Why are Muslims so angry?

[CMoon]

This thread will probably get locked instantly, but if you gentleman can take this seriously...

The onion ran a rather humorous article that showed all the other religious figures having sex with each other and pointed out that no one was killed over the image. Dawkins could write God Delusion 2, and while maybe ruffling some feathers, nobody is going to kill him. I know the thread says 'Why', but really I'm more curious about what could be done to make the international Muslim community calm down a little bit when some idiot say something offensive? In effect, how do you fight a meme?

A few thoughts...
Christianity has its fair share of whackos, but they are actually kept in check by mainstream Christians. There is no social acceptance of fundies going out and doing whacko things. But we have the President of Egypt telling the US what to do instead of condemning the actions of Muslims.

A friend of mine actually suggested part of the problem was that unlike other religions, Islam does not receive the same criticism and attacks that other religions do, and maybe it needs to be trolled harder. This might seem absurd, but perhaps they'd get over it after a while?

Realistically, there is no way (nor should there be) to control what everyone says--and they will say slanderous things about everything. How are we supposed to protect Muslims from this? Why should we protect them from this?

This situation seriously needs some major political figures in the Muslim community to denounce this violence, but maybe they're afraid of a general public willing to kill other people over slander???

[njiska]

First of all, I don't think when you say "angry" that you actually mean being in a state of anger, so much as willingness to express the anger. I mean Christians, real Christians, get just ass pissed off when they're insulted, but they don't tend to blow shit up (a few nutjobs notwithstanding). I strongly believe this has nothing to due with the religion, but with national culture. When a Cleric places a hit on someone, let's call him Salman, it's always a cleric from a country that is fanatical to begin with (post-revolution Iran), or a dictatorship or otherwise a completely different culture from our own. You don't tend to get Muslims in Canada, Britain, or the US calling for blood if they're actually born and raised in that region. This is why I place the blame on culture, not religion. We must remember that the West is quite different from anywhere else on the planet.

Now as for what's been going on lately, the Muslims have every right to be pissed off, feel angry and even protest. It was a massive fuck you towards their beliefs and they have every right to give a massive fuck you right back. The only problem I have is that the people who pull shit like in Libya. If a fanatical asshole decides to put out a film saying that a group of people are inherently violent, the correct response is not to go killing innocent people. That only serves to add fuel to his fire. What went down in Libya is unforgivable, regardless of the motivations, but don't blame the religion, blame the people of Libya who did it and the culture that fostered them.

[brentsg]

A couple of the pieces suggested things that made sense to me. First, most of these incidents are the result of contrived situations. Religious and political leaders in the Middle East (is there a difference?) setup these responses by stoking the flames. They do this for various reasons, political gain, to distract from some event or public unrest, etc.

The second point was that these people live in repressed societies where the state censors/approves any movie/writing/art. The aren't aware (or don't believe) that one idiot in the USA is just that, and they view it as a government approved position. Of course it doesn't help that the leaders in the Middle East will flat out tell their people that it's an official position of our government.

One last bit, some of these people have apparently been paid to protest violently. So they're seeding the desired response, then others follow along. Some of the cartoons and such have allegedly been faked as well, by people from point 1 above.

[CMoon]

Yeah, I agree with these points above. So how do you disarm a culture which is so ready to kill people over something said they don't like? In a society where information is controlled/censored but then specifically something like this is allowed through and then people are killed over it...? Again, where are the Muslim leaders condemning these actions? Hopefully they are and I've just missed it.

[DragonInstall]

This situation seriously needs some major political figures in the Muslim community to denounce this violence, but maybe they're afraid of a general public willing to kill other people over slander???

See the problem is that most Muslims probably agree with everything that goes on. You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever. Either that, or they are too pussy to say what they believe to be right or wrong.

The whole religion gets way too much lea-way for no apparent reason.

I always found it funny that many Atheist always hate on Christians, but almost never say anything about any other religion. Maybe those people are afraid of Muslims also.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm not exactly well-versed in this sort of thing, but there was an article in the paper the other day (by a guy I usually disagree with, but in this case I found him more sensible than usual) which frames the problem as more political than religious; in simple terms, because there's such a struggle for prominence between so many different groups and factions in the Mideast at the moment, everyone is working all at once to work up the local populations in any way they can, including by lighting up the ol' religious flame, and since so many people there have so little else to fall back on more are willing to go "all in" on it.

I'd say there's at least some merit to this idea, considering how many utter atrocities were committed by Christianity in particular back when its own flocks were largely without anything else to put faith in or the means to search elsewhere; there are educated, secular Muslims out there who view what's going on with the same disgust as we do, but they're so vastly outnumbered by the poor and illiterate that they don't have much chance to overpower the loudmouthed leaders who are willing to take any advantage they can get by the throat. Give a poor kid in the Mideast some prospects for this side of mortality and he'll be less likely to agree to run out into a minefield to clear it out for the soldiers.

[njiska]

Yeah, I agree with these points above. So how do you disarm a culture which is so ready to kill people over something said they don't like? In a society where information is controlled/censored but then specifically something like this is allowed through and then people are killed over it...? Again, where are the Muslim leaders condemning these actions? Hopefully they are and I've just missed it.

You don't. It's not our job to meddle in other countries affairs unless they directly impact our own. It may not be something you like, but you can't go enforcing your will on other nations, just because they're different. I'd love to take out North Korea as I feel the people there are basically living in hell, but that's not my job to do so. Further more, we like to think we have the best way of doing things, but that opinion is not shared by everyone and should not be force on them. Best we can do is to not do business with them. Unless there's a genuine threat (they attack us or are ready to attack us), there's nothing else to do.

I'm sure the attack was condemned by some leaders and supported by others, but there's way to going on politically for either to really be worth a grain of salt. That goes for all parties involved. It usually falls along the same cultural lines.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't think trolling Islam harder will fix anything. Those few hundred thousand dead Iraqis...that wasn't a freebie (for example).

Let's first look at the chain of events, in abbreviated format:

1.) History: Muslims give us great astronomy, keep the spirit of philosophy alive in the Dark Ages, soap, and a convenient target for the Crusades. Somewhere along the line some real oppressive regimes (i.e. the terrible Ottoman Empire) and other accidents of history (the Middle East has been a crossroads for conquerors for a long while) I couldn't name about staunch much of the progress of the Muslim world.

2.) More recent history: The Middle East becomes a target of imperial ambitions, and the withdrawal of the West (including some rather ill-conceived and counterproductive aid programs) from that area leaves strongmen in power who often seek to solidify their positions with the support of external powers (from the United States to Russia), and their own people are often the losers in this.

3.) Terrorism! Israel! Shock and Awe! Carolco Pictures! The little guy continues to get ignored!

And the most recent example: Somebody tells some other people (either the news reporters who were shown segments of the "production" about Mohammed, or imams, or both) who then get mad. None of them have actually seen it, but it represents a cause celebre for the people to rally around. Many people today will point to this as evidence that the Middle East is wrapped up in the mentality of Christianity at the time of the St. Bartholomew Day's Massacre, or at least the Calas Affair in Volatire's day, but individuals in this country still certainly have buttons that can get pushed about some issues. I think we've just been good at avoiding them or making them personal issues, rather than issues for everybody in society to take up. It is interesting to look at the Coptic Chrisitians, one of whom apparently provoked this, but as a group it seems that they haven't done too poorly. I think evidence shows that although they have been better-behaved in Egypt (for example) than here, I seem to recall at least some recent instances where they reacted more violently than we would. We can point to the non-functioning and biased nature of justice as an immediate cause of that.

In the United States and much of the West, if you do something dumb, there is a popular belief that either you aren't worth fooling around with, or that God will mete out a punishment in due time. I sometimes wonder whether some of these people are angered because they feel that you can actually insult God or his prophet and by doing so degrade them - that is obviously not a belief in Christendom, which more recently has been more interested (philosophically, also a reflection on the relative lack of pressure) in the "problem of evil," which actually asks the question in reverse!

Although I admire them greatly as public servants, Sec. Clinton's and President Obama's statements weren't convincing or reassuring to me. Secretary Clinton had some dreary boilerplate (airy at the same time) about 'working together,' whereas I think talking about what freedom of speech does - it lets you find out who is an idiot, sometimes - might have been more useful (although I doubt anybody really was hearing these things first- or second-hand and would thus be reached). Part of what must inform these public pronouncements is some covering of the fact that we actually expect some kind of punishment to be visited - even if just increased scrutiny on the perpetrators of this prank - on the evildoers; the Administration, and the government in general, does not want to give anybody the feeling that we invite any kind of violent reprisals against the pranksters. Even so, it looks like there will be some price to pay, because the guy who commissioned this video and posted it may have violated the terms of a parole by using the Internet (although now would be a good time to reflect my personal peeve with judges banning people from the Internet, although this was a very serious case). President Obama's statement about bringing people to justice was a reminder of the Left's unhappiness with his continuation of the Bush-era policies (although given the context it is certainly defensible) than anything meaningful to people over there; and more worryingly it seemed to reference the growing American willingness to try to police other countries with deadly force. I think the reactions of the Egyptian and Libyan governments have been positive enough; we really have to start working with them with the realization that it's the host countries. Any trusting approach on our part has problems (the FBI was basically told not to show up for a week...of course, in Britain the FBI would not need to show up except as a courtesy) but somehow getting the story out that we respect the Muslim world and feel it competent is critical. Ultimately we cannot dictate terms or sustainably cover up for local inadequacies (which I feel are mainly due to neglect and to some degree the previous "outsourcing" of decisions to outside benefactors...or malefactors, depending on who we are talking about and when in the history of Middle East colonization).

I have little to say about Mitt Romney's campaign response other than to note that today it got defended today on the Diane Rehm show, sort of (the guys actually didn't seem to engage with the actual question; this has been a common thread through many American reactions to this controversy, which tend to look at it from the perspective of a simple free speech issue, as if saying the magic words "free speech" should reassure anybody outside the nation). My personal belief is that Romney's campaigners definitely realized that they had broached some rules of propriety, if not for the sake of not misrepresenting what the Ambassador was doing then for the sake of the family and for the stressed situation. Honestly, it was another tone-deaf performance by the campaign.

So, why are they mad? The proximate cause is that some guy told them something bad happened in the U.S. and we didn't do anything to stop it. You also have to remember that, although I have laid out a nice little story about the little guy being oppressed, that story is so common in the Middle East that it is unbelievable to many people that private people could put together a video (also: none of the protesters who were polled in Egypt by a reporter had seen it). Some of the people who did find it believable...well, some of them might associate such things with Al Qaeda and similar groups, in which case they are either expecting these are uncontrolled American religio-terrorists, and maybe some of them align their interests more closely with Al Qaeda anyway, and any pretext to get one over is OK.

It should be remembered that in our country, people can call talk shows, vote, write letters, picket peoples' houses, investigate via the news, and do all kinds of other things to retaliate against a decision they don't like. In the Middle East, that isn't so common. On top of that, you have lots of young men about who haven't got as much to do as they would like. None of that really reflects the worst of popular Western suppositions about the Middle East. What is unusual about this is that some people did show up to their protest with their guns loaded this time, and I would bet that those guys have some kind of separatist or severely conservative goals in mind which put them at odds even with many of their own people.

If nothing else, I walk out of this with an understanding that you can't just say "why are Muslims so angry?" as if all of them are running around with knives and bombs. There certainly is some level of anger amongst all the protesters, but that anger is directed in different directions and I assume that the consulate is, like America as a whole, mostly serving (including for the terrorist elements) as a convenient stand-in for the true targets of their wrath. That would be a grave disservice to the late Ambassador to Benghazi, whose (latest!) life's work had been working with Libyans, many of whom lose greatly from his death - and considered him a friend and ally. It also simply isn't true - we here in the West have more and more reliable sources of news on many events than do many of the protesters, who simply have not gotten the full story.

Also, here's a story about one of the other diplomats killed that night.

[CMoon]

As usual, this forum needs a like button. Agree with so many points here...

First off, all of these groups, whether Muslim or Christian, are artificial because they are still made out of individuals who are each different. I can't imagine every Muslim out there wants to blow shit up or kill Americans, but my issue is that their leaders should be immediately condemning these actions. In this sense it is far more political because it isn't about the extremists, it is about how the leaders are reacting--what they're endorsing and what that says about their culture as a whole.

Like BM, I'm not well-versed in any of this either, but I'm thinking along a similar line: In the past, whenever we've helped educate undeveloped regions--specifically their women so they aren't abused/treated like animals, and also taught them more about sanitation/medicine so more people can live long enough to genuinely contribute to their culture, we've seen cultures advance quite quickly. I think the only positive change is going to come from within and it is going to come when individuals (not a theocracy) have the right and the education to have some say over matters.

[njiska]

As usual, this forum needs a like button. Agree with so many points here...

First off, all of these groups, whether Muslim or Christian, are artificial because they are still made out of individuals who are each different. I can't imagine every Muslim out there wants to blow shit up or kill Americans, but my issue is that their leaders should be immediately condemning these actions. In this sense it is far more political because it isn't about the extremists, it is about how the leaders are reacting--what they're endorsing and what that says about their culture as a whole.

Just a quick question, when you say leaders who exactly are you referring to? Because Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy like Christian faiths do. Leaders of the faith may be official jobs in some countries, but that's as a function of government, not the faith.

[Ed Oscuro]

In the past, whenever we've helped educate undeveloped regions--specifically their women so they aren't abused/treated like animals, and also taught them more about sanitation/medicine so more people can live long enough to genuinely contribute to their culture, we've seen cultures advance quite quickly.

I would caution against holding even this view as simply, because even aid workers are all different and some have in mind a broader or narrower set of goals than they were given, and they may be more or less on target.

It seems that one of the most important lessons of not just Western-led modernization programs, but also indigenous efforts like Indonesia's Grameen Bank, is that women are at least as reliable as men in making good decisions for the family, so restricting their educational and social opportunities is a counterproductive strategy. That's about personal independence. That lesson can be spun out into all kinds of things that weren't intended or even practical, however.

The other part, about sanitation and medicine, can also turn into a Fitzcarraldo-like obsessive venture where ever higher and more impressive goals are wanted, so that something in even the most foreign of locales looks recognizable to a Western person. In Fitzcarraldo, the guy wanted an opera! There's a story I heard more recently (and have mentioned here as well) from a Nepalese professor, where an aid organization's agent really wanted the people to have an outhouse, even though it was useless and they'd rather have had pipes for carrying water into their village. The outhouse was built, and quickly repurposed into a granary.

As usual, this forum needs a like button. Agree with so many points here...

First off, all of these groups, whether Muslim or Christian, are artificial because they are still made out of individuals who are each different. I can't imagine every Muslim out there wants to blow shit up or kill Americans, but my issue is that their leaders should be immediately condemning these actions. In this sense it is far more political because it isn't about the extremists, it is about how the leaders are reacting--what they're endorsing and what that says about their culture as a whole.

Just a quick question, when you say leaders who exactly are you referring to? Because Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy like Christian faiths do. Leaders of the faith may be official jobs in some countries, but that's as a function of government, not the faith.

The Catholics aren't a majority of Christians in the U.S. (last I checked), but the Protestant and related communities have Conferences and so on (Missouri Synod is a popular Lutheran group, for example). In England you get the Church of England, Eastern Orthodox and its branches have Patriarchs. The Muslim situation is like both: You have some de facto leaders of very large sects with followers, and some groups appear to work more like the conferences. I do not see hierarchy or its lack as a distinguishing characteristic here.

[CMoon]

Just a quick question, when you say leaders who exactly are you referring to? Because Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy like Christian faiths do. Leaders of the faith may be official jobs in some countries, but that's as a function of government, not the faith.

I was thinking of political leaders. Hell, I was thinking of any respected person of authority from these countries or belonging to that faith openly speaking out against this. Whether it is actual killings or protests where the decapitations of people are called for.

[drunkninja24]

See the problem is that most Muslims probably agree with everything that goes on. You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever. Either that, or they are too pussy to say what they believe to be right or wrong.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

[njiska]

As usual, this forum needs a like button. Agree with so many points here...

First off, all of these groups, whether Muslim or Christian, are artificial because they are still made out of individuals who are each different. I can't imagine every Muslim out there wants to blow shit up or kill Americans, but my issue is that their leaders should be immediately condemning these actions. In this sense it is far more political because it isn't about the extremists, it is about how the leaders are reacting--what they're endorsing and what that says about their culture as a whole.

Just a quick question, when you say leaders who exactly are you referring to? Because Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy like Christian faiths do. Leaders of the faith may be official jobs in some countries, but that's as a function of government, not the faith.

The Catholics aren't a majority of Christians in the U.S. (last I checked), but the Protestant and related communities have Conferences and so on (Missouri Synod is a popular Lutheran group, for example). In England you get the Church of England, Eastern Orthodox and its branches have Patriarchs. The Muslim situation is like both: You have some de facto leaders of very large sects with followers, and some groups appear to work more like the conferences. I do not see hierarchy or its lack as a distinguishing characteristic here.

The difference is that there is a structure of authority in Catholicism and many other Christian faiths (church of England is for all Anglicans btw regardless of residence), whereas in Islam there are those with more learning, but no real holy authority. Regardless, that wasn't my point with the question to CMoon. I just wanted to know if he was referring to political leaders or leaders of the faith and in that case I wanted to know if he was aware that it's not conducted in quite the same manner.

Either way we're all pretty much in agreement now that this is a political issue more than a religious one and the politicians are who is being looked at as leaders.

See the problem is that most Muslims probably agree with everything that goes on. You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever. Either that, or they are too pussy to say what they believe to be right or wrong.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

That is a great album. Love and Tolerance all round.

[CMoon]

See the problem is that most Muslims probably agree with everything that goes on. You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever. Either that, or they are too pussy to say what they believe to be right or wrong.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

That is a great album. Love and Tolerance all round.

[DragonInstall]

That's something I've seen already, which is why I said "Almost".

But I'll admit that the media probably doesn't cover much of those types of people.

[Op Intensify]

Only thing I have to say on this matter.

You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever.

This is a fucking lie.

[neorichieb1971]

There are only good people and bad people.

If you do bad things and use your religion as an excuse, your still a bad person.

Muslims just have enough radical members that when one does something radical s/he is immediately supported by others to keep the bonding. If more expulsion was practiced they might think twice. Just like the way society locks you up if you do bad. There has to be some religious deterrent.

I also wonder if Muslim countries have bad policing.

[Friendly]

Re: Why are [some] Muslims so angry?

Because they feel underprivileged. And their leaders are insane.

/thread

[Ed Oscuro]

Just a quick question, when you say leaders who exactly are you referring to? Because Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy like Christian faiths do. Leaders of the faith may be official jobs in some countries, but that's as a function of government, not the faith.

The Catholics aren't a majority of Christians in the U.S. (last I checked), but the Protestant and related communities have Conferences and so on (Missouri Synod is a popular Lutheran group, for example). In England you get the Church of England, Eastern Orthodox and its branches have Patriarchs. The Muslim situation is like both: You have some de facto leaders of very large sects with followers, and some groups appear to work more like the conferences. I do not see hierarchy or its lack as a distinguishing characteristic here.

The difference is that there is a structure of authority in Catholicism and many other Christian faiths (church of England is for all Anglicans btw regardless of residence), whereas in Islam there are those with more learning, but no real holy authority. Regardless, that wasn't my point with the question to CMoon. I just wanted to know if he was referring to political leaders or leaders of the faith and in that case I wanted to know if he was aware that it's not conducted in quite the same manner.

Either way we're all pretty much in agreement now that this is a political issue more than a religious one and the politicians are who is being looked at as leaders.

I don't see how citing CMoon makes your post immune to a comment for getting Islam wrong.

Islam isn't just one faith: do the words Sunni and Shia sound familiar? It's also simply wrong to state that there aren't any Islamic hierarchies of leadership. There most certainly are, historically in the Caliphate, as well as many examples more recently. Moqtada Al-Sadr, man with bad teeth and a thorn in the side of the U.S. forces in Iraq, is a religious leader (at least in name). That these religious leaders often are political leaders as well might make them seem shifty to the West, but it logically does not reduce their positions of significance within their faiths, either. We have an especially bad relationship with the Ayatollahs of post-revolutionary Iran (your statement earlier about "leaders of the faith" having "official jobs" as a function of government but not faith confuses the hell out of me; I'm kind of wondering if that contradicts what you write elsewhere, but in any case, the Ayatollahs definitely provide examples of there being absolutely no secular-religious distinction respected. At the same time we obviously respect one here, as do many Islamic people).

The idea that there is "more learning, but no real holy authority" within Islamic traditions is also wrong. It actually seems very similar to many forms of Christianity, in that there is a holy book, and a philosophical/religious argument built up over ages around that partially through commentary, that most (but not all!) will view as legitimate. I am not going to spend all day citing examples, but there certainly are Islamic religious schools which demand a level of competence with the religious arguments to be seen as fit for leadership. This was discussed in connection with Al-Sadr, who essentially inherited his position from his father, and whose religious competency was questioned; there is one interpretation of that which holds that essentially he inherited a political role with religious trappings, or even that he succeeded to the leadership of an armed gang.

To get back on track, you might say that there's a question about how fragmented the Islamic leadership is, but I don't see that as significantly different from Christendom either. Aside from the churches with well-known leaders - Eastern Orthodox traditions (where there have been rather notable schisms over the years, which I think are starting to get patched up, but there is nowhere near a universal patriarch for Orthodox churches), and the Anglicans (again with its own de facto sects), and Catholicism (where there has, again, been a recent sorta-crackdown by the Church hierarchy against some more liberal elements on the issue of contraception, which doesn't rise to the level of a sect but does show that the universal nature of that church can too be questioned) - Christian churches are essentially leaderless as a result of Luther's conception of people reading the Book for themselves. This is not to downplay the large number of Catholics worldwide, but one cannot say that modern non-Catholic (or at least non-hierarchically organized) Christians are renowned for spreading chaos, either.

I think the most telling difference is the lack of a secular-religious segregation in many Islamic communities; many countries in the Middle East fall short of respecting any separation of religion from secular society. However, this is not a fundamental feature of Islam, at least as it is practiced in many places (i.e. American muslims, and you see Egypt at least making some token efforts to protect the rights of the Copts, at least occasionally). Maybe it was one of the original features of Islam under Mohammed - that I really can't say and I think that even if it were true that he intended to be a worldly leader, that certainly would be an arguable point today.

I think we come back to the same point on "what is the problem;" it's the secular/religious distinction and the concept of secular government. But obviously this has been problematic for people of all faiths throughout history, because it is very simple to see that if there were a right way of doing things, then that way would be true whether one was working in a role for a government or as a religious person. It might help to consider how much trouble the project of secular government had in France (and how much trouble the Revolutionaries caused in their reaction to it) and that, long after the death of Voltaire, situations like the Dreyfuss Affair (where Christians preferred a traitor over a highly nationalistic and patriotic, even righteous, Jew!) and later Vichy France all exhibited some undercurrents of this highly difficult issue. Even today you have many people who feel that the recent actions in France blocking the wearing of religious garb is a very reasonable thing to do. So perhaps nobody has gotten killed over that directly, but it is easy to see how this is distasteful to many social liberals and conservatives (of the American type) and a potentially catastrophic issue for the religious - at the same time it shows Western governments can get in an amazing tizzy over little of consequence, too.

So, for us, secular government was the solution to an obvious problem: Catholics versus Protestants, or peoples of even more varied faiths living together. In much of the Muslim world, of course interfaith problems exist, but I think just as importantly anybody promoting secular government may have to contend with the simple question of why it is alright to create a government that seemingly contradicts basic truths as the religious seem them exemplified in religious law.

And the nitpick of the nitpick: Yes, of course Anglicans are found outside England. There's been a recent split in the Anglican church over homosexuality that has seen some American and African Anglicans joining up in opposition to other Anglican communions. That's nice to point out, but certainly doesn't redeem what I see as the argument that Islam is leaderless and therefore handicapped. If you can't let that one slide, then hopefully you see why I wouldn't let a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic communities to go unchallenged, either.

[Mischief Maker]

What's the mystery? Islamic Fundamentalist countries are the most sexually repressive in the world. To get an idea just HOW repressive, and what effect this has on people's thinking, listen to this clip where Salman Rushdie discusses holy legal theory in Iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRUYh8CusA

Moderate Muslims who don't cover women in shapeless sacks and aren't so sexually repressed? Not so angry.

Who are the angriest Christians? The most sexually repressed. In other words, Closet Cases.

No big mystery here at all.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Meanwhile, people in middle Europe keep dying having drunk methanol sold as liquor. I'm afraid the bodycount's gonna surpass that scored by those Norway attacks and most recent riots in Muslim countries. Terrorists could just issue a statement "that's what you get for supporting the U.S. of A." and consider the accounts settled for a while.

[Randorama]

A few thoughts...
Christianity has its fair share of whackos, but they are actually kept in check by mainstream Christians.

I take that you think that Crusades and US never happened. That's what I infer from this post, since both involve whackos driving the masses to oblivion.

Are you on crack or something, to come up with this thread?

And, friendly got it right:

"Because they feel underprivileged. And their leaders are insane."

Please lock, ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

Eugenics: you know it's right!

[Skykid]

There are only good people and bad people.

That's a very religious point of view.

[njiska]

The difference is that there is a structure of authority in Catholicism and many other Christian faiths (church of England is for all Anglicans btw regardless of residence), whereas in Islam there are those with more learning, but no real holy authority. Regardless, that wasn't my point with the question to CMoon. I just wanted to know if he was referring to political leaders or leaders of the faith and in that case I wanted to know if he was aware that it's not conducted in quite the same manner.

Either way we're all pretty much in agreement now that this is a political issue more than a religious one and the politicians are who is being looked at as leaders.

I don't see how citing CMoon makes your post immune to a comment for getting Islam wrong.

It doesn't, Ed. But it does mean that I was just looking for an answer from CMoon on what he meant by the word leaders as it could mean political leaders, leaders of groups or leaders of the faith itself, which is absent in Islam; not to have an essay match.

And to address your comments, since you wish me too, Sunni or Shia, it doesn't matter, there is no central hierarchy. There may be small sects with a "guy in charge of everything", but there's not for the main groups. I'm not going to dispute that there are learned mean who have discussions and pass rulings on the religious texts, but they have no authority to force their designs on the followers of the faith as each man has a direct communication path with god. That's not to say people don't usually follow them, but that's the difference between being a major religious figure and being given the mandate to lead. The ones who do have genuine power, such as the Ayatollahs of Iran or the Supreme Leader are given it by the government, not the faith itself.

If anything the fault of my argument was to compare Islam to Christianity as a number of sects of that group do not have a centralized hierarchy either, though the major denominations do have a form of governance that is missing in the Islamic faith.

I do however fail to see where you're drawing the conclusion that I believe Islam is handicapped by this. All I was looking for was clarification who CMoon was referring to and to make sure he wasn't assuming there were true leaders of the faith, like with Catholicism that should be ordering people around.

[CMoon]

Please lock, ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

Eugenics: you know it's right!

OMG!!! This is my new sig!

Rando: Well aware about all the dumb shit Christians (and really all organized groups of people) have done it the past. I'm talking about where we are now. Fundies don't run rampant in the US because mainstream Christianity here is chilled out. I don't know why, but they seem a pretty relaxed bunch these days. Most aren't Jerry Falwell cockmonsters as you say.

[njiska]

Please lock, ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

Eugenics: you know it's right!

OMG!!! This is my new sig!

Rando: Well aware about all the dumb shit Christians (and really all organized groups of people) have done it the past. I'm talking about where we are now. Fundies don't run rampant in the US because mainstream Christianity here is chilled out. I don't know why, but they seem a pretty relaxed bunch these days. Most aren't Jerry Falwell cockmonsters as you say.

Nice. Let me grab a good quote too. Because fair, polite discussion just can't be allowed to happen.

[CMoon]

Nice. Let me grab a good quote too. Because fair, polite discussion just can't be allowed to happen.

You should get everything you can from this BS thread and run! I mean, my personal take is that 1) there's a lot of ignorant people ready to go ape shit at a moments notice, 2) The degree to which they are able to go apeshit is determined by checks put in place by the culture present, 3) Eugenics: you know it's right!

...and 4) Ed probably knows more than us, at least I'm led to believe so based on word count.

[Ruldra]

Please lock, ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

Eugenics: you know it's right!

Ban Rando for invoking eugenics at every opportunity.

[njiska]

...and 4) Ed probably knows more than us, at least I'm led to believe so based on word count.

I don't know how much Ed actually knows about subjects he chimes in on, but I respect that he wants to try and give as detailed an argument as he can. I just wish his posts were a little more streamlined and less like reading a Christopher Hitchens book.