Yes I oppose it. I think it's going too far, and can be used by too many bad people for too many bad things.Bourbons3This argument not convincing when you consider the application of the logic to topics other than cloning. Should mankind have never harnessed fire? Should mankind have never created sharp objects?
Cthulhu1890's forum posts
I don't don't know... I will need to read up on the issues before forming an opinion on the matter of whether or not to agreeThere's a pretty big difference. I think people need to get their facts straight and read up on the issue (from various credible sources) before forming an opinion on the matter.
eccentric_view
Do you agree in this regard?
I don't think there's ever a history of mass murder. You have the crusades but that is massively different than the 9/11 attacks we are talking about. During the Crusade they were fighting other militants so it's not really murder. The only thing that would come close would be the inquisition. But the church only approved around 30 executions the rest were approved by non-church government officials why acted in the name of the church.[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="BPoole96"]
That was the word I was looking for.
Does Catholicism have any incidents in modern history concerning mass murder? (Serious question, I don't follow religion very closely)
BPoole96
Yeah, the Crusades came to mind but that wasn't an act of terror. I don't recall any events of a terrorist event involving Catholicism
Terrorism is one of those terms that people keep trying to define, but always fail to use in any consistent manner. In recent years it has become a blanket term to refer to any oppositional action or mentality, such as when many people used the term to refer to the tension between the US and Iran. It is coming to the point where the term is going to be as hollow as the words pagan and barbarian. Pagan is used to refer to "other religions that aren't my own", barbarian for "other cultures that aren't my own", and now terrorism for "hostile actions that aren't my own". Aside from this hollow common usage, the only thing that can be agreed upon for a definition is that the act must be done for the purpose causing terror in the populace. Problem here is that you have to know motivation for an action. Even here it is blurry though... does it have to be solely for that purpose? What if the perpetrator stands to gain something else from it, and simply considers the fact that it riles people up to be "icing on the cake"? Is an action taken with other motives, but acknowledged to have the result of causing terror considered to be terrorism?The religion cause nothing. A few extremists caused it, and some of those thousands of people were Muslims themselves. It is not directly on top of or across from the site. It is a community center, not just a mosque. That's true but what he said still wasn't racist. Muslims aren't a race. Any race "can" become Muslim. Incorrect. The word race does not mean the same as ethnicity or nationality although it can be used in those regards. Race simply means a "kind of people", such that can fit in a classification. Muslim is a classification, therefore they can be called a race.[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"][QUOTE="BPoole96"]
How is that racist? A religion that caused thousands of people to die at that site now is going to build a place of worship for people of that religion? That doesn't seem odd at all to you?
Pirate700
Log in to comment