Religion of peace

[BradleyHillman]

How do you guys respond to the politically correct regressive left when they argue that "not all muslims are like that" and that "Islam is the religion of peace"?  I've previously written a blog post about the religion of peace rhetoric that can be found here:

 

 

My biggest crticism of the "religion of peace" argument is what makes a religion distinctly peaceful or violent?  The teachings?  The sum of the actions of it's followers? What acts are carried out in the religion's name?  The criteria for "religion of peace" is not, and can not be, clearly defined for Islam to qualify for this mantra.  More importantly, and maybe Stefan has already addressed this in one of the many podcasts or videos I've missed.. Why is the left so quick to ally itself with one of the misogynistic, intolerant, and historically violent collectives on the planet? Is it for no other reason than they are mostly brown people?  Is it because the Muslims too oppose western society?  Either way these seems like miniscule reasons for support in contrast with the differences between "progressivism" and Islam.

Sorry blog post is here: http://answeringthehardquestions.tumblr.com/post/131457252344/is-islam-thea-religion-of-peace


a couple examples of past discourse with the left/muslims who cannot (I know stefan would say they CAN accept it they just won't, don't rob their moral autonomy) accept my criticism:
http://nonviolentanarchistphilosophy.tumblr.com/post/124616041196/most-religious-violence-is-carried-out-on-the-name
http://nonviolentanarchistphilosophy.tumblr.com/post/128778210691/sahrawia-nonviolentanarchistphilosophy

[Will Torbald]

Progressives, in their quest for ultimate tolerance, become tolerant of intolerance. That's all there is to this rhetoric.

[BradleyHillman]

Progressives, in their quest for ultimate tolerance, become tolerant of intolerance. That's all there is to this rhetoric.

Ah yes, ultimate tolerance, when you stick your head in the sand and wait for the blade to hit your neck because nonexistant heaven forbid that you acknowledge immoral acts carried out in the name of a religious group.  What about feminists specifically then?  They are more militant leftists who aren't focused on tolerance  (they have no tolerance for men).  I wonder why they feel "rape culture" is a important issue in western culture but fail to even recognize that there is an actual culture that advocates the rape of women based solely on the fact they aren't Muslims:

 

Rape victims in Islamic countries, the vast majority of which are women, often are punished as adulterers. This is due to Islam’s requirements for proving rape. Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.  Women who allege rape without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience are actually confessing to having sex.  If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery.

• Qur'an (2:282) - Establishes that a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s in court (there is no “he said/she said” gridlock in Islam).

• Qur'an (24:13) - “Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought witnesses they are liars before Allah.”

• Qur'an (2:223) - “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…”  There is no such thing as rape in marriage, as a man is permitted unrestricted sexual access to his wives.

After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men.  In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands.  Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers. [sources & more info]

[dsayers]

Safety comes from honesty. If you see a grizzly bear and call it a grizzly bear, you're safer from it because you will take the necessary precautions and actions to remain safe from it. As opposed to snuggling up with it as if it were an oversized teddy bear. All religions are characterized by beliefs and rituals. None of which accurately describe the real world. In this way, I would argue all religion is dangerous.

 

By extension, this means that characterizing religion X as a "religion of..." is dangerous because you're addressing a symptom and not the problem. The problem is a lack of rational thought.

 

Also, the moment you begin to hold concepts accountable, you stop holding individuals accountable. "Muslims" is a concept. It describes an aggregate of people with a similar set of beliefs. If one of them doesn't initiate the use of force, what difference does it make if some entity tells him to? Likewise, if one does initiate the use of force, what difference does it make what their motivation was? The aggression is the problem.

[BradleyHillman]

Safety comes from honesty. If you see a grizzly bear and call it a grizzly bear, you're safer from it because you will take the necessary precautions and actions to remain safe from it. As opposed to snuggling up with it as if it were an oversized teddy bear. All religions are characterized by beliefs and rituals. None of which accurately describe the real world. In this way, I would argue all religion is dangerous.

 

By extension, this means that characterizing religion X as a "religion of..." is dangerous because you're addressing a symptom and not the problem. The problem is a lack of rational thought.

 

Also, the moment you begin to hold concepts accountable, you stop holding individuals accountable. "Muslims" is a concept. It describes an aggregate of people with a similar set of beliefs. If one of them doesn't initiate the use of force, what difference does it make if some entity tells him to? Likewise, if one does initiate the use of force, what difference does it make what their motivation was? The aggression is the problem, not the religion.

If the entire premise of your post is "safety comes from honesty" then I reject most of what you said here.  Safety does not come from honesty.  You can be honest (and have people be honest with you) without being safe.  Safety comes from both you and the people you encounter accepting the nonaggression principle and not initiating force against each other.  Safety is the result of cooperation and compromise rather than coercion.  Safety and honesty have very little to do with each other as I see it.  All religions maybe characterized by beliefs and rituals but in no way does having beliefs or partaking in rituals inherently result in danger.  The vast majority of religious people I've encountered I would not categorize as dangerous. 

 

You're right that if I hold concepts accountable I'm not holding individuals accountable.  That's true.  The responsibility falls on the individual, regardless of belief, to act morally and face the consequences of their own immoral acts. But this doesn't invalidate criticism of ideology, as I can be critical of a worldview while maintaining the responsibility for people's actions falls on the people performing said acts.  I take on being critical of Islam as a way to maybe ease the cognitivie dissonance of good people who have been indoctrinated as Muslims since birth.  I know it doesn't truly matter if they want to call themselves Muslims or not, but if I can convince them to turn their back on a system I view as evil then I would feel better about it at the very least.

[dsayers]

Safety comes from both you and the people you encounter accepting the nonaggression principle and not initiating force against each other.  Safety is the result of cooperation and compromise rather than coercion.  Safety and honesty have very little to do with each other as I see it.

"as I see it" is exactly my point. How many people do not recognize that taxation is coercion/the initiation of the use of force? How many people view those who tax them as benevolent, righteous, and necessary? Or back it up to childhood. How many people view threatening and assaulting a child as character building? If a person cannot accurately identify a behavior as coercive, they can never be safe from it. They could never be safe from INFLICTING it. People who were abused/taxed abusing/taxing others because they don't see the harm in it.

 

From the moment you were born, you began to categorize your world for survival's sake. Suggesting that the ability to accurately identify threats isn't foundational to survival is absurd.

[BradleyHillman]

"as I see it" is exactly my point. How many people do not recognize that taxation is coercion/the initiation of the use of force? How many people view those who tax them as benevolent, righteous, and necessary? Or back it up to childhood. How many people view threatening and assaulting a child as character building? If a person cannot accurately identify a behavior as coercive, they can never be safe from it. They could never be safe from INFLICTING it. People who were abused/taxed abusing/taxing others because they don't see the harm in it.

 

From the moment you were born, you began to categorize your world for survival's sake. Suggesting that the ability to accurately identify threats isn't foundational to survival is absurd.

I didn't say accurately identifying threats isn't foundational to survival.  Although it isn't necessarily in the modern industrialized world because plenty of /r brained people with no threat detection live very long lives.  I said safety isn't a product of honesty.  Because it isn't.  No matter how honest you are if you don't have the strength or intelligence to defend yourself there is a potential for you failling victim to violence.  Even with perfect threat detection. 

 

Fair enough with your point about people's view of taxation and violence against children.  But I recognize all of these things.  So me saying "as I see it" doesn't prove your point, because the way I see it is honest by your own standards.  I recognize taxation as theft by means of government force, I recognize hitting children as child abuse, I recognize these things.  Still, as I see it, honesty does not necessarily produce safety.  So I stand by my stance on this, unless I'm still failing to understand what you're conveying here? 

 

Edit: If what you are saying is threat detection is crucial to safety, well, that I agree with.  But that's an entirely different statement than "safety comes from honesty".

[AccuTron]

As I understand it:

 

Old Testament said it was okay to slaughter villages if they're in your way and you're Jewish.  (See Palestine in the late '40's to see this continued.)

New Testament, which supersedes the Old, presents Jesus as the Prince of Peace, the ultimate non-aggessor, not counting tossing a few temple vendors from the courtyard.

 

Early Mohammed was a nobody in an unhappy place.  His original message was peace and inclusiveness.  Over time, Mohammed's battles became successful, his followers grew tremendously, and his writings tended to become more "kill anyone who isn't us."  (Note that Jesus was not a warlord.)

 

The Koran is taught as whatever was written later supersedes what was written earlier.  So as written, Islam WAS of peace, but became something more like Krupp Armaments.

 

There is a local Muslim (I presume) liquor store.  The men I see wear head cloth from that part of the world where that is done, don't know which country yet.  They are SO pleasant and peaceful; in fact I'll drop by again just to chat it up, see who they are.

[BradleyHillman]

As I understand it:

 

Old Testament said it was okay to slaughter villages if they're in your way and you're Jewish. (See Palestine in the late '40's to see this continued.)

New Testament, which supersedes the Old, presents Jesus as the Prince of Peace, the ultimate non-aggessor, not counting tossing a few temple vendors from the courtyard.

 

Early Mohammed was a nobody in an unhappy place. His original message was peace and inclusiveness. Over time, his battles...note that Jesus was not a warlord...became successful, his followers grew tremendously, and his writings (Koranuggets) tended to become more "kill anyone who isn't us."

 

The Koran is taught as whatever was written later supersedes what was written earlier. So as written, Islam WAS of peace, but became something more like Krupp Armaments.

 

There is a local Muslim (I presume) liquor store. The men I see wear head cloth from that part of the world where that is done, don't know which country yet. They are SO pleasant and peaceful; in fact I'll drop by again just to chat it up, see who they are.

Muslims can't drink alcohol. Almost definitely Sikh and they are considered enemies of Islam by many Muslim folks. You should google Sikh And see if that's what you are talking about. Muhammad was a scum bag. So is Allah. There is very little peace in their book. Read the blog post I wrote with passages from the Quran in it.

 

Also source on Jesus was a warlord?

[Copper_Heart]

There was woman crying. Every one was kind of ignoring her. A Muslim guy in his 50, wearing a turban. He said:

 

 

Why are you crying helplessly woman! If you need help, ask for help!

 

Now, I am almost sure, he was not on welfare. There are good muslims, but I doubt any of them come to Europe.

 

Europe gave the lowest incentive to come here, so only the lowest people come. There was a clip on Somalian who left UK because he is a businessman and he ain't gonna deal with your Wester bureaucracy. Now he is herding camels in Somalia. Happily.

 

Europe has become a hell hole and every hell spawn is attracted to it. It is not like Merkel says "Only noblest of the souls are allowed to enter". She only invites losers. 

[BradleyHillman]

There was woman crying. Every one was kind of ignoring her. A Muslim guy in his 50, wearing a turban. He said:

 

 

Now, I am almost sure, he was not on welfare. There are good muslims, but I doubt any of them come to Europe.

 

Europe gave the lowest incentive to come here, so only the lowest people come. There was a clip on Somalian who left UK because he is a businessman and he ain't gonna deal with your Wester bureaucracy. Now he is herding camels in Somalia. Happily.

 

Europe has become a hell hole and every hell spawn is attracted to it. It is not like Merkel says "Only noblest of the souls are allowed to enter". She only invites losers. 

Was she a Muslim?  If not that's weird especially given:

 

The Quran says that people of other religions are to be violently punished in this world. Allah himself fights against the unbelievers (9:30), so why should Muslims not fight in his cause rather than in the cause of evil (4:76)?   About 19% of the Quran is devoted to the violent conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.   More text from the Quran supporting my assertion that the teachings of Islam would go against a Muslim helping a non Muslim:

 

•   Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)
• Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.
•  Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.  Verse 5:60 says the unbelievers are unclean.  
• Verse 6:111 says they are ignorant.  Verse 23:55 says they are helpers of the devil.
• Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs.  
• This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.  
• A hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).
• Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than the demons who believe in Muhammad.
•   Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
• The Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his entire life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims  rank somewhere between “feces” and the “sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food."
• The only acceptable position of non-Muslims to Muslims is subjugation under Islamic rule:
• Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29 Jizya is the money that non-Muslims must pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)

 

I understand there are good Muslims, those are my target with these posts, because if a Muslim is good by my standards it shouldn't be too difficult to convince them not to be a Muslim.  I understand all religions have flaws, they all have highly questionable seemingly violent passages, but there is a fundamental difference between Islam and the other "big four" religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism).  The Quran actively advocates a hostile takeover of the world in the name of Allah.   Christianity may have done the same, but they'd be hard-pressed to support their actions with passages from the text without completely disregarding the actual context of the passage.

[Copper_Heart]

Was she a Muslim?  If not that's weird especially given:

 

I understand there are good Muslims, those are my target with these posts, because if a Muslim is good by my standards it shouldn't be too difficult to convince them not to be a Muslim.  I understand all religions have flaws, they all have highly questionable seemingly violent passages, but there is a fundamental difference between Islam and the other "big four" religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism).  The Quran actively advocates a hostile takeover of the world in the name of Allah.   Christianity may have done the same, but they'd be hard-pressed to support their actions with passages from the text without completely disregarding the actual context of the passage.

 

No, she was local.

 

No, look I agree on all points. If you know that an assassin is out to kill you and he is in a sheep's closing you pretty much get us far from ship as possible. Same way you do not look for which muslim is ok. I just wanted to point out, that lowest common denominator in this case is welfare. I just doubt that any thing good will ever come to welfare no matter the belief system.

 

An I am really sorry to see Germany and Sweden in the state that they currently are.

 

My point is, I know what you are saying is all true, but how you are going to repair it? My best bet is ending welfare in general, but I am afraid that germanic race is lost. And I am not even german.

[AccuTron]

...

Also source on Jesus was a warlord?

I said "...note that Jesus was not a warlord..."   

I see how it could be confusing putting both in the same sentence.  I'll edit with parentheses.

 

And yes, now that you mention it, almost certainly Sikh.  If I correctly recognize the headwear.

 

Thanks for the Quran quotes.

[BradleyHillman]

This topic is really relevant again following the Paris attacks and Stefan's repeated denunciation of Islam.  The religion of peace has struck again and between 115 and 150 are dead.  Global Jihad is being waged on a scale unseen before in modern times.  These truly are scary times we live in.

[Anuojat]

God dammit, i wished it was less dangerous to speak your mind and be honest.

 

With statists, i will get at worst shouted down and barred or demotivated to seek certain careers.

 

With muslims, theres randomness. Some will get angry other will think about it a bit, and the rest will want my damn head!

 

If i instead speak the truth about the welfare state, immigration and state intervention i believe the more cunning muslims want me dead too and thus why i dont speak... yet. Doesn anyone have any idea hoe to speak honestly without fear of death?

[shirgall]

I don't tell many people my tenet that all of the Abrahamic religions are bloodthirsty creations of the Bronze Age and need to be discarded. There are plenty of ways to keep the good things of the religious (the community, the protection and raising of children, the comfort of the suffering, the charity for the unlucky) without having a foundation of lies and manipulation.

[BradleyHillman]

God dammit, i wished it was less dangerous to speak your mind and be honest.

 

With statists, i will get at worst shouted down and barred or demotivated to seek certain careers.

 

With muslims, theres randomness. Some will get angry other will think about it a bit, and the rest will want my damn head!

 

If i instead speak the truth about the welfare state, immigration and state intervention i believe the more cunning muslims want me dead too and thus why i dont speak... yet. Doesn anyone have any idea hoe to speak honestly without fear of death?

 

It's our responsibility to be honest and speak out against evil regardless of the danger it may bring us.  Especially in the West where we have free speech laws in most nations.

I don't tell many people my tenet that all of the Abrahamic religions are bloodthirsty creations of the Bronze Age and need to be discarded. There are plenty of ways to keep the good things of the religious (the community, the protection and raising of children, the comfort of the suffering, the charity for the unlucky) without having a foundation of lies and manipulation.

 

They aren't.  I'm an atheist but I cringe every time I see a fellow atheist compare Christianity and Judaism to Islam.  You're actually dead wrong.  They aren't comparable.  Islam is infinitely times more violent and evil than the other two.  Yes, Judaism has some jewish supremacist verses in their text.  Yes, Jesus said "I bring not peace, but a sword..."  Those two portions of their respective holy text absolutely do not compare to the 17% of the Quran dedicated to the subjugation and enslavement of nonmuslims.  I know literally dozens of Christians who are good, yet stupid, people and without their religion they would probably be shit people.  I know Stefan disagrees, and I'm sure most of the community would too, but you're simply wrong for acting as if the other Abrahamic religions are nearly as bad as Islam.

[Snafui]

With collectivist thinking, peace is from forcing everyone to agree with you; if they do not you kill them for the greater good. Collectivism leads to slaughter. The source of the collectivism is not relevant nor any adjective attached to it.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's our responsibility to be honest and speak out against evil regardless of the danger it may bring us.  Especially in the West where we have free speech laws in most nations.

 

They aren't.  I'm an atheist but I cringe every time I see a fellow atheist compare Christianity and Judaism to Islam.  You're actually dead wrong.  They aren't comparable.  Islam is infinitely times more violent and evil than the other two.  Yes, Judaism has some jewish supremacist verses in their text.  Yes, Jesus said "I bring not peace, but a sword..."  Those two portions of their respective holy text absolutely do not compare to the 17% of the Quran dedicated to the subjugation and enslavement of nonmuslims.  I know literally dozens of Christians who are good, yet stupid, people and without their religion they would probably be shit people.  I know Stefan disagrees, and I'm sure most of the community would too, but you're simply wrong for acting as if the other Abrahamic religions are nearly as bad as Islam.

Christianity and Judaism aren't, at root, political ideologies.  Islam is.  It is highly political, dedicating a huge amount of text towards how to treat the kafirs (unbelievers).  It is a dualist religion:  there is one law for the Muslims and one law for the kafir.  Contrast this with Christianity's doctrine of the Good Samaritan and all being equal before Christ.

 

When it comes to history, let the historical record of Islamic aggression (war, enslavement, rape, theft, murder, desecration) speak for itself:

 

[shirgall]

It's our responsibility to be honest and speak out against evil regardless of the danger it may bring us.  Especially in the West where we have free speech laws in most nations.

 

They aren't.  I'm an atheist but I cringe every time I see a fellow atheist compare Christianity and Judaism to Islam.  You're actually dead wrong.  They aren't comparable.  Islam is infinitely times more violent and evil than the other two.  Yes, Judaism has some jewish supremacist verses in their text.  Yes, Jesus said "I bring not peace, but a sword..."  Those two portions of their respective holy text absolutely do not compare to the 17% of the Quran dedicated to the subjugation and enslavement of nonmuslims.  I know literally dozens of Christians who are good, yet stupid, people and without their religion they would probably be shit people.  I know Stefan disagrees, and I'm sure most of the community would too, but you're simply wrong for acting as if the other Abrahamic religions are nearly as bad as Islam.

 

I didn't compare them to one another, only to not having them. I don't care that Christianity is less violent than Islam, it's still more violent than not-Christianity.

[BradleyHillman]

Christianity and Judaism aren't, at root, political ideologies.  Islam is.  It is highly political, dedicating a huge amount of text towards how to treat the kafirs (unbelievers).  It is a dualist religion:  there is one law for the Muslims and one law for the kafir.  Contrast this with Christianity's doctrine of the Good Samaritan and all being equal before Christ.

 

When it comes to history, let the historical record of Islamic aggression (war, enslavement, rape, theft, murder, desecration) speak for itself:

 

 

Thank you!  That video will be a huge help I've already found use for it (discourse on my blog with kebab apologists).  Great information!

 

I didn't compare them to one another, only to not having them. I don't care that Christianity is less violent than Islam, it's still more violent than not-Christianity.

 I apologize for misunderstanding then.  I interpreted what you said differently but I do understand now what you're saying and you're not wrong. 

 

Although ideologically I am agreeing, though, I do know stupid Christians with horrible cognitive dissonance who likely would be worse people without their faith.  They have no critical thinking skills and honestly I think the threat of eternal damnation is actually the only thing that promotes morality in their lives. 

[bugzysegal]

Here is a very good debate on the topic: 

 

I side with Magid Nawaz. He doesn't deny that the doctrines contain dangerous ideas, or that certain people follow them to the worlds detriment. His argument is rather that within that set of ideas there are ways of achieving pluralism. He is an ex-Jihadist who now runs an organization whose sole purpose is the de-radicalization of Muslim youth. He has a book coming out with Sam Harris called "moving forward." His great point is that we aren't going to convince 1.5 billion Muslims to become atheists, but we might foster the argument that their is room for a Muslim Renaissance.  Again, whether or not the texts urge peace or not is irrelevant, just look at Christianity. The fact is, there is a problem of Islamo-fascism right now and a cultural change must ensue. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I didn't compare them to one another, only to not having them. I don't care that Christianity is less violent than Islam, it's still more violent than not-Christianity.

 

How is Christianity, today, violent, shirgall?

Progressives, in their quest for ultimate tolerance, become tolerant of intolerance. That's all there is to this rhetoric.

 

But they're scrupulously never, I note, tolerant of pro-Western intolerance.

[J. D. Stembal]

All religions are based on violence. We shouldn't be picking and choosing among ignorant and violent world beliefs to find which are more noble or virtuous.

[dsayers]

All religions are based on violence. We shouldn't be picking and choosing among ignorant and violent world beliefs to find which are more noble or virtuous.

Don't know why this was downvoted. If you think irrationally, you are dangerous. It's exactly what I was saying up front. Focusing on one system of irrational beliefs is to address the symptom, not the problem.

[Donnadogsoth]

All religions are based on violence. We shouldn't be picking and choosing among ignorant and violent world beliefs to find which are more noble or virtuous.

 

Jainism is based on violence?

[shirgall]

How is Christianity, today, violent, shirgall?

 

Ever been to Ireland? Admittedly I lived through the 70s and 80s in real time so maybe it seems more real to me.

 

Ever heard a candidate for president claim that atheists shouldn't have the right to vote? I did.

 

Ever been promised eternal reward or threatened with eternal damnation when you were a child?

 

Ever seen a funeral "protested" by Westboro Baptist Church?

 

How about this pastor? https://boingboing.net/2015/11/09/famous-right-pastor-if-my-son.html

 

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of good things Christians do, but they have not forsaken the Bible yet.

 

Why are we derailing on this? There is no redemption for the big lie of omnipotent god, no matter what his trappings might be.

[J. D. Stembal]

Don't know why this was downvoted. If you think irrationally, you are dangerous. It's exactly what I was saying up front. Focusing on one system of irrational beliefs is to address the symptom, not the problem.

 

Finally, a philosopher that gets it.

[Anuojat]

It's our responsibility to be honest and speak out against evil regardless of the danger it may bring us.  Especially in the West where we have free speech laws in most nations.

 

Free speech aint no protection againt knives and bullets. When it comes to statists i am willing to speak, when it comes to muslims i dont think so and i do not think it would foward the cause of reason, freedom and ostracism towards muslims IF its violently dangerous to do so.

[Donnadogsoth]

Ever been to Ireland? Admittedly I lived through the 70s and 80s in real time so maybe it seems more real to me.
 
I'm sure Ireland had something political going on that the religious difference merely exacerbated.  Religious strife is not the norm in the contemporary West.
 

Ever heard a candidate for president claim that atheists shouldn't have the right to vote? I did.
 
No.  It must be vanishingly rare.
 
Ever been promised eternal reward or threatened with eternal damnation when you were a child?
 
No, actually, and I was raised Catholic.
 
Ever seen a funeral "protested" by Westboro Baptist Church?
 
No, but are they representative of Christendom?  All, what 12 of them?
 
How about this pastor? https://boingboing.net/2015/11/09/famous-right-pastor-if-my-son.html
 
I might consider doing the same.
 
The "big lie" is that there is no Origin, that everything emerged from nothing for no reason.  That's the "big lie."
 
/derail

[shirgall]

Ever heard a candidate for president claim that atheists shouldn't have the right to vote? I did.

 

No.  It must be vanishingly rare.

 

 

George Herbert Walker Bush, and he actually won that election.

[BradleyHillman]

Actually as I've said before and I'll say again Islam is fundamentally different than the other Abrahamic religions.  Rather or not the other religions are violent ideologies doesn't change the fact Islam is much more violent in practice.  The spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, the terrorism of the KKK, and anything Westboro baptist church ever did all pale in comparison to just what Islamic radicals have done in just the years between 2000-2015.  I'm baffled by the lack of pragmatism shown here by those suggesting we should treat all religions equally just because we are atheists.  You are exactly the cringe-worthy types of atheists that make theists so hostile towards our worldview.  Live and let live.  Islam doesn't practice that at all unlike the majority of people who practice the other religions being mentioned.

 

[dsayers]

I'm baffled by the lack of pragmatism shown here by those suggesting we should treat all religions equally just because we are atheists.

Is this what was said? Or is it being pointed out that irrational thought is the problem and one religion is a symptom?

[Donnadogsoth]

George Herbert Walker Bush, and he actually won that election.

 

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

--http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

 

And this counts as violence to you?  A Christian said words that offend you?

Actually as I've said before and I'll say again Islam is fundamentally different than the other Abrahamic religions.  Rather or not the other religions are violent ideologies doesn't change the fact Islam is much more violent in practice.  The spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, the terrorism of the KKK, and anything Westboro baptist church ever did all pale in comparison to just what Islamic radicals have done in just the years between 2000-2015.  I'm baffled by the lack of pragmatism shown here by those suggesting we should treat all religions equally just because we are atheists.  You are exactly the cringe-worthy types of atheists that make theists so hostile towards our worldview.  Live and let live.  Islam doesn't practice that at all unlike the majority of people who practice the other religions being mentioned.

 

 

That's an intriguing blue bubble you've got there.  Unfortunately the link is broken.  Do you have a link to information backing up what you've said?  I don't need it to know that Islam is a piece of work, but it will help to persuade the fence-sitters.

[dsayers]

My childhood, identity, and sexual "normalcy" were stolen from me as the result of Christianity being inflicted upon me. As a "Christianity survivor," I can speak first hand as to the violence of Christianity. Feel free to ignore this data that conflicts with your conclusion on account of none of my blood was spilled.

 

Even if you could make the case that Christianity isn't violent present day, what would that prove? Make spousal abuse illegal and you just end up with more secretive and sophisticated abusers. You don't cure the abuse. I think you're just looking for a way to ignore the truth when it doesn't suit you.

 

Government is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. What a politician wants regarding the rights of others is unethical in theory as it would be immoral in practice. The point is that if it's rooted in irrationality, it is dangerous. It doesn't matter what you call the particular flavor of irrationality.