New Book--"The End of Faith"

[Comrade-Z]

C-Span just had this guy named Sam Harris on Book TV. He was talking about his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason." This books sounds very promising. In short, this book argues that religion and superstition of all sorts needs to be actively confronted, questioned, and attacked as ignorant dumbass shit with no supporting evidence or basis in reality. The book criticizes the climate of discourse in our society today where we are admonished to "respect others beliefs," no matter how illogical those beliefs are. The author went on a great deal in his presentation about how in all other areas of thought people expect evidence, whereas religious beliefs get a "free pass." He argues that religious beliefs should be subject to the same criticism that other claims to knowledge are. "Tolerating" illogical assertions and treating all superstitions as equally "legitimate," is a huge roadblock to a truly modern approach to the world, he argues. These assertions need to be questioned and, if no evidence for them can be found, actively repudiated.

The author also specifically slams religious moderation, saying that it is not sufficient and leaves the (illogical) core premises standing. In his words, "...it offers no bulwark against religious extremism." In fact, religious moderation is even more intellectually dishonest, as it goes against both rationality and theological dogma. Indeed, the author went into many examples of how Christianity and Islam demand that adherents kill unbelievers, endorse slavery, stone people to death, etc., and he rightfully attacked these religions as barbaric to the core.

In the C-Span presentation he brought up the question of why people operating from illogical mindsets are even respect and even placed into positions of power in our society. He asked, what would happen if a senator gave a speech on the senate floor about how our country needed to appease Poseidon because the country suffered two hurricanes this year and obviously Poseidon is very angry with us? That would be the end of his political career, no doubt. But then the same senator says that homosexuality isn't okay because an undetectable being says so, and the senator is praised for it! What's going on here? Both assertions are equally illogical. This is what he argued.

It is very interesting to hear this kind of stuff coming from a bourgeois intellectual (that's what he seems to be, from what I can tell). For a second I thought I was listening to redstar. I mean, this guy just pounded religion into the dust. The only weak point in his thinking is that he seems to assert that there can be an evidence-based "spirituality" or "awareness of one's consciousness" through meditation and empirically studying the human brain and how it functions. He's either being sloppy with his use of terminology and using a different definition of "spirituality," or he's rather confused on this point. I don't think he's doing it in order to be soft on religion, though. Otherwise, this guy is downright intransigent to superstition. Maybe people are starting to get fed up with the religiosity of our society? Maybe things are starting to come around?

The website for the book is:
http://www.samharris.org/index.php

An excerpt can be found at:
http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharr...xt/chapter-one/ (http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/full-text/chapter-one/)

Interview with author about meditation (sounds dubious):
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/...rris_part_1.php (http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/interview_with_sam_harris_part_1.php)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Sam Harris
He asked, what would happen if a senator gave a speech on the senate floor about how our country needed to appease Poseidon because the country suffered two hurricanes this year and obviously Poseidon is very angry with us?

I think we need to sacrifice a virgin to Poseidon at once! :lol:

Seriously, sounds like "my kind of guy"...so I just ordered the book. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Snitza]

I've read a couple chapters of The End of Faith; my dad was reading it about a year ago and was absolutely captivated(he's a non-practicing Jew). He was the one who actually insisted that I read it! :D

[Publius]

C-Span just had this guy named Sam Harris on Book TV. He was talking about his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason." This books sounds very promising. In short, this book argues that religion and superstition of all sorts needs to be actively confronted, questioned, and attacked as ignorant dumbass shit with no supporting evidence or basis in reality. The book criticizes the climate of discourse in our society today where we are admonished to "respect others beliefs," no matter how illogical those beliefs are. The author went on a great deal in his presentation about how in all other areas of thought people expect evidence, whereas religious beliefs get a "free pass." He argues that religious beliefs should be subject to the same criticism that other claims to knowledge are. "Tolerating" illogical assertions and treating all superstitions as equally "legitimate," is a huge roadblock to a truly modern approach to the world, he argues. These assertions need to be questioned and, if no evidence for them can be found, actively repudiated.


I've seen him twice in C-SPAN and been impressed both times.

He was actually on last night.


It is very interesting to hear this kind of stuff coming from a bourgeois intellectual (that's what he seems to be, from what I can tell). For a second I thought I was listening to redstar. I mean, this guy just pounded religion into the dust. The only weak point in his thinking is that he seems to assert that there can be an evidence-based "spirituality" or "awareness of one's consciousness" through meditation and empirically studying the human brain and how it functions. He's either being sloppy with his use of terminology and using a different definition of "spirituality," or he's rather confused on this point. I don't think he's doing it in order to be soft on religion, though. Otherwise, this guy is downright intransigent to superstition. Maybe people are starting to get fed up with the religiosity of our society? Maybe things are starting to come around?

This is the part I saw last night.

I found it interesting.

I don't think he's 'spiritual' at all, he was merely talking about perception and meditation and using that as spirituality is used today.

Or at least thats how I took it.

He was saying we can use meditation, as we use religion, to alter our perception to better fit our wants.

[Publius]

I just read that he's completing a doctorate in nueroscience, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about when it comes to meditation.

[redstar2000]

I've been suckered. :(

Yeah, I paid $15 (including shipping) to Amazon.com for this book...really expecting something good.

It starts out strong...but the further you get into at, the worse it becomes.

By the time your half-way into it, he's pounding away about Islamic superstition being "really worse than all the others".

You see, a "suicide bomber" is a "really evil guy" while an American Air Force bomber pilot is just "defending civilization".

And then it gets even worse...with a lot of Buddhist babble.

His message to atheists is to "volunteer for the War Against Terrorism"...a concept as idiotically superstitious as anything found in the "holy books".

And then we should "get in touch" with our "spirituality"...which, he asserts, "really exists".

Perhaps I'm being my usual cynical self...but is it "only in America" that a book purporting to attack superstition can be published that actually reeks of superstition itself??? :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Publius]

I've been suckered. :(

Yeah, I paid $15 (including shipping) to Amazon.com for this book...really expecting something good.

It starts out strong...but the further you get into at, the worse it becomes.

By the time your half-way into it, he's pounding away about Islamic superstition being "really worse than all the others".

Hmm.

I would say this is a valid conclusion, at least now.

Worse in principal? No. Worse in reality? Yes.

The fact is, Islam is more repressive and reactionary than any other other religion at the moment.

I would say that makes it worse.

The Christian extremists in this country are not bent on stoning adulterers to death, realize that.

They may be insane, but they're not violent in the way the Islamists are. Could they be? Yes. Are they? No.



You see, a "suicide bomber" is a "really evil guy" while an American Air Force bomber pilot is just "defending civilization".

I would again say that this is a valid point.

There is an important moral distinction between the two, espescially in regard to intents.



And then it gets even worse...with a lot of Buddhist babble.

His message to atheists is to "volunteer for the War Against Terrorism"...a concept as idiotically superstitious as anything found in the "holy books".

Alright, that sounds like shit to me.

Buddhism is pointless, from what I've gathered, and the War on Terror...yeah.



And then we should "get in touch" with our "spirituality"...which, he asserts, "really exists".

Hmm.

Disapointing.

Without having read the book, I don't know his exact stand, but any appeal to 'spirituality' puts me off guard.




Perhaps I'm being my usual cynical self...but is it "only in America" that a book purporting to attack superstition can be published that actually reeks of superstition itself??? :angry:


Maybe it's a sign of the times. People will only disbelieve in God if they can in turn believe in something else like 'spirituality'.

Thank God I'm not so deluded.

[Comrade-Z]

I've been suckered.

Yeah, I paid $15 (including shipping) to Amazon.com for this book...really expecting something good.

It starts out strong...but the further you get into at, the worse it becomes.

Well, that sucks. So he advises atheists to place themselves under the command of the very same superstitious freaks that he purports to condemn? What the hell? Isn't that a bit like saying, "Nazis are crazy people with terrible ideas and horrible, barbaric plans for action. So sign up at your local Hitler Youth office today!"

Doesn't he realize that joining the military and accepting unquestioning military conformity, servility, obedience, and discipline is tantamount to inflicting a pre-frontal lobotomy on one's self? How could reason and free thinking possibly flourish from such an endeavor?

I guess I should have known that, if this guy was being featured on C-Span, then whatever he had to offer must have not been too terribly threatening to the prevailing social order.

And I still don't see how one can square meditation with "spirituality." Approaching meditation from a purely materialist perspective is fine. If it has material (or even ill-understood psychological) benefits, then fine. But claiming that one can tap into some "spiritual awareness"? It seems this guy is not being consistent.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
There is an important moral distinction between the two, especially in regard to intent.

That's exactly what Harris argues.

The "suicide bomber" intends to kill innocent people while the U.S. Air Force bomber "regrets" that innocent people must die as a consequence of his "noble mission".

This slides past the fact that the "suicide bomber" is also carrying out a "noble mission"...at least in the recesses of his own twisted mind-set.

Random slaughter in the name of "Allah" is "just as noble" as random slaughter in the name of anything else.

No one but a pacifist would object to killing in self-defense. But you actually have to kill the people who are attacking you. You can't just "open fire at random" on the rumor that one of your enemies might possibly be in the vicinity or was there a few weeks ago or...whatever.

Harris, in fact, endorses torture of anyone suspected of "terrorism"...and this after a number of pages devoted to the consequences of torture in the "War on Witchcraft". (!)

Everyone who was tortured did confess to "witchcraft". Everyone who is now tortured by the U.S. Government will confess to "terrorism".

Net reliable data gained: zip!

Net psychological effect on those who torture: barbarization!

Harris attempts to argue the case that Islam would be opposed to "our civilization" even if the U.S. had never involved itself in Middle Eastern affairs.

That's true in a philosophical sense; Islam is flatly opposed to every advance in human thought since c.1400. They are perfectly equivalent to medieval Christians.

But had we refrained from poking our snout into their affairs, would they take the trouble to "suicide bomb" us?

As matters stand now, they "think" that "martyrdom" is their only weapon...and more and more of them are likely to take it up since they "know" that the Americans are going to "kill them all" anyway.

Harris curiously overlooks the one thing that would really demoralize Islam. Occupy Mecca for a few days and have one of those heavy helicopters lift up the "holy meteorite" and drop it to the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

Like demolishing Vatican City...imagine the effect on Catholics!

A "God" that can't protect "its holiest places" is clearly a "God" that's "on its way out".

But the idea never occurred to him; he was too busy with the "probable necessity" of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on any Muslim country that developed nuclear weapons.

Won't that make us a whole bunch of "new friends"! :o


The Christian extremists in this country are not bent on stoning adulterers to death, realize that.

Well, they have bombed some women's clinics and murdered some doctors who performed abortions.

And, as Harris correctly points out, the whole "War on Drugs" is a Christian war against "sinful pleasure".

I wouldn't rule out anything they might do or try to do in the coming decades.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)There is an important moral distinction between the two, especially in regard to intent.[/b]

And you're granting the U.S. the higher moral ground about "intention" in the country that has the largest inventory of nuclear weapons in the world, and the only country that used them on civilian targets, and intentionally on civilian targets?

What of Curtis Lemays carefully orchestrated fire raids conducted in the Spring of 1945. In Tokyo, in one night alone, they afflicted 110,000 casualties, cremated civilians intentionally, they built burn zones out in Utah to figure out the best way to ignite wood and paper cities. That was deliberate, intentional, this was a matter of policy. Probably half a million Japanese were burned alive in the process of sending the message that "what we say goes."

And I guess the U.S. Air Force bomber did not "intend" to deliberately clear entire provinces of the population of the Philippines by virtue of liquidating them (orders signed by American leadership to kille very single male over 10 years of age) during the American "liberation" of the Philippines from the Spanish empire.

Seriously, are you a bloody idiot?


Originally posted by [email protected]
The fact is, Islam is more repressive and reactionary than any other other religion at the moment.

Whether that's true or not, it is still objectively progressive.

Islam has been liberalizing the political systems of the Muslim world for years, even if that's not its intention.

Islamists advocate values such as democracy and human rights (probably because they are the main victims of the absence of these values).

If they preach long enough on democracy and human rights, it's bound to rub off.

Iran with 20+ years of Islamism is moving toward liberalization.

Iran is a lot more open today than under the Shah.


redstar2000
Won't that make is a whole bunch of "new friends"!

And some Western power occupying Mecca and destroying their sacred religious symbols will? :blink:

I will ask you the same question I asked Publius: Are you an idiot?

I think it would be significant for you to note that the Saudi Islamist movement started with the Mecca mosque takeover in 1979. Before that, Saudi Arabia never really had a "serious" Islamist movement in the 1970s.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Free Palestine
And some Western power occupying Mecca and destroying their sacred religious symbols will?

It will make different kinds of enemies.

At present, many Muslims conclude that the Americans really do intend to "kill them all". By dying for "Allah" (suicide bombing), they are only accelerating what is "going to happen anyway".

And "martyrdom" gets you a "free pass" into "paradise"...no "judgment" involved.

Harris' pre-emptive nuclear strike would create, at a single stroke, millions of "suicide bombers" throughout the Muslim world.

The disposal of the "holy meteorite" would make a lot of Muslims really pissed off. But it would, at the same time, cast enormous DOUBT on the "truth" of Islam itself.

Prompting the inevitable question: suppose I achieve martyrdom and get nothing but dead?

Who wants to die for a "god" that can't "defend itself"? :lol:

Just as I hope one of the first acts of the proletarian revolution in Italy is to burn the Vatican to the ground! It might turn out to be a death blow to the Catholic superstition.


Islam has been liberalizing the political systems of the Muslim world for years, even if that's not its intention.

Islamists advocate values such as democracy and human rights (probably because they are the main victims of the absence of these values).

If they preach long enough on democracy and human rights, it's bound to rub off.

Iran with 20+ years of Islamism is moving toward liberalization.

Iran is a lot more open today than under the Shah.

Here I think you are just fantasizing.

IRAN EXECUTES 2 GAY TEENAGERS (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html)

IRAN AND THE DEATH OF GAY ACTIVISM (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/iran_and_the_de.html)

'THEY'LL KILL ME' -- A GAY IRANIAN TORTURE VICTIM SPEAKS (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html)

IRAN POLICE IN FASHION CRACKDOWN (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/3887311.stm)

Iran was a shithole under the Shah...and it still is!

Compared to the mullahs, Saddam Hussein was a champion of human liberty!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Publius]

That's exactly what Harris argues.

The "suicide bomber" intends to kill innocent people while the U.S. Air Force bomber "regrets" that innocent people must die as a consequence of his "noble mission".

This slides past the fact that the "suicide bomber" is also carrying out a "noble mission"...at least in the recesses of his own twisted mind-set.

Random slaughter in the name of "Allah" is "just as noble" as random slaughter in the name of anything else.

No one but a pacifist would object to killing in self-defense. But you actually have to kill the people who are attacking you. You can't just "open fire at random" on the rumor that one of your enemies might possibly be in the vicinity or was there a few weeks ago or...whatever.

Harris, in fact, endorses torture of anyone suspected of "terrorism"...and this after a number of pages devoted to the consequences of torture in the "War on Witchcraft". (!)

Everyone who was tortured did confess to "witchcraft". Everyone who is now tortured by the U.S. Government will confess to "terrorism".

Net reliable data gained: zip!

Net psychological effect on those who torture: barbarization!

Harris attempts to argue the case that Islam would be opposed to "our civilization" even if the U.S. had never involved itself in Middle Eastern affairs.

That's true in a philosophical sense; Islam is flatly opposed to every advance in human thought since c.1400. They are perfectly equivalent to medieval Christians.

But had we refrained from poking our snout into their affairs, would they take the trouble to "suicide bomb" us?

As matters stand now, they "think" that "martyrdom" is their only weapon...and more and more of them are likely to take it up since they "know" that the Americans are going to "kill them all" anyway.

Harris curiously overlooks the one thing that would really demoralize Islam. Occupy Mecca for a few days and have one of those heavy helicopters lift up the "holy meteorite" and drop it to the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

Like demolishing Vatican City...imagine the effect on Catholics!

A "God" that can't protect "its holiest places" is clearly a "God" that's "on its way out".

But the idea never occurred to him; he was too busy with the "probable necessity" of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on any Muslim country that developed nuclear weapons.

Won't that make us a whole bunch of "new friends"! :o

Quite a roving 'point', but I'll take it as-is.

Do you really not make a distinction between an American 'bomber' and a suicide bomber?

I do.

I sort of see your point, but I disagree.

Intent matters.



Well, they have bombed some women's clinics and murdered some doctors who performed abortions.

Drop in the bucket compared to what goes in in the Muslim World EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Imagine Islamic extremists in power in this country.

It would Pol Pot's Camodia look pleasant; they would kill everyone.



And, as Harris correctly points out, the whole "War on Drugs" is a Christian war against "sinful pleasure".

I wouldn't rule out anything they might do or try to do in the coming decades.

Well, than I think your ire is misplaced. Islam is the enemy, for now.

[Publius]

And you're granting the U.S. the higher moral ground about "intention" in the country that has the largest inventory of nuclear weapons in the world, and the only country that used them on civilian targets, and intentionally on civilian targets?

Imagine what an Islamist would do given that stock of nuclear weapons. New York. Gone. Washington. Gone. Paris. Gone.

If they had these weapons, they would use them NOW, to kill every Westerner they could.

I hope they kill you first.

Japan started it. You have no point until you ackowledge the crimes the Japanese commited on the Chinese and others.

None at all.




What of Curtis Lemays carefully orchestrated fire raids conducted in the Spring of 1945. In Tokyo, in one night alone, they afflicted 110,000 casualties, cremated civilians intentionally, they built burn zones out in Utah to figure out the best way to ignite wood and paper cities. That was deliberate, intentional, this was a matter of policy. Probably half a million Japanese were burned alive in the process of sending the message that "what we say goes."


Hahahahahaha.

"What we say goes" as in "Don't start wars of agression and skewere Chinese infants on your bayonets"?

Do you realize how brutal the Japanese were? Do you realize what they would have done, given the chance?

They started it. They started the entire fucking mess. Look what they did to China, to Korea.

And you stick up for them.

Disgusting.



And I guess the U.S. Air Force bomber did not "intend" to deliberately clear entire provinces of the population of the Philippines by virtue of liquidating them (orders signed by American leadership to kille very single male over 10 years of age) during the American "liberation" of the Philippines from the Spanish empire.


And this has what to do with price of tea in China?

Nothing.



Seriously, are you a bloody idiot?

No, but you most certainly are.



Whether that's true or not, it is still objectively progressive.

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously.

What the fuck?



Islam has been liberalizing the political systems of the Muslim world for years, even if that's not its intention.

?







Islamists advocate values such as democracy and human rights (probably because they are the main victims of the absence of these values).

If they preach long enough on democracy and human rights, it's bound to rub off.


Victims? They're purveyors.



Iran with 20+ years of Islamism is moving toward liberalization.

Iran is a lot more open today than under the Shah.

No it isn't.

The Shah was Westernizer.

I seriously don't think you know anything about anything.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Do you really not make a distinction between an American 'bomber' and a suicide bomber?

On what grounds?

The "suicide bomber" kills people who, in his view, are "going to Hell" anyway. They're infidels, right?

The American bomber crew kills people who are "going to grow up to be suicide-bombers" and die anyway.

Free Palestine's point about gratuitous mass murder "from the air" is obviously well-taken. Airborne terrorism against entire cities is still terrorism...and, in fact, had a marginal effect on the outcome of the war in both the European and Pacific theaters.

It wasn't necessary to win the war...and, if anything, extended the length of the war in both theaters because it diverted resources from attacks on military targets.

If the "War on Terrorism" is fought as if it were a conventional war, then it must be lost. No matter how many military bases and "Green Zones" the U.S. builds in the Muslim world, no westerner will be safe there as soon as he or she steps into the open.

And less and less oil will be pumped and shipped. :o

The rational response to 9/11 would have been to close the borders to people from Muslim countries and deport as promptly as possible all those who were here. Simple enough, eh?

But, as I've had occasion to note, our ruling class is increasingly unable to act rationally...even in its own class interests. This is certainly due, at least in part, to the baleful influence of Christian superstition in "higher circles".

The occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is not only going to cause unending American casualties but is also going to cost so much money that the U.S. will increasingly suffer in competition with China, the EU, Japan, etc.


Islam is the enemy, for now.

Well, if that's your view, then are you prepared to occupy the entire Muslim world -- with a population of around one billion people -- in order to wipe it out?

Rather impractical, is it not?

The American ruling class seems to think that it can locate and keep in power "domesticated Muslims"...that is, Muslim elites who will enforce their medieval standards on their own populations but will tamely do our bidding when it comes to anything affecting our own interests.

A recipe for endless wars and occupations!


The Shah was [a] Westernizer.

Not really. If anything, he was a "Persian-izer". He seemed to see himself and his dynasty as heirs to the Persia of Cyrus "the Great" or something like that.

He did import a good deal of western technology but the beneficiaries of his regime were very small in number. His secret police were certainly just as brutal as the Gestapo...but not nearly as efficient.

It was horrible there then. It's horrible there now. If the U.S. manages somehow to install a quisling regime in the future, it will be even more horrible there.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

More evidence for what a shithole Iran is now...

Tehran bus strikers violently attacked; hundreds arrested (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/64010.html)

In the next revolution there, the first step should be to hang all the fucking mullahs and imams!

No exceptions! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[leftist resistance]

The rational response to 9/11 would have been to close the borders to people from Muslim countries and deport as promptly as possible all those who were here.

people from muslim countries does not=terrorists.unless you're being discriminating here.were the german jews in the 40s nazis?
anyway,i can assure you that most muslims think the terrorists are just crazy people :wacko:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:42 AM

The rational response to 9/11 would have been to close the borders to people from Muslim countries and deport as promptly as possible all those who were here.

people from muslim countries does not=terrorists.unless you're being discriminating here.were the german jews in the 40s nazis?
anyway,i can assure you that most muslims think the terrorists are just crazy people :wacko:
I was looking at the matter "through the eyes" of a "rational" American ruling class.

"Closing the borders" to people from Muslim countries would have been far more rational than two invasions/occupations and counting.

A rational ruling class acts in its own class interests...it doesn't go out of its way to "borrow trouble".

When a class society becomes decadent, then its ruling class becomes increasingly unable to act rationally. Their "understanding" of the world becomes increasingly disconnected from reality.

People in the Bush regime actually believed that Iraqis would welcome American troops with the same kind of enthusiasm that Parisians welcomed American troops in 1944!

In the book, Harris actually does believe that...

Muslim = potential terrorist.

Because the Qu'ran "is" the literal word of "Allah"...and it says flatly that "martyrdom" -- getting killed while fighting "infidels" -- "is" a "free ticket" into "paradise".

That is, ordinary Muslims are "judged" for their "sins"...but a "martyr" is "automatically admitted" no matter what else he (or she) might have done.

It's theologically "possible" to be a pious Muslim -- one who avoids "sin" -- and get into "paradise" without ever even saying a harsh word to an "infidel" much less killing one.

But "martyrdom" gets you on the "A List" of "paradise"...you are especially favored by "Allah". The implication is that you get the best-looking girls, the best grapes, the sweetest water, the best of whatever "paradise" has to offer.

Like the "penthouse suite" in a five-star hotel. :lol:

Harris thinks this is an "irresistible temptation" to people who live as wretchedly as people do in the Muslim world; while at the same time, noting that it is the Muslim petty-bourgeoisie who are the most likely to seek "martyrdom".

That is, it's the Muslims who have the most contact with modern civilized ideas who react the most violently against them.

A bad sign. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Free Palestine]

Well Mr. Publius, I most certainly took the time to read your response, since you took the time to write. Only fair isn't it?

And since you completely steamrolled and ignored the entire basis of my post (regarding moral differences in intent), I'm going to steamroll and ignore all of yours.

Only fair. Isn't it?

[Publius]

Well Mr. Publius, I most certainly took the time to read your response, since you took the time to write. Only fair isn't it?

And since you completely steamrolled and ignored the entire basis of my post (regarding moral differences in intent), I'm going to steamroll and ignore all of yours.

Only fair. Isn't it?

Be my guest.

I've never been impressed with anything you've posted.

[Free Palestine]

You're quite the gas bag, aren't you? I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of my posts, chief. Similarly so with me regarding the quality of your posts, but I don't judge it necessary to remind you of that.

[Publius]

You're quite the gas bag, aren't you?

I prefer 'savant', but whatever.



I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of my posts, chief.

So then why respond to my post and then chastise me because my response didn't 'live up to your expectations'?




but I don't judge it necessary to remind you of that.

But of course, in your preceding clause, you did remind of that.

[Comrade J]

For people in the UK (and some European countries) you might want to purchase the book here, from play.com

http://play.com/play247.asp?pa=search&sear...&Go.x=43&Go.y=8 (http://play.com/play247.asp?pa=search&searchtype=bookall&searchstring=end+of+faith&page=search&Go.x=43&Go.y=8)

It's much cheaper than other sites and delivery is free. The book is £5.99 from there, and I have used this site numerous times.

[leftist resistance]

I was looking at the matter "through the eyes" of a "rational" American ruling class

Ok.point taken.


That is, it's the Muslims who have the most contact with modern civilized ideas who react the most violently against them.


I disagree.It's actually caused by shitty influences.this is either caused by the works of some brainless "religious leaders" who spread hatred or because of religious fascism(also linked to former).These are what influenced them to be violent.most Muslims are progressive in nature except for these few who see how very "pious" they are over everyone else.


Because the Qu'ran "is" the literal word of "Allah"...and it says flatly that "martyrdom" -- getting killed while fighting "infidels" -- "is" a "free ticket" into "paradise".


It also state that killing innocents=go to hell.and by definition of struggle/jihad is in self-defence against an act of aggression.never in aggression
But twisted people like mr terrorist and friends have tried to justify their actions by saying shit and stuff so that they have the self-impression they'll go to heaven

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by .....
Most Muslims are progressive in nature except for these few who see how very "pious" they are over everyone else.

I find that most difficult to believe. If someone said to me "most Christians are progressive in nature", I'd simply assume that they hadn't run into many Christians.

Or read much Christian literature! :lol:

I think what history shows us with unmistakable clarity is that all religions are reactionary.

That doesn't mean that "every Muslim" is a "terrorist" any more than it means that "every Christian" lusts to "burn a heretic".

What it does mean is that if you're of a mind to do something really nasty to people, you'll find "Divine Justification" for it in every "holy book".

Much fuss is raised over "Allah's" injunction to beat disobedient women; but there are verses in the Christian New Testament that instruct the pious to beat their kids!

In other words, the only people who can be "really progressive" are atheists...or, possibly a few agnostics.

That's true no matter where they live or what the "official religion" is in their country.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[La Comédie Noire]

The Christian extremists in this country are not bent on stoning adulterers to death, realize that.

They may be insane, but they're not violent in the way the Islamists are. Could they be? Yes. Are they? No.


I think If we gave them a chance they&#39;d hang us all and have a nice book barbecue below our dangling feet. <_<



all religions are reactionary.

Now that goes without saying.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:58 PM
IRAN EXECUTES 2 GAY TEENAGERS (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html)

IRAN AND THE DEATH OF GAY ACTIVISM (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/iran_and_the_de.html)

&#39;THEY&#39;LL KILL ME&#39; -- A GAY IRANIAN TORTURE VICTIM SPEAKS (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html)

IRAN POLICE IN FASHION CRACKDOWN (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/3887311.stm)
Yeah, the oppressed gay Iranians should move to the US where they will be respected with equal rights; just look at Matthew Shepperd.

Also, look at this: the US government loves gay people&#33; (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bs5785362/113988757402740396/)

"The governments of the United States and Iran--part of President George W. Bush&#39;s &#39;&#39;axis of evil&#39;&#39; and his current nuclear bete noire--demonstrated rare unity of cause this past week when Washington backed a Tehran initiative to deny UN access to advocates of sexual minorities&#39; rights."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Free Palestine
Yeah, the oppressed gay Iranians should move to the US where they will be respected with equal rights; just look at Matthew Shepperd.

I don&#39;t think you could ever find even one of my more than 10,000 posts where I ever upheld the U.S. as a "model" of "respect for equal rights".

In fact, I&#39;ve advised young people with a radical perspective who live in the U.S. to, if possible, get out&#33; Things are going to get a lot worse here before they get any better.

Having made that clear, yes, gay people in any predominately Muslim country are certain to be better off if they escape to a non-Muslim country...even Denmark&#33; Yes, all of the "western" societies are racist and some are especially racist in their treatment of people of color.

Nevertheless, gay people are not routinely tortured and executed for the "crime" of being gay in the "west".

I would advise them not to come to the U.S. -- it&#39;s a shithole here now and can only be expected to get worse&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by redstar2000
Nevertheless, gay people are not routinely tortured and executed for the "crime" of being gay in the "west".

Your argument is so flawed I don&#39;t even know where to begin. First of all, what evidence is offered in support of your assertion that this is a routine practice? You have merely cited 4 different articles covering the same event; hardly conclusive of "routine" practice. May I post 4 articles about Mathew Shepard&#39;s murder, and declare that Christians in the U.S. routinely execute gays? This deduction of yours is both comical and pathetic. Secondly, you have conflated Iran&#39;s acts with every country in the Muslim world - do you not realize you have done this? I have noticed one thing about you on this board, you love to recite the same old Orientalist cliches, from someone who claims to have read Said&#39;s landmark I expect more.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Free Palestine
May I post 4 articles about Mathew Shepard&#39;s murder, and declare that Christians in the U.S. routinely execute gays?

You can if you want to...I won&#39;t burn down any embassys because you did. :lol:

You see, I think the serious Christians here would do that (execute gays on a mass scale) if they thought they could get away with it.

And I think the mullahs do it all the time...and only a few cases actually make international headlines.


Secondly, you have conflated Iran&#39;s acts with every country in the Muslim world - do you not realize you have done this?

Oh...you mean that there are some Muslim countries in which being gay is "only" punished by flogging and imprisonment?

Very well, I&#39;ll concede that point. The mullahs claim that such countries are run by "bad Muslims" and even "apostates"...and when an Islamicist regime "takes over", such inexcusable laxness will be speedily rectified.


I have noticed one thing about you on this board, you love to recite the same old Orientalist cliches, from someone who claims to have read Said&#39;s landmark I expect more.

I do not recall Said making apologies for medieval reactionary superstitions in the course of any of his writings. Indeed, it seems to me that the thrust of his book was in direct contradiction to the "Orientalist thesis" that the peoples of the "east" were "violent savages".

Here is Said speaking for himself...

A Devil Theory of Islam (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19960812/said)

It&#39;s pretty clear that he thought Islamicism was a load of useless crap&#33;

Correctly&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Publius]

Yeah, the oppressed gay Iranians should move to the US where they will be respected with equal rights; just look at Matthew Shepperd.

He wasn&#39;t killed because he was gay.

That&#39;s a myth, or so I&#39;ve heard.

It was a robbery I believe.

I&#39;m not sure of the validity of this, it was on 20/20, but I don&#39;t think you can affirmatively say it was &#39;hate based&#39; either.