Is Islam an evil religion?

[Dayan81]

...The question might not be if Islam is an evil religion but, instead, should Islam survive according to modern interpretations of right and wrong...

How do you propose we eradicate Islam from the face of the Earth?

What is the final solution to the Islamic question?

 

[Bill Thompson]

How do you propose we eradicate Islam from the face of the Earth?

What is the final solution to the Islamic question?

Step one: Drag out into the street those who cannot tell the difference between Islam and Muslims and beat them with rubber chickens.

 

[Dayan81]

Step one: Drag out into the street those who cannot tell the difference between Islam and Muslims and beat them with rubber chickens.

You appear to be offering yourself to be beaten with rubber chickens.

 

[A'isha]

Stop ducking the questions, Bill. How, exactly, are you planning to war against Islam while leaving Muslims alone?

Let's say you suddenly get appointed Commanding General of the War Against Islam. What's your proposed campaign? What do you do?

 

[Giordano]

Every religion is different. The question might not be if Islam is an evil religion but, instead, should Islam survive according to modern interpretations of right and wrong.

• Is it right for a man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to modern interpretations of right and wrong?
• Is it right for a husband to beat his wife?
• Is it right for an organization have a policy to lie for the sole purpose of saving its skin or promoting its global penetration?
• Should a religion exist that is against human rights and the existance of people of other religions?
• Shoud a religion be allowed to exist if it denies the will of the people in a number of other countries and domoniates the rules of law and ethics?
• Should a religion be allowed to exist if it is directly opposed to free speech?

And the list goes on and on and on.

No, other religions are not just as bad.

Religions come and go. It is how history has been going. We look back at what people believed 3 thousand years ago and we are shocked that people believed such silliness. Three thousand years from today, people in the future will do the same about us.

I'm confused- what religion were you citing in this list? It seems to parallel a lot of the history of Christianity, and virtually all aspects of this list are still being practiced by people who declare themselves Christian. I presume they are not "true Christians" by your analysis?

Exactly- religions come and go, and change their beliefs. In my opinion, they are not only silly, but all potentially very dangerous. Seventy years ago many of my relatives were killed by people claiming to be Christians; today there are Muslims (and a non-zero number of Christians) who would like to do the same. Thank you, but I'm not thrilled by either or any religion.

 

[Craig B]

Bill

When did the USA ban the Mormon religion? It banned the practice of polygamy, banned also in most other advanced countries. And it wouldn't admit Utah as a State until the Mormons themselves abandoned polygamy as a doctrine in 1890.

But it never sought to ban Mormonism. Should a religion be allowed to exist ... ? Again, yes. But some practices of its adherents, if they are against the law, might have to be prohibited. We don't allow Hindu widows to burn themselves alive on the pyres of their deceased husbands. But should we go to war on Hinduism? No. Should Hinduism be allowed to exist? Yes. Simple really.

 

[Bill Thompson]

It is all about how you define "evil".



Wait. Is Memritv.org "hate speech"?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill

When did the USA ban the Mormon religion?

They never did.

Did I say that exactly? What exactly did I say? It does not sound like me.

Lincoln told them to stop the practice of having multiple wives or else he would send in federal troops and take all their children and property away.

So the president of the Mormon Church had a revelation that from then on the LDS church would no longer practice polygamy.

And this is why we still have little groups like the Mormon Fundamental FLDS which takes the book of Mormon literally and still practice polygamy.

You can also find some people in remote places in Utah that believe in the "blood atonement" that Brigham Young preached and that if you "mix races" it is a sin so great that even Christ's blood will not forgive and you will do the poor man or woman a favor in slitting their throat and/or loins.

This proves my point that even if the vast majority of the people who call themselves "anythingistists" are good people, if the literal scripture is flawed, you are going to always have break-away sects who know what their holy book really says and will adhere to it.

Who is to blame? Is it the fundamentalsists who are just following the literal word of their God or the actual scripture itself?


The USA never did ban the Mormons.


Did I say that exactly? What exactly did I say? It does not sound like me.

• The US troops could have gotten into a shooting war with them because of Lincoln's altermatium. Lincoln told them to stop the practice of having multiple wives or else he would send in federal troops and take all their children and property away.
• The Americans considered them mostly to be gullible fools and it was once legal to shoot them on site -- in one state after the state became fed up with there land sqatting and insisting (I think it was) Missouri was the garden of eden and thus belonged to them. This is why they moved out to Utah, by the way.
• And, of course, the Mormons were behind the original 9-11 (Septermber the 11th) horrific massacre (in 1857)

 

[RossFW]

Did I say that exactly? What exactly did I say? It does not sound like me.

Lincoln told them to stop the practice of having multiple wives or else he would send in federal troops and take all their children and property away.

So the president of the Mormon Church had a revelation that from then on the LDS church would no longer practice polygamy.

And this is why we still have little groups like the Mormon Fundamental FLDS which takes the book of Mormon literally and still practice polygamy.

You can also find some people in remote places in Utah that believe in the "blood atonement" that Brigham Young preached and that if you "mix races" it is a sin so great that even Christ's blood will not forgive and you will do the poor man or woman a favor in slitting their throat and/or loins.

This proves my point that even if the vast majority of the people who call themselves "anythingistists" are good people, if the literal scripture is flawed, you are going to always have break-away sects who know what their holy book really says and will adhere to it.

Who is to blame? Is it the fundamentalsists who are just following the literal word of their God or the actual scripture itself?

I completely agree with this.

You understand it would apply equally to Mainstream Christianity, except the practices mandated would be much more harmful than Polygamy?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I'm confused- what religion were you citing in this list? It seems to parallel a lot of the history of Christianity,

mkay. What is your point?

You got a point?

Think of religions as brain rapers. Are we supposed to ignore the brain raper who is currently active just because we ignore another one who used to rape brains hundreds of years ago?

 

[Craig B]

Hundreds of years? The Church abolished the Index of Forbidden Books in 1966. It was only the spread of Enlightenment ideas including, and above all, the separation of church and state in the early USA, that tamed the Church to a large extent. When a separation of Church and State was introduced in France in 1905, Pope Pius X (now a Saint!) went bananas and wrote:

(T)he provisions of the new law are contrary to the constitution on which the Church was founded by Jesus Christ ... the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.

Vehementer Nos, 1906.

But even saints have given up on this sort of stuff. Just as Christianity is improving itself, with the moderate elements becoming more influential (I don't include the present pope among these elements; he's a sort of atavism) so Islam can be encouraged in the same direction - without hate or war, except against the direct perpetrators of crimes.

 

[FireGarden]

They never did.

Did I say that exactly? What exactly did I say? It does not sound like me.

Lincoln told them to stop the practice of having multiple wives or else he would send in federal troops and take all their children and property away.

I know nothing about this. So I googled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.

The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

What source do you have, Bill, to claim that wiki is wrong?

 

[FireGarden]

This proves my point that even if the vast majority of the people who call themselves "anythingistists" are good people, if the literal scripture is flawed, you are going to always have break-away sects who know what their holy book really says and will adhere to it.

Who is to blame? Is it the fundamentalsists who are just following the literal word of their God or the actual scripture itself?

The people who commit crimes are the ones held responsible for their actions. That seems very sensible.

Of course, you've not said what you want done.
Obviously, passing a law forbidding the reading of the scriptures would be pointless, because there would be some sect or other which believed it had to read the scriptures. So what is left but to argue in favour of this or that law?

And what would be the point of telling anyone how their scripture MUST be interpreted? Surely, if you're in an argument with a religous person and their interpretation of scripture is a sticking point, then showing them an alternative way to interpret their scripture is a sensible way to convince them. I've found that very useful when debating evolution with Muslims who didn't believe in evolution because they thought it went againt what is written in the Quran. I showed them what Muslims who believe in evolution say, including the words of some Muslims from before Darwin. Very useful strategy.

ETA:
decided to start a thread on another point I wanted to make:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7508581#post7508581

 

[Mister Agenda]

Every religion is different. The question might not be if Islam is an evil religion but, instead, should Islam survive according to modern interpretations of right and wrong.

• Is it right for a man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to modern interpretations of right and wrong?
• Is it right for a husband to beat his wife?
• Is it right for an organization have a policy to lie for the sole purpose of saving its skin or promoting its global penetration?
• Should a religion exist that is against human rights and the existance of people of other religions?
• Shoud a religion be allowed to exist if it denies the will of the people in a number of other countries and domoniates the rules of law and ethics?
• Should a religion be allowed to exist if it is directly opposed to free speech?

And the list goes on and on and on.

No, other religions are not just as bad.

Religions come and go. It is how history has been going. We look back at what people believed 3 thousand years ago and we are shocked that people believed such silliness. Three thousand years from today, people in the future will do the same about us.

This religion you describe is in need of reform wherever it is actually practicing such precepts.

Can you give an example of one group of people causing a religion not their own to 'cease to exist' that didn't involve religious genocide? Because it would be nice to know how to go about it.

 

[Xero]

Every religion is different. The question might not be if Islam is an evil religion but, instead, should Islam survive according to modern interpretations of right and wrong.

• Is it right for a man to have sex with a prepubescent girl according to modern interpretations of right and wrong?
• Is it right for a husband to beat his wife?
• Is it right for an organization have a policy to lie for the sole purpose of saving its skin or promoting its global penetration?
• Should a religion exist that is against human rights and the existance of people of other religions?
• Shoud a religion be allowed to exist if it denies the will of the people in a number of other countries and domoniates the rules of law and ethics?
• Should a religion be allowed to exist if it is directly opposed to free speech?

And the list goes on and on and on.

No, other religions are not just as bad.

Religions come and go. It is how history has been going. We look back at what people believed 3 thousand years ago and we are shocked that people believed such silliness. Three thousand years from today, people in the future will do the same about us.

Your list could just as easily be applied to religions other than Islam. Christianity for example.

 

[Dayan81]

One cannot honestly criticize a religion without being honest about the mainstream beliefs of that faith. If all you know or acknowledge are the most obscure, extreme, hateful, violent & intolerant beliefs of that faith..then your ability and even your right to criticize the faith is severely limited, let alone the level of respect others will have for your criticism.

 

[Giordano]

mkay. What is your point?

You got a point?

Think of religions as brain rapers. Are we supposed to ignore the brain raper who is currently active just because we ignore another one who used to rape brains hundreds of years ago?

Your post stated: "other religions are not just as bad." My point is that they are. As I stated, I care for neither Islam or Christianity (nor the religion I was initiated into when I was born). I am not suggesting we ignore the evil in any religion. And we are not talking about hundreds of years ago: what makes you think that certain religions are benign now? All religions have very nice, sweet people in them and nice ideals, just as tigers are beautiful. But all religions, like tigers, are also potentially deadly and dangerous.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes ANTpogo you have all the knowledge in the world about Islam so no one is capable about arguing with you about it.

This is the best you can do for logic?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yes.

That is the answer to the OP question.

Yes.

Any religion that thinks they are the only vaible religion needs to go. It is just that simple. Like kids on a playground. The bullies that beat up the other religions need to be expelled.

And it is not just Islam. Scientolgy has had its 4 minutes of fame done and over and so has Mormonism.

And, no, silly, I do not think this way because of any religion. It is just simple common sense.

If you value freedom of religion, it is a requirement for you to devalue the religions what are against freedom of religions.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Your post stated: "other religions are not just as bad." My point is that they are.

oooo I am so scared of some christrian redneck trying to take away my right to an abortion. I am sooooo scared.
No they are not, man. I fear real threats like being stabbed in the street for revealing the secret to the Satanic Verses online.
And reaching back in history doesn't mean a damn thing.