Originally posted by whodeyYes longer to evolve.
Longer to evolve? If memory serves, Christianity began with its members being "thrown to the lions" in a wide variety of imaginitive ways without them so much as making a peep in protest or raising a sword. Then came Constantine......
After theocracies became taboo, Christianity once again returned to a peaceful religion. So tell us, how did Islam begin ...[text shortened]... heocratic phase of Christianity, which helps explain its continued violence and intolerance.
When was Christianity founded and then when was Islam founded?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyNice to hear again from the apostle of love. I think you might want to restrict your claim to the New Testament rather than the entire Bible however and even then there is room for caution. I am no scholar of the Qu'ran but your reading of it is false. I am not interested in digging out contrary citations and you are not interested in hearing them.
No doubt, after the rant by Seitse even more riots and deaths have occured.
One thing the Bible teaches that the Koran does not is that God loves those that hate him. Christ said to love your enemies and do good to those that despitefully use you and persecute you. Instead, the Koran teaches that Allah hates those that oppose him. And so it goes, when e ...[text shortened]... ho hate you is a supernatural kind of love. It simply does not come naturally to us whatsoever.
This is not really a disinterested debate comparing the merits of the Qu'ran with those of the Bible though, is it? It is a malicious project to slander Islam. I am growing tired of the degree to which simple Islamaphobia is tolerated when it clearly has such offensive intentions and effects. This is the kind of talk that accompanies communal pogroms.
Originally posted by SeitseWell that's an interesting and subtle observation but sadly without merit.
Newsflash! Islam is not a race, lol 😉
Clown.
Perhaps the paradigm of racism is anti-semitism, and the historical treatment of the Jews by Christians. Yet the Jews are not a race either in any biological sense. Indeed, I would question whether the notion of humanity being divided biologically into races has any validity whatever.
Idiots seem to find it easier to explain racism in reference to skin colour, a remarkably trivial biologcal distinction between fellow humans comparable to blond hair or blue eyes for its significance. The concept of race is of course socially prescribed and not biological at all. It is especially poisonous because it is attached to power relationships and oppression.
Islamaphobia targets groups of people who have largely acquired their religious status through birth, just as most Christians have. It is really very easy to admit to being Christian in the Mid West of the USA or in the English shire counties.
Israel is not at all like South Africa, and its discriminatory practice is very different to apartheid, but as a historical fact Israel and the apartheid South African state had close relationships and shared common strategies. One was to destablise neighbouring countries by claiming they were fundamentally incapable of civilised behaviour and then making sure things stayed that way. Just as South Africa destablised Mozambique for example, so Israel has destablised Jordan and Lebanon intolerably.
Islamaphobia serves a racist and oppressive agenda wherever it arises - in India, in Israel, in Europe and in the US. In India, indeed, it has included inciting mobs with police connivance into killing Muslims.
You are not a clown but more sinister than that.
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganDirect result? Jesus.
Ah yes, the points made so well by Pastor Jones. Shame about the predictable deaths of UN workers in Afghanistan as a direct result.
Pastor Jones may be a xenophobe and an idiot, but to blame him for the "predictable" and "direct result" of the deaths of UN workers is a fantastic display of moral contortionism.
Originally posted by finneganIt does. Medical research has to take race into account, and race can be identified from genetic analysis.
Indeed, I would question whether the notion of humanity being divided biologically into races has any validity whatever.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Originally posted by PalynkaSo when a range of American authorities tried to persuade Pastor Jones not to perform this stunt and pointed out to him precisely what consequences would follow, and when he initially agreed to desist, and when the result turns out to be very much what every responsible commentator feared, that is not something that gives you reason to reflect?
Direct result? Jesus.
Pastor Jones may be a xenophobe and an idiot, but to blame him for the "predictable" and "direct result" of the deaths of UN workers is a fantastic display of moral contortionism.
Originally posted by finneganOn the one hand mean, cruel, vengeful men need little reason to kill.
So when a range of American authorities tried to persuade Pastor Jones not to perform this stunt and pointed out to him precisely what consequences would follow, and when he initially agreed to desist, and when the result turns out to be very much what every responsible commentator feared, that is not something that gives you reason to reflect?
On the other hand one should be careful not to unleash the tongue and do something that may result in someones death.
I couldn't live with myself knowing in advance that someone would die because of something I said or did.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganNot really.
So when a range of American authorities tried to persuade Pastor Jones not to perform this stunt and pointed out to him precisely what consequences would follow, and when he initially agreed to desist, and when the result turns out to be very much what every responsible commentator feared, that is not something that gives you reason to reflect?
People didn't kill UN representatives because they believed in Pastor Jones. They killed UN representatives because they are even more xenophobic than Pastor Jones.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe final sentence of this interesting artical points out that researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding. What does it all mean?
It does. Medical research has to take race into account, and race can be identified from genetic analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
1. The broad ethnic categories are meaningful (African, Asian et al). There are no significant sub groups within these. Hispanics are a complex group.
2. Within these broad categories, some consistent genetic differences are found which may be relevant to clinical research - the example given was hypertension.
3. It is important not to confuse these with social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors. They are NOT GENETIC differences.
What we always knew is that some people are black, especially in Africa, some are white, especially in Europe. We know that some physical conditions (like sickle cell anaemia) are associated with ethnic category.
At this level the notion of "race" or "ethnic status" has some basis in biology.
However, what some Social Darwinists, sociobiologists, eugenicists, and romantic nationalists want us to believe is that social differences are racially determined and also critically that some groups (their own) are an evolutionary advance on others. This is in the realm of fantasy and dangerous in its effects.
The best ilustration of why this is so crazy was the famous Jane Elliot experiment - see this link if you are not familiar with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott
Socially, and not biologically, people can fix on a physical attribute (blue eyes, black skin, blond hair) and attach immense significance to it which is entirely a product of persuasion and has no reality.
Note that just as your artical points out there are no sub groups within the broad ethnic categories, so many others have observed that there is no genetic marker whatever for being a Jew and there is no historical reason why there should be one either. There is no Jewish race.
When I say that humans are not divided into races, apart from trivial characteristics, then I am not proven wrong by this artical. Obviously it is not trivial to have sickle cell anaemia (for example), but socially and as a way to divide groups of human beings that is trivial. Races are a social construct and as such it is not honest to say it might be justified by biological evidence.