How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

Honestly, I'm completely lost on where this discussion is, or even should be. Is the consensus that us- imperialism is far worse than islam, or islamic fascism and that there fore westerners are not allowed to criticize islam?

Sorry for my ignorance, but the wall of texts really don't help, I'm afraid. I mean, it's obvious people aren't on the same page here and to a certain extent having different parallel discussions disguised as being about the same subject.

  On 4/7/2013 at 8:10 AM, goDel said:

Honestly, I'm completely lost on where this discussion is, or even should be. Is the consensus that us- imperialism is far worse than islam, or islamic fascism and that there fore westerners are not allowed to criticize islam?

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but the wall of texts really don't help, I'm afraid. I mean, it's obvious people aren't on the same page here and to a certain extent having different parallel discussions disguised as being about the same subject.

I believe that is the consensus.

Coupled with a religion that in some regions does not allow criticism from within and you are faced with a particular form of totalitarianism that self-perpetuates itself and will keep on doing so.

'Islamophobia' is a 'fake term' because phobia means 'irrational fear'.

  Quote

“Please bear in mind, that people are witch hunting for us…so be careful which details you use,” Jabir begins. He is right to be concerned, for he is an atheist in a country where advocating beliefs other than those of a Sunni Muslim engender imprisonment, possible torture, and a theoretical possibility of execution.

 

Although Jabir is not his real name, he is still wary of publicly voicing his views. Saudi Arabia is an intensely hostile environment in which to express non-Islamic religious beliefs, let alone a lack of belief. Indeed, for many Saudis, atheism – mulhad in Arabic – is far more disturbing than believing in a different religion. Atheism, as argued by many clerics in Saudi Arabia, leads to dissolute lives, carnal pursuits, immoral behaviours, and ultimately, eternal damnation.

 

Atheists are portrayed in Saudi official media as an existential and corruptive threat to society. One cleric even recently spoke of a: “wave of atheism sweeping the country.” This is highly unlikely, but it shows a persistent fear of atheists and ensures that no Saudi ever express such a belief openly.

 

“If someone declared that he was non-believer, regardless of whether the government took action or not, he would be cut off by his family, he would be fired from his own job, people everywhere would talk about him and warn others about him. It would be highly likely that people would hurt him physically, perhaps murder him.”

http://www.albawaba.com/slideshow/middle-east-atheists-islam-persecution-456670

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmeHKdUcBo0

PDF: http://www.iheu.org/files/IHEU Freedom of Thought 2012.pdf

  Quote

Algeria

Discriminatory Laws:

The constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom of religion or belief. However, Algeria’s

constitution also makes Islam the official religion. Its penal code disallows persons from insulting

religious sentiments or inciting hatred against religion. The country also has a Ministry of Religious

Affairs that works to ban any publishing and broadcasting content deemed blasphemous.

 

Egypt

 

Discriminatory Laws:

The constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom of religion or belief. However, Article 98(f)

of the country’s penal code, as amended by law 147/2006, states that “whoever makes use of religion in

propagating, either by words, in writing, or in any other means, extreme ideas for the purpose of inciting

strife, ridiculing or insulting a heavenly religion or a sect following it, or damaging national unity” should

be punished with between six months and five years imprisonment, and/or a fine between five hundred

and one thousand pounds. The constitutional situation remains unclear and fluid with continuing

political upheaval following the democratic revolution. There has been a marked increase in blasphemy

charges in the past year directed at atheist and Coptic Christians, especially since the YouTube video

“Innocence of Muslims” (produced by Coptic emigrants from Egypt) was publicized in the country.

 

Cases of discrimination:

 

In February 2012, a Christian school secretary named Makram Diab was sentenced to six years in

prison for “insulting the Prophet Muhammad.” A mob of 2,500 Muslims rallied outside the

courthouse and demanded Diab be sentenced to death. Diab was apparently convicted on the

testimony of Muslim colleagues, who stated he had made offensive remarks.

 

On 4 April 2012, An Egyptian court sentenced 17-year-old Christian boy, Gamal Abdou Massoud, to

three years in jail for publishing cartoons on his Facebook page that “mocked” Islam and the Prophet

Mohammad. Massoud was also accused of distributing some of his cartoons to his school friends in a

village in the southern city of Assiut, home to a large Christian population. The child's court in Assiut

sentenced Gamal Abdou Massoud to three years in prison “after he insulted Islam and published and

distributed pictures that insulted Islam and its Prophet,” the court said in a statement seen by

Reuters. The cartoons, published by Massoud in December, had already prompted some Muslims to

attack Christians, with several Christian houses burned and several people injured in the violence.

 

September 2012 also saw riots across Egypt over the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims”, which

offended Muslims with its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad. As a result, in November an

Egyptian court convicted, in absentia, seven Coptic Christians, allegedly involved in the production of

the movie, for "insulting the Islamic religion through participating in producing and offering a movie

that insults Islam and its prophet." At the same time, the court convicted an American Christian

pastor, Terry Jones, for burning the Quran on YouTube. All eight were sentenced to death, but they

are all living abroad in countries that are not expected to extradite them to Egypt.

 

On September 14, 2012, during the riots over the “Innocence of Muslims”, Alber Saber was arrested

after a mob formed outside his home and demanded his arrest for insulting religion. Saber is a

twenty-seven-year-old prominent activist for secular democracy in Egypt. Raised in a Coptic Christian

household, Saber is an atheist who reportedly operates the Egyptian Atheists page on Facebook and

has been a vocal critic of fundamentalist Islam. Saber was reportedly beaten after a prison guard

announced his charges to others in Saber’s cell. He faces between six months and five years in prison

and/or a fine between five hundred and one thousand pounds. His trial is currently ongoing.

 

In late July 2012 a Coptic Christian teacher, Bishoy Kamel, 32, was arrested in the southern

governorate of Sohag over an accusation that he posted images “insulting” to Islam on his Facebook

page. Police were reported by al-Ahram newspaper as saying Kamel could be charged with

blasphemy and would face up to five years in prison if convicted. The images he allegedly posted

were cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed and Egypt’s new President Mohamed Morsi.

Mohamed Safwat, who filed the charges against Kamel, reportedly argued that that the teacher had

also “insulted members of his own family.” Kamel admitted to managing the Facebook page under

investigation but denied the charges, claiming his account had been hacked. In September 2012

Kamel was sentenced to six years in prison for blasphemy.

check out the pdf if you want to read more

Thanks compson, but please stop posting more walls of text for a second. More walls of text are not going to help at this point. At least, I hope that's clear. Seems obvious to me anyways.

Another "anyways" though is that it seems "the other side" of the argument already feels the argument is over.

Which is odd, imo, because the starting argument was about "rational atheists" spreading anti-islam/pro-us propaganda. Which I still think is an odd and problematic start for an argument and one which would lead to a crippled discussion, but whatever. It already starts from a series of generalisations which hurt any resolution. For example, where do Ayan Hirshi Ali's criticisms fall in this discussion? Are her criticisms toward Islam regarded as valid around here? Or has the imperial virus been affecting her brain, leaving her as some sort of sorry figure without any substance? And btw, is she an atheist nowadays? Would it actually matter for this discussion if she'd be still religious? Does it matter what her religious belief is? I don't think so. But somehow the starting point is "rational atheists". And why are we discussing pro-us military propaganda if the Syria-conflict has - to this point - nothing of the sort? Or does it?

The only "pro-us military" developments at this point in time, imo, are in the context of Northern Korea, which has no religious context whatsoever. And, imo, hasn't got much to do with imperialism either, but that could be me. For people seeing us-imperialism in this context, it can be seen everywhere. Even if it's not there. And if it's there, it might be in very different forms and magnitudes than assumed. But the painful part is, that this appears far from people's interest. Especially when it doesn't confirm their beliefs.

Edit: tiny wall of text!?

United States and Religion : A Theory and Outlook on Public Discourse

In their conceptual form democracy and capitalism are the best examples of government/society that we have come up with. But in practice, due to flaws of human nature, they are only closest to their intent if the people remain politically active and informed. No doubt the US Government has been corrupt, manipulative, and unjust; especially over the past 30-40 years. The elite and wealthy believe that they are above the law because they believe that they are doing good. This belief in my opinion is religious. One whom is born into or reaches this high level in society would like to think that they are somehow divine and therefore chosen to do god's work. And I don't doubt they want people to worship/fear their power by encouraging conspiracies. Not to say conspiracies are false, but that they would be a good way to discredit political activism and divide the people. This arrogance can only lead to greed. They become justified and re-affirmed by any acts of manipulation or corruption, because the end justifies the means. They don't want to believe that their success was maybe luck or chance. Or that their hoarding of resources and greed was immoral.

When you have most of the world also believing in ridiculous holy books, this re-affirms the elite's irrationality and can be used as a tool to keep it that way.

This is why I am critical of both Religion and Government. Faith is surrendering to authority. Pride is the surrendering to authority. And I personally do not have pride or faith in any Government or any Religion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Self-evident. It did not take a religion for atheist Benjamin Franklin to make this declaration. It is the goal of human experience. And it is our responsibility to take part in public discourse on issues that regress this goal. To challenge authority so that it remains in tact. Which includes the US and Islam as well as all other pollutants of freedom and liberty.

But bare in mind, censoring things you disagree with is harming this process of public discourse. And it is my belief that political correctness on the issue of Islam is a form of self-censorship that is also harming this process. You equate these criticism as being racist (ie the new evil).

Lol

GoDel, you are right that I should take a seat and let the conversation flow by some new voices.

one small clarification from last post, as I see it comes off as a huge generalization

from my last post, I am not suggesting~

that the elite are all religious or that they all think like that

that religious belief leads to immoral justification (Mao was clearly fucked up)

I am just attempting to expand on why sometimes institutions and religion/religious belief plays a negative role in society. That anyone, myself included or any institution who gains immense power should be questioned and criticized based on rational arguments and evidence.

Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

-Thomas Jefferson 3rd President (1801-1809)

Godel, sorry about that lol, you are absolutely right. I'll take a seat for a bit and let new / other people have at it.

Just want to clarify something about my previous post, real quick

I didn't mean to suggest that:

1) all the elite are religious or hold religious beliefs

2) belief in religion makes one immoral (Mao was cray)

My sloppy stoned suggestion was that simply any institution that holds power over the people, should be questioned and criticized. That human nature and power is flawed.

edit: ffs lol... I just re-typed this because my internet glitched when I posted, idk. I probably am coming off as insane now lol..

last post

  On 4/7/2013 at 11:39 AM, goDel said:

Thanks compson, but please stop posting more walls of text for a second. More walls of text are not going to help at this point. At least, I hope that's clear. Seems obvious to me anyways.

 

Another "anyways" though is that it seems "the other side" of the argument already feels the argument is over.

 

Which is odd, imo, because the starting argument was about "rational atheists" spreading anti-islam/pro-us propaganda. Which I still think is an odd and problematic start for an argument and one which would lead to a crippled discussion, but whatever. It already starts from a series of generalisations which hurt any resolution. For example, where do Ayan Hirshi Ali's criticisms fall in this discussion? Are her criticisms toward Islam regarded as valid around here? Or has the imperial virus been affecting her brain, leaving her as some sort of sorry figure without any substance? And btw, is she an atheist nowadays? Would it actually matter for this discussion if she'd be still religious? Does it matter what her religious belief is? I don't think so. But somehow the starting point is "rational atheists". And why are we discussing pro-us military propaganda if the Syria-conflict has - to this point - nothing of the sort? Or does it?

 

The only "pro-us military" developments at this point in time, imo, are in the context of Northern Korea, which has no religious context whatsoever. And, imo, hasn't got much to do with imperialism either, but that could be me. For people seeing us-imperialism in this context, it can be seen everywhere. Even if it's not there. And if it's there, it might be in very different forms and magnitudes than assumed. But the painful part is, that this appears far from people's interest. Especially when it doesn't confirm their beliefs.

 

Edit: tiny wall of text!?

the greenwald article in the op seems like it would really clear up the confusion you have about Islamophobia as it's being discussed here. have you read it?

compson I propose you change your position on the grounds that Google Images suggests that Islam could be pretty IDM. I mean it has to be beyond a coincidence the two suggested images appear together right?

heh

  On 4/7/2013 at 3:55 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 11:39 AM, goDel said:

 

the greenwald article in the op seems like it would really clear up the confusion you have about Islamophobia as it's being discussed here. have you read it?

Well, the part I got from it was that Islam shouldn't be an excuse for the US to kill some people abroad. And that Islam is just like any other religion.

Imo, and as others have already said: killing people is bad, obviously. Whether by the US or any other nation. But I do believe there are reasons to be concerned about Islam and that to some extent it isn't just like any other religion. In countries where sharia-law holds, Islam is more than just any other religion. And that's where I think Ayan makes good points (basically: Islam being about submission), regardless of what Greenwald thinks.

And that's where I think I disagree with Greenwald. He goes against putting Islamism apart from other religions. But I think there are good reasons to put Islamism in a different box - under certain conditions (!!), namely where Islam tries to be more than just religion (Sharia-law and all that). It's mostly about secularity, I guess.

The racist thing is irrelevant if you ask me. I don't know what Harris has been saying, but the generalised claim that "rational atheists" who go against Islam (and are pro-us military) are racists is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Harris might be, though, but that's beyond my interests, tbh.

also the south park episode with mohammed in a bearsuit is speaking volumes, if you ask me. Maher makes some good points about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUEaMA4gRIk

  On 4/7/2013 at 8:33 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 3:55 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 11:39 AM, goDel said:

 

the greenwald article in the op seems like it would really clear up the confusion you have about Islamophobia as it's being discussed here. have you read it?

 

Well, the part I got from it was that Islam shouldn't be an excuse for the US to kill some people abroad. And that Islam is just like any other religion.

 

Imo, and as others have already said: killing people is bad, obviously. Whether by the US or any other nation. But I do believe there are reasons to be concerned about Islam and that to some extent it isn't just like any other religion. In countries where sharia-law holds, Islam is more than just any other religion. And that's where I think Ayan makes good points (basically: Islam being about submission), regardless of what Greenwald thinks.

 

And that's where I think I disagree with Greenwald. He goes against putting Islamism apart from other religions. But I think there are good reasons to put Islamism in a different box - under certain conditions (!!), namely where Islam tries to be more than just religion (Sharia-law and all that). It's mostly about secularity, I guess.

 

The racist thing is irrelevant if you ask me. I don't know what Harris has been saying, but the generalised claim that "rational atheists" who go against Islam (and are pro-us military) are racists is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Harris might be, though, but that's beyond my interests, tbh.

i'm not aware of anyone making the claim that being pro-military, or criticizing islam is racist. the point being made is that under the banner of "rational" criticism is "anti-muslim animus" as the title of the piece suggests. i'm not sure why this thread keeps getting bogged down by this straw man of "critizing islam = racist."

vice on how atheists are islamophobic: http://www.vice.com/read/new-atheism-needs-to-get-out-of-its-old-rut?utm_source=vicefbus

  On 4/7/2013 at 11:50 PM, Hoodie said:

vice on how atheists are islamophobic: http://www.vice.com/read/new-atheism-needs-to-get-out-of-its-old-rut?utm_source=vicefbus

That writer doesn't realize that in a world where people try to get schools to teach intelligent Design and put Ten Commandment monuments in front of government buildings, pro-active atheists are required.

  On 4/8/2013 at 12:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 11:50 PM, Hoodie said:

vice on how atheists are islamophobic: http://www.vice.com/read/new-atheism-needs-to-get-out-of-its-old-rut?utm_source=vicefbus

 

That writer doesn't realize that in a world where people try to get schools to teach intelligent Design and put Ten Commandment monuments in front of government buildings, pro-active atheists are required.

Yep... specifically he attempts to discourage public discourse with this..... "Write some more strongly-worded blog posts demanding that moderate Muslims renounce their faith?"

I am not saying Muslims should burn the Koran and call it quits. Even though I personally would if I happened to be Muslim. But that they should renounce and be active with attacking bad shit being done in the name of their religion. Just as Christians should demand that any priests who rape children should go to jail. It seems like a logical course of action if you want to ensure you religion does not get over-taken by fanatics that don't represent the religion (in your eyes).

Basically the article is about "apathy." And religious criticism = bullying...

Terrible article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI

(leaving again for awhile)

really? you're concluding with a video where a guy says art is going to save humanity?

  On 4/8/2013 at 12:29 AM, zaphod said:

really? you're concluding with a video where a guy says one thousand year old book is going to save humanity?

fixed

  On 4/7/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 8:33 PM, goDel said:

 

 

The racist thing is irrelevant if you ask me. I don't know what Harris has been saying, but the generalised claim that "rational atheists" who go against Islam (and are pro-us military) are racists is pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Harris might be, though, but that's beyond my interests, tbh.

i'm not aware of anyone making the claim that being pro-military, or criticizing islam is racist. the point being made is that under the banner of "rational" criticism is "anti-muslim animus" as the title of the piece suggests. i'm not sure why this thread keeps getting bogged down by this straw man of "critizing islam = racist."

Admittedly it was taken pretty simplified from the quote below. But Greenwald brought it up himself. Numerous times. I agree, it's irrelevant, btw. As already mentioned.

  Quote

That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I've long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.

Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.

And a quote from the linked Greenwald piece:

  Quote

This decade-long Othering of Muslims - a process necessary to sustain public support for their continuous killing, imprisonment, and various forms of rights abridgments - has taken its toll. I'm most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki's killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread, and is a substantial factor in explaining the discrepancy I began by identifying.

It's probably because I'm not a convinced fan of Greenwald, but the previous quote is just a horrible politically correct way of pointing the racism wand without actually calling people out. IMO, he just basically calls a lot of people racist under the flag of not calling them racist. It's brought under the vail of eufemisms and understatements, while being called "a substantial factor". Pretty fucking sad, if you ask me.

Isn't it pretty f-ing funny, btw, that "rational atheism" and "national atheism" are only one letter away? Someone fast reading might even confuse the two.

It's just a silly observation of course!

greenwald is quite explicitly making a case (a rather robust one i should add) that there is a very apparent thread of islamophobia in the work of sam harris. whether he's definitively arguing that islamophobia is a form of racism is somewhat beside the point, imo.

tbh, i somehow doubt that greenwald's point would be even remotely controversial if sam harris was writing about jews for instance. thus, if harris suggested that the TSA profile "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be a Jew" i think we'd all be legitimately uncomfortable with that. or if sam harris was pro-palestinian (lol) and said "we are not at war with terrorism. we are at war with judaism." but bc he used "muslim" and "islam" there, it's somehow no big deal. and i think it'd get pretty awkward here if people on this forum making arguments along the lines of "i'm not saying all jews are bad but i do think they should be calling on their religion to be less miserly" or posting random links to the king david hotel bombing or graphs of how many rich jews rule hollywood or whatever. but bc it's "muslim" it seems totally ok for some weird reason.

whether Greenwald is calling out Harris as a racist or not is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Harris is blatantly bigoted in the most classic red neck way possible but cloaking it under the guise of intellectual thought, basic tale as old as time: fear of the unknown, the unknown being a scary culture he pretends to know a lot of about from afar.

Greenwald ruffles a lot of fucking feathers, and for that I love the dude. He might not always play entirely fair but at least he gets people like Sam Harris to come out swinging in their own defense. Most writers aren't able to strike such a drastic nerve like that, if he was just another crazy accusatory emotional political writer someone like Harris would just ignore it. Fortunately Greenwald has written almost consistently on the right side of history and has bullet proof references in his articles, making him extremely hard to ignore and i think in time most critical thinkers who don't have faith in the state will see that focusing in or jumping on the 'islam is the greatest threat' train is on the very very wrong side of history.
And in response to what you said Godel, what you find pretty fucking sad i find pretty awesome and necessary weaponary to get these 'rational atheists' to face their own twisted logic.

and I will agree that it's a challenging discussion to have if the only thing being discussed is 'Is Islam worse than other religions'. Especially against the backdrop of loads and loads of anti arab and muslim agitprop being shoved down our throats for the past 12 years in the United States. It's an interesting discussion to have because it's really hard to know a) how young people were when 9/11 happened, did they have an opinion about muslims before Bush taught them to hate them? b) would it be a topic of discussion at all in the United States if the middle east wasn't filled to the brim with oil or the 9/11 attacks had not happened? My guess is probably not at all.

edit: the more i hear about Dawkin's opinions on the middle east the more I'm embarrassed to ever have been a supporter of any of his works. *shudders in disgust*

  On 4/7/2013 at 2:15 AM, compson said:

 

Islamic fascists do abhorrent acts of violence. Something not everyone in this thread criticizes. Instead they label these criticisms and concerns as racist.

again no, wrong, absolutely factually incorrect. I label the overwhelming singular laser focus some people have on violence committed by Muslims as form of Bush era brainwashed bigotry. I will stand by this belief 100% because i remember very well what the world was like before 9/11 and before we were all conditioned to hate Muslims. Racism is too specific a term to describe it in all circumstances.

I also applaud the attempted efforts of some, not necessarily you compson in the thread being conservative generic right wingers in stealth mode. Your cloaking device stopped working years ago. It's admirable to try and mold and rebrand those beliefs into a perceived form of rational thinking, but in the end it's usually very easy to pick up on.

*tries to find picture of me with my arm around glenn greenwald, gives up*

  On 4/8/2013 at 2:54 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

whether Greenwald is calling out Harris as a racist or not is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Harris is blatantly bigoted in the most classic red neck way possible but cloaking it under the guise of intellectual thought.

Don't these two sentences contradict one another?

  Quote

i think in time most critical thinkers who don't have faith in the state will see that focusing in or jumping on the 'islam is the greatest threat' train is on the very very wrong side of history.

Could you expand on this? Isn't this just another form of fear mongering?

  Quote

necessary weaponary to get these 'rational atheists' to face their own twisted logic.

Again, more specifics. What twisted logic? Please provide quotes in context, unlike your diligent and esteemed pal Glen

  Quote

I will agree that it's a challenging discussion to have if the only thing being discussed is 'Is Islam worse than other religions'. Especially against the backdrop of loads and loads of anti arab and muslim agitprop being shoved down our throats for the past 12 years in the United States.

  Quote

a) how young people were when 9/11 happened, did they have an opinion about muslims before Bush taught them to hate them? b) would it be a topic of discussion at all in the United States if the middle east wasn't filled to the brim with oil or the 9/11 attacks had not happened? My guess is probably not at all.

After 9/11 I had an opinion about Al Qaeda. They killed a few thousand innocent people. Al Qaeda is a real threat as are Islamic fascists. The information I have posted in this thread has yet to be discussed/refuted by anyone (same goes for GoDel). And its vital to the topic because the information clearly shows us, Islamic fascist states do create radicalism, as noted in the polls justifying murder and suicide bombing (as well as threats and acts of violence towards those who "offend" Islam).

You can have faith in your belief that 9/11 was a hoax and Al Qaeda is a fake organization. But I suggest that theory lacks crucial evidence to be believed. You haven't really refuted GoDel's claims and you keep suggesting religious criticism is actually just false bigotry. While also saying its besides the point. Which is it?

  Quote

compson:

Islamic fascists do abhorrent acts of violence. Something not everyone in this thread criticizes. Instead they label these criticisms and concerns as racist.

  Quote

John Ehrlichman:

 

again no, wrong, absolutely factually incorrect. I label the overwhelming singular laser focus some people have on violence committed by Muslims as form of Bush era brainwashed bigotry. I will stand by this belief 100% because i remember very well what the world was like before 9/11 and before we were all conditioned to hate Muslims.

What exactly is singular focus also? I've been openly critical of the US and Islam in this thread. I don't even understand why there is the need to correlate. The only way you can defend your position is if you submit reasonable evidence as to why Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc are a force for good and are above criticism.

Let me direct your attention to a question you asked:

  Quote

would it be a topic of discussion at all in the United States if the middle east wasn't filled to the brim with oil or the 9/11 attacks had not happened?

Probably not, but that doesn't mean Islamic fascism isn't a problem.

Maybe you should not put faith in something you can't prove and accept the possibility that you could be wrong. Who knows how big a threat terrorism is, it's not something you can quantify, but I think its reasonable to conclude Islam is unique to other religious institutions today because it promotes racism, facism, sexism within totalitarian Islamic states. No one on the opposing side has actually even attempted to argue this point. Instead its just the dancing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAAi9CG7WW0