Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the London attacks wouldn't have occurred if Muslims didn't live there which I guess is factually correct if not also a severe generalization and an example of religious bigotry.
Strange sentence. You state that she is correct, then you ignore the basic teachings of Islam, equate a hateful cult with a religion, and attempt to criticize someone that has an aversion to terrorists.
In your other posts, you are factually incorrect concerning the threat of Muslims, and are bigoted in your view of those that support women's rights, U.S law, and American values.
The so called "religion" is only a religion in name. I suppose we could start a sect that engages in honor killings, treats women like slaves, and wants to convert, tax or kill all non-believers, but what fools would ever believe we had an actual religion?You stopped too soon. Her statement shows and aversion to terrorists and a religion which is why I said it was factually correct yet also an example of religious bigotry. That would be like me calling for the removal of all Christians because some guy decides to attack an abortion clinic. I'd be in the wrong if I said that and she deserved to no longer represent the media organization after her statement.
Nonsense. Again.
The so called "religion" is only a religion in name. I suppose we could start a sect that engages in honor killings, treats women like slaves, and wants to convert, tax or kill all non-believers, but what fools would ever believe we had an actual religion?
It is nonsense to you because you don't understand what is being said. Ruminate for awhile and you may figure it out.
That would be like me calling for the removal of all Christians because some guy decides to attack an abortion clinic.
Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam from its enemies; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances. Fully 81% say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are never justified. Comparably small percentages of Muslim Americans express favorable views of al Qaeda, and the current poll finds more holding very unfavorable views of al Qaeda now than in 2007.
Half or more of Muslims in most countries surveyed say that suicide bombing and other acts of violence that target civilians can never be justified in the name of Islam. This opinion is most prevalent in Pakistan (89%), Indonesia (81%), Nigeria (78%), and Tunisia (77%). Majorities or pluralities share this unequivocal rejection of religious-inspired violence in Malaysia (58% never justified), Turkey (54%), Jordan (53%), and Senegal (50%). In Malaysia, however, roughly a quarter of Muslims (27%) take the view that attacks on civilians are sometimes or often justified.
In Lebanon and Egypt, too, substantial minorities of Muslims (33% and 25%, respectively) think suicide bombings and similar attacks in the name of Islam are at least sometimes justified. However, in both countries, more Muslims say such violence is never justified (41% in Lebanon and 39% in Egypt). Shia Muslims in Lebanon (39%) are more likely than the country’s Sunni Muslims (26%) to take the view that violence in the name of Islam is sometimes or often justified.
Imagine someone picking out just the fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible (Ole Testament?) and claiming that was your "religion".
My point is not about attacking Islam. It's about the baffling attempt by you and other liberals to put Radical Islam and Christianity on the same moral level. It's insulting, and says more about your own intolerance for Christianity than anything else.
I personally abhor Christians subjugation of women too but that's your prerogative.
I recommend they watch Chris Wallace every Sunday morning for a weekly clinic in professional journalism.
Do tell.Are you Christian? Imagine someone picking out just the fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible (Ole Testament?) and claiming that was your "religion". I'm agnostic if not atheist but support others to worship whatever god they choose. I personally abhor Christians subjugation of women too but that's your prerogative.
Breitbart has fired Katie McHugh for her since-deleted tweet over the weekend that the London attacks wouldn't have occurred if Muslims didn't live there which I guess is factually correct if not also a severe generalization and an example of religious bigotry.
That link she posted will take you to a site that allows you to donate money directly to Katie to help defray her cost of living while she looks for a new job. She's asking her supporters to give her for $10,000. At this moment she has raised $138.
How many of those have there been in the last 10 years, again? And do you have a ballpark on the percentage of Christians who approve of abortion bombings? Do you think it's comparable to the percentage of Muslims in Europe who believe suicide bombings are justified?
In fact, let's make it even tougher. Do you think that as many Christians are in favor of killing abortion doctors as American muslims are of terrorist acts? According to Pew Research:
So what do you think: Are 19 percent of Christians on board with the idea that some terrorist bombings in the name of Christ are acceptable?
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/08/30/...ds-moderate-attitudes-among-muslim-americans/
If close to 50 percent of the Christian population was at least conflicted about terrorist acts in Jesus' name, I suspect we'd be having a very different conversation.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/
My point is not about attacking Islam. It's about the baffling attempt by you and other liberals to put Radical Islam and Christianity on the same moral level. It's insulting, and says more about your own intolerance for Christianity than anything else.
It would be a lot more effective if they could find anyone who actually taught it. Nevertheless, the Old Testament and the Koran are viewed completely differently by Christians and Muslims, respectively. (BTW most of the fire and brimstone as you call it is in the New Testament, not the "Ole" Testament.) While a large percentage of Christians still believe (wrongly) that Christians are under the 10 Commandments, I have yet to hear any of them who teach that God approves stoning sinners under the law of Christ. And all of them have a basic understanding that the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are details of the law of Moses which have never been bound on Christians. By contrast, the Koran is viewed as entirely applicable to all Muslims today. While I'm glad a large number of Muslims don't embrace violence in the name of Islam, that's happening because they're choosing to reject parts of the book's teachings - not because it doesn't teach them.
In a way, this is surprising. What she said isn't inflammatory by Breitbart standards. Hell, Milo Yiannopolis worked for them. It makes me wonder if she got canned for other reasons.
What I think is really sad is that Andrew Breitbart was a decent guy and not alt-right, but his name is now being associated with people whose politics are pretty far off from his.
First, you've indirectly made my point for me. Christianity should not be demeaned for the actions of some extremists which we seem to agree with.
Do you agree with that approach? Is Islam different that you support they be held to different logic than Christianity?
What we seem to disagree on is that the relationship between Christianity and abortion bombings is basically the same as the one between Islam and terrorist activities. That is demonstrably, provably false. You pretty much skimmed over all my questions, so I'm guessing you're not going to answer them.
Answer mine first.
As a good example of fake news, here is the New York Times article that James Comey, while testifying to Congress on 6-8-17, stated was "entirely wrong" concerning contacts with Russian Intelligence:
Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZOFEB. 14, 2017
![]()
Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.
The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.
The officials said that one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Ukraine. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.
What percentage of extremist supporters allow us to brand an entire religion for the behavior of the extremists? 10%? 20%? 50%? I'm judging the actions of said extremists and limiting my anger to said extremists and their groups (i.e. ISIS). This is how I reconcile holding Westboro Baptist accountable for their own crazy actions and not Chrisitianity.
This is a real story of how fake news spreads.
I haven't tarred an entire religion.
I could argue that you have by arguing there should be no additional precautions surrounding the population of a Muslim country whose population substantially - and in some cases in majority - support terrorists acts against innocent civilians and which in many areas have active Imams teaching in mosques that these things are a Muslim's duty should be viewed no differently than Christianity. Even the social justice Christian groups aren't calling for violence that I know of.
You want to ignore the numbers and say that one is no better than the other, or no riskier than the other, or doesn't cultivate violence more than the other. Despite all evidence to the contrary. That's what this is about. It's not about tarring a group. It's about acknowledging that one religion has a substantial number of followers with a worldview that is dangerous and a strategy that involves being "just like everyone else" right up until they decide to blow something up. I honestly feel for the majority - and in the U.S. the SUBSTANTIAL majority - of Muslims who don't approve of those actions. It makes everything they do a struggle.
I don't know whether you're honest about any of the things you're arguing here. You may well honestly believe that the vast majority of European muslims and Middle Eastern muslims are just looking for a chance to live and thrive in a democracy, and once they get here they'll just throw away their culture and melt right in with us and be just like the westernized Muslims who have been here for generations.
But I do believe that the majority of leaders on the left are being dishonest about their intentions. Deliberately importing more Muslims - as many as we possibly can - who are almost certain to have a more militant and sometimes even radical view of violence, and who have no allegiance or love for this country outside of the prospect that someone is going to give them something, is absolutely idiotic.
If you want to call Islam a religion, then yes, I have "tarred" it in its entirety. Just look at the numbers posted by ProdigalHorn above. Members of that group have been trying to kill non-Muslims, or one another depending on whether they are a descendant of Mohammed or not, since the 5th century. The basis of their teaching is to convert, tax, or kill non-believers. If you can prove otherwise, you will have convinced me to change my ways. Otherwise, you are the one with a major misunderstanding of the intentions of Muslims. You even admit they won't throw away their culture, but then argue with yourself by saying that our culture is strong and the Muslims will acculturate. How strong is the European culture? They have been around a few years longer than America, but don't seem to be making much progress on the Muslim front. At least some of them are beginning to recognize what you will not, and that is inviting the poor, suffering refugees to live in their country has been a major mistake.
Yep. One thing I do not understand about most Republicans is why they constantly try to play nice with people who never, ever have anything positive to say about them.Since CNN is 97% negative about Trump, it seems only fitting that they're relegated to the back row.