Emphasis mine.I don't make this shit up, I only call people on it.

Is it a serious problem? Is one too many? Yes and yes. Is it dangerous inflammatory violence inciting speech **regardless** of whose mouth it spews from? Yes.

You're right again, as you often are, when you say this:
Well said. But I would extend your remarks this way. You could easily omit Muslim, or even substitute the name of any other religious tradition in its place and leave your remark unchanged, or even strengthened. And the part about inferring tacit endorsement, well that applies to everyone. Especially someone who knows Muslims personally, all of whom are peaceful, and who fails to refute such "serious and dangerous" and libelous remarks.

No "tacit endorsement" of such hate may be inferred from my actions, and I urge all those reasonable *silent* people who know otherwise to stand up and call bullshit when they see it too. Letting any of these remarks slide is forgoing and opportunity to spread peace by fighting hate.

"Tin Man" is the handle of the idiot, not the type of argument. See post #2

Convert or die(or something close to it) is a message we've seen, almost weekly, for the last few years. I'm sure a lot of westerners believe it's the basic tenet, indeed the theme, of the Muslims. We're hearing it in the Media because the Radical fringe are the only ones making news. The rest of the Muslims not speaking up, is part of the problem, whether it be from agreement with or fear of, they help the Radical fringe with their silence.

Going off in a violent binge or even just a demonstration threating everyone, because the Pope quoted an anti-Islamic ruler from history, is not acceptable behavior in a civilized society. Even if he had said outright, Islamics are violent people, which I remind you he did not, the reaction by the radical rabble is unacceptable. It makes as much sense as UG killing someone for insulting Bush.

The Pope or anyone else, should NOT have to pussyfoot around these assholes for fear of them blowing something or someone up. In free societies of the west, where people are allowed to demonstrate, making inflammatory, threatening, statements, in speechs, chants and signs, are not allowed from any other group. Why should it be tolerated from this scum?

The only thing that's accomplished, is it convinces Muslims that feel they don't get enough respect, that this is the way to go. Yeah, make them fear for their lives, then they'll respect me. :rolleyes: Blurring the line between fear and respect is a big mistake that leads to bad behavior.

Ahuh...well, there are many different ways in which different groups/religions/countries use fear to achieve their purpose. As far as fear and respect go, there are other threads on this very forum talking about why the US is getting so much bad press in other countries and in part and from my own personal perspective I would say that this is because the line between respect me and fear me has been blurred by the Bush administration.

My point is that no entity anywhere is innocent of this respect/fear bastardisation. I believe that media sensationalism is a huge factor in this problem and until people learn to pay less credence to what the media spoon feeds them and become more discerning in what they accept as fact, it's a problem we'll always have to face.

One is a prediction, the other a threat.

Muslims have a distinct and particular responsbility to disclaim the acts of other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam, especially if they complain of being discriminated against because those actions.

Were I to make claims about the "true nature of Islam", surely someone would be upbraiding me for my presumption since I do not follow Islam.
Sorry...since you were quoting UT I thought you were addressing him.

Have they not murdered a nun in Africa over this already?

Hey, who is this "they" you're talking about?

You honestly cannot figure that one out?
"Gee Bob... musta' been a buncha' Mormons"

Men! Fuckin MEN!!! Murderers!

wait.


Right handed people!!!! They should be shot!!!


wait.


Brown skinned humans!!!!! Hangin's too good for them!!!!!


Seriously. It's your "they", you fill in the picture above your label.

I'm sure this is a fun game for you... so go ahead and play.

Are you content with the categorizing happening in this thread? Do you placidly accept the de-humanizing of others? Does this oversimplification of people and events reduce the world to shapes and sizes you can more easily comprehend? Does this represent the limit of your understanding?

It's not a game. Stereotypes and prejudices are not useful tools for understanding the truth. The map is not the terrain.

We have no direct experience of the terrain; we know it only through elaborate systems of maps.

Of course, *your* maps are better than everybody else's, being free of stereotypes and prejudice :-)

Yet another reason why I find it hard to believe that Muslims and Christians keep killing one another. After all, they have an enormously similar heritage.

Just think of "Life of Brian". No greater animosity than between the Judean People's front and the People's Front of Judea.

Splitters!

I'm certain you did not misunderstand me, MaggieL. I'm not in the mood to spar with you on the quality of my analogies.

For anyone else in need of a tedious explanation of my example, I intended "stereotypes and prejudices" to be represented by "map" and "understanding the truth" to be represented by "terrain". By saying that the map is not the terrain I meant that even though we can use a map to imagine the terrain, to help us shape our ideas of something beyond our direct experience, the terrain is what it is, regardless of the map. The map may be more or less accurate, but it is an abstraction, and the terrain is the reality. Stereotypes and prejudices exist, they have a function, but they are not the reality. You can complain loudly that the map shows the road crosses the river, but if the bridge is washed out when you get there, what happens? Fold your little map into a boat and sail across?

Specifically, MaggieL, if it is indeed true that then you do have direct experience of the terrain. Additionally, you may have an elaborate system of maps. But responding to the map while ignoring the terrain is not wise.

Well, duh! :eyebrow: Right. That's helpful. If you wish to share my map and join me as I travel toward the truth, I welcome you. But if you're going to yammer on about why the road isn't the same color blue as it is on the map, I'll let you out at the next light.