• 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!

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'

Where are the demostrations against voilence in the name of the Qur'an? If there truely are so many Muslims that are against voilence where are they?

The act of not participating in violence is a demonstration against violence.

Generally people don't rally in support of that status-quo. They rally when something needs attention. A billion or so Muslims don't participate in violence in the name of their religion while tens of thousand radicals do. The tens of thousands are the one's that rally to gain support.
 
Only in the past century? Where is your evidence?
Granted we could probably go back to the 18th century. The last major Christian based violence was the Witch hunts (women "proven" to be posssed by the devil) and Inquisition (blasphemy against the church). We can also get into the "Holy Roman Empire" approved wars between the European countries for a the 1400-1700s and the internal religious civil war of Europe during Queen Elizabeth I's rule.

Are you going to back any of this up with evidence or are you relying soley on theory?

What do you need me to prove? That majority of Christians live in US and Europe, that US/Europe governments over the past century or two are now based on democratic/republic ideals instead of theocracy, or that there is still violence in the ME under Theocratic and anarchy rule?
 
Last edited:
Christian priests/pastors were preaching violence on behalf of the bible for hundreds of years. It's only in the past century that this has lessened.

True. Christianity was hijacked and used as the basis for slavery and to continue segregation right here in this country.

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is the number of followers willing to use the religion for power and manipulation. The majority of Christians live in societies that have recently advanced in terms of civility, logic & reason. These changes are thanks to sociological viosionaries and have little to do with religion itself.

I wouldnt go so far as to say it had nothing to do wtih the religion itself. Beginning with Martin Luther and even the Anabaptists, there was a move to reform religion by spiritual men and women. But you are correct in your observation that Islam is stuck where Christianity was during the dark ages. Part of this was the fact that the Western world made moves to separate religion from government. The middle east has not made such moves in most countries and so you see this monstrous abuse of religion for political gain.

In effect, neither religion is immune to the proclivity mankind has for violence or the twisting of their respective teachings.
 
I have read both and you are quite ignorant on the subject. Read the Koran in verse and context as a whole, not in parts. The same is done iwth the bible. If you were honest, you would know this, but you are not, so your comments are discarded like garbage. Your hatred of Muslims is also noted. Maybe you should look into the Klan, they share many of your views.

You are aware that it's not Christians we're fighting in Iraq, Astan, and other 3rd World ****-holes, right? It ain't the Jews planting IEDs. Wiccans aren't blowing themselves up in crowds of people. Hell, not even the Scientology ****s are strapping bombs on children. Mormons didn't kill some of my family members and friends. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

Any religion that kills people over a ****ing drawing (among other atrocities, want a list?) should not be tolerated. Period. Did the Catholics attempt to kill Kev Smith for using the Buddy Christ in the movie "Dogma"? Hell no. Had that been "Hommie Mohammed" instead of "Buddy Christ", lol, Smith's career would have been cut drastically short and his head

Saying Christianity is comparable to Islam is an insult to Christianity.

If you want to compare Christian to Muslim, compare past to past, present to present.

Keep showing you ignorance. It will only get worse
 
If you want to compare Christian to Muslim, compare past to past, present to present.

Keep showing you ignorance. It will only get worse

This is where your ignorance is showing. It doesn't work that way and it isn't simply a Christianity vs Muslim comparison. You also have to take a look at the countries where violence is occurring in. These are mainly dictatorships and theocracies.

My point, which is valid in past and present is that the problem is with dictatorships, tyrannies, and theocracy hijacking a religion (Christianity in the past and Islam now) and not the religion itself.

When you grow out of your ignorance, let us know.
 
But do they protest against voilent Muslims and Muslims that preach voilence?

You don't have to voicefully protest in public to be against violence.

Prove that you are not violent. Where are you protesting in public for all to see? An internet chat board anon don't count either bucko. I'll await evidence that you are not a terrorist. That is about as stupid as you demanding what you are.
 
The act of not participating in violence is a demonstration against violence.

Its called apathy. Hardly a support of your claim.

Generally people don't rally in support of that status-quo. They rally when something needs attention. A billion or so Muslims don't participate in violence in the name of their religion while tens of thousand radicals do. The tens of thousands are the one's that rally to gain support.

You couldn't be more off in your theory.

Disbelief was strong among Muslims that Arabs were behind the Sept. 11 attacks, with 65 percent in Indonesia and 59 percent in Turkey, for example, expressing that viewpoint. Even in Britain, 56 percent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that Arabs carried out the attacks. The results, Mr. Kohut said, show that "many Muslims are still in denial" about something that even Osama bin Laden has acknowledged.


NY Times poll: Muslims still in denial about 9/11**** : Islam /Muslim dlm Gambar Dan Berita Internasional

If they can't even believe who was actually behind 9.11 where are you getting your evidence that they are against voilence against non Muslims?
 
Granted we could probably go back to the 18th century. The last major Christian based violence was the Witch hunts (women "proven" to be posssed by the devil) and Inquisition (blasphemy against the church).

2 separate events separated by hundreds of years.

We can also get into the "Holy Roman Empire" approved wars between the European countries for a the 1400-1700s and the internal religious civil war of Europe during Queen Elizabeth I's rule.

Again, hundreds of years ago. That doesn't come close to Muslim voilence today.

What do you need me to prove? That majority of Christians live in US and Europe, that US/Europe governments over the past century or two are now based on democratic/republic ideals instead of theocracy, or that there is still violence in the ME under Theocratic and anarchy rule?


I want you to prove your statement:

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is the number of followers willing to use the religion for power and manipulation

Where is your evidence? You are equating the text and practices between the two religions. Something I've already proven to be completely false so I ask again, where is your evidence?
 
If they can't even believe who was actually behind 9.11 where are you getting your evidence that they are against voilence against non Muslims?

Where is your proof that almost a Billion Muslims are FOR violence against non-Muslims. It is not up to someone to prove a negative (prove they are non-violent), it is up to you to prove what you claim (that the majority of a billion muslims are for violence against non-muslims).

Will be waiting for you to show statements from over 500,000,000 Muslims that they are for violence. Good luck.
 
You don't have to voicefully protest in public to be against violence.

LOL What? Then how is anyone supposed to know where you stand? Talk about a cop out. You can't prove your own assertion and your only answer is to pretend people can be against voilence and not say they are?

Prove that you are not violent. Where are you protesting in public for all to see? An internet chat board anon don't count either bucko. I'll await evidence that you are not a terrorist. That is about as stupid as you demanding what you are.

hahaha This isn't about personal people. Its about religion as a whole. Look at all the Christians who are attacking the "God hates fags" morons. Look at the Christian groups that openly condemn over and over again voilence against abortion doctors.

You can't prove your bull**** theory that the majority of Muslims are against voilence towards non believers AT ALL.

Until you do you will remain in the world of theory and flase claims.
 
Its called apathy. Hardly a support of your claim.

You couldn't be more off in your theory.

Disbelief was strong among Muslims that Arabs were behind the Sept. 11 attacks, with 65 percent in Indonesia and 59 percent in Turkey, for example, expressing that viewpoint. Even in Britain, 56 percent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that Arabs carried out the attacks. The results, Mr. Kohut said, show that "many Muslims are still in denial" about something that even Osama bin Laden has acknowledged.


NY Times poll: Muslims still in denial about 9/11**** : Islam /Muslim dlm Gambar Dan Berita Internasional

If they can't even believe who was actually behind 9.11 where are you getting your evidence that they are against voilence against non Muslims?

How does a four year old poll of 14,000 Muslims not believing that Arabs have committed a violent act like the one on 9/11 support your claim that all Muslims support violence?
 
Last edited:
Where is your proof that almost a Billion Muslims are FOR violence against non-Muslims. It is not up to someone to prove a negative (prove they are non-violent), it is up to you to prove what you claim (that the majority of a billion muslims are for violence against non-muslims).

You are the one claiming the two religions are equal. It is up to you to prove your claim.

Will be waiting for you to show statements from over 500,000,000 Muslims that they are for violence. Good luck.

I'm not the one who made the dumbass claim the religions are equal. You are.
 
How does a four year old poll of 14,000 Muslims not believing that Arabs have committed a violent act like that one on 9/11 supports your claim that Muslims are overly violent?

Please read more carefully. My argument is challenging you to prove your claim that a majority of Muslims are against voilence towards non believers.

Still waiting for you to support equalizing the two religions in terms of violence and violence teachings in their texts.
 
2 separate events separated by hundreds of years.

Again, hundreds of years ago. That doesn't come close to Muslim voilence today.
I don't think you are comprehending the comparisions. I am stating that we can equate where Christians were hundreds of years ago to where Islam is today. Christianity, when it was closely tied to politics, was a driving excuse for wars and violence. It wasn't until religion was seperated from government did violence lessen.

The Middle-east still have this close tie between Regligion and Government so religion is easily exploited for political gain. As a leader you are more likely to gain support saying "beacuse it is God's will" to perform actions then to say "Because I want more power and wealth".

I want you to prove your statement:

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is the number of followers willing to use the religion for power and manipulation

Where is your evidence? You are equating the text and practices between the two religions. Something I've already proven to be completely false so I ask again, where is your evidence?
The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing Christianity today to Islam today. I am not debating the fact of today's differences. I am explaining WHY there are differences and HOW Islam can evolve to be how Christianity is today. The core message is to remove religion from politics.

The evidence is in the history of evolution of society. Christianity was used as an excuse for violence when it was tied to politics. Christianity is no longer tied to politics in a major sense so that excuse for violence is no longer valid. Islam however is still tied to politics in the ME and hence it is still used as an excuse for violence.

A Christian example is Pat Robertson and Phelps Family. They still use Christian text to support violence in the name of religion. Both make millions of dollars per year thanks to their deep "faith" in religion. Luckily though these types of Radicals are few and far between in terms of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
This is where your ignorance is showing. It doesn't work that way and it isn't simply a Christianity vs Muslim comparison. You also have to take a look at the countries where violence is occurring in. These are mainly dictatorships and theocracies.

My point, which is valid in past and present is that the problem is with dictatorships, tyrannies, and theocracy hijacking a religion (Christianity in the past and Islam now) and not the religion itself.

When you grow out of your ignorance, let us know.

What a pathetic counter....and now you will be on the spot, dude

The Bible is history, prophecy, poetry, the law, etc. Taken all together, it imparts moral principles and guidance. With that in mind, take a look at the writings of the founding fathers, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

See, if it conflicts with the Biblical values or does it incorporate them

Yes or no
 
Please read more carefully. My argument is challenging you to prove your claim that a majority of Muslims are against voilence towards non believers.

Still waiting for you to support equalizing the two religions in terms of violence and violence teachings in their texts.

Quoting irrelevant polls from half a decade ago isn't helping you make your point.

I am not and have never spoken towards the religious teachings themselves. I am stating that their teachings are meaningless and that the religions are exploited for political gain and that is the reason for the violence. You can take either religion and expolit it's teachings in support of violence. The difference with the two religions today is that Christianity is no longer tied to politics and thus cannot be used as an excuse and Islam is still closely tied to politics and thus is still used as an excuse.
 
Last edited:
They get incensed when someone dares build a mosque.. well, pretty much anywhere, but within some arbitrary distance from the former WTC site? Outrageous!
Why does a mosque have to be built by ground zero? The fact of the matter is that the terrorists ARE Muslim extremists. Call them what you want, that doesn't change what they are. And building a mosque blocks away from ground zero is a "slap in the face" tactic by an anti-Israeli imam who knew that this conflict would arise and I believe purposefully instigated it. Why would the mosque have to be THERE?
 
Quoting irrelevant polls from half a decade ago isn't helping you make your point.

There is nothing irrelevant on that pole. It clearly shows Muslims can't even come to terms with who actually was responsible for 9.11
I am not and have never spoken towards the religious teachings themselves. I am stating that their teachings are meaningless and that the religions are exploited for political gain and that is the reason for the violence. You can take either religion and expolit it's teachings in support of violence. The difference with the two religions today is that Christianity is no longer tied to politics and thus cannot be used as an excuse and Islam is still closely tied to politics and thus is still used as an excuse.

Lets be clear. Are you claiming the two religions are equal in violence and teachings? Yes or No?
 
Lets be clear. Are you claiming the two religions are equal in violence and teachings? Yes or No?
Both have violent passages and both can be exploited for political gain, as history shows. To me it doesn't matter if one has 100 passages and another has 500. Both can be used to justify killing one in the right hands.
 
Both have violent passages and both can be exploited for political gain, as history shows. To me it doesn't matter if one has 100 passages and another has 500. Both can be used to justify killing one in the right hands.

Exactly the point everyone in this thread has been making all along. In terms of rhetoric, the two are right there neck and neck for the title of most violent. Beyond that, it has to do with what the people of each religion do with its teachings.
 
A Christian example is Pat Robertson and Phelps Family. They still use Christian text to support violence in the name of religion. Both make millions of dollars per year thanks to their deep "faith" in religion. Luckily though these types of Radicals are few and far between in terms of Christianity.

The most recent example you could point to would be that ****head Phelps. He has his little fanatic church that follows him. No one else. There aren't little Phelp churches spring up all around and he is opposed by Christians at everyone of his anti-gay rallies or when he decides to descrate some soldier's funeral.

Pat Robertson? Now you're really reaching. He doesn't represent a large segment of Christianity, let alone a majority. And no one has committed a murder or other act of violence because of his citation of an Old Testament command as justification. And before you bring up the nutcases that have bombed abortion clinics, they have been condemned by most Christians and Christian leaders (99%+ ?), and have been tracked down, captured and prosecuted by people who (most probably) are Christian.
 
Exactly the point everyone in this thread has been making all along. In terms of rhetoric, the two are right there neck and neck for the title of most violent. Beyond that, it has to do with what the people of each religion do with its teachings.

The Christian New Testament is quite clear. Missionaries went out to preach. Those who accepted the message and joined the church were subject to the laws of the church. But no one could be forced to convert, or to stay. Conversions HAD to be voluntary.

Jesus tells Christians to "Preach the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Preach means to TELL, it doesn't mean CONVERT.The Bible is very clear that believers are to preach, not convert. And, if the preaching is rejected, to move on. Men preach, God converts. Or doesn't. According to his will. But in no case are
believers supposed to do anything to someone who doesn't believe.

Islam is different. The Koran establishes Jihad as one of a Muslim's duties.They have an ongoing command to do this to the entire world. Until everyone is Muslim and as long as there is Islam, there will be a sizable portion thereof who think it is ok to slaughter everyone who isn't one of them.
 
The Christian New Testament is quite clear.

When read in its entirety with an acknowledgment of the whole, yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that lifted and standing alone, several passages make it look like Christians should be violent.
 
What a pathetic counter....and now you will be on the spot, dude

The Bible is history, prophecy, poetry, the law, etc. Taken all together, it imparts moral principles and guidance. With that in mind, take a look at the writings of the founding fathers, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

See, if it conflicts with the Biblical values or does it incorporate them

Yes or no

Of course it conflicts with biblical values. Just take a look at the 10 commandments and see which ones are u.s. Law. We are not a theocracy.

As for the bible being history, that is laughable at best.
 
Back
Top Bottom