If there were a Muslim lulapilgrim here claiming Islam is more peaceful than other religions, I could see how you'd feel ambushed by my post. There isn't, though. This, again, is more like someone in a restaurant popping up in a loud voice and saying "Muslims are more apt to be violent, you know".

When I argue with Lula about Catholicism, it is a point-to-point, person to person situation. She makes the claim that the inquisition was holy, or that the Church possesses some sort of infallibility, or that there is some sort of mystical succession. Then, I point out where that doesn't hold up, to HER, about her claim.

The Muslims stuff here at JU isn't like that. It's more like a redneck bar, "Religion of peace my ass!!"... followed by hoots of approval, and frankly that's beneath you Brad. I have to ask what real purpose is there in it, when you know the average Muslim that overhears you isn't going to be anything BUT peaceful. Some people here, sure, they wouldn't care, but you?

I know you aren't a bigot, so you'll forgive me for be puzzled at you sounding like one. You wouldn't think of making the point that, say, Black people have more of a propensity to commit crimes because you know that there is a hell of a lot more at work there than just race. You'd know such a point was bogus, and you know how hurtful it would be to the average black person that happened across it.

Well, your point about Islam is the same. There is a lot more at work there, and religion isn't it, because those other aspects need to be there in order to provoke "Islamic violence". We have the religion here, but we don't have the religious violence.



Lol, I don't think it, Brad, I KNOW it. Come on, you think anyone sitting in a church would claim to be an American before a Christian? I'd be willing to bet that less than 20% would put country before God, and I'm really shocked that you think people would.

As for the murder part, I know that to be true, too. Did you see that "Left Behind" game that came out? You realize that is a "war" game, right? You realize that those are people you're killing, followers of the antichrist and all.

Like I said, in discussions of the abortion bombers and doctor snipers I have found that the MINORITY of people I've talked to disapprove. None of them would ever admit it to a survey, or if asked by a stranger. In their homes, though, they say "Well, that's what you get for murdering babies".

So, I do believe that Christians would condone killing in the name of religion. They praise it in their churches when they read the old testament, and they wink at it in private when a bomb goes off at a clinic. If you believe differently, dig deeper.

From Wikipedia on "Left Behind: Eternal Forces"



Ask yourself how bloggers would react to a RTS Muslim game like that. I can't find the numbers of sales, but they are brisk enough to warrant expansion packs and an upcoming sequel. The books the game is based on have sold 63 MILLION copies.

If you don't think the evangelical has an undertone of paranoia and even militance, you're not looking. Look at what they expect to happen during the "end times". Look at how they respond to it.

If you think those people will claim that they are Americans before Christians, well, I don't think you really know enough about them to discuss them.

Little Whip: I see where you are coming from, and frankly I don't think you and I could really get into much of an argument about it. I'm not trying to say that Islam is a religion of peace, because I don't think any of the three are religions of peace. they are all founded on the blood of untold numbers of people.

I don't, though, believe that the average adherent of any of the three is really a threat to me. I don't pick threats via ideology, I don't need to. I can turn on the news and in an unbiased way see what my threats are. When an atheist or even the flu is statistically more apt to kill me than a Muslim, I just don't see the need in the grave discussion.

Now, granted, if there were "Arab supremacists" making conversation, or if a Muslim were here making points that overlooked obvious material that refutes them, I'd have no qualms answering it. But, I'd be talking to him. I'd be addressing his points. I dunno what really is thought to be helped by alienating random Muslims, though.

THIS statement I have to agree with, Baker. I do believe that for most people of faith their religious identity often precludes their national identity.

And I believe that is actually a GOOD thing. Serving the state is the essence of communism. Not a good thing, IMEABO.



I disagree strongly that the majority of Christians would, Baker. I went to some VERY fundamentalist churches in the day, and I know of very few who openly praised abortion clinic bombings and they were on the fringe within the churches. There are groups, of course, like Missionaries to the Preborn who I would consider prone to approve such violence, but I don't find them in large numbers in many churches.

The ideology of violent Muslims goes all the way back to Mohammed. It is pure spin to call Mohammed a man of peace, and you know it. While the "end times" theology is taught in many churches, most of those churches don't even believe we'll BE HERE for the "Left Behind" era, hence the title phrase.

I believe the reason you don't see more Muslim violence in America is not because of poverty, but because of opportunity. Muslims in America are still a minority and if they started acting out in the numbers that they do in the Middle East, there would be a violent backlash that would pretty much ensure their extinction. It is important for the extremist Muslims to gain political power BEFORE enacting violence. All you need to do is look to Europe, where they ARE gaining numbers and see the escalating violence there.

But then you don't even recognize the Inquisition as a (admittedly extremist, but understandable in light of the situation) backlash to the actions of the Moors in Spain, so I wouldn't expect you to see that.

And the "Christian" ideology goes all the way back to the early church. You know darn well if you trace Christianity back that far you see the same things. Follow it further to what we call God's Chosen People and see how they achieved what they had.

Do you feel rational condemning the conquest of Muhammad, while praising the conquest of Joshua? They're both genocidal conquests, after all.




Yet, you've seen every other flavor of militant, haven't you? Hell, we have had MORMON militants. We have well known groups that have been violent within minority groups. Look at the civil rights era. Look at the fringe Latino groups. Come on, you don't think it is odd that there haven't been Muslim groups.

Again, I'm not saying American Muslims are necessarily more peaceful, but if people want to say that Muslims are more violent I think they need to look closer at the reality of America.



LMAO, that's a new one from you. The Inquisition is understandably extremist? Well, I would expect you to know better. After all, I'm sure it makes sense that the slaughter and torture of thousands of Jews and untold others is somehow lashing out at a Muslim threat... not.

I think maybe you need to reassess the Inquisition. Go back and read the Bulls, bud. Odd that they were ghettoizing Jews and making them wear yellow instead of focusing on Islam, if what you are saying is true. You realize that the Inquisition was a functional body for hundreds of years, right?

This kind of blind ignorance is where discussions like this lead, and I really wonder why we tolerate it. I mean, Gideon just scapegoated Muslims for hundreds of years of Catholic oppression over Jews and Protestants. Is this really the level of thought the subject deserves?

I cry when I see a post like this.

Gideon, I hate to say it, but you obviously know NOTHING of the Inquisition. I do. I am from Barcelona. There is nothing understandable in that travesty of humanity. It was no backlash; it was bitter, virulent hatred against the only rulers that in the history of the world had brought Jew, Muslim and Christian together in the same community under a common rule and without horrible fighting.

And once the Muslims were gone in early 1492, they lashed out against the Jews (Sephardi Jews) with such rottenness that there is no excuse or understanding left.

Please, rethink your statement.

I mean, if you are going to trace Islam back to Mohamed and call it violent because of its conquest, how can you sit in church and praise the walls of Jericho coming down? Isn't religion that was built on conquest wrong by your own admission?

What's the difference? It's like the inquisition thing. When we do it, it is "understandable extremism". When they do it, it is a flaw in their "ism". Well, pal, it's a flaw in every ism, we just choose to overlook it in ours.

I'm not trying to say the Islam is inherently peaceful. I don't believe any religion is, least of all Christianity. On the other hand I'm not about to claim that Islam is any more violent, either, because I have a solid grounding in both biblical history and western civ, and Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are just a three-sided coin.

Can you imagine what the response would be if a Muslim here called Palestinian terrorism an "understandable backlash"? Yet somehow we can lower ourselves to the point we can call the Inquisition that? Hells bells...

Holy twisting my words, Batman.

I was saying that was a CATALYST that keyed it off, Baker. But whatever. Obviously you're right, Muslims want nothing more than to get us all singing KumBaYa around the campfire.

If I'm a closetted Fred Phelps, Baker, you're a closetted Ward Churchill. Because it's not that much of a leap from what he's saying to what you are.



Oh, you're about 500 years old? Or you read about it just as I did?

Hitler made the trains run on time, too, courageous.

I'll skip the viagra, I don't need it. But I'll take the other two, thank ya.

The Muslims stuff here at JU isn't like that. It's more like a redneck bar, "Religion of peace my ass!!"... followed by hoots of approval, and frankly that's beneath you Brad. I have to ask what real purpose is there in it, when you know the average Muslim that overhears you isn't going to be anything BUT peaceful. Some people here, sure, they wouldn't care, but you?

Oh please. If we were back in the 1930s and I said "People in the KKK are prone to lynching blacks" I am sure someone would say "Hey, there's plenty of KKK members that are completely peaceful! Just because a few bad apples get out there doesn't mean anything."

And the redneck bar analogy is, sorry Bakerstreet, idiotic.  Unless the redneck bars you hang out at sit around discussing surveys done by the Pew research institute and discuss the statistical results I can't take your assertion seriously.

The reason I am motivated to bring this up is in response to what I feel is propaganda by the mainstream media that Islam is a "religion of peace" when I believe is nonsense.  Just because most Muslims are peaceful (just like most Communists were peaceful or most Nazis were peaceful) doesn't mean much when one looks at what is done IN ITS NAME.

I also post this because when someone does a Google search on "Religion of Peace" I want to make sure the facts I present are able to be found. 

My article isn't some ignorant "redneck" post spewing haterd of Islam.  It is a series of facts listed from an extremely well respected research institution which in turn links TO THE SOURCE (and not some analysis article).

I'd be willing to bet that less than 20% would put country before God, THIS statement I have to agree with, Baker. I do believe that for most people of faith their religious identity often precludes their national identity. And I believe that is actually a GOOD thing. Serving the state is the essence of communism. Not a good thing, IMEABO.

This is a twisting of the survey's words.

It's not who they serve first, it's what they identify with first.  Christians take their religion very seriously but they do not see themselves as citizens of the world who are Christians first and Americans second.  The fucking survey is linked there at the bottom to read.

The context of the identification is that in the Islamic world, people do not have that strong a tie to a nation state as much as they do to their religion.  The question isn't about patriotism, it has to do with identification.

If I ask a typical American what they are, they'll say "I'm an American" not  "I'm a Christian". 

If you think those people will claim that they are Americans before Christians, well, I don't think you really know enough about them to discuss them.

Don't mischaracterize what I wrote. And read the goddamn Pew study before you starting patronizing me. If you can't show minimum respect then fuck off.  I've turned the other cheek to your high handed attitude on this issue for the last time.  If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to think that you are more enlightened than I am because you hold a more "tolerant" point of view than I do, then good for you. But keep it to yourself on my blog.

Depends on who you ask. I do know many Christians who DO consider themselves Christians first and Americans second. Maybe not to the numbers of Muslims who do, but they certainly are there.

Consider me fucked off. I can't show respect for ideas that I have no respect for.

Brad said:



Um, the survey you posted actually said 42% of Christians put themselves as Christians first and Americans second, with the devout more likely than the weekenders. I actually posted this before (now LW do you see the pointlessness of research for JU?):