leashyourkids wrote:
But your first point seems to contradict what you've said previously. You have stated that if someone doesn't follow the texts of their religion literally, how can they really be called a (Muslim, Christian, Branch Davidian, etc.)? If you're saying that Nas isn't really a Christian, I guess that squares. I don't think either one has any place in a public forum, Muslim or Christian.
That's not exactly what I said. Of course there are core beliefs that are required in any religion. For example, it would be utterly ridiculous to call oneself a Christian without believing that Christ was the savoir of mankind. But religious texts can be interpreted many different ways. And therein lies a critical difference between Christianity and Islam circa 2016. Christianity has had many of its sharpest edges rounded off by the prevailing Western secularism. Islam, being a much newer religion, has not had that opportunity. And there are those trying their damnedest to ensure that it won't have it.
leashyourkids wrote:
I can guarantee you, though, that the reason you perceive more "Liberals" or "athiests" to argue against Christianity than Islam is because we are surrounded by Christians, and there is more expected of them. The very reason people don't often take on Islam is - in my mind - what Ted Kuczynski described in his manifesto regarding Liberals. Many Liberals tend to "lay off" or defend groups who they subconsciously view as not equal to them. I suspect that many Liberals regard Islam as archaic and are therefore hesitant to criticize, whereas their friends and family groups are likely to have at least one Christian wacko that they can relate with on many levels.
I'm sure that's true. When Sir Loin posted those links to all those crazy Christians making goofy statements, we all laughed. Because it's ridiculous. Nas did not feel compelled to call Loin a bigot and scold him for mocking the religious beliefs of those goofs. For some reason the educated American liberal treats Muslims like retarded children requiring protection from any criticism.
leashyourkids wrote:
I just don't think acknowledging that Islam in general is more radical accomplishes much. First, it's obvious that there are certain sects that want to destroy the West. Second, acknowledging it probably doesn't do much other than piss off the ones who are moderate. If you go strictly by his beliefs, this Khan guy doesn't really think much differently than a lot of Senators and - presumably - judges or other members of our government. He just happens to have a different religion that, as a whole, seems to have a lot more fanaticism at the moment.
This is kind of funny because you've never exactly struck me as a guy who is very concerned about pissing others off. I think bad ideas should be pointed out. If you believe the world was created in seven days and is three thousand years old, you're wrong. I shouldn't have to tiptoe around your fucked up beliefs out of misguided respect for your cockamamie religion. And wanting to teach that shit in schools alongside science is absolutely reprehensible. But on the scale of reprehensibility it definitely falls somewhere below throwing homosexuals off cliffs and cutting off the hand of a kid who stole a pack of gum.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
