[Mpez]

Problem is most pervasive religions tend to have an assortment of teachings about spreading the word and converting the others [...]. Many religions have in recent years learned to ignore that component, it is still present.

Ignoring it is difficult, as it is logical that such people, often being spirituality fulfilled, want to share this reality with others. Not doing so is often perceived as being selfish (you're keeping happiness all for yourself). The problem is when people start being pushy (or supporting their arguments with a machine gun).

In reality, how dare anyone say that they know what's going to happen to your soul when your meat suit fails. In light of that, how dare anyone say that they speak for, or on behalf of god (such a big corruption on belief in god to manipulate others).

This is sad, especially because condemning somebody is often a sin itself in a religion. I think the problem is that people really don't know how to hold sensible discussions, although I wouldn't attribute it only to religion. There will always be a (flawed) reason that will make the other person "bad" or "inferior", although I understand the logic behind seeing religion as the main obstacle.

EDIT: Having said that, I wonder whether there is any action taken by local religious leaders to condemn the violence and whether this is approved by locals.

[InsaneBaron]

Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.

Not particularly, and please don't backseat moderate. If you want to get involved with the thread, contribute. (you can also set more, ah, doctrinaire polemics to ignore)

Just saying, there's a high risk of flame war here, and there's already been some borderline flaming.

Unfortunately, religion (like anything of value) can be easily hijacked by people with more selfish ends in mind. It's easy to make people of a certain creed a scapegoat, or use their creed as an excuse to get them out of your way. But ultimately, you're violating the principles of your own religion if you do that.

[The E]

Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.

Not particularly, and please don't backseat moderate. If you want to get involved with the thread, contribute. (you can also set more, ah, doctrinaire polemics to ignore)

Just saying, there's a high risk of flame war here, and there's already been some borderline flaming.

This sort of comment isn't useful though, and quite definitely falls under the kind of thing we do not want to see. It adds nothing to the conversation, and as such, is largely uninteresting to the other participants in the thread. If you think a thread has the potential to go off the rails, you can try to steer it back by actively contributing to it. Don't try to meta-comment unless a discussion truly has gone off the deep end (and even then, reporting the thread is the recommended course of action, not vigilanteeism).

[Scotty]

I'd also like to remind everyone present that making ignorant, uneducated, or idiotic statements about a group of people, deliberate, satirical, or otherwise, is not flaming.  It will be addressed, usually by other posters in a generally constructive way, and it may very well be against site policy (Be Respectful), but it isn't in and of itself flaming.

[Mongoose]

I think the lesson to take away from this is that the world sucks in general, but there are certain parts of the world that really, REALLY suck.  And unfortunately it's usually the normal people just trying to live their lives who suffer the most.

[InsaneBaron]

I'd also like to remind everyone present that making ignorant, uneducated, or idiotic statements about a group of people, deliberate, satirical, or otherwise, is not flaming.  It will be addressed, usually by other posters in a generally constructive way, and it may very well be against site policy (Be Respectful), but it isn't in and of itself flaming.

Ok then, if that's HLP's definition of flaming. As long as it isn't considered OK.

[Scotty]

What I was trying to get it is that there are moderators watching this (and most) topic(s), and aside from reporting a post you think crosses the line you shouldn't try to involve yourself in moderating a thread.

[InsaneBaron]

What I was trying to get it is that there are moderators watching this (and most) topic(s), and aside from reporting a post you think crosses the line you shouldn't try to involve yourself in moderating a thread.

That's good to know. I'll leave it to you then.

[Aardwolf]

Huzzah.

So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.

Just throwing that out there, to, you know, suggest that maybe these Muslims deserve it? Because if that's not what you're trying to imply, I think you'd best clarify quick.

Or maybe I literally meant "just throwing that out there" because I wasn't trying to imply anything, but I thought of something relevant to the discussion and couldn't be bothered to think of a better segue.

Alternatively:

"A lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). Discuss."

[Dragon]

What Islamic states do is of little connection to what a modern Muslim (not really an average one yet, but slowly getting there) thinks or does. What they decide in Saudi Arabia (the closest thing Islam has to a centralized religious authority) doesn't have to be accepted by Muslims around the world. Indeed, since Saudi version of Islam is a particularly unimaginative and literal one, quite a few don't agree with them, even if they are Sunni. Much like being a Catholic does not mean you're agreeing with Vatican on everything. Most Islamic states happen to be in a generally primitive region, where bigotry is the norm rather than an exception. It's their geographic position and history that are the causes of this, not religion, and if a Christian state was in the same region, same things would probably happen there (as the C.A.R. example showed). Really, in all those conflicts, religion is just another excuse. Ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation have all been used that way as well.

[S-99]

How do you know they don't?

Anyways, yes, let's not start degenerating this thread into the usual "Look christians are bad, catholics are worse, but islam is even worse" etc. There is a lot of heterogeneity in these groups and I don't think these generalizations are useful... what is going on here is just awful and I hope there is someone or something that will stop it before it goes to its logical conclusion.

How do i know they don't what? Which of the points that i made are you referring to?

I'm not attempting to degenerate the thread either. I was pointing out that there are flawed people in all religions, not any specific ones.

[General Battuta]

Huzzah.

So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.

Just throwing that out there, to, you know, suggest that maybe these Muslims deserve it? Because if that's not what you're trying to imply, I think you'd best clarify quick.

Or maybe I literally meant "just throwing that out there" because I wasn't trying to imply anything, but I thought of something relevant to the discussion and couldn't be bothered to think of a better segue.

Alternatively:

"A lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). Discuss."

No, you can't throw out a statement that strongly implies something, say 'discuss', then say 'oh, but it's not meant to have any implications for the current discussion, I'm not suggesting anything'. You are actually Saying Something Pretty Awful by throwing that out there and saying 'discuss': namely, you are suggesting that there is some kind of moral parity between death penalty for apostasy and mass ethnic cleansing that suggests we shouldn't care about either rather than, you know, caring about both.

[Aardwolf]

You are not psychic, you do not know what I am thinking, and all of the inferences you have just made are wrong.

What I said is literally what I meant.

[General Battuta]

Sorry dude, I don't think you're making your case. When you drop a piece of information like that into a conversation - whether you want to or not - you are also dropping in a whole host of implied information and judgment. You can't switch that off with a disclaimer. Do you want to engage with the substance of what you posted, as I have? We could actually discuss it.

[Bobboau]

He is not saying they deserve it. He is saying similarly bad things happen elsewhere but with reversed roles. There is no call to (in)action. Though if you feel bringing this (tangential) point up could lead one in that direction the correct response should be something along the lines of "but that does not make this situation right, does it?".

[General Battuta]

Yes, as I did above.

[Scotty]

He's not saying much of anything, which I suspect is Battuta's beef with the post.  It was objectively speaking a pretty ****ty post, and I for one am glad he got called on it.

[Goober5000]

If the post didn't say much of anything, then there isn't much that can be ****ty about it, is there?

I think Battuta is being a little too hard on Aardwolf.  Part of "being respectful" is to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about what someone meant.  If a post isn't clear, the best thing to do is to ask for clarification or elaboration, not seize on one possible interpretation and start attacking it.  We're all mature enough to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

[The E]

If the post didn't say much of anything, then there isn't much that can be ****ty about it, is there?

I would argue that contentlessness is an indicator of ****tyness.

[Bobboau]

well a single ****post and the handling thereof has managed to derail an entire topic.