an arab (muslim) in Tastyspleen

[The Dreaming Dragon]

Let me wade through the low comedy for a moment,and point out a few things...

Sofiene says he's 15. He says English is his third language. So I conclude he may be living in one of these Muslim countries or at least in a concentrated area of Muslims and had the religious education and all that baggage that goes along with it. I may be wrong,but that's the premise I will launch from.

He says he "im an arab in an usa server,i hate usa and usa hates arabs and muslims". And instead of insulting him,I will ask Why? As a kid,and in a handfull of months he'll be less of a kid,I have to applaude the fact that he has an opinion about anything.And as for hating,who among us at that age hated anything outside of the school or family? Kids are more media savvy nowadays,but still are kids,and most adults don't understand the waves of manipulation being shoved down our throats every day. I remember my catacysm class only for the sprouting devils that were my classmates and how we'd ask our pastor ome inane question like "do animals have souls andgo to heaven?" just to get him rambling so the rest of us could read our comic books behind our religious texts. I can't imagine having to memorize the Koran and having something like Pastor Wildeye Crazybeard BEATING me for not getting it word perfect. Instead of this semi-entertainment this thread has so far,lets try teaching the kid about the perils of manipulation. I'll expand more on this tomorrow,since I have to run to work,but lets start off with this...

In Pakistan they have Children's shows that inspire toddlers to want to have a Glorious Martyrdom.  They have Mickey Mouse running around saying the Jews are the Devil,and then tell the kids the Jews killed Mickey (or something...I'll look up that video later). Opinions like this are manufactured and its been going on for thousands of years. Here is a fun bit of propaganda,and I wonder how far from the truth it really was...http://videosift.com/video/Walt-Disney-Cartoon-Hitler-s-Children-Education-For-Death More later folks...gotta slave for da Man!

[Om3ga]

Let me wade through the low comedy for a moment,and point out a few things...

Sofiene says he's 15. He says English is his third language. So I conclude he may be living in one of these Muslim countries or at least in a concentrated area of Muslims and had the religious education and all that baggage that goes along with it. I may be wrong,but that's the premise I will launch from.

He says he "im an arab in an usa server,i hate usa and usa hates arabs and muslims". And instead of insulting him,I will ask Why? As a kid,and in a handfull of months he'll be less of a kid,I have to applaude the fact that he has an opinion about anything.And as for hating,who among us at that age hated anything outside of the school or family? Kids are more media savvy nowadays,but still are kids,and most adults don't understand the waves of manipulation being shoved down our throats every day. I remember my catacysm class only for the sprouting devils that were my classmates and how we'd ask our pastor ome inane question like "do animals have souls andgo to heaven?" just to get him rambling so the rest of us could read our comic books behind our religious texts. I can't imagine having to memorize the Koran and having something like Pastor Wildeye Crazybeard BEATING me for not getting it word perfect. Instead of this semi-entertainment this thread has so far,lets try teaching the kid about the perils of manipulation. I'll expand more on this tomorrow,since I have to run to work,but lets start off with this...

In Pakistan they have Children's shows that inspire toddlers to want to have a Glorious Martyrdom.  They have Mickey Mouse running around saying the Jews are the Devil,and then tell the kids the Jews killed Mickey (or something...I'll look up that video later). Opinions like this are manufactured and its been going on for thousands of years. Here is a fun bit of propaganda,and I wonder how far from the truth it really was...http://videosift.com/video/Walt-Disney-Cartoon-Hitler-s-Children-Education-For-Death More later folks...gotta slave for da Man!

you mean Palestine.

[reaper]

I much prefer Islam to the blind theory of evolution.  People growing up in harsh territories without faith would just become evil.  That's the outcome from the order and purpose and perfect conditions.  While we can have a theory of evolution, what it applies to is another matter.

Although I should add it doesn't matter either way .  But the basic freedoms are of critical importance.

[|iR|Focalor]

I much prefer Islam to the blind theory of evolution.  People growing up in harsh territories without faith would just become evil.

I think this has been covered at GREAT LENGTH in other threads. By all means, gather up all the Muslim countries in one basket, then gather up all the non-Muslim countries that by and large recognize the theory of evolution as a basic scientific fact... then tell me on average which one you would prefer to live in. Not only would you not want to live in an Muslim country, you would also prove Nietzsche's statement that "good is what you like, evil is what you don't like."

[reaper]

After you do that tell me which countries are in year 1600 style living.  Then in the "ahteist" countries tell me if they really have no fear of god.

[quadz]

My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

[The Dreaming Dragon]

Dug a few goodies out of Videosift...

First a talk by a documentary maker about how the Taliban gets kids to be suicide bombers...
http://videosift.com/video/TED-Inside-A-School-For-Suicide-Bombers

And yes it was Palistine...presenting Jihaad Mickey! And some pink rabbit.
http://videosift.com/video/Jihad-Mickey
http://videosift.com/video/Hamas-childrens-TV-show-wants-to-kill-the-Danes

And lastly Triumph of the Will!
http://videosift.com/video/Hitler-Triumph-Of-The-Will-The-pinnacle-of-propaganda

So,Sofiene,I'll let these examples of the Art of manipulation sit with you and give you a last bit of advice:

Be VERY Careful of who you discuss this with. I wouldn't even let the URLs sit in your browser's history. Because those people telling you to Hate don't like being contradicted or for you to be informed of anything beyond what they say. Its Dangerous.
http://videosift.com/video/7-Year-old-Girl-White-Supremacy

It's not who give birth to us that makes one Superior,but what we do afterwards.

[|iR|Focalor]

After you do that tell me which countries are in year 1600 style living.  Then in the "ahteist" countries tell me if they really have no fear of god.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. Would you like to live in a Muslim dominated country or a largely atheist country?

Just to oblige you so that you have no reason not to oblige me...

In most Muslim societies, they have cars and cell phones and the internet, so you'll be hard pressed to find ANY place that equates with "year 1600 style living." There are no countries that are comprised 100% of atheist citizens, just as there are no countries where all of the citizens agree 100% with Sharia Muslim law. NEVERTHELESS, in countries that are dominated by citizens and governments who believe in some monotheistic religion, they have a track record of lower standards in regards to civil rights.

Or don't answer the question, I know the answer anyway.

[peewee_RotA]

After you do that tell me which countries are in year 1600 style living.  Then in the "ahteist" countries tell me if they really have no fear of god.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. Would you like to live in a Muslim dominated country or a largely atheist country?

Just to oblige you so that you have no reason not to oblige me...

In most Muslim societies, they have cars and cell phones and the internet, so you'll be hard pressed to find ANY place that equates with "year 1600 style living." There are no countries that are comprised 100% of atheist citizens, just as there are no countries where all of the citizens agree 100% with Sharia Muslim law. NEVERTHELESS, in countries that are dominated by citizens and governments who believe in some monotheistic religion, they have a track record of lower standards in regards to civil rights.

Or don't answer the question, I know the answer anyway.

Like Soviet Russia and Communist China... 

Once again, stop trying to solve a problem that was solved over 200 years ago. State sponsored religion, or state sponsored atheism, is always bad. That was a major factor in the "age of enlightenment" as it were.

[quadz]

State sponsored religion, or state sponsored atheism, is always bad. That was a major factor in the "age of enlightenment" as it were.

The umbrella term here could be totalitarianism.  (Which I think indeed qualifies as "always bad".)

And: theocracies are essentially by definition totalitarian.  (Any known exceptions?)

Similarly, "state sponsored atheism", as you put it, also would seem to imply totalitarianism by the same route as theocracy.

However, a secular state which guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, is not implicitly totalitarian.  (Could potentially be totalitarian for other reasons, of course.)

And the emerging question can still be phrased similarly to Focalor's:

"Would you rather live in a theocracy or a secular democracy?"

In other words, a secular democracy may not be the only conceivably possible reasonable kind of democracy; but a theocracy is pretty much guaranteed always bad.

(As an aside, could a non-secular (sectarian) democracy conceivably guarantee the same breadth of freedoms as a secular democracy? It's not obvious to me at the moment that it could, or it's certainly not obvious that it would be likely to do so.)



 . . .

Anyway, feeling slightly out of it tonight, hope the above made sense...

[|iR|Focalor]

Quadz can grasp my point.

But given the choice, I'd still take Soviet Russia over living in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

PeeWee left out the best choice he could've dug up though, Nazi Germany. Once again, we're talking about totalitarian dictatorships. In such places, religion usually becomes worship of the dictator rather than some invisible man in the sky. Still pretty much the same thing. I admit, not a very thorough original post, so my apologies.

Examining such things as these, it isn't to hard to imagine why people like me view religion as a man-made construct for the purpose of securing a governing power over others by way of fear and guilt in order to make the executive branch of that governments job even easier. And as much as I hate to admit it, I can't say that religion for that purpose has outlived it's usefulness.

[peewee_RotA]

Quadz can grasp my point.

But given the choice, I'd still take Soviet Russia over living in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

PeeWee left out the best choice he could've dug up though, Nazi Germany. Once again, we're talking about totalitarian dictatorships. In such places, religion usually becomes worship of the dictator rather than some invisible man in the sky. Still pretty much the same thing. I admit, not a very thorough original post, so my apologies.

Examining such things as these, it isn't to hard to imagine why people like me view religion as a man-made construct for the purpose of securing a governing power over others by way of fear and guilt in order to make the executive branch of that governments job even easier. And as much as I hate to admit it, I can't say that religion for that purpose has outlived it's usefulness.

You're both playing semantics with one word while completely misusing another, which is democracy. Democracies generally fail quickly. Almost all states today are republics, and their democratic portion exists only in the fact that the representatives vote, rather than directly dictate. So it does kind of seem strange to argue that I'm wrong because you have a larger term for it, while immediately using another term ambiguously.

Also, lumping religious persecution into totalitarianism isn't exactly true. Totalitarian governments have existed without religious persecution and religious persecution continues in states without totalitarian rule. (India)

Again, the term "freedom from religion" is used to describe HALF of a concept that was invented and perfected 200 years ago. You don't need to literally be free from religion. Your government needs to not sponsor, and therefore not criminalize, tax, or prevent, anyone from practicing their own beliefs. A church down the street holding a parade is very much different from forcibly enslaving indigenous people in the name of Spain. And yet that church can exist and freely express every and all of it's beliefs without ever enslaving people in the name of Spain. It takes armies and government action in order to enslave people in the name of Spain. Regardless of the religion chosen, the government of Spain still would have enslaved people. No amount of privately held churches with privately practicing Christians will spontaneously impose servitude upon a people... in the name of Spain.

The concept of "freedom from religion" only exists with a prejudice towards a religion as the very sentence favors atheism, a form of belief system. Nobody exists without a belief system of some kind. By definition atheism is a belief system. So are you suggesting that we also be free of atheism? That would be absurd. The modern (and like I said, 18th century) understanding of freedom of religion is that anyone practices what anyone feels like without fear of government intervention. There is no need to place ANY MORE consideration into the prevention of governments acting on religious conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that this understanding has failed?


This is where the disconnect happens. You guys are seriously suggesting that freedom of religion, as defined by the revolutionary movements in America, France, and the like, is not enough. Are you serious?

[quadz]

You're both playing semantics with one word while completely misusing another, which is democracy. Democracies generally fail quickly. Almost all states today are republics, and their democratic portion exists only in the fact that the representatives vote, rather than directly dictate. So it does kind of seem strange to argue that I'm wrong because you have a larger term for it, while immediately using another term ambiguously.

Oh, it's ON now, BOYEEEE!!!!

. . . Actually I thought I was mostly agreeing with you.

An' yez, I dun goofed and used 'democracy' imprecisely.  I do know the difference between democracy and representative democracy, constitutuional republic, etc., etc...

Anyway, my point was primarily that theocracies can't help but be totalitarian in nature.

To be clear, I'm not saying all totalitarian states are theocracies.  But rather the reverse: it's not obvious to me that it's possible to have a non-totalitarian theocracy.

A theocracy, as I understand it, can't help but want to control the morals and private lives of its citizens.  (And by extension, control the artwork, the music, the education, ...)

This doesn't feel like semantics to me.

The concept of "freedom from religion" only exists with a prejudice towards a religion as the very sentence favors atheism, a form of belief system. Nobody exists without a belief system of some kind. By definition atheism is a belief system.

Freedom from religion is important.  Atheism is not a belief system, any more than a-Santa-Claus-ism is a belief system.

a-Santa-Claus-ism is a disinclination toward a specific belief, yes.  So those of us who are a-Santa-Claus-ists can say that indeed this specific disbelief comprises one facet of one's personal belief system; but disbelief in Santa Claus is not in itself a belief system.

In case this also seems like semantics to you, it definitely isn't to me.  People routinely try to claim that atheism is 'an equivalent belief' to religion; but it isn't.

For a concrete example of the importance of freedom from religion, I recall hearing a lecture a couple years ago where a particular tax in Britain was discussed.  Or rather, allocation of tax revenue.

In England, where I lived and went to school for a semester as a kid, we had freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.  On the one hand, everyone was allowed to worship (or not-worship) however they pleased.  On the other hand, in the government run schools--I attended St. Luke's Church of England middle school--we had an Anglican sermon and hymn sing every morning.

That is not freedom from religion.

And back to the aforementioned tax... what I recall is the lecturer was discussing how a recent change to the law had expanded the choices for where a portion of a given citizen's tax money would be spent.  Apparently instead of some portion of your tax money going to the Anglican church, you could now select between three religious institutions to receive the money.  But there was still no secular option.  So you were still forced to finance some religious institution via your taxes.

That is not freedom from religion, either.

This is where the disconnect happens. You guys are seriously suggesting that freedom of religion, as defined by the revolutionary movements in America, France, and the like, is not enough. Are you serious?

Very serious.

It is my understanding that the United States is one of the very few countries to constitutionally guarantee both freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.


Regards,

[|iR|Focalor]

This is where the disconnect happens. You guys are seriously suggesting that freedom of religion, as defined by the revolutionary movements in America, France, and the like, is not enough. Are you serious?

Very serious.

It is my understanding that the United States is one of the very few countries to constitutionally guarantee both freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.


Regards,

I agree. Yes, I'm serious. It's not enough. I'll take the point even further by declaring that I believe ALL churches should lose their tax exempt status. If the government is going to use it's resources to secure these churches/synagogues/mosques/grottos/etc freedom of religion, then they shouldn't complain about doing their fair share to help to finance the government which has guaranteed them such rights.

I find it quite detestable that Protestant and Catholic congregation leaders alike will use the verse "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, render unto God what is God's", when soliciting their congregations for a weekly 10% tithe, all the while completely disregarding the part about Caesar as if it only means that individual citizens are required to pay attention to that part. Businesses do it, non-religious organizations have to do it... I see no reason why EVERYONE shouldn't submit their share of taxes to the government.

Local governments are going BANKRUPT these days! If these people who pride themselves on being so philanthropic really want to HELP in an effective way, they should cough up their taxes which would benefit EVERYONE. And what pisses me off even further is that whenever I bring up this argument to most church-going people, NONE of them find themselves disagreeing with me or presenting any valid argument against it.

I'll tell you why. It's because Christianity teaches these people to submit to authority. Their authority is their church leaders who won't allow such a topic to be discussed openly among their members. They don't want to have to budget themselves like everyone else. They don't want to have to wait to build that nice new church. The leaders of these churches rest comfortably in the knowledge that they will not have to pay taxes, and they won't bother questioning the ethics of it because they are by default slaves to tradition.

[The Dreaming Dragon]

And here is yet another example of the wackiness you get with certain cultures,and hypocrascy walks hand in hand with absurdity.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-29/opinion/22949948_1_karzai-family-afghan-men-president-hamid-karzai

The gist of this article is that in Afganistan,middle aged men think its cool to have 9-14 year old Boys for lovers.
Why?
Because the Koran forbids you to look at unmarried women,and you can't fall in love with someone in a burqua.But you CAN see a "pretty boy".\
What about the Koran forbidding homosexuality?
"It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys."
And women menstruate and are unclean.And buggery isn't?

Madness.