New York-based jihadists threaten lives of Trey Parker, Matt Stone

My questions is this:

The Jews may or may not be OK with Moses being a giant head/computer, but they aren't threatening to kill anyone.
The Christians may or may not be OK with Jesus looking up internet porn, but they aren't threatening to kill anyone.
The Buddhist may or may not be OK with Buddha blowing lines of coke, but they aren't threatening to kill anyone.
The Mormons may or may not be OK with Joseph Smith... ummm.. doing whatever, but they aren't threatening to kill anyone.

So what's Islam's deal?


And if my religious knowledge isn't mistaken, Muhammad was nothing more than a prophet. Muhammad's father was the servant of Allah, the god of the Islamic faith (as well as the god of Judaism and Christianity). So its not like Jesus, who was the son of the Lord, but more like the son of some guy who served the Lord.

(I'm Jewish btw)
They are scared - frightened people do extreme things, they have to lash out - the martyrdom thing is supposed to show how much they "believe". You have to realise that someone is manipulating them - you have to find these people and deal with them - invading countries that have nothing what so ever to do with it is not going to fix the problem - obviously.

That is just manipulation the other way, and in an odd way it's two sides of the same coin; they need each other to justify themselves.

Imagine if there had been total peace since the fall of the Soviet Union would the defence industry still be in such good health - would it hell, everyone would be saying where is the baddie, why are we spending so much on it, how about some universal healthcare, or tax cuts?
 
They are scared - frightened people do extreme things, they have to lash out - the martyrdom thing is supposed to show how much they "believe". You have to realise that someone is manipulating them - you have to find these people and deal with them - invading countries that have nothing what so ever to do with it is not going to fix the problem - obviously.

That is just manipulation the other way, and in an odd way it's two sides of the same coin; they need each other to justify themselves.

Imagine if there had been total peace since the fall of the Soviet Union would the defence industry still be in such good health - would it hell, everyone would be saying where is the baddie, why are we spending so much on it, how about some universal healthcare, or tax cuts?

Scared of what? What is so terrifying to these members of the world's second most populous religion? Someone questioning how women in Islam are treated? That's all it took for Theo Van Gogh to be shot repeatedly and stabbed. How about a crass political cartoon in Denmark? That led to worldwide riots that included four torched embassies (the Danish, one Norwegian) and 139 dead. Bounties were placed on the artists' heads. If this is motivated by fear, what is it a fear of?

For comparison, the artwork Piss Christ, which is far more offensive than anything I've ever seen directed at Muhammad, provoked nothing more than a heated debate over when it's okay to use taxpayer funding (National Endowment for the Arts) to fund controlversial/offensive art and when it's not. Oh, is also spurred one unsuccessful lawsuit (seeking an injunction to prevent it from being displayed at a certain gallery in Australia). But no deaths, no death threats, no torched buildings, etc.
 
Scared of what? What is so terrifying to these members of the world's second most populous religion?

Loosing control.
 

Man, I was 100% with him until he said that people are going to on thinking like that [accepting violent extremism] so long as they're brought up "thinking that there's something good about faith."

I'm sorry, but it's frakking ridiculous to think that every single person brought up in a Quaker, Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Buddhist, etc household is going to think like that wacko fundamentalist he interviewed, or is prone to thinking like the wacko fundamentalist, just because they think that there's "something good about faith."

Dawkins rails against people who are 100% sure that they are right and others are wrong, but it seems to me that he does that just as much as anyone.
 
Dawkins rails against people who are 100% sure that they are right and others are wrong, but it seems to me that he does that just as much as anyone.
I couldn't agree more. I find Dawkins to be just as intolerant as many that he rails against, but at least he doesn't advocate violence and bigotry. To say that people who think there is something good about faith are inherently accepting of religious violence is just plain offensive. Especially when basing that opinion on a discussion with a fairly radical Muslim in Gaza. He also completely disregards moderate Islam's notion of the "peoples of the book"; essentially that Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc are to be respected since they worship the same God, follow many of the same teachings, etc. Placing the blame solely on religion and faith, when so often there are larger underlying causes, just serves his agenda and not the facts ("the evidence" he claims to be so big on).
 
He also completely disregards moderate Islam's notion of the "peoples of the book"; essentially that Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc are to be respected since they worship the same God,

So everyone else is SOL?

Anyways. Fucking savages.
 
So everyone else is SOL?

Anyways. Fucking savages.

The distinction was made in an environment where just about everyone was Christian, Jewish, or some polytheistic religion that hasn't made it to modern times, and the point was that it was better to at least be an Abrahamic monotheist than to be one of those craaaaazy polytheists. The distinction in the Qur'an didn't even contemplate Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

I'm not defending the distinction, which is pretty intolerant (basically, it separates all non-Muslims into two categories: "kind of bad infidels" and "really bad infidels"), just giving some historical perspective.
 
So everyone else is SOL?

Anyways. Fucking savages.
Mitlov pretty well nailed it, but I should clarify what I said. I just wrote a research paper over Iranian government, so my idea of "moderate Islam" has been temporarily skewed. :lol: But even in Iran (on paper, at least) "Peoples of the Book" are considered equals, given all the same rights and considerations of a Shi'a Muslim. The people who are actually fucked in Iran are the Sunnis (a whole 10% of their population). They exist in a sort of legal gray area, they've got no mosques in Tehran, they've got no voice in government, etc.

Anyway, the answer is yes; in many middle eastern nations you're SOL if you're not Christian, Jew or Muslim. You're probably still SOL if you're a Jew, a Christian or even the "wrong" type of Muslim. But even if a majority of Muslims embrace this idea (and I doubt thats true), they don't use it as a moral justification for violence against people of other religions.
 
The "peoples of the book" stuff is pretty hollow lip-service, not something taken seriously, when Saudi Arabia bars ANY Jew from entering the country for ANY reason. Just saying.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/28/visa.flap/

Also:

Christian_Bypass.jpg


And also:

The U.S. State Department's 1997 Human Rights Report on Saudi Arabia states. "Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The government prohibits the public practice of other religions." ... While allowing foreigners to come and work, Saudi Arabia prohibits the burial of Non-Muslims on Saudi soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
 
Last edited:
O-kay, Threads like this depress me to the point of madness.

If there is one black sheep in all of the herd, people just forget the herd and poke their fingers at the black one. Those fucking Jihadists, extremists, and whoever-the-fuck-people-were-who-blew-up-WTC (and some of my relatives too in that case), are not the representatives of Islam and I can only kindly request you people to not take these people seriously. I want peace, "real" muslims want peace, period.
 
O-kay, Threads like this depress me to the point of madness.

If there is one black sheep in all of the herd, people just forget the herd and poke their fingers at the black one. Those fucking Jihadists, extremists, and whoever-the-fuck-people-were-who-blew-up-WTC (and some of my relatives too in that case), are not the representatives of Islam and I can only kindly request you people to not take these people seriously. I want peace, "real" muslims want peace, period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
 
Were we discussing all Muslims here? I thought the thread was about Jihadists and extremists who are constantly threatening to kill us, sometimes following through.
 

I can only laugh at what you are trying to imply here.

Were we discussing all Muslims here? I thought the thread was about Jihadists and extremists who are constantly threatening to kill us, sometimes following through.

the post right above yours tries to exactly claim that this talk is about whole muslims. and nobody has suffered from this war and propaganda against jihadists more than muslims, muslims who include elderly people, children and women who have never once raised a finger against anyone.
 
Hmmmm, I did not see that post at the time of my posting. I do not know enough about Islam to make a claim as to who the "true" Muslims are but I don't think you can back up the claim that extremism is the norm.
 
the post right above yours tries to exactly claim that this talk is about whole muslims. and nobody has suffered from this war and propaganda against jihadists more than muslims, muslims who include elderly people, children and women who have never once raised a finger against anyone.

The post directly above thevictor390's was wooflepoof who was saying that you can't say that Muslim extremists aren't "real Muslims" too. He never said that all Muslims were extremists.

The post above that one was mine, criticizing the government of Saudi Arabia. Not all Muslims. The Saudi government.

I'm confused as to which post you're talking about.
 
I was talking about wooflepoof's post. there is no such things as "real muslims". You are either a Muslim or not, and just because someone has a Muslim name and wants to blow up innocent people in the name of God, doesn't make him Muslim.

I hate these extremists as much as anyone else, but I don't want the blame to be put on the whole of Muslims.

Apart from that, I know the Saudi government from inside out, and they are a bunch of fucking hypocrites
 
uh, ok, but these extremists that do alot of the up-blowing identify themselves as Muslim so...whats your point. I'm not even sure how hypocrisy even relates to this.
 
Man, I was 100% with him until he said that people are going to on thinking like that [accepting violent extremism] so long as they're brought up "thinking that there's something good about faith."

I'm sorry, but it's frakking ridiculous to think that every single person brought up in a Quaker, Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Buddhist, etc household is going to think like that wacko fundamentalist he interviewed, or is prone to thinking like the wacko fundamentalist, just because they think that there's "something good about faith."

Dawkins rails against people who are 100% sure that they are right and others are wrong, but it seems to me that he does that just as much as anyone.

Actually you've got it slightly wrong there. Firstly, Dawkins isn't against religion just because of violence. That segment occupied 5 minutes of his 2-part documentary on religion. Most of his problems with religion are about stubborn ignorance. Secondly, Dawkins is a loud speaker against child labeling. He thinks it is utterly wrong to label a child as a Christian child, or a Muslim child, or a Hindu child just because of where they were raised and/or who they were raised by. He thinks it is wrong for parents to impose their religious beliefs before a child is old enough to decide for themselves. I hope you can agree with that.

Religion certainly gives many people an avenue to violence. Even good-natured Christians. The stronger your faith, the more likely you are to do something irrational to satisfy it. That thing can either be harmless or harmful. I know. I had a very gradual rise and decline in my Christian faith before it was abolished and there was a very definite rise and decline in the "will do for God" list as my faith got stronger and subsequently weaker. I still wear my cross, mostly because it's from my now passed away grandmother, but also because it reminds me that a human can indeed commit himself purely to an ideal, and as such gives me hope that humans will eventually commit themselves to something worthwhile.

Religion will eventually give way to purely scientific thinking. Whether that's in a thousand years or ten thousand is really up to the nutters who stonewall science. The west is already showing very convincing signs of this inevitability, what with extremely moderate faith being the norm in the US and less than usual in a lot of Europe. I bet western civilization will become a scientific majority within my lifetime. In a way, you could say that now.
 
Last edited:
Top