Religion

[Oremoose]

Very tired of this. Islam has no defense and cannot be defended. There is not a day that doesn't go by that these barbarians are not killing someone. Be it a Jew, Christians or each other. They are a plague on humanity.

 

In the past, I knew nothing about this "faith" and each was treated as a local crime or just a few crazies. It is not the case whatsoever. From the Achille Lauro where a disable elderly man was shot in his wheelchair and then dumped over the side to this Boston bombing.

 

 

 

What I understand about Islam, In my small wanderings of research, is that Islam is is a Religion based on a God of Will. Not a God of Truth.

So in theory  it is harmless.

But since it is based on will, a will that can change, unlike truth that is constant. Any Muslim can stand up and say "God told them it was Ok to do X." and no one can say no because for them that is the will of God.

 

Islam is basically the relativists of the Religious groups.

 

The problem that most people look them and see that they can be peaceful, they can be kind but oversee the fact that anyone of them can snap and go crazy in the name of God... which brings us to the rant that started of all those in the past that torture and killed in the name of faith.

 

I find the whole atheist vs. Christian "argument" based on who killed the most people to be rather inane and pointless as to the truth of whether God exists.  However, in my experience, it invariably begins with atheists claiming moral superiority over "theists" by making the absurd and patently false accusation that "religion has been responsible for more killing than anything else in history."  

To this falsehood, Christians (including D'Souza and myself) easily counter by pointing out the inconvenient fact that atheistic Communist regimes have been responsible for more murders in a period of less than 100 years than all the world's other regimes combined.

The point of that statement is not to claim that being atheist will necessarily turn you into a Stalin or Mao, but to show the absurdity of the atheist claim that getting rid of religion would make the world a better, more peaceful place.

 

An important distinction to make is that if a Christian commits mass murder or other atrocities, he is acting in direct contradiction to the moral teachings of his professed faith, while if an atheist does so, he contradicts nothing.

 

Also building off this point this thread cannot be pointed at Religion it should be pointed at Humanity for yes People have killed in the name of God Justly (The Jews driving the tribes from the promised land and Crusades) to Unjustly (See The last line of the above quote). But then there are those who have killed for the fact that they follow a God (Nazis), or just because they can for what ever reason (read a local newspaper). 

 

The fact that we want to blame anything but our own broken humanity just means we all need to spread the fact that we need, on occasion, forget the why's and just forgive while building up humanity by being the best people we can be and challenging others to do the same.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I find the whole atheist vs. Christian "argument" based on who killed the most people to be rather inane and pointless as to the truth of whether God exists.  However, in my experience, it invariably begins with atheists claiming moral superiority over "theists" by making the absurd and patently false accusation that "religion has been responsible for more killing than anything else in history."  

To this falsehood, Christians (including D'Souza and myself) easily counter by pointing out the inconvenient fact that atheistic Communist regimes have been responsible for more murders in a period of less than 100 years than all the world's other regimes combined.

The point of that statement is not to claim that being atheist will necessarily turn you into a Stalin or Mao, but to show the absurdity of the atheist claim that getting rid of religion would make the world a better, more peaceful place.

I agree with you. The kill count is irrelevant. I wouldn't say that Atheists are always the first to make this argument. Theists tend to also point to a world without religion and cite these regimes. The point being, there are good and bad people in both groups. These examples don't mean anything. 

An important distinction to make is that if a Christian commits mass murder or other atrocities, he is acting in direct contradiction to the moral teachings of his professed faith, while if an atheist does so, he contradicts nothing.

That's an unfair argument. It seems to contradict the notion of natural law and the fact that there are non-religious moral philosophers. The concept of morality exists outside of religion. 

 

 

Also, while Hitler was baptized Catholic (just as Stalin was baptized Russian Orthodox), he was in fact an apostate who abandoned his faith early in life, and became personally quite anti-Catholic and anti-Christian, and he was condemned by Pope Pius XI in the early '30s.  After seizing power, the Nazis worked to replace traditional Christianity in Germany with a bizarre Nazi "Church" which replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf.  The Nazis also brutally persecuted Catholic priests and religious in Poland and other conquered territories.

I am glad to be proven wrong about this. If i'm not mistaken, he remained  nominally Catholic until his death. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Very tired of this. Islam has no defense and cannot be defended. There is not a day that doesn't go by that these barbarians are not killing someone. Be it a Jew, Christians or each other. They are a plague on humanity.

I understand the emotional reaction to the dark history of Islam, but maybe we shouldn't call all Muslims "barbarians". It's inaccurate, if anything. We'd all be dead if that was the case. 

 

 

 

In the past, I knew nothing about this "faith" and each was treated as a local crime or just a few crazies. It is not the case whatsoever. From the Achille Lauro where a disable elderly man was shot in his wheelchair and then dumped over the side to this Boston bombing.

 

In the US Christianity would have been outlawed for every incident that would have been done with screaming Jesus Christ as they blew them up or shot them.

 

As a native New Yorker, we have endured those 2 bombings of the World Trade Center, killing almost 3,000 in total (13 people that were close to me), killings on the Brooklyn Bridge (1994) attempted bombings (Dekalb train station - I lived 2 blocks away from enough explosives to take out the entire neighborhood of Downtown Brooklyn, thank goodness they were found out all because of a Bodega owner who overheard these (censored)) to muslims beating up jews and christians on a daily basis. I can go on.

 

The Beltway Sniper, John Allen Muhammad, another member in good standing with islam who admired Bin Laden, and who he himself was a muslim, killed over 10 people.

 

Then you have Nidal Hasan, who screams whatever islam nonsense as he is killing 14 people (1 was unborn) in Fort Hood.

 

These are just a few examples before Boston, but in the Europe a drawing of their "prophet" is published and they go out and murder.  Ask Theo Van Gogh about islam.

Good points. There are a lot of very troubling issues in Islam resulting from, in my opinion, an application of traditional jurisprudence that has become irrelevant since the understanding of basic human rights. Also, much of the violent literature comes from the hadiths, much of which were forged. There are groups of Muslims calling for a re-examination of the religious texts for an application in modern times, as they argue that the works of traditional scholars apply to a certain context in history are irrelevant nowadays. 

 

Edited April 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Socrates]

That's an unfair argument. It seems to contradict the notion of natural law and the fact that there are non-religious moral philosophers. The concept of morality exists outside of religion.

 

 

I'm open to being corrected, but I've never heard of an atheistic philosopher who believes in "natural law."  Natural law implies a teleological purpose in nature that atheists typically reject.  The materialist atheist believes that human beings and the rest of the universe are in fact nothing more than randomly-evolved clusters of atoms.  A consistent atheist will claim that morality is made by humans, rather than coming from a higher source outside of humanity.

 

An atheist can indeed believe in and follow a code of morality, but that was not my point.  An atheist's belief in morality has nothing to do with his atheist per se (which is a negation:  "there is no God.")

 

Christians believe in (among other things) the morality taught by Christ, and if they violate it, they are hypocrites acting contrary to the teachings of their Faith.

 

An atheist can also act morally or immorally, but lack of belief of in God (atheism) does not in itself dictate any particular code of behavior.  It is simply a negation.

 

I am glad to be proven wrong about this. If i'm not mistaken, he remained  nominally Catholic until his death. 

 

He can only be considered "nominally Catholic" insofar as he never made a formal public claim of not being Catholic.  However, his actions and documented private statements were quite opposed to Catholicism and orthodox Christianity in general, which he regarded as a weak Semitic religion.  Hitler stopped going to Mass, receiving the sacraments, or otherwise practicing the Faith, as a teenager.

 

Hitler did make some claims to being Christian while on the campaign trail (as do most politicians on the campaign trail in nominally Christian countries), which atheists love to quote, but he was a notorious liar, and his actions after seizing power became increasingly anti-Christian.

 

Edited April 22, 2013 by Socrates

[Apotheoun]

Natural law (or its equivalent) is normally predicated upon the idea that there is a natural end for each thing, and in particular that there is a teleological principle inherent within man (as a rational being) that leads him to that natural end. These ideas seem inconsistent with atheism.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Very tired of this. Islam has no defense and cannot be defended. There is not a day that doesn't go by that these barbarians are not killing someone. Be it a Jew, Christians or each other. They are a plague on humanity.

 

In the past, I knew nothing about this "faith" and each was treated as a local crime or just a few crazies. It is not the case whatsoever. From the Achille Lauro where a disable elderly man was shot in his wheelchair and then dumped over the side to this Boston bombing.

 

In the US Christianity would have been outlawed for every incident that would have been done with screaming Jesus Christ as they blew them up or shot them.

 

As a native New Yorker, we have endured those 2 bombings of the World Trade Center, killing almost 3,000 in total (13 people that were close to me), killings on the Brooklyn Bridge (1994) attempted bombings (Dekalb train station - I lived 2 blocks away from enough explosives to take out the entire neighborhood of Downtown Brooklyn, thank goodness they were found out all because of a Bodega owner who overheard these (censored)) to muslims beating up jews and christians on a daily basis. I can go on.

 

The Beltway Sniper, John Allen Muhammad, another member in good standing with islam who admired Bin Laden, and who he himself was a muslim, killed over 10 people.

 

Then you have Nidal Hasan, who screams whatever islam nonsense as he is killing 14 people (1 was unborn) in Fort Hood.

 

These are just a few examples before Boston, but in the Europe a drawing of their "prophet" is published and they go out and murder.  Ask Theo Van Gogh about islam. 

 

Can we continue to turn a blind eye to no matter where islam exists, peace does not? And if islam is so peaceful, so welcoming, why a Christian cannot bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia? Why Christians are enslaved in Pakistan? Why they are being slain in Egypt? 

 

Islam is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI quoted, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

 

 

 

In continuation of what I wrote earlier...the religion is stuck in the Dark Ages. I think part of the problem has to do with education. Educated Muslims in America rarely follow a violent interpretation of the religion. Unmodernized areas of the world with greater levels of poverty tend to be breeding grounds for radical Muslims. Culture also plays a big role. Middle Easterners tend to have a much more "hands on" view of God.  This applies even for Christians. If something bad happens, such as a tsunami, it means God is upset. If I get a good grade on my biology exam, it's due to me being in good standing with God. For this reason, it seems that some Muslims have related the fall of the Islamic empire to a lack of religious devotion. For this reason, archaic interpretations of Islam have become increasingly popular. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Nihil Obstat]

There are atheist philosophers who hold some form of natural law theory as the basis for ethics, but they are few and far between. A sort of philosophical hedonism usually serves the same purpose more effectively, from the atheistic standpoint.

In any case, natural law is apparently rather out of fashion within academic philosophy these days.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm open to being corrected, but I've never heard of an atheistic philosopher who believes in "natural law."  Natural law implies a teleological purpose in nature that atheists typically reject.  The materialist atheist believes that human beings and the rest of the universe are in fact nothing more than randomly-evolved clusters of atoms.  A consistent atheist will claim that morality is made by humans, rather than coming from a higher source outside of humanity.

I wasn't stating that they believed in natural law. I was stating that the Catholic understanding of natural law would imply that Atheists might have an understanding of morality outside of religion. Of course, I could have a completely inaccurate notion of natural law. 

 

 

 

An atheist can indeed believe in and follow a code of morality, but that was not my point.  An atheist's belief in morality has nothing to do with his atheist per se (which is a negation:  "there is no God.")

An atheist does not necessarily say "there is no God". Any individual who does not actively believe in a God can be classified as an atheist. An agnostic can be an atheist (though an agnostic can also be a theist). An atheist would be contradicting whatever cultural norms are ingrained in him, as well as his empathy, to commit murder. 

 

 

 

Christians believe in (among other things) the morality taught by Christ, and if they violate it, they are hypocrites acting contrary to the teachings of their Faith.

 

An atheist can also act morally or immorally, but lack of belief of in God (atheism) does not in itself dictate any particular code of behavior.  It is simply a negation.

You are right. Atheism does not include a moral code. It is a lack of belief. 

 

He can only be considered "nominally Catholic" insofar as he never made a formal public claim of not being Catholic.  However, his actions and documented private statements were quite opposed to Catholicism and orthodox Christianity in general, which he regarded as a weak Semitic religion.  Hitler stopped going to Mass, receiving the sacraments, or otherwise practicing the Faith, as a teenager.

I believe he had a journal entry near his death about remaining Catholic. Regardless, I would not call him a practicing Catholic by any stretch of the term. I still think he would have identified himself as a Catholic at pickle-tail parties. 

 

 

Hitler did make some claims to being Christian while on the campaign trail (as do most politicians on the campaign trail in nominally Christian countries), which atheists love to quote, but he was a notorious liar, and his actions after seizing power became increasingly anti-Christian.

Like I said, I think he called himself Catholic but he did not follow any of the teachings of the Catholic Church. He was a meaner, less handsome John Kerry. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Socrates]

 

You are right. Atheism does not include a moral code. It is a lack of belief. 

 

That was my point.  Mass murder and such are not intrinsically contradictory to a lack of belief in God.

I never claimed an atheist cannot have morality.

 

I believe he had a journal entry near his death about remaining Catholic. Regardless, I would not call him a practicing Catholic by any stretch of the term. I still think he would have identified himself as a Catholic at pickle-tail parties. 

 

 

I've never heard of this supposed journal entry.  Source?  It seems if it existed, some anti-Catholic would have quoted it to me by now.  There's no evidence that he considered himself Catholic in his adult life.

 

 

 

 

Like I said, I think he called himself Catholic but he did not follow any of the teachings of the Catholic Church. He was a meaner, less handsome John Kerry. 

 

 

 

 

Now that's just not fair to Hitler.  

 

 

I kid, I kid.

[StMichael]

Please apply this logic to the Boston bombings whereby one was well educated, living here since the age of 8, the other wanting to fight in the Olympics.

 

Or to the Beltway Sniper or the Fort Hood murderer.

 

And where are these well educated muslims, here in the US marching in the streets over the crimes against humanity by those who they share a "faith?"

 

The point of islam is world domination, all must be converted to this "faith" or they are to be killed.

 

There are 109 verses in their "koran" that state to kill non-believers  and those who do not join the fight on the non-believers are hypocrites or told their god will send them to hell.

 

With this as the basis of their faith, it is impossible to be a "faith" of peace and we see this ALL around the globe. Wherever they set up, they do much harm. Whether it is moving into Italy and suing to have the Crucifix removed from public buildings, to mercilessly murdering innocents. It is isn't lack of education, it is the "religion" itself that is the issue and at some point, our open arms must turn to containing them where they can do no more harm.

 

Truthfully, these people are still fighting the Crusades, believing they can carry on as they did in the 1300's and we are acting like nothing more than sheep to be slaughtered.

 

 

In continuation of what I wrote earlier...the religion is stuck in the Dark Ages. I think part of the problem has to do with education. Educated Muslims in America rarely follow a violent interpretation of the religion. Unmodernized areas of the world with greater levels of poverty tend to be breeding grounds for radical Muslims. Culture also plays a big role. Middle Easterners tend to have a much more "hands on" view of God.  This applies even for Christians. If something bad happens, such as a tsunami, it means God is upset. If I get a good grade on my biology exam, it's due to me being in good standing with God. For this reason, it seems that some Muslims have related the fall of the Islamic empire to a lack of religious devotion. For this reason, archaic interpretations of Islam have become increasingly popular. 

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

That was my point.  Mass murder and such are not intrinsically contradictory to a lack of belief in God.

I never claimed an atheist cannot have morality.

 

 

 

I've never heard of this supposed journal entry.  Source?  It seems if it existed, some anti-Catholic would have quoted it to me by now.  There's no evidence that he considered himself Catholic in his adult life.

 

 

 

 

 

Now that's just not fair to Hitler.  

 

 

I kid, I kid.

 

Sorry, apparently it was in the diary of General Gerhard Engel that Hitler said that to him. Regardless, I think what Hitler called himself was irrelevant. He was obviously at odds with Church teaching. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Please apply this logic to the Boston bombings whereby one was well educated, living here since the age of 8, the other wanting to fight in the Olympics.

 

Or to the Beltway Sniper or the Fort Hood murderer.

 

And where are these well educated muslims, here in the US marching in the streets over the crimes against humanity by those who they share a "faith?"

You're right. But these people do not represent a majority. I agree with the notion that Muslims should be more vocal on their stances against terrorism. If you were to ask the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America, they would be agains these acts. The Qur'an has a hard stance against terrorism (5:32):

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."
 

There are some groups, like Al Qaeda, that have a funny way of twisting this logic to allow it in some conditions (They used the fact that the United States is a Democracy to claim its citizens are directly responsible for American foreign policies). 

 

 

The point of islam is world domination, all must be converted to this "faith" or they are to be killed.

No, that is not completely accurate. traditional Sunni Islam argues for global conquest but I think most traditionalists have other non-violent methods of achieving this goal. The "convert or die" ordeal applies to pagans. Christians and Jews are protected as long as they pay a tax. There are some  that argue that modern day Christians are technically pagan because they worship three Gods (in reference to the trinity). However, I'm pretty sure this is a rarely held view. 

 

 

 

There are 109 verses in their "koran" that state to kill non-believers  and those who do not join the fight on the non-believers are hypocrites or told their god will send them to hell.

This is the interesting part. Many Muslims will argue that the Qur'an is referring to the specific battles waged at the time of Muhammad. They'll also argue that these battles were defensive in nature. Regardless, it's extremely inaccurate to say that most Muslims follow a literal application of these verses in modern times. 

 

 

 

With this as the basis of their faith, it is impossible to be a "faith" of peace and we see this ALL around the globe. Wherever they set up, they do much harm. Whether it is moving into Italy and suing to have the Crucifix removed from public buildings, to mercilessly murdering innocents. It is isn't lack of education, it is the "religion" itself that is the issue and at some point, our open arms must turn to containing them where they can do no more harm.

This is a point made by some who have left Islam. However, It's hard to label a whole religion as evil or bad. That's way too general. You can say Salafi Islam is horrible or the traditional jurisprudence is horrible. However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not follow the extreme version of Islam.
Peter Kreeft does a good job of explaining what I'm saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA

 

 

 

Truthfully, these people are still fighting the Crusades, believing they can carry on as they did in the 1300's and we are acting like nothing more than sheep to be slaughtered.

Well, some are. Catholics and Muslims have a lot of misconceptions about each other. You can easily tell through reading works by Muslims that many Islamic scholars are extremely ignorant about what Christians (they usually specifically refer to Catholics) believe. Catholics also have this problem with Islam. I think the way to change this is through dialogue. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[StMichael]

On 9/11, on 5th avenue in Brooklyn, after the towers fell, the islamic residents were in the streets handing out candy.

 

The firehouse that was right around the corner, half the men from that house were killed.

 

I am sorry, if the majority are not jihadists, they celebrate it, if they don't celebrate it, they say nothing to stop it.

 

What happened after Mehmet Ali AÄŸca was almost successful in murdering the leader of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing. Other faiths, be it Christian, Jewish, Jehovah Witness, etc. have done what to these people? 

 

In the US alone, there has been 4 deadly attacks in just over 2 months:

 

2/7/13 - Buena Vista, NJ - A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/13 - Ashtabula, OH - A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/13 - Boston, MA - Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

4/19/13 - Boston, MA - Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

 

Various others:

 

8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a 'religious revival', a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.

6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.

6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

 

7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

 

2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.

2/12/2009 - Buffalo, NY - The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.

 

4/12/2009 - Phoenix, AZ - A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.

12/4/2009 - Binghamton, NY -A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

 

 

In total, there have been over 70 attacks in the US by muslims resulting in the death of over 3100 people and 1,000's more who have been maimed, injured, etc. 

 

At what point do we not hold this "faith" responsible? 

 

 

 

You're right. But these people do not represent a majority. I agree with the notion that Muslims should be more vocal on their stances against terrorism. If you were to ask the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America, they would be agains these acts. The Qur'an has a hard stance against terrorism (5:32):

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."
 

There are some groups, like Al Qaeda, that have a funny way of twisting this logic to allow it in some conditions (They used the fact that the United States is a Democracy to claim its citizens are directly responsible for American foreign policies). 

 

 

No, that is not completely accurate. traditional Sunni Islam argues for global conquest but I think most traditionalists have other non-violent methods of achieving this goal. The "convert or die" ordeal applies to pagans. Christians and Jews are protected as long as they pay a tax. There are some  that argue that modern day Christians are technically pagan because they worship three Gods (in reference to the trinity). However, I'm pretty sure this is a rarely held view. 

 

 

 

This is the interesting part. Many Muslims will argue that the Qur'an is referring to the specific battles waged at the time of Muhammad. They'll also argue that these battles were defensive in nature. Regardless, it's extremely inaccurate to say that most Muslims follow a literal application of these verses in modern times. 

 

 

 

This is a point made by some who have left Islam. However, It's hard to label a whole religion as evil or bad. That's way too general. You can say Salafi Islam is horrible or the traditional jurisprudence is horrible. However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not follow the extreme version of Islam.
Peter Kreeft does a good job of explaining what I'm saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA

 

 

 

Well, some are. Catholics and Muslims have a lot of misconceptions about each other. You can easily tell through reading works by Muslims that many Islamic scholars are extremely ignorant about what Christians (they usually specifically refer to Catholics) believe. Catholics also have this problem with Islam. I think the way to change this is through dialogue. 

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

On 9/11, on 5th avenue in Brooklyn, after the towers fell, the islamic residents were in the streets handing out candy.

 

The firehouse that was right around the corner, half the men from that house were killed.

 

I am sorry, if the majority are not jihadists, they celebrate it, if they don't celebrate it, they say nothing to stop it.

Well, it's hard to stop a group who isn't under your control. Islam isn't a unified structure like Catholicism is. The majority who don't believe in the hard-line beliefs won't have much of an impact on those that have their own view of the religion. 
 

 

What happened after Mehmet Ali AÄŸca was almost successful in murdering the leader of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing. Other faiths, be it Christian, Jewish, Jehovah Witness, etc. have done what to these people?

My friend, you have many strong points. This example weakens your arguments. Mehmet has made statements calling himself Christ eternal. He does not seem mentally stable enough to represent any group.

 

 

 

In the US alone, there has been 4 deadly attacks in just over 2 months:

 

2/7/13 - Buena Vista, NJ - A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/13 - Ashtabula, OH - A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/13 - Boston, MA - Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

4/19/13 - Boston, MA - Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

 

Various others:

 

8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a 'religious revival', a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.

6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.

6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

 

7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

 

2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.

2/12/2009 - Buffalo, NY - The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.

 

4/12/2009 - Phoenix, AZ - A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.

12/4/2009 - Binghamton, NY -A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

 

 

In total, there have been over 70 attacks in the US by muslims resulting in the death of over 3100 people and 1,000's more who have been maimed, injured, etc. 

 

At what point do we not hold this "faith" responsible? 

Well, I am not saying we shouldn't place blame on religious beliefs but we cannot generalize a whole religion. I am not trying to be a hippy dippy liberal by saying this. It's actually inaccurate. The traditional versions of Islam that seek to conquer the world, allow for sex slaves, and call for attempts to invade a non-muslim nation at least once a year are to blame. We have to be careful not to group all Muslims with those that hold these beliefs. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[EmilyAnn]

On 9/11, on 5th avenue in Brooklyn, after the towers fell, the islamic residents were in the streets handing out candy.

 

The firehouse that was right around the corner, half the men from that house were killed.

 

I am sorry, if the majority are not jihadists, they celebrate it, if they don't celebrate it, they say nothing to stop it.

 

What happened after Mehmet Ali AÄŸca was almost successful in murdering the leader of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing. Other faiths, be it Christian, Jewish, Jehovah Witness, etc. have done what to these people? 

 

In the US alone, there has been 4 deadly attacks in just over 2 months:

 

2/7/13 - Buena Vista, NJ - A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/13 - Ashtabula, OH - A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/13 - Boston, MA - Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

4/19/13 - Boston, MA - Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

 

Various others:

 

8/6/2003 - Houston, TX - After undergoing a 'religious revival', a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.

6/16/2006 - Baltimore, MD - A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.

6/25/2006 - Denver, CO - Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

 

7/28/2006 - Seattle, WA - An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

 

2/13/2007 - Salt Lake City, UT - A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.

2/12/2009 - Buffalo, NY - The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.

 

4/12/2009 - Phoenix, AZ - A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.

12/4/2009 - Binghamton, NY -A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

 

 

In total, there have been over 70 attacks in the US by muslims resulting in the death of over 3100 people and 1,000's more who have been maimed, injured, etc. 

 

At what point do we not hold this "faith" responsible? 

Is the Christian faith responsible for the evil that has been committed in its name? I know a great many Muslims who are just as horrified and upset by those events as you are and fully condemn them. Would you blame the whole Christian faith if those crimes were committed by Christians? Should all Christians be judged by the Westboro Baptist church? You cannot assume that all members of a faith are the same. I grew up in the Middle East during the start of the Iraq War. I am well aware of the evils that have been committed in the name of Islam. But I also know that there are a great many Muslims who work to stop these evils. You cannot just look at one side of the picture.