[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, but at the same time it would be foolish to believe that every member of the National Socialist party in Germany had a personal hand in the Holocaust.[/quote]
Which is why I believe the “religion of peace” and “most Muslims are peaceful people” argument being used in defense of Islam itself falls flat on its face.
The majority of Muslims are peaceful because the majority of human beings are naturally peaceful.
If a tribe of humans was genetically predisposed to aggression and violence, not only would they constantly be killing one-another, but the more peaceful tribes surrounding them would ally and wipe those aggressive bastards out to the last man, woman, and child. After an isolated, bloody conflict, the meek would go back to living their relatively peaceful lives.
Even if one member of the tribe had a random genetic mutation giving predisposition to excessive violence, he’d piss a lot of people off. A couple tribe members would wait 'till he slept and smash his head with a rock.
The end result of this is human beings: relatively peaceful, social primates, regardless of their superstitious beliefs.
The majority of Nazi Party members were peaceful, but that doesn’t mean that the Nazi Movement was peaceful.
The majority of Russians were peace-loving folk, but that doesn’t mean that global Communism was a wonderful, peaceful movement. USSR operations to spread the International Socialist Movement were still responsible for over 100 million deaths world wide, and at least ten times that many atrocities against humanity.
I’m sure the KKK are wonderful people to hang out with, so long as you’re “one of them”.
As soon as you divide people into a strongly elite “us” and the rest of the world into a “them”, you encourage all sorts of the nastiest parts of human nature – but to one another those elite members of the “us” will be a very loving, supportive community.
So however many posts back, Shoebolt said something along the lines that it’s not “non-Muslims” who deserve to die, it’s only if a person hears the message of Islam and rejects it, they are guilty of a crime against God? The Romans heard the message of Islam and rejected it, therefore they were guilty and deserved to be destroyed.
Something to that effect.
Well, I’ve gone to many “Islam Awareness Week” presentations, for a few years in a row, I’ve read the “learn about Islam” literature in my mailbox, and I’m seriously not interested. I’d sooner convert to Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism before Islam. Hell, maybe even Judaism. Going to synagogue would probably yield a lot of great business contacts.
Does that make me guilty of a “crime” against Allah?
Should I now have my opposite hand and foot cut off?
Do I now deserve to have Muslims take my condo and sleep in my bed (thankfully, I don’t have a wife to “share”) for three days?
Do I now deserve to pay “penalty” of 75% of my income to the Muslims living in my community?
I’ve heard the message of Islam and I’ve rejected it. It’s nothing new. The good parts of human nature will be there always and I can practice my life by them without the help of Moe, Al, or their Quran & Hadith, thank you very much.
Let me spell it out for ya’ll:
I, ElbowStrike, having heard the message of Islam, reject that message, reject submission to Allah, and reject all of the writings of the prophet Mohammed, who I conclude to be nothing more than a blood-thirsty war-lord who engineered an abusive cult, loosely based on Judeo-Christian mythology, for the sole purpose of gaining political dominance.
I do not need Islam to live a peaceful, fulfilling life and if there is a God, I am confident He will judge my life based on my words, thoughts, and actions – not by which temple or group I took affiliation.
Does this make me a criminal?
What punishment would be appropriate for my heresy?
I’m really asking.
ElbowStrike