And you're still not listening, HermanYutic.

>>You’re still in neutral Pericles.<<

You are "constructing a narrative", as they say in all the best halls of academe, that is designed entirely to support your prejudices.

>>Christianity, the doctrine, does n-o-t condone violence against unbelievers.
Islam, the doctrine, d-o-e-s condone violence against unbelievers.<<

You are simply taking a one-eyed, selective interpretation of Islam, and comparing it against a one-eyed, selective interpretation of Christianity.

That Christianity d-o-e-s encourage violence where it suits it to do so is patently obvious, from the number of wars fought, and atrocities committed, in its name.

So, pretending that the source document makes even the slightest difference to the actions of its followers is pure sophistry.

Is has always been the very essence of religion, of whatever flavour, to justify its own evil by claiming to be more righteous than its enemies. Think for a moment of all the killings that have occurred among Protestants and Catholics over the centuries.

Claiming that "it has nothing to do with the doctrine" is a pretty hollow boast to all those killed in its name, I would have thought.

But to you, so long as you can compare one ancient and unreliable book with another, your hatred of Muslims is justified.

To me, who believes that both religions are entirely misguided, this approach will only exacerbate the problems that you people have with each other.

C J Morgan
"Some of the intolerant, nasty and plain loopy attitudes towards other human beings that I read here frighten the crap out of me."

A little how I feel about you. Religion is a facade for bigotry and Islam is about the mosted bigoted religion we have in society. I have no issue at all with their beliefs as long as in a so called demoractic society we can speak freely against aspects of the religion that are against western values, especially human rights. Even muslims themselves claim to be called bigots and Islamaphobes when trying to fight for the equal rights for females and homosexuals by the extreme right (and that is what you are) supporters of an oppressive religion. Nobody can claim Islam is perfect and a great defender of human rights but your ilk sugest it it, zero tolerance of criticsim. This supports the extremist elements of Islam who call for jihad against muslims to speak out against the human rights atrocities that are committed in the name of religion.

You support a dysfunctional religion in totalitiy. Your only contribution is to demonise anyone who speaks out against any aspect of it. You support oppression. You are the bigot. Look up the definition.

Only in TheMissus' uniquely convoluted mind could I be referred to as a member of the "extreme right" or a bigot. Lovely example of psychological transference, methinks.

Once again, I don't "support a dysfunctional religion in totalitiy". I merely defend the right of people to believe in Islamic mumbo jumbo as I would their right to believe any other mythology. I also support the right of others to express their antipathy towards any religion, but I retain the right to call those people for what they are. Tolerance works in various directions.

You don't seem to attribute the same meaning to English words as most people and dictionaries do, Missus.

I think you need to look up some definitions of the terms you're misusing. While you're at it, look up the definition of "tolerance".

Pericles,

<So, pretending that the source document makes even the slightest difference to the actions of its followers is pure sophistry.>

So, the source document (the Koran) made not "the slightest difference to the actions of" Major Nidal Hasan, even though he produced a power point presentation outlining the manifold reasons why it provided the perfect justification for his actions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

I don't imagine you'll even bother looking at Hasan's slide show.
Even if you do I imagine you'll twist it around to suit your perspective.

The fact remains that it is an orthodox exegesis of the Koranic text.

But to you, the Koran made not "the slighest difference" to Hasan's actions.
Thank you for your insight.

Furthermore, your statement quoted above de-links the actions of the followers from their respective “source documents”.

Then you say <Claiming that "it has nothing to do with the doctrine" is a pretty hollow boast to all those killed in its name, I would have thought.> thereby linking the actions of the followers with their doctrine.

Summarising your contradictory claims:
The followers’ actions have nothing to do with their doctrine (and to pretend so is pure sophistry)
Claiming that the followers actions have nothing to do with their doctrine “is a pretty hollow boast”.

Does that render your argument "hollow sophistry"?

“I believe that intolerance should not be used as a weapon against intolerance.”, Pericles.

Pericles and some in OLO have mistakenly interpreted the action of the Swiss as “intolerance”, rather it is taking a stand against the spread of Islamic tyranny in Europe.

The neutrality of the Swiss implies that they one of the most tolerant people in the world. However, they have the good sense to know that Islam is not truly a religion but a potential time bomb, waiting to explode as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and many other countries and regions where this demonic ideology has taken a foothold.

Pericles and the pseudo-LEFT have adopted a policy of appeasement towards Islamism, similar to Neville Chamberlain's (ex-PM of the UK) attitude towards the Nazis that resulted in 6 million Jews being murdered.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasement.htm

(part 1/2)

(continue part 2/2)

The cowardly policy of appeasement by the likes of Pericles is based on the following reasons:

(a) to get the Islamists’ votes by the pseudo-LEFT political parties (e.g. new Labour of the UK)

(b) the failure or refusal to distinguish between Islam as a political ideology (which makes use of religious concepts to bind the conscience of its ‘followers’) and Muslims, people who are born into (or converted to) the “religion”(political ideology) of Islam.

The pseudo-LEFT are playing with fire by supporting the Islamists to get their votes, akin to Hitler’s alliance with the Islamists during World War II. The pseudo-LEFT political parties have more in common with the Nazis than other political parties.
http://www.shoaheducation.com/muslimnazi.html
http://soc.world-journal.net/cont.html

Islam is a diabolical political ideology that says a Muslim must be killed if he/she leaves Islam.

A living example is ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali who ran away to Holland from an arranged Islamic marriage. She joined the Dutch Labour Party (pseudo-LEFT) but left the party to represent another party in the Dutch parliament.

“She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh's movie Submission led to death threats. Since van Gogh's assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.” (wikipedia)

Ayaan spoke for 54 minutes about why she left Islam and is now in the US because her life is in danger from Islamists. http://fora.tv/2007/07/06/Is_Islam_Compatible_with_Liberal_Democracy

Muslim women should leave Islam altogether and, campaign for a ban of mosques, imams, madrassahs and Islamic schools in Western society