Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

    And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me.
    The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

    BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 11-25-2015, 05:53 PM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
      China is violent? Really? What facts are you backing that up with? I don't see any. I see an assertion, or an assumption, based on your opinion. One source I found says that "Murder rates in China are roughly one-fifth as high as in the United States." Another source says that violent gun crimes are 18 times more in the US than China, and violent crime in general is 4 times more in the US than China. So your whole question is based on a false assumption.
      Check out the states on how many people China executes on a yearly bases dear and get back to me and I also don't recall the US murdering people for being Christians or running down people, on purpose, with tanks, do you?
      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        Curious how you totally ignored most of my post (you know, the part where I pointed out a reason nobody has refuted yet) and how you don't want to jump down Andus' throat for saying the same thing I did. In case you forgot what Tazzy Wazzy said, let me remind you:

        Did you skip over the underlined part, in your quest to try to make those you disapprove of look bad?
        I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.

        In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.


        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

        BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.
        None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

          First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.
            And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. You're on a roll tonight!

            In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.
            Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him. Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?

            None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.
            I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.
            Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 11-25-2015, 06:36 PM.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.
              I don't really deny any of this. I don't agree with the representation of them as 'the major role', but there's not much point arguing degrees.

              I definitely don't agree with the idea that we defeated them. Communism is still around in a big way. Nazism still exists, though not in any meaningful way, but it's not as if it would have been defeated if there weren't other major powers keeping it at bay on multiple fronts. We had the manufacturing, but I don't think we could have contained them if Britain and the Soviet Union hadn't acted as they did. Imagine what it would be like if Germany had actually managed to flood into Northern Africa and Asia, or eliminated the UK as an European ally.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. You're on a roll tonight!
                What back slap? I don't think you have any ability at reading comprehension, and I've never pretended otherwise. I'm not on your side. I'm not on anyone's side.

                My comment to you about irrelevant anecdotes has nothing to do with you being the source. I'd have said the same to anyone. It was irrelevant. I prefer people that actually contribute (always have).


                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him.
                No one asked you to refute bald assertions, but you did try to refute what he said. You just did so extremely unsuccessfully.


                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?
                I do live in the US. I have no idea what the crime rate is where I live. It's not something I pay attention to. Whether or not I am involved in crime doesn't drastically affect the crime rate. If the US has a really high violent crime rate, that in no way implies that any given person will have committed a crime. That's pretty basic.


                Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.
                I didn't say 'little effect'. That's you putting words in my mouth. Repeating the same stuff doesn't make me more convinced of it. Again, I haven't 'forgotten' any of this. I simply don't find it sufficient. There are more factors than just our manufacturing capability involved (one of which is the fact we weren't being invaded by anyone).
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  I disagree. The anomalies aren’t sufficient to disregard the whole argument. There’s sufficient evidence to indicate trends and generally speaking, the world is more equitable and less violent when it’s less religious.
                  It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

                  'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around?

                  The Church of Norway as with the Church of England has long been the established church of the land. But in both instances the people are quite indifferent to it as indicated by the Adherents.com statistics.

                  Presumably Australia ranks no. 2 in the IHDI because it fulfils the required criteria. And religion plays no part in governance at any level. Several Australian prime-ministers have been overtly atheist including one of the most popular prime-ministers ever, Bob Hawke. I doubt an atheist would make it past first base in US politics.
                  Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.

                  Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.

                  Do you think that the “crime rates” and high levels of incarceration aren't linked? Surely the USA having the highest rates of incarceration in the world indicates a high crime rate as well.
                  I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.

                  Zukerman is merely making an observation based upon statistics, namely: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates [e.g. the USA], while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest” [e.g. Norway and Australia].

                  This seems to be a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, especially as one would be hard-pressed to find a deeply religious nation that ranks high on the IHDI…the very religious USA only ranked 28th, as noted, despite its great wealth.
                  It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

                  It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

                  And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite.


                  That's courteous of you, thank you.
                  Your welcome, what's right is right.

                  Nevertheless the correlation is there.
                  No it isn't. Not enough consistency by my reckoning, and more importantly, 0 explanation and justification as to how it comes about.

                  Even so, as a general rule the better educated nations statistically tend be the least religious and vice versa. The same tends to apply within nations, e.g. the most religiously orientated states in the US tend to be in the Mid-West and Deep-South…areas not known for their intellectual sophistication.
                  It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.

                  Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?
                  Last edited by Andius; 11-25-2015, 08:00 PM.
                  Ladino, Guatemalan, Hispanic, and Latin, but foremostly, Christian.
                  As of the 1st of December, 2020, officially anointed as this:

                  "Seinfeld had its Soup Nazi. Tweb has its Taco Nazi." - Rogue06 , https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e3#post1210559

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.




                    It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level. Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

                    You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.
                    So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Andius View Post
                      It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

                      'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around?
                      The IHDI takes into account not only the average achievements of a country on health, education and income, but also how those achievements are distributed among its population. And the trend is that the countries ranking higher on IHDI tend to be less religious…remembering that “trend" is defined as “a general tendency or course of events”, not an explanation of these events. This is all I'm discussing here.

                      This is all that needs to be said in a discussion of this sort especially when a qualified sociologist such as Professor Zukerman, who specializes in the sociology of secularity, is is able to arrive at a generalized conclusion that: “Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest. - Phil Zuckerman, professor of secular studies at Pitzer College.

                      Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.
                      …but it does. Both countries rank relatively high on the list of Agnostics/Atheists compared to the USA with only 9% Agnostics/Atheists.

                      Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.
                      No I don’t have to do that. The correlation is there for all to see, and this trend is similar in many other countries in the Western World. There maybe unknown mitigating factors which would modify the picture, but it's nevertheless a reasonable assumption to make given the trends.

                      I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.
                      So you’re saying that the USA has the highest incarceration rates in the world because it has more available space? But surely the US is not incarcerating people who haven’t committed crimes. Therefore, it seems that the most actively religious nation in the West does in fact have the most crime.

                      It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

                      It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

                      And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite.
                      See above re the meaning of the word “trend”. There will always be exceptions…exceptions prove the rule.

                      It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.
                      Well it does “work” when viewed as a general trend, which is all that’s being argued.

                      Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?
                      ...and their music is good too. But the demographic of higher education in the US is what it's all about.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.
                        You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.


                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        So you’re saying that the USA has the highest incarceration rates in the world because it has more available space? But surely the US is not incarcerating people who haven’t committed crimes. Therefore, it seems that the most actively religious nation in the West does in fact have the most crime.
                        You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I don't have to. It's what they teach. Not to non-Muslims though. That's where they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means submission), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya is an intra-Muslim insult[1] (while it is true that the Sunni don't use the same term they have the exact same practice which is called idtirar.
                          Somebody's really been slacking on their conspiracy calls. Would you believe it, I crossed whole Muslim countries without anyone getting out the word they weren't supposed to clue me in on any of that.

                          Let's be clear here. It's not true. Muslims talk about these things openly.

                          I learned that Islam means, literally, submission from Muslims in Morocco, I'd guess, as that's where I first landed, and it's about as basic a first question as you could ask. "Islam means peace" is no more deceitful than "Christianity means love." Or "lao tzu means perfect hair." It's something true believers, and non-existent ones, want associated with their image, or lack thereof, respectively, TWebbers excepted, of course.

                          I learned about abrogation from an Imam in Senegal. I'd originally gone to talk with him about differences between the more orthodox versions of Islam and the Mourides, an Islamic offshoot with a large following, as in millions, mostly between Senegal and the Gambia. I'd made plans to attend "Le Magal de Touba," and my host, a Sunni, had cautioned me that their beliefs were outside the Sunnah, but deferred answering how to a religious authority.

                          The biggest difference, according to the Imam, is the Mourides' rejection of Salah, daily prayers, the second pillar. Needless to say, the marabout I spoke to in Touba differed substantially from the Imam in Dakar in justifying the divergence, but they both spoke of abrogation as a point of contention.

                          I first heard the word taqiyya from the lips of a Sunni verbally attacking a Shi'a in Lebanon. It was a marketplace thing. It was an insult. It was intra-Muslim.

                          I've lived with these people. That's how I learned about these concepts. You learned about them from conspiracy sites, and sites dedicated to anti-Muslim propaganda.

                          And it shows.

                          Both started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) but later evolved into far more with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels).
                          Are you familiar with the first pillar of Islam?

                          I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.
                          MEMRI, right? I've seen those, and some are truly disturbing. They're also quite obviously cherry-picked. There's no good way to tell how representative they might be.

                          And some did nothing to hide exactly what they felt but were quite open about it. One of the most notorious examples was Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I know he was a Shiite, but that hardly disqualifies him as a Muslim) who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:
                          “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

                          Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[2].

                          2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).
                          AFAICT, Taheri's the original source, and there's no good candidate for anything independent of him. He lost his position in the Iranian revolution and has an understandable grudge against Ayatollah Khomeini because of it. His target audience doesn't need much corroboration.

                          But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."
                          I wouldn't be surprised to find something at least half-true in there, but you can't lump Jews in with Christians in an imprecation against "ascribing partners to Allah," which is the frame underlying "worship others along with," something else you'd know if you'd learned your Islam from Muslims rather than anti-Muslim apologists.

                          Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.
                          "Hundreds of thousands murdered" is right. "By Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them" is straight up alternate reality. The Janjaweed went through those villages looking to make corpses, not converts, if you're talking about the genocide surrounding the crisis in Dafur. If you're talking about the civil war, there was indeed a Muslim/Christian/Animist component, and the north actually did try to impose their version of sharia on the south, intermittently at least, but the conflict was first and foremost about control of the oil fields.

                          It's the same thing over and over again. You can't find the right target because you're practicing apologetics instead of research.

                          But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:
                          "In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (“harb”), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.”

                          IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (“jahallyya”) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that “provokes” war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion
                          The Meaning of Peace
                          Hence Islamic wars are not wars, but meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (jahaliyya) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit that provokes war.

                          Doubling down again. You didn't research those quotes. Somebody else did. Those are the sources I was asking for that you didn't provide. Your quote from Tibi starts and ends exactly as given by Bat Yeor in the article. I can find other, longer versions. You ripped that right off, Rogue. I'm calling that busted.

                          And yes, I accidentally left out the surah number and only put in the ayah. I meant surah 2:256 where it says "Let there be no compulsion in religion." And yes I'm well aware that the Qur'an is organized by chapter length but that isn't why what is written in surah 9 abrogates what was written in surah 2. Surah 9 was written later, and is in fact regarded by many if not most as the last surah written (again some say it was surah 110).

                          And btw I do have some understanding about how the Qur'an was ultimately compiled.

                          Oh and as for your...

                          ...don't you think that is rich coming from the same person who made an utter fool of himself the last time he said this?
                          I can't spend the time necessary to go haring after everyone who's wrong on the internet, so forgive me for leaving you in error on that one. The importance in knowing the difference between Ayah and Surah is that you can put Ayah in a chronological order. You can't do that with Surah. It makes no sense to say that one Surah came before another. That's incoherent, because the Ayah within any one Surah can be taken from both earlier and later Gabey-whispers in comparison to individual Ayah in any other Surah. That means you can speak coherently about a particular Ayah as being the last revealed, but you can't do that with a particular Surah.

                          What use knowing how the jumble was put together if you can't even recognize it's a jumble?

                          And for what it's worth, it should be Quran 2:256, according to APA. MLA wants the chapter title, too.

                          And finally, as for your insinuation of plagiarism, I cited my sources throughout my post. The works are for the most part rather widely available. It was no great feat to look them up and, if online, to use the find feature to speed up the process (and considering that most of this I've done over the years and keep bookmarked makes it a pretty quick process for me to do). For those that aren't on the internet, the advantage to living well within walking distance of a university library (1 mile to the campus about another ¼ to the library building itself although I usually drive and go on Sunday when parking is free and widely available) does have its perks.


                          Proven plagiarism, this time.

                          So how's about taking two steps down from your pretensions of doing anything more than parroting anti-Islamic articles from sources you know better than to name, and trying out some honest research, the kind that's looking for straight answers.

                          There were real threats exposed in the attacks on Paris. They're not keeping track of their bad guys. The ringleader had already been convicted of terrorism in Belgium, and he was waved on by at a checkpoint after the attacks. Half of them were already on watch lists.

                          Go ahead and explain to me how casting this as a religious war and barring refugees is going to have any effect on that.

                          Use your own words this time.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.
                            Well, in that case, I’m afraid it’s not clear what you’re saying.

                            You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).
                            No, I think perhaps you’re not getting my argument. My interest is in the overall law and order issue, not the specific components of it.

                            Christians claim that a Christian-based society is necessary for the maintenance of “family values” (so called), social justice and the equitable maintenance of law and order…in short a moral, well regulated society. They claim that: “The fruit of the secular worldview can be seen in and around us. As we observe society, it is evident that not all is well. Television has degenerated into a bordello of violence, soft-pornography, anti-family sit-coms, commercials that appeal to immediate gratification, and senseless children's cartoons that are full of violence, occultism, and disobedience to parents” and so on ad nauseam. https://carm.org/what-christian-worl...tians-need-one

                            The irony is that, among the developed nations of the western world, these dire “fruits” are most apparent in most religious nation by far, namely the USA where c. 80% of the population is Christian. These same “fruits” are not so apparent in the more secular nations of the developed world (e.g. Norway, where 72% are atheist/agnostic) and where Norway is ranked no 1, as indicated by the IHDI stats...these figures being a composite statistic of health, life expectancy, education levels, per capita income and potential human development.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                              That is not completely true. I agree that secularism came out of the Protestant Christian culture, and may not have came out so easily from a Muslim culture or different religion. I'll give you that. But saying there will be no "Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good" without Christianity is absurd. Christianity doesn't own the copyrights to love, tolerance and seeking good. They didn't invent it. As Christopher Hitchens said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
                              I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

                              Originally posted by The Thinker
                              The more secular and liberal people are, the more they tend to be tolerant of others who are different.
                              I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                                I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
                                Well, I do believe that the growing lack of tolerance is an issue. Unfortunately tolerance is by degrees intolerance on how people treat and consider those who are 'different.'

                                I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.
                                Nuff said? The more apparent is that we are progressively being dominated by a right wing Evangelical agenda which proposes a Theocracy. A close (very conservative) friend and I visit different churches. We visited a church and the sermon very much exemplified the problem of what we would have with a Christian Theocracy with an Evangelical Christian agenda. I most definitely advocate a more secular government advocating a separation of Religion and State.

                                There is a liberal progressive side, most often described in demonizing radical terms by the Conservatives, in American society, and unfortunately an increased polarity of political, social and religious identity and middle ground that is increasingly missing from our society.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-27-2015, 07:58 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                515 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X