Offending religion

cavedave

Jesus as a “Palestinian terrorist”

In order to libel someone what you say has to be false. Surely in order to offend someone the thing you say has to be false. The Roman authorities did regard jesus as as a palestinian terrorist. So by libel laws Gerry Ryans comments are ok.

The reason the complaint was upheld as because you have to take into account the sensibilities of religions. Can we set up a rationality "religion" so that whenever someone talks about this sort of crazy "we are offended by true things " stuff we can counter complain that complaints about things that are true offends us. Does that make sense? If you complain it does not I will lodge a complaint against you.

Maclommis

cavedave wrote: »

The Roman authorities did regard jesus as as a palestinian terrorist. So by libel laws Gerry Ryans comments are ok.

Was Jesus really regarded as a terrorist by the Roman Authorities? I don't think his freedom-fighting activities were even hinted at in the gospels.

But even if he was, by that standard then it would be alright to call Nelson Mandela an African terrorist as he was not only considered a terrrorist by the South African authorities but even time in prison for committing terrorist acts.

Dades

That to me is contemptible pandering by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The comments were obviously said to spark adult debate, rather than be deliberately offensive.

I am glad they upheld a complaint about showing a David Schwimmer movie, however.

aidan24326

Unfortunately in these days of political correctness you can't say anything without 'offending' somebody. The BCC are a contemptible organisation anyway, PC HQ.

Strange thing is, Bertie Ahern can make potentially offensive remarks about us non-religious types and nobody's allowed complain. If a politician slagged off a particular religion there would be uproar. Double standards methinks.

robindch

Ever noticed that the folks who tend to slag off everybody else for being cowardly and "politically correct" also tend to be the same people who have hissy fits whenever anybody says anything they find "offensive"?

Must be an ethos thing, I suppose.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Must be an ethos thing, I suppose.

Nothing in your ethos like that Robin.

PDN

I think the complaint was absolute nonsense. Almost as much nonsense as claiming that the Romans viewed Jesus as a terrorist.

The Romans saw Jesus as a religious 'wildcard' who was unsettling a bunch of already rebellious Jews. Rather than a terrorist, they saw him as some poor sap whose death, while regrettable, was a price worth paying for peace.

First Century realpolitik.

robindch

Realpolitik, certainly, but terrorist? The term didn't exist when society's derelicts could only cause mayhem with swords and pitchforks in the days before gunpowder, so Ryan is technically wrong on that point. However, the sober and reliable Tacitus has this to say:

Tacitus wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

And Suetonius (very briefly) corroborates this account. From which it's fair, I think, to conclude -- if the passages are accurate -- that the Romans treated christians pretty much as they would have treated terrorists and Ryan seems to be on reasonably solid ground to me if he chooses to view things from the Roman position.

BTW, the libel laws don't apply here, as Jesus is dead.

.

Hivemind187

Rubbish! The only reason Christ wasnt labeled a terrorist is because they didnt have the word back then. By their accounts he would have been an agitator and by todays standards (certainly those of hte British and American governments) his teachings could have been viewed as extremist, therefore inciting religious and racial intolerance, therefore glorifying terrorisim.

I hereby call for the confiscation of all Christ related religious iconography and that they be held in custody as the proxy of the actual Christ in his absense. If he turns up to collect them all well and good, he can then be arrested and tried for hate-speech etc and we can release the icons.

I think anything that offends a religion should be recorded on gold plates for posterity simply because if it offends them, it is likely challenging their idiotic claims and opening minds to the possibility that their venerated beliefs are bunkum. Recorded so that future gernerations can see the seeds that freed them from the oppression of religious tyrany.

... sorry about the rant. Havent had my coffee.

Hivemind187

robindch wrote: »

Realpolitik, certainly, but terrorist? The term didn't exist when society's derelicts could only cause mayhem with swords and pitchforks in the days before gunpowder, so Ryan is technically wrong on that point. However, the sober and reliable Tacitus has this to say:And Suetonius (very briefly) corroborates this account. From which it's fair, I think, to conclude -- if the passages are accurate -- that the Romans treated christians pretty much as they would have treated terrorists and Ryan seems to be on reasonably solid ground to me if he chooses to view things from the Roman position.

BTW, the libel laws don't apply here, as Jesus is dead.

.

Technically his estate could sue, most would argue that is the Roman Catholic Church ... which is a court case I would LOVE to see

cavedave

BTW, the libel laws don't apply here, as Jesus is dead.

Not according to Christians he isn't

While on the subject of religious offense not having to provide pretty much any evidence of what was being said being false. How about President McAleese's apology that the people of Ireland "abhorred the publication" of the Danish cartoon of Mohammad. How does she know this?

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Not according to Christians he isn't

While on the subject of religious offense not having to provide pretty much any evidence of what was being said being false. How about President McAleese's apology that the people of Ireland "abhorred the publication" of the Danish cartoon of Mohammad. How does she know this?

would you have a source for this apology, I missed ti and I think it forms a nice basis for a rant

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Rubbish! The only reason Christ wasnt labeled a terrorist is because they didnt have the word back then. By their accounts he would have been an agitator and by todays standards (certainly those of hte British and American governments) his teachings could have been viewed as extremist, therefore inciting religious and racial intolerance, therefore glorifying terrorisim.

Does anybody here understand what 'terrorist' actually means?

Terrorism, by definition, involves the use of violence. Even the British and American governments draw a clear distinction between 'terrorists' (those who employ violence), and those who are 'extremists' and thereby promote terrorism (eg demagogue preachers in radical mosques).

Jesus encouraged his followers to pay their taxes to the Romans. He also instructed them to submit to the restrictions of Roman occupation. If a Roman soldier required them to carry his equipment for one mile (a law that the Jews found humiliating), then Jesus said they should voluntarily offer to 'go the extra mile' (hence the English phrase). The Gospels also record that Jesus worked miracles on behalf of the occupying forces (healing a military officer's servant). Significantly, Christianity's first spread beyond the confines of Judaism took place in the home of an officer in the Occupation forces.

Jesus was, by today's standards, much closer to a Quisling than to a terrorist.

robindch wrote:

Realpolitik, certainly, but terrorist? The term didn't exist when society's derelicts could only cause mayhem with swords and pitchforks in the days before gunpowder, so Ryan is technically wrong on that point.

Of course the term didn't exist. But the term 'realpolitik' didn't exist either, but we still recognise that the concept existed. There were terrorists in Jesus' day. They were the Zealots, or more specifically the sicarii. One of the twelve apostles (Simon the Zealot) was a 'converted terrorist'.

Wikipedia wrote:

One particularly extreme group of Zealots was also known in Latin as sicarii, meaning "daggermen" (sing. sicarius, possibly a morphological reanalysis), because of their policy of killing Jews opposed to their call for war against Rome. Probably many Zealots were sicarii simultaneously, and they may be the biryonim of the Talmud that were feared even by the Jewish sages of the Mishnah.

Political scientists see this radical offshoot of the Zealots as one of the earliest forerunners of modern terrorism. Like modern terrorists, they intended their actions to suggest a message to a wider target audience: in this instance, the Roman imperial officials and all pro-Roman and collaborationist Jews.

According to historian H.H. Ben-Sasson[5] the main differences between the Sicarii and the Zealots were: "(1) the Jerusalem Zealots never attached themselves to one particular family and never proclaimed any of their leaders king; (2) the Sicarii had their original base in Galilee, while the Zealots were concentrated in Jerusalem; (3) the Galilean Sicarii were fighting for a social revolution, while the Jerusalem Zealots placed less stress on the social aspect ..."

Incidentally, I don't normally find a lot of humour in Wikipedia. But the following entry under 'Zealotry' is worthy of mention:

Wikipedia wrote:

The Zealots were a religious group and were frequently revolting.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

Does anybody here understand what 'terrorist' actually means?

Terrorism, by definition, involves the use of violence. Even the British and American governments draw a clear distinction between 'terrorists' (those who employ violence), and those who are 'extremists' and thereby promote terrorism (eg demagogue preachers in radical mosques).

Jesus encouraged his followers to pay their taxes to the Romans. He also instructed them to submit to the restrictions of Roman occupation. If a Roman soldier required them to carry his equipment for one mile (a law that the Jews found humiliating), then Jesus said they should voluntarily offer to 'go the extra mile' (hence the English phrase). The Gospels also record that Jesus worked miracles on behalf of the occupying forces (healing a military officer's servant). Significantly, Christianity's first spread beyond the confines of Judaism took place in the home of an officer in the Occupation forces.

Jesus was, by today's standards, much closer to a Quisling than to a terrorist.
.

PDN, I disagree. You may want to check the definition of a terrorist under the Patriot Act and in the British Governments various statements. Everyone from the boy scouts of America to cricket clubs are covered. Jesus, being a David Koresh like character would have had a knock at the door from the ATF or the SAS in no time.

Further, which version of Jesus are you referring to? The happy hippy or the one who came "to carry a sword" (forgive the paraphrazing but I havent a bible handy).

Moreover, converting a terrorist (zealot) to his cause was merely switching one extremism for another.

The "revolting" quote was rather funny.

lostexpectation

well he rubbed it in abit thats why they upheld it partially...

the person better not watch the play jesus the Guantanamo years


maybe a subversive would be the correct word

Hivemind187

lostexpectation wrote: »

well he rubbed it in abit thats why they upheld it partially...

the person better not watch the play jesus the Guantanamo years


maybe a subversive would be the correct word

Why be nice about it. One religious extremist is as daffy and dangerous as another.

Remember that while the sanitised teachings of this so-called son of god may appear to be all peace and love the truth is that for his time Jesus was an extremist and an agitator with wild ideas and views that stemmed from the belief that he was was deity-spawn.

While I myself am rather fond of wild ideas and partial to the odd agitator they generally have a rational perspective rather than beliefs that would make David Icke say "Its a bit of a shakey theory sint it?"

cavedave

would you have a source for this apology

Mary McAleese addressed a forum in Saudi Arabia
I cannot get her entire speech. The apology is reported here

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=177&iArticleID=52683
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.politics.html
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=22397

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Mary McAleese addressed a forum in Saudi Arabia
I cannot get her entire speech. The apology is reported here

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=177&iArticleID=52683
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.politics.html
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=22397

Star, thanks mate. I'll enjopoy getting angry over this later

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Why be nice about it. One religious extremist is as daffy and dangerous as another.

It's a case of being rational rather than 'nice'.

'Daffy' is an extremely subjective term, so we may safely argue that Jehovah's Witnesses are as daffy as Al Quaeda (perhaps more so).

However, only a blind bigot or a fool (or both) would argue that pacifists like the JWs are as dangerous as Jihadists who want to blow others up. JWs are an occasional danger to themselves, due to their aversion to blood transfusions, but the risk of having them knocking on your door with a copy of the Watchtower hardly equates to those who delight in sawing other people's heads off.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

It's a case of being rational rather than 'nice'.

'Daffy' is an extremely subjective term, so we may safely argue that Jehovah's Witnesses are as daffy as Al Quaeda (perhaps more so).

However, only a blind bigot or a fool (or both) would argue that pacifists like the JWs are as dangerous as Jihadists who want to blow others up. JWs are an occasional danger to themselves, due to their aversion to blood transfusions, but the risk of having them knocking on your door with a copy of the Watchtower hardly equates to those who delight in sawing other people's heads off.

Really? You think?

Put them in charge of a theocracy for six months and tell me that when blood runs inthe streets.

cavedave

tell me that when blood runs inthe streets.

And with the JW's blood would not run in the hospitals. Even if they did not execute people if they stopped all blood transfusions many would die.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Really? You think?

Put them in charge of a theocracy for six months and tell me that when blood runs inthe streets.

Yes, I do think.

You and I both know that there is no danger of the JW's ever being in charge of a theocracy anywhere. Therefore this is just silliness.

You could use the same argument about almost any organisation. Put the Drogheda United Supporters Club in charge of a nation and the result would be chaos and bloodshed as disaffected citizens took to the streets, therefore the Drogheda United Supporters Club are as dangerous as any neo-Nazi organisation. :rolleyes:

PDN

My mate's son, Femi, has Downs Syndrome. Sometimes he gets irrationally angry and lashes out at those within reach. If he was put in charge of the United States then there would be a very real danger that he would push the red button and launch a missile.

Therefore Femi, by the logic employed in this thread, is as big a danger to world peace as George Bush. :rolleyes:

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I do think.

You and I both know that there is no danger of the JW's ever being in charge of a theocracy anywhere. Therefore this is just silliness.

You could use the same argument about almost any organisation. Put the Drogheda United Supporters Club in charge of a nation and the result would be chaos and bloodshed as disaffected citizens took to the streets, therefore the Drogheda United Supporters Club are as dangerous as any neo-Nazi organisation. :rolleyes:

Then you are really blinded by the idea that your faith leads to moral superiority.

The fact is that whever you have a theological control of a society, eventually you get persecution and supression justified by nothing else but the inane superstitions (see the Blood Libel against the Jews, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc). I am not saying that it doesnt happen wherever you have a totalitarian government, but at least the Nazi's (you brought them up not me) made there excuses with an attempt at science and rationalisation rather than "god sez u shud be mayd ded!"

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Then you are really blinded by the idea that your faith leads to moral superiority.

The fact is that whever you have a theological control of a society, eventually you get persecution and supression justified by nothing else but the inane superstitions (see the Blood Libel against the Jews, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc). I am not saying that it doesnt happen wherever you have a totalitarian government, but at least the Nazi's (you brought them up not me) made there excuses with an attempt at science and rationalisation rather than "god sez u shud be mayd ded!"

How could my faith lead me to any conclusion on this? My faith is very different from the JWs whom I believe to be a bunch of crackpots.

My assessment of the JWs as being less dangerous than Al Quaeda is based on rationality and logic. A minority group that practices pacifism and abstains from political action of any kind is hardly likely to be establishing a theocracy any time soon, therefore they are not dangerous.

Dades

Isn't the question whether the Romans would have labelled Jesus a terrorist? Obviously from our objective (and rose-tinted) perspective Jesus doesn't fit this category as he was supposedly a proponent of peaceful means. But the Romans considered him a real danger to their authority, and as such would have labelled him at the very least an agitator.

Did the British consider Ghandi a terrorist I wonder?

Scofflaw

Hmm. Was Ghandi a terrorist? How about Oswald Mosley?

[EDIT]Damn, snap, Dades[/EDIT]

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

How could my faith lead me to any conclusion on this? My faith is very different from the JWs whom I believe to be a bunch of crackpots.

My assessment of the JWs as being less dangerous than Al Quaeda is based on rationality and logic. A minority group that practices pacifism and abstains from political action of any kind is hardly likely to be establishing a theocracy any time soon, therefore they are not dangerous.

PDN, they are a fundamentalist religious group.

Are they as dangerous as Al Qaeda are right now? No, not really. Are they as capable of being that dangerous and using their fuzzy theological nonsense as justification for all kinds of horrific acts? They certainly are.

Any group that has sacrificed reason in favor of spiritual enlightenment or some other such gibberish is dangerous because it is the unquestioning and fervant belief in the authority of their religious leaders (through whom their particular deity speaks) that drives them to do mad things.

While I am not suggesting that the JW's are really going to hijack planes etc I am saying that their fundamentalist, dogmatic and bloody-minded position makesthem just as dangerous in potential. In otherwords, should a crack pot leader gain sway with the JW's and decree that Muslims are a threat to Christianity and the return of Jesus and all JW's should rise up against this menace with the force of arms then what would you think would happen? Would thye all sit around muttering that "Its not like it used to be when X was in charge" or would they be strapping bombs to their chests and charging into market places determined to martyr themselves?

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Isn't the question whether the Romans would have labelled Jesus a terrorist? Obviously from our objective (and rose-tinted) perspective Jesus doesn't fit this category as he was supposedly a proponent of peaceful means. But the Romans considered him a real danger to their authority, and as such would have labelled him at the very least an agitator.

Did the British consider Ghandi a terrorist I wonder?

What evidence do we have that the Romans considered Jesus a real danger to their authority?

The only records we have (the Gospels) tell us that the Jewish leaders pressurised the Roman authorities to execute Jesus, blackmailing Pontius Pilate with the threat that, if he did not accede to their demands, they would create trouble for him by portraying him as disloyal to the Emperor (John 19:12).

Now, you may choose to reject the Gospels as a historical record, but I am unaware of any other historical records that tell us why the Romans crucified Jesus. Robin's quote from Suetonius only refers to the attitude of Rome towards Christ's followers a number of years later.

So, are we back to the "Jesus of my imagination" where we can make all kinds of claims about who Jesus was with no historical sources whatsoever?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

PDN, they are a fundamentalist religious group.

Are they as dangerous as Al Qaeda are right now? No, not really. Are they as capable of being that dangerous and using their fuzzy theological nonsense as justification for all kinds of horrific acts? They certainly are.

Any group that has sacrificed reason in favor of spiritual enlightenment or some other such gibberish is dangerous because it is the unquestioning and fervant belief in the authority of their religious leaders (through whom their particular deity speaks) that drives them to do mad things.

While I am not suggesting that the JW's are really going to hijack planes etc I am saying that their fundamentalist, dogmatic and bloody-minded position makesthem just as dangerous in potential. In otherwords, should a crack pot leader gain sway with the JW's and decree that Muslims are a threat to Christianity and the return of Jesus and all JW's should rise up against this menace with the force of arms then what would you think would happen? Would thye all sit around muttering that "Its not like it used to be when X was in charge" or would they be strapping bombs to their chests and charging into market places determined to martyr themselves?

That post reveals much more about you and your prejudices than it does about the JWs.

cavedave

While I am not suggesting that the JW's are really going to hijack planes

Well they already seem to control the airports...;)

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

That post reveals much more about you and your prejudices than it does about the JWs.

Thats rich PDN. Lets not make this a personal issue this time eh?

An opinion of fundamentalists and extremists that is based on the evidence plainly available to anyone is just that: an informated opinion. Just because you dislike it or disagree with it does not make it any less valid.

Al Qaeda were considered an allied guerilla group by the west wehn they were killing Russians wholesale - no one seemed to mind the fact that they were religious nutters then. Now its ok to use them as an example of the "bad guy"? Frankly, put in the position that many Afghans were put in I doubt very much that a majority of JW's would go willingly into the gas chambers again (mixed metaphor and historical references permitted).

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Well they already seem to control the airports...;)

Thats the Harry Krishnas isnt it?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

What evidence do we have that the Romans considered Jesus a real danger to their authority?

I'm by no means as well read as yourself and some of our regulars here, but I would have thought a man claiming to be the son of God, and King of the Jews might represent a threat to the authority of the state. Wasn't the Jewish messiah according to the OT specifically supposed to rise up and purge the enemies of Israel? Seems to me like someone you don't want around if you're the Romans.

PDN wrote: »

So, are we back to the "Jesus of my imagination" where we can make all kinds of claims about who Jesus was with no historical sources whatsoever?

Don't get me started on that one.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats rich PDN. Lets not make this a personal issue this time eh?

An opinion of fundamentalists and extremists that is based on the evidence plainly available to anyone is just that: an informated opinion. Just because you dislike it or disagree with it does not make it any less valid.

Al Qaeda were considered an allied guerilla group by the west wehn they were killing Russians wholesale - no one seemed to mind the fact that they were religious nutters then. Now its ok to use them as an example of the "bad guy"? Frankly, put in the position that many Afghans were put in I doubt very much that a majority of JW's would go willingly into the gas chambers again (mixed metaphor and historical references permitted).

The JWs went to the gas chambers without resisting. Later they also submitted to persecution under the Communists without resisting. Much as I disagree with the JWs theologically I am forced to admire them for their consistency and adherence to their pacifistic and non-political stance.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Therefore you conclude that all religious fundamentalists have the potential to become violence and are therefore dangerous.

By the same logic: Some atheists practice religious oppression. In fact most, if not all, officially atheistic governments have been characterised by extreme repression. Therefore all atheists have the potential to become repressive dictators. Therefore all atheists are dangerous.

Again, most governments run by black Africans have been corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans have the potential to be corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans are dangerous.

All three arguments are nonsense because they are based on bad logic and prejudice, not on 'informated' opinion or evidence.

Plenty of people minded the fact that Al Quaeda were religious nutters when they were fighting the Russians. Intelligent observers such as Bob Fisk were well aware of their true nature. Unfortunately foreign policy has never listened much to intelligent observers.

cavedave

Thats the Harry Krishnas isnt it?

Oh yeah my mistake. What really annoys me about Hari Krishnas, Jehovus witnesses and Mormons is that they are all so nice. I much prefer when religious types are screaming nutjobs as it makes it much easier to hate them.:rolleyes:

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Oh yeah my mistake. What really annoys me about Hari Krishnas, Jehovus witnesses and Mormons is that they are all so nice. I much prefer when religious types are screaming nutjobs as it makes it much easier to hate them.:rolleyes:

They only appear nice. Christianity at a glance appears nice with all its "Do unto others" and references to not chucking rocks unless you are pretty sure yount being a hypocrite. Scratch the surface and you find folk like Reverend Phelps and incidents like the Inquisition or the Crusades.

Truth is that had these groups any significant power they would be seeking to impose their peculiar ideas on everyone with the quietly implied penalty of something unpleasant (usually death but sometimes torture). People who pretend otherwise are usually apologists or pseudo-liberal cowards.

The Baghvad Gita is about a huge battle. The Mormons believe that the native American Indians were sinners who were turned red by Gods will to punish them. JW's are like walking spam, they turn up unnanounced, make claims and offers they cant back up and everytime you get rid of them a half dozen more turn up to try the same thing.

And yes, I am being a little more aggressive than usual today.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

The JWs went to the gas chambers without resisting. Later they also submitted to persecution under the Communists without resisting. Much as I disagree with the JWs theologically I am forced to admire them for their consistency and adherence to their pacifistic and non-political stance.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Therefore you conclude that all religious fundamentalists have the potential to become violence and are therefore dangerous.

By the same logic: Some atheists practice religious oppression. In fact most, if not all, officially atheistic governments have been characterised by extreme repression. Therefore all atheists have the potential to become repressive dictators. Therefore all atheists are dangerous.

Again, most governments run by black Africans have been corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans have the potential to be corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans are dangerous.

All three arguments are nonsense because they are based on bad logic and prejudice, not on 'informated' opinion or evidence.

Plenty of people minded the fact that Al Quaeda were religious nutters when they were fighting the Russians. Intelligent observers such as Bob Fisk were well aware of their true nature. Unfortunately foreign policy has never listened much to intelligent observers.

You missed my point. An atheist has no pseudo-spiritual imperative to dominate, indoctrinate or eliminate any competing religious worship lest his chosen deity be offended and thats the major difference. A theists position is that everyone else is wrong because their imaginary friend said so, whereas an athiest is saying your beliefs are daft because they fly in the face of rationality, logic and evidence.

As for JW's going to the gas chambers, deplorable though that is, I wonder if they had the knowledge of their fate (as they do now) and the number to resist would they have been so passive. I find it difficult to extend myself to the idea that theology is more powerful than instinct and if it is it is even worse than if its not since that mean these people happily gave up their lives for no good reason.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Not all. This is true. However, it is precisely the constant egging on of the theology thaat drives these people to blow themselves up in vauxhauls at check points. I sincerely doubt you would find a single, mentally stable atheist who would be willing to sacrifice himself in the name of Darwin.

At the end of the day, fundamentalism is a dangerous and corrupting influence on people who are mostly uneducated, disturbed or otherwise imparied in the decision making department.

Hivemind187

Hivemind187 wrote:

The Baghvad Gita is about a huge battle.

o.O

It's about a conversation two people/gods have in the middle of a battle about action and consequences.
iirc, Arjuna didn't even want to be fighting in the battle.
Just because it takes place in that setting, does not mean by a long stretch that it's promoting it.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I sincerely doubt you would find a single, mentally stable atheist who would be willing to sacrifice himself in the name of Darwin.

At the end of the day, fundamentalism is a dangerous and corrupting influence on people who are mostly uneducated, disturbed or otherwise imparied in the decision making department.

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

I think the debate comes down to cause and effect.
Atheists think it is co-incidental Stalin was an atheist, there is no cause and effect of him being an atheist and doing what he did.
Whereas Religous fundamentalists, use the Religion to decide who their enemy is and why they want to kill them. Of course not all Religious people are like that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

I think you are slightly missing the point.

Fundamentalists by definition fundamentally believe in the dogma of something, to the point where this belief moves beyond rationality.

That is of concern.

I have seen fundamental dogmatic belief shift from good to bad very easily, because ultimately the core belief is simply that the dogma is correct no matter what.

If someone manages to change the dogma to something else, that fundamental belief that the dogma is always correct, can be used to manipulate people into doing terrible things.

You look at it from a different angle. You would say that the dogma of your religion tells you to be nice and kind and helpful to all people. What could be possibly wrong with that? And the answer is of course nothing. But the issue isn't what the dogma itself says. The issue is the fact that you fundamentally believe in its correctness and infallibility. History teaches that the dogma itself can be changed and manipulated so easily.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

*golf clap*

PDN, you seem to have difficulty separating political and social ideology and religion - funnily enough a common trait amongst fundamentalists.

The Soviets (I assume you are referring to Stalin and his pogroms) comitted their atrocities not in the name of Atheism but in the name of Communism (Marxism). Because they happened to be atheists does not mean it was the driving principal behind their crimes - the usual fallousy proposed by theists in defense of the indefencible (sp?).

Further, "faith" is the purvue of the theist and the religions, not of the atheist or the rational. The Nazi's, for example, murdered in the name of a pseudo-scientific racial purity doctrine. The Soviets out of a need to control the masses and to eliinate any resistence to their aims. The Khmer Rouge out of a belief that reeducating the populace to know only the party was the road to peace. All three were arguably controlled by atheists (ignoring the argument that Hitler was a theist - which he was) but it was their political and social ideologies that drove their murderous inclinations not atheism.

Religion, on the other hand, commands the desctruction of the enemy (any other religion) and even rejoices in the deaths of thousands (see Old Testament and the Quran). In both cases it is fundamentalist "direct word of god" madmen who instigate the kinds of atrocities we see to day and more often than not will lay down other peoples lives rather than their own in the name of their gods by manipulating the uneducated, the deprived and the desperate - or do you deny that the teaching of fundamentalist rhetoric and anti-Islamic/Christian ideals are being used as the teaching medium for millions in many third world countries?

For that matter, how do you explain Doctors and engingeers and other educated people hijacking planes and strapping bombs to themselves in the name of their religion? If its not the sinister influence of fundamentalism affecting vulnerable and unstable minds then what, exactly, is it?

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Rubbish! The only reason Christ wasnt labeled a terrorist is because they didnt have the word back then. By their accounts he would have been an agitator and by todays standards (certainly those of hte British and American governments) his teachings could have been viewed as extremist, therefore inciting religious and racial intolerance, therefore glorifying terrorisim.

I hereby call for the confiscation of all Christ related religious iconography and that they be held in custody as the proxy of the actual Christ in his absense. If he turns up to collect them all well and good, he can then be arrested and tried for hate-speech etc and we can release the icons.

I think anything that offends a religion should be recorded on gold plates for posterity simply because if it offends them, it is likely challenging their idiotic claims and opening minds to the possibility that their venerated beliefs are bunkum. Recorded so that future gernerations can see the seeds that freed them from the oppression of religious tyrany.

... sorry about the rant. Havent had my coffee.

The bitterness is strong in this one! Question. Would you rejoice in the fall of religion?

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

The bitterness is strong in this one! Question. Would you rejoice in the fall of religion?

I would be extatic with the global realisation that we, as a species, have progressed beyond the point of needing the grotesque cabaret of religion.

In a sense, I suppose yes, I would. But you'll obviously take this out of context and claim that I am looking to begin an atheistic pogrom agaisnt theists.

The fact is that if religion were to dissapear tomorow Atheists wouldnt really be affected since we have already divested ourselves of that particular accoutrement ... it would only mean that we have come full circle to the default position of no theological beliefs.

Clear enough?

Edit: oh ... and I was clearly making fun in the quoted post ... for the most part.

Edit 2: Ah, that "wouldnt" at the begining should have read "would"

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wouldnt be extatic with the global realisation that we, as a species, have progressed beyond the point of needing the grotesque cabaret of religion.

Edit: oh ... and I was clearly making fun in the quoted post ... for the most part.

Hmmmm:)

In a sense, I suppose yes, I would. But you'll obviously take this out of context and claim that I am looking to begin an atheistic pogrom agaisnt theists.

Oh obviously Dem evil christians ey! Calm down man, I'm not looking to entrap you. I believe its going to happen, not through some atheist alliance, just people not caring about it.

The fact is that if religion were to dissapear tomorow Atheists wouldnt really be affected since we have already divested ourselves of that particular accoutrement ... it would only mean that we have come full circle to the default position of no theological beliefs.

Clear enough?

Crystal.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmmmm:)


Oh obviously Dem evil christians ey! Calm down man, I'm not looking to entrap you. I believe its going to happen, not through some atheist alliance, just people not caring about it.

Crystal.

Sorry, I can see I probably came across a little ... strong.

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry, I can see I probably came across a little ... strong.

You're certainly passionate:)

cavedave

Maybe I have this backwards. Maybe when religious people get annoyed by cartoons (Gerry Ryan, south park etc) they are just showing us the right way to point out their failings?

As this post discusses maybe rationality has a marketing problem. We all love a simple story. And those stories that get under the skin of intolerant religions are the simple marketable ones.

Zombrex

cavedave wrote: »

maybe rationality has a marketing problem.

Rationality has a serious marketing problem - it doesn't care about telling people what they want to hear.

Most religion, by definition, tells people what they want to hear, which is normally that there is a supernatural way for you to control and protect yourself against the bad things in this life, such as loneliness, pain, suffering and death.

It does this independently of whether or not any of it is true.

Rationality on the other hand has a duty to what is true, not what makes people feel better. As such it often leads to conclusions that people wish were different.

karen3212

cavedave wrote: »

Mary McAleese addressed a forum in Saudi Arabia
I cannot get her entire speech. The apology is reported here

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=177&iArticleID=52683
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.politics.html
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=22397

But, what do you think of her being a representative of Ireland and supporting a religion and a people that are being demonised by the West at the moment? Do you think there are times when 'being nice' is the right thing to be? But, we didn't print anything so I don't know why she would apologise for Ireland.