Muslims outpace Anglicans in the UK

Originally Posted by Russ D

I disagree. There are no violent Christians. If a man (or woman) uses violence and professes to be a Christian, IMO that is not possible. What you do have is people who use violence in the name of Christianity, which is entirely different.

True Christians don't go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings.

Oh Russ, Russ, Russ!!!

That is as perfect an example of Special Pleading as ever I have seen!!

If they call themselves Christian, but they don't behave in the way that you think they do then they're not "True Christians", yet you don't seem to be able to extend that to Islam!

I'm sure that there are many followers of Islam who will also tell you that "True Muslims don't go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings"!

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope should also "shout as loud" as them...

Personally I wish the Archbishop of Canterbury would ... however there's little chance of that. The former Archbishop was an Evangelical (like me!) but got bogged down in political correctness and bending over backwards trying never to offend anyone rather than saying what he actually believes and accepting that someone, somewhere will always disagree with you to the point of getting offended. The current one ... well, I'm not sure he actually believes in half of what the Bible says, so I'd rather he didn't shout about anything.

As for the Pope ... well, his Christianity has strayed so far from what the Bible says I'd be happy for him to go unheard as well.

I am well aware that this post quite nicely illustrates much of what has been said in this thread - one man's Christian is another man's heretic!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh Russ, Russ, Russ!!!

That is as perfect an example of Special Pleading as ever I have seen!!

If they call themselves Christian, but they don't behave in the way that you think they do then they're not "True Christians", yet you don't seem to be able to extend that to Islam!

Oh Graham, Graham, Graham! The reason I don't extend that to Islam is that I don't know enough about islam to make a reasonable point about them! Unlike many people on this site, if there is a religion or faith that I know little or nothing about, I don't make comments or assumptions about them!!!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

An interesting caveat there "IF the quotes on this thread are to be accepted" (my emphasis).

I don't accept them as being representative of *all* Islam.

Of course they aren't representative of all of Islam but they are representative of some of Islam, whereas I am not aware of any Christians who use that approach in their dealings with members of other religions.

Originally Posted by Graham

Communism, Islam, Catholicism, unions, Jews, it matters not what the name is, there is always *something* that someone will claim to be an "insidious threat" to our way of life or world peace or democracy...

There's always a "bogeyman" out there that can be exploited by those who seek or hold power to scare the "ordinary people".

Just because you call them bogeymen doesn't mean that some of them aren't a threat....communists for instance

Originally Posted by Russ D

Oh Graham, Graham, Graham! The reason I don't extend that to Islam is that I don't know enough about islam to make a reasonable point about them! Unlike many people on this site, if there is a religion or faith that I know little or nothing about, I don't make comments or assumptions about them!!!

But, by implication, because you *don't* extend it to Islam, you *are* accepting the claims and making the assumption that the people who "go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings" are "True Muslims"!

If you don't know the full facts it is only reasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

But, by implication, because you *don't* extend it to Islam, you *are* accepting the claims and making the assumption that the people who "go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings" are "True Muslims"!

Just your opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by Graham

But, by implication, because you *don't* extend it to Islam, you *are* accepting the claims and making the assumption that the people who "go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings" are "True Muslims"!

If you don't know the full facts it is only reasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt.

I find the wisest option is when you don't know the full facts, make no comment. I get frustrated when I try to have a serious discussion with people on here and they aren't in possession of the full facts. Their opinions are no less important but it's hard to take them seriously when they display "pub-land facts" or "armchair expert" knowledge.

It's from commenting without knowledge that we get such gems as "religion should be banned because it causes wars" etc

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by Russ D

<Snip>It's from commenting without knowledge that we get such gems as "religion should be banned because it causes wars" etc

I'd agree that that particular comment is stupid. However, I would claim that history gives examples of wars that have been caused by religion. Specifically, I'd quote:

1) The Wars of Religion in 16th Century France.

2) The Hussite wars of the 15th Century.

3) Dare I mention it, yes, go on! The Cusades.

Now, it can be argued that the real cause of these wars was not religion, but such things as economics etc. I'd be prepared to consider this as a possible explanation for the Crusades, eg land hunger of younger sons of European nobility, but I believe that the French religious wars (the Huguenots vs the Catholics) had a genuine religious component.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Of course they aren't representative of all of Islam but they are representative of some of Islam, whereas I am not aware of any Christians who use that approach in their dealings with members of other religions.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5005

'Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, [Ultra-conservative pundit Ann Coulter] offered this solution to the problem of global terror: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Her statement prompted the National Review to drop her column.'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters...5/army_of_god/

'American terrorist Clayton Waagner, who in the fall of 2001 gained a place on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list after sending anthrax threats to abortion clinics across the U.S. What was most remarkable about the trial, wrote Clarkson, was the "near-complete lack of media attention that it attracted,"'

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/U..._040122-1.html

'"As cream rising to the top of the milk, so the Christian terrorist rises above the huddled masses of churchgoers and the many voices which denounce their violent attempts to defend the innocent from they're [sic] murderous assailants," Chuck Spingola wrote in a posting on the Army of God Web site.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524268.shtml

'â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“The Jews need conversion,âââ€Å ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� says Kay Arthur. †œThey need to know that the Messiah is coming. And the Bible tells us whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s going to happen.ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� [...]

'The Christian fundamentalists believe the only Israelis who are really listening to God are the hard line Jewish settlers who live on the West Bank and Gaza and refuse to move.[...]

'They believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. [...]

'What about the three million Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza? McAteer suggests the bulk of them could be cleansed from this God-given real estate and moved to some Arab country. Nothing can come between the Jews and their land.

'In fact, many fundamentalists believe that when Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo accords and offered to trade land for peace, it was not only a mistake, it was a sin.

'â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“They were going against the word of God. You cannot go against the word of God. And I believe that God stopped it ... by the things that happened.ââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ� says Arthur. She hints that God punished Rabin by assassinating him.'

And that's just a few examples a quick google finds. Just because we don't hear about them much, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just because you call them bogeymen doesn't mean that some of them aren't a threat....communists for instance

Just because we consider the West to be the "Good Guys" doesn't mean that some of *them* aren't a threat either. George W Bush et al, for instance!

Originally Posted by Russ D

I find the wisest option is when you don't know the full facts, make no comment.

In which case you're making as big a mistake as the "armchair experts" whom you decry, just from the opposite direction.

They say "oh, it stands to reason that all Muslims are terrorists", but by saying nothing because you don't have "the full facts" means that you can't (or won't) say "but, hang on, are you sure that they *all* are? Surely some of them deserve the benefit of the doubt"

It's that old "innocent until proven guilty" thing...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

I'd agree that that particular comment is stupid. However, I would claim that history gives examples of wars that have been caused by religion. Specifically, I'd quote:

1) The Wars of Religion in 16th Century France.

2) The Hussite wars of the 15th Century.

3) Dare I mention it, yes, go on! The Cusades.

Now, it can be argued that the real cause of these wars was not religion, but such things as economics etc. I'd be prepared to consider this as a possible explanation for the Crusades, eg land hunger of younger sons of European nobility, but I believe that the French religious wars (the Huguenots vs the Catholics) had a genuine religious component.

As you'll be aware I've never said that religion has never had an involvement in wars and yes, the Crusades were were pretty grime times but then again, they were Catholics who, it could be argued have been known for promoting more than a degree of self-interests.

In which case you're making as big a mistake as the "armchair experts" whom you decry, just from the opposite direction.

They say "oh, it stands to reason that all Muslims are terrorists", but by saying nothing because you don't have "the full facts" means that you can't (or won't) say "but, hang on, are you sure that they *all* are? Surely some of them deserve the benefit of the doubt"

Yes of course they deserve the benefit of the doubt but you are implying something by my silence! I have not given my opinion on Muslins/Islamics because I would prefer to be more knowledgeable before commenting however I will agree that such knowledge is not required to question - that's how I learn about such things.


And I would like to distance myself from the comments made by Ann Coulter et al in your post - extremist views from anyone in authority will never do any good.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

In which case you're making as big a mistake as the "armchair experts" whom you decry, just from the opposite direction.

They say "oh, it stands to reason that all Muslims are terrorists", but by saying nothing because you don't have "the full facts" means that you can't (or won't) say "but, hang on, are you sure that they *all* are? Surely some of them deserve the benefit of the doubt"

It's that old "innocent until proven guilty" thing...

What about Russ' innocence?
You've convicted him of thinking that true muslims go around beating people about the head, without even trying to find out if that was actually what he thought.

[Russ]

You get used to it after a while on here.....

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5005

'Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, [Ultra-conservative pundit Ann Coulter] offered this solution to the problem of global terror: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Her statement prompted the National Review to drop her column.'

Did her words spur christian suicide bombers into action? Did she hijack anything and kill muslims with it? No. She was just another Kilroy-Silk mouthing off, nothing more.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters...5/army_of_god/

'American terrorist Clayton Waagner, who in the fall of 2001 gained a place on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list after sending anthrax threats to abortion clinics across the U.S. What was most remarkable about the trial, wrote Clarkson, was the "near-complete lack of media attention that it attracted,"'

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/U..._040122-1.html

'"As cream rising to the top of the milk, so the Christian terrorist rises above the huddled masses of churchgoers and the many voices which denounce their violent attempts to defend the innocent from they're [sic] murderous assailants," Chuck Spingola wrote in a posting on the Army of God Web site.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524268.shtml

What have Christian anti-abortionists got to do with all this. We are discussing the fact that we get some muslims trying to kill us because we are not muslims and you provide evidence that christians are violent towards abortionists

'

†œThe Jews need conversion,ââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� says Kay Arthur. †œThey need to know that the Messiah is coming. And the Bible tells us whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s going to happen.ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� [...]

'The Christian fundamentalists believe the only Israelis who are really listening to God are the hard line Jewish settlers who live on the West Bank and Gaza and refuse to move.[...]

'They believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. [...]

'What about the three million Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza? McAteer suggests the bulk of them could be cleansed from this God-given real estate and moved to some Arab country. Nothing can come between the Jews and their land.

Removed and re-settled, not suicide bombed. Nothing in the above quotes indicates that christians are homicidally inclined towards muslims purely because of their faith.

'In fact, many fundamentalists believe that when Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo accords and offered to trade land for peace, it was not only a mistake, it was a sin.

'â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“They were going against the word of God. You cannot go against the word of God. And I believe that God stopped it ... by the things that happened.ââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ� says Arthur. She hints that God punished Rabin by assassinating him.'

And that's just a few examples a quick google finds. Just because we don't hear about them much, doesn't mean they don't exist.

You have shown us a load of extremist christians but I don't see any christian 727 hijackers or suicide bombers mentioned there.
Try harder
......anyhoo...even if you find one christian who has actually killed muslims for religious reasons you still have to balance that against the daily atrocities meted out by some muslims against others because they aren't muslim.

Just because we consider the West to be the "Good Guys" doesn't mean that some of *them* aren't a threat either. George W Bush et al, for instance!

So what? You said that we create bogeymen where there are none. I merely pointed out that some of those are real, not imagined.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes of course they deserve the benefit of the doubt but you are implying something by my silence!

No, I am going by the implications in what you *said*!

Let me remind you (and others):

Originally Posted by Russ D

There are no violent Christians. If a man (or woman) uses violence and professes to be a Christian, IMO that is not possible. What you do have is people who use violence in the name of Christianity, which is entirely different.

True Christians don't go around smacking people about, attacking people, or flying planes in to buildings.

Now you firstly state that a person who uses violence in the name of Christianity is not a "True Christian", you then go on to name a *specific* act committed by Muslims *without* suggesting or even *hinting* that just because they "used violence in the name of Islam" they weren't "True Muslims".

This is precisely why I called it Special Pleading because your implication is "in this case (ie Christianity) it's different", when there is in reality no such difference.

And I would like to distance myself from the comments made by Ann Coulter et al in your post - extremist views from anyone in authority will never do any good.

But I'm sure that *they* consider themselves to be "True Christians"!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What about Russ' innocence?
You've convicted him of thinking that true muslims go around beating people about the head, without even trying to find out if that was actually what he thought.

If someone uses the fallacy of Special Pleading to claim that "it's different in this case", I'm going to call them on it. If he didn't think it, he wouldn't have said it.