Religion (all of them).
My ability to moderate and my ability to post have never come into conflict and nothing in this thread comes even close to that.
Really? At the risk of a banhammer or a lock (oh the irony), let me state this,
Your tone has been consistently harsh and especially condescending towards me even though I have never attacked Islam or muslims in this thread. However, people trying to defend radicals and Islam by bringing up every known atrocity against muslims (and lying and making wild guesses to boot) while at the same time using the harshest of languages get a light "I fully understand you feel passionate about this" rap on the wrist.
Furthermore, when I said in one of my posts that any criticism of Islam is greeted with attacks against other books, religions or groups you took that very personally (by assuming that I'm accusing you) and produced an astonishing essay that essentially went into detail about the Old Testament thereby ignoring every statement about comparisons of religions I have been making in this thread. You will never improve the mentality of a people if you keep giving them excuses to be violent. Just because a verse exists in one religion about the need for violence it doesn't absolve the existence of another verse calling for the killing, conversion or subjugation of infidels in another religion. You also seem to imagine that I hold the Old Testament as a guide on how to lead one's life and Abraham as the ultimate man. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
All of this compounded with an increasing tendency to club my views with those of the far-right. So should my conclusion be that you regard anyone with criticisms of Islam as a right-wing bigot? Even if those criticisms and reservations are presented calmly without making assumptions about all muslims?
I believe that I posted quite clearly that this was part of a tit for tat between two opposing sides, this particular piece however is not limited to a single woman ranting (as most of the far-rights articles do) but rather extends the same discussion that those who study Islam have come to (i.e. if this person did exist we almost certainly don't know exactly how old she was - age wasn't really counted in the same way - my mother-in-law who is in her seventies doesn't know exactly how old she is as records were not kept accurately in India when she was born).
Tit for tat arguments don't call for countering a ridiculous argument with another ridiculous argument. We'd still be on the playground if everyone thought like that.
Moral compass has not been lost at all, I'm using the article as exactly what it is, a counter-point to claims by an opposing group that focuses on the point that group wants to make. Does it contain bias? Yes of course it does, pretty much any time a person puts pen to paper or speaks the result contains bias.
I do however consider the bias contained within it to be on a smaller scale that the logic the far-right use, which goes along the lines of "Mohammed married a nine year old so that makes all Muslim men pedophiles". Now even if you take the first part of that at face value (which no sensible person would - its part of a myth that has been rewritten many times), that doesn't mean that it can then be extended to every follower of the Religion.
And do consider that you did ask why articles of this nature have started to appear and all I have do is answer your question.
And yet once again, you justify posting that article because some guys are making enormous generalizations. Which you assume I make too.
If you like I can edit all of my posts in this thread to say 'Islam is the ultimate religion of peace'.
Let's not have a discussion at all.
