For some strange reason I expected you to be a rational voice in this threadful of bigotry.

I was being rational. Sensible Muslims avoid taking moral lessons from questionable verses in the Quran as much as sensible Christians do from the Bible.

I think there's an element of truth to those claims, but it quickly gets lost in the soft racism and reverse bigotry.

You're making shit up, dude.

I think there's an element of truth to those claims[...] — Mongrel

Which claims?

[...]but it quickly gets lost in the soft racism and reverse bigotry.

What is "reverse bigotry" (as opposed to "forward" bigotry)?

What did I make up? Obviously, I don't think Christians condone the rape of virgins. So, what?

Claims that terrorism is a result of western intrusion.

What's forward bigotry?

Sunnis don't have the same flexibility.

Claims that terrorism is a result of western intrusion. — Mongrel

So, when Islam is a motivating factor of terrorism (or any other untoward act), then it locates the claim in "nowhere land" to blame Islam rather than the perpetrators, but when Western imperialism is a motivating factor, then one can safely blame that motivating factor rather than the perpetrator? This seems rather inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

What's forward bigotry?

I'm asking what is "reverse" bigotry as opposed to bigotry simpliciter?

To the extent that they don't that would be a problem. But I would be highly surprised if any of your Muslim neighbours would not be willing to condemn sex slavery if you asked them. And again, religion is not the primary factor in sex slavery; countries of all religions have terrible records here. Same with violence in general. My position has been that the religious element is small beans in comparison to other factors. And that's borne out by the evidence.

I was being rational. Sensible Muslims avoid taking moral lessons from questionable verses in the Bible as much as sensible Christians do. — Baden

Again, I do not think this is how it works with Christians. The Christian merely has a theological framework that allows them to maintain the stance "Slavery is wrong; I oppose slavery" and "my holybook endorsed slavery for the Isrealites and doesn't really say anything negative about slavery in the New Testament." Unless they can state "certain sections of the Bible are fallacious"- a position that is too strong for the vast majority of Christians- Christians must be able to maintain the verses inside their texts as being true.

The same is for Muslims.

Yes, that's inconsistent.

Many liberals are bigots, but their target is the negative of the set of usual suspects.

Then you needn't read up on the topic. You've figured the whole thing out a priori.

I took a stance and provided evidence for it. I've conceded from the beginning that religion has some part to play in all this, but I've said that focusing on its inherent characteristics is misguided because the part those play is relatively small as can be seen by comparing situations where other sociocultural factors have changed but the religion remains the same, or where the religion is different but other factors are the same. Where is our point of disagreement from your perspective?

Yes, that's inconsistent. — Mongrel

Ok...so, will you be revising your view in light of this demonstrated inconsistency?

Many liberals are bigots, but their target is the negative of the set of usual suspects.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. Even ignoring your massive over-generalization about liberals, you have yet to define what you mean by "reverse" bigotry as opposed to bigotry simpliciter.

Sunni Islam doesn't have the same flexibility Christianity has. Muslims are not free to take scripture figuratively. You disagreed with that. Did you change your mind? If so, we can move on to the ramifications of that. Although it would be awesome if you would read something by a respected Muslim scholar.

What? I'm typing in a phone. You want an exposition on the west's effects on the middle east?

What percentage of Americans profess to take the Bible literally? And what does it matter? Does it mean they condone the rape of virgins etc? No, obviously not. So what do you mean by flexibility? It would be great if you took into consideration the obvious fact that religion cannot function without hypocrisy and often gets on just fine with the highest levels of it.

Anyway, the debate as set out in the OP is over whether Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity. And that leads to the question of whether you can blame religion primarily for violence or whether other factors are more to blame. If we are to blame religion primarily then Christianity could easily be considered the most violent religion as, judging by murder rates, the most violent countries in the world are Christian. But these countries also happen to be poor, suffer from political instability and severe social problems. And these seem a more sensible set of criteria on which to lay the responsibility no matter what religion we are discussing.

What in that do you disagree with?

(

Sunni Islam doesn't have the same flexibility Christianity has. Muslims are not free to take scripture figuratively. You disagreed with that. Did you change your mind? — Mongrel

No, I didn't, I said "To the extent that they don't that would be a problem". But it's not the decisive element here.)

I don't think the op was asking anything in earnest. It was just inviting a bitchfest. Surprising considering it was Vagabond, whose threads are always well thought out.

Obviously Christians are no strangers to violence. However, in the early 1800s the British announced from their seat of government that slavery is immoral. That event is cause for every human to be proud. It happened because of Christian evangelists. Sorry if you hate Christians...but its true.

Could Islam perform that same feat? Not right now. It's not cause to revile Muslums, but it shouldn't be waved away.

Sorry if you hate Christians...but its true. — Mongrel

What a silly thing to say. Most of my family are Christians. But quote me on anything I've said that suggests I do. Go ahead.

(And while you're at it let me know if you actually agree or disagree with the points I made above).

Well there was that time you said you were going to assassinate the pope.

I like this Pope, so that must have been a long time ago. Maybe we can stick to the last five years, which is about as far back as my memory goes..?

I was kidding. You didn't threaten the pope. Is your family Catholic?

Yes. And I only hate some of them.

What? I'm typing in a phone — Mongrel

Why don't you use an app to dictate? The Google app is quite good. It's the 21st century, and all. Also, sorry you are stuck inside the phone. You should get out more.

I'm an AI. Obviously not strong on the I part.

I don't think the op was asking anything in earnest. It was just inviting a bitchfest. — Mongrel

I fully expected bitching, but that's something that happens when discussing all controversial topics. It's the natural grime of labored discourse. I was however asking something in earnest: 'What am I missing about Islam that makes it inherently more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?".

Given the context of the answer I myself provided and defended, this thread is an open challenge for anyone to criticize my position, or to counter it by presenting their own. I realize that my views on this subject are somewhat robust (maybe that's good, maybe that's bad), so that's why I've elected to take a hard position and labored to defend it. I put my views on the line to be challenged as much as possible.

"Bitching" is an unfair description of the overall response to this thread, though there's been some. Overall the discourse has been somewhat productive. Even if "bitching" is all someone can muster, I can still hope that as they ricochet off the hard position I've defended in this thread that I may have at least altered their intellectual trajectory more toward what I believe is the truth.

Ok, so I put it in a way that was inflammatory. It got your attention. Same thing with your OP.

What? I'm typing in a phone. You want an exposition on the west's effects on the middle east? — Mongrel

Uh, what? There are a lot of posts flying around in this thread (in an emotionally-charged topic), so perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes, but your reply seems a total non-sequitur. You chastised another poster for blaming Islam in fomenting or promoting certain types of violence, saying it is the perpetrators, not the belief system, which ought to be blamed, as it otherwise located blame in "nowheresville" or whatever.

However, I pointed out that some blame terrorism on Western imperialism, which likewise seems to locate the blame in nowheresville, rather than blaming the perpetrators of the violence. So, my question is, why ought the perpetrators be blamed in the former case, but not in the latter case. Surely, even if an act of terrorism was motivated by Western imperialism, the perpetrators are still to blame, no?

You also have never defined what you meant by "reverse bigotry" as opposed to bigotry simpliciter.