Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
To quibble about whether it is the religion or the interpretation of that religion is a total red herring and would not be applied in any other context than a discussion about religion.

Imagine if someone said Mein Kampf should not be blamed for its role in the rise of the Third Reich because it said some positive things about the importance of national identity and social cohesion and it's not the author's fault that a load of people have taken all the bad stuff literally.

The one thing we can agree on is that Islam could potentially, conceivably, change and reform. The irony is that your attitude, in twisting yourself in knots to absolve the core religion itself of its direct role in creating Islamic fundamentalism, is making it much, much harder to undergo such a reform.
What a thoroughly ludicrous example that is. And the argument does exist outside of religion. Is Karl Marx solely to blame for Stalin? Is Jeremy Corbyn all the fault of the Fabian Society?

And no, it is not a red herring at all. For ****'s sake, you live in a nation that saw centuries of internal conflict revolve around two schisms in the same religion. It isn't my fault that you can't see the difference between the fundamental 'word of God' approach and the modern, scholarly interpretation. Nor how religions are hijacked to justify a status quo or a belief- is Christianity to blame for the KKK? You want to blame Dot Cotton for that?

You now seem to be saying that the religion itself played a direct role in creating its fundamentalist interpretation which is akin to acknowledging the central role of beef in creating a burger. My original point to you was that if you insist on blaming the core religion for everything done in its name then it is only fair to acknowledge the same point with every religion.