Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

[AAAhmed46]

So we know how Muslims justify atrocity: by fear of atrocity.

Atrocity was actually being committed.

Since when do holy men have any business causing wars? Aren't they supposed to spread peace? I speak to the character of Mohammed, and it isn't a pretty picture.

Tell that to holocaust survivors. I hate always brining it up, as it's always brought up, but do you think non-violence would have stopped hitler?

Splitting the moon! ROTLFMAO!!! Good one. Yeah, the production of the Quran a miracle? You're just full of chuckles, man.

Apparently, according to hadith, he split the moon and put it together. But that contridicts the believe that mohammed's only miracle was the quran. Don't agree with me, fine. Do we now open another 20 page debate on the quran and old testament?

First you justify raiding caravans by saying M's people were starving. Then you justify it by war due to persecution. Then you make my point for me, in that Christians didn't go to war when they were persecuted.

If im not mistaken, nearly evey war in the world, including those by christian nations, that attacking trade routes is pretty normal. Your a soldier, im sure if you guys see supplies coming in for insurgents, you intercept them and make sure they don't get their ahnds on them. What exactly were the sacntions on Iraq and Cuba? EXACTLY the same thing as caravan raiding. Especially if they are trading YOUR posessions.

Religion of Peace, eh?

I don't think it's a religion of peace, but it isn't an inherently violent religion either.

Yes, we already know Muslims agree with the assassination of people like Salmon Rushdie and Molly Norris because of the fear of riots. I understand tradition, man.

Go back to the beginning of the thread and look up the links i posted. Sunnis don't have to listen to the ayotollah, and the calls to rise up actually fell on very deaf ears.
And Molly norris did not get an anonamous threat, she was threatened by a terrorist group. Very different from a bunch of angry muslims.
There isn't united support to see these people dead, especially molly norris.

Also, Alexander wrote how they found an al-quada propogandist and arrested him, the man is now in some american prison somewhere. Seems war propoganda and propogandists were often met with some kind of prosecution even today. Especially when they motivate people to kill yoru troops. And i don't blame the army for coming down on them. It's pragmatic, it's rational. It has saved lives. The less young men get radicalized by teh propoganda, the less people get killed.

Un-sourced, man. A source is a source, not a hoarse horse, because that would be a farce, of course. A source is not invalidated by being old and dusty, it is invalidated by being proven wrong.

Though I doubt hadith, there is a long and very careful tradition on sifting through it, and tracing it back to the original narrators and witnesses.
This on the other hand, has no evidence of actually really existing, nothing linked to the companions or anyone around that time. No way to confirm it at all.
It's the same as referencing someone making a claim on a forum being a valid soarce.

Would you prefer a comparison to Ghandi? Buddha, perhaps? I'll try to find another murderous tyrant that happened to be a holy man, but geeze, it sounds like a tall order.

Buddha was a king, he never had to worry about anything mohammed did from his position of authoriy. We have no idea how he would react in the same situations. As for Ghandi, he was lucky that the british empire, for all it's critics, atleast percieved it self as civilized. And Ghandi knew he could use non-violence to win. If you read some of his writings, his views on non-violence was not completely pacifistic. He certainly preferred it to violence, but believe it or not, did not rule it out. He knew that if the british began gunning down indians, the press would see it and hold the empire accountable(in a time where the press was actually responsible enough to be a check to the people in power) when that commander killed all those indians, guess what happened? The empire was embarassed. The muslims did not have this luxury. Ghandi acted according to the circumstances. And Ghandi was not a ruler either, keep that in mind.
Also, christians have prophets, but do not view jesus as a prophet, they view him as the pinnacle of ideal perfection, as he is god. But Christian prophets were not christlike. Mohammed was a prophet, not god in human form. The behavior of biblical prophets is not anything like christ, but they were chosen by god(or christ , as he is god in human form) to be messengers. Clearly christ thought their message was pure enough, despite how they acted compared to him. Of course men would not act as ideally as a living god would.

People will disbelieve alot of things. Jesus' existence is historical fact, backed by hostile witnesses.

Didn't say I didn't believe he didn't exist.

But are his teachings as the new testament says it is? Or is it different?

And how exactly do we know how he would react in a genocidal war? None of that was answered. Not with buddha, not with ghandi, we really don't know how any of them would react. We have no idea.

You were smart to bring ghandi into this, a man we know alot more about than other figures.

[IJ]

I still don't get why you're buying any stock in the Quran. Something about it being poetic? The way you described checking out different religions sounded like you were choosing a car or an entree at a restaurant, but the situation here is quite different, more like asking what's written on the dark side of the moon, a yin-yang, a kanji, or a uechi crest? Rather than wondering if it might be a smiley face and no one's written that book yet, or a BMW logo and the guy who received that revelation wasn't charismatic or lucky enough to publicize the idea, or whether it might be, unfortunately, just craters.

I would wager that with the limited fidelity of the revelation to recounting to handcopied text to evolving language chain to human interpretative error system all these religions seem to be based on, the likeliest thing if there is a spirit world is that it's largely beyond our understanding, a lot bigger than the various Christian vs Islamic vs other boxes we try to shove it in, and that all these overly specific, overly definitive, overly self confident religions are all based on glimpses of an overarching truth. And our best bet for understanding would be to get away from the noise and head out to a slice of creation and ponder it all and ask for insight, rather than submit to the instructions of a power hungry, status quo defending leader of an established religion. But that's just me.

[Jason Rees]

Buddha was a king, he never had to worry about anything mohammed did from his position of authoriy.

Oh, the irony.

Tell that to holocaust survivors. I hate always brining it up, as it's always brought up, but do you think non-violence would have stopped hitler?

Irony, squared. The Jews didn't cause the holocaust, but Mohammed definitely started his little war. So who's Hitler now, and who could have stopped it with non-violence?

[Panther]

Please don't stop! This is just too good to miss...

Two (very minor) things:

The term "dark side of the moon" isn't accurate. The same side of the moon faces the earth all the time, so from here we only see one side (it goes back and forth so we see more than half over time). In relation to the sun, the moon rotates so that it goes through a "moon day" (and night) cycle just as the earth does. It just so happens that the orbit of the moon to the earth and the rotation of the moon are almost exactly the same. All you have to see to know this is true are the different phases of the moon coupled with the same side (pretty much) always facing the earth.
I know... TMI...

The second comment is something I've heard from my Daddy all my life and have found to be a "truism" in looking at history and current events. He told me this:

"More people have been killed in the name of 'God' than for any other reason."

Over my life I've learned that when he said "God" it more closely means "religion" to me. And it seems to me that everyone has some sort of religion, even atheists. .. It's just that their "God" is usually either their ideal of "government" or their ideal of "science". Just a thought. Again...

PLEASE don't stop, this is great stuff...

[IJ]

Dark side of moon--yes, I'm aware Far side sounds less cool, less Pink Floydy. Now explain to me WHY the moon doesn't rotate with respect to us!! GOD DID IT!! Duh duh duh!

I definitely believe that certain "atheists" have their own religion. Really devoted communists and fascists fall into this category. It's very clear from the historical record that the overall population is more productive, and happier, when democracy and capitalism (with occasional brakes) take over from tyranny. The spanking the USSR took from capitalism is one example. North Korea's ongoing economic failure and famine is another. If you can't comprehend the historical record you're running on faith that your political model is better. Or you're just a dictator. Being an atheist is no guarantee that you won't be a power hungry monster and not care how poorly your nation does.

While no guarantee, I do believe it is a big step in the right direction and removes certain dangers, such as that you will believe God intended for you to be elected and start wars (minimizes caution and replaces it with pseudocertainty) or that you will just be so certain of your beliefs they're unfalsifiable and powerful enough to drive you to crazy conclusions. Such as, suicide bombing of civilians constitutes a "defense" of your religion.

[mhosea]

Now explain to me WHY the moon doesn't rotate with respect to us!! GOD DID IT!! Duh duh duh!

Best theory is that the moon was created by a large, high-energy impact with the earth. A substantial amount of the earth was blasted into orbit and accreted into the moon. Any object over a certain mass becomes approximately spherical in space. I believe simulations (originally run at Sandia National Lab--remembered that for some reason) have shown the rotation-matching phenomenon.

But yeah, of course God did it. When God brings his heater, best just step away from the batter's box.

[AAAhmed46]

Oh, the irony.

Tell that to holocaust survivors. I hate always brining it up, as it's always brought up, but do you think non-violence would have stopped hitler?

Irony, squared. The Jews didn't cause the holocaust, but Mohammed definitely started his little war. So who's Hitler now, and who could have stopped it with non-violence?

Mohammad started the war? No he did not. The were fleeing mecca, were put under harsh sanctions until medinians called them over and gave them shelter. Ive posted the Medina constitution many times before on this forum, and the jews violated the Medina constitution. The expultion of Bani Nadir was because of this, and the executions of bani qurayza later as well. Interestingly, it wasn't Mohammad who ordered the execution of all the males in Bani Qurayza, it was another Jew. Mohammad was just going to expel them like he did Bani Nadir. As for teh targets: The scholars, classic and modern both look at these incidents as examples of how only those who guilty must be punished, not the collective. Hence the existence of three(or is it two?) jewish tribes continueing to live in Medina after all this time well after the incident. And the fact they continued practicing judaism shows that their deaths had nothing to do with 'laughing in his face' hell even the esecuations were not, and all historians agree, by mohammeds order or even intention. To him, it was expulsion that he was going to do.

This may also be fascinating to you. I only recently found out about this myself.

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/7 ... MEDINA.pdf

More over, the Jews of khaybar and two other Jewish tribes remained in existence, continued entering and trading in Medina. It wasn't a genocide at all, considering the other three maintained the Medina constitution.




I concede that MAYBE mohammed's actions would not be consistent of what we hold today as an ideal holy man.

But you haven't really proven he is evil as a historical figure, i certainly would not put him in the same classification as Ceasar or Caligula. Especially considering our different opinions on what happened.

[AAAhmed46]

Please don't stop! This is just too good to miss...

Two (very minor) things:

The term "dark side of the moon" isn't accurate. The same side of the moon faces the earth all the time, so from here we only see one side (it goes back and forth so we see more than half over time). In relation to the sun, the moon rotates so that it goes through a "moon day" (and night) cycle just as the earth does. It just so happens that the orbit of the moon to the earth and the rotation of the moon are almost exactly the same. All you have to see to know this is true are the different phases of the moon coupled with the same side (pretty much) always facing the earth.
I know... TMI...

The second comment is something I've heard from my Daddy all my life and have found to be a "truism" in looking at history and current events. He told me this:

"More people have been killed in the name of 'God' than for any other reason."

Over my life I've learned that when he said "God" it more closely means "religion" to me. And it seems to me that everyone has some sort of religion, even atheists. .. It's just that their "God" is usually either their ideal of "government" or their ideal of "science". Just a thought. Again...

PLEASE don't stop, this is great stuff...

Depends on how busy i am

Ultimatly, though, this discussion is turning into a ciricular discussion. All three of us are doing rebuttals we did seven pages ago or in other threads where i left links. Only difference is, i don't want to go digging up the links anymore or even going back to the thread.

Why not wait till i get attracted to another thread of the same or similar topic? Where me and Jason and IJ can debate again? The arguements will feel 'fresher' in our minds, we may be more inclined to devote more effort to responding, and maybe we would have changed/differing opinions on this.

[IJ]

From what I saw on a series I think was called the Universe, our moon resulted from the impact of earth and some fast mover when both were still molten. The glancing blow scattered a lot of material into space, but much of the heavier iron stuff was reabsorbed into the Earth. More superficial rock material didn't fall all the way back to earth and formed the moon, explaining its very iron poor nature. Trivia of the day: with a diameter 1/4 that of the Earth's, the moon is vastly larger than most other moons in the solar system relative to their planets. The exception would have been pluto/charon, but pluto was just 'toided by the peeps in charge in the last few years.

Ahmed, agreed that most has been said, and at this point, most Americans and myself included don't care much whether Islam promotes violence or whether it's just corrupted and distorted into violence promotion all the darned time. But if you're up for a change in direction, consider trying to establish that Islam is an accurate description of the world. This isn't a criminal trial and I don't expect "beyond a reasonable doubt" although people adhere to their religions with that kind of conviction. Why not settle for a civil matter: "more likely than not"? Hint: the logic shouldn't be able to be applied to other religions because mutually exclusive views of the situation can't both be "more likely than not."

[IJ]

Oh, and hey, I dropped by that refutation of my comments about Muslim birth rates in Europe. The snopes "myth" that you refuted was (not surprisingly) not what I said. That video they refute says that the Muslim birthrate is 8 times the Christian rate; it says that by mere virtue of the birth rate in Europe, regardless of Muslims, Europe CANNOT survive and sustaining the continent is impossible. The video concludes with a call to spread the gospel, and basically, to have babies.

Fair point that muslim immigrant birth rates won't be unaltered as they receive the increased wealth and education associated with fertility control in their new homes. But it's hard to deny the surging Islamic population in some parts of Europe, the static non-msulim populations, and the culture clash that's resulted, particularly in France where integration isn't going too well. Let's be honest: people from the West don't want their cultural/political systems diluted by those of any of the Muslim majority nations. Frankly, their concepts of justice, freedom, and the basis of law are in conflict with Europe's values. I'm not familiar with EVERY Islamic government, but I'm aware that things are not well even in our allies governments--think about Saudi Arabia.

This is another example along the lines of "Sam Harris wants to atom bomb the middle east tomorrow" where if you check the source material, you're blowing things out of proportion. Funny, because the snopes critique of the video was that it cherry picked and exaggerated stats without proper context. Ironic, no?

[Jason Rees]

I concede that MAYBE mohammed's actions would not be consistent of what we hold today as an ideal holy man.

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The man was not a prophet, but a fraud and a dictator.

But you haven't really proven he is evil as a historical figure, i certainly would not put him in the same classification as Ceasar or Caligula. Especially considering our different opinions on what happened.

Caesar, eh?
Evil as a historical figure: what do you think the reaction today would be if Obama had somebody assassinated, and the victim's head brought to him?

[IJ]

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??

[Panther]

Now explain to me WHY the moon doesn't rotate with respect to us!!

Ummmm... Physics?

It's very clear from the historical record that the overall population is more productive, and happier, when democracy and capitalism (with occasional brakes) take over from tyranny. The spanking the USSR took from capitalism is one example. North Korea's ongoing economic failure and famine is another. If you can't comprehend the historical record you're running on faith that your political model is better.

To keep it short I'll just say,

"I contend that we are both anarchists. I just believe in one fewer government than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible governments, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Travis Eden

[AAAhmed46]

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The man was not a prophet, but a fraud and a dictator.

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 condiring jesus is god in human flesh, he is the same god that made Moses and David prophets. 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. Yet these men were deemed fit to be prophets of god according to the bible. Now considering god is also jesus, jesus really was the one that ordered infants being killed and non-virgin woman being killed. Hell most of the biblical prophets have very human flaws. And thats because they are PROPHETS not human gods. And seems god is only a hippie when he becomes human.

It's all a matter of perspective. Is there a flaw in my logic? Sure. 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.

Caesar, eh?
Evil as a historical figure: what do you think the reaction today would be if Obama had somebody assassinated, and the victim's head brought to him?

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. Ill 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.

[mhosea]

And seems god is only a hippie when he becomes human.

So true. This apparent evolution of God in the Bible from wrathful, animal sacrifice wanting, 2 Samuel 6:6-7, "You hit the rock twice instead of once--no promised land for you!" God to a patient, loving, self-sacrificing God who desires a personal relationship with each individual strikes me as exactly what to expect from the evolution of purely human thought about God over time.

BTW, the Uzziah business, shocking as it was (then and now), is something Biblical scholars have no difficulty rationalizing with various suppositions and technical observations--the guy had it coming.