Ok, thanks for explaining that. I briefly glanced at Britain First's own web site (not their Facebook page), and while "nationalism" sounds a bit dangerous to me, the specific policies they advocate don't sound evil to me. On the contrary, they advocate things like a bill of rights to protect people, and enforcing existing laws. No doubt, people who agree with some of their goals, but for different, more hateful reasons, will coalesce around them and post comments on Facebook.

I'm still not making any claims about the organization one way or the other, but my point is just that, if your opinion of them is based upon comments posted by individuals on their Facebook group page, that doesn't seem fair.

It's good that there are some Muslims who are admitting that their scriptures are advocating these evil actions. I hope that they are being sincere and seeking the truth. But their scriptures also advocate deceiving opponents for the sake of advancing the cause. This is not a popular thing to talk about, because it sounds like calling all Muslims liars--which I am not doing. But it's a simple fact that the command exists. And this needs to be dealt with just as much as the other commands in it.

Yes, the Catholic church has perpetrated much evil over its history. I don't defend it at all. However, it's still important to distinguish between what some Catholic clergy have done, what an average Catholic would do, and what the Catholic scriptures call for and condemn. That child abuse that some Catholic clergy have committed is condemned in their own texts. So to compare the Catholic church's abuses (especially its recent ones) and recent jihadist terrorist acts is a serious case of apples-and-oranges. It's misleading.

> I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it.

I think you have to be very careful when trying to mix claims of logical analysis with accusations of bigotry and hatred. Maybe it's like setting off sparks around flammable liquids: doing it in a controlled environment like an engine can result in useful work; but doing it carelessly results in explosions and harm. It's just too easy to call one side ugly names instead of calmly refuting arguments. And once one person does it, other people pile on, and before you know it, one side is being drowned out by baseless accusations and childish name-calling. Besides that, it assumes that one side knows what is in the other's heart and mind, what their motivation and unstated goals are.

I think, if you look throughout history, most of the evil and violence and war and death comes, not from being logical, but from causing bigotry and hatred by being bigoted and hateful, by calling others ugly names, accusing them of being innately evil, and accusing them of thinking and desiring things which they do not.

And unfortunately, the anonymity provided by the Internet allows such behavior to flourish in pockets here and there. It takes more effort to call for calm and reason and thoughtfulness than it does to drown it out with name-calling and mob-stirring.

Well, anyway, thanks for being reasonable and actually discussing, rather than calling for censorship and downvoting, like some here have done.