MovieChat Forums > Jesus Christ Discussion > So is there a reason people don't post h...

So is there a reason people don't post hot-takes about Muhammad and the Quran?


Just saying. I’ve noticed this page has gotten pretty popular lately. It's easy to poke fun at Christianity, people have done it all the time, with no repercussions. It's gotten so common and predictable that it's not even controversial anymore. But where's this same passion to cut on Islam? Why are most people so afraid to bash it? Its followers are far less diverse than Christians, Muslim treatment of women and LGBT is less progressive and more bigoted than Christians, and the Quran is no more pure than the Bible. Muslims are more widespread around the world now, so it's not like their beliefs are isolated to the Middle East anymore. You'd think it'd be ripe for hot-takes, but it's not. Help a fellow out here.

He's got a page on here, so it's not like people can't post anything about him on this website:
https://moviechat.org/nm3840780/Muhammad

As you can see, there've been a few posts, but nothing like with Jesus. I am not calling for people to engage in antagonistic behavior or harassment, if there are those that want to have a religion, that is their right, as long as practicing their religion doesn't bring harm to others. What I am doing is pointing out this blatant double-standard and asking why.

Why are people so easily jumping on the anti-Christianity band-wagon, but leave Islam alone, when from a modern liberal standpoint, it does everything Christianity supposedly does but worse? It's one thing if you people just wanna have a genuine mature discussion about religion in general, that's fine. But that's not what I'm seeing here, I’m seeing trolling and hot takes and blatant hatred for one but not the other.

reply

There you go: -
https://youtu.be/HqHESDr42zA

reply

I'm aware that some shows like Futurama and South Park have made fun of Muslims, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about regular people on the internet who seem to have it in for Christians only.

reply


Here's some. Stick with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOb2KQHr7V0







reply

That skit kinda proved my point though. It wasn't really poking fun at Muslims so much as it was poking fun at people asking for jokes about Muslims. Since there's a sizable Muslim population in the UK where any negative comments about them are practically treated as treason, it makes sense that Stewart danced around the subject. Meanwhile, Christians are open-season even in Christian-dominant countries like America.

reply

Since there's sizable Muslim population in the UK where any negative comments about them are treated as treason


Around 4.5% of the population in the last census. Is that 'sizeable'? Dwarfed by the population that identifies itself as Christian in any case. And therein lies the answer to your question really. The majority of people simply know more about Christianity than they do about Islam, so it's easier to criticise -- unless, of course, you want the 'make fun of their hats' level of criticism Lee talks about at the end there. Or, worse, flat-out, ignorant bigotry against a minority. But no-one wants that.

And, no, negative comments about Islam are not treated 'as treason' in the UK. That's a silly thing to say. I live here. I know.

reply

As I said, I'm not asking for bigotry, I'm just wondering why Christians always seem to be easy-pickings. But I have friends in the UK and I've heard and read stories. People over there are scared to say anything about Muslims, and law enforcement are afraid to act on reports involving Muslims out of fear of being accused of racism. At 4.5% of the population, which is sizable for an island like the UK, especially when they all congregate in the cities, they're getting far better treatment and protection than the majority of UK citizens.

I say "treason" hyperbolically, but it's not too far from the truth.

reply

I'm just wondering why Christians always seem to be easy-pickings.


And I've given you an answer, I think. More people know more about Christianity for the reasons I've given.

At 4.5% of the population, which is sizable for an island like the UK


That doesn't make any sense. It's a percentage. It's no more or less sizeable wherever you locate it or whatever the raw figures for the population are. Whether it is 'sizeable' or not is a semantic issue, but it can't be more or less sizeable: it's always 4.5%.

People over there are scared to say anything about Muslims


I live here. And I can assure you they are not. But you'll go on believing what you want to believe anyway, so we'll leave it here, I think.


reply

you wont get logic with Lance. hes arguing with me justifying slavery in another thread. spreading the usual nonsense of "it wasn't bad". and ignoring the parts about how to treat heathen salves by saying "look you release hebrews after 6 years"

reply

lol I never justified slavery or said "it wasn't bad". Looks like you're just trolling after all and didn't really want a mature discussion in our other thread.

reply

No he is right you are just a scumbag. I am glad you are being called out for it.

reply

apparently im "misrepresenting" the bible. by directly quoting it.

reply

You literally are

I ages you quotes about taking virgin girls as slaves.

of beating your salve

of "obey your master, even the cruel"

and you said. the midianites were terrible and deserved it.

" never said "my slavery is good because its not as bad as their slavery".
What I said was slavery in Biblical times was legal and heavily regulated. Slaves that rebelled and misbehaved were dealt with, but malicious abuse and murder of slaves was punished. There were cruel masters back then, but it was not the norm, nor was it encouraged or permitted. While non-Hebrew slaves may have been treated differently, that doesn't mean it was acceptable for them to be treated worse. There are passages in the Torah stating how non-Hebrew slaves were to be treated well and not over-worked or humiliated.
Modern slavery is immoral and inhuman, and the legality was questionable even back then, so much so that countries fought to end it. Your notion of slavery is not like how slavery was in Biblical times for the most part, except in examples like Exodus were it was clearly condemned"

you have made assumptions about their treatment you couldn't possibly know. you claimed they were let go after 6 years. I corrected you that was only hebrews. you lied and said they couldn't be beat badly. thats another lie.

wow god must be so proud of his little lying christian

reply

I'm literally not, and I'm not gonna continue that thread over here any further.

reply

aww your concession is noted. thanks for defending slavery like. disgusting person

reply

It's because he doesn't have a funny picture on here like the Jesus one...

reply

It's hardly a mystery. It's because most of the people you're hearing from are from countries that are predominantly Christian. The people they know are predominantly Christian. They grew up hearing mostly about Christianity. The media they've consumed all of their life, when it had to do with religion, mostly had to do with Christianity. So, of course, Christianity is going to be the thing they speak mostly about. Because it's the thing they're most familiar with and what they've felt, personally, effect them the most. They're ignorant about Islam just as they're ignorant of most other religions. Heck, most who criticize Christianity don't even know much more about it than the unavoidable stuff (Noah's Ark, the resurrection, Adam and Eve, etc) that anyone in a country such as America, for instance, can't help but having heard about. But they attack it because that's an enemy they regularly see, hear from, and know about.

Half of them appear to think Islam is a race. They hardly know anything about that religion other than the fact that some terrorists had it and that people on TV warned us about remaining careful about accusing every Muslim as being like them. Most have no idea about how many "extremists" there actually are or how bad things are in other countries. When they hear words like "extremist" their minds instantly go to their idea of Christian extremists and they assume it's just a tiny, crazy fringe ("every group has them!" they say) who carry the really bad beliefs. But, again, even for those "really bad beliefs" most are completely ignorant as to what those even are, aside from them having some connection with the occasional terrorism.

reply

Half of them appear to think Islam is a race.


Lol. That is so true. Most Americans conflate "Muslim" with dark-skinned Semitic people in the Middle East.

reply

It's because Christians don't chop people's heads off for blasphemy. Most anti-Christian bullies are cowards and like victims that don't fight back.

reply

1. It sounds like you want to go back to the good old days when believers could stone the blasphemers.

2. In the West criticising religion hasn't been controversial for a long time. Irritating for believers but not controversial.

3. I don't criticise Islam because it's only a minor religion in my country and I know very little about it. Christianity however is in my bones.

4. I suppose people poke fun at Christianity because it is a house of cards as a religion and as an institution. And historically the Church has been unmasked for not living up to what it preaches. Nobody likes a hypocrite especially one that occupies the high ground.

5. Christianity has a huge problem. For anyone capable of looking at it as a historical phenomenon and not a religious one then its claim to be the one true religion falls very flat. But at the same time Christianity has undoubtedly done much more good than harm. The success of Western Civilisation with Christianity as one of its foundation stones is testament to that. So how to preserve the cultural legacy of Christianity in the West while the religious side diminishes ? That is the difficulty.




reply

Christianity has undoubtedly done much more good than harm. The success of Western Civilisation with Christianity as one of its foundation stones is testament to that.


While it's certainly true that Christianity has been less destructive than some other religions, and the areas that have had Christianity as their predominant religion have (for the most part) done better in the end, there's really no way of knowing that this happened because of that religion or despite it. Personally, I'm a bit hesitant about giving them credit for it, though (in fact, it seems the less extreme we've become about it the more we've progressed).

It's like if I had one brother who was a heroin addict and one who smoked weed every day. Sure, the pothead would likely do comparatively better in life. But it seems a bit premature to praise marijuana afterward as if it's the primary force that kept him on the straight and narrow. It's likely that complete sobriety would've done him just as well... if not better.

reply

That is not a convincing argument. It seems to be based on your gut feeling rather than any actual historical knowledge and your little analogy is feeble to say the least.

reply

It seems like a gut feeling because, unlike yourself, I wasn't claiming things as facts that we can't know are factual. My argument wasn't that an alternative idea was definitely correct. It was that, as I directly stated, there's really no way of knowing that this [the success of Western Civilisation] happened because of that religion or despite it. I was speaking on behalf of remaining agnostic about the topic. I wasn't pushing my own belief in its place.

reply

The role that Christianity played in education ( eg the Jesuits ) wasn't factual ? The Enlightenment wasn't factual ? Ending slavery wasn't factual ?

For the record I am an agnostic although I was brought up as a Catholic. But I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. Is it coincidental that the decline in Western Civilisation has coincided with the decline in Christianity ?


reply

Claiming that Christianity has done more good than harm isn't factual. Implying that if not for that religion we'd be worse off is not factual. It's not knowable one way or another. It's your "gut feeling".

reply

Apologies, you added on the last paragraph after I'd already responded.

But I'm not speaking on behalf of throwing out anything. Nor am I talking about keeping anything. I enjoy knowing about all kinds of history, I'm very much against vilifying, and I wouldn't want to do away with anything whether it be good or bad. I'm simply saying that we should be hesitant about giving a religion more credit than may be warranted.

reply

Yes sorry about that, I have a habit of editing my posts to correct and to elaborate.

Back on topic. Equally I'm not in any way saying that Christianity can take all the credit for the success of Western Civilisation. I think there is something about Europeans themselves, their intelligence and inventiveness for example that contributed more.


reply

If I were to wager a guess, I'd say much of their success likely had to do with (as has been the case with much of human history) having had a good location as a starting point which made it easier to grow successful cities and prosperous, stable populations, with large armies, and having grown enough leisure time to venture into more intellectual endeavors that inevitably led to even more prosperity, freedom, outgrowth, and spread of knowledge for the people involved. Almost the exact opposite of what made Native Americans so unsuccessful (i.e., a terrible spawn point that made it difficult to settle down, learn, and advance). Of course, I'm sure there's a multitude of factors involved. This was just from the top of my head.

The fact that their religion happened to be Christianity, it seems possible to me, may just be happenstance. And it could simply be a case of false correlation to assume Christianity, itself, was the reason for any of the successes (moral or otherwise). Also, that belief possibly became less extreme and violent and more loosely interpreted over time simply because it's had to keep up with the unignorable knowledge and advancements we've made despite it being in the way. A speedbump in progress that's been repeatedly cornered and forced to tone down if it wants to continue to exist. It seems possible to me that if this were another religion, having to fit in with the progress of its people, it may have evolved and have been re-interpreted to be something more seemingly good as well (that could then go on to take credit for this or that). Again, I'm not saying any of this is the case. I'm just saying... it seems feasible. lol

Any decline we may see in society now (which I'm unsure I'd make that claim) could also be a false correlation. While it coincides with a decline in Christianity, it's also coinciding with things like the internet, which nurture the viral spread of bad ideas and many easily joinable echo chambers.

reply

As a matter of interest and context can I ask which country you live in and what your ancestry is ? I live in Australia and my ancestry is Irish, Scottish and English.

reply

Christian education was the only game in town. you would ahem been literally murdered if you were an atheist. hardly a glowing review

the other pro slavery side also EQUALLY used the bible to justify and promote and defend slavery.


"Is it coincidental that the decline in Western Civilisation has coincided with the decline in Christianity ?"

wtf you talking about

reply

I think the main reason is fairly obvious-- this site is mostly used by people in the U.S. and other countries where Christianity is the main religion. People are going to poke fun at what they know, and what they most often see. Muslims are a relative rarity in the U.S. The internet tells me they make up only 1% of the population, as opposed to 65% of the U.S. being Christian.

reply

The simple answer is that people are cowards. They know mocking Jesus is fair game but mocking Islam will result in real-world repercussions like cancellation ( for political incorrectness) and death threats. David Wood on youtube has countless videos about it, you should check him out if the subject interests you.

reply