Will Iraq will merge very old and very new cultures in a beneficial way? Being Johnny-on-the-spot, what's your take on Iraq's chances of having a real democracy, and not just a vehicle for some religious nutjob *cough*Sistani*cough* to take over?
Yeah, I know, I was just trying to get the other guy's goat. Ya gotta respect the determination the South showed, in keeping the North on the run for much of the time while not having anywhere near the same level of resources.
Dude, lighten up. I wasn't saying Deliverance was an invitation only society, but it was inbred and cannabalistic. Whether it's an accurate depiction of the South or not is pretty much moot. It *is* a depiction, and one most people laugh at (even some Southerners).
As for whether Southerners are real men or not, there is a reason the North won the war, ya know.
Well, under your first proposal, only the advertisers benefit. What, you thought they'd pass their savings on their customers? Probably not the likely result. And somehow I doubt Anniston is just stuffing her money into her mattress. She's probably got teams of finance types who manage it for her; which means it gets invested; which means it helps power the economy; which means everyone benefits.
As for the "Seinfeld" cast, I think it proved that, as an ensemble, they were great. Individually, they weren't. It doesn't reduce the value they had on "Seinfeld", it only means the cast there was greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, it could also be a symptom of type casting. Though Jason Alexander seems to be doing fine with a Broadway career.
Of course we all know this. As "Friends" became more popular, did they cut down on the ridiculous number of commercials because the production costs were spread across more viewers? Of course not. They simply upped production costs by paying each actor $1e6 for each episode. This is not the positive side of market economics people like to talk about.
Actually, it's a very positive side. As the work done by the actors became more valuable, their salaries went up. Say what you will, but a set dresser leaving the crew of "Friends" would've had zero effect on the show's popularity; Jennifer Anniston leaving would have. Given that, of course the network is going to pay the actors more when they get to charge the advertisors more.
Laymen shouldn't try to respond to letters from attornies. He should have just passed the threat letter to his lawyer, and have him type up a response similar to what was written. It could be he's left himself open to legal action doing it this way.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for pointing me to the ull story, it certainly does have different implications. That said, it doesn't negate the idea that Jesus was more merciful. Mohammed may have been merciful in comparison with other tribal leaders, and as a tribal leader he probably did the right thing, but he still falls short of the example set by Christ.
Here's another anecdote, this time I believe from the Koran. Hopefully you can point me to a more accurate interpretation, if there is one.
One of Mohammed's lieutenants was captured by a rival tribe. When they threatened to kill him, he denounced Mohammed and Allah. After he escaped, he ran back to Mohammed and confessed his sin. Mohammed told him it was OK, and if the same thing happened again, he should lie to save his own skin.
Compare this with Jesus admonishing his followers to always tell the truth; at one point He asked them, "What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?" He also said "Whoever denies the Son of Man, I will deny him at the end of time." In fact, Christ's chief disciple, Peter, denied him to save his own skin. While he was forgiven for doing so, he wasn't given blanket permission to do it again.
Many Christians were martyred over the centuries for refusing to deny Christ's divinity. Yet Moslims are taught it's OK to lie about your beliefs and motives. This is especially troubling in light of terrorist attacks carried out by Wahhabists. At least with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in Christianity five centuries ago (Christianity's most violent period), people were willing to stand up and say what their beliefs were, consequences be damned. After all, I'd rather be killed for my beliefs than deny them and go to Hell. But as long as Moslims are taught it's OK to lie, then how can any be trusted?
You seem pretty reasonable too. This will be my last post in this thread, just wanted to throw one more thing out there.
Re: strong words in the Koran and the Bible. The difference is which part of which book (or collection of books, in the case of the Bible) focuses on what. The Old Testament is chock full of commands to burn villages, but these were specific instances, the Israelites weren't expected to make war on everybody. At the same time, by the time Jesus came along, they weren't warring with anybody, and Jesus commanded to "turn the other cheek". So as Judaism progressed into Christianity, it became less violent.
With Islam, though, the earliest verses are the ones that are the most peaceful. This is most likely because it wasn't until after Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca that he went apeshit and ordered his followers to start killing people left and right. Given that his early converts were mostly nomadic Arabs, who lived a pretty violent life, this wasn't asking much of them. But we ended up with a religion which was basically founded in warfare, by a man obsessed with getting revenge against those who wronged him. Telling point: Mohammed's last words, as he lay dying of poison, were to curse Christians and Jews, Jesus' last words on the cross were to forgive the men who crucified Him. Given just those two facts, which religion would you rather join?
This is another important point: individual followers of any religion can be nutjobs. Here in the States, we've got people who have tried to blow up medical clinics because they thought abortions were performed there. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall at least one instance where the building wasn't used for that purpose. Didn't stop the nutters from lighting the fuse, though. So you can't look at the followers of a religion to determine if it's worthwhile, you have to look at the founders, at the example they set. Even setting aside the question of Christ's divinity, the lives of Jesus and Mohammed are drastically different. One was tempered by compassion and mercy, the other by greed and bloodlust. Given that any group of people will strive to emulate those they think are closer to God, is it any wonder that so many Moslims get pulled into the trap of thinking it's a good idea to strap dynamite to their chest before catching the afternoon matinee?
If your company is having problems and you don't feel safe doing your duty and informing the higher ups, you need to start looking for a new job. In the meantime, don't rock the boat.
...Jesus did not say at any point to discard the old testament.
It's true that Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But at the same time, the teachings in the New Testament make clear that much of the old law, aside from the actual commandments, are no longer required for justification. From Peter's vision in Acts, in which God showed him all sorts of "unclean" animals and told him to eat them, to Paul's teachings in Galatians about circumcision, it's made clear that the Old Testament laws don't apply in the same way.
Also, it's important to remember the context of the wars Israel fought in the Old Testament. Yes, they were brutal, but wars have always been brutal. And they did have to follow strict rules in conducting warfare.
I'm sorry, but you must know that that is not a core concept of Islam any more than it is Christianity. If you can point out to me where the Koran encourages terrorism (killing innocents to effect change) I will stand corrected.
I'm going to cop out and take the easy way on this one. Rather than writing up an essay, summing up all of the verses from the Koran and the Haddith sanctioning violence against innocents, I'll just point you in the direction of some people who have done this work already: Islam & Terrorism, on the Answering Islam site. This site is maintained by Christians, for Christians, so I'm sure the Moslims on Slashdot who read the articles will disagree with their conclusions. Having lived in Islamic countries and lived with Moslims, I'm inclined to give the site the benefit of the doubt. Based on my personal experience, their conclusions seem accurate.
The religions of the world are more alike than different: they all want to save you from yourself. Everyone thinks that everyone elses beliefs are dangerous.
Well, in all honesty, if you're not willing to say someone else is wrong, you certainly can't say you're right. And if you're not certain your belief is right, why hold it? Also, I resent the idea that my concern is born of fear. It comes from a certainty that Christ is God, and you can't go to Heaven unless you follow Him; couple that with a desire to see people go to Heaven, and of course I want good Moslims to convert (of course, only God can know the inner workings of someone's heart, so I'm sure there are plenty of Moslims who will go to Heaven, and plenty of "Christians" who will fall short, I just think you're on safer ground by trying to follow Christ's teachings).
And deep down you know that every foreign innocent life snuffed out by American imperial wars of conquest are equally indefensible.
Well, then, it's a good thing we've never launched one. As Colin Powell has said, Americans have gone in harm's way for many other countries, and the only land we've asked for in return was enough to bury our war dead.
Collateral damage is MURDER.
Wait, I thought meat was MURDER? Does this mean you expect us to eat the remains from collateral damage? Man, you are sick!
Well I'd suggest reading the Old Testament of the Bible (an easy and fun read in lego). It pretty clearly states that the chosen people (in this case, the Jews) should kill pretty much anyone whom isn't chosen.
True enough, but Christians don't live under the Old Testament. At least not to the extent that we have to kill off anyone in the Holy Land. So you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. What you should look at are the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of Mohammed. Those are the two founders of Christianity and Islam, respectively, and what they have to say on various subjects is interesting, to say the least.
As for "real" Moslims who don't believe in Jihad, I've known many Moslims who are basically Moslim in culture only, or because they were raised that way. But just like most Christians don't practice the core concepts of Christianity (I haven't sold off all my worldly goods and given them to the poor recently), most Moslims don't follow the core concepts of Islam (like tying explosives to your chest and detonating them in a movie theater).
And like you, I hate Jihad, but don't hate Moslims. I'd really like to see all Moslims convert to Christianity, because I honestly and earnestly believe that their souls are in jeopardy. Let alone our chance for peace in this world. I don't want to eradicate the people from the earth, but would like to see their religion go away. BUT, those are personal decisions we all have to make on our own, so other than supporting missionaries I'm not in favor of doing anything overt to convert people.
I think it's important for you to realize that the author of the book is not an atheist. He's a Christian, who was raised Moslim, was a teacher at a respected Islamic school in Cairo, and an imam at his mosque. He was, in effect, an authority on what the Koran teaches. So much so that he could no longer live under it and sought out God for the real answers.
Here's an anecdote which, for me, sums up all of the differences between Christianity and Islam: I'm sure you're aware of the story from the haddith of the adulterous woman who was brought before Mohammed. She was pregnant with another man's child, so he ordered her to brought back after the child was born. So it was done. Then, he ordered her to be brought back after the child had been weaned. Again, it was done as he ordered. The third time she appeared before him, he ordered her stoned to death. Sure enough, she was executed for having slept with a man not her husband.
Compare this to a strikingly similar anecdote from the New Testament. Jesus was in the Temple, and a woman who had been (presumably, the details are sketchy) caught in bed by her husband with another man. She was dragged, half naked, before the Temple Court to be stoned. The law only allowed for one punishment for this crime. But the teachers in the Temple asked Jesus what he thought should be done with her. He replied "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Every man there realized they all had sin in their heart, and so they all went home. When Jesus saw this, he asked the woman "Does noone condemn you?" She responded, "No." He told her "Then neither do I. Go, and sin no more."
So, Mohammed's response to sin: strict interpretation of the law. Jesus' response: mercy and love. Which one would you rather follow?
Oh, and one other thing: you always hear about Moslims being killed for converting to Christianity. Ever wonder why you never hear of the reverse? Families might disown their children for leaving the church, but they wouldn't have them murdered.
Those are all really good points, and in all honestly I don't know what would have to be done to better Islamic societies. It was only a few hundred years ago that Christians were burning each other at the stake over whether they believed that the Pope was the head of the Church or not, in many ways the problems with Wahabbists mirror some of the excesses of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Maybe the answer is that this is just the kind of thing religions go through. Given that Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam, it makes sense to think of Islam as being in the same mental place we were in the middle ages.
Of course, the Renaissance and Age of Exploration lifted Europe out of the middle ages. So I guess some kind of modern day Renaissance and a new period of exploration is needed. You would think the information revolution would help, so maybe these geeks in Saudi Arabia really are the answer. And maybe we should encourage other countries to shoot for the moon and Mars, too, even if it does ensure wars in space in our lifetimes. In the long run, we all might benefit from it.
Then again, it could just be that it's 2:00am and I'm tired and rambling.
And likewise the major cause of the Jihad is not religion but politics as well.
I'd suggest reading Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad. The book disproves the notion that jihad is just politics and not religion, because for one thing there is no distinction between the two in Islam. The writer is a former Moslim who was a teacher at Al-Azhar, and an imam at his local mosque. His quest to find the truth about the Quran, and the trevails he went through during it, is inspiring.
Fourteen little girls burned to death in the Saudi fire.[1] I couldn't find a reference for the past year, but for the year July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000, there were sixteen homicides in schools where the victims were children.[2]
So while more kids died in school shootings in the US for the years sampled than little girls burned to death in Saudi Arabia, you have to keep some other factors in mind: 1: Saudi Arabia has a population of roughly 24 million. The US has a population of roughly 290 million. So for the two statistics to be equilivant, there would've had to have been 193 school shootings in one year. As is, the ratio of deaths is much lower in the US. 2: People in the US recognize that school shootings are a problem. We take active steps to counter them, and from all indications those steps are working. The Saudis didn't seem to care that little girls burned to death, there haven't been any major sweeping changes of the Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue. 3: When school kids kill each other with guns, it is a criminal act not sanctioned by the government. When Saudi authorities lock little girls in their school and make them burn to death, it is a criminal act sanctioned by the government.
When you think trying to keep guns out of school is the same as locking little girls in a burning building, you are in a majorly fucked up society. Something else to think about.
Slashdot Mirror
For the hypertext challenged
Definitely screams "hot goods", with the "I have no idea what's on it" comments.
Will Iraq will merge very old and very new cultures in a beneficial way? Being Johnny-on-the-spot, what's your take on Iraq's chances of having a real democracy, and not just a vehicle for some religious nutjob *cough*Sistani*cough* to take over?
Now that's a very fine philosophy.That someone else is paying you to work, not check NHL stats.
/. ;)
But apparently they *are* paying you to read
I'm working on a project that will use broadband services to deliver digital cable TV and internet services.
And this is different from digital cable/cable modems *how*? Or was that your joke?
To an adult that wouldn't be funny.
And to a Slashbot, it's hysterical.
In the end, sheer numbers (money & men) won out.
Yeah, I know, I was just trying to get the other guy's goat. Ya gotta respect the determination the South showed, in keeping the North on the run for much of the time while not having anywhere near the same level of resources.
Dude, lighten up. I wasn't saying Deliverance was an invitation only society, but it was inbred and cannabalistic. Whether it's an accurate depiction of the South or not is pretty much moot. It *is* a depiction, and one most people laugh at (even some Southerners).
As for whether Southerners are real men or not, there is a reason the North won the war, ya know.
An invitation-only society will always become cannabalistic and/or inbred.
So, what, we should expect to hear banjos when loading the home page? How will this effect the search results for "squeal + pig"?
Well, under your first proposal, only the advertisers benefit. What, you thought they'd pass their savings on their customers? Probably not the likely result. And somehow I doubt Anniston is just stuffing her money into her mattress. She's probably got teams of finance types who manage it for her; which means it gets invested; which means it helps power the economy; which means everyone benefits.
As for the "Seinfeld" cast, I think it proved that, as an ensemble, they were great. Individually, they weren't. It doesn't reduce the value they had on "Seinfeld", it only means the cast there was greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, it could also be a symptom of type casting. Though Jason Alexander seems to be doing fine with a Broadway career.
Of course we all know this. As "Friends" became more popular, did they cut down on the ridiculous number of commercials because the production costs were spread across more viewers? Of course not. They simply upped production costs by paying each actor $1e6 for each episode. This is not the positive side of market economics people like to talk about.
Actually, it's a very positive side. As the work done by the actors became more valuable, their salaries went up. Say what you will, but a set dresser leaving the crew of "Friends" would've had zero effect on the show's popularity; Jennifer Anniston leaving would have. Given that, of course the network is going to pay the actors more when they get to charge the advertisors more.
Call me crazy, but I still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. Though your da probably moved too many green pieces of paper for that one.
He didn't buy it on Thursday, did he?
You can even go for the Holy Grail of maximum times per day WITHOUT EVER LEAVING YOUR BED!
Normal people call that the "Honeymoon".
Laymen shouldn't try to respond to letters from attornies. He should have just passed the threat letter to his lawyer, and have him type up a response similar to what was written. It could be he's left himself open to legal action doing it this way.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for pointing me to the ull story, it certainly does have different implications. That said, it doesn't negate the idea that Jesus was more merciful. Mohammed may have been merciful in comparison with other tribal leaders, and as a tribal leader he probably did the right thing, but he still falls short of the example set by Christ.
Here's another anecdote, this time I believe from the Koran. Hopefully you can point me to a more accurate interpretation, if there is one.
One of Mohammed's lieutenants was captured by a rival tribe. When they threatened to kill him, he denounced Mohammed and Allah. After he escaped, he ran back to Mohammed and confessed his sin. Mohammed told him it was OK, and if the same thing happened again, he should lie to save his own skin.
Compare this with Jesus admonishing his followers to always tell the truth; at one point He asked them, "What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?" He also said "Whoever denies the Son of Man, I will deny him at the end of time." In fact, Christ's chief disciple, Peter, denied him to save his own skin. While he was forgiven for doing so, he wasn't given blanket permission to do it again.
Many Christians were martyred over the centuries for refusing to deny Christ's divinity. Yet Moslims are taught it's OK to lie about your beliefs and motives. This is especially troubling in light of terrorist attacks carried out by Wahhabists. At least with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in Christianity five centuries ago (Christianity's most violent period), people were willing to stand up and say what their beliefs were, consequences be damned. After all, I'd rather be killed for my beliefs than deny them and go to Hell. But as long as Moslims are taught it's OK to lie, then how can any be trusted?
You seem pretty reasonable too. This will be my last post in this thread, just wanted to throw one more thing out there.
Re: strong words in the Koran and the Bible. The difference is which part of which book (or collection of books, in the case of the Bible) focuses on what. The Old Testament is chock full of commands to burn villages, but these were specific instances, the Israelites weren't expected to make war on everybody. At the same time, by the time Jesus came along, they weren't warring with anybody, and Jesus commanded to "turn the other cheek". So as Judaism progressed into Christianity, it became less violent.
With Islam, though, the earliest verses are the ones that are the most peaceful. This is most likely because it wasn't until after Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca that he went apeshit and ordered his followers to start killing people left and right. Given that his early converts were mostly nomadic Arabs, who lived a pretty violent life, this wasn't asking much of them. But we ended up with a religion which was basically founded in warfare, by a man obsessed with getting revenge against those who wronged him. Telling point: Mohammed's last words, as he lay dying of poison, were to curse Christians and Jews, Jesus' last words on the cross were to forgive the men who crucified Him. Given just those two facts, which religion would you rather join?
This is another important point: individual followers of any religion can be nutjobs. Here in the States, we've got people who have tried to blow up medical clinics because they thought abortions were performed there. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall at least one instance where the building wasn't used for that purpose. Didn't stop the nutters from lighting the fuse, though. So you can't look at the followers of a religion to determine if it's worthwhile, you have to look at the founders, at the example they set. Even setting aside the question of Christ's divinity, the lives of Jesus and Mohammed are drastically different. One was tempered by compassion and mercy, the other by greed and bloodlust. Given that any group of people will strive to emulate those they think are closer to God, is it any wonder that so many Moslims get pulled into the trap of thinking it's a good idea to strap dynamite to their chest before catching the afternoon matinee?
If your company is having problems and you don't feel safe doing your duty and informing the higher ups, you need to start looking for a new job. In the meantime, don't rock the boat.
Are hurricanes motivated by debts owed to their oil business partners, friends and family?
How do you know they're not? Have you asked one recently?
...Jesus did not say at any point to discard the old testament.
It's true that Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But at the same time, the teachings in the New Testament make clear that much of the old law, aside from the actual commandments, are no longer required for justification. From Peter's vision in Acts, in which God showed him all sorts of "unclean" animals and told him to eat them, to Paul's teachings in Galatians about circumcision, it's made clear that the Old Testament laws don't apply in the same way.
Also, it's important to remember the context of the wars Israel fought in the Old Testament. Yes, they were brutal, but wars have always been brutal. And they did have to follow strict rules in conducting warfare.
I'm sorry, but you must know that that is not a core concept of Islam any more than it is Christianity. If you can point out to me where the Koran encourages terrorism (killing innocents to effect change) I will stand corrected.
I'm going to cop out and take the easy way on this one. Rather than writing up an essay, summing up all of the verses from the Koran and the Haddith sanctioning violence against innocents, I'll just point you in the direction of some people who have done this work already: Islam & Terrorism, on the Answering Islam site. This site is maintained by Christians, for Christians, so I'm sure the Moslims on Slashdot who read the articles will disagree with their conclusions. Having lived in Islamic countries and lived with Moslims, I'm inclined to give the site the benefit of the doubt. Based on my personal experience, their conclusions seem accurate.
The religions of the world are more alike than different: they all want to save you from yourself. Everyone thinks that everyone elses beliefs are dangerous.
Well, in all honesty, if you're not willing to say someone else is wrong, you certainly can't say you're right. And if you're not certain your belief is right, why hold it? Also, I resent the idea that my concern is born of fear. It comes from a certainty that Christ is God, and you can't go to Heaven unless you follow Him; couple that with a desire to see people go to Heaven, and of course I want good Moslims to convert (of course, only God can know the inner workings of someone's heart, so I'm sure there are plenty of Moslims who will go to Heaven, and plenty of "Christians" who will fall short, I just think you're on safer ground by trying to follow Christ's teachings).
And deep down you know that every foreign innocent life snuffed out by American imperial wars of conquest are equally indefensible.
Well, then, it's a good thing we've never launched one. As Colin Powell has said, Americans have gone in harm's way for many other countries, and the only land we've asked for in return was enough to bury our war dead.
Collateral damage is MURDER.
Wait, I thought meat was MURDER? Does this mean you expect us to eat the remains from collateral damage? Man, you are sick!
Well I'd suggest reading the Old Testament of the Bible (an easy and fun read in lego). It pretty clearly states that the chosen people (in this case, the Jews) should kill pretty much anyone whom isn't chosen.
True enough, but Christians don't live under the Old Testament. At least not to the extent that we have to kill off anyone in the Holy Land. So you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. What you should look at are the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of Mohammed. Those are the two founders of Christianity and Islam, respectively, and what they have to say on various subjects is interesting, to say the least.
As for "real" Moslims who don't believe in Jihad, I've known many Moslims who are basically Moslim in culture only, or because they were raised that way. But just like most Christians don't practice the core concepts of Christianity (I haven't sold off all my worldly goods and given them to the poor recently), most Moslims don't follow the core concepts of Islam (like tying explosives to your chest and detonating them in a movie theater).
And like you, I hate Jihad, but don't hate Moslims. I'd really like to see all Moslims convert to Christianity, because I honestly and earnestly believe that their souls are in jeopardy. Let alone our chance for peace in this world. I don't want to eradicate the people from the earth, but would like to see their religion go away. BUT, those are personal decisions we all have to make on our own, so other than supporting missionaries I'm not in favor of doing anything overt to convert people.
I think it's important for you to realize that the author of the book is not an atheist. He's a Christian, who was raised Moslim, was a teacher at a respected Islamic school in Cairo, and an imam at his mosque. He was, in effect, an authority on what the Koran teaches. So much so that he could no longer live under it and sought out God for the real answers.
Here's an anecdote which, for me, sums up all of the differences between Christianity and Islam: I'm sure you're aware of the story from the haddith of the adulterous woman who was brought before Mohammed. She was pregnant with another man's child, so he ordered her to brought back after the child was born. So it was done. Then, he ordered her to be brought back after the child had been weaned. Again, it was done as he ordered. The third time she appeared before him, he ordered her stoned to death. Sure enough, she was executed for having slept with a man not her husband.
Compare this to a strikingly similar anecdote from the New Testament. Jesus was in the Temple, and a woman who had been (presumably, the details are sketchy) caught in bed by her husband with another man. She was dragged, half naked, before the Temple Court to be stoned. The law only allowed for one punishment for this crime. But the teachers in the Temple asked Jesus what he thought should be done with her. He replied "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Every man there realized they all had sin in their heart, and so they all went home. When Jesus saw this, he asked the woman "Does noone condemn you?" She responded, "No." He told her "Then neither do I. Go, and sin no more."
So, Mohammed's response to sin: strict interpretation of the law. Jesus' response: mercy and love. Which one would you rather follow?
Oh, and one other thing: you always hear about Moslims being killed for converting to Christianity. Ever wonder why you never hear of the reverse? Families might disown their children for leaving the church, but they wouldn't have them murdered.
Those are all really good points, and in all honestly I don't know what would have to be done to better Islamic societies. It was only a few hundred years ago that Christians were burning each other at the stake over whether they believed that the Pope was the head of the Church or not, in many ways the problems with Wahabbists mirror some of the excesses of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Maybe the answer is that this is just the kind of thing religions go through. Given that Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam, it makes sense to think of Islam as being in the same mental place we were in the middle ages.
Of course, the Renaissance and Age of Exploration lifted Europe out of the middle ages. So I guess some kind of modern day Renaissance and a new period of exploration is needed. You would think the information revolution would help, so maybe these geeks in Saudi Arabia really are the answer. And maybe we should encourage other countries to shoot for the moon and Mars, too, even if it does ensure wars in space in our lifetimes. In the long run, we all might benefit from it.
Then again, it could just be that it's 2:00am and I'm tired and rambling.
And likewise the major cause of the Jihad is not religion but politics as well.
I'd suggest reading Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad. The book disproves the notion that jihad is just politics and not religion, because for one thing there is no distinction between the two in Islam. The writer is a former Moslim who was a teacher at Al-Azhar, and an imam at his local mosque. His quest to find the truth about the Quran, and the trevails he went through during it, is inspiring.
Fourteen little girls burned to death in the Saudi fire.[1] I couldn't find a reference for the past year, but for the year July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000, there were sixteen homicides in schools where the victims were children.[2]
So while more kids died in school shootings in the US for the years sampled than little girls burned to death in Saudi Arabia, you have to keep some other factors in mind:
1: Saudi Arabia has a population of roughly 24 million. The US has a population of roughly 290 million. So for the two statistics to be equilivant, there would've had to have been 193 school shootings in one year. As is, the ratio of deaths is much lower in the US.
2: People in the US recognize that school shootings are a problem. We take active steps to counter them, and from all indications those steps are working. The Saudis didn't seem to care that little girls burned to death, there haven't been any major sweeping changes of the Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue.
3: When school kids kill each other with guns, it is a criminal act not sanctioned by the government. When Saudi authorities lock little girls in their school and make them burn to death, it is a criminal act sanctioned by the government.
When you think trying to keep guns out of school is the same as locking little girls in a burning building, you are in a majorly fucked up society. Something else to think about.