Happy Atheist Forum

many christians are islamophobic.  since 9/11, there has been a stigma on many innocent muslims.  people need to remember that this is just a temporary phase that americans go through often.  after pearl harbor, americans were prejudiced toward japanese people, but eventually americans got over it.  the main fallacy here is guilt by association.  muslim =/= jihad, in the same way that all germans aren't nazis.  the premise of their argument is fallacious, therefore anything built on that foundation should fall like a house of cards.  

of course, a christian would accuse me of being pro-muslim.  i'm not.  i am anti-muslim (but i have more logical reasons) the same way i'm anti-christian.  i see it hypocritical how christians can act as if muslims are inferior to them when both religious are equally fallacious.

We dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima a couple of years after Pearl Harbor.  Getting revenge on the those that hurt you on such a grand scale I think contributes to forgiveness.  Plus the Japanese make great electronics.  I really don't see Islamaphobia going anywhere any time soon unless the West drops a few nukes on Islam country and Muslims start making laptops and cameras.

I think our current Islamophobia is merely an expression of the xenophobia which has always been an undercurrent in this nation, since its earliest days.

Not only Christians are islamophobes, you know.

In my country, people are getting more skeptical to those of arabic heritage - particularly practicing muslims - with every passing minute, it seems.

I think it's a reaction to mass-labeling a collection of many different people with varied systems of belief as potentially dangerous to "our way of life" even though most of them do come here looking for a NEW way of life. But then again, it's always the loud-mouthed minorities one hears best, is it not..?

I think people need to be a little less islamaphobic and a lot more fearful of theocracy. Various religious organizations who feel they should in power are threatening liberty  for everyone. Folks like the christian coalition included. Much like the moderate muslims need to speak up moderate christians need silence the vocal and extreme minority amoung them.

Quote from: "jduster"many christians are islamophobic.  since 9/11, there has been a stigma on many innocent muslims.  people need to remember that this is just a temporary phase that americans go through often.  after pearl harbor, americans were prejudiced toward japanese people, but eventually americans got over it.  the main fallacy here is guilt by association.  muslim =/= jihad, in the same way that all germans aren't nazis.  the premise of their argument is fallacious, therefore anything built on that foundation should fall like a house of cards.  

of course, a christian would accuse me of being pro-muslim.  i'm not.  i am anti-muslim (but i have more logical reasons) the same way i'm anti-christian.  i see it hypocritical how christians can act as if muslims are inferior to them when both religious are equally fallacious.

Islamophobia is an odd term which honestly means very little to me. I am against bigotry in all forms and I have seen Islamophobia used to defend any criticism of Islam, which is pathetic.

The title of the thread is islamophobia.
So what fears are irrational and which are valid?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The title of the thread is islamophobia.
So what fears are irrational and which are valid?

I've attempted to dig into that irrational bit a little.

As for valid fears, I'd say they are the same as those of other violent religions like, say, Christianity.

Quote from: "Asmodean"As for valid fears, I'd say they are the same as those of other violent religions like, say, Christianity.

Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Asmodean"As for valid fears, I'd say they are the same as those of other violent religions like, say, Christianity.

Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent.

Oh, REALLY..?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Asmodean"As for valid fears, I'd say they are the same as those of other violent religions like, say, Christianity.

Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent.

Oh, REALLY..?  

I'm curious about this as well Poop.  Christians don't seem particularly violent, but the New Testament seems to advocate it.  I certainly don't have the bible learnin you possess, could you explain the apparent endorsements of violence in the New Testament?

People are not their book.  We constantly point out how they cherry pick, yet we hold parts that they avoid picking against them?  Isn't that like cherry-picking in itself?  Yes, their books contain violent passages, but only a minority among the religion actually follow them.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"People are not their book.  We constantly point out how they cherry pick, yet we hold parts that they avoid picking against them?  Isn't that like cherry-picking in itself?  Yes, their books contain violent passages, but only a minority among the religion actually follow them.

No, Poop.  I don't hold anything against Christians.  My beef is with the gospel itself.  People are not their book, but the book is the religion.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think our current Islamophobia is merely an expression of the xenophobia which has always been an undercurrent in this nation, since its earliest days.

Agreed. I would go further and add that xenophobia - fear/distrust of the other - is part & parcel of human nature. In other words, it is natural.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent.

The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

Apostate Christianity has grown by the same forces Islam uses but to a lesser extent, as violence isn't part of biblical injunctions. Again, secular Christians hold to the values of the day.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think our current Islamophobia is merely an expression of the xenophobia which has always been an undercurrent in this nation, since its earliest days.

Agreed. I would go further and add that xenophobia - fear/distrust of the other - is part & parcel of human nature. In other words, it is natural.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Neither Islam nor Christianity is inherently violent.

The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

Apostate Christianity has grown by the same forces Islam uses but to a lesser extent, as violence isn't part of biblical injunctions. Again, secular Christians hold to the values of the day.

Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence?   I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers.  I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

I think the main problem is people don't understand what Islam is as a religion. Islam, as a religion, is a big, big tent. It spans many different beliefs and principles and ideologies. There are radical teachings, which mainly have root relatively recently in Wahabism (the ultra-conservative reading of Islam), but they're not in the majority. Most Muslims are moderate politically, socially and religiously.

The mosque controversy, the questioning of whether President Obama is a Muslim, etc. are all examples of pure, unadulterated bigotry, and the vasy, vast majority of it is coming from people who consider themselves Christians. It's shameful behavior made only more shameful by the fact they're not called on it by smart people (like us, hehe).

I don't share the beliefs of Muslims, in fact I find them to be just as silly as Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism, but I am not ignorant of what Islam is, I don't fear Muslims and I don't hate Muslims. Islamophobia is simply a nice way of saying "bigot", just as homophobia is a nice way of saying "bigot".

Quote from: "humblesmurph"People are not their book, but the book is the religion.

If that were the case, there would be no religious people.  No, the religion is dictated by people, hence the changes in the religion over time while their bokk changed very little.

Quote from: "AreEl"The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

The same goes for Christianity.  You seem to forget the stonings in the old testament, the attempted genocide on the Canaanites and all the other lovely little bits in your book.

those are good points, will, i agree with you.

i am anti-muslim (just as i am anti-christian), though i dont consider myself a bigot.  i believe everyone should not be victim to irrational stigmas, have equal rights, have freedom from discrimination, and such.  i believe everyone should have the right to freely express their ideas openly without dogmatic resistances.  if i deny any religious group that right, i would in no position to complaint that religious groups are intolerant to atheists.  everyone should freely express their beliefs and everybody should be open minded in listening.  no dogma, no false accusations, no intimidation, no ad baculum, no emotional appeals, no stigmas.  if this ideal environment would exist, religion would be gone, because people would be able to think logically without social consequences.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Not only Christians are islamophobes, you know.

In my country, people are getting more skeptical to those of arabic heritage - particularly practicing muslims - with every passing minute, it seems.

I think it's a reaction to mass-labeling a collection of many different people with varied systems of belief as potentially dangerous to "our way of life" even though most of them do come here looking for a NEW way of life. But then again, it's always the loud-mouthed minorities one hears best, is it not..?

Yeah, just look at Pat Condell and Thunderf00t. I'd say there is a huge nationalist component when it comes to Bigotry towards Muslims. Lots of nationalists parties around Europe (and Republicans) are getting support under an anti-immigration/anti-Islam platform. BNP and UKIP are the most notorious probably. There is also this party in Belgium that is very nationalistic/anti-Islamic that borders on ethnic nationalism really. Ethnic nationalism is considered rather repulsive now though, so... yeah. The banner is more like "our way of life."

Quote from: "humblesmurph"People are not their book, but the book is the religion.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If that were the case, there would be no religious people.  No, the religion is dictated by people, hence the changes in the religion over time while their bokk changed very little.

Poop, the book is the common denominator.  For over 1500 years the faith has had this one book.  When there are differences of opinion regarding how to practice Christianity, conflicting sides always point to the Bible.  The very basis of the religion is about having a ground, an objective morality, ultimate judgment and all that jazz (at least I thought).  Absent the actual voice of God, that ground is the Bible.  While the particulars of worship aren't necessarily dictated by the Bible, when Christians start talking about what one should and shouldn't do they usually bring up the book.

If we are playing chess, chess has established rules.  We can choose to break the rules if we want to, but it seems we couldn't be properly said to be playing chess. If you choose to break a rule and I disagree, I bring out the rulebook and settle the argument.  The Bible is the Rulebook for Christianity. It defines the religion in the same way that rules of a game define the game.  Basketball has changed over the years because the rules have changed.  Chess remains the same because the rules remain the same.  Christianity hasn't changed because the rules haven't changed.  What moderate Christians are practicing is something else entirely in my view.  They really should just write a new book with clear language and without all the violent overtures.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Poop, the book is the common denominator.  For over 1500 years the faith has had this one book.  When there are differences of opinion regarding how to practice Christianity, conflicting sides always point to the Bible.  

And each just as quickly ignore one another.  Which christian denomination teaches that it's ok to murder a man for working on Saturday?

QuoteThe very basis of the religion is about having a ground, an objective morality, ultimate judgment and all that jazz (at least I thought).  

They claim as much, but they don't actually bother to live that way.  That's why people have to find a church that fits them rather than simply going to the one closest to them.

QuoteAbsent the actual voice of God, that ground is the Bible.  While the particulars of worship aren't necessarily dictated by the Bible, when Christians start talking about what one should and shouldn't do they usually bring up the book.

Yep, then they interpret the book to fit how they want it.

QuoteIf we are playing chess, chess has established rules.  We can choose to break the rules if we want to, but it seems we couldn't be properly said to be playing chess.

Good analogy.  Let's apply it to christianity.  Some Baptists insist that followers wash each others feet.  Other baptist denominations insist that this is not a requirement.  They fight over it like two chess players fight when one takes a piece through en passant and the other doesn't recognize that rule.  Who is right?  That depends on house rules, despite the fact that there are official rules governing the usage of en passant.

QuoteIf you choose to break a rule and I disagree, I bring out the rulebook and settle the argument.  The Bible is the Rulebook for Christianity. It defines the religion in the same way that rules of a game define the game.  

Therein lies the rub: the rules are all optional, at least in practice.  If that weren't the case, all christians would be snake handlers.

QuoteWhat moderate Christians are practicing is something else entirely in my view.  They really should just write a new book with clear language without all the violent overtures.

In the end, this is really all about a no true scotsman fallacy with the added twist of an Irishman being the one stating what true scotsmen do.

I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Quote from: "Tank"The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Regardless, Muslims don't generally BEHAVE in a violent manner, which was the original point.  The religion of Islam is, in practice, a peaceful religion.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Tank, I hate to admit this in a public forum, but you may have convinced me that Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity.  I know this stuff should be common knowledge, but I never pay much attention to religion, I'll try to figure out how to worship god when I see some evidence that she exists.   Anyway, the absoluteness of the Koran seems to make it a much more dangerous text to base a religion on.  The bible and the koran are both texts that encourage violence and bigotry, but at least the bible can be interpreted in a less ridiculous way.  

Thanks for ruining my Saturday Tank.  I'll be all day trying to rid myself of my new found Islamaphobia.  Where's an Imam when you need one?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Regardless, Muslims don't generally BEHAVE in a violent manner, which was the original point.  The religion of Islam is, in practice, a peaceful religion.

I agree. I have never met a violent Muslim. But that's not the point I was responding to. I was responding to the point that Muslims should rewrite the Quran, which they could not and remain Muslims.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Tank, I hate to admit this in a public forum, but you may have convinced me that Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity.  I know this stuff should be common knowledge, but I never pay much attention to religion, I'll try to figure out how to worship god when I see some evidence that she exists.   Anyway, the absoluteness of the Koran seems to make it a much more dangerous text to base a religion on.  The bible and the koran are both texts that encourage violence and bigotry, but at least the bible can be interpreted in a less ridiculous way.  

Thanks for ruining my Saturday Tank.  I'll be all day trying to rid myself of my new found Islamaphobia.  Where's an Imam when you need one?

Islam has no church, no ruling authority, a Muslim has to find their own way to heaven, they can't just do as they are told, although in practice cultural norms and traditions inform the actions of the individual. I think the issue with Islam is now a crisis of authority of Allah. If the Quran is true why has the Caliphate (the regent of God on Earth and successor to Mohamed) not defeated the infidel? Islam is besieged on all sides by peoples who appear to be materially more successful than the average Muslim while not being Muslim!

The colonisation and humiliating defeat of the lands of Islam caused lasting shock in the Muslim psyche which the law makers and respected thinkers have still to come to terms with. The rank and file of Christianity have their church to cling to in times of trouble, this support is not available to the rank and file Muslim who know everything is the will of Allah. I think it is this individual responsibility of the Muslim to their own salvation and vicariously all other Muslims, combined with the apparent failure of Islam to conquer the infidel that has led to the violent radicalisation of a very, very small proportion of Muslims.  

At the moment Christianity is not going through such a crisis of authority, it's the big guy on the block. Islam however is perceived by many Muslims as failing and some Muslims are taking a violent path to rectifying that situation.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence?   I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers.  I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

Yes, the Bible contains many passages where God advocates violence against non-believers and believers as well. However, the topic here is about islamophobia so to answer your question would be to go off topic.

Here is a smart post:

Quote from: "Will"I think the main problem is people don't understand what Islam is as a religion. Islam, as a religion, is a big, big tent. It spans many different beliefs and principles and ideologies. There are radical teachings, which mainly have root relatively recently in Wahabism (the ultra-conservative reading of Islam), but they're not in the majority. Most Muslims are moderate politically, socially and religiously.

As I stated earlier, secular Muslims are ethically OK just as are most apostate Christians: they conform more-or-less to the morality of the moment depending on how important religion is to them. This is why most of us can say,

Quote from: "Tank"I have never met a violent Muslim.

Quote from: "AreEl"The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

Apostate Christianity has grown by the same forces Islam uses but to a lesser extent, as violence isn't part of biblical injunctions. Again, secular Christians hold to the values of the day.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence? I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers. I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

Quote from: "AreEl"Yes, the Bible contains many passages where God advocates violence against non-believers and believers as well. However, the topic here is about islamophobia so to answer your question would be to go off topic.

Yes this thread is about Islamophobia.  The idea that Christianity is somehow superior to Islam (implied by what I bolded and italicized) is at the heart of the problem.  It's completely on topic.

Quote from: "Tank"But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

All religious texts are intentionally vague, which leads to different interpretations. Many Muslims have a similar relationship with the Qur'an as Christians the Bible. Some Christians believe every word of the Bible is perfect, per the Bible's teachings. Some Muslims believe the Qur'an is open to a certain extent of interpretation. That's why there are a lot of (particularly younger) Muslims around today that have no problem with gay people and who occasionally drink alcohol or eat pork. It's difficult to speak of any group in generalities, and Islam is a 1.5 billion person group. There's bound to be a lot of variation.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I'm curious about this as well Poop.  Christians don't seem particularly violent, but the New Testament seems to advocate it.  I certainly don't have the bible learnin you possess, could you explain the apparent endorsements of violence in the New Testament?

How about "I do not come to bring peace but a sword"?

Anyway, I've heard a lot about Islamophobia lately.

Since the day after 9/11, there have been exactly four killings within the borders of the United States by Christians that might be termed "Islamophobic."  One was a killing of an actual Muslim, one of a Sikh, and two of Christian Egyptians, one of which was a Copt.

During the same period, there have been at least 35 killings within the borders of the United states by Muslims that might be termed "Islamophilic."  Quite a few were of Jews.  I have not counted "honor" killings, medical neglect, or instances such as "shot six times in the back" when the report didn't say they died.  For example, a Muslim got into a Jewish center and shot four people, but only one died, so I'm only counting one.

So we have 4 relevant killings out of a population of at least 200 million Christians, and 35 relevant killings out of a population of at most 7 million Muslims.

Now, 35 killings isn't all that much, considering.  But 4 is even less, and if you do the math, you'll find that at a per-capita rate of murderous Muslims in the US is at least two and possibly three orders of magnitude greater than that of murderous Christians.  Still, 35 in 9 years is a pretty small number.  When I consistently make assumptions to make Christians sound bad and Muslims sound good, I get a ratio of about 350, and when I use more equitable assumptions, I get ratios in excess of 1000.

Also, of the approximately 100 arrests of suspected terrorists in the US since 9/11, about 1/3 are converts to Islam.  I don't know how many Muslims there are total, but even if we assume that the remaining 2/3 were not Muslim, it still doesn't look all that good for Muslims.

So, if someone wants to say that those 35 killings shouldn't be considered representative of all Muslims, that's fine, and I quite agree.  I don't think that's enough to fear or suspect most Muslims, and I assume that the average Muslim is no worse than the average Christian.  Having said so, however, to believe that there is this vast wave of Islamophobia sweeping the US is quite literally psychotic.  I mean "bee bee bee and baa baa baa and what's the frequency Kenneth" psychotic.  Delusional and completely mad.  Anyone who holds the thought in their minds for 30 seconds has given up any right to be taken seriously on anything for the rest of their lives.  It's taking a 2-3 order of magnitude smaller risk and elevating it to paranoid status while simultaneously declaring a 2-3 order of magnitude higher risk to be insignificant and declare any resulting concern bigoted.  It completely lacks a sense of proportion.

Quote from: "epepke"So we have 4 relevant killings out of a population of at least 200 million Christians, and 35 relevant killings out of a population of at most 7 million Muslims.

How many non Muslims have been killed by Christians in the name of faith lately?
The murder of abortion providers for example.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "AreEl"The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

Apostate Christianity has grown by the same forces Islam uses but to a lesser extent, as violence isn't part of biblical injunctions. Again, secular Christians hold to the values of the day.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence? I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers. I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

Quote from: "AreEl"Yes, the Bible contains many passages where God advocates violence against non-believers and believers as well. However, the topic here is about islamophobia so to answer your question would be to go off topic.

Yes this thread is about Islamophobia. The idea that Christianity is somehow superior to Islam (implied by what I bolded and italicized) is at the heart of the problem. It's completely on topic.

Islamophobia has nothing to do with Christianity. For example, islamophobia exists in Hindu India. As I've stated before, distrust of others is part of human nature. It is natural. You are born with it and it develops as you age.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Tank"But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

All religious texts are intentionally vague, which leads to different interpretations. Many Muslims have a similar relationship with the Qur'an as Christians the Bible. Some Christians believe every word of the Bible is perfect, per the Bible's teachings. Some Muslims believe the Qur'an is open to a certain extent of interpretation. That's why there are a lot of (particularly younger) Muslims around today that have no problem with gay people and who occasionally drink alcohol or eat pork. It's difficult to speak of any group in generalities, and Islam is a 1.5 billion person group. There's bound to be a lot of variation.

You're quite right about generalisations, they are generally not a good idea. However believing the Bible is true is not quite the same thing as believing it to the unadulterated utterances of God as far as I understand this. The Gospels are descriptions of things that the author may have been divinely inspired to write, but they are still the words of the author. The words in the Quran are those of Allah and were simply transcribed by Mohamed. So in this respect the Bible and Quran are fundamentally different. Reinterpreting the Quran is a dangerous thing to try and do as the person doing it would be seen as second guessing Allah, not a good idea.

As Islam has passed around the world it has undoubtedly adapted to suit local customs and traditions, Particularly with regard to orthopraxy; how the religion is observed on a day to day basis. The drinking of alcohol is not proscribed in the Quoran, particular types of fermented drinks are, in particular 'grape wine' however alcohol derived from corn is not. However the sin of intoxication has lead to the pragmatic banning of the consumption of alcohol. I can also understand the lure of Bacon  

Quote from: "AreEl"Islamophobia has nothing to do with Christianity. For example, islamophobia exists in Hindu India. As I've stated before, distrust of others is part of human nature. It is natural. You are born with it and it develops as you age.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think distrusting one group of people more than another very similar group of people is natural at all.  It's just bigotry.

Quote from: "epepke"So we have 4 relevant killings out of a population of at least 200 million Christians, and 35 relevant killings out of a population of at most 7 million Muslims.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"How many non Muslims have been killed by Christians in the name of faith lately?
The murder of abortion providers for example.

Just figured I'd omit myself from this since I didn't say it.  I don't doubt epeke has a reasonable point, I just can't figure out what it is.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think distrusting one group of people more than another very similar group of people is natural at all. It's just bigotry.

It is natural. Bigotry is an expression of xenophobia. You may not be a bigot. Which group(s) do you distrust?

If you affirm that Christianity has something to do with islamophobia, you'll have to explain how non-Christians can be islamophobes. You'll also have to explain why some Christians are not islamophobes. And, while you're at it, explain how some muslims can be islamophobic. Good luck!

Perhaps you should have a look at Tank's signature line:

''Something is true because it matches reality, not because some well-regarded person said it.''

Quote from: "AreEl"If you affirm that Christianity has something to do with islamophobia, you'll have to explain how non-Christians can be islamophobes. You'll also have to explain why some Christians are not islamophobes. And, while you're at it, explain how some muslims can be islamophobic. Good luck!

Reality isn't binary.  Islamophobia takes many forms, but the most common one in the US is Christians trying to pretend that America is a Christian nation.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "AreEl"If you affirm that Christianity has something to do with islamophobia, you'll have to explain how non-Christians can be islamophobes. You'll also have to explain why some Christians are not islamophobes. And, while you're at it, explain how some muslims can be islamophobic. Good luck!

Reality isn't binary.  Islamophobia takes many forms, but the most common one in the US is Christians trying to pretend that America is a Christian nation.

Exactly Poop.

AreEl, this tangent of the discussion started by your assertion that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity.  All I did was ask for some evidence for this.  You responded that an explanation of your bald assertion wasn't relevant to the discussion. Then why make the assertion in the first place?

Then you go on to tell me what I have to explain in order to prove a point to you.  As Poop pointed out, your requirements aren't exactly logical.  The mere fact that the vast majority  of Christians don't fear Muslims says nothing about whether Christianity has something to do with the fear of Muslims.  The loudest proponents of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West are Christians.  If you don't agree with that, then I guess there isn't much else to discuss.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Reality isn't binary. Islamophobia takes many forms, but the most common one in the US is Christians trying to pretend that America is a Christian nation.

There is no such thing as a Christian nation. People are Christians; companies or nations cannot be Christian. To even say so betrays one's lack of understanding of what a Christian is.  America is a nation influenced by Christianity, that is the most that can be said.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"AreEl, this tangent of the discussion started by your assertion that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. All I did was ask for some evidence for this. You responded that an explanation of your bald assertion wasn't relevant to the discussion. Then why make the assertion in the first place?

You can find this evidence on your own if you are really interested. I didn't respond that my  ''bald assertion wasn't relevant to the discussion,'' as you put it! Scroll up and see what I actually said. As for why I said what I did, I am familiar with the history and development of both Christianity and Islam. I could see from your posts that you are unknowledgeable about both so I was giving you a very short summary. That's it. No value judgements were involved as you so easily assumed. Avoid assuming stuff and jumping to conclusions.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The loudest proponents of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West are Christians. If you don't agree with that, then I guess there isn't much else to discuss.

So? There are more nominally Christian people in the West, so it stands to reason that there would be more islamophobes among those who call themselves Christian here.  No rocket science is needed to understand this!

Again: distrust of other groups or individuals is rooted in human nature. It is part of who we are and will eventually express itself one way or another both at the individual & cultural levels. At the root of this trait PRIDE sits. Now, which group do you distrust?

Quote from: "AreEl"There is no such thing as a Christian nation.

Incorrect.  There are no existent Christian nations at the moment, but a Christian theocracy would be exactly that.

QuotePeople are Christians; companies or nations cannot be Christian. To even say so betrays one's lack of understanding of what a Christian is.  

And all true Scotsmen wear nothing under the kilt.  It's true, Dretlin confirmed it.

QuoteAmerica is a nation influenced by Christianity, that is the most that can be said.

And yet there are a few million teabaggers who would disagree with you.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"So we have 4 relevant killings out of a population of at least 200 million Christians, and 35 relevant killings out of a population of at most 7 million Muslims.

How many non Muslims have been killed by Christians in the name of faith lately?
The murder of abortion providers for example.

That's a perfectly valid question.  Since the day after 9/11, there has been one murder of a physician who performed abortions by a Christian.

I'm stating facts.  I know they make people feel uncomfortable.  But I think it's complete crap for people to talk about "moderate Muslims" while simultaneously excluding any sort of moderate position about the issue that respects the facts.

One can spin, slant, or interpret the facts, but the facts are the facts, and they are that in the US, currently, there is way more hate violence by Muslims, in absolute terms and especially in per capita terms than that of any other group.

Now, I don't think that these facts automatically justify distrust, hatred of, or fear of Muslims.  However, if there had been 35 killing of, say, Black people by White supremacist, which is pretty analogous, there would be a veritable shitstorm about it.  Yet when Muslims do it, it gets swept under the rug.

I would think that such a shitstorm would also be pretty psychotic, but some reason for concern would be justified.  I think that the sweeping under the rug is also psychotic, as is automatically assuming that anyone who has a valid concern with killings by Muslims is Islamophobic.

In any event, people who weave all this shit about a wave of Islamophobia while sweeping Muslim violence under the rug are in serious need of a Haldol drip, fast, if not Thorazine, and anybody who knows the facts and maintains this special pleading in their minds for more than 30 seconds has given up the right ever to be taken seriously on anything.

epepke,

You lost me again, but I'm slow sometimes.  Is your basic point that fear of Muslims is reasonable considering their recent violence relative to other religions?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Just figured I'd omit myself from this since I didn't say it.  I don't doubt epeke has a reasonable point, I just can't figure out what it is.

Really?  It's pretty simple.  One point is that facts should come first.  People can have differing reasonable opinions, but no opinion that does not acknowledge the facts can be considered reasonable.

One fact is that, currently in the US, Islamic group hate murder is a greater risk than all other forms of hate murder combined.  Another fact is that even Islamic hate murder is a fairly trivial risk compared to other risks of death, including other murders, traffic accidents, influenza, obesity, and smoking.

Given those fact, people can construct a variety of political opinions, all over the spectrum.  However, denying the facts is psychotic.  One could claim, acknowledging the facts, that Islamic hate murder is done by an insignificant percentage of Muslims.  To claim, however, that US Muslims and US Christians are equal in their propensity to do violence is psychotic.  It is a thought disorder, an inability to perceive reality clearly.

I do not much care about political opinions because, as they say, everyone has one and they all stink.  I care a bit more about the psychology behind those opinions, and I care a lot about facts.  I do not like the popular opinion that so long as you are on the "right" side, you can distort, misrepresent, or lie about the facts as much as you want.  I know mine is an unpopular attitude, but I am representing it anyway.

epepke,

When you say all that stuff about being psychotic and needing drugs and what not, you just mean people are wrong.  Nobody loses their right to ever hold an opinion or be taken seriously again because they are wrong about something.  You lost me with all the hyperbole, but I'm back now. Your point is well taken.  Whatever conclusions we come to should be based on facts.  Not everybody who expresses concern over violence committed by Muslims is a bigot.

Who are these people that you think try to sweep Islamic violence under the rug?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"epepke,

When you say all that stuff about being psychotic and needing drugs and what not, you just mean people are wrong.

You may consider it hyperbole, but I think it goes far beyond being wrong.  Anyone can be wrong and will learn if corrected, and if only a few people did this, I would chalk it up to ignorance.  However, when someone who is educated enough to come up with evidence to make one of the polarized arguments we see all the time cannot figure out that 35 is bigger than 1 and even 4, or for the "other side" cannot figure out that Obama is a natural-born US citizen who is not a Muslim, there is something very dysfunctional going on in their brains.

I also find it interesting that so many who talk about "moderate" Muslims seem not to be able to bear even the possibility of a moderate stance on the issue.

QuoteNobody loses their right to ever hold an opinion or be taken seriously again because they are wrong about something.

As qualified above, that's false.  People who habitually lie or have such a distorted view of reality that they cannot acknowledge basic facts are frequently considered trolls and banned from this and other fora.  I daresay that even you would stop taking seriously a poster who habitually and persistently made blatantly false statements.

QuoteNot everybody who expresses concern over violence committed by Muslims is a bigot.

One would not think so based on how the term "Islamophobia" is bandied about.

QuoteWho are these people that you think try to sweep Islamic violence under the rug?

I could make a list, but I think you can figure it out based on the criteria.

Basically, it's anyone who declares that Christians are just as violent as Muslims in the US or who operates from such a mindset underlying their arguments, or declares that Islomophobia is a huge and notable problem out of proportion to other problems, such as Judenhass.  You can generally detect the mindset by their goalpost-shifting (ah, but Christians would if they could, and Christians invaded during the Crusades, so hah!)

At this point, I should point out that around half the murders by Muslims in the US were of Jews, because they were Jews.  Also that no Jew (or atheist, for that matter) has killed a Muslim in the US during that time.

Quote from: "epepke"That's a perfectly valid question.  Since the day after 9/11, there has been one murder of a physician who performed abortions by a Christian.

I'm stating facts.  I know they make people feel uncomfortable.  But I think it's complete crap for people to talk about "moderate Muslims" while simultaneously excluding any sort of moderate position about the issue that respects the facts.

One can spin, slant, or interpret the facts, but the facts are the facts, and they are that in the US, currently, there is way more hate violence by Muslims, in absolute terms and especially in per capita terms than that of any other group.

Now, I don't think that these facts automatically justify distrust, hatred of, or fear of Muslims.  However, if there had been 35 killing of, say, Black people by White supremacist, which is pretty analogous, there would be a veritable shitstorm about it.  Yet when Muslims do it, it gets swept under the rug.

I would think that such a shitstorm would also be pretty psychotic, but some reason for concern would be justified.  I think that the sweeping under the rug is also psychotic, as is automatically assuming that anyone who has a valid concern with killings by Muslims is Islamophobic.

In any event, people who weave all this shit about a wave of Islamophobia while sweeping Muslim violence under the rug are in serious need of a Haldol drip, fast, if not Thorazine, and anybody who knows the facts and maintains this special pleading in their minds for more than 30 seconds has given up the right ever to be taken seriously on anything.

Two words, buddy: sample size.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Two words, buddy: sample size.

OK, humblesmurph, here's an example of the kind of crap argumentation I see.  It is, of course, only presented as a put-down quip, probably so that there is nothing really to argue with, as it isn't coherent.

One more time, for those who can read and count or have an interest in such.  One cannot, logically, simultaneously declare that 35 killings from a population of at most 7 million (probably more like 3 million) is insignificant and declare that 1 killing from a population of at least 200 million is significant.  To do so represents a serious thinking problem.  Understanding this requires keeping two concepts in one's consciousness at once, but after that it's relatively straightforward.

There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion.  One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively.  Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts.  What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides.  I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other.  Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

One polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done to a Muslim by a Christian, and the other polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done by a Muslim to a non-Muslim, both to paint a paranoid picture of their own preconceived ideas.  Neither side is even slightly interested in looking at the facts in a balanced way, nor can they resist dominating the discussion so that it becomes sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However, I've said as much earlier, and if that was not read then, I don't think that this will be read now.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Two words, buddy: sample size.

OK, humblesmurph, here's an example of the kind of crap argumentation I see.  It is, of course, only presented as a put-down quip, probably so that there is nothing really to argue with, as it isn't coherent.

One more time, for those who can read and count or have an interest in such.  One cannot, logically, simultaneously declare that 35 killings from a population of at most 7 million (probably more like 3 million) is insignificant and declare that 1 killing from a population of at least 200 million is significant.  To do so represents a serious thinking problem.  Understanding this requires keeping two concepts in one's consciousness at once, but after that it's relatively straightforward.

I'm pretty sure I didn't declare that 1 killing from a population of 200 milion is significant.  In fact, I'm positive I didn't.  Please, link to the supporting post, or retract.

And no, it's not presented as a "put-down quip"; I rather like 'Smurph, and treat him decently when we disagree.  I simply like getting to the point.  So hey, if you want to misrepresent what I write and spend two paragraphs doing so, that's your business.



There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion.  One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively.  Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts.  What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides.  I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other.  Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

One polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done to a Muslim by a Christian, and the other polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done by a Muslim to a non-Muslim, both to paint a paranoid picture of their own preconceived ideas.  Neither side is even slightly interested in looking at the facts in a balanced way, nor can they resist dominating the discussion so that it becomes sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However, I've said as much earlier, and if that was not read then, I don't think that this will be read now.[/quote]

Quote from: "epepke"There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion. One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively. Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts. What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides. I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other. Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

Excellent observation. Excellent. Every single word, excellent.

I can only really form an opinion about this through experience, and mine is this:

I lived in a predominantly Sunni Muslim country for four years and in that time, saw and heard of no violence from Muslims aimed at us (the western families working out there). In fact, the Malay couldn't have been more accommodating. Being Brunei - a very oil rich and virtually tax free country, people are generally very prosperous so I guess there isn't too much to be wholesale angry about. Apart from the odd human rights abuse here and there (political prisoners, etc) it is a very forward-thinking nation. They even drink alcohol, albeit from tea cups in 'tea rooms', for instance..

My experience in the UK has been very similar. The Muslim population in the city I currently live is large and vibrant and seemingly very happy. I'm under no illusion that it is in anyway fully representative of the whole of the UK, but it would seem to me that any inherently violent religion would have sporadic acts of violence cropping up wherever that particular religion is practiced, yes? As far as I know, there's been no religiously motivated hate crimes here, perpetuated by Muslims against anyone, or vice-versa.

Out of the 2.4 million Muslims in the UK, there are probably only 300 who are radical enough to support terrorism (I get these figures from attendance rates at rallies organised by people like Anjem Choudary). I'm betting there are more white supremacists and neo nazis by proportion. It is this small proportion of Muslims which advocate the use of Sharia courts in the UK. The vast majority of UK Muslims are totally happy with our society. It is why they moved here. Intelligent people (of which there are many in the UK) are able to distinguish a minority view from a majority one. I'm pretty sure on the whole, at least in the UK, people are completely unconcerned about the Islamic faith and its followers and therefore, do not subscribe to islamophobia.

So, from my personal experience, 'islamophobia' is a red herring. That doesn't mean i agree with any of the teachings of islam, though.

For me to fear harm from Muslims would be Islamophobia.
If I lived in New York maybe the fear wouldn't be so irrational.
I do find it strange that Christian fundamentalists, no more threatened than me, who seemed to look at New York as New Gomorrah, use 9/11 as an excuse to burn the Koran and motivate attacks in far away places.
There was a well publicised case of a group of Moslems who gang raped a teenage girl.
I think there is a view that sex before marriage doesn't happen in their community so "our" girls are at risk.
I have two daughters, rape pushes best unpushed buttons for me.
I saw a documentary about Vlad the Impaler, the trick is grease your spike, but not too much.
Gang rape by those of non middle eastern appearance is less news worthy, but I don't want to leave them out, greased spikes for all!

epepke,

I think your assessment of both sides of the issue is a mischaracterization.    I know people who think that Islam is an inherently violent religion that necessarily causes violence.  They think that Islam is a threat to their way of life.  While I might not agree with them, their position is a long way from the assumption that every Muslim is a threat.   They understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not political terrorists.  On the flip side, I know people who think that it is wrong to discriminate based on religion or race.  They are fully aware of the violence perpetrated by Muslims in the West.  However, they believe that the relative small number of Muslims perpetuating this violence shouldn't be used as data to discriminate against the other 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet.

On one side you have the very reasonable argument that bigotry is wrong.  On the other side you have the very reasonable argument that Islam is used by hate groups as a motivator to perpetuate violence.  People blowing shit up because it is the will of Allah is some scary shit indeed.  Bigotry is scary as well.  Violence isn't the only issue here epepke.   People having their rights infringed upon because of their religion is a concern as well.   Sure there are kooks on either side of any issue, but you are acting like everybody is wrong about everything while at the same time not offering any ideas towards a solution.

35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

Aren't there different reasons some people may adopt an islamophobe attitude? The Christian right might hate muslems becasue they worship the wrong god, whereas others might fear them because they feel they harbor terrorists. Other people might adopt this attitude simply because places like Saudi Arabia exist and within them, condone the stoning of women by mob trial.

Surely there's more than one reason for the uninformed to fear Islam.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

By "your" are you referring to me?  Not my sample size.  It's epepke's.  I didn't bring numbers into the discussion.  I believe epepke's very point is that one's perception on this issue, whatever it may be, should be based on an understanding of these statistics.   That point seems counter to what you have stated here Thump. Maybe you two are in disagreement.  I can only guess as I'm still not sure what he is trying to say or who he is directing it towards.  Whatever his meaning is he must feel pretty strongly about it considering he thinks anybody who disagrees must be psychotic and in need of medication.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

By "your" are you referring to me?  Not my sample size.  It's epepke's.  I didn't bring numbers into the discussion.  I believe epepke's very point is that one's perception on this issue, whatever it may be, should be based on an understanding of these statistics.   That point seems counter to what you have stated here Thump. Maybe you two are in disagreement.  I can only guess as I'm still not sure what he is trying to say or who he is directing it towards.  Whatever his meaning is he must feel pretty strongly about it considering he thinks anybody who disagrees must be psychotic and in need of medication.

By "your" I mean anyone who proposes any action based on such paltry data.  I didn't mean to imply that you were responsible for it.  Apologies.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm pretty sure I didn't declare that 1 killing from a population of 200 milion is significant.  In fact, I'm positive I didn't.  Please, link to the supporting post, or retract.

I didn't say you did, and that's pretty much the fucking point.  You want to stick your ass in it, I can't stop you.  It's your choice.  Not mine.

No real point in dealing with the rest, which is bullshit.  I am saying something that you can choose to identify with or not.  It is your fucking choice.

Don't be angry on the internet.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Two words, buddy: sample size.

OK, humblesmurph, here's an example of the kind of crap argumentation I see.  It is, of course, only presented as a put-down quip, probably so that there is nothing really to argue with, as it isn't coherent.

One more time, for those who can read and count or have an interest in such.  One cannot, logically, simultaneously declare that 35 killings from a population of at most 7 million (probably more like 3 million) is insignificant and declare that 1 killing from a population of at least 200 million is significant.  To do so represents a serious thinking problem.  Understanding this requires keeping two concepts in one's consciousness at once, but after that it's relatively straightforward.

There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion.  One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively.  Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts.  What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides.  I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other.  Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

One polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done to a Muslim by a Christian, and the other polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done by a Muslim to a non-Muslim, both to paint a paranoid picture of their own preconceived ideas.  Neither side is even slightly interested in looking at the facts in a balanced way, nor can they resist dominating the discussion so that it becomes sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However, I've said as much earlier, and if that was not read then, I don't think that this will be read now.

You composed this post in reply to me, judging from the fact that you led it of with a quote of mine.  I have italicized where you clearly imply that I said such a thing.

Now, you can continue your fulmination all you wish.  The record has been corrected, and you are wrong.

Foam away!

I feel like epepke is right in his/her underlying message that people can't only see a problem such as this in the farthest extremes, because when they do it's bound to only increase the conflict and drown the resolution in a bunch of flame warring and other such non-intelligent activities produced by such conflicts. I also pick up that they're fed up with people using facts out of context and without presenting the view from both sides, only "cherry picking" to what will help their side of the argument. Of course I may be wrong and I apologize if I am for jumping in on this.

My input on the OP... Well, fuck. Don't even remember what we were talking about after reading all of this...