Scheer's policy failure

[neilsimon]

Why did you have to bring in religion to the mix? It just makes you look like an Islamophobe. If we replaced Islam with Judaism, Christianity and a whole host of others, the sentence would be equally correct.

Criticizing a Islam is Islamophobic if you don't equally criticize Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism in the same breath? That's like saying criticizing Neo-Nazis without blaming violence on both sides in the same breath is racist against white people. Damn, you just pulled a Donald Trump!

No, not at all. The fact that you brought up Islam, without context or necessity, that you didn't just say "religion" or such, indicates a particular bias. In the same way that if I wrote the same sentence changing Islam to Judaism, I have no doubt that some would say that it makes me look like an anti-Semite. If there was context, that would have been different but in this case it was just not needed and will be seen as an indication of prejudice.

[Glacier]

No, not at all. The fact that you brought up Islam, without context or necessity, that you didn't just say "religion" or such, indicates a particular bias. In the same way that if I wrote the same sentence changing Islam to Judaism, I have no doubt that some would say that it makes me look like an anti-Semite. If there was context, that would have been different but in this case it was just not needed and will be seen as an indication of prejudice.

If you believe Judaism is violent too, that does not make you antisemetic. Antisemitism means you think Jews as people are inferior or they need to be driven into the sea. You can hate the religion with a passion without being antisemitic.

The reason I didn't use the generic term "religion" is that most religions are peaceful. I picked Islam because it's an obvious example of a religion that's not peaceful. As we move away from there, it becomes more and more debatable as to whether or not the religion is peaceful.

[neilsimon]

No, not at all. The fact that you brought up Islam, without context or necessity, that you didn't just say "religion" or such, indicates a particular bias. In the same way that if I wrote the same sentence changing Islam to Judaism, I have no doubt that some would say that it makes me look like an anti-Semite. If there was context, that would have been different but in this case it was just not needed and will be seen as an indication of prejudice.

If you believe Judaism is violent too, that does not make you antisemetic. Antisemitism means you think Jews as people are inferior or they need to be driven into the sea. You can hate the religion with a passion without being antisemitic.

The reason I didn't use the generic term "religion" is that most religions are peaceful. I picked Islam because it's an obvious example of a religion that's not peaceful. As we move away from there, it becomes more and more debatable as to whether or not the religion is peaceful.

At best you are splitting hairs, and at worst you are being disingenuous. Islam is, at its core, no more violent than other Abrahamic religions.

[Glacier]

At best you are splitting hairs, and at worst you are being disingenuous. Islam is, at its core, no more violent than other Abrahamic religions.

This is the dumbest thing you've said since joining Castanet. You seem like a smart person, so I'm gobsmacked. I guess you haven't studied the source texts? Check out the Whose Islam thread. Empirically it's simply not true. 98% of terrorist attacks have been committed in the name of Islam because a certain percentage of Muslims will follow the commands of Muhammad to the letter (thankfully, most don't).

When is the last time Jews committed terrorism, let alone did it in the name of Judaism? I can't think of a single example.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
~ Richard P. Feynman

"There's really nothing that ISIS is doing that Muhammad didn't do, or wouldn't approve of. That is the problem."
~ Sam Harris

[neilsimon]

At best you are splitting hairs, and at worst you are being disingenuous. Islam is, at its core, no more violent than other Abrahamic religions.

This is the dumbest thing you've said since joining Castanet. You seem like a smart person, so I'm gobsmacked. I guess you haven't studied the source texts?

Which one, the one where God kills all but 1 family and the vast majority of animals too, or the one where He kills all the first born children in Egypt, or the one where He kills many thousands for looking at the Ark of the Covenant, etc?
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html
Honestly, I'm not going to argue which religion teaches the most violent stuff, because frankly it's stupid.

As for violence committed by adherents to a religion, well that's a much more complex issue and one which really doesn't paint either side all that kindly. But at that point we are falling into blaming Christianity for the actions of Alexandre Bissonnette, for Bush invading Iraq, etc. Is it Christianity's fault that Hitler had 6,000,000 Jews exterminated?

[Glacier]

Which one, the one where God kills all but 1 family and the vast majority of animals too, or the one where He kills all the first born children in Egypt, or the one where He kills many thousands for looking at the Ark of the Covenant, etc?
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html
Honestly, I'm not going to argue which religion teaches the most violent stuff, because frankly it's stupid.

As for violence committed by adherents to a religion, well that's a much more complex issue and one which really doesn't paint either side all that kindly. But at that point we are falling into blaming Christianity for the actions of Alexandre Bissonnette, for Bush invading Iraq, etc. Is it Christianity's fault that Hitler had 6,000,000 Jews exterminated?

The reason no one is blaming Christianity for the actions of Alexandre Bissonnette but but are blaming Islam for the actions of ISIS is because Bissonnette did not use the example of Jesus and did not quote scripture to justify his actions. He seemed to like both Christians and atheists and the NDP and Trump.

By contrast, ISIS followers are very devout and pious Muslims who want to follow Muhammad and his teachings to the letter. The consider all other sources of information as secular and thus wrong. Following Muhammad to the letter gives you ISIS. Following Jesus to the letter does not give you Bissonnette.

I hope that clarifies the difference for you.

[The Green Barbarian]

The reason no one is blaming Christianity for the actions of Alexandre Bissonnette but but are blaming Islam for the actions of ISIS is because Bissonnette did not use the example of Jesus and did not quote scripture to justify his actions. He seemed to like both Christians and atheists and the NDP and Trump.

By contrast, ISIS followers are very devout and pious Muslims who want to follow Muhammad and his teachings to the letter. The consider all other sources of information as secular and thus wrong. Following Muhammad to the letter gives you ISIS. Following Jesus to the letter does not give you Bissonnette.

I hope that clarifies the difference for you.

Glacier - could you confirm for me what the root causes were for the Armenian genocide in Turkey 100 years ago? Just curious as 1.5 million Christians were butchered there and I'm not quite sure why.

[The Green Barbarian]

Don't you see that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results?

was this directly quoted from Gandhi or Mandela? Anyway, this is Canada, and what you wrote above is disgusting and abhorrent. Just gross. I am truly ashamed for you and everyone else that would agree with the above horrible statement.

[neilsimon]

...
The reason no one is blaming Christianity for the actions of Alexandre Bissonnette but but are blaming Islam for the actions of ISIS is because Bissonnette did not use the example of Jesus and did not quote scripture to justify his actions. He seemed to like both Christians and atheists and the NDP and Trump.

As already mentioned, what about the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews? Christianity was certainly used as an excuse by many.

By contrast, ISIS followers are very devout and pious Muslims who want to follow Muhammad and his teachings to the letter. The consider all other sources of information as secular and thus wrong. Following Muhammad to the letter gives you ISIS. Following Jesus to the letter does not give you Bissonnette.

As far as Christians are concerned, Jesus is only 1 part of the Holy Trinity and as part of that whole God, He engaged in genocide, mass extermination, violent and vicious retribution, impregnation of a teenage girl (without her prior consent), etc. Muhammad has nothing on Him.

I hope that clarifies the difference for you.

No not really. Religion is an oft used excuse, but nothing you have said justifies treating any of the Abrahamic religions in and of themselves, differently.

[The Green Barbarian]

Christianity was certainly used as an excuse by many.
.

By many who? Who exactly?

[Glacier]

As already mentioned, what about the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews? Christianity was certainly used as an excuse by many.

I'm not into your conspiracy theories. We've seem them many times on here before. You do realize that the Zeitgeist moves were complete bunk, right? If you put down the conspiracy theory books for a few minutes, you would understand that Hitler was not religious, and certainly Josef Goebbels had even less time for religion. They did not use the Bible as their source of reference for murdering Jews. That's revisionist history at its worst.

Seriously, I can't believe you're so willfully ignorant that you cannot see the difference between the religiosity of ISIS and Hitler. Unbelievable!

Maybe start with Wikipedia, and go from there, and you might learn a thing or two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

In 1933, Hitler signed the Reichskonkordat (Reich Concordat), a treaty with the Vatican that required the regime to honour the independence of Catholic institutions and prohibited clergy from involvement in politics.[144] However, the regime continued to target the Christian churches and to try to weaken their influence. Throughout 1935 and 1936, hundreds of clergy and nuns were arrested, often on trumped up charges of currency smuggling or sexual offenses.[145][146] Goebbels widely publicised the trials in his propaganda campaigns, showing the cases in the worst possible light.[145] Restrictions were placed on public meetings, and Catholic publications faced censorship. Catholic schools were required to reduce religious instruction and crucifixes were removed from state buildings.[147][b] Hitler often vacillated on whether or not the Kirchenkampf (church struggle) should be a priority, but his frequent inflammatory comments on the issue were enough to convince Goebbels to intensify his work on the issue;[148] in February 1937 he stated he wanted to eliminate the Protestant church.[149]

In response to the persecution, Pope Pius XI had the "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Concern") Encyclical smuggled into Germany for Passion Sunday 1937 and read from every pulpit. It denounced the systematic hostility of the regime toward the church.[150][151] In response, Goebbels renewed the regime's crackdown and propaganda against Catholics.[152] His speech of 28 May in Berlin in front of 20,000 party members, which was also broadcast on the radio, attacked the Catholic church as morally corrupt. As a result of the propaganda campaign, enrolment in denominational schools dropped sharply, and by 1939 all such schools were disbanded or converted to public facilities. Harassment and threats of imprisonment led the clergy to be much more cautious in their criticism of the regime.[153] Partly out of foreign policy concerns, Hitler ordered a scaling back of the church struggle by the end of July 1937.[154]

[neilsimon]

As already mentioned, what about the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews? Christianity was certainly used as an excuse by many.

I'm not into your conspiracy theories. We've seem them many times on here before. You do realize that the Zeitgeist moves were complete bunk, right? If you put down the conspiracy theory books for a few minutes, you would understand that Hitler was not religious, and certainly Josef Goebbels had even less time for religion. They did not use the Bible as their source of reference for murdering Jews. That's revisionist history at its worst.

It's not about the religiosity of Hitler or not. It's that Christianity, the crucifixion of Christ, etc. were used as excuses by those of the time who engaged in running the death camps, etc. This is not revisionist history, I know a German from that era and he said as much. He lived in Nazi heartland and I trust his explanation over yours, sorry. Religion was used as an excuse, as it continues to be used.

BTW, Christian and Catholic aren't the same. Hitler obviously had a major issue with the Catholic church.

[neilsimon]

Christianity was certainly used as an excuse by many.
.

By many who? Who exactly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

[The Green Barbarian]

Glacier - in 1971 3 million Bengalis were massacred. Just curious - do you know why?

[rustled]

Don't you see that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results?

OMG. It's difficult for me to imagine believing hatred can truly be justified. Understood in some circumstances, but not justified. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would suggest this.

How did we get to the point where the use of violence to suppress free speech on a university campus can be framed as the best solution we have, and hatred is justified?