• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Orchard Park businessman charged in beheading of wife

If you actually advocate abortion publically you do run the risk of excommunication. And if you're pro-abortion and pro-gay rights why would you go to a church and put money in a collection plate to support an organization that you don't agree with?

Why are you asking me this? I don't have a freaking clue why religious people do what they do. They endlessly mystify me. All I'm telling you is they do it. They have fundamental disagreements with what the elite in their faiths claim is the ultimate truth and yet they still manage to not only consider themselves part of that faith but actively participate in it. As an atheist I find this paradox that I've noticed in every single faith on the planet utterly fascinating.
 
You still haven't given any evidence Ric on how I am two faced.

Be careful of whom you associate with.
Instead you have gone off on a rant about God knows what.
Another Muslim conspiracy no doubt.

I'll take it a step further. If it comes down to survival. Extinction as a culture, religion, way of life, etc... extinction as a people and descent into what we consider barbarism and slavery like your religion, Islam

If your choices come down to that or genocidal warfare against your enemy, what is your choice? Genocide can happen in many ways and it doesn't have to occur with guns, nukes, etc. If in 100 years, there is no religion in the UK but Islam. The Bible doesn't exist, only the Koran. There is no trial by jury, only an Imam and Sharia law. History other than Islamic history doesn't exist. The cathedrals and churches that aren't pulled down are turned into mosques. Is that not a form of genocide?
 
I just wanted to post in this thread because I think there is a correlation between Islam and violence. I can't find the quote now, but I think Reza Aslan said once "Islam has a problem with terror". These are not isolated incidences, but a correlation between the culture and ideas or whatever it is. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, but what I'm saying is that there is a significant fraction who are and you can make a correlation from it.
 
I just wanted to post in this thread because I think there is a correlation between Islam and violence. I can't find the quote now, but I think Reza Aslan said once "Islam has a problem with terror". These are not isolated incidences, but a correlation between the culture and ideas or whatever it is. I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent, but what I'm saying is that there is a significant fraction who are and you can make a correlation from it.

There isn't a correlation between Islam and violence as it is that there's a correlation of political powerful religious institutions and violence.

As I've said elsewhere, it's not so much that Christians suddenly had an awakening and became more humane and accepting. It's that its elders and institutions steadily lost political power, until they had to learn to live with the world around them.

Also, I don't think there's a source on the planet which could reliably back up your assertion that a significant fraction of Muslims are violent. Feel free to prove me wrong.


TED,
Can't wait to hear what Opteron's bull**** definition of "significant fraction" is. :lol:
 
There isn't a correlation between Islam and violence as it is that there's a correlation of political powerful religious institutions and violence.
Um, yeah, there is a correlation between Islam and violence. Take for example India and Pakistan. The two are similar countries, the only major difference being their religion. In fact, the two were originally part of the same country until they were partitioned into one being an Islamic country, and one not. Pakistan is one of the major sources of terror in the world. Look at how many suicide bombings it has. Pakistanis are also responsible for attacks conducted in other countries. How many terrorist attacks originated from India? You'll have a hard time finding one.

Also, I don't think there's a source on the planet which could reliably back up your assertion that a significant fraction of Muslims are violent. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Ok, Al-Queda, Taliban, Al-Shabab, Jemaah Islamiyah, etc. etc. how many people is that? That's a significant fraction. Take a look at this: Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and try to tell me that 'there aren't anymore violent Islamists than in any other religion'.

As I've said elsewhere, it's not so much that Christians suddenly had an awakening and became more humane and accepting. It's that its elders and institutions steadily lost political power, until they had to learn to live with the world around them.
What does that even mean, elders who? The most powerful nations in the world are majority Christian, and they lost political power? Britain, France, US, Italy, Germany, maybe Russia, these are Christian nations and they're not weak either.
 
Last edited:
There isn't a correlation between Islam and violence as it is that there's a correlation of political powerful religious institutions and violence.

As I've said elsewhere, it's not so much that Christians suddenly had an awakening and became more humane and accepting. It's that its elders and institutions steadily lost political power, until they had to learn to live with the world around them.

Also, I don't think there's a source on the planet which could reliably back up your assertion that a significant fraction of Muslims are violent. Feel free to prove me wrong.


TED,
Can't wait to hear what Opteron's bull**** definition of "significant fraction" is. :lol:
Where did you run off to?
 
Last edited:
Where did you run away to?

I didn't run away, I laughed at you and decided to save you for a midnight snack. Very well, here we go:

Um, yeah, there is a correlation between Islam and violence. Take for example India and Pakistan. The two are similar countries, the only major difference being their religion. In fact, the two were originally part of the same country until they were partitioned into one being an Islamic country, and one not. Pakistan is one of the major sources of terror in the world. Look at how many suicide bombings it has. Pakistanis are also responsible for attacks conducted in other countries. How many terrorist attacks originated from India? You'll have a hard time finding one.

You didn't respond to what I actually said. I was saying that it's not so much about Islam as it is about a religion having power. Historically, politically powerful religious sects have incited all kinds of violence.

Ok, Al-Queda, Taliban, Al-Shabab, Jemaah Islamiyah, etc. etc. how many people is that? That's a significant fraction. Take a look at this: Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and try to tell me that 'there aren't anymore violent Islamists than in any other religion'.

You still haven't defined what "a significant fraction" is.

You are continuing to ignore my point about how this isn't about Islam, so much as it is about a religion having political power.

What does that even mean, elders who? The most powerful nations in the world are majority Christian, and they lost political power? Britain, France, US, Italy, Germany, maybe Russia, these are Christian nations and they're not weak either.

Are you actually reading what I'm posting?

Wait, let me answer my own question: No.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
I didn't run away, I laughed at you and decided to save you for a midnight snack. Very well, here we go:
Right, because you haven't answered any of the points I brought up in my posts. I laugh at your attempt at a response.

You didn't respond to what I actually said. I was saying that it's not so much about Islam as it is about a religion having power. Historically, politically powerful religious sects have incited all kinds of violence.
Do you have a coherent point to make here? Or just some vagueries about elders and religion having political power. It is about Islam and it is about the prevalence of violence observed within the religion. It has nothing to do with political power.

You still haven't defined what "a significant fraction" is.
So the whole of your point is trying to question what "significant fraction" means. If you don't have enough sense to figure out that the number of Islamic terrorist organizations listed in Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is significant, there's not much point in responding to you.

Nevertheless, if your whole counterpoint requires a definition of the term, we can say that a significant fraction is a number statistically significant, or its a number of terrorist involved people that is greater than the average of other religions. If you require a number, we can say its greater than 50% of the average of other religions, even double. It doesn't even really matter because there are many more terrorist involved organizations in Islam than any other religions, the exact number won't matter too much.

Are you actually reading what I'm posting?

Wait, let me answer my own question: No.

:lol:
It won't do me any good, anything you write is incoherent babble anyways.
 
Right, because you haven't answered any of the points I brought up in my posts. I laugh at your attempt at a response.

It's easy to laugh at me when you're not even bothering to read what I'm saying. I've been pretty clear, and you're pretty clearly confused.

Do you have a coherent point to make here? Or just some vagueries about elders and religion having political power. It is about Islam and it is about the prevalence of violence observed within the religion. It has nothing to do with political power.

That's my point -- it has everything to do with political power. The more power any human organization or institution has, the more likely it is to use violence to achieve its ends.

So the whole of your point is trying to question what "significant fraction" means. If you don't have enough sense to figure out that the number of Islamic terrorist organizations listed in Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is significant, there's not much point in responding to you.

It wasn't my whole point, as you would've known if you were reading what I was saying, but it certainly was one of my points. You were refusing to define the term, so I poked you about it repeatedly.

Nevertheless, if your whole counterpoint requires a definition of the term, we can say that a significant fraction is a number statistically significant, or its a number of terrorist involved people that is greater than the average of other religions. If you require a number, we can say its greater than 50% of the average of other religions, even double. It doesn't even really matter because there are many more terrorist involved organizations in Islam than any other religions, the exact number won't matter too much.

That's not a definition. That doesn't even come close to a definition. For one thing, you can't decide if your "definition" involves terrorist organizations, or "terrorist involved people," whatever the hell that means. Furthermore, you can't compare modern Islam and modern Christianity, because they're practically apples and oranges when you take into account that the problem isn't the religion, it's the political power available to that religion's adherants.

Hell, if you compare modern Islam to Christianity at its height, you'd probably find that politically powerful Christianity is a hell of a lot more violent than modern Islam -- and that rather than making Christianity look bad, it makes my point.

It won't do me any good, anything you write is incoherent babble anyways.

That'll happen to you when reading comprehension is a weakness of yours, rather than a strength. :lol:
 
Hell, if you compare modern Islam to Christianity at its height, you'd probably find that politically powerful Christianity is a hell of a lot more violent than modern Islam -- and that rather than making Christianity look bad, it makes my point.

Except Islamic radicals are responsible for more deaths annually than during the entire Spanish Inquisition. In fact Islamic Imperialists are responsible for the largest genocide in history up until Hitler which they perpetrated on the Indian Subcontinent.
 
Except Islamic radicals are responsible for more deaths annually than during the entire Spanish Inquisition. In fact Islamic Imperialists are responsible for the largest genocide in history up until Hitler which they perpetrated on the Indian Subcontinent.

And more Americans Citizens kill American Citizens then any other demographic on earth, even in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whats either yours or Tacticalevildans point?
 
And more Americans Citizens kill American Citizens then any other demographic on earth, even in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whats either yours or Tacticalevildans point?

I can't speak for Agent Ferris, seeing as how I have them on ignore :)lol:), but my point (which I thought was very clear) is that violence being committed today by Muslims isn't about Islam any more than violence committed by Christians during the height of the Roman Catholic Church was about Christianity.

It was about power and ambition, not about religion.
 
And more Americans Citizens kill American Citizens then any other demographic on earth, even in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whats either yours or Tacticalevildans point?

I'm wondering what the hell your point is considering that few if any of the murders in the U.S. are politically or ideologically motivated.
 
I can't speak for Agent Ferris, seeing as how I have them on ignore :)lol:), but my point (which I thought was very clear) is that violence being committed today by Muslims isn't about Islam any more than violence committed by Christians during the height of the Roman Catholic Church was about Christianity.

It was about power and ambition, not about religion.

Not it was about religous dogma and your assertion that Islam is less violent or dangerous than Christianity at its height is fallacious, Islam was killing more people than Christianity even when Christianity was at its peak and continues to do so to the present day.
 
I can't speak for Agent Ferris, seeing as how I have them on ignore :)lol:), but my point (which I thought was very clear) is that violence being committed today by Muslims isn't about Islam any more than violence committed by Christians during the height of the Roman Catholic Church was about Christianity.

It was about power and ambition, not about religion.

Islam on the other hand, while certainly killing off a certain number of their own, have spent over 1200 years killing primarily those of other religions.

Christ NEVER, EVER called for military or forced conversions. The opposite is true of Islam
 
Last edited:
Islam on the other hand, while certainly killing off a certain number of their own, have spent over 1200 years killing primarily those of other religions.

Really?

I'd love to see your numbers on the subject, what with the ferocity of the conflict between the two major sub-sects in certain parts of the world.

Also, you absolutely failed to comment on what I actually said. :lol:
 
I can't speak for Agent Ferris, seeing as how I have them on ignore :)lol:), but my point (which I thought was very clear) is that violence being committed today by Muslims isn't about Islam any more than violence committed by Christians during the height of the Roman Catholic Church was about Christianity.

It was about power and ambition, not about religion.

I agree, and you make a comment worth a moments reflection. Im adding, the bible; my bible says things about the way women are owned by men. So it is not just the Quran
 
I can't speak for Agent Ferris, seeing as how I have them on ignore :)lol:), but my point (which I thought was very clear) is that violence being committed today by Muslims isn't about Islam any more than violence committed by Christians during the height of the Roman Catholic Church was about Christianity.

It was about power and ambition, not about religion.
Actually, Islam is at the very core for these fundamentalist Islamic groups. Many of them have Islam in their organizations' names and they all want to establish an Islamic caliphate, live by the Koran, and make everyone convert to Islam under their control. How can you say its not about Islam? I don't know what the Catholic Church's motives were, but for the Islamic fundamentalist groups, Islam is at the very core of their movement.
 
Actually, Islam is at the very core for these fundamentalist Islamic groups. Many of them have Islam in their organizations' names and they all want to establish an Islamic caliphate, live by the Koran, and make everyone convert to Islam under their control. How can you say its not about Islam? I don't know what the Catholic Church's motives were, but for the Islamic fundamentalist groups, Islam is at the very core of their movement.

No, a perversion of Islam is at the very core of their movement.

Just like a perversion of Christianity was at the very core of the Roman Catholic Church and its quest for more and more power.
 
I agree, and you make a comment worth a moments reflection. Im adding, the bible; my bible says things about the way women are owned by men. So it is not just the Quran
Yeah, but it shows that the Bible has weird rules in it too, but people in Christian majority countries don't force everyone to submit to these rules. Even though the Bible says things about women being owned by men, Christian majority countries still allow for equality between men and women. Muslim countries do not have this equality.
 
Yeah, but it shows that the Bible has weird rules in it too, but people in Christian majority countries don't force everyone to submit to these rules. Even though the Bible says things about women being owned by men, Christian majority countries still allow for equality between men and women. Muslim countries do not have this equality.

When the Church had sufficient power and authority, these rules most certainly were forced on others.
 
No, a perversion of Islam is at the very core of their movement.

Just like a perversion of Christianity was at the very core of the Roman Catholic Church and its quest for more and more power.
It doesn't matter if it is a twisting of the religion, or if they have hijacked Islam, the point is that for these groups, religion and Islam is at the very core of their movement.
 
When the Church had sufficient power and authority, these rules most certainly were forced on others.
Just the same, the Islamic caliphates back in the day enforced their rules on their subjects too. But now its the 21st century. Other religions have transformed and coexisted with modern life, but Islamic countries haven't transformed significantly, the one exception may be Turkey.
 
Last edited:
But now its the 21st century. Other religions have transformed and coexisted with modern life, but Islamic countries haven't transformed significantly, the one exception may be Turkey.

And yet again that is because religious dominated governments DO NOT WORK. Whether it be Christianity dominated or Islam dominated, THEOCRACIES, TYRANNIES, and DICTATORSHIPS DO NOT WORK.

You are blaming a religion when you should be blaming the governments.
 
Back
Top Bottom