C'mon boaz, if this stuff isn't permissible to state about religions:

"a) Untrue
b) Vilification
c) Holds those who believe the Bible up to public ridicule and contempt.
d) Is VERY likely to incite hate toward Christians because of what they allegedly believe. (That God commands His people to rape)"

Then I rate this post of yours as the number one example of hypocrisy I've seen on OLO.

And there have been many, many examples.

As for ugliness, did you go through here yet?:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

There you go. More cruelty than you can poke a stick at, this time, with a Christian instead of Islamic bent.

Look, boaz, end game here is quite simple - nobody is denying there are violent strains of Islam out there. Nobody is denying there aren't heinous Islamic regimes out there. Hell, I don't think anybody is denying that at this point in history, it's Islamic movements which are more likely to incite violence.

But your constant claims that Christianity is lily white, and Islam is 'evil' as you've often said, appear childish after a cursory glance at history.

You've admitted yourself, that the vast majority of muslims are harmless.

I can link to your comments, if necessary.

And if, as you acknowledge, most muslims aren't evil, then why can't you understand, it's none of your damn business what they believe?

You can't call it 'evil,' that's their right to believe that. You're not the 'belief police.'

There's ugliness in both religions boaz, and damned if I'll sit by and watch you launch hateful smear, after hateful smear on Islam, calling it 'evil' while refusing to see the slightest bit of ugliness in your own book, when it's self evident.

There's no such thing as a definitive religion. Only interpretations - witness the many strains of Christianity. Despite the evidence in the link above, I'd not tar Christians as evil, to do that would be to commit your sin.

Of course they're not. Of course the religion itself can't be evil. But if you can call Islam evil, then deal with it when it backfires.

Just looking back at RubySoho's post of Monday, 14 April 2008 4:55:37 PM and in particular this section: "I do think something needs to be done about the prevalence of radical Muslim clerics and I wish I knew what the answer is. But I truly believe that films like Fitna make an already dangerous and fearful situation so much worse. In my honest opinion, I think the more the West demonises Islam, the more Islamic fundamentalism will increase".

The problem is Ruby that the so-called "radical" Muslim clerics (in truth they are reactionaries) are a dominant element in contemporary Islam, or are the ones who are seen by Islamic communities and their media and the West in general as opinion-leaders. Take Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradawi as an example. The Egyptian preacher - now based in Qatar - has in the past been defended by current London Lord Mayor Ken Livingstone as a "moderate". Yet he is on record as a man who endorses and provides a theological justification for the following:
• suicide bombings of innocent civilians,
• the execution of homosexuals under Islamic rule,
• domestic violence against women under certain circumstances, and
• the promotion of female genital mutilation.

In February 2008 Qaradawi was refused permission to enter Britain, because of Home Office fears that his views "could foster inter-community violence". Yet this action was condemned by The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) - the United Kingdom's largest Muslim umbrella group with over 500 affiliates - which noted that Qaradawi enjoyed "unparalleled respect and influence throughout the Muslim world" and that to refuse him entry would (apparently) send the wrong message about the country's traditional right to free speech.

I wonder if the MCB - to paraphrase you - might also believe that not allowing Livingstone's "moderate" Muslim leader into Britain is somehow demonising Islam?

Boazy: << If we notice that other non Christian contributors manifest a higher than usual level of contempt and hatred over this, then it becomes a serious matter. >>

No hatred, Boazy - and just the usual level of contempt for the Islamophobic drivel that constitutes this excuse for a discussion. Your particular preciousness in this thread is a bit extreme though, to the point of hysteria.

I think I'd rather watch this feeding frenzy from the shore, thanks.

B_D, TRTL, Ruby, CJ (if you enter the water), Ginx, Katie, Paul, Savage Pencil, bigmal, sonofeire et al:- What do you think should be done?

I ask because I don’t know.

Whether or not Islam is “true”, it is clearly dangerous – right now, and in a large number of countries. It’s not going to be banned, so how is it to be made benign? How rendered harmless, without damaging its innocent adherents? Ruby, there doesn’t seem to be an Islamic Reformation on the horizon; in fact, it seems to be getting worse.

What can be done outside of Islam, to reduce the provocations that just bring out Islam’s worst?

What must be done to protect non-Muslims (and, for that matter, those Muslims who are not dangerous)?

If these questions are loaded or skewed, I’m sorry and I’m happy to read additional or better questions. I’m just looking for peace here, nothing more. But, we need to try to be practically constructive, instead of just trading blows and debating the pathology of the situation.

Pax,

Goodthief you think that the passage I quoted from the Bible refers to simply “incorporating a female captive into the community”? Gee what a nice way of saying “forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”. Then there’s the story of Sodom and Gomorah where Lot is visited by two of God’s angels. This is what happens when the sexual deviants of Sodom hear about the presence of the angels,
Genesis 19: 4-8:

5They called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Hmmm. Okay, so Lot, who God loves so much he has entrusted in him the care of two angels no less, offers up his virginal daughters to be RAPED. Would Lot do this if he thought God would disapprove?

I find the Bible no more and no less misogynistic and barbaric than the Koran. I have already stated that I am an atheist. It amazes me that so many of you think you have the right to criticise Islam and the Koran willy-nilly but if someone dares mention some questionable passages of the Bible- and yes there are many- then you threaten legal action. Honestly, grow up. If you can dish it you should be prepared to take it.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but Boaz your determination to dwell on what I consider the least important points in my article is very frustrating. Goodtheif, I do appreciate your comments and still intend to address them

Oh wow- a fantastic introduction to the debate, of course, meant to stifle it, the magic word "Islamophobia". Next thing everyone who is keen to discuss Islamic negatives will be labelled "racist". Despite the fact Islam isn't a race- but that hasn't stopped those who are uncomfortable having the Religion of Peace examined.

Key words for the apologist left: inject the two key words above, and turn purple with rage and foam at the mouth when "Islamofascism" pops up.