916
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
916 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2470 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, Christianity is still less genocidal than Islam. Not that this is a huge achievement.
And they don't seem very knowledgeable about it.
EDIT: Somebody disagrees that Christianity is less genocidal than Islam? Something-something demonstratively not racist, so uncritically supportive of the biggest group of "brown people" you've heard of? Though I'd add that historically it has been similarly genocidal, what I said is fact only in our time.
I wouldn't say it's a either or thing. I'd say they're equally genocidal.
Today's Islam is by far more that. Some people say that's because it's a younger religion, but I think that's because of their "gates of ijtihad" concept.
"Some people say" that support for the Palestinian genocide in America is largely due to christo-fascism.
Well, they are wrong, it's just that white people with modern weapons always feel more like "ours".
Um, ever hear of Abraham? Ethnic Jews are exactly as "white" as ethnic Palestinians.
That's obviously wrong, ethnic Jews obviously have had a lot of Central European, Eastern European, Iberian etc input.
Now I'm not exactly well familiar with these American dynamics of who is "white" and who is not, it's not important anywhere else.
It's absolutely not. This is your post 9/11 bias showing. Islam, historically has been less genocidal than Christianity.
Much of the colonization of Africa, the Americas, and other regions was done in the name of Christianity, through that there were many genocides of indigenous peoples. Many wars were fought over the flavor of Christianity after the reformation.
Religion, in general, causes people to do vile things. But Christianity has more blood on its hands than Islam.
Being Armenian I say you can go eat shit.
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr my anecdotal experience outweighs objective historyyyyy
(Just clarifying I am not denying the Armenian genocide but seriously this person is so off base it's just incredible they can still breathe, Christianity is basically the driving force behind an unbelievably high amount of deaths and the death toll has never stopped going up)
Your opinion is not objective history, also not worth attention.
They are obviously referencing objective history.
They don't own objective history any more than I do.
Doesn't change the facts dipshit, they never once said Islam was innocent and did nothing wrong
I'm saying that Islam now is a more aggressive and genocidal religion. You can go suck horse dicks
I am not saying Islam did not result in genocide. I am not denying the armenian genocide. All I am saying is, you can't say Islam has caused more genocide than Christianity. Islam has a lot of blood on its hands too, religion in general does.
Usually when speaking in present time we mean present time, ergo not body count, but current activities. Islam is genocidal right now. Christianity right now isn't.
There are many different flavors of Christianity just like there are many different flavors of Islam. Each flavor has its own set of doctrines that they apply to themselves. None of those different flavors can claim to be the true flavor. Defining a religion by just one of its flavors is misguided and wrong.
The difference is that the dominant branches of Islam are Shia and Sunni, and not, say, Nizari Ismaili which would be sufficiently modern and humane.
Saying this categorically without clarifying specific goal is misguided and wrong.
Judging a group of people by one of its members is wrong, it's the same form of prejudice.
Nothing is wrong in abstract.
While in this specific case if a religion can be genocidal at all, then Islam is more genocidal than Christianity.
Also rather all but one.
In order to prove this you would need a huge sample poll from each religion and it would need to be representative of the size of each flavor. Then and only then could you begin to make that kind of generalized statement.
If I'd want to prove it to you, yes, too bad I don't.
Then why make the claim as if it were fact?
Because I want that. You seem to be under impression that we must prove something to be right, or in general that we must do things in conversations. No.
You've been spending too much time around conservatives.
Quite the opposite, especially regarding the point that I don't need to prove anything to everybody capable of typing, that was impressed on me by definitely not a conservative.
Well you're definitely slinging a bunch of bullshit around without any proof so why not just STFU? When you are getting massive downvotes for your incorrect claims you double-down and start calling names?! This is a clear sign of somebody who isn't worth listening to or their ideas/opinions worth regarding.
You could make the first step providing proof for your weird opinions.
This is orthogonal to correctness.
I'm just working on my social problems, which stem from caring too much what people think. This may be counterproductive toward ends you imagine, of course, but those are obviously not all.
I frankly forgot what this started with, but likely another leftist type thinking that he is entitled to insulting his opponents and getting polite responses.
So at some point here some comment wasn't worth my answer, but I'd be wrong to care about that now.
"Religion A is less genocidal than Religion B". This is a supremely futile argument to make.
Yeah, we all know that atheists have killed more people that all religions combined.
Less so than the one I was answering, and anyway that's my concern.
Just to jump back in and be more unpopular... ALL Abrahamic religions are evolved from each other. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the holy trinity.
Parts of the Torah are in the Old Testament and the Koran.
People will be shocked that the stories are slightly edited versions of the same line of mythology.
None of them are "better". They all promote control and hatred.
None of these religions are helping people or society. They are only helping themselves to money, power, control and a larger cult following.
No one needs religion. Humanity only needs water, food, shelter.
Not worth answering due to being orthogonal to the subject of contention.
I remember someone studying Koran vs. "the" bible and showing that even the text is more genocidal than the Koran. This was on NPR some number of years ago; pretty easy to find. Of course, apologists for xtianity and/or "Judeo-Xtian values" (lol), will not want to hear this.
Of course, all three Abrahamic religions are tied to "the" bible, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant, but....definitely a lot of xtians need to know.
That'd be impossible, I've read the Bible in my childhood quite a lot and I'm usually familiar with bad places people bring up.
With Quran it's like the pool is much bigger, many such quotes from it I occasionally hear\read are new to me, and I've also been consulted by a few people who are (but mostly were), well, Muslim.
And while it's not a good thing religiously for Muslims to translate it, plenty of translations exist.
So I think you should stop lying.
You are talking out of your ass.
https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran
Not everything published is a source.
Well, I'd appreciate it if you retract such statements like I'm lying, talking out of my ass, etc. What I was talking about is completely a thing, as you can see from the link.
I won't, because you are lying and talking out of your ass, and from your link I can only see that someone wrote an article supporting in tone some position.
There are a few specific obviously false statements there, of the "religion of peace" and "clean Wehrmacht" kind, which Muslims and Nazis tell to justify their ideology, about Jihad specifically. Like telling "it's a widespread myth" about something which is not a myth. Nobody argues that Jihad as a concept is wider than "holy war against infidels", but that is by far the most common meaning among Muslims.
I've seen plenty of articles supporting one or another position on many subjects, sometimes opposite to each other on the same thing. I've also written plenty of school essays rotating my positions on subjects depending on how bored I was, I'm sure you have done that too.
Quran is simply much bigger than Bible, and based on it, so almost every cannibalistic place in the latter has a parallel just as bad in the former, but not the other way around.
Oh good. We won't have Islam than, glad that's settled.
Idiot