Except I wasn't just talking about the attack / beheading itself, which Im sure some people in any group will exhibit extreme behavior.
GPI, but you still a million miles away from causality in regard to conflicts.
The conclusions you cite aren't disproving correlation. It's very likely there is a correlation between Islamic religious belief and GPI from just looking at the wiki but the report doesn't investigate this (and therefore can't dismiss it).
I disagree, as you like to bang on about, most of them are mainly Countries with Islam as the main religion, as such they are talking about Islam in regard to conflict in those countries.
Your inference is very clear and consistent.
Yet lumping extremist with average Muslim together is fine i guess? I seen some who also couldn't tell apart Morocco from Oman or India from Turkey Geographical wise. This might be a petty thing but it leads to huge misconceptions about x or y people, culture, beliefs and such.
When he said that France would never have any laws about blasphemy, or offending religion, or against freedom of expression, because it's a secular state... he was actually saying Islam is evil and Muslims are terrorists?
I don't really know what this means. Limits or restrictions on freedom should only be there in order to prevent people from denying other people their freedoms. People in a free society should be free to live without others - and particularly the government - denying their freedoms. Living is a freedom, killing is not.
I wasn't referring to you in particular but certain people who says such things on the internet and in real life. I'm sorry if i was blaming you or anyone else.
Didn't France ban Muslim Females wearing religious clothes in the name of "open minded"? How Chinese and Americans are targeting Muslims to fight off terrorism? Xinjiang anyone? War against terror?
Everyone has their own beliefs and that's fine. I have no business in it and I'm fairly sure everyone should agree with that.
Possibly, I don't know. No country has got it truly together when it comes to freedom.
China is an extremely poor example if you're invoking the concept of freedoms.
"Hate speech" is a bizarre construct, because it's incredibly hard to actually define - and laws regarding "hate speech" very much are contrary to freedom of speech. Things that you don't like or want people saying are more important to freedom of speech than only things you do like.
And no country will unfortunately.
I honestly think that China aren't that much different compared to what the States and some other 1st world countries have been doing. The difference is that one side is seen as good and other is bad or vice versa like in past conflicts over the history. Axis in WW2 might been seen as the evil force but Allies weren't much better if any to be honest. Same thing goes to the West Vs Soviets during the cold war, hell the recent riots that happened in America made me realize it wasn't the paradise the media been feeding us and so on but this is going WAY off topic.
Disagree that there's a correlation??
Scaff
That your source is only talking about faith generally.
That’s more than evident.
I’m not going to keep repeating the same thing to someone so bigoted they are blind to their own biases.
Wait a few days and he'll just post the same thing again. It's as if @DLR_Mysterion never went away. Oh, wait...
But....you're not making sense.
I'm not aware of anyone developing a blindside against it at all, rather a growing wearyness in regard to your repeated and clear bias (or have you forgotten about the 20% of your posts as a minimum fact), your inability to support your repeated claims of 'Islam is the boogieman' (and yes that's sarcasm, not a direct quote), your constant attempts to conflate correlation with causality and your repeated double standards (and no your 'umm but I said Christians were bad homophobes' bone doesn't disprove that at all).
How one earth did you miss it when you quoted me doing just that?
And you're right back to it...
I can't see how it is a token criticism? Homophobia has had a horrific impact on people's lives for centuries, and unfavourable attitudes on homosexuals because of Christianity continue to this day. Why should criticism of this be so different to criticism of a religion's link with violence?
Those are talking about forced conversions; my non-rhetorical question was about the religion's association with military expansion whether by armies or, more latterly, terrorist groups. Muslim armies and conquest has been a thing since its foundation, and creating a caliphate/Islamic state is the raison d'être of many of the groups creating conflict around the world today. I suspect that there were likely periods of peace where caliphates and empires didn't seek to spread further but it remains notable that Muhammad is maybe the only founder of a major religion who did command an army and so this violence has been present in the religion from the outset contrary to (all?) others.Scaff
Nice attempt to try and deflect it back on me, however if you consider it just as significant an issue and haven’t just used it as a token, then your posting history should clearly show me how wrong I am.
Let’s see, religious leader has a chat with God about his people, sets some rules and then goes on to punish his oppressors and unbelievers violently.
But I've always argued that, even recently in this thread. The difference is there hasn't been as much pushback as there is with the views on violence. I can only respond to what's posted by others....
There definitely were times where armies marched in the name of God in the Old Testament, but Christianity's founder never had such an army. After Jesus's death Christians were persecuted until they were accepted by the Romans at which point they turned into the persecutors.Scaff
