Does thinking Islam is worse than other religions make me racist?
Right/wrong, good/bad, I don't think it matters what word I use does it? On the issue of incest though, historically it has a negative impact on our long term viability and I think we've evolved both a behaviour that discourages it and a physiological tendency to not want to indulge in it. so isn't it a moot point to ask why we don't it when the result doesn't have to run the risk of pregnancy?
On the other hand, incest doesn't have to be between opposite genders and there's no risk of pregnancy with same sex incest. So, why are we so down on incest?
I think the rape question is even more complex. If a lion defeats a dominant male, and kills that male's cubs so that he can impregnate the females with his own genes, has he not committed rape for the long term viability of the Pride? Or can only a human be raped? Back in the ages where rape was a simple fact of life, did it have a long term benefit? Is modern rape a completely different animal than 'warrior culture' rape where the strong victors spread their seed?
I am totally flying by the seat of my pants here.....
I am totally flying by the seat of my pants here.....
Unfortunately you'd already responded to the post I deleted (as I'd decided that it wasn't relevant to the point you making about my 'naturalistic' understanding of morality). but thanks anyway.
OK, going to stop responding at this point because I clearly have some reading to do.
'Universal' is fine (which is not the same as absolute/relative or objective/subjective).
This isn't the 1800s; effective contraceptives are almost universally available. In this light, do you still consider incest 'wrong'? e.g. a mother and son that engage in sex purely for pleasure.
EDIT: Also, you're using a really strange definition of 'wrong' here. I mean, anyone using a condom in a small Amish community is presumably 'wrong' as it is probably a negative as it relates to the survival of the group.
...
(And I think you're getting awfully close to the naturalistic fallacy as it relates to what I think your views of morality are, i.e. do you consider rape wrong if it's a positive on the viability of a group?)
This isn't the 1800s; effective contraceptives are almost universally available. In this light, do you still consider incest 'wrong'? e.g. a mother and son that engage in sex purely for pleasure.
EDIT: Also, you're using a really strange definition of 'wrong' here. I mean, anyone using a condom in a small Amish community is presumably 'wrong' as it is probably a negative as it relates to the survival of the group.
...
(And I think you're getting awfully close to the naturalistic fallacy as it relates to what I think your views of morality are, i.e. do you consider rape wrong if it's a positive on the viability of a group?)
Then choose criteria that would be satisfactory, it's not hard. I've suggested three, several times now.
In what context?
In what context?
In what context?
I've given you some criteria, a context. Let's just use those since you haven't suggested any more. In the context of Bigotry, Violence and Suppression, which is the worst religion?
In what context?
In what context?
In what context?
I've given you some criteria, a context. Let's just use those since you haven't suggested any more. In the context of Bigotry, Violence and Suppression, which is the worst religion?
However, despite only mentioning three ways to consider this question, your ways are FAR from objective. How do you measure the most violent religion? Per capita crimes? Historical death in battles? Canonical statement? Do you consider violence in first world countries or just third world? If you take global averages, are you adjusting for biases in the polity or wealth of countries that might influence violence? etc etc etc. I doubt you can make it objective. But even if you COULD make it objective, it is not remotely clear that answering "which religion is more violent" is sufficient to say "which religion is worse".
If you only define the greatest and least elements of a set, it means you can compare any element to the greatest or least element, but you can't compare two non greatest/least elements. So it is better - and this is what mathematicians do if they can - is define a complete ordering that says "given two religions, i can say which is worse". For instance islam might be worse than christianity, but might now be THE worst religion ever. So simply telling me the worst religion ever doesn't tell me which of these two is worse.
I'm glad you changed your avatar btw, the other one I had to keep scrolling out of view if my kids came into the office..... otherwise, endless questions...
When you say this, do you think you are asking a question or making a statement? Also, given how you have no problem considering islam to be the worst religion, would it be safe to say you are suggesting that islam is the worst religion?Or that you believe islam is the worst religion? Or that you are claiming, not with complete certainty, but nonetheless claiming, that islam is the worst religion? Because remember you scoffed at the idea of the last of these? But I don't see how it is different from the first of these. It seems you think it has something to do with certainty, which I submit is an abuse of the english language if that is your saving grace.
I'm not ignoring your other points, I'll have to come back to them.
You should answer the first question listed there. Namely is you saying you have no problem considering Islam worse thank Christianity a question or a statement?
I have a general impression of this situation, I'd like to expand and improve on it. My way of starting a debate intended to achieve goal that was to ask 'IS Islam the worst religion?'.
I think you missed my point, which is that choosing select "objective" criteria is not necessarily a good way to define worse, given how broadly the concept of religions are. For instance "percentage of followers who wear turbans" is a criteria that is objective - it gives you the context you want - but it is a really bad and not at all meaningful use of the word "worse" here. So when I listed examples of races or gender or whatever, the point was that the objective criteria I gave - giving an explicit context - were really BAD objective criteria and I ought not to judge these groups based on them despite the objectivity and precision of the context. However, despite only mentioning three ways to consider this question, your ways are FAR from objective. How do you measure the most violent religion? Per capita crimes? Historical death in battles? Canonical statement? Do you consider violence in first world countries or just third world? If you take global averages, are you adjusting for biases in the polity or wealth of countries that might influence violence? etc etc etc. I doubt you can make it objective. But even if you COULD make it objective, it is not remotely clear that answering "which religion is more violent" is sufficient to say "which religion is worse".
There are two religions. One is called Oldchristianity, encapsulated in the Old and New Testaments and the various ways they're interpreted in theory and practice. The other is Newchristianity, which is exactly the same as Oldchristianity, with the addition of the writings a later prophet who says:
- That the Jews are pigs who should be treated as dirt
- That polygamy is fine
- That you should not have friends from any religion outside Newchristianity.
That is all the writings of the later prophet say, and the only thing that separates Oldchristianity from Newchristianity. Can a person form a moral opinion as to which of these two religions is worse from the above information? If not, why not?
@Truthsayer
You are just trying to incite hatred and prejudice against Muslims by spouting sh*t. Jews are regarded as people of the book who are to be respected.
You are just trying to incite hatred and prejudice against Muslims by spouting sh*t. Jews are regarded as people of the book who are to be respected.
Ok. I think I'd have to say that it's a statement but it's an opinion which I've since explained is not particularly well informed and could be changed, and that's not the same as making the statement 'Islam IS the worst religion' which would imply a conclusion that I feel that I can support and defend.
I have a general impression of this situation, I'd like to expand and improve on it. My way of starting a debate intended to achieve goal that was to ask 'IS Islam the worst religion?'.
I have a general impression of this situation, I'd like to expand and improve on it. My way of starting a debate intended to achieve goal that was to ask 'IS Islam the worst religion?'.
Now that is great that you are uncertain in your claim. It is great that you are open to changing your mind. However, I maintain that I was entirely correct to say you WERE indeed making this claim and indeed being uncertain or willing to change your mind doesn't mean you were not making a claim and trying to defend it. And of course, there is nothing in your original post - literally nothing - that indicates any form of "questioning", any form of "uncertainty", any form of "expand and improve on my impression". I submit your original post could hardly be said to being ASKING the question "is islam the worst religion", and entirely one of ANSWERING this question.
Unlike Christianity in it's early years, Islam was spread through violent conquest (although the Christians gave it back in later centuries) and the word 'Islam, actually means 'submission', to their god.
With a religion used by it's followers regularly to justify mass murder of innocents, that has death as the penalty for leaving it, that punishes crimes by stoning, decapitation and mutilation, that believes that the non muslims and the non-religious are sub-human and are being done a favour by being put to death (Kill the infidels wherever you find them), I have no problem at all considering Islam one of the 'worst' religions on our planet and don't consider myself racist or prejudiced. The extremes of Islam highlight the worst effects of religious beliefs. If we can't grow beyond them, perhaps we would be better off without religion at all.
It's ironic to me that as much as I detest Christianity (for being a religion..), it may be the only thing standing between us and the Islamic desire that the whole world be Muslim.
With a religion used by it's followers regularly to justify mass murder of innocents, that has death as the penalty for leaving it, that punishes crimes by stoning, decapitation and mutilation, that believes that the non muslims and the non-religious are sub-human and are being done a favour by being put to death (Kill the infidels wherever you find them), I have no problem at all considering Islam one of the 'worst' religions on our planet and don't consider myself racist or prejudiced. The extremes of Islam highlight the worst effects of religious beliefs. If we can't grow beyond them, perhaps we would be better off without religion at all.
It's ironic to me that as much as I detest Christianity (for being a religion..), it may be the only thing standing between us and the Islamic desire that the whole world be Muslim.
There are two religions. One is called Oldchristianity, encapsulated in the Old and New Testaments and the various ways they're interpreted in theory and practice. The other is Newchristianity, which is exactly the same as Oldchristianity, with the addition of the writings a later prophet who says:
- That the Jews are pigs who should be treated as dirt
- That polygamy is fine
- That you should not have friends from any religion outside Newchristianity.
That is all the writings of the later prophet say, and the only thing that separates Oldchristianity from Newchristianity. Can a person form a moral opinion as to which of these two religions is worse from the above information? If not, why not?
- That the Jews are pigs who should be treated as dirt
- That polygamy is fine
- That you should not have friends from any religion outside Newchristianity.
That is all the writings of the later prophet say, and the only thing that separates Oldchristianity from Newchristianity. Can a person form a moral opinion as to which of these two religions is worse from the above information? If not, why not?
And of course I entirely reject your thinly veiled caricature of christianity vs islam.
I think that religions are far far far more than simply their canonical writings. The practice of christianity today, for instance, looks nothing at all like the old testament, and despite their being some pretty horrific stuff in there, most of it isn't actually realized today. Indeed, I think only looking at canonical writings is a very poor and narrow metric to judge religions on. Indeed, it could well be the case that for whatever historical reasons newchristianity went on to become entirely monogomous while oldchristianity became polygamous or whatever else in which case whatever textual difference you found would mean very little.
And of course I entirely reject your thinly veiled caricature of christianity vs islam.
And of course I entirely reject your thinly veiled caricature of christianity vs islam.
"the Jews are pigs who should be treated as dirt" relates to a story where Sabbath breakers were turned into swine. Nobody sensible takes this literally and the moral of the story is don't break the Sabbath NOT hate Jews forever. Islam teaches that Jews are people of the book and should be respected as such as the two religions share the same roots.
So when you later characterized your position as a question - and not the statement you agree it is - would you agree that this characterization was objectively wrong?
Now that is great that you are uncertain in your claim. It is great that you are open to changing your mind. However, I maintain that I was entirely correct to say you WERE indeed making this claim and indeed being uncertain or willing to change your mind doesn't mean you were not making a claim and trying to defend it. And of course, there is nothing in your original post - literally nothing - that indicates any form of "questioning", any form of "uncertainty", any form of "expand and improve on my impression". I submit your original post could hardly be said to being ASKING the question "is islam the worst religion", and entirely one of ANSWERING this question.
Now that is great that you are uncertain in your claim. It is great that you are open to changing your mind. However, I maintain that I was entirely correct to say you WERE indeed making this claim and indeed being uncertain or willing to change your mind doesn't mean you were not making a claim and trying to defend it. And of course, there is nothing in your original post - literally nothing - that indicates any form of "questioning", any form of "uncertainty", any form of "expand and improve on my impression". I submit your original post could hardly be said to being ASKING the question "is islam the worst religion", and entirely one of ANSWERING this question.
None of which has progressed the actual debate which died a lonely death during your quest to prove me wrong on a matter of what... moving to accepting that I might be wrong in what I 'have no problem considering'? I'm not even sure what you think happened but I'm really quite over it now.
You most certainly DID disagree with me. When I talking about how the claim "islam is worse than christianity" is a sweeping generalization you agreed that it was but said that nobody was saying that, that you had just been asking questions. In truth, many people were saying that. In particular, the post I quoted of you was explicitly defending that claim. And you defended it without any shred of uncertainty or questioning in your tone or any qualification whatsoever. You said you had NO PROBLEMS with the claim. It was just a fundamentally different representation of what your post was, and you should acknowledge that.
As for moving on, I will note that we are still waiting for YOU to respond - as you said you would - to my last comment on the "substance" of the issue.
As for moving on, I will note that we are still waiting for YOU to respond - as you said you would - to my last comment on the "substance" of the issue.
I wonder what people would say if the topic was 'Does thinking the Aztec religion with human sacrifice is worse than other religions make me a racist?'.Probably not a lot because there aren't any Aztec adherents around anymore.
I think that if a statement is particularly offensive, then it is owed heightened scrutiny to its truth value before being casually claimed, which is very much in contrast to a particularly low level of scrutiny that has been - and often is - applied to this specific question. And while I think the claim is both unsubstantiated (and, if you read on, unsubstantiatable) as well as offensive, my primary objection in this thread was to the former with the later being important to say, but ancillary at best to my objections.
As to saying true offensive statements, frankly, I just don't believe someone suggesting they are on a genuine quest allied with truth on this question. If they really are, then sure, utter whatever true statement you want when it is in this context. But if one is uttering an offensive statement to make some sociopolitical statement (ironically something you accused me of doing) then I am much less confident of its appropriateness.
I have not presented it (iirc) in this thread, but I would actually make the stronger claim not just that we don't know the answer to "is islam worse than christianity" but further that we have not even established basic guidelines we can agree on that make such a statement meaningful. I believe that religions are really big, broad concepts with numerous connotations with billions of followers and a myriad of different traditions and subtraditions and ways of thinking about it spread around the globe. That you can meaningfully reduce all that to a statement like "islam is worse than christianity" seems very unlikely.
Second, I think we have conversations of this sort all the time: e.g. is market capitalism overall good or bad? Are certain kinds of patriarchal systems good or bad? Should we support liberalism or socialism or some other alternative? These terms are also very difficult to define and refer to a broad range of different ideas and groups. Yet, I think these conversations can nonetheless be useful.
In particular, I would reject very narrow approaches that try to identify one single factor as a justification for this very broad claim. For instance, my criticism of tame_deuce is that he was using a very narrow proxy (court systems in islamic principles) in place of the "worse". Presumably if one said "these are my metrics for how one religion might be worse than another" it could be a rather objective measure to determine the answer in that case. For instance, one could say "the religion that is worse has killed the most in terrorist attacks" and then could in principle count those killed and get an answer. But I would reject the idea that this true fact is a meaningful indication of one religion being worse or better than the other.
I can't imagine what this would be.
I'm definitely bigoted, in so much as I hate religion. Despite learning more about islam, I'm staying fairly close to my "worst smelling turd" hypothesis. All jud chris and islam have really horrific **** in them as well as some sprinklings of good stuff; but I think islam (possibly through no fault of its own) lends itself to misinterpretation on behalf of its own adherants which results in more ****ty actions. So there might be perfectly good explanations for the **** in the quran like:
So there its not saying muslims should kill all non believers, just specific non believers of the time: well that's well and good but I think it lends itself to more radical behavior more easily than something in j/c. I can see x muslim is in the pits of despair turning the page that says "kill all non believers" and using it to justify horrific actions (again, perhaps wrongly), which might be more difficult for a christian that opens up the bible and it says something like "god ordered moses to kill all x women and children" or whatever. The quran seems more personal and specific, even if it's not intentional.
So, still most ****ed up/worst smelling turd.
edit:
And on a side note, I like to consider myself liberal and open minded; but a lot of political correctness just seems like cowardice to me, and really kind of like racism.
Like I was talking to someone about the head coverings the other day, and he was saying something like "covering your head is common in j and c as well," and it's like, that's well and good, but we never kept our women in black bags in the middle of the ****ing desert. People need to grow some balls and say that ****s ****ed up. Some people are like "well they're just a different people" or whatever--which just seems like racism to me. Like they aren't good enough for freedom.
edit:
and like the apologist explanation for the above quotes really makes it that much better; "no! we only wanted all muslims to kill all unbelievers only this one time, we swear!" yeah whatever.
Quran 2:191: "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."
Sura 9:5: "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Quran: {The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101}
Quran {Prophet, make war on the infidels Sura 66: 9
Quran {Never be a helper to the disbelievers Sura 28:86}
The exact Arabic expression in these verses - indeed, in every verse that talks of the non-believer - is "Al-Kaferrin" or "Al-la-dhina Kafaru." The use of "Al-" or "Al-la-dhina" limits the verse (and thus commandment) to 1) a specific time and place in historyand 2) a specific group of people who were obstacles to the establishment of Islam in its nascent phase. It is these two factors that caused these verses to be revealed. Had the intentions of the Quran been to extend the application of these verses in perpetuity, it would have used the expression "Man Kafar," rather than "Al-Kafereen" or "Al-La-dhina Kafaru". The former, "Man Kafar," literally means any one who does not believe in God; while the latter, "Al-Kafereen," - the infidels - denotes a specific group of people: they who fought Prophet Mohamed in the early stages of Islam.
Sura 9:5: "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Quran: {The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101}
Quran {Prophet, make war on the infidels Sura 66: 9
Quran {Never be a helper to the disbelievers Sura 28:86}
The exact Arabic expression in these verses - indeed, in every verse that talks of the non-believer - is "Al-Kaferrin" or "Al-la-dhina Kafaru." The use of "Al-" or "Al-la-dhina" limits the verse (and thus commandment) to 1) a specific time and place in historyand 2) a specific group of people who were obstacles to the establishment of Islam in its nascent phase. It is these two factors that caused these verses to be revealed. Had the intentions of the Quran been to extend the application of these verses in perpetuity, it would have used the expression "Man Kafar," rather than "Al-Kafereen" or "Al-La-dhina Kafaru". The former, "Man Kafar," literally means any one who does not believe in God; while the latter, "Al-Kafereen," - the infidels - denotes a specific group of people: they who fought Prophet Mohamed in the early stages of Islam.
So, still most ****ed up/worst smelling turd.
edit:
And on a side note, I like to consider myself liberal and open minded; but a lot of political correctness just seems like cowardice to me, and really kind of like racism.
Like I was talking to someone about the head coverings the other day, and he was saying something like "covering your head is common in j and c as well," and it's like, that's well and good, but we never kept our women in black bags in the middle of the ****ing desert. People need to grow some balls and say that ****s ****ed up. Some people are like "well they're just a different people" or whatever--which just seems like racism to me. Like they aren't good enough for freedom.
edit:
and like the apologist explanation for the above quotes really makes it that much better; "no! we only wanted all muslims to kill all unbelievers only this one time, we swear!" yeah whatever.
I'm definitely bigoted, in so much as I hate religion. Despite learning more about islam, I'm staying fairly close to my "worst smelling turd" hypothesis. All jud chris and islam have really horrific **** in them as well as some sprinklings of good stuff; but I think islam (possibly through no fault of its own) lends itself to misinterpretation on behalf of its own adherants which results in more ****ty actions. So there might be perfectly good explanations for the **** in the quran like:
<snip>
Like I was talking to someone about the head coverings the other day, and he was saying something like "covering your head is common in j and c as well," and it's like, that's well and good, but we never kept our women in black bags in the middle of the ****ing desert. People need to grow some balls and say that ****s ****ed up. Some people are like "well they're just a different people" or whatever--which just seems like racism to me. Like they aren't good enough for freedom.
edit:
and like the apologist explanation for the above quotes really makes it that much better; "no! we only wanted all muslims to kill all unbelievers only this one time, we swear!" yeah whatever.
<snip>
Like I was talking to someone about the head coverings the other day, and he was saying something like "covering your head is common in j and c as well," and it's like, that's well and good, but we never kept our women in black bags in the middle of the ****ing desert. People need to grow some balls and say that ****s ****ed up. Some people are like "well they're just a different people" or whatever--which just seems like racism to me. Like they aren't good enough for freedom.
edit:
and like the apologist explanation for the above quotes really makes it that much better; "no! we only wanted all muslims to kill all unbelievers only this one time, we swear!" yeah whatever.
I'm guessing you are very drunk right now.
Edit: Remember, if your claim is that Islam is worse than Judaism or Christianity, you have to do more than just point to something bad in Islam, you have to at minimum show that Judaism or Christianity doesn't also have that bad thing, or at least not to the same extent.
Do a little better job at reading and I'll respond.
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please." Quran 2:223, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." Quran 4:11, "Women," Dawood, p. 77
"Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses..." Quran 2:282, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 47
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women." Quran 2:228, Dawood, p. 35
"If you fear that you cannot treat [orphan girls] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girl you may own." Quran 4:3, "Women," Dawood, p. 76
"If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those [of your wives] who have not yet menstruated." Quran 65:4, "Divorce," Dawood, p. 557 [Dawood notes: "On account of their young age. Child marriages were common."]
"[Forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves." Quran 4:24, "Women," Dawood, p. 81
Some ****ed up ****.
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please." Quran 2:223, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." Quran 4:11, "Women," Dawood, p. 77
"Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses..." Quran 2:282, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 47
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women." Quran 2:228, Dawood, p. 35
"If you fear that you cannot treat [orphan girls] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girl you may own." Quran 4:3, "Women," Dawood, p. 76
"If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those [of your wives] who have not yet menstruated." Quran 65:4, "Divorce," Dawood, p. 557 [Dawood notes: "On account of their young age. Child marriages were common."]
"[Forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves." Quran 4:24, "Women," Dawood, p. 81
Some ****ed up ****.
Also your euphemism is dishonest. A burka is definitely not a "dress." It is a black ****ing bag with a slit so you can see through it. Essentially a ****ing torture device since it's worn in the ****ing desert.
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
I think the women quotes is a tossup.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
I think the women quotes is a tossup.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Religion is so ****ed.
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Religion is so ****ed.
Do a little better job at reading and I'll respond.
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please." Quran 2:223, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." Quran 4:11, "Women," Dawood, p. 77
"Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses..." Quran 2:282, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 47
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women." Quran 2:228, Dawood, p. 35
"If you fear that you cannot treat [orphan girls] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girl you may own." Quran 4:3, "Women," Dawood, p. 76
"If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those [of your wives] who have not yet menstruated." Quran 65:4, "Divorce," Dawood, p. 557 [Dawood notes: "On account of their young age. Child marriages were common."]
"[Forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves." Quran 4:24, "Women," Dawood, p. 81
Some ****ed up ****.
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please." Quran 2:223, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." Quran 4:11, "Women," Dawood, p. 77
"Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses..." Quran 2:282, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 47
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women." Quran 2:228, Dawood, p. 35
"If you fear that you cannot treat [orphan girls] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girl you may own." Quran 4:3, "Women," Dawood, p. 76
"If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those [of your wives] who have not yet menstruated." Quran 65:4, "Divorce," Dawood, p. 557 [Dawood notes: "On account of their young age. Child marriages were common."]
"[Forbidden to you are] married women, except those whom you own as slaves." Quran 4:24, "Women," Dawood, p. 81
Some ****ed up ****.
Edit: so you did compare in later posts. Good. However, you now seem to just think that it's a toss-up on this issue, so I guess you are backing off from thinking that Islam is worse for this particular reason.
I'll try and summarize my initial contention more succinctly:
Firstly, I don't think j or c ever said all js or cs should kill all x group. They might have said moses should kill all x group, or david should kill all x group, but not all js or cs. (I might be wrong, would be happy to learn).
But Islam says all Muslims should kill all non believers. Now according to the apologist, that was an isolated incident. Meaning, all muslims should only kill specific non believers at a specific moment in time. Fine:
But what I am judging religion on is not only its content, but its results. And if desperate Muslims are opening up their qurans and seeing "all muslims should kill all non believers," it seems logical that that would be used to justify some horrific actions, even if they are misinterpreting the passage.
The fact that islam made this one exception to its policy of "treating non believers with respect" doesn't make it much better to me. Because even if a muslim was really educated, and knew that the passage in the koran only applied to a specific time and group, then why wouldn't he think that would also apply to other times and groups? If it was ok once, why wouldn't it be ok other times. Psychologically speaking.
So if I make a religion and say all blue eyed people should kill all brown eyed people, but mean it metaphorically or whatever; then that doesn't make my religion any better if people are using it to justify their actions. The specific people are factually wrong, but that doesn't make the effects of my religion any better. And thus my religion would be "worse" than a religion that didn't tell (or have the effect of) its adherents to kill anybody.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE