Bigotry towards people is not ok. Objection to a book of ideas is ok. It is imperative that evil ideas be confronted. Religion is full of evil ideas. Trying to shut down those who object to evil ideas by inferring that they are bigots is in itself, bigotry of a sort.

That aside, it is disinengenuous to claim the current discussions about Islam, here and elsewhere, are limited to ideas.

I will simply refer you the the numerous posts suggesting that believers and adherents to what are called "evil" ideas are in turn enablers of others who commit violent acts in the name of their viewe of those ideas.

Accomplice liability in criminal law carries the same punishment as that given to the principal actor.

Accusing any observant Muslim of being an accomplice to terrorism is not an attack on an idea.

You know what I'm saying. Take stoning. Any philosophy that condones, and even proscribes such a practice is totally without merit.

the bad ideas that some Muslims accept and act on.

Just like we can't discuss the religious nature of the anti-LBGT laws today?

Let's not have an open dialog because "some people" will say things offensive to others?

Nice restriction.

Nice strawman.

His point was stated quite clearly:

and nothing to do with what Cartoonist posted.

He wasn't disputing cartoonist, he was interjecting a note of caution.

And it wasn't a "straw man" because there are, as he said, plenty of people who do in fact insist that all Muslims either explicitly support of terrorism or else are practicing Taqiyya, or lying in defense of the faith.

Relax, man. It was a sidebar.

I thought the whole basis of the Abrahamic religion was a good vs evil thing.

When religion finally gutters out, it will take evil with it. That's the difficult idea that needs to stay in the light.

If "good" requires an intentional spirit.

Demonic oranges, tasty apples

By way of example, here is New York's Penal Law definition of accomplice liability:

In that law, "mental culpability" is required. 'Aid' in that must be 'intentional'. Now, if laws define 'enabling' as an act requiring mental culpability, you'll have a point. But the everyday definitions don't, so I suspect (and hope) that legal definitions don't either.

because they know what the Church is doing and continue to support it and its horrible, corrupt, immoral, et cetera, acts.

It's bullshit of course but it does put a lie to the coy statements that it's not bigotry because only the misogyny, homophobia, child rape, et cetera, is being attacked not the people who belong to the religion.

...claiming that Islam is uniquely violent.

And widely practiced throughout the world, and not even acknowledged as bigotry often enough due to religious privilege.

What have you been reading?

Throughout the world, whether you look at the second class status of atheists and Christians in much of the Muslim world or the recent law that passed in NC banning laws that protect LGBT people.

We even have a special carve out to allow religious based bigotry among the religious that would otherwise violate discrimination laws in the US.

How many women are priests in the Catholic Church? That's some straight up old school bigotry, but people will whine that it's their sincerely held belief. No doubt, their sincerely held belief is bigoted.

not sure what anti-religious bigotry really even is, now being opposed to ideas is bigotry? While religion is bigoted against huge classes of people in all sorts of ways, you know, like actual bigotry.

Just the way women are treated by the biggest religions around the world speaks volumes.

We need look no further for enthusiastic defense of homophobic bigotry and sexism by the catholic church

You wouldn't want to leave the impression you're posting rank bullshit again, would you?

Let's get you on record.

The catholic church opposes full human rights for LGBT persons, and actively campaigns against allowing same-sex couples to legally marry, even if they are not catholic. Is the catholic church guilty of homophobic bigotry?

Three possible responses:

Yes
No
Dodge, divert, deflect and do anything to avoid giving a simple, straight answer

Let's see where you fall, ruggie.

Your trolling diversion fools no one.

Go on, scottie. Prove it.

And don't post a single pixel to back up your tired bullshit.

Wipe the greasepaint off your face and pack up your tent. The circus has left town. No one is watching any more.

It's all part of the sad, pathetic and empty pattern from this poster.

It's got to be tough, pretending to be a liberal whilst following the dogma of an institution that actively works against so many liberal causes.

Are you incapable of expressing that explicitly whilst maintaining your pose?

Same question, but replace "assholes" with "dogmatic followers of illiberal doctrine."

...against the LGBT community, to the point that they help fund a campaign to take away legal rights from that community, and yet consider yourself a liberal, wouldn't you see that as a textbook example of cognitive dissonance??

The church is anti-gay, Democrats/liberals/progressives are pro-equality, but only "some" of the church followers are conflicted?

from strict, to lax, to "just barely Catholic in name only". Plenty of real people observe some traditions and ignore others. Got it?

Now, your turn.

All or some?

Hells bells, I think most "mainstream" christians could be accurately labeled as such. Regardless, whether you're the Easter and Xmas-only visitor to church, or the twice a week and twice on Sunday variety, you are supporting/condoning an institution that is openly hostile to equal rights for homosexuals, and at the same time saying you support liberal causes like equal rights for homosexuals.

You see the conflict there, right?

That would be akin to a chicken working at KFC.

Full disclosure, I think ALL of the major religions are self-serving and fatuous, and that they are all varying flavours of the same scam, not just the catholic church.

I'm just going to mark you down as "all". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I've abandoned the effort.

...and failed. Again.

So sad.

Not as sad as repeatedly defending an organization that has a clearly homophobic agenda whilst claiming to be a liberal, but close.

And now, if the past is anything to go by, Ignored will try a few more "witty" retorts, laced with a little bait, and then retreat with deflections, toss in the odd strawman argument and then use QED incorrectly.

Like I said. Very sad.

Confirmation by silence. When given ample opportunity to condemn Frank and his church for their proven bigotry, he remains silent.

Are you also waiting for him to prove it?

Are you waiting for others to assist him?

Or do you want to try it yourself?

It's your right.

You also have the right to speak out against hate and bigotry.

Maybe someday you'll choose the second option.

And I'm still waiting.

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

when those include blowing up those who don't happen to agree with them.

Seems to me that our species has gotten better at it during the intervening centuries.

Most of the world stopped that nonsense centuries ago....Nice try, though.

But belong to the same religion.

It's prima facie bigotry.

Unfortunately, human beings tend to generalize.

Religion itself is manipulatively evil. It doesn't take the God of Abraham, specifically, to bring that to the table.

It's become the catechism of the internet.

The RCC has no monopoly on revolting doctrines.

I am arguing that all religion is evil. You disagreed earlier. Why the change of heart?

What pious talking point am I reciting? Do you believe "demonstrable proof" is synonymous with that? If so you need a thesaurus, dictionary, or perhaps both.

Fortunately, they exist online:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Sure, Islam is currently the top offender, but Christians are trying hard to get back in the mix- don't believe me, then ask a woman. At least Judiasm is not trying so hard to be obnoxious.