
          We Christians have the same rules about jihad has Muslims. The difference is we don't act like they do, we may take a joke.
          Reply
          Report
          • Vans - replied 2012-09-20 11:59:35
            +1
            because many people dont take the bible word by word, I mean they dont think that every word is true.
            Which makes sense because jesus told stories so people would understand some things, and probably you should see the bible in the same way and interpret the stories written in it instead of thinking "oh it says here someone shit on the face or a cow, now I have to shit on cows face to go to heaven"
            and muslims dont have the same education standard and that is why so many believe what some idiots say
            Reply
            Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 12:02:27
              +1
              I think the last part of what you said hits the nail on the head. No matter what the religion, where ever you find people who have no education other than "holy text" you find nut jobs. I think the Westborow Baptiste Church is a shining example of that theory.
              Reply
              Report
              • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-20 15:26:58
                +1
                Why are you arguing against yourself from above?
                Reply
                Report
                • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 22:05:31
                  +1
                  You have my attention, please exPlain.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-20 22:53:26
                    +1
                    It just seems disingenuous to not make a distinction between religions down here, but attempt to justify a stark distinction above.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-24 12:07:32
                      +2
                      Maybe state sponsored, but there is plenty of Christian violence and crazy to be thrown around.

                      Obama, who I think you implied is too soft, is simply not. Orchestrated the killing of Osama Bin Laden, assassinated Anwar Al Awlaki, continues wars, threatens the entirety of Egypt to get police intervention... What about that is just "pulling relief money?"

                      Finally, you already agreed multiple times that it s small, extremist groups enacting violence. Why is that deserved of carpet-bombing a region?!
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 00:34:58
                      +2
                      I in now way support censorship. I in no way support the muslim religion. I in no way support the Christian religion. That is our difference. You separate the two in your head, and believe that Christian extremists are much less of a problem than Muslim extremists. I believe that this is wrong.

                      Sure, that picture may not have caused any deaths. However, there are other pictures that have at Christian hands. Pictures of gay couples, pictures of aborted fetuses, pictures of interracial marriage just a few years ago. Are you aware that the KKK considers themselves a Christian organization and still operates? Are you really trying to tell me that if we had a KKK state, it wouldn't be this bad? Or that the KKK is somehow more tame than the organized muslim militia that attacked the embassy?

                      All religions foster extremists, violent extremists, and they are all as bad as from any other religion. It's often just hard to see from inside.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • MissRandom - replied 2012-09-25 08:29:03
                      +2
                      if i may correct you, i live in a muslim country but its rich
                      we are all educated and have many degrees usually from international universities and civilised
                      however, when the movie came out.. Everybody went to the streets and started protesting and shouting and fighting
                      it has nothing to do with education or level of civilization. Muslims are NOT allowed to question or think out of the box. it is in their book and they have to follow their book word by word. They are strict stubborn limited people. I do not mean to insult or stereotype. I have muslim friends and they are amazing and they can think for themselves, however, the majority is just like i said.
                      YOur point is valid, however, it does not mean that every educated muslim will be more civilized. however, every civilized muslim is VERY educated.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 20:19:25
                      +1
                      More trying to say we have the same laws they do.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-22 01:12:20
                      +1
                      What do you mean by that?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-22 13:15:42
                      +1
                      The 3 major religions are more similar than people think the rules Christians are supposed to live by are similar to the Muslims. I would argue the more educated the person, regardless of religion, the more civilized they are. And those who only have relegion as their teacher act mor literal to the book of their reading. Ps m drunk so if you don't get it let me know and I'll repost when sober...ish.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-22 16:51:09
                      +1
                      No, I get it. I just am confused as to how that aligns with what you have been posting on this thread: you keep separating muslim and christian extremists. I think you can't do that.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-22 17:27:46
                      +1
                      If that's how I came across it is not my intention. In this case they are middle eastern first and Muslim 2nd. An example would be American and other first world Muslims did not go crazy. It's these extremest that do.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-23 10:45:12
                      +1
                      So then you agree that both Muslim and Christian extremists are prone to unreasonable, violent action?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-23 20:47:11
                      +1
                      Yes I do, just as I will concede for every Christian and Jew extremest attack there about 100 Muslim extremest attacks. Or better yet I should say a middle eastern extremest attack that happen to be Muslim but middle eastern first
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-24 01:48:37
                      +1
                      .....So Christians and Jews are more reasonable than Muslims now?
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-24 09:38:26
                      +1
                      I would rather deal with an extremest christian group (westborow babtsit church) that a Muslim extremest group. As of today, not 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago, the Muslims have the market cornered on crazy over the top state sponcered religious murder and oppression. When stuff like this happens I miss Ronald Reagan. Pull this stunt on his watch and he will bomb you back to the stone age, not just pull your relief money.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-24 09:38:49
                      +1
                      I would rather deal with an extremest christian group (westborow babtsit church) that a Muslim extremest group. As of today, not 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago, the Muslims have the market cornered on crazy over the top state sponcered religious murder and oppression. When stuff like this happens I miss Ronald Reagan. Pull this stunt on his watch and he will bomb you back to the stone age, not just pull your relief money.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-24 13:20:15
                      +1
                      To compare the two is silly. When was the last time the other religions flew jets into buildings, killed ambassadorial over movies, and don't get me started on the oppression of women. A wonderful example of the difference between Muslim extremest and others will be this pic. ( *** WARNING WARNING WARNING THIS PIC CONTAINS CARTOON NUDITY OF RELEGIOS FIGURES AND MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR WORK. OPEN AT OWN RISK. THIS LINK LEADS TO THE ONION. http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/) The name of the pic in question is, "NO ONE DIED BECAUSE OF THIS PIC." Its true, no one died and as the Onion put it, "Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day." Thats what normal people do. These extremest are not normal. They care more about a name than a human life. Violence is the only thing they understand. Just today our "allies" put a $100,000 bounty on the filmmakers head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9563183/Pakistan-minister-refuses-to-step-down-over-bounty.html Countries we spends millions on to help, shit on us every chance they get. The region has not changed in 2,000 years. I don't think it will change on the next 2,000. Some times in life when an old forest gets too big, no new life may grow. its only when a fire comes may the forest start new growth. If these nut jobs keep on the course they are, fire is coming.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 09:48:33
                      +1
                      Thee KKK does not have the power the Muslim religion has over there. In the past they were something to be feared but not today. How many embassy have the KKK attacked? NONE. How many jets have they flown into towers? NONE. The most current example of how they differ would be the Onion pic. Muslims freak out over a movie, the other religions get over it an move on.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2012-09-25 09:59:25
                      +1
                      Have you seen recent reports about there organization? Are you aware they trade in white garb for military combat attire?

                      And why the focus on uber-recent events? I don't see how being in the past invalidates a point.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-25 10:30:54
                      +1
                      I am not sure how educated a country can be when a movie stops an entire city to the point where everybody went to the streets and started protesting, shouting and fighting. Educated people don't have time for that sort of thing. They have roads to build, children to feed and jobs to do. Just look at the Onion picture called "No one died from this picture." It insults all the other major religions and no one has died over it, no has protested in the street, hell no one even missed work over it. As the Onion put it, the other major religions just looked at the pic, rolled their eyes and went about their day.
                      Reply
                      Report
          • goheemag - replied 2012-09-20 23:27:25
            +1
            Just thought I'd throw in something here. Jihad as a holy war is a misinterpretation by fundamentalist. The general Muslim community interpret Jihad, which means struggle, as an internal war against sin, not a holy war. That's just what I've been told by Muslims I know.
            Reply
            Report
            • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 00:43:16
              +3
              I would say the more educated Muslim believe that. As always it's the uneducated who more often than not take it to the extreme.
              Reply
              Report
  • triclebickle - replied 2012-09-20 17:58:54
    +1
    Personally I don't care for either religion, but I think that Christians are more tolerant as a whole to these type of things where as muslims (more so in the middle east and Africa) seem to be much more extremist in their beliefs, it seem to tie into their violent dogma.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 22:08:27
      +1
      Is that due to the relegion, culture or education? Or any combination of the above?
      Reply
      Report
      • triclebickle - replied 2012-09-21 02:31:08
        +1
        A combination of all three, the culture and education are influenced by the religion in that radicalism is less taboo than in western society and the education is structured by religious beliefs so they are more sheltered from western ideas. If you look at many Muslims born and raised in western culture they seem to be more even tempered and less radical due to how western society views radical extremism, they are also offered a better education so they have a less sheltered view of the world and not as ignorant as their middle eastern counterparts. It's a microcosm of sociological factors that create what we are seeing now, mostly nurture and very little nature.
        Reply
        Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 20:20:17
          +1
          I have nothing more to say, I can not agree more.
          Reply
          Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-21 20:22:43
          +1
          Or in short, haters going to hate.
          Reply
          Report
  • suckots - replied 2012-09-21 08:53:27
    +1
    films like the life of brian were banned it for example ireland when they came out, out society just moved on
    Reply
    Report
    • Ertrov - replied 2012-09-22 01:39:02
      +1
      Censorship is just as bad, if not worse, than violence.
      Reply
      Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-10-02 14:39:40
      +1
      Banned yes, but no one killed over it. Or the book or mourman, or the onion pic, or countless other.
      Reply
      Report
  • FireRoastedFire - replied 2012-09-25 10:00:08
    +1
    Ladies, Ladies... Your both ugly...
    Reply
    Report
  • Mattty21 - replied 2012-09-20 11:07:51
    0
    Can't stand either.
    Reply
    Report
    • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 11:41:40
      +2
      You statement has been noted and was not needed. The question had nothing to do with if you like or dislike either. Please learn to read before you post. Please feel free to join the conversation when you have something about it to say.
      Reply
      Report
      • Mattty21 - replied 2012-09-20 13:56:56
        +3
        You're such a pious nut. Someone says something anti-Christian so you instantly go into 'internet attack mode'. You're post demonstrates that you're clearly already prejudiced against Muslims and one of these wackos that welcomes a discussion with the intention of having some sort of self-aggrandizing argument to absorb your own sense of superiority -...over the internet. I can only assume that you are devoid of happiness or something - BAKE A CAKE, it might cheer you up.
        Reply
        Report
        • hingerdurgen - replied 2012-09-20 17:43:00
          +3
          i like cake :)
          Reply
          Report
        • serpentrepent - replied 2012-09-20 14:51:56
          +2
          He was just saying you didn't need to post about your lack of anything substantial to add to the debate.
          Reply
          Report
          • johnecash - replied 2012-09-23 20:49:12
            0
            Thank you and that is all I was trying to tell him. Trying to keep the thread on topic.
            Reply
            Report
        • johnecash - replied 2012-09-20 23:13:53
          +1
          Please save this thread for the topic at hand. Thank you.
          Reply
          Report

Leave a reply

Upload files