[luke warm]

14 year old peace-promoting schoolgirl shot and (maybe) killed: animals

[Cyberyeti]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 09:44, said:

14 year old peace-promoting schoolgirl shot and (maybe) killed: animals

BBC report a couple of hours ago alive and injuries not life threatening. Still disgraceful and stoking up Islamophobia in the west.

[luke warm]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 09:57, said:

BBC report a couple of hours ago alive and injuries not life threatening. Still disgraceful and stoking up Islamophobia in the west.

why do you call it "islamophobia?" people should be afraid of those pieces of crap animals... they have no regard for any view but their own, to the point of sawing off heads and murdering anyone who disagrees with them... they should be put down like the mad dogs they are

and it's not just the taliban... LINK

Quote

Sunday proved to be a very productive day for Muslims. Great strides were taken, and with explosive gusto, to convince the world that Islamists are a peaceful people, or at least would be if we infidels would only submit and stop forcing them to commit acts of mass-slaughter. I weep for their plight.

Four Buddhist temples and 15 homes were peacefully burned in Bangladesh by Muslims. A Buddhist had insulted their religion on Facebook, they claimed. And who would want to do that?

A Sunday school in Kenya was peacefully blown up by a Muslim group, killing one child and critically injuring three.

A peaceful bomb went off near an Islamic boarding school in Nigeria. This was Muslim-on-Muslim violence, so it doesn’t bother me as much as the others. Let them render themselves extinct, I say.

Grenades peacefully exploded at a trade fair in Thailand, injuring 30 people.

A Muslim peacefully car-bombed himself and at least eight others in Syria. I won’t make any rash judgments on this one, though, because as of right now it is still uncertain whether the Muslim did this in the name of Islam, or if this was just his very inept way of collecting car insurance.

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 10:27, said:

why do you call it "islamophobia?" people should be afraid of those pieces of crap animals... they have no regard for any view but their own, to the point of sawing off heads and murdering anyone who disagrees with them... they should be put down like the mad dogs they are

Blind to irony; I weep for humanity.

[luke warm]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-09, 10:38, said:

Blind to irony; I weep for humanity.

in what way was that ironic? ironic is obama's words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 10:40, said:

ironic is obama's words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Quote

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
-- Barack Obama

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 10:40, said:

in what way was that ironic? ironic is obama's words, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

I was trying to find a pithy way of accusing you of having a double standard.

[Cyberyeti]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 10:27, said:

why do you call it "islamophobia?" people should be afraid of those pieces of crap animals... they have no regard for any view but their own, to the point of sawing off heads and murdering anyone who disagrees with them... they should be put down like the mad dogs they are

and it's not just the taliban... LINK

They are to Islam what the guys who shoot doctors for carrying out abortions are to Christianity, a very extreme minority, they just happen to have more of them. Most "western" muslims decry them just as much as the rest of us (for the record I'm not really affiliated to any religion any more and have never had any affiliation to Islam).

If you selectively report you'll also find Hindus killing Muslims in India for example.

http://www.guardian....s-muslim-deaths

Islamophobia in the UK seems to be used more in terms of hatred than fear these days.

Where I struggle with mainstream Islam is the inability to depict/satirise/criticise the prophet, that to me is the hallmark of a cult not a religion.

[dwar0123]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 10:55, said:

Where I struggle with mainstream Islam is the inability to depict/satirise/criticise the prophet, that to me is the hallmark of a cult not a religion.

This is a far more interesting topic then trying to talk to luke wall.

I don't see much difference between Islam's inability to accept criticism than Christians inability to accept criticism during the middle ages through to almost modern times. There are still Christians that would like to execute all blasphemers, they just don't have the weight of law behind them anymore.

On the other hand, I don't see much difference between cults and religions other than religions have more history.

So to sum up, disagree that the inability to accept criticism articulates any difference between a cult and a religion other than the casual relationship between being new and being more defensive; a relationship which can't be applied to Islam.

Personally believe the inability to accept criticism is mostly a method for religious leaders to exert control over the local population by creating a common enemy. Distracting the local population from the actual local problems for which they would be annoyed with the leaders if not for the distracting protests against the west.

P.S. Completely agree with the comparison to those who shoot doctors.

[jonottawa]

Daily Show

I agree with Luke that religious extremists are (generally speaking) worthy of contempt. I think it's always easier to find fault with the religious extremists in other countries than to set an example by speaking out against religious extremists in one's own country.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

He seems to be advocating genocide. I don't agree with him about that. But if a bunch of Christian fundies wish to sign up for a cage deathmatch against a bunch of Muslim fundies, and let their respective gods sort out the winner, I would definitely watch.

[luke warm]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 10:55, said:

They are to Islam what the guys who shoot doctors for carrying out abortions are to Christianity, a very extreme minority, they just happen to have more of them.

"i know you are but what am i"... not quite, since muslim extremists are (or are trying to be) the ruling body in several contries... libya, egypt, syria (to be determined), pakistan, afganistan... christians do rule (supposedly) in the usa, but do not make state-sponsored abortion doctor killings legal (even if they could find any scriptural basis for such a thing, which there isn't)

the pee wee herman defense doesn't quite work here

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 11:40, said:

christians do rule (supposedly) in the usa, but do not make state-sponsored abortion doctor killings legal (even if they could find any scriptural basis for such a thing, which there isn't)

Quoting from the Conservapedia

Quote

In accordance with Levitical law, capital crimes in a Christian Reconstructionist society would include homosexuality, adultery, abortion, blasphemy, disobedience to one’s parents, idolatry and violation of the Sabbath. Rushdoony told Bill Moyers in 1988 that "The Bible identifies 15 crimes against the family worthy of the death penalty. Abortion is treason against the family and deserves the death penalty. Adultery is treason to the family; adulterers should be put to death. Homosexuality is treason to the family, and it too, is worthy of death." [2] This point was confirmed by Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar on an Atlanta Radio show during which the following exchange took place:

Gonzales: If, indeed the Reconstructionist movement ever made it in America, would you advocate these biblical principles being carried out: the execution of the adulterer, the abortionist, and the homosexual? DEMAR: I'm saying that they could be implemented, yes. [3]

http://www.conservap...constructionism

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-October-09, 11:40, said:

"i know you are but what am i"... not quite, since muslim extremists are (or are trying to be) the ruling body in several contries... libya, egypt, syria (to be determined), pakistan, afganistan... christians do rule (supposedly) in the usa, but do not make state-sponsored abortion doctor killings legal (even if they could find any scriptural basis for such a thing, which there isn't)

Having scriptural basis has never been much of a requirement for any religious based atrocity.

I would bet that the Muslim protesters are in violation of local laws just as much as those that slay abortion doctors. The state turning a blind eye and often participating and even egging on the protests is a valid difference, that said, advocating the genocide of 2.1 billion people is not an appropriate response and makes you just as vile, at least in words, as those that we both condemn.

[jonottawa]

I don't think the abortion-doctor killer analogy is particularly apt or useful.

Silencing opposition leaders, either through execution, assassination, torture, censorship, imprisonment, extortion, exile, control of communication channels, etc. is as old as politics. That this opposition leader happens to be a 14 year old girl doesn't change the equation much, though it riles up emotions more, to be sure.

If Luke is positing that it is more immoral to kill a single 14-year old girl than to launch a war of aggression knowing that it would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians (many of them children,) then I disagree.

I'm surprised he's even upset by this. She's an Obama supporter ("she was calling President Obama her ideal leader,") after all.

[Cyberyeti]

jonottawa, on 2012-October-09, 11:59, said:

I don't think the abortion-doctor killer analogy is particularly apt or useful.

Silencing opposition leaders, either through execution, assassination, torture, censorship, imprisonment, extortion, exile, control of communication channels, etc. is as old as politics. That this opposition leader happens to be a 14 year old girl doesn't change the equation much, though it riles up emotions more, to be sure.

If Luke is positing that it is more immoral to kill a single 14-year old girl than to launch a war of aggression knowing that it would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians (many of them children,) then I disagree.

I'm surprised he's even upset by this. She's an Obama supporter ("she was calling President Obama her ideal leader,") after all.

But it's not just opposition leaders in general (although in this case it is) many Afghan girls have been killed simply for going to school.

Quote

I don't see much difference between Islam's inability to accept criticism than Christians inability to accept criticism during the middle ages through to almost modern times. There are still Christians that would like to execute all blasphemers, they just don't have the weight of law behind them anymore.

On the other hand, I don't see much difference between cults and religions other than religions have more history.

So to sum up, disagree that the inability to accept criticism articulates any difference between a cult and a religion other than the casual relationship between being new and being more defensive; a relationship which can't be applied to Islam.

Personally believe the inability to accept criticism is mostly a method for religious leaders to exert control over the local population by creating a common enemy. Distracting the local population from the actual local problems for which they would be annoyed with the leaders if not for the distracting protests against the west.

The rest of the world has moved on, Islam is not in a vacuum and bits of it have not moved on with the rest of the world. The cult analogy is as much to do with people like Ayatollah Khomeini who also could not be criticised, and because he died the fatwa on Salman Rushdie cannot be revoked as only he is fit to revoke it. Lost in the middle ages, but what gets lost is that much of Islam isn't.

Another sign of a cult rather than a religion to me is the inability to leave. Apostasy is punishable by death in some Islamic countries by either religious or state law or both, I also have a similar problem with the way Scientology treats some of the people that try to leave them.

[dwar0123]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 12:22, said:

The rest of the world has moved on

The rest of the world moving on doesn't retroactively make the Christian theology a cult throughout all of its history.

Quote

Another sign of a cult rather than a religion to me is the inability to leave. Apostasy is punishable by death in some Islamic countries by either religious or state law or both, I also have a similar problem with the way Scientology treats some of the people that try to leave them.

I think all religions are essentially a cult of personality, the only difference is that in religions the personality is dead and historical. Of course, as cult is used to distinguish something apart from religion, the only useful distinguishing characteristic in my mind is time. Thus scientology is a cult bordering on being a religion(the founder is dead and we are not long from anyone the founder knew personally also being dead) and Islam is a full on religion with a long history.

Using apostasy and blasphemy to distinguish between cults and religion is a misuse of the word cult.

[Cyberyeti]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-09, 12:39, said:

The rest of the world moving on doesn't retroactively make the Christian theology a cult throughout all of its history.

A misunderstanding of what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that it's a cult if it has those rules NOW. In the past you have to judge religions by the standards of the world of the time.

Quote

I think all religions are essentially a cult of personality, the only difference is that in religions the personality is dead and historical. Of course, as cult is used to distinguish something apart from religion, the only useful distinguishing characteristic in my mind is time. Thus scientology is a cult bordering on being a religion(the founder is dead and we are not long from anyone the founder knew personally also being dead) and Islam is a full on religion with a long history.

Using apostasy and blasphemy to distinguish between cults and religion is a misuse of the word cult.

Even by your definition, parts of Islam are close to being cults, look at people like Ayatollah Khomeini who were viewed as infallible, and several sects have had their own recent similar figures.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 12:55, said:

Even by your definition, parts of Islam are close to being cults, look at people like Ayatollah Khomeini who were viewed as infallible, and several sects have had their own recent similar figures.

Why limit this to people.

This morning I was listening to a rather interesting discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation regarding evangelicals and evolution. The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was trying to defend Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden, talking snakes, and all that...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-09, 11:50, said:

Quoting from the Conservapedia

http://www.conservap...constructionism

we were speaking of christians though, right?

dwar0123, on 2012-October-09, 11:56, said:

... that said, advocating the genocide of 2.1 billion people is not an appropriate response and makes you just as vile, at least in words, as those that we both condemn.

who said anything like that? certainly not me

[dwar0123]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-09, 12:55, said:

Even by your definition, parts of Islam are close to being cults, look at people like Ayatollah Khomeini who were viewed as infallible, and several sects have had their own recent similar figures.

No, that is by your definition. My only definition is related to time. Islam is not new in this context(as opposed to the context being the age of the Universe)

I am utterly indifferent to the degree of the cult of personality; as all religions are essentially a cult of personality. However, using the word cult in this sense lacks an objective distinguishing feature from religion and would thus be at best a loaded subjective insult and hence fairly pointless.