Republican wants the US to be more like Saudi Arabia

[Guest American Woman]

No, it wasn't peripherally directed at me...it was pointedly directed at me.

No, it wasn't. It was pointedly directed at the idea in the post I was responding to, for the reason I stated, which is not the same as directing it at you at all.

And yes, I have so far seen exactly one perfectly opposite side to my view on this thread: the poster who says "Islam sucks".....

What's wrong with thinking Islam sucks? He didn't say "Muslims suck." Is part of being tolerant of religion not being able to think it sucks? Do we not only have to respect their right to believe what they do, we have to respect their beliefs, too? Sorry, but I totally and completely disagree.

There are several aspects of Islam, especially as a woman, that I do think suck. There are several aspects of Catholicism that I think suck. I've never been a big fan of Catholicism, but I don't stand in judgement of Catholics because I don't agree with their beliefs. In fact, I've never had a problem saying just what I do think of Catholicism, so I ask you, am I in the wrong? Should I not say what I believe? Or is it ok to say any religion except Islam sucks?

For the record, I think there are aspects of my own religion that suck. I don't believe everything my denomination teaches/believes, and so far no one has ever had a problem with my expressing that. Why some people believe we should all tiptoe around Islam is something I don't understand.

[dre]

No, it wasn't. It was pointedly directed at the idea in the post I was responding to, for the reason I stated, which is not the same as directing it at you at all.

What's wrong with thinking Islam sucks? He didn't say "Muslims suck." Is part of being tolerant of religion not being able to think it sucks? Do we not only have to respect their right to believe what they do, we have to respect their beliefs, too? Sorry, but I totally and completely disagree.

There are several aspects of Islam, especially as a woman, that I do think suck. There are several aspects of Catholicism that I think suck. I've never been a big fan of Catholicism, but I don't stand in judgement of Catholics because I don't agree with their beliefs. In fact, I've never had a problem saying just what I do think of Catholicism, so I ask you, am I in the wrong? Should I not say what I believe? Or is it ok to say any religion except Islam sucks?

For the record, I think there are aspects of my own religion that suck. I don't believe everything my denomination teaches/believes, and so far no one has ever had a problem with my expressing that. Why some people believe we should all tiptoe around Islam is something I don't understand.

Its true.... ALL of the "Magic Sky God" belief clubs, are equally retarded and they DO suck.

[bloodyminded]

No, it wasn't. It was pointedly directed at the idea in the post I was responding to, for the reason I stated, which is not the same as directing it at you at all.

I was directing my post specifically at DogonPorch, who calls me an anti-semite, who calls me a terrorist supporter (even though I'm not, and he explicitly, incontrovertibly IS one): and you read more into it than was there.

What's wrong with thinking Islam sucks? He didn't say "Muslims suck." Is part of being tolerant of religion not being able to think it sucks? Do we not only have to respect their right to believe what they do, we have to respect their beliefs, too? Sorry, but I totally and completely disagree.

That's a fair point, and actually I do think Islam sucks, in collusion with religions generally, which all stink of rot and deceit. So fair enough.

But I think the part you omit is quite obviously my primary complaint.

For the record, I think there are aspects of my own religion that suck. I don't believe everything my denomination teaches/believes, and so far no one has ever had a problem with my expressing that. Why some people believe we should all tiptoe around Islam is something I don't understand.

I agree there's no good reason to tiptoe around criticism of Islam..

But anything coming from a terrorist-supporter like DogonPorch has to be taken with a grain of salt. If one supports Western terror, but throws tantrums at Islamist terror...well, that person is by definition not opposed to terrorism at all. It's sheer politicization, and nothing else.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Its true.... ALL of the "Magic Sky God" belief clubs, are equally retarded and they DO suck.

They are all retarded, yes. But "equally retarded"? How did you come to such a conclusion? What are you using as your criteria of their degree of retardation? What evidence did you evaluate to infer that, on the basis of these criteria, they all astonishingly turn out to be precisely equally retarded?

Personally, I'd say that some are likely to have a greater retardation coefficient than others. I think that it is possible to objectively evaluate the harm caused by certain religions and their modern adherents, and compare that between the various religions. I think that such a comparison would clearly show that in the present day, Islam is the most problematic religion, by a long shot, primarily due to the shear preponderance of incidents of unjustifiable violence, terrorism, and oppression committed by self-professed adherents of the faith.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Bonam

[WIP]

Meh...I don't run around telling Muslims they suck. But I'm quite happy saying Islam and all other religions suck because they do. That you like religion and all the BS it stands for is your business. Just don't expect everybody to share your fairy-tale viewpoint.

Talk about bullshit! You can't tell somebody that you respect them while saying that their religion sucks. Even if they don't believe religious dogma, they may still view their religion as part of their identity. If they have been part of a religious community for any length of time, especially if it is part of family tradition, the doctrines are not the primary reason they choose to be there.

[DogOnPorch]

Talk about bullshit! You can't tell somebody that you respect them while saying that their religion sucks. Even if they don't believe religious dogma, they may still view their religion as part of their identity. If they have been part of a religious community for any length of time, especially if it is part of family tradition, the doctrines are not the primary reason they choose to be there.

I sure can and will...too bad if you don't like it. Maybe if you lobby our government enough, they'll introduce blasphemy laws as per the UN. Then you can go on a few witch hunts againsts the unbelievers. Burn a few at the stake, perhaps.

Until then...bug off.

Edited August 5, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[WIP]

I sure can and will...too bad if you don't like it. Maybe if you lobby our government enough, they'll introduce blasphemy laws as per the UN. Then you can go on a few witch hunts againsts the unbelievers. Burn a few at the stake, perhaps.

I don't believe in blasphemy laws, but I also don't believe people should just say stupid things from a position of ignorance and belligerence.

Until then...bug off.

I was hoping you would have something more of substance to offer since you, and many other idiots here, go about trashing religion without having any understanding of why people turn to religion in the first place. Many people have turned to various religions for some form of guidance to living and feel a duty to something other than their own selfish interests and pleasures....but, apparently you do not! It's one thing to find meaning in your life without religion, but that also takes some study and developing self-awareness. Anyone who has waded into philosophy and ethical debates is not as likely to be so condescending and insulting to those who believe in a supernatural realm, and use some form of religion as a guide.

[dre]

They are all retarded, yes. But "equally retarded"? How did you come to such a conclusion? What are you using as your criteria of their degree of retardation? What evidence did you evaluate to infer that, on the basis of these criteria, they all astonishingly turn out to be precisely equally retarded?

Personally, I'd say that some are likely to have a greater retardation coefficient than others. I think that it is possible to objectively evaluate the harm caused by certain religions and their modern adherents, and compare that between the various religions. I think that such a comparison would clearly show that in the present day, Islam is the most problematic religion, by a long shot, primarily due to the shear preponderance of incidents of unjustifiable violence, terrorism, and oppression committed by self-professed adherents of the faith.

I dont look at the differences you point out in the degree to which various religions are "problematic in the present day", as differences that are intrinsic to the religions themselves, but more the societies in which most of the magic sky god enthusiasts live.

For example... Most Christians live in highly structured societies. They behave in general like everyone else in those socieities. If they dont, theyll get thrown in jail. Its worth noting that Muslims living in the US and west ALSO behave on balance more moderately than those living elsewhere.

All of the magic sky-god religions have the the same intrinsic potential to be highjacked by those that wish to do harm, and the problem of course is that people with the "follower mentality" that dont know how to think critically and dont live in an evidence based reality will believe pretty much anything that they are told by their religious and spiritual leaders.

So the level of "retardation" is the same it just manifests itself differently. The various different skygod believers are constrained by the societies in which they live to different degrees.

[Guest American Woman]

Talk about bullshit! You can't tell somebody that you respect them while saying that their religion sucks.

You sure as hell can. Islam sure makes no bones about their belief that only Muslims go to heaven. You think that's not saying all other religions suck? 'Your religion doesn't suck, but you're going to burn in hell for eternity, you unbelieving infidel.' Yeah, right.

And if you don't think the disrespect for/oppression of women within Islam sucks, I have to wonder where you are coming from. You actually don't believe that sucks? Do you respect it?

Even if they don't believe religious dogma, they may still view their religion as part of their identity. If they have been part of a religious community for any length of time, especially if it is part of family tradition, the doctrines are not the primary reason they choose to be there.

Why they chose to be there, how they view it, doesn't change what their religion is. Again, saying "Islam sucks" and saying "Muslims suck" are two very completely different things. If you think being tolerant of others right to believe what they do includes respecting their beliefs, I have to really wonder about what all you are "respecting."

[GostHacked]

Meh...I don't run around telling Muslims they suck. But I'm quite happy saying Islam and all other religions suck because they do. That you like religion and all the BS it stands for is your business. Just don't expect everybody to share your fairy-tale viewpoint.

So why pick on Muslims in particular? Since you do not like religion (as do I) why single out only one religion?

[Smallc]

You sure as hell can. Islam sure makes no bones about their belief that only Muslims go to heaven. You think that's not saying all other religions suck?

Ummm, you think that only Islam does that? And perhaps you should read what you were responding to again, as this doesn't even address that.

[GostHacked]

You sure as hell can. Islam sure makes no bones about their belief that only Muslims go to heaven. You think that's not saying all other religions suck? 'Your religion doesn't suck, but you're going to burn in hell for eternity, you unbelieving infidel.' Yeah, right.

If I don't repent my sins to Jesus, according to most Christians, I won't get to heaven either. That's if it exists.

And if you don't think the disrespect for/oppression of women within Islam sucks, I have to wonder where you are coming from. You actually don't believe that sucks? Do you respect it?

Oppression of women is bad anywhere. And there are many things I personally don't like, but I do respect many of them.

[WIP]

I dont look at the differences you point out in the degree to which various religions are "problematic in the present day", as differences that are intrinsic to the religions themselves, but more the societies in which most of the magic sky god enthusiasts live.

For example... Most Christians live in highly structured societies. They behave in general like everyone else in those socieities. If they dont, theyll get thrown in jail.

There is a stupid, ignorant analysis of religion that comes out of New Atheist books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in particular. Even most people who belong to fundamentalist churches do not internalize all the things they are taught at church. It goes in one ear and out the other. Take a look at surveys on doctrines of salvation for example. Many who belong to churches teaching exclusive salvation for an elect, still believe in something close to universal salvation. A survey on U.S. Catholics several years back not only found a majority believing that a good non-Christian can go to heaven, but about 15% also believed that animals, favourite pets in particular, could also go to heaven. It's likely because a natural sense of fairness leads most to at least feel uncomfortable about the prospect that people they like, who belong to different religions, or no religion, might have to go to hell.

Anyway, point being that you can't just read off a list of doctrines and assume that it's what the church members believe -- as Sam Harris does in his stupid "Letter To A Christian Nation" where he uses poll data on the numbers who believe Armageddon and the 2nd Coming will come soon, to extrapolate that 44% of the U.S. population is looking forward to an all out nuclear war.

Its worth noting that Muslims living in the US and west ALSO behave on balance more moderately than those living elsewhere.

I can vouch for that, since I live in a neighbourhood with a large number of immigrants, many of whom are Muslims. They go to work, send their kids to school, go shopping, look after their houses....pretty much the same things that everyone else is doing. It's mainly people who live in little all-white enclaves and suburbs who are falling for the modern version of the Red Terror.

All of the magic sky-god religions have the the same intrinsic potential to be highjacked by those that wish to do harm, and the problem of course is that people with the "follower mentality" that dont know how to think critically and dont live in an evidence based reality will believe pretty much anything that they are told by their religious and spiritual leaders.

I'm waiting for some New Atheist writer to show us some evidence that the people with this predisposition towards becoming movement followers would act any differently if their energies were redirected away from religion and supernatural beliefs. My suspicions are that "social dominators" and "authoritarian followers" are always in the population, and social upheavals bring them to the forefront....like the Tea Party Patriots for example.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You sure as hell can. Islam sure makes no bones about their belief that only Muslims go to heaven. You think that's not saying all other religions suck? 'Your religion doesn't suck, but you're going to burn in hell for eternity, you unbelieving infidel.' Yeah, right.

Neither does any other religion, the only religious folk who haven't told me I'm going to burn in hell/ not get into heaven have been Buddhists and Daoists, for obvious reasons. I had a Christian priest tell me I would burn in hell if I didn't come to Jesus when I was all of 8, think that event coloured my view of religion somewhat.

[dre]

I'm waiting for some New Atheist writer to show us some evidence that the people with this predisposition towards becoming movement followers would act any differently if their energies were redirected away from religion and supernatural beliefs. My suspicions are that "social dominators" and "authoritarian followers" are always in the population, and social upheavals bring them to the forefront....like the Tea Party Patriots for example.

I think that predisposition is at least partially LEARNED, and not necessarily something we are born with. Doctrinal thinking is often installed in children at a very young age by their parents. However Iv seen it postulated that there are various genes associated with doctrinal thinking, and with Group-Think in general.

like the Tea Party Patriots for example.

I have absolutely no evidence to back this up... But Im going to go out on a limb and guess that the VAST VAST majority of "tea party patriots" were indoctrinated into mainstream religion at a very young age, and already had those "throught processes" installed before any social upheaval brought them to the forfront.

Doctrinal thinkers will often follow OTHER doctrines besides their religion of choice. For example, during the runup to the invasion of Iraq evangelical Christians were more than 10% more likely to support the war. And it makes good sense... because we never actually got to see the "evidence" with our own eyes a leap of faith was required, and those people were more predisposed to taking that leap.

But you raise an interesting point for sure. Iv outlined a theory that the predisposition to doctrinal believe is installed in people by other people while theyre brains are still forming... and Im pretty sure thats true to a fairly large extent. But it fails to explain the almost universal adherence to doctrine by almost all humans in history. It seems like it has to be biological in part too.

[Guest American Woman]

Neither does any other religion, the only religious folk who haven't told me I'm going to burn in hell/ not get into heaven have been Buddhists and Daoists, for obvious reasons. I had a Christian priest tell me I would burn in hell if I didn't come to Jesus when I was all of 8, think that event coloured my view of religion somewhat.

And do you respect that? Or do you think it sucks?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And do you respect that? Or do you think it sucks?

I respect very little, tolerate on the other hand I'm willing to do.

[Guest American Woman]

I respect very little, tolerate on the other hand I'm willing to do.

Sounds as if you're in agreement then; one doesn't have to respect people's religious beliefs. One can say "Islam sucks" without being an intolerant bigot. Which was, after all, the point being made.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds as if you're in agreement then; one doesn't have to respect people's religious beliefs. One can say "Islam sucks" without being an intolerant bigot. Which was, after all, the point being made.

Yes, this is the fundamental issue for a liberal society with freedom of speech rights. Other religions and belief systems are subject to derision and insults without a second thought.

[dre]

Sounds as if you're in agreement then; one doesn't have to respect people's religious beliefs. One can say "Islam sucks" without being an intolerant bigot. Which was, after all, the point being made.

one doesn't have to respect people's religious beliefs. One can say "Islam sucks" without being an intolerant bigot

I dunno... Seems to me that if youre going around saying "Islam sucks" that theres a good chance youre just trying to offend people instead of offering any real meaningfull constructive critisism. Its sorta like something that a ten year old might say to a classmate during recess time.

Edited August 6, 2010 by dre

[WIP]

You sure as hell can. Islam sure makes no bones about their belief that only Muslims go to heaven. You think that's not saying all other religions suck? 'Your religion doesn't suck, but you're going to burn in hell for eternity, you unbelieving infidel.' Yeah, right.

Did you actually read this somewhere? Or did you get it from watching Glenn Beck? The real story in a nutshell is that the Quran displays varying degrees of acceptance of Christians,Jews and Sabians( an ancient monotheistic Arab religion) depending on whether it comes from the Meccan or Medinan verses. Some verses like Quran 22:17 say that anyone who has been informed about Allah and the Prophet, but refuses to say the Shahada, is cast into judgment along with infidels; other verses like Quran 2:62 and 5:69 say that any righteous monotheist may go to heaven -- and the definition of monotheism was even expanded by some Islamic scholars in India to include Hinduism...so at its most liberal, Islam was far more cosmopolitan than anything that came out of the Christian West.

On the other hand, does whatever particular brand of Christianity you buy at the store teach universal salvation? Not likely, because the vast majority of Christian creeds have follow exclusive doctrines for salvation. Christianity, aside from Universalism, never got around to letting anyone into heaven if they didn't believe Jesus was God.

Now, the point I tried to get through previously is that people who belong to a religion do not necessarily follow the exact interpretations of dogma; so we have a lot of Christians today who either are universalists, or believe in something pretty damn close to universal salvation, even though it is exactly the opposite of what their churches have taught them. Even supposedly rigid fundamentalist church members are more apt to let everyone into heaven than would be expected. The reason is because in modern society, we don't live in exclusive religious communities, where everyone believes the same thing. A basic sense of fairness makes it difficult to condemn a friend to hell for belonging to the wrong church...or no church at all.

It's worth noting here also, that although Christianity and Islam are the largest of the world's religions, most other religions have little to say about immortality, and who gets to go up, and who goes down! Whenever religious dogma fully matures, it will have to incorporate the latest findings from brain research, which shows conclusively that our minds are not an immaterial soul, that lives on after we die. The mind is what the brain does, and a lot of anxiety over heaven and hell can be avoided with the realization that neither exists, and we have to do our living in this life, instead of worrying about the next one. Most of the religious conflicts could be avoided if a chosen religion was about having a guide to leading a meaningful life and having a community with shared interests, rather than looking for the stairway to heaven.

And if you don't think the disrespect for/oppression of women within Islam sucks, I have to wonder where you are coming from. You actually don't believe that sucks? Do you respect it?

My eye doctor is a Muslim woman; besides wearing a hijab I suppose, how exactly is she oppressed by her religion? Point being that there are as many facets to how Islam is practiced, as their are to the various strains of Christianity, and you shouldn't use misogynistic cultural traditions to use as blanket condemnation for the whole religion!

Why they chose to be there, how they view it, doesn't change what their religion is. Again, saying "Islam sucks" and saying "Muslims suck" are two very completely different things.

No, and that's why you have two contradictory statements in the same sentence.

[WIP]

I think that predisposition is at least partially LEARNED, and not necessarily something we are born with. Doctrinal thinking is often installed in children at a very young age by their parents. However Iv seen it postulated that there are various genes associated with doctrinal thinking, and with Group-Think in general.

In that book I referenced (and I'll do it again since it's free online): "The Authoritarians" Bob Altemeyer outlines some of the factors that lead to highly authoritarian thinking, and a big one is fundamentalist religious teaching from an early age. Other factors included discipline in the home -- children who are subjected to corporal punishment from an early age, are being molded by their parents to follow rules without questioning them. This sort of upbringing does not lead to creative, unconventional thinkers. They want rules to follow, and will trend towards authoritarian religious and political movements when they reach adulthood. In other words, that's where conservatives come from!

I have absolutely no evidence to back this up... But Im going to go out on a limb and guess that the VAST VAST majority of "tea party patriots" were indoctrinated into mainstream religion at a very young age, and already had those "throught processes" installed before any social upheaval brought them to the forfront.

More than likely, if they've got idiots like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman as their leaders. But a lot of the people at these rallies are upper middle class business-owners, who avoid anything connected with religious issues (like abortion), and concentrate on cutting taxes and government spending.....except for military spending of course.

Doctrinal thinkers will often follow OTHER doctrines besides their religion of choice. For example, during the runup to the invasion of Iraq evangelical Christians were more than 10% more likely to support the war. And it makes good sense... because we never actually got to see the "evidence" with our own eyes a leap of faith was required, and those people were more predisposed to taking that leap.

One point from Altemeyer's book was that although there is an authoritarian core group, and a liberal non-conformist group at the other end of the scale, most people can move either direction depending on external circumstances. For example, if times are good, and the majority of people do not feel fearful, they will reject attempts by authoritarian leaders to put constraints on their freedoms. But, a majority of Americans supported the Invasion of Iraq, even though there was information early on that the WMD story was a hoax, all because the invasion came so close after 9/11. Fear of further terrorist attacks caused many people in the middle to drop their guard and support the "Patriot Act" and a war based on false pretenses. Many people who later changed their minds, would have never gone along with these schemes if they hadn't temporarily become authoritarians out of fear and uncertainty. And the Bush Administration took full advantage of the situation and tried to ramp up fear of terrorism when it was strategically useful to them.

[Guest American Woman]

Did you actually read this somewhere? Or did you get it from watching Glenn Beck?

This is as far as I've read again. If you want to engage in discussions with me, then drop the innuendos/insinuations/accusations. I've never watched Glenn Beck a day in my life. I have, however, read a variety of books. Again, if you want me to bother reading what you have to say, then drop the attitude.

[WIP]

This is as far as I've read again. If you want to engage in discussions with me, then drop the innuendos/insinuations/accusations. I've never watched Glenn Beck a day in my life. I have, however, read a variety of books. Again, if you want me to bother reading what you have to say, then drop the attitude.

Don't bother! You make broad, sweeping, insulting statements from a position of ignorance, and without bothering to learn anything about the religions you criticize, so why stop now?

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, this is the fundamental issue for a liberal society with freedom of speech rights. Other religions and belief systems are subject to derision and insults without a second thought.

Amen to that, and the proof is in this very thread: here. TrueMetis says that all religions believe that they are the only ones that are going to go to heaven, and not a peep. I, however, and raked through the coals for saying it about Islam. Also, not one word of objection to what I said about Catholicism or my own religion, but boy-oh-boy, how dare I say anything about Islam.

And again, these people think they are the tolerant ones.

Edited August 6, 2010 by American Woman