Saturday, September 29, 2012

Why You Fail to Understand the Middle East

I am by no means a cultural expert on the Middle East and North Africa, but it has become painfully apparent to me that if I only know a little bit about those regions, then nearly everyone else on the blogosphere knows even less than that.

I'm sorry that I have to go on the attack to my Conservative readers (only because I know that most of my readers are conservative), but I'm going to have to call you (most of you) out on something.  Many of you claim that Islam is the problem in the Middle East, and you're doing that for two reasons:

1.  You have a feeble understanding of Arab and Persian cutlure.

2.  You're on a mission to paint Islam as a false religion, at least false compared to Christianity.

I got someone on some blog, maybe Political Realities, to admit that he believed Islam to be a "false religion," (his words, not mine), and I couldn't help but wondering if his opinion served as a credible one.  I mean, honestly, would you give credence to a radical Muslim's interpretation or perception of Christianity?  I wouldn't, but that's not because I grew up Catholic.  It's because I generally don't seriously consider the opinions of radicals when they're speaking about their perceived opposition.

So let's explore thing 1 that I mentioned above.  I think all of this stems from the fact that few of you have even a cursory grasp of Middle Eastern culture.  Arabs and Persians have historically been brutal cutlures, and that fact is largely a result of their environment.  Try growing up in the harsh, unforgiving desert and see how you turn out.  Then, couple that with the fact that the peoples around you are so bent on increasing their stockpile of already scarce resources that they're forced to conquer those around them just to have a greater chance of survival.

That's how these cultures began, and that's part of the reason they are still harsh today.  You might think that because it was such a long time ago that they should have evolved, but thousands of years of a particular cultural attitude has a way of ingraining itself in the psyche of an entire people.  You can't simply unmake thousands of years of cultural development and just expect them to "get with the times."  Although it may change and evolve over the centuries, it won't simply "go away."

I think Silverfiddle brought up the Jews as an example of how Islam is the real problem, because he believed the Jews to be peaceful.  Well, let's consider something here: how did the Jews even obtain their homeland?  Spoiler alert: they conquered it.  Not only did they conquer the lands that came to be known Israel and Judea, but they committed genocide all along the way.  They claimed that God told them to, so that the heathens wouldn't test their faith in God.

A little harsh, no?  Oh, but what they did was totally fine because "God commanded it."  Hopefully, some of you reading this are seeing how absurd that sounds, especially when you consider that the terrorists blow up school busses of children because it is "Allah's will."  The Jews were just as brutal as the Arabs and Persians.  Their laws were just as unforgiving.  They owned slaves (ironic given the fact that they broke free of slavery), they believed in eye-for-an-eye justice, and they sacrificed animals, just like many "heathen" religions around them.

The only difference is that the Jews were consistently conquered from about the 8th century BC on, so their society didn't really get a chance to reach the heights of decadent violence as their neighbors did.  Although I am sure that they were still just as fanatical and brutal as everyone else.  I mean, they stoned people, too.

So why do you think Islam is the problem, given the fact that Middle Eastern culture has been brutal since it began?  The Arabs, Persians, and other Semites had existed thousands of years before the advent of Islam.  Islam, if you know anything, didn't come into being until the 7th Century AD.  I promise you that Sharia law was simply the pre-existing law that ruled Arab and Persian cultures, just with a religious excuse behind it.

Arab and Persian culture came before Islam, and Islam is a product of those cultures.  Why are far east Asian Islamic countries less fanatical than Middle Eastern countries?  It's because they come from completely different cultural traditions.

Why are American Christians more fanatical than European Christians?  Why are there some Mormons who still believe in polygamy and some that don't?  Why is an Italian Catholic different from a Midwestern Catholic?  It's because of how culture reflects the interpretation of a religion.  Fundamentalist Southern Baptists are infinitely more zealous and ignorant of the meaning of Christianity than even the most ardent Catholic.  And it's because Catholicism is rooted in nearly two-thousand years of tradition and evolution, while the Southern Baptist movement is maybe two hundred years old counting its predecessors.

Many of you fail to understand the violence in the Middle East because you can't get over your vendetta against Islam.  You look for any reason to point out how awful a religion it is, so every time a Muslim perpetrates any kind of violence, you immediately use that for validation.  I suppose we should say that Catholicism is false every time a priest molests a kid.  We should just throw all of Christianity out the window whenever Christians perpetrate violence.

"Christians don't kill in the name of God!"  Well, they don't anymore at least.  But that's only because Western Civilization evolved.  The Arabs and Persians are still living in 1099 AD.  Islam is no more false than Christianity.  Get over it, because unless you bring intellectual things to the table, all you're doing is having a "my dad is better than your dad" argument.

31 comments:

FreeThinke said...

A few words of friendly advice:

Try not to address your readers or audience as "you." This indicates the writer or speaker is setting himself apart from -- and above -- his audience. Also, it sounds at once accusatory and condescending -- as though the writer assumes an inherent right to advise, scold and otherwise talk down to people, because the writer believes in his own innate, unquestionable superiority and implied "duty" to assume a position of authority -- even suzerainty -- over others.

Now, the writer may truly be correct in his observations, but that won't help at all if he strikes an attitude too easily interpreted as a reprimand, a slap on the wrist, or even a thinly-veiled statement of contempt and derision.

Please don't take this as a "scolding," Jack, it's merely an attempt to get you to apply a little "psychology" with greater wit and wisdom, unless of course, you really want to alienate people and drive readers away from your blog.

With all good wishes for greater success,

"Dale Carnegie" aka FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

The use of second person was intentional. I normally stick with third person because that is generally what one does when writing an article, but I was feeling particularly angsty about this one.

The nature of this article was admonishing, anyway. Why veil it in third person pronouns?

Here's the thing FT. Had I used third person pronouns, there would have been little difference, because the message would be the exact same. If people stop reading my blog, it will be because of the content and the message, not because of my pronoun usage.

Take Silverfiddle's blog for example. He generally doesn't use second person, but his posts are nonetheless acerbic. Even if he doesn't explicitly say "Jack Camwell is wrong for believing (X)," he's still saying it, and I can detect when it's directed at me, or people like me.

Given that most of my articles do use third person over second, I would have hoped that you'd have enough respect for my writing to NOT assume that I don't know what I'm doing.

FreeThinke said...

Well, Jack, we're all prisoners of our own mindset whatever it may be. If you really WANT to be perceived as abrasive, insulting and obnoxious, that's your affair, but I don't think that's who you really are, which is why I dare to admonish you.

I think you misrepresent yourself by being unduly vulgar, pugnacious and defensive. My saying this does not mean I dislike you or have any desire to hurt your feelings. I think you have both a good heart and a good mind, or I wouldn't bother, believe me.

You are an unusually thoughtful person for one of your generation, and I believe I see in you an earnest desire to find some reason to hope ways might yet be found to make the world a kinder, gentler, more decent and accommodating place. I'm only suggesting there are better ways to go about the task.

It's not just you. The entire world has become so strident, so vituperative, so insolent, unkind, intolerant, prideful, arrogant and aggressive it makes me want more and more just to withdraw and live as a recluse, and perhaps even to check out early.

Today we no longer see the glass as half full OR half empty. Rather we wonder more what percentage of lethal poison might be in its contents.

If all you want to do is upbraid your readers for everything we lack in your estimation, that's fine. A blog is as good a place as any to vent one's spleen.

If on the other hand, you'd like to make a DIFFERENCE, however minuscule, I honestly think you're going about it the wrong way.

IF I didn't respect you, I wouldn't care enough to criticize you.

~ FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

One conclusion that I've come to, moreso since I've been tooling around the blogosphere, is that it doesn't matter what we say or how we say it. People are going to listen to or discard the message regardless.

Take this article for example. People who agree with my position will likely say "yes, you're right Jack! Good on you for sticking it to 'em!" The people who disagree with my position will admonish me and tell me how wrong and misguided I am.

That reaction would be the same regardless of the acerbity of my style. I could have written a short academic blurb, replete with flowery language, citations of my facts, and all sorts of things that we would generally consider to be indicative of "higher thinkging." But all of that would have been a complete waste of time, because the reaction would be the same.

Those who agree with me would say "you're right Jack," and those who disagree would say "you're wrong Jack." In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most people would have made up their mind about whether or not they agree with me just by reading the title.

This particular article was especially acerbic because I feel like I've been saying the same thing on different blogs for about a year now. But no one ever truly listens. They throw logic completely out the window just so they can believe whatever they want to believe.

So why bother being nice? Why not "vent my spleen?" Just because the message is presented harshly doesn't mean the message is any less valid. If people reject my arguments simply because I come off as angry or vituperative, then that's their fault.

The problem with human society is that so few people actually THINK about what they are reading, and that's my goal, is to get people to actually think about what I'm writing. There have been *countless* articles, academic papers, and books written on the very topic I'm addressing in this article. With such a wealth of research, why do people still persist in the fallacious argument against Islam?

Pardon my French, but it's because they plain don't give a shit, FT. They simply don't care. All they want is to go on believing that they've got it all figured out.

I could have written up the most eloquent article in the history of human existence, irrefutably proving that Islam is not the problem, and there would STILL be people reading in disbelief. They would STILL argue against me, likely on the basis that Islam is a "false religion."

All they care about is the risen Lord Jesus and how great he's made their lives. They don't care to admit that they, in reality, have not the faintest clue about what lies beyond our perception. All they want is to eat their bacon and be happy.

So in short (too late) it doesn't matter what I say or how I say it. The result will be the same. The Earth will go on spinning, and humanity will shove along on its path to extinction.

And I'm not admonishing you or being defensive. I'm just engaging in the discussion. This is probably a more enjoyable discussion than I hoped to get out of this article ;-)

Silverfiddle said...

"So why do you think Islam is the problem, given the fact that Middle Eastern culture has been brutal since it began?"

Because all of the violence emanates from that religion. Not Zoroastrians, not Copts, not Jews, but Muslims. That's why

"Why are far east Asian Islamic countries less fanatical than Middle Eastern countries?"

They are not. Ever heard of Pakistan and Afghanistan? Asian countries. Read the history of Indonesia?

So, your premise is flawed.

"Fundamentalist Southern Baptists are infinitely more zealous and ignorant of the meaning of Christianity than even the most ardent Catholic."

What a gross insult. Who says? You? Got any data to back that up?

In your summary, you should ask yourself how Christians and Jews in that region have evolved but Islam has not. Clue: It's not the Semitic culture.

I'll end on a bright note: I agree with you on the "false religion" pronouncements. I do not question the validity of other religions.

Jack Camwell said...

Pakistan and Afghanistan are not considered to be "far eastern asian." Central Asian, or even Southwest Asia. Far east Asia is considered China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.. I know geogrpahy.

Yes, I know the history of Indonesia, but look at Indonesia now. Yes, there were riots and what not recently, but that's not indicative of every-day life in Indonesia. Christianity is legal, and other religions are not persecuted there. In fact, Indonesia has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. You seem to ignore that every time I bring it up.

Of course I have data to back that up. To be a "fundamentalist," which is a word I intentionally used, means you basically have to ignore thousands of years of biblical and theological scholarship. To be a fundamentalist means you have to buy into the literal interpretation of the Bible. How is that not ignorant?

An ardent Catholic MUST give credence to biblical and theological scholarship, or else the person is not an ardent Catholic. Catholicism does not believe in a simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible.

An ardent Catholic shuns the death penalty because Jesus shunned it. A Fundamentalist Southern Baptist usually avidly promotes the death penalty--an eye for an eye.

My mother's side of the family is Catholic, but my father's side of my family is all Protestant. I was exposed to the Southern Baptist, evangelical stuff since I was about thirteen. I've seen the "stupid" side of Christianity. Extreme Protestantism requires that you lie to yourself about evolution, science, and all sorts of things just to maintain your faith. Extreme Catholicism still allows for you to admit that science, reason, and faith are not opposed to each other.

To argue that the fundamentalist protestants have a zealous and ignorant understanding of the meaning of Christianity is not an insult, it's an observation.

How have Christians and Jews "evolved" in those regions? They're the minority. How can a minority perpetrate the sort of widespread violence we see there? If they didn't sit down and shut up, they would have been quickly overwhelmed by the Muslim majority. It was not evolution, it was survival.

This is evidenced by the fact that in Europe, Christianity was used to justify unspeakable horrors. I've named it many, many times before. The Inquisition, the Crusades, various pogroms against Jews, burning "heretics" at the stake, the Salem Witch Trials (not European, I know). Christianity didn't evolve, the CULTURE evolved.

At some point, western culture figured out that killing in the name of God was wrong. Jesus' ministry was ALWAYS about pacifism, turning the other cheek, compassion, and inclusion. It just took western civilization about 1800 years to remember that.

Silverfiddle said...

"How can a minority perpetrate the sort of widespread violence we see there?"

Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? Or the myriad other violent minority groups?

Afghanistan and Pakistan are indeed Asia, Jack, and those people are not Arabs.

You mentioned logic earlier in the thread.

Well, I've pointed out to you that we have three religions that grew out of Semitic culture. Guess which one is still the explodiest?

I have also pointed out to you that the same pathologies aflict non-Arab Muslim societies.

The Arab culture cannot logically be the only factor. The Muslim religion must have something to do with it.

QED

Jack Camwell said...

Silver you've completely ignored nearly every, single refutation I've offered you.

Far East Asian culture is VASTLY different than the cultures found in the Middle East. The "oriental" and Polynesian cultures are VASTLY different than Arab and Persian. Persian culture, in terms of its historical harshness and barbarity, is not that different from Arab culture. Please, pay attention to the geographic differences I have laid out. I would prefer to not have to explain it again.

The same pathologies have inflicted NON-MUSLIM cultures throughout history. Again, anyone who knows anything about the history of western Christendom knows that it was just as brutal and explosive. It's not my analysis, it's pure, historical fact. If you're trying to ignore all the attrocities committed in the name of Jesus and Christianity, then the discussion is not even worth having.

The Christians and Jews living in the Middle East have accounted for a historically small minority, and after centuries of suppression of both groups, it is no wonder that they are not so violent. But once again, Christian peoples in Europe were brutal and horrifying for hundreds of years, just as much as many Middle Eastern Muslim countries are now.

And as you've pointed out, there is a difference between Arab and Persian culture. Just as well, there's a difference between Jewish/Hebrew cutlure and Arab and Persian culture. It's the same as how French culture is VASTLY different from German culture, even though they share a border. Italians are completely different from the Greeks. The Poles are night and day difference between the Spanish. Cultures that share a common region can develop very distinctly from one another. Arab =/= Persian =/= Jewish. Like I said in the article, Jewish culture was dominated and suppressed for hundreds of years.

Religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. It's all about cultural interpretations of the religions. It also has much to do with form of government, re: despots who use radical Islam as a way to control their subjects.

And finally, ONCE AGAIN, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world. There are Muslim countries that experience no more violence than America. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world who are peaceful and outright publicly condemn the violence in the Middle East.

What you're trying to argue is like me saying "well since a bunch of protestants in the South believe that evolution is a lie because it contradicts the Bible, that must mean there's something wrong with Christianity. Christianity must force it's adherents to deny scientific fact."

Silverfiddle said...

What you cannot explain Jack, is why Muslims commit violence at a greater rate that Jews and Christians from the same region.

You also glossed over my point that The Stans are in Asia, not the Middle East.

I dismantled your argument in two ways. First, I showed you that Non-Muslim Arabs are not as violent, and secondly, that Non-Arab Muslims display the same fiery extremism.

You can't defend your thesis on either of these grounds. Ignore it if you want, but you're the one who staked out your intellectual ground there.

What do you think explains Muslim violence? And why are they more violent than those around them?

Jack Camwell said...

"You also glossed over my point that The Stans are in Asia, not the Middle East."

Okay, you obviously don't even have a cursory grasp of basic geography.

THE MIDDLE EAST IS IN ASIA.

You don't have the slightest understanding of anything that has to do with history, geography, or cultural anthropology.

The discussion can't continue until you get a clue.

Silverfiddle said...

THE MIDDLE EAST IS IN ASIA.

Wrong. Just because you parked a boat in Bahrain once doesn't make you an expert.

You may be technically correct, but the geography is different, as is the culture.

The Middle East and the "Stans" are distinct places with very different histories and cultures. I have been to both. Have you?

This glaring error explains why your post is so misguided.

Jack Camwell said...

I also parked a boat in the UAE four times. A Middle Eastern, Muslim country that is not wracked with violence.

If UAE is Muslim, then why aren't the people there violent?

Silverfiddle said...

Now that we've got our geography and cultures straight, let's get back to my questions that you avoided...

What you cannot explain Jack, is why Muslims commit violence at a greater rate that Jews and Christians from the same region.

I dismantled your argument in two ways. First, I showed you that Non-Muslim Arabs are not as violent, and secondly, that Non-Arab Muslims display the same fiery extremism.

You can't defend your thesis on either of these grounds. Ignore it if you want, but you're the one who staked out your intellectual ground there.

What do you think explains Muslim violence? And why are they more violent than those around them?

Jack Camwell said...

And there's no glaring fucking error. I KNOW there's a difference between Arab and Persian culture, but the geography of Afghanistan and Iran are also unforgiving, and their histories are similar.

You, however, can't even understand the distinction between far east Asia and the Middle East.

Ignoring my arguments and pretending like you "dismantled" them doesn't actually count as a counter argument.

Silverfiddle said...

If UAE is Muslim, then why aren't the people there violent?

I never claimed that every last Muslim is violent. Qatar is a veritable liberal island is a sea of intolerance, as are all the gulf states.

You need to address my questions, which refute your ridiculous claims.

You've painted yourself into an intellectual corner jack. Face it.

Silverfiddle said...

You, however, can't even understand the distinction between far east Asia and the Middle East.

Wrong again, Jack. That distinction is the cornerstone of my argument.

Two different cultures, with only Islam in common. Both spilling over with violent Islamist loonies, proving my point, and disproving yours.

Jack Camwell said...

How have Christians and Jews "evolved" in those regions? They're the minority. How can a minority perpetrate the sort of widespread violence we see there? If they didn't sit down and shut up, they would have been quickly overwhelmed by the Muslim majority. It was not evolution, it was survival.

This is evidenced by the fact that in Europe, Christianity was used to justify unspeakable horrors. I've named it many, many times before. The Inquisition, the Crusades, various pogroms against Jews, burning "heretics" at the stake, the Salem Witch Trials (not European, I know). Christianity didn't evolve, the CULTURE evolved.

That's just a straight copy paste. I answered your question, you're simply refusing the logic. A minority who knows the majority will systematically wipe them out will NOT be super violent towards the majority. Logic.

Silver, I wrote an ENTIRE FUCKING ARTICLE about why they're violent and why Islam is not the problem. You have not read my article or you simply ignored everything I wrote. Go fucking read it again for Christ sake. You're not even making sense anymore.

You have not provided one iota of evidence or data to refute me, and I've refuted you on every point you've raised. I've refuted you not with my own opinions, but historical fucking knowledge. FACTS.

Silverfiddle said...

"And there's no glaring fucking error. I KNOW there's a difference between Arab and Persian culture, but the geography of Afghanistan and Iran are also unforgiving, and their histories are similar."

More ignorance on your part. The history of the Middle East and the history of the Stans are in no way similar.

Jack Camwell said...

They're NOT all spilling over with violence. What fucking planet are you even living on? There was A riot in Indonesia, and nothing in Malaysia. Idnonesia and Malaysia are no more violent than the United States.

FAR EAST ASIA. Why didn't the Muslims in India riot? Why didn't the Muslims in UAE riot?

Jack Camwell said...

Really, in no way similar? Didn't the Persians conquer much of the Middle East at one point?

Go read a history book.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: you have failed to prove your point that Muslim hatred and violence is attributable to culture, not religion.

My proof stands, and you are unable to refute it, and your argument is further damaged by your error in asserting that Middle Eastern culture and history is the same as Asian culture. A simple reading of history refutes your error.

Silverfiddle said...

you're the one positing the theory, and you have failed miserably in defending your thesis.

Jack Camwell said...

MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT ARAB/PERSIAN CULTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM FAR EAST ASIAN CULTURE.

Holy fucking shit, are you reading what you're typing?

Indonesian culture is WAY DIFFERENT from the Middle East, and because of that, THERE'S NOT NEARLY AS MUCH VIOLENCE.

Same thing with Malaysia.

You're making shit up at this point.

Jack Camwell said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Asia_(orthographic_projection).svg&page=1

THAT'S ASIA. Notice the Middle East is included in that?

Now, notice how VASTLY FUCKING DIFFERENT the various Asian cultures are?

Silverfiddle said...

OK Jack, your unproven assertion relies upon calling the Stans The Middle East, and that is a fundamental error in your premise.

They are two distinct places geographically and historically, but they exhibit the same level of fundamentalism and violence.

Two different and distinct cultures with only Islam in common. Ignore if you wish, but its a fact.

I think you have proven in subsequent postings that you know no more about this than I do. So much for your pontifications.

Silverfiddle said...

... But your ALL CAPS and gratuitous use of the word Fuck does add color to your ridiculous claims.

Silverfiddle said...

You need to expand your knowledge of Asian Muslims to Kashmir, India, Thailand and the Philippines.

All four places experience Muslim fundamentalist violence.

Silverfiddle said...

And also Jack (and this is funny since you accuse me of ignorance), I never mentioned Persians. Afghanistan and Pakistan are made up of various peoples, but I had in mind specifically Pashtuns, although the the other ethnic groups of Pakistan seem to hold their own when it comes to religious violence.

This is why it is hard to debate you, Jack. You're constantly throwing in distractions.

Jack Camwell said...

I'm throwing in distractions?

I compared the Middle East to the Far East. THen you brought in Persians and the Stans, and I'm the one throwing in distractions?

I already explained why Jews and Christians in that region are not as violent (Israel is not exactly a nation of care-bears). They comprise of a tiny minority, and if they were to start inciting violence, you can be sure that the Arabs would kill them all, and quite easily since Muslims far outnumber the Jews and Christians.

If you look at the history of Judaism and Christianity, you'll see that the Jews and Christians of old were just as violent as the Muslims.

The Inquisition.

The Crusades.

Enslaving the native Americans and forcing them to convert to Christianity.

Burning heretics (and Jews) at the stake.

Justifying racial slavery for 200 years in America.

Manifest destiny (Trail of Tears anyone?)

All of those incidences were explicitly perpetrated in the name of God. Just as many lives, if not more, have been destroyed in the name of a Christian God as have been killed in the name of Allah. If you deny that, then you're denying outright historical fact.

And let's talk about the Germans. They were Christian, and they liquidated the Jews. It wasn't based on their Semitic roots: it was because they were Jewish. And that's not all. Christians in Europe had been staging pogroms for CENTURIES.

And now lets talk about the history of the Jews. Israel and Judea came into existence through conquest and genocide. The sacking of Israel was attributed--according to the bible--to their inability to maintain a pure faith to God. The Jews did not have a single nation in which to develop a cohesive culture from about the 8th Century BC to 1949 AD.. Given the barbaric nature of early Jewish culture, it's not a big stretch to say that they would have turned out to be just as violent and crazy as the Arabs.

Honestly Silver, the only difference between Muslim violence and Christian violence throughout history is that the Muslims say "Allah" and the Christians say "God" when they talk about their divine purpose.

But since so many Christians perpetrated violence in the name of God, did that mean the problem was Christianity? Nope. It meant that the people in charge had a warped view of Jesus' ministry--just as a MINORITY of Muslims around the world have a warped view of Islam.

Jack Camwell said...

And you consistently ignore my mention of the United Arab Emirates. No violence there. It's a peaceful little nation in the heart of the Middle East. It's Muslim. But it's not violent. There are no riots, no stonings. None of that. Jews, Christians, and Muslims live in relative harmony there.

Why? Because the culture in that particular country EVOLVED. They figured out that all the violence is really bad for business, and since the people there enjoy a pretty good lifestyle, they'd rather just go on with their lives and enjoy the fruits of prosperity rather than go blow shit up.

The whole thesis is that Arab and Persian culture, for the most part, have not evolved.

Why are there Muslim African countries that are peaceful? Why is Indonesia relatively peaceful? (You can cite the riot a couple of weeks ago, but is that any different than the LA riots, or maybe the OWS riots?) And Malaysia?

And the violence has only been relatively recent, within the past 8ish years or so, and it's in a direct correlation with MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. Not Islam itself--but extremists.

I'm Christian, but I can tell you that if someone looked at me and said that I'm the same brand of Christian as like, a Baptist, I'd tell them to fuck off. There's a LOT of Baptists, and Methodists, and Pentacostals, but they DO NOT even come close to representing mainstream Christianity accross the globe. You know who does? Catholics.

Every time the Westboro assholes protest a military funeral, every time a homophobe ties a gay guy to his truck and drags him to his death because homosexuality is "an abomination in the eyes of God", I'm going to come to YOU Silver, and tell you that YOUR religion is fucked up and causing these people to go off the deep end.

Then you'll know what it's like every time you accuse Islam of being the problem.

Islam isn't the problem. Christianity isn't the problem. Assholes--they're the problem.

Silverfiddle said...

You history lesson shines a light upon what I am saying. Christians have left religious violence behind, muslims of all cultures have not.

I note how you gloss over my mention of far-east Muslim violence. And the Stans still stand as a factual refutation of you "Arab Culture" theory.

So now, please tell us, what explains the Muslim violence that breaks out on every continent they live on?