'Hostage situation' portrays killers as Christians

[anonemouse 1]

I agree. I believe that was Leatha's point...it's the "acceptable" politically correct target of bigotry these days.

And yet, your own statement implies that it is somehow more acceptable to make Muslims at target of bigotry.

I have not researched this, but I bet someone will (or has...or will want to):

How many people have been killed in right-wing bomber attacks on abortion clinics?

How many people have been killed when "things have been blown up" in the name of Allah?

I am not seeing the equivalency.

Why is one seemingly more acceptable to you, but not the other? Have supposed Muslims killed people in the name of Allah? Yes. Have supposed Christians killed people in the name of God? Yes. Should either group be discriminated against or become the target of bigotry? No. But let me say this: Suddenly not recieving special treatment does not necessarily equal bigotry against your religion, no matter what religion you are.

[green 6]

Well, sadly enough the six foot tall pink rabbit who is sitting in the room with us, the one which we are desparately trying to ignore because we are liberal folk and do want to show the same generosity to each and everyone of us, is the Islamic fanatic....

Now, let it be said that Green has street cred. I am an atheist. I live in Canada and approve of socialized medicine, the right of a woman to decide, and same sex marriage. Not only that, some of my closest friends are from Algeria and raised in the way of Islam. I also know what Savaronola did and I am none too happy with antics of those noisy politicized televangelist types.

Nevertheless, the new face of Islam is not an attractive one. This was a religion which under the early caliphates supervised over a much more relaxed, creative, tolerant, and intellectually advanced civilization than that of Medieval Christian Europe. There were enormous advances made in the arts and sciences, particularly maths and astronomy, under the rule of the Caliphates at this time and, moreover, they were tolerant of the Jews and the Christians who lived under their rule.

Today the situation in the Islamic countries looks dire. Intellectual and creative activities have become a no-go zone for the local intelligentsia and mob thought and violence seem to rule. The local Christian and Jewish minorities have been chased out. The general emotional response of the local folk is entirely reactionary, hate-filled, and thoughtless. A case in point: all those mass burnings of the Danish flag - what was that all about?

Had these individuals troubled to do the rational thing, and that would be investigate the issue, they would have discovered that the most offensive cartoons were not part of the original material but were added later in order to stir up Muslims on this, a formerly dead in the Water issue.

They would also have remarked that even as they demand the right to freely criticize the west and other Judeo-Christian religions so must they accept that they will have to endure criticism; anything else is hypocrisy.

Muslims would also have to acknowledge that there are many Muslims who are anxious to immigrate to the USA and to Canada but there are few people who are knocking themselves out to do the reverse.

As for the folk who are on this side of the Atlantic, it is to be hoped that they will be well treated by the rest of us for they are our fellow citizens. It is also to be hoped that if they really don't feel comfortable they choose to resettle in an Islamic country, and not opt for blowing stuff up. Of course the only way that we can give anyone this option is by welcoming them into our communities as our equals and friends.

But, nevertheless, it is certain Muslims who are behaving badly,...is it not?

[mousecrazy 2]

I'm not so quick with the quotes, but I will just refer back to my questions, regarding asking for stats on HOW MANY people have been killed by insane Christians bombing abortion clinics, and HOW MANY people have been killed in the name of Allah.

Somehow, these questions were interpreted as my calling for increased bigotry toward one group over the other????????? I am obviously not interested in bigotry of any kind, but in truth. Not exceptions to the rule, but in probability or likelihood.

This is the kind of blindness that causes great frustration in otherwise straightforward debate. Yes, I am asking the questions to lead the discussion. Honest answers would, hopefully, reveal some fallacies in logic that might cause some enlightenment.

[TommyO 5]

People have been blowing each other up in the name of religion for thousands of years. There is little reason to enter into a debate over which religion is more guilty. Anyone who is willing to kill another in the name of God, Allah or the flying spagetti monster for that matter is wrong. I feel comfortable saying that the Muslim world has more than it's share of religiuos fanatics who are willing to take the life of others for no other reason than they beleive that their supreme diety wishes it.

But religious intolerance isn't just measured by who kills the most. It is also measured by how intolerant groups are towards others on the whole.

If a fanatical Muslim yells kill the infidels I feel repulsed but no less repulsed than when I hear a fanatical Christian scream that aids is God's way of ridding the world of Homo's and Fags, or chants of "kill the fags"

The debate is not over who is more wrong, the debate to me, is about wrong is wrong and even if my side is perpetrating the wrong I still agree that it is wrong and I will appose the wrong.

The idea of depicting Christians as fanatics does not imply that all christians are bad. It simply opens our eyes to the fact that some Christians are bad and we need to be aware.

I am a firm believer in the idea that the only person that you can truly affect change on is yourself so it stands to reason that if we are unwilling to see our own faults we will not correct those faults.

So the issue of whether or not Muslims have committed more than their share of the violence is a red herring. The true issue is what can I do to improve me and saying it's okay for me to be a bad person because the other guy is worse just doesn't cut it.

Sorry for the long post but I am suffering from a little insomnia and I was hoping If I wrote this and then read it, it might put me to sleep.

No such luck

[anonemouse 1]

People have been blowing each other up in the name of religion for thousands of years. There is little reason to enter into a debate over which religion is more guilty. Anyone who is willing to kill another in the name of God, Allah or the flying spagetti monster for that matter is wrong. I feel comfortable saying that the Muslim world has more than it's share of religiuos fanatics who are willing to take the life of others for no other reason than they beleive that their supreme diety wishes it.

But religious intolerance isn't just measured by who kills the most. It is also measured by how intolerant groups are towards others on the whole.

If a fanatical Muslim yells kill the infidels I feel repulsed but no less repulsed than when I hear a fanatical Christian scream that aids is God's way of ridding the world of Homo's and Fags, or chants of "kill the fags"

The debate is not over who is more wrong, the debate to me, is about wrong is wrong and even if my side is perpetrating the wrong I still agree that it is wrong and I will appose the wrong.

The idea of depicting Christians as fanatics does not imply that all christians are bad. It simply opens our eyes to the fact that some Christians are bad and we need to be aware.

I am a firm believer in the idea that the only person that you can truly affect change on is yourself so it stands to reason that if we are unwilling to see our own faults we will not correct those faults.

So the issue of whether or not Muslims have committed more than their share of the violence is a red herring. The true issue is what can I do to improve me and saying it's okay for me to be a bad person because the other guy is worse just doesn't cut it.

Sorry for the long post but I am suffering from a little insomnia and I was hoping If I wrote this and then read it, it might put me to sleep.

No such luck

That's exactly what I believe. It doesn't matter which group kills more people. What matters is that bigotry against any group is wrong.

[mousecrazy 2]

Hmmmmmmm.

There you go...ALL bigotry is wrong.

My point, exactly.

[TommyO 5]

Yes all bigotry is wrong, I don't understand your issue with that. So why are you asking for a measurement. It is you who wants to measure wich group is doing more damage. (See quote below) I am simply stating that it's all wrong whether it's done once or ten times no matter your religiuos affiliation. You seem to imply that depicting right wing Islamics as terrorists is okay but to depict right wing Christians in this manner represents a form of bigotry

"I have not researched this, but I bet someone will (or has...or will want to):

How many people have been killed in right-wing bomber attacks on abortion clinics?

How many people have been killed when "things have been blown up" in the name of Allah?

I am not seeing the equivalency."

[Sunta 4]

People have been blowing each other up in the name of religion for thousands of years. There is little reason to enter into a debate over which religion is more guilty. Anyone who is willing to kill another in the name of God, Allah or the flying spagetti monster for that matter is wrong.

No one would kill in the name of the FSM, because FSM is a satire.

[Sunta 4]

Oh wait, I just read the article. Are you saying that this situation is implausible?

Ever see Jesus Camp?

Especially the part where the leader says she admires Muslim terrorists and that we should be teaching our children to die for Jesus?

[green 6]

I've seen Jesus Camp. That is one scary flick!

[mousecrazy 2]

Presumably, and I use this qualifier hopefully, a crisis preparation activity is based on the "presumption" of realistic risk. Thus, the post was started with the question raised: are Christians being used as the terrorists simply because this is an acceptable group to choose? We should all be able to agree, based on the responses of this thread, that if Muslims were chosen, all hecky-darn would break loose.

I asked the question about numbers as an illustration of probable risk. If you were going to make a bet in Vegas as to which group you might exact some damage to your person...which group would be most likely to harm you...who would you put money on? That's a crude way to put it, I admit, but it is a way to put a point on it, and keep it out of the theoretical.

I would like to speak up for myself, since I am apparently being interpreted as a Muslim-hater. I deplore both types of hate-driven killing. I simply understand that I am at greater risk of being hurt currently (simple odds) by a group who is killing, maiming, and attacking at a greater rate. I have friends who are Muslim (imagine that!). They are wonderful people, truly. I am a Christian, and I have no plans whatsoever to bomb anyone. Nor do any of my Christian friends and acquaintances. I don't know anyone who ascribes to the values I heard about in Jesus camp. Yet, each and every day, you can find scores of killings perpetrated by those who are killing for Allah. I am sorry if this is a truth that some of you do not want to acknowledge. For some reason I am able to separate this fact from the Muslims I know, and understand that not ALL Muslims are of this mind set.

I also know that this explanation is not necessary to those who understand already what I am explaining (again), and will not matter to those of you who are determined to believe that you are at the same risk from Christians as radical Islam, regardless of facts (numbers) to the contrary.

[anonemouse 1]

Presumably, and I use this qualifier hopefully, a crisis preparation activity is based on the "presumption" of realistic risk. Thus, the post was started with the question raised: are Christians being used as the terrorists simply because this is an acceptable group to choose? We should all be able to agree, based on the responses of this thread, that if Muslims were chosen, all hecky-darn would break loose.

Actually, I doubt that "all hecky-darn would break loose" if it were Muslims being portrayed as terrorists. After all, the people being portrayed are extreme fundamentalists, not all people of that religion. In my experience, these activities are about risk, period. If you don't train for a certain thing just because you think it is very unlikely to happen, you aren't training very well. After all, all crisis events are very unlikely to happen. To exclude an event such as this from training, just because you believe it is less likely to happen than another event is just stupid.

I asked the question about numbers as an illustration of probable risk. If you were going to make a bet in Vegas as to which group you might exact some damage to your person...which group would be most likely to harm you...who would you put money on? That's a crude way to put it, I admit, but it is a way to put a point on it, and keep it out of the theoretical.

In this country? Christians, without a doubt. After all, the people most likely to harm you are the people that are most common, and Christianity is still the most common religion here in the US. You may live in an area where Christians are all lovey-dovey, well-educated, intelligent beings, but it isn't that way everywhere in the country.

[mousecrazy 2]

I'm sorry, but I'm calling bigot on the above post.

[anonemouse 1]

I'm sorry, but I'm calling bigot on the above post.

What's bigoted about it? I would think it is plain common sense. If there is one group of people that comprise 90% of the population and another group that comprises less than 10% (not saying that that is the true percentage of Christians or Muslim, but just to give an example), you are in more danger of being attacked by members of the group with the larger population. It's a matter of numbers. Is that not accurate?

[mousecrazy 2]

No, not in the case we are discussing, which is that some type of Christian extremists/radicals would carry out a terrorist attack. True, 90% of the American public believe in God, but not all of them are Christian, and CERTAINLY a very small percentage would be considered of the type who would plot violence.

This is unlike the reality that radical Islamists have taken control of that religion, and literally hundreds of people, if not thousands, die each day due to that.

I am concerned about the violent Christians in your part of the U.S. Where is it you live? What makes these Christians in that area so violent?