Atheist Professor in Speech at Georgetown says it's okay to attack Christians verbally not Muslims.

[ecco]

...These types of statements cause more harm than good because they can easily be misinterpreted. Unless you are clear on what you mean then they can be easily taken the wrong way and not clarifying them is in some ways provoking things.

I posed a question to the OP:

If this had been the story...
A Protestant Minister said Tuesday that it’s acceptable to criticize Catholics but not Muslims, because he does not “fear” retaliation from Catholics.
...would you have even posted it? Would you have questioned the Protestant Minister's morals?​

He hasn't responded. In fact, it seems he has abandoned the thread.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think it is a sort of discrimination, if you replaced Christian with something like women, or blacks, or anything else but Christian and replaced atheist with any sort of religion there would probably be more outrage.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, this is moral.

Contrary to what you might think this article nor this professor said that it is ok to give Islam a free pass for the points where they could validly be critizised by atheists (or anyone else). It just states that atheists don't do that (and that needs to be relevated... atheists do critizise Islam, and many pay the ultimate price for it) in the same number or way they do with Christianity.

Is it immoral to value the safety of your family and yourself?

I suppose the recourse for Christians is to be much more violent in response to criticism .Then those not criticizing Christians because of fear would be very moral indeed and there would now be a surplus of fear driven morality and Christians would be the cause of an increase in morality. Now we also have an answer for why God sends people to hell . He is causing them to be moral as fear seems to be called here a reasonable weapon in making others react morally.

 

[Sophrosyne]

He hasn't responded. In fact, it seems he has abandoned the thread.

I'm betting that he is unable to dig his way out of this conundrum.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

I posed a question to the OP:

If this had been the story...
A Protestant Minister said Tuesday that it’s acceptable to criticize Catholics but not Muslims, because he does not “fear” retaliation from Catholics.
...would you have even posted it? Would you have questioned the Protestant Minister's morals?​

He hasn't responded. In fact, it seems he has abandoned the thread.

If the Minister criticizes catholics, and does not do the same to Muslims, then yes.

Merely pointing out that it is okay to criticizes catholics, and not Muslim, is different than actually doing that.
The atheist in question actually criticizes Christians, and not Muslim due to the fear of violence.

If this Minister, criticizes for Christians for somethings but does not do the same for Muslims, then that is a immoral act.

FYI, even if you managed to show hypocrisy on my part, it is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[quatona]

FYI, even if you managed to show hypocrisy on my part, it is irrelevant to the topic.

The same applies to the OP, btw.
Even if you managed to show hypocrisy - it wouldn´t invalidate or relativate the criticism of Christianity.

 

[ecco]

If the Minister criticizes catholics, and does not do the same to Muslims, then yes.

Merely pointing out that it is okay to criticizes catholics, and not Muslim, is different than actually doing that.
The atheist in question actually criticizes Christians, and not Muslim due to the fear of violence.

If this Minister, criticizes for Christians for somethings but does not do the same for Muslims, then that is a immoral act.

FYI, even if you managed to show hypocrisy on my part, it is irrelevant to the topic.

The topic is morals, so yes it is relevant.
You say his cowardice is immoral but your hypocrisy is not. Hypocrisy and using double standards are immoral. That makes you immoral. Whatever happened to your "objective" moral standards? Do they apply only when it is convenient?

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

The same applies to the OP, btw.
Even if you managed to show hypocrisy - it wouldn´t invalidate or relativate the criticism of Christianity.

My argument is that there exists hypocrisy, it isn't that the criticisms of Christianity needs to be invalidate.

Hypocrisy is relevant, if my argument is that there exists hypocrisy.

 

[quatona]

My argument is that there exists hypocrisy, it isn't that the criticisms of Christianity needs to be invalidate.

Hypocrisy is relevant, if my argument is that there exists hypocrisy.

So if he managed to show hypocrisy on your part, it was relevant to the question whether there´s hypocrisy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are two chickens, one is cooked and the other isnt...

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

So if he managed to show hypocrisy on your part, it was relevant to the question whether there´s hypocrisy.

My hypocrisy is irrelevant to the question of whether John is a hypocrite. This question addressed at the hypocrisy of a particular man.

 

[quatona]

My hypocrisy is irrelevant to the question of whether John is a hypocrite. This question addressed at the hypocrisy of a particular man.

He criticized a particular religion. So the question whether he is a hypocriete is irrelevant to his criticism.

 

[quatona]

My hypocrisy is irrelevant...

But it´s very relevant to your eternal fate, seeing that you consider it a sin.

 

[ecco]

My hypocrisy is irrelevant to the question of whether John is a hypocrite. This question addressed at the hypocrisy of a particular man.

My question also addressed the hypocrisy of a particular man - you.