Show Discussions [Tv, Tv Tv, Tv, Sports, Sports, Sports, Call of duty, Dog Edition]

You can't compare american muslims which can't follow Sharia law because it is legally impossible to do so in western countries with the muslims in the middle east and south east asia, where most of them are. Muslims in the western world are very different from middle eastern ones. It's not even over simplyfying things, I mean there are a lot of studies, similar to the one done on amercan muslims which maher and harris have already spoken about... The majority of muslims in those regions support the really bad ideas of islam.

About Harris's image of an extreme and violent atheist, I assure you, they've all been taken out of context. Strong phrases of his book are left out alone so he is shown to be some evil genocidal maniac, I asure you this is mostly the work of his archenemy Reza Aslan



Now here is the phrase in its actual context:

"The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith."

Emphasis on the final phrase.

I dont think thats fair to say jec. Everyone believes in their religion to different extents. Just because there're people out their who do the things that you mention doesnt mean it is the ideals of Islam even if it is the "majority".

During the crusades the pope told the christian army to kill in the name of God and so they killed. For me not to do so would mean i do not follow the ideals of my religion? the commandments state thou shalt not kill. Am i not following the ideal if i kill for God?

so what determine the ideals of Christianity those that are old or those that are new? those that are practiced by a group, by a few, by the many? what if i choose to follow the old and the new...

It doesnt matter the ideals or the justification. Those who kill are murderers.

Jec wrote:You can't compare american muslims which can't follow Sharia law because it is legally impossible to do so in western countries with the muslims in the middle east and south east asia, where most of them are.

They both grew up over there, not here. They just moved here to further their education. Learned English, got degrees in English and Science, still study practices and go there every few years. I'm not comparing them to anything other than what they learned through life and the processes they've done over the course of their lives.

Eri wrote:I dont think thats fair to say jec. Everyone believes in their religion to different extents. Just because there're people out their who do the things that you mention doesn't mean it is the ideals of Islam even if it is the "majority".

Exactly, you can't blame them all for something a few or even the majority do.  That'd be as ludicrous as saying "I don't believe what you believe in.  Everyone who follows what you believe in, or everyone that wants that should die."  It's unfair to blame an entire religion for what a few do.  Some, as I've said before, try to take things they've learned out of context and do what THEY want and deem it as something they NEED to do so they feel like they have power and feel like a threat so they can gain more power through fear (hence why we hear some people trying to go join ISIS and such, but besides that).  I'm a Christian myself, just because I believe in God, Jesus and the death of Christ does that make me one of those people you'd hate and want killed?  I've never preached anything to you or anyone here about anything related to the subject and don't plan to.  I don't do it to anyone else unless it's a friend who felt lost here around me that never believed and after a few days with a friend of mine we helped him get through a really tough time.  I don't use my religion against anyone in any way.  So if another Christian decided to would that make ME a threat and deserve to be killed just because a few others took things out of context and things into their own hand just for a gain?  It's unfair to take the actions of a few and put anger against them all.

Sure yeah those involved with all that shit today are terrible for using their "religion" as a gain. It doesn't just the fact that "all Muslims deserve to die." Base the actions on those that have committed the acts, not all.

OMG... you guys still don't get it... -_- My problem isn't with muslims, it's with Islam and how people refuse to see it as a set of really bad and violent ideas. I know there are muslims that are pretty good people, I have muslim friends and I know this. In the west you can talk to a muslim and say you are a gay atheist, he'll probably respect you and won't act violently against you, but do the same in a country under Sharia and you'll probably be stoned to death... why? Because that's what happens when the ideas of Islam become legally binding... <- This is what me, Maher, Harris and all other non chicken shit liberals criticize... When inhumane murderous acts like stoning for apostasty or killing the rape victim just because she lost the family's honor happen under the justification of Islam, then it's completely rational to criticize the crap out of it.

Eri... you do know the Ten Commandments are meaningless to Christians don't you? Jesus only left two rules for his followers to abide by, those were "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you" and "Love thy neighbor", what the Catholics did in the middle ages are not the representation of the two rules set by Jesus but just the effect of greedy bastards in power wanting even more power, after all, all Religions seek to expand and influence society even outside of what their supposed founding ideals imply, for example many christians (thankfully this trend seems to be on the decline thanks to a younger generation) that bash homosexuals rely on old testament verses and a small phrase stated by Jesus on what marriage should be (yet he didn't leave this as a rule)

i know what your saying jec..but i woudnt consider it religious idealism. its just murderous idealism. whites have done it to anyone that wasnt white and those who dont support kings have died. it s a very primitive ideology.

Jec wrote:The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

That sounds like a nice way to justify the atrocities in Gaza to me. As in "Hamas used civilians as shields therefore we must obliterate them alongside kids, AND we will bear the greater cost in doing so". Thats despite a lack of hard evidence proving that people were even responsible for that.

But our ideas are right so collataral damage is acceptable. The thousands that died couldnt all possibly be part of extremist groups but that doesn't matter...because those that survived will likely end up harboring those ideals when they grow up. That is if they hadnt already since the last time we bombed them. And when they do we will be once again justified in killing them too. Then we will explain how we bombed them because their ideas and religion are flawed. I mean how dare you kill people for practicing freedom of speech? You should kill them in "self-defense" with bombs like us...the arbiters of "justice".

Jec wrote:We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith."

And thus we will bomb suspected extremists with little regard as to whether they were truly radicalized; terrorizing them. Arm groups to fight against the jihadis with little worry about the proliferation of weapons, thus ensuring if there is further conflict in the future weapons will be readily available to facilitate more death all around. And fund tyrannies to hold fundamentalist muslims in check while we benefit from the relationship with the trade of oil and other resources. Then turn a blind eye to the dismal human rights record of our partners in the region who we will surely prop up.

Its all cyclical. We bear a responsibility for what has led to the situation there. Not all of it obviously, but a good amount. This doesnt excuse the extremists or justify their actions, nor does it justify ours when we kill so many innocents through drone strikes. In the last decade we haven't proven we can fight a just war in the middle east, yet in the name of justice we have fought. The west is hardly qualified to speak on morals when its easy for us to do so while ignoring what has happened in the past and what is happening now. Its bigger than that and the rhetoric now guarantees a repeat of the cycle.
---

Justice wrote:In a Hebrew language letter to his troops published by Israel’s NRG news website and laden with bibilical references, Colonel Ofer Winter writes, “History has chosen us to be the sharp edge of the bayonet of fighting the terrorist enemy ‘from Gaza’ which curses, defames and abuses the God of Israel’s battles.”

“We will act together forcefully and with resolve, with initiative and with deceptive tricks and aim for contact with the enemy. We will do everything to live up to the mission and wipe out the enemy and remove the threat from the Nation of Israel,” Winter’s letter adds.

In Hebrew, the phrase used for “Nation of Israel” refers specifically and only to Jews.

“In the name of the IDF [Israeli army] fighters and in particular, the fighters and commanders from the Brigade, make the phrase ‘For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you’ come true, and we shall answer: Amen,” he concludes.

Dena Shunra wrote:Israel expert Dena Shunra, who translated Winter’s letter for The Electronic Intifada, notes that its appearance reflects the increasing participation of observant Orthodox Jews in the Israeli military. Shunra adds:

This demographic, often associated with the settlement movement, has displaced the traditional Kibbutz-member (militantly secular, socialist/communist leanings) in the Israeli army. Switching from nationalist rhetoric to the language of holy war is part of that transition. Another part is insisting that holy figures appear in battle to comfort/save the Jewish soldiers (and seeing them as Jewish, rather than Israeli). Reports of visitations by “Mama Rochelle” – the Matriarch Rachel, wife of Patriarch Jacob, traditionally buried in Bethlehem – have surfaced in the last few rounds of fighting (from 2002 onward). This changes the nature both of the wars and of the forces engaging in them, pushing towards a clash of civilizations.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-commander-declares-holy-war-palestinians

Im sure I dont have to add the factor of evangelical christians and the Israeli settler movement to since you likely already know, but here it is.
---

Jec wrote:This is what me, Maher, Harris and all other non chicken shit liberals criticize... When inhumane murderous acts like stoning for apostasty or killing the rape victim just because she lost the family's honor happen under the justification of Islam, then it's completely rational to criticize the crap out of it.

Condemning an act like that is entirely appropriate. However its not particularly brave to shit on a specific religion that is already constantly shit on. Everyone should denounce those sort of acts. But not everyone agrees with the Sam harris solution and it isnt entirely out of fear.

What is Sam Harris solution you keep speaking of? He's just explaining the wolrd for how it is he's not offering any solution other than the fact that Islam needs reformation

When you take a look at his rhetoric its not terribly hard to ascertain. Glenn Greenwald does a fine job at pointing it out, and given the fact that I just wasted a good amount of time on that last response Ill just leave it at this

Ahhh... Greenwald's out of context quote cherry pickings...

I disagree. But even if you ignore all that, on a lesser level extreme rhetoric has real life, bigoted consequences which he also points out in that article. Not to mention you undermine the moderate muslims you supposedly want to prop up.

What's your definition of a moderate Muslim? To me, they are the ones that don't take their faith seriously and the ones key to reformation. I don't think rethoric leads to acts of violence. The media likes yo hype rethoric, especially between world leaders, in the end, nothing happens.

Someone who believes in human rights? Im not expecting a liberal its still a conservative society, but not a fundamentalist.

Rhetoric certainly contributes to violence. Once you demonize a group its very easy to see them as an "other". Racism, xenophobia, its how it spreads.

I doubt it... Islamophobics tend to be fundamental Christians not atheists.

It doesnt matter religion the person ascribes to. In a climate of fear bigots prosper, because they are emboldened to act against the minority. Not just against islam this applies to anyone.

Exactly, fear... someone who heavily criticizes something doesn't mean they fear it... Of all people who might call for violence... Atheist and Humanists are the lasts ones to do so... Don't believe me? Look at the religious composition of convicted killers around the world...

That doesn't mean theyre immune to it. I dont see how one can say rhetoric doesn't lead to violence, history is filled with examples.

Such as? Most episodes of violence throughout history, wars and revolutions tend to be caused by socio-economic factors. One might cite Hitler but if you truly analyze Germany's history, WWII was caused by the economic conditions of germany after WWI making them truly desperate. History tries to make it seem like it was just a racist crusade against Jews, gypsies and gays but that's only because mainstream history's written by the victor.
Believe me, if rhetoric had any deterministic role in wars, Colombia and Venezuela would have tore each other a new asshole by now... Or Chile and Peru, or Chile and Bolivia, or Brazil and Paraguay... (Yeah, Latin American countries tend to hate each other)

Economic conditions are certainly a huge part of the initial frustration. But rhetoric is what directs it against minority groups. Whatever the extent you think its responsible for it, it does contribute to violence. Not only during WW2, but a more recent iteration of neo nazism with the Golden Dawn Party in greece which mirrors the economic conditions of Germany pre WW2 and is increasingly anti immigrant. Their political leaders are currently in prison and under criminal investigation for multiple murders. Even smaller examples in the states lead to confrontations between opposing groups. Such as the protestors on both sides of the central america immigrant issue

i think people can see the pattern of black people being the victims to american murder cases etc. thats pretty rhetoric

And why do immigrant conflict arise? "They took er jebs!!!!"

Unless Muslims suddenly start becoming a social and economic burden to the majority class, they're safe from rethoric...

Again Im not saying economic factors are irrelevant, in the worst cases that is typically the precursor. But to say rhetoric has no role in violence is wrong. Read up on what is happening in Australia. I dont believe absolutism has a case in this discussion one way or the other.

Shame what's happening in Australia... But you have to question yourself if those violent people are doing this because of "new atheism" which only criticizes the religion of Islam or classic xenophobia which targets the Muslim people.
No where has Sam Harris, Maher or Hitchens incited violence against a group of people, just rejection of bad ideas.

Im not sure how accurately one can gauge the degree of blame. Regardless these local outbursts happen under a climate of fear. The problem lies when words take on a larger meaning through our politics and influence our foreign policy. Maher has stated he isnt for more war himself. The words of Harris on 'justified violence' you previously posted however does suggest a resignation to it. I strongly disagree with him on that. Also, I dont believe sustainable peace is viable by those who believe that. It too easily elicits feelings of militarism and nationalism. It is because of this that I dont trust 'new atheism'

Harris does not justify violence, he's just states an analysis of how humans behave, he doesnt state he's for war, at least not in anything I've read from him. The whole concept of 'new atheism' it's ridiculous, there is no new atheism, it's not like we are an organized religion with the same set of ideals, we don't agree with every other atheist out there, we don't have a top atheist dictating the way we should think so the notion that we are gonna be influenced by one militant atheist to commit atrocious acts is folly... And I doubt non atheists are lining up to buy Harris's books