That one works for me. Try again with something else. Of course the thousands of governments all over the world don't all promise eternal salvation that is exclusive to only them.

Then what was that democracy vs communism thing all about all those years ago. It was in the papers.

I called people who don't believe in evolution stupid. Or people who believe praying real hard will magically fix all the worlds problems. I don't think that's a horrible opinion either. I think if someone told you that the Earth was 10,000 years old and that your infection can be cured by praying, you'd call them stupid too.

That's not a "all people who believe in religion are stupid" statement. That's people who look at scientific evidence and call it lies to feed their own beliefs. There are plenty of smart people who believe in God. Plenty of Christians who know the Earth is much older than 10,000 years. Plenty of Church going people who believe that taking some antibiotics is a smart move when their doctor tells them to.

No I don't. I don't care what someone believes spiritually. Heck, there are a lot of questions of the universe I have on that level. What I care about is when people try and hurt others to justify their own beliefs.

It is a huge taboo to say anything negative about a religion. The mere act of calling someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 stupid labels me as trolling and disrespectful. I mean having a store say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas caused a huge uproar over the last few years.

But on the other end, all I see is religion criticizing everyone else. Gays are evil. TV shows are too violent. Doctors shouldn't prescribe birth control. People shouldn't be allowed to gamble, drink, or look at porn. I can go on and on. Do you want to compare protests put together by Atheist groups and Christian groups?

Yet no one calls them out for being disrespectful. No one jumps on someone like that like they would if I called someone who believes in Thetans a moron. Face it, saying something negative about someone's religion is a huge no-no. But a religion criticizing everything in the world they don't like is just fine.

Not asking for anyone to stop, just treat them both the same way. I don't see you calling Churches trolls and disrespectful ever.

Pan
Are you a dualist? All life is just degrees of good and evil. Where would a buddist fit into this philosophy?

I am really only addressing Rainmaker and his criticism of organized religion. (The fairy tale comment) I am not that deep or philosophical at all about this subject. To me it seems like simple logic that doesn’t require much of a debate or much thought. Pretty much the entire world is in agreement that Zeus and Thor were made up and this stuff will look equally silly in the future. So again why respect it nowadays any more than I respect an ancient Roman's worship of Jupiter?

Spirituality, what happens when someone dies, and what created life are whole other matters all together. I have no idea what happened and science has only gone so far to explain it but at least they have made some attempts. The stories about Jesus and Mohammad aren’t really insight or help at all and blindly opposing change because of some the stories moves you backwards. So I agree with Rainmaker they are basically incredible fairy tales, arguably the best ever written. Great stories, great moral lessons being taught, but fictional characters and events.

Winner.

It is interesting timing and article doesn't give the background story yet on who-when-where etc. I don't doubt the US government had something to do with pushing the Swedes hand.
WikiLeaks founder charged with rape, molestation in Sweden - CNN.com

This movie kind of stuff. Speak out, and suddenly you are wanted for "unrelated charges." Sometimes the conspiracy theorists aren't all that far off.

Actually ... no, there isn't a massive taboo about insulting religions just 'some' religions.

For instance want to take the mick out of Thor and Odin, go ahead you'll be fine.

Its not really about 'religions' its about peer pressure - there is a situation where people in a dominant religion in a region will tend to defend their commitment to that idea against attack by applying at 'best' peer pressure (and at worst violence).

You'll see a very similar thing in place in a work-place if there is a plan in place which the majority have committed to undertaking, if one person tries to stand up and question it then peer pressure will be applied against them even if they might be right in their criticism of the plan.

PS - One of my favourite Emo Phillips lines is that most prayer appears to come down to "Please break the laws of the physical universe for my convenience. Amen".

Um, sure. Sweden is such a bastion of conservatism & all.

If anyone competent were in charge, Mr. Wikileaks would have experienced catastrophic brake failure already.

You can't really deny the coincidence of the timing, tho, Jon. It does seem a lot like "killing you might make you a martyr but putting together a rape charge to destroy your credibility works great"

SI

Nah, I'd just kill him. Obama takes the heat and the next President comes in says "oops" and gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Works every time!

TBH, I have a tough time seeing the Swedish gov't playing ball that easily.

Who says the Swedish government or a government at all has to be part of the conspiracy. All it takes is somebody to plant the seeds of evidence that convinces the police to arrest the guy.

Eh, fuhgettaboutit

Sweden drops rape accusation against founder of WikiLeaks - CNN.com

This. And then the government looked into and had the charges dropped. I never in a minute thought the Swedish government had a finger in this.

I also never said anyone competent was in charge. For the record. Our intellegence capabilites are far less stellar than people think (outside of electronic survallance that is).

One of my favorite movie scenes that talk about the US Government. :)

Is that from Vantage Point?

The shooter w/Marky Mark.

Aaaah. Yep.

Decent movie. Better book.

Many More Now Following Mosque Controversy – And Don’t Like It - Rasmussen Reports™

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story.

The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.

Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.

Ya know, I really have to admire this woman for her persistance.

It’s Official; Birther, DDS, Esq. Orly Taitz Will Be 20K Poorer

Despite the fact that she's Bat-guano crazy.

Do they happen to say how they describe the community center and its location during this survey? - ie. is it accurate or is it in the Fox News vein of inciting hatred which seems to popular these days?

Here ya go (the wording of the main question, the rest are similar)


from Toplines - Ground Zero Mosque - August 19-20, 2010 - Rasmussen Reports™

You can bag on FXN if you like, but clearly the majority of American people understand the symbolism of this atrocity. It's a refreshing change to see common sense actually being common.

And if you go back in history, there was similar support after Pearl Harbor for the creation of the internment camps for Japanese-Americans. It wasn't American-born Muslims that were responsible for the attacks, why should they be painted with the same brush? If it were really true that all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are hell bent on the destruction of America, we'd already be fucked. And one way as sure as shit to help that happen, is to make people who have been in the US for generations feel that they are no better that the terrorists that actually are responsible.

Fortunately what you call "common sense" isn't a license to discriminate. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that.

Which was a decision that I support in both hindsight & principle. And we're damned fools for not taking similar action in 2001.

Maybe it's time for that institution to be reviewed for competency & performance.

You're using "believe in" in a different sense here.

The question of whether one "believes in " God is a question of existence and non-existence. The question of whether one "believes in" anarchism, republicanism, fascism, or any other form of government is a question of valuation, not existence; or, to put it another way, of how one wishes things were, not of how things are.

An anarchist "believes in" no government not in the sense of denying the existence of governments, but in the sense of wishing that that no governments existed, and of being willing to bring that about. The same goes for a republican, fascist, communist, or socialist: you believe in one of those forms of government in the sense that you believe it to be the best, not in the sense that you think it is the only form of government that ever has existed or ever will exist.

I'm not trying to take the p*ss here, AE--I very much respect your point of view--but I don't think the analogy works.

"Please sign my petition for a new Constitution that lets the Government round up and imprison whoever they want -- thanks!"

So you're equating Moslem to terrorist then? - should I also equate Christian to terrorist having lived through the IRA bombing campaign in London ... should England have outlawed the building of Christian churches because they obviously could have been breeding grounds for dissidents? ... should England have declared war on America because the majority of funding for the IRA came from ill advised donations from American citizens?

Any collective of people whether religious or otherwise can be an influence for good or ill in the world, often both. Most religions have some people within them who are beacons of hope to the world, the same organisations can often has had much ill done in their name also.

As far as I'm aware America was founded at least partially on the priniciple of religious freedom, I'm not American but I personally think its a shame that such a positive ideal is being attacked by people today.

(sorry but I don't see much 'common sense' in prejudice)

PS - The questions in the poll at least doesn't seem to have been overly biased apart from the inaccurate usage of the word Mosque, which is just sloppy reporting and repeating really.

To put into perspective, 1.6 billion Muslims are hell bent on the destruction of Israel and look what happened to them!

Adequate evidence exists for that equation as far as many American citizens are concerned.


You can draw whatever equivalence you feel is valid.

Similarly shaky evidence supported Hitlers claims about the Jews in Germany, popular opinion is not something which should be treated as 'true' or as a positive thing imho.

What I'm trying to indicate is that there has been similar 'evidence' against many different groups in history - and from looking at past events it can be seen that encouraging hatred of a particular segment of society is never something which leads to a positive outcome.

As I'm sure you're aware I was being ironic - but still referencing valid and accurate facts.

Simply put the actions of a minority within a group does not validate victimizing the majority of that group.

I'm sorry you can't see the relevance of the points I'm trying to make and do realise that you're unlikely to change your position upon this.

When there's a smoking crater in Hamburg linked to a Jewish conspiracy, tell Hitler to call us.

I think he's busy talking about the Reichstag fire at the moment.

We need to get a Final Solution to the Moslem problem drawn up ASAP

9/11 was a horrific event, so were the IRA bombings in England (I lived about 2 miles away from the hotel bombings in Brighton and travelled through stations directly after controlled explosions were undertaken on numerous occasions). I also know a chap who was present when one of the failed bus attacks went off post 9/11.

Despite this I see no reason to equate the actions of the minority of a religion with the whole of the believers, thats what the terrorists want to happen - thats when wars occur, don't give into irrational hatred and let them win.

Instead isn't it better to show them WHY America is a better place to live and what freedom means, by welcoming different religions and ethnicities .. America won't win this war through military strength, imho it'll win it through winning hearts and minds (or not win it at all).

That's one of those place we differ.


We're already at war, there's just a portion of the population here too fucking dimwitted to acknowledge that. The most irrational that we've done with regard to this particular issue is to allow the continued presence of the enemy on U.S. soil.


You're probably right about that, but only because we lack the intestinal fortitude to exercise that strength appropriately.

We should have locked up all white, male, religious southerners after Eric Rudolph's crime spree. It was clear he was an enemy of the US, trying to inflict as much damage as possible, and have other join in his mission. What's that, JiMG? You aren't anti-abortion? Well, doesn't really matter. You should have thought about that before choosing to be a white southerner. You could have moved, after all.

Yawn, have fun playing with your little straw man.

The percentages of the true criminals to the overall demographic group are roughly the same.

That's because you're more enlightened and less bigoted than some others.

Not really a straw man. He's just pointing out the idiotic nature of your statement. Pretty clear representation of your statement - hell they were even both terrorist attacks on civillian targets. Nothing unequivelent about it.

Why exactly do y'all believe that JIMG will come to a non-crazy decision on this matter?

I for one don't. And neither does Marc.

I just get tired of letting him get away with his bullshit every so often and periodically call him on it. I know it won't get me anywhere, I just think it's necessary so that people see he's not representitive of much more than an angry, declining minority.

If denial helps you sleep better, so be it, but the poll clearly illustrates a strong consensus about this specific topic, and one that's growing to boot. There's still work to be done obviously, but it's at least a small step in the right direction for a change. It's nice to occasionally realize that the entire U.S. population isn't actually made up of the liberals that plague FOFC, meaning there is still some reason for hope, however faint it might be.

Fortunately whether or not there's a majority doesn't really matter in this case. The majority doesn't have the will to discriminate against the minority and deny them their rights. And no amount of bitching or kvetching by you is going to change that.

And there wouldn't be that majority if it hadn't been whipped up and turned into a political issue by right-wing bloggers (and I'm not even saying that out of my ass, it's been shown that it was right-wing bloggers keeping the story alive and pushing it to get it attention).

It's an idiotic non-issue.

There's already (and has been for YEARS) a FUCKING MOSQUE CLOSER TO GROUND ZERO THAN THIS ONE. AND THAT ONE (AS FAR AS I KNOW) IS 100% A MOSQUE. I posted a fucking picture of it up the thread.

If people were really that upset they should be upset about that, and picketing there and all.

But they're not (as far as I know, or as is being reported). Why? Because this is a non-issue that's been trumped up and turned into an issue by the right-wing blogosphere, and seized upon (largely although not exclusively) by GOP politicians as an issue to help them bring more of a "culture war" slant to the upcoming electoral cycle since they have continually over-and-over demonstrated a clear lack of any meaningful, substantial economic policies, and they've come to the realization that campaigning against homosexuality and abortion (as they did on the "culture front" for years) isn't bringing younger viewers to the polls.

I wonder if you asked the people in that poll to rate their understanding of the FACTS of the situation (as opposed to the hype), how many of them would have more than the absolute basic fact of "a muslim group wants to build a mosque AT GROUND ZERO."

Because that's not the facts, as much as you might want to spin them that way.

Unfortunately he is representative of an angry, growing majority in this country. Definitely don't agree with him but a new pro-war, pro-status quo wedge issue has been created. I may have a lot of issues with Obama but his election time Pennsylvania "gaffe" about guns and religion is about as spot on as you can get to describe this issue.