Replies

I'll begin by addressing the comment about my name. I chose it to represent the fact that I am not one to simply fall in line, to accept without questioning or to walk along like a lemming until I fall off a cliff because I was too ignorant to find things out for myself. Deviant, a derivative of "deviate" suggests that I choose to take the road less traveled, rather than follow every other footstep on a particular path.

Now, as far as Islam declaring war on America, that is a fallacy. I never stated that the individuals who have been making the attacks were not Muslim. That may very well be true, and in some cases we have that as fact. My point was that the accusations that -ISLAM- has declared war are ludicrous. A system of religious beliefs cannot declare war. Nations wage war, men declare war, factions fight wars, religions do not. To say that a religion declared a war is saying that an intangible concept has attacked a tangible nation-state. Again, ludicrous.

With the exception of the Catholic church, there is not a single known religion that boasts a seat of power, or a hierarchy of leadership presided over by a single, living individual. Islam most certainly does not have this. It is true that there are nations in the world that are considered "Islamic States," but these are autonomous, and often have as much difficulty negotiating with one another as they do with the United States.

To the person who claimed I hate the United States. Grow up. If I hated the United States, I would move. There are plenty of countries in the world that I could go to where I would be able to avoid breathing toxic fumes from the same airspace as simple minded, ignorant conformists. But I am a born citizen of these United States, and take great pride in the fact that I live here. I am also proud to say, with moderate certainty, that the individuals who founded this country were not close minded snobs who spoke out against anything that did not fit within their precious paradigm.

And to the challenge to prove the post wrong, I don't have to. You've done that for me by being unwilling, but most importantly _unable_ to locate any reliable evidence to support your claims. An effective debate flows with one individual making a statement, the second party challenging the statement and then the claimant presenting evidence to support his claims. When the claimant is unable to do so, he loses credibility, and thus the debate is over.

A note: I respect the right that each of you have to believe what you want, and to say what you want. However, I also have those same rights, and will enjoy them as I see fit. This includes calling people out when false statements are spewed across a public form.

A second note: to Mr. Montana, who wrote the post that started this thread, I do want to say one thing. While I disagree with what you said, and have enjoyed pointing out the inherent flaws in your argument, I AM impressed with your writing. You seem like an intelligent and talented, albeit uninformed and bigoted person. Kudos.

Devon A. Weir
aka DeviantMind

As I understand it, "deviant" means "deviating from the norm in a negative way." To express "deviating from the norm in a positive way," I would have chosen "excellent" or "outstanding" or "independent" or "creative" or "innovative" or "out of the box." I would never have thought of "deviant," which is commonly associated with forms of behavior that qualify as, or resemble, mental illness.

So, you see, we misunderstood you, because the way you chose to express yourself had a different meaning for us. Perhaps we misunderstand Muslims, too: maybe all they want to say is "we're a religion of peace," but as long as they express this by flying planes into buildings and blowing up bars and restaurants, we cannot help but "misunderstand" their actions as saying "we're a religion of death and destruction."

You cannot blame us for that, can you? Or, to put it another way, if I called you a brainless idiot (say, in the presence of a prospective employer who trusted my opinion), and then later I claimed I had said it to express my admiration for your intellectual faculties, you wouldn't really believe me--would you?

My point was that the accusations that -ISLAM- has declared war are ludicrous. A system of religious beliefs cannot declare war. Nations wage war, men declare war, factions fight wars, religions do not.

Islam may be considered a faction of the religion of Monotheism. As you said, factions may fight wars. Therefore, Islam may fight wars. (But I don't really see how nations and factions may be said to fight wars, while religions cannot. By saying that nations may wage wars, you acknowledge that it is OK to say of a group of people that they make war--even if not all members of the nation agree with the objectives of the war--yet you claim it is not OK to say of a religion that they make war.)

Hair-splitting aside, the problem is that some Muslim individuals have declared war on the non-Muslim world--or, at the very least, on the United States--and too many Muslims follow their leadership. What do you propose we do about this problem?