Why aren't Muslims speaking out? Options

[radhikaeatsraman]

I was having a discussion with my uncle and my father about the current situation with terrorism and the Middle East. During the discussion, I kept emphasizing that the majority of Muslims are good people and probably don't support terrorists and their actions. But then they said that they're all keeping quiet, and that by doing that, they're indirectly supporting it. By ignoring it, it's going to continue.

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

So why aren't "good Muslims" speaking out? Is it because of fear, or are they quietly supporting it?

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

So let's see you justify your claims with some kind of source, instead of using the "it's all subjective" arguement.

I'm sorry but to me a special report defending Catholic Priests that is done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights doesn't prove to be a legitimate source. It may be true that they use numbers, but the data is a little skewed. For example, they do not cite a consistent source throughout the report. They also jump around in years; when talking about teachers they use numbers from 1986 and 1994. Its a nice little essay you dug up but would you really expect a report by the same ppl verifying priests nasty habit?

But all of this is besides the point anyways. You are right about teachers not supposed to touch students but who is held in higher esteem? Not all teachers are religious, priests have a very distinct order of living. Teachers shouldn't even be brought into this argument, so you are saying since priests don't molest boys as much as teachers its not so bad? hmm...

I was putting things in perspective, to correct some of the propaganda you may have heard.

I love how you try to twist someone's words against them when it doesn't even make sense. You were putting what into perspective? That according to a Church-related group priests aren't 'as bad' of molesters as teachers? Here's some perspective, if it happens once or twice it could be considered isolated incidents. It's a trend though, which has to lead one to ask what the problem is, there is certainly no mention of touching little boys in the Bible.

God's laws apply to everyone, believer or unbeliever. As an analogy, pretending the police aren't there doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.

This is exactly the point I think Silla was trying to prove. God's law TO YOU applies to everyone, even if they don't believe it. But if someone doesn't believe in God then that's their opinion and you should respect it, you can't expect them to follow the laws of a faith they don't follow. I don't mean to bust your bubble but you don't have proof that your God exists. No one does of any religion. It's not like ignoring the police because there is no definitive God. How are you gonna compare God to the police? That's a horrible analogy.

I'm not saying that Muslims killing other ppl is right and justified, I'm saying that for you to sit there and condemn another's religion is just ignorant. Especially when every faith has it's faults.

[*kryogenix*]

I'm sorry but to me a special report defending Catholic Priests that is done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights doesn't prove to be a legitimate source. It may be true that they use numbers, but the data is a little skewed. For example, they do not cite a consistent source throughout the report. They also jump around in years; when talking about teachers they use numbers from 1986 and 1994. Its a nice little essay you dug up but would you really expect a report by the same ppl verifying priests nasty habit?

Before I answer, please drop the charade with your account and save yourself some embarassment. You're not fooling anyone.

The facts in that document speak for themselves. They use the data that is available, YOU can make the comparisons using the various data they give. Data is data, who uses the data has no bearing on whether the data is truthful or not. It's how the data is used, and the comparisons in that article look valid to me.

But all of this is besides the point anyways. You are right about teachers not supposed to touch students but who is held in higher esteem? Not all teachers are religious, priests have a very distinct order of living. Teachers shouldn't even be brought into this argument, so you are saying since priests don't molest boys as much as teachers its not so bad? hmm...

Wasting your arguement on a strawman, I see.

Your arguement:

...not to mention the church's dirty little not-so-secret-anymore secret of the disgusting relationship alot of priests have had w/ their choirboys

My rebuttal:

...it's clearly been blown way out of proportion

You're twisting my arguement into a strawman. Debate MY rebuttal, not something that you're trying to put in my mouth.

I love how you try to twist someone's words against them when it doesn't even make sense. You were putting what into perspective? That according to a Church-related group priests aren't 'as bad' of molesters as teachers? Here's some perspective, if it happens once or twice it could be considered isolated incidents. It's a trend though, which has to lead one to ask what the problem is, there is certainly no mention of touching little boys in the Bible.

See arguement above. I already said it was wrong, and the Church is not denying it is wrong, but you're misrepresenting my position.

This is exactly the point I think Silla was trying to prove. God's law TO YOU applies to everyone, even if they don't believe it. But if someone doesn't believe in God then that's their opinion and you should respect it, you can't expect them to follow the laws of a faith they don't follow. I don't mean to bust your bubble but you don't have proof that your God exists. No one does of any religion. It's not like ignoring the police because there is no definitive God. How are you gonna compare God to the police? That's a horrible analogy.

You state that if someone refuses to believe in a law (or in the enforcer of a law), they should not have to follow it because it's their own opinion. Think about this one for a second. If you don't agree with the law, or with the person who makes/enforces/interprets the law, do you have the right to ignor the law? Absolutely not.

Just like the person in the analogy, your refusal to accept the legitimacy of established law does not make it any less legitimate. Even if a person doesn't believe that dealing drugs is illegal, or that the police doesn't exist, at the end of the day, the person is going to be in jail.

I'm not saying that Muslims killing other ppl is right and justified, I'm saying that for you to sit there and condemn another's religion is just ignorant. Especially when every faith has it's faults.

Argumentum tu quoque. This does not address the arguement at hand, but instead condemns the person arguing. Is it wrong for smokers to tell kids not to smoke because the are guilty of what they are trying to prevent?

Furthermore, if you think the Catholic faith has faults, start a new topic arguing them, or you can argue them here.