How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[syd syside]

I don't understand the focus on suicide bombing, what is it exactly that is so abhorrent about it? Civilian deaths I guess? It's dishonorable?

Obviously conventional warfare isn't a very viable option for these groups. I'm sure if the situation were flipped they wouldn't bother with suicide bombing. Why blow yourself up when you can sit in a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room and simply press buttons on a computer to kill enemy combatants and civilians.

The US/Western government do abhorrent acts of violence too. Something everyone in this thread criticizes. Rightfully so.

 

Islamic fascists do abhorrent acts of violence. Something not everyone in this thread criticizes. Instead they label these criticisms and concerns as racist.

 

I as an individual care about individuals first... because I have my own ideals/morals that are separate from the state (thankfully I can express this due to freedom of speech/freedom of religion: something Islamic nations have less of).

 

So I am avoiding the Us. Vs. Them mentality that the Islamic apologists are proposing, by sticking up for individuals in the Middle East who are indoctrinated to blow themselves up because religious fanatics tell them that they will reach paradise. I am also critical of Islam as I think culturally it has regressed information, science, and education in those regions (like all religions have done to certain extents). If we can get good public discourse moving in the West we might be able to help individuals in the Middle East who don't want to fall in line with religious fanatics but have to because of fear.

[DerWaschbar]

Well at least we are technologically superior (better than morally so, imo).

[MisterE]

if i say 'hey Joe, you are a real shitheel, ya know that'

 

and you step in and say 'MisterE, he's no worse than you. last week i saw you eat a booger'

 

what would that be smett?

 

it would be you defending Joe.

 

if someone in this thread says 'i think islam may be more violent than other religions' and you step in and say 'christianity has killed a lot of people 2 guise!' that is you defending islam. this isn't hard to understand.

 

have you ever gone into a thread about how catholic priests get all rapey and said 'hey guys, what about islam? i heard they like to do little kids too!'? rhetorical question (because i know the answer). have you ever once defended christianity/catholicism in one of the threads where the majority of ppl posting are on board with the criticism against the religion (unlike those about islam where there are plenty of more vocal defenders), and defended it by pointing out flaws in islam or other religions? maybe you have. once or twice. but i wouldn't bet on it.

[SR4]

Negation of an incorrect and faulty proposition does not equal defense of another ridiculous religion.

 

If you still want to believe I'm a socialist that loves Islam and secretly hates white people, so be it. Nothing is going to change your mind on this. To start looking around for things to dig up to counter each faulty assumption and argument lobbed around in here with wikipedia quotes would be wasting even more time than I have spent on this already.

[DerWaschbar]

Eating boogers is def more moral than being a shitheel though.

[syd syside]

 

Well at least we are technologically superior (better than morally so, imo).

 

And I think this stems partly from Islam...

 

quote name="compson" post="1979324" timestamp="1365158538"]

Further:

 

 

Although the printing press reached Muslim lands from Europe in 1492, Muslim kings banned setting Arabic into type until the early nineteenth century.

 

>An attempt of the same kind had been made by Achmet III., so early as the year 1727: the oulemas gave their consent, but it was rendered nugatory, by excepting the Koran, for a reason, as Mr. Walsh observes, ‘ characteristic of the people—they said it would be an act of impiety if the word of God should be squeezed and pressed together; but the true cause was, that great numbers of themselves earned a considerable income by transcribing those books, which would be at once destroyed, if suffered to be printed.’ As Turks read nothing else but the Koran, the printing-office was soon discontinued. Its renewal by Selim had no better success; it languished and declined on the death of its patron, ‘ who fell a victim to the rage of the Janissaries, for attempting to innovate upon their ancient and venerable ignorance.’

 

The Sultan Bajazet II. issued a decree in 1483 forbidding the use of printed books by the Turks, under penalty of death. This decree was afterwards confirmed by his son Selim I. in 1515, and implicitly obeyed by the Mohammedans, with equal ignorance and fanaticism, until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them.

 

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/03/07/printing-banned-by-islam/

 

And that this stark difference, while not conclusive, might give of us an idea of how different religions have different affects on society. Further negating the notion that all religions should be criticized equally.

[DerWaschbar]

Sounds like they were just making loads of cash transcribing books and using Islam as a greasy excuse.

Same reason we had the post office uprising/violence around the time email came out.

[syd syside]

Sounds like they were just making loads of cash transcribing books and using Islam as a greasy excuse.

 

My post is all fucked cause quoting is major glitchy right now... but yes. I am not saying Arabs are dumb or less technologically capable of the West. It's not a racist criticism. Which is why the Islamophobe stuff is silly.

 

My argument is that Islam is a major cause for why they did not advance. Specifically because of certain unique differences in the Koran that allow religious fascist to justify terrible acts against humanity.

 

We all know that religion can be used as a tool to control people. So why is it so difficult to see that it is currently being used in that way in the Middle East? It's the Islamic fascist that are keeping people intolerant and violent. Has nothing to do with their skin color. Western imperialism certainly adds tension and justification for these religious fascists to thrive. Which is why I am of the stance that both should be criticized and why Islam compared to Christianity (present day) is a bigger threat to humanity.

[Guest Iain C]

Compson, I never thought I'd reach the point where I'd get sick of arguing with you, but I'm rapidly getting there. I want to let the thread die like it probably should at this point, but a couple of things:

 

 

 

So what you've done is taken my example of Tibet, being killed/oppressed etc, generalized Tibet Buddhism as the same as Burma Buddhist. Then concluded that because Burma Buddhist killed Muslims (without addressing my original point), that therefore all Religions are equally violent?

 

 

My point is that is that followers of any religion are equally capable of violence in the right geopolitical context, and that singling out one religion as uniquely violent ignoring the complicated and multifaceted causes of violent conflict and instead using it to judge other people in hugely different situations is stupid, dangerous and ignorant. Do you think every single Muslim has the potential to become a suicide bomber?

 

Nobody's saying that "all religions are equally violent," stop creating ridiculous arguments that literally nobody in the thread is making.

 

To prove my point. Let's look at current conflicts compared to the Sri Lankan Civil War that you propose equates Atheism as being the root for violence and suicide martyrdom (an absurd claim).

 

Where the hell did I say "atheism is the root for violence"? I pointed out that some LTTE leaders were atheists and most members were Hindus because those beliefs are not Islam and yet their practicioners still endorsed or carried out suicide attacks. That is the only way in which the Sri Lankan conflict is relevant.

 

 

Syrian War has estimates up to 120,000 deaths thus far. From only 2 years of civil war.

 

While...

 

The Sri Lankan civil war was very costly, killing an estimated 80,000-100,000 people.^[1] The deaths include 27,639 Tamil fighters, more than 21,066 Sri Lankan soldiers, 1000 Sri Lankan police, 1500 Indian soldiers, and tens of thousands of civilians.^{[citation needed]}

 

This is over a period of 26 years....

 

Possibly one of the least-relevant comparisons you could possibly make. The way you present these figures suggests that the only difference between the conflicts is that the Syrian war involves Muslims, which is so stunningly ignorant I can barely believe it. Never mind the demographics or geographics of the countries, never mind the nature of the weapons used in warfare (a huge proportion of the deaths in Syria are coming from air bombardment).The fact that you would use this to reinforce the point that Islam is somehow especially evil is staggering.

 

It's all the more baffling because the conflict in Syria could hardly be called religiously motivated. It began as a popular uprising against an authoritarian dictatorship. Of course some of the combatants are religiously motivated but to somehow claim that all the deaths in the Syrian conflict can be pinned on Islam is just silly, it's like saying everyone who died in WW2 died because of Christianity.

 

 

Moving beyond a load of irrelevant stuff:

 

Support for Suicide Bombing
Is suicide bombing justifiable?Percent of Muslims responding Often/sometimes justified (2011)

Palestinian ter. 68% Lebanon 35% Egypt 28% Israel 20% Jordan 13% Indonesia 10% Turkey 7% Pakistan 5%

 

So which religion appears to justify Suicide bombings most in this modern age?

 

I think the answer is fairly clear.

 

 

 

If you don't understand that the Palestinian conflict goes way beyond a mere religious dispute then I don't know what to say. Saying this is due to the influence of Islam is ridiculous. For a start, it's a grossly asymmetric conflict, which more than else explains why suicide bombing is so prevalent. Nobody's here is arguing that it's justified, they're saying it's happening for complicated reasons that should not be used to condemn, vilify or demonise the world's 1bn+ Muslims. It's such a myopically ignorant way of looking at the world.

 

 

And if you think that there is justification for killing innocent civilians (which is what Palestinian terrorism aims to do) then you are morally bankrupt as a human being.

 

Stop it, absolutely nobody is saying that.

 

 

 

 

yet we have over 60% of Palestinians supporting the notion that strapping a bomb to their child and sending him into a civilian neighborhood is somehow justified?

 

For fuck's sake. Do you really think the question was worded "Do you often/sometimes support strapping a bomb to your child and sending him into a civilian neighbourhood"? That's not argument, that's ridiculous rhetoric.

 

 

 

I'm sure you'll reply and we'll start the whole carousel off again, forgive me if this is my last effort though cause this is getting fucking boring.

[Guest Iain C]

I don't understand the focus on suicide bombing, what is it exactly that is so abhorrent about it? Civilian deaths I guess? It's dishonorable?

Obviously conventional warfare isn't a very viable option for these groups. I'm sure if the situation were flipped they wouldn't bother with suicide bombing. Why blow yourself up when you can sit in a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room and simply press buttons on a computer to kill enemy combatants and civilians.

 

This is exactly right too. Suicide bombing is frightening on a primal level. To think of a combatant who's willing to die to take you out is a scary thought. I'm sure it scared the shit out of people who came up against kamakaze pilots in WW2, too. But somebody who dies from a suicide bombing and somebody who dies from an airstrike or a drone strike both die a painful, violent death. Is it somehow more immoral if both involve civilian deaths? I'm not so sure.

[MisterE]

if you try to say thing A is no worse than thing B to counter accusations that thing A is pretty bad, then yes smett. that is you defending thing A. you can try to deny this but you might as well be denying that the sun is hot. and your use of these types of defenses is consistent. you don't go into threads railing against christianity and point out that some of those same faults exist in islam.

you do go into threads with even the smallest hint of criticism against islam, to point out faults in christianity.

 

the fact that you won't acknowledge this for what it is, doesn't surprise me one bit. it's your #1 style. deny things that should be undeniable. if you coming in here with the explicit purpose of defending islam isn't actually you defending islam, then all words just might as well cease to have any meaning. you accuse people critical of islam of being probable racists, and that's not you defending islam. you are worse than bill clinton talking about the definition of 'is'. if i thought it could convince even a typical juror i'd suggest maybe you should have been a lawyer.

[syd syside]

Compson, I never thought I'd reach the point where I'd get sick of arguing with you, but I'm rapidly getting there. I want to let the thread die like it probably should at this point, but a couple of things:

 

 

 

So what you've done is taken my example of Tibet, being killed/oppressed etc, generalized Tibet Buddhism as the same as Burma Buddhist. Then concluded that because Burma Buddhist killed Muslims (without addressing my original point), that therefore all Religions are equally violent?

 

 

My point is that is that followers of any religion are equally capable of violence in the right geopolitical context, and that singling out one religion as uniquely violent ignoring the complicated and multifaceted causes of violent conflict and instead using it to judge other people in hugely different situations is stupid, dangerous and ignorant. Do you think every single Muslim has the potential to become a suicide bomber?

 

Nobody's saying that "all religions are equally violent," stop creating ridiculous arguments that literally nobody in the thread is making.

 

>>>

To prove my point. Let's look at current conflicts compared to the Sri Lankan Civil War that you propose equates Atheism as being the root for violence and suicide martyrdom (an absurd claim).

 

Where the hell did I say "atheism is the root for violence"? I pointed out that some LTTE leaders were atheists and most members were Hindus because those beliefs are not Islam and yet their practicioners still endorsed or carried out suicide attacks. That is the only way in which the Sri Lankan conflict is relevant.

 

 

Syrian War has estimates up to 120,000 deaths thus far. From only 2 years of civil war.

 

While...

 

The Sri Lankan civil war was very costly, killing an estimated 80,000-100,000 people.^[1] The deaths include 27,639 Tamil fighters, more than 21,066 Sri Lankan soldiers, 1000 Sri Lankan police, 1500 Indian soldiers, and tens of thousands of civilians.^{[citation needed]}

 

This is over a period of 26 years....

 

Possibly one of the least-relevant comparisons you could possibly make. The way you present these figures suggests that the only difference between the conflicts is that the Syrian war involves Muslims, which is so stunningly ignorant I can barely believe it. Never mind the demographics or geographics of the countries, never mind the nature of the weapons used in warfare (a huge proportion of the deaths in Syria are coming from air bombardment).The fact that you would use this to reinforce the point that Islam is somehow especially evil is staggering.

 

It's all the more baffling because the conflict in Syria could hardly be called religiously motivated. It began as a popular uprising against an authoritarian dictatorship. Of course some of the combatants are religiously motivated but to somehow claim that all the deaths in the Syrian conflict can be pinned on Islam is just silly, it's like saying everyone who died in WW2 died because of Christianity.

 

 

Moving beyond a load of irrelevant stuff:

 

Support for Suicide Bombing

Is suicide bombing justifiable?Percent of Muslims responding Often/sometimes justified (2011)

Palestinian ter. 68% Lebanon 35% Egypt 28% Israel 20% Jordan 13% Indonesia 10% Turkey 7% Pakistan 5%

 

So which religion appears to justify Suicide bombings most in this modern age?

 

I think the answer is fairly clear.

 

 

 

If you don't understand that the Palestinian conflict goes way beyond a mere religious dispute then I don't know what to say. Saying this is due to the influence of Islam is ridiculous. For a start, it's a grossly asymmetric conflict, which more than else explains why suicide bombing is so prevalent. Nobody's here is arguing that it's justified, they're saying it's happening for complicated reasons that should not be used to condemn, vilify or demonise the world's 1bn+ Muslims. It's such a myopically ignorant way of looking at the world.

 

 

And if you think that there is justification for killing innocent civilians (which is what Palestinian terrorism aims to do) then you are morally bankrupt as a human being.

 

Stop it, absolutely nobody is saying that.

 

 

 

 

yet we have over 60% of Palestinians supporting the notion that strapping a bomb to their child and sending him into a civilian neighborhood is somehow justified?

 

For fuck's sake. Do you really think the question was worded "Do you often/sometimes support strapping a bomb to your child and sending him into a civilian neighbourhood"? That's not argument, that's ridiculous rhetoric.

 

 

 

I'm sure you'll reply and we'll start the whole carousel off again, forgive me if this is my last effort though cause this is getting fucking boring.

 

More dancing. But here it goes:

 

You began your argument suggesting that Islam isn't being used to justify suicide bombings because some people far across the globe in Sri Lanka who were Atheist also suicide bombed. Of course any kind of human being is capable of any kind of act of violence.

 

I agree that my comparison with Sri Lanka and Syria is absurd. Which is why your generalization that Tibet Buddhist are just as capable of violence as Muslims because Burma Buddhists used violence was silly. I was simply pointing this out. Tricky eh?

 

The reason I originally brought up Tibet is to showcase how similar acts of imperialism and innocent civilian deaths do not always equate to a violent response. Clearly there are differences in culture and morals that are the root to suicide killings.

 

Which is why the burden of proof is on you to showcase how the Buddhist religion promotes just as much violence as Islam. If you can showcase this with facts then I concede completely. The fact that Tibetan people do not have a 68% belief in suicide bombing justification against the Chinese showcases this.

 

Another point, just because the Syrian conflict is not entirely religious does not mean that Islamic fascism doesn't have more violent tendencies. If someone thinks that they will go to paradise by defending their God with violence, then they are more likely to find justification with violence in general.

 

On Palestine. What are the complicated reasons used to justify suicide bombings in Palestine? Or the hundreds/thousands of rockets being launched into civilian neighborhoods (Israel having a 20%+ population of Arabs)?

 

The point is why are people motivated to justify these acts against innocent lives?

 

No one is condemning 1 billion peaceful Muslims. I am condemning violence, intolerance and religious fascism.

 

Just look at North Korea, this is an example of totalitarianism, nationalism, racism. Which are all deeply propagated into the North Korean people because of the inability for individuals to dissent and speak freely. It's the systems in place that breeds violence against innocent lives. And one of those systems being Islamic fascism.

 

That's been my argument the whole time. You just need to keep generalizing this as me being racist or condemning Arabs (1 Billion people). I want Arabs to be able to believe in whatever they want, so long as they are free to dissent against it and don't perpetuate crimes against women, gays, and children.

[Guest disparaissant]

i simply meant compson's collection of posts have come to resemble some weird fantastic postmodern art project rather than a set of ideas, let alone theories, upon which a discussion could be built.

having skimmed this thread, i have to say the nail was hit on the head with this post. everyone owes alcofribas a drink.

[syd syside]

I'll take the post modern critique as a compliment

 

But, and alco is a cool guy, he is wrong.

 

The debate is on... are specified criticisms towards the Islamic religion an example of islamophobia or racism?

 

Bare in mind, specified criticism of Christianity includes child rape, intolerance of homosexuals and women inequality.

 

One side is suggesting that aspects of the Islamic religion, specifically Islamic fascism (ie totalitarianism) is more present in the world than of other popular religions. Therefore, if you are an atheist, wouldn't Islam be the most concerning and therefore damaging religious institution of present day?

 

Further, if you claim an atheist is racist or islamophobic for thinking this, does that make him/her a supporter of US foreign policy? Basically are we to conclude that any form of rational criticism towards a religion is to be censored? And if that is to be believed, then is that not Islamic fascism.

 

All in all, one side has decided where they stand. The other side are the ones who need to start proposing some theories and ideas on how to spread Islam across the globe. Cause I have heard none.

[Guest Iain C]

You are insane.

[syd syside]

You are insane.

 

Day by day by day you are changing my views that maybe Islam is not as bad as religious moderates. At least they return with an argument based on evidence, rather then simply slander and characterize those who disagree.

[Guest disparaissant]

Compson you should go back to having a Pilkington avatar. Your posts made so much more sense when they appeared to come from him.

[syd syside]

 

Question to bare in mind, is do you support religious fanatics?

 

[syd syside]

rude

 

 

 

two things...

 

"his knowledge, both historical and present-day, is limited and selected"

 

+

 

"he doesn't know any Muslims"

 

My criticisms are indeed selected/ towards islamic fascists. And they are limited as I fully admit to not knowing everything. I don't know the meaning of life or the solution to world problems. I discuss/debate to help better understand how the world works. I want people to respond with ideas based on evidence. So please expand on what your worldview is. I would appreciate being proven wrong rather then just being told I am weak and ignorant.

 

Did you look at that poll... the people who think murdering someone for leaving a religion are fascists. Its completely immoral. No where have I said I think all Muslims think this way. So the argument that my knowledge of the Koran is too limited to be objective (as posed against Richard Dawkins) is absurd.

 

 

 

 

Please quote where I claimed all Muslims are anything. I hate Islam, I hate Christianity, I think people can believe that shit and still be cool, but I also think that fanatics within both are dangerous to individual liberty.

[syd syside]

[syd syside]

"we are talking about people here, and that is pretty much the most complicated, unpredictable and oblique thing you can talk about. I maintain that you cannot speak authoritatively about any peoples unless you've actually had some first-hand experience with them. I mean, in compson's case, he even goes as far as to try and dictate policy, lol. without even knowing who he's talking about! as if."

 

missed this gem, which proves your confirmation bias. And I'll back that up with clear evidence.

 

I want the people of those places to be able to dictate their own policy and not be ruled by religious fanatics. As we have seen what Christianity has done and still perpetuates. Which is why I am against both institutions. And as an individual, separate from the state, I can freely express my views and criticisms towards these institutions. And that through public discourse and protest (non-violent) we can empower people to do the same where they live. Which in some parts of the world they can't out of fear. They can't have this kind of discussion publicly or they will be sent to prison or killed. Clear oppression of the mind. And I am sure many people disagree with this, but because the state has so much control over them with Islam, there is no clear way to revolution.

[luke viia]

compson, i really suggest you get to know some muslims personally - it's not hard to find them here in seattle, i go to school with quite a few and you may too - and you will most probably find that they don't typically think they're being ruled by religious fanatics, and would probably be confused by the idea of being liberated from their own religion. and IME they aren't religious fanatics themselves. they are regular and intelligent people, and i just recommend you befriend some of them so that you might get a firsthand look at their world; i've learned quite a bit by making casual friends with a young dude from jordan who had recently been on border patrol, he is incredibly articulate, has a very well-functioning moral compass and is passionate about what he's been through and it was quite illuminating to be able to hear his story and ask him about his experience growing up. reading political bloggery about a subject is all well and good but i think it really helps to know at least a couple people from a particular culture if you're curious about it...

 

2cents and all that

[syd syside]

I'm only referring to Islamic fascists. How is this confusing to you guys?

 

Do any of your friends think they can murder another if they leave their religion? The absurdity of political correctness is that it amplifies stereotypes or at least it subjects one to affirm their morality at the expense of censoring their own beliefs / disagreements. It's like you would have more courage to criticize a Christian white person that wants to ban abortion, but you'd rather avoid criticizing a Muslim person who wants to ban abortion. You don't help them by not expressing what you think. Everyone makes up their own mind but through the lens of discussion of ideas/information. There should be no issue with challenging any institution as they all by nature have flaws. It's how things improve.

 

Also, it's not like there aren't any Arabs in the world who also hate Islam.

 

See how deep the propaganda has gone... Those who simply label these criticism as not passionate but racist seem less moral to me. And its truly what keeps this discussion away from the real issues. It's part of the reason the United States is so divided imo.

 

I'm okay if you want to call me a racist (everyone is a racist) or give me advice on diversity, but c'mon get on with it people and add some content to the topic [ Is criticism of Islam , Us propaganda or Islamophobia? ]

[Guest zaphod]

you aren't only referring to islamic fascists. not really. you keep saying islam, using that term as a catchall to describe insurgents, extremists, terrorists, etc, just look at the associations you've built. you clearly think "arabs" are all muslims (please define arab for me, it's another blanket term) and muslims are all islamic fascists. you've reiterated this position many, many times in the thread. you're chunking billions of people with different belief systems that fall under an umbrella religion, spread throughout the world, into one very small extremist group. anyone who points this out is a liberal ignoramus who bought into the post 9/11 pro muslim propaganda (are you fucking kidding with this, by the way? outside of some pockets in academia and maybe a few liberal city centers, no one is pro-islam in the united states, other than muslims). most westerners don't know the first thing about islam or the countries located east of the mediterranean. this ignorance is shown again and again in the culture and media. just watch zero dark thirty, where the pakistani characters are speaking arabic.

no one in this thread is empathizing with suicide bombers, jihadists, extremists, etc. you're proving the greenwald article's point. every post you make is an excuse to throw out rhetoric and gross generalizations, not to mention contextless "facts" that have no bearing on reality. i'd recommend a reading list for you, i could share my own experience having a long term relationship with an iranian-american girl who has seen both the positive and negative effects of an islamic state on her own parent's lives, but what's the point? you aren't here for a discussion. you're a troll.

[syd syside]

you aren't only referring to islamic fascists. not really. you keep saying islam, using that term as a catchall to describe insurgents, extremists, terrorists, etc, just look at the associations you've built. you clearly think "arabs" are all muslims (please define arab for me, it's another blanket term) and muslims are all islamic fascists. you've reiterated this position many, many times in the thread. you're chunking billions of people with different belief systems that fall under an umbrella religion, spread throughout the world, into one very small extremist group. anyone who points this out is a liberal ignoramus who bought into the post 9/11 pro muslim propaganda (are you fucking kidding with this, by the way? outside of some pockets in academia and maybe a few liberal city centers, no one is pro-islam in the united states, other than muslims). most westerners don't know the first thing about islam or the countries located east of the mediterranean. this ignorance is shown again and again in the culture and media. just watch zero dark thirty, where the pakistani characters are speaking arabic.

no one in this thread is empathizing with suicide bombers, jihadists, extremists, etc. you're proving the greenwald article's point. every post you make is an excuse to throw out rhetoric and gross generalizations, not to mention contextless "facts" that have no bearing on reality. i'd recommend a reading list for you, i could share my own experience having a long term relationship with an iranian-american girl who has seen both the positive and negative effects of an islamic state on her own parent's lives, but what's the point? you aren't here for a discussion. you're a troll.

 

As an atheist I think all religions are bad. Individual belief is important. But any religious institution that oppress individuals or regresses morals/ethics and society in some ways, is obviously doing harm.

 

When I say I hate Christianity, I am in the clear. According to most here. But not for Islam. I can't have a stance against Islam, is that what you are suggesting?

 

Arabs are not necessarily practicing Islam. Muslims are.

 

 

Oftentimes, Muslim and Arabs are being stereotyped as belonging to each other’s group. Many believe, to this date, that Muslims are Arabs and Arabs are Muslims. However, this is not always the case.

Muslims are individuals embracing the religion Islam, hence Muslims are part of a religious sect.

 

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-muslims-and-arabs/

 

Which is why I used Arabs, in this sentence:

 

Also, it's not like there aren't any Arabs in the world who also hate Islam.

 

My focus against Islam, is that there are aspects of Islamic belief that is against our basic human rights.

 

The videos, polls, and articles I post are directly focused on these extremist aspects of Islam. I am not posting any content that says if you believe in Allah, you are violent or immoral. But that Islamic Fascism, totalitarian belief, is a problem for society. If people can't disagree with a doctrine and this doctrine has immoral laws against individuals, it is a problem. It perpetuates the oppression of women and limits public discourse/scientific thinking. When you have children being forced to be rasied by this doctrine, that is a problem.

 

Islam is a problem if you believe in secularism (freedom from religion) and are against sexism and racism. Same goes for Christianity, as there are Christians who would love to take over the government and do all sorts of crazy shit.