BF2S Forums Religion of peace -- strikes again.

haven't we had this discussion over and over and over again over the last months ? At least so it seems to me...

you really think we will be hearing new arguments now ?

B.Schuss wrote:

haven't we had this discussion over and over and over again over the last months ? At least so it seems to me...

you really think we will be hearing new arguments now ?

No, but that doens't mean you quit talking about it. =P

The Schuss never sleeps.....

Things do tend to get violent during Civil Wars...which is exactly what the violence has escalated to now.

Different cultures have different views on things like laws. There are a lot of nations on this planet that still have punishment from the middle ages, for example. I'll admit that those are mostly islamic or somewhat religiously fundamentalist, but it is their culture after all. It might seem unethical ( others would say wrong ) to most of us westeners, but then again, even among so-called progressive, liberal nations there are some who support the death penalty.

I am not saying that the killing of a thirteen-year-old girl is the same as the death penalty, but only because it seems wrong to us, it does not necessarily have to be wrong for the people in that culture.

I don't know what happened there ( and, I might add, neither does any of you ), but it most likely was a criminal act even under local law and should be treated as such. Simply saying that little girl is now dead because of islam is making it too easy.

People are dieing in civil wars all the time, women and children included. The situation on the ground is very complicated and we are not helping ourselves with prejudice. violent acts like that happen during civil wars all the time ( the balcans, chechnya (sp), africa ) and not all of it is religiously motivated.

Now, as far as the story about the guy facing the death penalty in Afghanistan is concerned, I believe the man in question was very well aware of the legal situation in Afghanistan, having been a muslim himself. why he would carry a bible with him and admit to being a christian under those legal circumstances is a mystery to me. I'm sorry but that's just asking to get arrested.

I certainly don't suppport nations who hold the scharia as their primary source of legal considerations, but every nation has different legal scripture, and who am I to tell other nations what is supposed to be the best choice for them ?

Marconius wrote:

Things do tend to get violent during Civil Wars...which is exactly what the violence has escalated to now.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."

Finish the quote in your sig.

Erkut.hv wrote:

The Balkan civil war was most certainly religious, and if you look at the wars in Africa, there are religious tones to those as well.

I didn't deny that. I simply said that no one really knows what happened there and that resorting to prejudice won't help us deal with the situation

whittsend wrote:

There are a lot of things that go on in other countries that we can indulge as 'cultural differences'.  Unfortunately, when a man committs a self-regarding action and is sentenced to death for it, that cannot be condoned or excused as a 'cultural' difference.  That is barbaric.

I agree. And I explicitly said that I don't agree with the scharia in that regard. Still, that is our opinion as being the liberal, progressive, western-ideology-raised people that we are. But our opinions are unimportant as far as the validity of the scharia in local afghanistan law is concerned. As xanthpi likes to say, truth and reality exist beyond our perception of it. Wether we like it or not, that guy knew what he was risking ( how could he not have known, having been raised there as a muslim himself ) and he made his choice.

Whittsend wrote:

Other countries have the Death penalty, but few have it for entirely self-regarding actions.   I'm not suggesting we should interfere in that countries laws, but we can, and probably should, make our opinion on the subject understood.

Again, I agree.

Kind of like switching from white bread to wheat?

herrr_smity wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

I found this article on what appears to be a muslim website (saw it on FARK).
Was Islam spread by the sword?
To paraphrase the long article: Yes.
EDIT: One quote:

The fact that the sword and power were means of spreading Islam is not a sources of shame for Islam, rather it is one of its strengths and virtues, because that makes people adhere to that which will benefit them in this world and in the Hereafter.

and christianity was also spread by the sword

Refresh my memory please.

herrr_smity wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

and christianity was also spread by the sword

Refresh my memory please.

i love to.
the treatment of native Americans both north and south.

So was it "convert to Christianity or die"?  But they chose to move instead??  Please try to refresh it again that one didn't work.

herrr_smity wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

i love to.
the treatment of native Americans both north and south.

So was it "convert to Christianity or die"?  But they chose to move instead??  Please try to refresh it again that one didn't work.

but they chose to move, that's the biggest load of crap i have ever heard, christianity wiped out there entire culture.

No, I think the various governmet policies at the time, of relocation, theft, deception, fraud, and occasional violent extermination of the native Americans is what wiped out their culture.  Christianity, if anything, was only a sidebar.