People can't seem to understand that one group does not define a religion. I know several Muslims and studied Islam and it is a noble religion if you ask me.
Yes, but only in the minority. This statement, without explaining itself, is wholly useless in an argument.
Things like banning gay marriage or blue laws like requiring belief in a supreme deity in order to run for public office are oppressive, but don't necessarily involve violence.
Things like banning gay marriage or blue laws like requiring belief in a supreme deity in order to run for public office are oppressive, but don't necessarily involve violence.
Gay marriage is banned because we consider is unnatural, the thing that caused fall of sodom. What is wrong with a muslim leader of a muslim state? a non muslim leader might go against Islam.
Things like banning gay marriage or blue laws like requiring belief in a supreme deity in order to run for public office are oppressive, but don't necessarily involve violence.
More than half the world does not legalize gay marriage. Are we oppressive, or are we slow in our societal change in the majority?
Germany does not allow Neo Nazi the freedom of their beliefs. Is that oppressive?
A bit of both. Compare it to allowing interracial marriage.
I disagree. If the majority are for it, then democracy triumphs. If not, it makes a mockery of the system. Secondly, if society is going to go through violent upheavals when it isn't ready for change that is pushed unceremoniously through, then it's better not to have change.
Technically, yes. Groups like Westboro and the Tea Party are allowed to openly exist and express their views here.
In that case, then any group spreading violence, terror, and bigotry, should be allowed, if they remain wholly passive?
That's what got the Nazi moving. Point is, society draws the lines where acceptance is extended during that particular era.
In that case, then any group spreading violence, terror, and bigotry, should be allowed, if they remain wholly passive?
Annoying, angry extremists aren't a problem if they don't hurt anyone, even if it is pathetic to listen to. They have their right to say and believe what they want. That right does not extend to enforcing it on others.
Annoying, angry extremists aren't a problem if they don't hurt anyone, even if it is pathetic to listen to. They have their right to say and believe what they want. That right does not extend to enforcing it on others.
I don't believe in this. What they say might be limited to saying for now, but if it spreads to the rest of the populace like wildfire, giving them support to act tangibly, trouble ensues.
What they say might be limited to saying for now, but if it spreads to the rest of the populace like wildfire, giving them support to act tangibly, trouble ensues.
Oh, sure. Then again, that's why we label them 'hate groups.' That's why we argue against it. That's why we don't accept it in any formal areas. They can preach on the streets and look like the nutcases they are, destroying their own credibility.
As long as proper address is given to their absurdities, it does not matter if they speak out. Religion isn't a problem before it becomes ingrained in the masses.
That's why we argue against it. That's why we don't accept it in any formal areas. They can preach on the streets and look like the nutcases they are, destroying their own credibility.
As long as proper address is given to their absurdities, it does not matter if they speak out. Religion isn't a problem before it becomes ingrained in the masses.
That's what they muttered about all manner of hate groups; the Nazi, the KKK, before it all escalated. I would rather such groups not exist, or be restricted, rather than dealing with a potential mess at the end.
I would rather such groups not exist, or be restricted, rather than dealing with a potential mess at the end.
I agree with this. As I said above in regards to the restrictions, "that's why we label them 'hate groups.' That's why we argue against it. we don't accept it in any formal areas."
When the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was preaching Islam there were alot of wars but before fighting he would pray to Allah to ask for permission to fight them and if Allah would grant then he would fight but after asking for permission he would ask the enemy to either lay down their arms and convert to islam or prepare for war but they would lose and would be captured but the Holy Prophet (pbuh) wouldn't ask for ransom but would tell them to teach Muslim children if they were educated for their freedom.It was only after his death that 1000 or more years have passed that Muslims are getting corrupt but that doesn't mean that you should hate the whole bunch of them as every religions followers have gotten corrupt lately for example Christianity's followers were first good but over the centuries have gotten corrupt and think more of money and power instead of religion, so people just hate Muslims for the mistakes that one guy did.
