Apple removes app showing "violent and hateful passages from The Qur'an"; anti-Christian app still on sale

Its called DOUBLETHINK - the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is Cognitive Dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.

According to Orwells novel, 1984, doublethink is:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink ...

... The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Without the power of doublethink there would be no Islam!

Somebody explain to me again how quoting hate speech from the Qur'an is hate speech against the Qur'an...

A good liberal would have pointed out that your question is a perfect example of hate speech.

This has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

Jesus and the Gospel do not condone violence.

Mohammad, the Quran and Islam do.

Dhimmitude is a product of doublethink and cowardice - it makes you feel subdued, free and protected at the same time. (Slavery is freedom). You have to admit that the Islamic doctrine got a perfect understanding of the weak and feeble human nature and have been able to exploit it to its own benefit for more than a millennia.

The ability to doublethink is our second nature:

"Thomas Gilovich has described the cognitive processes that allow even highly educated Americans to hold fervently to demonstrably false beliefs.

Noting surveys of American college students that indicate that as many as 58 percent believe that astrological predictions are valid while 50 percent think that the Egyptian pyramids were built with extraterrestrial assistance, Gilovich describes the many ways in which contemporary Americans distort reality by their tendency to impute meaning and order to random phenomena, remembering only those instances that confirm their established belief while forgetting those that are at variance with them (Gilovich 1991).

If modern Americans are less than rational calculators - and these examples hardly exhaust the catalogue of folly contributed to by those among us who are thought to be most rational , such as engineers, physicians, scientists, and educators - then it is unreasonable to expect people whose cultures are even less secular than ours to be more efficient problem solvers than we are. I am not arguing that people in folk societies make less than rational decisions or hold maladaptive beliefs because they are cognitively less competent than people in literate, industrialized societies.

C. R. Hallpike, among others, has concluded that the thought processes of people in small-scale societies are incapable of comprehending causality, time, realism, space, introspection, and abstraction as utilized in Western societies (Hallpike 1972). Whether so-called primitive thought is less abstract, more magical, or less able to assess marginal probabilities is an issue that continue to be debated, but its resolution is largely irrelevant to the point I am attempting to make. I am asserting that most people in ALL societies, including those most familiar with Western science, sometimes make potentially harmful mistakes and tend to maintain them. It is possible that people in small-scale societies make more mistakes of this kind, but maladaptive decisions are made in all societies."

(Quoted from article by Robert B. Edgerton, professor of anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the University of California in Los Angeles).

You're right! Alleged "hate speech" about "hate speech"... it's meta-hate speech!

Actually, I think you need to read the bible a bit more thoroughly, it is filled with violence. This has everything to do with religious fundamentalism, for that what our world is suffering through right now. Islam just happens to be the largest of these fundamentalist movements.

If you would like me to cite christian scripture I would be more than happy to. And as far as Jesus promoting violence or not, that I cannot say, for the only thing that exists with regards to the things Jesus said is scripture, which was written by man. And how long do you think Jesus teachings were passed by word of mouth before they were actually recorded on parchment? Did Jesus write these words himself?

"I guess some people don't want to know the truth of the Qur'an. Maybe it's too frightening."

There is no truth in the Qur´an. Only paradoxes and magical thinking. You can make yourself believe that the contradictions in the Qur´an constitute some higher truth but only if you apply doublethinking. All religious myths requires doublethinking to be believed as the ultimate truth, making such texts a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

It is like taking your head under the arm and jumping down the rabbit hole with Alice:

`I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.

`Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'

Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one ca'n't believe impossible things.'

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'

- That´s why Muslims practice five times a day. An it works! ;-)

Excellent quotes my friend
Lewis Carroll is a genius

"If you would like me to cite Christian scripture I would be more than happy to."

Go ahead. Christian - the New Testament. Go ahead.

"Jesus and the Gospels do not condone violence.

Mohammad, the Qur'an and Islam do."

Exactly. Right on, vickie.

Marisol wrote:

Somebody explain to me again how quoting hate speech from the Qur'an is hate speech against the Qur'an...
......................

Excellent point, Marisol.

I saw the same sort of cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day"—conflating the idea that EDMD was "inciting hatred"—implying that this "hatred" would be incited *against Muslims*, with—in the same breath—overtly opining that it would likely just cause violence *from Muslims* against Infidel participants.

There was nothing in that app that *didn't come from the Qur'an*—but then, the same was true with Geert Wilders' Fitna, and much the same was true with Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Obsession—and yet, that didn't stop Muslims from murdering van Gogh, and necessitating Ali and Wilders' having 'round the clock security.

From the Muslim point of view, it *doesn't matter* if everything in this app, or film, or book, or what-have-you, *is true*. The only thing that matters is whether Islam is shown in a positive light.

If you took those same passages from the Qur'an, that "support and encourage Muslims to attack and behead anyone who does not agree with them" and considered them holy and praiseworthy—as so many Muslims do—then there would be no problem, as they see it.

But for infidels to have the temerity to *criticize such passages* is considered "blasphemy", no matter the truth of their claims.

There is no objectivity or respect for truth in Islam.

Matthew 10: 34-36
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

and one's enemies will be those of his household."

Joshua 11:20, 'For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.' "

these are just a few of the more common passages

Do not try to defend religion, which is so riddled with hate and violence

Thank you and thank Lewis Carroll. Actually I liked your reference to Maher:

"However, as Maher noted, their religious wackos are more wacko than ours."

In general yes. But rev White, the former spiritual adviser of Obama, comes close. Now Obama think he can think for himself.

To determine the degree of fundamentalism in a religious belief system it is a good idea to examine how humor, satire and sarcasm are treated.

Islam takes the prize:

Ayatollah Khomenei also preached of Islam's essentially serious nature:

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Christian fundamentalists in the Middle Ages hold the same view about humor and the serious nature of Christianity as contemporary Muslims do about humor in Islam. Laughter is dangerous to and undermining the belief:

"Gorge de Burgos: Laughter is a devilish wind which deforms, uh, the lineaments of the face and makes men look like monkeys.

William of Baskerville: Monkeys do not laugh. Laughter is particular to men.

Jorge de Burgos: As is sin. Christ never laughed.

William of Baskerville: Can we be so sure?

Jorge de Burgos: There is nothing in the Scriptures to say that he did.

William of Baskerville: And there's nothing in the Scriptures to say that he did not. Why, even the saints have been known to employ comedy, to ridicule the enemies of the Faith. For example, when the pagans plunged St. Maurice into the boiling water, he complained that his bath was too cold. The Sultan put his hand in... scalded himself."

(Quoted from Umberto Echos novel "The name of the rose").

The combination of rationality, humor, sarkasm and satire should have eradicated organized religion long time ago, had it not been for our feeble minds and desire to believe in impossible things.

Ron, Matthew 10 talks of the dangers the diciples will face in preaching the faith.
34-36 discusses the fact, which came to be, of non-Christians betraying their family members who followed Christ. It was not violence by Christians but rather violence toward Christians.

apologies Marisol, you are right

lol

Knew you couldn't come up with any examples, except for going back to the 15th century. And, those atrocities, such as the Inquisition, had NOTHING to do with Jesus and Christianity, but EVERYTHING to do with evil, mortal, men. End of story.

You think Jesus would approve of the Inquisition? LOL! Ditto any "witch burnings." NOTHING to do with the doctrines of Christianity. NOTHING to do with Jesus.

Following Jesus will bring dissension, discord, with those who do not follow Jesus - that's the "sword" in Matthew, a metaphorical sword, not a literal sword.

It's only Muhammed who had literal swords. Not Jesus.

Ron seems to be arguing for moral equivalency for Islam with Christianity, but I'm not sure.

Ron, do you put Islam as morally equivalent to Christianity?

I wouldn't.

And I'm an agnostic for the record.

Indeed. As Robert said above, 'Christians won't behead anyone over "Bible Thumper'." That's the heart of the matter here, and it is a direct counterexample to the notion of equivalence between the two belief systems.

So how does one decide what is "metaphor" and what is "literal"?

And Marisol, I do believe I have not expressed any bigotry or hatred toward any religion here...I was merely trying to defend my point about the type of mind-set that religious fundamentalism creates, and nothing more.
People are free to believe anything they like, but that does not change the fact that there are zealots of all religions around the world, doing things without thought.

Kim plz, I am not attacking your Christianity or Jesus. And I do believe, even being agnostic, that Jesus existed, that he was a philosopher, a teacher, and a man who wanted nothing but the best for the human spieces

"Ron seems to be arguing for moral equivalency for Islam with Christianity"

Definitely not...it is very clear how evil Islam is, and most Christians are very peaceful loving people. I would never try to compare the two. But we must at least juxtapose them, otherwise we fall victim to possibly becoming biased, and making unfounded arguments or claims.

These 2 religions are NOT equvilant

”For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands."

~Robert Spencer~

"Ron - why don't you provide us with an exact equivalent to this Islamic Jihad verse in Christianity, the New Testament."

Never in my comments did I say that these religions were equivalent, and I beg you to quote me if I did. I was speaking of religious fundamentalism in general, an abstract idea, not a specific religion.

And Kim, you still did not explain how "you" decide what is metaphorical or literal. And there is no proof that these are actually the words of Jesus, especially when they are written by different men.

Ever play the game where you site in a circle and you tell a friend a short fable? He then passes that fable along to the next person, then to the next, and then you have the 3rd or 4th person record what the fable is. Always, the written fable ends up being different than the original fable.

”For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands."

~Robert Spencer~

Uh Huh - Descriptive, not Prescriptive.

Whereas, the Koran prescribes violence against "Unbelievers" -

"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war." - Qur'an 9:5

For example. And, as another prescriptive example:

"Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's." - Qur'an 8:40

Which is what's happening right now in the 21st century. "allah's" prescriptive commands have no end until the world is wholly Islamic, and the moon god the only deity worshipped.

There is nothing comparable in the texts/tenets of Christianity.

my apologies for the misuse of the word "boon", the word I should have used was "bane"...and I use this word with regards only to the abstract idea of religious fundamentalism and not religion itself.

Let me repeat:

"So how does one decide what is "metaphor" and what is "literal?"

Did Jesus attack or kill anyone with a literal sword? Answer: No. No way, no how. Historical fact.

Did Muhammed attack or kill anyone with a literal sword? Answer: Yes, in droves. He beheaded the Jews and Christians of Arabia, historical fact.

Do you now know how to "decide" between metaphor and literal?

It's not "me" - it's historical fact. If you still don't get it - I give up.

'...but to tell the truth Christianity never separated itself from the Old Testament."

Oh, really? Please expand on that statement.

"And there is no proof that these are actually the words of Jesus, especially when they are written by different men."
----------
While this may be true of the NT, it is NOT considered true of the Qu'ran. Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the final, uncreated word of Allah passed through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Every word is the word of Allah. Period.

They believe the Qu'ran was not written by men. Every word is from "God." Therefore nothing can be changed. That's the big difference, and that's why muslims attempting to "soften" or "reform" Islam are regularly KILLED for their efforts.

Qu'ran 9:5 says "Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war."

It says what it says and to muslims it's literal.

Oh, please. To actually ask something like that means you know nothing about Jesus and Christianity. Oh, please. lol

"I have been brought up as a Christian myself (thank god I understood all of this was just nonsense and am an atheist now)"

Well, that explains everything, doesn't it? Again - "Oh, please." You understand nothing.

He is bound by the liberal dogma that difference between religions, cultures and civilizations can only be quantitative - never qualitative. That is why he thinks that fundamentalism is a feature shared by both Christianity and islam and that it means the same in both contexts.

Unfortunately, liberalism is the true creed of the western political and intellectual elites and it will cause us much damage before the majority of people fully understand liberalism's usefulness in Islam's conquest of the West and remove these Islam's useful idiots from position of power.

”For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands."

~Robert Spencer~

Uh Huh - Descriptive, not Prescriptive.

This passage is prescriptive, of that there is no doubt
However, I am not trying to denounce the things Mr. Spencer is saying, he speaks the truth about Islam, and is trying to to shed light on an evil in our world, and I applaud him for that. But to claim that there is NO prescriptive violence in the bible 'at all' is slightly incorrect.

Deutteronomy 13:7-11
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God"

Right on. Exactly.

OT: "Not Without My Daughter" (1991) is on TV tonight.

Made before Western Liberals drooled their PC "moral equivalency" and "cultural relativism" claptrap about barbaric Islam.

There is a real difference between a magical sword and a real one...But you won't know that unless you understand something of sword symbolism...I will give you a hint...In many circles the sword is considered a magickal weapon...Not to be confused with the battlefield type used on humans...

"He is bound by the liberal dogma that difference between religions, cultures and civilizations can only be quantitative - never qualitative"

No offense, but I am not bound by any dogma!! I take evidence, I evaluate, and I try to come to some comprehensible conclusion. My beliefs and views are always open for debate and correction.

Why does it seem like I'm the only one who is acting humble here? I do not pretend to have all the answers. In fact, I relish not have all the answers, it is the unending search for truth (in all things) that drives me, not dogma as you say.

Do you believe that Christianity does not contain fundamentalists amongst its ranks? (this does not mean that I think all Christians are fundamentalists, only that I believe that a fundamental zealotry exists within that religion, like many other religions)

You all seem to think I'm defending Islam or something, or that I believe Islam and Christianity are the same in their moral codes: nothing could be further from the truth

What do you mean exactly by "fundamentalists?"

"There is a real difference between a magical sword and a real one...But you won't know that unless you understand something of sword symbolism...I will give you a hint...In many circles the sword is considered a magickal weapon...Not to be confused with the battlefield type used on humans..."

So why use metaphors to teach someone something, that you wish to be very clear? Can this not cause confusion? Does chemistry or physics or political science use metaphors like this? It seems a little counter productive to me.

As far as Apple, they have fallen prey to the political correctness of our time, attempting to take the moral high ground, and coming out looking like idiots. The problem isn't liberal thinking, or free thinking as I prefer (since the word "liberal" has political and 'right wing', 'left wing' connotations), but political correctness. The want to avoid offending someone, even if it comes at the cost of bogging down our language with 'stupid', unnecessary language or actions.

Her is a great bit, by a very intelligent man, on political correctness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IVaYg27vvE

I comment here, Ron, as a skeptic, one who is not religious at all, but it is IMPERATIVE to understand the vast difference between Islam and Christianity. The former's theory, what I call a theological blueprint, is replete with paradigms for action for all time to commit violence. By contrast, the latter's theory has NOTHING in it which calls upon its believers to engage in violence. Yes, Christians at times in centuries past (the Northern Ireland conflict is different---no one from either side in this tragic conflict kills in the name of Christ; their religious differences are cultural phenomena and should be seen as such) did so in the name of their faith and when they did they were VIOLATING the tenets of their religion. When Muslims kill (and maim) in the name of their creed, they are fulfilling a major element of their faith----the instruction to make war upon the unbeliever until all the world is Islamic. Huge difference. Couldn't be any bigger.

As long as skeptics do not understand this key difference, so long will they engage in a moral equivalency thinking process which is deeply erroneous and not helpful at all in eradicating Islamic supremacist designs. All except Muslims, whether religious or not, should be in unison in standing firm against the one religion, Islam, which Bertrand Russell, an atheist, said was the only religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology. I write this in a spirit of friendship, not hostility.

"Waiting on Ron to identify Christian Terrorists - those who mass-murder according to Christian scripture."

Christian anti-abortion groups use terror and murder against innocent people working at abortion clinics just doing their lawful jobs. In my view an example of Christian fundamentalists who - like the Muslims - apply doublethinking when reading the Bible. Killing is against the scripture - unless you have a good reason. And those Christians think they have a legitimate reason for taking lives to save more lives in the future.

Frequent violent protests against abortion clinics, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism, started in the early 1970's in the U.S. after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade theoretically gave abortion access to all women -- at least during their first trimester.

Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be mainly criminal activities by individual religiously-motivated individuals acting alone. However, cases in the 1990s involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that some perpetrators appear to have been sheltered by a network of sympathizers. That shows a degree of organization and conspiracy.

Beliefs about abortion and abortion access:

People hold diverse beliefs concerning the ethics of abortion in general and the right of individual women to choose to have an abortion for themselves. Public opinion pollsters and many commentators attempt to squeeze beliefs into only two categories: pro-life and pro-choice. However, as a minimum, there are at least three categories each with many sub-categories to consider:

Pro-life movement: They typically believe that human life -- in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon -- becomes a human person during the process of conception. They are motivated by a strong desire to reduce the number of abortions -- typically by restricting abortion access.

Anti-abortion movement: Individuals in this movement also hold pro-life beliefs. However, they go one step further and feel that acts of violence against abortion clinics are justifiable in order to lower the number of abortions.

The pro-choice movement generally teaches that human life becomes a human person at various stages later in gestation. They view a woman's access to a safe and affordable abortion as a fundamental human right.

Level of violence and harassment at abortion clinics.

One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings."

Many pro-choice individuals and groups blame these criminal acts on the most violent extremists in the pro-life movement. Some believe that the violent rhetoric heard from pro-lifers motivates the more radical pro-life fringe to resort to violence.

Many pro-life individuals and groups blame the violence on groups which are quite separate from the pro-life movement -- anti-abortionists who have little regard for human life.

Here some specifics:

Multiple instances of anti-abortion violence in Florida:

Pensacola, FL: This city was a focal point for anti-abortion crime from mid 1984 to mid 1994:

1984-JUN: An abortion clinic was bombed.

1984-DEC: The same clinic was bombed again.

1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK, and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.

1993-MAR: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, assassinated Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic. Griffin's lawyers claimed that Burt had brainwashed Griffin into committing the killing. (There is a consensus among mental health professionals that this sort of "Manchurian Candidate" programming is impossible). Griffin was convicted and given a life sentence.

1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action assassinated a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he also wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges.

1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

The "killing season" in Canada and northern New York state:

During the 1990s. late October and early November were referred to as the "killing season" by some abortion-rights advocates. Abortion providers in northern New York state and Canada were attacked on five of the six years from 1994 to 1998:

1994-NOV-8: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver BC was shot in the leg.

1995-NOV-10: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster ON (Near Hamilton) was shot in the elbow.

1996: No shootings occurred.

1997-OCT-28: A physician in Rochester NY received minor shrapnel wounds.

1997-NOV-11: Dr Jack Fainman of Winnipeg MN was shot in the shoulder.

1998-OCT-23: Dr Barnett Slepian from Amherst NY (near Buffalo) was murdered, although the perpetrator claimed that he only wanted to wound the doctor.
All five were shot through a glass window or door at their homes. Rewards totaling $547,000 (about $365,000 in US funds at the time) were offered by Canadian authorities for information leading to the conviction of the person(s) responsible.

Some speculated that the timing of many of the shootings was linked to Remembrance Day, celebrated in Canada on NOV-11, and to Veteran's Day celebrated in the U.S. on the same day. This is an occasion when the country remembers its war dead. The shooter in each case used a rifle, and shot from the rear of the doctors' homes at dusk or in the evening. James Charles Kopp (a.k.a. Atomic Dog) was indicted in 1999-JUN for the murder of Dr. Slepian. He was on the FBI's "10 most wanted Fugitives" list for years until he was arrested in France and returned to the U.S. for trial. It is obvious that Kopp was helped to remain out of sight by an underground group.

In 2003-MAY, James Kopp was given the maximum sentence of 25 years to life in prison for the Slepian murder. Some speculate that Kopp was also responsible for the other "killing season" attempted murders.

Other violence and harassment in Canada:

Long known for their love of peace and tranquility, Canadians have not been immune to the abortion controversies. In addition to the attempted murders cited above, there were other examples of violence and harassment:

1990-FEB: A clinic in Vancouver, BC was broken into in 1990; medical equipment was destroyed.

1992-MAY: An explosion generated by a sophisticated gas weapon leveled the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Toronto, ON.
During the late 1990's, two Canadian pro-life groups lost their charitable status with Revenue Canada, because of excessive political activity. The Roman Catholic church withdrew its funding of some pro-life groups after they started to cause disturbances in the neighborhoods of abortion providers. Attendance at abortion protests now fail to attract large numbers of supporters. They are reduced to the occasional candlelight vigil or peaceful march.

Bioterrorism scares:

Between 1998 and 2000, more than 80 letters which threatened Anthrax contamination were sent to U.S. clinics in 16 states. Anthrax is a potentially fatal bacteria if its spores are inhaled into the lungs. All of the letters turned out to be hoaxes.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington on 2001-SEP-11, similar Anthrax letters started appearing in political offices and news media in New York, Washington, and other cities. Some letters actually contained the deadly bacteria. In late October, abortion clinics in 13 states throughout the U.S. received about 150 letters marked "Time sensitive security information enclosed" with return addresses from law enforcement groups. They were mailed from five states. Inside was a powder and a death-threat letter allegedly signed by the "Army of God." That group allegedly advocates violence against abortion providers. Heather Herndon, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania said: "I absolutely believe it's the anti-choice extremists who are taking advantage of our national crisis." As of OCT-17, four letters had been given preliminary field tests and had been found to be hoaxes.

The National Abortion Federation reports "Incidents of violence and Disruption Against Abortion Providers´ in the U.S. and Canada contains data from 1989 to 2004.

Total number of incidents for the whole period by categories:

Murders, Attempted Murders: 24

Bombing, Arson, Attempted Bombing or Arson: 179

Invasion, Assault & Battery, Vandalism, Trespassing, Death Threats, Burglery, Stalking: 3,349

Hate Mail, Harassing Phone Calls, Bomb Threats: 11,448.

A tiny minority of misunderstanders of Christianity you could claim, but the figures indicate that a rather large number of Christians are prepared to use violence and terror and see themselves justified by their religious beliefs.
Examining the statics year by year I noticed a sharp drop in such terror attacks after 9/11. Maybe some of the extremist Christians came to their senses when they realised the implications of what they were advocating for and doing?

This kind of religious fundamentalism is a problem for a well functioning democracy. Democracy demands that people can separate their religious obligations from the obligations needed to create and upheld democracy. We are lucky that Christianity in its core texts demand separation of of the two regiments - religion and politics, and never attained the sole power of any society - although it tried from the fourth to the nineteenth century when secular humanism, science and enlightenment got the upper hand and established secular democratic societies build on rationality instead of magical thinking.

I am an agnostic and from my ethical point of view unrestricted free abortion should not be allowed. Killing, even a foetus, can only be justified if the reasons are good enough. The total absence of any objective reasons whatsoever is in my view amoral and undermining for the respect of life. The constitutional "right to life" is however based upon a misunderstanding. Obligations must come before rights. We are not born with any rights whatsoever, but if enough people submit to certain ethical principles we can enjoy a relative right to life. The legality of the death penalty demonstrates the relativity of the "right to life" and the limits of respect of life. And so does the high murder rate in some states.

These are a couple of acceptable ideas of what I am talking about.

"Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."

"strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles"

This is an unquestionable adherence...following without 'free thought'

"Ron, you don't believe, and that is why you don't understand the true spirit of Jesus' teachings"

You do not know me, how can you make this claim? I actually used to be a Baptist, and believed in God and Jesus, and read the New Testament. So, I'm not just 'running off at the mouth', so to speak.

I seriously doubt that you have to believe to understand the nature of Jesus' teachings. Anyone with average mental acuity would be able to understand them. I love how people say if you don't believe then you don't understand.

Would you say that you have to speak and read Arabic or have to believe in Islam to understand the Koran?

Seriously, you're no better than many of these Islamists who say just that.

damn you Ron, for having the same name as me :P
lol

1 Corinthians 2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
Without the gift of God's Spirit, you cannot understand His word.

Protantion and Carthority

I always wondered what happened to them...They must be getting pretty old by now...Probably really wrinkled and feeble...Are they related to you Defenderofislam, or just people from your village?...I always thought they made a cute couple...Say hello to them for me if you see them in the fish market...Thanks...

Why don't you come up with some examples from the last 200 or so years? You know, recent history? I'm so sick of people bringing up Crusades this, Dark Ages that.

And as for waging genocide against Muslims in the 19th and 20th centuries, you basically asked for it when you started carting off children and women to be slaves and killing men off the shores of Tripoli. You attacked us prior to any "genocide" and genocide doesn't really accurately describe what was done in those countries. Subjugation is a more accurate term and is precisely what the Muslims did to other civilizations prior to them being subjugated by the Europeans.

"You don't understand symbolism...Everyone learns by means of symbolism...you cannot escape it...Symbolism is how man relates to everything...There are simple examples and there are complicated examples, but examples of this are all over the place...You just do not recognize it when you see it...Occult, spiritual and religious symbolism are category's unto themselves..."

Can you give me some examples in mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or even philosophy, where symbolism is used as a grounds for teaching? Symbolism and metaphors are usually used to help illustrate a point that may be difficult to grasp. It is not used as a 'grounds', 'base', or 'root' for teaching in the scientific fields. Symbolism needs a reference point

That quote doesn't back up what you said.

All it says is that we've received the Spirit from God and that without it we can't understand his word.

We've all received it so we can all understand it. It doesn't say that by denying the Spirit we stop understanding.

I think this would apply to any being without a soul.

With the lone exception of the abortion issue, Christians in America pose zero threat to the stability of the nation or any menace to the Constitution. And even here we're talking about an extremely few number of violent actions committed by Christians which do not threaten the Republic in any substantive way. Moreover, unlike those useless, gutless and clueless so-called moderate Muslims, the VAST majority of Christians have unconditionally condemned violence in dealing with the matter of abortion.

Really, in your heart of hearts do you think there is ANY true comparison between Christians and Muslims respecting mortal threats to such things as real democracy, equality under the law, the establishment of an alternative legal system and eventual replacement of the Constitution with some kind of religious law? Imagine ten ideologies, numbered one through ten, and ideology six produces 99% of the violent adherents of these ten ideologies combined. The other nine produce approximately 1% of violence-prone believers. Would you then still rail approximately equally against all ten ideologies respecting capacity for violence and overthrow of the American system as we know it?

One last thing, and I write this as an attorney, I disagree with your contention that obligations should come before rights. Obligations are keenly important to be sure, and freedom without a sense of responsibility quickly devolves into license, as evidenced by the times in which we live, but a new-born babe has rights from the get-go without first requiring that the little tyke undergo certain obligations before rights are bestowed upon him or her. Hopefully, you can see this.

Well said.

"Kimk is than christian racist what about all of those Crusade against Islam in the middle age and the 30 year war in Europe between Protantion and Carthority in Europe, the Christian Genocide against the Natice Indian in the new world by the European. What about European wageingt genocide against Islam in the 19th and 20thy century."

Dude, seriously, have you ever heard a North American defend the atrocities committed against the First Nations of our respective countries?? NO! Give yer head a shake, a hear rocks...lol Do westerners defend any of these actions? NO! So why do you defend Islams?

Refute this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTElEQICeI

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Crescent-Cross-Jews-Middle/product-reviews/0691139318/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

Christian fundamentalism poses some difficulties in our modern age, but these pale in comparison to Islamic fundamentalism. It's like comparing a mere storm to a major hurricane.

"I know what you believe in ipso even if you don't."

Does that mean that my arguments are irrelevant, since you have put yourself in the position of God?

"It is a nightmare of relativism, an ever shifting kaleidescope of styles and poses."

I agree, but you can not fight relativism with magical thinking or irrational religious beliefs. Only rationality and logic can demonstrate without any doubt that the relativistic position is inconsistent.

I am a relativist like Einstein and also an agnostic like him:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us - universe -, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

The limits of reason and rationality is what makes me an agnostic instead of an atheist.

Got the picture now?

"Christians in America pose zero threat to the stability of the nation or any menace to the Constitution"

You mean to tell me that Evangelicals wishing to have the theory of evolution banned from being taught in schools is not detrimental to the constitution?

Kimk is NOT than christian racist D, sow what about all of those Crusade against thanIslum in the middle age and the 30 year war in Yorp between Protantion and Carthority in Yorp?

Why are yuo alway making touble, D? Yuo no knot what yuo speek. Than Natice Indian in than new whirl werenot likethan Arbic Islime people whn they keel and keel, andthan keel yuo some more. Did I menton ale than keeling in the land?

I keel yuo!!

And Muhamhanded (NAMBLA) had a touble with than infudols as well than than keeling!

As Ulluh say inthan K'orn (803:) “Remember how than unbeleevers plotted against yuo (O Muhamhand), to keep yuo in thanbonds, or slay yuo, or get yuo out. They plooted, and Ullah to had darranged a ploot; but Ulluah is than beast scheemer” (Q: 830:)

O, Muhammhander (FDIC) say to moslums, O! Aisha with not thanpants on came too him with thandoll and he made here his waif and consumed her when she were nine. "O! Muhmanhandedler (NDSAP) sayeth about thanAisha. "O! and O! anbd than "O!" again while she than screemed in Arbic pain and feer for here life, befure are profet rolled over and than he sleeped.

Muhamhockmanhand (AFLCIO) are perfekt man and too be followed for all than tyme.

No DefenderOfIslam, know literacy
Know DefenderOfIslam, no hope.

Do you believe that Christianity does not contain fundamentalists amongst its ranks? (this does not mean that I think all Christians are fundamentalists, only that I believe that a fundamental zealotry exists within that religion, like many other religions)

Absolutely. Both muslim and Christian fundamentalists insist on following truths and teachings contained in Koran and N.T. respectively and literally. What makes them fundamentalist is precisely that they are going to the fundamentals of their creeds.

Therefore muzlem will follow both the example and teaching of muhammed so he murders, deceives, enslaves, kidnaps, rapes or imposes jazyiya on the infidel. In short, wages the global jihad in order to make the planet an offering for allah.

And, of course, the Christian fundamentalist, will insist with Jesus that human life is sacred, one must do to other (not only a Christian) as one would want him to do to oneself, be kind to the point of loving his enemies…etc, etc…etc . It declares pride, even religious, a sin and render into Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.
Pretty hard and radical stuff and no wonder it has always turned brother against brother and son against father. In this sense and only in this sense it brought sword to the world.

You all seem to think I'm defending Islam or something, or that I believe Islam and Christianity are the same in their moral codes: nothing could be further from the truth

If so, then please make it more explicit so "we all" may not get you wrong.

"1 Corinthians 2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
Without the gift of God's Spirit, you cannot understand His word."

Nothing like a sentence that is self contradictory...lol
It clearly says: we have not received the 'spirit of the world', but we received the 'spirit from God' (ie Jesus), so we can understand what God has already given to us 'freely'.
So, our understanding of 'spirit of the world is free', yet it proclaims we can't have that 'free' gift without the 'spirit from God'. I mean really, that makes little sense.

What is really meant here, is that, you DO understand the 'spirit of the world', for God has given it to you FREELY, but the 'spirit from God' will clarify for you what you already understand. These words that are used in this passage are very clumsy, and you can see what great difficulty it takes to even speak of it.

Ipso wrote:

"A tiny minority of misunderstanders of Christianity you could claim, but the figures indicate that a rather large number of Christians are prepared to use violence and terror and see themselves justified by their religious beliefs. "

Yes that explains all the beatings, book burnings, forced conversions of agnostics and atheists at the hands of the church, and children being forced to read the bible in public schools.

If you're gonna do a hatchet job Ipso, do it better and consider working for CAIR.

"If so, then please make it more explicit so "we all" may not get you wrong."

You're interrupting my words...I mean what I say. Is the bible so explicit?

"What makes them fundamentalist is precisely that they are going to the fundamentals of their creeds."

You cannot use a word contained in the word that you are defining, it doesn't work. Again, here is what fundamentalism is:
"Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."
And as I said before, it is following without question. Fundamentalists follow without questioning what they believe. It doesn't mean they have to follow the fundamental or original rules laid down by the scripture, only that they follow "their" beliefs without question, strict adherence.

I'm not part of loonwatch "staff" I'm just a reader. And honestly, I'm really not smart enough to debate on something like this. But in the secon link, there is a reply to Andrew bostom's review of the book, and Daniel pipes, who has also been labeled an islamophobe by loonwatch (though I don't agree), gave the book a favorable review. My personal knowledge stronghold is in American foreign policy in Afghanistan prior to 911.

"....and children being forced to read the bible in public schools."

How about children having belief systems imposed upon them before they have enough cognitive power to make a conscious rational decision about what they believe. Do you understand how the mind of a child works, or the psychology of a child?
Children rely upon their elders to provide them with the necessary information to survive in this world...their brains are automatically programmed to "believe" what you say, for they do not have the time to apply the scientific method to the things they are taught.

If you tell a child 'stay away from the cliff or you will fall', or 'don't go in that river, cause the crocs will attack you', they can't very well go test this, or they will be dead children. So, they must accept what their elders (namely parents) say, as truth. That being said, you could tell a child anything, no matter how ridiculous, and they will believe you. They will maintain that belief until there is evidence to say otherwise, and by the time they have the cognitive power to sort through the evidence, it may already be too late to change 'their' minds.

"Somebody explain to me again how quoting hate speech from the Qur'an is hate speech against the Qur'an..."

There are two sides to Marisol's rhetorical question: On the one side, it makes sense to those of us who take for granted our literacy about Islam.

On the other side, however, there is logic, and it is not merely a case of incoherence.

First, there is the general assumption that ostensible hate speech in the Koran is just part of an ancient religious text just as ostensible hate speech may be found in other religious texts, including the Old Testament (as well as the Apocalypse of John, otherwise known as "Revelations"). This injects a complication -- Equivalency Tu Quoque -- which has to be dealt with, for in effect the apologist is wondering, "Why are you unduly picking on Islamic texts, when there is also ancient violent and xenophobic language in the texts of other religions?" And so we have to unpack the complicated counter-argument before they will be mollified.

Second, and closely related to the first point, there is a general assumption that Muslims are for the most part little different from other modern religious people, and so our more relaxed religiousity we find in the modern West is superimposed upon Muslims: they can't be taking such passages literally, just as modern religious people don't take their relatively intolerant ancient passages literally either, right? I mean, only a tiny minority of extremists do that -- as they do in all religions, right? "So why are you picking on Muslims?" So now the issue becomes even more cluttered, forcing us to unpack further complicated counter-arguments.

What seems to become clear is that our message, and the resistance to our message out there in the mainstream, is a complex tissue of many interlocking parts, and no single part can be presented as an argument or as a counter-argument in abstraction from the whole of interlocking parts.

So the simplex asseveration (which Geert Wilders also repeats as a formula) that "we are only showing what the Koran says" may be logically tenable, but fails to persuade an audience who have in mind a complex bundle of associations and axioms -- a bundle more often than not held together through an overall irrational cohesion using other interlocking Leggo-like axioms. Nothing short of patiently dismantling the whole structure will do -- though it would be nice to cut to the chase and just strap the apologist to an electro-convulsive therapy chair and shock his complex irrationality out of his system with a few juicy volts.

Walt says:

"If you're gonna do a hatchet job Ipso, do it better and consider working for CAIR."

Good one!

...the figures indicate that a rather large number of Christians are prepared to use violence and terror and see themselves justified by their religious beliefs."

"...rather large numbers are prepared"?

How large? How prepared? And where is the violence and terror they "are prepared" to enleash any moment now for the past two decades?

What a crude, noisy and hysterical bullshit.

"Christian fundamentalism poses some difficulties in our modern age, but these pale in comparison to Islamic fundamentalism. It's like comparing a mere storm to a major hurricane."

My concern with fundamentalism is the 'unthinking' that it fosters.
I like your storm analogy btw, how about this:
at any time a storm can turn into a raging tempest.
Such is the unpredictability of nature

Fundamentalists of other religions do not pose an 'immediate' threat to the world like Islam does...but at anytime, that storm could become a tempest. You know what I mean.

I speak of the danger of fundamentalism period, not a specific religions' fundamentalists, or the present or immediate danger they may pose.
There is NO DOUBT, that Islamic fundamentalism is the most dangerous thing in our global society. However, this does not negate the potential danger that can be created in other fundamentalists through this closed minded line of thinking.

Why are you defending fundamentalism? Can you show me something good about fundamentalism?

No, it is not detrimental to the Constitution in any way whatsoever. Let me be very clear here. I accept the contention that man evolved from lesser forms over millions upon millions of years as so overwhelmingly demonstrated that it is virtually ludicrous to assert that evolution is not a fact. We have at least 80,000 Neanderthal skeletons alone, never mind a vast assortment of earlier Homo sapiens types, assuming that Neanderthal Man was a Homo sapiens rather than a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, dating back to some 400,000 years ago. We also have numerous examples of earlier species of the genus Homo, erectus and habilis being most prominent here and extending back to over two million years ago. Besides this, we have at least six species of Australopithecus, dating anywhere from five million to about one million years ago. Even before Australopithecines, we have earlier hominid species like Ardipithecus ramidus and Orrorin tuganensis. I trust you accept that I accept evolution as fact and am prepared to argue knowledgeably for its case.

Nonetheless, I find it far more detrimental to the Constitution, to America at large, to the American economy and to the long-term existence of America, that there are truly detrimental bogus theories out there, like man-made global warming, for which no hard evidence of any kind exists (computer model projections and correlation studies, both of which have notorious track records for accuracy, do NOT constitute scientific evidence). I would far prefer a President of the United States who doesn't accept evolution (most of our Presidents haven't---how has that hurt the American Republic, pray tell me?), but who realizes that the moronic cap and trade initiative is deeply detrimental to America, to a President who accepts evolution but who buys into nonsense such as man-made global warming, which will lead to policies profoundly detrimental to the economy and life of America. Another example: I would take a President who doesn't believe in evolution but does believe in American exceptionalism over a President who thinks the other way around. Another example: I'll take a fundamentalist Christian President who understands that Islam is evil to a President who is a "sophisticated modernist" who engages in moral equivalency thinking time and time again. Mull over what I have asserted, if you're able.

Ron, you said:
What I mean when I speak of the boon of religious fundamentalism, is, the division that it causes between the human species.
I mean, children in Northern Ireland have died over this type of fundamental fanaticism. Can you not see this is as unhealthy as any belief that would lead you to act violently towards your fellow man?

Ron - I'm Irish/English - and you need to realize that the problems in northern Ireland were not about religion, per se. It was about nationality. Irish Catholics are, by and large, the celtic Irish - the "true" Irish. The protestant Irish are, almost 100% the English who were transported there to control the Irish..."Oppress and tyrannize" would be better terms, actually.

The oppression of the Irish went on for many centuries. It was so bad that it convinced Benjamin Franklin that we in America had to fight the British, or we would also be slaves to the English, just like the Irish.

Most of the Irish remained faithful to their homeland and to their faith. Partition was imposed on the Irish people by an Act of Parliament, the Government of Ireland Act (1920), passed in the British legislature. The consent of the Irish people was never sought and was never freely given. The fight in the north was to get rid of the British B******s once and for all, to have all of Ireland free and unified.

The Catholic Irish in the north were second class citizens - denied the better jobs and what not. It was easy to figure out who was who - by the street address (neighborhoods).

So - really the situation in northern Ireland was very much a determined people trying to throw off a political oppressor. Finally - in the name of peace - the Celtic Irish in northern Ireland gave up the fight. One can understand why, but it also begs the Patrick Henry question:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!”

That is the spirit of the Irish who tried to rid the Island of the English. So - it was never really about "catholic -protestant" - it was about Irish/English.

All of this is worth noting now in the situation with the fight against Islam in the west. To perceive it as primarily religious is an error. it is primarily a form of political supremacism. And this time - you and I are the "Irish." They - the Muslims - hope to be the "British."

It is wrong when people say most wars were fought in the name of religion. No my friend. Most wars are fought to throw off oppression by some political entity. This also includes the crusades, IMHO. Look closely and you will see it is much more vital to the discussion than differing religious beliefs. And it is very much the case now with issues around jihad and islamisation of the west.

They are very determined. Time to wake up and look alive.

"...They will maintain that belief until there is evidence to say otherwise, and by the time they have the cognitive power to sort through the evidence, it may already be too late to change 'their' minds."
--------------
This doesn't happen much in Islam. There is no "too late" because there is NEVER a time when questioning is allowed.

If you wise up and decide to leave Islam, you have a death sentence on your head.

Islam by design robs people of the ability to "sort through evidence" on their own and change their minds, if that is warranted.

This is because the texts and tenants of Islam are so contradictory and ridiculous that any clear-thinking person can see right through them, as many of us here at JW have.

Where does it say this?

“O believers! Do not ask questions about things that if revealed to you, may cause you trouble. But if you ask a question about something when the Qur’an is being revealed, it will be made known to you. Allah has forgiven you what you did to date, Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing” (Q: 5.101).

“Some people before you did ask such questions and later lost their faith because of those very things” (Q: 5.102)

(Lost their faih because they saw how false and ridiculous Islam is?)

The following Hadith confirms Allah’s warning:

“I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah has hated you for asking too many questions.’” (Bukhari: 2.24.555)

Allah hates you for questioning. That would scare the heck out of a little moslem, wouldn't it?

Does the Christian God hate folks for questioning?

damn cut myself off

after parenthesis insert "the end does not justify the means"

I would agree Elanor, there is NO room whatsoever for questioning your belief system in Islam.
But you took what I was talking about out of context. I never mentioned the actual words or scripture that was being taught, I was speaking about the psychological development of a child, and the imposition of religion upon them. All religions do this to their children.

Islam, however, follows it up, with actual threats from it's doctrine. Which is why we are all here speaking out against Islam. But do not deny the blatant undertones of indoctrination of children that exist in all religions, political views, or any other ideology in the world.
The only ideology we should truly support is: educate, learn, think, and decide for yourself.

"...the simplex formula of "But we are just showing the violent passages from the Koran" becomes in this thread refracted into many complications of radiating sub-threads, including..."

And I just now note, among the myriad other sub-threads generated by the apologists, the Equivalency of the IRA with Muslims! Oy, vey. It is way too late in the game for that dead horse to be resurrected and beaten all over again; and marylouise did a good job, even though it pains me to think that ostensibly intelligent people like Ron need to have it explained to them still. Indeed, the oft-retailed canard that Muslim terrorists are "really motivated by political and cultural goals and not religion" precisely pertains to the IRA and not to Muslim terrorists and their minions of fanatical brethren who may not directly explode or pick up AK-47s or stab people to death or behead, but do enable the jihad that is the psychological, intellectual and cultural wellspring of Islamic terrorism.

You cannot use a word contained in the word that you are defining,…

What in the world are you trying to say, man?

And how do you reconcile two totally different statements:
1. "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature),
2. Fundamentalists follow without questioning what they believe. It doesn't mean they have to follow the fundamental or original rules laid down by the scripture, only that they follow "their" beliefs without question, strict adherence.

So which one is it? Strict adherence to a set of basis principles, or NOT following original rules, but “their” beliefs? And how does the latter makes it “strict adherence?

Well, if you can’t be explicit then at least try to be coherent.

OT: "Not Without My Daughter" (1991) is on TV tonight.

Sorry, Kim. Not on the Danish TV.
Cheers
Thomas

Sorry man, I was bored and wanted to open discussion about some things...it would appear it has worked as well. And frankly, I think all of us who participated in this grand digression from the main topic of Apple's blatant two-faceness and cowardice are better for it. We were citing sources, making argumentation, supporting some peoples' points and disclaiming others: an open, intelligent, dialogue. This is the sort of thing that Islam is trying to squash, and I think we showed that it is still alive and well with many of us in this world.

I mean really, should we just make comments about the specific articles posted on the this website, and then walk away without trying to contribute something to it? You can do that on any blog site. There are hundreds of blog sites out there with the same topics as this site, and people leave their mundane statements and move on.

I actually joined this site, cause I thought it might be different; from reading about Mr Spencer, to watching his film (and the books authored by him which I have yet to read), I saw an intellectual who wanted to discuss things...a seeker of truth.
It starts with Islam and the evils of such a hate mongering doctrine, but should it end there?
Like with Apple, it goes beyond them just bowing down to the demands of Islam, like the political correctness of the modern world I mentioned earlier in a comment. Should it end there?? I think not.

But I will attempt to restrain myself from yammering on anymore, or digressing from the topics at hand.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in today's discussions...it was truly invigorating.
PLUR

I would never equate the potential for terror and violence in Christianity with what is found in Islam.

But even if the core texts are like day and night – morally speaking - history shows that both religions have used brutal killings, terror, intimidation, persecution of heretics, and suppression of free speech, scientific and philosophical research as tools to maintain power, keep the unity of the Church and control over peoples lives.

I have nothing against religious or metaphysical beliefs on the individual level but I am strongly against any organized religion based upon myths and dogmas. Buddha said it best:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believein traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Historically the use of terror and violence in Buddhism is much lover than in the long and bloody history of Christianity. I don´t dispute that Islam by far tops the list and continue to do so.

Where we disagree is about what comes first – obligations or rights.

You argue for your position is this way:

“ … but a new-born babe has rights from the get-go without first requiring that the little tyke undergo certain obligations before rights are bestowed upon him or her.

Hopefully, you can see this.”

Sorry I can´t. Your argument is rather easy to disprove. If the parents of the child - or one of them - for some reason decides to kill the newborn baby, then it has no right to life. It has no life period.

On the other hand, if the parents believe that killing a defenceless child can never under any circumstances be justified, and submit to this obligation, then the right to life is guaranteed.

Therefore rights are always subject to obligations and they must come first. All the major religions happens to agree with me on this point. First you must submit to the doctrines and moral obligations and then you have a possibility to get eternal life or whatever goodies are promised.

Instead of confusing people talking about all the rights they have unrelated to their actual actions it would be much better if we replaced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a declaration of Human obligations, the fulfilment of which enabled some rights connected to the obligations in order to make the relationship between obligations and rights crystal clear.

The former West-German Chancellor Helmuth Smith (1974 to 1982) actually proposed what I am advocating and a number of philosophers (not of the post modern school) have done the same.

Hopefully, you can see that I am right!

Ok, Thomas has forced me reply once more, I am sorry
I posted the definition in quotations, which is number 1 in your comment. The other labeled as number 2 by you, which was not in quotations, was merely an explanation of the definition, and response to your comment.

"As a skeptic, I want to announce to all that, sadly, most skeptics are as closed minded as the worst of religionists. In short, and deeply ironically, most skeptics have raised skepticism to a religion of its own. In fact, I have found religious Jews and Christians, as a whole, to be far more open minded than most skeptics. Were I to say otherwise here, I would be a liar."

I don't believe you :P
lol

I am anti-theist, btw. I grew up "Methodist" but was never really one. I know that Christianity, Judaism and the other major religions all "indoctrinate" kids with their own dogma, but Islam is the only one that does not allow a child to leave if the child ever wants to, and will likely kill the child if he/she does.

I personally think a child should make his or her own decision about it when they've matured.

But all of this, I think, is really beside the point. As marylouise noted above -- to a certain degree -- to perceive our real problem as one of religious fervor misses the mark by a country mile. Islam is much less a religion and much more a supremacist political system; in fact it is a very powerful and effective vehicle for Arab supremacism.

That it is so totalitarian/fascistic in nature is cleverly camouflaged by its cloak of "religion."

It's the religion of so many people, you see, so it "must be respected!"

No "cult" (without such a protective cloak) operating in the same manner and doing the same things as Islam would ever be allowed to thrive and spread as Islam has for 1,400 years.

Italian Fascism lasted something like 23 years?

Nazism lasted 13.

Oops! They forgot to cloak their fascism in religious clothing! Damn fools.

What I'm saying, basically, is that yes there are kooks and "fundamentalist crazies" in every religion and every philosophical belief system, but let's not take our eye off the real "ball" that wants to subjugate or kill us, or allow ourselves to be too distracted by the intracacies and minutae of Biblical passages that may or may not mean to be violent.

We KNOW the Qu'ran was meant to be violent. I think we can all agree on that (except for DefenderofIslam, of course).

We can discuss these things, but I don't think Christianity, which has proven itself to be predominantly peaceful no matter how you slice it, deserves to be in the same mixing bowl as Islam, which every day proves itself to be predominantly violent, every way you slice it.

*clap*
I like your words, true thought I see.
Any thoughts on what the true underlying problem with all of this may be?
I think maybe the artificial separation of people, through systems, institutions, and beliefs, when, in reality, we are all connected...we are all one

Your argument about obligations versus rights is so easy to disprove that I'm stunned you asserted what you did. Here's the refutation: Should the parent kill the new-born babe, such parent has not disproved in any way the right of the recently deceased baby to life. All the parent has done is demonstrate that power can sometimes eclipse rights. But the right remains, regardless of the abuse of power or even the obligation not to use it. Right preceeds recognition of right. i.e., obligation, which you have elevated over right. Hopefully, you will at least see this. By the way, I have no doubt, that on this matter, Jefferson, and all the other Founding Fathers of America, would be on my side, not yours, even though, like myself, many were skeptics.

As for the vast distinction between Islam and Christianity, the theory of the former is malevolent; the theory of the latter is not. Actions attendant upon said theories may sometimes converge, but the good of Christianity is as immutable as is the wickedness of Islam. Surely, you can see this too. After all, only a dope or a fool or a brainwashed person cannot distinguish between the character of Jesus and that of Mohammed. Time for even a semi-moral equivalency to end. Besides, one fight at a time, no?

You don't believe me or you don't accept what I say as true? These are two very different things, you know. If the former, I can assure you that I always say what I mean. If the latter, I have no problem with you differing with me, even though I still think you wrong. I would suggest this, though, and that is that your non-religiousness needs some fine-tuning and upgrading (sophistication too).

It's OK to be a skeptic. What is not OK is to be insufferable about it (e.g., not comprehending that Christianity, and specifically Roman Catholicism, has produced an intellectual architecture and a general aesthetic legacy which should be recognized and treated with respectfully). Really, Ron, you've said nothing, asserted nothing, which makes me think you have the ability to appreciate the "opposition" in any meaningful or substantive way. You're coming across here as just another skeptical hack, at least as boring as a Christian fundamentalist. Hope you appreciate the irony.

actually man, I was making a joke
We can see that your humor extends barely beyond your nose.
I even included an emoticon and "lol" to let you know I was joking. But you are so busy talking circles and trying to to defame me by calling me a hack.

Lighten up guy...the world is a serious place, but not that serious

And although I may agree with your statements about skeptics being close minded, I am not one of them.
I am not skeptical of everything that is presented to me. I am merely cautious, evaluating evidence, and coming to a conclusion through the application of reason to said evidence. Prove me wrong, plz, this is the thing that I hope for most...I pursue knowledge. And I delight when someone comes forward with evidence that refutes my beliefs and shows me the errors of my ways.

Check out Ipso's quote from Buddha again...that is me essentially.
If I was a skeptic, I would hardly accept anything quantum physicists claim...yet there are many things in that field of science I believe.

Well, forgive me, Ron, for not possessing the keen sense of humor you do. As for Buddha, yes, I have no quarrel with his assessment about belief, but, ironically, so many of his adherents have raised him to the status of a deity, in effect. Besides, the Eastern world believes in multiple live, seems Buddha certainly did, and there is no evidence whatsoever to sustain this. So why quote Buddha more than Jesus?

I am a rationalist to the core. I accept no religion, including Eastern religions, as being in accord in any significant way with ultimate reality. But I remain convinced of this: Islam is the one major faith which is, as Bertrand Russell asserted almost a century ago, totalitarian, and thus I find it a vast (and stupid) waste of time to assault other religions while combatting Islamic supremacism. And this is EXACTLY what so many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, etc., do and I am bored and frustrated by this waste of time and energy. Hopefully, we can agree on this much, even though it's clear you have a superior sense of humor to my own.

Can you give me some examples in mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or even philosophy, where symbolism is used as a grounds for teaching?

Sorry to be late with this, but we had company here at duh swami's temple...

I'm not going to teach you the lessons in symbolism, it's way off topic, but will say again, that nothing you know is free of them...If you don't want to accept it, I can't help you...

where exactly in that passage is anything about good or evil. Apparently the interpretation of that passage was give to you by someone, a minister perhaps, cause you speak of things that aren't even there.

I don't believe you are a rationalist at all, when you defend myths, fables, stories, and traditions so fervently. Quit lying to me, and while you're at it, quit lying to yourself, cause it's obvious you believe in God.

We are already off topic by talking about symbolism. Stop being obtuse and answer the question. Oh, right, you can't, because there are no examples.

You wanna see something great, check out this documentary
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/religulous/

Thanks - I just checked out the blurb:

"...Religulous begins with Bill Maher, standing alone in Israel at a place called Meggido; a worthless pile of rubble where many of the planet’s religions believe the end of the world will begin..."

Well - they may be right - judging from the remarks coming from Iran a few days ago...LOL

DJM
Wow
Thanks for trying anyway! Pu out a written version, perhaps here:
http://www.scribd.com/

And, as Pamela Geller says, "Truth is the new hate speech!"
And you found this to be literally true!

You are correct, islam is a very selfish religion that puts self-salvation and self-gratification before all else - family, children, innocent civilians, etc.

For example, in Palestine, parents encourage their children to be come martyrs and then celebrate when the children do become martyrs. Why? Its not because the parents believe the children were saved by their "sacrifice", but because they believe a martyr can intercede for relatives. They want their children to die because it might get them - the parents - into paradise.

We can see examples in what muslims around the world do everyday -

cleanse your honor? Kill your daughter.

Don't want to be tempted? Force females to cover themselves, and then punish them if you are still unable to control yourself.

A sexual attraction to children? Just marry them whether they want you or not. The marriage gives you the 'right' to have sex with them.

Etc, etc.

This is an open forum if you have a concern, or question, or just a statement spit it out.

You don't have to hide behind Danios. We actualy believe in free speech, unlike LW.

"Cohen's study ends with the thirteenth century; we would be much in his debt were he to follow this pathbreaking and excellent study with another on the subsequent deterioration of the Jewish position in the Muslim world." -- Daniel Pipes
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Crescent-Cross-Jews-Middle/product-reviews/0691139318/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_4?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFourStar

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't believe in God, nor do I disbelieve in God. God, for me, is a very interesting philosophical matter. For most, God is indeed a matter of belief and faith first and foremost, and I respect that. In fact, I concede that it may be the superior approach to this entity, if it exists, but it is not my approach.

I do not know if God exists or in what form if so. Since I do not have faith, I am left only with my reason to deal with this fascinating subject. Frankly, my hunch (never to be confused with either reason or faith) is that God is a legend, but I know full well I could be wrong here. But whether God exists or not, I think Voltaire and Ben Franklin, both skeptics like myself, were correct when they asserted respectively that if God doesn't exist, we'll have to invent Him, a la Voltaire, and, a la Franklin, if man is bad with religion, imagine what he'd be without it (Islam, of course, would be the exception to this rule).

I suspect, though, based on your comments so far that these sapient assessments will go over your head. Sadly, you seem to be just the run-of-the-mill skeptic, whom I find tedious and limited, actually an embarrassment to my kind and not up to the standards of what the best within the Judeo-Christian world has produced. So sadly, it's clear you're no exception to this rule of mediocrity among the non-religious. Finally, while I have my faults to be sure, I don't lie about how I assess ultimate reality (or other things). And if you don't know this by now, I don't give a damn.

Thank you, Eleanor, for your vote of confidence in me. Deeply appreciated.

I must apologize, but what this site seems to be, and it becomes ever more clear through the comments made by many of the posters here, is a fundamentalist site. I can see why so many of you immediately went on the defensive when I brought up the issue of religion as a whole being a problem and not just Islam.
I will never deny they evils of Islam, it is blatant hate! However, I will never deny the sheer stupidity of believing in any sort of fantastical stories written by man thousands of years ago. The holy books of our world stand as fiction until someone can provide some evidence that can examined, re-examined, and corroborated to back up those stories. Anyone with any sense can see that this stuff is crap. Call it hate if you will, but the "truth", something that religions have no idea about, is that this is REASON.
Reason should tell you otherwise, but faith blocks the proper workings of reason like a clogged artery.
And this wellington is a LIAR...he is no rationalist! A rational man does not defend fairy tales and legend, he attempts to illuminate people and point out the inherent falsities contained therein, or at the very least...ACCEPTS them for what they are...fables.

Best wishes to you all
May reason guide you to see past your own blind-ignorance, so you can join the likes of Socrates in a life of plain ignorance.
I'm ignorant and remain uncertain about the whole truth, and I'm proud of my plain ignorance, for it enables me to see very clearly.
You know what the opposite of this is?? Something that ALL religions of the world have, for the have the absolute truth...arrogant!

If you continue to pursue such a path, it will be you who is next, sitting in the very chair of hate that Islam sits in today.

Wellington,

If you haven't yet read it, I'd recommend a study by historian R.R. Palmer called Catholics and Unbelievers in 18th-century France. What he set out to do, and what in my estimation he accomplished, was to examine the writings of Catholics (many of them clergy) and the writings of the Englightenment thinkers (many of them atheists, most of them skeptics, and all of them the ancestors of PC MC) and compare them in terms of which of the two intellectual populations on the whole were more rational and classically liberal. His conclusion: the Catholics showed more progressive qualities than did the supposedly forward-thinking Philosophes.

Ron - Chill dude!
And you may be revealing your ignorance more fully than you intended. You say our ignorance allows you to see more clearly - but in the end you are quite dogmatic in your criticism of religion.
Dig deeper, my man! You have not yet even scratched the surface.
http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/toc.html

very interesting!

Trust me buddy, if I'm passionate and knowledgable enough about something, them I DO spit it out. The reason I don't share my Questions, statements, or concerns on this site is that I'm simply gonna make a fool of myself. I'm pretty young (9th grade), and two Fridays ago, I gave a presentation of American foreign policy in Afghanistan prior to 911. My thesis was that America had promoted Islamic radicalism and had relationships with the Taliban. From 1979 through 1991, the U.S. Gave 3 to 6 billion dollars to radical Muslim mujahedeen. On the testimony in July 2000, Dana rohrabacher reports that in spring 1998, the Taliban controlled 2/3 of Afghanistan, and anti-Taliban factions controlled the other third. A U.S. Official went to Afghanistan and proposed a cease fire for all factions, which they accepted. However, Pakistan immediatly re-armed the Taliban and we did nothing to stop them. Thus, the Taliban took over Afghanistan. I shared these controversial views with my classmates, an even had a picture that said "no blood for oil" in my slide show. My teacher gave me extra credit for "subject knowledge". So don't tell me I'm afraid to use free speech. I would love to send you my essay, but I don't have your email and it's 11 pages so it would be too long as a comment.

Bob L. - you remind me of my son...Keep up the good work.

It's nothing, any one of us "regulars" here would defend you. For me, at least, you've been a steady, guiding light and a stable voice of reason, no matter how insane the subject (and the subject can't get much "insaner" than that olde-tyme religion of Islam)!

Ron seems to be a bright individual and he makes some interesting points, some that I happen to agree with (re: anti-theism); however, there are better ways to deal with disagreements.

We anti-theists, athiests, agnostics, Catholics, Copts, Protestants, Jews, Hindus and all other religions on the face of this planet, are "infidels" all, and every one of us shares the same enemy: Islam.

We all have to learn to work together and support each other, and that right quick.

Thx I thot u were gonna bash me but anyways I got my essay now so I'll simply quote the most important parts:

"when asked whether he regrets supporting Islamic fundamentalism, brzezinski [Carters national security advisor] says, 'what is most important to the world? The taleban or the collapse of the soviet empire? Some stirred up Moslems or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the cold war?' this interview was three years before 911 and the war in Afghanistan."

"after the USSR-Afghan war, all the different factions were at civil war in Afghanistan. UNOCAL approved of the Taliban and made negotiations with them to build a pipeline. In fact, Taliban representatives came to the UNOCAL headquarters in Texas in December 1997."

"MCDERMOTT (a Washington representative) ON CNN CROSSFIRE: We funded the Taliban through the pakistanis, and all that money- we could have cut off that money and stopped what was going on. We knew what was going on. All we wante was a stable, quiet Afghanistan so we could put a pipeline in there."

My apologies Eleanor, I believe I was a little brash. But again, I cannot condone the support of any theistic system, or monetary economic system, when reason and logic clearly tell us to defy the things.

I was rude perhaps, and so, offer my apologies to both Mr. Wellington and the posters on this site. But, Mr Wellington sir, do not claim to be a rationalist and then uphold values or ideas from institutions that defy reason, just so you can speak out against the worst of them all, Islam. Maybe you are not liar, but you are definitely not a rationalist. For you wouldn't even consider defending such theistic beliefs that have no grounds in science and cannot stand up to the rigors of scientific method.
Progress cannot begot through theistic beliefs, they had their time and place, and the religions of our world have offered great contributions to society and development; now they stand as only a barrier. It's the same as discarding an old political system for a new one (democracy is better than feudalism), or an old economic system for a new one (ie barter system for monetary system).

The link you posted...I bookmarked it. But I noticed earlier that a quote you gave came from that source, and it spoke of God, which automatically leads me to question the legitimacy of it's claims.
However, this is a religion I am ignorant of and will be sure to read further on it. I'm sure it has some merits like most religions.

Question, does that link contain all the readings? If not plz post additional links that you are familiar with so I may broaden the depth into which I investigate this subject.
And TY...I know there are still several religions that I am not completely versed with.

oh, and btw, I said "my" ignorance makes me see clearly, not "our"

So I hope you understand that I am not afraid to use my freedom of speech, but I'm not stupid with it either

I'm a little worried about your evangelical anti-religionism, Ron.

I know that pure (machine) logic has it that god and religions are fairy tales, and I agree. But even though I share that view I don't feel the need to beat people over the head with it, nor do I constantly wear it on my sleeve.

Why do you seem to be so zealous? Converting people to athiesm won't save the world or defeat fascism. And trying to ram anti-theism down the throats of people who, perhaps, are not quite ready to make such a leap, will only garner you enemies.

Diplomacy, Ron. Diplomacy.

I'm not ramming anything, but people are so fervent in their beliefs, to allow no room for questioning those beliefs. So, in turn, you must urge for people to 'think' and be reasonable, and use logic.
You know, there is one great thing that I can attribute to the religions of the world: all of them, at some point or another, call for a universal peace and love for one another. They call for us to see that we are not different, we are all the same. So, if all the religions of the world have this consensus of peace, love and spirituality, why is it we do not find this PLUR in our society today??
And I am not atheist...atheism is a belief system that there is "no God"...I maintain that I do not know if there is one or not. I also maintain, that a book(s) which claim an absolute truth and have no basis in science are problematic.

Scientific method Eleanor, Scientific method

You said you wanted to debate. I thought you had something on your mind.

Maybe I was mistaken.

I didn't say I wanted to debate, I said loonwatch wanted to debate. But what do you mean "I thought you had something on your mind. Maybe I was mistaken." are you calling me stupid before you even show me why? I'm sorry if what I said sounds anti-American. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also funded the mujahedeen, and SA is estimated to have given a billion dollars total. But it was the U.S. who gave them money and weapons first, even six months BEFORE the soviets invaded. Brzezinski explained that this was to done to help induce a soviet invasion, an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with us, that SHOULDNT have anything to do with us. And after the mujahedeen kicked the soviets' ass, the US didn't help keep the country stable. All these violent, volatile factions went into civil war again, only this time they had advanced U.S. weaponry and were able to wreck real havoc on Afghanistan. In fact, gulbuddin hekmatyar assailed Kabul with U.S. Rockets for 3 years, killing 2,000 civilians and displacing many more.

So what do u mean when you say "I thought you had something on your mind. Maybe I was mistaken."?

I am not impressed by your so called “refutation” of my claim that obligations (moral duties) must come before any rights can exist.

Do you agree that this debate must be based solely upon consistent (rational) arguments and not on religious beliefs, traditions or reference to authorities such as Jefferson?

Do you also agree that no such things as “selv evident truths” exists?

What is true or false depends always upon valid and rational arguments in my opinion. If we hold something true without sufficient rational arguments for it being true, then we are talking about some kind of belief.

If you agree on these basic points then let us examine the argumentation of Jefferson and the Founding Fathers who you claim is on your side in this discussion. I agree that they are.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

However, I would argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies that these rights are based on theological principles, and might question which theological principles those are, or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived.

Is the existence of a Creator a self evident truth?

If you think so, please put your rational arguments forward.

The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France").

Presaging the shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts".

I agree with Bentham that the idea of natural rights is “nonsense on stilts”, but I reject his solution to the ethical problem – utilitarianism – as inconsistent and therefore false.

In "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative.

I reject Rousseau's concept of a Social Contract because he confuse the abstract philosophical level with the empirical level.

If I make an agreement (contract) with you, that if you do not kill me I will not kill you, then we both would have the right to life, on the condition that we keep our promise. But what prevents us from breaking the promise? A law of natural rights?

No! The only thing that gives us the right to life in this situation is if we both submit to the moral principle or obligation that agreements made freely should always be respected or if we both submit to the ethics that killing is wrong, unless absolutely necessary for self preservation.

Note that Rousseau mention “laws and rights” in this order and not the opposite “rights and laws”. Laws are derived from ethical principles so he is implicitly saying, that ethics comes before rights.

Samuel P. Huntington, the American political scientist, wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of Independence was necessary because "The British were white, Anglo, and Protestant, just as we were. They had to have some other basis on which to justify independence".

I think Huntington is right in pointing out the pragmatic nature behind the formulation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and its Bills of Rights.

Critics have pointed to the lack of agreement between the proponents as evidence for the claim that the idea of natural rights is merely a political tool. For instance, Jonathan Wallace has asserted that there is no basis on which to claim that some rights are natural, and he argued that Hobbes' account of natural rights confuses right with ability (human beings have the ability to seek only their own good and follow their nature in the same way as animals, but this does not imply that they have a right to do so). Wallace advocates a social contract, much like Hobbes and Locke, but does not base it on natural rights:

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.”

Other critics have argued that the attempt to derive rights from "natural law" or "human nature" is an example of the is-ought problem. However, the term "natural" in "natural rights" refers to the opposite of "artificial", rather than meaning "physical" as it does in the sense of ethical naturalism, which according to G.E. Moore does suffer the is-ought problem in the form of the naturalistic fallacy.

In my view talking about natural rights as unrelated to or not derived from obligations is nonsense on stilts. Any argument with reference to nature or the laws of nature suffer from the naturalistic fallacy because you deduct from what IS to what should BE.

An axiomatic argumentation, as used in science, can not be used because axioms must be chosen or defined using “scientific intuition” or inductive reasoning instead of formal logic. For this reason “scientific truths” are not eternal or absolute truths. Such truths must in principle be falsifiable otherwise we are not talking science but dogmatic or religious truth. You can not falsify the claim that “God created the universe“ and neither can you disprove it. The word “God” has no explicit meaning and therefore it can mean anything you like. For this very reason we have many religions and each of them defines “God” or the will of “God” in a different way.
But that´s for another discussion.

The problem we discuss here is not if the basic rights are convenient in order to reach a political goal but if it is true that we are born with some rights?

How many rights are we born with? The philosophers claiming the existence of natural rights seem to disagree both about the number of rights and and what those rights are. Some distinguish between inalienable rights and other rights. This confusion, and the total absence of rational arguments suggest to me that their claim is no better than a religious belief.

All this confusion and make believe disappears if we put the moral obligations before any rights. Then the rights appear as a logical consequence and implication of our submission to an ethical principle or rule.

The remaining problem is how to rationally formulate an universal ethical principle which apply to all persons qua persons. This problem has an answer and I would be pleased to put the rational arguments forward if you are interested and want to continue this interesting and very important discussion.

As a skeptic, I want to announce to all that, sadly, most skeptics are as closed minded as the worst of religionists. In short, and deeply ironically, most skeptics have raised skepticism to a religion of its own. In fact, I have found religious Jews and Christians, as a whole, to be far more open minded than most skeptics.

Wellington, how very true!
It has been precisely my experience since the very early days of my, now happily ditched, atheism. In fact, it was one of the things that prompted me to look for a solid philosophical ground which would offer support and affirmation to both my reason, common sense and metaphysical intuition. I had to wait very long until I could see that my young and triumphant atheism has absolutely no ground for claiming the mantle of the only possible result of intellectually honest look at reality. It was both a shock and a great relief to discover that the concept of God is no less reasonable than the belief in self-sustaining, but quite dead machine called Universe. But it took years of wandering in the limbo of agnosticism before I ripened to fully understand the intellectual power, clarity and beauty of Aristotle's proof of the necessity for the "first mover" who, himself, is unmovable. How intellectually puny, limited and comically supercilious are are the peddlers of atheism next to this and following him giants of the Western thought like Augustinus, Aquinas, Anselm, Leibnitz, Kant, Descartes, Pascal, Newton...

But as I said before, had not been disgusted by belonging to the same "church" with the bunch of crude, jealous and dogmatically stifled bunch of unquestioning followers of atheism it would have taken me much longer to start questioning my own acceptance of atheism and eventually apostatize and break free. They did have a role in speeding up the process. So, I was quite fortunate.

And Wellington, if you have chance to read "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser you must do it. Agnosticism may be good for a short time, but you are a deep thinking fellow. Don't stop there. See and have fun with how Feser wipes the floor with "new Atheists": sundry Dennetts, Dawkinses, Harrises, shows their appalling ignorance of basic philosophical thought and inability to realize the metaphysical foundation of reason, logic and eventually science. It may help you to make the next step toward theism. And even if it doesn't you will have lots of fun.

Cheers,

Thomas

I concur about "Bob Laboo". He shows up occassionally to inform JW that loonwatch challenges Robert to a debate. He is an incarnation of Danios methinks.

As far as debate goes, JW will publish any comment from loonwatch followers whereas the same is not true over there. It's a well-funded site for sure, but there is no substance there, especially considering that the authors are anonymous. It's like trying to debate Lawrence Auster, who selectively prints comments and those he does are out of chronological context. That is not an honest debate.

As far as the usual suspect skeptics, like Ipso facto and now Ron, I concur with Wellington. They are quite close-minded in my estimation. They will side against Islam, but can't contain their disdain for any deistic beliefs and usually resort to mocking any believer.

Even the most profound and prolific skeptic on this site, Hugh Fitzgerald, would never resort to such counter-productive commenting here, regardsless of his personal beliefs on the matter. he understands the importance of this site and keeping the focus solely on Islam.

And why Marisol has to continually remind people here who should and do know better by now, is beyond me. It simply derails the topic each and every time and usually attracts a comment by the "Bob Laboo's" and the "Defender's of Islam" of the world.

"I concur about "Bob Laboo". He shows up occasionally to inform JW that loonwatch challenges Robert to a debate."

Anyone who knows what's going on at "loonwatch" is not one of us.

End of story.

There is a BIG difference between me and Lawrence. The Ifference is that he doesn't bring up any points, just brings up annoying hatred, whereas I actually GIVE good points, although both of our comments are unrelates. And believe what you want, but I am finishing the last days of 9th grade. And I wasn't trying to debate. Some guy asked if I had a question, comment, or concern and that I shouldn't hide behind danios. So since he asked, I did. But I think it's funny that all of you are pulling ad hominem attacks on me instead of rebuttling my point, since you thought I was trying to debate. And ok, I WILL relate it to this article. If there was ANYTIME the U.S. Govt was a "dhimmi" it wouldve been from 1979-1998.

Thank you for being respectful. Everything I said should be accurate; I got them from
actual sources that I can show you. But why do you doubt my age? I really am in 9th grade, I just know more then my peers. Why would an adult pretend to be in 9th grade? :P

One can be a rationalist and still find power and great symbolism in religious creeds. For instance, if one were an Egyptologist but a skeptic as well, this should not preclude one from seeing the great power and beauty of the ancient Egytptian religion, that it has merit metaphorically and had a sustaining power for ancient Egyptians.

Many of the Founding Fathers were not conventional Christians. Jefferson and Franklin were two of them, and yet they saw the importance of religion in society at large. And I hardly think that one can look at Jefferson and Franklin and conclude they were not rationalists of the first degree. A religion doesn't have to be true to still be important and too many skeptics don't grasp this. An enlightened religion like Judaism or Christianity (Islam, of course, is not enlightened) can better insure that a moral order buttresses the democratic, economic and legal infrastructure of a free society. And remember that wise assessment I already proffered above by Franklin----if man is bad with religion, imagine what he'd be without it (again, Islam is the exception to the rule here). The history of man's last hundred years bitterly proves his point.

One more thing, one can also be a believer and perfectly rational, a rationalist if you will. Take, for example, Thomas Aquinas. He produced an intellectual architecture of the noblest and most brilliant kind with such works as the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. I would certainly call him a rationalist par excellence. There are three main ways man can try to comprehend the universe. They are the religious, the philoshophical and the scientific. What they all have in common is the use of reason. Religion (theology) uses reason plus faith. Philosophy uses reason alone and science uses reason plus tested observational methods. For me, the first approach is not an option for I have no faith, but I still have the other two and I can respect those who utilize the first way of trying to understand the cosmos and existence. If you still think I am not a rationalist after all that I've written here, then there is really no more I can or need say to you.

Thanks, Hesperado, for the recommendation. I have not read this work but your mentioning its subject matter reminded me of another work I read long ago when I was going for my M.A. in History. This would be Carl Becker's The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. It was published in the 1930s and became something of an instant classic. In it, Becker argues that philosophes like Hume, Diderot, Voltaire and so on had established as much of a belief in reason as those religious folks they criticized had in God. Six of one, half a dozen of the other and all that. Deeply ironic. It helped me realize that no one goes to their grave really knowing quite anything for certain.

Sartre's rejoinder to Descartes also comes to mind here since Descartes thought that he had at last found something absolute in his Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) formula. Sartre wryly observed that what Descartes really was saying was I think, therefore I think I am. Perhaps the only certainty is that we can't be certain of anything, all part of the reason, I guess, why life is a mystery.

"if man is bad with religion, imagine what he'd be without it"

I'm sorry, but the thought that man cannot act civil or behave morally without a religious foundation is sheer idiocy.

"The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation"

"The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation"

Now, this type of behavior appears all through nature (which we are a part of), and it governs the very world at large. The most base thing for all species is survival, and morality sir, is conducive to survival, of this, there is no question. We are moral because we need to be to survive, propagate, and advance as a species.

Now, as far as the great Thomas Aquinas, who indeed was a great thinker of his time, he was nevertheless a theologian not a rationalist. The reason I claim this is that, Mr. Aquinas, although a man who used reason, was constrained by his social, cultural, and environmental conditions of his time. In other words, he was only allowed to extend the use of his reason so far, for fear of persecution, or perhaps worse.
An interesting note is "Summa contra Gentiles was written to show unbelievers certain philosophically compelling arguments, arguments to which all are forced to give their assent, in order to prepare their way to assent to the Christian faith". It was used to convert unbelievers!
Whether he would have been a true rationalist without these constraints, I cannot say, for I did not know the man. This is a problem that existed for many great philosophers of the past, such as Hume or Kant.
Always remember that the inability to disprove something does not, in turn, make proven, valid, or true.

"A religion doesn't have to be true to still be important and too many skeptics don't grasp this. An enlightened religion like Judaism or Christianity (Islam, of course, is not enlightened) can better insure that a moral order buttresses the democratic, economic and legal infrastructure of a free society"
The problem here, is that these religions are presented as "truth", which, as it stands at the moment, is just not the case. However, I will agree that morality can be displayed through fictitious means like the holy books of the world. Let us take the example of Filmation, a modern example: "Many of its shows—particularly the productions of the late 1970s and 1980s—are notable for imparting a simple moral or life-lesson (explained by a key character, in a child-friendly manner) in the epilogue."
These stories were all untrue, made up, fictitious, yet still imbued in the moral lessons. So, as you can see, a 'fable' can give us lessons and examples or morality, but that does not change the reality, that they are 'FABLES'.

There are no simple answers, no all knowing truths in our world, no absolute certainty. The path to truth takes work, dedication, thought, and is far from easy or absolute.
Man needs to be humble

Oh, btw, no true democracy has ever been implemented. Democracy is a facade, created by the powers of the world to trick you into thinking you are free, so you fall into line.

So, in effect, you're saying that Benjamin Franklin was an idiot. Hmmm. I'll subscribe to his wisdom over all the sociobiologists combined. For that matter, not a single Founding Father, not one, even the most skeptical among them, failed to see the value of religion in not only private, but public life. As for morality being relative, I'm not certain of this. I have to consider the possibility that some kind of higher power does exist, though, unlike Pascal, I would describe it as a bad bet. In any case, I'm not convinced that a God must exist for absolute values to exist. A brilliant book, written by someone who does not believe in God, is Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe by Erik Wielenberg. In this provocative and challenging work, Wielenberg brilliantly shows how absolutes can indeed exist even if God doesn't. I would recommend this tome to both religious and non-religious folks alike. Wielenberg pulls no cheap shots and argues quite convincingly that moral relativism is a huge mistake. And remember, this guy thinks God is a legend. Take a look. And, if there are no absolutes, I would argue we have to pretend there are for I will not leave the fate of the world to sociobiologists anymore than I will leave it to Muslims.

I also don't buy your very cynical assessment of democracy. Phrases like "created by the powers of the world" smack of a conspiratorial mindset and, as one who has taught history for a very long time now, I can say that almost all conspiracy theories are bogus. Besides, what ancient Greece, specifically ancient Athens, did in creating democracy was not done for trick purposes. The Greeks meant what they said and did and Solon, Cleisthenes, Themistocles and Pericles were no tricksters. Yes, they were clever, astute and wily men, but they didn't engage in the democratic process as a trick. You know this or should know it. I have concluded that your skepticism needs fine tuning (a lot) and your cynicism needs to be put on a shelf.

lol! You ain't no "9th grader," you LIAR.

"Why would an adult pretend to be in 9th grade?" - Bob Laboo

Because you're a Muzlim LIAR, that's why. GO back to your execrable "loonwatch, you Muzlim loon. What do you think we are, stupid? LOL!

No - YOU'RE stupid.

Please stop being fooled by the Muzlim adult "Bob Laboo." Please.

And, why are you people wasting your valuable time responding to "Ron?" Again, Please.

"Bob Laboo" is about 40. Anyone being fooled by "BL" is a sucker.

I reply to Ron, Kim, because I think it important at times to counter bad or incomplete arguments. It is not enough to let those with whom you have major disagreements not be challenged. Besides, the pedagogue in me believes that almost all are redeemable if the right approach is used. Chalk it up to my love of experiment.

OK, that's fine. But, I still don't think he's worth your valuable time.

Awake, no I don't have a point. I just linked it cause I have nothing better to do. Amd marylouise, I'm glad I remind you of your son. No, I probably don't sound very youthful or charming. I do have a hard edge, because I get angry when people cite human rights as a reason to stay in Afghanistan, or when people say if we leave Afghanistan, it will collapse. Also, my family and friends have experiences racism because of the propaganda for this war. Why didn't we care about the stability of Afghanistan in the USSR-Afghan war? We saw in the news people burning American flags in Afghanistan. We were shocked, angry, and it isnpired racism. But nobody ever asked why. It made people think me and my family are as irrational as they are. While it is truly insane to celebrate a terrorist attack, we cannot deny that the Afghans have every right to be angry at us. We used their country as a battlefield and never payed reparations. We did nothing to stop the rise of the Taliban, who neglected human rights years before the war on terror. Even the current situation couldve been avoided. The Taliban OFFERED bin laden to the U.S. In october 2001, but bush refused and went on with the invasion. So when I discuss something like this, my tone can be harsh and devoid of youth. But I promise you, I do have a very youthful and immature side. Hopefully I'll get that charm your son has; he seems like a great person.

Your position, Kim, is a reasonable one. I respect it.

Thanks for that recommendation, Thomas_h, "The Last Superstition." Sounds like an interesting read. I'll look into it.

"I also don't buy your very cynical assessment of democracy"
Really? Cynical, or realistic?
What the democracies of the world have is not "real democracy", rather "representative democracy"...and it is an illusion that the people have the power.

Did you vote on the war in Iraq? Did you vote on tax hikes? Did you vote of NAFTA? Did you vote on any of the policies that have been established by your government or any government for that matter?
Why don't you try applying the scientific method some time?
I don't speak of conspiracy, I speak of truth. Have you read "Modern Money Mechanics"? Do you find it's inherent flawed nature acceptable?

"I can say that almost all conspiracy theories are bogus"
And I'm sure you can say this for certain as well right? You are quite funny.
You're right, there is nothing conspiratory about capitalism, it's goals, and agendas a very clear if you take the time to examine it.
May I ask Mr. Wellington, what part of "the establishment" do you belong to?

You say my skepticism needs fine tuning, well, I could in turn, say that your reason needs fine tuning. All you're doing is giving me is your opinion.

As I can note, several times in posting on this site I have made admittance to being wrong...at which point have you done the same? Where is your humility?
And whether you like it or not, morals are relative to the environmental conditions in which you are raised and taught. You share the common values of the society or culture that you are raised in. What is acceptable in, say a tribal society in the Amazon, may not be acceptable where you come from. Did you know that there is actually a tribe in the Amazon where performing fellatio upon the eldest male of the tribe is used as a rite of passage to become a man for the young men in the society? Pretty sick stuff by our standards, but that mind set, of thinking it to be sick, is "moral relativism", with accordance to the cultural and social environment in which you come from. Even a second year anthropologist knows this stuff man. Come on, you seem really smart, so why do you keep blowing smoke. Because I challenge your beliefs? We all know, that if there is one thing people don't like, it's to have their beliefs challenged.

Yes Kim, I am not worth your time...and I will be sure to flag this site as a religious fundamentalist site!
You people are completely immovable. You speak of freedom and intolerance, but many of you have insulted me time and again.

And wellington, you sir, do believe in God
"I have to consider the possibility that some kind of higher power does exist"

You are all religious fanatics trying to disguise yourselves as 'tolerant', 'intelligent free speakers', and 'open for dialogue'. If that were the case, everything I said would not have been attacked so fervently.

I begin to wonder if Mr. Spencer shares his posters extreme rigidness? For now, I will give Mr. Spencer the benefit of the doubt, and his words will tell the rest.

You keep exposing to all your many limitations without knowledge of such. OK, since I'm dealing with a limited human being I will respond in baby steps. You richly deserve such.

First, you assume (quite wrongly) that the only real democracy is pure democracy as opposed to representative democracy. The former can only work in a polity which is quite small, ancient Athens for instance. A larger polity must resort to a representative democracy for demographic reasons that even your limited intellect should understand. And just because a polity is a representative democracy, does not mean it is not a democracy. You know this or should know it. Consult many of the Federalist Papers for confirmation of this, though I would advise you that James Madison did make a distinction between a republic and a democracy on the basis that the former is a representative democracy and the latter term is evidence of a pure one.

Second, what part of the establishment do I belong to? Well, not much of one since I am a college professor and, being a conservative to boot, not really part of any establishment. By the way, scratch a superficial rationalist and you'll find a superficial intellect. Yours is a good example, to wit, your negative assessment of capitalism, which is, quite simply, the finest of all economic systems as long as the rule of law and a proper moral order accompany it. My strong guess is that you can't distinguish between capitalism and crony capitalism.

Third, yes, I did give you my opinion, but some opinions are superior to others. For example, mine are superior to yours, which are rooted in bitterness and pseudo-intellectualism. Really, you are so anti-religion, I can't see you appreciating the soaring majesty, aesthetically speaking, of medieval Gothic architecture or Gregorian Chant. You are, in effect, a skeptic fundamentalist (how ironic, no?).

Fourth, and finally, some cultures are superior to others (fellatio and other nonsensical examples notwithstanding). A moral relativist, such as yourself, will forever be blind to this, stuck in moral relativity as an absolute (again, how ironic, no?) as you are. Italian Renaissance culture, for instance, is superior to New Guinea culture. Only a fool would assert otherwise. But then, you dismissed Benjamin Franklin, probably as wise a human being who ever lived----and so what can I really expect from you? Not much I would say. Done with you. Go take your very narrow-minded modern skepticism and play it somewhere else. You are the diminished one here at this site, and not most others. Of course, this will probably forever escape you.

And, for the last time, can you get it into your dull brain that I do not believe in God. I've said as much other times. All I aver is that I don't know if there is a God or not (and I would bet against such), but I do know that denying that there is is intellectual arrogance of the Marxist kind. Your kind.

lol

Told you not to waste your valuable time, people (see above post by Ron).

CONTEXT, RON ...CONTEXT!!

You have taken those New Testament passages completely out of context, and you know it; so your attempt to smear Christianity isn't even a close call, but a total train wreck on your part.

Context is the key to Jesus' words. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. In that respect, He has come to bring division. This context is also related in Luke 12:51.

Luke 22:36 Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure. He is telling them that they will need to provide for themselves and even protect themselves. Up to that time, everything they had needed had been provided. But, after the crucifixion and ascension, they would again be "on their own." They would need to work, provide for their families, and, if need be, protect their own; hence, the mention of the sword. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving; however, it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously.

The rest of the "peace" verses, teach just that: peace.

Jesus did not contradict Himself. When we look at His words in context, we can see what He was saying and that there is no contradiction at all.

Your choice:

1) Grow Up

2) Grow a Brain

3) Get Lost

You have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever spoken with. You think you're superior to people, I do not. I am human, and yes, I HAVE LIMITATIONS; apparently you are like god or something, for you have no limitations. Acknowledgment of my limitations, is an acknowledgment of the truth. Try implanting some science into your life, or even applying the scientific method to the world around you.
You want absolute, ok: 1+1=2
language is open to interpretation and opinion. Opinions sir, are the mark of a moron, an IDIOT, who does not know how to critically think.
"capitalism, which is, quite simply, the finest of all economic systems"
You are insane! So indoctrinated are you by "the establishment", you actually believe this poppycock.

How about a resource based economy?
By the way, the university functions through profit, and is part of "the establishment". To say otherwise is to lie. Political parties are also part of "the establishment". The government is a giant corporation, which governs all corporations under it's jurisdiction.
Enjoy your life of servitude.

And Champ, you want me to Grow up?! You throw in your little tidbit after we have over 150 comments on this post, arguing back and forth?? You grow up, put up, and stfu!!!

Again, I will be flagging this site as a religious rightest site, and just another covert attempt at poisoning peoples minds with propaganda.
Goodbye

Nice hissy fit.

My contribution this late in the game is completely irrelevant, ESPECIALLY when compared to your inane comments. I've been out of town for a couple of days -- so what, and I never pass on an opportunity to confront bogus liars like yourself, especially when it comes to defending the word of God and Jesus Christ.

The truth seems to rub you the wrong way, doesn't it?

Flag away, ron, lol ...

"My contribution this late in the game is completely irrelevant"
That's right, completely irrelevant.
Try science you bronze aged barbarian

Refute the points I made. Show me I'm wrong instead of making fun of me. Prove to me that America didn't promote Islamic fundamentalism, help cause a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan, and that the taliban (who follow the teachings of the true Islam according to Spencer) aren't a product of america's stupid foreign policy during the events and aftermath of the USSR-Afghan war. Then you can laugh at me. You took notice of my comments and made no attempt to refute them, but instead wasted your time attacking me. Therefore, I will have to come to the conclusion that I am right, and you are wrong, and that's why you assail me with ad-hominem attacks. To quote brzezinski (Carter's national security advisor): "what's more important to the world?the Taliban or the end of the cold war?" the question was whether or not he regrets supporting Islamic fundamentalism.

Refute the points I made. Show me I'm wrong instead of making fun of me. Prove to me that America didn't promote Islamic fundamentalism, help cause a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan, and that the taliban (who follow the teachings of the true Islam according to Spencer) aren't a product of america's stupid foreign policy during the events and aftermath of the USSR-Afghan war. Then you can laugh at me. You took notice of my comments and made no attempt to refute them, but instead wasted your time attacking me. Therefore, I will have to come to the conclusion that I am right, and you are wrong, and that's why you assail me with ad-hominem attacks. To quote brzezinski (Carter's national security advisor): "what's more important to the world?the Taliban or the end of the cold war?" the question was whether or not he regrets supporting Islamic fundamentalism.

They can't refute your claim bro, cause these people aren't scientists, or anything of the sort. You oppose them, and they bash you and denounce your statements providing no real evidence to back up their own claims. In essence, they are the embodiment of the very fundamentalist ideologists that they proclaim to stand against (hate).

Lets work together to warn others of the propagandic nature of this site.

BTW Bob, you seem pretty smart for a young man, so check out this link, for I think, unlike the others here, you will actually be able to assimilate the information and see the truths that it presents. But don't just take the documentaries word for it, be sure to follow up with some research
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-zeitgeist-movement/

if you want to know more, feel free to email me as well
ronwillsu@hotmail.com

ron, what does SCIENC have to do with taking scriptures out of context? Nothing, that's what.

You got your boxers in a bunch because I DARED to confront your lies. Gee, how would you like it if someone misquoted you? Imagine you wouldn't like it at all.

And I thought you were leaving ...

Good riddance!

"My contribution this late in the game is completely irrelevant"

"That's right, completely irrelevant."

Aw, someone has a knack for taking things stated out of context.

What a pathetic mindset ...

You are a fool and a liar.

Do you know those to be the words of Jesus with certainty? Has there been witnesses come forward that were actually there when Jesus spoke these words? Is there more than one source for these words other that the good book? You're just being dogmatic dude, instead of being realistic, and taking into consideration that these words may not have been said the way they are written, or that these words were never even spoke in the first place. Stop taking things for granted, and try to find some answers beyond, "it's faith", or "it's my opinion"
You my friend, butted in on this conversation!
And, what I had originally said was:
"Actually, I think you need to read the bible a bit more thoroughly, it is filled with violence"
This IS true. Never did I ever mention moral equivalency, descriptive or prescriptive violence, only that the bible contained violence. Yet these were the blatant ATTACKS that I received from the fanatics on this site, fervently defending against my true statement..."there is violence all through the bible"
You all try to bring me down as an intellectually, but you are all so indoctrinated that you think everything is open to interpretation. So you can blame everyone else's idiocy, as you march together in an idiocracy. Because regardless of anything anyone has said here, the judgments passed, and the insults made, my statement IS correct!

THERE IS VIOLENCE IN THE BIBLE

"Do you know those to be the words of Jesus with certainty?"

Hmm ...

You dare to question me when you're the one who initiated these claims by taking verses from the Bible OUT OF CONTEXT. Since you are uncertain that Jesus spoke these words, then why are YOU quoting Jesus from the Bible?

Gotcha! ...you can't have it both ways.

"THERE IS VIOLENCE IN THE BIBLE"

Of course there is, no one is disputing that ...

But you are claiming that Jesus taught Christians to go out and kill people, and that is completely FALSE. You are lying. Jesus did not teach Christians to do that and you know it.

I suggest you read one of Robert Spencer's books forthwith!!!!

>>>>"Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't"

What they're saying about "Religion of Peace?":

"Brilliantly written and argued, Religion of Peace? is the perfect book to give liberals who fervently believe that Christianity is as dangerous -- if not more dangerous -- than Islam. Robert Spencer skewers the liberals' paranoid and suicidal hatred of Christianity while reminding us how they ignore the real threat: Islamic jihadists with bombs. This splendid book demonstrates that what Islamic terrorists hate about the West is not its MTV, not the easy availability of pornography and abortion, but its Christian tradition. This goes a long way toward explaining why liberals never wanted to fight this war in the first place. Spencer's book is well written, heavily researched, and a clarion call to America to wake up and fight back." -- Ann Coulter

"It took guts to write this book. And Robert Spencer has them to spare. He also has the scholarship, expertise, and passion to cut through the clichés and expose the jihadist cult for what it is. This is a long overdue, in-depth refutation of the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace tommyrot. Spencer also cogently explains why Jews and Christians need to stand together against the growing menace of a creed that targets adherents of both faiths. If there were a Nobel Prize for demolishing inanities, I'd nominate Robert Spencer." -- Don Feder, writer and media consultant

"If you are sick of attacks on the West, tired of Judeo-Christian-bashing, and unwilling to succumb to jihad-friendly propaganda, buy this book and spread the word. Robert Spencer's latest salvo--careful, thorough, and meticulously researched as always--offers a crash course comparison of the history and teachings of Christianity and Islam. Conclusion: 'No, Virginia, not all religions are equal.' Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization. How about you?" -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author

"Robert Spencer's meticulously researched and powerfully argued book counters the moral equivalence arguments that attempt to excuse or divert attention from the actions of radical Islamic jihadists by attacking Christianity, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the West. In Religion of Peace? Spencer critically examines the history and teachings of Islam, the history of Muslim anti-Semitism, and Muslim views of Christianity, and in so doing helps us better understand the ideological background of the anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred and violence that the Islamic jihadists espouse. Spencer's thought-provoking book persuasively demonstrates the ways in which Western civilization, rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is profoundly different from the model of society dictated by Islamic sharia. Rich in its insights and analysis, this is a book that should be read and appreciated by Christians and Jews alike." -- Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of The Myth of Hitler's Pope

Watch this interview of Robert Spencer discussing his book:

"Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't"

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/13/new-vent-michelle-interviews-robert-spencer-about-religion-of-peace-why-christianity-is-and-islam-isnt/

You are in serious need of watching this video and educating yourself, stat.

You have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever spoken with---says 'Ron'

I have just perused this thread with great interest and fascination and I had no intention jumping into this debate until I saw your comment above.

You're a confessed atheist and you revealed yourself to be a Marxist. You resent that many people believe in God because religious faith impedes a certain agenda, specifically the Progressive agenda. To say that this is a 'fundamentalist' site is a blatant lie!

You must think very highly of yourself to assume that you can drop by and condemn all religions as equally malevolent and expect to convert the faithful to atheism with your profound words of wisdom, based, of course, on science and philosophy. You don't seem to know the difference between opinion, dogma, fact, or hypothesis but of one thing you are certain: believers in God are dangerous fools and religions are responsible for all the misery in the world, past and present. Would it be presumptuous to assume that you blame 'fundamentalists' like us for impeding the egalitarian, secularist, totalitarian, collectivist utopia the elitist social engineers are so eager to impose on the ignorant masses?

There is absolutely nothing 'arrogant' about Wellington. You mistake wisdom for arrogance and you are projecting. Wellington is a wise and erudite gentleman from whom you could learn much, like how to engage in a civil debate and respect apposite opinions. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, as shallow as they might be, but aren't you defying the laws of relativism with your lack of tolerance for the 'other', including so-called fundamentalists?

Refute the points I made. Show me I'm wrong instead of making fun of me.

Don’t be ridiculous.
The so called points you have made are intermittently deposited on this website by sundry crackpots, ninnies, hare-brained “scientists”, muzzlems, village Marxist… - a dreary procession of uneducable, conceited fools and ignoramuses. The idiocy of your “points” have been demonstrated over and over again so many times that for me engaging them again would be granting them (and their authors) some kind of intellectual worth.

Please, believe me, I would have ignored you had you only stuck to doing what you are really good at, I mean being utterly absurd and desperately boring. But this time you have, quite unintentionally of course, produced something the hilarity of which exceeded by far its idiocy.
So I HAD to laugh.

Right. Like government officials, human rights organizations, and news paper articles at the time saying "like them or not, the Taliban are the best hope for peace in Afghanistan." aren't credible sources. You haven't proved anything to me, and no, I haven't seen refutations of my position. As my favorite book character Bean once said, "Think what you want. My talking isn't going to make you stupider then you already are."

Education of Ron, champ, is going to take some doing. He thinks those who have convictions different from his are arrogant, prety stupid too, and he doesn't even listen. The guy still thinks I'm some kind of believer in God when I've told him I'm not several times. The only way he can deal with us here at JW is to paint us with a broad brush (something like "right-wing Christian nuts," but who really cares because it's only Ron making the claim). He's far more closed minded than he thinks he is and is typical of those who are not religious and make a kind of religion out of not having one. Of course, this irony will be lost on Ron. Much is lost on Ron. Hope you're well.

Thank you for your kind words, Susanp. I believe Kim above had the better approach than I respecting what to do about a Ron type. Oh well, live and learn.

Hi, Wellington. I am well, thank you. Yeah Ron came on board with his MIND MADE UP, as noted in his very first comment on this thread on May 23 @ 11:36AM, and in every subsequent comment thereafter. Ron has built up a formidable wall, but it is only supported by lies and hatred -- for what appears to be directed at Christians in particular. And until he is ready to acknowledge this twisted mindset, then he will simply remain a self-righteous combatant against the anti-jihad movement. What a waste of time and energy, eh? He's targetting the wrong enemy, so he's really only hurting himself and those stupid enough to be influenced by his inane and dangerous perspective. Hope you are well, too :)

"You have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever spoken with. You think you're superior to people, I do not."

This comment to you only made me laugh, so I hope you did as well. Ron is clearly projecting in his comment to you -- as Susanp pointed out, and everyone here knows it. You are anything BUT arrogant, nor do you present yourself as superior. I think Ron is confusing these things with intelligence, which you obviously possess. No, Ron is projecting his own arrogance and superiority, although he forgot to add immature and emotional, lol ...

Dear Boob,

Are you drunk?
Or are you really so daft that you can’t see that the major part of my last comment is about WHY I am not interested in refuting your opinions and “points”?

OK, I’ll repeat it again for you - this time slowly:

"The so called points you have made are intermittently deposited on this website by sundry crackpots, ninnies, hare-brained “scientists”, muzzlems, village Marxist… - a dreary procession of uneducable, conceited fools and ignoramuses. The idiocy of your “points” have been demonstrated over and over again so many times that for me engaging them again would be granting them (and their authors) some kind of intellectual worth."

Can’t you understand that I have noticed you ONLY because you have made a most preposterous comparison between your terminally obtuse self and Lawrence Auster?
As said, I found it so hilariously comical that I had to poke fun at it (and indirectly you, of course).

Well, you most probably don’t understand that either.

No wonder. Anyone voluntarily admitting that his favorite book character is Mr. Bean, must have a pea for brain.

Actually, Bean is a character from ender's shadow, a very intelligent book. And no, I don't think I'm as stupid or stupider then Lawrence. And if u don't want to refute my points because they have been refuted so many times before, then show me where they have been refuted.

This comment to you only made me laugh, so I hope you did as well. Ron is clearly projecting in his comment to you -- as Susanp pointed out, and everyone here knows it.

That he is "clearly projecting", is evident to everyone. But there are different degrees and manners of projection His projection, besides being embarrassingly transparent, is crudely offensive. Evidently the man tries to salvage through projection what he has lost through arguments.

"Thank you for your kind words, Susanp. I believe Kim above had the better approach than I respecting what to do about a Ron type. Oh well, live and learn."

Right - Don't bother. Not intellectually worthy of spending your valuable time.

"...show me where they have been refuted.

Well, you may start with Hesperado's comment above. After you demolish him come back for more.

I don't reach your conclusion. First off, I doubt the Carter administration was oblivious to the damage supporting the mujahedeen would cause. A 1979 state department report stated that "our main goal is the demise of the tatami Amin [pro soviet] regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." also, during the Carter administration, a significant amount of aid went to gulbuddin hekmatyar. He was a radical Muslim who got a following by throwing acid in womens' faces. After the USSR-Afghan war, the "setbacks" mentioned in the state report kicked in, and included a bloody civil war that raged Afghanistan. Hekmatyar himself assaulted Kabul with rockets for three years, killing 2,000 civilians and displacing many more. I agree with you that the Carter-Reagan-Clinton administrations were unconcerned (and that unconcern destroyed Afghanistan and came back to haunt us), but I disagree that it was out of some PC MC oblivion to the dangers of radical Islam (or just normal Islam if you will). The unconcern was instead because we kept our own goals and complete disregardment for the damage it would do to afghanistan.

True, Thomas_h! ...and no offensive to the Girls, but the Boob isn't much better than Ron. Boobs really do come in pairs, lol ...

DOI Alert ...

I meant no "offense", not offensive :)

Boobs really do come in pairs, lol ...

And, with a few exceptions (f.ex. Ron&Boob), I have been thankful for their teamwork since my first day on Earth.

His comment did make me laugh, champ, since a quote I provided him from Ben Franklin, just about the shrewdest person who ever lived, he dismissed as "sheer idiocy." And I'm arrogant? Ron finds what Franklin said idiotic and I'm the one who is too opinionated? Huh-uh.

Sorry to say, I think Ron's anti-religious bias (and other biases) will prevent him for all time from understanding the human condition in toto (e.g., how does someone like Ron, who is so vehemently opposed to religion, even begin to treat with the beauty and power of Russian Orthodox mosaics or Italian Renaissance religious painting and sculpture?). But, on a larger matter, and one I've touched upon before, skeptics of religion must attempt to achieve a more sophisticated assessment of religion than most skeptics do. The majority of those who are not religious demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to dismiss religious people as not really worthy of debate. As a skeptic myself, I find this as erroneous as what modern leftists do, which is to say not doing battle with conservatives on the merits of a particular idea but rather simply stooping to ad hominem attacks so that they don't have to enter into the arena of ideas at all. Needless to say, this is a characteristic of Muslims too. Well, those who are out of real arguments have nothing left but personal attack, like Ron, Muslims (e.g., death threats galore) and other limited and totalitarianly inclined human beings.

Hope you and yours are doing well, champ. As always, I look forward to reading your assessments, even when, on those rare occasions, I might disagree with them. Take care, my friend.

"I have been thankful for their teamwork since my first day on Earth."

LOL!! ...2funny :)

Hi, Wellington ...yeah those that are anti-religious have taken on a monumental task; if not an impossible one, since abolishing all religions will never happen. And those that have set themselves on a course campaigning against ALL religions must be very lonely individuals, too, not to mention VERY annoying to be around. JW serves as sort of a microcosm of the outside world, so if Ron is getting outnumbered here, then I imagine that hes alienated a lot of people he works and lives with as well. Ron, and others like him, need to aim towards a more realistic goal, because he will never abolish all religions. Or maybe he likes the negative attention, I don't know. And thank you, my friend! :)

I'm sure you'll agree with me here, champ, when I say that the chief imperative of our times is that all those who are not Muslim (and even some who are) should oppose Islamic supremacist designs, totalitarian and destructive of freedom as they are.

Islam is wicked (or if it is not, Muslims must appeal to reason, not violence, to contradict such an assertion). I'm so tired of arguments by Muslims, and dhimmi apologists for Muslims, who put forth assumptions masquerading as axioms which have, as their purpose, to make Islam look mainstream when, in fact, it is anything but. Other major faiths, and skepticism of all sorts, are not in any significant way inimical to freedom, equality under the law and real democracy. But Islam is-----by its own admission. Great shame for this on all Muslims, though the more zealous Muslims, totalitarians to the core, will not see this. And the moderate Muslims out there are appropriately condemned as well, at this point, for their deafening silence to date concerning Islamic barbarism and for their loathsome moral equivalency thinking (e.g., the tired old line that Muslims condemn all killing of innocents while not defining what "innocents" means----note well to all Muslims that with each passing year more millions of non-Muslims have become aware of the many word games Muslims play).

Among those who are not Muslim (and again even among those who are but should no longer be), we can disagree with one another as to what the constitution of reality ultimately is. But this disagreement should take place amidst free societies and unfettered inquiry, where opposing voices are not threatened with death or bodily harm. The Islamic world doesn't get this, even among those in the Muslim world who are not fanatics, and who yet, sadly, fail to see that Islam, by nature, by ideology, will brook no dissent.

To all those inhabiting the Islamic sphere of mankind, I implore you to allow free and unfettered inquiry into your belief system, even including mockery of it. If Islam is the true faith, then what are you afraid of when criticism of it occurs? If you only have threats of violence to mostly or completely prove your points, do you not see how pathetic this is and how the bulk of mankind will eventually conclude that you are a bunch of control-freak losers? Ponder this well, assuming you are able, which, with each passing year, I think less likely will be the case.

I do agree with you, Wellington! ...in fact I wholly agree with you :)

islam stands ALONE among other religions as the single most barbaric and violent of all religions because the koran instructs muslims to kill the infidel, and that is exactly what muslims are doing -- as did muhammad. No other religious text mandates murdering those outside of their faith. Only the koran issues this mandate. islam and company are evil to the core.

Bob Laboo,

Do you have a link for that State Dept. quote?

I Googled a portion of it, and this is the result:

No results found for "our main goal is the demise of the tatami Amin"

I feel like replying to ur comment notifies u that I replied to ur comment. So read my real reply above lol.

Bob,

The link you gave me takes me to a tertiary source for that State Dept. quote -- an article that uses that quote, and cites a secondary source, author William Blum. The footnote explains about this source:

"A classified State Department document–one of many found during the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and later made public..."

What I need is a link to the actual State Dept. document wherein that quote allegedly exists. Since they were "made public", they must be available on-line somewhere.

P.S.: William Blum is a notorious anti-Amnerican who makes money living in America, whose writings were publically recommended by Osama bin Laden. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001971.html

interesting, i never knew that. I'll be sure to be more careful when i research. Sry i didnt reply earlier, i forgot all about it. I REALLY can't find it, yet i have found it in another place that doesn't cite Wiliam Blum.

http://covertaction.org/content/view/163/45/

And Here's the citation it used for it. However, i could NOT find the original document, although i have found it in other articles. Also, John Stockwell, a former CIA agent who became critical of Government policy, said the book in which Blum is cited has a very correct account of CIA history, and is not the same book that bin Laden endorsed.

Classified Department of State Report, August 16, 19'79. Spynest Documents, vol. 30, op.
cit., n. 9.

Again, thanks for the heads up. Even if i dont agree with you, i can still learn from you. And sry for replying late