Violence was here long before religion just look at this chart of Human History; I like to think its pretty accurate
Printable View
Violence was here long before religion just look at this chart of Human History; I like to think its pretty accurate
Funnily enough I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book "Nemesis" on the battle for Japan during WWII. The similarities between the Japanese and Islamists right throughout history are striking. We (mainly the Americans) kicked the living shit out of the Japanese, because that's what it took to end that conflict on top. Same with the many battles with Islamic forces throughout history, and there have been plenty of those by the way. The American forces used flamethrowers in the Pacific theatre, the Knights of St. John built great fiery hoops and threw them on top of advancing Janissaries - using that kind of weapon is what it took to prevail against a fanatical, murderous, absolutely ruthless enemy. Malta in 1565 - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way?Quote:
Originally Posted by smart
Niccolo, what have I said that is illegal? Nothing at all actually. I have not made any threats or advocated violence or anything at all. I expressed personal opinions that are within the boundaries of the USA 1rst Amendment; have I not? Just because a viewpoint is contrary to yours, does not mean it is true, false or anything in between. Furthermore, a person is not antisemitic if they take issue with political agendas of colonial imperialism etc... Being antisemitic is an inherently racist concept, not political. I am not racist and believe all men are created equal, regardless of class, creed or race. Political opinion is a completely different beast. Geesh
[quote="trish"]TS Curious writes:
Quote:
I've met many non-religious people that did something immoral to--more or less--prove the point that God doesn't exist…My point is just that it goes both ways.
Religion doesn't readily "justify" any of those things. Many religions "speak" about those things but it's the one who interprets the teachings that attempts to justify it, which frankly, is bullshit. My problem with religion is congregation and community. An individual is intelligent. A collective are sheep. My interpretation of certain parables and stories are far different than someone else's of the same or different beliefs. When you have someone teaching a lesson based on something he or she concluded and that conclusion leads to the spread of hate and discontent, I don't think it's fair to say "oh, it's the religion's fault". Religion actually justifying these things and someone hiding behind some interpretation are often completely different things, which is why it's important for the individual, not the collective, to interpret. At least, that is what I believe. For example, there was a series on Showtime a few years ago, "Sleeper Cell". One of the most fascinating aspects about it was the massive dichotomy between how the main character interpreted the book of Qur'an and how the main antagonist interpreted it. The entire show centered on these two interpretations, one which taught intolerance, torture and vengeance, the other which taught tolerance, compassion and faith. It may've been a tv show, but the realism based on conversations I've had with people of the Islamic faith was truly astounding.Quote:
My point is that religion justifies immorality far more often. It inhibits people, forces them into molds, isolates, justifies cruelty, torture, expansionism, wars and even justifies the destruction of planet as some joyously await the “end times”.
And one definition of faith (not MY definition, but the actual definition I apply to my own life) is confidence. A synonym for confidence is trust. Several of these words can often, but not always, be interchanged based on how we define them. I could be wrong, but I'm gathering from this and the following statements as you defining faith strictly as a religious belief, in which case, absolutely, faith is untestable. But faith, as defined by confidence, as defined by trust, IS testable. I still believe and will always believe compassion and tolerance should overshadow everything, including religion. It's just not often taught, again, in congregation.Quote:
First of all, that last is not an example of critical thinking and openly verifiable testing. Secondly, what you’re talking about here is trust, not faith.
You're lumping everyone into the exact same category of apparently being "intolerant" since, as you put, religion teaches said intolerance. I'm religious (more spiritual than subscribing to a specific religion but you get the point). By your definition, I should absolutely loathe someone who is not me because...well...he or she is not me. Not even close. Not even a little bit.Quote:
Utter nonsense. Religions teach one to follow the rules, in spite of the consequences. Faith is belief in spite of reason. Religion is the bane of civilization because it is the very expression of intolerance. How can one, for example, celebrate a god who flooded the entire Earth and saved only one family as a god of compassion? How can one, for example, claim that a God who wiped out a city of sodomites (their children and families included) is a God of tolerance? How can we say such a religion teaches love?
I'm not sure what religion you speak of that tells you to "follow the rules, don't worry about the consequences", but I assure you that's not mine. At least, that is not what I subscribe to. I follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. The same reason a non-religious person should follow the rules. Because it's the right thing to do. Not because one is told to. But what I gather from your posts is, religion and therefore, religious people are generally bad. I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. I don't like very many religious people because (and this is where I do agree with you), they "can" be intolerant. Exceptionally. And I'm not attempting to say I'm better than anyone else, because I know I'm not, but I know not all religious people are intolerant people. For example, my pastor once commented about children out of wedlock, saying "whenever you look at that child, you'll always see that mistake". As you can imagine, that pissed quite a few of us "out-of-wedlock children" off. But I just went through the whole interpretation bit, there's no need for me to interpret it.
You believe in good and bad. I believe in good until it's bad, the only difference being, you choose to be realistic and I choose to be optimistic. Neither approach is necessarily right 100% of the time, and quite frankly, somedays I wish to be more realistic than optimistic, but that's just not who I am. Call me naive, call me whatever. Maybe I am. But is that not "intolerance"? I'm not talking about you specifically, I am speaking in general. Growing up a young black male, I'm not new to the bullshit, but I don't sit around crying about how unfair it is either. It is what it is. My "faith" is that, if I continue to do what I believe I was meant to do, I will change someone's opinion about young black males (which I've thankfully done on a couple of occasions). I'm not out to change the world, but I want my future children and future nieces and nephews to grow up in a far less "black and white" world. Those who subscribe to testable science and realism believe that's not possible because humans are infinitely flawed as evidenced by numerous examples throughout our history. Those who subscribe to testable faith and optimism believe it is possible as evidenced by numerous examples throughout our history. Again, neither approach is right 100% of the time, but I don't fault someone for choosing one or the other.
That has absolutely nothing to do with me being religious. It has everything to do with me doing what I feel is right for me, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I'd "hope" more people would do the same, and I "trust" many people will. Not everyone, but at least some. That is the faith I choose to subscribe and if these things make me "bad" for being religious, then hey...so be it. I'm comfortable being the "religious person whom doesn't believe in 'religion'".
So is our legal system. And it doesn't seem to matter whether one is religious or not, we all know how our justice system all-too-often works out.Quote:
No, there is no room for anyone to question the tenants of religion. It’s too fucking dangerous. Religion tolerates no tolerance. And so one religion battles another and the work of the gods is done by man.
We'll likely never see eye-to-eye on everything and that's fine, and this may sound a bit disingenuous because you don't know me. But I do sincerely appreciate you sharing your point of view. No, I'm not kissing your rear nor am I trying to sound cynical, it's just given me some things to think about and reflect on.
I apologize. I realize I jumped around a lot so I may've not addressed certain things at the correct points, but I'm multitasking and apparently not very good at it...
most people who attack Israel don't even have the courage to admit
that they *are* anti-semites
they sleazily pretend to make nice distinctions
but what does all this chatter matter
the reality is that the IDF continues to *destroy* Hamas
good
praetor you piece of filthy brazilian shit, I hope you catch HIV and die slow painful death. To all the fags on this forum who are supporting the muslims. Keep in mind that under shariah law, you'd be killed.
I'm latino and non-jewish but, I will always support Israel, LONG LIVE ZION. Self-defense is never a crime. :evil: BURN GAZA TO THE GRAOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some of my best friends are Jewish... I am not antisemitic! However, my claim that Israeli weaponry and violence is excessive, is becoming more and more clear into view and is substantiated by Gazan casualties. It is over 1000 now and many are kids, babies, women and common civilians. This is not right, is it?
Furthermore, just because I denounce the violence that is being implemented by Israel does not mean I support Hamas, I don't!
El Nino,
It was mainly what the other poster said that ticked me off. Can I suggest though, that you go to the CFCA website and read their working definition of antisemitism, then use the link on their site to read the words of our old friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the subject of Israel, then come back and read through this thread again.
See any similarities? My own opinion is that some of the things that have been said here are just a little too close to Ahmadinejad's thoughts on Israel for comfort.
And I don't know about you, but I think it's quite alarming when comments on a transexual porno website can be legitimately be compared to the ravings of the President of Iran!
Yeah those cartoons of his are appalling. He's the stupid bastard who showed a video of Hamas gunmen blowing up a lorryload of explosives in the middle of a bunch of kids, and touted it around as being something the Israelis did.Quote:
Originally Posted by casca82
As to your second point - it made me think of something Bruce Bawer once wrote:
"The main reason I'd been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn't issue fatwas. James Dobson's parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn't telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn't close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn't fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamantalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death. [...]
The situation was alarming. The very things I most loved about the Netherlands - and about Europe - were the things most threatened by the rise of fundamentalist Islam. Yet the Dutch did nothing. Why did they refuse to deal with something that obviously endangered their freedom? Didn't they see what I did? Didn't they notice the look of rage in the eyes of many Muslim men at the sight of that ultimate spectacle of dishonor - a Dutch woman bicycling to work? Or did they assume that such men, simply by inhaling the damp Dutch air, would somehow magically become open-minded and secular?" (Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept, Broadway, pp. 33-34.)