First, I believe there are those that are peaceful Muslims. But just as Christians have sects that fight each other, Muslims have violent types as well.
Yesterday, a video was released that depicted violence juxtaposed with text of the Qur’an and quotations of spectacularly non-peaceful Muslims. It was placed on LiveLeak.com, but after they received many death threats, the video was pulled off. The removal statement byLiveLeak is rather chilling. What is sad, is that those that find it offensive I can understand, but those that threaten to kill people because of the offense only prove that the video is at least partially true. Those Muslims that are reasonable, that find the video offensive yet share no values with people that perform the acts perpetrated on the video should find at least as much offense at those that have committed these acts in the name of their religion as those that point out these criminals.
If the Muslim world had as many protests with people rioting in the streets over the despicable actions of those that desecrate the idea of Islam being a religion of peace then this kind of video would hold no traction with anyone. That there were fewer Muslims demonstrating against the criminals that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center than there were people celebrating gives the makers of this kind of video credit.
When people defame the Christian religion, you generally do not see rioting in the streets, and there is nearly universal protest against those that resort to violence in the name of Christianity. If the same were true for Islam, perhaps this video would never have been made, and if it were, it would not have gained any attention.
It does appear to be counter intuitive to say “We are a religion of peace, and if you say anything we don’t like, we will kill you!”
Sanity,
This may come as a shock to you, but you can say nothing that isn’t your opinion — neither can anyone else for that matter — as even what you see with your eyes you will filter with your world view. I’ve told the story of the guy who thinks he is dead, asked if dead men bleed, to which he says “no” and then gets jabbed with a lancet and starts bleeding; he is told “see you are wrong” to which he replies “your right, dead men do bleed!”
If you cannot see what shapes your world view you have no way to look outside it — no possibility of looking through a different world view even if you wanted. You won’t be able to understand another’s position without doing that.
You talk about “cherry picked facts” — examples that show what someone is saying is correct? Do you “cherry pick” your facts to emphasis what you are trying to support? Of course you do. No rational person goes to facts on the growth of peaches in northern climatic conditions to support the big bang theory of creation of the universe! You take what is relevant, what is salient, not something that is peripheral or has extraneous or irrelevant issues that would cloud the conclusion. Of course you can always disagree with what someone else might say are irrelevant issues — and so include what they would not include (and so find them “cherry picking”) or not include because of issues you think are irrelevant (and be “cherry picking” yourself).
As to “I look at the situation from a broader viewpoint and make no apriori ssumptions” you cannot be logical and make no a priori assumptions. Without the axioms (a priori assumptions) you can make no conclusions in logic. Axioms are required. The axiom set from which you start will either have “right and wrong” in them, or be logical conclusions from them. Just like in mathematics, you can substitute a theorem for an axiom, and then “prove” the axiom, the same is true for all world views. If you take an axiomatic start that, while it says nothing about right and wrong, but then start talking about right and wrong in any way shape or form, then you have an axiomatic position on right and wrong. (As an aside, this is the same fallacy that atheists have when they say you cannot “prove the existence of god” in that they insist starting with an axiom set which precludes the existence of a god.
As to my statement about passing judgment over something, you do not judge something which is bigger, broader in scope (i.e., you have no capability to comprehend it). If you believe you can pass judgment on something, you are already stating that it is not so broad in scope (from a philosophical view) that it is incomprehensible as a total whole. If you know that it is larger than what you can ever hope to understand, then you would know it is not something you can judge.
One more thing … even if nobody can ever get a complete and correct knowledge of the value of pi (the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle) that does not diminish the need to understand that value (so I only know it as 3.14159625 … that does not mean that pi does not exist, or that there is only a single value for it). Just because I do not know the one true interpretation of the Bible does not mean that the interpretation does not exist, and that while I am surely learning it, I might disagree with others who are more learned than I, that I should just throw up my hands and say “well, nobody’s perfect, so I’m good enough!”
On “pro-lifers” and how much we care for 8-week old children, I personally have donated thousands of dollars to crisis pregnancy centers that provide health care, clothes, homes (for those that have none), adoption services (for those that choose not to keep their children), and baby clothes, furniture, baby medical care, parenting training, job training and more for those that do plan to keep their children. I have not seen a single “pro-choice” person do nearly anything in order to help a young woman have a real choice other than push abortion. When is the last time you saw a “pro-choice” advocate pony up their house to be converted to a home for unwed mothers? (I’ve seen pro-life people do that…what “choice” is being given to a homeless girl by “pro-choice” advocates won’t give them a place to stay?)
BTW, I would *never* have been in favor of racial slavery, and I most certainly would have been one of the abolitionists. While I would not have been a “John Brown” abolitionist, I would have been Republican from the start. I am more of a moral conservative than anything else, and conservative tracing roots back to the time of Jesus. Please remember, you don’t know me very well, and you certainly won’t as long as you attempt to put my argumentation into your straw man positions that you know so well.
a lot of words for someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about!!
Marshmallow,
No, Hitler is a Patriots Fan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQNu7QnQtY&feature=related
Since the Patriots are from MA, which votes straight Democrat Congressionally and Presidentially then I guess that makes him a Democrat.
SPMM
ad hominem … find out what it is — if you knew, you wouldn’t resort to it so often.