^ this man speaks the truth

banning someone for saying something "unpleasant" (whether right or wrong) , makes the banned person look more righteous than he is.

if people dislike his ideas , they can prove him wrong. In fact its much better people are honest about their views rather than censure themselves.

All religions have been using religion as an excuse for hurting other..... History-fact.

Now please get over all this ideoligy question, as we are on a tech-forum and we really do not need any excuse whatsoever to dislike each other.
Do it over PM please..... Anything else is disrespect towards those who lost loved ones.

dr_st wrote:

And again, one last time: if the moderators believe that the forum should be clear of any discussions which can be considered political, controversial, or just plain get ugly - let them delete posts and lock threads as they see fit to maintain the peace. But suggesting that someone should be banned for it, IMO, is crossing the line.

That would be a nice aproach to this. As it would benefit each person in the best possible way.
Man... Glad that I am no moderator here. 🤣

Personally. I would like some rule here wich bans any talk about religeous ideology.
As we all know this is a mighty big barrel of powder or to say at least "an ugly can of worms".
Once opened. It begins to stink and smell like an uncleaned slaughterhouse.

He absolutely should not be banned, and I agree with him wholeheartedly in that Islam is the problem.

#dontbansliderider 😜

Terrible what happened in Paris but I fear the worst is yet to come. I recommend a documentary called "Bitter Lake". It presents a lot of facts and history about the intertwined relationship and foreign policy between the US, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. It also explains what wahhabism is really about.

mockingbird wrote:

He absolutely should not be banned, and I agree with him wholeheartedly in that Islam is the problem.

All Abrahamic religions shows a contradictory god. Remember that, according to religion, God slaughtered a bunch of egypcian first-born children (and small children are by definition innocent), unleashed plagues on civilians there, and wanted to wipe a few cities because they were sinful. Also know that the Islamic Ottoman Empire wasn't nearly as intolerant as Christianity in the Middle Ages, and muslims and jews even fought together in Jerusalem against the invading christian crusaders.

In the end religion is what you make of it. And, surely, the deep connection between Islam and politics in the middle-east just makes things more complicated, but terrorists are terrorists because they are crazy brainwashed monsters, not because they are muslims.

alexanrs wrote:

mockingbird wrote:

He absolutely should not be banned, and I agree with him wholeheartedly in that Islam is the problem.

All Abrahamic religions shows a contradictory god. Remember that, according to religion, God slaughtered a bunch of egypcian first-born children (and small children are by definition innocent), unleashed plagues on civilians there, and wanted to wipe a few cities because they were sinful. Also know that the Islamic Ottoman Empire wasn't nearly as intolerant as Christianity in the Middle Ages, and muslims and jews even fought together in Jerusalem against the invading christian crusaders.

In the end religion is what you make of it. And, surely, the deep connection between Islam and politics in the middle-east just makes things more complicated, but terrorists are terrorists because they are crazy brainwashed monsters, not because they are muslims.

the question I would ask is not whether those religious texts are violent (because they certainly can be) but how are they interpreted.

it is true that the bible has some very nasty passages in it, but one has to wonder how many religious authorities read things literally as they appear in the text . Both Christianity and Judaism had events in their history which caused such a shock both physically and culturally , that they led to reinterpretations and reforms to nullify some of the more destructive elements they had .The devastation of the Jewish-Roman wars of the 1st/2nd century caused a re evaluation of messianic beliefs and the downfall of the literalist factions , while the Catholic-Protestant wars of the 17th century and the enlightenment of the 18th, largely strengthened states and individuals at the expense of the power of the church.

Im not quite sure the Islamic (and specifically Arab) world has gone through that, given that the current civil wars in the region have more in common with those wars of the 17th century than anything (why would some people want to be ruled by IS ? because as Sunnis , they prefer them to the Shias or Alawites, the Mideast still largely operates in that way, the ethnicity/sect/religion/tribe has much more credibility than the state)

Of course there are extreme literal groups in Christianity for instance , but given that religion plays a very small role in the society of just about every Christian society in the west, id say those groups are extremely marginal (of course, part of why IS managed to capture a territory the size of Britain is because the states it fights are weak , even more so in the areas it controls)

Note btw I am referring to religious authorities, not individuals, who may or may not follow whatever teachings are accepted (plenty of Christians use contraceptives, some Jews eat bacon , etc)

stand strong...