Amazon.com Widgets

« The E-Word | Main | George Bush Wants You »

Do Unto Others

A recent pew poll shows that the religious are more likely to favor torture than the secular. Bill Maher referring to guest Reza Aslan's No god but God, said he was surprised how liberal and tolerant the prophet Muhammad was. Reza explained that in all religions the prophets don't invent the religions, but that "they take the social, and cultural, economic and political milieu they live in and and reshape it they recast it. They don't talk about the future they talk about the present." It is the followers that come after that create the religion, and they often get much of it wrong.


Quicktime Video 3MB 2'49
Quicktime 7 required

 

Comments

Aslan's point is well taken. The only problem is that there is no one around today--that I know of--who is willing to take the actual words of these prophets and re-define their respective religions accordingly. I can only imagine that anyone proclaiming to have re-codified the real Christianity or Islam would be locked up for heresy.

I'd also like to mention that Reza Aslan is hawt.

Oh, and another thing!

Why is it that guys from Washington like this Jack Kingston think that being a politician and an intellectual are mutually exlusive? Or that it's somehow cute to pretend they aren't all that smart? It wasn't cute when the hot girls in high school pretended to be dumb and it certainly isn't cute when our elected officials do it.

user-pic

I find it incredulous that these born again Christians quote the old testament. Please inform you audience that the new testament, the teaching of Jesus, strikes down the old testament. that is why has tortured and killed. The catholics include it in their teachings is political justification of acts not in the spirit of the teachings of Christ. Make no mistake we are facing attack from religious zealots both Christian and Islamic.

Thanks Norm :)

Yea, Reza Aslan is doing work that desparately needs to be done (American Muslims stepping up and making their voices heard in the media).

I was quite happy to hear that very quote Bill Maher said about the PRophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and would hope other liberal minded people understand that the problem with Muslims today has nothing to do with Islam as it was revealed 1400 years ago, or the Prophet who by most historians is considered the greatest and most influential person in the world (Michael H. Hart, others)

I read a Ken Wilbur book where he distinguished mythic religion from mystic religion. In mythic religion, one believes the myths to be true - a virgin gave birth to the son of God, Moses parted the Red Sea, the world rests on a tortoise which rests on a cow - and must accept them as the true nature of reality. Mysticism, on the other hand, is an experience that must be had by each individual. Mystic religion isn't true unless you, yourself experience it to be true. A case can be made that Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc. were all mystics. What they were actually saying (although I don't know enough about Mohammed to say that this is the case) is that the experience of oneness with God (or the Way, or the Tao, or Spirit, or the kingdom of Heaven) is available to each and every one of us right now. Mythic religions sprung up around these mystics. Mythic religion offers a different path: No need to try this for yourself, just take our word for it and surrender. Unfortunately, mythic religion breeds the exact opposite message from what the prophets intended. Instead of oneness with all things, separation becomes the central theme. Us against them. The saved and the damned.

The same goes for Jesus. He never intended to start a new religion. It was his followers (mainly St. Paul) who created an entire new religious system.

Now if they just called them teachers, which is what they are, and dropped the supernatural the world would be a better place. You can question a teacher, but you can't question a prophet. If I say your teacher is wrong we have a discussion if I say your prophet is wrong we get a war.

I used to be Reza's TA to his Intro to Islam course back when 9/11 happened. He was one of the most incredible instructors I ever worked for, and he hadn't even finished his PhD yet!

If there's one thing I learned from him, it's how to say the phrase "respect another's religion" and have it be meaningful. Concerns of the supernatural were usually secondary to concerns of social reform for many of the great "prophets" throughout history - talking through the language of religion was simply the way to make one's self understood. In this regard, the major world religions DO have something worth respecting, though we need to recast those lessons now in a more secular world. Which is already happening - after all, the secular values of the Enlightenment on sprang from Protestant origins. The same can happen in Islam or any other religion if it's given the chance to change and evolve on its own terms.

I'm obviously not nearly as eloquent as Reza is. But seriously, if you haven't read his book, pick it up.

and yes, magpie... reza is HAWT :))

Does anyone know where to find the full results of this pew survey? The only ones I can find online don't seem to break down by religion, but by liberal vs. conservative.

I'm curious whether the full poll includes more groups than total public, total Catholic, White Protestant, White evangelical and Secular.

Regardless of comparisons between religious and secular people, shouldn't we still be concerned that still 41%, an obvious minority, of seculars also don't favour torture?

After reading this article I don't think you'll agree with the whole 'prophets are liberal' statement:

Click here to read

I am a Catholic and I believe that torture is wrong in all circumstances. I believe that war is wrong in all circumstances. Religion wouldn't be bad if people knew and understood the religion they were following. If Catholics read the Bible and studied the fact that the New Testement is here to refute the violent, war-like God of the Old Testement. They would be compleltley different. The New Testement has God as more of a mother-like, compassionate, turn the other cheek kinda guy. It also shows the ignornance of us liberals when we bash Christianity. When we bash Christianity we are showing that we do not know anything about said religion. We shouldnt call out the religion, we should call out the "followers" that truly have no idea what Jesus' message was about.

Omnia mutantur, even the eternal doctrine of churches. They become institutions, bureaucracies, a going concern. But how can we ever know for sure what Christ or Zoroaster or whomever really said?

Bill Maher should read the Koran if he thinks Mohammed was "liberal & tolerant". An extraordinary man, yes, but no exemplar of broad-mindedness.

I agree with Carmen: 41 percent still is terribly low. What a bad climate for humanity that we have the 21st century - and no clear majority against torture?! The Bush junta sure leaves one hell of a legacy to the world...

brrr.statistics.rrrP

we just quoted the lower end of what looked like a multi-guess question and have extrapolated enourmous results.

26% of catholics think torture is unacceptable in all situations? really? poofters! and what .. so that implies the rest of them want to go out and torture the milkman after he delivers the milk? thats how this panel has interpreted the results.

how about we react to reality rather than a statistic that might make ratings a bit higher please ...

i know i didnt see all this show so please tell me the statistics were presented in full to engender such serious critique from such a hot pHD, a political type, a former TV star and a current one. thanks.

i know i wouldnt hesitate torturing someone to get information in certain (highly hypothetical i assure you) situations. i also know i prefer a world where this never had to happen. im subsisting today on the presumption that i wont be placed in such a situation, but im sure we could all imagine scenarios where wed start applying pliers to fingernails to extract some relevant screams.

if you answered: D - Never .. youre either mahatma or lying.

another thing while im on a roll ... the new testament did not strike down the old. it fulfilled it ...

ken wilbur needs to keep his ideas to himself for that is the only place they make any logical sense ...

jesus' follwers are recorded in the bible as calling him 'great teacher' at every possible opportunity ..

you generally arent telling scriptural truth unless youre locked up, beaten up or burnt up in response ...

st paul never instigated any religious practice. everything he did was in the interest of destroying religious practice. similarly jesus also wasnt instigating religion. more like he was presenting the truth ...

tolerance will get you nowhere. trying to respect a way of life you consider illogical, insane or evil will only turn you into a hypocrite. and from thence ... god knows ....

Bill Maher, in this instance, does his viewers a disservice by allowing the lie that the Muslim "prophet" was "liberal and tolerant," unless by liberal and tolerant you mean that death for apostates and gays and the denigration of women and non-Muslims are signs of liberality and tolerance. It is truly a shame that Americans are not taking the time to learn what Islam actually teaches and that those tenets not only go all the way back to Mohammed himself, but can in no way be construed as liberal or tolerant. Liberal and tolerant societies do not relegate people to an official discriminatory second class status (dhimmitude is just as alive today in Muslim controlled countries as it was when instituted by Mohammed) simply because they do not follow a particular "religious" creed. That Sharia, Islamic law, solidly based on the Koran and the example of Mohammed, is liberal and tolerant is completely false. I supposed that Mohammed himself ordering the slaughter of defenseless Jews who had surrendered to him and taking their women and children as slaves (the Banu Qurayza), clearly celebrated by Islam's own "religious" texts, is just one shining example of his liberality and tolerance. I mean no offense, but to claim that the lack of liberality and tolerance in Islam today does not go back to Mohammed himself and his teachings flies in the face of his own brutal example and the Islamic imperialism he set in motion 1400 years ago. The strife caused by Islam today is not the result of misinterpreting the teachings of Mohammed, but of actually following them.

well said G5Protocol. just as following jesus' teachings should get devotees ridiculed, reviled and roasted as they insist on unattainable perfection and complete intolerance of anything else.

if one cannot live out the consequences of ones own beliefs, then you shouldnt really get a second chance. unless you admit youre wrong (but better be quick about that).

thankfully - we seem to live in a world that allows a bit more grace than all that...

Daniel, above, is right on the money. That is where thought on religion among progressives should be going.

If Catholics read the Bible and studied the fact that the New Testement is here to refute the violent, war-like God of the Old Testement. They would be compleltley different. The New Testement has God as more of a mother-like, compassionate, turn the other cheek kinda guy.

For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

-Matthew 10:35-36

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

-Luke 12:51-53

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)

It also shows the ignornance of us liberals when we bash Christianity. When we bash Christianity we are showing that we do not know anything about said religion.

If we apply your argument to other belief-systems, we could then find virtues in Mein Kampf or in the Communist Manifesto. Should we then believe and support Nazism and Communism on the basis of its perceived "good" virtues? Of course not, and neither should we believe a religion on the basis of Bible stories which explicitly condone wars, slavery and intolerance.

well said Erick. religion will get a person nowhere ... fast.

so the bible should be internally coherent. the new testament does indeed fulfill the old. and was jesus not largely correct when suggesting that he might be the cause of a few arguments...

jesus also specifically said that no righteousness could ever come from being religious.

and as for wars, slavery and intolerance ... we still live in a society where wars happen ... so our society condones wars. likewise we still live in a world that condones slavery ... and what exactly is so wrong with intolerance?

Erick, the idea that the God of the 'Old Testament' (Torah in Judaism) is exclusively a God of wrath or anger while the God of the 'New Testament' is exclusively a God of Love is a common misconception.

In Judaism, which holds the Torah to be the most important text, God is loving as well as just- these are not mutually exclusive. For example, the "Golden Rule" ("Love your neighbor as yourself." -Leviticus 19:18) originated in the "Old Testament" and was referenced in the New Testament later. All of the Abrahamic religions have a message of love- the whole idea of a covenental relationship between a people and God is about love- although also about responsibility, hence the existence of commandments.

You are right, though, that many people ironically ignore the clearly positive message.

Also, Erick, have you heard of "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies?" There's a good article on it on Wikipedia. And ethicist Leo Strauss called this phenomenon "reductio ad Hitlerum." Your argument that the bible is only virtuous if Nazism and Stalinism are also virtuous, is fallacious, offensive, and extreme. Lots of people think that analogy, with its rationality-derailing emotional and symbolic connotations, is clever, but it's just foolish.

The bible stories that describe histories of war and atrocity are not, especially in contemporary times, represented in mainstream religion by the commandment to enslave or conduct war.

If we apply your argument to other belief-systems, we could then find virtues in Mein Kampf or in the Communist Manifesto. Should we then believe and support Nazism and Communism on the basis of its perceived "good" virtues?

Two different political idealogies with two different 'end goals' and certainly two different political readings. Not a good analogy....

Godwin's Rule does not describe a fallacy but rather a tongue-and-cheek observation that, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

This doesn't mean that the analogy doesn't apply. When any Christian or Christian-apologist chides me with the Godwin's Rule, I then submit Walker's rule which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving morality to God approaches one."

The fallacy that Wikipedia speaks about states the proposition: "Hitler did A, therefore A is evil” (I suspect it meant to say "therefore B is evil"). Of course comparing person B to A may not apply, unless B did what A did to the same degree. However, my argument tries to show that just because a belief-system has some good within its tenets doesn't necessarily follow that we should believe in it.

To GSProtocol,

"I supposed that Mohammed himself ordering the slaughter of defenseless Jews who had surrendered to him and taking their women and children as slaves (the Banu Qurayza), clearly celebrated by Islam's own "religious" texts."

It was a time of war in his time, in which his faith was being attacked by all sides.

This was very different from the Christian crusaders repeatedly slaughtering and looting the Jewish settlements on their way to the Middle East.

Erick- sure Godwin's Rule is tongue in cheek, but the underlying observation is true: comparisons to Hitler aren't productive. Such arguments are not an appeal to reason but rather a kind of emotional indictment.

You're right that your point as stated in your response is not fallacious. But in your original post, you appear to be arguing the position 'Just because a belief system has some bad in its tenets, it should be rejected without further consideration;' at which point you imply that a very heterogeneous religion such as Christianity should be judged parallel to Nazism or Stalinism.

I am not religious or an apologist. There is no way to apologize for Christianity as a meta-religion (or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.). The Quakers, with the bible as their central text, worked to abolish slavery and are committed to social justice. There are numerous denominations with different interpretations of the text. The text itself does not rigidly define the beliefs of a religion but rather directs belief, even among so-called literalists. There is no such thing as a literalist- every denomination has a particular reading of religious history, original intent, etc. They choose what to emphasize in the text based on historical context, political agenda, etc. Just because texts are used to justify atrocities by particular factions does not mean that the religion itself deserves contempt and dismissal.

You're right that your point as stated in your response is not fallacious. But in your original post, you appear to be arguing the position 'Just because a belief system has some bad in its tenets, it should be rejected without further consideration;' at which point you imply that a very heterogeneous religion such as Christianity should be judged parallel to Nazism or Stalinism.

Many object to any criticism of religion where they see only the bad without the good. But imagine that I saw a friend about to drink a poisoned glass of milk, even if the poison represented only a small percentage of the whole. Should I include the nutritious aspects of the milk in my warning? Of course not. And although I might replace my friend's poisoned milk with a glass of pure milk, this cannot be done with the Bible without acting dishonestly or ignorantly to the alleged infallibility of its words. And mind you, the problems do not come from a small percentage of the whole, but the majority. One obvious solution exists, as difficult as it may seem, but that means a rejection of the Bible as an honest attempt to get at the truth. It must come with an honest and brave look at the flaws of its central protagonists: Yahweh and Jesus.

I am not religious or an apologist. There is no way to apologize for Christianity as a meta-religion (or Islam, or Hinduism, etc.). The Quakers, with the bible as their central text, worked to abolish slavery and are committed to social justice. There are numerous denominations with different interpretations of the text. The text itself does not rigidly define the beliefs of a religion but rather directs belief, even among so-called literalists. There is no such thing as a literalist- every denomination has a particular reading of religious history, original intent, etc. They choose what to emphasize in the text based on historical context, political agenda, etc. Just because texts are used to justify atrocities by particular factions does not mean that the religion itself deserves contempt and dismissal.

Although the Bible, indeed, does not entirely consist of atrocities and contradictions, neither do its “best” parts present anything original or especially profound. On the contrary, most of the homilies and popular maxims beloved by its believers appear in earlier ancient texts and rarely work when put into practice. For example, the Golden Rule (which is the title of the post on this page) simply does not work for people who do not wish to be treated as yourself (If this is unclear I could elaborate on this further if you’d like).

If we allow the "bad" with the "good" while others attempt to extract the atrocities from the Bible, in effect, this leaves the Bible stories open to limitless variations. And indeed, there occurs a plethora of interpretations and hundreds of Bible versions—as you’ve correctly mentioned. No wonder why history gives us examples of Christians fighting Christians over how to play the part of a "True Christian."

God in the Bible kills men, women (including pregnant women), infants, and animals. He also orders others to kill for him. It comes from violent words out of the Bible that provides justification for many believers to act out their atrocities.

Furthermore, supporting a belief-system from a peaceful standpoint only gives credence and support to its violent producing side.

Now of course the problems of belief do not come from Bibles, Jesus, or Satan, but rather from human gullibility. We have a tendency to believe that ideas and words equal great truths. But words cannot convey ultimate truths anymore than a map can serve as the territory. As in most evolutionary trends, mistakes get made, sometimes fatally. Indeed, our species has become even more violent in relation to strengths of faith in written Scripture. Unfortunately faith relies on hope and ignorance. Our beliefs play out a dangerous aspect of humanity and the responsibility for them must lie with ourselves. Only education and critical thinking can allow us the means to correct our mistakes. Let us hope that we gain the ability to use our reasoning ability instead of naive unexamined belief for such a flawed book.

erick .. dear god erick .. what to do .. where to start? lets try the milk analogy. your analogy (you admit) fails when you try to replace the milk (bible) because milk and poison can be presented seperately .. the bible cannot.

should i take that as an admission that the bible is internally coherent or should i continue the war on your poorly chosen analogies?

then you want us to look for flaws in jesus and yaweh .. so are we now admitting they are real people to look for failings in? or are we somehow trying to imagine what WE would have said and done if WE were god?

the second part to your post sums up very nicely how very anti-the-bible you are. its one of the most sound pieces of work on the matter ive read. which is going to make your final points you make even messier:

Only education and critical thinking can allow us the means to correct our mistakes. Let us hope that we gain the ability to use our reasoning ability instead of naive unexamined belief for such a flawed book.

to this i can only say, "what do you think people have been trying to do for the last 2K years...?" if you believe throwing away the bible with the bathwater will solve anything .. im afraid youre gravely mistaken.

should i take that as an admission that the bible is internally coherent or should i continue the war on your poorly chosen analogies?

It’s because it is illogical and irrational that it is not a good means to look for answers on life and the universe.

the second part to your post sums up very nicely how very anti-the-bible you are.

Do you make the same argument against the priests in their bias? Of course I have a bias. For one second, do you think that I come even remotely close to equaling the centuries full of biased priests and rabbis who preach only what they see as the "good" parts?

Bias can work to help find the flaws and dangers of any system. And the flaws appear plentiful in the system of religion, especially in the belief of Biblical scripture. The entire point of honest investigation goes to this point!

The web finally offers a way to present a few of the problems and dangers of religious belief to the public, but I cannot come close to equaling the centuries of religious propaganda. Consider what I and others post a mental health warning.

if you believe throwing away the bible with the bathwater will solve anything .. im afraid youre gravely mistaken.

Our history has shown that the blood letting has occurred mostly as a result of religions or other belief-systems, not from the people who reject them.

Religion expresses everything into terms of belief, faith, and absolutes, without need for reason or even understanding. Religion puts reality, morality, love, happiness and desire in a supernatural realm inaccessible to the mind of man. How can humans ever achieve peace when their religious scripts has their god condoning war and violence, while man must accept the superstitious belief that their unknowable god does this for mysterious reasons, forever beyond the comprehension of man?

We have little reason to think that violence inspired by Bibles and other religious texts will ever cease. One only has to look at the religious wars around the world to see belief's everlasting destructive potential. One only has to look at the Protestant-Catholic uprising in Ireland, the conflicts in the middle east with Jews fighting Moslems & Christians, the Gulf war, Sudan's civil war between Christians and Islamics, the Bosnia conflicts, and the war in Iraq. The desperate acts of fanatical individuals who have killed for their beliefs of Jesus, Mohammed, God or Satan would create a death list unmatched by any other method in history. The "Holy" Bible supports the notion of war and destruction, not only as a prophesy but as a moral necessity. If we wish to become a peaceful species, it may well serve us to understand the forces of belief that keep us in continual conflict and why the Bible has such a stronghold on the minds of people around the world.

I've read Reza Aslan's book (bought it when he first came on the Daily Show). To those saying that Mohammed wasn't liberal & tolerant, they need to read Reza's book.

He presents evidence which states/refutes a lot of what some are saying. For example, Mohammed did NOT put women as second class citizens. In fact, one of Mohammed's wives advised him in times of war.

The outfit that muslim women wear now isn't what we think it is. According to Reza, only Mohammed's wives wore those outfits. It was a sign up wealth and status. Everyone else had to deal with the hot burning sun. Some in the islamic religion twisted it and made women wear it.

As for warfare, the book says that muslims under Mohammed went so far as to offer their captives a ride on their camels while they walked along side it. It seems that Mohammed viewed war as a means to settle a dispute when no other solution exist. And that whoever won, agreed to the conditions of defeat. They respected each other as combatants.

[b]It also shows the ignornance of us liberals when we bash Christianity. When we bash Christianity we are showing that we do not know anything about said religion.[b]

Here the thing words, speech is cheap. It is easy to say that Christianity stand for peace or what ever.

Truthful when I attack Christianity I am not attacking it as a whole but rather the beliefs that many of the people claiming to be Christian have. If enough people calling them selves Christian actions reflect bad beliefs expect people to use the word Christian when referring to those beliefs. If you want it to stop then it is up to Christian’s to show that not what they believe by action. I care only about actions and nothing about what you say you believe in.

Maybe a better way to say it is when I bash Christianity I am more bashing Christianity the political movement rather then Christianity the religion.

All beliefs should be judge independent of where it came from. Stoning women to death is wrong if an atheist says it, Christian says it or any one of any religion say it. On the other hand the belief people should be free is a good belief no matter if an atheist said it or someone of any religion.

What pisses us atheist off is when we ask why you believe this a good belief and the reply is because our religion says so. This does nothing to help me understand the belief; it does nothing to explain to me why the belief should be accepted. The only thing it tells me is you just follow your beliefs blindly and never ask your self why I should believe it. Most atheist (well at least I can speak for my self) have ask the question to him self “why do I believe this?” properly many times to every belief they ever had. Point it beliefs should be looked at independent of religion when determining it value.

well erick it seems youve chosen your side. i'll refrain from trying to convince you that the truth escapes you because youll just accuse me of the same .. and wed get ... nowhere .. without a war. someone would win that and then perhaps the truth would remain...

i'll not accuse you of bias without accusing myself of the same thing. yet i dont claim to promote the bible as good and bad .. i promote it as a literal representation of world and christian history. any (biased) view that i see as dishonest i will attempt to correct. but at the end of the day .. each of us gets to choose a side.

the only way left to settle this is a war .. and on the internet thats called a flame war. and norm will quickly and rightly put an end to anything like that.

so please be advised. i agree with nothing youve said (contrary to my opening post in this thread) and admit my inability to to anything about it.

seeya ;)

My whole argument is that beliefs have been one of the causes for ignorance, misery, violence and war.

You are very welcome to disagree with me as much as you want. You most certainly don't have to agree with me, but I do like the occasional debate. It may lead to nowhere, but we all get to see other perspectives, I'd say.

user-pic

To GSProtocol,

"I supposed that Mohammed himself ordering the slaughter of defenseless Jews who had surrendered to him and taking their women and children as slaves (the Banu Qurayza), clearly celebrated by Islam's own "religious" texts."

It was a time of war in his time, in which his faith was being attacked by all sides.

This was very different from the Christian crusaders repeatedly slaughtering and looting the Jewish settlements on their way to the Middle East.

So wrote Erik.

To which I would say that it is a matter of fact that Mohammed himself started the warfare and the Crusades were largely defensive. You are quite wrong, historically.

user-pic

The crusades were defensive? You must be an LGFer...nobody with knowledge of history could make such an incredibly ignorant statement. The Crusaders didnt even spare the local Christian sects, what planet are you on birdbrain? Regarding the Banu Qurayza, who worked hand in hand with the Queresh to destroy the nascent Islamic community community breaking their treaty with the Muslims. The punishment as harsh as it was, was based on Jewish law according to the words of the elders of Banu Qurayza. You just neglected to mention that, didnt you? Moron.

In my personal opinion, the idea that religion gets you nowhere is only due to the blind acceptance of the THEORY of Evolution. How many disasters in the past were caused by this theory (e.g. Nazis, Communists). It is obvious that there is a Creator and that He sent a Prophet called Muhammad (peace be upon him), the truth is if you look closely at the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad they say that you should treat the prisoners of war just as they would treat themselves (i.e. give the same food etc.), also I can't believe that people actually believe women are forced in Islam to wear the headscarves. If the Bible said don't hurt your wives and some people in the world who said they were Christians did hurt their wives would you blame the Bible or that person who is ignorant of the teachings. The same applies for Moslems and Islam, women cannot be forced because it says "there is no compulsion in Islam" so those that do force or beat their wives are just foolish because its their culture BUT their religion teaches otherwise, but they have incorporated the culture into religion and so the confusion begins.

P.S. Suicide Bombers are WRONG and always will be cos according to the Koran if even one innocent person is killed "it is as though the whole of humanity has been killed"

Basically, what i am getting at is... in every faith there are black sheep, don't judge a whole community on the actions of a few. Judge them according to what they follow.

P.S.S a life without religion is void because if you follow the theory of evolution you just think of yourselve as an animal species and truth is humans are above. Plus if you look at the human body, according to evolution small changes came by chance, but scientists AROUND the world have labelled the human eye as being "irreducibly complex" and they agree it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eye or any human organ for that matter by chance.

Just think, when you are in danger we all turn to God, if we turn to God while we are happy, there would be no unhappy moments.

Raza

Here we go again, with some uninformed person capitalizing the word theory and saying "THEORY of Evolution" as if this is something really important.

Please do your homework so that you will know what a scientific "theory" is.

There is also something called "Stress THEORY". If you think that is "just a theory", then I recommend that you do not cross any bridges.

Do you not believe in the "theory" of gravity either?

PS. My life is not void and I am an atheist.

You seem like you are a nice person, and it's great that there are moderate Muslims such as yourself, but it is also true that there a lot of Muslims who are following what they believe to be the correct reading of the Qur'an and that other book (the Hadith is it?), and Muslims use the holy books to form Shari'a law, which is a law that I would be horrified to have be under.

Raza said "scientists AROUND the world have labelled the human eye as being "irreducibly complex" and they agree it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eye or any human organ for that matter by chance"

This is not true. Please provide this list of scientists.

Here is a link recommended by Inwit, one of the onegood move readers. The Human Eye is NOT Irreducibly Complex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTXJt4

Jo Ann, good link! Thanks!

[url=http://hometown.aol.com/woman467868168/free-upskirts-of-women-in-uniform.htm]free upskirts of women in uniform[/url]

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives