Wow.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

If I may point out, Christianity was very similar at one point. The difference, however, stems from the fact that the regions of the world where Islam holds sway never developed past the stage of internecine tribal warfare. The thoughts and feelings that form the basis for religious zealotry have not entirely passed from the minds of the West, however.

I suggest that the best way to fight violent fanaticism is to stamp out the last vestiges of such like-minded hostility and madness in our own society. Education is the most potent weapon in a struggle of this nature. There's simply no way to end it on their part, so we can at least staunch its toxic influence on our end.

[Drake Dun]

It's funny you mention that. I almost wrote something in my last post like "Muslims now are like Christians a few hundred years ago, except, see, one thing the Christians had going for them was that they were stuck with swords and catapults instead of assault rifles and cruise missiles".

And yeah, I agree with you about dealing with the vestiges of the mentality on our end, and about education. I would add that we might thinking about dropping the policy of perpetually stirring the Muslim shit-pot by intermittently bombing the fuck out of them and using secret operatives to overthrow their governments to remind them who's boss when it comes to the oil.

Drake

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Agreed, Drake. I do wonder if the Middle East will ever become stable enough to allow for its own Enlightenment, or, possibly, a new path, previously untraveled by Euro-American society.

[Lapin]

Honestly? I find all fundies scary, no matter what religion they are from. They're all kind of....touched, shall we say, from my point of view.

Maybe its because I was brought up to believe that religion is private and personal and should never (ever, not in a million years) be flaunted. So, to me, seeing religion held up as some type of badge, the whole thing is very odd and I've never understood it.

Seeing people so completely sure of everything because a (sometimes poorly-translated) book told them so, a book that has apparantly had chapters edited out over the years, a book that claims all the species managed to fit on one boat and a child was born of a virgin, looks a little crazy to me.

I don't attack Christians. I try not to attack anybody. I am not offended by someone else's beliefs. I'm offended when they put mine down and go on a rant about their God, especially when all I said was 'Oh, no, I do not attend church. I'm not religious.'. (Whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) Then its time to excuse yourself from the conversation and walk away, like a well-mannered person should.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Valerius:

You asked to be called a blathering idiot. Being enrolled in a Master's program is no safeguard against stupidity, and proof of that is the fact that you tried to use it as such. Self-promotion in such a way is tacky.

I call it a 'rhetorical dare' seeing as most people see Christians as weak-minded and you took the bait hook-line-and-sinker.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

As far as the folks promoting that video being the exception, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying they're the large majority of Christians, but they're certainly the most vocal.

I can assure you that they're the exception. If they weren't then believe me when I say that we'd be dead if they weren't the exception. Fundamentalist behaviour doesn't drive the non-exceptions in the way they drive these minority.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

When you ask in response to my raising the point that such conservative Christians are the backbone of Bush's diehard constituency, you overlook the points I was making about how actions speak louder than words.

When Bush was put back into the White House a second time, it ensured that there could be no progress made on a variety of issues, not least of which is the debate over stem cell research. Bush has staunchly vetoed any attempt to procure more funding for this brand of scientific research, and in doing so is PANDERING DIRECTLY TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT. The only opposition to increased funding for stem cell research comes from ignorant
people thumping the bible with a drumstick, concerned with the fact that scientists use potential life for research instead of letting it grow.

Your linking his vetoing those bills to being a lap-dog of Christianity must be misplaced. If for the simple reason that you don't need religion to veto those sort of bills given how Bush can be an idiot sometimes, I would have conceded, but this argument that you bring in is old and stale and the fact that you automatically equate all opponents of stem-cell research as being ignorant.

I will admit to you, however, that I am for stem-cell research and I was disappointed with the funding cut, but you have to know that there is always a better way and stem-cells aren't the ultimate cure-all.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

This makes it seem like scientists actively abort fetuses for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells, when, in fact, the stem cells are provided by fetuses that have already been terminated, and get tossed into a medical waste bin regardless. Hand in hand is the abortion issue, which, if I'm not mistaken, has been outlawed entirely in the state of South Dakota. It's not just "leftist anti-religion propoganda."

Usually I'd agree, but I read recently on a Newsweek magazine how scientists have discovered a way to harvest stem cells from a developing embryo. Anyway, I cannot find myself agreeing with abortion, not for any religious reasons but because of the mere fact that abortions seem like an easy way out, something that can place into you the habit that you can always get out of trouble.

Much bigger than this is it shows people that they can shed responsibility. I can see it now.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

At least, it's not to the teenage girl in South Dakota, who needs an abortion because of one drunken night at a high school party.

Need? Will she die if she doesn't get an abortion? It's more of a want than anything if she got knocked up because she got drunk and wants to get rid of the baby. The younger generations need to know more about responsibility, which I can see clearly slipping away from their mental processes, and abortion doesn't help us with this. The same goes for the young adults. I'm all for open sex but you gotta be smart about it, like using a condom or using contraceptives. Let's see you perform an abortion on AIDS sometime.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Actions speak louder than words, and these actions drastically outweigh any charitable actions on behalf of more moderate Christian groups, because they press hot buttons and directly impinge on the rights of our citizens.

They don't outweigh. Only a lot more people are attracted to scandal and what makes them feel all tingly inside and seemingly giving blankets and shelter to homeless people is boring to a majority of the world's population. Seeing the Vatican being attacked from most fronts is funny to a lot of people, and a lot more exciting than donating to these charitable institutions who are clearly doing a good to humanity.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

When you ask in response to my assertion that the Conservative Christian Right actively seeks to proselytize, I'll ask you: Have you ever been accosted by a Jehova's Witness, mentioned evolution in front of a conservative Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist, or spoken to a Mormon about their beliefs?

I've had my brushes with priests proclaiming I've been infected with the devil because of the way I dress. But I brush it off because I know something they don't. I know that through and through God doesn't care what you look like, only what you do and what you are in the purest sense.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I have, and I live in a supposedly liberal portion of the country. Set foot outside the cities in New York, and you're in a veritable soup of Conservative religious fervor. Even within the cities, in some cases. The Jehova's witnesses we've all had to deal with, and can safely say are generally little more than an annoyance, but still attempt to force their religion upon others at point of handbill. The Mormons have supplanted Catholics as the "spread the word" branch of Christianity, by actively having their young men travel to the far reaches of the globe and set up missions preaching their particular brand of religion. And all while wearing itchy hair shirts! Catholics, however, are no slouches in the religious fervor department. Speaking as a Catholic myself, I find it unsettling that my
coreligionists are attempting to have Intelligent Design inserted into science curriculum as an alternate theory of creation.

Well, for that I have no answer, since really I don't care much about Intelligent Design. What I do care about are more fundamental issues like goodness to others, temperance, justice, fortitude, synderesis and the like.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

If you're looking for proof in the form of some sort of government study, I can't provide that. Just opening your eyes should be proof enough.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

And before anyone asks, no, I do not go to church. I find the experience wooden and alienating. Seeing people that, during the week, would more likely step on your throat than give you a hand up is insulting to my intelligence, and to God's, if they think they can fool him into believing that they're good people. I much prefer the air of sanctity that I get from the empty cathedrals in town when mass is not in session. I rarely visit, but I do like to stop in when I have time.

You and I have some thing in common then, though admittedly I do go to church with my family.

Anyhow. This debate's gone long enough. I understand what you're arguing for, and though I may not agree with some of them, I do know I'll let you be. I'm signing out of this early because it's taxing.

Peace.

[Valerius]

Drake,

You asked about what I meant when I said people attack their interpretations of religions instead of the actual religion itself. It's very simple really, and it's a rather sneaky thing too.

You would know that you 'cannot will what you do not know', so you must know something in order to do anything with it if you have the capability to. However, a lot of people don't have the full picture in their minds and are often laced with bias and such, so they attack their interpretation of that something which happens to fall short of the actual thing.

[biohazard]

Originally Posted by Renatus

The evangelists are essentialy brainwashing. Like communists they take their young ones isolate them from the rest of the world and prevent them from hearing any real evidence against their argument, that is why the most isolated parts of the country are controled by them. They say they are about god, yet they build these huge luxury stadiums for churches. They say they have conclusive evidence for their arguments and that evil can simply be ignored and it will go away, which is why they are pretty much why the protestants are the only ones who do not practice exorcism.

I don`t agree with evangelists. I believe they steal money from many ignorant people who know no better. The ones who take the money should be ashamed of themselves.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Valerius

You asked about what I meant when I said people attack their interpretations of religions... you must know something in order to do anything with it... However, a lot of people don't have the full picture... so they attack their interpretation of that something...

Fair enough, but you have to be careful about swinging to the opposite and equally fallacious extreme. The fact that you don't know everything about something doesn't mean that you don't know anything about it. It can be dangerous to levy an attack on certain elements of a belief system when you don't have a solid picture of how those elements fit into the whole, but at the same time, you do get cases in which a doctrine is spelled out in plain black and white and it is very difficult to imagine how there might be any mitigating circumstances.

Let the Christian state in unambiguous terms that he does not believe that I am necessarily going to suffer eternal torment for not worshipping his god, and 70% of my hostility toward him in his capacity as believer will disappear - instantly.

Let him add to that the admission that his system of belief has no unique claim to higher truth, and another 25% will disappear just as fast.

Nobody should put up with that kind of posturing from anybody.

The last 5% is for the servility, self-revulsion, misogyny, and other anti-human humdrum.

Drake

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Really, Sternn. Pretending for a minute that Christianity actually has anything to do with how we should evaluate Islam, comparing fundies torching Harry Potter to what happened with the Satanic Verses is sufficiently disingenuous to badly damage my ability to take you seriously.

It takes a lot to get me to defend Christians, but pretending that the Christian world isn't any better than the Islamic world on this stuff is just about enough to do it.

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but the right-wing evangelicals are in essence no better than the Muslims people are blasting here.

Lets not forget the crusades, and more importantly the various wars started in the Middle East in the past few decades were all started by Christians, not by Muslims.

And you may be right in claiming the reaction to the cartoon and book may be even a bit over the top for a comparison to Christians, it doesn't change the fact these people believe in their faith. I for one support them. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially on that level. The fact the Christian groups don't get worked up about people desecrating their own religion is not something they should be applauded for.

It also shows why no one will be able to bring a western style government to the Middle East. The people there support their religion to the point that they will do things like this. You will find very few Americans or british who feel the same way about anything these days. They support it in name, and will even vote for a candidate they like, but anything farther than that they don't get involved, much less will stand up and risk their life, liberty, or freedom over.

Maybe if Americans truly had the same convictions of their beliefs they would be able to better understand and work with the Muslim world instead of trying to write off their culture as somehow 'crazy' and 'bad'.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Maybe if Americans truly had the same convictions of their beliefs they would be able to better understand and work with the Muslim world instead of trying to write off their culture as somehow 'crazy' and 'bad'.

If Americans truly had the same convictions, there wouldn't be a Middle East to war over. I'll grant you that we have problems understanding the "why" in a suicide bombing, but I really don't think sharing those ideals would be good for anyone. Instilling a suicidal sense of religious fidelity into a populace with enough nuclear weapons to burn all life from the face of the Earth is a BAD IDEA. We'll understand our foe just long enough to push that big red button.

Shall we Learn To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb? I've got my ten-gallon hat right here.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

...the right-wing evangelicals are in essence no better than the Muslims people are blasting here.

They may not be any better in terms of what they would do if they had a free rein. Certainly, they are potentially dangerous. It is not, however, possible to impute to them an equally lousy track record of respect for the rights of others. That's a difference that matters.

Lets not forget the crusades...

As for the crusades, like I said in another thread (this thread?), the Islamic world of today reminds me a lot of the Christian world back then. We can entertain ourselves by tallying up kills and atrocities or whatever, but it's an academic exercise. My interest is the present threat posed by these forces.

...these people believe in their faith. I for one support them. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially on that level.

It depends on what you mean by "stand up for". If it means speaking out, or if they really must be stridulent jerks, holding protests, burning Danish flags, boycotting stores, etc., well... I won't be happy about it, but I certainly won't try to stop them. It turns out, though, that in the instant case "stand up for" means something more like "premeditated murder."

Can I at least get you to denounce that?

It also shows why no one will be able to bring a western style government to the Middle East. The people there support their religion to the point that they will do things like this.

I'm with you on that. I have the feeling that the Middle East will slowly liberalize (with the process finishing shortly before the heat death of the universe), but I really doubt it's the kind of process that can be forced. If anything, efforts in that direction will probably just make the status quo stronger.

You will find very few Americans or british who feel the same way about anything these days. They support it in name, and will even vote for a candidate they like, but anything farther than that they don't get involved, much less will stand up and risk their life, liberty, or freedom over.

That does strike a chord. I just like to see people get worked up about something worth getting worked up for, like say, freedom (in the traditional sense of the word - not Freedom®). Being willing to kill people because you don't like something they wrote is not admirable. It's contemptible.

Maybe if Americans truly had the same convictions of their beliefs they would be able to better understand and work with the Muslim world instead of trying to write off their culture as somehow 'crazy' and 'bad'.

Quite the reverse, I suspect. To take the parallel you put on the table, the closest counterpart to these people that we have in the West is the evangelicals. Remember the lady from the beginning part of Jesus Camp, and her comments on Muslims?

Drake

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

As for the crusades, like I said in another thread (this thread?), the Islamic world of today reminds me a lot of the Christian world back then. We can entertain ourselves by tallying up kills and atrocities or whatever, but it's an academic exercise. My interest is the present threat posed by these forces.

Well then, if you look at todays Muslims, how many are invading other nations? All the current strife in the Middle East was done by US/UK. The wars were started by, funded, outfited, and set in motion by non-Muslim nations. Claiming the Muslims somehow are more blood thirsty seems to be a stretch to me.

It depends on what you mean by "stand up for". If it means speaking out, or if they really must be stridulent jerks, holding protests, burning Danish flags, boycotting stores, etc., well... I won't be happy about it, but I certainly won't try to stop them. It turns out, though, that in the instant case "stand up for" means something more like "premeditated murder."

Can I at least get you to denounce that?

I wouldn't denounce it unless it was put into a certain context. I used to own a large amount of reptiles when I was in university. My flat mates and I had a room with about 40 tanks.

We had some poisonous snakes, a few animals which were dangerous without poison (i.e. 4 foot long monitor lizard), and a few spiders as well.

The nature of some of the creatures is to attack. Doesn't mean they are evil, they do what is in their nature. So, as a person who works with them, you learn to respect this, and operate in such a manner you don't cause them to get into any situations where you might get bit.

Muslims are very devout. They take their religion very seriously. Just because others don't have the same feelings for their own religion doesn't mean they should be disrespectful to their religion.

People knew the response those cartoons would invoke. They knew the dangers associated with taking such an action. Like the KKK marching through Harlem, a certain response is inevitable. If you go looking for trouble in this manner and have no respect for the people you are dealing with, you may find yourself in a very dangerous position. And you really can't blame the people who are just doing whats in their nature. Now thats not a racial attack on anyone. The loyalists from N. Ireland tried to march down the middle of Dublin and riots broke out. I was there. They then claim we are savages. We are not savages, just people standing up for what we believe in. They knew when coming down to Dublin, flying their union jacks and carrying pictures of the loyalist terrorists who bombed Dublin a few years ago what response would be invoked. To shift the blame to the people who reacted to such a stimulus is not the fault of the people.

If Al-Queda supporters wanted to march through the middle of DC and have a screw America parade, would we not see violence? Would that make Americans bad people for not wanting that to happen?

It comes down to what one holds sacred, and how far will you go to keep it that way. Some people hold their very religious beliefs on a level that would match that of an offensive parade. They should not be viewed as bad because of it.

If the people they are offending are known for dying to protect their religion or freedoms, one should also not be surprised when they follow through.

It's not IMHO a bad thing. It just shows why we have diplomacy.

Quite the reverse, I suspect. To take the parallel you put on the table, the closest counterpart to these people that we have in the West is the evangelicals. Remember the lady from the beginning part of Jesus Camp, and her comments on Muslims?

I do. The thing is, as I pointed out above, US/UK start all the wars in the Middle-East. The Muslims to date have yet to 'invade' the western world. When a Muslim does attack a western nation, its more of a sign than an attack. It's more for publicity. There aren't ships and planes full of guns and bombs heading to the US/UK mainland. There is no real way to say these people are acting badly, when in reality they are the ones who constantly get attacked by the west in their own homes.

[raggedyanne]

Hmm . . . see rome, see rome fall, see barbarians laugh, barbarians become west, west fucks up country, west denies fucking up country, fucked up country exacts due revenge on west, west acts like little kid in a food fight, west is doomed, fucked up country laughs, fucked up country becomes . . . .

lacuna coil, an endless circle, entertaining, is it not?

[ArtificialOne]

I laugh at the fact that stern is ok with muslims doing bad things, but denounces xtians doing the same. Hypocracy...yeah? Watch him squirm when he reads this.

[raggedyanne]

We've done so much shit to the muslims; don't you think it's time for a bit of payback? He'll probably find an article of interest to distract you from your main goal.

[Onetwothree]

Now everyone gets where I am coming from! :-D

[CptSternn]

I'll reinterate my original point above. For all of those who think Muslims are more prone to violence than the Christians, just look at the wars between the two, from the crusades forward, and see who attacked who first.

In every case a 'Christian nation' attacked first. In every case, Muslim lands were/are being invaded by people of the 'Christian' faith.

To say they are a violent people because they react to hundreds of years of being attacked and invaded by a group of people who claim they support peace, well is just not possible.

If Muslims took over say the USA via invasion (hypothetical here), would people not rise up like in the classic movie Red Dawn. Anyone here not see that?

I love that movie for many reasons. One of which, it shows Americans acting as 'terrorist' and promoting 'terrorism'. But it was only because their homeland was invaded by an outside force and they had to rise up.

Oh wait...the irony...

[raggedyanne]

Irony, sweet irony. I do not condone terrorism, but after we redefined the dividing lines between the middle-eastern nations with little or no regard to pre-existing countries/territories we might think of leaving them alone for a bit.

[Porphyria]

Fanaticism is evil in every aspect, whether it be psycho evangelical Christians or suicide bombing Muslims. I think it's more of an excuse for people to behave like... erm... people and act out against their perceived enemies. It seems anything is justified so long as it's done in the name of some sort of god figure.

Religion should NEVER be mixed in with politics. NEVER. It's religion that's keeping American scientists from studying stem cells and it's religion that's making the repression of women legal in some Islamic countries. Faith demands the suspension of logic and logic is crucial for any governing body to function properly, so those things should never be put together. The result is almost always bloody.

[ArtificialOne]

I agree with you on almost everything. I don't want someon in office screaming about their religion, but on the other hand, it is nice to have someone who believes they're accountable to a greater power (but not empowered mind you) so that all the decisions they make are at least done in the light of being accountable.

And it's been said many times, but Islam has no distinction between Religion, politics and business. Not unlike Judiasm.

Stem cells and scientific research is hampered by both parties and frustrates the crap out of me. Right wing: No stem cells because they kill babies... gawd!! No they don't!! There's other ways!! Left wing: Don't do animal testing and no Nuclear power!!! Ahg!!! It's not the 70's anymore!! Nuclear isn't the same!! And we don't need to poison animals anymore, computer modeling does a great job of getting past bad drug reactions. That being said, you have to test on animals eventually to see how they work in the real world. Kill one animal or save a milion lives? I'm an animal lover, but I'm also human and don't want to die!

I'm a huge tech person and hate that niether side is competent enough for my tastes in the science categorey.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Stem cells and scientific research is hampered by both parties and frustrates the crap out of me. Right wing: No stem cells because they kill babies... gawd!! No they don't!! There's other ways!! Left wing: Don't do animal testing and no Nuclear power!!! Ahg!!!

You're right to an extent, but you're talking about the far left and the far right - in other words, extremists. They are representative of what party ideology can mean carried to the extreme, but are not the be all and end all.

There are right-wingers who would agree with allowing abortion, who are right wing in that they believe in a free market. Although this leads to corporate control of the country, which = bad IMO, it does have its perks, such as consumer's freedom to find the company that gives the best deal in terms of what they can afford.

There arew also left wingers like myself who disagree with animal testing for cosmetics. Women are hot enough without buying shit that involves unnecessary suffering to living creatures. But I am definitely in favour of medical animal testing where there is no other, more humane alternative.

I'm not disagreeing with your main objective of highlighting the limits political crap outs on technology, just clearing up that there are degrees of asshole-itude.

[ArtificialOne]

Yeah, I agree with you.

The cosmetic thing is kind of bad, I'm not for sensless testing like that, but for cancer drugs and stuff of high magnitude is more in the realm of where my ideologies lie.

[Apathy's_Child]

I'm with you. It's natural to sacrifice other lesser species for the survival of your own (Darwinism, dood), but anything less than that is not acceptable to me. And being a huge animal lover, the first statement I made makes me feel like a complete cunt, though conscience aside I'd stand by it.

[Porphyria]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Stem cells and scientific research is hampered by both parties and frustrates the crap out of me. Right wing: No stem cells because they kill babies... gawd!! No they don't!! There's other ways!! Left wing: Don't do animal testing and no Nuclear power!!! Ahg!!! It's not the 70's anymore!! Nuclear isn't the same!! And we don't need to poison animals anymore, computer modeling does a great job of getting past bad drug reactions. That being said, you have to test on animals eventually to see how they work in the real world. Kill one animal or save a milion lives? I'm an animal lover, but I'm also human and don't want to die!

I like you. I like you a lot.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

It depends on what you mean by "stand up for". If it means speaking out, or if they really must be stridulent jerks, holding protests, burning Danish flags, boycotting stores, etc., well... I won't be happy about it, but I certainly won't try to stop them. It turns out, though, that in the instant case "stand up for" means something more like "premeditated murder."

Can I at least get you to denounce that?

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I wouldn't denounce it unless it was put into a certain context... The nature of some of the creatures is to attack... Muslims are very devout.

I'll respond to the various statements in your post later, if you like, but for the moment I would like to stay ruthlessly focused on this narrow point. Let me put my question another way. If evangelical Christians were to assassinate Dan Brown for writing the DaVinci Code, would you give the same apologetics as you give in the case of the Muslim killers reacting to the Satanic Verses? If not, why not?

Conciseness and clarity is appreciated.

Drake