"Excuse" huh? Get back to me when your country is attacked and 3,000 citizens are murdered and the "government" of the country where the man responsible is residing refuses to turn him over.
Or did you forget that the invasion of Afghanistan was backed by virtually every single nation on this planet?
calling atheism a religion is a lot like calling NOT collecting stamps a hobby.
People who don't collect stamps don't feel the need to tell others that they can't collect stamps. Contrast that to the vocal minority of Atheists that feel the need to "save" the World from religion. They are no less intolerant in my eyes then the gay-bashing preacher or suicide bomber. They are true believers and true believers of ANYTHING scare the hell out of me.
And I'd expect you to have the opposite conclusion if you were an Atheist.
And your point is, what exactly? That Christians can be assholes too? I never disputed that.
Still, I fail to see why so many Atheists feel the need to point out to religious folks why they are "wrong". Spiritually (or the lack thereof) is a personal and private affair and I think the World would be much better off if people would just leave each other alone to worship (or not) in peace.
I have no problem with the Atheist or Christian that answers questions about his beliefs when asked. But if either one of them start trying to tell me that I'm going to hell or that I'm a superstitious fool (to use the extremes from both sides), then I'm likely to tell them to shut the fuck up, because it's none of their fucking business whether or not I choose to worship any God or Gods.
I'd do the same if my whole business model was suddenly fucked.
Wouldn't it be more effective to use the millions (billions?) of dollars you have in the bank to come up with a new business model? They'd still have a pretty big advantage -- after all, if you or I wanted to start a new business model we'd probably have to go to venture capitalists to get the funding.... the labels can just move some money out of the legal fund and into R&D.
I guess using the legal system is what passes for "innovation" these days.
Revisionists like to paint the Christian West as the sole aggressor in the matter
It goes further then that. Revisionists seem to think that we should feel sorry for Western Civilization. "Western Guilt" is one term for it.
It's not my fault that my ancestors conquered/converted/raped/killed/enslaved your ancestors. And for all the talk about western aggression, history is ripewithexamples of aggression directed at the West. In fact, there are a handful of moments in history (Salamis comes to mind) where Western Civilization could have been snuffed out if a single battle had been lost.
Thank GOD we have George W. Bush to protect all of us from allowing religion to mix with government because GWB is a strong supporter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Nice flamebait'ish troll you got there, but the mere fact that you can post that opinion about Dubya speaks volumes. Why don't you try going to Saudi Arabia and making the same comments about the House of Saud?
So is it a majority of a handful? Make up your mind!
Two separate sentences.
#1: Get back to me when a majority of Muslims realize that freedom is that as important....
#2: A handful of loud Muslims.
I don't think a "majority" of Muslims are offended enough by images of the prophet to resort to violence. I do think that a majority of Muslims don't appreciate or understand Western culture though. If they did they would realize why freedom of speech matters so much to us.
(Granted, we don't understand them very well either, so there's a lot of blame to go around on both sides)
You should also point out that much of what was done in the name of Christ 1000 years ago was the social norm in those times.
Indeed. What's next? Will the apologists for Muslim extremism use the atrocities of ancient Rome as justification for their actions/deflection away from a serious conversation about them?
The Crusades might have been a pretty dark chapter in the history of Christianity (though a deeper reading into them would find good ole fashioned geopolitical ambition at work as much as religion) but they aren't a free pass for modern day extremism by any faith.
The United States of America. Do try to keep up here.
Do you have a citation for that? I do recall saying that they do tend to whine a lot about speech they disagree with, but whining != murder/arson/legislation-against-free-speech. In any event, they kind of have the right to whine about stuff they don't like (free speech cuts both ways).
Then, what I Bush doing in the Middle East, really? He said himself that God has spoken to him, in a dream, to invade Afganistand and Iraq. How much more proof would you need?
Well, I could start by asking for proof of that actual quote, because the only one I've heard was that "God wants me to be President", which while pretty fucking scary != "God wants me to invade Iraq".
And in any case, Afghanistan? Ya do remember that there was actually a reason for that invasion, right?
Never mind that that joke went completely over your head.
I got it, but that doesn't mean I can't try and post something insightful afterwards.
Just what policies of Joseph Stalin were based on a lack of belief in a deity?
Why is that relevant? The GP said "Even the atheists have been responsible for some atrocities." He didn't say "Atheists used their beliefs as an excuse to commit atrocities"
In any case, all I did was point out a declared atheist that was directly responsible for millions of deaths and untold amounts of human suffering. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a nastier person in human history, outside of he who shall not be named.
Sure about that? Because I've met my fair share of Atheists that are as aggressive in trying to convert people as any Christian would be. Hell, most of the hard-core atheists are more obnoxious then the hard-core Christians. Either way, they both share one common trait: Both are utterly sure beyond any reasonable doubt that THEY have the RIGHT answer.
Why? In what major Western Country can religion impose restrictions on free speech? The followers of said religion can hem and haw all they want -- that's actually their right (free speech again) -- but by and large they aren't resorting to violence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Get back to me when a majority of Muslims realize that freedom is just as important to us as their freedom to practice their religion is to them. We've been utter dicks to them for the last 100 years (European colonialism, the USSR/USA using them as pawns during the Cold War, current US policy, etc) but for once I don't think we have anything to apologize for.
If we are willing to give up our freedom of speech to appease a handful of loud Muslims that offend easily then we truly are doomed.
that the west has comparable problems with the concept of "Free speech that I disagree with".
Get back to me when the response to "free speech that I disagree with" in the west involves murder and arson.
We aren't perfect by any means but I'd feel a hellva lot safer standing in Times Square mocking Jesus then I would standing in almost any country (outside of Israel or Turkey) in the Middle East and saying the same about Muhammad.
As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?
Keyword there: history.
I'm not even Christian, but I'm growing weary of hearing people pull out the crusades to try and change the topic away from Muslim extremism. Yes, Christianity has had it's dark moments. Life for life it's even possible that Christianity has killed more people. But what's the point of bring it up in these discussions? Christianity isn't engaged in a crusade today. Christians aren't burning down buildings and issuing fatwas because of cartoons.
Let's talk about what's going on in the modern world. And in the modern world it's indisputable that Muslim extremism is claiming more lives/doing more damage then Christian extremism. This problem isn't going away until the moderates step up and silence the extremists. We can do our part to help them out (being less one-sided with our foreign policy would be a good start) but at the end of the day it's THEIR job to clean up their house, not ours.
The dark past of Christianity is not a free pass for other religions to do the same in modern times.
Those are merely CLAIMS. What is the proof for such claims, especially for the first claim?
More importantly, who gives a shit what they think is "unacceptable"? In the Western World its unacceptable for religion to impose its restrictions on free speech. Nobody is forcing them to go look at these pictures.
What's next? Are they gonna complain about the pictures all over the net (and even Wikipedia) of exposed women? My right to say what I want, read what I want and look at what I want trumps your right not to be offended.
Perhaps a compromise is possible?
And why exactly SHOULD we compromise on one of the most important principles of western democracy? I can think of a lot of stuff on the internet that's offensive and disgusting and I'm not advocating that we take it down. My freedom of speech trumps your right not to be offended.
But, in Europe, try to suggest that 6 mil jews were killed in the holocaust and you'll be in a sticky situation.
Yeah and that's an unjustified restriction of free speech that wouldn't fly here in the states. You can say that to your hearts content in the United States. You'll be rightfully condemned for it but nobody will stop you from saying it.
while trying to get flag burning made illegal.
They can try all they want. They have that right. But it's not illegal, so I'm not quite sure what your point is? That a minority of American citizens don't grasp the concept of free speech?
Christian Protestants don't use crosses with Jesus hung on them. That's how you can tell a Protestant church from a Catholic one at a glance: does the cross outside have Jesus on it? Catholic. Bare cross? Protestant.
The Protestants don't try and tell the Catholics that they CAN'T have Jesus on their cross though. That's where my tolerance of religion ends -- where it tries to impose it's own values upon others.
The end result is the same. Less liberty, more ignorance
"Less liberty"? The last time I checked you can still stand up and oppose Christianity in the United States or Europe. Try flying to the Middle East and speaking out against Islam in the city square and let me know how that works out for you.....
Right, abortion clinic bombings have nothing to with Christianity
Bombing an abortion clinic, while abhorrent, is a little bit different from torching a KFC and threatening to kill people just because you don't happen to like a drawing published in a Danish newspaper.
Or did the Muslims perceive that human life was dying because of the publication of those pictures?
There's more similarity between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than there are differences
These people need to seriously be put back in their place!
Clearly you didn't see the quotation marks around the word "won" in my statement. Clearly you didn't bother to read the other paragraph where I stated that Americans and Iranians probably aren't that different and the sooner that both populations realize that the better off we'll be.
Nothing I said should be taken as rooting for a victory over them. I'm rooting for the forces of peace and understanding to prevail -- because the last thing that either country needs is a war. For the United States it would be a war that we couldn't afford to wage nor afford to back away from. For Iran it would cement the hold of the extremists over the population and negate any chance of meaningful reform, all while providing fresh recruits for the next generation of terrorists. It would be a disaster for both nations and one that we desperately need to avoid.
Hey, I'm COMPLETELY and STEADFASTLY opposed to torture. I'm utterly disgusted by how far I think my own country has fallen and I think all of the people accusing me otherwise would do well to read some of my previous posts on the subject.
I was merely trying to point out that the United States is no where near as oppressive as Iran is. Our elections aren't controlled by an un-elected group of religious zealots that get to decide who is on the ballot. We still have the freedom to criticize our Government. We still have the freedom to dress as we want.
The United States has done a lot to give itself a bad name these last few years but anyone that is seriously comparing the situation here in the United States to that of Iran is insane. In a year we will have a President that will end the Bush legacy of torture and extraordinary rendition. McCain is completely opposed to torture (for good reason... he was tortured for years in Vietnam) as are both Hillary and Obama. I'm guessing that in a year the Mullah's will still control Iran.......
Slashdot Mirror
"Excuse" huh? Get back to me when your country is attacked and 3,000 citizens are murdered and the "government" of the country where the man responsible is residing refuses to turn him over.
Or did you forget that the invasion of Afghanistan was backed by virtually every single nation on this planet?
People who don't collect stamps don't feel the need to tell others that they can't collect stamps. Contrast that to the vocal minority of Atheists that feel the need to "save" the World from religion. They are no less intolerant in my eyes then the gay-bashing preacher or suicide bomber. They are true believers and true believers of ANYTHING scare the hell out of me.
And your point is, what exactly? That Christians can be assholes too? I never disputed that.
Still, I fail to see why so many Atheists feel the need to point out to religious folks why they are "wrong". Spiritually (or the lack thereof) is a personal and private affair and I think the World would be much better off if people would just leave each other alone to worship (or not) in peace.
I have no problem with the Atheist or Christian that answers questions about his beliefs when asked. But if either one of them start trying to tell me that I'm going to hell or that I'm a superstitious fool (to use the extremes from both sides), then I'm likely to tell them to shut the fuck up, because it's none of their fucking business whether or not I choose to worship any God or Gods.
Wouldn't it be more effective to use the millions (billions?) of dollars you have in the bank to come up with a new business model? They'd still have a pretty big advantage -- after all, if you or I wanted to start a new business model we'd probably have to go to venture capitalists to get the funding.... the labels can just move some money out of the legal fund and into R&D.
I guess using the legal system is what passes for "innovation" these days.
I don't recall saying he was. I recall saying that short of him, I'm hard pressed to think of a worse human being then Joesph Stalin.
It goes further then that. Revisionists seem to think that we should feel sorry for Western Civilization. "Western Guilt" is one term for it.
It's not my fault that my ancestors conquered/converted/raped/killed/enslaved your ancestors. And for all the talk about western aggression, history is ripe with examples of aggression directed at the West. In fact, there are a handful of moments in history (Salamis comes to mind) where Western Civilization could have been snuffed out if a single battle had been lost.
Nice flamebait'ish troll you got there, but the mere fact that you can post that opinion about Dubya speaks volumes. Why don't you try going to Saudi Arabia and making the same comments about the House of Saud?
Two separate sentences.
#1: Get back to me when a majority of Muslims realize that freedom is that as important....
#2: A handful of loud Muslims.
I don't think a "majority" of Muslims are offended enough by images of the prophet to resort to violence. I do think that a majority of Muslims don't appreciate or understand Western culture though. If they did they would realize why freedom of speech matters so much to us.
(Granted, we don't understand them very well either, so there's a lot of blame to go around on both sides)
Are you serious? Kiddie porn harms another human being (the child). Pictures/images of their prophet harms nothing other their egos.
Indeed. What's next? Will the apologists for Muslim extremism use the atrocities of ancient Rome as justification for their actions/deflection away from a serious conversation about them?
The Crusades might have been a pretty dark chapter in the history of Christianity (though a deeper reading into them would find good ole fashioned geopolitical ambition at work as much as religion) but they aren't a free pass for modern day extremism by any faith.
Do you have a citation for that? I do recall saying that they do tend to whine a lot about speech they disagree with, but whining != murder/arson/legislation-against-free-speech. In any event, they kind of have the right to whine about stuff they don't like (free speech cuts both ways).
Well, I could start by asking for proof of that actual quote, because the only one I've heard was that "God wants me to be President", which while pretty fucking scary != "God wants me to invade Iraq".
And in any case, Afghanistan? Ya do remember that there was actually a reason for that invasion, right?
I got it, but that doesn't mean I can't try and post something insightful afterwards.
Just what policies of Joseph Stalin were based on a lack of belief in a deity?Why is that relevant? The GP said "Even the atheists have been responsible for some atrocities." He didn't say "Atheists used their beliefs as an excuse to commit atrocities"
In any case, all I did was point out a declared atheist that was directly responsible for millions of deaths and untold amounts of human suffering. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a nastier person in human history, outside of he who shall not be named.
Sure about that? Because I've met my fair share of Atheists that are as aggressive in trying to convert people as any Christian would be. Hell, most of the hard-core atheists are more obnoxious then the hard-core Christians. Either way, they both share one common trait: Both are utterly sure beyond any reasonable doubt that THEY have the RIGHT answer.
Believe it.
Why? In what major Western Country can religion impose restrictions on free speech? The followers of said religion can hem and haw all they want -- that's actually their right (free speech again) -- but by and large they aren't resorting to violence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Get back to me when a majority of Muslims realize that freedom is just as important to us as their freedom to practice their religion is to them. We've been utter dicks to them for the last 100 years (European colonialism, the USSR/USA using them as pawns during the Cold War, current US policy, etc) but for once I don't think we have anything to apologize for.
If we are willing to give up our freedom of speech to appease a handful of loud Muslims that offend easily then we truly are doomed.
Get back to me when the response to "free speech that I disagree with" in the west involves murder and arson.
We aren't perfect by any means but I'd feel a hellva lot safer standing in Times Square mocking Jesus then I would standing in almost any country (outside of Israel or Turkey) in the Middle East and saying the same about Muhammad.
Keyword there: history.
I'm not even Christian, but I'm growing weary of hearing people pull out the crusades to try and change the topic away from Muslim extremism. Yes, Christianity has had it's dark moments. Life for life it's even possible that Christianity has killed more people. But what's the point of bring it up in these discussions? Christianity isn't engaged in a crusade today. Christians aren't burning down buildings and issuing fatwas because of cartoons.
Let's talk about what's going on in the modern world. And in the modern world it's indisputable that Muslim extremism is claiming more lives/doing more damage then Christian extremism. This problem isn't going away until the moderates step up and silence the extremists. We can do our part to help them out (being less one-sided with our foreign policy would be a good start) but at the end of the day it's THEIR job to clean up their house, not ours.
The dark past of Christianity is not a free pass for other religions to do the same in modern times.
More importantly, who gives a shit what they think is "unacceptable"? In the Western World its unacceptable for religion to impose its restrictions on free speech. Nobody is forcing them to go look at these pictures.
What's next? Are they gonna complain about the pictures all over the net (and even Wikipedia) of exposed women? My right to say what I want, read what I want and look at what I want trumps your right not to be offended.
Perhaps a compromise is possible?And why exactly SHOULD we compromise on one of the most important principles of western democracy? I can think of a lot of stuff on the internet that's offensive and disgusting and I'm not advocating that we take it down. My freedom of speech trumps your right not to be offended.
Yeah and that's an unjustified restriction of free speech that wouldn't fly here in the states. You can say that to your hearts content in the United States. You'll be rightfully condemned for it but nobody will stop you from saying it.
while trying to get flag burning made illegal.They can try all they want. They have that right. But it's not illegal, so I'm not quite sure what your point is? That a minority of American citizens don't grasp the concept of free speech?
The Protestants don't try and tell the Catholics that they CAN'T have Jesus on their cross though. That's where my tolerance of religion ends -- where it tries to impose it's own values upon others.
"Less liberty"? The last time I checked you can still stand up and oppose Christianity in the United States or Europe. Try flying to the Middle East and speaking out against Islam in the city square and let me know how that works out for you.....
Bombing an abortion clinic, while abhorrent, is a little bit different from torching a KFC and threatening to kill people just because you don't happen to like a drawing published in a Danish newspaper.
Or did the Muslims perceive that human life was dying because of the publication of those pictures?
There's more similarity between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than there are differencesAnd that makes it ok?
Clearly you didn't see the quotation marks around the word "won" in my statement. Clearly you didn't bother to read the other paragraph where I stated that Americans and Iranians probably aren't that different and the sooner that both populations realize that the better off we'll be.
Nothing I said should be taken as rooting for a victory over them. I'm rooting for the forces of peace and understanding to prevail -- because the last thing that either country needs is a war. For the United States it would be a war that we couldn't afford to wage nor afford to back away from. For Iran it would cement the hold of the extremists over the population and negate any chance of meaningful reform, all while providing fresh recruits for the next generation of terrorists. It would be a disaster for both nations and one that we desperately need to avoid.
Hey, I'm COMPLETELY and STEADFASTLY opposed to torture. I'm utterly disgusted by how far I think my own country has fallen and I think all of the people accusing me otherwise would do well to read some of my previous posts on the subject.
I was merely trying to point out that the United States is no where near as oppressive as Iran is. Our elections aren't controlled by an un-elected group of religious zealots that get to decide who is on the ballot. We still have the freedom to criticize our Government. We still have the freedom to dress as we want.
The United States has done a lot to give itself a bad name these last few years but anyone that is seriously comparing the situation here in the United States to that of Iran is insane. In a year we will have a President that will end the Bush legacy of torture and extraordinary rendition. McCain is completely opposed to torture (for good reason... he was tortured for years in Vietnam) as are both Hillary and Obama. I'm guessing that in a year the Mullah's will still control Iran.......