In wake of Orlando massacre, Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos demands “NO MORE ISLAM”

“The other person opened by calling EVERYTHING I said bullshit, unqualified, and without much explanation.”

That’s because your opening statement *was* entirely bullshit, exactly identical to alt-right crap, recited textually without any hint of awareness of how deeply wrong it is. That statement didn’t even stand to common sense, not even to mention having discussed to a range of muslims and christians.

At some point, if you read something that paint 1 or so billion peoples as all being murderous asshole just because they follow a religion, your common sense should remind you it’s almost certainly heavy-handed racism at work.

I rarely dislike someone so much, but Milo and his ilk really do it for me.

”.@FamesBlond @Ricky_Vaughn99 the world need @nero more than ever pic.twitter.com/c0ENm32GCZ”

What does the world need him for? Really, what is this guy going to do? Is he going to scare extremists with his bad dye job? Is he going to whine about his twitter check mark until Islam goes away? What exactly do these people this this odious excuse for a human being is going to do about anything? He’s going to solve terrorism and gun control issues with Breitbart column or something?

The world already has enough opportunistic a-holes, we could do fine without Milo.

The series of tweet&replies reads well in a sing-song voice, it forms an absurd song with “no more islam” as a chorus.

@ Ohlman

Please stop being such an asshole. I have never bought the idea that all Muslims are “murderous assholes” and I never said anything of the sort. I WAS being bigoted and patronizing in grouping them all together, and also in thinking of them as a universally conservative people, which I recognized and apologized for as soon as someone came at me with an argument trying to correct me, rather than belittling me. I screwed up, but you are making a lot of assumptions about ME, and also really not listening to what I have to say.

“Alt right crap” wouldn’t include talking about how it is important to remember that ISIS is not Islam. It would have talked about all Muslims hate gays, and then cherry picked parts of the Hadith. Alt right people, and even the mainstream media are calling the shooter a Muslim, not a member of ISIS, something which I wrote against.

What I said was wrong, and I appreciate the way that other people have corrected me for it. But you need to understand that there were two paragraphs there, and while they may have been misguided, they show a bit more nuance and at least attempt at understanding of the situation than the “Hurr durr mulsims are evil and are killing people durr” that I see far too many people spouting.

I am just trying to have serious discussion here, so please do not attack me for trying and failing, especially when I am willing to admit that I was wrong.

@Seshia,

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this:

First, in Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, the sacred text is absolute. There are Christians that believe that the bible is literally true and can have no error, but that is not actually scriptually supported. In Islam, the holy books not only have parts stating that the book is literally true, but that the books laws will be eternally true. This means that Islam is innately a conservative religion, including regarding LGBQ (although interestingly not trans) issues.

This statement isn’t accurate. There are several biblical verses (taken from both Testaments) that support the argument that every word of the Bible is true.

Psalm 12:16 states that: “The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.”

Proverbs 30:5 adds that: “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”

2 Timothy 3:14-17 clarifies that: “14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Now, there’s room for interpretation of what those verses and similar verse exactly mean, but they’re pretty easy to use to make arguments that every word of the Bible is literally true because it is all the direct word of God.

I bring this up because it’s very common to make the argument that the Quran somehow has passage that are more objectionable than passages that can be found in the Bible, but this doesn’t really stand up under scrutiny.

@Alais:

You are correct that many Christians (especially those who are most antagonistic to Muslims, ironically) do believe that the Christian scriptures are the inerrent Word of God, and that they (mis)use the passages you cite to support that belief.

However, I would argue that there is a real problem with applying any of those to the scriptures: what, exactly, are they referring to?

When Psams and Proverbs were written, over half of the books that Christians include in our scriptures were not written yet (and the language the New Testament was written in [Kyrie Greek] hadn’t even been developed). Paul’s letters are actually the oldest documents included in the NT, pre-dating all four gospels.

The notion of ‘the Bible is infalliable’, while quite popular, is a misconception born of the search of Martin Luther, Jan Huss, and other reformers for some source of religious authority and guidance outside the Church of Rome, which by the 15th century had become rather corrupt and lacking in spiritual authority. I suspect that half the reason it has become so fixed among American Christians today is the fact that (for convenience) we have begun publishing the scriptures as a single text. Once you realize that the Christian scriptures consist of 30-50 separate texts (Rome, orthodoxy, and protestants all have slight variations in their OT canons), written by dozens of individuals over a timespan covering several thousand years, the notion of those same scriptures being a singular, inerrant ‘Word of God’ becomes somewhat ludicrous.

I cannot speak for the Quran. I do know quite a few Muslims who feel comfortable re-interpreting various passages, but I don’t know how they feel about it’s inerrancy.