Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

[IJ]

"Before making this reply on his website, he seemed to DEFEND the notion of nuking the musilm world, basically implying that most people were fanatics and thus must be dealt with by force, as that is the only option."

Great, I'll be waiting for you to substantiate that particular claim somehow. Meanwhile, portray this as backpeddling all you want: he quotes the source material from his book, which is NOT crazy sounding.

As for the rest of your commentary, yeah, he may comment on Iran, or on a shiite instead of a sunni, or al qaeda may be scattered. This misses the point. Nuclear weapons capability will be around A LONG TIME. Meanwhile, a lot of politcal boundaries and scuffles are only a few decades old. AQ (or the Taliban; really, who cares?) may well find themselves governing a country in the future, and one with access to nukes. There is a lot of time for this to happen. And while Hamas may have grown up (somewhat) the Taliban didn't even in the face of massive military superiority. As for the contribution of religion to the willingness to nuke America, it doesn't matter that much; we can't talk them out of their religion or their opposition in any meaningful timeframe. But I do believe it is a major sticking point, that Islam has a long history of religion compatible conflict (find a notable violence promoting Jain or buddhist sect for me). It also drives people to crazy actions. Hating America is not enough for people to fly a plane into a building. It takes a very crazy system of indoctrination--ask a 9/11 terrorist or a 1940's kamikaze pilot.

Incidentally, can you substantiate the claim that muslims were only supporting suicide attacks in the hypothetical that their lives were at risk? Or was it really, as you hint, "oppression," you know, the way MLK suicide- bombed discos and hotels because American blacks were oppressed? (kidding!).

[IJ]

Interesting discussion, Mike. I would not say it is invalid to argue God has chosen not to show us something miraculous in recent times, so that means he is less likely to exist. We should not assume too much, because no one knows the mind of God, but the less intervention he makes the less likely he is to exist, in my book. What if the Bible contained NO interventions? He didn't cure or save anyone; no plagues, no commands, no commandments; no Jesus. There would be less faith today, I'm nearly certain. The God that we think exists DOES something. When you reduce what he does you reduce his probability, just like lightning reduces the odds we have a Zeus at work.

"Just having apparently unlimited power doesn't mean you deserve to be loved and worshipped."

Totally agree. But I would say that anyone who could recreate the Garden of Eden in one second on Earth, and clearly has the power to violate physical laws, is someone I would view as likely to be able to save my immortal soul. Not certain, but likely. And if they revive my grandma, or JFK, I'd be as theist then as I am atheist now. Would it convince me that this was the ONLY God? I guess not but I'd be inclined to generally believe and behave!

"If evidence of a moment of "creation" does not make scientists put a "creator" on top of their hypothesis list, why would a much tinier demonstration be any different?"

Because we have no reason to believe that that event was a deliberate act. The explosion was a huge amount of energy and the expansion of space time; things from there on out appear to have happened according to the way nature works. If every solar system contained planets magically suited for life and were all identical, I think we'd be more inclined to believe intent was involved. When someone performs a current day miracle for us, the event will be designed to communicate with us. It will contain order, it might be in all our languages, or reflect a variety of our beliefs. It's the same as saying, why don't we assume the big bang was from powerful aliens? We have no reason to think they could or would do this. But if we receive a message on our SETI arrays with a clearly alien source and clearly intelligent design and intent, I'll be pretty well convinced (eg, as in the movie Contact).

[AAAhmed46]

"Before making this reply on his website, he seemed to DEFEND the notion of nuking the musilm world, basically implying that most people were fanatics and thus must be dealt with by force, as that is the only option."

Great, I'll be waiting for you to substantiate that particular claim somehow. Meanwhile, portray this as backpeddling all you want: he quotes the source material from his book, which is NOT crazy sounding.

As for the rest of your commentary, yeah, he may comment on Iran, or on a shiite instead of a sunni, or al qaeda may be scattered. This misses the point. Nuclear weapons capability will be around A LONG TIME. Meanwhile, a lot of politcal boundaries and scuffles are only a few decades old. AQ (or the Taliban; really, who cares?) may well find themselves governing a country in the future, and one with access to nukes. There is a lot of time for this to happen. And while Hamas may have grown up (somewhat) the Taliban didn't even in the face of massive military superiority. As for the contribution of religion to the willingness to nuke America, it doesn't matter that much; we can't talk them out of their religion or their opposition in any meaningful timeframe. But I do believe it is a major sticking point, that Islam has a long history of religion compatible conflict (find a notable violence promoting Jain or buddhist sect for me). It also drives people to crazy actions. Hating America is not enough for people to fly a plane into a building. It takes a very crazy system of indoctrination--ask a 9/11 terrorist or a 1940's kamikaze pilot.

Incidentally, can you substantiate the claim that muslims were only supporting suicide attacks in the hypothetical that their lives were at risk? Or was it really, as you hint, "oppression," you know, the way MLK suicide- bombed discos and hotels because American blacks were oppressed? (kidding!).

Then why was his first defense of his statements in his book to say most muslims are crazy and want to bomb the west before he said 'i was just giving a hyptothetical situation?" if thats what he was trying to say originally then why didn't he say that

Ah yes, your using harris's on arguement right?

Go look up tibetan and japanese history for religious violence by buddhists. Plenty.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Jainism is an offshoot of hinduism. Lots of hindu violence even today.
Also, compare the jain population and political situation regarding the west and compare it to islam.

Bad example he uses actually.

Why?, Harris says sufi muslims are peaceful(Imam rauf is a sufi) but is an oppressed offshoot os mainstream islam, and not reflective of it. But jainism is basically the Hindu equivalent of sufism. And if he doesn't think there are bride burnings and hindu extremism(against christians too, particularly) in inda and nepal. Does that mean jainism is violent.

You realize Tamil tigers started using suicide bombing first before muslims right? That muslism borrowed it from the tamil tigers? You also realize tamil tigers are religiously diverse yet still do suicide attacks. Most are buddhist and hindu by the way.

Before that, it was machene guys, with mostly military targets.

And the kamikaze attacks, you think it was shinto belief that was the sole cause? there are many reasons. Chris Hedges wonderfully wrote in his book 'war is a force that gives us meaning' all about it.

Go look at statements by terrorist prisoners, the 9/11 commision. THey all think they are fighting oppression.

And read Nir Rosen's work. He actually talked with the taliban. And guess what? They ahve a mixed agenda also. Infact the face of the taliban is no longer about a singular government anymore, oven islam. Go read about the farmers offered money to help the taliban to feed families. lots of motives behind terrorism. "taliban'' has become a very loose term now.

Once again, atleast hitchen shows more understanding about other factors when he blames religion for terrorism.


And you can critique islam for many things, but it's pretty clear cut, even among wahhabi/salafi scholars that killing innocent non-combatants is strictly forbidden.

I have talked to Mubin Shaik, the undercover agent who took down the toronto 17. I asked him how they justify killing civilians. He said that they do it by saying the election of the government was responsible by the people and therefore are oppressors. It's warped logic, but also rooted in political rage. This is what he told me, a guy who worked(secretly against) potential suicide bombers.

Mubin is also a practicing muslim.

[IJ]

On Buddhists: you have educated me once again, they've had their fair share of violence. Again though, you are not moving me more towards enthusiasm for religion.

On Jainism: off shoot may they be, the question is how do THEY behave. We're not accountable for the actions of prehistoric hominids.

On Harris: yes, well, please source the comments where he says all muslims are crazy and want to bomb us. If this is anything like your first claim he wanted to nuke the mideast, there will be a different story awaiting us.

"And the kamikaze attacks, you think it was shinto belief that was the sole cause? there are many reasons."

Actually, I was very careful not to list religion as the cause of those attacks, but to specify that a crazy system of indoctrination was required. Japanese society was about to emerge from some crazy times. Eviscerating yourself to express outrage? You can have it, feudal Japan!! My point was this wasn't a rational belief system, but an extremist one. Religious or not. Some communists are atheists but stick to their communism with religious devotion. Same difference.

"even among wahhabi/salafi scholars that killing innocent non-combatants is strictly forbidden."

Have you gone off your nut? Seriously? This is obviously not at play in the thinking of, oh, I dunno ALL THE PEOPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, for whatever reason. You demonstrate awareness of this in your next sentence. I'm sick of hearing that Islam is (presumably always??) a religion of peace. Oh? Tell that to Islamic terrorists, whether they're firing missiles into Israel or suicide bombing a wedding in Baghdad for no f'ing reason. Tell that to the Iranians who stone people to death for nonviolent crimes. Tell that to the Taliban I saw gun down and or stone people accused of adultery, or throw acid on women attending school. I don't care how they warped their justifications, but if you want to cite those Wahhabi scholars and it makes you feel better about something, power to you.

[mhosea]

I would not say it is invalid to argue God has chosen not to show us something miraculous in recent times, so that means he is less likely to exist. We should not assume too much, because no one knows the mind of God, but the less intervention he makes the less likely he is to exist, in my book. What if the Bible contained NO interventions? He didn't cure or save anyone; no plagues, no commands, no commandments; no Jesus. There would be less faith today, I'm nearly certain.

I completely agree.

But I would say that anyone who could recreate the Garden of Eden in one second on Earth, and clearly has the power to violate physical laws, is someone I would view as likely to be able to save my immortal soul. Not certain, but likely. And if they revive my grandma, or JFK, I'd be as theist then as I am atheist now.

Er...not quite so much agreement here. I'm not sure that it would be necessary to violate physical laws for the Garden of Eden effect. Perhaps there is some undreamt of way to influence probability distributions on the quantum level. Of course that's how God might do it, too. However, if he revives JFK, some conservatives might regard it as the Devil's work.

Because we have no reason to believe that that event was a deliberate act. The explosion was a huge amount of energy and the expansion of space time; things from there on out appear to have happened according to the way nature works.

Meh, I see your point, but it's also a good example of the default scientific/skeptic reaction that I've been talking about. On the face of it, it looks like the moment of creation. I don't think God should need to violate physical laws to get the results he wanted, not the least reason for which is that He was the one writing them. I don't generally think that God violates physical laws even if he does intervene. Perhaps there is enough randomness at the root of things to work with.

[AAAhmed46]

On Buddhists: you have educated me once again, they've had their fair share of violence. Again though, you are not moving me more towards enthusiasm for religion.

On Jainism: off shoot may they be, the question is how do THEY behave. We're not accountable for the actions of prehistoric hominids.

too few, too out of place of current politics. And if Harris can dismiss sufis(more numerious and popular than jains btw) then I can disregards his use of Jainism.

On Harris: yes, well, please source the comments where he says all muslims are crazy and want to bomb us. If this is anything like your first claim he wanted to nuke the mideast, there will be a different story awaiting us.

Search youtube for his debate with chris hedges.

"And the kamikaze attacks, you think it was shinto belief that was the sole cause? there are many reasons."

Actually, I was very careful not to list religion as the cause of those attacks, but to specify that a crazy system of indoctrination was required. Japanese society was about to emerge from some crazy times. Eviscerating yourself to express outrage? You can have it, feudal Japan!! My point was this wasn't a rational belief system, but an extremist one. Religious or not. Some communists are atheists but stick to their communism with religious devotion. Same difference.

Don't disagree with you here.

Have you gone off your nut? Seriously? This is obviously not at play in the thinking of, oh, I dunno ALL THE PEOPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, for whatever reason. You demonstrate awareness of this in your next sentence. I'm sick of hearing that Islam is (presumably always??) a religion of peace. Oh? Tell that to Islamic terrorists, whether they're firing missiles into Israel or suicide bombing a wedding in Baghdad for no f'ing reason. Tell that to the Iranians who stone people to death for nonviolent crimes. Tell that to the Taliban I saw gun down and or stone people accused of adultery, or throw acid on women attending school. I don't care how they warped their justifications, but if you want to cite those Wahhabi scholars and it makes you feel better about something, power to you.

Yeah? Well im sick and tired of the anti-muslim polemic is see in the media every day, and the inability to have national self critisism of foreign policy. The inability for you guys to admit you helped create crazies. You realize that in saudi arabia, there have been many uprisings? Guess who helped the oppessive saudi government crush opposiition? America and france.

And you realize that christian palistinians also helped lob misstles? Tell them what? That they are second class citizens to the jews? Or that we have christians in hezbullah(yes spelling) who fought with isreal? You think it's all an islamic issue? Tell the muslms why the bombs blowing them us say 'made in U.S.A.'

You got me on iran though.

On Iraq. Really? You want to bring that up? HOw about the fact that christian Iraqis had equality and yes even power in Iraq(saddams second in command was a christian) before they got bombed to #####? And you wonder why some people feel sympathetic toward batshit retards like terrorists? Im not excusing it. But it's easy for us to critique them from our perspective over here.
Or lets talk about wikileaks. Did you see what just came out of that? You think that makes people less angry and violent? You realize that the pictures you saw about abu-gharib are just the tip of the iceberg? Alot of it was too graphic and sexually explicit to show the public. The muslim world has been talking about this stuff for years, yet it was disregarded as propoganda from the other side. But we were right weren't we?


On afganistan: How about the fact that some people branded 'taliban' are now in power in the current new Afgan governmen? Put in place by the U.S.? Or how now drug dealers and war lords are being labelled taliban when they are opposing western forces over drugs?
How about the fact that we had Yazidi woman getting stoned to death, sikh honour killings in Canada, or that in india woman get acid thrown in their faces who are hindu. Or lets not forget bride burning.



Yazidi honour killing:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

Hindu honour killing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Ul2MY794c

Or lets talk about Drone attacks in pakistan. You think just because fox(most watched news in your country by the way) doesn't want to talk about it, doesn't mean that pakistani people are not aware of it? Or that before the taliban existed as an ideological movement, the same tribes that are now 'taliban' were killing other tribal pakistanis out of blood fueds? The excuses are now religiously charged, but there are enough people alive who were around to see the same people kill people under a different banner(same tribes, different reasons)

I can tell them that islam doesn't teach this because they have seen it with other groups, they have seen it in the yes of their own secularists. The acid burned muslim woman just has to look at the face of a hindu woman involved in an acid attack/burning.

I can tell them this, because they know about the fact that these oppressive dictators that rule over them do so with the blessing of western powers. They see money that could be used to improve the country wasted to corruption. And guess who is hanging around to give food and free education to the poor? The crazies. The nutty. How do you think Hamas got elected? Because they handed out food and did more demestic work than fatah.
They see these pro-western dictators oppressing and feeding off of them. But can do nothing. The arabs are not as stupid as people think.

(Most terrorists who attacked the west are educated, i know. Different soarce of radicalization) Palistinian terrorists tend to be educated as well. But tehy will also have christian drivers, christian arab men who fire mortars, and that lebanese christian woman who blew herself up in her wedding dress against some isrealis. They have a different soarce of radicalization, different anger.

More over, you act like these things are common place in the middle east. More common than here yes, but still general uncommon and not socially accepted.



You may disagree with everything i wrote above. But true or not, even if it's all a lie, this is how they recruit. And this anger and frusteration i have expressed is what al-qaeda capitalizes on to recruit young men for terrorism.

Unlike them, I don't view the world in such black and white terms. I know that al-qaeda is horrible, and has caused a cancer in the muslim world. But I also know what the cancer causing agents are.

[IJ]

Mike, I see what you're saying, but I would reply that if there is someone with enough knowhow and power to organize random quantum fluctuations to create something as ordered as the garden of eden from NYC, or to use a more classic example, turn water into wine or walk on water, then that dude, or dudette, might as well be God. How else can they be distinguished?

I guess if he uses a iMac sized machine to do it he's an advanced alien, and if he wills it he's God?

Oh and what do we do if he then asks us to suicide bomb a disco??

[Jason Rees]

Wow! Just how creepy can commentary about sleeping with 9 year olds get? I wonder though, even in the modern age, we're seeing age of menarche drop. This means that even a hundred years ago nutrition and conditions were worse to a point puberty was delayed. So we're to believe that puberty was far earlier back in the times of the Quran? Hardly. Also, that "drop dead at 30" stuff is BS. It comes from two sources: first, the practice of designating skeletons 30+, after which you can't easily tell the age, which gives the false impression life ended then because it's the last recorded age. Second, people listed an AVERAGE age of death. This was skewed by very high infant mortality. After that, people did better. Remember that in authortitative unquestionable data, Moses lived hundreds of years

Agree.

[Jason Rees]

I think todays christianity would be viewed as heretical by many early christians.

Quite likely.

It's a matter of perspective. I got a different impression of gnosticism from the gnostics i talked to.

That would be because gnosticism today is nothing like what it was back then. Today it's 'cool' because of idiotic books like 'the DaVinci Code,' and actually much more aligned with mainstream paganism and the occult.

[Jason Rees]

It's probably a mistake for me to try to explain such things, given that I have so many doubts about so many things, but I do have the benefit of having studied these things a long time ago, and possibly I retain enough insight to explain a thing or two as it is explained by those who have no doubts. Anyway, the overall teachings on this issue are a little bit more involved. I guess it could be said that this verse leaves out some middle ground. The subsequent verses do add some context to this (as to why they don't believe), which doesn't fit all cases of when a person just doesn't happen to believe, intellectually, in Jesus. The concept of "not believing" here represents a conscious and informed choice to reject. It does not apply in situations where a person is not faced with a moment of decision. Examples would be young children or infants, as well as people who have never had the gospel correctly presented to them. Christians avoid "judgment" through the atonement. Others will have to be judged individually, and since we are all imperfect, it follows that those who are saved will only be saved by the mercy of the judge.

I don't know if that sounds better or not, but that's an example of how exegesis might be done. In orthodox Christianity, you don't just read a passage like that and interpret it as saying that all Muslims are going to hell. You'll find no shortage of Bible-thumpers who believe that, but by contrast, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church says

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Mike, I agree that it's more involved. That said, trying to eliminate contradictory truth claims between two groups is reconstructionist reconciliation. Let's not pretend it's anything else. Besides, the Church's political statements in efforts to keep the peace between Catholicism and other religions should not, IMO, be construed as doctrinally equal to Biblical authority.

Not to say that I don't care, but this isn't a big issue for me. I don't believe it's my job to save anybody's soul here.

[AAAhmed46]

I think todays christianity would be viewed as heretical by many early christians.

Quite likely.

It's a matter of perspective. I got a different impression of gnosticism from the gnostics i talked to.

That would be because gnosticism today is nothing like what it was back then. Today it's 'cool' because of idiotic books like 'the DaVinci Code,' and actually much more aligned with mainstream paganism and the occult.

Probably true. Still, i don't think modern day gnosticism is totally irrelevent.

[Panther]

Ummmm... Just wanted to say Thank You to everyone contributing to this thread. This has got to be some of the best entertainment I've had on this type of subject matter in a very long time!

keep it up! Thanks!

[AAAhmed46]

Ummmm... Just wanted to say Thank You to everyone contributing to this thread. This has got to be some of the best entertainment I've had on this type of subject matter in a very long time!

keep it up! Thanks!

I live to prostitute myself for everyones entertainment!!! oh baby!

[Jason Rees]

Ummmm... Just wanted to say Thank You to everyone contributing to this thread. This has got to be some of the best entertainment I've had on this type of subject matter in a very long time!

keep it up! Thanks!

If you can't have fun with religion and politics, what can you have fun with?

[mhosea]

Mike, I see what you're saying, but I would reply that if there is someone with enough knowhow and power to organize random quantum fluctuations to create something as ordered as the garden of eden from NYC, or to use a more classic example, turn water into wine or walk on water, then that dude, or dudette, might as well be God. How else can they be distinguished?

I know. You keep saying that. I admit I don't know how to distinguish on that basis. But the concept of "might as well be God" because he's uber powerful compared to humans doesn't really compute in my head. Maybe it makes more sense to you because you were never religious to begin with? To me, God is God, a singular, personal entity. There can be no substitutions.

Oh and what do we do if he then asks us to suicide bomb a disco??

"What does God need with a starship?" -- James T. Kirk

Translation: God would never ask for that, so the request proves conclusively that whatever it is, it's not God.