Hacker News Reader

Comment by tasogare | Hacker News Reader

> why base it on religion?

Because religion matters. In this case, islam has a millenarian, worldwide record of massacring non-muslims so it doesn’t seem far fetched to impose boundaries based on this criterion. Also the Pakistan+Bangladesh/India partition was made on this religious clivage, so muslims have two others countries to choose from.

As someone who almost lost a friend in a jihadist terror attack, I’m really upset when Westerners purposely turn blind on the muslim civilization misdeeds. If almost every other civilization hate them it’s for reasons rooted historically (aggressive expansionism in Middle-East, India and Europe) and killing of innocents people that happen every day around the world because they don’t believe in the muslim god.

View on HN

Religious flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This insane false fear mongering has to stop

Religions are (emotionally charged) opinions and as such they are not beyond criticism. You don't have to be neutral towards any particular opinion, belief system or culture.

But if we let those legitimate preferences and biases override _individual_ human rights, then we are going down a very dangerous road indeed.

Seeking refuge when we are persecuted is a right that each of us has individually and unconditionally. That's why you are not allowed to apply it selectively based on religion. This is a moral imperative and it is the law.

Pakistan protest: Patients die as lawyers ransack Lahore hospital https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50757383

Sometimes it's Muslims doing the massacring, sometimes it's Muslims being attacked by governments (Uyghur), by Buddhists (Burma), etc. It's almost as if religion is not really the issue, just a proxy for expressing other sentiments...

Honest question: What other sentiments are you hinting at ?

A few different ones including insecurity around national identity, needing someone to blame for things going wrong, generalising some extremist using religion as justification to the religion being extremist (you can use any one of them...), general xenophobia, ...

During the crusades it was the crusaders who massacred muslims when they took Jerusalem. When Saladeen retook it, he did not massacre anyone and turned out to be more civilised by the christians.

You know Muslims, Christians and Jews have the same god? It's the prophets that they disagree on.

I have no stake in this argument, I am an atheist, but please, a little respect for the beliefs of others.

I believe the argument isn't so much about divinity identity, but rather about ideological imperialism.

> but rather about ideological imperialism

Christian history (crusades, Latin America, US history) would like to have a word with you.

Most major religions of this world are guilty of imperialism.

I agree, but we collectively seem to agree that was a bad thing. Is it less evil now? Why should a similar wrong be tolerated if we recognise the damage it has caused in the past?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com