I noticed in the godhatesfags one too that they, like the extremists in Islam and Judaism, are taking a very particular interpretation of scripture:Sorcerer0513 wrote:
That would be funny if it wasn't quite so retarded... Plastic bags lol?CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972147.html
By pre-existing I meant the opinion you had already formed from the kind of exposure you mention above, I wasn't implying you had some sort of congenital aversion to Islam. The point I was making is that you seem to have formed this opinion and now you close out all arguments against it (be they rational or irrational), it's like you are sticking to your guns and will only entertain stories and theories that reinforce your viewpoint.lowing wrote:
Of all of this I will address one statement you made about me and it pretty much sums up an entire reponse to this post:
I did not have a "PRE-existing" view on Islam. My opinions are what they are because I DID look at the world around me, read the paper, turned on the news. My opinion is derived from this exposure. It is quite undeniable the issues regarding this religion. I guess that is why I post on it so much. Because every article goes against everything you say about this religion. It is needy, it is an attention whore, it is 500 years out dated, it is violent and it is intolerant.
Cam, do you really really, wanna compare Islamic violence and intolerance in a society with that of Christian or Jewish. Do you really wanna.CameronPoe wrote:
Yes, receiving the kind of press Judaism did in 1930s Germany...lowing wrote:
Yeah, Poor Islam, the misunderstood religion/victim.
And like any and all form of religious belief it certainly ain't alone on the retardedness front:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972202.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_ … retreat_20
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972147.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm
Braddock I went to those sites that you claimed were pro-Islam, I already posted some of the shit on those sites, I know you have seen them, do we really need to go over it?Braddock wrote:
By pre-existing I meant the opinion you had already formed from the kind of exposure you mention above, I wasn't implying you had some sort of congenital aversion to Islam. The point I was making is that you seem to have formed this opinion and now you close out all arguments against it (be they rational or irrational), it's like you are sticking to your guns and will only entertain stories and theories that reinforce your viewpoint.lowing wrote:
Of all of this I will address one statement you made about me and it pretty much sums up an entire reponse to this post:
I did not have a "PRE-existing" view on Islam. My opinions are what they are because I DID look at the world around me, read the paper, turned on the news. My opinion is derived from this exposure. It is quite undeniable the issues regarding this religion. I guess that is why I post on it so much. Because every article goes against everything you say about this religion. It is needy, it is an attention whore, it is 500 years out dated, it is violent and it is intolerant.
In my opinion this is not healthy, this is exactly what Muslim extremists do. They reject all moderate interpretations of Islam because they have got it into their heads that the extremist interpretation is the one that is truly right. They filter out all arguments against it in their everyday life no matter how rational and only see the US led invasions, the bomings in their homeland, the 'evil' nature of Western society and so on. Eventually they become so wrapped up in their half truth/half conspiracy that they become utterly unswayable on the issue. Evidence that goes against their viewpoint is dismissed out of hand as false and unreliable while anything that reinforces it has extra significance attached to it.
I was just giving general examples of how all religion has the ability to be interpreted in retarded ways.lowing wrote:
Cam, do you really really, wanna compare Islamic violence and intolerance in a society with that of Christian or Jewish. Do you really wanna.
Ya see, you acknowledge tht Islam is intolerant. I guess you could no longer deny that, but now try and explain how Islam manifests that intolerance into a society. Does cruelty and violence come to mind?
Now as for your examples, each one has been contained. Everyone knows that that the WBC are nuts, and are kept closely gaurded. Now, how about we do the same to the people that follow the teachings of Islam? AS IT IS TAUGHT.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-06 14:49:57)
Here is the mainstream Islamic take on violence:topthrill05 wrote:
Still waiting to see what I am missing Cam........
Fair points -- I think we can agree that religion is often little more than Santa Claus for adults.CameronPoe wrote:
Yes, receiving the kind of press Judaism did in 1930s Germany...lowing wrote:
Yeah, Poor Islam, the misunderstood religion/victim.
And like any and all form of religious belief it certainly ain't alone on the retardedness front:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972202.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_ … retreat_20
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972147.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.CameronPoe wrote:
I noticed in the godhatesfags one too that they, like the extremists in Islam and Judaism, are taking a very particular interpretation of scripture:Sorcerer0513 wrote:
That would be funny if it wasn't quite so retarded... Plastic bags lol?CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972147.html
"God doesn't love everyone, you simpleton. How long will you love simplicity?" Prov. 1:22
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-06 14:51:31)
That is pretty much the case for Catholicism but not so much the case for Protestants, who are allowed to interpret the bible as they please and start all manner of new churches to their own particular whims and desires (hence the reason there are so many of them!).Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.
I'm glad you visited those sites lowing, I'm not actually sure which ones you mean as all I said was that to find negative sites about Islam you have to trawl through 5 pages of positive ones when you do a search on the word "Islam"; I didn't say they were any good...I was merely arguing your claim that it was easy to find tons of negative stories about Islam by entering vague searches in Google. I am glad you visited them though, it's not healthy to limit one's scope to islam-watch.org.lowing wrote:
Braddock I went to those sites that you claimed were pro-Islam, I already posted some of the shit on those sites, I know you have seen them, do we really need to go over it?Braddock wrote:
By pre-existing I meant the opinion you had already formed from the kind of exposure you mention above, I wasn't implying you had some sort of congenital aversion to Islam. The point I was making is that you seem to have formed this opinion and now you close out all arguments against it (be they rational or irrational), it's like you are sticking to your guns and will only entertain stories and theories that reinforce your viewpoint.lowing wrote:
Of all of this I will address one statement you made about me and it pretty much sums up an entire reponse to this post:
I did not have a "PRE-existing" view on Islam. My opinions are what they are because I DID look at the world around me, read the paper, turned on the news. My opinion is derived from this exposure. It is quite undeniable the issues regarding this religion. I guess that is why I post on it so much. Because every article goes against everything you say about this religion. It is needy, it is an attention whore, it is 500 years out dated, it is violent and it is intolerant.
In my opinion this is not healthy, this is exactly what Muslim extremists do. They reject all moderate interpretations of Islam because they have got it into their heads that the extremist interpretation is the one that is truly right. They filter out all arguments against it in their everyday life no matter how rational and only see the US led invasions, the bomings in their homeland, the 'evil' nature of Western society and so on. Eventually they become so wrapped up in their half truth/half conspiracy that they become utterly unswayable on the issue. Evidence that goes against their viewpoint is dismissed out of hand as false and unreliable while anything that reinforces it has extra significance attached to it.
*nods* One thing not often talked about is how the Protestant equivalents of inquisitions killed more people than the Catholic ones.CameronPoe wrote:
That is pretty much the case for Catholicism but not so much the case for Protestants, who are allowed to interpret the bible as they please and start all manner of new churches to their own particular whims and desires (hence the reason there are so many of them!).Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.
Will you judge the action that is taken on behalf of the Islam by members of it? Or how about judging the IN-action of the other members to stiffle it?CameronPoe wrote:
I was just giving general examples of how all religion has the ability to be interpreted in retarded ways.lowing wrote:
Cam, do you really really, wanna compare Islamic violence and intolerance in a society with that of Christian or Jewish. Do you really wanna.
Ya see, you acknowledge tht Islam is intolerant. I guess you could no longer deny that, but now try and explain how Islam manifests that intolerance into a society. Does cruelty and violence come to mind?
Now as for your examples, each one has been contained. Everyone knows that that the WBC are nuts, and are kept closely gaurded. Now, how about we do the same to the people that follow the teachings of Islam? AS IT IS TAUGHT.
PS I never at any time, at any point in my entire life, contended that certain aspects Islam were not intolerant. Not once. Don't even try to pretend that I did.
PPS How it is taught BY CERTAIN WBC TYPE SECTS.... get it right lowing. You are completely incorrect if you consider for a moment that violent jihad style Islam is what is taught as Islam in the vast majority of the Islamic world. You would just be plain wrong if you said otherwise.
I won't judge protestants on the basis of the WBC, I won't judge Jews on the basis of the Haredim, I won't judge mormons on the basis of this sect and I won't judge muslims on the basis of Al Qaeda. Statistically speaking it would be grossly unfair.
I was raised Catholic and I actually see more sense in the Protestant ethos...if there's any sense at all to be taken from religion that is.Turquoise wrote:
*nods* One thing not often talked about is how the Protestant equivalents of inquisitions killed more people than the Catholic ones.CameronPoe wrote:
That is pretty much the case for Catholicism but not so much the case for Protestants, who are allowed to interpret the bible as they please and start all manner of new churches to their own particular whims and desires (hence the reason there are so many of them!).Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.
Still, the Protestants do seem more sensible about birth control and allegiances. They don't have some silly Pope to respect (or pedophilic clergy to trust).
It is true, with Christ came the New Covenant God made with the world, but the ones arguing that Islam is "misunderstood" refuse to compare Christ with Muhammad, their teachings, their words, or their action, because based on direct apples to apples comparison, their argument falls apart.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.CameronPoe wrote:
I noticed in the godhatesfags one too that they, like the extremists in Islam and Judaism, are taking a very particular interpretation of scripture:Sorcerer0513 wrote:
That would be funny if it wasn't quite so retarded... Plastic bags lol?
"God doesn't love everyone, you simpleton. How long will you love simplicity?" Prov. 1:22
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-06 15:17:30)
Mahatma Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians" well my opinion is I don't like your Mohamed but I like your Muslims.lowing wrote:
It is true, with Christ came the New Covenant God made with the world, but the ones arguing that Islam is "misunderstood" refuse to compare Christ with Muhammad, their teachings, their words, or their action, because based on direct apples to apples comparison, their argument falls apart.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.CameronPoe wrote:
I noticed in the godhatesfags one too that they, like the extremists in Islam and Judaism, are taking a very particular interpretation of scripture:
"God doesn't love everyone, you simpleton. How long will you love simplicity?" Prov. 1:22
The members of each religion historically have been violent and intolerant, I agree absolutely, the difference is violence and intolerance IS NOT what is taught in the teachings of Christ ( Christianity). Violence and intolerance IS what is taught by Muhammad ( Islam) there is absolutely no viable argument against that fact.
By being violent and intolerant throught Christ, YOU are not following his teachings.
By being violent and intolerant throught Muhammad, you ARE following his teachings
you are gunna find this hard to believe, but I never not once in my history on this forum said ALL Muslims were extremists or violent or intolerant. NEVER NOT ONCE. In order to form some sort of argument against me, these words have been spoken for me by those that argue against my actual posts.Braddock wrote:
I'm glad you visited those sites lowing, I'm not actually sure which ones you mean as all I said was that to find negative sites about Islam you have to trawl through 5 pages of positive ones when you do a search on the word "Islam"; I didn't say they were any good...I was merely arguing your claim that it was easy to find tons of negative stories about Islam by entering vague searches in Google. I am glad you visited them though, it's not healthy to limit one's scope to islam-watch.org.lowing wrote:
Braddock I went to those sites that you claimed were pro-Islam, I already posted some of the shit on those sites, I know you have seen them, do we really need to go over it?Braddock wrote:
By pre-existing I meant the opinion you had already formed from the kind of exposure you mention above, I wasn't implying you had some sort of congenital aversion to Islam. The point I was making is that you seem to have formed this opinion and now you close out all arguments against it (be they rational or irrational), it's like you are sticking to your guns and will only entertain stories and theories that reinforce your viewpoint.
In my opinion this is not healthy, this is exactly what Muslim extremists do. They reject all moderate interpretations of Islam because they have got it into their heads that the extremist interpretation is the one that is truly right. They filter out all arguments against it in their everyday life no matter how rational and only see the US led invasions, the bomings in their homeland, the 'evil' nature of Western society and so on. Eventually they become so wrapped up in their half truth/half conspiracy that they become utterly unswayable on the issue. Evidence that goes against their viewpoint is dismissed out of hand as false and unreliable while anything that reinforces it has extra significance attached to it.
I'm still waiting for someone to properly counter the specific points I raised about the movie in my original argument by the way. Like why were no defenders of Islam interviewed for their opinion? Even Michael Moore gave the late Charlton Heston the chance to answer the questions raised about gun control in Bowling for Columbine (and Moore is no paragon of objective film-making).
There's no point continually going on to me about the issues raised in the film about EXTREMIST interpretations of Islam, I've already acknowledged that the film is justified in this regard. However, I raised valid points (in my opinion at least) about the interviewees selective assessment of the facts throughout the film; truth isn't just about facts, it's about which facts you choose to put forward and which you choose to leave out. The film contained many facts but it also left out a lot...like statistics regarding the number of Muslims living in the West versus the number of violent incidents perpetated by members of this community. If what this film said about Islam is 100% true we would not be seeing the odd Islamic attack every now and again, it would be all out war and every time a you saw a Muslim in the street s/he should be trying to kill you... but obviously this is not the case. It also attached little or no weight to any theory regarding US and Western aggression being a motivating factor for Islamic attacks on the West.
That is a fair statement that I can live with.Braddock wrote:
Mahatma Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians" well my opinion is I don't like your Mohamed but I like your Muslims.lowing wrote:
It is true, with Christ came the New Covenant God made with the world, but the ones arguing that Islam is "misunderstood" refuse to compare Christ with Muhammad, their teachings, their words, or their action, because based on direct apples to apples comparison, their argument falls apart.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't it true that the New Testament negated a lot of the fire and brimstone stuff of the Old Testament? That's pretty much the message I got from most Christians I've spoken to.
The members of each religion historically have been violent and intolerant, I agree absolutely, the difference is violence and intolerance IS NOT what is taught in the teachings of Christ ( Christianity). Violence and intolerance IS what is taught by Muhammad ( Islam) there is absolutely no viable argument against that fact.
By being violent and intolerant throught Christ, YOU are not following his teachings.
By being violent and intolerant throught Muhammad, you ARE following his teachings
Moses was a Muslim prophet also. Their interpretation of his 'thou shalt not kill' commandment is as follows:lowing wrote:
Islam IS violent and intolerant at its core value system Cam, you can deny it until you are blue in the face, it will not change the facts of the matter
Umpteenth Repost wrote:
Here is the mainstream Islamic take on violence:
Islam and war
Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.
In brief, war is permitted:
* in self defence
* when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
* if another state is oppressing its own Muslims
War should be conducted:
* in a disciplined way
* so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
* with the minimum necessary force
* without anger
* with humane treatment towards prisoners of war
Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah's justice.
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan.Qur'an 4:76
Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur'an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it), to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur'an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur'an 4:75).
But some Muslim thinkers in the past, and some more radical Muslim thinkers today, take a different view. They say that other verses in the Qur'an, the so-called 'sword verses', have "abrogated" (revoked or anulled) the verses that permit warfare only in defence. They used these 'sword verses' to justify war against unbelievers as a tool of spreading Islam (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29).
Others take this further and regard non-Muslims, and Muslims who don't conform rigorously to the Islamic code, as non-believers and thus as "enemies of God" against whom it is legitimate to use violence.
But the idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic.
Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.Qur'an 2:190
Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell:
If anyone killed a person - unless it was for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole peopleQur'an 5:32
The aims of war
The Qur'an emphasises that war should be fought only for noble motives without seeking any earthly reward:
Those who readily fight in the cause of God are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense.Qur'an 4:74
The conduct of war
Islam bans the killing of non-combatants (Qur'an 2:190, above), or of a combatant who has been captured.
Muslims are forbidden from attacking wounded soldiers (unless the wounded person is still fighting).
The Prophet's view of non-combatants is shown by a hadith in which Muhammad sees a woman killed in the battlefield and condemns the action.
When an enemy is defeated he should be made prisoner rather than be killed:
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.Qur'an 47:4
Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:
Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.
You must not mutilate dead bodies.
Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.
Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.
You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone
Abu Bakr
A noble example of ideal Muslim conduct of war is the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. Although a number of holy Muslim places had been violated by Christians, Saladin prohibited acts of vengeance, and his army was so disciplined that there were no deaths or violence after the city surrendered. The residents were taken prisoner, but their ransom was set at a token amount.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-06 15:30:38)
It would have been good to have them on if even just to argue on the point about translation and interpretation of the original Koranic text. In almost all arguments about Islam we always hear about how the translations and interpretations of the text are a point of great debate. In this film we have the text translated for us by interviewees who are notorious in their fields for being very much on one side of the fence...there is no balance provided by an alternative interviewee with an alternative opinion...I mean at one point the Arab speaker admits that some people translate 'House Of War' as 'House Of Peace' but he just dismisses this without really explaining why; he doesn't walk us through the mechanics of translating ancient Arabic into modern English or explain why confusion might arise from such translation.lowing wrote:
you are gunna find this hard to believe, but I never not once in my history on this forum said ALL Muslims were extremists or violent or intolerant. NEVER NOT ONCE. In order to form some sort of argument against me, these words have been spoken for me by those that argue against my actual posts.
I said and will always say, ISLAM is a violent and intolerant religion, it has no place in western society. As it is written in the Quaran, this is a fact.
Now, as far as your point on interviewing extremists to get their point of view, technically you have a point I guess, but to be honest there is nothing they can say that justifies or rationalizes their actions against innocent people. NOTHING. THerefore I would not give a shit what they had to say on the matter, my opinion would not change.
good stuff, I musta missed the part where Muhammad ( Gods messenger) cut the heads off of 600 people or where he fucks a 9 year old girl.CameronPoe wrote:
Moses was a Muslim prophet also. Their interpretation of his 'thou shalt not kill' commandment is as follows:lowing wrote:
Islam IS violent and intolerant at its core value system Cam, you can deny it until you are blue in the face, it will not change the facts of the matter
Do not kill unjustly: Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). (Sura 17:33)Umpteenth Repost wrote:
Here is the mainstream Islamic take on violence:
Islam and war
Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.
In brief, war is permitted:
* in self defence
* when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
* if another state is oppressing its own Muslims
War should be conducted:
* in a disciplined way
* so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
* with the minimum necessary force
* without anger
* with humane treatment towards prisoners of war
Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah's justice.
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan.Qur'an 4:76
Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur'an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it), to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur'an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur'an 4:75).
But some Muslim thinkers in the past, and some more radical Muslim thinkers today, take a different view. They say that other verses in the Qur'an, the so-called 'sword verses', have "abrogated" (revoked or anulled) the verses that permit warfare only in defence. They used these 'sword verses' to justify war against unbelievers as a tool of spreading Islam (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29).
Others take this further and regard non-Muslims, and Muslims who don't conform rigorously to the Islamic code, as non-believers and thus as "enemies of God" against whom it is legitimate to use violence.
But the idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic.
Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.Qur'an 2:190
Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell:
If anyone killed a person - unless it was for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole peopleQur'an 5:32
The aims of war
The Qur'an emphasises that war should be fought only for noble motives without seeking any earthly reward:
Those who readily fight in the cause of God are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense.Qur'an 4:74
The conduct of war
Islam bans the killing of non-combatants (Qur'an 2:190, above), or of a combatant who has been captured.
Muslims are forbidden from attacking wounded soldiers (unless the wounded person is still fighting).
The Prophet's view of non-combatants is shown by a hadith in which Muhammad sees a woman killed in the battlefield and condemns the action.
When an enemy is defeated he should be made prisoner rather than be killed:
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.Qur'an 47:4
Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:
Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.
You must not mutilate dead bodies.
Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.
Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.
You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone
Abu Bakr
A noble example of ideal Muslim conduct of war is the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. Although a number of holy Muslim places had been violated by Christians, Saladin prohibited acts of vengeance, and his army was so disciplined that there were no deaths or violence after the city surrendered. The residents were taken prisoner, but their ransom was set at a token amount.
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-06 15:37:09)
Well we all know that all of the dusty old religious books of the world are packed full of all sorts of self-contradictory shit.lowing wrote:
good stuff, I musta missed the part where Muhammad ( Gods messenger) cut the heads off of 600 people though
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-06 15:49:47)
Sounds like a religion of violence to me.GOD wrote:
"As for the towns of these people that Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive..."
It sure does so lets post a thread about Jewish violence and intolerance in the world and we can discuss itBraddock wrote:
Sounds like a religion of violence to me.GOD wrote:
"As for the towns of these people that Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive..."