An Open Letter to Muslims

Me too. But you are better at words than I and can say it alot more powerfully.

I just want to know how you arrived at the point that Christians go around committing violent acts against Muslims and Muslims are peaceful and apparently don't commit any violence. It seemed like a valid question. I'll admit I could have left out the editorial.

Are you going to anwer the question?

I'm a "fellow Viner" who does not think the suggestion of you not blaming others if they decided to beat up Christians (or any persons for that matter) nor your suggestion you might join them to be very thoughtful of any fellow Viners who are Christian and do not act as you claim in your suggestion that "unlike Christians who look for any and every opportunity to unleash the violence they learned from their Bibles." Could that perhaps be a violation of Newsvine's CoH?

For someone who claims to be "tired of the nonsense". How does condemning violence and condoning it in the same statement make sense? Isn't violence and calling people names or inciting people the nonsense you speak of, yet you appear to use a string of explicatives to define people who may be or are fellow Viners and suggest you would not blame people for beating up other humans, be they "loonie" Christians or anyone else and worse, you suggest you might join in on that action were it to occur.

Please tell us, "fellow Viner" what you meant by this?

"I wouldn’t blame you if you beat the @!$%# out of the Christians who are giving you a hard time! I might even join you but I know this will never happen because you are a peaceful people, unlike Christians who look for any and every opportunity to unleash the violence they learned from their Bibles."

I would venture lot of Viners claim to be Christian and I would venture most of them do not condone the burning of the Qu'rans NOR the type of violence you suggest you would not blame others for engaging in, that you would consider joining in that beating the "(your explicative) " out of. If you think burning Qu'rans is bad, then how is beating up people good?

My thought is not to attack you anymore than you have suggested you wouldn't blame others for attacking others (many of them fellow Viners) and that you might join in if someone did decide to beat the (your explicative) out of Christians or any others.

If you don't like nonsense, my thought is you my try making some sense and be consistent in your condemnation of the bad things anyone, does to other humans, regardless of who's doing it. You appear to have simply tranferred the hate and incitefulness of some to your own hate (of some) and your incitefulness to beat someone, anyone up.

Why not just say, we believe the greater number of Americans, inclusive of Americans who are Christians, are peace loving and tolerant people and despite a long history of violent events we have been a part of that we have learned and progressed from, we do not condone the violence of humans against other humans or the disrespect of any one's religious beliefs and their holy books and hope that their respect would be mutual?

And to you I would offer an apology for the use of such a suggestion, but I still believe your "open letter" does not make sense if you propose to condemn the hate, the incitefulness and actions of the planned Qu'ran burning, then offer some hint or suggestion that it would be okay for others, even you, to join in beating the (your explicative) out of those being hateful, inciteful and nonsensical by their proposal to burn "Qu'rans" and speak of and blame Christians in the same sweeping manner you're condemning the Qu'ran burners for sweeping all Muslims into their hatefulness and inciteful actions.

You can try to ban me or censor me, but how would that would make sense with what I believe you might really be trying to say about Qu'ran burners and your own tolerance or perhaps in the spirit of trying to understand one another so we don't perpetuate hate and proposals that any violence and incitefulness is OK, regardless of who is doing it?

Once again my apologies if anything in my statement did any of the things I had just condemned you for, it was an observaiton of your own statement, it was late at night and I too am frustrated by the nonsense and hatefulness and inciteful acts. My not a good choice of words "dig: was a part of that frustration and it is a hypocrisy I did not resist the tempation to demonstrate when I should have. I think so many of us are weary of us all pounding on one another, we foolishly end up perpetuating it rather than ending it because of our frustration in finding ways to end all the hate, incitefulness and violence.

Appluads fervently !

PowerisKnowledge:

Unless you are being facetious in an effort to express some example, are you seriously suggesting you believe only Christians participate in the acts you describe?

Where I come from, it is the acts, no matter who does them, that are the offenses. That means no matter what shape, form, color, style, gender, belief, eye color, sexual preference, religious belief etc. a human comes in, all are equally held accountable for acts that the vast majority of all universally agree are offensive.

That means no individual can be lumped in as a participant in what others with the same features do. Accountability is an individual thing, not a group thing. It means if some people with black hair commit a crime, the crime is not considered one that all people with black hair are going to commit, their black hair has nothing to do with the crime, for as much as it might be a common feature of those who commit a crime. The same with people who have brown eyes or blue eyes or green eyes. All people of the same eye color are not condemned because 3 or 20 or 100 people with brown eyes committed a crime.

In our own nation we have just recently managed to diminish much, not all yet, the suggestion of some that all people with "black" skin act as one and will all act in the exact same manner.

Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Japanese were Kamakaze. Not all Americans decimated the native peoples of North America. Not all Spanish were Conquistadores, not all Australians are ancestors of British Empire crimminals, not all Cambodians think like Pol Pot, not all citizens of the United Kingdom are Anglican, not all are Catholic

Most of the 6.5 billion people in the world manage to find ways to co-exist peacefully and in relative harmony by a process of compromise and respect for one another's unique personalities and features and recognize a certain richness to the world based on its diversity. Only some seem to want to hate and stereotype others, suppress and eliminate anything and anyone that does not believe or live as they do and those type of individuals work hard, making use of fear and anger to recruit others to join them in the their hate, fear and desire to suppress and eliminate those that they dislike for not thinking as they do.

It is knowledge, not ignorance, that prevents the relatively small numbers of hateful and prejudicial people from recruiting others to join them. It is ignorance and fear that allow them to manipulate those that are ignorant and fearful to attack others.

I think some people here are calling you on your apparent hate and stereotyping of Chrisitans, even as you appear to find hate and stereotyping of Muslims offensive and asking you how you justify what appears to make no sense or could be described as hypocrisy.

Perhaps you can explain or answer our questions rather than any of us suggest what you might be thinking. You can get defensive if you like, but it may be important for us all to remember others are judging us with the same critical eyes and scrutiny we judge others with.

Getting along, if that is what is preferable to us over constant conflict, would seem to be something that is a coopertive agreement and mutual respect for one another as well as a mutual interest in finding compromise when our desires and freedoms conflict or interfere with one another. It would seem our ultimate goal, unless we feel suicide is preferable, is to see that the human species survives and to do so we need to come together to find ways to sustain the species, not destroy ourselves by our own hands. it's going to be hard work and it is going to mean all people, whether they be Muslim, Chrisitian, Mongolian, Aboriginal, South African, Americans or people with green, brown or blue eyes..........are going to have to contribute to the effort since if humanity commits suicide, religions, eye color, hair color, sexual preference, gender......become meaningless and are equally destroyed.

Excuse me PowerisKnowledge? I am defending all individuals, Muslim, Christian or otherwise who are lumped into stereotypes and groupings unfairly because they neither participate, nor condone the bad or criminal acts other members of their group or simply others they can be superficially identified with participate in.

I'm not the one that seems to be getting all kinds of questions about my "logic" or how it makes sense, but it appears you are. I have no need to be defensive, only to offer reason of defense for those who are unfairly stereotyped and lumped in with others without proof, reason or cause other than some matching identifier that has nothing to do with the actions they participate in, believe in or condone, on an individual basis.

Why would anyone recognize you as a peaceful, tolerant or progressive person based on your expressed intolerance and stereotyping of Christians?

If you are an atheist or member of some group or have whatever color eyes, should we act as you do and claim your expressed intolerance and stereotyping of Christians means all atheists or people with some same identifying feature are like you and suggest we wouldn't blame someone if they beat you and all like you up and that we might join in if they did. Would you suggest that demonstrated some "peaceful", "tolerant" and "progressive" traits? If not, then why would you think you've demonstrated those traits with your own statements?

Do you own one of those mirrors that you can program to answer when you ask it, "who's the fairest of them all" to always tell you, that you're the fairest of them all? It's not fun to see our own flaws and many times unpleasant or even hard, but real mirrors reflect our real selves, not our fantasies about who we pretend to or fantasize about being. No one can make you be truthful to yourself, only you can do that. It is the same for any of us, only we can be the ones that can chose to be honest with ourselves or lie to ourselves.

All can read your statements as evidence of your expressed feelings about Christians. As I said, unless you are somehow being facetious, your expressed statements offer examples of not only hatred of Christians (you don't say "some Christians" as a distinguisher or qualifier, you say "Christians"), but the suggestion you wouldn't blame someone for beating the &(&&^*&% out of them and that you would possibly join in of they did. Are you now trying deny what you say in your article or say it means something else only mind readers might know?

Humility is not a sickness or a disease, but being truthful, honest and sincere with one's self.

Poweris knowledge,

why would you say this about your Christian parents and siblings or anyone for that matter?

"I wouldn’t blame you if you beat the @!$%# out of the Christians who are giving you a hard time! I might even join you but I know this will never happen because you are a peaceful people, unlike Christians who look for any and every opportunity to unleash the violence they learned from their Bibles."

Is that the "peaceful, tolerant and progressive" YOU, expressing itself?

You rail on people for being against Muslims, then you proceed to express your apparent hatred for Christians. That makes you different from people who express hate for all Muslims how? That makes you different than all the Christians you express hatred for because they stereotype and attack others how?

Beating "the @!$%# out of the Christians" is better than Christians doing the same to Muslims or anyone else how?

Aren't you trying play God with your self assumed righteousness?

I'm asking you, not telling you. A number of people here have asked you the same, yet you get all defensive and fail to explain or answer a few straightforward questions about the sense of your apparent nonsensical "logic".

Naw - they just shoot people in Church.

I know Christians on this board who do not shoot people in church, I think you are attacking them with your statements.

Sorry PowerisKnowledge, I'm not the one suggesting the following:

"I wouldn’t blame you if you beat the @!$%# out of the Christians who are giving you a hard time! I might even join you."

How is that NOT a statement of attack against every Newsviner that is a Christian who believes burning the Qu'ran is OK? How is that expressing the tolerance you say Chrisitans lack? I don't agree or condone suggestions of violence against anyone, whether they be Christian, Muslim or purple people eaters doing inciteful and hateful things like burning someone else's holy books because I have stereotyped them all to be the same. You appear to seem to think it is okay to attack some for attacking and stereo typing others, even as you attack Christians and Christianity as a whole.

I have no one I have to "hold my own" against. I and others are asking you about your apparent nonsensical "logic" and how you seem to feel you can get away with doing the things you attack others for doing.

I'll ask again. If attacking and stereotyping of Muslims is wrong, how do you figure attacking and stereotyping Christians (or anyone else for that matter) is somehow right? Because you're the one doing it?

I'm not sure of what knowledge you may believe you possess based on your apparent stereotyping assertions that all political parties are not made up of a variety of people from a variety of beliefs and are not all just Chrisitian. I will agree that history is full of bloodshed based on Christian assertions, but if one is true and honest, one can only also admit a lot of good things have been done by some Christians too and not all agree to the bad things some other Christians do

Speak Out, and I personally know some Muslims that have never strapped on a bomb. What's your point? Viper said he/she never heard of Christians & Jews from strapping on belt bombs and I simply replied to show that Christians have done other things to cause horror, such as shooting a man in Church.

nica:

My point is I see Muslims who have done both, I have seen Christians who have done both (Northern Ireland) I am not taking the side of one in favor of another. I am saying all groups have people within them that are guilty of some crime against other humans and if we don't like someone beating up someone, why then suggest beating up someone is bad on one hand, OK when we think its okay or convenient to our thought?

What's the difference between Christians beating up on Muslims or Muslims beating up on Chrisitians? "Poweris Knowledge" seems to think it is bad for Christians to beat up on Muslims, but then appears, by his words, to say that it is OK to beat up on Christians. He doesn't say "some Christians" or qualify that not all Christians are the same or engage and participate in what he speaks of, nor does he say that there are bad people from all walks of life, all religions, all non-religious people, all blue eyed people, all curly headed people, all.....(take your choice).

Bad acts are not confined to any one group and that's my point, but PowerisKnowlege appears to be suggesting it's bad to beat up on Muslims, but not bad to beat up on Chrisitians as he does all over the place here. If one inserted "Muslims" for every reference he makes to "Christians" wouldn't you and he think it sounded terrible? I would too because doing so is offensive, no matter who one is doing it to. If it is bad for Christians to beat up Muslims, how is then okay for "Poweris Knowledge to beat up Christians" I don't think its right to beat on beat up anyone. I would suggest it is okay to observe how some people act and then objectively note when they seem to be contradicting themselves or noting that they seem to be acting as badly as those they say are acting badly and ask them to explain why or how they justify that.

I and several others have observed and asked him how his "logic" makes sense. How do you say its bad to beat up on people, then proceed to beat up on people, forget labels and sides, if beating up on people is the bad thing, then its not OK to beat up on people PERIOD, isn't it?

If you caught me calling all purple people eaters bad because one or three or twenty of them stole cookies from a jar, would you call me unfair to the majority of purple people eaters, since most purple people eaters don't steal cookies. (for the record, I would call myself unfair for doing so) If you called me unfair, I would feel you were justified.

If you then turned around and started calling all yellow polka dot bikini wearers in the world bad because one or three or twenty of them stole cookies from a jar, what would distinguish you from me? How then would you call doing that fair, but what I was doing, unfair?

To the several people that have observed the same thing I have, that appears to be what "PowerisKnowledge" is doing, calling someone unfair for attacking all Muslims based on the acts of a few people who are Muslim, but at the same time, somehow thinking his own attacks on all Christians based on the acts of some people who are Christian is fair or okay.

Simply put, how does that sort of "logic" work and how does it make sense?

I dont get it...you are against hatred of muslims of because of the radicals, but yet you hate Christians in general. You are the very thing you are against.

'I have seen the enemy, and it is us'

I totally agree "Legend". "PowerisKnowledge" seems to express his dislike for people hating Muslims, then proceeds so express the same type of hate he admonishes toward Christians.

How does that work? How is that nonsensical? He's/she's saying people are mad at him/her, yet seems to forget or ignore who he is mad at. If being mad at or stereotype Muslims or anyone for that matter, how is it then right to be mad at or stereotype Christians, Jews or anyone else?

What is really the thing that people including "PowerisKnowledge"are offended by here.

Is it people expressing hatred and stereotyping of Muslims or of any religion or group?

How is it offensive to express hatred of and stereotype all Muslims then somehow not offensive to express hatred of and stereotype all Chrisitians or any other group of people?

How does that make sense?