1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
When used generally, "theology" refers to the entire field of study of god, which is the first definition. Having an issue with it is like having an issue with math, or science, or biology. That's just ridiculous.
In the field of theology, there are many sets of beliefs about who/what god is, and that is what the second definition is used to describe.
Christians have a Christian theology - there is one god who is a trinity, Jesus is god incarnate, Bible is god's communication to mankind, etc.
Muslims have a Muslim theology - there is one god and Mohammed is his prophet, Quran is god's communication to mankind, etc.
Atheists have an atheist theology - there is no god.
Each of those theologies are part of Theology, the study of god.
So when you say you have an issue with theology... that's nonsensical. You could have an issue with various theologies and find them wrong, but that's not having an issue with theology itself. When you talk about how no one should believe in religion or believe that god exists, you are pushing an atheist theology.
So to reiterate, you can have religious views without holding theological views. If you hold a religious view with no theological context then you're a deist, the second you add a "holy" book in to the mix you add a label, such as Muslim or Christian, which means that Theology is really worse then just having a religious view point.
No, you can't. A religious view is founded on a theology, a view of who god is and what man's relation to god is. A deist has a deist theology - that there is a god, who set things in motion but is hands off with respect to mankind. There is no such thing as a religion with no theology.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
As someone who practices a religion and thus has an idea of what religious practice looks like, I personally find that this definition is incomplete.
Religion is really adopting a system of beliefs and applying those beliefs to one's life. When atheists adopt a creed of "there is no god", and attempt to evangelize that belief to everyone else as the Truth (Science!)... I find calling that a not-religion to be incredible in the literal sense.
What a failure of logic. Certainly you're not acting rationally in believing that, just because other people believe something they can't provide any evidence to support, that's a reason to believe.
Large groups of people independently acting in a certain way points at a reason for them doing so. The vast majority of people eat food; there exists a reason why. The vast majority of people believe in god(s); there exists a reason why.
I am not arguing this as a reason to believe; I am arguing that this shows reason(s) to believe exist; where you are arguing that reasons to believe do not exist.
If you cannot grasp the meta argument, kindly leave reasoning to those who have the intellectual horsepower for it.
Because people believe in something is not a reason to believe in it. Circular reasoning at it's worst.
Not the argument. That large numbers of people across the globe with different languages/cultures have independently chosen to believe in the existence of god is evidence of there being reasons to believe in god, versus there being no reason to believe in god.
The wisdom of the crowds is disproved all the time
The only way this is relevant is if you want to argue that the crowd is always wrong. Not just sometimes; always.
Probably shouldn't live in a representative democracy if you actually believe that.
And I'm certainly not rational all the time... only dead people don't make mistakes in judgment.
So are you responding rationally right now?
Also, I have no more obligation to "prove" my rationality than you do. Consider it like working with noisy data if you wish.
I'm just taking your own arguments seriously. This is a result of your claim that people are irrational, and now you add that that you're not rational all the time.
If you're rational, then you would address why what you're saying right now is rational in light of those starting assumptions. Otherwise, others should just dismiss your post as irrational opining per your own premises.
Most of mankind is certainly irrational most of the time.
If the majority of human beings are irrational, then the odds are that you are irrational as well.
So before we even continue this discussion - you have an obligation to prove that you're not irrational like everyone else.
So what if the majority has believed until recent times? As my mother said when I was a kid, "would you go jump off a bridge just because everyone else is?"
They still do. We're not anywhere close to a majority of unbelievers.
When you say that the vast majority of mankind has believed it, you're arguing is that tradition is more important than acting on knowledge.
No, I am saying that this is evidence against the claim that there is no reason to believe in the existence of god.
The short of it is that anyone who claims there is zero reason to believe has shot their own claim of rationality in the foot. The evidence doesn't support it.
Claiming something contrary to the evidence is irrational. Claiming that there is no reason to believe in god is irrational.
When you make fundamental errors in distinguishing between "religion" and "theology", you are not qualified to lecture others on what one's default theology should be.
It even looks like you've made a religion out of science - something that science is ill-equipped for, but a common error of the philosophically challenged.
Yes, it is the only tool. Other tools can provide answers, but not knowledge. Knowledge can be used to make predictions, and predictions are testable, and therefore fall in the realm of science. If your answers can't be used to make predictions, they are not useful, and they might as well not exist.
What scientific experiment proves that science is the only valid tool for finding knowledge?
Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"?
Begs the question of what is ordinary, and who decides what is extraordinary.
There is no reason to believe in the existence of any god, so until there is proof otherwise, forget it.
Yet, the vast majority of mankind has believed it. So either mankind is irrational, making you the irrational product of irrational humans, with an irrational belief in your rationality; or there are reasons for men to believe in some sort of spiritual concepts.
The default stance is "I don't know", not "that must be false". Because the latter rule can be easily gamed.
"god exists" and "god does not exist" are both "extraordinary" claims, and consistent application of that rule results in contradictory conclusions.
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
You've embarrassed yourself on the topic in two sentences.
Theology is the study of god(s).
Islam is not a theology; it is a religion. Category error.
Religions have a theology, and so do you - when you call it "sky daddy" - you are claiming that god does not exist and is the product of human imagination.
So to say "theology is even worse" doesn't make an inkling of sense. It's a field of study, not a specific point of view on which god exists/does not exist. Nonsensical assertion.
Word substitution: does "mathematics/science is even worse" make any sense?
Tangentially, the only way science can displace religion is if it's a religion; is science a religion?
A hundred former European colonies around the world would strongly dispute that.
But are you disputing it? What is your specific argument?
That modern Muslim terrorism does not trace back to Islamic's history of conquest and conversion by sword, because European countries colonized many countries?
According to Wikipedia (which isn't the best source in the world), the word was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944.
Country, not individual. But you're close. Follow the history: "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action.[6][7]"
Do you honestly think that the Caliphates were in any way different from European colonists? Do you honestly think that Persia left everyone alone for the 1500 years before Islam came along? Do you know about the Russo-Persian and Anglo-Persian wars, or the 1953 Iranian coup? Do you know anything about the history of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Algeria? What do you think caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
So first you argue that Caliphates coexist with people... now you'll argue that everyone doesn't coexist anyways.
Whatever you're trying to argue, it hasn't contradicting my observation: The Muslim religion is objectively more compatible with violence and conquest than other ones. It's not wrong to point this out when examining the motives of Muslim terrorists; and how to avoid future Muslim attacks.
Incidentally, you wrote this less than a week after the 100th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Gallipoli, where the British Empire (Australians and New Zealanders commemorate the battle most closely) fought the Ottoman Empire, which was Germany's ally.
What do you think you have proven by pointing out that an Islamic country fought in a World War? That Islam is no more warlike than the rest? Do you think this one nation in one war adequately represents the entirety of Muslim history?
Speaking of which... which country inspired the creation of the word, "genocide"?
Did you have a point, or did you just want everyone to understand that Muslim people of Middle Eastern descent are no different from Christian people of European descent?
It is tragic how many people are killed each year by European Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.
The West prefers drone strikes these days. It's far less personal.
Which European Christian countries are performing drone strikes?
Absolutely! Muslims are all killers, look at their history and the Caliphate and stuff, but Christians aren't, never mind their history! You go girl!
Quoted for hilarity.
Muslim terrorists attempt to murder people in the US - "CHRISTIANS ARE JUST AS BAD!"
Thanks, Sherlock. We best watch out for the next 9/11 from Amish suicide bombers. Or maybe it'll be the Lutherans. Their denomination just sounds evil, like that one guy who's always trying to undermine Superman.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes."
We aren't doing a comparative study of religions, dimwit.
Do you want to argue that it's okay for Muslims to kill people in the name of their religion, or that it's not okay for Christians to criticize Muslims for killing people in the name of their religion? Both of those stances, while wrong, are at least relevant.
Why do you want to go off the topic of modern Muslim violence to talk about past Christian violence?
Well, you set the precedent. You were the one who brought up Caliphates and past Muslim violence.
Pointing out past Muslim violence in light of current Muslim violence is on topic and adds to the understanding of the current events.
Pointing out past Christian violence in light of current Muslim violence is changing the topic.
It would be relevant in a discussion of current Christian violence... but this article isn't about Christians attempting to murder Americans for practicing Freedom of Speech.
Except the Prophet Muhammad himself totally dug religious freedom, that he would draft law between him and Jews and Christians to coexist. For almost 400 years, between Muslims taking Jerusalem and the First Crusade, non-Muslims could visit the city and worshiped their religion. It's only when that stopped that sparked the First Crusade.
He used a false peace treaty to murder Jews. He also condoned using lies and deception against infidels.
But let's also look at the present - explain why Muslim countries don't have Freedom of Speech, and why Muslims are trying to kill people who insult Mohammed, in contrast to all the other religions on this planet.
There are over 1.6 billion Muslims today. How many of them do you consider threats to freedom? over 80% of Indonesia is Muslim. Is Indonesia the country a threat to freedom?
Every one who takes seriously the concept of Jihad, or is willing to support that actively or passively.
No, I don't know what specific portion of the global Muslim population falls in that category.
I'd be quite happy for them to run their own countries as they see fit... If they want to cause trouble as a foreign country, that is what War is for.
I am only speaking in terms of how my own country should protect its own essential freedoms from a hostile religion. And the first step is recognizing incompatibility between the principles of Islam and Free Speech.
So don't try to impress me with the dangers of Islamic conversion by the sword versus the safety of Christian tolerance, on the basis of historical behavior.
So when Islamic terrorists are currently targeting infidels and Jews for murder, while non-Muslims are not... your top priority is to condemn Christians for past violence?
Judging that Islam is a threat to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion is correct.
You're free to judge that the Christian culture that created protections for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion to be equally or more dangerous, but you'd be wrong.
I do! They were hereditary monarchies which claimed divine right, in a way that was essentially indistinguishable from the monarchies of Europe with which they coexisted. The last caliphate was abolished at the same time and in the same way that many European monarchies were abolished: in the aftermath of World War I. Like them, it was abolished by popular support of the people.
They did not "coexist" with European monarchies. The Caliphates conquered as much of the area around them as they could, and it was the European countries that had the geography and political powers to resist conquest.
The history of Islam is war with non-Islam. There have been periods of peace... but we're exiting that, right now.
Did you have a point, or did you just want everyone to understand that Muslim people of Middle Eastern descent are no different from Christian people of European descent?
It is tragic how many people are killed each year by European Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.
Still, I think the Religion of Peace is winning in bodycount.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes.
Jesus: Martyr.
Mohammed: Conquerer.
Crusades: Reaction to Muslim conquest of Middle East. (Which ultimately failed, leaving Islam to take and hold the ME)
Inquisition: Part of reclamation of Spain from Muslim conquest.
So, when it comes to religious violence.... notice something with regards to the Religion of "Peace"?
Condemning 1.6B Muslims, because they can't reign in a some violent Muslims seems a bit extreme.
If they don't condemn random acts of terrorism in the name of their religion... they are supporting deadly violence when it spreads their religion - and that is extreme.
Taking their religion seriously is not extreme. We did not always have Muslim terrorism; this is an imported problem, and what was added can be removed.
In the US, it is innocent until proven guilty. Go after the extremists, no problem, but leave the innocent alone.
If a religion is so violent that it will not peacefully coexist with our society, it is not innocent.
Freedom of speech does not give one the right to libel, slander, or threaten. Neither does it give one religion the right to be a violent menace to the rest of society.
The problem, of course, is that you -- in your bigotry -- believe that Muslims are violent and interested only in dominance.
You really were not kidding that you are ignorant of history.
Do you know what a Caliphate is? Go read up on Muslim history.
Your problem is that you don't see them as people, but as animals. It's a disgusting viewpoint that makes it easy for bigots, like you, to justify atrocious acts against others. Sam Harris (a bigot to which you're likely align yourself) famously suggested that they be slaughtered, so "dangerous" were their beliefs.
Animals don't create armies that invade and conquer. I don't see them as animals. I see them as enemies in a larger civilizational war.
You, on the other hand, are incapable of identifying that the group of foreigners shooting bullets at native citizens are an invading enemy. Rather, you'll call me nasty names, and try to make me out to be the true enemy, the "bigot".
No, fear and hatred are the real problem here.
Yes, you fear and hate me for telling the truth about Islam, rather than hating the Muslims who try to murder and silence. Funny how my words bother you more than their violent actions.
Do you imagine that this will lead them to spare you? Do you plan to convert when the Islamic sword is at your neck? Traitorous coward.
Nobody said that Muslims should get special treatment, but then again, it sounds like that is what you are proposing.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover libel and slander. It is based upon a mutual agreement within society that we will tolerate each other's offensive speech... within limits.
As such, if the Muslim's concept of society is Kill the Infidel who Slanders the Prophet - they cannot coexist with a country that has Freedom of Speech. Either we keep Freedom of Speech, or the Muslim religion.
We don't single out all Christians because Timothy McVey was one or the Westboro Baptist Church are.
You liar. Timothy is an agnostic. Westboro is not guilty of using violence; they are abusing free speech, but that is preferable to the consequences of shutting them up. Their group is also denounced by Baptist associations.
So, why should we single out all Muslims because of the actions of a few? If if there were a million Muslims who were extremists, that is.06% of the estimated total Muslim population in the world.
Because there is a pattern, and the pattern is that the peaceful "moderates" do not control and exclude the violent "extremists".
If they will not police themselves, then we have to police them.. and deeper study will show that the root of the problem is not extremism, it is Islam.
Muslim countries do not practice Freedom of Speech. There's a reason for that.
I didn't know that Hitler's plan was to integrate Jews in to society... I must be terribly ignorant of history.
Yes, yes you are ignorant.
Hitler was the extremist. Other nations tried to accommodate and integrate him - "peace in our time"... and it led to a bloody World War.
Integration can only work with a group that is already peaceful and interested in coexistence. Against a violent group interested in dominance, they will take advantage of any weakness and demand more and more.
Slashdot Mirror
That's better. But still wrong, and let me step you through it.
Theology dictionary definition:
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
When used generally, "theology" refers to the entire field of study of god, which is the first definition. Having an issue with it is like having an issue with math, or science, or biology. That's just ridiculous.
In the field of theology, there are many sets of beliefs about who/what god is, and that is what the second definition is used to describe.
Christians have a Christian theology - there is one god who is a trinity, Jesus is god incarnate, Bible is god's communication to mankind, etc.
Muslims have a Muslim theology - there is one god and Mohammed is his prophet, Quran is god's communication to mankind, etc.
Atheists have an atheist theology - there is no god.
Each of those theologies are part of Theology, the study of god.
So when you say you have an issue with theology ... that's nonsensical. You could have an issue with various theologies and find them wrong, but that's not having an issue with theology itself. When you talk about how no one should believe in religion or believe that god exists, you are pushing an atheist theology.
So to reiterate, you can have religious views without holding theological views. If you hold a religious view with no theological context then you're a deist, the second you add a "holy" book in to the mix you add a label, such as Muslim or Christian, which means that Theology is really worse then just having a religious view point.
No, you can't. A religious view is founded on a theology, a view of who god is and what man's relation to god is. A deist has a deist theology - that there is a god, who set things in motion but is hands off with respect to mankind. There is no such thing as a religion with no theology.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
As someone who practices a religion and thus has an idea of what religious practice looks like, I personally find that this definition is incomplete.
Religion is really adopting a system of beliefs and applying those beliefs to one's life. When atheists adopt a creed of "there is no god", and attempt to evangelize that belief to everyone else as the Truth (Science!) ... I find calling that a not-religion to be incredible in the literal sense.
What a failure of logic. Certainly you're not acting rationally in believing that, just because other people believe something they can't provide any evidence to support, that's a reason to believe.
Large groups of people independently acting in a certain way points at a reason for them doing so. The vast majority of people eat food; there exists a reason why. The vast majority of people believe in god(s); there exists a reason why.
I am not arguing this as a reason to believe; I am arguing that this shows reason(s) to believe exist; where you are arguing that reasons to believe do not exist.
If you cannot grasp the meta argument, kindly leave reasoning to those who have the intellectual horsepower for it.
Because people believe in something is not a reason to believe in it. Circular reasoning at it's worst.
Not the argument. That large numbers of people across the globe with different languages/cultures have independently chosen to believe in the existence of god is evidence of there being reasons to believe in god, versus there being no reason to believe in god.
The wisdom of the crowds is disproved all the time
The only way this is relevant is if you want to argue that the crowd is always wrong. Not just sometimes; always.
Probably shouldn't live in a representative democracy if you actually believe that.
And I'm certainly not rational all the time ... only dead people don't make mistakes in judgment.
So are you responding rationally right now?
Also, I have no more obligation to "prove" my rationality than you do. Consider it like working with noisy data if you wish.
I'm just taking your own arguments seriously. This is a result of your claim that people are irrational, and now you add that that you're not rational all the time.
If you're rational, then you would address why what you're saying right now is rational in light of those starting assumptions. Otherwise, others should just dismiss your post as irrational opining per your own premises.
Most of mankind is certainly irrational most of the time.
If the majority of human beings are irrational, then the odds are that you are irrational as well.
So before we even continue this discussion - you have an obligation to prove that you're not irrational like everyone else.
So what if the majority has believed until recent times? As my mother said when I was a kid, "would you go jump off a bridge just because everyone else is?"
They still do. We're not anywhere close to a majority of unbelievers.
When you say that the vast majority of mankind has believed it, you're arguing is that tradition is more important than acting on knowledge.
No, I am saying that this is evidence against the claim that there is no reason to believe in the existence of god.
The short of it is that anyone who claims there is zero reason to believe has shot their own claim of rationality in the foot. The evidence doesn't support it.
Claiming something contrary to the evidence is irrational. Claiming that there is no reason to believe in god is irrational.
Where did I make an error? I said
I quoted your errors in my first reply. You ignored the corrections to continue ranting about religion.
Acknowledge the error, and then we can change the topic. Ignore the error - and you demonstrate you are intellectually too short for this discussion.
When you make fundamental errors in distinguishing between "religion" and "theology", you are not qualified to lecture others on what one's default theology should be.
It even looks like you've made a religion out of science - something that science is ill-equipped for, but a common error of the philosophically challenged.
I've never heard of mass killing done in the name of science, no.
Science implies absolutely nothing about morals.
Abducting people, infecting them with Ebola, and taking detailed and accurate notes as they die would be "good" science.
This isn't a hypothetical. There is useful science collected by such immoral means.
What's wrong, from a scientific point of view, of nuking a city as a science experiment, as long as you don't mess with the control group?
Yes, it is the only tool. Other tools can provide answers, but not knowledge. Knowledge can be used to make predictions, and predictions are testable, and therefore fall in the realm of science. If your answers can't be used to make predictions, they are not useful, and they might as well not exist.
What scientific experiment proves that science is the only valid tool for finding knowledge?
Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"?
Begs the question of what is ordinary, and who decides what is extraordinary.
There is no reason to believe in the existence of any god, so until there is proof otherwise, forget it.
Yet, the vast majority of mankind has believed it. So either mankind is irrational, making you the irrational product of irrational humans, with an irrational belief in your rationality; or there are reasons for men to believe in some sort of spiritual concepts.
The default stance is "I don't know", not "that must be false". Because the latter rule can be easily gamed.
"god exists" and "god does not exist" are both "extraordinary" claims, and consistent application of that rule results in contradictory conclusions.
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
You've embarrassed yourself on the topic in two sentences.
Theology is the study of god(s).
Islam is not a theology; it is a religion. Category error.
Religions have a theology, and so do you - when you call it "sky daddy" - you are claiming that god does not exist and is the product of human imagination.
So to say "theology is even worse" doesn't make an inkling of sense. It's a field of study, not a specific point of view on which god exists/does not exist. Nonsensical assertion.
Word substitution: does "mathematics/science is even worse" make any sense?
Tangentially, the only way science can displace religion is if it's a religion; is science a religion?
I have no idea what you just said.
"people" -> European nations. Brain fart.
A hundred former European colonies around the world would strongly dispute that.
But are you disputing it? What is your specific argument?
That modern Muslim terrorism does not trace back to Islamic's history of conquest and conversion by sword, because European countries colonized many countries?
According to Wikipedia (which isn't the best source in the world), the word was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944.
Country, not individual. But you're close. Follow the history: "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action.[6][7]"
Do you honestly think that the Caliphates were in any way different from European colonists? Do you honestly think that Persia left everyone alone for the 1500 years before Islam came along? Do you know about the Russo-Persian and Anglo-Persian wars, or the 1953 Iranian coup? Do you know anything about the history of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Algeria? What do you think caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
So first you argue that Caliphates coexist with people ... now you'll argue that everyone doesn't coexist anyways.
Whatever you're trying to argue, it hasn't contradicting my observation: The Muslim religion is objectively more compatible with violence and conquest than other ones. It's not wrong to point this out when examining the motives of Muslim terrorists; and how to avoid future Muslim attacks.
Incidentally, you wrote this less than a week after the 100th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Gallipoli, where the British Empire (Australians and New Zealanders commemorate the battle most closely) fought the Ottoman Empire, which was Germany's ally.
What do you think you have proven by pointing out that an Islamic country fought in a World War? That Islam is no more warlike than the rest? Do you think this one nation in one war adequately represents the entirety of Muslim history?
Speaking of which ... which country inspired the creation of the word, "genocide"?
Did you have a point, or did you just want everyone to understand that Muslim people of Middle Eastern descent are no different from Christian people of European descent?
It is tragic how many people are killed each year by European Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.
The West prefers drone strikes these days. It's far less personal.
Which European Christian countries are performing drone strikes?
Absolutely! Muslims are all killers, look at their history and the Caliphate and stuff, but Christians aren't, never mind their history! You go girl!
Quoted for hilarity.
Muslim terrorists attempt to murder people in the US - "CHRISTIANS ARE JUST AS BAD!"
Thanks, Sherlock. We best watch out for the next 9/11 from Amish suicide bombers. Or maybe it'll be the Lutherans. Their denomination just sounds evil, like that one guy who's always trying to undermine Superman.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes."
We aren't doing a comparative study of religions, dimwit.
Do you want to argue that it's okay for Muslims to kill people in the name of their religion, or that it's not okay for Christians to criticize Muslims for killing people in the name of their religion? Both of those stances, while wrong, are at least relevant.
Why do you want to go off the topic of modern Muslim violence to talk about past Christian violence?
Do you even have an argument?
Well, you set the precedent. You were the one who brought up Caliphates and past Muslim violence.
Pointing out past Muslim violence in light of current Muslim violence is on topic and adds to the understanding of the current events.
Pointing out past Christian violence in light of current Muslim violence is changing the topic.
It would be relevant in a discussion of current Christian violence ... but this article isn't about Christians attempting to murder Americans for practicing Freedom of Speech.
Except the Prophet Muhammad himself totally dug religious freedom, that he would draft law between him and Jews and Christians to coexist. For almost 400 years, between Muslims taking Jerusalem and the First Crusade, non-Muslims could visit the city and worshiped their religion. It's only when that stopped that sparked the First Crusade.
He used a false peace treaty to murder Jews. He also condoned using lies and deception against infidels.
But let's also look at the present - explain why Muslim countries don't have Freedom of Speech, and why Muslims are trying to kill people who insult Mohammed, in contrast to all the other religions on this planet.
There are over 1.6 billion Muslims today. How many of them do you consider threats to freedom? over 80% of Indonesia is Muslim. Is Indonesia the country a threat to freedom?
Every one who takes seriously the concept of Jihad, or is willing to support that actively or passively.
No, I don't know what specific portion of the global Muslim population falls in that category.
I'd be quite happy for them to run their own countries as they see fit ... If they want to cause trouble as a foreign country, that is what War is for.
I am only speaking in terms of how my own country should protect its own essential freedoms from a hostile religion. And the first step is recognizing incompatibility between the principles of Islam and Free Speech.
So don't try to impress me with the dangers of Islamic conversion by the sword versus the safety of Christian tolerance, on the basis of historical behavior.
So when Islamic terrorists are currently targeting infidels and Jews for murder, while non-Muslims are not ... your top priority is to condemn Christians for past violence?
Judging that Islam is a threat to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion is correct.
You're free to judge that the Christian culture that created protections for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion to be equally or more dangerous, but you'd be wrong.
Do you know what a Caliphate is?
I do! They were hereditary monarchies which claimed divine right, in a way that was essentially indistinguishable from the monarchies of Europe with which they coexisted. The last caliphate was abolished at the same time and in the same way that many European monarchies were abolished: in the aftermath of World War I. Like them, it was abolished by popular support of the people.
They did not "coexist" with European monarchies. The Caliphates conquered as much of the area around them as they could, and it was the European countries that had the geography and political powers to resist conquest.
The history of Islam is war with non-Islam. There have been periods of peace ... but we're exiting that, right now.
Did you have a point, or did you just want everyone to understand that Muslim people of Middle Eastern descent are no different from Christian people of European descent?
It is tragic how many people are killed each year by European Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.
Still, I think the Religion of Peace is winning in bodycount.
Jesus: Martyr.
Mohammed: Conquerer.
Where would you put Charlemagne on that spectrum, as a matter of curiosity?
Didn't start a world religion. Not on the spectrum.
Always remember, when comparing religious violence, it's not fair to bring up the crusades or the inquisition or the conversion by sword of native populations all over the world in reference to Christianity because that's history, but it's totally fair to bring up the caliphate in reference to Islam because history tells you what their religion believes.
Jesus: Martyr.
Mohammed: Conquerer.
Crusades: Reaction to Muslim conquest of Middle East. (Which ultimately failed, leaving Islam to take and hold the ME)
Inquisition: Part of reclamation of Spain from Muslim conquest.
So, when it comes to religious violence.... notice something with regards to the Religion of "Peace"?
Condemning 1.6B Muslims, because they can't reign in a some violent Muslims seems a bit extreme.
If they don't condemn random acts of terrorism in the name of their religion ... they are supporting deadly violence when it spreads their religion - and that is extreme.
Taking their religion seriously is not extreme. We did not always have Muslim terrorism; this is an imported problem, and what was added can be removed.
In the US, it is innocent until proven guilty. Go after the extremists, no problem, but leave the innocent alone.
If a religion is so violent that it will not peacefully coexist with our society, it is not innocent.
Freedom of speech does not give one the right to libel, slander, or threaten. Neither does it give one religion the right to be a violent menace to the rest of society.
I can't reason with bigots. Enjoy your paranoid delusions.
Careful there. Someone might think you're adding to the problem with words like that.
"By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve."
Atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in a god.
And there's your fairytale.
The problem, of course, is that you -- in your bigotry -- believe that Muslims are violent and interested only in dominance.
You really were not kidding that you are ignorant of history.
Do you know what a Caliphate is? Go read up on Muslim history.
Your problem is that you don't see them as people, but as animals. It's a disgusting viewpoint that makes it easy for bigots, like you, to justify atrocious acts against others. Sam Harris (a bigot to which you're likely align yourself) famously suggested that they be slaughtered, so "dangerous" were their beliefs.
Animals don't create armies that invade and conquer. I don't see them as animals. I see them as enemies in a larger civilizational war.
You, on the other hand, are incapable of identifying that the group of foreigners shooting bullets at native citizens are an invading enemy. Rather, you'll call me nasty names, and try to make me out to be the true enemy, the "bigot".
No, fear and hatred are the real problem here.
Yes, you fear and hate me for telling the truth about Islam, rather than hating the Muslims who try to murder and silence. Funny how my words bother you more than their violent actions.
Do you imagine that this will lead them to spare you? Do you plan to convert when the Islamic sword is at your neck? Traitorous coward.
Nobody said that Muslims should get special treatment, but then again, it sounds like that is what you are proposing.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover libel and slander. It is based upon a mutual agreement within society that we will tolerate each other's offensive speech ... within limits.
As such, if the Muslim's concept of society is Kill the Infidel who Slanders the Prophet - they cannot coexist with a country that has Freedom of Speech. Either we keep Freedom of Speech, or the Muslim religion.
We don't single out all Christians because Timothy McVey was one or the Westboro Baptist Church are.
You liar. Timothy is an agnostic. Westboro is not guilty of using violence; they are abusing free speech, but that is preferable to the consequences of shutting them up. Their group is also denounced by Baptist associations.
So, why should we single out all Muslims because of the actions of a few? If if there were a million Muslims who were extremists, that is .06% of the estimated total Muslim population in the world.
Because there is a pattern, and the pattern is that the peaceful "moderates" do not control and exclude the violent "extremists".
If they will not police themselves, then we have to police them .. and deeper study will show that the root of the problem is not extremism, it is Islam.
Muslim countries do not practice Freedom of Speech. There's a reason for that.
I didn't know that Hitler's plan was to integrate Jews in to society... I must be terribly ignorant of history.
Yes, yes you are ignorant.
Hitler was the extremist. Other nations tried to accommodate and integrate him - "peace in our time" ... and it led to a bloody World War.
Integration can only work with a group that is already peaceful and interested in coexistence. Against a violent group interested in dominance, they will take advantage of any weakness and demand more and more.