And I hate radicals and murderers of all stripes....particularly those who hide behind the auspices of religion.
But I don't hate religions. Someone else said it better than I did.
I don't hate Islam. But I'd never ever become a Muslim. I'd rather be a Baptist. But I'd rather jump off a cliff than be a Baptist.
Religions don't kill people....people kill people.
Show me ALL Muslims killing people and I'll show you an empty world.
Not all southerners were slave owners, but southern society as a whole allowed the practice of keeping slaves, not only to exist, but to prosper. As a result, southern society as a whole felt the wrath of reconstruction for it's failure to reign in those that couldn't see the wrong in one person owning another. In my opinion you're dealing with a parallel in Islam. The Islamic society as a group allows the terroristic and barbaric elements of it's religion to thrive and as such is responsible for it's atrocities.
25% of Southerns owned slaves and it was considered a mark of wealth and status.
Less that 1% of Muslims are terrorists/radicals. Is it considered a mark of wealth and status?
Are you TRUELY comparing Southerners with slaves to Islamic terrorists?
It is estimated that less than 6% of southerners owned slaves, but before you get yourself fixated on a numbers game, realize that you missed the point of my earlier post.
My point was that if a society at large condones or even just turns a blind eye to certain behaviors, then that overall society becomes culpable in the misdeeds committed. As the south as a whole was held accountable for the actions of some, then it should come as no surprise that Islam will eventually be held accountable for the actions of the terrorists protected by that society. If "peaceful" Muslims don't want to be tarred by the same brush, they need to do more than say, "Well, he did a bad thing but they shouldn't have dishonored the prophet".