The "You ain't no Muslim" remark made by a bystander in the London subway stabbings has been a major internet sensation. Substitute "Christian" for Muslim, and we atheists would be saying it ALL the time. Hate filled rhetoric, especially aired by Republican presidential candidates, is so anti-Christian. Of course, they can't see it as such. Shameful. 

Views: 865

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Both peaceful "live and let live" folks and violent killers find support in the Quran and Hadiths; both can make a claim to be true Muslims. Ditto for Christians and the Bible. (Ditto, I'm sure, for many other religions' foundational scriptures and teachings.)

If the line between murderous revenge and passive disagreement is interpretation of the scriptures then the scriptures have to be responsible for both interpretations.

You might be interested to know that Charles Koch has been funding Muslim hatred big time.

...the Muslim community itself has been under relentless assault by homegrown religious extremists since the attacks on the World Trade towers on September 11, 2001.

What President Obama Didn’t Address: Who’s Funding the Hate Campaig...

Following the hate money trail ...

All roads led to Charles Koch, the right wing billionaire.

image source

Gee ... is this supposed to be a surprise or what?  :-P~~~~~

Yep, it's "divide and conquer" at its finest!

Right on, Pat. That's nicely written.

Pat, of course you're right. "Anti-Christian" was not the correct word. Or else, I should have elaborated, as you did. We just often hear the phrase "un-Christian-like" and expect to understand what is meant by that. Really, it's meaningless--or, in your definition, hate-filled.

It's easy to defend a belief system by claiming that the violent believers aren't True Believers (TM).

This thing about moderates and extremists is purely wordplay. There are no religious moderates. Religious is an adjective describing the amount of passion one holds or endeavours to achieve concerning a personal ideological principle. The ''moderates'' are simply shackled by the laws of the land, unable to express they're true colours because of civil law.

Is there any need to wonder what sort of society people would be living in if religious organisations of whatever colour had hegemony over the laws of the land?

I've seen many religious moderates who seem to be truly trying to reconcile their received traditions, teachings, and mythos with the humanistic values of reason and empathy.

I'm sorry GC but the people you've seen are not religious, and would never hold a governmental post in a theocracy. Don't be naïve.

We have to make a distinction between, Legitimate Criticism of Islam and outright Islamophobia.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service