Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

2. I'm leery of arguments based on notions of "evil".

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:34 AM

Mar 2016

That aside, it is disinengenuous to claim the current discussions about Islam, here and elsewhere, are limited to ideas.

I will simply refer you the the numerous posts suggesting that believers and adherents to what are called "evil" ideas are in turn enablers of others who commit violent acts in the name of their viewe of those ideas.

Accomplice liability in criminal law carries the same punishment as that given to the principal actor.

Accusing any observant Muslim of being an accomplice to terrorism is not an attack on an idea.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religious bigotry after Brussels: Still not ok. | Editorial [View all] rug Mar 2016 OP

There's a difference Cartoonist Mar 2016 #1

I'm leery of arguments based on notions of "evil". rug Mar 2016 #2

The word evil is shorthand Cartoonist Mar 2016 #3

Yeah, I see a lot of shorthand in here. rug Mar 2016 #6

So you would have people not dicuss edhopper Mar 2016 #4

Hardly. I object to people who with alacrity and glee condemn religions and believers. rug Mar 2016 #5

Not what he said. cheapdate Mar 2016 #31

Which was a strawman edhopper Mar 2016 #34

Good grief. cheapdate Mar 2016 #39

I'm leery of arguments based on notions of "evil" AlbertCat Mar 2016 #25

Yo're thinking of Zoroaster, not Abraham. rug Mar 2016 #27

Evil did not exist until religion created it Fairgo Mar 2016 #28

Conversely, neither did "good". rug Mar 2016 #29

I suppose... Fairgo Mar 2016 #38

It does if "bad" does. rug Mar 2016 #43

Good/evil, good/bad Fairgo Mar 2016 #44

Well said. cheapdate Mar 2016 #26

There's a difference between "enabler" and "accomplice", however muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #52

Not in criminal law. rug Mar 2016 #53

That seems to make my point precisely muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #54

The criticism, most prevalent in here, is that Catholics (people) are to blame rug Mar 2016 #56

I've been dismayed to see bigotted posts here on DU... Nitram Mar 2016 #7

But religious based bigotry - still ok... MellowDem Mar 2016 #8

Of course it isn't. rug Mar 2016 #9

Religious based bigotry is acceptable... MellowDem Mar 2016 #10

It's about no more acceptablr acceptable than anti-religious bigotry. rug Mar 2016 #13

No, it's much more acceptable... MellowDem Mar 2016 #50

Your posts, of course skepticscott Mar 2016 #11

Prove it, scottie. rug Mar 2016 #12

Let's have some fun, shall we? skepticscott Mar 2016 #15

The record is there scottie. You said it. Now prove it. rug Mar 2016 #16

Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #20

Oh? First you call me a bigot and now you call me a coward? rug Mar 2016 #21

You will never get a straight answer. truebrit71 Mar 2016 #22

I see. Your position is that one cannot be both Catholic and liberal. rug Mar 2016 #23

Are all Catholics assholes then, or just some? cheapdate Mar 2016 #32

Who said anyone was an asshole? truebrit71 Mar 2016 #33

Pardon me. cheapdate Mar 2016 #35

You tell me. If you follow an institution that has a clear bias... truebrit71 Mar 2016 #36

Is that a "Yes"? Don't be shy. rug Mar 2016 #37

No problem. The answer is "some" and not "all". Your turn. cheapdate Mar 2016 #40

Care to explain that? truebrit71 Mar 2016 #41

The actual beliefs and practices of real people fall along a spectrum cheapdate Mar 2016 #42

I'm more than familiar with the concept of a cafeteria christian.... truebrit71 Mar 2016 #45

Everyone is conflicted, hardly news. cheapdate Mar 2016 #46

So I'm trying hard to figure out the point of your query then? truebrit71 Mar 2016 #47

It's not a riddle. The point was to get an answer to see where you stood. cheapdate Mar 2016 #48

I'm sure Ignored has tried to say something they think is witty... truebrit71 Mar 2016 #24

Lol, you sound like you're sipping tea while complaining about the state of your garden. rug Mar 2016 #30

Excellent point Cartoonist Mar 2016 #14

"Confirmation by silence." rug Mar 2016 #17

Remain silent Cartoonist Mar 2016 #18

That's the only reason I respond to him. rug Mar 2016 #19

Looks like your little friend will remain silent for the rest of this thread. Leontius Mar 2016 #49

It's not "religious bigotry" It's a legitimate fear of people with 7th century ideas, especially whathehell Mar 2016 #51

Isn't blowing up those who don't happen to agree a rather modern technological development? stone space Mar 2016 #55

No, not when the agreement is based on religious belief.. whathehell Mar 2016 #58

Which has morphed into bigotry against more than one billion 21st century humans who do not. rug Mar 2016 #57

By some, by no means all.. whathehell Mar 2016 #59

We should revile all religions equally. n/t Gore1FL Mar 2016 #60

You're free to but that would be pretty stupid. rug Mar 2016 #61

Well the Religions based on the God of Abraham are most prevalent and therefore most dangerous. Gore1FL Mar 2016 #62

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. rug Mar 2016 #63

The catechism of the internet can be found at this address: Gore1FL Mar 2016 #64

For someone who despises the RCC, you're prettty good at piously reciting talking points. rug Mar 2016 #65

I never said RCC has a monopoly on revolting doctrines Gore1FL Mar 2016 #66

Religion should be fought at every opportunity awoke_in_2003 Mar 2016 #67