Comment by croon
9 years ago
No we don't, not when the religion (badly interpreted) promotes murder, ie radical islam.
Are you pretending that nazism can be interpreted charitably?
I can kill someone and claim it's for buddhism or my local sports team, but there is no basis for either of those promoting murder.
Nazism not so.
The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. Many muslims believe it (like, the majority of the populations of places like Pakistan and Egypt). I guarantee you that you could not, consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, deny service to Muslims merely for expressing the belief that apostates should be put to death.
I actually agree with you, and Christianity has the same problem in writing.
But the difference (or similarity?) is that only a diminishingly tiny fraction of practitioners for either religion believes in stoning.
If I asked you to give me a few key points of the tenets of Islam and Christianity, would any be about killing, eradicating, or persecution of people?
If I asked you to do the same for Nazism? Are you going to pretend it's comparable?
First, that's not true: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... In Bangladesh, where my family is from, 82% of Muslims favor making Sharia the law of the land. Of those, 55% (over 40% of the population) believe in stoning as a punishment for adultery. 44% (over 30% of the population) believe that apostates should be executed.
Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3 replies →