Bible Burned by Rockstar, Virgin Headquarters attacked by Christian Extremists

Sgt_BFG on 3/4/2011 at 11:18

lol terry jones gonna die soon

Sulphur on 3/4/2011 at 11:28

Oh, just nuke everything.

Seriously, what's the fucking point. Outlaw religion, or just nuke everything. The middle ground we've been fighting for 2000 fucking years, or however long it's been since the first man realised it's easier to control people by holding sway over whatever dogma they believe in.

R Soul on 3/4/2011 at 13:20

Quote Posted by Sulphur

Outlaw religion...

Do you not realise that there's more to religion than burning books and calling for a jihad? Well of course you do, it's obvious. It provides comfort for the bereaved and strength for people in times of hardship. Everyone knows it but I suppose it's easy to get distracted by the lunatics.

Sulphur on 3/4/2011 at 13:48

Of course I do, but when you weigh the pros and cons of it all, it's hard to see where personal faith in a higher being stands when it's dwarfed by the shadow of the senseless violence engendered in its name throughout history.

If you need something to hope and believe in that isn't tethered to the cold limitations of our physical plane and its callous, uncaring randomness, by all means do so. But when you let it encroach upon and violate the sanctity of other lives, that is where the line must be drawn.

pdenton on 3/4/2011 at 17:11

I'll let my favorite secular author Sam Harris describe my own sentiments:

"Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Why are there no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence."
-Letter to a Christian Nation

Raven on 3/4/2011 at 17:39

Please tell me that author has discussed this 'considered' opinion with respected Islamic (practicing) scholars. I also assume that he has discussed this with scholars of Buddhism and Tibetan history scholars. This must be the case, otherwise he would be in danger of sounding like a total asshat.

Any work of art or philosophy (can we not see religion as a very complex mix of the two) can easily be twisted for perverse purpose.

It becomes easy when your people are being killed by robots in the sky and you homeland has been a constant warzone.

CCCToad on 3/4/2011 at 18:21

Comparing any two situations like that is always chancy because it operates off the assumption that "all other things being equal", when in reality they aren't. For example, the US isn't exactly known to gun down demonstrators. The Chinese do that.

Kolya on 3/4/2011 at 20:35

Quote Posted by Raven

Any work of art or philosophy (can we not see religion as a very complex mix of the two) can easily be twisted for perverse purpose.

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide, where I stop and I turn and I go for a KILLING SPREE! :mad:

Sulphur on 3/4/2011 at 20:38

I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!! :mad:

pdenton on 3/4/2011 at 20:41

What Harris is saying is that Islamic apologists often use the living conditions of Muslims as an excuse for killing civilians. And yet there are plenty of other examples of religious people living under occupation and not turning to violence, or at least against civilians. Jihad is something very exclusive to Islam. There are plenty of perfectly peaceful Muslims in the world (and I must roll my eyes every time I have to say "not ALL Muslims are terrorists". So much should be obvious), but these people are choosing to cherry pick their faith. Christians do it all the time with the old testament. The point Harris is making is that in religions like Buddhism or Jainism, there is little to no room to justify violence but in Islam there is. Just look around the world right now. You could burn a picture of Jesus, piss on the Bible, and you'd get nasty emails and maybe a protest outside your home. Speak out against Islam and get your throat slit ((http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/) http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/), post a cartoon of Muhammad and be prepared for death threats and political fallout ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), and now apparently burn a Koran and expect murderous repercussions. These childish and violent responses aren't demonstrative of a majority of Muslims but they are exclusive to Islam. The issue of where the condemndation of these responses, especially the violent ones, are by the so-called moderate Muslims also begs mentioning.

There's a fantastic piece in the New York Times weekend section about an American cleric who is struggling to teach an accurate, conservative version of the Koran to American Muslims but struggles with preaching a "peaceful jihad". He calls it a jihad of the pen and the mouth. When one of his students asked the cleric why jihad was acceptable, even encouraged, against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but taboo now that it was against the Americans (after all, they are just defending their Islamic territory), he didn't have a definitive, clear answer. I highly recommend reading the piece. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html