comment: >
  
  And this is a problem, why?
context: Can we ship these clerics and the taliban to some deserted location so they can be bigots and homophobes to each other and no one else? >
  
  Do an "Escape From New York" type where they are all fenced in and fight to the death trying to escape. >
  
  I’ll pay a subscription to watch that show. Battle Royal Taliban style >
  
  Me too as long as American Christian Taliban are included >
  
  I would pay double the subscription price!! >
  
  Cant wait for these execution advocates to get a taste of their own medicine >
  
  Gaddafi style for all of them >
  
  He had it bad.. >
  
  Not bad enough imo. That freak of a human (and I use the term ‘human’ very loosely) kept a dungeon of captive young boys under his palace for his pleasure, and had freezers full of the bodies of political dissenters that he would regularly visit and touch, supposedly to remind him that he was basically a god.
  Getting intimate with a bayonet and then eating a bullet was far too good for that pond-life. 
  Worst part is; I’m sure Putin has done much worse, his ~~gangsters~~ private police are just better at covering it up. >
  
  Damn i never knew that about it.
  All people in power whether that be politically or just celebrities are like that. Thats why Epstein was a thing. And just because hes gone doesn’t mean thats over. Those sick fucks need that to feel powerful so i bet they replaced him within the week >
  
  Those clerics are some bloodthirsty fucks. >
  
  Blood for the blood god! >
  
  Limbs for the Limb throne! >
  
  Teeth for the teeth pile >
  
  If they want more executions then they should feel free to line up themselves >
  
  Nothing like old timey religion to get the fear into you.  Give those clerics a taste of their own medicine. >
  
  
  Nothing like old timey religion to get the fear into you
  
  You are absolutely correct.  I was raised Catholic under the God of the Old Testament. >
  
  I agree with them, all the clerics should be executed. >
  
  Crucification would be cute >
  
  I say start the punishments with the clerics. The Mullah have ruined Iran. >
  
  THE BEHEADINGS AND RANDOM KILLINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
  
  The Iranian government >
  
  Well, if they are going to kill people for protesting, might as well find a cleric and kill one as well.
  If the punishment is death regardless, why not cause as much chaos before you die? >
  
  Where's Doomguy when you need him? >
  
  should be top comment >
  
  Lawful Evil clerics >
  
  The murder will continue until we say god is happy.   I’m getting sick of this refrain constantly showing up on earth. >
  
  I wonder if these execution calls would continue if for every protester killed a cleric found himself in a similar situation suddenly. >
  
  Part of the issue is that the protesters aren't evil monsters that take pleasure in killing and torturing others. It's why they're protesting. It's also why they're not stringing clerics up by their naughty bits. >
  
  One might argue it’s not being an evil monster to reciprocity the clerics that enforce these killings. >
  
  You may be right, but good people generally don't like killing other humans, even when it's justified. They may be forced into it yet. >
  
  I totally agree; that is until it’s your brother you see hanging dead because he attended a peaceful protest. Watching your relatives die has a way of hardening folks and filling them with a terrible resolve. Only so many sisters can you see raped before evil must be stopped. >
  
  In D&D, the alignment of clerics demanding more amputations and executions is likely lawful evil. >
  
  Well, evil for sure. But they might just be calling for blood because they enjoy raping, murder, torture and cutting people up for parts while they're still alive.
  In which case they'd definitely be more of a Chaotic Evil problem. >
  
  The big flaw with D&D alignment system is that it can't really account well for characters that simultaneously fit in multiple categories.  You can shove them into the Neutral column, but it's still awkward. >
  
  I agree; Neutral can be so awkward for characters with multiple traits. I generally think, one who enjoys a little bit of evil, for a treat, is likely evil idk. >
  
  Neutral would be someone that likes to watch painal porn but only roleplayed consentual painal, not real rapey painal.
  or someone that enjoys being a slaver or cop killer, in a video game but is a really nice guy IRL. >
  
  That makes sense, excellent. >
  
  At a certain point it becomes hard to deny that maybe a religion is a part of the problem.
  Yes, everyone else is bad, but somehow this one religion is always showing up as particularly bad. >
  
  All religion is a problem fam. Christians are trying to turn America into this. >
  
  
  Christians are trying to turn America into this.
  
  Yeah well these clerics don’t have to try. They already have it. It’s a problem, and running diversionary tactics by throwing up a smokescreen to prevent people from criticizing Islam is not useful to anyone other than these clerics and like-minded individuals. 
  
  All religion is a problem fam 
  
  It’s also not even true that “all” religion is a problem. There’s thousands of religions that you and I are both completely unaware of, as well as secular religions, so why would you make claims about “all” religions. How about the satanic temple? How about ethical humanism? I could create a new religion right  now that wouldn’t be a problem, and it wouldn’t be hard to do. 
  The fact of the matter is some religions are worse than others both in regards to what the scripture says, and how they’re practiced, and how seriously people take those problematic scriptures on average. 
  Not even to mention Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion in the world, and is projected to be the most practiced religion in the world by 2070. That is also a problem, and shutting down people from criticizing it specifically, especially in instances such as this that are directly related to Islam is only helping those projections come to fruition. >
  
  ...the satanic temple and ethical humanism by definition aren't religions though. >
  
  They absolutely are. Religion does not require a belief in a god. The satanic temple literally has a tax exemption status. Ethical Humanism literally identifies itself as a religion.
  Edit* for further clarity, from Wikipedia :
  
  Individual Ethical Society members may or may not believe in a deity or regard Ethical Culture as their religion. Felix Adler said "Ethical Culture is religious to those who are religiously minded, and merely ethical to those who are not so minded." The movement does consider itself a religion in the sense that
  
  Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which bind human beings to something beyond their individual selves and foster in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one’s world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests.[23] >
  
  Oh well if Wikipedia says religion, which by definition means a belief in supernatural, then everyone else is wrong...
  The Oxford English Dictionary agrees:
  
  Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living. >
  
  It’s a quote from the person who is attributed with founding the religion. What you’re doing here is called an appeal to definition fallacy. I can just as easily point at the Merriam-Webster definition:
  
  : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices >
  
  When it comes to a specific conversation about the definition of a word, an appeal to definition is pretty apt.
  You seem determined to rework the definition that the dictionaries and everyone but you seem to use and I'm not interested in being involved any further. 
  Have a lovely Christmas Day, if that's your thing. If not, have a lovely day regardless. >
  
  Appealing to a definition in this case as you have just done is entirely fallacious. You’ve laser targeted one specific definition, from one specific dictionary. Is Merriam-Webster’s wrong because you found an Oxford definition that suits you? 
  You also claim I’m trying to “rework the definition”,  I literally quoted Merriam-Webster’s verbatim. If they’re “wrong” you should definitely go tell them. Do you not understand there is no one single authority on definitions? >
  
  The main difference I'm seeing is that Websters is using a variation of the word in its definition. If you continue to follow the definition, you get:
  
  relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
  
  Which seems to be about the same as the Oxford definition. Unless I'm misunderstanding. >
  
  Purge the clerics for goodness sake. >
  
  And these are supposed to be men of God... smh >
  
  They are exactly that. Because god is whatever each person wants god to be. >
  
  Are they a minority? So few with a lot of power it seems >
  
  Gathering up the Clerics and Executing them seems like it would be a good start, and people say nobody has any good ideas anymore. >
  
  When the Quran they praise says cut the fingers and toes off of all infidels on page 6 or something, no wonder. These are no more then terrorists in a position of power. >
  
  Why are old men such toddlers? Wow how godly!?! >
  
  Iran needs a Voltaire for this age. >
  
  More like a Robespierre. >
  
  Places where the dark ages never ended. I do not mean Iran, I am refering to their religious institutions. >
  
  Hardline Clerics should move to Afghanistan and stop trying to turn Iran into a freaking hellscape. >
  
  Just FYI Iran is mostly Shia and Afghanistan is mostly Sunni.  Many of them hate each other as much as they hate Jews or Christians.  Afghanistan would not allow Shia clerics to practice there.