My post on the Sweden thread

[Vuk]

I recently recieved a warning from Banquo's Ghost for saying that islam taught hate and imorrality. His reason was:

An entirely offensive generalisation

I would like to know how it is that some people can express similar opinions about Christianity, yet I cannot say the truth about islam. If anyone was of the opinion that it was not the truth, I would have been more than willing to back what I said up with quotes from the koran and muhammed. As I pointed out, I was not saying that all muslims were hateful or imoral, but simply that that is what the koran literally says, and there will always be those that interpret it literally. I do not see how that makes me deserve a warning that takes away all my posting and PM rights.

[pevergreen]

It is an entirely offensive generalisation.

On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.

[Vuk]

It is an entirely offensive generalisation.

On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.

No, it is not a generalization, because I was talking about ONE thing, the koran. I was not putting all muslims under the umbrella of strict interpreters. As I said though, the koran does teach that stuff. The Crusade analogy is useless, because the Bible never instructed Christians to go on a Crusade, whereas the koran does instruct muslims to murder Christians and Jews (and as a Christian of Jewish blood, surely you can see how uncomfortable the religion makes ME feel), to subjugate women, etc.
If any thought that I was wrong, and the koran didn't say that, I would have been more than happen to quote it and explain that it does. Is the saying the truth about a religion offensive now because the religion is offensive?
Also though, people on this forum make similar ascertains about Christianity all the time, why do they not get banned as I have? It is because of one-sided, politically-correct moderating.
And just so you know, I think people are ignorant a lot of times when they say such things about Christianity (because I has actually read the Bible and know it is not true), but I do not get offended, and I do not report them. I discuss it with them. Looks like you can have discussion of islam though...unless it is about how best to praise it.

[Monk]

It is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence.

What part of this is not a generalization?

[pevergreen]

I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.

Just as Monk said, you generalised.

Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.

If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.

[Vuk]

What part of this is not a generalization?

You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.

I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.

You are wrong Pever, I never felt that way and do not now. I used to be of the opinion that all religions were the same and that they were all peaceful. What I think of islam comes from reading about muhamed, reading the koran, and studying some of the hadiths. It is a very educated opinion...probably much more so than most/all of the muslims on this board, yours, and the moderators'. The opinion I expressed was not about muslims, but about the koran and muhamed.

Just as Monk said, you generalised.

Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.

If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.

This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point.

That all aside though, I should not have to be having a religious debate with you here (as this is not the place), the Backroom (which is was banned from as the correct place). Because you do not share my religious views does not mean that you ban me, then discuss religion with me in the watchtower. If you disagreed with my views, why did you not discuss it in the Backroom (that is what it is there for). You know, in a religious debate, you are talking things that people devote their life to and feel strongly about, so in any religious debate people on both sides are going to be offended. If you get rid of 'offending' opinions, you get rid of debate. Do you think that people's anti-Christian arguments do not offend me to some degree? Of course they do, but I make the choice to either ignore them, or to debate it with them.
The difference is that it is politically correct to bash Christianity, but not to have negative opinions of islam. One of the things the Backroom is meant for is religious debate, you cannot selectively censor out people's opinions. My opinon is honest and heartfelt, and I do not think that I should not be allowed to express it on a forum devoted to religious debate. If you do not agree with it, either think less of me and move on, or debate it with me. Do not ban me because you do not agree with me.

[Kagemusha]

Vuk. Just read the forum rules and think did you broke them or not. Your opinion about whether your stance is right or wrong is irrelevant.

[PanzerJaeger]

Fighting this is not worth your time, Vuk.

The very nature of the Backroom ensures that it entails the most subjective moderating on the board. The current lineup - unless it has changed significantly in the last few months - shares a very particular viewpoint on discussing Islam and its followers. This is quite obvious, as they were all Backroom posters before becoming moderators and their opinions on such matters are well known. It is not my place to suggest there are double standards or heavy hands in play, but there are unique boundaries in place when criticism of Islam emerges. These exist for a multitude of reasons including everything from the Western-centric culture shared by the majority of moderators and patrons here, which promotes self examination and criticism and discourages the same for other cultures, to the current events revolving around the Middle East since 9/11/01.

None of that is important. What you do need to know is that if you continue down this path, whether by challenging the moderators directly or by continuing to post opinions/facts you know they will not tolerate, you could face permanent expulsion from the backroom.

Sometimes you don't get to choose your battlefield. There's no point in complaining about it, even if it's uphill.

[Ibrahim]

You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.



This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point..

1)he did not have sex with a nine year old; records are clear on that. he did marry 'aishah when she was nine, but Arab custom demanded he not touch her till she menstruated (since menstruation defined women in the ancient Arab world). hence, he had sex with her as a teenager, so techinacally, he did not commit pedophilia (maybe by today's standards, but we only raised the minimum age in the last century, and a little earlier). besides, didn't europeans have a similar custom until the 19th century? I hear the words :"moral hypocracy" ringing in the air.

2)He ordered no assassinations: he was quite literally offered them. In ancient Arabia, it was not unusal for a person to show loyalty to his tribe/leader/king, by assassinating an enemy. you can read the story of jassas ibn murrah and his murder of kulayb wa'il in 494 AD, or the aftermath of the false haram incident from the 4th century AD. He allowed them to do what they wanted, yes, but he did not obligate them. you can read in detail about the killing of ka3b ibn Ashraf. you will see that he was offered Ashraf's head by muhammad ibn maslamah. the porphet said merely to not do anything until he (ibn maslamah) cunsulted with the tribal elder, sa3d ibn mu3ath.

3)most of his "holy wars" were defensive: Badr, Uhud, khndaq, mustalaq, and hunayn were all defensive, or partly so. you can read their respective accounts elsewhere. also, his offensive operations were often due to hearing news that an enemy tribe was ammassing forces against madinah (khaybar and ta'if), or a tribe breeched peace (makkah)*, or severly breached diplomatic rules (mu'tah and tabuk). his preferred technique of spreading Islam was by sending men out who knew the qur'an and his words, and they would slowly convert friendly tribes (see abu dhar and his convertin ghafar and aslam tribes, abu umamah and the tribe of bahilah, abu musa and the yemenis, etc). in fact, far more tribes went in peacefully than violently, but no, the west just loves to look at the ugly-part of the sick sensationalist aspect that has unfortunately pervaded recently..

so where is the "purely by sword" bulls*** you and your fellow hubul follow?

4)murdured? let me check...nope, there were executions, but no known murdurs, and none of the executions were for false reasons (sedition, treason, murder, more treason). maybe to the 21st century, some of this would be wrong, but not to that time and place. In fact, for a politician, he was surprisingly peaceful for his time and place; he did not tie men by their shoulders, mass murder 30,000 in a stadium, or round people up in a trench for being christian, and slaughter them all...the worst he did was let sa3d ibn m3ath judge that tribe after khandaq; he applied deuteronomy on them, as they were jewish, and demanded that they be tried per jewish law. so the men were killed, the rest scattered..

5)he raped? not even 100 siras show that**. I have seen no evidence (literally none) that he did that. the closest he came was when al-muqawqis sent him a woman as a present. and even then, there is clear evidence that he treated her well, favored her, and even had a son by her-he died as a child. her name is Mariyyah BTW, just so that you can look her up too. also, he explicitly said that females and children should be treated well, and not be harmed, especially in war time. you can read on the Aftermath of khndaq and khaybar.

6)mysogyny? man, go look up pre Islamic Arabia if you want mysogyny. they buried girls alive, and barred inheritance, just for starters..the very worse thing I have seen was that he expected women to dress decently (the veil is actually a abbasid thing), to obey their husbands (i.e be good wives) and they are allowed to inherit and work. oh, wait, that's actually good, isn't it? and if you quote the ar-rijalu qawwamun 3ala an-nisa'i verse, then you need to learn Arabic; while qawwam is often translated as "superior", or "above", it actually means "guardian" or "curator". another arabic word derived from qwm or qym (both mean the same), is qayyim, which is grammatically identical to the above, and is used to refer to a curator or caretaker. in other words to dumb it down, the qur'an says take care of your women, hence husbands must be good to their wives as well. Its also known that he put a strong precedent of NOT exposing girls (well, burying them), of NOT mistreating them, and of NOT degrading them. even his last speech advised men to appreciate women, and to view them well (hajjat al-wada3). you can look that up. and the beating part has some very strict rules to it, again explained in hijjat al-wada3. It is a last resort (and I mean last), and never to the point where a woman is harmed in any way. in fact, the arabic word for "hit", is also the one for "leave", "strike from", or "quit" (or even cite: darab mathalan= he cited an example), so no one is sure if the idribuhunna commandment was reffering to beating. and many sunnahs were written 2-3 centuries after his death, furthur complicating things (many hadths are spurious; problem is: which ones?)



and no, I am not citing some random apologetic (I have nothing to apologize for in that regard). I can recommend you several books, such as the "series of heroes books" (1960's), the various siras (I had one in the library of mine from the early 20th century, you can reda Tabari too), and 5 history books from grandfather's college years-all written and explained in detail, before we had to worry about the recent events (so no, not apologetic). some were in fact very cutting of the prophet.. Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, several explanitory sahihs (none of them perfect), and a good study of the political system from then to the 12th century. that is more than I can say for wherever the heck you got your "facts" from.

I suggest that to read these sources, you need to learn Arabic. I'm not going to sit here and translate every word of these sources. It would take me several liftimes.


*the makkans supported an ally of theirs to raid a tribe allied to Madinah. the attacked tribe sought help, and he responded. once he makkan learned of his reaction, they gave up..well, almost all. one of the three columns for makkah was ambushed by some makkans; 2 muslims and 15 makkans killed. 2 makkans were later executed, but the city was spared sacking.
**like saying none

PS: I know I won't convince you, but I have to post...that way others can read and learn.

[Ibrahim]

I have decided to return, and add some more things, just to furthur illuminate:

1-I forgot to mention that Ka3b ibn ashraf would have eventually become a mortal threat to Madinah; he was known to have begun stockpiling arms (he was a wealthy man), and talking to the makkans to see to see that their was a coalition. assassination was a common solution. In fact, the killers used his weapons stockpiling to lure him into a fake arms deal; again, see the 4th century ka3bah incident*.

2-addition to khandaq: the jewish tribe wanted to be tried by their (jewish) laws, just to clarify the above post. I do not want to disparage any faiths while mentioning this, that way no one can hold it against me.

and if any forum rules were breached I take full responsibility.

*a tribe had attempted to sieze religious hegemony over the makkan ka3bah, by building a hurum of their own. they tried to sell the hurum to the arab tribes, but instead incurred the wrath of the head tribes of makkah (this was before quraysh). one of the dignitaries of makkah led a force that surprised and massacred the enemy tribe, although survivors managed to flee. then the dignitary killed an enemy man over the "hurum" in a special ritual, ruining it.

seeing that he was a threat, and he was indeed out to finish them off, the offending tribe was offered his head by a famous thug, and the man snuck on the dignitary and gutted him. tragically for the tribe, the dignitary somehow survived, and led another army to finish the tribe's strength off.

that's what I remember; I have not read over the account in 2 years+, and hence I forgot the names

if you can find a blue green schoolbook from Kuwait(?) over 30 years in age, you can read about it there. the suject is early arab history (before islam to c.900AD).

as for jassas ibn murrah, he offered to kill kulayb wa'il for hoarding the water in his territory (an Arab no-no), and used the camel of al-basus (an old woman) as an excuse to kill kulayb. again, I cite the same book as above. the immediate cause was of course a bloody camel

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Recent posters have made what could be called "offensive generalizations" against the Catholic recently. I am not offended - on the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to debase their assumptions. The point being, whether Vuk has a correct or incorrect opinion of Islam, it is his right to make his case in the same way that individuals can make their cases against Catholicism or Christianity. In both cases, the individuals have made a case against the religion, not the followers of that religion.

Ban both or ban neither. My opinion is that the latter is the better option.

[Vuk]

Recent posters have made what could be called "offensive generalizations" against the Catholic recently. I am not offended - on the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to debase their assumptions. The point being, whether Vuk has a correct or incorrect opinion of Islam, it is his right to make his case in the same way that individuals can make their cases against Catholicism or Christianity. In both cases, the individuals have made a case against the religion, not the followers of that religion.

Ban both or ban neither. My opinion is that the latter is the better option.

Thank you Evil Maniac From Mars, that was my point exactly. The Backroom mods are very hypocrytical when dealing with the subject. What Ibrahim has just presented is a counter argument (which I will be glad to answer in the Backroom). That is the reponse a discussion on religion is supposed to get, not a ban.
No offense Evil Maniac From Mars, but I have made arguments against the Catholic church as well, and not gotten in trouble for them. If I try to make them about Islam though, it results in an instant ban. I am still waiting of Tosa or BG to answer me as to why this is. I am not going to say the words "unfair censorship" until I recieve an answer.

[Adrian II]

So far this is a perfectly good and reasonable discussion, albeit in Backroom style. I fail to see why we can't have it in the Backroom itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The attack on Catholicism received the same warning as your post

[Vuk]

The attack on Catholicism received the same warning as your post

Attack CK? As in singular?

[Vuk]

The thing is that attacks are made against Christianity all the time in the Backroom. People constantly mentioning the crusades with comments about how warlike and evil Christianity is. People making comments about how oppresive it is. Heck, just look at what people were saying about Christianity on the Satanism thread. A small example, but one that comes easily to my mind, as I was debating some of them there. (note, debating, not reporting their posts and calling for them to be banned)
The moderation is completely hypocrytical, as it is perfectly acceptable for people to constantly make derrogatory remarks about Christianity, yet one cannot give their opinion on islam if it is not politically correct and in agreement with the opinions of the moderators.

[gollum]

Why a Christian would need Christianity defended in an internet forum and Islam criticised? Why a Christian would want any religion other than his own for that matter criticised?

With all due respect, this is hypocritical because it shows that you regard religion as a matter of contest of impressions that is decided by public opinion. It is not. It is something very personal that should never be subjected to the *my dad/school/party/company/country/culture is better than yours* internal process.

Such a process is known as pride and in the Christian spiritual tradition is regarded as a sin.

There is no room for politics in religion. There is only room for politics between religious institutions.

[LittleGrizzly]

The same people who seem find it easy to make grossly wrong generalisations about Islam seem to be incredibly sensitive to any criticism of Christianity, i second gollum... hypocrites!

[Vuk]

On the contrary, I am not sensitive to critism of Christianity, but instead regard it as an opportunitty to help someone understand it better. I never said that there should not be critism of Christianity, I just said that as long as there is, there should also be allowed critism of islam. I believe that God wants us to test Him and His Religion as thouroughly as possible, so debate is necassary to truely have a firm understanding and belief in your religion. After all, how do you know that it is right if you never put it to the test?
As for your ridiculous thing about "My religion is better than yours", if you are religious, you believe that. That is what makes muslims muslims, because they truelly believe that it is right way, and not Christianity or any other religion. Likewise Christians are Christians because they believe it is the only true way. It is the very nature of religion, and it is not a bad thing. And gollum, it has nothing to do with pride. Christianity is not a Christians pride, but both his shame and hope. It is his shame because it reveals to himself how pathetic he like other men is (and he more than other men, because he knows what is right and STILL sins), and hope because it offers redemption. I remember your hotheaded and biting posting style from previous debates BTW gollum, please do not subject me to it here.

[Beefy187]

What ever you say, "Islam taught hate and immorality" is a generalization.
I have muslim friends and they are everything but "hate and immoral"

Your opinion is fair but this line is debatable. I think you should reword it a bit and try it from a different approach

And Sasaki said people who criticized Christianity got warned so...

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vuk
On the contrary, I am not sensitive to critism of Christianity, but instead regard it as an opportunitty to help someone understand it better. I never said that there should not be critism of Christianity, I just said that as long as there is, there should also be allowed critism of islam.

In order to help someone understand it better you first have to understand it your self. That does not mean reciting the doctrine. It means becoming a living example of the doctrine. Someone who thinks that helps others understand religion better through an internet forum while conceiling his pride is delluding himself.

I believe that God wants us to test Him and His Religion as thouroughly as possible, so debate is necassary to truely have a firm understanding and belief in your religion. After all, how do you know that it is right if you never put it to the test?

If *test* means internet forum debates then it shows how little you understand of your own spiritual tradition. Go to a monastery and see how hard the ascetic life is. Then you will have an idea of what *test* means.

As for your ridiculous thing about "My religion is better than yours", if you are religious, you believe that. That is what makes muslims muslims, because they truelly believe that it is right way, and not Christianity or any other religion. Likewise Christians are Christians because they believe it is the only true way. It is the very nature of religion, and it is not a bad thing. And gollum, it has nothing to do with pride. Christianity is not a Christians pride, but both his shame and hope. It is his shame because it reveals to himself how pathetic he like other men is (and he more than other men, because he knows what is right and STILL sins), and hope because it offers redemption. I remember your hotheaded and biting posting style from previous debates BTW gollum, please do not subject me to it here.

Right, let me count; *ridiculous* one, *hothead* two, *biting* three.

How does it say it in the Bible; *You shall not judge*.

As for what is the true way there is a certain thing called comparative religion and another called perennialist thought in Theology. Whenever you decide to see God as something more than a matter of black and white opinion, go check them out.

[Andres]

The statement "[Islam] is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence" is a generalisation and it is offensive.

As such, the reason given for the warning is correct. As far as the warning you received goes, I don't see why it should be reversed.

As for your more general query about Org policy, if you encounter offensive posts, you can always use the "report post" function and staff will deal with them.

I can assure you that a similar post about Christianity will be treated the same way.

As you are well aware, warnings are given in private. It's not because member X did not open a thread complaining about a warning received for e.g. Catholics-bashing, that such warning did not occur.

[PershsNhpios]

Vuk, remember the time when I made a comment about ONE thing; America?

Well, as it turns out that was also a generalisation.
Because when you pick on America, you pick on Americans and Freedom (TM).
Just as when you pick on Islam, you pick on most of central Asia and the Middle East (TM).

I will not turn this into a discussion about my warning, but I will say that I can find examples of hate and immoralism being employed in many apparently virtuous areas.
Do I need to make a list, or can you simply keep an open mind?

To read through each of your posts I find the same hostility which I was reprimanded for in my own posts on America.

In fact, we are both accusing our seperate antagonists of the self same things, for the most part.

----------

I do not want to involve myself anymore, but I must add;


You are entirely deserving of a warning for your post, and still more so for the posts you have given here - which have been more personalised and aggressive toward actual members than mine ever were.



Yes Vuk! You are putting forth your opinion like a true American!

[Adrian II]

I have seen much more strongly worded statements from Navaros in the Backroom about homosexuals, women, people on the political left, American soldiers in Iraq or free choice advocates, to name a few categories. He was answered by other members in no uncertain terms, but his posts and views were allowed to stand.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not sure if the anti-Catholic post referred to was my 'church of Revelation' comment (well I didn't get a warning as one mod said so it could have been something else). In any case, both the Lutheran and Calvinist branches of Protestantism were also attacked, however I have no problem with this. I'm glad I can criticise Catholicism as a religion, and that people can criticise my beliefs in a similar manner. It's always good to get new perspectives on our views and to learn to question them, even if the comments made against them seem extreme.

I'm not here to argue about whether Vuk was right or not, but crucially, he did talk about Islam as a religion and not Muslims as people. Just as several Christians attacked their own denominations in another thread at the same time, without attacking each other or the followers of those denominations as a whole.

So, I think that if Vuk got a warning, myself and others would also deserve one. Of course, I would prefer it if nobody got a warning in such situations.

Now I'll feel like an idiot if I get a belated warning.

[Vuk]

In order to help someone understand it better you first have to understand it your self. That does not mean reciting the doctrine. It means becoming a living example of the doctrine. Someone who thinks that helps others understand religion better through an internet forum while conceiling his pride is delluding himself.



If *test* means internet forum debates then it shows how little you understand of your own spiritual tradition. Go to a monastery and see how hard the ascetic life is. Then you will have an idea of what
Sorry, I would consider that more a test of myself than of a relgion. A religion is not physical, it is the meaning of the words written on a book...it is intellectual. You test a religion by examining criticsm of it, and seeing if you religion holds up to them. I am not talking about making excuses for your religion and trying to word its way out of things, but truely and fairly putting it to the test in your own mind. I just cannot imaging how anyone could devote themselves to a religion without doing that.
Right, let me count; *ridiculous* one, *hothead* two, *biting* three.

How does it say it in the Bible; *You shall not judge*.

I am not judging you, I am observing facts about you. I simply do not want to try to talk to you if you behave like you did in the Parliament forums.

The statement "[Islam] is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence" is a generalisation and it is offensive.

As such, the reason given for the warning is correct. As far as the warning you received goes, I don't see why it should be reversed.

If that is how the rules are interpreted, and I deserve the warning, then hundreds of posts that have gone by just fine deserve the same warning. If that is what the rules are, then you cannot be selective about enforcing them.

As for your more general query about Org policy, if you encounter offensive posts, you can always use the "report post" function and staff will deal with them.

I can assure you that a similar post about Christianity will be treated the same way.

*cough* BS *cough*
Sorry Andres, but you know that is not true. Many similar post have been made about Christianity, and a lively debate followed without removal of content or thread locking or anything. I may not have been around as long as you, but I have been around the Org long enough to witness that that is simply not true.

As you are well aware, warnings are given in private. It's not because member X did not open a thread complaining about a warning received for e.g. Catholics-bashing, that such warning did not occur. Fair enough, but my signature was taken away, I could only make one post every few hours and only in the watchtower, I could not PM, etc. Where my membership status is nothing was displayed. I have been in debates where people have said similar and NONE of that occured. Instead, moderators took place in the debates. That is why I asked Tosa to remove my Backroom membership for a year or so, because the hypocrisy was killing me.

Vuk, remember the time when I made a comment about ONE thing; America?

Well, as it turns out that was also a generalisation.
Because when you pick on America, you pick on Americans and Freedom (TM).
Just as when you pick on Islam, you pick on most of central Asia and the Middle East (TM).

That is wrong for two reasons. First of all, when you say that America is evil, things Americans do is evil, and Americans are stupid and evil, you are talking about Americans. I was not talking about muslims, or the way that many people practice islam today. Nor was I referring to any countries or ethnicities. I was talking about a guy and his book, and what the literal meaning of that book is.

I will not turn this into a discussion about my warning, but I will say that I can find examples of hate and immoralism being employed in many apparently virtuous areas.
Do I need to make a list, or can you simply keep an open mind?
I was not talking about corrupt muslims though, I was talking about a corrupt book.

To read through each of your posts I find the same hostility which I was reprimanded for in my own posts on America.

In fact, we are both accusing our seperate antagonists of the self same things, for the most part.

Hostility? The only thing you could come halfway to construing as 'hostility' is asking gollum to refrain from his usual and generally offensive posting style.
----------

I do not want to involve myself anymore, but I must add;


You are entirely deserving of a warning for your post, and still more so for the posts you have given here - which have been more personalised and aggressive toward actual members than mine ever were.

umm...ok, sure.

Yes Vuk! You are putting forth your opinion like a true American!
And here you go insulting Americans more! Before you try to word your way out of it, let me explain so as to save myself another post. First you ridicule my post and say it is offensive, horrible, etc. Then you say it characteristic of Americans. That means that being offensive, horrible, etc is a trait of Americans. THAT sir, deserves a warning.

I will refrain from using that lovely report button though, as it is not even worth my time.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vuk
Sorry, I would consider that more a test of myself than of a relgion.

Precisely - true religion starts when one is stop examining others and starts examining oneself.

A religion is not physical, it is the meaning of the words written on a book...it is intellectual.

Words are boats to the spiritual shore they are a means not an end. The end is the transformation of the person to the spiritual self and that is a living physical reality in the same manner that Christ was one. Christs seal of proof is that he wasnt a mere theoretical theologian, but a living incarnation of the divine law. All Christian denominations irrespective of doctrine follow his example exactly because he married the spiritual and the physical.

You test a religion by examining criticsm of it, and seeing if you religion holds up to them. I am not talking about making excuses for your religion and trying to word its way out of things, but truely and fairly putting it to the test in your own mind. I just cannot imaging how anyone could devote themselves to a religion without doing that.

You test religion by the effect it has on you. The testing you describe applies to philosophy and humanistic sciences not to religion. The reason you cannot imagine how anyone could devote him/herself otherwise is because you make the common mistake to think that spiritual truths that religions deal with are open to discussion and debate. They are not - they are there to guide in a personal way - not to be the object of intellectual curiosity and scrutiny. If they were they would be subject to change and if they were subject to change they wouldnt be truths.

I am not judging you, I am observing facts about you. I simply do not want to try to talk to you if you behave like you did in the Parliament forums.

You are free to observe anything you like - but using adjectives in your syntax confers a judjement - you have just called me, my opinions and posting style respectively *hotheaded*, *ridiculous* and *biting*. Going by your definitionm, that is also a *fact* but notice that in this thread as then in the Parliament i havent used any adjective towards your person.

[Reenk Roink]

I have seen much more strongly worded statements from Navaros in the Backroom about homosexuals, women, people on the political left, American soldiers in Iraq or free choice advocates, to name a few categories. He was answered by other members in no uncertain terms, but his posts and views were allowed to stand.

I remember Navaros being publicly warned (which does suggest a warning point) by Ser Clegane for saying that the Catholic Church was an "apostate" church.

I've seen ShambleS publicly warned and junior member'd many a time for criticizing America, some of which were really mild.

Cases like these really bring out the whiny, victim cries of "repression" and "hypocrisy" of the Backroom patrons.

The fact is Vuk, it is absolutely untrue that Islam (or other things that are repulsing to people of a certain political leaning) gets some kind of a "free pass" (I hear this not only on the Org Backroom either). Go read through the history of Backroom threads and you will see point by point criticisms of Islam, actually on exactly the same charges that you have made.

The difference? The people who made those posts did it in a way that was a lot more tactful. Yeah, they essentially were saying the same thing, but presentation matters.

This is why some criticisms of Islam don't get warned, and others (like yours do). Same thing with Christianity and America (and don't give me the hypocrisy crap again, the history of the Backroom is plain to see).

[LittleGrizzly]

I think Reenk pretty much nailed it, criticism is fine... well over the top generalisations are not... i can make plenty of criticisms of christianity and islam but as soon as i just start hurling insults at an entire religion the warning points start flooding in...

Im almost tempted to go out say something eqaully silly but perhaps based in truth about christianity just so i can get a warning point to prove you wrong... it feels a little childish though...

and will someone at least do a little research before they make gross over generalisatons about a religion... at least when i have a criticism of christianity i now what im talking about... im fed up of idiots taking some right wingers word for it when he translates to make it sound completely wacky... you'll often find with a little effort that surprisingly much like the bible... context, interpratation and the translation are essential. When you ignore those 3 and go off on some rant about evil islam you just make yourself look a little foolish...

[Ibrahim]

Thank you Evil Maniac From Mars, that was my point exactly. The Backroom mods are very hypocrytical when dealing with the subject. What Ibrahim has just presented is a counter argument (which I will be glad to answer in the Backroom). That is the reponse a discussion on religion is supposed to get, not a ban.
No offense Evil Maniac From Mars, but I have made arguments against the Catholic church as well, and not gotten in trouble for them. If I try to make them about Islam though, it results in an instant ban. I am still waiting of Tosa or BG to answer me as to why this is. I am not going to say the words "unfair censorship" until I recieve an answer.

one you WON'T win (nor have exaclty 258* other victims..uh deabters)

anyways, I would truly love to debate on this, as I have others before me. but I have no permit to go to the backroom, nor do I intend to get one; the TWcenter was too much for me to handle (WAY too many people to prove all wrong, and way too immature). hence, I took an oath not to visit the backroom here, or the political mudpit at the TWcenter again. perhaps some other arrangement? *inserts 18th century officer smiley giving a bow*

*ok, so I keep a headcount