Re: [Way off topic] the politics of ubuntu.org
Roberto Sanchez <roberto@familiasanchez.net> writes:
> Wim De Smet wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:46:33 -0800, Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Watkins wrote:
>>> No. Terrorist isn't used enough. In fact "Islamic Terrorist" isn't used
>>>enough. People who behead other people with a machete so those being beheaded
>>
>>
>> Calling people islamic terrorists is about the same as claiming that
>> Islam is responsible for their actions. It certainly implies it. You
>> can and should never hold an entire religion responsible for the acts
>> of a few of its fundamentalists. After all, Bush is a christian too,
>> but that doesn't mean all christians agree with him blowing up
>> children in the Middle East.
>>
> The difference is this:
>
> 1. Muslims who commit terrorist acts do so in *compliance* with the
> teachings of Mohammed and Islam.
Racist bollocks, the Quran no more sanctions terrorism than the
the bible does, there are passages in it about the automatic
ascension to paradise of martyrs who die defending Islam from
infidels, true. But there are also notable and strongly worded
passages in it about respecting the other "people of the book"[1]
and treating them as brothers.
> 2. Christians who commit terrorist acts are in direct opposition to
> the Bible and the Word of God.
Christianit and Islam have many of the same tenets and both have the
same possibilities of being peaceful benign and tolerant religions,
that neither have acheived this is a great pity and one of the very
good arguments against religion of any kind[2].
[1] Jews and Christians.
[2] Aside from the fact that, IMO, its all bollocks.
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
(On going to war over religion) -- "You're basically killing each other to see
who's got the better imaginary friend." -Yasir Arafat (PLO leader)
Reply to: