MarsCydonia said:Ok, so you don't agree. I imagine that executions for heresy in the past to jailing homosexuals for life today do not qualify as crimes since they have the force of law behind them but are you disagreeing with the perpretators of attacks on homoesexuals and abortion clinic bombers? There are numerous that claim to be acting as dictated by their faith.
They can "claim" whatever they want. Doesn't make it true.
By the way, to put things into perspective, a total of 11 people have died in the entire HISTORY of abortion clinic attacks inside the US and even fewer attacks internationally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States
Only someone who completely lacks reason, has no nuance, no ability to find patterns etc would think this a problem on equal footing with Islamic terrorism which has killed orders of magnitude more people and is even powerful enough to destabilize certain governments around the world.
MarsCydonia said:So what you said about Muslims is that "regular Muslims bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Muslims because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Muslims to commit crimes", that ideology being Islam.
I don't think our understanding of "regular" is the same.
Regular just means the majority. What do the majority of Muslims subscribe to? Overwhelmingly Sunni Islam (somewhere in the 80-90% range) followed by Shi'ite Islam (and a tiny percentage of the rest). Both promote violence and theocracy and whether you're practicing or non-practicing doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me since ignorance doesn't fully absolve anyone of responsibility for the choices they make. If you pledge your support for bad ideas, nobody is obligated to like you.
Would you be okay with "moderate" Nazis? Plenty of Nazis don't actually advocate National Socialism and probably don't even understand what it is, they're just brainwashed edgy teens who think swastikas are cool.
MarsCydonia said:Why shouldn't "regular Christians bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Christians because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Christians to commit crimes", that ideology being Christianity?
"Regular" Christians are Catholics, Protestants of multiple stripes (not really any central doctrine since protestants are really just people who "protested" against certain aspects of Catholicism and went their own way, did their own thing, but very few would qualify as violent cults) and followed by a pretty sizeable portion of Eastern Orthodox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
They're only responsible for what their particular denomination advocates and as far as I can tell, that does NOT include warfare against unbelievers or a theocracy except for a few Protestant cults and lone wolves. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are more centralized and certainly their ideology doesn't advocate that or if it ever did, they renounced those values.
So if you're part of those cults that have a clear violent message, I have no problem with saying, yes, you're responsible to a degree if you remain in that cult and the cult does something bad. You are judged by the company you keep.
So to answer the question above, it's because... the violence Christianiy instigates... is an irregular form of christianity?
While the violence instigated by Islam is the regular form of it?
Why does that shock you?
Religions are not equal and I have no idea what theological dunce decided this was a good assumption to make. Different doctrines, different outcomes. You can't say that because religion 1 is this then all religions are like it.
So we're to conclude that Western Christianity today is the regular form while the Christianity that burned people at the stake or the Christianity that jails homosexuals for life are irregular forms?
You would have to conclude that given that it's not really a matter of debate.
Oh and only the Catholic Church did that for a time. They changed now. What more do you want them to do? They're not doing that, they're not advocating that and the people who actually did it are long dead.
I would have no problem with Sunni Islam reforming too, but it hasn't. The same shit they preached 300 years ago they preach AND practice today, at least when they can get away with it and there's not a dictator or whatever keeping the most violent aspects of Sharia in check. Isn't it strange how all the apparent secular or "more" secular Muslim countries have a history of either communism, ba'athist ideology or some other form of past secular dictatorship?
And we're also to conclude that Muslims that live their day to day lives without hurting anybody, nor having the intent to, are subscribing the irregular form?
Again, that's not even up for debate since 80-90% subscribe to Sunnism which is violent.
If they don't like it maybe they should either make a new denomination that isn't violent or become apostates? Just a thought. It's a choice, not something you're born with or can't change, so change it. We aren't obliged to put our trust into people that either support our enslavement or are too ignorant or indifferent to know or care what they're supporting.
Would you be okay with people promoting bad fire safety books and would you accept ignorance as a good excuse for doing so?