Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Panther, noting the parallel between "everyone is an atheist with regard to all religions but his own" and "everyone is an anarchist with regard to all governments but his own," it's worth pointing out a few key differences:

1) governments seem more likely to exist than different Gods
2) most people are one or the other on God and willing to live in different political systems, more or less. I don't mean DPRK, but I could live in Canada. Sweden would be interesting but cold. France would be pushing it. I mean, all the whining!!
3) show me a civilization, even a community without a government, to be proud of. Absence of faith and absence of representatives in government or some kind of communal planning are very different animals.

"But thats my point, we are going in circles, again. We both have our biases, our preferences, and opinions on looking at morality under the context of history."

And yes, you will continue to go around in circles and pointless back and forth if you're trying to figure out which religion to support. Sure, Christianity has a bloody history. Judaism too. Islam has some skeletons in the closet and right now, today, also in the living room apparently. The "my faith vs your faith" argument can continue indefinitely, each person excusing his prophet's violence and pedo-bride, each revering revelations God chose to pass down highly selectively to random dudes in a particularly imaginative patch of desert, each quoting from his infallible book, each forgetting that hundreds of Gods (similarly awesome, responsible for such feats as moving the very sun across the sky each day) have lived and absorbed complete devotion and enjoyed a human sacrifice now and then, only to die and nearly vanish from history when each civilization moves on or gets taken over. You can do this your whole life if you want, missing the central point that ALL of these proponents of different religions offer up pretty much the same type and quality of evidence (which is to say, precious little) and come to vastly different and mutually exclusive conclusions usually based on what they were told when they were children, which just goes to show us how good that evidence really is. Wrapped in a pseudo-certainty Snuggie (R), you miss out on the humbling and inspiring and mind blowing journey of trying (and probably failing miserably) to figure out what is really going on instead, limiting much of your efforts to the praise of a deity you're certain is listening and very much dependent on your attention, rather than a more tangible effort like saving who's ever creation it really is, or volunteering in the social program of your choice, or advancing knowledge.

Bummer.
--Ian
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

IJ wrote:First, Jason, Obama IS a muslim, and second, he IS Muhammed's protege, and third, he DOES admire severed heads in the Oval Office. Haven't you been watching Fox?? :)
I don't believe any of that, and I watch Fox (and MSNBC, and CNN... selectively, mind you. I can't stand Olbermann's or Maddow's rather vicious monologues, nor Beck's emotional sideshows. Kinda like giving Ann Coulter her own show, and treating her as a serious political analyst). And since I watch Fox, I know they haven't made any of those claims (they just report that people hold those beliefs, just like MSNBC reports it, just not as much).
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAhmed46 wrote: Once again, he never ASKED to have power. Never tried to usurp it until the murders, expultions, and sanctions were put on his followers.
But he did ask to have power. He's the one who claimed to have divine messages from God, and wouldn't shut up when the local powers-that-be told him to. He led people to believe he was a prophet. He decided to lead them. He drew a line in the sand that the local authorities were guaranteed to cross.
David killed a dude for his wife, and Moses killed infants and non-virgin woman because he was coming in the form of gods punishment.
David killed a dude to take his wife, but the Bible is clear that wasn't cool. Perhaps you could provide a reference for the infanticidal/matricidal Moses, because I don't recall that particular passage.
That already happens. Populations and size of the institution is so huge that it's generals and military commanders that order them, so really no need to bother the president with that. Remember when zarqawi or whatever his name is was targetted, bombed, then had the body recovered as proof? Only the most hardcore super hippie liberal would be horribly offendd, considering how many lives taht saved. I'll critique bush for many things, but not really that.
Things may not be pretty in Iraq, but killing that man sure as hell made life easier in that place, if only for a time.
An interesting tactic. Alright, let me put it a different way. People are considered villains throughout history for very different things. Mohammed may not be the credentialed sort of villain that Mao, Hitler, or Stalin (for want of sheer massive numbers of victims), but consider others. Milosevic(sp) was barely a blip on the U.S. radar, but to the people who suffered from the genocide he sponsored, he must have been quite a villain. Nixon was considered a villain, and he never killed anybody. Caesar was considered a villain by some for claiming the rights of a dictator, though he is admired by historians.

Muhammed? Small fry. But not to the hundreds of Jews and Arabs he had slaughtered and targetted, nor I'm sure, to their families. He made up a religion, set himself up as its titular head, and acted like a despotic villain. The religion he spawned? Well, it just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

IJ wrote:Panther, noting the parallel between "everyone is an atheist with regard to all religions but his own" and "everyone is an anarchist with regard to all governments but his own," it's worth pointing out a few key differences:

1) governments seem more likely to exist than different Gods
2) most people are one or the other on God and willing to live in different political systems, more or less. I don't mean DPRK, but I could live in Canada. Sweden would be interesting but cold. France would be pushing it. I mean, all the whining!!
3) show me a civilization, even a community without a government, to be proud of. Absence of faith and absence of representatives in government or some kind of communal planning are very different animals.
I offer these as an FYI...

This reminds me of an article by Robert Higgs on Slavery vs Government.

The entire article is here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html

But an interesting comparison chart is this:

Arguments Against the Abolition of Slavery and Arguments Against the Abolition of Government (as We Know It)

Code: Select all

Slavery is natural.                   Government (as we know it) is natural.

Slavery has always existed.           Government (as we know it) has always existed.

Every society on earth has slavery.   Every society on earth has government (as we know it)

The slaves are not capable of         The people are not capable of taking 
taking care of themselves.            care of themselves

Without masters, the slaves           Without government (as we know it),
will die off.                         the people will die off.

Where the common people are           Where the common people have
free, they are even worse off than    no government (as we know it),
slaves.                               they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).
	
Getting rid of slavery would          Getting rid of government (as we 
occasion great bloodshed and          know it) would occasion great
other evils.                          bloodshed and other evils.
	
Without slavery, the former           Without government (as we know it),
slaves would run amuck, stealing,     the people would run amuck,
raping, killing, and generally        stealing, raping, killing, and
causing mayhem.                       generally causing mayhem.
	
Trying to get rid of slavery is       Trying to get rid of government
foolishly utopian and impractical;    (as we know it) is foolishly utopian
 only a fuzzy-headed dreamer          and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed
would advance such a                  dreamer would advance such a
cockamamie proposal.                  cockamamie proposal.
	
Forget abolition. A far better        Forget anarchy. A far better 
plan is to keep the slaves            plan is to keep the ordinary people
sufficiently well fed, clothed,       sufficiently well fed, clothed,
housed, and occasionally              housed, and entertained and 
entertained and to take their         to take their minds off their exploitation
minds off their exploitation by       by encouraging them to focus on
encouraging them to focus on          the better life that awaits them
the better life that awaits them      in the hereafter.  
in the hereafter.
Medieval Ireland and Iceland are oft cited examples of stateless societies resembling market anarchy. Mises has written in pretty good detail about medieval Ireland and there are also works that discuss how the Old West in the U.S. was a free-market anarchist society which actually wasn't nearly as violent as the movies have led people to believe. Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today. The real culture of violence on the frontier during the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians. Showing once again that government is violent force.
"But there are other fatal flaws and inconsistencies in the concept of
limited, laissez-faire government. In the first place, it is generally accepted,
by limited-government and by other political philosophers, that the State
is necessary for the creation and development of law. But this is historically
incorrect. For most law, but especially the most libertarian parts of the
law, emerged not from the State, but out of non-State institutions: tribal
custom, common-law judges and courts, the law merchant in mercantile
courts, or admiralty law in tribunals set up by shippers themselves. In
the case of competing common-law judges as well as elders of tribes, the
judges were not engaged in making law, but in finding the law in existing
and generally accepted principles, and then applying that law to specific
cases or to new technological or institutional conditions. The same was
true in private Roman law. Moreover, in ancient Ireland, a society existing
for a thousand years until the conquest by Cromwell, "there was no trace
of State-administered justice"; competing schools of professional jurists
interpreted and applied the common body of customary law, with
enforcement undertaken by competing and voluntarily supported tuatha,
or insurance agencies. Furthermore, these customary rules were not
haphazard or arbitrary but consciously rooted in natural law, discoverable
by man's reason."

Rothbard, M. The Ethics of Liberty, p 178.
Additionally, you might want to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... ommunities which encompasses a number of variations on the theme, some of which are more "free market" and others which are more "communal" oriented.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

But he did ask to have power. He's the one who claimed to have divine messages from God, and wouldn't shut up when the local powers-that-be told him to. He led people to believe he was a prophet. He decided to lead them. He drew a line in the sand that the local authorities were guaranteed to cross.
All he wanted was to preach, thats all. And to have his people treated properly. He never told anyone to commit a coup or even stop other people from worshipping. They hunted down worshippers, and tortured, killed them. Especially those without clan protection. He picked up his people and left, and then they tried to starve them out, and began sellign their posession.

David killed a dude to take his wife, but the Bible is clear that wasn't cool. Perhaps you could provide a reference for the infanticidal/matricidal Moses, because I don't recall that particular passage.
From the OT Deuteronomy in particular Chapter 7 on moses.

And maybe it did say his actions were not cool. And they weren't but he was still chosen by god to be a messenger of god. Now did the bible it self say this, or did extra commentary say it wasn't cool? Im not saying that commentary can be totally disregarded, it's a very important part of religious texts. Just wondering.


An interesting tactic. Alright, let me put it a different way. People are considered villains throughout history for very different things. Mohammed may not be the credentialed sort of villain that Mao, Hitler, or Stalin (for want of sheer massive numbers of victims), but consider others. Milosevic(sp) was barely a blip on the U.S. radar, but to the people who suffered from the genocide he sponsored, he must have been quite a villain. Nixon was considered a villain, and he never killed anybody. Caesar was considered a villain by some for claiming the rights of a dictator, though he is admired by historians.

Muhammed? Small fry. But not to the hundreds of Jews and Arabs he had slaughtered and targetted, nor I'm sure, to their families. He made up a religion, set himself up as its titular head, and acted like a despotic villain. The religion he spawned? Well, it just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
The feelings of the families are probably either the feelings of a criminals mother or wife who denies her son/husband was a criminal that was sent to prison, or they felt ashamed that those people committed the crime, or they hated the muslims as much as their husbands/sons and continued to hate.
Remember, the same arabs mohammed had killed in wars were the same arabs that took Sumaiya and her husband, tied them down, and force their son to watch as a spear was shoved up his mothers genitals. She and her husband had no clan protection, so they could do that.
Umar, before he became a muslim, hated islam. And when he learned his slave girl practiced islam, he took her back and would beat and whip her. He then said "im taking a rest for today, because I am tired. This isn't for you." And then even tribal protection(that sumaiya didn't have) no longer could protect them. So they had to leave as nearly all of them would have been killed if they didn't leave.

As for the jews, mohammed wasn't going to kill them. He wasn't even going to put sanctions on them. He was going to expel them, but the jews wanted to be judged by one of their own blood and law. And so the jew that judged them had a far more harsh punishment in mind than what mohammed had planned. And it was soldiers getting executed. And even THAT story, as i posted above, has recently been quesitoned for it's validity, did the executions even happen? Jewish historians have been questioning it since 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies in 1973. So we don't even know if that even happened.

Tarek fatah is strictly highly, even severly critical of his fellow muslims. And you guys will agree with 90% of what he says. But interestingly, he has a good perspective on this. I disagree with many of his views, hell i have argued with him on facebook. But i really really respect him.

http://networkedblogs.com/a2Uuu?a=share&ref=nf
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Muhammed just wanted to preach, and supported other religions doing their own thing. He was basically a live and let live guy. Just don't think about apostasy and it's important not to get stoned or shot for sleeping around if the wrong people catch you and invoke some law that apparently isn't clearly incompatible with his writings.

Panther, that comparison chart is a big straw man. Nobody runs around saying we have to have government because it's natural, and we know government hasn't always existed. Just because people can take care of themselves doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit from having a municipal water supply and police and fire. No one asserts people die off without government. We all know that governments come in good and bad (I'm reading an interesting book about the DPRK right now, and hell, who wants to live in any Islamic republic??). Anarchic situations don't always go right to heck but they do invite some looting, Katrina style. Suggesting we disband the USA IS foolishly impractical, but why would that be the case with slavery? And who's telling anyone to forget their exploitation (whaa? you mean my roads, water, fire, police, etc?) because it gets better in the hereafter? Certainly not me. The whole thing was just a load of hooey.

And you're going to say that because the USA slaughtered Indians the whole idea of government is forever debunked? Puhlease. I'm not 100% on this but I thought that Rwandan mess was largely a tribal, anarchic, home to home machete spree. What does that tell us? What about when governments STOP genocides? Most of history was a bit messy. We've been improving, overall, at a rapid clip; governments have helped (and hindered) this process. I think there's certainly a need for debate about the amount or control or kind of government we need, but at least from my perspective, when traders have set up agreed upon statutes that they follow and employ common law judges and courts, it's not government missing; THAT'S the government they set up.
--Ian
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAhmed46 wrote: All he wanted was to preach, thats all. And to have his people treated properly. He never told anyone to commit a coup or even stop other people from worshipping. They hunted down worshippers, and tortured, killed them. Especially those without clan protection. He picked up his people and left, and then they tried to starve them out, and began sellign their posession.
Mohammed went often to the Kaaba, accosted pilgrims, and preached the one god. The Quaraish heard him at first with smiling patience, called him a half-wit, and proposed to send him, at their own expense, to a physician who might cure him of his madness. But when he attacked the Kaaba worship as idolatry, they rose to the protection of their income, and would have done him injury had not his uncle Abu Talib shielded him. Abu Talith would have none of the new faith, but his very fidelity to old ways required him to defend any member of his clan. - R. Dozy, Spanish Islam
All he wanted was to preach, thats all.

There's preaching about your own faith, and then there's attacking the official religion of the place in which you dwell. You want to talk about historical context; well, it wasn't exactly the U.S., they didn't have separation of Church and State, and Mohammed ate from the same dish he served others. Perhaps if he'd choked on the spoon, we wouldn't have had years of invasions slowing down progress in Europe, and of course the Crusades in response. Not to mention a host of other nasty episodes throughout history.
...and Moses killed infants and non-virgin woman because he was coming in the form of gods punishment.
From the OT Deuteronomy in particular Chapter 7 on moses.
26 verses to dig through, thank you so much. Let's see.. drive out many nations... don't intermarry, make no treaties... do destroy their religious symbols... you are my people, my treasure... I redeemed you... your God is faithful... hate met by destruction... will keep you free from disease and pestilence... do not serve their gods... how can we drive them out, we ******... have courage, god is on your side... don't be ensnared by their religions...

Nope. Sorry, don't see infanticide/matricide anywhere. And if you give me another chapter to sift through, I'll match it to a piece of Muslim literature, of my own choosing. :twisted: You insist it's there, so prove it. A quote would be great, but I'll even settle for just a verse, if a quote would kill ya.
And maybe it did say his actions were not cool. And they weren't but he was still chosen by god to be a messenger of god. Now did the bible it self say this, or did extra commentary say it wasn't cool? Im not saying that commentary can be totally disregarded, it's a very important part of religious texts. Just wondering.
What do you think? If a prophet comes to tell you that God isn't happy about what you did with that woman's prior husband, do you think it's being set up as a shining example of behavior?

This is why we end up going in circles. I attack Mohammed's character, and you insist through all kinds of roundabout means that Mohammed's just misunderstood. Forget that he did all these things, we just don't understand what it was like to live in a vicious, flea-ridden, sandy, barbaric environment. That bloodshed was the only answer to insult. That we should take this down-on-his-luck shyster at his word that he saw Gabriel in a dream (oh, and travelled to Jerusalem in another dream and stood there in reality, safely transported back to his bed by morning). That we should make no moral judgement about a guy who married a 9 (possibly 7)-year old girl instead of adopting her. That assassinations by a guy who claimed to speak for God were a simple necessity to control the mob.

I'm calling BS. I've defended my assertions that Mohammed was a child-molesting, perverted, dictatorial madman, soaked in violence, ego, and lust, who stole from the heritage of Christianity and Judaism to set himself up as the titular head of a new religion solely for the purpose of gathering power he had no other hope of attaining. He was also clever, charismatic, and a pragmatist. Kinda like a used-car salesman, with a finger on the nuke button.

Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were better men, preached far better ethics and morals, and not one of them (as far as history can tell us) got hot and sweaty under the sheets with a child.

That's my final word (on that topic).
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Ian,

No need to get upset... Different people have different opinions about the role (or lack thereof) that government should play. I was pointing out another view, that's all...

You should know by now that I'm really a "live and let live as long as you don't harm someone else" (with the exception of self-defense) type of person...

Take care...
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Mohammed went often to the Kaaba, accosted pilgrims, and preached the one god. The Quaraish heard him at first with smiling patience, called him a half-wit, and proposed to send him, at their own expense, to a physician who might cure him of his madness. But when he attacked the Kaaba worship as idolatry, they rose to the protection of their income, and would have done him injury had not his uncle Abu Talib shielded him. Abu Talith would have none of the new faith, but his very fidelity to old ways required him to defend any member of his clan. - R. Dozy, Spanish Islam
Only got violent when they got violent. What do you think the jews of medina would say about arab paganism? Nothing? Maybe. But they were afraid for their lives. For good reason. It's interesting how you think muhammed critiquing the religion of the pagan arabs as bad, because of teh context of the times, yet at the same time apply todays context to critique him? He never 'attacked' pilgrims. He was known to be very polite to them. It's like the door to door christians that visit. They may be irritating, but ive never wanted to kill them to shut them up. They did that with mohammed, especially when he had growing followers.
You honestly want to brand him as the aggressor because he PREACHED and they reacted violently? Maybe it was inevitable, but taking people out and impaling them out in the dessert is pretty crappy. Was it morally justified for the romans/jews who crucified christ? It wasn't.
I don't understand yoru arguement really.
There's preaching about your own faith, and then there's attacking the official religion of the place in which you dwell. You want to talk about historical context; well, it wasn't exactly the U.S., they didn't have separation of Church and State, and Mohammed ate from the same dish he served others. Perhaps if he'd choked on the spoon, we wouldn't have had years of invasions slowing down progress in Europe, and of course the Crusades in response. Not to mention a host of other nasty episodes throughout history.
Why tolerate the christians and jews then? Because they didn't preach?
And lets not forget, there was also great post islamic influence on europian science, a great deal of it. Maybe europian advancement would have gotten along faster on it's own, or maybe it wouldn't we have no idea how the world would have been like without islam, too many factors. We debated the muslim influence on history lots before as i recall, and whether or not europian history would have advanced further, science under islam was not retarded, and did influence europian science positivly.

26 verses to dig through, thank you so much. Let's see.. drive out many nations... don't intermarry, make no treaties... do destroy their religious symbols... you are my people, my treasure... I redeemed you... your God is faithful... hate met by destruction... will keep you free from disease and pestilence... do not serve their gods... how can we drive them out, we ******... have courage, god is on your side... don't be ensnared by their religions...

Nope. Sorry, don't see infanticide/matricide anywhere. And if you give me another chapter to sift through, I'll match it to a piece of Muslim literature, of my own choosing. :twisted: You insist it's there, so prove it. A quote would be great, but I'll even settle for just a verse, if a quote would kill ya.
As well as the Gita, jewish texts, nearly every religious text has it's batshit crazy #####.

if you want a quote then here i don't like quoting the bible and then leaving it like that, because people take the quran and hadith out of context and just post and leave it. I don't like being underhanded and equally underhanded:

Numbers
Chapter 31

7-12


7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

17-18

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves



Basically, didn't jesus order this? And isn't Moses chosen by god? Perhaps the times and places, motives of an eternal being cannot be really comprehendended by us. We really don't know. We have no idea.

I really don't want to get into a quote war. It's probably the most tedious form of forum arguement in the world. And the anti-christian crowd does enough of it already(i don't suppor thtem by the way) there IS a disproportionate amount of people attacking christianity. I agree.

I only use this quote because you asked me where i got my info from, so im showing you.


What do you think? If a prophet comes to tell you that God isn't happy about what you did with that woman's prior husband, do you think it's being set up as a shining example of behavior?

This is why we end up going in circles. I attack Mohammed's character, and you insist through all kinds of roundabout means that Mohammed's just misunderstood. Forget that he did all these things, we just don't understand what it was like to live in a vicious, flea-ridden, sandy, barbaric environment. That bloodshed was the only answer to insult. That we should take this down-on-his-luck shyster at his word that he saw Gabriel in a dream (oh, and travelled to Jerusalem in another dream and stood there in reality, safely transported back to his bed by morning).
If we have no real way of knowing, why are we argueing this, why are we so sure? Thats my point too. Believe it or not, i have enough doubt to really call myself a muslim agnostic. Muslim in regards toward culture, agnostic in belief. I support my cultural choice due to some religious investigation. But i would be liar if i said I totally agree with it, if i totally believed. Thing is, i don't totally believe. And that goes with everything i read. Atleast the hindus are a bit more honest about it then jews and christians.

We have no idea what is fact from fiction, as i find, especially in the theological, moral, and yes even physical realm we have no idea what 'truth' is. We are slaves to our perception. We don't even know if gravity is percieved the same way by other people as it's percieved by us. We are limited to our perceptions. If morality is dicatated by what is 'natural' then is a sadist caught torturing someone against their will even wrong? We don't know really. We can say 'the eternal' gives us CLUES, to correct morality, but thats it. I do find however, disproportianate attacks on islam and mohammed, especially after 9/11 for obvious reasons.
That we should make no moral judgement about a guy who married a 9 (possibly 7)-year old girl instead of adopting her.

I gave you both points of view. Out of being academically fair, i presented the point of view that if she was 9. I personally don't believe that, and I have presented my arguements why. You say im rationalizing, but ive presented more than once piece of evidence saying she was older, such as being in places where only 15+year olds can be, and the time disparity between birth/marriage. And the 7 thing is about bethrothal not marriage.
He didn't adopt her because he wanted to ahve children. ANd considering how many of his children died of natural causes before they hit adulthood, i don't blame him. Fatima survived til 29, but then dropped dead.
If people took the opinon that 'puberty isn't reason enough to marry' we would be UNDER populated instead of over populated right now. And the fruit fly life spans of many of these historical figures explains that.

That assassinations by a guy who claimed to speak for God were a simple necessity to control the mob.
We already went over this. If your protecting your own people, you have a tough decision to make. Nearly every political tragedy in history was accompanied by some propoganda. I hate bringing up nazi germany, as this example is overdone, but i can't think of a better example: The ant-jewish propoganda, if that were not so prevalent, would hitler have been able to convince people to create teh holocaust? Or even the anti-jewish/anti-communist riots?
I'm calling BS. I've defended my assertions that Mohammed was a child-molesting, perverted, dictatorial madman, soaked in violence, ego, and lust, who stole from the heritage of Christianity and Judaism to set himself up as the titular head of a new religion solely for the purpose of gathering power he had no other hope of attaining. He was also clever, charismatic, and a pragmatist. Kinda like a used-car salesman, with a finger on the nuke button.
They offered hima lot of power too remember? The same soarces you use to codemn him state that the folk who later tried to kill his people also stated that if he included two of their deities into islamic worship, they would basically make him the leader of mecca and medina. Yet he turned it down.
He was spreme ruler of arabia when he died, yet spent his last few weeks paying off debts, including giving back a sword and sheild he borrowed from a jew from Medina. He lived in a hut, had a diet of dates and milk predominantly(ewww) not exacly kingly lifestyle.
Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were better men, preached far better ethics and morals, and not one of them (as far as history can tell us) got hot and sweaty under the sheets with a child.
I already stated about jesus. I consider buddha one of teh thousands of messengers sent throughout history. Ghandi was cool, he also had alot of good things to say about mohammed, surrounded himself with many muslims.
That's my final word (on that topic).
Fair enough. I won't ever change your mind, you probably won't change my mind. I have been fairly respectful toward you, atleast i hope i was.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

IJ wrote:Muhammed just wanted to preach, and supported other religions doing their own thing. He was basically a live and let live guy. Just don't think about apostasy and it's important not to get stoned or shot for sleeping around if the wrong people catch you and invoke some law that apparently isn't clearly incompatible with his writings.
Different issues totally that im talking about. Your trying to insert seperate arguements of law over why fighting started and why they became oppressed. In terms of war, he was only reacting to protect his followers.

The law on apostates is actually about treason, btw, particularly against espionoge. And as i recall, the new testament has something similar. I know your an athiest so it doesn't affect you, but considering im argueing with a christian, im surprised you didn't bring that up for teh NT as well(Romans 1:20-32 from the New Testament) But that is a more acceptable critque that alot of people throw out. Got a problem with stoning? Why not talk about the torah? Thats where it comes from, inserted into the sunnah or not. Who knows.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Panther, you of course know me well enough by now to know that I don't get upset at online chatter :) day in and day out I see bigger fish to fry. Plus in my DPRK book the famine started and the lights went out and the economy is in free fall, so my xbox seems like a secular miracle / blessing :) Life is good!

So Ahmed, it's "different issues" with regard to the stonings, shootings, and punishments for exercising free will? Ok fine they're not 100% linked to his wars, but does that matter? As far as apostasy goes, I'm not going to bring christian JR to task on its punishments because (correct me if I'm wrong here) THERE AREN'T ANY. Just in Islam. And you're picking on the Jews for the stonings? Good point a couple thousand years ago! Hell, they've got an ok with gay military in Israel without any significant problems, they're well ahead of us in that department, no matter what that dusty and ancient tome says.

Breakthrough, however, on your admission that you're a muslim agnostic. I'm take that as a subtle sign you recognize the complete lack of evidence and the really implausible claims and logic of the whole enterprise. So that brings me back to your other point, that you're muslim in regard to culture. Which parts of the culture do you celebrate? Are there any you don't?

"If people took the opinon that 'puberty isn't reason enough to marry' we would be UNDER populated instead of over populated right now."

I'm not sure I believe that for one minute. Big claim. Evidence?
--Ian
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

So Ahmed, it's "different issues" with regard to the stonings, shootings, and punishments for exercising free will? Ok fine they're not 100% linked to his wars, but does that matter? As far as apostasy goes, I'm not going to bring christian JR to task on its punishments because (correct me if I'm wrong here) THERE AREN'T ANY.
Until reformation, i understand that most of OT law was not abrogated, only some of it. In many ways, christ emphasized it more. So it really is relevent. I can post a ##### load of examples of christian extremests trying to put together some form of biblical law, difference is, your governemnt is just better at keeping it down, and a more educated population makes sure less people are religious zealots. But you know as well as i do, many want biblical law.
Just in Islam. And you're picking on the Jews for the stonings? Good point a couple thousand years ago! Hell, they've got an ok with gay military in Israel without any significant problems, they're well ahead of us in that department, no matter what that dusty and ancient tome says.
Western media is very bad at recording the fanatical activity of alot of hassidecs. Next to the palistinians, they have the highest birth rate. Isreali government often has trouble dealing with them, as they view thema s fellow jews, so can't fire. But alot of hassidecs(yes my spelling is off) have no problem with firing at isreali soldiers. A friend of mine, who is working on his Phd for middle eastern politics, talked to a hassidec, and he said "the holocaust was a good thing, most of the jews that died were liberal and secular jews. Our enemies." Also comments by influential rabbis in isreal saying 'it's okay to kill gentiles' What woudl happen if they got into power? Ill give isreal lots of credit, it's a functional secular government. But just as you folk worry abuot those dirty moslems getting more numerious and voting in islamic government into europe, there is a real fear, that the extremists hassidics could take alot of power, just as many isrealis fear isreali palistinians could outvote the jews.
Also, you overplay the religious aspect of current events way too much, like alot of people. Qutb is the mastermind behind modern extremism today, and he was GREATLY influenced by enlightenment thinkers and revolutionary thought. His own followers can be quoted saying how they were equally motivated by Roussou and Voltaire.
Breakthrough, however, on your admission that you're a muslim agnostic.
Always known it, i figured it was obvious.
I'm take that as a subtle sign you recognize the complete lack of evidence and the really implausible claims and logic of the whole enterprise.
I take it as the truth, and being sure is never what it turns out to be. There is always complexity to everything, i have a hard time with anything that claims to have everything figured out. This includes islam.
So that brings me back to your other point, that you're muslim in regard to culture. Which parts of the culture do you celebrate? Are there any you don't?
Social justice(yes i said it glenn beck), giving to the poor, respecting other religions(you guys will argue with me on this, but this is always pushed by every islamic scholar i have met) and most of all HUMILITY and respect. Never ever think you are smarter, more englightened, or superior than anyone else. If your stronger, you were lucky enough to be born that way, if your smart, either you were lucky enough to live in a culture tha developed it or came from a specific gene pool. If you have a skilled valued in society, be happy your born in a time or society that values you. Also personal value at the same time as humility. Islams strict views on sexuality is because of great respect for personal relationships. Family ties are very strong in islamic cultures, as well as friendship being taken very seriously. The pragmatic view of violence and aggression, and rules of war.
Another thing is visiting and seeing these countries from a muslim perspective, noticing half of the issues argued about islam are often exaggerated, misunderstood, or rare. Instead of reading Ibn Warraq, why not read Bernard lewis or daniel pipes? I swear to you, both are athiests, both are critical of islam. Lewis and popes have mainly been critiqued for viewing islam as monolithic rather than mistakes looking at theology.

Gotta see it from the inside i guess.
I'm not sure I believe that for one minute. Big claim. Evidence?
I take it my really really long and multiple posts went unread throughout this thread. I posted stuff off of google way back in the thread. That, and the deaths of alot of mohammeds children can give me perspective as well.
You also forget, i don't believe she was 9, my evidence was posted before as well.
Another google search:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/ ... /one2.html

http://geography.about.com/od/populatio ... ctancy.htm

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.co ... e-ages.jpg

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009 ... t-history/

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/do ... /Life.html

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movabl ... t_Long.gif

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/hist ... expectancy

In rome, it seemed sporadic. Keep in mind the more sophisticated culture it was, yet still death was very unpridictable, at it still seemed we had MANY young deaths.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/do ... /Life.html

http://digirep.rhul.ac.uk/items/82106ff ... 6015ab0/1/

http://www.soton.ac.uk/archaeology/rese ... mpire.html


Too much homework to do anymore.

EDIT: Added a bunch of links. Im gonna fail.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:08 pm, edited 5 times in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Double post.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAhmed46 wrote:
You honestly want to brand him as the aggressor because he PREACHED and they reacted violently? Maybe it was inevitable, but taking people out and impaling them out in the desert is pretty crappy. Was it morally justified for the romans/jews who crucified christ? It wasn't.
I don't understand your arguement really.
From that prism, I wouldn't understand my argument, either. :wink:

Aggressor: a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

Hostile: opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism; characterized by antagonism.

Actions have consequences.

We debated the muslim influence on history lots before as i recall, and whether or not europian history would have advanced further, science under islam was not retarded, and did influence europian science positivly.


Historically misleading. Europe went through some pretty dark times during the Islamic invasions, which retarded growth in every measurable form. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own to). That is when European sciences began to flower. By then, Islamic scientific and social advancement had stagnated.

As well as the Gita, jewish texts, nearly every religious text has it's batshit crazy #####.

if you want a quote then here i don't like quoting the bible and then leaving it like that, because people take the quran and hadith out of context and just post and leave it. I don't like being underhanded and equally underhanded: Numbers
Chapter 31: 17

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

There ya go.

...and Moses killed infants and non-virgin woman because he was coming in the form of gods punishment.
From the OT Deuteronomy in particular Chapter 7 on moses.


See? Big difference between Deuteronomy chapter 7 and Numbers Chapter 31. Much better. But is this supposed to prove that Moses was a bigger villain than Mohammed? Or a lame attempt at defending your religion by pointing your finger at someone else's?

Basically, didn't jesus order this? And isn't Moses chosen by god? Perhaps the times and places, motives of an eternal being cannot be really comprehendended by us. We really don't know. We have no idea.


So what you're saying is, that even though Jesus (who was a prophet, remember?) said Do unto others what you would have them do unto you... God turned around and told Mohammed to go back to 'Eye for an Eye.' And you explain this by the mush that an eternal being cannot be comprehended?

The dissonance, man, the dissonance. Ouch.

I only use this quote because you asked me where i got my info from, so im showing you.


I appreciate it. I hate erroneous claims. :)

If we have no real way of knowing, why are we argueing this, why are we so sure? Thats my point too. Believe it or not, i have enough doubt to really call myself a muslim agnostic. Muslim in regards toward culture, agnostic in belief. I support my cultural choice due to some religious investigation. But i would be liar if i said I totally agree with it, if i totally believed. Thing is, i don't totally believe. And that goes with everything i read. Atleast the hindus are a bit more honest about it then jews and christians.


You may not believe, but you do care, otherwise you would not have jumped on me for what I said. It would be really odd for someone to claim Jesus was a monster (a madman, well, that's plausible). But to me, the shoes fit Mohammed and Joseph Smith. I think these two charlatans have done great harm with their shenanigans.

We have no idea what is fact from fiction, as i find, especially in the theological, moral, and yes even physical realm we have no idea what 'truth' is.


That's not Agnostic. That's Sophist, or Cynic.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Truth, and fact, are distinguishable from fiction, and falsehood.

We are slaves to our perception... We are limited to our perceptions.


I disagree. Perceptions can be tested, theories formulated, conclusions drawn. Was Einstein a slave to his perceptions? Is Stephen Hawking limited to taste, smell, touch, sight and sound? I think not.

If morality is dicatated by what is 'natural' then is a sadist caught torturing someone against their will even wrong? We don't know really. We can say 'the eternal' gives us CLUES, to correct morality, but thats it. I do find however, disproportianate attacks on islam and mohammed, especially after 9/11 for obvious reasons.


Define natural. As for disproportionate attacks, define disproportionate. I don't see, given the circumstances, how it's been disproportionate. Unfair, perhaps (but not IMO), but that just means Islam has finally joined the club.

What do you think of Oklahoma passing (by 70%!!!) an amendment banning International (and by extension, Sharia) law? News of Sharia courts operating in England had a lot to do with this one.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Jason Rees wrote:
AAAhmed46 wrote:
You honestly want to brand him as the aggressor because he PREACHED and they reacted violently? Maybe it was inevitable, but taking people out and impaling them out in the desert is pretty crappy. Was it morally justified for the romans/jews who crucified christ? It wasn't.
I don't understand your arguement really.
From that prism, I wouldn't understand my argument, either. :wink:

Aggressor: a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

Hostile: opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism; characterized by antagonism.

Actions have consequences.

We debated the muslim influence on history lots before as i recall, and whether or not europian history would have advanced further, science under islam was not retarded, and did influence europian science positivly.


Historically misleading. Europe went through some pretty dark times during the Islamic invasions, which retarded growth in every measurable form. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own to). That is when European sciences began to flower. By then, Islamic scientific and social advancement had stagnated.

As well as the Gita, jewish texts, nearly every religious text has it's batshit crazy #####.

if you want a quote then here i don't like quoting the bible and then leaving it like that, because people take the quran and hadith out of context and just post and leave it. I don't like being underhanded and equally underhanded: Numbers
Chapter 31: 17

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

There ya go.

...and Moses killed infants and non-virgin woman because he was coming in the form of gods punishment.
From the OT Deuteronomy in particular Chapter 7 on moses.


See? Big difference between Deuteronomy chapter 7 and Numbers Chapter 31. Much better. But is this supposed to prove that Moses was a bigger villain than Mohammed? Or a lame attempt at defending your religion by pointing your finger at someone else's?

Basically, didn't jesus order this? And isn't Moses chosen by god? Perhaps the times and places, motives of an eternal being cannot be really comprehendended by us. We really don't know. We have no idea.


So what you're saying is, that even though Jesus (who was a prophet, remember?) said Do unto others what you would have them do unto you... God turned around and told Mohammed to go back to 'Eye for an Eye.' And you explain this by the mush that an eternal being cannot be comprehended?

The dissonance, man, the dissonance. Ouch.

I only use this quote because you asked me where i got my info from, so im showing you.


I appreciate it. I hate erroneous claims. :)

If we have no real way of knowing, why are we argueing this, why are we so sure? Thats my point too. Believe it or not, i have enough doubt to really call myself a muslim agnostic. Muslim in regards toward culture, agnostic in belief. I support my cultural choice due to some religious investigation. But i would be liar if i said I totally agree with it, if i totally believed. Thing is, i don't totally believe. And that goes with everything i read. Atleast the hindus are a bit more honest about it then jews and christians.


You may not believe, but you do care, otherwise you would not have jumped on me for what I said. It would be really odd for someone to claim Jesus was a monster (a madman, well, that's plausible). But to me, the shoes fit Mohammed and Joseph Smith. I think these two charlatans have done great harm with their shenanigans.

We have no idea what is fact from fiction, as i find, especially in the theological, moral, and yes even physical realm we have no idea what 'truth' is.


That's not Agnostic. That's Sophist, or Cynic.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Truth, and fact, are distinguishable from fiction, and falsehood. To say that truth is relative is a cop-out.

We are slaves to our perception... We are limited to our perceptions.


I disagree. Perceptions can be tested, theories formulated, conclusions drawn. Was Einstein a slave to his perceptions? Is Stephen Hawking limited to taste, smell, touch, sight and sound? I think not.

If morality is dicatated by what is 'natural' then is a sadist caught torturing someone against their will even wrong? We don't know really. We can say 'the eternal' gives us CLUES, to correct morality, but thats it. I do find however, disproportianate attacks on islam and mohammed, especially after 9/11 for obvious reasons.


Define natural. As for disproportionate attacks, define disproportionate. I don't see, given the circumstances, how it's been disproportionate. Unfair, perhaps (but not IMO), but that just means Islam has finally joined the club.

What do you think of Oklahoma passing (by 70%!!!) an amendment banning International (and by extension, Sharia) law? News of Sharia courts operating in England had a lot to do with this one.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”