Have to admit I both agree and disagree. While I certainly detest religious fundamentalism and the frequent attempts by religious people to indoctrinate others to their beliefs, as well as excuse themselves from criticism, I also don't see the point in generalising in the manner, which seems to be done here. You could pretty much transfer a lot of what was said to pertain to various ethnic races instead. Ie "Black People are ghetto-banging murderers and I wish they'd grow a brain and think for themselves instead of constantly relenting to peer pressure and gang violence". People would likely have been offended by that as well, so in terms of offense due to generalisation I don't think religion has a free pass.

It's not that I'm offended. Believe me, that'd take quite a lot more. I just don't find it very constructive when there are so many better --and in my opinion reasonable, arguments to be made against religion.

"[Islam is a religion that is]...full of itself, thinks it knows all the answers..."

That describes most forms of theism as far as I can tell; not just Islam. How else could you describe someone who claims to know that the universe was created by a Great Alpha Male In The Sky for the primary purpose of serving as the backdrop for human activities, that the Alpha Male In the Sky is obsessively preoccupied with the minutiae of human behaviors, and moreover that 'He' commands us to behave in ways that are suspiciously reminiscent of the prevailing cultural norms of the theist's society?

poor guy, he just got a fatwa in his ass... lol

I agree with this rather well spoken chap. I find muslim fundamentalists more frightening than any other kind. The jehovas witnesses may be annoying but they wont advocate your murder (far as I know).

Though if I may pick a nit, when he says that religon was always pretty dormant in the UK he must have forgotten about the many hundreds of people savagely murdered in Northern Ireland on religous grounds, to this day. Check out parts of Scotland too for sectarian strife between christians. No muslims involved in either case.

I agree with this rather well spoken chap. I find muslim fundamentalists more frightening than any other kind. The jehovas witnesses may be annoying but they wont advocate your murder (far as I know).

Though if I may pick a nit, when he says that religon was always pretty dormant in the UK he must have forgotten about the many hundreds of people savagely murdered in Northern Ireland on religous grounds, to this day. Check out parts of Scotland too for sectarian strife between christians. No muslims involved in either case.

Dang. Sorry for double. I even refreshed a couple times to check the first hadnt appeared. Apologies. :(

I have to agree with the commentator that Islam is the least tolerant of the major religions, indeed, any religion. This is not a recent development. There is no country in the world where Islam dominates that life for the adherents of other religions is not made a misery. Ask the Ba'hai or the worlds' few remaining Zoarastrians how life in Iran has been going. The specific injunctions contained in the Koran regarding allowable abuse of People of the Book, ie Christians and Jews, are bad enough but for those of other beliefs, which includes pretty much everyone else on the planet who hasn't declared themselves an Atheist, the penalty is death. Oh yeah. Don't tell anyone in Islamic countries if you are an Atheist. You probably won't enjoy being stoned. I have always found it ironic that my country, Canada, has prosecuted people and deported them for indulging in holocaust denial. Now those people may be complete nutjobs but none of them has been accused in open court of urging the death of their fellow citizens. The Koran does. A more perfect example of hate literature could hardly be found. Well, except for, possibly, the bible.

muslim fundamentalists Visit Turkey, Morocco, Lebannon or any other not very fucked up muslim country and you'll see in the same street women covered, completly covered and all shades in between. What I mean is that the world is huge and there all kinds of people and maybe what we don't realize is that the underline meaning of AlQaeda, Turkey making its way into the EU and the increase of muslim population in western countries is "muslim cultural revolution". I think that the muslim world is changing and adapting fast to an globalized world but that change (and the undeniable fact that every muslim country has been looted and humiliated by the west as a colony) promotes it's fare share of wackos, fundamentalists, nationalists and holly war advocators. My point, patience, keep the peaceful tough critique and maybe one day we'll see a Southpark made by muslims poking Mahoma. God bless Southpark.

Usually I don't like these youtube sermons of people liking to hear themselves talk. But this was rather neat. And he sure can talk.

Sorry Fox, but I'm not so sure what he was generalizing about. Sounded to me like he was roundly criticizing the advocates of a UK hate speech law, some of the loudest advocating coming from Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group who themselves make highly highly controversial stances on terrorism and the instituting of an Islamic state. Of all the individuals I know that have seen this video, none were under the impression that this guy was attacking all Muslims, it was clearly directed at a certain group of Muslims, since he prefaced this whole rant by identifying the people he had issue with, the one's who want to make an offense to Islam a crime. He, like most of us, made a critique without naming every single human exemption that exists in the billion or so in the Muslim world who might agree that a law that criminalize offending Islam is unreasonable (assuming such an individual exists). If this were truly some generalized rant and if he truly felt Muslims were all bloody irrational murderers, he wouldn't have made the statement that in the future, hopefully, intelligent Muslims will look back at jihadism as an embarrassment.

Despite making many good points which I agree with, I still ended up angry at the end of his blog.

You can't win an argument by name calling. Telling an entire religion they have shit for brains won't win you any intelligence contests.

This is Pat Condell. He's brilliant. This clip should stand on its own, but in our politically correct world, I feel compelled to point out this guy takes on Christianity -- and religion in general -- with every bit as much fervor as he does here, with Islam.

The first clip I saw of his, was about "Why does religion deserve respect?" -- and the quote I loved the most was about how respect is earned... And that religion gets all the respect it has earned -- in the sense that if it was a respectable, sensible, rational thing, it would be rolling around in respect, like televangelists roll around in other people's money... That was priceless. I mean, I made a mental note to make use of it, next time I encounter a crucifix-junkie.

But I like this one too: "I don't want to be murdered by some hysterical, self-righteous, carpet chewing, book burning muppet with shit for brains." Brilliant.

Though if I may pick a nit, when he says that religon was always pretty dormant in the UK he must have forgotten about the many hundreds of people savagely murdered in Northern Ireland on religous grounds... -- Mick

Pointing out people's spelling mistakes is bad form -- except in cases when someone does so, while making mistakes of their own. So, well -- Northern Ireland is not part of the UK. I'm just pointing this out for your own edumacation -- and for the benefit of anyone who might read your comment, and believe that you know what you're talking about...

Because religion has definitely been dormant in the UK.

... (and the undeniable fact that every muslim country has been looted and humiliated by the west as a colony) promotes it's fare share of wackos, fundamentalists, nationalists and holly war advocators. -- Dani R

What country, or ethnic or religious group has NOT been looted and humiliated? Gimme a break.

You seen any native American Indian suicide bombers? Aboriginal Australians? Any Jews? Any Argentinians going kaboom because of the Falklands? Any Norwegians strapping explosives to their bodies and heading to Denmark or Sweden because their country was humiliated and looted for more than half a millennium?

The truth is, no group has humiliated or looted the Muslim world more than Muslims themselves.

The Muslim world is like a spoiled, rich brat: privileged through no effort of their own, whose megalomaniac sense of entitlement is only dwarfed by their delusions of their own importance and relevance.

The current state of Islam = Paris Hilton + Charlie Manson.

Dzwonka, Where did you get the idea that Northern Ireland is not part of the UK?

The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Ummm Jessica... the need for, and freedom to, call any and all religious people "shit for brains" is precisely what he is talking about. And yes, it's not an intelligence contest. It's about the need for peace in the world, just as he said.

this guy is an idiot.

he incorrectly states that "here in the uk, religion was always pretty dormant until muslims came along, burning books, and passing death sentences..."

yeah, because NO ONE before the muslims ever engaged in state-propaganda, violence and injustice. lol.

he then continues his uninformed diatribe with [muslims being] "people who have made no attempt to think for themselves."

anyone familiar with the contributions of arab and muslim thinkers to western philosophy, math and science, or to the Enlightenment, would recognize the factual errors in this guy's rant.

you guys would benefit from reading some Edward Said ("orientalism") and Mark Kurlanksy (esp kurlansky's "nonviolence").

this idiot repeats the propaganda that suicide bombers are motivated by the promise of slutty virgins waiting in heaven, instead of unemployment, powerlessness in the face of an international plundering bully (the US), violence on a scale and proximity unimaginable within our safe borders (as much as we hurt for the loss of miners, or campus shooting victims, thousands of muslims are dying violently every week, and this gets no coverage).

on the status of women...

again, the guy in the video is blind toward the mistreatment of women in the west. he criticizes british muslim women who wear the hijab as being "mentally ill." he sympathizes with women living in countries who are governed by "primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis in one hand, and a koran in the other." you could replace "koran" with "beer" and this primitive society would be none other than our wonderfully free and egalitarian USA, whose original constitution denied women suffrage, and where women are portrayed as sex objects.

the last bit, about islam being self-absorbed, is ironic. the presenter maintained a self-congratulatory grin throughout the entire clip. he needs to get the fuck over himself, and go read instead of spouting his uninformed opinion.

Dzwonka, Where did you get the idea that Northern Ireland is not part of the UK? The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- Jo Ann

You're right -- I was wrong. As much as I feel a fool for you correcting me, I'm grateful that you did so, because I've learned something. Of course, I should already have known this, before voicing my opinion on the subject. Mud on my face, as they say...

To answer your question, I believed that the UK was comprised of England and Scotland (they were ruled by kings/queens when they were united), and that Britain was the term used for the UK plus the rest...

All that being said, I think even the smartest of people make mistakes... But to become a suicide bomber -- or to to endorse or facilitate one -- is a shit-fer-brains kinda thing to do.

the myth of virgins and grapes

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-02.htm

Oh .... ho ... ho ...

Norm, this is what happens when you fall into the trap of agreeing too much with bigots like Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who hide their Islamophobia behind rhetoric that is tantamount to saying that "all religions are bad, but Islam is worse than others" and simplistic and essentializing arguments such as "every time we complain, Islam is (literally) up in arms".

I have SO MUCH to say about this video, and will put in another comment-post in a few hours. For now, lets me just say that:

1. The world as a whole needs to fear Christianity much more than it needs to fear Islam.

2. Christianity and the West have always (or atleast over the past 300-400 years) exercized their power and domination in ways that are indirect and that appear "civilized". This is continuing till today, and is the reason people like Hitchens can justify moving away from Britain to the United States and make statements along the lines of "even though the United States is full of religious freaks (read Christians) they are much more benign and harmless than the bloodthirsty murders (read Muslims) back in Britain.

3. With this point above in mind, the United States can be considered as being in the forefront of a present day Christian crusade.

4. You might be a secular person who thinks you live in a secular country or wishes this was a secular country, and put stickers that proclaim "Not in my name" on your cars, but, alas, this war is being fought, like it or not, in your name. The Christian right that voted your Christian President into power does not think this country is a secular country, and does not think this war is to spread democracy, or take out a dictator, or for oil or strategic control of the Middle East. For them this is a religious war, and their President is George the Lionheart who will bring to an end the barbaric hoard that is loominng from the East. Their rhetoric of "better there than here" and "if it wasn't for this war they'd have overrun our country already" is precisely a call to a crusade. This call is hidden, as always with the West, in indirect and cloaked language. The treat of "WMDs" was/is triple-speak symbolism for the "Muslim menace". This war, for them, is not a war to save Western secularism, for them this war is to protect Western Christianity. Using phrases like "our freedom and democracy" and "our way of life" might not be religious in nature for the secularists, but it is for the Christians who voted Bush into power.

5. When the Christian world gets offended, they send in "secular" and "official" troops for "secular" reasons to do their dirty work. The Muslims at this time have no such troops, and so must do their protesting themselves, and as "terrorists".

Ok I'm raging right now, and I'll have a disection of the actual video in my next set of comments.

All I can say is, don't let the Machiavellis out-think you. The problems of fundamentalist religion are in ALL religions, not more in some and less in others, no matter how much they are potrayed that way.

More soon ...

Muslims are terrible etc...

However the Christian US and British forces just killed 300,000+ people in the middle east which is far worse than anything any muslims have done. (A)

It seems to me then that a vast amount of muslim is occurring today, with only a small amount said about the Christians. The muslim bashing therefore seems racist.

Islam is a religion, not a race so criticising it does not make you racist it just makes you sensible.

Pointing out people's spelling mistakes is bad form -- except in cases when someone does so, while making mistakes of their own. So, well -- Northern Ireland is not part of the UK. I'm just pointing this out for your own edumacation -- and for the benefit of anyone who might read your comment, and believe that you know what you're talking about...Because religion has definitely been dormant in the UK.

So you’re clear then that I do know what I was talking about? Considering I have lived and worked in northern Ireland, you cant fail to notice it is in the U.K. Perhaps you can also point out where I took him to task for his spelling mistakes in a video?

Religion has definitely not been dormant in the U.K., the only thing on that video I recall that I disagree with. You don’t have to look back at wars between catholics and protestant factions determined to make the country one religion or the other. There are plenty of examples from the last 50 years.

Attempting to use markdown, lets see what happens ;o)

As with many others, my feelings are "why focus on Islam?" Isn't the actual problem (religious) fundamentalism/authoritarianism, and the unthinking/fearful submission people give to it? In particular, shouldn't we be more concerned with this problem within our own borders (which is mostly Christian) before focusing on other countries in this regard? It's better for us to develop ourselves and become an exemplar of religious tolerance/respect (including the right to be agnostic/atheist) that can serve as a role model, rather than for us to criticize others for the kinds of evil that still exists in our society, even if it is exists here only on a smaller scale (and the difference that exists can be attributed to our relative prosperity rather than some superiority of Christianity).

I can't believe that someone in the UK would call religion dormant after all the decades of violence in Northern Ireland.

Sorry Norm, you lost me with this guy. He's not anti-theist, he's an anti-islamic bigot. He extrapolates from the edge cases to the religion as a whole.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but most of the Muslims in the US are peaceful people who just want to practice their religion quietly. They're a heck of a lot less violent then many of the southern Baptists.

Condemn the people who promote violence and oppression, yes. But I won't condemn people who quietly practice their faith and who believe others have the right to practice their's.

teh man makes some valid general points, but they can be said of all religious dogma.

I dont consider Islam any worse or better than christiandom and its many sects, the only difference between them is that the christians have had several centuries since the Enlightenment to rethink many of their possitions, that and science and the secular state pretty much destroyed all church authority over national rule in the west. (granted with some exceptions) In contrast Islam is a religion of the desert, it never had an Enlightenment, it never had the seperation of church and state that the west has expereinced for quite a few centuries now. The result is a religion that is more fundamentalist in its beliefs and more political. But is it fundamentally different from christianity? I dont think so, its just more effective right now as a tool of terror because of the beforementioned differences in its development.

Norm - please please please stop linkjacking.

It would be courteous to the author, and to your users, if you actually linked to the original page that the author uploaded his video to.

You're depriving us all from properly discussing this video by forcing us to use your comment form.

Anyway, I think that this guy is spot on.

"I can't believe that someone in the UK would call religion dormant after all the decades of violence in Northern Ireland."

I think he probably means Great Britain: we're mostly atheists now.

People may say that they are christian, but that is not to say that they believe in god - it's probably more about an issue of identity and referencing values.

I am not aware of any fundamentalist christians here and church attendances are dwindling.

Many muslims, on the other hand, have a much more literal interpretation of the koran. For example, in the UK a majority of young muslim men are in favour of a sharia state!

The proportion of their parents generation who want this is much lower.

This is bad.

There must be many times more muslims that believe in one global muslim state and the subjugation of non-muslims than there are fundamentalist christians.

Religious itself depends on irrational thought - so by definition its followers must be non-thinkers.

Historical contributions of knowledge by muslims or christians or whomever should not give their respective religions any credit for their work.

Those scientists and philosophers may not have been religious in private at all.

"here in the uk religion was always pretty dormant"

Horse pucky. May his family be forced to build a church.

So you’re clear then that I do know what I was talking about? Considering I have lived and worked in northern Ireland, you cant fail to notice it is in the U.K. Perhaps you can also point out where I took him to task for his spelling mistakes in a video? Religion has definitely not been dormant in the U.K. -- Mick

I've visited Northern Ireland, but have never lived there. I have lived in Ireland -- and there aren't too many people there who consider Ulster to be part of the UK -- and I'm sure that if you've lived in the north, you've seen similar notions there too.

But that's hardly the point here. I was wrong, as to whether Northern Ireland was considered a part of the UK. If you wanna beat me up a bit more about that, that's cool -- I deserve it. I learned something, from Jo Anne's comment, and I've got no chip on my shoulder about things like that.

But I think the subject of this thread is about Islam, though.

And having lived in England, as well as Ireland, I'd say that religion was very much a dormant thing -- comparatively speaking -- until some shit-fer-brains blew up one of my favorite bookstores because they carried Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses...

The rest of you -- this guy isn't focusing on Islam. He is an atheist. He disses Christianity all the time.

I have to agree with the commentator that Islam is the least tolerant of the major religions, indeed, any religion. This is not a recent development. There is no country in the world where Islam dominates that life for the adherents of other religions is not made a misery. Ask the Ba'hai or the worlds' few remaining Zoarastrians how life in Iran has been going. The specific injunctions contained in the Koran regarding allowable abuse of People of the Book, ie Christians and Jews, are bad enough but for those of other beliefs, which includes pretty much everyone else on the planet who hasn't declared themselves an Atheist, the penalty is death. Oh yeah. Don't tell anyone in Islamic countries if you are an Atheist. You probably won't enjoy being stoned. I have always found it ironic that my country, Canada, has prosecuted people and deported them for indulging in holocaust denial. Now those people may be complete nutjobs but none of them has been accused in open court of urging the death of their fellow citizens. The Koran does. A more perfect example of hate literature could hardly be found. Well, except for, possibly, the bible.

I guess "racist" is the wrong word, since it is a belief, rather than a racial identity, that he's generalizing about. But it's essentially the same behavior as racism, to my eyes. I wonder how many muslims he actually knows? My guess is very few, if any. Stereotypical attitudes like this have a hard time surviving actual individual contact with "the enemy".

I think the number of people springing to Islam's defense on these comments and lambasting Christianity instead shows just how correct this guy is. For god's sake, I hate this conciliatory attitude so many people have toward Islam when they don't hesitate to say Christianity is the scourge of the world.

Vivek, if you really think western women are not all that better off, get out. Go live in Tehran and see how that assertion of yours pans out. Women are still discriminated against in the west, yes, but things have gotten so much better for them in the last century- the last few decades, even! Women are empowered like never before and all you can find to do is bitch about it. Show some respect for feminism and its accomplishments.

rf: "Muslims are terrible etc...

However the Christian US and British forces just killed 300,000+ people in the middle east which is far worse than anything any muslims have done."

Actually muslims have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq with their IEDs, armed militias, etc...

The history of that country is full of examples of ethnic/religious cleansing or at least subjugation of the minority. link

I can't believe some people are saying Christianity and Islam are just as bad.

There are many countries (including moderate ones like Malaysia) in which it is illegal to change your religion from Islam. Are there any Christian countries that make it illegal to change your religion from Christianity?

At least in the Christian countries religion is a choice.

J. Callander's argument is one that cuts both ways. Islamic sterotypes of other religions and people crumble, as he puts it, in the face of contact with the enemy. To argue that Islamic societies are tolerant of other religions is patently ridiculous. Ask the Christians in Egypt or Pakistan or Indonesia how they are being treated. In no truly civilized country is prosyletizing for your faith punishable by law,nor is apostasy punishable by death. Comparing the such ill treatment and prejudice as muslims may encounter in wertern societies to what goes on in Islamic theocracies is laughable. Only where they are not in the majority do muslims demonstrate the tolerance that they claim is the hallmark of their faith. There is an element of hope in this. Where they are exposed to other cultures they seem to understand that non-muslims are not the demons that they are taught we are in practically every mosque and madrassa outside of the western world (and a good many inside the west as well)

"this idiot repeats the propaganda that suicide bombers are motivated by the promise of slutty virgins waiting in heaven, instead of unemployment, powerlessness in the face of an international plundering bully (the US), violence on a scale and proximity unimaginable within our safe borders"

that must be the reason most of the 911 hijackers were college educated, right?

that argument is just wrong, not only regarding 911. entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts, remember?

listen to a talk by sam harris on youtube if you want to hear a serious discussion about that. this after all is a comedy clip and you're critisizing it for simplifying.

I sort of lost the thread after the penis and inflatable women..

Was he bashing the Bush- administration, or just americans in general? I mean, he can't see the difference between americans and stupid crackpot fucking idiotic americans. What a bloody moron.

Peter G, do we need to recount the bloody events in history where Christians have butchered, tortured, and forcibly subjugated people of other faiths--even of differing Christian faiths?

I agree with Norm: no religious dominated government is healthy, or tolerant, or open. But that goes for Christian and Judaic, as well as Islamic. The religious do not make good leaders.

Tolerant Christians -- yeah tell that to the Blacks in the south. Should we forget how Christians treated Jews in World War II? How about something more recent, such as Bosnia? Even the Buddhists, those gentle souls: In Myanmar, the dominant Buddhists persecute both Christian and Muslim, alike.

Any government where religion is a key component of how the government is run--not just a declaration of faith, or a statement of principle--is by its very nature, oppressive and corrupt.

If the man talking in this video had replaced the specific Islam with the generic "religious", I might agree. But by singling out the Muslims, he effectively gives the other religions a slide. To me, that's more dangerous than if he hadn't said anything at all.

Very good discussion here. Maybe Islam is 500 years behind Christianity, as Bill Maher suggests. Christians were acting out the same way in their time.

And one does have to take into account the fact of state terrorism when you speak of Muslim extremism, as Chomsky talks about, and gets alot of criticism for, btw.

I spent a day with a German woman who grew up in Bagdad, her father worked in the oil industry at the time. She thinks what Americans are trying to accomplish in Iraq is impossible because of the tribal structure of society.

Maybe it is the combination of Religious extremisim and culture clash that amplify the problems. Add to this mix the terrible inequity of employment opportunities, infrastructure failures, racism, etc.

Wish they would stop blowing people up, though! sheesh, if they could just do that it would help lead to self determination.

And wish we would stop trying to steal their oil with the completely unfair oil bill.

I wish more Muslims would speak on these issues.

This disproves my hypothesis that bigots don't have vaulted ceilings.

"Norm, this is what happens when you fall into the trap of agreeing too much with bigots like Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who hide their Islamophobia behind rhetoric that is tantamount to saying that "all religions are bad, but Islam is worse than others" and simplistic and essentializing arguments such as "every time we complain, Islam is (literally) up in arms".

"The world as a whole needs to fear Christianity much more than it needs to fear Islam."

"With this point above in mind, the United States can be considered as being in the forefront of a present day Christian crusade."

"when the Christian world gets offended, they send in "secular" and "official" troops for "secular" reasons to do their dirty work"

All of your statements are truly OUTRAGEOUS. Its fine with me if want to say Islam is just as peaceful as christianity. The bible has violence in it but does not COMMAND followers to be violent. The Koran does:

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[2.191] And kill them (nonbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter

003.151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

well, i give thanks and praise to the Fying Spaghetti Monster. i enjoyed this rant somewhat, but my critique would be that it is too exclusive. why is the Catholic church still allowed to operate as a tax free business in the united states, when it has been systematically protecting a network of child molesters for decades? how can the Mormons "excommunicate" a woman for divorcing her husband? what cruelty, what madness. the strange contradiction i feel is when i walk into a beautiful old Lutheran or Catholic cathedral in Europe, and hear Bach or Mozart performed on a centuries old pipe organ, I can see "God!" LOL =) Or hearing gospel music with a kick ass hammond organ player and drums and bass cookin' the roots of r&b, a jubilant choir singing the praises of Jesus in glorious harmony, in a New York or Oakland Baptist or Methodist church, i only come away feeling healed inside, and uplifted. that's got to be a good thing. i don't believe a word of the Bible, any more than i believe a word of Mark Twain. it's fiction, as are all "holy" books. and Twain is more enjoyable. not so many disembowllings and retributions and massacres and tragedy. every day we have opportunities to be kind, to ourselves and others. any time that religion helps someone do that, i can't see that as a bad thing. but unfortunately, the very loudmouthed forces of ignorance are making a big row these days. so i understand the frustration expressed in this rant, and the man is eloquent. but let us be careful that we do not oppose fundamentalism with more fundamentalism. best thing to do is have a swim, take a walk, greet your neighbor, help an old lady cross the street. the noblest traditions of all religions including Islam and Christianity, simply suggest we live up to our potenial as loving, kind beings, while we share this world together. it's rude to lump all Muslims into one pile, or to say one religion is more preposterous than the others. they are all ridiculous. the very real repression against Muslims we see much of today, is as disgraceful as any repression done in the name of Islam. repression is wrong, full stop. respect and love to all. peace.

The bible has violence in it but does not COMMAND followers to be violent.

Of course it does. What diluted Bible have you been reading?

Angry dude with a potty mouth.

Very adolescent.

The fact is, unless you mean to commit genocide, you must live on the same planet with theists.

Sometimes it's a social necessity, and a kindness, not to mock your neighbor's toupee.

Kindness, please, not name calling and ridicule.

I'm a stone-cold athiest myself.

View video 2 before posting garbage. Thank you.

yep. the bible has plenty of thou shalt bloody the heads of the blah blah whatever, it's disgusting and should be rejected as the amoral crap that it is. i still like to get down to the music though, and ancient stained glass is pretty in the sunlight. take the good bits, leave the bad. just like school. also, i must say having viewed the other clip now, the more general one about faith, i agree much more readily. what he delivers here is a proper intellectual critique of an unecessary hinderance to all of our well being. dogmatic religion really and truly is an idiot's pursuit. and i have no trouble saying that in general terms. they should at least stay out of others' affairs. live and let live, right? i like the bits of the bible that say that. but it's just another silly book and it has been given far too much attention by our species. lord of the rings or even harry potter is far more relevant to our times. ramen.

"Of course it does. What diluted Bible have you been reading?"

The violent passages in the Bible certainly do no amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Koran must be understood, as the Koran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Koran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Koran means that there is little room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Koran.

Thank you Robin, for the sanity…. No doubt Vivek is one of those vaunted ethnic scholars that can deduce gender role oppression and cultural imperialism just from looking off a box of coco puffs, with enough heavy-handed interpretation anything can be re-worked to characterize you as a victim. I've heard this same crap spouted before by hardliner Asian feminists, one had commented that because women are traditionally held to be the head of the household, that she in reality was "sequestered and oppressed" to an existence within the home (read as kitchen) and because she lacked proper career opportunities and a sense of personal fulfillment it was an oppression not unlike that suffered by women of the Islamic world. Please. Stop staking claim to the victimization of women who live they type of sequestered and oppressed lives that you couldn't possibly know anything about. We're not talking about Chosun-era traditional Korean "gender-role expectations", there are no expectations of a woman in an Islamic State when what is "expected" of them is both inscribed and punishable by the state. Fear of being "characterized" as passive or finding tiresome the gentle pleas for a soft feminine refinement are probably the least of the worries of oppressed Muslim women. Being interpreted through the evil male gaze as a sexual object is not on par with actually living in a society where sexual oppression and chattlehood of women is public policy, where mistreatment is actually condoned. Yes, there is a fair amount of criticism to be made on the sexism in "western-ized" East Asia and the US, but to equate sexism and the marginalizing that comes with it with the often times unabashed brutality and sadism of a totalitarian society, is where you and I part company. I'll go read some ethnic scholarship books, you go gain a sense of proportion.

A lesson on the bible:

Forbidden:

"Thou shalt not kill (murder)." (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) "...murders... they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:21) "...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15) "...murderers... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8) "For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters..." (Revelation 22:15) Jesus and Paul both reiterated the Old Testament prohibition against murder:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matthew 5:21) "...Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill...." (Romans 13:9) Murder is listed right alongside sins like sorcery, fornication, robbery.

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings..." (Galatians 5:21) "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Revelation 9:21) "...murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars..." (Revelation 21:8)

On Violence:

God destroyed the earth with a flood because of the extent violence had spread:

"...the earth was filled with violence... Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence... behold, I am about to destroy them...'" (Genesis 6:13). "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:43, 45)

The Koran is inherently different in its commands. Radical Muslims can easily point to the Koran to justify their crimes. Radical Christian's who kill will be going against the teachings of Christ.

Whoever calls Jesus "Prince of Peace" obviously never read the Gospels:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." --Matthew 10:34

Stop apologizing for Christianity. Much of the atrocities ordained in the Bible come from the mouth of Yahweh and Jesus. The fundamentalism of Islam vs Christianity isn't because of the books necessarily but because they haven't had a renaissance or an enlightment period like Christianity has that has been hammering away at its intransigence and literalism. Have we forgotten the history of Christianity already?

gotta say, i love all the "con" arguments that found themselves on the idea that this diatribe is "wrong" 'cause there are other religions that should be targeted instead/are worse at killing others/etc.

here's the deal. regardless of the summarized (and probably largely decent) character of their individual followers, they practice and advocate strongly in the defense of a system which does not staunchly or outright disavow the MURDER of people who don't practice the same system.

um. duh.

system bad.

Let's not make this into a "my Biblical passage can outdo your Biblical passage" discussion. Your example of citing the Commandments is laughable given that the God that condems killing has no qualms and even demands death be inflicted to those that, say, do not observe the Sabbath (Numbers). It's this kind of picking and choosing that occurs with the apologists of Islam that dub it a religion of peace.

Saw the second video.

He starts out good and then degenerates into, "I'm right, you're all wrong and idiots to boot".

He mixes oppressive behavior with faith. He starts out talking about he doesn't care what people believe, as long as, we presume, they don't enforce their beliefs on others. He then goes on to talking scathingly of religion in such a way that there is no debate, no tolerance for any viewpoint but his own.

No, we don't have to respect a religion, but I respect people based on how they act and what they do--not based on their religion or other cultural views. If I did respect them, I wouldn't degenerate their faith to their face. That's no different than saying, "Well, you're a Christian, therefore I won't listen to anything you say because you're a blithering idiot in your faith. Doesn't matter what else you do, what else you say--case closed."

It must be tiring to be so right, and so superior. Bah -- pendantic f**k.

I don't respect this person. There's the same level of anger in this person as exists in all the right wing fundamentalists I've ever heard speak. An inability to empathize with others is the mark of a small mind -- regardless of the view.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of the inflexible pedantics on both sides of this fence. And I'm also an atheist. But don't count me in with this man -- I want no part of him.

"Intellectually Honest" is a term used to describe actual knowledge about a matter without having to see it. (ex: I have never been to China but I have enough evidence to know that it exists w/o even going there.) A person who has not been to China who says he does not know if it exists is not being honest intellectually. Evidence is needed but not proof to know something. There is only one truth. There cannot exist multiple truths. Therefore either G-d exists or doesn't. Show me the evidence that he doesn't. I have evidence that G-d exists (not only from scriptures) and know He exists. What evidence do you have that He does not? By the way I don't want respect nor do I need it. It seems that you are intelligent (and a little emotional) but confused about truth. Are you a truth seeker? Or do you just like to bash people you think are less intelligent than yourself?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33c_1187358686

"Stop apologizing for Christianity. Much of the atrocities ordained in the Bible come from the mouth of Yahweh and Jesus."

The Bible never instructs the followers of Christ to kill Jews or Infidels.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES MUST ORDER ALL MOSQUES IN THIS COUNTRY TO REMOVE PASSAGES FROM THEIR TEACHINGS THAT INSTRUCT THEM TO KILL INFIDELS OR JEWS. IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO THEN THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

I have evidence that G-d exists (not only from scriptures) and know He exists.

I think your evidence is crap and not at all persuasive.

stephan, as much as i enjoy sam harris, his position on the motive behind suicide bombers seems rather ignorant. recently, in london, some physicians having brown skin color were thought to be implicated in planning bombings. was sex a motivation for them? probably not. more likely, these guys, if they were guilty at all, were acting in this way because they were in a position to do so. as physicians, enjoying the status, power, wealth, and privilege afforded to them, they could not help but feel powerless at the UK's participation in this illegal war (and its history with the people in the middle east). sam harris' other views on reincarnation, and childhood memories of past lives are certainly more disputable...

Robin, chill the fuck out. we don't disagree on the progress, however slow, that women have made in the US.

BenG,

What is this evidence you speak of? Is it something you can share with the others here or is it more abstract like a warm fuzzy feeling when you pray or something? Just curious since I've met many very religious folks and very few have said they have legitimate proof.

Thanks.

The Bible never instructs the followers of Christ to kill Jews or Infidels.

This concludes our conversation. I really have no desire to argue with someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the very thing they're defending.

I have a question for those of you who don't like the rants. Do you think it is ever appropriate to ridicule a belief, or an opinion? If so when, if not why not? I'm not talking about one on one, but rather ridiculing a religion or a political party or a philosophy or idea, but not directed at a specific individual.

"BenG,

What is this evidence you speak of? Is it something you can share with the others here or is it more abstract like a warm fuzzy feeling when you pray or something? Just curious since I've met many very religious folks and very few have said they have legitimate proof.

Thanks."

You directed your comment to the wrong person, I wasnt the one who has evidence of god, im an athiest.

Erick,

I don't know what bible you are reading. I have studied the bible in the past. I HAVE NEVER READ ANYTHING THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD KILL INFIDELS. There are many violent passages in the bible, but PLEASE POINT OUT SOME PASSAGES THAT INSTRUCT FOLLOWERS OF CHRISTIANITY TO KILL ANOBODY THAT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Norm, re your question

…those of you who don't like the rants. Do you think it is ever appropriate to ridicule a belief, or an opinion? If so when, if not why not?

I personally think that these YouTube style monologues are the ideal place for such rants. They are much better than a public tongue-lashing (even if well deserved!). People tend to learn quicker when they do not publicly lose face (faith??). They can be more objective about the inanity of their beliefs. Keep them coming pls.

Shelley, where in my remarks did you find a hint that I in any way condone any sort of religious influence in government. I merely argue that Islam represents the worst of a bad lot. I'm afraid I find your counter examples inapt. Are you suggesting that southern racism (or northern racism for that matter) is intrinsic to or inspired by Christianity? I thought most of those blacks were Christians. Are you suggesting that Nazi atrocities were inspired by Christianity? I may have no respect for religions in general but I wouldn't care to lay those crimes at the doorstep of Christianity. There is a huge difference between what religion a person may identify as theirs and what they do in the name of that religion. If we are merely using identity to keep score and not motivation then the all time great killers are atheist in the form Mao and Stalin. As an atheist myself I don't buy that argument.

Sure, it's appropriate to ridicule beliefs, and opinions: it's appropriate when those beliefs or opinions are ridiculous.

Ridiculing all of the billion or so Muslims in the world based on the kind of stereotypical arguments presented in the first video above (I haven't bothered watching the second; it wasn't there when I watched the first, but I assume it's of the same guy, and I don't respect his opinions enough to devote more of my time to them) is a good example of the sort of belief I'd consider fair game for ridicule.

Granted, many (not all) practitioners of all the world's major religious faiths (including Islam) believe some ridiculous things. You're at liberty not to believe those things. You're also at liberty to spout off on YouTube about those things in a manner that reveals a deeply ingrained and ill-informed prejudice.

If you want to actually work towards solving the world's problems, though, including the subset of those problems that grow from religious intolerance, I think you might need to rethink your approach. Because videos like the first one posted above are not, in my view, part of the solution. They're part of the problem.

"This concludes our conversation. I really have no desire to argue with someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the very thing they're defending."

John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

Stephen was stoned to death:

Acts 7:57-58 "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him..."

YOU CANNOT COMPARE THIS WITH:

Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter.

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

THE STRICT LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Koran (required by the Hadith) differentiates itself from the Bible, as I explained previously. Even if the passages are similar, the strict interpretation of them is why Terrorists can justify their crimes in the name of religion.

Norm, I wish it WERE only moments of ridicule that cues up the cry of hate speech by Muslims in the UK. But your idea of ridicule is probably too well-defined and concrete to even compare to the ambiguously defined idea of ridicule that Muslims in the UK hold to. If you've ever seen the brilliant episode of Chan. 4 dispatchers concerning the extremism uncovered in mosques heralded by the British population as exemplars of moderation (this is a reason why I don't get all sappy when people counter fundie criticism with the appeal to moderation), Muslim spokespersons saw THAT as ridicule. To give airtime to investigating and documenting fundamentalist nuts is to showcase an unfavorable view of Muslims is to thus ridicule Muslims. To have too many newspaper articles (and no one is very sure what the imaginary cutoff line is to remain inoffensive) criticizing or even documenting Muslim extremism or the oh-so-common moments of "miss-quotes", is also a show of ridicule. What many might see as journalism is, if unfavorable, a disparaging of Muslims. Why the fuck are Brits actually siding with people who want to deprive them of their rights… is it the whole stiff upper lip thing?

Shelley, where in my remarks did you find a hint that I in any way condone any sort of religious influence in government. I merely argue that Islam represents the worst of a bad lot. I'm afraid I find your counter examples inapt. Are you suggesting that southern racism (or northern racism for that matter) is intrinsic to or inspired by Christianity? I thought most of those blacks were Christians. Are you suggesting that Nazi atrocities were inspired by Christianity? I may have no respect for religions in general but I wouldn't care to lay those crimes at the doorstep of Christianity. There is a huge difference between what religion a person may identify as theirs and what they do in the name of that religion. If we are merely using identity to keep score and not motivation then the all time great killers are atheist in the form Mao and Stalin. As an atheist myself I don't buy that argument.

I wouldn't care to lay those crimes at the doorstep of Christianity.

My Christian nephew thinks that bad things happen to people in Africa because they are cursed by God and thinks that rich Americans are God's chosen people.

There is only one truth. There cannot exist multiple truths. Therefore either G-d exists or doesn't. Show me the evidence that he doesn't. I have evidence that G-d exists (not only from scriptures) and know He exists. What evidence do you have that He does not?

You assert "God" exists so, present your objective "evidence" or shut up.

My sympathy johnx. I myself have a similarly retarded cousin. Re: The existence theorem of god. One plus one equals two. Multiple truths may not exist. Therefore two plus two may not equal four.

re: Jason - "I have evidence that G-d exists" and
re: BenG ... {scripture quote ad nauseam}...

As a amateur card magician I provide many people with ample proof that they are indeed psychic. Their proof consists of seemingly repeatable phenomena (i.e. I do different tricks to support this, and I do them well!).

Their beliefs are futher bolstered by the jaw-dropping feats of clairvoyance that they flawlessly perform with me as a test subject (and unwittingly, I as an anonymous guiding helper).

They believe thoroughly. They have the proof. It is empirical and they can even "touch it".

Oddly, only moments later, when this budding psychic demonstrates their newly discovered talent to someone else they find they are egregiously in error. Excepting the outcomes of pure chance, their "proofs and evidences" mean nothing as they did not stand up to a real world test.

Nor could they. Ever! They were purposely conspired against. Indeed, they were fully set up simply by shaping their immediate environment and their "local authority" (albeit for only a few veiled moments). Much, I contend, like the adherents of theistic faiths like yours.

Remember that outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. It is not on the side of an atheist, or anti-theist, or naturalist to prove "your" God -- we do not make these outrageous claims -- but you, as a theist, do.

And no, the meaningless, often oxymoronic quotes of some of the ordained texts (bibles, scriptures, etc) endlessly cited or compared -- well, they are as inspired by God as the Oscar Meyer weiner that I am about to BBQ -- both are man made, and I suspect that neither is really any good for you.

I could be off base. Perhaps by G-d he meant Gardner-Denver purveyors of fine pumps and compressors. I would have to agree based on recent invoices that they do indeed exist.

re: "Perhaps by G-d he meant Gardner-Denver purveyors of fine pumps and compressors."

Oh crap!. Well then, egg on my face. I do indeed stand corrected (sheepishly blushing, turning head shyly down to left & hand clapping cheek; wishing out loud: "dang, where is that tender noodlely appendage when I need it?)"

Posted by: Ivan A. D'Mocracy | August 18, 2007 5:25 PM

My ad nauseum quotes from scripture are to illustrate a reason why Islam is a violent religion, in terms of what it PREACHES. The Bible is very violent in some cases, and non-christians are killed in rare instances as I have illustrated. But the Bible does not command the reader to hate and kill infidels.

Secondly, mosques in this country cannot be allowed the teach the killing of infidels. Most mosques are moderate, but some are not. This country needs to get its act together and start deporting certain Muslim groups that are preaching violence and hatred of infidels. Australia is doing exactly that right now.

For the love of an omnicient psychopathic meddler Ivan A. try the low sodium kosher turkey franks. Those Oscar Meyers will lead to your premature demise!

But the Bible does not command the reader to hate and kill infidels."

(yawn)

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

BenG: What? Offering quotes from one book of scripture as cogent arguments against any other set of scriptures -- especially when each is of dubious authenticity?

So, you appear to be saying that the best way to correct one irrational belief (i.e. a "faith") is to offer in its place a totally different irrational belief (i.e. another "blind faith")?

Like, that just makes no sense whatsoever. That would be analogous to spraying the top part of a fire's flame instead of its base (source). If you want to be of help, please choose to spray your venom on the "source" of faith -- that of irrationalism, mythology, and unsupportable paranormal claims.

Instead, in the place of obvious irrationality, offer the meme of a deeper understanding in the awe of "reality" as we do and can know it. This is a better replacement -- please, no more fairy tales!

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next. Emerson

I can only handle so many polite, well-reasoned antitheistic treatises before I need a good belt of guys like this. We're not talking about people who are going to be swayed by reason, so why the hand-wringing about his style? He's telling it like it is. Arguing about the effect it might have on believers is insignificant.

Your arguments are cogent Ivan A. but your opponent is elusive. He is unrestrained by logic. At this point in an argument I usually start to feel like I'm in the lead in a Special Olympics race. I'm sure you know where this is going. Wow I finally stopped the double posting crap. Hooray!

PLEASE WATCH THE SECOND CLIP

It is excellent. This guy is absolutely brilliant. He's as eloquent as Dawkins, and has a better sense of humor -- and greater cajones -- than Bill Maher. In fact, I actually think the guy does some sort of stand-up routine, based on some of this material. Muy grande Cajones!

smash and Peter G. I generally agree. There are all kinds of people that believe in all kinds of really, really daft things! It is sometimes like a game of "whack the mole".

But it takes what it takes (apologies to Yogi). Naturally, to propagate a more sane, rational view of reality will sometimes require a wide variety of methods. Some of these methods will be, and indeed should be, outright offensive to those among us with more tender sensibilities. So what! If five to ten percent of the message is "in your face" style -- well, the alternative of encroaching theocratic rule is just so much worse.

I think that Dawkins is correct when he states that it is "the larger war" that we should focus on, the one of belief / religion versus secularism / humanism. If a small skirmish or two gets loud and obnoxious, so what. Just so long as the form of naturalism and rationalism that is offered is a coherent view of reality that is built around compassionate humanism, then I think that people should generally be fine with that. If that all it takes, count me in.

Smash: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27"

If you had actually read that entire chapter of Luke 19 you'd see that Jesus was telling a parable about someone else.

He did not say that himself and was not advocating what that man had said.

biblegateway Luke 19

vivek said:

again, the guy in the video is blind toward the mistreatment of women in the west. he criticizes british muslim women who wear the hijab as being "mentally ill." he sympathizes with women living in countries who are governed by "primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis in one hand, and a koran in the other." you could replace "koran" with "beer" and this primitive society would be none other than our wonderfully free and egalitarian USA, whose original constitution denied women suffrage, and where women are portrayed as sex objects.

What a silly thing to say. In the West woman are free persons -- they can wear whatever clothing they want, just as men can wear whatever they want. If they wish to emphasize their sexuality they can do as they wish. If they wish to de-emphasize their sexuality they can do as they wish.

In the West the government does not prescribe types of clothing (beyond a certain minimum attire, and that holds for men too); nor are there roving gangs of men with clubs and acid to beat up and scar the faces of women who dare to dress as they want.

You dare to say women are portrayed as sex objects in the West (implying that they are not so portrayed in Islamic countries)? What a fucking joke! In Islamic countries women are seen as so dangerously sexy that they must be covered up in order to prevent men from losing their minds and raping them; and so society and the governments force women to cover up.

This is the very definition of treating someone as a "sexual object" rather than as a free human being with equal rights (including the right to dress themself however they want). Sexual objectification is when one focuses on the sexual or sex-related characteristics of someone while disregarding/ignoring their existence as a living person with rights and feelings of their own. Forcing someone to wear a tarp (whether they want to or not) simply because they have certain sexual characteristics is sexual objectification of the first order.

In the West, people are (generally) held responsible for their own actions and for controlling themselves. There (especially in recent decades), it is the responsibility of men to control their own lusts. Making women responsible for controlling the lusts of men (i.e. by forcing them to de-emphasize their own sexuality, and blaming rape victims for being 'too sexy' rather than blaming rapists) is just another example of the gross inequality of rights and responsibilities in Islamic societies, where women are sexually objectified second-class citizens.

On respect of religion:We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H.L Mencken

smash says ...

I can only handle so many polite, well-reasoned antitheistic treatises before I need a good belt of guys like this. We're not talking about people who are going to be swayed by reason, so why the hand-wringing about his style?

How does one trump irrationalism? As smash adroitly points out, it is seldom by reason. So to sell the message, I guess that it boils down to the usual fundamentals of marketing, politics and "selling the idea". Damned. Reason is so much cleaner, neater and well, intellectually honest.

But there are different ways ... as one example, earlier today I was reading an short article on the essence of propaganda. The article could be summarized as follows:

Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism.

Sounds familiar to me. Propaganda is but one of the many tactics employed ruthlessly by the well coordinated and well funded religious right (especially noting the IDiots and the politically charged televangelists).

Its just too bad that organizing atheists, rationalists, secularists, anti-theists, agnostics, etc, it is just to bad that organizing this disparate group of freethinkers is like (as Dawkins quoted) "herding cats". But, I think that it is time that we really and truly must get serious and organize so that we may move forward in a more concerted and coordinated effort. Lock step like.

Because sure as (they-will-make-our-life-) hell, you know the fundamentalists have long ago coordinated their marketing orks and minions.

Another favourite Mencken quote: "The worshiper is the father of the gods". Call me a cynic but I do not think that religious believers will ever abandon their creations (what else is a personal relationship with God?) anymore than Narcissus could abandon his reflection. They will defy logic ,reason and their very senses. The real battlefield is for the minds of the young. If we do nothing else we must keep religion out of the public classroom in all its' insidious forms, particularly Creation Science. If all we do is preserve a public sanctuary for the mind and reason that will be enough.

While we are at it let's get rid of these thinly disguised christian abstinence only religious classes that have taken the place of comprehensive sex education in American schools.

Peter G.: re Narcissus, and "the minds of the young"

Here here. Well spoken.

But its not just the young. It is also providing "protective cover" for the ranks that wish to disavow themselves of religious affiliation. This is harder said than done, but MUST be part of the equation.

Dawkins, Hitchens and others noted two surprising realizations from their respective book tours: The first was that there are many more agnostics / freethinkers than we are led to believe. The second realization which seems to be approaching consensus is that the one holdout factor that acts as a primary "hook" preventing those from breaking away from the barking dogmas is the "socialization" factors inherent in :

• family (close relatives; moral leadership, etc)
• community (peers, work, socialization within the community), and
• ritualization and tradition (cultural heritage, tradition, society rituals of birth, marriage, death)

So, without carefully building a "safe infrastructure for freethinkers", then even a concerted effort on public schools will be, although significant, still limited in long term success.

I suggest that the religious strategists know this well. They plan for it, and build upon it by actively demonizing apostates -- how undesirable it is to be viewed as a devil's advocate; apostate; a godless one; an arrogant atheist; etc, etc, etc.

The Bible never instructs the followers of Christ to kill Jews or Infidels.

So the bible doesn't directly instruct believers to kill anyone who worships other gods in Deuteronomy 17:2-5 then?

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

Posted by: Ivan A. D'Mocracy | August 18, 2007 6:51 PM

I am trying to prove the point that Islam is an inherently violent religion and Christianity is not. My logic may not be that good, but I tried to point out that Biblical passages rarely, if ever, tell the reader to go commit acts of violence, despite the characters commiting violence themselves. The strict interpretation of the Koran is a major reason why we see fundamentalist terrorism . Does that make sense to anyone here, or not??

I am trying to prove the point that Islam is an inherently violent religion and Christianity is not. My logic may not be that good, but I tried to point out that Biblical passages rarely, if ever, tell the reader to go commit acts of violence, despite the characters commiting violence themselves.

Have you ever actually read the bible? I suspect not.

You've got it completely backwards the bulk of the bible is taken up with incitements to violence & intolerance, it's the bit's which the more liberal Christian churches of recent history focus on which are out of character with the bulk of the bible.

Both Christianity & Islam are inherently intolerant violent religions, an assertion amply substantiated by even the most cursory glance at both of their histories.

Posted by: Kazuma | August 18, 2007 10:39 PM

Deuteronomy consists chiefly of three discourses said to have been delivered by Moses a short time before his death, given to the Israelites, in the plains of the desert. Judaism, in this case, differs from Islam in that central authority is not vested in a person or group, but in sacred texts and traditions. So Jews are not required to act out the violence that Moses commanded in your quote. Strictly interpreted, Muslims can act out in violence because they must follow in the exact path of the prophet Mohammed, who is the one commanding the violence in many Koranic passages.

The bible is such a curiously bipolar text. One can generally find an admonition in the new testament that directly contradicts the old testament where most of what we would find morally objectionable today is found.Considered as a slightly delusional philosopher most of the ideas ascribed to Jesus are really quite bearable. He did preach tolerance and acceptance of others. That's why they had to get rid of him. He was seriously rocking the boat.What passes for Christianity today,in all its' varied forms, has cloaked a very simple message; do as you would be done by. Why would we need a God to tell us this? I think you will find the most objectionable Christians just can get past the old testament's fire and brimstone. I think it silly to call them Christians at all. They never got that far in the text. Why do I think Islam less tolerant and more dangerous? Because the first enemy of radical Islam is moderate Islam and I see little hope for improvement within Islamic states.

Kazuma you need to read the New Testament which is what Christians follow.

You'll be hard pressed to find any orders to commit violent acts in the New Testament.

Posted by: BenG | August 18, 2007 11:14 PM

And all that obfuscation means that Deuteronomy 17:2-5 isn't a direct instruction to kill those who 'worship other gods' and hasn't been read and understood as such for centuries why exactly?

Posted by: LouSeefer | August 18, 2007 11:35 PM

Kazuma you need to read the New Testament which is what Christians follow. You'll be hard pressed to find any orders to commit violent acts in the New Testament.

So if as you claim Christians don't follow the Old Testament then why is it in the Bible at all?

Why are so many Christians creationists? Isn't Genesis in the Old Testament?

What's with those campaigns by Christians to get the 10 commandments displayed in court rooms? Isn't Exodus in the Old Testament?

Take the trouble to examine reality and I think you'll find most Christians read and follow the bits they choose out of both the Old and New Testaments.

Posted by: Kazuma | August 18, 2007 11:40 PM

As the previous poster explained, Christians follow the new testement for their "morality." Jews do not take Moses as a commander that they must submit to. Jews do not actively try to convert others to Judaism; in fact conversion to Judaism is a lengthy and difficult process. They are respectful of other religions, but cannot actively approve of religions that appear to worship iconic figures, for example, Hinduism or Buddhism. Jews believe that Gentiles who follow the Noachide code, the minimum ethical and religious requirements for all non-Jews (basically just like 10 commandments), will be equally recognized by God. Islam literally means submission to the will of Allah and the prophet Mohammed. The Koran makes it clear that non-muslims are infidels that must be converted or killed, or condemned to hell

As the previous poster explained, Christians follow the new testement for their "morality."

I suppose that must be why Christians never cite the Old Testament to justify their ‘moral’ positions on things like homosexuality… oh wait a minute they do that all the time.

Jews do not take Moses as a commander that they must submit to. Jews do not actively try to convert others to Judaism; in fact conversion to Judaism is a lengthy and difficult process. They are respectful of other religions, but cannot actively approve of religions that appear to worship iconic figures, for example, Hinduism or Buddhism. Jews believe that Gentiles who follow the Noachide code, the minimum ethical and religious requirements for all non-Jews (basically just like 10 commandments), will be equally recognized by God.

Who said anything about Jews? You claimed the bible ‘never instructs the followers of Christ to kill Jews or Infidels’ you were wrong, waffling about Jewish attitudes to gentiles doesn’t change that.

Islam literally means submission to the will of Allah and the prophet Mohammed. The Koran makes it clear that non-muslims are infidels that must be converted or killed, or condemned to hell

And this is distinct from what the Bible says about non-believers how exactly?

Instead of pointing out how this clip is filled with so many outright fallacies - I will keep it simple. Islam is NOT GOING ANYWHERE. This "illness" is a religion I am proud to be a member of, and it will continue to be the worlds most fastest growing religion. This is a fact that nobody can dispute.

If you have any issues with Islam - go talk to a real Muslim. Go visit your local Mosque (there are thousands of them across the US) . See what Islam ACTUALLY IS.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the worlds religions arent going to just disappear. You can either work to reconcile issues that certain believers have - or continue along this futile anti-religious rhetoric.

Posted by: Kazuma | August 19, 2007 12:15 AM

The first point I made about morality relates to the teachings of Jesus in the New testament.

You quoted Deuteronomy, which is part of the Hebrew bible in Judaism. Your excerpt was from Moses to the Jews in the desert, on what he wanted them to do. My point about Jews is that they do not have to live a life in the example of Moses, as the Muslims must do with Mohammed.

Hahmed,

Can I ask why no Muslim countries are democracies where homosexuals are not imprisoned or killed and human rights are respected? Why do we not see Muslims pouring into the streets of the US, Britain, France, etc, when innocent Muslims are killed by Muslim terrorists? We certainly saw those protests when a cartoonist made fun of Mohammed. Why don't moderate Muslims condemn the Hamas and Hezbollah when they are just impoverishing their own people by forcing Israel to retaliate? Half of the Muslim world wants Sharia law imposed on the entire world. Why should the west trade democracy for dictatorship?

Look, there are many good things about Islam. But you guys need an enlightenment or revolution or something.

If you have any issues with Islam - go talk to a real Muslim. ... Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the worlds religions arent going to just disappear. You can either work to reconcile issues that certain believers have - or continue along this futile anti-religious rhetoric.
-- hahmed

To argue that religion isn't going to go away, and so we should "reconcile issues," is like saying that rapists will always be around, and thus we need to "reconcile" whatever "issues" we have against rape.

I, for one, have spoken with real muslims. I have also spoken with real christians. I find christians to be significantly less deranged in practice -- but in theory, only marginally so. And that's just because christians tend to live in societies that are more secular -- and thus, more rational -- than muslims. Ie., us secular folks in the West are standing up against our religious nutcases.

Posted by: BenG | August 19, 2007 1:14 AM

The first point I made about morality relates to the teachings of Jesus in the New testament.

Your modified claim is still false whilst some may focus entirely on the New the vast majority of Christians follow mixtures of both the Old and New Testaments to justify their ‘morality’.

You quoted Deuteronomy, which is part of the Hebrew bible in Judaism. Your excerpt was from Moses to the Jews in the desert, on what he wanted them to do.

It’s also part of the Christian Bible in whatever language people read it in and that was clearly the context I was referring to it in.

My point about Jews is that they do not have to live a life in the example of Moses, as the Muslims must do with Mohammed.

You can revise it all you like it’s still an erroneous point, both Christianity & Islam (and Judasim for that matter) have in their ‘holy’ texts much that incites people to violent intolerance.

Thanks growing strength of secular liberalism in the West over the last few centuries Christianity there has been increasingly forced to retreat and emphasise the less unpleasant bits of the bible. Take a look beyond its current enfeebled form to the blood drenched history of Christianity though and there’s no doubt that just like the Quran the bible is perfectly capable of inciting monstrous acts of violence by men of ‘good’ faith.

BenG, Sorry, I am not meaning to pick on you (but you are making it too easy ;->), So, with your assumed tacit approval, if am going to use your "flawed logic" of comparing scripture against scripture. Maybe you will see that it is a no-win, trap-like situation. A catch-22 if you will. And it can never be any different.

In what may have been intended as a good faith argument, sometimes we unwittingly spew propaganda. I am afraid that you have done so here. Lets pass your "content" through the progando-meter(TM), shall we: Could the meaning of your post, however innocently intended, possibly be construed as appealing to any of these three things …

• emotionalism, (uhmm, big check on this one!)
• tribalism, (check -- definately an us against them 'tude growling through the lines), and
• narcissism (hmmph, I think you may pass the dogma's-hind-end sniff test on this score)

Yep Clarence, no angel will be getting its wings from this comment. It is more likely that it will be read from someone of the Islam way as nasty bit of work from the devil himself! What's worse, a devil that you unintentionally brought into its very evil existence -- all implicit within the very confines of your good vs. evil based post (but fortunately for me, that evil can exist only in your minds and not mine. Whew. But that was a close one!).

So, your intended converts are likely no longer listening to you. Given enough time, they may even become a danger to you!).

So let this be a lesson to you /sternly wagging finder/! Any time you compare one inerrant text against another God-inspired equally inerrant text, know that people can't help but get a tad defensive. Well, often defensive and mad ... okay, if we stop and think about it, really "military-building" defensive and "nation-damning" mad. Don't kid yourself. This is real world stuff. Look no further that USA's Bush and Iran's Ahmadinejad.

Now then BenG, hang your head in faux-shame or at least don't do it again! You may have , in the most Douglas Adamsesque fashion, you may have just inadvertently fomented the clash of civilizations -- truly a war that sadly may be the end of all wars (and even more sadly, the species called "Homo sapiens sapiens" too!).

So BenG, away with all from your silly posts comparing scriptures(!) ... Quit vicariously giving the illusion of existence to heavens and hells. Recognize that the scriptures you esteem are more than likely the very false idols that they themselves warn you about (now how ironic is that!).

Oh repent you sinner against the kind that is your fellow man! /author puts down his fire-breathing staff, grins that all is good, and walks stridently down from the mountain/

I love it when people bring this up, but I'm always unsure why they do it. Are we to assume that because Islam is the fastest growing religion is an indisputable fact, that alone illustrates how reasonable and necessary it is? It's the Muslim version of the argument that Christianity has to be beneficial, it's been around for ages… damn, it must be getting things right.

I'm to assume that "certain believers" would be your way of referring to Islam's more fundamentalist strain of believers… and to what issues would they concede to or make adjustments to, in order to solidify a reconciliation? Talk about futile, what makes you think it's in one's best interests to yield to these "certain believers"?

Norm: I have a question for those of you who don't like the rants. Do you think it is ever appropriate to ridicule a belief, or an opinion? If so when, if not why not? I'm not talking about one on one, but rather ridiculing a religion or a political party or a philosophy or idea, but not directed at a specific individual.

Well, you once threatened to ban me from your site, because I challenged your beliefs about Christopher Hitchens. And I am talking about beliefs; of the extremist kind that is non- negotiable, and will be eternally defended. And, when disproved by evidence, will be silently passed and explained away into evidence that does not explain the /true views/ of Christopher Hitchens. Which, of course, the interpreters of truth and reason will always know. Just as the true believers know the eternal wisdom of God.

In other words, to claim your views, and your quotable bigots' views, on the issue of belief and intolerance, to be from a broad and high vantage point - is unconvincing.

In fact, this approach is the definition of what deserves constant ridicule, and which - if you'll forgive me for paraphrasing - should be forced back into obscurity as the irrational and intellectually venomous scourge it is, instead of cheered on as the definition of valiant bravery.

Talk about futile, what makes you think it's in one's best interests to yield to these "certain believers"?

Yes, that's what I said, too, when it suddenly became not only frequent, but fundamentally correct and proper, to speak of government and rule of a state in terms of irrational beliefs in an unquestionable system.

And therefore turned the debate into not how to best approach the issues, but instead on which beliefs should be held in reverence. And what beliefs should be called unacceptable.

Really, if you could only listen to yourselves.

I'll give you this, though - you'd be popular with the imams in southern Pakistan. And, as it happens, with politicians in the US.

What did my response to Hahmed have to do with the imams of southern Pakistan? The cleverness of that quip is lost on me.

Really fleinn, you should listen to yourself. Sorry, but your past two comments are impressively verbose but say very little. Noisy if not a bit o fluff. But ok, I'll try and speak more like you and draw out and over-complicate simple thoughts.

[clears throat]

The inexplicable incompatibility with the state system infused with the incorrigibility and refusal of separating the cohesion of religious zeal of Islam from the 'dunya' has perpetuated a divine cohesion between rule of state and divinely ordained resonance of an Islamic state. Their moderation renders me haughty and sends me spiraling into the vastness of space as to truly comprehend what doesn't leave me convinced...

[cough]

BenG's original statement: "The bible has violence in it but does not COMMAND followers to be violent."

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

One of many. You have not read the whole bible. Cease making ignorant claims immediately.

Read the old testament. It's part of the bible, and there is an overabundance of direct commands to do violence, not just outright murder (which it also commands, and some of which Jesus later condones in the new testament).

Once again in case it was missed, this was BenG's original claim: "The bible has violence in it but does not COMMAND followers to be violent."

BenG also claims to be an 'athiest', after all his apologizing for christianity.

If you're going to claim to be something, at least spell it right? It is also recommended to have the tact to admit when you are proven wrong, not try to revise your claims so you can weasel out of an ego bruising.

I'm surprised this wasn't addressed sooner by others.

Once again in case it was missed, this was BenG's original claim: "The bible has violence in it but does not COMMAND followers to be violent."

So what exactly is the difficulty with attacking those muslims who insist their beliefs legitimize their killing?

That's a rhetorical question, btw.

@Nashimoto: I didn't think it was that clever, or difficult to understand. But what you are arguing for is that your belief is better than someone else's. Not that your beliefs are founded in something more useful or appropriate. This happens when you presume on beforehand that "rationality" somehow trumps "belief", without question.

Because that is simply to deny any process, hope or aspiration - unless it is in your formalised and aesthetically pleasing format.

And I don't care much for people presuming to be "reasonable" in those terms.

Quite extreme view, isn't it.

Any chance you could make a concrete statement as to where I said rationality trumps belief without question or that my belief (whatever it was) was better than anyone else's? Where exactly are you pulling these issues from, because if this belief was so vitriolic as to allow such a reasonable and obviously un-extreme chap like yourself to equate me with the Imam's of Pakistan, then I would love to correct myself.

And if this "belief" I had/have impedes the march of progress as you seem to suggest, then you must believe that the secularism that is vouched by the people of this site is compatible withe the religious fundamentalism they attack. Why not make a concrete statement from you, such as how we actually reconcile that difference -- if you think this even possible. What is the concessions to be made with fundamentalist Muslims such that we don't "deny any process, hope, or aspiration..."

oh shit I like balls on this guy, and he seems less drunk than a hitchens, not that i dont drink, but hell Im not on tv. but you can tell he feels this way about all religion not just islam. Where can i see more? maybe somebody mentioned this already or maybe not I'm too lazy to read over 100+ comments, plus they are probably more serious, But one thing i found funny is he said if the face was supposed to be covered we would be born with a flap of skin, well he looked like he was wearing clothes in this, but why wasnt he born with giant flaps of skin for clothes?

As Bill Hicks once pointed out, God is in a cow's butt. Now, since he said that, and it was written down and repeated by others, I know it to be true. There's my evidence. How can you possibly refute it?

Everyone's entitled a good spew, regardless of how it serves the cliche: "you become what you hate".

I don't know how dormant religion was in England 'before' but I regularly listen to the BBC service via Itunes. Indeed, there is a notable deluge/obsession of Islam-related stories handled with the utmost of professional dispassion, for which so much pride is taken. At the same time, you get a sense of one culture being rammed up another culture's bum in the name of tolerance.

This is such a self-perpetuating battle all around and the one instance where I lament that there's technology of instant mass global communication, because everyone wants to pile on and shout and be a celebrity and murder and write a book. A global holiday where we stay at home making coiled clay pottery could save the planet.

I wish more of the 'moderate' Muslims would come out much more strongly with some cojones and in no uncertain terms about the senseless acts of killing.

Maybe it is time for some sort of Muslim world-wide convention where they iron these "theological differences' out for the benefit of themselves and the rest of the world.

Hey, even the Mormons have adapted and changed through the years with social constructs from a super exclusive cult more to the mainstream when it was shown to be beneficial both financially and politically..... (Just an example, ie, racisim, polygamy, womens rights, etc, not condoning the wierdness still practiced, but they did manage to change)

Why not make a concrete statement from you, such as how we actually reconcile that difference -- if you think this even possible.

I just did. I explained a concrete example of how "belief" becomes illegal when it doesn't look like what you think it should. While belief is fine, when the label "secularism", and "anti- theism" is slapped on it.

Just be aware, at least, that the general argument several of you are gleefully making against "religion" - with the excuse Islam offers you - is a similar argument that could be made to categorically condemn everyone from Aristotle to Kant.

But I don't see you make that argument, now do I? Instead, the assumed extremism of others allows the argument to be constructed in the way that there is a battle between anything religion, against anything that isn't. And that's absolute rot. It's nothing but a nice tale for recently hatched "atheists" to make them feel good about themselves. Lies for children.

See, the problem is that this presumption of superiority I've mentioned, is that it acts as a driver for poised cultural chauvinism. Instead of a way to promote the actual values that exist - infrequently perhaps - in our societies.

Of course - that kind of thing requires a level of introspection that would normally kill an american dead, so why do I even bother..

Why, maybe I should start a campaign to have "more reasonable things stated with conviction, but measured reflection". Or have "invitation to debate where one wants to learn stuff about others, and not constantly beat people over the heads with clever arguments until they fundamentally agree with you".

I mean, hey - maybe it'd be so novel there'd just be swarming a mass of "reasonabilists" all over in no- time!

..note to self: use preview- button.

fleinn says ...

Instead, the assumed extremism of others allows the argument to be constructed in the way that there is a battle between anything religion, against anything that isn't. And that's absolute rot.

fleinn, if you please, can you give me an instance where rationalism should not win out over the dogma of bronze-aged scriptures?

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying something about a presumption of superiority of evidence based, real world, testable rationalism over the delusion of "blind faith" based on a set man made writings (scriptures).

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what I think that most atheists, anti-theists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, humanists, and naturalists are saying. Its either this or belief in the fictions of creationisms and long disposed of Gods (Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, El, Baal, some golden calf, etc, etc, etc!).

So one one hand, reality, the other hand magic ... so which hand do you think should hold the presumption of superiority?

Pat Condell says,"You might as well tell me about your dreams, which is essentially what you are doing".

I'm glad he said this because he's right. However, I'm not nearly as pejorative. Quite the opposite.

I've always thought that religion will never go away as long as there's death and dreams. If you see Religion from the school of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, there's a wealth of information regarding stories mirroring archetypes that are woven into the human psyche. Myths can tell us plenty about being human, if deconstructed carefully. It doesn't matter if a myth is untrue, any more than saying that fiction can't move us because it's fiction. It's a total waste of time to argue about it; it's missing the point completely.

What matters is how those stories convey a principle or value to the reader which is true. The potent stuff is timeless and relevant, dream or not, it is CATHARTIC. It's a code to spirit. It's not a science journal. There is a spiritual dimension to being human but because that dimension is so easily exploited, usually in the shape of political tyranny, some are given to deny it completely in reflexive outrage and, to me, that's both sad and understandable.

I love this, he won't answer a single question and all he does is wax metaphysical over the prima facie good of belief. None of which pertains to the conversation at hand nor links in any way to the discussion of Islam. I would ask fleinn how the unmentioned "argument" against "religion", which he doesn't specify as to what that is, would pertain to the condemnation of Aristotle and Kant. I'm guessing he couldn't tell you, but it would send him off on a tangent concerning the indefeasibly good in belief. If what you portray is the "introspection" that Americans lack, I'm eating a hotdog and waving the red white and blue as I speak -- go America. You've got one serious Jesus complex, I realize some of us are dense and can't quite grasp the nuance of your blinding introspection, but no need to nail yourself up to a cross over it… all the huffing and stifled sobs of self-pity that your efforts are wasted on us… touching and just mildly reeks of the presumption of superiority (whatever that actually means). Some might say that, but not me. I think you're the beacon of light fleinn in this mess of pseudo-rationalists. Your impressive linguistic skills (you must fancy yourself a writer- a postmodernist scribe perhaps?) just impressive enough to warrant ignoring you for the rest of my visits to Norm's house.

well FritzHead Said......sometimes the "spiritual dimension" is exploited by the "religious".

Catharsis for some religious people can be judgement, revenge and exclusion seen to be timeless and relevant and approved by "scripture", which is taught to be straight from the mouth of "God"...

Enlightenment please, for all who say they are religious. That would be a nice change.

FritzHeadSaid ...

There is a spiritual dimension to being human but because that dimension is so easily exploited, usually in the shape of political tyranny, some are given to deny it completely in reflexive outrage and, to me, that's both sad and understandable.

I understand your sentiment. I even see some truth in it. But, all in all, I'm not quite sure that is correct. Reflecting for a moment, I recognized that I know many people that are currently un-affected by the virus-like meme of religion. But they are all spiritual (pantheism, deism, or just "now" that there is something more, and that it is not known or understood yet by the likes of man).

Many authors have called this a belief in Spinoza''s God (as did people like Einstein).

But again, I offer secular humanism to those in the midst of their personal search.

So one one hand, reality, the other hand magic ... so which hand do you think should hold the presumption of superiority?

None, of course.

On the one hand, I believe in human rights and freedom. But on the other, I know that people do not, depressingly often, truly want it.

Given that, should I become "reasonable", and not believe in human rights, or freedom? Certainly it is irrational to still believe in human rights if this is true?

But thankfully I have been given some advice, after reading in this thread. And several of you appear to be saying is that since there exists such a thing as fundamental religious nuts with irrational beliefs - I should either not believe in "things that do not exist", in order not to be like them. Or I should alternatively simply allow this belief in human rights to be acceptable.

Presumably since it is not truly "belief", but something else. If I may be presumptuous for a while - a "universal principle", perhaps. And in that way simply take what is arguably wishful thinking, and turn it into a rational argument.

And what pisses me off is that - even at the point where some have already argued for this way to soften belief into something more palatable and "secular" - this mechanism somehow is impossible to imagine happening in "Islam", or with "religion" in general.

And to claim that sort of thing is - apart from being politically favourable with daily sun readers - just being historically ignorant, and blind to the present problems as well.

And it's very depressing to see, since the idea of this transformation, done with care and questioning and so on, is the argument you should be making. If you were consistent, secular, or humanist.

But instead it seems that sort of thinking is sentenced to the religious camp, for not simply accepting the idea that "secular humanism" is the solution to everything by default. And possibly would make everything fine if just religion would vanish.

Of course - I forget that none of you are talking to "them", Islam, or whatever. But just to yourselves.

And I guess there'd be nothing wrong with that, if you lived.. on the back of the moon, maybe. Or if these kinds of views were not being used as political props in elections, and as justifications for a range of policies in various countries at the moment.

The islamisation of Europe is occurring because nature abhors a vacuum. Europe has created for herself a vacuum in regards to heritage, population replacement, and religion. When European Society forsakes western heritage, tradition and the Christian religion that formed it, that society becomes an empty vessel; a ship adrift with no destination. In this day and age, Secular Humanism and Islam are the primary forces that will rush in and try to fill that vessel. Of the two, Secular humanism has the worst track record of human atrocities, but Islam is almost equally brutal.

It is folly to attempt to drive out Islam only to have it replaced by something worse. The real solution is to reclaim the rich history, traditions, beauty, culture and Christian religion that were at one time the heart and soul of European countries.

Liberty, truth, and justice are branches that grow out of our traditional Western and Christian heritage. One cannot expect the branches to survive when roots of the tree are being cut away.

The real solution is to reclaim the rich history, traditions, beauty, culture and Christian religion that were at one time the heart and soul of European countries.

Ah, as opposed to Islamic culture, which only gave us modern math and the basis for science.

Liberty, truth, and justice are branches that grow out of our traditional Western and Christian heritage.

More lies. Like Western culture is the only culture that has ever taught Liberty, truth, and justice. Boy, you are a shallow christian aren't you, thinking that the golden rule is only applicable in christian nations.

I agree to some extent that "nature abhors a vacuum", but sheesh, to assume that vacuum needs to be filled by another fundimentalist religion is absolute tosh. Good day sir, I SAY GOOD DAY!

I've been thinking about coining a fallacy to put out the fires of some repeated weak arguments that are blazing around in posts such as this one which say something to the extent that simply because one cannot get rid of x, then you should learn to live with x.

This makes about as much sense as saying that since racism won't be eradicated any time soon, instead of criticizing it just learn to live with it. The argument against an ideology doesn't automatically mean it is an argument for the intolernace a person or group of people. Learning to live amongst a ridiculous ideology instead of having a conversation about pressing issues such as these is conformist at best and destructive at worst.

The fallacy I came up with is Argumentum ad inevitabilis vitam or "Arguing from inevitable living." Feel free to use it when confronted with such tiresome and nearsighted babble. Also for those savy in Latin, should there be any mistake in the wording feel free to correct.

I do see most of the global problems now having to do with OVER population, instead of power struggles between ideologies. Sure, the religious enhance these problems by fighting for superiority. but..

Most of our wars are now about resource struggles, whatever the religious may say.. A population that has doubled in this century, and is climbing to 7 billion, cannot expect to maintain the same quality of life with finite resourses.

Instead of religion saving us it is much more likely that science and technology will help solve the modern problems confronting the world.

All the praying, by whatever group, will not solve these problems. The religious need to take the beam out of their own eye, and apply some introspection if they would like to have respect. So far, it is very easy to see the global problems they create by their beliefs.

Liberty, truth and justice were discussed by the philosophers, and in modern times are products of the Enlightenment, not Christianity.

I would like people to stop using 'the West' and "Christianity" interchangeably. The West is a democracy, not a theocracy. If it were a Christian theocracy, it would not be much different from a Muslim theocracy.

Instead of pointing out how this clip is filled with so many outright fallacies - I will keep it simple. Islam is NOT GOING ANYWHERE. This "illness" is a religion I am proud to be a member of, and it will continue to be the worlds most fastest growing religion. This is a fact that nobody can dispute. -Hahmed

I can dispute it, because it is clearly not true. The growth rate of Islam is marginally higher than Christianity, but the number of new adherents in Christianity per annum far outpaces Islam. On top of that, this is a false argument in two dimensions. a) nobody gives a crap how many people believe in a lie, b) certainly nobody should give a crap how many more people each day are believing a lie. Number of believers doesn't make it true, if that were the case then Saddam would have been behind 9/11.

If you have any issues with Islam - go talk to a real Muslim. Go visit your local Mosque (there are thousands of them across the US) . See what Islam ACTUALLY IS. - Hahmed

I'd be loath to go to a Mosque and start telling them that their Holy Scripture was stolen from another Holy Scripture chock full of Greek mystery cult influences which was stolen from another Holy Scripture which was stolen from the religion of Akhenaten. I have no compunction telling a Muslim this, I do however wish to let them practice their silly cultish opiate smoking and lemming like prostrations in the privacy of their own gentlemen's clubs.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the worlds religions arent going to just disappear. You can either work to reconcile issues that certain believers have - or continue along this futile anti-religious rhetoric. - Hahmed

It wasn't so futile for Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus and Zeno to put doubt into the religion of the Greeks, which is just as false on the religions that invariably relate to and stem from it - Christianity and Islam. But you're right, today there still are stupid fucks who worship Zeus. I think they're as legitimate as you or any Muslim, Christian, Jew, Bahai, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, Shaman, Snake Charmer, Wiccan, Neo-Pagan, Old Pagan, Wagnerian, Satanist, Scientologist or Hare Krishna. They're all competing meta-narratives that steal ideas from one another and produce nothing but uniformity and reduction of critical thought for the purpose of explaining the universe, poorly. That a Muslim is liable to be put to death if they come to their God-given sense and dispute the hilariously stupid claims of Islam, is enough of a reason to fear Islam more than most other religions. It is a totalitarian metanarrative because it is not a personal religion. Those Sufi Secular or Liberal Muslims who adhere to a personal Islam are picking and choosing which Qur'anic passage to believe in, and are frauds, whom I admonish to join the winning team and give it all up, because you're insulting God and humanity with your fence sitting.

ah, i was waiting for one of the heavyweights to weigh in on this one, and dionysus does not diss-appoint :). his attacks often come from surprising directions and his ability here to convincingly turn a self-percieved doctrinaire muslim into a "fence sitter" is truly impressive. it reminds me of one of my favorite literary anti-heroes, ignatious j. reilly, and i mean that as a compliment.

but, dionysus, i was a tad perplexed by your inclusion of "wagnerian" on your list of silly religions. are there really "wagnerians" out there, in any religious sense?

i liked this quicky analysis from dzwonka:

The current state of Islam = Paris Hilton + Charlie Manson.

also, as long as i'm handing out medals-which the recipients would be wise not to accept, due to my own unpopular views on certain topics here- what do you guys think of relatively new poster nashimoto? i'm impressed.

forgot to mention: fritzheadsaids' post that included this gem

It doesn't matter if a myth is untrue, any more than saying that fiction can't move us because it's fiction. It's a total waste of time to argue about it; it's missing the point completely.

was one of his best, and gutsy too, in context.

Imo, the best part of fitz's post was the way people seem to.. actively misunderstand it.

It is a totalitarian metanarrative because it is not a personal religion.

lol.

So Islam is a threat because it is something more than a religion, and because it commands it's followers to act as mindless slaves to a few central tenets? Which makes it so much more dangerous than merely other kinds of religion, which is personal and silly?

A lot of internal medicine here, isn't there..

So Islam is a threat because it is something more than a religion, and because it commands it's followers to act as mindless slaves to a few central tenets? Which makes it so much more dangerous than merely other kinds of religion, which is personal and silly? - fleinn

I thought I was fairly clear in pointing out what is dangerous about Islam, and it certainly isn't its attempts at uniformity (or Democratic Centralism as V.I. Lenin would call it). Your conclusions drawn from my post indicate a tenuous grasp on reading comprehension, I pray you go back and read it over again before responding in kind.

but, dionysus, i was a tad perplexed by your inclusion of "wagnerian" on your list of silly religions. are there really "wagnerians" out there, in any religious sense? - jonathan becker

Yes, a few, T.S. Eliot and Hitler amongst them.

A "Christian commentary" of Dionysis' post (August 20, 2007 11:32 PM) above:

The club of Dionysis' logic slams and bams the lambs of faith. From every angle, as seen by a rationalist, the lamb, while physically unhurt, is metaphorically clubbed and its untethered faith is badly faltering and bleeding profusely. From such a drubbing, it is presumed that the reality-lost lamb is gasping the last few lickspittles of its delusional breath, about to truly be born-again, but this time into the true light of reason and naturalism. Ahhh, the riches of the real world beckon. Yea reason!

Alas, from the view of the faith-head, the results are different: The doe-eyed rapture-ready lamb, always suspicious of the many lies of Satan, Matrix-like, has adroitly contorted his mind artfully avoiding each of the spears of logic and each of the metaphysical slaps of reason. Faith (that ever unjustifiable "just-knowing" that eschews that evil thing called reason) has again walked away unscathed and ready to do-delusional-duty yet another day. Yea faith!

Its sad really, isn't it. I think that it was Hitchens that said something like:

"Hey, for any organization that calls its Jesus 'The Good Shepard', and its adherents and believers, 'flocks of sheep', well then, what do you expect?"

I'll be brief in my critique, since it may have been noted previously. This fellow doesn't seem at all interested in engaging in a dialogue. This isn't persuasion; this is assault.

Few, if any, Muslims or Christians who have the patience and open mind to hear this gentleman out will be caused to reflect. Instead, as I noticed a few other here, they will run to their own defense.

My wife doesn't mind changing her clothes if I ask her to reconsider her choice of outfit, but if I were to tell her she looks like a "carpet-munching" dike in her overalls and doc martens, we don't have progress of any kind.

Except the comments made are a general critique of an ideology and not a direct attack on a person.

Wasteland

Hollis_III, I am sorry to hear that you wife is such a trollop. I believe it to be a fact as such because it is so written. And I and others have read it. Surely one would need no more evidence than this -- a personal testiment, widely disseminated and from an acknowleged authority -- someone we believe was there.

/ long pause for effect /

But I digress. You suggest that these posts lack the art of "persuasion".

If you, an obviously learned man, cannot see the flaws inherent in being an follower of any of the Abrahamic faiths, then what hope is there for this "subtle persuassion" that you speak of? Wouldn't any attempt be critiqued exactly as you penned: as a polemic, a diatribe, or even more likely an arrogant, angry and baseless attack against your very personal faith and Gods?

It is expected that you would react in this exact manner?

Gentle persuasion, I am sorry to say, is only a small part of the solution. Rather you personally must be held to face the irrationality and sheer absurdity of your views (versus, say, the beauty and simplicty implicit within the realms of naturalism, humanism, and the physicalism of reality).

But I understand that you think that there may be a better way. So, assuming that you were a believer (spot on I think), then pray tell, what would it take for you to relinquish the tenacious grips of your very personal faiths? Please address this question. I truly would benefit to discover that I am in error.

Or do you fear that even this exercise would be the wiles and works of some crafty devil (also thankfully, as invented and ethereal as your Gods)?

I thought I was fairly clear in pointing out what is dangerous about Islam, and it certainly isn't its attempts at uniformity (or Democratic Centralism as V.I. Lenin would call it).

Then what's so special about Islam? Unless the problem is the general fear of a fanatic ideology, then what is the problem with Islam as a religion? (Apart from the usual problems with religion, I mean.)

Then what's so special about Islam? Unless the problem is the general fear of a fanatic ideology, then what is the problem with Islam as a religion? (Apart from the usual problems with religion, I mean.)

I asked you to review my post before responding, and you didn't. I asked you to because it would spare me having to quote myself due to your intellectual laziness.

That a Muslim is liable to be put to death if they come to their God-given sense and dispute the hilariously stupid claims of Islam, is enough of a reason to fear Islam more than most other religions. -Dionysus

Apostasy is punishable by pain of death in Shari'a. The Islamic Scholars who agree with this are not solely Salafists like bin Laden, nor Kharijites, nor Secular tyrants like Mubarak Saddam and Musharraf, nor the Saudis, nor the Iranians, nor the Taliban, nor Hizbullah, nor Hamas, etc. etc. It also includes the "moderates" of the "Arab Street". The jurisprudential arguments against death for apostates utilize reasoning wholly without precedent in the Qur'an or the Hadith, and completely in the realm of the Western Liberal tradition.

For a religion to say that there is no compulsion in religion, and then demand compulsion from your unfortunate delivery from a "believing" womb, it is almost enough cognitive dissonance to make a person turn crazy...

In this very thread, a depraved imbecile above called Ayaan Hirsi Ali a "bigot", and used the Orwellian term "Islamophobia". The tentacles of Political Islam in its disparate and nefarious sources reaches even here, a blog, a supposed bastion of Western Secular thought. This isn't something you can continue to ignore and sanitize by equating it with the politics of identity and other religions. You can certainly defend any belief system from the irrational attacks of bigots, for instance those Freepers who refer to Muslims as carpet flyers and want nothing more than to turn the Middle East into glass. But you can't remain intellectually honest by coming here and defending believers from the rigors of rational deconstruction, especially if they're Muslim. Muslims are not exceptional because they're brown and victims of Western imperialism and persecution. We can't exclude their ridiculous and dangerous nonesense from the meat grinder into which we toss our own silly beliefs (Christianity, bell bottom pants). Equating their ridiculous and dangerous beliefs to others does not sanitize them nor does it protect them. It's open season on Islam, the LAST of Abraham's abominations.

Ivan A. D'Mocracy,

Your contrast of my hypothetical analogy with religious text is valid, if only in the sense that it serves to illustrate the pitfalls of accepting stories as historical fact.

That digression of yours aside, instead of accepting the insufficient excuse that any argument against belief will be rejected and immediately tossed aside as untenable, let us set out to establish a dialogue.

To what end do we insult another? Self-examination is not encouraged by insult and name-calling. This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Your presumption of me as a believer could be right, but I consider myself more of a questioner. I don't profess to know how the story ends or if it will continue into infinity, but I do appreciate the literature of holy texts; they are, after all, best sellers.

The faithful followers aren't as certain as even they profess. Specifically with Islam, there are new questions within Muslim society as the East and West converge; there are atheist Arabs. Those who question are our allies. Any argument must appeal to their rationality, not incite them by mocking their mothers and fathers. Islam is tightly interwoven into the culture of the Arab world.

Simply, D'mocracy, address the audience. Entreat them to enjoin in our analysis of religion. Perhaps they can point out its immutable benefits, if any.

Hollis III: Assuming that I generally stay away from fallacious arguments (noted: especially of the ad hominem kind), then it has been my experience that rational argument generally causes insult in the mind of the faithful (inserting A Few Good Men audio clip here: "You can't handle the truth" -- noting this may not apply to you personally, but is rather intended to generalize the mindset and reactions of most faith-heads).

But yes, it is "possible" for a dialogue to mutually advance a cause. A dialogue, as it continues, should both build to the foundation of agreement and mutual understanding, and to isolate and define the differences in point of view.

The problem is that when the time comes to reconcile the differences of points of view. I fear that there is generally some brain-logic-chip-part missing in the minds of the faithful. Somehow, given an otherwise voluminous amount of belief falsifying evidence, unreconcilable contradictions, and demonstrable errant facts and fallacies, that generally no amount of "reason" can sway the faithful from their "delusion". If it could, I contend that there would be virtually no religion in this day and age.

I "generally" find this to be true while talking with moderate and extremist faith-heads. And frankly, the loose brain-chip scares me -- not just on a personal level, but also for the continuing future of our delicate species.

Norm: Do you think it is ever appropriate to ridicule a belief, or an opinion?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

--Thomas Jefferson

Self-examination is not encouraged by insult and name-calling. This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Not necessarily, It is ad hominem, attack against the person. It is only a fallacy if given as a reason to disregard the person's argument.

The Islamic Scholars who agree with this are not solely Salafists like bin Laden, nor Kharijites, nor Secular tyrants like Mubarak Saddam and Musharraf, nor the Saudis, nor the Iranians, nor the Taliban, nor Hizbullah, nor Hamas, etc. etc. It also includes the "moderates" of the "Arab Street".

And that's the reason Islam is so special, compared to other religions? Because it creates more pressure on it's followers, and makes the lives of someone more miserable if they dare to question and protest, than any other religious sect?

Honestly: take a good look at the assumptions you're making, and think a bit about why you come up with this emotional, personally involved attack against an external threat, which you are not very knowledgeable about.

Why this shows up in the service of sec... atheism(?) in the current US political environment, for instance.

It's open season on Islam, the LAST of Abraham's abominations.

You're ahead of your time, I believe.

Norm: Not necessarily, It is ad hominem, attack against the person. It is only a fallacy if given as a reason to disregard the person's argument.

Well, a frightening amount of people actually think that their own sense of outrage is what decides whether something is offensive or not. And therefore thinks it's a rhetorical fallacy whenever something offends them or challenges their belief. Not to mention how that personal sense also decides what is reasonable, acceptable, and what isn't.

Shocking, isn't it.

Because it creates more pressure on it's followers, and makes the lives of someone more miserable if they dare to question and protest, than any other religious sect?

Yes, it creates more pressure, the pressure of a giant sword.

Yes, it puts misery in their lives, the misery of death.

but no, I was not speaking about mere criticism, though many are killed for that too. I was speaking of leaving the wretched cult. Your failure to read anything I said and attempt to project your own lack of knowledge of the subject onto me show for nothing more than the pathetic tossing of shadows at me. You have no arguments to be made here, no opinions to be shared, no extensively knowledge found in research, worst of all you can't even read properly. You aren't worth engaging in conversation.

and I can't write properly apparently

there is no compulsion in religion. Und: ARBEIT MACHT FREI. Maybe... Dionysus is really, underneath, or from above (more likely), an Ap(h)ol(l)ogram.

Naw.

Once again, I'm with Tom "paint-our-robots-brown-if-we-have-to" Tancredo, really. Let's knock that phuckin' chip off, a stitch in time saves,... The first al-Qaida attack (murder) in America was about a 1/2 mile from here, about....19.

19.

Look it up. Martin Gardner wrote a two part article about it in (two issues of) The Skeptical Inquirer.

There is no compulsion in religion? Here... is compulsion in religion. Compulsory death.

19.

Hijackers? Stitches?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 19 times...

361 times, 361 Gods. Stone the Koran! Phuck the Numerology.

These Sunni and Shia clerics follow sectarian Islam that relies on hadiths for 95% of its jurisprudence. Hadiths were "compiled" 2 to 3 centuries after the prophet. Each sects have hadiths that refutes the other. The prophet never left behind him any hadiths. The only text the prophet and the 4 caliphs left behind and spread was the Koran.

The Koran gave COMPLETE freedom for anyone. I mean anyone so long as the person does not commit violence.

The Quran(Koran) Concerning other monotheist faiths:

Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin good and forbid wrong; and they hasten in good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are God fearing. 3:113-115

And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture, those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. 3:199

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . 2:62

Say: "O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. 3:64

And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them 4.124

The Quran(Koran) Concerning who we fight or don't:

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40

The Quran(Koran) Concerning freedom:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

The Quran(Koran) concerning justice:

"And among His signs are the creation of the heaven and earth, and the variation in your language and your colors; verily in that are signs for those who know" (30:22).

"Satan seeks only to cast among you enmity and hate"(5:91).

O you who believe! Stand out for justice, as witnesses to God, and even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be rich or poor. An-Nisaa’ 4:134

"O you who believe! Be the maintainers of justice and bearers of witness for God's sake though it be against your own self, parents and relatives" (4:135).

"O you mankind! We have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you know each other. Verily the most honored in the sight of God is the one who is most righteous" (49:13).

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety and fear God, for God is well acquainted with all that you do. 5:8

And thus We made of you a justly balanced community that you might bear witness to humankind and the Apostle might bear witness over you. 2:143

O you who believe, observe your duty to God with right observance, and die not except in a state of submission (to Him). And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of God, and do not separate, and remember God's favor unto you: how you were enemies and He put love between your hearts so that you became as brothers by His grace: and how you were upon the brink of a fire and He saved you from it. Thus God makes clear His revelations unto you so that you may be guided" (3:102-103).

"The believers are nothing else other than brothers, Thus make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to God that you may haply receive His mercy" (49: 1 0).

The Quran(Koran) Concerning propagation:

Invite (all humankind) to the path of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the most kindly manner, for, indeed, your Lord knows best as to who strays from His path, and best who are the right-guided. (16:125)

Had your Lord so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained faith, will you then compel people, against their will, to believe? 10:99

And We have not sent you, but as mercy to all the worlds. 21:107

Islam is peace!

Verily, say "Ye onto the Lord, Jew or gentile be he not so ekky ekky patank, good boy, Mrs Fountelroy!" (45,54-37 rand(45-1.4))

There -- I made as much sense as Bigmo, with fewer words. Do I get a cookie now?