A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

liah

I've been loosely following the goings-on of the Iran matter lately and last night this video of a young woman getting shot in the chest (most definitely NSFW or children; it is very violent, very disturbing, very real and very bloody) has cropped up.

It's hard to wrap my head around. What a sick, sick world we live in. It is a fine example of a theocracy when a man who considers himself some sort of vigilante can go around shooting innocent people for disagreeing with their government who is apparently appointed by a god, thus making it somehow justified.

Mental situation altogether. What the hell is in the water over there?

Hivemind187

I wish I could say that I believed that if more theists saw what their archaic beliefs and practices lead to, when concentrated in a single instant, when the perceived right to take life in the name of a chosen phantom over rides common sense and human compassion - that they would stop and re-evaluate their lives.

I wish it would happen that way. Instead, for most, it changes nothing. For a minority, it reinforces their zealotry and blood lust for all those who dare to disagree with their point of view.

Its scenes like this that make me lose a little faith in humanity. I'm off to search "moon landing".

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wish I could say that I believed that if more theists saw what their archaic beliefs and practices lead to, when concentrated in a single instant, when the perceived right to take life in the name of a chosen phantom over rides common sense and human compassion - that they would stop and re-evaluate their lives.

I wish it would happen that way. Instead, for most, it changes nothing. For a minority, it reinforces their zealotry and blood lust for all those who dare to disagree with their point of view.

Its scenes like this that make me lose a little faith in humanity. I'm off to search "moon landing".

I find it quite unfortunate, that there are folk that use extremes to confirm their own pre-conceptions and prejudices.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

I find it quite unfortunate, that there are folk that use extremes to confirm their own pre-conceptions and prejudices.

Thats very telling. No interest in the evidence of the destruction and horror that religion brings, no spympathy expressed, not even the basic selfish desire to distance yourself from the carry on in Tehran.

Only that someone may be remarking negatively on out-moded, out of date and ludicrous beliefs in killer-sky-fairies.

Yes, I am prejudiced towards religious zealots and irrational nutters of all forms. I am prejudiced but not without good reason. Something I sincerely doubt the religious cadre can bring to the table.

People are dying all over the world because of religious beliefs mixed up with politics into a violent and dangerous cocktail. You can claim that it is all the work of extremists but it is the so-called religious moderates who provide the solid base from which this insanity can grow. Without support from the middle ground, those who lack the spines to be seen and heard and to act but who provide the foundation of support in cash, turning a blind eye, quietly condoning etc - without them these zealots are merely disorganised lunatics.

JimiTime

^And quite a few thank you's. As i said, very unfortunate.

liah

JimiTime wrote: »

^And 2 thank you's. As i said, very unfortunate.

:rolleyes:

Whoosh.

JimiTime

liah wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Whoosh.

Indeed.

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats very telling. No interest in the evidence of the destruction and horror that religion brings, no spympathy expressed, not even the basic selfish desire to distance yourself from the carry on in Tehran.

Is there some form of stock answer required or something?

liah

I don't think he's looking for a stock answer at all; the opposite, in fact. What he wrote was well said and JimiTime's response was dismissive and a rather typical religious stock answer rather than actually taking note of what he said and expanding or developing on it. JimiTime's response to Hivemind's 2nd post is even more indicative of this-- instead of making an effort to disprove any claims or expand he just copped out with the "lol ur generalizing" style comment even though Hivemind addressed that in his post with this:

You can claim that it is all the work of extremists but it is the so-called religious moderates who provide the solid base from which this insanity can grow. Without support from the middle ground, those who lack the spines to be seen and heard and to act but who provide the foundation of support in cash, turning a blind eye, quietly condoning etc - without them these zealots are merely disorganised lunatics.

To which my reply of "whoosh" to JimiTime's other dismissal and bitterness towards thanks (???) implied that part must've gone over his head if he's still continuing with the same tired argument that the religious always use when someone calls religion out for being destructive.

JimiTime

I thought of all people, an atheist like yourself should know, that sometimes to argue with certain rationale is giving it more creedance than it warrants. A simple expression of disagreement is all Hiveminds view, and judging by your thanks, yours also, warrants. One can only hope that some will question your 'reasoning'.

liah

Lol alright. Whatever you say.

Zillah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes, I am prejudiced towards religious zealots and irrational nutters of all forms. I am prejudiced but not without good reason.

Well let's be clear here. To be prejudiced is to have made a pre-judgment; a conclusion without all the facts. If I met a person of a certain ethnicity and pre-judged them based on that ethnicity, then that is a prejudice. It is not the same thing to condemn religion and it's active adherents.

I have an existing opinion of rapists, but I would not term that a prejudice.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

If I met a person of a certain ethnicity and pre-judged them based on that ethnicity, then that is a prejudice. It is not the same thing to condemn religion and it's active adherents.

It absolutely is. Religion is such a huge term, to meet a person of 'religion' and pre-judge them is of course prejudice. It is also liable to make or keep you ignorant. Funnily enough, by seeking views of atheists here showed me how diverse atheists views on atheism were. So even with something as specific as atheism, I can't in good concience pre-judge what a particular atheists stance on atheism is. 'Religion' is so huge a word, that to lump people of 'religion' in one big pigeon hole is quite extremely prejudice.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

It absolutely is. Religion is such a huge term, to meet a person of 'religion' and pre-judge them is of course prejudice.

Sorry, I meant to imply that we can judge people according to their specific religious beliefs, not necessarily the simple fact that they are religious.

So even with something as specific as atheism, I can't in good concience pre-judge what a particular atheists stance on atheism is.

Well of course. As an atheist the only thing I necessarily share with other atheists is a lack of belief in God. Not so with such immensely involved belief systems such as Christianity or Islam.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry, I meant to imply that we can judge people according to their specific religious beliefs, not necessarily the simple fact that they are religious.

Phew. The thing is though, even each religion have so many diverse denominations, and then those who aren't associated with denomination can have different beliefs again. I suppose rather than argue what is and what isn't prejudice, what I would say, is that it is unwise to pre-judge people on the basis of religion. Though we all probably do it to different extents.

Well of course. As an atheist the only thing I necessarily share with other atheists is a lack of belief in God. Not so with such immensely involved belief systems such as Christianity or Islam.

Thats somewhat the point. Some atheists disagree on what atheism entails. Someone who says, 'I'm an atheist' means certain things to one person, and another thing to another person. You have the view, 'its simply a lack of belief in God'. Some view their atheism as rabid anti-theism. They believe their atheism and anti-theism are one in the same. You may say, 'yeah, but they're wrong', but again, that is the point. Its not about who's right and wrong, its about forming pre-conceptions about people based on the title they or you give them.

The Mad Hatter

I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe the Iranian violence to religion when a simple power grab seems to explain it just as well.

liah

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe the Iranian violence to religion when a simple power grab seems to explain it just as well.

I agree with that but it gives them the cop out excuse of the acts being "righteous" and for a "god," and in an incredibly theocratic country this transcends all, since it surpasses the government and goes straight to the big guy for justification.

The Mad Hatter

liah wrote: »

I agree with that but it gives them the cop out excuse of the acts being "righteous" and for a "god," and in an incredibly theocratic country this transcends all, since it surpasses the government and goes straight to the big guy for justification.

While that will almost certainly happen, I think if religion were removed from this picture completely the violence would be just as bad.

Hivemind187

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

While that will almost certainly happen, I think if religion were removed from this picture completely the violence would be just as bad.

Violence during any power grab is an almost foregone conclusion (with the exception of Thai land who just waited from the top-dog to go on holiday before seizing power). However, I dont think it would manifest as quickly and with quite as much zeal as it does when religion is involved.

Religion provides more than just a justification for violence, in many cases it provides a directive to comit violence - particularly in Islam (among the big three anyway). A belief in a higher power, and the reinforcement of that belief by those with another agenda, absolves one from the morality of the things they do. "I do this in the name of Allah" or "I invaded Iraq because it was Gods will".

The Mad Hatter

Yes, I understand that - what I'm saying is that I've seen nothing during this particular power grab to suggest that the violence is religiously inspired.

Surely religion digs itself a big enough hole for itself without us trying to widen it.

Hivemind187

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, I understand that - what I'm saying is that I've seen nothing during this particular power grab to suggest that the violence is religiously inspired.

Other than Had-Me-Dinner-Dad being declared president by appointment of god and with the approval of the Mullah clerics?

As I saidm inextricably linked. I'm certainly not say it is the sole cause, politics is more than capable of causing enough hassle on its own, but this is a particular brand of violence and partisanism. Spend five minutes reading the various different comments on the different websites hosting the footage, nearly every one of them (with the usual YouTube exceptions of idiots and trolls) invokes God in support of one side or against another.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Surely religion digs itself a big enough hole for itself without us trying to widen it.

It does. Why shouldnt we draw attention to things like this though? Call me an "aggressive secularist" or a "millitant atheist" if you like, I'm happy to jam the crowbar into the little cracks of the religious caste and keep wiggling it until the chunks come away.

CDfm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe the Iranian violence to religion when a simple power grab seems to explain it just as well.

Islam has always been associated with policitical power.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Phew. The thing is though, even each religion have so many diverse denominations, and then those who aren't associated with denomination can have different beliefs again. I suppose rather than argue what is and what isn't prejudice, what I would say, is that it is unwise to pre-judge people on the basis of religion. Though we all probably do it to different extents.

Forming an iron clad, unchangeable opinion of a person based on their religion; quite a foolish thing to do, of course. But allowing it to inform your expectations; useful and usually quite accurate. If someone identifies themselves as a Christian then they've already declared certain things about the way they think and the values they hold.

Thats somewhat the point. Some atheists disagree on what atheism entails. Someone who says, 'I'm an atheist' means certain things to one person, and another thing to another person. You have the view, 'its simply a lack of belief in God'. Some view their atheism as rabid anti-theism. They believe their atheism and anti-theism are one in the same. You may say, 'yeah, but they're wrong', but again, that is the point. Its not about who's right and wrong, its about forming pre-conceptions about people based on the title they or you give them.

Well, now I'm going to be very predictable and say that yes, those people are wrong. The word 'atheist', in the English language, is one who does not believe in God. Anyone who views their atheism as rabid anti-theism is an idiot who needs to read a dictionary. I know this isn't the point, but I'm setting the stage here:

I fully accept your point about pre-conceptions, but your point is less about whether you and I are right or wrong in how we go about things, your point is more that we need to account for the stupidity of other people before we reach a conclusion. I could just as easily say to you "Just because you've been told someone is a murderer/terrorist/president/philanthropist doesn't mean you should form an opinion based on that as the person telling you this might be an idiot who needs to read a dictionary".

Hivemind187 wrote:

Call me an "aggressive secularist" or a "millitant atheist" if you like

LOOK OUT HE'S WRITING A BOOK, GET DOWN!

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed.

Let us know when you are ready to pull the fingers out.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

If someone identifies themselves as a Christian then they've already declared certain things about the way they think and the values they hold.

Like peace and non-violence

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Like peace and non-violence

As long as you're not gay.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

As long as you're not gay.

Let us know when you are ready to pull the fingers out.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

LOOK OUT HE'S WRITING A BOOK, GET DOWN!

lol


On topic - pretty shocking vid, had to knock it off sing la la la, grab a beer from fridge and continue where I left off with 'The Hills', Laurens boyfriend is cheating on her agian! It's like awful.

Seriously though have to agree with Hivemind - religion exaccerbates this in that it acts as a legitamizer (thanks robin!) a world where murder can helped on or carried out wihtout question in stark delusion of the 'greater good'...terrifting stuff.

Zillah

So has I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket been overthrown yet?

Stercus Accidit

Shocking video, in my years of internetting I haven't watched a beheading, or a shooting incident or any of the extreme real world violence you can watch on it.

I watched this video, and I feel sick, not the blood, not even the woman dying in front of me, the blood was shocking, the woman dying was upsetting, but the context of this incident, is what is making me sick.

I don't feel comfortable at all sitting in my home several countries away from the events in Iran, this violence and corruption feels so close to home its unreal.

I'm so grateful for the internet, it is really wonderful that this video on its own or combined with the media cover for context, has had such an impact on me. If the internet continues to provide a medium to get this real material across and further the global condemnation of the suppression and violence towards these people I'm delighted.

I'm a world away from these troubles and they have never felt closer to home, and I feel as though I have watched someone die for the first time, and I'm overwhelmed. Its hard to get that to sink in a little.

I don't know, I don't even know what I'm trying to say in this post.

CDfm

stevejazzx wrote: »

religion exaccerbates this in that it acts as a legitamizer (thanks robin!) a world where murder can helped on or carried out wihtout question in stark delusion of the 'greater good'...terrifting stuff.

Political ideology acts as a legitimizer too,tribalism acts as a legitimizer, and in some countries the military act as a legitimizer. You could also say individual ambition or egomania

Isolating religion is a bit disengenius.

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

Political ideology acts as a legitimizer too,tribalism acts as a legitimizer, and in some countries the military act as a legitimizer. You could also say individual ambition or egomania

Isolating religion is a bit disengenius.

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

Religion alone stands as the king when it comes to artificial constructs capable of justifiyng, legitimising and encouraging acts of unspeakable violence.

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wish I could say that I believed that if more theists saw what their archaic beliefs and practices lead to, when concentrated in a single instant, when the perceived right to take life in the name of a chosen phantom over rides common sense and human compassion - that they would stop and re-evaluate their lives.

I wish it would happen that way. Instead, for most, it changes nothing. For a minority, it reinforces their zealotry and blood lust for all those who dare to disagree with their point of view.

That's a bit silly. It's like saying that the shooting of a woman in the chest by a "defender of the state" in a communist country (which happened a lot in the last century) is a good reason not vote Labour.

liah wrote: »

he's still continuing with the same tired argument that the religious always use when someone calls religion out for being destructive.

Human organisations are destructive? No way.

Zillah wrote: »

Well let's be clear here. To be prejudiced is to have made a pre-judgment; a conclusion without all the facts. If I met a person of a certain ethnicity and pre-judged them based on that ethnicity, then that is a prejudice. It is not the same thing to condemn religion and it's active adherents.

You don't know all the facts when you judge all religious people for the actions of a government in the Middle East.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

I can think of one. In the 20th century, Social Darwinists appealed to the laws of nature - bigger than any human and even all humanity - in attempts to gather support for their programmes of "improving" the gene pool by eliminating people they didn't like. In some places they were unfortunately successful.

Zillah

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Shocking video, in my years of internetting I haven't watched a beheading, or a shooting incident or any of the extreme real world violence you can watch on it.

I watched this video, and I feel sick, not the blood, not even the woman dying in front of me, the blood was shocking, the woman dying was upsetting, but the context of this incident, is what is making me sick.

I don't feel comfortable at all sitting in my home several countries away from the events in Iran, this violence and corruption feels so close to home its unreal.

I'm so grateful for the internet, it is really wonderful that this video on its own or combined with the media cover for context, has had such an impact on me. If the internet continues to provide a medium to get this real material across and further the global condemnation of the suppression and violence towards these people I'm delighted.

I'm a world away from these troubles and they have never felt closer to home, and I feel as though I have watched someone die for the first time, and I'm overwhelmed. Its hard to get that to sink in a little.

I don't know, I don't even know what I'm trying to say in this post.

On one hand I agree, it's awful to see, but on the other hand I'm well aware that stuff like this is going on all the time in places around the world. Every day in somewhere like Somalia its nightmarishly worse than this. I think it would be a little shallow of me to weep for the lady in the original post while turning a blind eye to the women gang raped and butchered in an African alleyway. It would seem to me that I'd be more mourning the fact that I had to see it than the fact that it occurred.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Let us know when you are ready to pull the fingers out.

TBH, I'm really not interested in such a head to head. I simply stick by my original post. Call it fingers in the ears if you like. All I hope, is that at least some of the atheists here don't agree with such 'reasoning'.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

You don't know all the facts when you judge all religious people for the actions of a government in the Middle East.

Well that would be just super if I had said anything at all about the Middle East.

I didn't.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well that would be just super if I had said anything at all about the Middle East.

I didn't.

I assumed that you were commenting on topic. I must have been wrong.

Hivemind187

Húrin wrote: »

That's a bit silly. It's like saying that the shooting of a woman in the chest by a "defender of the state" in a communist country (which happened a lot in the last century) is a good reason not vote Labour.

They arent "defenders of the state". The militia is an arm of the government, a hardline Islamic government.

Had-me-dinner-dad is grasping hard to maintain control over the nation and he is invoking religion to do so. It is a theocracy. Religion is at the heart of the law, the politics and the general mind set of almost every person. Whether the man behind the trigger was deeply devout or not is irrelevant, we know that the government that ordered that man into a situation where he took a life needlessly is quite openly so. Like it or not, this is directly attributable to religion.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

I assumed that you were commenting on topic. I must have been wrong.

No I was simply speaking in principle.

On topic I'm probably going to surprise some people and say that I don't think religion is in any way to blame for this. We have a bunch of men illegally in power over a nation, that nation has become educated enough to try to oust them in favour of democracy and violence has ensued as the cabal in power tries to suppress it. It's happened a hundred times before and there is always violence, there are always young women bleeding to death in the street, clashes with police, burning missiles, screaming mothers. This aint religion kiddos, it's revolution.

That said, Iran's Theocracy (and indeed all Theocracies) is awful and I'll be glad to see it go if the current generation of educated Iranians can trample it beneath their feet, but the video in the original post would exist whether Ahmadinejad was a communist, a fascist or an emperor.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

Neither should religion BTW.

Stercus Accidit

Zillah wrote: »

On one hand I agree, it's awful to see, but on the other hand I'm well aware that stuff like this is going on all the time in places around the world. Every day in somewhere like Somalia its nightmarishly worse than this.

My point is that regardless of the facts I read in the paper, the coverage of other world events and documentaries, statistics of all the above etc. etc., it was that uncensored video, and the image of the womans eyes darting back and forth as she bled to death that impacted me most.

I wrote that post quite ramblingly yeah, but in hindsight, it is exactly your point I was getting at. I'm certainly not unaware of these other as you put it, worse atrocities, but there is no denying the impact of the uncensored evidence, and that is a statement on how we perceive our media entirely, in its clean cut fit for western eyes form and then contrast that with how one honestly and fully delivered piece of media can affect our empathy completely differently.

Zillah wrote: »

I think it would be a little shallow of me to weep for the lady in the original post while turning a blind eye to the women gang raped and butchered in an African alleyway. It would seem to me that I'd be more mourning the fact that I had to see it than the fact that it occurred.

Just these lines in particular, I'm a fierce cynic myself, and would have the same objective criticism of my own emotions and how I am justifying them as you show here. But in this case, I would disagree that because I read an article about so and so many hundred deaths from starvation and continued to drink my coffee, and then was so shocked by contrast later in the day by the above mentioned video, that I should reduce my reaction to one because of the other. At some stage I have to accept that some ways of telling a story will affect me more, that I will care more or less depending on how tired I am, hungry, or what's on the other channel on TV. These are shallow reasons to care less, but I would, and I do care less sometimes because of these things. I don't mourn that I saw that video, I didn't enjoy watching it, but I am glad I did now. There is nothing shallow about accepting this variance in peoples reactions based on the medium in which news is reported to them, its part of the human condition, and it is a greater tragedy to force yourself to care less in some attempt to equalise you reaction with a previous one. There is no great shame in not being able to care as fully as you 'should' at times, but more of a loss if you feel less towards an event because of some self perceived inequality in your morally outrageous event versus emotional reaction standard.

That would be one element of my own cynicism that I have reigned in a little.

stevejazzx

CDfm wrote: »

Political ideology acts as a legitimizer too,tribalism acts as a legitimizer, and in some countries the military act as a legitimizer. You could also say individual ambition or egomania

Isolating religion is a bit disengenius.

I completely agree.

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

They arent "defenders of the state". The militia is an arm of the government, a hardline Islamic government.

Had-me-dinner-dad is grasping hard to maintain control over the nation and he is invoking religion to do so. It is a theocracy. Religion is at the heart of the law, the politics and the general mind set of almost every person. Whether the man behind the trigger was deeply devout or not is irrelevant, we know that the government that ordered that man into a situation where he took a life needlessly is quite openly so. Like it or not, this is directly attributable to religion.

So does that mean that all people of any religion share the blame? Do Labour voters share the blame for communist atrocities?

Hivemind187

Húrin wrote: »

So does that mean that all people of any religion share the blame? Do Labour voters share the blame for communist atrocities?

No. Labour is socialist not communist (and even socialist is a bit of stretch if I'm honest). Political ideologies are different to Religion in that they are constantly evolving to maintain their control. Religion does this through the invocation of terror and thousands of years of tradition.

And yes, in a sense all religious people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a religion. As I have pointed out, it is the so-called religious moderates who make the extremists as dangerous as they are.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

And yes, in a sense all religious people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a religion. As I have pointed out, it is the so-called religious moderates who make the extremists as dangerous as they are.

I knew the Hare Krishnas were a dangerous mob. :rolleyes:

This is pure BS along the lines of the Jews being responsible for killing Jesus.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No. Labour is socialist not communist (and even socialist is a bit of stretch if I'm honest). Political ideologies are different to Religion in that they are constantly evolving to maintain their control.

Its probably that being politics they can get away not telling the truth. They have supported fairly nasty regimes.Cynical I know.:rolleyes:

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

I knew the Hare Krishnas were a dangerous mob. :rolleyes:

This is pure BS along the lines of the Jews being responsible for killing Jesus.

Hare Krishna's are a sect of Hinduism. Hinduism, though it is possibly one of the lesser offenders is responsible for wars, murder, death etc just as any other religion is.

I'm not saying that Hark Krishna's are perpetrators of atrocities on the same level as Christianity (the big one), Judaism (the initial genocidal monotheists) and Islam (the one with the beards and box-cutters). What I am saying is that the religiously moderate justify the existance of the extremists.

Think of it this way, human beings are always trying to one up one another. A nicer car, a better lawn, a prettier wife, a bigger pay check or a stronger sentiment or morality on something. These last two are a component of extremism.

In a culture wherein everyone holds similar beliefs it is natrual for some individuals to take a more extreme position. If this is an over arcingly liberal system you will see the emergence of moderatism (assuming these things to be constants for the purposes of this description). Where you get moderateism you'll start to see conservatism and extremeism.

I say again, it is the foundation of the moderate that allows for the expression of the extremist.

Hare Krishna's may not be directly responsible, but they have a share of the blame by preaching belief in non-existant higher powers which reinforces the idea of the supernatural.

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

Its probably that being politics they can get away not telling the truth. They have supported fairly nasty regimes.Cynical I know.:rolleyes:

Your point being?

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Or are you suggesting that Tony Blair was the anti-christ until he resigned and left Gordon Brown as the Anti-Christ pro-tem?

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Your point being?

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Or are you suggesting that Tony Blair was the anti-christ until he resigned and left Gordon Brown as the Anti-Christ pro-tem?

You are just being silly. Political ideologies and organisations are power structures in the same way.Iranian Islam is a political ideology. Extremists are extremists.

Whether it was Che Guevara executing dissenting Cubans in the 50s and 60s (and he did) or the Ayatollahs executing dissenting Iranians the result is the same.

Flamed Diving

Hivemind187 wrote: »

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Not the threat. It's the promise of eternal salvation that motivates the most.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I say again, it is the foundation of the moderate that allows for the expression of the extremist.

The GAA were just a front for the IRA:rolleyes:

Not really getting your point and think you are hamming it up a bit- its just someone( a Politician who wants to attain power) using a religous population as a constituency in the same way they might use any loose social structure , class, occupation,tribe, nationality or whatever.

Your comparison is very like all "Irish are Terrorists"that you had in the UK.