Those fuckers who does these kind of things aren't "muslims". They take the religion in the wrong way. The reason why muslims are disliked is that most people thinks they are terrorists. No. They aren't. Just the muslims who takes the religion in the completely wrong way.

Islam is a violent and barbaric fairy tale that Arabs use to justify their backwardness. It's basically the modern-day iteration of the worst things Christianity had to offer a thousand years ago. Islam is bad, the people who practice it can't think for themselves and some of them do horrible things because the 'great goat f*cker in the sky' told them to.

Also, notice how most of humanities suffering in the past 100 years were due to people taking beliefs and ideologies to the extreme. Nazism, Communism and Islam were/are the main reason people died in this and the previous century. (The exception would be Imperialism, but that's just greed and it is a part of human nature. I guess we'll always be dying because of that.)

Whether or not The Lord's Resistance Army is "regular Christians", can we stop pretending that the religion itself isn't inherently awful?

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." - Ephesians 6:5 NLT (Accept slavery because that's God's will)

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (You should beat your unruly children to death)

"Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." - Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV (God loves all people, except for those of you who are blind, deaf, crippled, short, sick, or generally of poor health)

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." - Romans 1:27 (homosexuality is punishable because the Lord says so)

oh and my favorite:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " - 1 Samuel 15:3 (Commit genocide in the name of the Lord, because he says it's alright.)


Say what you want about "regular Christians", but the warmongering ones are the only ones actually following their holy book. The gun control isn't the issue here. Millions of people in this country own guns, and only a tiny minority decide to be cunts with them. And to say that strict gun control would prevent the cunts from getting them is just wrong anyway - if you're not above shooting people, you're probably not above getting an illegal firearm either. The only problem here is that people still believe so strongly in their malignant, evil religions that they honestly believe they're doing the right thing by murdering those who disagree with them, and the "it's not meant literally!" is the biggest bullshit cop-out possible. If you honestly believe "Fighting is prescribed for you" or "Be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy" are meant metaphorically or that you can follow a religion which supports such things without being either horrible or just ignoring most of your own god's commands, then you're just horribly horribly deluded. And in this case, saying he's an extremist is wrong anyway. Criminalizing gay people is mainstream Christian society. There are at least ten countries in the world where being gay is punishable by imprisonment (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Liberia, Cameroon, Burundi, Kenya, Ethiopia, Botswana, Zambia). Guess what? They're all Christian countries. Imprisoning gays isn't radical Christianity, it's just Christianity.


Did that just make absolutely no sense? It shouldn't, and that was the entire structure of your post.

Here's a bunch of Christian terrorist groups that also exist yet nobody bothers to demonize the Christian religion because of them: the KKK, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, Antibalaka, The Orange Volunteers, Americans Promise Ministries, The Aryan Nations, The Covenant, The Sword, The Arm of the Lord, the Boeremag, the Christian Identity Movement. Some of them active in the United States. All of them advocating some form of religious or racial purity. Guess it must be a normal Christian thing then, right?

Then there's the Jewish Defense League, a Jewish terrorist group. Guess that means normal Judaism is equated to terrorism.

Heck, there was also the Union of the Godless, an Atheist terrorist group, so I guess terrorism is just normal Atheism, right?

There's also the Animal Liberation Front, an animal rights terrorist organization. I guess animal rights activists must be terrorists then.

And then there's the Earth Liberation Front, an environmentalist terrorist organization. Guess saving the environment is a terrorist act now.

And I could go on, but the level of stupidity I've been writing is starting to kill too many brain cells.

Christianity at least has the slight benefit of saying "Yeah all that stuff in the Old Testament is done and doesn't count." They have some shitty stuff in the New Testament too, but just applying the same argument to another religion doesn't prove it to be a bad argument. I'll agree with you all the way on Christianity being pretty bad and hateful at it's core as well, but that's not the religion that's relevant to this discussion.

It could be said that fundamentalists of both religions subscribe to the most literal interpretation of their scriptures. They aren't the only ones 'actually following' it, they're just the only ones following it in the most literal, fundamental way. Other people follow in other ways. There's pluralism in religion - multiple ways to follow the same faith.

Problem is that within some religions there are sects that deny other sects the right to practice their interpretation - Exclusivist sects. Some sects are very aggressive in their denial. Sects like ISIS.

Nobody can say that ISIS aren't really Islamic. They've got their own interpretation of the scripture. It may be a shit and destructive reading of the scripture, but it's still a reading.

The point seems to have slightly missed it's mark, so I'll say it straight.

Arguing over the validity of a type of a religion is irrelevant to this discussion. Under your logic, there is no true Islam because true Islam died with the Prophet Muhammad. Islam was created by the Prophet Muhammad to provide divine authority of his rule over an empire, by instating himself as the greatest and last Prophet of God. With his death, true Islam died. So technically, ISIS isn't true Islam either, because the Quran is just documentation of the will of Islam, not the actual will of Islam.

More importantly, judging what "true Islam" is doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest. Who gives a fuck if "true Islam" is a literal interpretation of the Quran? There are practicing Muslims in the world who do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran, who still call themselves Muslim, and who are still rigorous followers of the Islamic faith. Calling them fake Muslims doesn't accomplish anything except alienate an entire population who is among the most vulnerable to being radicalized to your proclaimed "true Islam". Their faith is just as valid as your supposed "true Muslims" who believe the Quran to be literal, but if you want to be lazy and just say their entire religion is evil because of an entirely different denomination of their religion performing terrorist acts, then don't be surprised when you start pushing otherwise moderate Muslims to become radicalized.


Religion is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because it's not about the perpetrator's religion. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma FBI building, nobody started questioning whether Christianity is an evil religion, despite McVeigh being a devout Christian. And that's how it should be now. If Omar Mateen aligned himself to ISIS and dedicated his actions in the name of them, then you can only conclude that Mateen's interpretation of Islam through ISIS's belief system was evil. You cannot conclude that Islam is evil through his actions. For every Omar Mateen that has performed jihad in the name of Allah, you have hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have not performed jihad, and will never perform jihad.

Creating an us vs. them environment will not solve the issue of terrorism, and it will only exasperate the problem if your definition of "them" includes innocent members of the periphery.

Nobody is concluding that Islam is evil based on the actions of one man. People are concluding that Islam is evil based on the fact that it has thousands of followers who literally want the death of all non-believers, and millions more who actively discriminate against and persecute women and gays. Sure, there are peaceful practitioners of the religion, especially in the Western world, and I'm not trying to discredit and of them, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide are prejudiced and hateful, and it shows.

As for the religion being relevant, if he's saying he's doing these things because of his religion, it absolutely is relevant. Timothy McVeigh, at least to my knowledge, wasn't motivated by his religion. This guy, and all of ISIS, are.

I don't believe in justifying actions we don't understand as wrong. These guys are just as human as us, but they don't interpret right from wrong the same way. The words prejudiced and hateful don't reflect the true nature of their actions imo. Also, about christains having some benift... ...the only reason we were able to switch freaking testaments is because we weren't as bound to religion as we once were. It has nothing to do with the type of religion wtf. However, I do agree it was unfortunate how the terrorits "holy book" was written.

Meh, but away from morals, orlando shooting.. Now, instead of calling this a gun violence, they are calling it "terrorism" which is actualy not very accurate. The reason being; terrorists are (typically) described as people from another country inflicting organized terror on a nation. Terrorism also means "this guy isn't getting any trials or anything of the sort, burn'em". The act displayed in Orlando was some fat, American, religious idiot who somehow got to kill FIFTY people without getting totaly recked. There was no organization or anything like that for the most part, but you know, for all the talk about "guns don't kill people, people kill people", I have to admit, guns help a whole hell of a lot. Guns can be made from virtually anything. Instead of focusing on banning guns or not, we should come up with a strategic way to get rid of them perhaps without outlawing them.

You know, I will concede that "hateful" is the wrong term, because they do honestly believe that what they're doing is right. The ones who honestly believe they're doing the right thing aren't even "evil" or "bad" people, even if the actions themselves are abhorrent. That still doesn't make any of it acceptable in a modern society, though.

And why is that they have a different kind of a moral code? Could it be because of this religions overarching effect on their entire lives? Could it be because this religion is always infallible, so it's harder to adopt modern values of morality and freedom?
We can pretty much date our western morals back to christianity, the enlightenment and the secular humanistic movement. We have pretty much taken the good parts of christianity into our moral code and replaced the bad.

You can start the whole "WELL WHAT ARE MORALS ANYWAYS" but that wont get us anywhere.

What kind of religion it is totally does matter, islam is the worst kind of religion when it comes to reform. As stated earlier and widely accepted as the definition of being a muslim, you have to believe the quran to be he divine word of god, infallible.
The difference between christianity and islam is that even if the bible is holy, it is not infallible in the same sense. Fundamentalism built into the basic structures of a religion will create more extremism and a more rigid framework to improve said religion on.

This we can see easily in the west. Second and third generation western muslims might be more westernized than say saudi muslims, but polls and studies still suggest a heavy conservatism, sexism and homophobia among the muslim youth when compared to the secular, or even christian youth. When ideologies clash, and one of the ideologies will have to be accepted as infallible, growth as a culture, not to speak of an individual, is slower and more rigid. This is why religion matters, christianity has always been more fluid and addaptive than islam, thanks to how quran is perceived in islam.

The kind of religion truly matters.
Either you accept that this specific faith has corrupted numerous people into thinking in fundamentalist rhetoric and committing acts in the name of their imaginary friend, or you have to give some other explanation for such acts and way of thinking. I find it hard to believe you can come up with an explanation entirely separated from islam. Surely, islam exclusively will hardly create all this evil we see, but it a great fuel to the flames of bigotry and hate.


Dodging the religious aspect of these crimes and not focusing on the core beliefs that fuel these horrible acts is not helpful.
Blaming gun control (as much as I agree that guns are not good for a civilian to have) is like blaming pollution on oil and not the company spilling it.

Any and all ideologies can be used to fuel the flames of violence. Islam just happens to be the rocket fuel of ideologies.