Yet more evidence, if ever it was needed, that there is evil in Islam: [abc.net.au] (Look for "Iranian newspapers" )
Your BS bigotry is showing, in case you hadn't noticed
I am confused. Are you saying the article is false?
@Betty I mean, you could change the type/name of the religion to any other one in this article & all similar ones and it would be right, so why single out Islam? Bigotry!
@AnneWimsey Because in this article it was about them, so the comments are also about them. Did you read the part where a "hit" was put on Mr. Rushdie?
So, in my opinion the post is correct. There is evil in their religion.
You are also correct that evil exist is other religions but the article was not about other religions.
When people attack bigotry, that doesn't make them bigots. Picture this. Person A hits person B. Person C hits person A as a response. You then go and hit person C for hitting person A. What does that make you?
@David_Cooper WTH does that have to do with this thread?
@AnneWimsey You accused someone of bigotry for attacking bigotry.
@David_Cooper who, exactly "attacked bigotry" other than me?
@AnneWimsey You're attack on the post that began this entire thread. It attacked "evil" (bigotry) and you called that attack bigotry. That bigoted hate has a starting point where it is primary hate which generated secondary hate back at itself. You then condemn that secondary hate while letting the primary hate completely off the hook.
@David_Cooper ,
(1) Indeed it should - when I right fast and leave spelling two neural nets too handle spelling on Otto, that can happen a lot. It has nothing to do with not knowing the rules. I'm a writer and no the rules just fine, but that doesn't stop the wrong spellings occurring from time to thyme, and its easy to miss them if eye don't reread what I've written.
(2) Primary hate is the original hate where one person expresses or harbours hate towards another without just cause. Secondary hate is the hate that the target of the primary hate expresses or harbours towards the first of those people when (s)he becomes aware of that hate. Secondary hate is not immoral, but primary hate most certainly is. For example, when you look at fascists and Nazis and see their primary hate, you might then hate them for being vile, and that's secondary hate on your part, which is justifiable, whereas their primary hate is not. If you dismiss such people as bigots, that's an expression of secondary hate. However, when you get it wrong by calling someone a bigot for condemning the primary hate of a vicious religion, you are siding with the primary hate and condemning the secondary hate, and that's a really nasty error to make.
(3) Why don't you try reading the OP again yourself. It is an attack on primary hate.
I've known this for some time. That's why I say clarify dogmatic religion is the problem. All of them. Since they are poison it is necessary for society at large to argue against them but ours doesn't do that. It supports them and rewards shows of their faith. I wouldn't allow jewelry or clothing of any kind to be displayed in a public meeting but folks say I'm nuts.
I tend to agree with atheist author Sam Harris: religion is a category like sports. Sports, like religion, encompasses a wide variety of activities and the only commonality between the sport of badminton and the sport of kickboxing, for example, is breathing.
When it comes to religions, extremism and militancy are found in Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and many others. The key considerations are the fundamentals and calls to action, both in textual form as well as in practice from present day religious leaders. As Harris also notes, a significant difference may be found in extremist Islam and extremist Jainism. An extremist Jain is likely to be the most pacifist person possible!
If the Iranian religious organization needs to add a financial incentive to their followers then what does that say about their so called "faith"? Is their "god" so weak and vulnerable or is their control and hold over their "faithful" slipping out of their hands?
Remember that Iran would not be under the thrall of the guilty Islamic theocracy if the Brits and the Americans hadn't gotten rid of its secular socialist government in 1953 to pursue their imperialist interests.
Western imperialists use Islamic fanatics for their own murderous ends and then cry in shocked horror when these fanatics turn back and bite them.