|
I for one Paul have never, nor will I ever, claim that Al-Qaida is anything but a pathetic...And again, how is this different from al Qaida? This is the part I'm not seeing. Everything you say about the IRA to prove it's not a Christian organisation applies to bin Laden and his fellow psychopaths.You said previously that christian terrorists weren't organized, that they were lone nutjobs unlike muslims. I responded with the IRA reference of an organized christian terror organization. That is not a strawman it's fact, but continue you in your uneducation on the matter.Again, where did I refer to the IRA in my previous statement? I know what he's saying, frankly I don't know enough about that whole mess to comment on it.Actually, I agree with JM a bit CJ, but I'd move some of his words around so that they make more sense: I would say that the IRA was a terrorist organisation that was christian/catholic, not so much a christian organization that was made up of terrorists. I think syntax plays a role here, and keeps it from going all strawman on us.Frankly your supposition that christians didn't have organized terror cells is BS at it's finest.I was referring to the abortion clinic nutjobs, not the IRA but don't let that get in the way of your strawman arguments.Jeremy, while I will not debate the straw-men issue with you or anyone else. I will say that the IRA, while clinging to religion, were not a religious organization in any way. They were a political movement using religion as an excuse, and a very poor one, amongst others, for a long and disastrous conflict.
There are however some groups that would if they could be religious terrorists. I would say they would not be actual Christians but fear the ever present "not a real Scotsman" argument.
Ok what about the KKK?
The problem with conveniently trying to separate "political" terrorists from "religious" ones is that a lot of the world doesn't see church and state as logically separate entities, but rather as a seamless whole. I believe that Hamas, for example, will ultimately always reject a two-state solution in the end, because there's a cognitive dissonance in the fact of a Jewish state on "Muslim" lands that most of the members cannot reconcile with their world-view.That is an excellent point! :D
Movements can begin as political and evolve into the religious as well. I was trying to say that about the IRA. However, was the main objective of the IRA secular and then layered (or corrupted) by religion? Media, the members and the global community began to associate religion with the movement?
I am not old enough to remember the IRA clear enough for the events in the 1970s and 1980s. Still, from what I can remember, Al-Qaeda still appears to be more heavily entrenched in Islam than the IRA was in Catholicism.
This was a problem for The 8th Dwarf. He was unable to understand the point that while the IRA began as a secular, non-denominational organisation it has evolved into that over time. May be that is the natural progression of these terrorist organisations, that eventually the original ideology and stated purpose becomes influenced by religion (or lack of belief in religion).
The guise of religion is convenient for these movements. Religion allows them to recruit and gain support from the populace. May be religion is just a means to an end. The original, secular, movement wants a group removed from an area. This attracts a second group, that is religious, that shares the same objective but on different grounds. Eventually, the religious aspect becomes the most convenient (and in some cases) dominate part of the organisation. This would not be true in all circumstances I imagine.
I am probably right off the mark on this, so it definitely requires a bit more broader...
Chubbs you should know events do not occur in isolation. The History of Irish resistance is deeply rooted in Religion. During Henry VIII(and his successors) reconquest of Ireland, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by English(including resorting to martial law) to bring the country under English control heightened resentment of English rule. Irish history rolled through rebellion reconquest, land confiscation, and brutal repression. The basic rules were Catholics were not loyal to the Crown of England and thus dispossessed, Protestants swore allegiance to the Church of England and the Head of that Church was the Crown.
What Chubbs is getting cofused about is The current PROVISIONAL IRA has nothing to do with the Original IRA which was destroyed by the Irish Free State forces in 1922 during the very bloody Irish civil war.
In Northern Ireland the Unionists feared a loss of political power and economic wealth in a predominantly rural, nationalist, Catholic home-rule state. Nationalists believed that they would remain economically and politically second class citizens without self-government. Out of this division, two opposing sectarian movements evolved, the Protestant Orange Order and the Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians.
The Provisional IRA is a Catholic identifying group of terrorists that wish to force a minority rule on the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
As for (some) Americans financial supporting the IRA. I personally believe most people that did that were unaware of where the money was going. Many believed they donating to help the victims of the conflict. Much as how many people who financially supported the Palestinian terrorist groups thought they were sending aid to those in need.
Then you believe that most of the Americans supporting the Provisional IRA were either very naive or stupid. Where the money was going was known condoned and supported by some very powerful Irish-American political families. The support only stopped when Clinton got involved in the situation.
The difference between support for the IRA in northern Ireland and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians have never and will never have the same level of sympathy or support from American citizens.
|
What Chubbs is getting cofused about is The current PROVISIONAL IRA has nothing to do with the Original IRA which was destroyed by the Irish Free State forces in 1922 during the very bloody Irish civil war.
In Northern Ireland the Unionists feared a loss of political power and economic wealth in a predominantly rural, nationalist, Catholic home-rule state. Nationalists believed that they would remain economically and politically second class citizens without self-government. Out of this division, two opposing sectarian movements evolved, the Protestant Orange Order and the Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians.
The Provisional IRA is a Catholic identifying group of terrorists that wish to force a minority rule on the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
I think you're not really understanding anything that is being said here. I have already said that there has been changes to the IRA. I did not specify the changes. True. I have also specifically divided my discussion into two parts: 1) the original IRA was a secular, non-denominational organisation; 2) overtime there has been division, splits and evolution of the organisation to a more religious outlook.
Really, all you're doing is trying to argue one isolated point that I have already elaborated on and contributing nothing. As you have stated above, the Nationalists feared a loss of political power and economic wealth. This was an ethno-political struggle under the guise of a religious one.
May be look beyond Wikipedia for once!
|
|
Chubbs you should know events do not occur in isolation...
This is what I said:
"This was a problem for The 8th Dwarf. He was unable to understand the point that while the IRA began as a secular, non-denominational organisation it has evolved into that over time. May be that is the natural progression of these terrorist organisations, that eventually the original ideology and stated purpose becomes influenced by religion (or lack of belief in religion)."
First, you have commented on one post without reference to any that had come before it. Second, you harp on another point that I have already acknowledge. I am not denying that the IRA split and became fractionally religious. In addition, I have already nodded towards the historical importance of what has happened before in Ireland very, very briefly.
The specifics of what the IRA became after its original incarnation is not relevant. The fact that it was a terrorist organisation that became associated with religion is more important to this discussion. This was an ethno-political/geo-political struggle for power that had religion as its by-product.
... The History of Irish resistance is deeply rooted in Religion. During Henry VIII(and his successors) reconquest of Ireland, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by English(including resorting to martial law) to bring the country under English control heightened resentment of English rule. Irish history rolled through rebellion reconquest, land confiscation, and brutal repression. The basic rules were Catholics were not loyal to the Crown of England and thus dispossessed, Protestants swore allegiance to the Church of England and the Head of that Church was the Crown.
This is simply background information that really does nothing to enhance the discussion. I have already acknowledge that their is history to the situation in Ireland.
What Chubbs is getting cofused about is The current PROVISIONAL IRA has nothing to do with the Original IRA which was destroyed by the Irish Free State forces in 1922 during the very bloody Irish civil war.
Well, if you actually read my posts I have stated that their have been splits in the IRA. I did not see a need to elaborate on the specifics of how the organisation split. It is enough to acknowledge a split and that this also evolved into religious division and labelling.
In Northern Ireland the Unionists feared a loss of political power and economic wealth in a predominantly rural, nationalist, Catholic home-rule state. Nationalists believed that they would remain economically and politically second class citizens without self-government. Out of this division, two opposing sectarian movements evolved, the Protestant Orange Order and the Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians.
How is this relevant when we are looking at the IRA and its motivations. You're introducing the opinion of the other side. We're not talking about Northern Ireland, we're discussing the IRA. You're wandering around off-topic and making no clear contribution.
The Provisional IRA is a Catholic identifying group of terrorists that wish to force a minority rule on the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
Once more, I am more than willing to acknowledge the role of religion in both Al-Qaeda and the IRA. Yes, it is not surprising the Provisional IRA are Catholic identifying, as the Republic of Ireland has been a predominately Catholic country. The chances are good that the IRA is going to have Catholics in its ranks. However, no where have I read so far that this was a religious struggle first and a economic/political one second. In fact, it has been the other way around. The guise of religion wrapped around non-religious motivations.
|
|
As for (some) Americans financial supporting the IRA. I personally believe most people that did that were unaware of where the money was going. Many believed they donating to help the victims of the conflict. Much as how many people who financially supported the Palestinian terrorist groups thought they were sending aid to those in need.
The difference between support for the IRA in northern Ireland and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians have never and will never have the same level of sympathy or support from American citizens.
The Irish heritage alone in America would be strong enough to generate sympathy I imagine. The 8th Dwarf is making an interesting point. It is naive to suggest that all money sent to Ireland was intended as aid only or believed it would used as aid only.
As for (some) Americans financial supporting the IRA. I personally believe most people that did that were unaware of where the money was going. Many believed they donating to help the victims of the conflict. Much as how many people who financially supported the Palestinian terrorist groups thought they were sending aid to those in need.The difference between support for the IRA in northern Ireland and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians have never and will never have the same level of sympathy or support from American citizens.The Irish heritage alone in America would be strong enough to generate sympathy I imagine. The 8th Dwarf is making an interesting point. It is naive to suggest that all money sent to Ireland was intended as aid only or believed it would used as aid only.
Good thing nobody is claim that all the money was believed to be going towards the victims then.
Then you believe that most of the Americans supporting the Provisional IRA were either very naive or stupid. Where the money was going was known condoned and supported by some very powerful Irish-American political families. The support only stopped when Clinton got involved in the situation.
Yes, I think many were naive. Many people of Irish descent in the US have never been to Ireland, have no idea about the specific social and political situations going on there. If someone comes to a local organization showing pictures of scenes like Bloody Sunday and saying that they need money for the children and the widows of the victims, some people will naively give it. Not everyone, especially back then had all the resources to go into tracing all the money trails. Some people knew where the money was going, but I doubt every single person looked that deeply. Remember in the US, the Northern Ireland troubles didn't get a whole lot of general press.
I might also point out that I said "many" not "all" not "most". I am talking about a statistically signification portion of the donors, not a majority or a totality of them.
As for there not being as much support for Palestinians in the US, I have to ask what population are you talking about? The general population, then you'd be right, but that would also be true for the Northern Ireland and IRA at its height. It had a lot of support perhaps within the Irish-American community, especially those located in large urban settings, but not general over the whole population. Greek- or Italian Americans didn't give a damn, even being mostly Catholic. Likewise I think within the Palestinian-American population there is probably a significant amount of support, and yes some of them are/were naive about where their donations were going, that is until the US started putting some of the organizations on the terror lists. Possibly even some donors are from the greater Muslim-American population, though in that case it would probably have more to do with hating Israel than caring about the Palestinians.
The 8th Dwarf: If I remember right, you reside in Europe, is that right? If so, perhaps your perception of the press given to the "Troubles" is quite different then what those of us in the U.S. experienced.
The 8th Dwarf: If I remember right, you reside in Europe, is that right? If so, perhaps your perception of the press given to the "Troubles" is quite different then what those of us in the U.S. experienced.
No I am Australian - of Western European/Australian Aboriginal descent. Irish history has always been of interest to me. From Viking Ireland to The Good Friday agreement. One of the most important things Bill Clinton ever did was to encourage a situation where the IRA and their political party Sinn Féin were able to solidify the peace process with the British government.
Because Australia is as one of my favourite Prime-ministers said "At the arse end of the world" we are very interested in what is going on everywhere else, because not much happens here and we prefer it not to.
|
|
Ok what about the KKK?I mentioned the KKK earlier as an example of a Christian terrorist organisation. I was under the impression the KKK identified themselves as Christians.
Aren't they more of a racist kinda thing? I mean, if you are white and you are not obviously espousing any religous views, they'll probably leave you alone. The melanin levels in your skin are what they are concerned about.
And the IRA got tagged as terrorists when they killed civilians. Now, in order to deserve that title, they need to kill civilians ON PURPOSE. Did they purposefully seek out unarmed civilians and kill them? If the answer is yes, then they are terrorists, if the answer is no, then they are no worse then the United States. Think collateral damage. I haven't looked at the IRA wikipage yet, so don't blame me for my ignorance.
|
|
The 8th Dwarf: If I remember right, you reside in Europe, is that right? If so, perhaps your perception of the press given to the "Troubles" is quite different then what those of us in the U.S. experienced.No I am Australian - of Western European/Australian Aboriginal descent. Irish history has always been of interest to me. From Viking Ireland to The Good Friday agreement. One of the most important things Bill Clinton ever did was to encourage a situation where the IRA and their political party Sinn Féin were able to solidify the peace process with the British government.
Because Australia is as one of my favourite Prime-ministers said "At the arse end of the world" we are very interested in what is going on everywhere else, because not much happens here and we prefer it not to.
Except for the poisonous spiders, crocs, giant stinging trees, evil jellyfish, killer snakes, sharks, kangaroos, the scorching desert, yeah, you guys pretty much have it easy over there. Oh wait.
Aren't they more of a racist kinda thing? I mean, if you are white and you are not obviously espousing any religous views, they'll probably leave you alone. The melanin levels in your skin are what they are concerned about.Ok what about the KKK?I mentioned the KKK earlier as an example of a Christian terrorist organisation. I was under the impression the KKK identified themselves as Christians.
The second, and all subsequent Klans, have been explicitly Christian. (The first had a notable dearth of non-Protestants to persecute.) Black people may still be Klan Enemy Number One, but they want the subordination and extermination of everybody who isn't a straight, white anglo-saxon Protestant. One of the catalysts for the formation of the second Klan was the lynching of a Jewish man.
What about the KKK?
What about them?
EDIT: I see others have responded already.
the less said about those backwards inbred morons the better.
|
|
What about the KKK?What about them?
EDIT: I see others have responded already.
the less said about those backwards inbred morons the better.
How about this video then? This is the link to the news article.
What about the KKK?What about them?
EDIT: I see others have responded already.
the less said about those backwards inbred morons the better.
How about this video then? This is the link to the news article.
The man is an idiot.?!?
I like how he cracked himself up throughout the whole thing.
I like how he cracked himself up throughout the whole thing.
Drugs do that to you.
People need to understand what terrorism is.
Terrorism, is the application of tactics to create fear. This fear is magnified and used as blackmail to coerce decisions to benefit those applying fear.
How that fear is applied doesnt define terrorism. So whether random bombings, or a selected individual, doesnt matter. Its the design of the event.
So int he case where the Doc was targeted, it communicates that other Docs will be targeted if abortions do not stop. That IS terrorism.
The man is an idiot.?!?
No; he's saying, "lighten up, dude," and you're demanding that he be serious -- and you see no problem that your view should automatically be enforced?
What he's doing is mocking the blatant double standard. Religious people demand respect for their beliefs, artifacts, and holy books -- and those of other faiths (to a lesser degree of course) -- and expect them to be treated as very grave, serious things. At the same time, they are totally unwilling to extend the same respect to the equally-valid view that a book is inherently just words on paper, and that maybe people take this stuff way too seriously.
As soon as the double standard is corrected, then these sorts of demonstrations will have no more fuel. In short, if you're offended, then cut the causal chain -- extend the same respect towards his views as you expect towards yours. Learn to take serious, weighty, gravely sacred stuff with just a bit of irreverence once in a while, and he'll start taking them more seriously.
|
Oh look, religious folk are butthurt over something. Suck it up and put on your big girl panties.
QFT.
Atheists have to deal with being the least trusted demographic of people in the united states. There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage. Most other major demographics are represented.
Hell, a sitting president (good ole bush sr.) said that atheists were un-American and shouldn't be in the military.
Anywho, done venting...you relgious folks continue on with your claims of persecution because books are getting burnt.
There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage.
Evidently there is one whom no one has heard of.
|
These guys burning a Quran = Ground Zero mosque.
If you truly believe that then you're not really different than the guy buring the Quran... you're simply not expressing your views as much.
2 Blocks away from Ground Zero IS NOT Ground Zero, especially if you have ever looked at block density in Lower Manhattan. A block away from anything in Manhattan is practically another zipcode.
The only reason to protest the mosque is deciding to yield to the negative Human impulses of fear and xenophobia.
It was not Islam that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon any more than it was Christianity who led an ill-advised war into Iraq. It was the actions of a group of terrorists whereas Islam is a body of faith that numbers more than a billion souls and has been around for over fourteen centuries. It was a faith that sheltered Jews in Europe while Christians were marginalising them or hunting them down in pogroms or forced conversions.
As to the argument that "we should allow a mosque there when Saudi Arabia allows a cathedral." Do we really want Saudi Arabia to set the standards for American religous freedoms? Again... a lot of hate and old-fashioned fear, in this case just like the Patriot Act threathens to sweep away cardinal American values or even the reason we value them.
Your reasoning is flawed in that the original name for this center was 'The Cordoba House' which was a direct reference to the mosque built over the ruins of a christian church in Spain as a statement of Islams triumph over all. To not see the connection is to deliberately blind oneself to the significance of the planned site. Secondly, when you look at the demographics of NYC and its Muslim population, you see that the proposed site is actually much worse for a location. The claim that (as put forward by the builders) they couldn't find abetter location is ludicrous because a simple netsearch can find several locations that are more convenient and cheaper (it took all of 20 minutes). So, the previous poster is correct to correlate the two incidents.
|
|
There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage.Evidently there is one whom no one has heard of.
Wow, and he was from Oklahoma! Whoda thunk it? I was thinking a little more contemporary when I made that statement, but apparently they have existed.
|
|
Your reasoning is flawed in that the original name for this center was 'The Cordoba House' which was a direct reference to the mosque built over the ruins of a christian church in Spain as a statement of Islams triumph over all. To not see the connection is to deliberately blind oneself to the significance of the planned site. Secondly, when you look at the demographics of NYC and its Muslim population, you see that the proposed site is actually much worse for a location. The claim that (as put forward by the builders) they couldn't find abetter location is ludicrous because a simple netsearch can find several locations that are more convenient and cheaper...
Your history is flawed. The Caliphate of Cordoba coexisted peacefully with its neighbors of all faiths for a majority of its rule. It wasn't until the only suitable heir was a child and the adviser to the child's father claimed power for himself and used that power to crush all opposition (not just those of opposing faiths).
This eventually led to a civil war and the downfall of the Caliphate of Cordoba.
So, the beginnings of Cordoba were peaceful and it wasn't until politics got involved that it turned violent. I would say that is a pretty good example of what is going on with this cultural center.
|
|
Your history is flawed. The Caliphate of Cordoba coexisted peacefully with its neighbors of all faiths for a majority of its rule. It wasn't until the only suitable heir was a child and the adviser to the child's father claimed power for himself and used that power to crush all opposition (not just those of opposing faiths).This eventually led to a civil war and the downfall of the Caliphate of Cordoba.
So, the beginnings of Cordoba were peaceful and it wasn't until politics got involved that it turned violent. I would say that is a pretty good example of what is going on with this cultural center.
I was refering to the Cordoba house name which referenced the mosque. My history is not flawed, read the building of the mosque of Cordoba and the reason for it's site.
Also, the Caliphate did not begin peacefully as it was a "conquered" territory. Do not go by its realations with its neighbors, but instead with its treatment of the local populace that were not adherents of Islam.
QFT.Atheists have to deal with being the least trusted demographic of people in the united states. There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage. Most other major demographics are represented.
Hell, a sitting president (good ole bush sr.) said that atheists were un-American and shouldn't be in the military.
Anywho, done venting...you relgious folks continue on with your claims of persecution because books are getting burnt.
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.
go figure.
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.
Communist Russia was anti-Christian, insofar as Christianity conflicted with the state religion of Communism and party worship. It was equally anti-secular humanist (secular humanism being the philosophy that most Western atheists espouse). Using Stalin as your poster-boy to represent Western atheism is therefore a lot like using Pontius Pilate as a poster-boy for Christianity.
|
|
Your history is flawed. The Caliphate of Cordoba coexisted peacefully with its neighbors of all faiths for a majority of its rule. It wasn't until the only suitable heir was a child and the adviser to the child's father claimed power for himself and used that power to crush all opposition (not just those of opposing faiths).This eventually led to a civil war and the downfall of the Caliphate of Cordoba.
So, the beginnings of Cordoba were peaceful and it wasn't until politics got involved that it turned violent. I would say that is a pretty good example of what is going on with this cultural center.
I was refering to the Cordoba house name which referenced the mosque. My history is not flawed, read the building of the mosque of Cordoba and the reason for it's site.
Also, the Caliphate did not begin peacefully as it was a "conquered" territory. Do not go by its realations with its neighbors, but instead with its treatment of the local populace that were not adherents of Islam.
The building was begun in approximately AD 600 as the Christian Visigothic church of St. Vincent. After the Islamic conquest of the Visigothic kingdom the Emir Abd ar-Rahman I bought the church.
Those barbaric conquerers purchasing buildings from those they have conqurered!
In 1236, Córdoba was captured by King Ferdinand III of Castile in the Reconquista, and the mosque was turned back into a Christian church. Alfonso X oversaw the construction of the Villaviciosa Chapel and the Royal Chapel within the mosque. The kings who followed added further Christian features, such as King Henry II rebuilding the chapel in the 14th century.
Those enlightened liberators re-claiming (legally sold) property! Huzzah!
The purchaser even let the foundation stand as it was, even though it did not face mecca (as is tradtional for mosques):
Several explanations have been proposed to explain the mosque's unorthodox orientation. Traditionally, the mihrab of a mosque faces in the direction of Mecca; by facing the mihrab, worshipers pray towards Mecca. Mecca is east-southeast of the mosque, but the mihrab points south. Some have suggested the mihrab faces south because the foundations of the mosque were taken from the old Roman and Visigoth constructions.
|
|
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.Communist Russia was anti-Christian, insofar as Christianity conflicted with the state religion of Communism and party worship. It was equally anti-secular humanist (secular humanism being the philosophy that most Western atheists espouse). Using Stalin as your poster-boy to represent Western atheism is therefore a lot like using Pontius Pilate as a poster-boy for Christianity.
I was going to type out a whole response, but Kirth said it better than I could have.
|
|
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.Communist Russia was anti-Christian, insofar as Christianity conflicted with the state religion of Communism and party worship. It was equally anti-secular humanist (secular humanism being the philosophy that most Western atheists espouse). Using Stalin as your poster-boy to represent Western atheism is therefore a lot like using Pontius Pilate as your poster-boy for Christianity.
I'm not sure how anti-secular they were as they were anti-humanist in general (the idea that morality came from somewhere other than the party was the real clash). You're right though, it was all about the party... the one party to rule them all!
|
|
Wikipedia is an OK starting source to get an idea of dates and such, but as an historical reference it is decidely lacking. Try reading source documents such as Emir Abd ar-Rahman's actual proclamation. He purchased and built on the site specifically to symbolize Islam's dominance over other religions. And as far as the reconquest goes, if there were some Christians trying to build a cathedral on, or near, a site were a Christian extremist had just killed 3000 people and naming the cathedral after the Cordoba church, then that would be a valid counter argument.
To be fair, Abraham Lincoln was likely the first atheist President and Congressman.
If we go that route, Deism as practiced is about 90% closer to atheism than it is to Christianity, so do we also include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and maybe even George Washington?
You do realize communist russia (stalin/lennin) was atheist in nature, right? In fact, history shows a terrorist like attempt at exterminating religion in russia.Communist Russia was anti-Christian, insofar as Christianity conflicted with the state religion of Communism and party worship. It was equally anti-secular humanist (secular humanism being the philosophy that most Western atheists espouse). Using Stalin as your poster-boy to represent Western atheism is therefore a lot like using Pontius Pilate as a poster-boy for Christianity.
You miss my point. I wasnt using Stalin in the way you say
Ive seen numerous statements that religion seems to be the cause of so much. Ive also seen many atheists take a *forgive the pun* holier then thou attitude.
the point I am making is this:
Its not religion, or lack there of, that manifests this brutal act, its the human species. The species uses what ever excuse it can lay its hands on, to perform its brutality.
You can all lay these actions, the stupidity of this Pastor, Bin Laden, whatever you wish on whatever excuse, but its the species that is at fault here.
Its not religion, or lack there of, that manifests this brutal act, its the human species. The species uses what ever excuse it can lay its hands on, to perform its brutality.
You can all lay these actions, the stupidity of this Pastor, Bin Laden, whatever you wish on whatever excuse, but its the species that is at fault here.
On this much we agree 100%.
Where we differ is in that I feel any system specifically intended to invoke fanaticism and to emphasize zeal over thought naturally plays into that species-level problem. Stalinism was exactly such a system. Chirstianity formerly was, but has since mellowed out a bit (for most people, not for the fundies). Islam for the most part is still that way, although sufism in particular seems to be making a break for it. Ba'hai seems like a good example of what happens if you start from a zeal-based system (Islam, in that case) and move towards a more humanistic approach.
That doesn't mean the more humanistic philosophies can't be used as an excuse for mass mayhem, just that they don't lend themselves to it quite as conveniently.
On this much we agree 100%.
Where we differ is in that I feel any system specifically intended to invoke fanaticism and to emphasize zeal over thought specifically plays into that species-level problem. Stalinism was exactly such as system. Chirstianity formerly was, but has since mellowed out a bit (for most people, not for the fundies). Islam for the most part is still that way (especially wahaddi, of course)... although sufism in particular seems to be making a break for it.
Hmmm, I think where we disagree is the perception of the tool.
I think extremists today arent the zealots of the past, but manipulators of greed and power. Youre reference to the old applications of understanding vs today is interesting. Personally, I think you have men of power or control, the pastor over a parish, muslim warlords over a region, who use the religion as a tool to get their earthly delights.
I dont think the "fanaticism" is faith based in today's world. I think its the excuse used to market the actions.
I dont think the systems are designed for fanaticism. I think the Species abuses the tool for its own gain and exploits the systems
|
|
Where we differ is in that I feel any system specifically intended to invoke fanaticism and to emphasize zeal over thought specifically plays into that species-level problem. Stalinism was exactly such as system. Chirstianity formerly was, but has since mellowed out a bit (for most people, not for the fundies). Islam for the most part is still that way (especially wahaddi, of course)... although sufism in particular seems to be making a break for it. Ba'hai seems like a good example of what happens if you start from a zeal-based system (Islam, in that case) and move towards a more humanistic approach.
Here is something I've talked about before, your take on the 'mellowing out' of Christianity is exactly the point. Islam essentially has to go through its own version of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, is when you see the more fanatical and strict behaviour codes of Christianity. If Islam would go to a chronological order for rating the supremacy of the Suras in the Koran instead of the current method, then you would see a definite shift towards peace and away from fanaticsim.
I think the Species abuses the tool for its own gain and exploits the systems
I agree. I simply feel that some tools are better suited for this use than others. It's true that I can kill a man with a drinking straw, if killing is what I want to do. Killing him with a hammer is easier, though. Killing him with a Glock is easier still.
|
|
Wikipedia is an OK starting source to get an idea of dates and such, but as an historical reference it is decidely lacking. Try reading source documents such as Emir Abd ar-Rahman's actual proclamation. He purchased and built on the site specifically to symbolize Islam's dominance over other religions. And as far as the reconquest goes, if there were some Christians trying to build a cathedral on, or near, a site were a Christian extremist had just killed 3000 people and naming the cathedral after the Cordoba church, then that would be a valid counter argument.
I'm not going to go out looking for primary documents to bolster an internet debate. I only quote from wikipedia sources that have what appears to be a legitimate works cited section. Even then I will generally only quote sections which are directly cited.
Point is he BOUGHT the site. The christians stole the site from someone who legitimately purchased it. He didn't change the facing of the building to face Mecca. How much dominance could he really be showing?
They are building their community center (which happens to include a mosque) in an area which is already occupied by strip clubs, off-track betting sites, etc. As the Imam said, the "hallowed ground" argument kinda falls flat in light of that.
I agree. I simply feel that some tools are better suited for this use than others. It's true that I can kill a man with a drinking straw, if killing is what I want to do. Killing him with a hammer is easier, though. Killing him with a Glock is easier still.
I wholly agree here. The mastermind (for lack of a better term atm) will use the tool that has the highest effectiveness. Blind Faith paired with ignorance plays into that.
EDIT: But let us note, most faiths dont want "blind" faith. Ignorance is the tool of "Blind" faith.
Here is something I've talked about before, your take on the 'mellowing out' of Christianity is exactly the point. Islam essentially has to go through its own version of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, is when you see the more fanatical and strict behaviour codes of Christianity.
I think you've swapped the Reformation with the Enlightenment. The Reformation brought about not the domestication and pacification of Christianity, but rather new heights in brutality and a full century of warfare. The division between Catholics and Protestants was not over whether or not there would be an oppressive, doctrinaire theology endorsed by the state and imposed upon all for the aggrandizement and profit of the clergy and the state, but rather what set of clergy would be the beneficiary of such a system.
|
|
I agree. I simply feel that some tools are better suited for this use than others. It's true that I can kill a man with a drinking straw, if killing is what I want to do. Killing him with a hammer is easier, though. Killing him with a Glock is easier still.I wholly agree here. The mastermind (for lack of a better term atm) will use the tool that has the highest effectiveness. Blind Faith paired with ignorance plays into that.
EDIT: But let us note, most faiths dont want "blind" faith. Ignorance is the tool of "Blind" faith.
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method.
Wow, and he was from Oklahoma! Whoda thunk it? I was thinking a little more contemporary when I made that statement, but apparently they have existed.There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage.Evidently there is one whom no one has heard of.
It goes significantly beyond that. The whole - you must believe in a spelled out religion to be elected is something thats been around for maybe 100 years. Some of the Founding Fathers of the US basically refused to answer the question (most famously George Washington). Lincoln certainly could do some pretty good bible quoting in his speeches but its doubtful he was Christian. He certainly did not believe people went to heaven or hell when they died. The religious requirement in the American body politic is relatively recent.
|
|
Atheists have to deal with being the least trusted demographic of people in the united states. There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage. Most other major demographics are represented.
Interesting you mention that. Australia has just elected (and when I say just, I mean recently and also by the absolute slimmest of margins) an openly atheist Prime Minister.
Just saying.
|
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method.
I posit that blind faith and educated guesses are not the same thing. Reviewing the arguments and believing is different than blind faith.
Atheists have to deal with being the least trusted demographic of people in the united states. There are no (to my knowledge) openly atheist politicians on the national stage. Most other major demographics are represented.
Interesting you mention that. Australia has just elected (and when I say just, I mean recently and also by the absolute slimmest of margins) an openly atheist Prime Minister.
Just saying.
Rangas are born to rule.... Down with the budgie smuggler wearing mad monk...
I was under the impression that most faith is blind, after all, the definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched or smelled or measured in any know scientific method.
Science has been wrong before. Since you cannot prove a negative, one must consider 2 possibilities
1: It doesnt exist because I cannot prove its existance.
2: I do not have the knowledge or tools to prove its existance
most people who rely on science ignore #2
EDIT: "Science" once believed we were the center of the universe, the world was flat, splitting the atom would have no harmful effect.