According to a CBS poll, a majority of Democrats have said that they believe that the religion of Islam is dangerous, but that other religions are just as bad.Man, I just get the willies every morning when I go online and see all the reports of radical Lutherans beheading people and those crazy Mormons wiping out entire villages and taking the women as sex slaves. And don't get me started on those Episcopalians -- Lord, how they do love to set them some people on fire for worshiping the wrong God or stone them to death for being gay. Oh, wait. Never mind.
66 percent of Democrats believe when it comes to other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, et al, they are responsible for just as much violence as Islam. Only 14 percent believe Islam is more violent, which totals out to one out of seven Democrats.
Meanwhile, Republicans have few qualms with calling Islam a more violent religion than the others with a majority 63 percent.
Democrats love them some moral equivalence if it prevents them from criticizing one of their core constituencies. Emperor Barry used to do this shit all the time, pretending that modern Islamist terrorism is just a contemporary response to the Crusades -- which happened almost a thousand years ago and were a counterattack against Muslim conquest of the Holy Land, Jerusalem and other sacred Christian sites. Barry acted like it happened yesterday and was an unprovoked attack on a bunch of peaceful Muslims who hadn't done a thing. Naturally, he had his defenders on the left and his detractors on the right. The problem for Barry, and the Democrats who seem to still think Christianity is a collection of gun-slinging killers is that the only examples of "equivalence" between Christian violence and modern Islamist violence is that the Islamists are still doing it, every fucking day and proudly proclaiming that they are doing so in the name of Allah. The only example Barry and his fellow travelers can come up with is the Crusades.
While you can claim, as Barry did and doubtless still would, that violent Islamists today are "perverting" a "religion of peace," the fact of the matter is they aren't. The Koran and the hadiths -- the holy writings of Islamic scholars containing material they attribute to Mohammed that was not included in the Koran -- provide more than ample basis for Islamist terrorists to claim they are acting in the name of their God as directed by their prophet. There are six such collections:
The two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Sahih literally means "correct, true, valid, or sound.") In addition to these, four other collections came to be well-respected, although not to the degree of Bukhari and Muslim's sahih collections. These four other collections are the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Abu Da'ud. Together these four and the two sahih collections are called the "six books" (al-kutub al-sitta). Two other important collections, in particular, are the Muwatta of Ibn Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of law, and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law.Feel free to look them up. Believe me, there is plenty there to support the view that Islamist terrorists aren't "perverting" their religion.
So Democrats want to pretend we're the problem. No surprise there, I guess. Maybe a little surprised they're becoming so open about their beliefs. My response to those folks is that nobody died because they published the (taxpayer-funded) image of a crucifix submerged in urine known as "Piss Christ;"
At least 12 people at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo died in Islamist retaliation for cartoons like this one:
Guess which one of those images is more likely to get me killed. To quote someone whose name escapes me at the moment, I don't much care who the Islamists send, as long as they don't care if they come back.