Outrage over satirical Muslim cartoons?

[Qdrop]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/

"...The cartoons include an image of Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, and another portraying him holding a sword, his eyes covered by a black rectangle."


i say tough fuckin shit!

how can any media entity let "hurt feelings and outrage" be enough to censor satire or opinion?



"Tabloid defends publication:
The front page of France Soir on Wednesday carried the headline “Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God� and a cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud.

The tabloid staunchly defended its right to print the cartoons.

“The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen,� it wrote in an editorial. “In these circumstances, that meant publishing these drawings.�

“Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?" the paper wrote."


God damn right.


"Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters that press freedom could not be called into question but urged restraint: “The principle of freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance, respect of beliefs, respect of religions, which is the very basis of secularism of our country.�

what a complete oxymoron.


Mohammed Bechari, president of the National Federation of the Muslims of France, said his group would start legal proceedings against France Soir because of “these pictures that have disturbed us, and that are still hurting the feelings of 1.2 billion Muslims.�

you're gonna sue cause they hurt your feelings? what is this, America?

[SobaViolence]

i read them all, and they were pretty tasteless, except the one where there's a line up to get into heaven and the angel says something like 'stop! we're running out of virgins!'

that was funny, the rest was ugly.

[ms.peachy]

Tasteless isn't illegal though.

I'm with Q on this one. The whole basis of the 'outrage' is the fact that in Islam, you're not allowed to depict Muhammad in a physical way. (Personally I've never been able to reconcile this with the fact that it's obviously quite OK to give your kids that name, though. A Muslim friend tried to explain it to me once but I never quite got it. But I digress.)

The fact that it's against your religion, though, doesn't make it against the law, esp if the law is - as is in France and Denmark - secular. So you can be offended all you like in your own home/mosque/church/temple/ashram/whatever, but you dont' get to tell newspapers what they can and can't print.

[Schmeltz]

Are the drawings tasteless? Yes, mostly. Do people have a right to be tasteless? They do. This isn't hate speech, it's just controversy. I frequently find opinions expressed in the National Post tasteless and offensive, but I don't have any lawsuits lined up to protect my sensibilities.

I would think a more productive response from Muslim communities and leaders would be to ask why it is that their culture is perceived this way. Integration and cooperation between two very different cultures is a two-way street: "host countries" like Denmark can only be so accomodating without any compromise from relatively newly arrived populations who apparently wish to live under the same set of archaic, repressive social systems that govern their countries of origin.

[EN[i]GMA]

“The principle of freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance,

Tolerance is for pussies.


respect of beliefs,

Beliefs have to earn respect, they aren't given it.

I don't respect Nazi beliefs and I doubt this douche does either. So then why say this bullshit, PC garbage?


respect of religions,

They aren't deserving of respect.


which is the very basis of secularism of our country.�

No it isn't, critical thought is.

[kaiser soze]

it's a double edged sword....we have those who want to make the satire and those who don't like it

why does someone have the right to make fun, but yet someone cannot be upset about it?

this shit goes down in the U.S every second...why was Cindy Sheehan kicked out of the SOTU again?

because of a shirt...

[Funkaloyd]

This isn't hate speech, it's just controversy.
Just what is hate speech, then?

[Ace42X]

Just what is hate speech, then?

"String up the niggers, else they'll rape your nan"

[ASsman]

Right, inciting violence, rioting. Stringing up of colored folk.

[Monsieur Decuts]

Where else on earth do people raid hotels and apartments with guns trying to find foriegners to catpure over a couple cartoons.

A terribly disappointing reaction which shows just how insane some of the region is.

[Funkaloyd]

"String up the niggers, else they'll rape your nan" ... inciting violence, rioting. Stringing up of colored folk.
Fair enough. Here, saying "you come from a country where people raid hotels and apartments with guns trying to find foriegners to catpure over a couple cartoons" is officially considered hate speech, or "inciting racial disharmony".

[ASsman]

Buh, I was only answering the question... As was Ace I believe, not commenting on the cartoon itself.

[DroppinScience]

Kidnappings over political cartoons? You know what... there reaches a point where you just have to start getting over yourselves already. Jeez. :rolleyes:

[SobaViolence]

that's the next step after secularism.

self-deprecation.

[ms.peachy]

why does someone have the right to make fun, but yet someone cannot be upset about it?


No one is saying that people "cannot be upset." Be upset as you like. But what the people who are kidnapping and rioting and boycotting and all that are saying is that the cartoonists don't have a right to create an image of Allah, because it is against their religion, and therefore everyone in the whole bloody world should have to abide by their rules. Which is, frankly, a load of crap.

mr.p said this morning, "You know, I hate that I'm saying this, but I am getting really fucking tired of being tolerant of people who are fucking intolerant."

Me, I'm with this guy:Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

[Qdrop]

^exactly.

that, and storming EU embassy with guns, demanding an apology for a cartoon, otherwise they will start killing and bombing....

"THIS CARTOON IS AN OUTRAGE! IT SHOWS THE DEPICTION OF THE MOST HOLY MOHAMED, AND IT DEPICTS MUSLIMS AS BEING VOILENT AND BLOOD THIRSTY! A DISGUSTING STEREOTYPE! WE DEMAND AN APOLOGY OR WE WILL START KILLING PEOPLE!...Akbar, go get some C4, we gotta blow up some hotels...."

[Ali]

I'm gonna go and spraypaint some swastikas on a synagouge, just for a laugh.

Anybody mind?

[ms.peachy]

I'm gonna go and spraypaint some swastikas on a synagouge, just for a laugh.

Anybody mind?
Surely you can see the difference between vandalising private property and an editorial cartoon, no?

[ms.peachy]

Oh yeah, and that editor from the Jordanian newspaper I quoted above? Now fired. Because, you know, it's offensive to Allah to ask his followers to be reasonable, apparently.

[Qdrop]

Surely you can see the difference between vandalising private property and an editorial cartoon, no?

thanks peachy.

[Qdrop]

Oh yeah, and that editor from the Jordanian newspaper I quoted above? Now fired. Because, you know, it's offensive to Allah to ask his followers to be reasonable, apparently.

ALLAH IS NOT REASONABLE! WHY SHOULD WE BE?!!?

[kaiser soze]

I'm sure muslims are falling over laughing from an illegal war as well

oh wait...they're dying!

try to see why some people are pissed....I'd be a bit touchy too

these cartoons are a slap in their face...remember europe was just in flames over muslim tensions, this could be bleed over from that

it takes time to heal...these cartoons came way too soon

[ms.peachy]

I'm sure muslims are falling over laughing from an illegal war as well

oh wait...they're dying!

try to see why some people are pissed....I'd be a bit touchy too

these cartoons are a slap in their face...remember europe was just in flames over muslim tensions, this could be bleed over from that

it takes time to heal...these cartoons came way too soon
I don't think you're really grasping the situation. It's not about the 'timing' of the cartoons. It's about the fact that in Islam, there is a prohibition about renedering Allah or Mohammed in a terrestrial likeness. So that means if you're a Muslim, you're not allowed to do it. But what a segment of the Muslim population is saying is, not only are we not allowed to do it, but you're not allowed to do it either, and if you do, we'll kill you.

It's like, say you have a group of orthodox Jews who keep kosher. Does that mean that they should then have the right to prohibit anyone else in the world from eating a cheeseburger, because it violates a tradition that they hold sacred?

[Qdrop]

I don't think you're really grasping the situation. It's not about the 'timing' of the cartoons. It's about the fact that in Islam, there is a prohibition about renedering Allah or Mohammed in a terrestrial likeness. So that means if you're a Muslim, you're not allowed to do it. But what a segment of the Muslim population is saying is, not only are we not allowed to do it, but you're not allowed to do it either, and if you do, we'll kill you.

It's like, say you have a group of orthodox Jews who keep kosher. Does that mean that they should then have the right to prohibit anyone else in the world from eating a cheeseburger, because it violates a tradition that they hold sacred?

religious imperialism (fascism).

[SobaViolence]

in this case Islamofascism.

[roosta]

Yeah, i find it kind of funny that people like Hamas are walking around firing guns in the air and threatening to murder people over this and claiming that the cartoon is disrespecting Islam.

it ain't the cartoon which is disrespecting islam....

[DroppinScience]

While we're at it... you know what's something else I also absolutely don't get?

Remember the whole debacle with Newsweek over them reporting that some interrogators flushed the Koran down the toilet in Guantanamo Bay?

For whatever reason, the Muslim world got all huffy and angry and started blaming Newsweek for this atrocity? Um... guys, Newsweek reported it. They didn't flush the Koran down the toilet nor did they condone it.

So much for "peace, love and understanding."

P.S. - The apologist position for the Muslims' actions are also confounding.

[SobaViolence]

you guys don't get that Islam and the Qu'ran are the basis for all Muslim society. If you can't understand why they are pissed off, you're as bad as they are.

and if roles were reversed, pat robertson would be holding talks with W and pique his interest...

[DroppinScience]

you guys don't get that Islam and the Qu'ran are the basis for all Muslim society. If you can't understand why they are pissed off, you're as bad as they are.

and if roles were reversed, pat robertson would be holding talks with W and pique his interest...

They can be offended/pissed off, whatever they want. I just don't understand the EXTREMES of kidnappings over a cartoon? Silly and childish and will only bring about more cartoons for them to be offensive over.

And wanting to ban Newsweek because they were doing their job to point out injustices? Also idiotic.

[yeahwho]

How the fuck on any planet in the universe does this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/ap/world/mainD8FHSUPG0.shtml) cause more outrage than this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2024295,00.html)?

I cannot believe my eyes when I see One Thousand lives taken as a byline below a story on cartoons.

The media buys into these propaganda stories hook, line and sinker. If I ran a media outlet I would tell them to fuck off and get real. Come back when you have a Real Problem (http://savedarfur.org/go.php?q=currentSituation.html).

[fucktopgirl]

yea maybe they overeacted :D !!But i kinda understand why they act like this,i did not say that i approved.I mean they are getting bomb all over for their oil,getting push out of their country and now people mocked their religion.YOU would be piss too!

[frenchgirl]

GMA']Tolerance is for pussies.



Beliefs have to earn respect, they aren't given it.

I don't respect Nazi beliefs and I doubt this douche does either. So then why say this bullshit, PC garbage?



They aren't deserving of respect.



No it isn't, critical thought is.

ok i haven't read it all yet, and i'm a non religious.
But i really think what you are saying here is outrageaous.
how can you still sum up the muslims to terrorism, and calling them nazis???
most of them are like you, you know, and they are the first to suffer when you categorize people like that...

personnally (but i haven't read the rest so maybe someone said the same), i think these caricatures were legal (obviously, above all in europe or at least in france i know we caricaturize the pope, the president, jesus... all the time) but it is true that for muslims, like one of the most important thing mahomet said was that prophrts could not be pictured.
Well, that's not the thing that bothers me since i'm not a religious, but the thing that's important is that here in europe some people make a confusion between muslim and terrorist ; and these cartoons help that confusion. Since it is one of europe's worse problems right now, I believe it is not ETHICAL to have drawn these cartoons.
muslims are not terrorists enigma, god ! how can you believe that . too much fox info ????

[frenchgirl]

ok now i read it all and i am really confused how you guys confuse muslims and islamists it is NOT the same !
muslims are not ben ladens!!!
really, i can't believe you people say "oh, how can they be offendef by a bunch of cartoons when they attacked the twin towers"
it is not the same !
ok, there are really bad guys, that hate the occidental way of living and christianism, and wanna put an end with it, but they are a minority between muslims!
the only muslims i know just want to share love, and are ashamed of the islamists.. how in the world can you understand that ?

sorry for the tone, but comparing muslim believers to nazis creeped me out..

[Funkaloyd]

how can you still sum up the muslims to terrorism, and calling them nazis???
You misunderstood. The French Foreign Minister stated that all beliefs should be respected, and Enigma was pointing out the absurdity of that claim. After all, should we respect Nazism?

[frenchgirl]

ok,funkaloyd, it was not you, the thing is that in french "croyance" means "belief" and "religion" and in that case, it was "religion".. i know i led it a little too far, but here in europe we have a lot of muslims that are trying to stand up and me a part of our nations, so it's hard for me to see that in a board like the beastie boy's some people have such radical opinions about them...
now i hope it's a misunderstanding really !

[EN[i]GMA]

you guys don't get that Islam and the Qu'ran are the basis for all Muslim society. If you can't understand why they are pissed off, you're as bad as they are.

No I'm not.

There is no possible way you can 'understand' illogic.

The terms are contradictory.

I'm not 'as bad as they are' because I'm capable of logical, rational thought and I employ my capabilities judiciously.

I could never be as bad as they are now.


and if roles were reversed, pat robertson would be holding talks with W and pique his interest...

I doubt it...

I can say 'Fuck Jesus' without dying, and people can publish cartoons about Jesus without being threatened to be killed.

[EN[i]GMA]

ok i haven't read it all yet, and i'm a non religious.
But i really think what you are saying here is outrageaous.
how can you still sum up the muslims to terrorism, and calling them nazis???
most of them are like you, you know, and they are the first to suffer when you categorize people like that...

But of course, I didn't do that...

I'm not saying that all Muslims, everywhere, are fascist trash, but some are, and the ones that are trash are calling for this cartoonists death.

Is that not disgusting?


personnally (but i haven't read the rest so maybe someone said the same), i think these caricatures were legal (obviously, above all in europe or at least in france i know we caricaturize the pope, the president, jesus... all the time) but it is true that for muslims, like one of the most important thing mahomet said was that prophrts could not be pictured.

So?

Who cares?

The belief is stupid. It's not bounded in fact, or logic, but in superstition.

Superstition is not DESERVING of my respect.


Well, that's not the thing that bothers me since i'm not a religious, but the thing that's important is that here in europe some people make a confusion between muslim and terrorist ; and these cartoons help that confusion. Since it is one of europe's worse problems right now, I believe it is not ETHICAL to have drawn these cartoons.

I do.

I believe it's ethical to fight superstition any way possible, obviously excepting violent means.



muslims are not terrorists enigma,

Some are.


god ! how can you believe that .

I don't.


too much fox info ????

No.

[EN[i]GMA]

I think it important to note the outcry of these comics.

Compare it with the outcry over the September 11th attacks, or over the beheadings, or over the London Bombings, or any recent terror attack.

Remember all the Muslims taking to the streets and protesting those, and calling out for vengeance in the name of Allah on the perps?

Neither do I.

The fact is, and this is telling, that these people think more of a cartoon than of the deaths of thousands of people purpotrated by their neighbors-in-faith; they would rather protest, the deem it more important, to protest free-speach than to protest the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians.

If these are 'normal Muslims', than what does that say about the Faith? If these are 'extremists', what does that say about the power and number of 'extremists'? Are not the extremists then the norm?

Very telling.

I'm not saying all Muslims are bad, but I am saying Islam is inherently bad, just alcoholism is bad, and can you make you do bad things, but an alcholic isn't necessarily bad.

It's actually very analagous to that.

[frenchgirl]

GMA']
I could never be as bad as they are now.

I doubt it...

I can say 'Fuck Jesus' without dying, and people can publish cartoons about Jesus without being threatened to be killed.

i'm glad you're online now! i just wanna know first of all which muslim threatened you or any other guy to be killed for these cartonns ?
Muslims thought it quite shocking beacuse in their religion, god must not be represented IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM
I, as a total non relgious, thought it quite shocking because of guys like you that make an amalgam between terrorism and muslims, which the cartoons encourage and it is not a good idea because here in france, for instance we have a lot of muslims imigrants that just want to work and become french and these kinds of prejudices are not helping..
altogether, we agree that caricature should be allowed but i believe your reaction to be a little extremist.. sorry if i overreacted but the subject is really sensitive here..

[EN[i]GMA]

ok,funkaloyd, it was not you, the thing is that in french "croyance" means "belief" and "religion" and in that case, it was "religion".. i know i led it a little too far, but here in europe we have a lot of muslims that are trying to stand up and me a part of our nations, so it's hard for me to see that in a board like the beastie boy's some people have such radical opinions about them...
now i hope it's a misunderstanding really !

I may hold a radical opinion, but its not one I reserve only for Muslims.

I think all faiths are inherently violent and should be combatted.

But I'm not giving Islam a 'special pass'; if anything, I'll be more harsh because, whatever you say about it, Muslims are chief among the violent religious zealots at the moment.

Not all Muslims, but enough of them.

[EN[i]GMA]

i'm glad you're online now! i just wanna know first of all which muslim threatened you or any other guy to be killed for these cartonns ?
Muslims thought it quite shocking beacuse in their religion, god must not be represented IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM

So?

My belief system is based on reason and it's very important for me that others base their belief on reason as well.

Do I then have a right to kill illogical people? Should I go out and protest them, and fire AKs into the air?


I, as a total non relgious, thought it quite shocking because of guys like you that make an amalgam between terrorism and muslims, which the cartoons encourage and it is not a good idea because here in france, for instance we have a lot of muslims imigrants that just want to work and become french and these kinds of prejudices are not helping..

It's not 'prejudice', it's fact.

There are Muslims, many of them, who want to kill innocent people. We call them 'terrorists'.

Far from being 'extremists' or 'fringe factions', I believe they embody a very specific portion of the Muslim faith, namely Jihadism.

Mohomat was a warlord, was he not?


altogether, we agree that caricature should be allowed but i believe your reaction to be a little extremist.. sorry if i overreacted but the subject is really sensitive here..

Extremist? Most certainly so.

I don't parse words.

[frenchgirl]

hey come on everybody in the world would agree with you on what extremist muslims do.. but really, it is maybe vain but important to aknwoledge the difference between the retarded and very minoritary muslim-extremist who believe in them only, and the immense majority of muslims that are just like anyone of us, and maybe some of them "good ones" were touched by these caricatures, just because for them mahomet is a sacred prophet, and seeing him like a ben laden reduce him to a point where he's almost like hitler !
it's like, if you're a catholic and someone pictures jesus like hitler, it's not fair, for mahomet, like jesus, were people who preached love

[frenchgirl]

"Compare it with the outcry over the September 11th attacks, or over the beheadings, or over the London Bombings, or any recent terror attack.

Remember all the Muslims taking to the streets and protesting those, and calling out for vengeance in the name of Allah on the perps?

Neither do I."

HEY ! I do remember lots of muslims protesting after september 11 !for america and against the terrosrists ! maybe the fox didn't show it but i do remember !

i'm glad of this debate, really
i agree with you 100% in the fact that we live in a rational world, and i don't believe in any kind of supersititons either

i agree this kind of caricature must be allowed (here we do this to everyone from ben laden to george bush and chirac and the pope) and i like it, i think that freedom of expression is a right !

so we agree basically, the only thing is that the cartoons were amalgamating (ca me say this??) muslims, like THE prophet to integrists and i think it was not very clever due the circumpstances...

edit : ok i'm sorry it fell upon you but just today i have met such racists people.. i know what you mean, i was just making my french here playing with words but i think its important nowadays, to use the right words

[DroppinScience]

It's a fucking cartoon. There's more important things (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) to be outraged over.

Close thread now.

[ms.peachy]

you guys don't get that Islam and the Qu'ran are the basis for all Muslim society. If you can't understand why they are pissed off, you're as bad as they are.

And the Torah is the basis for all Judaism, and the Bible is the basis for all Christianity, yet these are not exempt from criticism or satire. Why should there be some "special case" for Islam?

No one's said that they can't be pissed off or offended. It's how that reaction is expressed that is unnacceptable. Death threats, kidnappings, masked gunmen - these are rational responses? I don't think so, in any religion.

It's worth noting that all of this foofaraw and flapdoodle is the result of a fucking children's book about the life of Mohammed, that was intended to educate and enlighten young people about the peaceful message of Islam. No irony there, eh?

[ASsman]

I'm just amazed this thread has lasted 2 pages.....

[FearandLoathing]

you guys don't get that Islam and the Qu'ran are the basis for all Muslim society. If you can't understand why they are pissed off, you're as bad as they are.

and if roles were reversed, pat robertson would be holding talks with W and pique his interest...

...So? Denmark isn't a Muslim society. Freedom of speech shouldn't be prohibited because a section of the community is pissed off. And frankly, a cartoon does not correlate with burning embassies. They are just not on the same page. It doesn't matter how god damn pissed off you are, you don't BURN AN EMBASSY.

Besides, Pat Robertson is a lunatic and that's generally accepted. What's your point?

[2sweet2Bsour]

Edited because my comments were a little over the top. I was upset when I wrote them but then felt bad because there's too much anger in the world already (which was ironically part of my point). On the other hand, letting off steam on a message board is far more constructive method of expressing frustration than burning down an embassy. And that's all I have to say about that. Night, kids.

[frenchgirl]

ok, i'm sorry, i think i was outside the world for a few days, i didn't realize what was made in response..

it's a real problem here, the 21th century problem for sure..
i still think these cartoons were a mistake, but the reaction shows something more important ; burning flags, embassies ? let's face it, the problem is not about the cartoons it's about a "war" coming up (islamists/occident)

when every excuse is good to hate, it's a "déjÃ* vu" (WW1) and it's scary..

the point of this issue is not about the cartoons, the point is much more important, it's about the huge gap there is between two parts of the world.. ones feel exploited and mistreated by capitalism, economically most of all, and of course due to this stupid stupid war in irak that just allowded islamists to convince more muslims to be against the us and every other occidental country ; and the others feel attacked in their integrity..
It's so written, everybody could see a war is coming, and if an excuse like this cause so much problem, i'm afraid we're fucked and it's too late..

[fucktopgirl]

it's a real problem here, the 21th century problem for sure..
i still think these cartoons were a mistake, but the reaction shows something more important ; burning flags, embassies ? let's face it, the problem is not about the cartoons it's about a "war" coming up (islamists/occident)..


yes its all about the freaking war!!Its gona be real nasty if things continue the way they are!!YOu know,i am shure if some well readed news paper make some cartoons about the jewish religion,,shit would hit the fan too!!
THis is about the degradation of a race of people,their belief,their land,their religion.

[frenchgirl]

i don't know.. i think a real deep problem we got here.. i hope i'm wrong really.
but seeing so many people react so stongly, for me it is the sign of a clash

if it had been the same with jew or christian cartoon, maybe there would have been a little fuss but never as huge..

now i don't mean to blame one side or the other, it's just scary, i can't help but think that religion issues will be an excuse for war in the next years, i think this issue is a proof of that

edit : these cartoons were a mistake, a complete lack of tolerance, i know that, but i don't think it's the real problem here

[DroppinScience]

yes its all about the freaking war!!Its gona be real nasty if things continue the way they are!!YOu know,i am shure if some well readed news paper make some cartoons about the jewish religion,,shit would hit the fan too!!

If such cartoons were made for the Jewish religion, would they honestly start kidnappings and so forth?

Stop making excuses for bad behavior...

[fucktopgirl]

If such cartoons were made for the Jewish religion, would they honestly start kidnappings and so forth?

Stop making excuses for bad behavior...


yea,, maybe not!! maybe they would be less explosifs in their demonstration!!

[EN[i]GMA]

ok, i'm sorry, i think i was outside the world for a few days, i didn't realize what was made in response..

it's a real problem here, the 21th century problem for sure..
i still think these cartoons were a mistake, but the reaction shows something more important ; burning flags, embassies ? let's face it, the problem is not about the cartoons it's about a "war" coming up (islamists/occident)

No, it's about the Islamist's foolish, ignorant, pernicious belief system.


when every excuse is good to hate, it's a "déj�* vu" (WW1) and it's scary..

They have no good excuse for this kind of hate; none does.


the point of this issue is not about the cartoons, the point is much more important, it's about the huge gap there is between two parts of the world.. ones feel exploited and mistreated by capitalism, economically most of all, and of course due to this stupid stupid war in irak that just allowded islamists to convince more muslims to be against the us and every other occidental country ; and the others feel attacked in their integrity..

The problem isn't capitalism, at least directly, the problem is Islam, or if you want to be 'PC' about it 'radical Islam' (Though it's my opinion that the radical Islamists are not 'radical' at all. Islam's true followers are fighters; Mohomat was a warlord, was he not?)

Until superstitious thought of all kinds is abolished from this planet, this sort of thing will always happen.

Again, I'm not saying 'all Muslims are bad people' but I am saying 'Islam is inherently bad' just as 'Christianity is inherently bad' just as 'Religion is inherently bad' and just as 'superstition is inherently bad'.


It's so written, everybody could see a war is coming, and if an excuse like this cause so much problem, i'm afraid we're fucked and it's too late..

Well, that may be true, but I think you've misdiagnosed the problem.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Again, I'm not saying 'all Muslims are bad people' but I am saying 'Islam is inherently bad' just as 'Christianity is inherently bad' just as 'Religion is inherently bad' and just as 'superstition is inherently bad'.


Well, as long as the world has you to lay down the facts, I guess we're in good shape.

[Ali]

Surely you can see the difference between vandalising private property and an editorial cartoon, no?OK, bad example.

Can I print a cartoon of the Pope fucking a choir boy? D'yathink the Vatican would mind? Catholics would see the joke, I'm sure.

And, do you think that these guys (http://www.bnp.org.uk/) should be allowed to say what they like?

[Ali]

GMA']I think it important to note the outcry of these comics.

Compare it with the outcry over the September 11th attacks, or over the beheadings, or over the London Bombings, or any recent terror attack.

Remember all the Muslims taking to the streets and protesting those, and calling out for vengeance in the name of Allah on the perps?

Neither do I.I remember a bit of Flag-Waving and a couple of countries being flattened. Oh and quite a few people are STILL behind bars for crimes for which they haven't had the chance to defend themselves.

But that was the good guys response, the bad guys didn't do anything about something which they are linked to by their faith.
:rolleyes:

I'm not saying all Muslims are bad, but I am saying Islam is inherently bad, just alcoholism is bad, and can you make you do bad things, but an alcholic isn't necessarily bad.

It's actually very analagous to that. Moslems don't drink. Did you not know that?

But you know that Islam is inherently bad. Do you know what it says in the Quran? Do you even know what the Five Pillars are? Take a look (http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html). Maybe you should check your facts before you go saying things like that, otherwise you might come across as an ignorant bigot.

Like any religion, it's the people using the faith to manipulate the believers who are bad. They seize on any opportunity, like the cartoons, and run about yelling and getting people riled up.

I think you'll find that these people are more pissed at the way Moslems are treated by the West than the cartoons, it's simply an excuse to hit back at the people who have been fucking with them since the Crusades.

"Islam is inherently bad" indeed. I had you pegged as being a bit more intelligent than that. Guess I was wrong.

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, as long as the world has you to lay down the facts, I guess we're in good shape.

As long as I'm around, spouting aphorisms, the world has no need to fear anything.

Except my aphorisms, natually.

[EN[i]GMA]

I remember a bit of Flag-Waving and a couple of countries being flattened. Oh and quite a few people are STILL behind bars for crimes for which they haven't had the chance to defend themselves.

But that was the good guys
:rolleyes:

Point noted.

But my point remains.

[Ali]

GMA']Point noted.

But my point remains.See my edit.

[Ali]

If such cartoons were made for the Jewish religion, would they honestly start kidnappings and so forth?Try it and see.

Mossad have kidnapped a few.

[ms.peachy]

Ali, are you seriously asserting that the reaction to these cartoons is fair, proportional, and representative of the whole of Muslim society?

[Ali]

Ali, are you seriously asserting that the reaction to these cartoons is fair, proportional, and representative of the whole of Muslim society?
:confused: when did I say that?

Please quote the bit that you are referring to and I'll get back to you.

[ms.peachy]

:confused: when did I say that?

Please quote the bit that you are referring to and I'll get back to you.
I am straight out asking you if you think that this is the case.

[EN[i]GMA]

Moslems don't drink. Did you not know that?

I'd heard it.

It's probably like how 'Christians don't kill' , but then of course, Christian people kill other people all the time.


But you know that Islam is inherently bad. Do you know what it says in the Quran? Do you even know what the Five Pillars are? Take a look. Maybe you should check your facts before you go saying things like that, otherwise you might come across as an ignorant bigot.

The 5 Pillars eh?

Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
bullet Establishment of the daily prayers;
bullet Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
bullet Self-purification through fasting; and
bullet The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.


Let's see here, nothing about peace, nothing about respecting or being peaceful those of other faiths.

Note number one, primarily. As a prophet, what did Muhammad teach and do?

Well, killed people primarily.

Their chief tenet is to worship the teachings of a tribal warlord, who wrote a book to proselytize for his crusade.

Islam was concieved entirely for military purposes; to aid his quest to conquer those around him.

There is no nobility in Islam's founding: it's purely materialist in nature and also purely violent.

Read this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html


Like any religion, it's the people using the faith to manipulate the believers who are bad. They seize on any opportunity, like the cartoons, and run about yelling and getting people riled up.

Yeah, the problem with religions, like Islam, is people, like Muhammad that use it for their own bloody ends.

What you don't realize though, is that Islam was createdly solely to manipulate its believers.

That's why all religions were concieved; it's what they're in the business of, killing and decieving, murdering people and making shit up.

Hell, that's been the story of human existence for the last 2000 years, thanks to religion.


I think you'll find that these people are more pissed at the way Moslems are treated by the West than the cartoons, it's simply an excuse to hit back at the people who have been fucking with them since the Crusades.

I'm supposed to respect them now? Respect their fuedalistic 'morality'? Respect their stonings of women? Respect their brutality?

I'm not condoning the Crusades, or anything similar, but if you're trying to inspire guilt in me, it ain't gonna work.


"Islam is inherently bad" indeed. I had you pegged as being a bit more intelligent than that. Guess I was wrong.


Oh no, your initial opinion was correct.

Thought I'm dissapointed that you fail to see how inherently violent, pernicious and malfeascent religion is, and in this specific case, Islam is.

You enable people like these thugs to exist.



Look at how Islam was created; for what purpose. Violence.

Look at what Islam has represented throughout history, what it represents to this very day. Violence.

Look at the passages in the book. Violence.

They can write whatever the hell they want about 'love thy neighbor', but, you know what?

It doesn't fucking matter.

'Love thy neighbor' didn't mean shit for the Christians during the Crusades, did it?

Of course not. That was pure murder.

Why then, does 'love thy neighbor' mean something now, to Islamists?

You can't hand behind a few rosy quotes. You have to let the actions of the religion speak. And it just so happens that the eulogy is grim.

Why defend Islam?

The mere fact that you're an enlightened individual, and that you know it to be false (I hope) should be enough to invalidate it entirely in your eyes.

Defending an imaginary guy in the sky, a vicious 6th century warlord and a bunch of Islamofascist terrorists does nothing to endear me to your cause.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/index.htm

Sterling record, eh?

[Ace42X]

GMA']http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/index.htm

Sterling record, eh?

You can take extracts of anything in an effort to belittle it. I am sure there are plenty of passages in the constitution or declaration of independence which are absurd. And yet, I doubt you'd countenance people's objections to those documents.

So far, you haven't really offered anything damning, other than that your ideology is more socially acceptable to the people here, hardly a surprise given the demographic of the people here.

I am sure you feel justified in touting how your ethos is so much more enlightened than all those religious folk, but really there is not much to choose between the two in terms of morality.

If you try to criticise the ethical precedents of the Qu-ran, what justification do you have for your ethical beliefs? It can't be science, as science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) cannot make an objective judgement about a subjective abstract.

[EN[i]GMA]

You can take extracts of anything in an effort to belittle it. I am sure there are plenty of passages in the constitution or declaration of independence which are absurd. And yet, I doubt you'd countenance people's objections to those documents.

Fine, take the thing as a whole.

What do you get?

Does it have any redeeming value?

I still don't think so...


So far, you haven't really offered anything damning, other than that your ideology is more socially acceptable to the people here, hardly a surprise given the demographic of the people here.

True.

I have no desire to seem acceptable to those who decry death for the cartoonist.


I am sure you feel justified in touting how your ethos is so much more enlightened than all those religious folk, but really there is not much to choose between the two in terms of morality.

What are you trying to say here?


If you try to criticise the ethical precedents of the Qu-ran, what justification do you have for your ethical beliefs? It can't be science, as science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) cannot make an objective judgement about a subjective abstract.

I don't know, humanism, absurdism, nihilism; take your pick.

I myself prefer looking at morality consequentially. I think that picking my morality on the basis of its consequences really is the best way to be assured in liking the consequences of my morality.

I would also say that my morality doesn't matter, only the morality of those around me matters.

Likewise for any individual.

You can believe whatever you want, but a lot of good it will do you.

[DroppinScience]

Try it and see.

Mossad have kidnapped a few.


Over political cartoons? Right. :rolleyes:

[Funkaloyd]

Right, they only kidnap tattletails.

[Lihi]

Just for some harmless info, the Arab and Muslim newspapers and media all over the world are FULL with anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli caricatures (and articles, and such). And I'm talking about some REALLY UGLY things. How can you demand respect when you'r behaving in an offensive way yourself? I'm not reffering to all the Muslims ofcourse, but to most of the media (= public opinion).

I understand those drawings are offensive for the religious muslim world, but I do believe that the riots and responses are waaaaayyy exaggerated . Actually, in quite an ironic way, those actions pretty much justify the whole image that the Europeans have on the Islamic nation. What a pitty.

[Lihi]

Try it and see.

Mossad have kidnapped a few.

Really.

Let me know when and where, I'm curious.

[Funkaloyd]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/6/newsid_3752000/3752128.stm

[Lihi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/6/newsid_3752000/3752128.stm

Hahah! you made my day. You actually compare a spying-threat to a caricature? LOL (y)

[Funkaloyd]

Yeah, I'd say that kidnapping somebody because of a cartoon and kidnapping somebody because they blew the whistle on a WMD program are morally equivalent, if not equally absurd.

[Lihi]

Yeah, I'd say that kidnapping somebody because of a cartoon and kidnapping somebody because they blew the whistle on a WMD program are morally equivalent, if not equally absurd.


I strongly disagree with you. In the Israeli authorities point of view, Vanunu could have lead to a major existential threat to his country. I'm not saying that all this Atom-thing is a good thing, not at all (although it can be discussed on a "self-defence" level) but it's quite obvious and not surprising that this man would be considered a threat and would be locked up in jail/kidnapped.

[Ali]

Ali, are you seriously asserting that the reaction to these cartoons is fair, proportional, and representative of the whole of Muslim society?

I am straight out asking you if you think that this is the case.You want my opinion?

I think that the majority of Moslems are outraged and that a minority have used the outrage as an excuse for politically-motivated violence.

Which reaction are you referring to?

People who practice Islam take it extremely seriously. They go to great lengths to follow the laws of The Prophet and are justifiably upset when somebody flagrantly breaks those laws e.g. desecrates the Quran, prints a cartoon depicting Moslem people as suicide bombers, whatever.

Oh, and as for harmless cartoons, I'm sure you'll agree that these (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm) are just as funny as the ones the Moslems are so upset about.

As for outrage. How much outrage is there in the states whenever an Iraqi family gets accidentally bombed or evidence of prisoner brutality. Why was there not rioting in the US when these (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) photos came out? Oh, there was a bit of tut-tutting and a few soldiers got charged, but where was the public outrage?

Double-standards and hypocrisy. You are all judging Moslems and are wondering why all the fuss, but you have no idea what it is like to be a Moslem, so you cannot judge their reaction.

[Lihi]

Double-standards and hypocrisy. You are all judging Moslems and are wondering why all the fuss, but you have no idea what it is like to be a Moslem, so you cannot judge their reaction.

So you actually justify violence? I understand the big fuss! but there are other ways to protest, you know. Violence being the most childish, not saying primitive one.

[ms.peachy]

You want my opinion?

I think that the majority of Moslems are outraged and that a minority have used the outrage as an excuse for politically-motivated violence.

Which reaction are you referring to?

I would agree that it seems likely to me that there are plenty of Muslims who are sitting at home watching what other people are doing supposedly in their name and cringing. I imagine it feels much like how I feel every time I see Bush's ugly chimp mug on the screen. So I understand that kidnappings, death threaths, burning embassies, and dressing as terrorists is not the reaction of the sane majority. But I don't see why you seem to want to rationalise this behaviour.

People who practice Islam take it extremely seriously. They go to great lengths to follow the laws of The Prophet and are justifiably upset when somebody flagrantly breaks those laws e.g. desecrates the Quran, prints a cartoon depicting Moslem people as suicide bombers, whatever.

Um, so, is the problem the style of the depiction, or the depiction itself? Because to my understanding, the problem stems from the fact that a segment of the Muslim population seems to think that any likeness warrants a violent reaction, and I absolutely do not accept this. Just because it is against the rules of Islam does not mean people who do not follow Islam have to abide by the same rule. One god does not get some sort of exemption pass that others do not in a free society.

Oh, and as for harmless cartoons, I'm sure you'll agree that these (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm) are just as funny as the ones the Moslems are so upset about.

To be honest, I have not seen the cartoons, because I've no interest in doing so and frankly as I've said, I don't think it's all that relevant. The problem originated in the fact that a vocal minorty of fascists say no one is allowed to draw Allah or Mohammed, because "we say so", and that is a load of crap.

[ms.peachy]

As for outrage. How much outrage is there in the states whenever an Iraqi family gets accidentally bombed or evidence of prisoner brutality. Why was there not rioting in the US when these (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) photos came out? Oh, there was a bit of tut-tutting and a few soldiers got charged, but where was the public outrage?
So the only way to express outrage is rioting? Because rioting is what, so very effective? There was a shitload of public outrage. I think you are choosing to see only what fits what you want to believe.

[Lihi]

Oh, and as for harmless cartoons, I'm sure you'll agree that these (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm) are just as funny as the ones the Moslems are so upset about

Nah, I find THESE (http://www.intelligence.org.il/sp/5_05/ai_caric.htm) much more entertaining.

[ms.peachy]

Double-standards and hypocrisy. You are all judging Moslems and are wondering why all the fuss, but you have no idea what it is like to be a Moslem, so you cannot judge their reaction.

All weekend, in every paper or news site I read, there was at least one editorial about what "we" need to know to "understand" their reaction. Where are the articles for "them" to help the non-Western nations understand why freeedom of the press is something we value just as much as what they value?

[yeahwho]

In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, newspaper stories about Jews focus on things like "the blood libel" and other hate fantasies. In Muslim countries like Indonesia, Christians are routinely attacked and killed because they are Christian. In countries where Muslims are a significant minority of the population, like in India or in much of Europe, attacks on Hindus, Jews, and other non-Muslims are so ordinary that they barely qualify as news. Muslims throughout the world have heated debates about whether Allah approves of murdering innocent women and children if those women and children aren't Muslim.

Maybe if Muslims want to be treated with respect, they should consider the possibility that being respectful toward other religions might inspire practitioners of those other religions to return the favor. If they want to retain the right to be full of hatred and violence toward their enemies, which is to say the entire rest of the human race, they really shouldn't be too surprised when people like W target their countries for "democratic reform" or when Israelis send out teams to murder their political leadership or when Hindu nationalists take power in India or when the Jyllands-Posten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons) publishes 12 cartoons of Mohammed.

[Funkaloyd]

In the Israeli authorities point of view, Vanunu could have lead to a major existential threat to his country.... it's quite obvious and not surprising that this man would be considered a threat and would be locked up in jail/kidnapped.
I don't care what the Knesset or Mossad think/thought. If an Iranian were to defect tomorrow with details of the government's nuclear ambitions, I'm sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would want him or her dead, but that wouldn't justify any assassination.

you have no idea what it is like to be a Moslem, so you cannot judge their reaction.
I have no idea what it's like to be totally fucking insane, so I cannot judge their reaction.

[Qdrop]

In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, newspaper stories about Jews focus on things like "the blood libel" and other hate fantasies. In Muslim countries like Indonesia, Christians are routinely attacked and killed because they are Christian. In countries where Muslims are a significant minority of the population, like in India or in much of Europe, attacks on Hindus, Jews, and other non-Muslims are so ordinary that they barely qualify as news. Muslims throughout the world have heated debates about whether Allah approves of murdering innocent women and children if those women and children aren't Muslim.

Maybe if Muslims want to be treated with respect, they should consider the possibility that being respectful toward other religions might inspire practitioners of those other religions to return the favor. If they want to retain the right to be full of hatred and violence toward their enemies, which is to say the entire rest of the human race, they really shouldn't be too surprised when people like W target their countries for "democratic reform" or when Israelis send out teams to murder their political leadership or when Hindu nationalists take power in India or when the Jyllands-Posten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons) publishes 12 cartoons of Mohammed.

^^one of the most insightful things you've posted on here.

[Qdrop]

what we are touching on here, is the comparison between Islam and other world religions...and comparing their message, thier belief structure, and thier current usage in the world....

of course, one MUST first point out that we ARE primarily talking about the extremists of each religion...which are BY FAR the fractional minority.

but no matter how PC and sensitive you want to be....the muslim religion is CLEARLY the most violent, antiquated, and destructive of the religions going right now.

yes, Isreali's have organized military "terroist-like" groups that have bombed and killed.
yes, there are christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors in the midwest....
but these are just drops in the bucket compared to the damage that muslim extremists are commiting.

yes, Bush has talked about Jesus and "God's will" in the same breath as the Iraq war...
but we all know that Bush and his croanies could give a shit about jesus....they just use his name to galvanize his politcal-christian base....it's pure politics...a brain child of Karl Rove.
none of the American soldiers in Iraq are "fighting for Jesus"....

but it's very differant on the Muslim side of the fence.
while i don't doubt that there is some political motivation in many of these Islamic leaders...
"Johny Jihad" isn't fighting his terrorist war soley to gain political advantage, or get some oil.
he honestly thinks he's fighting for a god. that's ALL he's fighting for....he WANTS to die for his muslim god.

and that's the REAL differance here....the level of thinking...the level of education.
for all the ardent believers in christianity, Hinduism, Judism...their beleifs are tempered by enlightenment due to education- enlightenment that tempers thier actions with logic...and doubt.
you grab a 15 year old bible thumping christian boy, give him a gun, and tell to go shoot some infidels....he'd shit his pants. he'd much rather play his Xbox. his beliefs are tempered by reality. his passions are not sparked by a boring sunday service down the street.

but it's a differant world in the middle east, in the muslim culture. this world is spoon fed nothing but Islam from the get go. poverty gives them little to turn thier attention to. they know of little outside this muslim bubble. the averag muslim youth he has little chance to learn counter-ideas that could temper the violent teachings of mosques....
desparation leads them.....islam guides them....it's primal.
they truly fight from the dark ages....

Islam IS differant than other religions...in that it's followers are far more desparate and poor then the rest...and it's teachings are far more violent.

[SobaViolence]

who has read parts/some/all of the Qu'ran?

[Qdrop]

who has read parts/some/all of the Qu'ran?

i have it tattooed, in it's entirety, on my body.

[SobaViolence]

see, i knew you were full of shit.

2:239 'Do not forget to show kindness to each other. God observes your actions.'

2:254 'Believers, bestow in alms a part of what We have given you before that day arrives when commerce and friendship and intercession shall be no more. Truly, it is the unbelievers who are unjust.'

2:257 'There shall be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error. God hears all and knows all.'

[ChrisLove]

who has read parts/some/all of the Qu'ran?
I read it after 9/11...

It didnt flow very well but then I realised I was reading it backward (supposed to read the pages from right to left)...

Anyway I found it to be very conflicting - On one page it would talk of loving the christains and jews as your own brother and then two lages later (or earlier depending how you read it) it would talk of destroying them.

It didnt really have any nice stories like the bible - it was mostly page after page of nagging -do this, dont do that, this guy is holy, that guy should be hit with sticks etc

[ms.peachy]

who has read parts/some/all of the Qu'ran?

I did read parts at university, for my Great Religions of the Modern World course. Admittedly though that was half my lifetime ago, so I don't have a fresh recollection of the text.

[Lihi]

see, i knew you were full of shit.

LOL !!! :p

The problem is NOT religion. It's religious masses. It's how people interpreted it over the centuries. The Opium is fine, the people are rotten.

[SobaViolence]

2:239 'Do not forget to show kindness to each other. God observes your actions.'

2:254 'Believers, bestow in alms a part of what We have given you before that day arrives when commerce and friendship and intercession shall be no more. Truly, it is the unbelievers who are unjust.'

2:257 'There shall be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error. God hears all and knows all.'

doesn't sound violent to me. if i didn't have a midterm in a couple hours i would find more passages, but today, i'm a hindu.

peace be upon you.

[Qdrop]

see, i knew you were full of shit.

'

oh get off it, dickweed.

the bible, qu'ran, torah....etc...
are all full of nice pretty things, and terribly violent messages of hate....

as Ace before, you can cherry pick differant passages to bolster any claim you wish about a religion....

what matters is what people do with it.
most religions teach hatred and intolerance in one form or another....the bible implores violence and intolerance as much as the qu'ran....the differance is what the ignorant extremists do with it, and how many of them there are.
and there's just more ignorant extremist muslims than there are of any other religious sect....that being a culture and class thing more than anything else.

you can spot some christian fundamentalist or TV evangelist screaming about jesus wiping out his enemies...
but the patrons don't turn around and blow up mosques with dynamite on thier back or hijack planes in the name of jesus the next day.

Islam is the most dangerous of religions today, basically due to geography and class.......

[Phantom Menace]

If these (http://pics.livejournal.com/weev/gallery/000038dy) are the ones, cartoons, then I condemn them for, well, being a bit shit.

Next time we have an international incident over cartoons can it be ones that people have actually put some effort into?

[SobaViolence]

what matters is what people do with it.
most religions teach hatred and intolerance in one form or another....the bible implores violence and intolerance as much as the qu'ran....the differance is what the ignorant extremists do with it, and how many of them there are.
and there's just more ignorant extremist muslims than there are of any other religious sect....that being a culture and class thing more than anything else.



the bible and the qu'ran do not implore violence.


have you ever read the Bible? New Testament or Old? Studied the traditions? Put those texts into context and perhaps try to understand why certain passages were written?

you pride yourself on not being sheeple. well, don't follow the mob now and give in to making broad generalizations about a faith and culture you don't understand (knowingly or not).

it's unbecoming and hypocritical.

[Qdrop]

the bible and the qu'ran do not implore violence.


have you ever read the Bible? New Testament or Old? Studied the traditions? i went to fuckin catholic school for 6 years, mandatory religion classes and masses, Bible study, etc.
yeah, read it.
plenty of hated and preached violence.
are you gonna pretend that one couldn't pull out some disgusting passages from the bible about slavery, rape, subserviant women, and on and on?

Put those texts into context and perhaps try to understand why certain passages were written? basic power struggle...it's as old as man...well, much older really.

you pride yourself on not being sheeple. well, don't follow the mob now and give in to making broad generalizations about a faith and culture you don't understand (knowingly or not).

it's unbecoming and hypocritical.

yes yes....you're attempting to appear enlightened and above the stereotypes and group think that you feel plagues us all....yet you are among the worst.
fuck, like all previous "debates" you've stumbled into, you won't even engage in this one past a post or 2....dealing little proof of research or understanding, and dealing far more with sound-byte logic.

[Qdrop]

the bible and the qu'ran do not implore violence.


hey soba, read this and shut the fuck up:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

or do want me to find some on qu'ran....so you look even more like a complete ass in front of the group?

[Ace42X]

but no matter how PC and sensitive you want to be....the muslim religion is CLEARLY the most violent, antiquated, and destructive of the religions going right now.

Bah, it is just the violent and antiquated facets of their religion get more air. That simple. There are plenty of antiquated backwards Jews and Christians around. Like that guy that shot the abortion (or was it Euthanasia) doctor dead. Like the Jews (and Pat Robertson, I believe) that said Sharon's stroke was god's punishment, or the ones that believe homosexuality is unnatural, etc etc.

yes, Isreali's have organized military "terroist-like" groups that have bombed and killed.
yes, there are christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors in the midwest....
but these are just drops in the bucket compared to the damage that muslim extremists are commiting.

Completely unfounded. Yes, if you work out the number of news paper columns given to each it would seem that way, but that says mor about the news worthiness of the stories in line with the prevailing agenda than it does about Islam.

yes, Bush has talked about Jesus and "God's will" in the same breath as the Iraq war...
but we all know that Bush and his croanies could give a shit about jesus....they just use his name to galvanize his politcal-christian base....it's pure politics...a brain child of Karl Rove.

And you don't think that extremists are using religion to galvanise their followers into action? You don't think Dubbyah buys into his own hubris? 'Cause I am positive he has. All the great despots possess a capacity for self-delusion.

none of the American soldiers in Iraq are "fighting for Jesus"...

That's not how they paint it. Besides, replace Jesus with "Patriotism" or "Freedom" or any other abstract, and see what the difference is? All you are showing is that secularism is as bad as religion.

but it's very differant on the Muslim side of the fence.
while i don't doubt that there is some political motivation in many of these Islamic leaders...
"Johny Jihad" isn't fighting his terrorist war soley to gain political advantage, or get some oil.
he honestly thinks he's fighting for a god. that's ALL he's fighting for....he WANTS to die for his muslim god.

As opposed to a fictional ideal of freedom, or liberty, or infinite rice pudding? And that is so much more rational and sensible?

and that's the REAL differance here....the level of thinking...the level of education.
for all the ardent believers in christianity, Hinduism, Judism...their beleifs are tempered by enlightenment due to education- enlightenment that tempers thier actions with logic...and doubt.

Education? Hardly. Your government elicits support from religion, but also from all the other sophistries too. It isn't education that tricks soldiers into fighting for slogans and abstracts instead of mantras and personifications. It's just a cultural flim-flam.

Liberty wears a dress and caries a spear, Mohammed had a firey sword. Whatever, it's the same thing, it's just that in the west the lies have to have a false sprinkling of pseudo-science instead of a false sprinkling of pseudo-religion.

you grab a 15 year old bible thumping christian boy, give him a gun, and tell to go shoot some infidels.

'Cause there aren't 15 year olds out shooting "crips" or "bloods" or whatever? Like that is SOOOO different.

but it's a differant world in the middle east, in the muslim culture. this world is spoon fed nothing but Islam from the get go.

It isn't a different world. It's exactly the same except for the flavour. It works the same, the effects are the same, except the music is broadcast from a minaret instead of a conservative radio station.

poverty gives them little to turn thier attention to. they know of little outside this muslim bubble. the averag muslim youth he has little chance to learn counter-ideas that could temper the violent teachings of mosques....
desparation leads them.....islam guides them....it's primal.
they truly fight from the dark ages....

And, remove "Islam" with "gansta rap" and you have described the entirely modern and secular state of gangs in the US.

Incidently, Islam in the dark ages was the most sophisticated force in Europe. While the rest of the country were embarked on superstitious nonsense, Turkey (formerly the Byzantine empire) was still carrying the torch of the Eastern Roman Empire, and was the centre of literature, scholarship and enlightenment. It is the Christians who were archaic and primal.

Islam IS differant than other religions...in that it's followers are far more desparate and poor then the rest...and it's teachings are far more violent.

Yes for the start, no for the latter. It is just that the violent rhetoric is more apparent and publicised, because it is eye-catching and precisely what the Jihadists need to use to justify their headline making actions.

[Ace42X]

GMA']No, it's about the Islamist's foolish, ignorant, pernicious belief system.

Rich coming from the pro-capitalist.

I have no desire to seem acceptable to those who decry death for the cartoonist.

Or to anyone with any religious beliefs whatsoever, apparently. Considering that is what we were talking about. And then there were all the moslems who didn't demand (decry is to speak out against) that.

Very juvenile use of the straw-man there.

What are you trying to say here?

That if I were to decide which morality, yours or theirs, was right based purely on fact, there would be nothing to choose between them other than my own personal preference.

I don't know, humanism, absurdism, nihilism; take your pick.

Ok, Nihilism. There is no over-riding ethical basis or point, so really you can do whatever the hell you want without any formal limitations. That has just justified doing everything the worst islamic terrorist has done, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE.

I myself prefer looking at morality consequentially.

The road to Hell, something something something...

... Doesn't exist because there is nowhere for it to go to...

I think that picking my morality on the basis of its consequences really is the best way to be assured in liking the consequences of my morality.

So, really, your morality involves permitting things that you want to do to others, and denying people the right to do things that you don't want to have done to you.

And you can't see the flaw in this?

[Ali]

GMA']
The mere fact that you're an enlightened individual, and that you know it to be false (I hope) should be enough to invalidate it entirely in your eyes.Sure, but it doesn't give me or you the right to judge and condemn those who do believe it to be true, nor does it give anybody the right to deliberately antagonise them, either.

We are free to believe what we want, we're also free to criticise the beliefs of others, but we're not free to judge their response to a 'dare' (http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/when-the-cartoonists-pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword/2006/02/06/1139074165911.html).

And so to Denmark last year, when a children's author was unable to find an artist who would dare illustrate a children's book on Muhammad. Presumably they knew Muslims consider it idolatrous to make images of the Prophet. But what was most on their minds, by all reports, was the van Gogh murder.

When he heard about this, Flemming Rose, culture editor of the conservative newspaper Jyllands-Posten, was annoyed. To "see how deep this self-censorship lies in the Danish public", he asked 40 cartoonists to draw Muhammad. Twelve took up the dare, three drew Muhammad as a terrorist, and another chain reaction was set off.

Naser Khader is a liberal Muslim MP in Denmark who thinks the episode has helped extremists on both sides. "The campaign against the caricatures is a clear manoeuvre on the part of Muslim radicals," he told the German newspaper Die Zeit. But he also says when an MP from the far-right Danish People's Party calls Islam a "cancer" and no one objects, it "prepares the ground" for extremism.

At a protest in London on Friday, one young person was dressed as a suicide bomber; some people carried placards calling for beheading of the cartoonists. As a response it was fanatical and out of all proportion. It also underlined Khader's point: publication has emboldened those for whom the prospect of a clash of civilisations is enticing. On its own, that is not an argument against publication. Causing offence, even rage, is an inherent and necessary risk that goes with free speech.

But the right to free speech does not exist in isolation from other values, such as empathy and respect. As a Guardian editorial says, no Western newspaper would publish anti-semitic cartoons of the kind that were published in Nazi Germany and are still published in many Arab countries.

Yes, the editors were free to run the cartoons. But what greater good was served in doing so? As Khader and others have said, a struggle for the soul of Islam is under way in Europe. Victory could mean a new form of Islam, comfortable with secularism, pluralism, dissent and women's rights. Defeat is too awful to contemplate. It is impossible to see how the cartoon wars have nudged the larger struggle in the right direction.

[Ali]

All weekend, in every paper or news site I read, there was at least one editorial about what "we" need to know to "understand" their reaction. Where are the articles for "them" to help the non-Western nations understand why freeedom of the press is something we value just as much as what they value?"They" should be more like "us", fair enough. Should "we" also be more like "them", or are "we" better than "them"?

Depends on who you are, dunnit?

[Ali]

I have no idea what it's like to be totally fucking insane, so I cannot judge their reaction. :p you sure about that?

Can you imagine what it might be like to be a Palestinian? Try to imagine how you would feel if Australia invaded and annexed NZ, took your land and your rights and then treated you like shit forever, while the world does NOTHING? Would you accept your lot peacefully? Would you be angry?

You'd prolly go a little crazy after a while and what would you have to lose?

[Ali]

but these are just drops in the bucket compared to the damage that muslim extremists are commiting.the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by muslim extremists pales beside the number of innocent muslims killed, maimed, left homeless, etc. by the wars in the Middle East.

It's just that the terror attacks get more publicity.

I wonder why.

[Ali]

I read it after 9/11...

Anyway I found it to be very conflicting - On one page it would talk of loving the christains and jews as your own brother and then two lages later (or earlier depending how you read it) it would talk of destroying them.i wonder how you read it

It didnt really have any nice stories like the bible - it was mostly page after page of nagging -do this, dont do that, this guy is holy, that guy should be hit with sticks etcread Leviticus and get back to me on that.

[sam i am]

:p you sure about that?

Can you imagine what it might be like to be a Palestinian? Try to imagine how you would feel if Australia invaded and annexed NZ, took your land and your rights and then treated you like shit forever, while the world does NOTHING? Would you accept your lot peacefully? Would you be angry?

You'd prolly go a little crazy after a while and what would you have to lose?

That's a completely inappropriate example and you know it. There are so few indigenous or long-term claims to New Zealand or Australia.

[Qdrop]

Bah, it is just the violent and antiquated facets of their religion get more air. That simple. There are plenty of antiquated backwards Jews and Christians around. Like that guy that shot the abortion (or was it Euthanasia) doctor dead. Like the Jews (and Pat Robertson, I believe) that said Sharon's stroke was god's punishment, or the ones that believe homosexuality is unnatural, etc etc. while am certainly NOT singing the praises of christianity or any other religion for that sake...
i must ask....add up all of the christian motivated killings in the past 10 years globally (which will basically be abortion clinic killings for the most part and perhaps a some homosexual hate crimes) and compare them to muslim-sanctioned acts of violence (acts officially done in the name of islam)...
without pulling any stats of the net....
just tell me....which do you think is higher? would the numbers even be comarable?
why is that?



Completely unfounded. Yes, if you work out the number of news paper columns given to each it would seem that way, but that says mor about the news worthiness of the stories in line with the prevailing agenda than it does about Islam. but you couldn't prove that any more than i could.
i suppose it's perception vs. perception.



And you don't think that extremists are using religion to galvanise their followers into action? as i stated, yes.

You don't think Dubbyah buys into his own hubris? no, i don't.
surely you;ve see the candid news reports and video of dubya when he was 40 and younger. he was a shit head. a cocky asshole. he could give a fuck about jesus.
i don't buy the "reborn conversion" bullshit. not at all.


That's not how they paint it. Besides, replace Jesus with "Patriotism" or "Freedom" or any other abstract, and see what the difference is? All you are showing is that secularism is as bad as religion. but let's stick to religion.
that is the topic.
muslim vs. other religions on the basis of violence.



As opposed to a fictional ideal of freedom, or liberty, or infinite rice pudding? And that is so much more rational and sensible?
i would argue that liberty, freedom, and resources have more tangible effects than religion.
but i understand your comparrison.


'Cause there aren't 15 year olds out shooting "crips" or "bloods" or whatever? Like that is SOOOO different. religion. we are comparing religion...not cultures.
christian childern vs. mulsim children, etc.



It isn't a different world. It's exactly the same except for the flavour. It works the same, the effects are the same, except the music is broadcast from a minaret instead of a conservative radio station.



And, remove "Islam" with "gansta rap" and you have described the entirely modern and secular state of gangs in the US. but you are still changing the topic.
yes, as far as comparing nationalism to religion for unifying, mass movement forces..i would agree.
but we are talking about comparing religions...muslim vs. christianity or other.

Incidently, Islam in the dark ages was the most sophisticated force in Europe. While the rest of the country were embarked on superstitious nonsense, Turkey (formerly the Byzantine empire) was still carrying the torch of the Eastern Roman Empire, and was the centre of literature, scholarship and enlightenment. It is the Christians who were archaic and primal. how the tables have turned.



Yes for the start, no for the latter. It is just that the violent rhetoric is more apparent and publicised, because it is eye-catching and precisely what the Jihadists need to use to justify their headline making actions.
okay, you keep harping on the point of how the middle eastern world using islam to move the people, while the west uses nationalism, etc...
yeah, Ace....i'm not arguing with you there...no one is. you're quite correct.

but that isn't the topic. we are comparing Islam to christianity/other religions on the basis of violent, sanctioned behavior.

[Qdrop]

the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by muslim extremists pales beside the number of innocent muslims killed, maimed, left homeless, etc. by the wars in the Middle East.

It's just that the terror attacks get more publicity.

I wonder why.

again, off topic.

we are comparing Violence in Islam vs. violence in christianity/other religions in TODAY'S world.

[Ali]

oh get off it, dickweed.

the bible, qu'ran, torah....etc...
are all full of nice pretty things, and terribly violent messages of hate....

as Ace before, you can cherry pick differant passages to bolster any claim you wish about a religion....

what matters is what people do with it.
most religions teach hatred and intolerance in one form or another....the bible implores violence and intolerance as much as the qu'ran....the differance is what the ignorant extremists do with it, and how many of them there are.you were doing so well... right up to here

and there's just more ignorant extremist muslims than there are of any other religious sect....that being a culture and class thing more than anything else.how many more ignorant extremist muslims are there than, say, ignorant extremist Christians. Have you counted? Seems to me there are a LOT of ignorant extremist Christians (http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/) in the US.

you can spot some christian fundamentalist or TV evangelist screaming about jesus wiping out his enemies...
but the patrons don't turn around and blow up mosques with dynamite on thier back or hijack planes in the name of jesus the next day. body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=58b8f00bf4428f91bddf192262a9ec 3f&submit3=Enter+Site)

Islam is the most dangerous of religions today, basically due to geography and class.......based on what? Number of deaths per year? Christians kill far, far more Moslems than Moslems kill Christians. 31,900 civilian deaths in Iraq, 3,000 dead in 9/11. Which is the most bloodthirsty religion?

[Ali]

That's a completely inappropriate example and you know it. There are so few indigenous or long-term claims to New Zealand or Australia.as opposed to the claims on Jerusalem :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

how many more ignorant extremist muslims are there than, say, ignorant extremist Christians. Have you counted? Seems to me there are a LOT of ignorant extremist Christians (http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/) in the US. i'm comparing acts religion sanctioned violence.

while the christian right certainly helped swing the election....assuming that all that voted for Bush are bible-thumping christians is beyond presumptiuous of you...it's ignorant.
you're falling for the rhetoric...hard.

body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=58b8f00bf4428f91bddf192262a9ec 3f&submit3=Enter+Site) since when has the amercian side of the Iraq war been the Christian coalition?
the US is not fighting a holy christian war...our soldiers are not devout followers of christianity.
we are fighting for Oil and strategic trade/military satelites.

don't stretch AMERICANS =CHRISTIAN WARRIORS FIGHTING FOR JESUS.

retard.

based on what? Number of deaths per year? Christians kill far, far more Moslems than Moslems kill Christians. 31,900 civilian deaths in Iraq, 3,000 dead in 9/11. Which is the most bloodthirsty religion? again, calling US troops christians.
you're trying to paint OUR side of the war as a christian war.
we're there for the Oil...
no one's there to defend Jesus.

[Ace42X]

i must ask....add up all of the christian motivated killings in the past 10 years globally (which will basically be abortion clinic killings for the most part and perhaps a some homosexual hate crimes) and compare them to muslim-sanctioned acts of violence (acts officially done in the name of islam)...
without pulling any stats of the net....
just tell me....which do you think is higher? would the numbers even be comarable?
why is that?

Christian motivated? and Islam-sanctioned?

Let's compare Christian-sanctioned with Islam sanctioned. The war in Iraq, for starters. 100,000+ right there. Dubbyah is a Christian, he said it was for God, frequently.

It has been sanctioned by Christians, it is Christian sanctioned. "Oh, it doesn't count... When the Moslems do it, they count, because their banners are more colourful, and they don't sound so limp-wristed when they bang on about it..."

Afghanistan? Plenty there.

As for "Why is that" - even assuming your rather simplified assertion, you yourself said that it was due to geo-political considerations. Religion doesn't come into it.

but you couldn't prove that any more than i could.
i suppose it's perception vs. perception.

Let's see, Christian religious violence? Troubles in Ireland right there, tons of bombings, shootings, killings, beatings, knee-cappings, all religiously motivated.

Now, I don't buy into the religious aspects of the trouble in Ireland. But *I* don't buy into the religious aspects of middle-eastern terrorism either.

Like all situations, it is used as an excuse, a subterfuge. Expansionist wars of oppression have been waged for "freedom" and "justice." - are you going to say that "Freedom and justice only cause violence, so we should have done with them" ?

No, and the same is true for the current hyper-critical portrayal of Islam and its more news-worthy followers.

no, i don't.
surely you;ve see the candid news reports and video of dubya when he was 40 and younger. he was a shit head. a cocky asshole. he could give a fuck about jesus.
i don't buy the "reborn conversion" bullshit. not at all.

I think the guy is a total zealot crank. But that's me.

that is the topic.
muslim vs. other religions on the basis of violence.

That may be your topic, but I think that is to oversimplify the situation, and misrepresent all of the above. It isn't the religion that is the basis of violence. I defy you to find a single Islamic militant who "kills infidels because their book says they should."

Even the most frothy-mouthed ranting nutjob says that the Qu'ran says its "ok" not that they are "doing it because the book told them to."

The actual BASIS of the violence is, as you pointed out, socio-economic/political. It is about invasions, poverty, war, injustice. It is about a list of material practical grievances that have wrapped up in a convienient unifying wrapping paper.

Just as has been the case with all religions, and just as is the case with nationalism or any number of other issues today the world over.

i would argue that liberty, freedom, and resources have more tangible effects than religion.

Indeed, however liberty, freedom, etc are never the goal of wars. They are the justification. At best they can be the goal of a revolution or rebellion, but not a war, and even then it is seldom.

Hence "sophistry" rather than "perfectly acceptable justification".

religion. we are comparing religion...not cultures.
christian childern vs. mulsim children, etc.

You you want to concentrate on a narrow and irrelevant construct? Fair enough, but you won't get to the truth if you choose to exclude the real issues.

but you are still changing the topic.
yes, as far as comparing nationalism to religion for unifying, mass movement forces..i would agree.
but we are talking about comparing religions...muslim vs. christianity or other.

Yes, because being objective hurts your argument, so it is easier to demonise the Muslim extremists just because they use religion as a justification of their bad actions rather than using substitutes which you find somehow "superior."

Killing infidels because you want control of oil, then attributing it on a war for Allah isn't different to killing moslems because you want control of oil, and then attributing it to a war for "justice."

The "war for justice/freedom/peace/WWE Intercontinental belt" excuse isn't "cleverer" or "more sophisticated" or "more cultured" or "more civilised". It isn't even more "modern", other than the fact that it is currently the excuse that is in vogue - hardly an endorsement. It is just more sympathetic to your ideology.

but that isn't the topic. we are comparing Islam to christianity/other religions on the basis of violent, sanctioned behavior.

Except you aren't. You are comparing how the people use it as a legitimisation.

And how people use it says nothing about the belief system. The fact that we use knives to eat doesn't make Western cuisine ostensibly more violent than the orientals who use harmless wooden chopsticks...

Yes, the knife's metallic cutting edge make it easier to use as a deadly weapon than the rather blunt and flimsy chopstick, but that doesn't make it more sinister, primitive, evil, backwards, dangerous or any other label you want to place on it.

Likewise, the fact that Islamic texts could (arguably, and I am sure there are plenty of scholars who would argue otherwise) more readily be used to incite violence doesn't mean that they are intrinsically inferior.

[Qdrop]

WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM, ACE!?!


yeah, i think we are actually in total agreement...but are each centering on differant aspect of this topic.

i agree with what your are saying....i've said it all before.

and yes, i WAS isolating the conversation to christian motivated (fine, not "sanctioned") violence vs Islamic motivated violence.
miopic? certainly....
but i just wanted to make a point....as people so carelessly equate US troops and actions a "christian ones".....in attempts to show how christianity is just as violent as Islam.
bullshit.

the US is not motivated by religion.

if you thing that neither is the Islamic world...well, i must disagree.

[Ace42X]

the US is not motivated by religion.

if you thing that neither is the Islamic world...well, i must disagree.

That is a massive generalisation. The Islamic world is far from unified. The Iraq-Iran war was not motivated by Islam, and nor was the invasion of Kuwait. All the predominantly Islamic nations have all types of motivations, and to conflate them all down to the core tenets of Islam is a ridiculously crude and unhelpful analysis.

The US government's (national) policies are often motivated by religion, and its people frequently. Look at the furory about that new supreme court judge appointee trying to revisit Roe vs Wade, etc.

Just as a bunch of nutjob protestors got o nthe news RE: Terry Schiavo, it is the idiots with AKs that get on the news in Islamic states.

How many of the gun-toting paramilitaries in the US have strong religious views and motivations? KKK, Aryan Nations?

Is easy to call them fringe when you don't have Al Jazeera constantly sticking cameras in their face, conflating your policies with theirs.

[Qdrop]

The US government's (national) policies are often motivated by religion, and its people frequently. Look at the furory about that new supreme court judge appointee trying to revisit Roe vs Wade, etc.
a backdrop...
that will never get touched, anymore than Intelligent design will every be federally mandated.
the fringe religious zealots get a leg up on rare occasion...sometimes they even get a zealot in office....but they come up against a brick wall whenever they try to truly enact change. people like thier Jesus...but not THAT much.


How many of the gun-toting paramilitaries in the US have strong religious views and motivations? KKK, Aryan Nations?

Is easy to call them fringe when you don't have Al Jazeera constantly sticking cameras in their face, conflating your policies with theirs.
when's the last time KKK/Aryans did ANYTHING?
the men responsible for Oklamhoma City had some ties to Aryans....but that was really just anti-gov't.
you just don't see religiously motivated attacks on any significant scale with any other religion than Islam.
have the US and other nations simply switched religion for nationalism, etc? sure...and mine and your views pretty much converge from there...

[valvano]

the last good religion went down the tubes in Guyana

:mad:

[Ace42X]

you just don't see religiously motivated attacks on any significant scale with any other religion than Islam.

Depends on scale and context. Sure,*I* don't see them. I'm white, I live in a predominantly monothiestic and monocultural rural town. I don't see attacks of ANY sort on a significant scale.

When it comes to news, I see what I am shown. The numerous African based christians who are killing their own children because of "demonic possession" barely get a mention. Ditto for the stoning of "witches." IE, any woman they have a problem with.

But then, I can't think of any Islamic "religiously motivated attacks" either. 9/11 was as much about Palestine and the former Iraq war as anything else. The balkans were a tit-for-tat affair, sudan is muslim vs muslim racism, Rwanda was ethnically based. Arab-Israeli conflict is about land and race, and here Moslems are more likely to be the targets of religiously (often veiled racially, as the BNP are fond of doing) motivated violence. The tensions between Pakistan and India are significantly about land (Kashmir and Bangladesh) and resources (water).

[ms.peachy]

"They" should be more like "us", fair enough. Should "we" also be more like "them", or are "we" better than "them"?

Depends on who you are, dunnit?
I think you are missing my point. It's not that "they" should be more like "us", because the whole 'they' and 'us' thing is ridiculous - that's why I used the quotes. My point is that the respect, tolerance, and understanding has to be mutual. Why is it incumbent upon me as an individual to try and understand the young man throwing rocks at an embassy, and yet not his responsibility to do the same for me?

[EN[i]GMA]

see, i knew you were full of shit.

2:239 'Do not forget to show kindness to each other. God observes your actions.'

2:254 'Believers, bestow in alms a part of what We have given you before that day arrives when commerce and friendship and intercession shall be no more. Truly, it is the unbelievers who are unjust.'

2:257 'There shall be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error. God hears all and knows all.'

So what?

I'm sure Adolf Hitler said some swell things from time to time.

Hell, if you searched enough you could probably find him saying he was 'OK with Jews' or whatever.

Does that make it so? Does the fact that he said good things every now and then make him good?

Of course not. Actions speak louder than words, as it were.

Hitler probably said some nice shit sometime, but look at what he did.

The Quran probably has some nice shit in it, like you posted, but so what? Look at who wrote it: a violent warlord.

Tread through Mein Kampf and you might find some flowery prose about some similar things.

Muhmammad wrote the book to find people to fight with him. The religion was created by a warlord, for war.

It's just good business to add in some bullshit about 'loving one another', it gets the chicks, but what Islam has always meant is violence.

It's entire history is one of violence, most of religion based.

It was conceived in violence, for violence, and it's filling its role right now.

[Ace42X]

And every capitalist mantra you recite was written by a fat-cat to keep down the proles and help his friends get rich off the backs of the poor.

Your point?

It was conceived in violence, for violence, and it's filling its role right now.

Exploitation, capitalism, same thing.

[EN[i]GMA]

Rich coming from the pro-capitalist.


Thought you might like that.


Or to anyone with any religious beliefs whatsoever, apparently. Considering that is what we were talking about. And then there were all the moslems who didn't demand (decry is to speak out against) that.

Very juvenile use of the straw-man there.

Extend the statement to all religious folk; I don't care.

I don't care what any of them think about my views on God.


That if I were to decide which morality, yours or theirs, was right based purely on fact, there would be nothing to choose between them other than my own personal preference.

I know that.


Ok, Nihilism. There is no over-riding ethical basis or point, so really you can do whatever the hell you want without any formal limitations. That has just justified doing everything the worst islamic terrorist has done, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE.

Well, if we're pretending to be nihlist here, nothing is 'worse' than anything else.


The road to Hell, something something something...

... Doesn't exist because there is nowhere for it to go to...

Catchier.


So, really, your morality involves permitting things that you want to do to others, and denying people the right to do things that you don't want to have done to you.

And you can't see the flaw in this?

I mean that what I say or do will be tempered by what what everyone wants, no matter what.

THat's obvious. Might makes right, whether it should or no.

My 'morality' is simply a set of rules that make sense to me; a good way to run a society.

They certainly aren't absolute or objective, but I kind of like them. That's what really matters.

[EN[i]GMA]

And every capitalist mantra you recite was written by a fat-cat to keep down the proles and help his friends get rich off the backs of the poor.

Ludwig von Mises was never rich.


Exploitation, capitalism, same thing.

You really do like to incite acrimony.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
They certainly aren't absolute or objective, but I kind of like them. That's what really matters.

And the Muslims like theirs, so it's all even then, and your ranting and derogations are just infantile boasts...

Ok, now on to discussing the issue without pejoration.

[EN[i]GMA]

Sure, but it doesn't give me or you the right to judge and condemn those who do believe it to be true, nor does it give anybody the right to deliberately antagonise them, either.

We are free to believe what we want, we're also free to criticise the beliefs of others, but we're not free to judge their response to a 'dare'.

And we're free to say whatever want.

'Your religion sucks' is speach, whether you like the fact or not.

I can judge or condemn anything I want; it's my right.

Hell, I can antagonize you, within' limit.

You can't simply shut me, or anyone else, up because they're 'antagonizing' you with 'logic and reason'.

That shit doesn't fly.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
You can't simply shut me, or anyone else, up because they're 'antagonizing' you with 'logic and reason'.

Why not? You just said might = right.

[EN[i]GMA]

And the Muslims like theirs, so it's all even then, and your ranting and derogations are just infantile boasts...

Do they admit the fact, though?

They assume their morality is objective and absolute and that they have the OBLIGATION to impose it on others.

Do you really not see the difference between my beliefs and theirs?

They're out to kill and subjugate. Me? Not so much.

Note the differences in intents, in means, and in consequences.


Ok, now on to discussing the issue without pejoration.

Best of luck with that.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
They're out to kill and subjugate.

Muslims are? I've not met any muslims who wanted to kill or subjugate me, and I am a very inflammatory person.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why not? You just said might = right.

Well they certainly 'can', as in physically can. I could do nothing to stop them.

But we have rule of law, in this country, and luckily, freedom of speach is protected by law.

But if all the Xians in the country wanted to shut me or up or kill me, I couldn't stop them.

Might does make right and morality can be dictated with a gun.

Should it be, is the question.

I say no.

Religious folk tend to say yes.

[EN[i]GMA]

Muslims are? I've not met any muslims who wanted to kill or subjugate me, and I am a very inflammatory person.

Read the book.

I'll help you find some passages about 'killing the non-believers' and 'converting' them.

There are all kinds of them.

Any Muslim who was worth is salt would be out there offing Xians now, according to Muhammad.

But there are countries where you would stand a serious risk of being killed, or at least imprisoned.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Should it be, is the question.

I say no.

Religious folk tend to say yes.

Except for the millions and millions whose religious teachings specifically say the opposite...

[Ace42X]

GMA']
I'll help you find some passages about 'killing the non-believers' and 'converting' them.

If I wanted to cherry-pick misrepresentative passages to demonify them, I could listen to Nick Griffin.

[EN[i]GMA]

Except for the millions and millions whose religious teachings specifically say the opposite...

Really now?

What's the Bible say about all this? It's pretty clear regarding sin. Sinners go to hell, namely.

That's serious dicatation, right there.

Koran? 'Kill the unbelievers'.

Torah? Not familiar with it, but I'm sure there's plenty in there too.

I mean, look at the record of theocratic governments. Look what those 'religious teachings' get you.

Look at what the Puritans did, what the Crusaders did.

They certainly were 'justified' in doing what they did, based on what they thought and what they were taught.

Are they then right?

[EN[i]GMA]

If I wanted to cherry-pick misrepresentative passages to demonify them, I could listen to Nick Griffin.

'Misrepresenative'?

YOu think when Mumammad wrote 'kill Christians' he really meant 'don't kill Christians'?

What did he 'really mean' and how can you divine this?

[Ali]

i'm comparing acts religion sanctioned violence.

while the christian right certainly helped swing the election....assuming that all that voted for Bush are bible-thumping christians is beyond presumptiuous of you...it's ignorant.
you're falling for the rhetoric...hard.

since when has the amercian side of the Iraq war been the Christian coalition?
the US is not fighting a holy christian war...our soldiers are not devout followers of christianity.
we are fighting for Oil and strategic trade/military satelites.

don't stretch AMERICANS =CHRISTIAN WARRIORS FIGHTING FOR JESUS.

retard.

again, calling US troops christians.
you're trying to paint OUR side of the war as a christian war.
we're there for the Oil...
no one's there to defend Jesus.
Crusade against terror (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

Bush/Cheney/Jesus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html)

Christian Soldiers (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/13/Columns/Christian_soldiers_fo.shtml)

CMF (http://members.iquest.net/~c_m_f/cmflists.htm)

Would you like some lubricant or are you enjoying yourself?

[Ace42X]

GMA']Really now?

What's the Bible say about all this? It's pretty clear regarding sin. Sinners go to hell, namely.

Last I checked, MEN didn't get to choose about hell, and as such has nothing to do with killing or subjugation...

You'd think that "thou shalt not kill" puts Christianity at odds with the killing stuff. And the "love thy neighbour as thy love thyself" would rule out subjugation for anyone who isn't into sado-masochism.

Koran? 'Kill the unbelievers'.

And all the passages which say "don't" ? I'm not an Islamic scholar, I don't speak arabic, and I only have a vague knowledge of the context and climate thatthe religion was founded in. But I dare say that, like all religious texts, they are open to interpretation. And you choosing an extremist interpretation just so that you can straw-man it is hardly a sound refutation.

I mean, look at the record of theocratic governments. Look what those 'religious teachings' get you.

Inductive reasoning, totally invalid. You might as well say "look at Hitler, see what electing a decorator gets you."

Look at what the Puritans did, what the Crusaders did.

And athiests never take part in organised violence...

They certainly were 'justified' in doing what they did, based on what they thought and what they were taught.

Are they then right?

That doesn't make too much sense, but jsut because they offered a justification, doesn't mean they were "justified."

As for them being right, it depends. If they are factually correct, and there is a God as they know it, then clearly yes, yes they are right. And no matter what you think, or believe, or feel is right or wrong, you are in error.

Now, I am not saying that is the case, merely that you can't KNOW that it isn't. Which makes your pronouncements just as weak and unconvincing as theirs.

Of course, being "right" depends on how you define "right."

Clearly they can't be right, as your definition for right is merely what appeals to your personal moral sense, and you don't like what they did.

Hardly conclusive proof of the case though.


YOu think when Mumammad wrote 'kill Christians' he really meant 'don't kill Christians'?

Where does he say "kill all Christians, always, with no exceptions or qualification." ? And does he say "Do not kill" elsewhere? In which case, you concentrating on "kill christians" instead of "do not kill" is misrepresentative.

If he says "Kill Christians" and then says "don't Christians" - to just say "oh, he says kill Christians" is misrepresentative. You might equally say "he says don't kill Christians" and be just as right.

[Ali]

My point is that the respect, tolerance, and understanding has to be mutual. Why is it incumbent upon me as an individual to try and understand the young man throwing rocks at an embassy, and yet not his responsibility to do the same for me?Maybe he's too busy being oppressed to understand you?

Sure it has to be mutual, and when it's not, then do you have the right to stop trying?

If the people who published those cartoons had cared about the reaction of the people who they KNEW would be offended, then perhaps the people throwing stones at the embassies would care more about the damage they are doing.

[Ali]

GMA']And we're free to say whatever want.But not if you are the President of Iran.

Right?

Cue: "Oh, but that's different, blah, blah, fishpaste..."

Hypocrites

[Ali]

GMA']But there are countries where you would stand a serious risk of being killed, or at least imprisoned.E.g. US, Israel.

Ace would be safer in the Middle East.

[Ali]

And athiests never take part in organised violence......they are a lot harder to mobilise and control than the feverently religious, regardless of the faith.

In fact, when was the last time an Atheist bombed a marketplace or hijacked a plane... or joined the army, for that matter? How many Atheist presidents has the US had?

Anybody got the time to find me the numbers? I have an 8 month-old with a tooth about to come through and I don't have a lot of time on my hands. :eek:

[Ace42X]

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Hmmm, the prophet doesn't seem to be too angry with the Christians, Jews and Sabians there...

[2.109]Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.

Pardon and forgive the unbelievers...

[EN[i]GMA]

But not if you are the President of Iran.

Right?

Cue: "Oh, but that's different, blah, blah, fishpaste..."

Hypocrites

No, he can say what he likes.

He may be wrong, but he can say it.

I certainly won't threaten to kill him over it.

[Ace42X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4687270.stm

[SobaViolence]

GNN (http://guerrillanews.com/headlines/7419/Robert_Fisk_this_isn_t_an_issue_of_Islam_versus_se cularism)

So let’s start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam. For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea’s “long, withdrawing roar�. That’s why we talk about “the West versus Islam� rather than “Christians versus Islam� – because there aren’t an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Last I checked, MEN didn't get to choose about hell, and as such has nothing to do with killing or subjugation...

Men made-up hell.

Men wrote these books.


You'd think that "thou shalt not kill" puts Christianity at odds with the killing stuff. And the "love thy neighbour as thy love thyself" would rule out subjugation for anyone who isn't into sado-masochism.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?


And all the passages which say "don't" ? I'm not an Islamic scholar, I don't speak arabic, and I only have a vague knowledge of the context and climate thatthe religion was founded in. But I dare say that, like all religious texts, they are open to interpretation. And you choosing an extremist interpretation just so that you can straw-man it is hardly a sound refutation.

Ah, but is it 'extremist' or it is the correct understanding?


Inductive reasoning, totally invalid. You might as well say "look at Hitler, see what electing a decorator gets you."

True, it is inductive reasoning.

But there is deductive evidence as well, namely the examples of violence condoned in the religious texts and ordered by the so-called 'experts', priests, mullahs and the like.

They are authorative, are they not?


And athiests never take part in organised violence...

They do, but for different reasons.

We should work to reduce the number of reasons, should we not?


That doesn't make too much sense, but jsut because they offered a justification, doesn't mean they were "justified."

That's why I used the quotation marks. I'm sure they thougth they were justified, is my point.

THat's all that actually matters.


As for them being right, it depends. If they are factually correct, and there is a God as they know it, then clearly yes, yes they are right. And no matter what you think, or believe, or feel is right or wrong, you are in error.

Naturally.

But I wouldn't put much stake in that line of reasoning for obvious reasons.

God punishing me isn't something I particularly fear.


Now, I am not saying that is the case, merely that you can't KNOW that it isn't. Which makes your pronouncements just as weak and unconvincing as theirs.

Well then what can we know about morality?

Anything?

It seems pretty subjective to me; can anything be 'known' about morality? If so, what?


Of course, being "right" depends on how you define "right."

Well yes, just as being anything depends on how you define 'anything'.


Clearly they can't be right, as your definition for right is merely what appeals to your personal moral sense, and you don't like what they did.

Hardly conclusive proof of the case though.

You have better?


Where does he say "kill all Christians, always, with no exceptions or qualification." ?

Do you accept 'unless the convert' as a 'qualification'?

Because that's the main gist of it. Kill them unless they convert.


And does he say "Do not kill" elsewhere? In which case, you concentrating on "kill christians" instead of "do not kill" is misrepresentative.

It says kill them if they refuse to follow Allah's word.

I will assume that 'do not kill' thus only applies to those who do follow Allah's word, as it's already been determined that non-believers and idolators who deny Allah are not fit to live.


If he says "Kill Christians" and then says "don't Christians" - to just say "oh, he says kill Christians" is misrepresentative. You might equally say "he says don't kill Christians" and be just as right.

But of course if you look and see what he really did with people who didn't listen to him (Conquered them), you would have a good clue as to what he really meant.

Again, I'm sure Hitler said something nice about Jews, or a Jew, somewhere, sometime, but that doesn't mean he wasn't sincere in writing Mein Kampf or in killing them.

[marsdaddy]

Satire, schmatire (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_en_ot/people_sharpton_3;_ylt=AvTgWuh_rlqT7S1Zb_LqBt_BaMY A;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--)

[yeahwho]

Just a few years ago Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29) excersiced free speech

He was critical of Islam's treatment of women and was murdered for being so.

Perhaps the thinking is that it's not such a bad idea to band together and all say something critical of Islam, as then its not just one person that fanatic shitheads will need to murder but NATIONS of people. In effect allowing everyone the free speech they've become accustomed to?

Hate speech masking as freedom of speech is what offends so many here. I'm completely against the tone of these cartoons but c'mon,

Self censorship because you may offend homicidal maniacs can only be held onto for so long before you have to ask exactly how much control said maniacs have over you.

The pen shall always be mightier than the sword.

.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Men made-up hell.
Men wrote these books.

I could write a book about the Pyramids, doesn't mean I made them. And you argue "men made-up Hell" as if it were a fact. That isn't a fact, it is your opinion. Once again, your anti-religious rant culminates in "nuh-uh, because it's not what I personally believe in."

Which is all fair and well, until you start deriding other people for what THEY believe in.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Yes, which is why it is the case. Christianity is at odds with killing, which is why you can conclude that anyone killing in the name of Christianity is *wrong*. That has no bearing on Christianity or religion. If I went around murdering people because "Capitalism told me to do it" - would you then ditch capitalism as the world's greatest evil? No. But if some loons use RELIGION, your personal bugbear, as an excuse, that's a different story.

Ah, but is it 'extremist' or it is the correct understanding?

Well, if the book isn't the genuine article, then there is no "correct" understanding, and you were choosing an extreme one just to be petulent. As there can be no definitive answer either way (unless you can speak to Allah yourself to clear it up) - then if the book IS correct, then you STILL took an extremist reading of it, just to be petulent. Eitherway, it is not to your credit, nor argues in your favour.

True, it is inductive reasoning.

The drop it.

but there is deductive evidence as well, namely the examples of violence condoned in the religious texts and ordered by the so-called 'experts', priests, mullahs and the like.

They are authorative, are they not?

You can't have deductive evidence. Deduction is a process used on the evidence, not evidence itself. And criticising a non-central text or interpretation of a religion doesn't have any logical bearing on the religion as a whole, or organised religion on the whole.

They do, but for different reasons.

That's just plain wrong. The only people who kill "because my religious book told me to" are invariably mad. Sane criminals only use religion to justify, legitimise or mitigate a crime after the effect. Apart from lone individuals, I bet you cannot name any religiously motivated conflicts that are not actually the products of very pragmatic secular problems. Religion is just a cover story, smoke and mirrors. You ignorantly targeting it as the root cause just allows the actual causes to go unchallenged, and the problems to persist.

We should work to reduce the number of reasons, should we not?[/quote]

As religion is not a significant reason (if a reason at all) - eliminating it will not solve anything. If anything, it would ultimately prove more divisive to societies who are largely cohered by religious similarities. Take the US as an example, there are still wars, intollerance and inequality being put forward by athiests, secularists, etc etc. As I have continually pointed out, you eliminate religion, and it just moves to nationalism, or partisanism, or anything else.

So the next wars are fought for "justice" and "freedom" instead of Allah. What then? You go tilting against those windmills? "Down with freedom, it causes suffering and hate and war..."

'Cause it's the same thing, so that will be the next battle cry.

That's why I used the quotation marks. I'm sure they thougth they were justified, is my point.

THat's all that actually matters.

Anyone can feel justified by anything. I might feel justified by something you said in here... Does that mean you'll be gagging yourself because of your clearly dangerous inherant nature?

But I wouldn't put much stake in that line of reasoning for obvious reasons.

And because you don't put much stake in it, the rest of the world should conform? Again, coming from the pro-capitalist, that hardly bodes well.

Well then what can we know about morality?
Anything?
It seems pretty subjective to me; can anything be 'known' about morality? If so, what?

A better question is - If nothing, then why are you so insistant on bashing other people's?


You have better?

A better definition of "right" than "what Enigma thinks is right" ? Ok, "What Ace42 thinks is right."

There we go, there's one right off the bat. Just like any Muslim can say "Whatever I think is right is better".

Because that's the main gist of it. Kill them unless they convert.
It says kill them if they refuse to follow Allah's word.

Funny, the Koran I read said quite clearly "Pardon and forgive them." As I quoted. So, it's not exactly "the main gist of it" - is it? Infact, it is pretty opposed to "the main gist of it" according to you.

I will assume that 'do not kill' thus only applies to those who do follow Allah's word, as it's already been determined that non-believers and idolators who deny Allah are not fit to live.

Funny, as it said clearly, and concisely that Jews, Christians, etc should be "Pardoned and forgiven..."

Not exactly "already established" so much as "quite literally refuted."

But of course if you look and see what he really did with people who didn't listen to him (Conquered them), you would have a good clue as to what he really meant.

Hardly. I do bad, stupid, wrong things all the time. I know they are bad, stupid, wrong and do them anyway. If anyone were to ask me about them, I'd tell them that they are bad, stupid and wrong. And me saying so would be quite clear, concise, and correct. Assuming your unsupported assertion is correct (and it is only for arguments sake, neither of us is an Islamic scholar, and so it will generally be pissing in the wind) - the words of the Qu'ran are supposedly what the prophet was told by Allah. At no point does it then go on to say "But, you can disregard these words, because the behaviour of the messenger tells you more about the religion than these words do..."

However, if you look to see what supposedly happened, you'd know that Mohammed was a merchant, and that he preached the Qu'ran before he had a large enough group of followers to start the first Muslim community after *fleeing from persecution*, and then embark on conquering the other arabic tribes. But it is easy to confuse "fighting against hostile aggressors" with "being a megalomaniac war-lord" I am sure.

Muhammad drafted a document now known as the Constitution of Medina (c. 622-623), which laid out the terms on which the different factions, specifically the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book" could exist within the new Islamic State. This system would come to typify Muslim relations with their non-believing subjects and that tradition was one reason for the stability of the later Muslim caliphate or Khilafah. In this, the Islamic empire was more tolerant than another great power of the area, the Byzantine empire, which was actively hostile to any religions or sects other than the state-sponsored version of Orthodox Christianity.

Again, I'm sure Hitler said something nice about Jews, or a Jew, somewhere, sometime, but that doesn't mean he wasn't sincere in writing Mein Kampf or in killing them.

You are confusing a core passage of the Qu'ran with "something Hitler might've said over a coffee cup once, maybe..." If the man was made of any more straw, he'd spontaneously combust.

[Funkaloyd]

Great, another Ace vs. Enigma [/quote]war.

Christianity is at odds with killing
A lot of Christians would disagree with you there.

[Ace42X]

A lot of Christians would disagree with you there.

They'd be wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" - simple as.

[Funkaloyd]

So your interpretation of the Bible is the right one, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong?

[SobaViolence]

They'd be wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" - simple as.

so, that means the jews as well...?

[Ace42X]

So your interpretation of the Bible is the right one, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong?

Yes, precisely. Anyone who takes "Thou shalt not kill." To mean "Killing some people is ok" are, quite simply, wrong.

Now, there are arguments based on translation that are useable, but those are generally contingent on sectarian and individual interpretation. The vast majority take "Thou shalt not kill" to be pretty self-explanatory.

And yes, that includes the Jews as well. Although I am not as familiar with Judaism as christianity, so they may well translate "kill" differently.

[EN[i]GMA]

I could write a book about the Pyramids, doesn't mean I made them. And you argue "men made-up Hell" as if it were a fact.

In the same sense that 'unicorns are not real' is fact, or that 'the earth is round is fact'; that is, backed up by evidence with no contrary evidence.


That isn't a fact, it is your opinion. Once again, your anti-religious rant culminates in "nuh-uh, because it's not what I personally believe in."

Which is all fair and well, until you start deriding other people for what THEY believe in.

Tell that to the Muslims.

What an interesting side you've chosen.

Apply these same arguments to the Muslims and we're in agreement.


Yes, which is why it is the case. Christianity is at odds with killing, which is why you can conclude that anyone killing in the name of Christianity is *wrong*. That has no bearing on Christianity or religion. If I went around murdering people because "Capitalism told me to do it" - would you then ditch capitalism as the world's greatest evil? No. But if some loons use RELIGION, your personal bugbear, as an excuse, that's a different story.

Well 'capitalism' doesn't include any passages about 'smiting unbelievers'.


Well, if the book isn't the genuine article, then there is no "correct" understanding, and you were choosing an extreme one just to be petulent. As there can be no definitive answer either way (unless you can speak to Allah yourself to clear it up) - then if the book IS correct, then you STILL took an extremist reading of it, just to be petulent. Eitherway, it is not to your credit, nor argues in your favour.

'Extremist'. How pejoritive.


The drop it.


Why should I drop my illogic when you're actively defending illogic?

If 'Islam could, theoretically be right' even though there is no evidence for it, maybe my statements really are logical and you just don't have enough faith.

You can't go around declaring things logical or illogical, I decide what's logical or not.

True, there may be no proof that my statement was logical, but hey, since you can't prove that the entire concept of human reason is not flawed, than there still is an outside chance my statement was perfectly logical.

If if it's good enough for the Islamists, it's good enough for me seems to be your arguement. Let's apply it here.


You can't have deductive evidence. Deduction is a process used on the evidence, not evidence itself. And criticising a non-central text or interpretation of a religion doesn't have any logical bearing on the religion as a whole, or organised religion on the whole.

The Koran is a 'non central text'?


That's just plain wrong. The only people who kill "because my religious book told me to" are invariably mad. Sane criminals only use religion to justify, legitimise or mitigate a crime after the effect. Apart from lone individuals, I bet you cannot name any religiously motivated conflicts that are not actually the products of very pragmatic secular problems. Religion is just a cover story, smoke and mirrors. You ignorantly targeting it as the root cause just allows the actual causes to go unchallenged, and the problems to persist.

Well, as a leftist, I think you should see how religion is used.

WE have no idea what people 'really felt' about religion, or whether they fought for God or country or for no reason at all.

Saying that no religiously motivated wars were religiously motivated at all is not a logical statement either.

Argumentum ad ignorantium I believe.


As religion is not a significant reason (if a reason at all) - eliminating it will not solve anything. If anything, it would ultimately prove more divisive to societies who are largely cohered by religious similarities. Take the US as an example, there are still wars, intollerance and inequality being put forward by athiests, secularists, etc etc. As I have continually pointed out, you eliminate religion, and it just moves to nationalism, or partisanism, or anything else.

So the next wars are fought for "justice" and "freedom" instead of Allah. What then? You go tilting against those windmills? "Down with freedom, it causes suffering and hate and war..."

'Cause it's the same thing, so that will be the next battle cry.

I specifically used the word 'superstition' earlier in this thread.

What are patriotism and nationalism but superstition?


A better question is - If nothing, then why are you so insistant on bashing other people's?

Because they're wrong of course.

Because there is no Allah.

If you're going to make up your own morality, at least do it well.


A better definition of "right" than "what Enigma thinks is right" ? Ok, "What Ace42 thinks is right."

There we go, there's one right off the bat. Just like any Muslim can say "Whatever I think is right is better".

Of course he can.

And if he has the guns, he can enforce it.

And if I have the guns, I can enforce mine.

That's the story of morality and always will be.


Funny, the Koran I read said quite clearly "Pardon and forgive them." As I quoted. So, it's not exactly "the main gist of it" - is it? Infact, it is pretty opposed to "the main gist of it" according to you.

You must have misread it.

'Pardon' can look an awful lot like 'kill' you know.


Funny, as it said clearly, and concisely that Jews, Christians, etc should be "Pardoned and forgiven..."

Not exactly "already established" so much as "quite literally refuted."

And I've clearly shone in other passages that killing them is OK.

I guess the whole book is contradictory.


Hardly. I do bad, stupid, wrong things all the time. I know they are bad, stupid, wrong and do them anyway. If anyone were to ask me about them, I'd tell them that they are bad, stupid and wrong. And me saying so would be quite clear, concise, and correct. Assuming your unsupported assertion is correct (and it is only for arguments sake, neither of us is an Islamic scholar, and so it will generally be pissing in the wind) - the words of the Qu'ran are supposedly what the prophet was told by Allah. At no point does it then go on to say "But, you can disregard these words, because the behaviour of the messenger tells you more about the religion than these words do..."

However, if you look to see what supposedly happened, you'd know that Mohammed was a merchant, and that he preached the Qu'ran before he had a large enough group of followers to start the first Muslim community after *fleeing from persecution*, and then embark on conquering the other arabic tribes. But it is easy to confuse "fighting against hostile aggressors" with "being a megalomaniac war-lord" I am sure.

I guess I just got him confused with another Islamic Warlord named Muhammad.

A very easy mistake.


You are confusing a core passage of the Qu'ran with "something Hitler might've said over a coffee cup once, maybe..." If the man was made of any more straw, he'd spontaneously combust.

As if you can accurately judge a God-inspired book.

How do you know what a 'core passage' is? Did Allah tell you? How do you know what Hitler 'really thought'? Can you read minds?

[EN[i]GMA]

They'd be wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" - simple as.

Greater Christian scholars than you, Pope's even, disagree with that statement.

Pope's God's right-hand man. He knows the deal.

'Thou shalt not kill' really means 'off the bastards'.

Who are you to say otherwise? You're no Bible scholar.

Maybe God personally told them to 'disregard'.

[Funkaloyd]

Anyone who takes "Thou shalt not kill." To mean "Killing some people is ok" are, quite simply, wrong.
Yet "kill them [unbelievers] wherever ye find them" is "open to interpretation"?

[Ace42X]

GMA']that is, backed up by evidence with no contrary evidence.

So, essentially, inductive reasoning yet again. Actually there is plenty of "evidence" to the contrary, such as accounts by various religious sources. The fact that you choose to not believe them is neither here nor there. I might choose not to believe textual evidence that the Eiffel Tower exists, but that has no bearing on the matter.

Tell that to the Muslims.

I would, if any were around here telling me what I can and can't do and what I should and shouldn't believe. However, as there aren't, I'm going to continue to criticise your hypocrisy for doing precisely the same thing.

Apply these same arguments to the Muslims and we're in agreement.

Yes, but you are unwilling to "apply these same arguments" that you agree with to yourself. Hence "hypocrisy."

Well 'capitalism' doesn't include any passages about 'smiting unbelievers'.

Oh-hoh? So the US wasn't at all hostile to soviet russia then? There was no demonisation of "the commie pinkos" ?

Pull the other one. And I can't think of any people whose defence was "It says in the bible I should kill unbelievers, your honour."

However, I would be interested if you'd point out where the bible does include passages about smiting unbelievers that are not recanted.

'Extremist'. How pejoritive.

That's sauce for the gander.

Why should I drop my illogic when you're actively defending illogic?

If that is what you think my argument is, then you are misunderstanding the rhetoric.

You can't go around declaring things logical or illogical, I decide what's logical or not.

Uh, no. The whole point of logic is that it is not subjective. I can go around declaring things logical or illogical solely by the basis of applying tried and trusty logical reasoning to them.

You can thus argue that logic is meaningless (and you'd have a point, an argument can be logically valid, but incorrect, for example) but not that you are being logical when your argument flies in the face of logic.

True, there may be no proof that my statement was logical, but hey, since you can't prove that the entire concept of human reason is not flawed, than there still is an outside chance my statement was perfectly logical.

No, logic doesn't work like that. Nice try though. What you mean is that there is still an outside chance that you are *right*. Whether logic is flawed or not, it is possible to ascertain whether the statement is logically valid or not.

If if it's good enough for the Islamists, it's good enough for me seems to be your arguement.

Actually my argument is that your position has no more basis in rational thought or logic than their's. And it doesn't, RE: is-ought. So your anti-religion tirades are just as tiresome and inane as any pro-religion drivel that racerstang comes out with. So I am just as motivated to shout down the logic-errors and false assumptions in your argument as in his.

The Koran is a 'non central text'?

You said "religious texts, etc, etc."

If you want to argue specifics in the Koran, cite specifics in the koran, complete with chapter and verse so that I can look it up. Although, with neither of us being experienced in the subject, and you being particularly reluctant to let a single thing drop, no matter how tenuous, it would probably be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that your portrayl of the Koran was clearly misrepresentative, as I cited clear and obvious conflicting sentiments.

Well, as a leftist, I think you should see how religion is used.

I know all too well how it is used. Just as I know that people use heavy books to bash other peoples brains out. Hardly means all books should be banned.

WE have no idea what people 'really felt' about religion, or whether they fought for God or country or for no reason at all.

Of course we do. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see through it, unless they are particularly obstinate <stares pointedly>

Saying that no religiously motivated wars were religiously motivated at all is not a logical statement either.

Yes, I omitted the quotation marks. Read it as "no wars with a motivation that was ascribed to religion were religiously motivated"

I specifically used the word 'superstition' earlier in this thread.
What are patriotism and nationalism but superstition?

I specifically mentioned "Liberty and Freedom" - and I noticed you omitted to use them in your reply. Presumably because you knew that you couldn't argue against them.

A lot of your beliefs are superstitious (# An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
#

1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature) - namely your prediliction for capitalist dogma.

Down with them too?



Because they're wrong of course.
Because there is no Allah.

Again, you don't know that. So it is your belief against theirs. Nothing to choose between them.

If you're going to make up your own morality, at least do it well.

Except the muslims didn't. A select few made it up, the rest follow it.

Of course he can.
And if he has the guns, he can enforce it.
And if I have the guns, I can enforce mine.
That's the story of morality and always will be.

Hah, yeah, whatever. Muslims are right then, they have AKs, QED. End of discussion right htere.

You must have misread it.
'Pardon' can look an awful lot like 'kill' you know.

Yeah, maybe me cutting and pasting it literally deformed it magically. Maybe you're just wrong.

And I've clearly shone in other passages that killing them is OK

I must've missed that. Most them again, with references, in context.

I guess the whole book is contradictory.

Which makes your one-sided interpretation wrong then.

I guess I just got him confused with another Islamic Warlord named Muhammad.

A very easy mistake.

I guess so, given that he was only a warrior for the last ten years of his life, having spent the vast majority of it as a merchant.

As if you can accurately judge a God-inspired book.

It depends. Generally correctly extracting information from a book is called "reading" and is something people do all the time.

How do you know what a 'core passage' is? Did Allah tell you?

Again, as I am not an Islamic scholar, I cannot claim authority on it. However, a clear indisputable sentance instructing you on specific behaviour is about as "core" as you can get. There are plenty of objective criteria you can use for judging it, but that is not something to go into. Suffice it to say, you sure as hell haven't used rational judgement.

Now, if you want to argue that my counter-argument is just as crappy and pointless as yours, fair enough. I'm more than willing to coincide that my counter-argument is as crappy, pointless, and baseless as your initial premise. But I'm guessing that's not where you are going with this.

How do you know what Hitler 'really thought'? Can you read minds?

You missed the point. Neither of us brought up "what he really thought." You were talking about him "maybe saying a nice thing about jews, but".

A passage in the qu'ran, purportedly the direct words of Allah, saying to forgive and pardon non-believers, is not the same as him saying "you know, these unbelievers aren't all THAT bad" between beheadings. And hence the straw-man.

[Ace42X]

Yet "kill them [unbelievers] wherever ye find them" is "open to interpretation"?

Depends on the context. If there is a contradictory passage, then it is pointless to focus on one and omit the other.

Infact it is intellectually dishonest to do so.

Clearly if there is conflicting messages, an individual's interpretation is completely necessary to determine which one has preference.

Do you really need me to explain the blisteringly obvious?

[EN[i]GMA]

So, essentially, inductive reasoning yet again. Actually there is plenty of "evidence" to the contrary, such as accounts by various religious sources. The fact that you choose to not believe them is neither here nor there. I might choose not to believe textual evidence that the Eiffel Tower exists, but that has no bearing on the matter.

Evidence of Allah's existence?

I'd love to see it.


I would, if any were around here telling me what I can and can't do and what I should and shouldn't believe. However, as there aren't, I'm going to continue to criticise your hypocrisy for doing precisely the same thing.

And so you don't tell anyone what to believe?


Yes, but you are unwilling to "apply these same arguments" that you agree with to yourself. Hence "hypocrisy."


Oh-hoh? So the US wasn't at all hostile to soviet russia then? There was no demonisation of "the commie pinkos" ?

Pull the other one. And I can't think of any people whose defence was "It says in the bible I should kill unbelievers, your honour."

Trying prosecution, "God shall not suffer a witch to live".

That got a few people hanged.


However, I would be interested if you'd point out where the bible does include passages about smiting unbelievers that are not recanted.

Recanted by what?


If that is what you think my argument is, then you are misunderstanding the rhetoric.


I'm being fecetious here and in the next few lines.

You seem to have missed it.


Uh, no. The whole point of logic is that it is not subjective. I can go around declaring things logical or illogical solely by the basis of applying tried and trusty logical reasoning to them.
I was partially kidding.

But I would like to press the point anyway. How can you prove something is logical without already assuming that logic is correct?

How can you prove logic without already assuming you are logical and thus that logic is true?


You can thus argue that logic is meaningless (and you'd have a point, an argument can be logically valid, but incorrect, for example) but not that you are being logical when your argument flies in the face of logic.

And how do you know logic is true?

How do you know anything?

Doesn't the mere fact that you can aquire knowledge make assumptions that cannot be proven, namely that your senses are valid?

No, logic doesn't work like that. Nice try though. What you mean is that there is still an outside chance that you are *right*. Whether logic is flawed or not, it is possible to ascertain whether the statement is logically valid or not.

Just as Allah 'may' exist, logic 'may not' exist.


Actually my argument is that your position has no more basis in rational thought or logic than their's. And it doesn't, RE: is-ought. So your anti-religion tirades are just as tiresome and inane as any pro-religion drivel that racerstang comes out with. So I am just as motivated to shout down the logic-errors and false assumptions in your argument as in his.

Than we seem to be stuck in subjectivity.

What then should one do?

If morality is subjective (And I think it is) than none of this really matters, does it?

I don't think I expressed my views properly, but I'm also not sure that they're logically consistent.

I'm new to this whole 'philosophy' thing.


You said "religious texts, etc, etc."

What else would I be referring to?


If you want to argue specifics in the Koran, cite specifics in the koran, complete with chapter and verse so that I can look it up. Although, with neither of us being experienced in the subject, and you being particularly reluctant to let a single thing drop, no matter how tenuous, it would probably be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that your portrayl of the Koran was clearly misrepresentative, as I cited clear and obvious conflicting sentiments.

8:38 Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
8:40 And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!


Context intact.

It says, if they don't convert, kill them.


I know all too well how it is used. Just as I know that people use heavy books to bash other peoples brains out. Hardly means all books should be banned.


Are you saying that religion can be used for good?

Does religion have any actual worth, as I maintain that books do?

I don't think so.


Of course we do. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see through it, unless they are particularly obstinate <stares pointedly>

Don't be absurd.

You have absolutely no way of figuring out what anyone is thinking or what anyone thought.

What guide do you have, other than their actions?

Who knows who killed for God? I don't and you don't either.

THe fact that you're claiming to know this undermines your whole point.


Yes, I omitted the quotation marks. Read it as "no wars with a motivation that was ascribed to religion were religiously motivated"

None of them?

Again, you presume to know the motivations of every person who has ever started a war.

That's completely logically unfounded and you know it.


I specifically mentioned "Liberty and Freedom" - and I noticed you omitted to use them in your reply. Presumably because you knew that you couldn't argue against them.

A lot of your beliefs are superstitious (# An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
#

1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature) - namely your prediliction for capitalist dogma.

Down with them too?

You must enjoy acrimony.


Again, you don't know that. So it is your belief against theirs. Nothing to choose between them.


That is the nature of subjectivity, isn't it?


Except the muslims didn't. A select few made it up, the rest follow it.

Their mistake.

Making up your own shit is lotsa fun.


Hah, yeah, whatever. Muslims are right then, they have AKs, QED. End of discussion right htere.

We'd kick their ass no problem.

In fact, we are.

If might actually does make right, than we're fucking correct, cuz we got nukes out the ass.


Yeah, maybe me cutting and pasting it literally deformed it magically. Maybe you're just wrong.


Again I'm kidding.

My point wasn't that you literally misread it, but that your interpratation of the Bible as a whole, based on one line, is flawed.



I must've missed that. Most them again, with references, in context.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/index.htm

Have a ball.


Which makes your one-sided interpretation wrong then.

And yours as well. And their too, of course, which means that the entire book is useless, a statement I quite agree with.


I guess so, given that he was only a warrior for the last ten years of his life, having spent the vast majority of it as a merchant.

Ah, but his legacy!

His model for violent repression is still used today!

You gotta think big.


It depends. Generally correctly extracting information from a book is called "reading" and is something people do all the time.

As if you can actually comprehend anything God has written.

God could write "don't kill" and mean "kill" and he'd be right, and you'd be wrong no matter what you thought you read.

God is infallible and you are fallible.

So good luck deciphering anything of his.


Again, as I am not an Islamic scholar, I cannot claim authority on it. However, a clear indisputable sentance instructing you on specific behaviour is about as "core" as you can get. There are plenty of objective criteria you can use for judging it, but that is not something to go into. Suffice it to say, you sure as hell haven't used rational judgement.

Now, if you want to argue that my counter-argument is just as crappy and pointless as yours, fair enough. I'm more than willing to coincide that my counter-argument is as crappy, pointless, and baseless as your initial premise. But I'm guessing that's not where you are going with this.

I guess we've already established that the Koran is contradictory, thus, useless, so why continue?

I'm willing to concede that the book sucks.


You missed the point. Neither of us brought up "what he really thought." You were talking about him "maybe saying a nice thing about jews, but".

A passage in the qu'ran, purportedly the direct words of Allah, saying to forgive and pardon non-believers, is not the same as him saying "you know, these unbelievers aren't all THAT bad" between beheadings. And hence the straw-man.

Sure it is.

Words is words.

There's no strawman there. Maybe a contradiction on the part of the person, but no strawman.

[Funkaloyd]

If there is a contradictory passage, then it is pointless to focus on one and omit the other...
Do you really need me to explain the blisteringly obvious?
Yes, I need you to explain your hypocrisy.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of passages which contradict your interpretation of the Sixth Commandment.

[ms.peachy]

Maybe he's too busy being oppressed to understand you?

Sure it has to be mutual, and when it's not, then do you have the right to stop trying?

If the people who published those cartoons had cared about the reaction of the people who they KNEW would be offended, then perhaps the people throwing stones at the embassies would care more about the damage they are doing.
"too busy being oppressed"? Could that be more patronising?

I never said that I should 'stop trying' to understand other people. What I said was, why is it solely incumbent upon me to do so?

What I can't understand, and, may well soon stop trying to, is why you personally want to rationalise the indefensible actions of thugs who are causing more shame and disgrace to their supposedly beloved prophet than any newspaper cartoon ever could.

[Ali]

What I can't understand, and, may well soon stop trying to, is why you personally want to rationalise the indefensible actions of thugs who are causing more shame and disgrace to their supposedly beloved prophet than any newspaper cartoon ever could.because I think that both sides are in the Wrong. The cartoonists deliberately set out to antagonise Moslems and the thugs took advantage of the excuse to cause mayhem.

I suppose they should have written a letter or something. :rolleyes:

[ms.peachy]

I suppose they should have written a letter or something. :rolleyes:
I think a letter writing campaign would, in fact, have been been an entirely appropriate and far more positive response, indeed. As with the number of peaceful protests that have been held - but I guess they aren't so good for furthering your agenda and getting your picture in the paper, now are they.

[Ali]

I think a letter writing campaign would, in fact, have been been an entirely appropriate and far more positive response, indeed. As with the number of peaceful protests that have been held - but I guess they aren't so good for furthering your agenda and getting your picture in the paper, now are they.Prolly knot. Yes, I agree, the people doing the burning and looting and carrying on are definitely troublemakers, thugs, etc. They prolly don't even give two shits about Islam and have a political agenda, as you say.

But the cartoonists gave these troublemakers the opportunity and this was wrong. The entire world is on a knifedge as far as East-West, Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Hindu-etc relations go, especially with the Oil wars in the Middle East.

The last thing anybody needs is another Right-Winger stirring up trouble.

Free speech is a right which should be used judiciously, sticks and stones break bones when words are heard (I just made that up :) )

[Qdrop]

you are such a simpleton sometimes...

Crusade against terror (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

Bush/Cheney/Jesus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html)

the first article was primarily poor vocabularly on the part of Bush and his speech writers..
but has i've ALREADY STATED, it was Karl Rove's brainchild to galvanize the christian right for the election by pandering, and scaring them with homosexual "takeover" stories....
YOU KNOW ALL THIS!

this proves nothing....and says NOTHING to the topic of committing violence in the name christianity....other than obvious transparent lip-service/pandering.

Christian Soldiers (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/13/Columns/Christian_soldiers_fo.shtml)

CMF (http://members.iquest.net/~c_m_f/cmflists.htm)

the christian soldiers are a political group. Bush/GOP used them to help run the re-election campaign for Bush in the private/religious sector.
they're basically political missionaries....they supported Bush's war of course....stating that anyone who isn't a christian needs to be "saved", and that everyone else is evil.
they are religious political cheerleaders....not militants.
they condone the war cause they want to get a piece of the pie and turn more people into christians, and gain the ear of Bush....
and obviously, they are extremists...not representative of the majority of christians.


you just did a quick google search for "christian, military, soldier, violence" didn't you? didn't even research what you found....

you really suck at the internet.

what's next? you gonna do another search for "christian soldiers", find some quote in the article which connects them to violence in some way (no matter how out of context and slanted), post it, and then type "how's that lube working?" and then put in a few :p ....

idiot.

[fucktopgirl]

europe defamation of the Prophet (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/26484)



jesus cartoons?? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html)
haha the irony

[Ali]

you are such a simpleton sometimes...


the first article was primarily poor vocabularly on the part of Bush and his speech writers..
but has i've ALREADY STATED, it was Karl Rove's brainchild to galvanize the christian right for the election by pandering, and scaring them with homosexual "takeover" stories....
YOU KNOW ALL THIS!

this proves nothing....and says NOTHING to the topic of committing violence in the name christianity....other than obvious transparent lip-service/pandering.



the christian soldiers are a political group. Bush/GOP used them to help run the re-election campaign for Bush in the private/religious sector.
they're basically political missionaries....they supported Bush's war of course....stating that anyone who isn't a christian needs to be "saved", and that everyone else is evil.
they are religious political cheerleaders....not militants.
they condone the war cause they want to get a piece of the pie and turn more people into christians, and gain the ear of Bush....
and obviously, they are extremists...not representative of the majority of christians.


you just did a quick google search for "christian, military, soldier, violence" didn't you? didn't even research what you found....

you really suck at the internet.

what's next? you gonna do another search for "christian soldiers", find some quote in the article which connects them to violence in some way (no matter how out of context and slanted), post it, and then type "how's that lube working?" and then put in a few :p ....

idiot.Oops, sorry. Did I make you angry? :D

[marsdaddy]

An eye for an eye?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060207/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_iran_holocaust_dc

So now Israelis will protest? Wait, there isn't free speech in Iran?

[Ace42X]

Evidence of Allah's existence?
I'd love to see it.

The Qu'ran is evidence of Allah's existence. It might not be evidence you agree with, it might not be evidence that is particularly credible, but it is evidence none the less.

Presumably you are either: Confusing proof with evidence; or your anti-religious sentiments are so entrenched that you are unwilling to analyse the situation impartially.

And so you don't tell anyone what to believe?

There is a difference between telling people to stop believing something that is objectively wrong, and telling people that a subjective opinion is wrong.

Trying prosecution, "God shall not suffer a witch to live".
That got a few people hanged.

So did "let them eat cake." - Obviously cake should be outlawed!

But that to one side, this is one of my favourite old-chestnuts to be trotted out by the ignorant masses when it comes to organised religions. However, now we are going right off track into theological realms, which doesn't bode well for skeptics.

There are numerous issues with that passage, involving translation and context. King James was traditonally very anti-witch. He was paranoid about them, and believed that they had conspired to kill him. He wrote several books on the subject, and many attribute Shakespeare's MacBeth to cashing in on this. This is evidenced by the investigations into witchcraft all having specifically *localised* facets, concentrating on the folklore of the area where it happened. It is a historical, rather than "Christian" phenomenon. An alternative translation often used is "Sorcerer" - a term also used by Paul in the new testament.

Secondly, it is not one of the ten commandments given to the people of Israel, which makes it less significant. Why is this "not hypocritical" Funkyloyd? It's called not being contrary. The ten commandments are highlighted and put above the others. Both in Jewish tradition, and in common sense (you know, that thing that skeptics are supposed to have so much of, but are so unwilling to extend to religious interpretation). God himself wrote them on stone tablets - to suggest that the multitude of rules that he just whispered in Moses' ears are more important than the direct word of God inscribed into solid stone is quite frankly perverse. Is there a single reason other than "it suits your argument" to put that one line on the same level or above the commandments? I'd say only if you are deliberately trying to be obtuse, there is a clear precedent.

Thirdly, a fellow called Jesus came along, and swept aside a lot of the old testament. When talking to Christians, generally they'd put Jesus as the highest authority on God (beyond the Pope, and I'd imagine that goes for Roman Catholics too) - due to him being God himself. He overtruned commandments (and including lesser preceding edicts, presumably) by directly challenging "you shall keep the Sabbath day holy."

Fourthly, and this is a biggy, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (even if you assume witch does mean hooked-nosed old lady with black hat and black cat and magic powers) doesn't specify how you determine if the person is a witch, nor anything else. If you assume that there are supernatural forces at work, and you are accepting witches do exist, that STILL doesn't literally or figuratively justify executing cooky old ladies.

That fact that some people made a clearly unreasonable leap from executing supernatural (and importantly, not necessarily human) beings to killing little old ladies is not a problem with the text or the religion. To interpret it that way, and then to give it preference over some much more significant and clear-cut passages (IE God communicating to the people directly, rather than through a prophet) is pretty much a strawman argument.

Recanted by what?

Subsequent passages, or the direct word of God.

But I would like to press the point anyway. How can you prove something is logical without already assuming that logic is correct?

How can you prove logic without already assuming you are logical and thus that logic is true?

And how do you know logic is true?

Quite simply, because logic is intrinsically valid by its very nature. It is an entirely a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori) system. How do you know it is "true" ? Well, that is a completely ephemeral discussion point. Generally, you can't know it is "correct". Something can be logically sound, but be factually wrong. Likewise, you can argue that logic doesn't actually mean anything, other than as a self-referential system. However, like so many things, we can simply accept it is generally right and true, as without it computers would simply not work. Unrigorous, yes? But will you contest it? I am guessing no.

How do you know anything?

How exciting, epistemology. Quite simply, there are a number of theories, and it depends which you subscribe to. For me, it also depends what mood I'm in.

Doesn't the mere fact that you can aquire knowledge make assumptions that cannot be proven, namely that your senses are valid?

Just as Allah 'may' exist, logic 'may not' exist.

Again, it doesn't work like that. While you may or may not know it, you are effectively trying to draw parrallelism between two different arguments.

In the former, you are arguing on the actual, pseudo-material, existence of a deity, inside the world as we perceive it. In the latter you are arguing against the existence of reality beyond an individual's experience.

What would be a more relevant and meaningful statement?

"Just as the processes which we use to determine the existence of Allah may be flawed, the processes which we use to determine the existence of logical thought."

It can be worked several ways to construct different variations on that theme, but without knowing PRECISELY what you are driving at, I can't really assume.

Than we seem to be stuck in subjectivity.
What then should one do?

Stop your pointless crusade against religions and accept that there is nothing in it. By all means concentrate on objective logical facets of it, such as interpretation of texts, criticising religious policy, etc, by all means argue FOR your subjective case. But don't then pretend that "science" or "rational thought" back you up in an area which they cannot actually tread.

Basically, be a bit more careful when putting blanket criticisms down on all world religions.

If morality is subjective (And I think it is) than none of this really matters, does it?

I don't think I expressed my views properly, but I'm also not sure that they're logically consistent.

I'm new to this whole 'philosophy' thing.

I am far from an expert. It is something I am currently "working on." Generally, when constructing an argument, I try to avoid making blanket statements unless it is simple, discrete and on a subject that is objective.

What else would I be referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

8:38 Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
8:40 And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!

It says, if they don't convert, kill them.

Read it again, it says if they are *persecuting you* (and in historical context, that means with big fuck-off swords) kill them. Generally, "forgive people persecuting you if they say sorry and convert. If they then go back to their old persecuting ways, well, then there is nothing left but to off them."

Really, that is no different to Texas executing recidivist criminals, is it?

Are you saying that religion can be used for good?

Does religion have any actual worth, as I maintain that books do?

I don't think so.

Religion can be used for anything. Like a big chunk of wood. However, as most religions have their basis in holy texts (books) - I find that sentiment a little inconsistant.

But, I'd say there are certainly cases when organised religion can behave altruistically and benificially. Charity is a very significant Christian virtue, for example.

Don't be absurd.
You have absolutely no way of figuring out what anyone is thinking or what anyone thought.

Rubbish, that is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, Derren Brown does it all the time, so that makes that sentence incorrect by a simple application of Socratic Method. However, that, other than making your statement wrong, is irrelevent as it only works as a parlour trick.

But, what else is communication, but a way of conveying thought? You ascribe motivations to people all the time. Capitalist doctrine is based entirely upon the pre-supposition about how people think. Every refutation of communism is based on the same.

"In nine out of ten wars, you can tell the aggressor" - TH White.

What guide do you have, other than their actions?
Who knows who killed for God? I don't and you don't either.
THe fact that you're claiming to know this undermines your whole point.

Equally you could say that means you can't say ANYONE killed due to religion, or has inflicted any suffering or misery whatsoever, and thus your criticisms are moot.

However, the actions (including what they said and did) are enough. Anyone with a keen insight into human nature, the situation, the rhetoric, sociological factors, etc can apply reasoning to achieve an understanding of motivation.

Is it perfect? Is it conclusive? Is it indisputable? No, but it can be both compelling, convincing and significant.


Again, you presume to know the motivations of every person who has ever started a war.
That's completely logically unfounded and you know it.

Just most of them, IE any of the ones you care to mention. But never mind the fact that if you flip that around, you presume to know the motivations of every person you decide has acted due to religion.

We'd kick their ass no problem.

In fact, we are.

Tell that to all the people in the world trade centre who are currently having tea with Allah.

If might actually does make right, than we're fucking correct, cuz we got nukes out the ass.

Which you are unable to use.

but that your interpratation of the Bible as a whole, based on one line, is flawed.

Qu'ran, not bible. And how many lines does it take to refute you? One good one? Fifteen crap ones? Thirty Five in total? Do I have to offer a 2:1 ratio?

Or is it merely the case that you have already made your mind up, and that objective theological analysis of the text isn't really high on your agenda. You'd much rather make a sweeping generalisation about it?


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/index.htm

Have a ball.

Ok, I've gone through all of those, and found that every single one of those was taken out of context and thus misleading, having read the Qu'ran back to back. And because you are relying on a site whose sole purpose is to debunk, just as racerstang likes those whacky creationist 'evolution proved wrong, right here today' websites, you don't know enough to say I'm wrong.

That's the short short version.

And yours as well.

My side is one-sided? Howso? I'm not a Muslim, nor even particularly pro-muslim. I don't have a pro-religion or anti-religion bias. Unlike you, I haven't avowed an agenda RE: global religion, one way or the other.

Ah, but his legacy!

His model for violent repression is still used today!

You gotta think big.

"His model" ? His model of warefare isn't used for anything. This was centuries after the peak of the Roman Empire, for crying out loud. His "violent repression" killed less people in ten years than two planes did in an hour. If you flip it around, you could see that any one of a number of capitalist innovations killed a lot more people in a lot shorter timeframe, AND THE MODEL IS STILL USED TODAY.

Really, what sort of propoganda have you been reading?

As if you can actually comprehend anything God has written.

God could write "don't kill" and mean "kill" and he'd be right, and you'd be wrong no matter what you thought you read.

God is infallible and you are fallible.

So good luck deciphering anything of his.

Generally, God doesn't write, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, and they were produced in stone tablet, rather than book, form. People write. However, we aren't arguing with God, but other people. So yes, you could argue that "Don't kill" actually means kill, but see how far that gets you.

And if you look at the bible, Jesus was supposedly a man. The majority of the Christian face is based around the fct that he is a man. Thus, his words are human words in a sense understandable by man, with a meaning to be understood by men as men.

And "decyphering anything of his" is generally what theology is about.

I guess we've already established that the Koran is contradictory, thus, useless, so why continue?

A contradiction doesn't necessarily mean it is useless. There are a number of arguments that could be made to say that the contradictory nature of it is a good thing, as it provides flexibility. You also pre-suppose that contradictions cannot be satisfactorily reconciled, and that the act of reconciliation isn't worthwhile is and of itself.

I'm willing to concede that the book sucks.

Maybe a contradiction on the part of the person, but no strawman.

It is blatantly a strawman. You are arguing against on record, paper-based, word-of-allah Qu'ranic doctrine by implying that it is the same as a hypothetical off-the-record aside.

... And now for our more dreadful sacrifice...

[DroppinScience]

An eye for an eye?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060207/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_iran_holocaust_dc

So now Israelis will protest? Wait, there isn't free speech in Iran?

Iran is really pushing it, huh?

[EN[i]GMA]

The Qu'ran is evidence of Allah's existence. It might not be evidence you agree with, it might not be evidence that is particularly credible, but it is evidence none the less.

Presumably you are either: Confusing proof with evidence; or your anti-religious sentiments are so entrenched that you are unwilling to analyse the situation impartially.

Fair enough.

'Evidence' being defined as 'A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:'.

I guess.



There is a difference between telling people to stop believing something that is objectively wrong, and telling people that a subjective opinion is wrong.


The problem is, that 'subjective wrong' can be very problematic, as we're seeing.

Saying 'killing people is wrong, don't do it' IS telling someone that their subjective opinion (killing is right) is wrong, but it should obviously be done.

I think some simple rules and guidelines would aid us in this. A sort of 'cause no harm' policy that should be enforced strictly.

Look at the consequences of the individual morality. If it's death and murder, skip it and formulate a better one.


So did "let them eat cake." - Obviously cake should be outlawed!

But that to one side, this is one of my favourite old-chestnuts to be trotted out by the ignorant masses when it comes to organised religions. However, now we are going right off track into theological realms, which doesn't bode well for skeptics.

There are numerous issues with that passage, involving translation and context. King James was traditonally very anti-witch. He was paranoid about them, and believed that they had conspired to kill him. He wrote several books on the subject, and many attribute Shakespeare's MacBeth to cashing in on this. This is evidenced by the investigations into witchcraft all having specifically *localised* facets, concentrating on the folklore of the area where it happened. It is a historical, rather than "Christian" phenomenon. An alternative translation often used is "Sorcerer" - a term also used by Paul in the new testament.

'Sorcerer' applies to a 'witc'h as well.

As for the particular translation, how do other Bibles translate it?

I honestly don't know.


Secondly, it is not one of the ten commandments given to the people of Israel, which makes it less significant. Why is this "not hypocritical" Funkyloyd? It's called not being contrary. The ten commandments are highlighted and put above the others. Both in Jewish tradition, and in common sense (you know, that thing that skeptics are supposed to have so much of, but are so unwilling to extend to religious interpretation). God himself wrote them on stone tablets - to suggest that the multitude of rules that he just whispered in Moses' ears are more important than the direct word of God inscribed into solid stone is quite frankly perverse. Is there a single reason other than "it suits your argument" to put that one line on the same level or above the commandments? I'd say only if you are deliberately trying to be obtuse, there is a clear precedent.

I'm not being obstuse at all.

Interpreting this is very difficult, espescially for laymen such as ourselves.

As you bring up later, are witches really 'human'?

Witches were accused of selling their souls to the devil, which may invalidate their 'humanity'.

I truly don't know what the Christian position is on this, and neither do you.

'Thou shalt not kill' may not apply to witches because witches are servents of Satan.

What's interesting is, they didn't kill people who confessed (And thus were 'brought back to God') they killed those who didn't confess (And thus were still consorting with Satan).

Is a witch 'human' in any real sense? Does it have a soul?

Note that I found the absurdity and pointlessness of this argument rather funny.

Quite like debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.


Thirdly, a fellow called Jesus came along, and swept aside a lot of the old testament. When talking to Christians, generally they'd put Jesus as the highest authority on God (beyond the Pope, and I'd imagine that goes for Roman Catholics too) - due to him being God himself. He overtruned commandments (and including lesser preceding edicts, presumably) by directly challenging "you shall keep the Sabbath day holy."

Did he ever 'correct' the particular passage in question?


Fourthly, and this is a biggy, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (even if you assume witch does mean hooked-nosed old lady with black hat and black cat and magic powers) doesn't specify how you determine if the person is a witch, nor anything else. If you assume that there are supernatural forces at work, and you are accepting witches do exist, that STILL doesn't literally or figuratively justify executing cooky old ladies.

They had some methods.

Extrabiblical, yes, but they were a part of religion at the time, which is what matters.

'Witch hunting' was a part of religion at the time, as much as 'God' and 'Jesus' were.


That fact that some people made a clearly unreasonable leap from executing supernatural (and importantly, not necessarily human) beings to killing little old ladies is not a problem with the text or the religion.

Sure it is.

Maybe not the text, as I admit a lot of this is extra biblical, but certainly the religion.

The religion had books on finding and punishing witches, had priests who looked for witches and repeatedly hanged witches.

That most certainly is a problem with religion. If your religion states "If you have a witches teat, we'll kill you", than guess what?

That's part of the religion.


To interpret it that way, and then to give it preference over some much more significant and clear-cut passages (IE God communicating to the people directly, rather than through a prophet) is pretty much a strawman argument.

Tell it to Hathorne et al.


Subsequent passages, or the direct word of God.

Is the latter effective?


Quite simply, because logic is intrinsically valid by its very nature. It is an entirely a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori) system. How do you know it is "true" ? Well, that is a completely ephemeral discussion point. Generally, you can't know it is "correct". Something can be logically sound, but be factually wrong. Likewise, you can argue that logic doesn't actually mean anything, other than as a self-referential system. However, like so many things, we can simply accept it is generally right and true, as without it computers would simply not work. Unrigorous, yes? But will you contest it? I am guessing no.

Accepting it a priori is the basic contention.

I think it should be.

But there are those who disagree, and neither of us are more correct.

If someone simply states that "I don't accept logic a priori" you can't really prove anything to them, or invalidate anything they say, or in any way prove anything correct.

Basically, you're both correct in your (Contradictory) assertions, which is very strange.


How exciting, epistemology. Quite simply, there are a number of theories, and it depends which you subscribe to. For me, it also depends what mood I'm in.

Doesn't the mere fact that you can aquire knowledge make assumptions that cannot be proven, namely that your senses are valid?

I don't know, does it?

It could all be a simulation (Or simulicrum), if I were a postmodernist, for example.

Than the discussion about my senses 'being valid' would take on an entirely different meaning.

It's all very convoluted, and I'm certainly no expert on the matter.

It all seems kind of silly to me.


Again, it doesn't work like that. While you may or may not know it, you are effectively trying to draw parrallelism between two different arguments.

In the former, you are arguing on the actual, pseudo-material, existence of a deity, inside the world as we perceive it.

Not necessarily.

God existing 'inside the world' is a statement some theists would disagree with.

I always thought of God existing outside of space, time and human consiousness, when I was a deist.

Also, 'material' is a very difficult word.

Is the pantheist God 'material' in the sense you mean?

I don't think so.

There are many differnt oopinions about GOd's nature.


In the latter you are arguing against the existence of reality beyond an individual's experience.

Pretty much.

'Perception is reality' maybe best sums up what I was stating there.


What would be a more relevant and meaningful statement?

"Just as the processes which we use to determine the existence of Allah may be flawed, the processes which we use to determine the existence of logical thought."

It can be worked several ways to construct different variations on that theme, but without knowing PRECISELY what you are driving at, I can't really assume.

I was specifically stating that, there is a chance that Allah exists. YOu could purport your thought in such a manner as to make the existence of Allah a feasible thing to imagine.

Similarly, you there's a chance that logic may not exist, because you can imagine that logic may not exist. It's perfectly valid to say 'logic doesn't exist' and then not logically back that up. Because 'backing it up' would be proof logic exists, or at least 'works'.

What I'm driving at is that it is possible that ALlah exists just as it's possible that logic, and thus our perception of reality doesn't exist, or is flawed.

But positing either does us no good, as it's entirely self-referential and totally pointless.

Bringing up the possibility of Allah's existence doesn't demonstrate anything, just bringing up the possibility that logic may not exist or be valid does not demonstrate that your arguments are wrong.

If I said 'logic isn't real' I wouldn't win the debate by default.

I think there's a point in here somewhere. It made sense as I thought it up, but presenting thoughts in word-form is often difficult.

Some linguist/philosopher should fix that problem, it sucks.

Like there's no word for 'nothingness', because the concept of 'nothing' references the concept of something (Nothing is the lack of something) which doesn't actually denote 'nothingness' at all. For 'something' to not exist, it has to exist.

A good example would be, 'what's it like outside the universe'? Well, I can imagine, but I can in no way present the thought verbally. I can't dictate what I'm picturing.

'Nothingness' as we know and use it doesn't work.

Or something.


Stop your pointless crusade against religions and accept that there is nothing in it. By all means concentrate on objective logical facets of it, such as interpretation of texts, criticising religious policy, etc, by all means argue FOR your subjective case. But don't then pretend that "science" or "rational thought" back you up in an area which they cannot actually tread.

Basically, be a bit more careful when putting blanket criticisms down on all world religions.

Fair enough.

Religion generally sucks cock.

There we go.


I am far from an expert. It is something I am currently "working on." Generally, when constructing an argument, I try to avoid making blanket statements unless it is simple, discrete and on a subject that is objective.

Isn't that a blanket statement?

It's also not really 'simple' as it's contradictory. Discrete? I've never been able to figure out that word. I've seen it used often and look it up every time, but I have no idea how

1. Constituting a separate thing. See Synonyms at distinct.
2. Consisting of unconnected distinct parts.
3. Mathematics. Defined for a finite or countable set of values; not continuous.

applies to anything.

It seems like a tautology to me, saying something is discrete.

Everything is distinct.

If something isn't 'distinct' than it isn't 'something' at all.

What makes one thing different from another is the fact that it is 'distinct' and thus, everything is distinct.

It's like saying 'something exists'. I don't see how saying something is discrete adds any new information.


Objective? Not really.

What you should have said is "Sometimes I occasionaly avoid making a statement that one could possibly construe to be similar to a blanket. I often do this when a point is simple, somewhat discrete, or pretty much objective".

I think that's logically consistent and avoids making a blanket statement of any kind.


And in case you didn't realize it, that was meant to be humorous.



That's another matter entirely.

I hesitate to start the debate about whether the Bible condones the death penalty.

[quote]
Religion can be used for anything. Like a big chunk of wood. However, as most religions have their basis in holy texts (books) - I find that sentiment a little inconsistant.

Now that you mention it, yeah, it kind of is.

WHat I meant by 'worth' is 'knowledge'.

Every book, no matter how bad contains SOMETHING, and it's natural to ascribe worth to it, unless it's random gibberish.


But, I'd say there are certainly cases when organised religion can behave altruistically and benificially. Charity is a very significant Christian virtue, for example.

Is giving in that nature really 'altruistic'?

If its dictated by God, and there's a chance you'll go to hell for being selfish, what's altruistic about it?


Rubbish, that is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, Derren Brown does it all the time, so that makes that sentence incorrect by a simple application of Socratic Method. However, that, other than making your statement wrong, is irrelevent as it only works as a parlour trick.

But, what else is communication, but a way of conveying thought? You ascribe motivations to people all the time. Capitalist doctrine is based entirely upon the pre-supposition about how people think. Every refutation of communism is based on the same.

"In nine out of ten wars, you can tell the aggressor" - TH White.

I think you're misunderstanding.

You cannot absolutely know what someone is thinking, period.

Nothing can tell you that.

For example, if someone is voraciously eating a danish, you may assume he likes danishes, but you do not know that he does.

He might hate them, and be eating them only because he wants to fool you, or for any other irrelivent reason.

The simple fact is, you cannot know what another is thinking. YOu may have a good guess, but you can't know.


Equally you could say that means you can't say ANYONE killed due to religion, or has inflicted any suffering or misery whatsoever, and thus your criticisms are moot.

However, the actions (including what they said and did) are enough. Anyone with a keen insight into human nature, the situation, the rhetoric, sociological factors, etc can apply reasoning to achieve an understanding of motivation.

Is it perfect? Is it conclusive? Is it indisputable? No, but it can be both compelling, convincing and significant.

Can it be? Yeah.

Is it in this particular case? I don't think so.


Just most of them, IE any of the ones you care to mention. But never mind the fact that if you flip that around, you presume to know the motivations of every person you decide has acted due to religion.

Well, if we're going to accept what you said above, than I'll certainly be able to find someone who 'fought for God'.



Tell that to all the people in the world trade centre who are currently having tea with Allah.

Noted, but we've offed quite a few more of them.


Which you are unable to use.

We can use them whenever we want.


Qu'ran, not bible. And how many lines does it take to refute you? One good one? Fifteen crap ones? Thirty Five in total? Do I have to offer a 2:1 ratio?

Or is it merely the case that you have already made your mind up, and that objective theological analysis of the text isn't really high on your agenda. You'd much rather make a sweeping generalisation about it?

Good question.

Perhaps a better would be, is there any point in discussing it at all?


Ok, I've gone through all of those, and found that every single one of those was taken out of context and thus misleading, having read the Qu'ran back to back. And because you are relying on a site whose sole purpose is to debunk, just as racerstang likes those whacky creationist 'evolution proved wrong, right here today' websites, you don't know enough to say I'm wrong.

That's the short short version.

I wouldn't go that far.

Most of what racerstang's site's say is literally wrong and can be easily refuted.

'Taking something out of context' is rather subjective and in this case, you can't really prove the statements right or wrong; they just are.


My side is one-sided? Howso? I'm not a Muslim, nor even particularly pro-muslim. I don't have a pro-religion or anti-religion bias. Unlike you, I haven't avowed an agenda RE: global religion, one way or the other.


How...non-commital.


"His model" ? His model of warefare isn't used for anything. This was centuries after the peak of the Roman Empire, for crying out loud. His "violent repression" killed less people in ten years than two planes did in an hour. If you flip it around, you could see that any one of a number of capitalist innovations killed a lot more people in a lot shorter timeframe, AND THE MODEL IS STILL USED TODAY.

Really, what sort of propoganda have you been reading?

Mu.

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/mu.html


Generally, God doesn't write, with the exception of the Ten Commandments, and they were produced in stone tablet, rather than book, form. People write. However, we aren't arguing with God, but other people. So yes, you could argue that "Don't kill" actually means kill, but see how far that gets you.

And if you look at the bible, Jesus was supposedly a man. The majority of the Christian face is based around the fct that he is a man. Thus, his words are human words in a sense understandable by man, with a meaning to be understood by men as men.

That's a very tendentious statement, Jesus being a man.

I think Christians interpret it differently.


And "decyphering anything of his" is generally what theology is about.


It may be what it's 'about' but what it 'is' is a contradictory mess.


A contradiction doesn't necessarily mean it is useless. There are a number of arguments that could be made to say that the contradictory nature of it is a good thing, as it provides flexibility. You also pre-suppose that contradictions cannot be satisfactorily reconciled, and that the act of reconciliation isn't worthwhile is and of itself.

I'm willing to concede that the book sucks.

Well that's all the truly matters.

Horrific writing.

See, if I wrote a holy book, it would fucking kick ass.

Joyce and Proust style sentence structures, prose-poetry feel, cool characters, action, death, punishment.

It would be like Dostoevsky on acid.

It would fucking rock.


... And now for our more dreadful sacrifice...

We're killing a goat?

[Ace42X]

GMA']Saying 'killing people is wrong, don't do it' IS telling someone that their subjective opinion (killing is right) is wrong, but it should obviously be done.

Nah, see. Freedom of speech. They have a right to voice their subjective opinion, even if it is "killing is right." - Look at gangsta rap.

It is their ACTIONS, not the subjective opinions you are criticising. Again, nice try though.

[wuote]I think some simple rules and guidelines would aid us in this. A sort of 'cause no harm' policy that should be enforced strictly.[/quote]

Let me put forward some...

Thou Shalt Not Kill
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Thou Shalt Not Steal

Those a good start?

'Sorcerer' applies to a 'witc'h as well.

I think it would be pointless to argue about the distinctions present in the occult and demonology. But, there are some significant differences between the two in folklore and thus in the practical implication.

As for the particular translation, how do other Bibles translate it?

Depends, some US translations use Sorcerer as I said. I gather most translations into foreign languages substitute in the local folkloric equivalent.

Interpreting this is very difficult, espescially for laymen such as ourselves.

Yes, if you only cherry-pick a passage here and a passage there, and ignore the wider context. Of course if you pick something "malachi the fruit-seller" said, and put it right next to something Jesus said, and don't point out the difference in context, you are going to get contradictions, but it doesn't take a genius to go "oh, that's just malachi the fruitseller, who ate his own feces, you can ignore him."

As you bring up later, are witches really 'human'?
Witches were accused of selling their souls to the devil, which may invalidate their 'humanity'.
I truly don't know what the Christian position is on this, and neither do you.

I beg to differ. While I am not a theologian, I can ask numerous christians that I know what their position on it is. Generally, people go with the commandments, and ignore the obsolete old testament doctrines. RE: Circumcision, etc.

'Thou shalt not kill' may not apply to witches because witches are servents of Satan.

Indeed. Or because the boil and eat babies.

What's interesting is, they didn't kill people who confessed (And thus were 'brought back to God') they killed those who didn't confess (And thus were still consorting with Satan).

Actually, they did kill those that confessed, so that they could go to heaven shrived. They also killed those that didn't, usually more painfully.

Note that I found the absurdity and pointlessness of this argument rather funny.

Quite like debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

See, and that's the crux. You don't believe it, so you don't feel there is any point in applying a rigorous rational argument to refuting it. So it never gets refuted, and just gets ignorantly poo-pooed instead.

Did he ever 'correct' the particular passage in question?

Yes and no. No in that people did it anyway, yes in that he said you should "love your fellow man as you do yourself, and treat them as you would like to be treated." Which pretty much excludes burning them at the stake unless you have some serious self-loathing issues.

Extrabiblical, yes, but they were a part of religion at the time, which is what matters.

Except it doesn't. You wouldn't accept that the intentional exploitation and physical harm of workers is "a part of capitalism at the moment, which is what matters" and thus accept that capitalism is flawed because of it. So you should not expect people to do the same.

It is like saying "the people working in victorian mills all died of cholera because of shitty working conditions. They were a part of capitalism at the time, which is what matters, all capitalism is shit."

'Witch hunting' was a part of religion at the time, as much as 'God' and 'Jesus' were.

Uh, not really. Christianity exists without witch-hunting, Christianity couldn't exist without the eponymous christ. And if "witch-hunting" is so intrinisic to christianity that you feel it is a suitable argument for debunking it, how come the vast vast vast majority don't do it anymore?

Oh, that's right, because it isn't "a part of the religion" - it was a historical phenomenon based on folklore and sadism, not religion.

Maybe not the text, as I admit a lot of this is extra biblical

All extra-biblical, and all completely divorced from modern christianity.

The religion had books on finding and punishing witches, had priests who looked for witches and repeatedly hanged witches.

Actually, witch-finders weren't generally priests. The inquisition were looking for heretics in all forms. And the "religion" didn't "have" anyone who did anything. In various sects there were various people who did various thing. Who precisely sanctioned what depends on specifics, something you are either unable or unwilling to deal with.

King James ordering a witch-finder to go around England is not the fault of the Pope, who'd have no say in the matter, for example.

That most certainly is a problem with religion. If your religion states "If you have a witches teat, we'll kill you", than guess what?

That's part of the religion.

Except it isn't, at all. No more than me writing a book for CEOs stating "If your workers are going to try to sue you, kill them" would make it an intrinsic part of capitalism. And as the "religion" isn't a physical thing, it cannot "state" anything. For a book to be considered doctrinal, it has to be agreed upon as such by some sort of authoritative body. Fact of the matter is, these "extra biblical sources" you are bringing up are no more authoritative than Bruce Almighty or Kevin Smith's Dogma.

Accepting it a priori is the basic contention.

No it isn't, and cannot be. It has to be a priori, because it is purely rationalistic. It is not based in or connected to the physical world, it is an abstract construct that is not subject to materialist or empirical constraints. Clearly it cannot be anything other than a priori, because it is not contginent on the physical world.

If someone simply states that "I don't accept logic a priori" you can't really prove anything to them, or invalidate anything they say, or in any way prove anything correct.

A poor example to choose as the basis for an argument on the subject of skeptical nihilism. Logic is not based on perceptions of the outside world, but an entirely rationalist and internally consistant system. As such it is not subject to the flaws of perceptual error.

The contention is whether the a priori logic can sustain relevance when applied to non-a priori (all) phenomenon. Quite a different problem.

'Perception is reality' maybe best sums up what I was stating there.

And when perception isn't reality? When someone is having an hallucination? Close your eyes after looking at a bright light - are those yellow glows "real" ? Or just the product of perception?

Eitherway, claiming that reality is what you perceive is pretty much solipsism.

Similarly, you there's a chance that logic may not exist, because you can imagine that logic may not exist. It's perfectly valid to say 'logic doesn't exist' and then not logically back that up. Because 'backing it up' would be proof logic exists, or at least 'works'.

Urm, not really. Logic must exist, or else there would not be a word for it. To talk about logic at all requires the mind to conceive of what the word represents / symbolises. While what you perceive logic to be may be different from what it actually is, it must exist in the mind in some form for the mouth to be able to vocalise it.

What I'm driving at is that it is possible that ALlah exists just as it's possible that logic, and thus our perception of reality doesn't exist, or is flawed.

Which is an illogical argument. The existence of logic can be determined in an objective manner. You can start from a basis of Cogito Ergo Sum for deducing the existence of the self. The existence / non-existence of Allah, in certain specific senses of the word, cannot be deduced. The two are not logically comparable, and you would have to construct a clear logical argument to show me otherwise.


I think there's a point in here somewhere. It made sense as I thought it up, but presenting thoughts in word-form is often difficult.

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you should readdress the gist of it somewhere else.

Discrete? I've never been able to figure out that word. I've seen it used often and look it up every time, but I have no idea how

1. Constituting a separate thing. See Synonyms at distinct.
2. Consisting of unconnected distinct parts.

applies to anything.

Hardly, something that is indistinct cannot be discrete.

If something isn't 'distinct' than it isn't 'something' at all.

Heh wrong in several ways. Something can be "indistinct." Or it can have to parts to it which are indistinct from each other.

For example, a person can have good and bad in them, without the good being discrete and without the good being discrete. IE there is no clear line where one starts and the other stops.

I hesitate to start the debate about whether the Bible condones the death penalty.

Koran.

Is giving in that nature really 'altruistic'?

If its dictated by God, and there's a chance you'll go to hell for being selfish, what's altruistic about it?

Depends on how you want to argue it. You could say that altruistism is meaningless, because there can be no sacrifice which doesn't have some sort of reward. However, unless you are going to put the word to sleep for good, the charity, for religious reasons, fits the definition of altruism as well as anything possibly can.

The simple fact is, you cannot know what another is thinking. YOu may have a good guess, but you can't know.

You can't know anything with a certainty, but unless you want to argue that nothing is knowable, in which case your criticisms of religion are even more laughable, applying rational deductive techniques to empirical evidence is still a perfectly scientific method of analysis.

Well, if we're going to accept what you said above, than I'll certainly be able to find someone who 'fought for God'.

And if I can offer a more rational explanation for their behaviour, what then? You will persist in pegging it on religion, even though that is an obvious sophistry?

Good question.
Perhaps a better would be, is there any point in discussing it at all?

If you are going to play the "rational argument" card and bash all world religions, you better damn well have thought through the argument rationally. Otherwise your arguments are just a different kind of superstition.

Most of what racerstang's site's say is literally wrong and can be easily refuted.

Perhaps you should revisit some of them and look again. You might find yourself a little bit ... disheartened.

Mu.

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/mu.html

You are confusing a rhetorical question with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" tactic. Actually, the two are mutually exclusive.

That's a very tendentious statement, Jesus being a man.

I think Christians interpret it differently.

There are sectarian differences (some christians believe he was an alien) - but the broad concensus is that he was a man. That is pretty much the crux of the new testament.

It may be what it's 'about' but what it 'is' is a contradictory mess.

Theology? No more so than economics, a subject that is equally based on fictions.

Horrific writing.

It WAS written on palm leaves in the desert. You try taking dictation like that without the benefit of a biro or paper-weight.

[DroppinScience]

Rather than letting this crazy-ass quote war die like it should, I figured this thread could use much needed humor, courtesy of the Daily Show:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002828.html#002828

[yeahwho]

This is what kind of world a goofball like Bush creates, I think it's the most telling Headline yet in what has been the most surreal presidency on record, Front Page today in the New York Times, it's come to this.

Bush Urges World Leaders to Halt Violence Over Cartoons

NYTimes, 2/08/06 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/international/asia/08cnd-cartoon.html?hp&ex=1139461200&en=a49b9f8f1422e929&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[Ace42X]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1706374,00.html

[greedygretchen]

*knock, knock**who's there?**it's the conspiracy theorist**collective groan*

Hmm, interesting debate going on here, but to me it doesn't seem credible that a cartoon would outrage Muslims to this point. I asked my co-workers "over a cartoon?" and they nod their heads emphatically and say things like "that's the way they are! They're crazy, fanatical"...I think everyone's playing into the hands of warmongers- They want us to hate Muslims and they want Muslims to hate us- it makes war so much easier when the masses are fooled into believing it's for a good reason. I just read this and it makes sense to me



Can a Cartoon Trigger WW3?
Do not underestimate the latest furor over the 'hostile' Mohammad cartoon published in European newspapers recently.

In case you've been out of contact, newspapers in Denmark, and 35 other countries have published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a burning fuse. The cartoon is offensive to Muslims the world over since the Prophet may not be displayed in public places, let alone caricaturized.

Keep in mind that Albert Pike's letter of 1871 (whether real or imagined), predicted 3 world wars. The Third World War, according to Pike, must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. If this is to occur as predicted, surely the animosity between Muslims and the non-Arab world must be stepped up a notch to trigger a reason for attack on a predominantly Muslim nation - perhaps Iran or Syria?

What intrigues me about this incident is that the warmongers must have all their plans in place to launch a strike, and are now simply looking for an excuse to do so. What better way to ignite a fuse than to strike a blow where it hurts the most?

In case you believe a newspaper 'accidentally' published the cartoon, without realizing the impact it would have, bear in mind that Merete Eldrup, Managing Director of JP/Politikens Hus A/S (the company that published the cartoons in Denmark) is married to Anders Eldrup, who has attended the last FIVE Bilderberg meetings (as reported by Tony Gosling, the UK Bilderberger Reporter).

Merete is a former Head of Secretariat at the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs and Deputy Director of the Danish Energy Authority.

Anders is chairman of DONG, the State-owned energy company ('Danish Oil and Natural Gas'), which will soon be privatized.

People in positions of power like this, and privy to the schemings of the secretive Bilderberg Group, do not make mistakes.

To make matters worse, the Muslim world has now retaliated by launching a competition for the best Holocaust Denial cartoon. What further proof could we need that this script is following the planned World War 3, as predicted by Pike?

Remember that history books record the start of WWI as being triggered when Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by a Serbian student. Many historians consider this to be the spark that started WWI.

Could it be that history books will record the publishing of the Mohammad cartoons as being the spark to ignite WW3? Four people have already been killed in skirmishes.

We will have to watch this situation carefully. If it blows over, it means the planted spark is premature and the warmongers are in fact not yet ready. But if violence escalates this will conform that the cartoon is intended to fan the flames of war, and that all the required players are in position and awaiting their cues.

[Funkaloyd]

If it blows over, it means the planted spark is premature and the warmongers are in fact not yet ready. But if violence escalates this will conform that the cartoon is intended to fan the flames of warIow, no matter what happens, we predicted it!

[SobaViolence]

the cartoon is in poor taste and an obvious attempt to cause a stir, but seeing the reaction (not the violent ones, which are hyped and supported by a slim minority of extremists) i think muslims need to lighten up.

i am a religious studies student and i am aware of all those implications, but something reeks of pretention...




i dunno...if they (as they like to say) don't care about the west, why all the fuss? just ignore us like you want you want us to believe you do.

who the fuck cares about denmark anyway? fuck'em.

[frenchgirl]

who the fuck cares about denmark anyway? fuck'em.

yeah .. cool..

anyhow, just wanna add this :
in the muslim beliefs, only the believers cannot picture mahomet so that is not the real problem ; lots of pictures of mahomet has been publicated before in the european press without provocating such consequences

the real problem for "real" muslims here was that mahomet has been caricaturized in a terrorist way (at least that is the only problem french muslim claim), and that is understandable, because for most muslims it is already hard to be muslims without people coming and publishing errors like this

that's why i say it goes further, and this publication was just an excuse to be angry, like in WW1 the killing of Ferdinand..

let's all move to latin america or africa!!

[marsdaddy]

Rather than letting this crazy-ass quote war die like it should, I figured this thread could use much needed humor, courtesy of the Daily Show:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002828.html#002828I'm with you.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/08/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL

[yeahwho]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1706374,00.html

Is this Jyllands-Posten published by gmsisko? They seem like the ultimate trollers.

[greedygretchen]

Iow, no matter what happens, we predicted it!

heh, that's exactly what I thought when I read that last part, but I still thought it made more sense than "that's just the way Muslims are"

[fucktopgirl]

anyway,thoses cartoons where put inplace for the sole purpose of creating chaos.ANd it seems to works!MUslims in the middle east are mad as hell right now.Yes maybe they are fanatic in their religion but is all they got left.DAmn they are being oppressed on every side,,now theirraison for living(mohamed)is being beaten on a international level.THis mess will give the bad guys(usa,england,israel)more raison to go through with their war plan.CAll me a conspiracy theorist if you want but this was all plan to have this reaction.they just hit the right spot for the muslim people to put more bombs around them and exploded!THerefore beeing look by others country like dangerous terrorist,,but who is the real terrosrist??

[Ace42X]

Is this Jyllands-Posten published by gmsisko? They seem like the ultimate trollers.

Moh, you uttered his name and summoned him, and now he has made anotehr wanky thread.

[DroppinScience]

anyway,thoses cartoons where put inplace for the sole purpose of creating chaos.

There's something rotten in the state of Denmark (or however, the Hamlet quote went)...

[ms.peachy]

There's something rotten in the state of Denmark (or however, the Hamlet quote went)...
Well I don't think the paper has ever made any secret of the fact that they intended to provoke controversy. "Creat chaos" is rather an overstatement (well, for everyone except the resident conspiracy theorists and whackjobs). I certainly don't think they anticipated the violent extremism of reaction, but then again, that's because the Danes tend to be level-headed and reasonable.

[DroppinScience]

Well I don't think the paper has ever made any secret of the fact that they intended to provoke controversy. "Creat chaos" is rather an overstatement (well, for everyone except the resident conspiracy theorists and whackjobs). I certainly don't think they anticipated the violent extremism of reaction, but then again, that's because the Danes tend to be level-headed and reasonable.

My remark was purely tongue-in-cheek. Fucktopgirl says a lot of crazy conspiracy-addled stuff when it comes to politics that you can't take it seriously. I really really doubt that anyone would have predicted (let alone had intentions of fomenting) riots, embassies burning down, etc.

Of course they wanted to raise eye-brows. But I don't think they were looking for those eye-brows to be burned right off...

[ms.peachy]

Yep. We are in agreement, good sir.

[fucktopgirl]

My remark was purely tongue-in-cheek. Fucktopgirl says a lot of crazy conspiracy-addled stuff when it comes to politics that you can't take it seriously. I really really doubt that anyone would have predicted (let alone had intentions of fomenting) riots, embassies burning down, etc.

Of course they wanted to raise eye-brows. But I don't think they were looking for those eye-brows to be burned right off...


well,as far as to know if its a conspiracy,we never gonna know.But one thing for shure their already knew that the muslim world was chaotic .MAybe they didn't predicted this reaction but surely had some good indications that it could become nasty."Let just humiliated their god".Who dont know that arabs are freaking fanatic when its come to their religion? It's like trowing a match in some straw.YOu kinda know that,,,it's gonna burn!

Yes,i might be more on the side of the conpiracy theorist ,i dont believe blindly in the commercial,main stream news and i am aware of the corruption that hit our society on every level possible.

[DroppinScience]

So what should we do, fucktop? Arrest those dastardly cartoonists so they'll never hurt anyone's feelings ever again?

As I've said before, that tinfoil hat is a little tight on you...

[ms.peachy]

So what should we do, fucktop? Arrest those dastardly cartoonists so they'll never hurt anyone's feelings ever again?

As I've said before, that tinfoil hat is a little tight on you...
Don't be silly now, ds. What we should do is tiptoe softly on eggshells around the fanatics for fear of upsetting them. After all, why shouldn't we let a handful of violent extremists dictate what can and cannot be allowed in a newspaper in a free country? It's so much easier to just try and appease them.

[fucktopgirl]

So what should we do, fucktop? Arrest those dastardly cartoonists so they'll never hurt anyone's feelings ever again?

As I've said before, that tinfoil hat is a little tight on you...


well maybe its your tinfoil hat that is tigh on your brain!

But arrest thoses cartoonist will not alleviate the crisis that is going on right now.The damage is done!

[greedygretchen]

I just saw an interesting piece on Barnum and Bailey circus. PT Barnum would hire people to go into crowds and start a buzz about his circus (or freakshow), saying how fantastic it was etc. This method worked very well for him and people attended his shows in droves and he became very rich.


So why is it so ludicrous to think or to be of the opinion that possibly some people posing as die hard Moslems were planted to rile up a slight percentage of the Moslem population over this cartoon? Meanwhile, Israel, the US and Britain can show how clean their hands are- "see it's not us perpetuating these stereotypes of Moslems-just look at how they react to a cartoon"- yeah how convenient. I just wonder after all the shit America has pulled why people can't believe something like this could be staged to heighten our fear and hatred of the Moslem world in order to set the war machines in motion- with our permission and cooperation because, I mean, look how these people react to a cartoon! Anyone seen the pictures of the lady in a burka with signs that say- in very nicely written English- Europe, take 9/11 as a lesson- or something like that...puh-lease!

[yeahwho]

I just saw an interesting piece on Barnum and Bailey circus. PT Barnum would hire people to go into crowds and start a buzz about his circus (or freakshow), saying how fantastic it was etc. This method worked very well for him and people attended his shows in droves and he became very rich.


So why is it so ludicrous to think or to be of the opinion that possibly some people posing as die hard Moslems were planted to rile up a slight percentage of the Moslem population over this cartoon? Meanwhile, Israel, the US and Britain can show how clean their hands are- "see it's not us perpetuating these stereotypes of Moslems-just look at how they react to a cartoon"- yeah how convenient. I just wonder after all the shit America has pulled why people can't believe something like this could be staged to heighten our fear and hatred of the Moslem world in order to set the war machines in motion- with our permission and cooperation because, I mean, look how these people react to a cartoon! Anyone seen the pictures of the lady in a burka with signs that say- in very nicely written English- Europe, take 9/11 as a lesson- or something like that...puh-lease!

I think alot like you (or PT Barnum) most of the day. Very good post and actually the way of the world, much more than most people think.

[DroppinScience]

well maybe its your tinfoil hat that is tigh on your brain!

But arrest thoses cartoonist will not alleviate the crisis that is going on right now.The damage is done!

Wait, so you actually think they should be arrested? Mon dieu, fucktop. :eek:

[fucktopgirl]

Wait, so you actually think they should be arrested? Mon dieu, fucktop. :eek:


yes and they should be beheaded... :D :p

[Funkaloyd]

why is it so ludicrous to think or to be of the opinion that possibly some people posing as die hard Moslems were planted to rile up a slight percentage of the Moslem population over this cartoon?
It's definitely possible (similar has happened before, see this (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Rendon_Group)), it's just not the most likely possibility. I mean, there were peaceful protests here in New Zealand, so is it so surprising that protests in impoverished fundamentalist nations were violent? That the media pointed their cameras where the action and excitement was?

[DroppinScience]

yes and they should be beheaded... :D :p

So are you some Iraqi insurgent pretending to be a French-Canadian woman? ;)

[Ali]

After all, why shouldn't we let a handful of violent extremists dictate what can and cannot be allowed in a newspaper in a free country?Well, it seems to work in the US
:p

[ms.peachy]

Well, it seems to work in the US
:p
I would argue that actually, it doesn't work. Unless by 'work' you mean 'push the entire country backwards'.

[Ali]

I would argue that actually, it doesn't work. Unless by 'work' you mean 'push the entire country backwards'.Works for the handful of violent extremist dictators, dunnit? They are still there!

[ms.peachy]

Works for the handful of violent extremist dictators, dunnit? They are still there!
Stop proving my point :p

[cingular]

anyway,thoses cartoons where put inplace for the sole purpose of creating chaos.ANd it seems to works!MUslims in the middle east are mad as hell right now.Yes maybe they are fanatic in their religion but is all they got left.DAmn they are being oppressed on every side,,now theirraison for living(mohamed)is being beaten on a international level.THis mess will give the bad guys(usa,england,israel)more raison to go through with their war plan.CAll me a conspiracy theorist if you want but this was all plan to have this reaction.they just hit the right spot for the muslim people to put more bombs around them and exploded!THerefore beeing look by others country like dangerous terrorist,,but who is the real terrosrist??

you are a funny person. You don't speak much truth, but hey you are funny!!

Iran stated that they want to destroy Israel, Palistine wants to destroy Isreal, and Isreal is the bad guy. Funny Funny funny

[fucktopgirl]

you are a funny person. You don't speak much truth, but hey you are funny!!

Iran stated that they want to destroy Israel, Palistine wants to destroy Isreal, and Isreal is the bad guy. Funny Funny funny


man where do you come from,,a box of crackle jax!!


read this (http://http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp)

MAybe you will understand who is the bad guy or who started the conflict!

[Ace42X]

You don't speak much truth, but hey you are funny!

What would you know about the truth, Gizmo? You can't even admit who you are. You lie all the time, and you are breaking the law too by evading a ban, and thus gaining unauthorised access to a computer system.

You're still the worthless, hypocritical, pig-fucker you were before you got banned, and you should still have you ass kicked clear out of here.

[DroppinScience]

If Muslims are gonna burn shit down, I'm okay with them burning down McDonald's, KFC, etc.

FINALLY, some common ground. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/pakistan.cartoons.ap/index.html

[greedygretchen]

them burning down McDonald's, KFC, etc.

Ok that does it- Now I'm pissed!

[freetibet]

Too bad I missed this tasty thread...

My 2 cents: did You know that there was a propaghanda action in the MidEast? They (Muslims from Denmark) used cartoons from that tabloid and other cartoons that actually weren't published... Just to turn the heat up.
Doesn't Qoeran only prohibit picturing of God? Mohammed is just a prophet....

Nevertheless, I am delighted by what's goin' on. Go on, angry fellows! Show us who You all really are..