re: #104 klys

If you can’t see the difference between a discussion of the actions of fundamentalists, particularly as led by moderate practitioners of the religion, and saying that the entire religion is worse than others because of the actions of fundamentalists as someone outside the religion, I’m afraid this discussion is hopeless.

Perhaps it would help if you differentiated between fundamentalist and moderate? This is the heart of the issue.

When you use the word fundamentalist, it makes it sound like nothing but a more zealous minority, reactionaries against a rising tide of modernism. But is that an accurate representation? Is a “fundamentalist” someone who goes as far as to support suicide bombings in defense of Islam? And is a “moderate” someone who merely supports stoning adulterers?

pewforum.org

Attitudes toward Islamic law vary significantly by region. Support for making sharia the law of the land is highest in South Asia (median of 84%). Medians of at least six-in-ten Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa (64%), the Middle East-North Africa region (74%) and Southeast Asia (77%) also favor enshrining sharia as official law. But in two regions, far fewer Muslims say Islamic law should be endorsed by their governments: Southern and Eastern Europe (18%) and Central Asia (12%).

Can someone be a “moderate” and support the imposition of religious law?

I’m also afraid that you will continue to get a lot of pushback here, because bigotry is not tolerated.

Then I will ask you the same questions:

Is any and all criticism of Islam “bigotry”? Is it scapegoating all Muslims to criticize the religion they follow? Are all religions equally pre-disposed towards violence? Are all religions morally equivalent?

Yes or no?