Sydney Cafe held hostage by Jihadists (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

not sure where your going with this.

 

[rockaction]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

not sure where your going with this.

I'm going to direct attacks on his motive, country of origin, two conversions (one to evangelical Christianity, the other to Islam) and his ability to pass off his creative writing background and degree as a history degree.

Ford's is just humor at somebody posting about that damn non-publicly owned and regulated Uber in this thread. Comedy.

 

[Henry Ford]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

You may have missed this, but it's about an incident. There are many facets to that incident, including the discussion of whether Islam invites violence and the response by non-Muslim actors (like Uber and like the non-Muslim citizens who are offering to ride public transportation with Muslims in the area.)

There is a general tendency to discuss "Muslim countries" or "Islamic countries" in the media, and it paints countries with majority Muslim populations with a broad brush. The fact is that extremist religious governments are bad news - they are bad news when majority Christian countries have them, they are bad news when majority Muslim countries have them. Yes, I think a post expressing that viewpoint is legitimate and certainly worthy of a "like."

 

[rockaction]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

You may have missed this, but it's about an incident. There are many facets to that incident, including the discussion of whether Islam invites violence and the response by non-Muslim actors (like Uber and like the non-Muslim citizens who are offering to ride public transportation with Muslims in the area.)

There is a general tendency to discuss "Muslim countries" or "Islamic countries" in the media, and it paints countries with majority Muslim populations with a broad brush. The fact is that extremist religious governments are bad news - they are bad news when majority Christian countries have them, they are bad news when majority Muslim countries have them. Yes, I think a post expressing that viewpoint is legitimate and certainly worthy of a "like."

I don't miss anything. Uber pricing without context can mean anything.

As far as Aslan, it's funny, because this guy, when he had free consent and will, chose to join the most extreme form of Christianity available, one that advocates proselytizing at all costs (evangelicalism). Then, he converts back to Islam, which has hardly done itself respectable with the means of how they evangelize. His claims to academic prowess are even questioned by The Nation, of all places.

I'm saying this at first blush: His heart may be full of light, but who knows what informs that light, and whether it simply apologizes for darkness.

 

[cjv123]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as *many* Muslim nations do (not a "few") (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any tribesman helped the government find the killers, despite knowing who in their group they were. Only decorum prevents me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL). Al Shabab are animals, and a religious community which protects them and prefers them deserves no respect at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

You may have missed this, but it's about an incident. There are many facets to that incident, including the discussion of whether Islam invites violence and the response by non-Muslim actors (like Uber and like the non-Muslim citizens who are offering to ride public transportation with Muslims in the area.)

There is a general tendency to discuss "Muslim countries" or "Islamic countries" in the media, and it paints countries with majority Muslim populations with a broad brush. The fact is that extremist religious governments are bad news - they are bad news when majority Christian countries have them, they are bad news when majority Muslim countries have them. Yes, I think a post expressing that viewpoint is legitimate and certainly worthy of a "like."

I don't miss anything. Uber pricing without context can mean anything.

As far as Aslan, it's funny, because this guy, when he had free consent and will, chose to join the most extreme form of Christianity available, one that advocates proselytizing at all costs (evangelicalism). Then, he converts back to Islam, which has hardly done itself respectable with the means of how they evangelize. His claims to academic prowess are even questioned by The Nation, of all places.

I'm saying this at first blush: His heart may be full of light, but who knows what informs that light, and whether it simply apologizes for darkness.

And I'm saying I don't have any special affinity for Aslan, I'm agreeing with the sentiment expressed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This guy gets it

MY Link

I've seen Aslan. Right off the bat in that shot I see he has a book out about Jesus, "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" which I am guessing challenges the traditional, orthodox notion of who Jesus was and claims he wasn't a son of God but actually a political zealot.

Question: how many muslim countries could you publish a book challenging the traditional, orthodox view of Muhammed, in particular asserting he was not at all a prophet but just a tribal leader with a really good story and an agenda for power? What would be the consequences of publishing such a book, or say distributing a movie like Sam Bacile's "Innocence of the Muslims"?

 

[cjv123]

"Few"? The government of Indonesia may imprison a newspaper editor for five years for ridiculing ISIL:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/12/indonesian-newspaper-editor-accused-of-blasphemy-over-anti-isis-cartoon-could-face-five-years-in-prison/

 

[Henry Ford]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

 

[rockaction]

This guy gets it

MY Link

I've seen Aslan. Right off the bat in that shot I see he has a book out about Jesus, "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" which I am guessing challenges the traditional, orthodox notion of who Jesus was and claims he wasn't a son of God but actually a political zealot.

Question: how many muslim countries could you publish a book challenging the traditional, orthodox view of Muhammed, in particular asserting he was not at all a prophet but just a tribal leader with a really good story and an agenda for power? What would be the consequences of publishing such a book, or say distributing a movie like Sam Bacile's "Innocence of the Muslims"?

In the tolerant areas of Iran, it would mean a fatwa, FWIW.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

 

[PinkydaPimp]

This guy gets it

MY Link

Said the guy who converted to Islam and is from Iran and has had his authority questioned by numerous publications.

The Nation's Elizabeth Castelli wrote that Aslan "reasonably opened himself to criticism" on the basis of his claim to speak "with authority as a historian".[23]

​eta* And of course Henry Ford loves this. He's posting stuff about Uber surge pricing in this thread.

You may have missed this, but it's about an incident. There are many facets to that incident, including the discussion of whether Islam invites violence and the response by non-Muslim actors (like Uber and like the non-Muslim citizens who are offering to ride public transportation with Muslims in the area.)

There is a general tendency to discuss "Muslim countries" or "Islamic countries" in the media, and it paints countries with majority Muslim populations with a broad brush. The fact is that extremist religious governments are bad news - they are bad news when majority Christian countries have them, they are bad news when majority Muslim countries have them. Yes, I think a post expressing that viewpoint is legitimate and certainly worthy of a "like."

This. Even if you don't like his book, or the fact that he calls himself a historian, the guy is far from ignorant on this subject. And expresses a viewpoint which is relevant to our discussion.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

This guy gets it

MY Link

No. He really doesn't.

 

[cjv123]

Henry Ford-

I conceded early on a barbaric underpinning to western religions in their formative periods. The question isn't what "we" once did, but what "we" should continue to tolerate. And any "religion" where women are routinely executed tor adultery is a stain upon the year 2014 and worthy of no respect, at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This guy gets it

MY Link

No. He really doesn't.

That's a hell of a piece.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This guy gets it

MY Link

I've seen Aslan. Right off the bat in that shot I see he has a book out about Jesus, "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" which I am guessing challenges the traditional, orthodox notion of who Jesus was and claims he wasn't a son of God but actually a political zealot.

Question: how many muslim countries could you publish a book challenging the traditional, orthodox view of Muhammed, in particular asserting he was not at all a prophet but just a tribal leader with a really good story and an agenda for power? What would be the consequences of publishing such a book, or say distributing a movie like Sam Bacile's "Innocence of the Muslims"?

In the tolerant areas of Iran, it would mean a fatwa, FWIW.

There are voices for reform in the muslim nations, but it is impossible to reform a religion if criticizing the religion and its foundational history is impossible. And where the religion is the state ideology (Iran, but yes also elsewhere too) that also makes political reform impossible.

 

[cjv123]

(missed the other thread- my bad)

 

[pantagrapher]

We ever gonna update the thread title or have we already covered this?

 

[HellToupee]

132 children just slaughtered in their school by the "Religion of Peace":

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-16/taliban-attack-on-pakistani-school-leaves-135-dead-125-injured.html

Why not fire up an ***official religion of peace*** thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

 

[rockaction]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

Yes, people were stoned to death or hung in that area for out-of-wedlock childbirths.

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry Ford-

I conceded early on a barbaric underpinning to western religions in their formative periods. The question isn't what "we" once did, but what "we" should continue to tolerate. And any "religion" where women are routinely executed tor adultery is a stain upon the year 2014 and worthy of no respect, at all.

Any "government" or any "sect."

That's the viewpoint I'm espousing. The acts themselves are horrifying. The people committing them are atrocious. And any such practice is a stain upon the year 2014. But it's not "Islam" that's carrying out these acts. There are certainly plenty of acts of violence espoused by Christians - but if some insane Christian regime started rounding up all the Jews and murdering them, we wouldn't talk about what a stain Christianity is on the planet, we'd be talking about the insane sect, or government, that did it. That's a problem here, too.

 

[Henry Ford]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

Yes, people were stoned to death or hung in that area for out-of-wedlock childbirths.

And then, when the law was considered too harsh, it was changed to whippings and the wearing of a badge signifying adultery. Which, if the woman in question was found not wearing it, would be branded into her forehead.

 

[timschochet]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

Yes, people were stoned to death or hung in that area for out-of-wedlock childbirths.

And then, when the law was considered too harsh, it was changed to whippings and the wearing of a badge signifying adultery. Which, if the woman in question was found not wearing it, would be branded into her forehead.

We've come a long way. Now those women self identify by voluntarily seeking out a tramp stamp for their backs instead of having society forcibly place one on their forehead. Ahhhh.... Progress.

Hester Prynne, you were one sassy, saucy wench. Hitch up those bloomers and lets see some ankle, Baby!

 

[Henry Ford]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Beat me to it.

 

[msommer]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

since that is about 1720 years after the start of the religion, will islam have caught up by 2420?

 

[TPW]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

 

[msommer]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Does the public display of your religion serve a practical purpose? Is it functional? Does it make society run more efficiently?

 

[Henry Ford]

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Beat me to it.

It's interesting that the line of demarcation here is 1750, while Tim refers to it as "the beginning of the Enlightenment period." The Enlightenment began 50-100 years before 1750, and ended soon after 1750 (between 1780 and 1800s.) If you're calling something the "Enlightenment" and not including Isaac Newton's lifetime in it, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[jamny]

So what kind of weapons did this guy have? Any explosives?

 

[Henry Ford]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Fortunately, those opposing religion in government ask for removal of the expression, not stoning.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

This is funny, let's focus on 'was it a scarlet A she got or was it the chopping block'?

Plymouth Colony never attempted to put anyone to death for adultery, although Mayflower passenger William Latham's wife Mary was hanged for adultery in the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1644.

Well, that's one.

I was thinking medieval Christendom circa 1400. Fine peg it at 350 years, you're saying the muslim world is that far behind.

 

[TPW]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Does the public display of your religion serve a practical purpose? Is it functional? Does it make society run more efficiently?

If you consider that practically every aspect of the western system of law can be traced back to Roman law and Judeo-Christian religious canon law, I'd say that it has served an extremely important purpose from a functionality point of view alone.

Judeo-Christian families who observe a traditional, two-parent model also tend to be more stable than their secular counterparts. One of the strongest predictors of success in life is family structure. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single parents are significantly less likely to experience upward mobility.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Well, you either remove them all, or you have to let them all in. Then, you get this.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

Wasn't the Enlightenment Period from 1650s-1780s?

 

[Henry Ford]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

This is funny, let's focus on 'was it a scarlet A she got or was it the chopping block'?

Plymouth Colony never attempted to put anyone to death for adultery, although Mayflower passenger William Latham's wife Mary was hanged for adultery in the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1644.

Well, that's one.

I was thinking medieval Christendom circa 1400. Fine peg it at 350 years, you're saying the muslim world is that far behind.

I think there's a reasonable argument that hanging and burning women for being "witches" put us in a pretty similar spot. Probably ended around the same time as Tim's line of demarcation - 1750s/1800.

And I don't think "the muslim world" is anything. There are 2 million Muslims in the U.S. Are they part of the Muslim world? 170 million in India. Are they?

 

[msommer]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Does the public display of your religion serve a practical purpose? Is it functional? Does it make society run more efficiently?

If you consider that practically every aspect of the western system of law can be traced back to Roman law and Judeo-Christian religious canon law, I'd say that it has served an extremely important purpose from a functionality point of view alone.

Judeo-Christian families who observe a traditional, two-parent model also tend to be more stable than their secular counterparts. One of the strongest predictors of success in life is family structure. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single parents are significantly less likely to experience upward mobility.

Is this specific purpose assisted in the public showing of religious paraphernalia?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

This is funny, let's focus on 'was it a scarlet A she got or was it the chopping block'?

Plymouth Colony never attempted to put anyone to death for adultery, although Mayflower passenger William Latham's wife Mary was hanged for adultery in the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1644.

Well, that's one.

I was thinking medieval Christendom circa 1400. Fine peg it at 350 years, you're saying the muslim world is that far behind.

I think there's a reasonable argument that hanging and burning women for being "witches" put us in a pretty similar spot. Probably ended around the same time as Tim's line of demarcation - 1750s/1800.

And I don't think "the muslim world" is anything. There are 2 million Muslims in the U.S. Are they part of the Muslim world? 170 million in India. Are they?

I should clarify, substantially (>75%) muslim majority nations.

You're tapdancing here... you seem to indicate these countries are where the west was circa pre-1750.

 

[Henry Ford]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

This is funny, let's focus on 'was it a scarlet A she got or was it the chopping block'?

Plymouth Colony never attempted to put anyone to death for adultery, although Mayflower passenger William Latham's wife Mary was hanged for adultery in the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1644.

Well, that's one.

I was thinking medieval Christendom circa 1400. Fine peg it at 350 years, you're saying the muslim world is that far behind.

I think there's a reasonable argument that hanging and burning women for being "witches" put us in a pretty similar spot. Probably ended around the same time as Tim's line of demarcation - 1750s/1800.

And I don't think "the muslim world" is anything. There are 2 million Muslims in the U.S. Are they part of the Muslim world? 170 million in India. Are they?

I should clarify, substantially (>75%) muslim majority nations.

You're tapdancing here... you seem to indicate these countries are where the west was circa pre-1750.

I think any country composed primarily or heavily of tribal governments is about where the Americas were pre-1750, yes. I'd also argue that any country run as a theocracy is pretty far behind where the U.S. is.

Throw a nuclear reactor and the internet into Salem in the 1600s, and it doesn't suddenly stop burning witches. It may burn even more witches. Is that a failure of Christianity or of society? The fact is, these societies - Somalia, yes, but also Afghanistan, Comoros, Senegal - these are all countries listed as "developing nations" by every body that assigns that name to anything.

Contrast that with Saudi Arabia, which is a totalitarian kingdom under extremist religious law - Saudi Arabia is not a fully developing nation. That's a much more interesting topic of conversation to me.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment period (around 1750 give or take) Christianity has been a morally superior religion to Islam. There is no question of this in my mind. Since that time, any rational reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society run by Christians rather than a society run by Muslims, with very few exceptions.

I'd say that any rational, reasonable person who loves individual freedom would prefer to live in a society with a separation of church and state.

Do you suppose that the Romanian non-Christians around, say, 1940 were happy to be living in a society run by Christians?

Separation of church and state is fine. The problem is that far too many people these days interpret that as the complete removal of all religious expression from the public sphere.

Such a world view is the antithesis of individual freedom and just as puritanical in its intolerance of non-assenting opinion as those who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1600's.

Does the public display of your religion serve a practical purpose? Is it functional? Does it make society run more efficiently?

If you consider that practically every aspect of the western system of law can be traced back to Roman law and Judeo-Christian religious canon law, I'd say that it has served an extremely important purpose from a functionality point of view alone.

Judeo-Christian families who observe a traditional, two-parent model also tend to be more stable than their secular counterparts. One of the strongest predictors of success in life is family structure. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single parents are significantly less likely to experience upward mobility.

Well, according to Michelle Bachmann, we have Moses and the Ten Commandments to thank for our current system of government. So, you're on solid ground there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The most conservative non-Islamist sect I know of are the Hasidim, who treat women like chattle and ostracize gays. But even the Hasidim do not execute women for adultery, as many Muslim nations do (by stoning, on orders of religious police, vigilante-style with the government refusing to intervene). There is a difference, and the problems in Islam are not a "few" or 0.001%. In Somaliland, where I have spent a great deal of time, an overwhelming majority of the local Muslim tribesmen prefer the ruthless Islamist Al Shabab to the democratically elected (and exceedingly proper) government of Kenya. Almost every night, decent and innocent policemen are murdered where they sleep. And not once has any of the tribesmen helped the government find the killers, despite knowing which in their group were they. Only decency and decorum prevent me from going into great detail as to the inhumanity of Al Shabab, the most bloodthirsty savages the world has ever seen (save perhaps ISIL).

But you're talking about societies in a tribal system. When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

We can say what we want about living in a modern world, but the fact is that Somali society (and this includes all of Somalia, not just Somaliland) is less than 15 years removed from having less than 1,000 citizens who use the internet. It's a country that just got a Constitution this decade.

When Western countries were in tribal or monarchic systems, Christian nations absolutely executed women for adultery.

Henry, how long ago was that? How far back behind the West does that put them, like 700-800 years?

By the way there were parts of Africa that did not come into contact with western Europe until near the turn of the 20th Century. People didn't know the source of the Nile until the 1880's or something. Well, we're here, how is that an excuse for anything?

There's a weird view of the history of Christianity and the United States in these threads.

The Plymouth Colony had a death penalty for adultery. That was about 350 years ago.

This is funny, let's focus on 'was it a scarlet A she got or was it the chopping block'?

Plymouth Colony never attempted to put anyone to death for adultery, although Mayflower passenger William Latham's wife Mary was hanged for adultery in the neighboring Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1644.

Well, that's one.

I was thinking medieval Christendom circa 1400. Fine peg it at 350 years, you're saying the muslim world is that far behind.

I think there's a reasonable argument that hanging and burning women for being "witches" put us in a pretty similar spot. Probably ended around the same time as Tim's line of demarcation - 1750s/1800.

And I don't think "the muslim world" is anything. There are 2 million Muslims in the U.S. Are they part of the Muslim world? 170 million in India. Are they?

I should clarify, substantially (>75%) muslim majority nations.

You're tapdancing here... you seem to indicate these countries are where the west was circa pre-1750.

I think any country composed primarily or heavily of tribal governments is about where the Americas were pre-1750, yes. I'd also argue that any country run as a theocracy is pretty far behind where the U.S. is.

Throw a nuclear reactor and the internet into Salem in the 1600s, and it doesn't suddenly stop burning witches. It may burn even more witches. Is that a failure of Christianity or of society? The fact is, these societies - Somalia, yes, but also Afghanistan, Comoros, Senegal - these are all countries listed as "developing nations" by every body that assigns that name to anything.

Contrast that with Saudi Arabia, which is a totalitarian kingdom under extremist religious law - Saudi Arabia is not a fully developing nation. That's a much more interesting topic of conversation to me.

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

That's ridiculous. Plenty of countries have internet and burn witches. Tanzania is 60% Christian, 13% of the population are internet users, and two months ago seven people were burned to death as witches.

Yes. The culture in some places is entwined with religion so much that it looks like an unenlightened Europe. Which is an argument against religious government, not against Islam. When people rule by the authority of an infallible God, bad things happen.

 

[rockaction]

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

That's ridiculous. Plenty of countries have internet and burn witches. Tanzania is 60% Christian, 13% of the population are internet users, and two months ago seven people were burned to death as witches.

Yes. The culture in some places is entwined with religion so much that it looks like an unenlightened Europe. Which is an argument against religious government, not against Islam. When people rule by the authority of an infallible God, bad things happen.

Oddly, I think most "bigots" are prescribed the argument of arguing against Islam in particular, rather than adopting it. Yes, I've said negative things about the Koran, but my concern is with theocracy. It is not with their scripture. Indeed, if the social, political, and cultural aspect of Islam weren't leading to this constantly, and the moderates were set about condemning these acts rather than trying to minimize them, we'd be a lot better off.

It's odd. I feel like those on the left are trying to do battle on two mutually exclusive fronts, and often come out looking worse for wear or endorsing a slippery slope about America, federalism, and religion with respect to the Bill of Rights.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

That's ridiculous. Plenty of countries have internet and burn witches. Tanzania is 60% Christian, 13% of the population are internet users, and two months ago seven people were burned to death as witches.

Yes. The culture in some places is entwined with religion so much that it looks like an unenlightened Europe. Which is an argument against religious government, not against Islam. When people rule by the authority of an infallible God, bad things happen.

Let me se if I have this right: you think the people that burned the seven persons as witches (let's assume they weren't actually witches for the sake of argument) also have the internet?

I have no idea how to prove this but I'm going to say you're totally wrong.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Henry, man, tell me true, is there a person in the world who both uses the internet in his own home and has also burned a witch.

No. Bloomin'. Way.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

That's ridiculous. Plenty of countries have internet and burn witches. Tanzania is 60% Christian, 13% of the population are internet users, and two months ago seven people were burned to death as witches.

Yes. The culture in some places is entwined with religion so much that it looks like an unenlightened Europe. Which is an argument against religious government, not against Islam. When people rule by the authority of an infallible God, bad things happen.

Let me se if I have this right: you think the people that burned the seven persons as witches (let's assume they weren't actually witches for the sake of argument) also have the internet?

I have no idea how to prove this but I'm going to say you're totally wrong.

I don't really know why this is your sticking point, but I have family members who have smart phones and believe that there are actual witches on earth who are the literal embodiment of the devil on earth. Westboro Baptist has a Twitter account. The KKK has a Twitter account. Ignorant, stupid beliefs don't disappear just because you have the internet.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well let's put it this way, you can't accept the internet and the atom until you do stop burning witches, they are mutually incompatible.

Obviously there are muslim nations that embrace advanced technology and yet you cannot question whether Muhammed was actually a prophet, and you can't draw a cartoon of his face for fear of offending the power above or rather the powers that be. You can have an F-35 fighter but you can't let a woman drive. Now you can say that's cultural but there is no doubt the culture is so entwined with the religion that in some aspects it does look a lot like medieval Europe.

That's ridiculous. Plenty of countries have internet and burn witches. Tanzania is 60% Christian, 13% of the population are internet users, and two months ago seven people were burned to death as witches.

Yes. The culture in some places is entwined with religion so much that it looks like an unenlightened Europe. Which is an argument against religious government, not against Islam. When people rule by the authority of an infallible God, bad things happen.

Let me se if I have this right: you think the people that burned the seven persons as witches (let's assume they weren't actually witches for the sake of argument) also have the internet?

I have no idea how to prove this but I'm going to say you're totally wrong.

I don't really know why this is your sticking point, but I have family members who have smart phones and believe that there are actual witches on earth who are the literal embodiment of the devil on earth. Westboro Baptist has a Twitter account. The KKK has a Twitter account. Ignorant, stupid beliefs don't disappear just because you have the internet.

Henry, first of all, my condolences.

Secondly, had this image of an East African villager rushing to his computer to google "How to recognize a witch". Seemed incompatible.

Anyway have a good one.