Dawkins And Eugenics: High Priest Of Evolution Reveals Its Ugly Side
Sound of Trumpet
http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
Dawkins and Eugenics
A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
by Carl Wieland
Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but
seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has
resiled for decades.
Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor
Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people
that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a
crutch for his atheistic faith, often saying, ‘Darwin made it possible
to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’
From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad,
no standard outside of human opinion. Dawkins is the author of the
recent book ‘The God Delusion’, in which he blames belief in God for
all manner of ‘bad things’ (even though his own philosophy says there
can be no objective yardstick for calling something ‘bad’) [see our
devastating review, Atheist with a Mission].
Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
‘fundamentalist atrocities’, implying that if only humanity were to
grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
peaceful utopia. It’s important to note that religion had nothing to
do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda,
Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in
South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-
French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the
Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian
wars …
Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler’s
genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely
antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to
exterminate Christianity. Not to mention the fact that the millions of
people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number
as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative
handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also
Christianity’s Real Record (off-site)).
Also, as many others have pointed out, those who engage in atrocities
are denying the Lord they claim to serve, whereas regimes like Pol Pot
and Stalin exhibit not the slightest inconsistency with their
underlying philosophies—the opposite, in fact. See Evolution and
Social Evil.
‘I hate to agree with Hitler, but …’
Adolf Hitler
Hitler’s ideas of a ‘master race’ were driven by Darwinian notions of
favouring the strong over the weak, and humans as a biological
commodity. Today’s cutting-edge evolutionists are seeking to revive
aspects of Nazi thought.
Eugenics is the ‘science’ developed by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton
(see Eugenics ... death of the defenceless). Based on the principles
of controlled selection, it advocates the increase of desirable
characteristics in a human population. Extreme applications of this
principle, however, have resulted in forced sterilization and culling
of the ‘less fit’.
This philosophy was prominent and popular prior to WW2, and in the
United States it led to the widespread practice of forcibly
sterilizing ‘undesirables’. Many in the US even lauded the Nazi
government’s public promotion of such principles as ‘progressive’.
See:
* The Lies of Lynchburg,
* Eugenics in Vermont
* America’s evolutionists: Hitler’s inspiration? (review of War
against the Weak by Edwin Black).
Eugenic ideas fuelled the thinking of the Nazis, including their
notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ program. It
progressively led to worse atrocities, including the pre-war
elimination of entire wards full of people who had serious chronic
mental handicaps, for example.
After the gruesome unveiling of the Nazi death camps following Allied
liberation, eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism slunk
shamefacedly into the shadows. (Although most modern evolutionists
would seek to dissociate themselves from social Darwinism, claiming
that it is a misapplication of Darwinian theory, Darwin was definitely
a social Darwinist). Yet it is unsurprising that such principles are
now under review, as selection of beneficial traits is logically
consistent with evolution.
Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be
that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald
(Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen
agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He
writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for
running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be
impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic
ability?’1
Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their
strongly held worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of
the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting
to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases. (This is different from
genetic repair of harmful mutations, because Christ’s healing example
shows that ameliorating effects of the curse is a blessing—see for
example:
* Reshaping people: Interview with plastic surgeon Dr David
Pennington
* Hot Potatoes: Is there a ‘creationist view’ on genetically
modified foods?
* Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?)
Breeding and culling humans
Dawkins writes:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at
least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for
musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it
is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed
them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would
probably end up persuading me.'
His fellow evolutionist Dr Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton
University, would strongly agree. Singer is also a prominent promoter
of euthanasia, including as a moral obligation in the case of certain
elderly/disabled people (though not, incidentally, his own mother when
she had Alzheimer’s). (Groups of the disabled picket his lectures in
Germany, since this country knows what eugenics is like in practice).
In addition, he regularly promotes the idea of infanticide, the right
of parents to dispose of babies, particularly handicapped ones. He
readily accepts that babies in the womb are human. Rather than this
being a reason not to kill them, he argues in reverse. If it is OK to
kill a baby in the womb (abortion) because it has not yet aspired to
the full ‘rights’ of ‘personhood’, why cannot one give parents the
right to decide, say for a few months of a newborn’s life, whether
they want to ‘accept’ the child or dispose of it?
The same is illustrated by a New Scientist report on an abortion task
force:2
The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies
indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from
the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of
a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient
under the care of modern medicine.
But since New Scientist, as an evolutionary magazine, is basically
anti-Christian, it added:
The point at which life acquires personhood is not something
biology can settle ...3
As a consequence of this anti-life ethic advocated by Dawkins and
Singer, some countries are already well embarked on the eugenic road,
permitting genetic screening in IVF clinics, as well as pre-birth
screening to permit undesirable traits to be weeded out by abortion.
Note that in some countries, one common ‘undesirable trait’ is being
female, which makes it bizarre that most of today’s feminists
fanatically support abortion for any reason—see China Gender Imbalance
Increases as Sex-Selection Abortions Continue.
Rights for apes, wrongs for people
On what basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a
clever chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
Another logical outcome of rejecting Genesis is that humans are no
longer regarded as uniquely created in the image of God. This
inevitably causes pressure in two directions: to demote and devalue
humanity, and to promote and elevate the animal kingdom (well beyond
its place in God’s created purpose—see The Greenness of God).
So it is no coincidence that Singer is perhaps the world’s leading
‘animal rights’ activist, and Dawkins is a leader of the movement to
have great apes be awarded the same legal rights as people. Such
things may still seem bizarre and unnatural to the reader, but
consider how much sense it makes to people steeped in evolutionism. No
Creator, no infallible revelation, no rules. No God, no soul. On what
basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a clever
chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
See also A ‘Bill of Rights’ for apes?
Evolutionists becoming more vocal with atheism
It seems that the Darwinian genie is out of the bottle, thanks in part
to the failure of a unified stand against its foundational philosophy,
and 'pro' Genesis history, by believers en masse.4 Evolution’s
promoters are becoming ever bolder in dispensing with the disingenuous
claims that evolution is not threatening to Christianity, into which
far too many churchians have bought. We see this not only in their
increasing frontal attacks on theistic religion (especially
Christianity, and particularly, and hysterically, on creationism—or
its slightest whiff a la ID)5 but in their social engineering visions.
We Christians should have realized that the evolutionary claims of
‘neutrality’ towards Christianity could not last—see this section of
The Hypocrisy of Intolerant ‘Tolerance’.
Conclusion
As generations continue to have all the facts of nature taught in a
framework that assumes the truth of the broad evolutionary paradigm,
and thus will always ‘reinforce’ it, we can expect society to get more
‘evolutionized’ continually, slowed by the lingering vestiges of the
Christian heritage in the West. Now, more than ever, individual
believers need to be spreading quality creation information to their
friends and neighbours, including showing them the consequences of
staying passive on this vital issue.
References
1. Cited in Hilary White, Anti-religion extremist Dawkins advocates
eugenics: says Nazi regime’s genocidal project ‘may not be bad’,
LifeSiteNews.com, 21 November 2006. Return to text
2. Alison Motluk, Science, politics and morality collide, New
Scientist 189(2543):8–9, 18 March 2006. Return to text
3. Note that even if that were true that we don’t know when
personhood begins, we should give it the benefit of the doubt. If you
didn’t know whether a body was dead, you would not bury it; if you
didn’t know that a condemned building was empty, you wouldn’t blow it
up; if you didn’t know whether a movement in the bush was a deer or a
man, you would be culpable of shooting in that direction. I.e. the
benefit of the doubt must be given to life; the onus is on the pro-
abortionists to prove that the unborn is not a person. Return to text
4. Another one is an American Dawkins clone called Sam Harris,
whose shrill attacks and sloppy understanding of the Bible and history
are refuted in J.P. Holding, Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist,
November 2006. Return to text
5. See for example the favorable article on a recent conference of
antitheistic scientists in La Jolla, CA: Michael Brooks, In place of
God: Can secular science ever oust religious belief—and should it even
try? New Scientist 192(2578):8–11, 18 November 2006. Return to text
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
["Sound of BULLCRAP" <SoundO...@dcemail.com>] PARROTED:
> Dawkins and Eugenics
>
> A leading high priest of evolution...
<flush bigoted & nonsensical swill>
ROTFL!!!
Either you are trying to compete with "Jon Young"/"IBeen Getiner"
for the title of "Usenet's Most Absurd PARROT," or human cloning
has arrived, and you're outing the two of you as an example of it.
Any dictator can *misuse* SCIENCE, and Hitler's regime was
adept at committing such abuses. That is the fault of the *regime*
-- NOT of SCIENCE!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
FACTUAL Evolution... vis-a-vis DOLTISH "Creationism"
Actually, macroevolution has been proven with an overwhelming
weight of evidence. That is why it has withstood over a century of
attacks from creationists and those that would deny it. It is one of
the most solidly-supported scientific theories currently in existence.
However, understanding the evidence takes some intelligence and
cannot easily be explained in a single post. Usually, the easiest
solution is to point the person to a website that explains the topic in
detail, such as http://talkorigins.org. Not that an ardent creationist
will read it or try to understand it.
The Theory of Evolution is the basis for a number of branches of
science, and is influential in medicine as well. The findings in these
areas also support the theory.
Usually, when creationists attack evolution, they usually do so by
asserting that their deity created the earth and left and so on, which
is a positive assertion and requires that the creationist support his
claim with evidence that does not depend on his personal beliefs.
Something that they cannot do. They are also asked to provide their
objective evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution so that
everyone can examine it and confirm their claims. They cannot do
this either because they do not have any objective evidence to
present, only their personal, subjective, unscientific beliefs.
-- Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>, 6-23-08
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
To those "Intelligent Design"/"Creationist" RRR Cultists ---
*My* God is omniscient and omnipotent, and therefore
would have had no problem creating an evolutionary
process to go along with everything else in the universe.
Too bad about *yours*.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
IAAH
> http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
> Dawkins and Eugenics
>
> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>
> by Carl Wieland
>
>
> seeks to revive aspects of Hitler�s thinking from which the West has
> resiled for decades.
>
> Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor
> Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people
> that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a
> to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.�
>
> From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad,
> no standard outside of human opinion.
From *that*, it follows that the author and the
poster are both idiots.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Spartakus
> http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
> Dawkins and Eugenics
>
> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>
> by Carl Wieland
Anyone who takes this crap seriously is a moron who shouldn't be
entrusted with tasks more complicated than emptying wastebaskets.
IAAH
Unfortunately they'd still be entrusted with
having children and raising them.
Free Lunch
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
>Dawkins and Eugenics
>
>A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>
>by Carl Wieland
>
>
>Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for �atrocities�, but
>seeks to revive aspects of Hitler�s thinking from which the West has
>resiled for decades.
Why do you repeat the lies of so-called Christians like Carl Wieland?
...
(`�.�Craig Chilton�.��) .. WHY be Employed When You Can Scam People Like Me? <www.faithguard.org>
Sound of BULLCRAP Craig Chilton PARROTED:
in message news:7hhdf5dmml7vqce8b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0800 (PST),
>
>
> ROTFL!!!
>
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17622
The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion
clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida
Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been
expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was
unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA
press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to
grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to
do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda,
Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in
South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-
French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the
Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian
wars .
Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's
genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely
antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to
exterminate Christianity. Not to mention the fact that the millions of
people killed last century by anti-God r�gimes are so vast in number
duke
Employed When You Can Scam People Like Me? <www.faithguard.org>"
<xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>Sound of BULLCRAP Craig Chilton PARROTED:
> in message news:7hhdf5dmml7vqce8b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> <flush bigoted & nonsensical swill>
>>
>> ROTFL!!!
>>
>
>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17622
>
>The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion
>clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida
>Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been
>expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was
>unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
>
>Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA
>press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
>
>Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
>'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to
>grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
>peaceful utopia.
You mean like murdering children?
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ray Fischer
>
>http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
>Dawkins and Eugenics
>
>A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
There are no priests of evolution. There's just the propaganda of
irrational anti-science kooks.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ('duke") <duckg...@cox.net> ...
...was MORONIC enough to respond to an
**obvious** FORGERY!
ROTFL!! What a tool.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[[[ IGNORE the LYING and FORGED subject header above,
written by a SUBMORONIC CRETIN. ]]]
**OBVIOUS** FORGERY ---
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:23:38 -0900, "\(`�.�Craig Chilton�.��\) ..
WHY be Employed <www.faithguard.org>"
<forged garbage flushed>
It's FUN to watch the DESPERATION of the bigots as their
hate-agendas swirl faster and faster down the Drain of Extinction!
It's the best comic theater since the equally-ignorant segrega-
tionists bit the dust!
[[[ READERS: Note the DISCREPENCIES between the data
above, and the user information in MY posts.
So in case you want to see a good example of just *how*
abjectly IGNORANT the FORGER who posted this crap is
-- just consider the fact that the average 4-year-old newbie
would probably be able to copy and paste my user data
accurately -- but THIS dolt isn't even THAT intelligent. Thus
making it OBVIOUS that I had nothing to do with the posting.
They should start a new TV show for that bigoted CLOWN
and entitle it, "Are You Smarter Than a PRE-schooler?" The
pre-schooler would run circles around the ignoramus.
(AND -- what a good reminder provides that bigotry and
intelligence NEVER go together. LOL!!! What a tool. ]]]
David Canzi
In the past week or so, "Sound of Trumpet" has posted moralistic
messages from:
90.176.250.190 - The Czech Republic
91.198.227.49 - Denmark
58.120.227.83 - Korea
85.214.73.63 - Germany
66.96.16.32 - Canada
69.71.222.187 - USA
I wonder how he reconciles exploiting security holes in other
people's computers with his seemingly Christian position.
--
David Canzi
Michael Price
>
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0800 (PST),
>
> > <flush bigoted & nonsensical swill>
>
> > ROTFL!!!
>
> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17622
>
> The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion
> clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida
> Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been
> expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was
> unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
>
> Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA
> press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
>
> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
> 'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to
> grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
> peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to
> do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda,
> Falklands War, Vietnam
Very arguable, JFK probably supported the South because of it's
large
Catholic population.
> and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in
> South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War,
Very specifically a war to "Christianize" large parts of the globe
(many
of them already largely Christian).
> Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War,
At the very least encouraged by religious beliefs on both sides.
> Napoleonic wars,
Sorry, that was very much religious, both from the point of very of
protecting the
Church and it's property to making sure Catholics didn't run Europe
(depending
on which ally you talked to). So you've been wrong at least 3 times
that I, a
complete amateur can detect.
> Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian
> wars .
>
> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's
> genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely
> antibiblical) fervour that drove them,
There was no evolutionary support for Hitler's theories, in fact
evolution would suggest
that genocide is unneccesary. The bible on the other hand makes clear
that genocide
is fine.
> as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity.
He remained a Christian until the day he died.
> Not to mention the fact that the millions of
> people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number
> as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative
> handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also
> Christianity's Real Record (off-site)).
None of the deaths caused by atheists were caused by any fundamental
quality of atheism though, unlike the murders by Christians.
Michael Price
> In article <67f66765-1efe-4b3d-8204-0718dfca5...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
> In the past week or so, "Sound of Trumpet" has posted moralistic
> messages from:
>
> 90.176.250.190 - The Czech Republic
> 91.198.227.49 - Denmark
> 58.120.227.83 - Korea
> 85.214.73.63 - Germany
> 66.96.16.32 - Canada
> 69.71.222.187 - USA
>
> I wonder how he reconciles exploiting security holes in other
> people's computers with his seemingly Christian position.
>
> --
> David Canzi
God gave him permission to steal for his glory.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Of course, the entire middle east has been at war over religion for
> over two thousand years. Not to mention a few hundred years in the
> Balkan States.
Rather, Islam has been at war. Not "religion"
The OP is wrong to blame Darwin, but the true problem is that when a
civilization's ruling religion expires, the vacuum is apt to be filled
by faiths far more foolish, destructive, and deadly: in our case Gaia
worship, islam, socialism, and new ageism, states that aspire to the
theocratic power that they absurdly accuse Christianity of exercising.
When people believe in nothing, they are apt to believe in anything.
Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease that protects people
against more serious diseases. Global Warming is theocracy and the
forcible imposition of religion. Marriage is not.
Free Lunch
Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<408e896e-9b3e-4ad0...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 9, 5:23�am, "\(`�.�Craig Chilton�.��\) .. WHY be Employed When
>You Can Scam People Like Me? <www.faithguard.org>"
><xanadu...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Sound of BULLCRAP Craig Chilton PARROTED:
>> �in messagenews:7hhdf5dmml7vqce8b...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> > <flush bigoted & nonsensical swill>
>>
>> > � � ROTFL!!!
>>
>> http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17622
>>
>> The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion
>> clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida
>> Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been
>> expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was
>> unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
>>
>> Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA
>> press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
>>
>> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
>> 'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to
>> grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
>> peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to
>> do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda,
>> Falklands War, Vietnam
>
> Very arguable, JFK probably supported the South because of it's large
>Catholic population.
We were already in Vietnam when JFK became President.
>> and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in
>> South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War,
>
> Very specifically a war to "Christianize" large parts of the globe
>(many of them already largely Christian).
>
>> Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War,
>
> At the very least encouraged by religious beliefs on both sides.
>
>> Napoleonic wars,
>
> Sorry, that was very much religious, both from the point of very of protecting the
>Church and it's property to making sure Catholics didn't run Europe (depending
>on which ally you talked to). So you've been wrong at least 3 times that I, a
>complete amateur can detect.
>
>> Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian
>> wars .
>>
>> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's
>> genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely
>> antibiblical) fervour that drove them,
>
> There was no evolutionary support for Hitler's theories, in fact evolution would suggest
>that genocide is unneccesary. The bible on the other hand makes clear that genocide
>is fine.
>
>> as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity.
>
> He remained a Christian until the day he died.
>
>> Not to mention the fact that the millions of
>> people killed last century by anti-God r�gimes are so vast in number
James A. Donald
> > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to
> > believe in anything.
> >
> > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease
> > that protects people against more serious diseases.
Attila
> There are few more serious such diseases,
The Gaia worshippers want to sacrifice man to their God.
The Christians sacrifice their god to themselves.
Christians eat Christ, Gaia eats man, as illustrated in
the death of millions from protected malarial
mosquitoes, and deaths, much fewer in number, but
considerably more dramatic, from man eating salt water
crocodiles.
As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah
has to say about Fort Hood incident:
<http://google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/%3Fp=228&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>
Imagine the reaction if a Christian blew up an abortion
clinic, and his pastor were to say "good job"
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:15:09 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>wrote:
>> Of course, the entire middle east has been at war over religion for
>> over two thousand years. Not to mention a few hundred years in the
>> Balkan States.
>
>Rather, Islam has been at war. Not "religion"
Heard the same religious bigotry from the nazis 70 years ago.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Constantinople
> James A. Donald
>
> > > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to
> > > believe in anything.
>
> > > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease
> > > that protects people against more serious diseases.
>
> Attila
>
> > There are few more serious such diseases,
>
> The Gaia worshippers want to sacrifice man to their God.
> The Christians sacrifice their god to themselves.
> Christians eat Christ, Gaia eats man, as illustrated in
> the death of millions from protected malarial
> mosquitoes, and deaths, much fewer in number, but
> considerably more dramatic, from man eating salt water
> crocodiles.
>
> As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah
> has to say about Fort Hood incident:
>
> Imagine the reaction if a Christian blew up an abortion
> clinic, and his pastor were to say "good job"
See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring
the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the
discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated
numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding
in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large
number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on
whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those
agreed with that assumption. I only read two thirds of the comments,
the first 131 comments - I am summarizing that.
Kilmir
wrote:
> http://creation.com/dawkins-and-eugenics
>
> Dawkins and Eugenics
>
> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>
> by Carl Wieland
>
> Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but
> seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has
> resiled for decades.
Oh boy, lieing from the get go. Good start.
> Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor
> Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people
> that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a
> crutch for his atheistic faith, often saying, ‘Darwin made it possible
> to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’
Dawkings would be an atheist based on the lack of evidence of gods.
The Theory of Evolution explains one of life's mysteries to a
fulfilling degree.
Other theories like the one for gravity and the big bang theory
fulfill other
aspects of fundamental questions.
Calling them crutches is misrepresenting the facts.
> From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad,
> no standard outside of human opinion.
No objective good or bad no.
Morals and ethics already change according to culture and progressive
knowledge. Even if there happend to be a god, there is still loads of
evidence that morals are not objectively defined. If you disagree I
might
ask when was the last time you killed your children for disobeying.
Or
ate the heart of a member of a rival clan you killed? Those were
accepted morals in older civilisations.
> Dawkins is the author of the
> recent book ‘The God Delusion’, in which he blames belief in God for
> all manner of ‘bad things’ (even though his own philosophy says there
> can be no objective yardstick for calling something ‘bad’) [see our
> devastating review, Atheist with a Mission].
There is no objective good or bad. The subjective ones are mostly
cultural, changing over time. Morals are mostly determined by what is
good for society (or in more primitive times, for the family, tribe or
city etc). Very detrimental things have been considered bad since
ancient times. Murder or theft within the own group for instance is so
bad for group cohesion that it's been considered "bad" by practically
every culture.
What Dawkings eludes to is that religions in the past centuries have
gone from being beneficial to a detrimental influence on the
development of society. In the present day the detrimental effects of
religions massively outweigh the supposed benefits.
> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other
> ‘fundamentalist atrocities’, implying that if only humanity were to
> grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some
> peaceful utopia.
Incorrect. Most atheists, among whom Dawkings, acknowledge other
sources of strife. But to take up all sources of bad things in the
world is way more then any person can handle. What atheists do focus
on is the one that impacts them directly. Making the world a step at a
time so to say.
> It’s important to note that religion had nothing to
> do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda,
> Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in
> South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian-
> French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the
> Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian
> wars …
Probably true.
> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler’s
> genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely
> antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to
> exterminate Christianity.
Hitler the christian who was on good terms with the pope, promoted
belief in god and had atheists on the top of his hit list (even above
jews)? That Hitler?
He didn't want to exterminate Christiaanity, he wanted to reform it to
acknowledge a master race or something like that. He never lost faith
in God or Jesus.
> Not to mention the fact that the millions of
> people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number
> as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative
> handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also
> Christianity’s Real Record (off-site)).
The people killed weren't in the name of atheism though. Just like all
those wars that weren't religious. The crusades, inquisition,
conquistadors etc were directly working to promote their religion.
Besides, conquistadors killed off roughly 20% of the world population
in their time. Nobody in any time frame ever came close to relative
numbers like that.
> Also, as many others have pointed out, those who engage in atrocities
> are denying the Lord they claim to serve, whereas regimes like Pol Pot
> and Stalin exhibit not the slightest inconsistency with their
> underlying philosophies—the opposite, in fact. See Evolution and
> Social Evil.
Stalin's philosophy was Marxism or communism. What he did was a
tyranny (one ruler) which is directly opposed to communism (everybody
equal). Stalin is close to the epitome of philosophical inconsistency.
Those who engage in atrocities for the Lord usually derive their
justification from the same book that condemns them. The Bible is
filled with contradictions so any viewpoint can be justified. They
were convinced they were doing what the abrahamic god wanted them to
do just as much as present day Christians are convinced they were
wrong.
> ‘I hate to agree with Hitler, but …’
> Adolf Hitler
>
> Hitler’s ideas of a ‘master race’ were driven by Darwinian notions of
> favouring the strong over the weak, and humans as a biological
> commodity. Today’s cutting-edge evolutionists are seeking to revive
> aspects of Nazi thought.
>
> Eugenics is the ‘science’ developed by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton
> (see Eugenics ... death of the defenceless). Based on the principles
> of controlled selection, it advocates the increase of desirable
> characteristics in a human population. Extreme applications of this
> principle, however, have resulted in forced sterilization and culling
> of the ‘less fit’.
>
> This philosophy was prominent and popular prior to WW2, and in the
> United States it led to the widespread practice of forcibly
> sterilizing ‘undesirables’. Many in the US even lauded the Nazi
> government’s public promotion of such principles as ‘progressive’.
> See:
>
> * The Lies of Lynchburg,
> * Eugenics in Vermont
> * America’s evolutionists: Hitler’s inspiration? (review of War
> against the Weak by Edwin Black).
Theory of Evolution deals with natural causes and populations over
time. The fact of evolution itself is not good or evil, it's just a
fact of life.
Eugenics is more like dog-breeding. It has nothing to do with the ToE
and just focusses on the fact of evolution and tries to steer it.
Eugenics is self-defeating though. By eliminating any deviant
properties the result is actually eliminating evolution. You could say
that eugenicists are trying to stop evolution even more then
creationists are.
> Eugenic ideas fuelled the thinking of the Nazis, including their
> notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ program. It
> progressively led to worse atrocities, including the pre-war
> elimination of entire wards full of people who had serious chronic
> mental handicaps, for example.
>
> After the gruesome unveiling of the Nazi death camps following Allied
> liberation, eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism slunk
> shamefacedly into the shadows. (Although most modern evolutionists
> would seek to dissociate themselves from social Darwinism, claiming
> that it is a misapplication of Darwinian theory, Darwin was definitely
> a social Darwinist). Yet it is unsurprising that such principles are
> now under review, as selection of beneficial traits is logically
> consistent with evolution.
Evolution is a fact. Finding better cures for diseases is a beneficial
application, Hitler's eugenics is a detrimental application.
Nuclear fusion is a fact. Building nuclear reactors for cheaper energy
is a beneficial application, nuclear bombs is a detrimental
application.
Just get it already!
> Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be
> that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald
> (Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen
> agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He
> writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for
> running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be
> impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic
> ability?’1
There is something to be said for that. And as Dawkings probably
mentioned as well, when you go down that road you need to focus on
good parts and/or fixing bad ones. Not eliminating people with bad
genes and not trying to get everyone equal; those things defeat the
purpose.
But it needs to be debated now that technology is getting close to
cloning and direct gene manipulation. We need to know where we stand
as mankind preferably before the first genetically altered babies see
the light (and they will appear, initially just altered to fix chronic
diseases probably)
> Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their
> strongly held worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of
> the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting
> to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases. (This is different from
> genetic repair of harmful mutations, because Christ’s healing example
> shows that ameliorating effects of the curse is a blessing—see for
> example:
Let's leave the mythological figures out of the debate please.
> * Reshaping people: Interview with plastic surgeon Dr David
> Pennington
> * Hot Potatoes: Is there a ‘creationist view’ on genetically
> modified foods?
> * Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?)
>
> Breeding and culling humans
>
> Dawkins writes:
>
> I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at
> least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for
> musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it
> is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed
> them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would
> probably end up persuading me.'
You do understand that Dawkings basically claims here that he'll
probably persuade himself to say no to eugenics?
> His fellow evolutionist Dr Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton
> University, would strongly agree. Singer is also a prominent promoter
> of euthanasia, including as a moral obligation in the case of certain
> elderly/disabled people (though not, incidentally, his own mother when
> she had Alzheimer’s). (Groups of the disabled picket his lectures in
> Germany, since this country knows what eugenics is like in practice).
>
> In addition, he regularly promotes the idea of infanticide, the right
> of parents to dispose of babies, particularly handicapped ones. He
> readily accepts that babies in the womb are human. Rather than this
> being a reason not to kill them, he argues in reverse. If it is OK to
> kill a baby in the womb (abortion) because it has not yet aspired to
> the full ‘rights’ of ‘personhood’, why cannot one give parents the
> right to decide, say for a few months of a newborn’s life, whether
> they want to ‘accept’ the child or dispose of it?
His viewpoint has merits.But as soon as you start to think you can
spot flaws in the morality. It's good he raises the subject by taking
an
> The same is illustrated by a New Scientist report on an abortion task
> force:2
>
> The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies
> indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from
> the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of
> a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient
> under the care of modern medicine.
>
> But since New Scientist, as an evolutionary magazine, is basically
> anti-Christian, it added:
>
> The point at which life acquires personhood is not something
> biology can settle ...3
They are not anti-Christian or pre-evolution but just honest. A fetus
can't survive as a separate being till after 24 weeks. It doesn't even
have a nervous system to register any emotions or whatever till that
time either.
> As a consequence of this anti-life ethic advocated by Dawkins and
> Singer, some countries are already well embarked on the eugenic road,
> permitting genetic screening in IVF clinics, as well as pre-birth
> screening to permit undesirable traits to be weeded out by abortion.
Chronic diseases, birth defects.. instead of getting a child which
will have a rough to terrible life fileld with pain they abort and try
again for a healthier child. Net result: still just 1 child but in a
much better shape.
You prefer people to suffer don't you?
> Note that in some countries, one common ‘undesirable trait’ is being
> female, which makes it bizarre that most of today’s feminists
> fanatically support abortion for any reason—see China Gender Imbalance
> Increases as Sex-Selection Abortions Continue.
And if they're not aborted the born children are killed because
parents only can have 1 child, due to China's government enforced
restrictions, and when it's a boy it can continue the family name,
gain better income etc.
The problem is the 1 child norm together with gender inequality, not
the sex-selective abortions.
> Rights for apes, wrongs for people
>
> On what basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a
> clever chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
Most ethics are based around "own tribe first". Own family before own
city before own country before own religion before own species etc.
Somewhere you draw a line pretty much arbitrarily. So far lines have
been moving mostly on knowledge gained ("Oh the people in the other
tribe aren't as different as us!", "Oh those <race> people aren't as
different as us!") but we're starting to run into the limits. Species
is probably a good line to draw with the knowledge we have. Though
groups like PETA are trying to move even that line for certain aspects
like right to live etc.
> Another logical outcome of rejecting Genesis is that humans are no
> longer regarded as uniquely created in the image of God. This
> inevitably causes pressure in two directions: to demote and devalue
> humanity, and to promote and elevate the animal kingdom (well beyond
> its place in God’s created purpose—see The Greenness of God).
Demote and devalue humanity? We're the only species that has developed
the ability to change our circumstances instead of the circumstances
changing us. We should be proud of that. It makes me much more special
then when some uberbeing played with mud and animated it to dance to
it's desires.
But aside from that comparison, the evidence is pointing to your story
being make-belief and the ToE describing what really happened. I
prefer the truth over what I want it to be.
> So it is no coincidence that Singer is perhaps the world’s leading
> ‘animal rights’ activist, and Dawkins is a leader of the movement to
> have great apes be awarded the same legal rights as people. Such
> things may still seem bizarre and unnatural to the reader, but
> consider how much sense it makes to people steeped in evolutionism. No
> Creator, no infallible revelation, no rules. No God, no soul. On what
> basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a clever
> chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
I can think of some arguments, I'll probably disagree with Dawkings on
this subject.
But regardless, the Bible is a storybook with outdated morals. If you
disagree with Dawkings then present arguments based in reality.
> See also A ‘Bill of Rights’ for apes?
> Evolutionists becoming more vocal with atheism
>
> It seems that the Darwinian genie is out of the bottle, thanks in part
> to the failure of a unified stand against its foundational philosophy,
> and 'pro' Genesis history, by believers en masse.4 Evolution’s
> promoters are becoming ever bolder in dispensing with the disingenuous
> claims that evolution is not threatening to Christianity, into which
> far too many churchians have bought.
Modified Christianity these days accepts evolution and push the deity
to areas close to deism.
I agree with you that accepting evolution, which any honest
intelligent person will have to, chips away at the foundations of
Christianity. Honestly my hope is that theists will lose their faith
when they realize it clashes with reality. Just like all the other
myths it's time for the present day religions to become history.
> We see this not only in their
> increasing frontal attacks on theistic religion (especially
> Christianity, and particularly, and hysterically, on creationism—or
> its slightest whiff a la ID)5 but in their social engineering visions.
> We Christians should have realized that the evolutionary claims of
> ‘neutrality’ towards Christianity could not last—see this section of
> The Hypocrisy of Intolerant ‘Tolerance’.
The funny part is that the claim that accepting evolution doesn't mean
losing faith in the christian god is a made by Christians in the first
place. I personally, and I expect more atheists, would love to see the
religions lose members due to the spread of knowledge.
> Conclusion
>
> As generations continue to have all the facts of nature taught in a
> framework that assumes the truth of the broad evolutionary paradigm,
> and thus will always ‘reinforce’ it, we can expect society to get more
> ‘evolutionized’ continually, slowed by the lingering vestiges of the
> Christian heritage in the West.
Yes, those attempts to hinder knowledge and understanding are the
prime reason why people like Dawkings and Dennet started to pounce on
religion in the first place.
> Now, more than ever, individual
> believers need to be spreading quality creation information to their
> friends and neighbours, including showing them the consequences of
> staying passive on this vital issue.
Spreading creation information? Along with the brochure promoting
astrology and flat-earth theory?
First get a decent theory that explains all the evidence, then we
promise we won't point and laugh like we do now.
Kilmir
James A. Donald
> > > > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to
> > > > believe in anything.
> > > >
> > > > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease
> > > > that protects people against more serious diseases.
Attila
> > > There are few more serious such diseases,
James A. Donald
> > As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah
> > has to say about Fort Hood incident:
> >
Constantinople:
> See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring
> the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the
> discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated
> numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding
> in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large
> number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on
> whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those
> agreed with that assumption.
It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast
majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam. Therefore we
are at war with Islam. We are not at war with "terror", not even at
war with "Islamofascism". We are at war with Islam. Islam is the
enemy, no matter how much we wish otherwise. Checking back through
history, we see a thousand years of unilateral and unsuccessful
declarations of peace by Christendom, such as Jefferson's infamous
declaration of the end of the "first" Barbary war. Jefferson "ended"
it, but the other side did not. Does this sound familiar?
This kind of warfare just does not fit into the Westphalian model of
war between nation states. Charles the Great's Westphalian style
expeditions had the usual depressing results, foreshadowing a thousand
years of similarly unsuccessful operations. The best he could do was
to create a desert between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. What
succeeded for Charles the Great and his successors was to grant Muslim
lands and Muslim people to Christian adventurers - the landgoing
equivalent of letters of marque and reprisal.
War between Muslim non state entities and Christian non state entities
worked out pretty well for Christendom. War between Muslim states and
Christian states did not work out so well, because victory over a
Muslim state merely transitioned into war between Christian states and
Muslim non state entities. War by Christian centralized states has
only been successful to the extent that they were willing to create
deserts.
Constantinople
> James A. Donald
>
> > > > > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to
> > > > > believe in anything.
>
> > > > > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease
> > > > > that protects people against more serious diseases.
>
> Attila
>
> > > > There are few more serious such diseases,
>
> James A. Donald
>
> > > As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah
> > > has to say about Fort Hood incident:
>
We (the US) are still trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and
these fanatics. For example:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/in_which_i_agree_with_marc_lynch_abu_aardvark.html
which I think probably expresses some of the thinking on the US side.
However, if eight years on we are still having this problem then it is
probably futile. And if it is futile despite everything done to avert
it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no solution short of
killing them all, but we've survived Islamic aggression for over a
thousand years and we can probably survive another thousand years.
James A. Donald
> We (the US) are still trying to drive a wedge between
> Muslims and these fanatics. For example:
>
> http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/in_which_i_agree_with_marc_lynch_abu_aardvark.html
>
> which I think probably expresses some of the thinking
> on the US side. However, if eight years on we are
> still having this problem then it is probably futile.
> And if it is futile despite everything done to avert
> it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no
> solution short of killing them all, but we've survived
> Islamic aggression for over a thousand years and we
> can probably survive another thousand years.
Quite so. But we did not survive it by denying the
problem, nor by prematurely announcing peace. All these
strategies have been tried before, with results
unfailingly dreadful. We are not the first to pursue
peace by political correctness.
Rather, the effectual strategy over the last thousand
years or so has been to make state to state war until
Islamic heads of state are deterred by fear that they
will be overthrown and replaced by someone else, and non
state to non state war, until non state Islamic holy
warriors are deterred by fear that they will lose their
lands and their women to Christian brigands.
Contrary to the myths of the Marines, the Barbary wars
were ended not by US marines, but by Christian settlers.
When Christian settlers moved into the Barbary coast,
then Islam, all of Islam, not just the Barbary coast,
became peaceful. When they were kicked out of the
Barbary coast, Islam, all of Islam, started to make
trouble again.
This strategy - settlement by piratical and violent
Christian settlers worked for Christendom when Charles
the Great applied it in 780 AD, and worked when the
French employed it in 1830.
When a nation state army attempts to fight a bunch of
local small scale wars, it suffers diseconomies of
scale, thus large Christian states have generally done
poorly against non state, not-quite-state, and semi
state Islamic enemies. The solution to this problem has
always been to privatize the war effort - using soldiers
that directly answer to the Christian head of state
(state soldiers and state armies) only against large
scale enemies, only against enemies that are
conventional states, and encouraging adventurers,
mercenaries, brigands, and pirates against more
dispersed enemies, against non state and not-quite-state
enemies.
Terry Cross
>
> which I think probably expresses some of the thinking on the US side.
> However, if eight years on we are still having this problem then it is
> probably futile. And if it is futile despite everything done to avert
> it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no solution short of
> killing them all, but we've survived Islamic aggression for over a
> thousand years and we can probably survive another thousand years.
This analysis totally ignores the thousand years of European
harassment and looting of the Muslim nations. No one can claim the
West has left Islam in peace. Imperialism is the Peace that
Devastates.
When the European Jews were sent to Palestine, that was war. The
Zionist gangs Tsel, Irgun, and Hagana operated as terrorists making
war on farmers, women, and children.
http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index.php/weblog/comments/israeli_massacres_details_and_numbers/
Europe is continuously carving up the Arab lands and installing
puppets, as in the "creation" of Kuwait. When Europe installed and
supported the Saudis in Arabia, do you think that was a peaceful act?
When the Saudi puppets machine gunned the Haaj in 1987, was that
peaceful?
If the OPEC nations were permitted to charge free market prices for
oil, what would that price be?
Both writers ignore the thousand years of attacks by Europe on the
Arab people, affectionately termed the Crusades, and the wars of
against the Spanish Moors, too.
No one has a claim to innocence, least of all the West.
TCross
James A. Donald
> This analysis totally ignores the thousand years of
> European harassment and looting of the Muslim nations.
When we really were harassing and looting (the
settlement of the Barbary coast by piratical christians),
Islamic terrorism stopped - stopped pretty
much everywhere, not just on the Barbary coast. When
the French government disarmed those settlers and
allowed them to be driven out, Islamic terror resumed.
1. We did that stuff because of vicious, evil, and
unprovoked Islamic terror.
2. During the 130 years we were doing that stuff, from
1830 to 1960, little no Islamic terror.
3. When we stopped doing that stuff, Islamic terror
resumed.
Muslims will kill infidels and take their stuff, as they
are doing all along the bloody borders of Islam, unless
they have a reasonable and well founded belief that
doing so will be answered in kind.
> No one can claim the West has left Islam in peace.
> Imperialism is the Peace that Devastates.
During the 130 years of European imperialism against
Islam, terrorism stopped. When European imperialism
stopped, terrorism resumed.
It is inherent in the Muslim religion that they are
at war with us. So whenever we stop oppressing them,
they start to oppress us.
Ray Fischer
>majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam.
Because raving bigots like you ARE at war with Islam.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Yap
>
> Europe is continuously carving up the Arab lands and installing
> puppets, as in the "creation" of Kuwait. When Europe installed and
> supported the Saudis in Arabia, do you think that was a peaceful act?
> When the Saudi puppets machine gunned the Haaj in 1987, was that
> peaceful?
>
> If the OPEC nations were permitted to charge free market prices for
> oil, what would that price be?
>
> Both writers ignore the thousand years of attacks by Europe on the
> Arab people, affectionately termed the Crusades, and the wars of
> against the Spanish Moors, too.
>
> No one has a claim to innocence, least of all the West.
>
> TCross
Funny, how come you seem to be a righteous now when you are for the
Christian European?
But, I respect this view of yours.....it also outline why religious
war constantly erupted.
We don't see religious war in the Far East.
Yap
No.
As your own message told, the earlier Christians were pirates.
The ding dong wars between Islam and Christian points to a fact that
RELIGION is evil in nature.
All are motivated by the teaching(human words) of their non-existent
gods.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> As your own message told, the earlier Christians were pirates.
The settlement of the Barbary coast by Christians in 1830 was provoked
by Islamic terrorism, and ended that terrorism.
Previous measures, less drastic and brutal, failed to end it.
Colonial settlement of Islamic lands by Christians, employing extreme
violence to displace and rule the previous inhabitants, successfully
deterred Islamic terrorism. Over the past thirteen hundred years,
this has worked when applied, and no lesser means have ever worked.
Muslims go to war to take other people's lands, unless they have
compelling reason to fear that this will result in the loss of their
existing lands. Land for peace only works when infidels say "Give us
peace, or we will take your land."
Threatening governments with replacement works against violent
governments, but not against violent religions. With religions, you
have to threaten *people* with replacement.
James A. Donald
> We don't see religious war in the Far East.
You are crazy. Muslim terrorists have brutally
murdered thirty thousand buddhists in Thailand over the
last few years. Burmese Buddhists have genocided the
Karen for practicing Christianity. Sri Lanka has just
finished an extraordinarily brutal holy war between
Buddhists and Hindus in which both sides used the most
horrifying terror. Muslims in the Indonesia murdered
tens of thousands of Christians just a few years ago.
The far east is boiling with murderous holy war,
primarily Muslims murdering non Muslims, and it always
has been. Over the past four years Muslims in Thailand
murdered more Buddhists than the Spanish inquisition
murdered heretics over four hundred years, and that
stuff has been going on for the last thousand years.
Christendom has always been an island of peace, peace
secured by steel. In the colonial era it imposed this
peace on the lands it conquered. As colonialism
receded, the normal condition of holy war and terrorism
resumed.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Christendom has always been an island of peace, peace
A bit self-contradictory there, as well as contrafactual.
James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We don't see religious war in the Far East.
>
> You are crazy. Muslim terrorists have brutally
> murdered thirty thousand buddhists in Thailand over the
> last few years.
Oops, sorry, correction. that is three thousand four hundred
buddhists.
Of course, the Buddhists in Burma are returning the favor.
James A. Donald
> >It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast
> >majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam.
Ray Fischer
> Because raving bigots like you ARE at war with Islam.
If you are a Muslim, your religion requires you to believe infidels
are at war with you, just as if you are Christian, your religion
requires you to believe the holy spirit talks to you.
James A. Donald
> > peace, peace secured by steel. ...
"*Anarcissie*"
> A bit self-contradictory there,
Peace is always secured by steel. No steel, no peace.
Of course, that Christendom has been relatively peaceful
may well owe more to metalworkers than to theology.
Charles the Hammer and John Sobieski seem to have been
of that opinion, to judge by the way they treated
priests.
Terry Cross
That rapine, massacre, and enslavement -- you would call that "peace"?
Mr. Donald, that is an unusual use of the word. And as a person
subjected to the same, I doubt you would so define it.
For example, how could Israel be the diamond capital of the world
without a single diamond mine in Israel? All of Israel's diamond
mines are in South Africa.
TCross
Ray Fischer
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> > Christendom has always been an island of [relative]
>> > peace, peace secured by steel. ...
>
>"*Anarcissie*"
>> A bit self-contradictory there,
>
>Peace is always secured by steel. No steel, no peace.
"War is peace"
>Of course, that Christendom has been relatively peaceful
Except for the millions of people killed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> >It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast
>> >majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam.
>
>> Because raving bigots like you ARE at war with Islam.
>
>If you are a Muslim, your religion requires you to believe infidels
>are at war with you,
An evil lie worthy of Goebbels.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Yap
> Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We don't see religious war in the Far East.
>
> You are crazy. Muslim terrorists have brutally
> murdered thirty thousand buddhists in Thailand over the
> last few years. Burmese Buddhists have genocided the
> Karen for practicing Christianity. Sri Lanka has just
> finished an extraordinarily brutal holy war between
> Buddhists and Hindus in which both sides used the most
> horrifying terror. Muslims in the Indonesia murdered
> tens of thousands of Christians just a few years ago.
exxaggeration.
I know for a fact that Islam, being a sect of Christianity, is
aggressive and barbaric.
What I meant by the Far-East generally meant Buddhism in North-eastern
land mass and not the South-eastern
or Southern Asia.
When you talk about Burma, the Karens are uncivilized hill tribes,
acting in barbaric aggression. The army did the battle with them and
not the Buddhists.
As to Thailand, again you said Muslim murdered, not the Buddhists.
Same as in Indonesia where Muslim kill in the name of religion.
Can you give an example for Buddhist aggression or killing in the name
of religion?
>
> The far east is boiling with murderous holy war,
> primarily Muslims murdering non Muslims, and it always
> has been. Over the past four years Muslims in Thailand
> murdered more Buddhists than the Spanish inquisition
> murdered heretics over four hundred years, and that
> stuff has been going on for the last thousand years.
foundation....barbaric religion.
Whereas the primary religion from Asia is Buddhism which is peaceful
and involve no deity name to act for.
>
> Christendom has always been an island of peace, peace
> secured by steel. In the colonial era it imposed this
> peace on the lands it conquered. As colonialism
> receded, the normal condition of holy war and terrorism
> resumed.
Now, shall I invade your house and take your whole possession and
asset (human included) in order to impose peace?
I see some idiotic reasons being spewed as a noble basis.
Yap
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:55:38 +1000, James A. Donald
>
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > > We don't see religious war in the Far East.
>
> > You are crazy. Muslim terrorists have brutally
> > murdered thirty thousand buddhists in Thailand over the
> > last few years.
>
> Oops, sorry, correction. that is three thousand four hundred
> buddhists.
>
> Of course, the Buddhists in Burma are returning the favor.
The Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
This is how I see the evilness of religion.
But, Eastern religion such as Buddhism is respectfully non-evil.
We have not seen any war being fought in the name of Buddhism which
requires no god.
Yap
Do you read the bible (and Koran) that teach murder and killing?
They are essentially during the time written for barbarians.....and
their barbaric behaviors showed up in all the religious wars.
We don't make silly excuses for them.
James A. Donald
> > Christendom has always been an island of peace, peace
> > secured by steel. In the colonial era it imposed this
> > peace on the lands it conquered.
Terry Cross
> That rapine, massacre, and enslavement -- you would call that "peace"?
Certainly: Read Munshi Abdullah's account:
<http://www.archive.org/details/translationsfrom00abdu>
Mushi Abdullah experienced pre colonial and colonial life. He indicts
the Rajas for rape, murder, and massacre, and praises the British for
law and justice.
(Page numbers being original page numbers, not pdf page numbers.)
Read the Character of Colonel Farquhar, page 37
Raffles Founding the Singapore Institute 137
Raffles and the King of Siam page 165
Departure of Colonel Farquhar (page 186)
Native Princes (page 267)
Perturbations of the Natives about the English Church (page 285)
James A. Donald
wrote:
> The Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
> This is how I see the evilness of religion.
> But, Eastern religion such as Buddhism is respectfully non-evil.
While Buddhists are better than Muslims, they are worse than
Christians - consider, for example, the genocide of the Karen.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> > If you are a Muslim, your religion requires you to believe infidels
> > are at war with you, just as if you are Christian, your religion
> > requires you to believe the holy spirit talks to you.
Yap
> Do you read the bible (and Koran) that teach murder and killing?
Read what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah has to say about Fort Hood
Observe that nearly all the Muslims posting on the blog agree with
him.
You cannot imagine a Christian preacher saying what most Muslim
preacher's say.
Yap
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:57:32 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
> > This is how I see the evilness of religion.
> > But, Eastern religion such as Buddhism is respectfully non-evil.
>
> While Buddhists are better than Muslims, they are worse than
> Christians - consider, for example, the genocide of the Karen.
Damn bias statement.
The army of Burma is not Buddhist, is just armed forces.
And because of the nature of aggression of Christianity, the Karens
could have started the whole issue.
But there is no genocide or is it that you blatantly crown Burmese
with this crime?
And you ignore all the wars initiated by the Christians....how
convenient.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 12, 5:13�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:55:38 +1000, James A. Donald
>>
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > We don't see religious war in the Far East.
>>
>> > �You are crazy. �Muslim terrorists have brutally
>> > murdered thirty thousand buddhists in Thailand over the
>> > last few years.
>>
>> Oops, sorry, correction. �that is three thousand four hundred
>> buddhists.
>>
>> Of course, the Buddhists in Burma are returning the favor.
>
>The Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
Or at least since the 11th century when the "Christians" went off to
pillage and kill Muslims.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Yap
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:03:12 -0800 (PST), <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > If you are a Muslim, your religion requires you to believe infidels
> > > are at war with you, just as if you are Christian, your religion
> > > requires you to believe the holy spirit talks to you.
>
> Yap
>
> > Do you read the bible (and Koran) that teach murder and killing?
>
> Read what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah has to say about Fort Hood
> incident:
>
> Observe that nearly all the Muslims posting on the blog agree with
> him.
>
> You cannot imagine a Christian preacher saying what most Muslim
> preacher's say.
While I think Islam sucks, I certainly do not have prejudice against
Muslim.
Most Muslims in this world will work for their religion and refrain
from harming Islam.
It is an incident that prove even more evil for the Muslim followers.
However, if Christian are so civilized as you imagine, there wouldn't
be any commandments in the scripture.
You are quite a character who make excuses for your religion and
ignore righteousness.
James A. Donald
> > While Buddhists are better than Muslims, they are worse than
> > Christians - consider, for example, the genocide of the Karen.
Yap
> Damn bias statement.
> The army of Burma is not Buddhist, is just armed forces.
Which armed forces suppress bibles, etc.
> But there is no genocide or is it that you blatantly crown Burmese
> with this crime?
<ttp://www.google.com/search?q=karen+genocide>
James A. Donald
> > he Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Or at least since the 11th century when the "Christians" went off to
> pillage and kill Muslims.
Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century, and the war has not
stopped since, except for a break of 130 years when the colonial
powers imposed peace on Islam by dreadful threats.
Ray Fischer
>> > he Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
>
>Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Or at least since the 11th century when the "Christians" went off to
>> pillage and kill Muslims.
>
>Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century,
Given that Islam began in the 7th century that's a stupid lie
even from a bigot like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James A. Donald
> > > > The Muslims and the Christians are at war since
> > > > the inception.
Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Or at least since the 11th century when the
> >> "Christians" went off to pillage and kill Muslims.
James A. Donald
> > Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century,
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Given that Islam began in the 7th century that's a
> stupid lie even from a bigot like you.
The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
eight century though not by much. They then invaded
what is now France in 732
And we and they have been at it ever since, apart from a
break during the colonial period when we imposed peace
on them at gunpoint.
James A. Donald
<hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most Muslims in this world will work for their
> religion and refrain from harming Islam.
Killing infidels and raping infidel women benefits
Islam. That is how Islam spreads now, that is how Islam
spread before the colonial period, that is how the
prophet commanded them to spread Islam. It works for
them, and the only period that it did not work was
during the colonial period.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to
negotiate with Tripoli's envoy Upon inquiring
"concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war
upon nations who had done them no injury", the
ambassador replied, as paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson:
: : It was written in their Koran, that all nations
: : which had not acknowledged the Prophet were
: : sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the
: : faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every
: : muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to
: : go to paradise.
We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam, and
the only time when we enjoyed peace from them was during
the colonial period when any trouble from them resulted
in colonialist settlers taking their land and their
women.
Ray Fischer
>> > > > The Muslims and the Christians are at war since
>> > > > the inception.
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> Or at least since the 11th century when the
>> >> "Christians" went off to pillage and kill Muslims.
>
>James A. Donald
>> > Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century,
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Given that Islam began in the 7th century that's a
>> stupid lie even from a bigot like you.
>
>The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
>eight century though not by much. They then invaded
>what is now France in 732
And then the Christians invaded the middle east and pillaged and
killed people.
But because you're a rabid bigot you blame them instead of blaming
Christianity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
><hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Most Muslims in this world will work for their
>> religion and refrain from harming Islam.
>
>Killing infidels and raping infidel women benefits
>Islam. That is how Islam spreads now, that is how Islam
That's an evil lie that Goebbels would be proud of.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
> We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
> with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam, and
Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
James A. Donald
> > The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
> > eight century though not by much. They then invaded
> > what is now France in 732
Ray Fischer
> And then the Christians invaded the middle east and pillaged
> and killed people.
In response to three hundred years of Islamic aggression.
We are at war with Islam. We have always been at war with Islam.
We are always going to be at war with Islam.
James A. Donald
> > We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
> > with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
Alan Ford
> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
it is at war with you. Christians will always believe they
hear the voice of the holy spirit, and Muslims will always
believe they are at war with infidels.
Mitchell Holman
news:vtlnf5plkejevkqdb...@4ax.com:
What do you propose to do about that?
Ray Fischer
>> > The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
>> > eight century though not by much. They then invaded
>> > what is now France in 732
>
>Ray Fischer
>> And then the Christians invaded the middle east and pillaged
>> and killed people.
>
>In response to three hundred years of Islamic aggression.
And now you're lying again.
You're just like the nazis.
>We are at war with Islam.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolf Hitler
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
>> > with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
>
>Alan Ford
>> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
>
>You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
>it is at war with you.
Says the irrational bigot as he tries to speak for a billion people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
>>> We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
>>> with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
>
> Alan Ford
>> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
>
> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
> it is at war with you.
Islam is a religion, a non-entity, it can't think shit. Hey, just like you.
Now, while some Muslims are clearly fanatics and would like nothing else
than to see the entire world under Islamic rule, those are a small
minority. Much like a small minority of Christians want to impose their
own laws, rules and morality on the entire US (hm, on second thought, I
am not so sure about the "small" in this case). Of course, you already
knew that.
> Christians will always believe they
> hear the voice of the holy spirit, and Muslims will always
> believe they are at war with infidels.
Why a pathological need to lie? Mommy left you alone in the dark too
long while you were a teenager?
Constantinople
Excuse me, but James was off by 12 years (as you implicitly
acknowledge) and you were off by 300 since you didn't even know that
the Islamic invasion of Europe preceded the Crusades by hundreds of
years, to say nothing of the even earlier conflicts with Christians in
the Middle East. Your implied argument was also wrong - your argument
was that Islam could not possibly have invaded Europe within 100 years
of its beginning, but the Muslim calendar starts in 622, making the
invasion of Spain less than 100 years from what the Muslims themselves
choose to treat as the beginning. Meanwhile, as we can see, James
acknowledged the minor error that he was off by 12 years while you,
who made the massive error of 300 years, acknowledge nothing. Already
you prove yourself to be inferior in multiple respects, and that is
before we take into account your constant stream of mindless insults,
which you present as a substitute for argument and which acts as a
shield against the possibility of your learning anything from the
exchange.
I don't know why James bothers with you. You don't know anything
significant about Islam, as you demonstrate here with your 300 year
error and your ignorance of the rapid pace of violent expansion of
Islam in the first century - expansion which began in Mohammed's own
life, directed by him. You're not even in the general area of knowing
anything - even your broad guesses about the character of Islam and
about what happened in its early history are way off. Not even your
stupidity is interesting. Loudmouth dimwits such as yourself are a
dime a dozen. There are much better informed and much more clever
apologists for Islamic violence than you.
sushi monster
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century,
>
> Given that Islam began in the 7th century that's a stupid lie
> even from a bigot like you.
The Arabs besieged Constantinople in 674.
[...]
sushi monster
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >James A. Donald
> >> > The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
> >> > eight century though not by much. They then invaded
> >> > what is now France in 732
>
> >Ray Fischer
> >> And then the Christians invaded the middle east and pillaged
> >> and killed people.
>
> >In response to three hundred years of Islamic aggression.
>
> And now you're lying again.
The First Crusade was a response to the conquest of Anatolia and
Nicaea by the Seljuk Turks, not to the invasions of Spain and France
three hundred years before. The Turks, of course, had themselves just
invaded the Middle East, pillaging and killing people. They had
conquered the Levant (the destination of the Crusaders after the
reconquest of Anatolia) from the Arabs, and by the time the Crusaders
arrived from recapturing Nicaea, the Arabs had themselves just
reconquered Jerusalem. Lots of pillage and killing in those days --
plenty for anyone to craft whatever kind of moral condemnations that
want, provided that they are selective about what they include and
leave out.
Constantinople
> James A. Donald wrote:
> >>> We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
> >>> with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
>
> > Alan Ford
> >> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
>
> > You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
> > it is at war with you.
>
> Islam is a religion, a non-entity, it can't think shit.
What Islam "thinks" means what Muslims think insofar as they are
Muslim. A religion is a belief system, it is something believed, and a
belief is a thought, so a religion is itself a set of thoughts, held
by its believers, and it is to these thoughts that James refers. If
you were worth having a discussion with you would not need this to be
explained to you as if you were a small child. Usenet really is the
trash of Internet discussion.
Alan Ford
And unless James has evidence of a statistical poll he conducted in
every Islamic country, as well as in every Islamic community on the face
of the Earth, his idiotic blanket statement and your infantile
"explanation" means exactly fuck all and a half.
What James and you are doing is projecting your own insecurities,
ignorance, idiocy, fears, xenophobia, religious intolerance, etc. and
applying it to a group of people so large it cannot possibly have
anything in common except for the underlying religious belief.
There are Islamic countries like Turkey, Bosnia and others that are not
only secular but where the Muslim population is completely West
oriented. A majority of Islamic countries is comprised of populations
who don't give two shits about anything that's happening outside of
their borders and wouldn't even know what to do with your perceived
"Islamic war against us".
Then there is a small, albeit vocal fanatical group of religious
nutcases whose only purpose in life is to make everyone else subjected
to their own particular interpretation of what their god seem to like.
But that is true in every religion, the US Christains included.
Still, you two pieces of shit like to bray like deranged seals because
you like attention, isn't that right? You go girls, bravely Usenet-fight
them infidels!
James A. Donald
> > war with Islam. We are always going to be at war
> > with Islam.
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:48:05 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> What do you propose to do about that?
What we did from AD732 to about AD 1900
I particularly recommend the highly successful tactics
of Charles the Great, who realized that while the Holy
Roman empire could deter the Caliphate, it was incapable
of deterring individuals and small groups, and who
therefore licensed Christian individuals and small
groups to wage aggressive war on their own behalf, and
the highly successful tactics of the French in 1830,
which similarly relied on colonials.
The war effort in Afghanistan suffers from intolerable
diseconomies of scale, which diseconomies the tactics of
Charles the Great and the French addressed.
Islam tends to moderation when the delusive belief that
they are at war with infidels is apt to produce high costs,
particularly when it produces high personal and individual
costs.
When the individual and personal costs of believing this are
low, the belief becomes stronger. Thus the smaller scale
the war is fought on, the greater the moderating impact of
that war on Islam. Also, the greater the personal costs,
the more horrifying the war is, the greater the suffering
of Muslims, the greater the moderating impact. The
belief diminishes when Muslims desperately want peace, and
when there is a fine patchwork, varying from one village to
the next, from one household to the next, of war and peace.
Constantinople
> Constantinople wrote:
> >>>>> We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
> >>>>> with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
> >>> Alan Ford
> >>>> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
> >>> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
> >>> it is at war with you.
> >> Islam is a religion, a non-entity, it can't think shit.
>
> > What Islam "thinks" means what Muslims think insofar as they are
> > Muslim. A religion is a belief system, it is something believed, and a
> > belief is a thought, so a religion is itself a set of thoughts, held
> > by its believers, and it is to these thoughts that James refers. If
> > you were worth having a discussion with you would not need this to be
> > explained to you as if you were a small child. Usenet really is the
> > trash of Internet discussion.
>
> And unless James has evidence of a statistical poll he conducted in
> every Islamic country, as well as in every Islamic community on the face
> of the Earth, his idiotic blanket statement and your infantile
> "explanation" means exactly fuck all and a half.
You don't even acknowledge your error, your false assertion that James
falsely personified Islam, when it was obvious what he was referring
to. As to your new assertion - it's obviously not the case that you
need to conduct a universal poll to learn the teachings of Islam.
Individual Muslims manage to learn its teachings without conducting a
universal poll of all previous Muslims. The Koran itself, as a
statement of Islamic teaching, does not pass your test, since it was
not the result of a poll of all Muslims. By insisting on a universal
poll before accepting anything as an accurate statement of the
teachings of Islam you are only preventing yourself from overcoming
your own ignorance of Islam. While it is hard to imagine that anyone
is so stupid as to actually believe what you assert, it would explain
your ignorance.
James A. Donald
> > You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
> > Islam thinks it is at war with you.
Alan Ford
> Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
By the same argument, government is a non-entity. A
thousand years of history shows that Islam is fully
capable of continuing to wage war, even when the
governments that supposedly represent Islam are defeated
and more or less successfully deterred.
But if you insist on fine philosophical distinctions I
will rephrase:
You may think you are not at war with Islam, but the
overwhelming majority of Muslims think you are at war
with Islam.
> Now, while some Muslims are clearly fanatics and would
> like nothing else than to see the entire world under
> Islamic rule, those are a small minority.
Every time an incident like Fort Hood occurs, the press
goes looking for a "moderate" imam, and invariably the
most "moderate" imam they can interview is alarmingly
far from being moderate.
Similarly, Major Nidal Malik Hasan got an affirmative
action promotion to Major for being a Muslim, not
withstanding a employee evaluation report that implied
he was a Muslim fanatic engaged in treason and espionage
against the United States. The fact that they had to
promote him implies that Fort Hood had run out of
Muslims that were not Muslim fanatics engaged in treason
and espionage against the United States.
Alan Ford
>>>>>>> We are at war with Islam. We always have been at war
>>>>>>> with Islam. We always will be at war with Islam
>>>>> Alan Ford
>>>>>> Who's "we"? Just your trailer or the entire trailer park?
>>>>> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but Islam thinks
>>>>> it is at war with you.
>>>> Islam is a religion, a non-entity, it can't think shit.
>>> What Islam "thinks" means what Muslims think insofar as they are
>>> Muslim. A religion is a belief system, it is something believed, and a
>>> belief is a thought, so a religion is itself a set of thoughts, held
>>> by its believers, and it is to these thoughts that James refers. If
>>> you were worth having a discussion with you would not need this to be
>>> explained to you as if you were a small child. Usenet really is the
>>> trash of Internet discussion.
>> And unless James has evidence of a statistical poll he conducted in
>> every Islamic country, as well as in every Islamic community on the face
>> of the Earth, his idiotic blanket statement and your infantile
>> "explanation" means exactly fuck all and a half.
>
> You don't even acknowledge your error, your false assertion that James
> falsely personified Islam, when it was obvious what he was referring
> to.
What are you, retarded? Unless there is a clear and unambiguous
consensus of all Muslims anywhere on the face of Earth, "personifying
Islam" by claiming that it is "at war" with anybody is an obvious lie.
Why you people need to spread lies is a question for your psychiatrist,
not me. I am simply pointing out the stupidity of your claim.
> As to your new assertion - it's obviously not the case that you
> need to conduct a universal poll to learn the teachings of Islam.
> Individual Muslims manage to learn its teachings without conducting a
> universal poll of all previous Muslims. The Koran itself, as a
> statement of Islamic teaching, does not pass your test, since it was
> not the result of a poll of all Muslims. By insisting on a universal
> poll before accepting anything as an accurate statement of the
> teachings of Islam you are only preventing yourself from overcoming
> your own ignorance of Islam. While it is hard to imagine that anyone
> is so stupid as to actually believe what you assert, it would explain
> your ignorance.
Sure, Billy-Bob, sure. Apparently you're a scholar with a specialization
in the Koran, so you'll explain to us how a few verses in some fucking
book compel everyone who subscribes to that religion to carry them out,
literally.
Of course, I have no doubt that you, being a Christian and all, carry
out every single god-damned command the Bible tells you to, from not
touching menstruating women, to stoning your daughter if she's not a
virgin before marriage, to beating your slave, to plucking your eye out,
to burning goats for your god, to not wearing clothes made of different
fabrics, to selling all your possessions and giving money to the poor.
Right?
The Bible says slavery is not only OK, but slaves have to obey their
masters. Shit, I guess that means Christianity is in the mission of
(re)instituting slavery. Wait, let me restate that in the way you
retards can recognize:
You may think Christianity is not in the mission of (re)instituting
slavery, but Christianity thinks it is in the mission of (re)instituting
slavery.
Terry Cross
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >James A. Donald
> >> > The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
> >> > eight century though not by much. They then invaded
> >> > what is now France in 732
>
> >Ray Fischer
> >> And then the Christians invaded the middle east and pillaged
> >> and killed people.
>
> >In response to three hundred years of Islamic aggression.
>
> And now you're lying again.
>
> You're just like the nazis.
Actually, Ray, it's worse than the nazis. It's like getting grass-
cuttings in your water bowl. Yes, indeed, it is as bad as that.
Sheesh. The Monocularist view of history.
TCross
Terry Cross
That is the problem with history -- too many bad guys and not enough
good guys.
TCross
Constantinople
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > > You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
> > > Islam thinks it is at war with you.
>
> Alan Ford
>
> > Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
>
> By the same argument, government is a non-entity. A
> thousand years of history shows that Islam is fully
> capable of continuing to wage war, even when the
> governments that supposedly represent Islam are defeated
> and more or less successfully deterred.
>
> But if you insist on fine philosophical distinctions I
> will rephrase:
>
> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but the
> overwhelming majority of Muslims think you are at war
> with Islam.
The majority of Muslims may also think that Coke is better than Pepsi,
but Islam doesn't think that Coke is better than Pepsi. Muslims use
their senses when comparing Coke to Pepsi. That they think there is a
war between Islam and you and me is not due to their senses, but to a
way of thinking that is instilled in them by their religion.
Terry Cross
Islam has every bit as much evidence to believe that Judaism and
Christianity are "at war with" Islam. Whether Islam wants it or not,
the Jews want the land and the oil, Christians want the oil and the
land to give to the Jews, and both Christians and Jews want more
colony-type economies (cheap labor, cheap resources, unbalanced trade,
i.e., economic slaves) to power the ever-hungry imperialist machine.
The Koran forbids war on women and children. The Koran does not
require war against non-believers.
TCross
Constantinople
Islam is itself a set of ideas. You don't need any consensus of
anybody to know the content of that set of ideas - and its
implications. Good grief, now everything is said to be consensus these
days. Scientific truth is said to be a matter of consensus and now the
contents of a religion is said to be a matter of consensus.
Let's start simply. Can you say right now whether atheism the denial
that there exists a god, or do you need to take a universal poll of
all atheists before you can decide whether atheism is a denial that
there exists a god?
I'm going to answer for you: no, because atheism just is the belief
that there is no god. That's what it is. You don't need to take a poll
to find out what atheists believe on the matter of deities. It's not a
question of "clear and unambiguous consensus". It's just what atheism
is.
We know, without asking a single atheist anything, that atheists
believe that there is no God. No universal poll required.
Alan Ford
>>> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
>>> Islam thinks it is at war with you.
>
> Alan Ford
>> Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
>
> By the same argument, government is a non-entity. A
> thousand years of history shows that Islam is fully
> capable of continuing to wage war, even when the
> governments that supposedly represent Islam are defeated
> and more or less successfully deterred.
A completely inappropriate and disingenuous comparison. Governments are
authorities (elected or non-elected), have decision power, frequently
exercise it and many times use it to wage wars for mostly illegal and
immoral reasons.
Islam is a religion, it is most emphatically not an authority and has no
central decision making power. Hell, there are sects and groups within
Islam that are at war (or at least, uneasy peace) with each other.
There are no religious wars, really. Any war is a war for resources and
religion, if it's used as a motivational factor at all, is secondary and
largely irrelevant to its nature and causes.
But, please, feel free to list here an example of when in the few
centuries any country launched a war of agression against another
country solely in order to expand Islam, i.e. convert the conquered:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
> But if you insist on fine philosophical distinctions I
> will rephrase:
>
> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but the
> overwhelming majority of Muslims think you are at war
> with Islam.
No, they don't, and btw, your change of tune duly noted (from "Islam
thinks it is at war with [me]" to "[Muslims] think [I am] at war with
Islam".
>
>> Now, while some Muslims are clearly fanatics and would
>> like nothing else than to see the entire world under
>> Islamic rule, those are a small minority.
>
> Every time an incident like Fort Hood occurs, the press
> goes looking for a "moderate" imam, and invariably the
> most "moderate" imam they can interview is alarmingly
> far from being moderate.
Who gives a shit what some imam somewhere thinks? The majority of
Muslims want to lead normal lives, don't fucking care about much else
that's happening outside their lives and a few who do care, do so for
reasons that are directly related to the common human experience. After
all, if they see pictures of Muslims somewhere else in the world being
killed, oppressed and humiliated, the natural tendency of people is to
band around their common thread which happens to be their religion. That
by no means translates into "Islam is at war with [whoever]".
How many Islamic countries have invaded a non-Islamic country lately?
How many Islamic countries have the US invaded lately?
Still feel like Islam is "at war with us"?
> Similarly, Major Nidal Malik Hasan got an affirmative
> action promotion to Major for being a Muslim
Cite?
> , not withstanding a employee evaluation report that implied
> he was a Muslim fanatic engaged in treason and espionage
> against the United States. The fact that they had to
> promote him implies that Fort Hood had run out of
> Muslims that were not Muslim fanatics engaged in treason
> and espionage against the United States.
What a twisted logic. And all this, assuming for a moment it's true just
for laughs, proves that Islam is at war with "us" how exactly?
Constantinople
So you're a neo-Nazi, I take it?
> The Koran forbids war on women and children. The Koran does not
> require war against non-believers.
The Koran contradicts itself. The Koran even recognizes this and
addresses it:
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but
We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106
"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best
what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but
most of them understand not." Surah 16:101
Interpreting the Koran is a matter best left up to the experts - such
as the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
Alan Ford
Let's assume you are correct in this for a moment. How, then, do you
propose a "set of ideas" can be at war with anyone?
The OP clearly stated that "Islam is at war with [me]". A set of ideas
cannot possibly be at war with anyone. Ideas are abstract thoughts,
they're non-material. You need people to carry out certain ideas through
actions. I don't see that happening in the case of Islam being at war
with anyone.
> Let's start simply. Can you say right now whether atheism the denial
> that there exists a god, or do you need to take a universal poll of
> all atheists before you can decide whether atheism is a denial that
> there exists a god?
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not a "denial" of anything, but
that is a discussion for another time.
Your comparison is misplaced again because:
1. no one ascribes an active action to atheism, especially action like
"war" which requires participants, not ideas.
2. atheism is a concept that describes ideas, behavior and thought - as
such, atheists are a consequence of atheism, not the other way around,
i.e. polling atheists with your type of question would not make sense
3. Islam is clearly a way more complex concept than atheism (which is
simply lack of belief) and, as such, subject to wildly different
interpretations - hence, the need for polling if you attempt to
generalize on what Islam "wants"
> I'm going to answer for you: no, because atheism just is the belief
> that there is no god. That's what it is. You don't need to take a poll
> to find out what atheists believe on the matter of deities. It's not a
> question of "clear and unambiguous consensus". It's just what atheism
> is.
And as I explained above, the comparison is completely inaccurate and
misplaced. There's your problem, not to mention the stupid old canard of
atheism being a belief. Please.
> We know, without asking a single atheist anything, that atheists
> believe that there is no God. No universal poll required.
Apparently, you don't. Atheists don't believe in gods and that is what
makes them atheist. They don't define atheism - atheism defines them.
Now, back to Islam. There are Muslims who clearly would like to conquer
the entire world and subject it to Islamic faith and law, and then there
are Muslims who clearly don't want to do that.
How do you propose to speak for Islam and tell us all what "Islam wants"
without determining the exact proportions of these two, not to mention
hundreds of other differences and interpretations of this religion?
Terry Cross
Is that what you call people who espouse human liberty?
It might be amusing, but you risk being misunderstood.
TCross
Terry Cross
Are you saying there are no mechanisms within the Army for barring the
penetration of people such as you allege this man was? This is
preposterous and unbelievable.
If he was already on the base, promotion was not an issue. There is
no "affirmative action" program based on religion.
TCross
Free Lunch
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<s99nf5pah4q528n69...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:57:32 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> The Muslims and the Christians are at war since the inception.
>> But, Eastern religion such as Buddhism is respectfully non-evil.
>
>While Buddhists are better than Muslims, they are worse than
>Christians - consider, for example, the genocide of the Karen.
>
It appears that you are just engaging in special pleading for the
religion that you appear to be a member of. Why is that?
James A. Donald
> The First Crusade was a response to the conquest of
> Anatolia and Nicaea by the Seljuk Turks, not to the
> invasions of Spain and France three hundred years
> before.
True, but there had been more or less continuous
trouble, over the entire three hundred years.
> Lots of pillage and killing in those days -- plenty
> for anyone to craft whatever kind of moral
> condemnations that want, provided that they are
> selective about what they include and leave out.
We see a repeating pattern where the infidels win, the
WINNERS give land to Muslims for peace with Muslims, and
they do not get peace. If it was equal wickedness on
both sides, surely the losers would be giving land for
peace.
The fundamental cause of this pattern is that Muslims
will not take yes for an answer - their religion causes
them to believe they are at war, and believing it makes
it true. Their neighbors seek peace through violence,
and peace through concessions, neither of which has any
lasting effect. When infidels successfully intimidate
Muslim governments by violence and the threat of
violence, they encounter the sort of substate and
not-quite-state violence that we are encountering now.
When infidels make concessions, Muslims are twice as
outraged, much as they were when Israel withdrew from
Gaza. Peace with Islam is not an attainable objective,
for lots of nice people with lots of good intentions
have been trying to make peace with Islam for thirteen
hundred years.
Constantinople
No, that's what I suspect of people of who tell the story you just
told. We had been talking about actual war, and now here you are
talking about "economic slaves" - that is, as you mean it, the
practice of Jews hiring non-Jews, which you view as economic
exploitation of the non-Jew by the Jew. Nazis view this as
exploitation and they view it as race war. That is, they view Jews
owning stuff and hiring non-Jews as race war by the Jew against the
non-Jew. And that is how you are talking about it. We had been
discussing war, and now here you are talking about Jews owning stuff
and hiring non-Jews, as an example of Jews making war on non-Jews, as
if that were a perfectly natural extension of our discussion about
war. Just as if you were a neo-Nazi.
James A. Donald
> > The Koran forbids war on women and children. The Koran does not
> > require war against non-believers.
Constantinople
> The Koran contradicts itself. The Koran even recognizes this and
> addresses it:
>
> "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but
> We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
> Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106
>
> "When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best
> what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but
> most of them understand not." Surah 16:101
>
> Interpreting the Koran is a matter best left up to the experts - such
> as the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
The widely accepted interpretation, consistent with the Koran's own
plain guidance on interpretation, is that later revelations supersede
earlier revelations - and later revelations are invariably more brutal
and bloodthirsty than earlier revelations. As Mohammed rose to power,
his God revealed a progressively more violent and despotic agenda.
Anwar al-Awlaki, and the many learned Muslims commenting on his blog,
report a god who commands war with infidels who fail to submit, and
who tells Muslims that infidels are at war with them.
James A. Donald
> >>> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
> >>> Islam thinks it is at war with you.
Alan Ford
> >> Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
James A. Donald wrote:
> > By the same argument, government is a non-entity.
Alan Ford
> Governments are authorities [...], have decision
> power, frequently exercise it and many times use it to
> wage wars
All of which Islam does.
A government derives cohesion in part from a small group
of people who can meet around a table and make
decisions, in part from shared beliefs, identity, and
ideology. A religion does the same things, with rather
more emphasis on shared beliefs, identity, and ideology,
and rather less emphasis on a group of people who can
meet around a table - religious synods being larger and
less frequent than cabinet meetings.
We can talk of governments as if they were people
because they have cohesion, and religions as if they
were people because they have cohesion.
> Islam is a religion, it is most emphatically not an
> authority
Religion most certainly is an authority.
> and has no central decision making power. Hell, there
> are sects and groups within Islam that are at war (or
> at least, uneasy peace) with each other. There are no
> religious wars, really.
That statement is so crazy that I am unable respond.
Almost all wars are religious wars - read the long
telegram, which accurately forecast and explained the
cold war as a holy war.
<http://www.historyguide.org/Europe/kennan.html>
> Any war is a war for resources
Nonsense - obvious nonsense. What resources are we
fighting for in Afghanistan? Similarly, the long
telegram never mentions resources, and it is highly
unlikely the thought occurred to X or his audience.
Instead, in the long telegram, X analyzes communism as a
delusion and religion, and accurately predicted the
delusionary and religiously motivated behavior that
followed for the next forty years.
Islam fights for women and souls, not for resources.
Communism fought to liberate the proletariat from their
false consciousness. Fascists thought they were
fighting for resources, in particular Tojo thought he
was fighting for resources, but as events proved, this
belief was every bit as delusionary, every bit as
religiously motivated, as the communist belief that they
were fighting to liberate the proletariat. Tojo thought
he was fighting for resources, but was merely
rationalizing.
> But, please, feel free to list here an example of when
> in the few centuries any country launched a war of
> agression against another country solely in order to
> expand Islam, i.e. convert the conquered:
The Koran is a long list of such wars of evangelical
aggression. Mohammed tells us he converted by the
sword, for example the Massacre of Khaybar and his
various wars against the various Banu.
> > Every time an incident like Fort Hood occurs, the
> > press goes looking for a "moderate" imam, and
> > invariably the most "moderate" imam they can
> > interview is alarmingly far from being moderate.
> Who gives a shit what some imam somewhere thinks?
If there was one moderate Imam in America, the press
would cover him 24/7 every time there was a fort hood
type incident. Obviously therefore, there is not one
moderate Imam in America.
The press dug up a "moderate" - who refused to use his
own name, who is not an imam - and who *still* sounds
alarmingly immoderate.
The press describes its pet Muslim's views as follows:
: : While "Richard" is careful to say that he
: : respects much of Awlaki’s historical
: : scholarship, he rejects his political
: : ideology, which posits a black-and-white, us
: : versus them, view of America’s relationship
: : with the Islamic world.
: :
: : Richard’s own study of Islam has revealed
: : that such a harsh dualistic approach to
: : religion ....
That is not moderation. A genuinely moderate Muslim
would say that Awlaki is a heretic, a terrorist, and is
going to roast in hell for his crimes against god and
man. If you are not at war with Awlaki, you are at war
with the USA.
> How many Islamic countries have invaded a non-Islamic
> country lately?
Lots: For a map, see "the bloody borders of Islam"
<http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/> but as this is a
holy war, no one pays much attention to nations and
national borders, so one can easily define the answer to
be zero in any one case - but if one wants the answer to
be zero, one finds one has a great many cases to explain
away.
James A. Donald
<zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> And unless James has evidence of a statistical poll he
> conducted in every Islamic country, as well as in
> every Islamic community on the face of the Earth, his
> idiotic blanket statement and your infantile
> "explanation" means exactly fuck all and a half.
A religion is not defined by what the majority of
nominal adherents believe, but by what its doctrine is,
what is written in its holy book, and what its preachers
preach. And all of these teach Muslims that they are at
war, and if some of them are inclined to doubt that they
are at war with us, any such doubt is sinful.
If 51% of Muslims doubt that the US is at war with
Islam, then 51% of Muslims are not very good Muslims.
Hence efforts to avoid defining this war as a holy war,
a war with Islam, are pointless. This is a holy war.
We are at war with Islam every bit as much as we were at
war with Communism.
And we have been at war with Islam, like it or not,
know it or not, ever since Mohammed entered Medina.
> What James and you are doing is projecting your own
> insecurities, ignorance, idiocy, fears, xenophobia,
> religious intolerance, etc. and applying it to a group
> of people so large it cannot possibly have anything in
> common except for the underlying religious belief.
But the underlying religious belief is that there is no
god but god and Mohammed is his prophet. Which implies
that the personal example of Mohammed exemplifies a good
Muslim.
Therefore a good Muslim does what Mohammed did, which is
murder, massacre, aggressive warfare, and rape.
If a Muslim doubts this, he is not a good Muslim.
> There are Islamic countries like Turkey, Bosnia and
> others that are not only secular but where the Muslim
> population is completely West oriented.
Bosnia is indeed majority secular, but only the Turkish
elite is secular. The Turkish masses have recently
elected an Islamist government which is now in alliance
against the west with the terror states of Iran and
Syria. The new Turkish government is imprisoning
secularist members of the elite, making its victory
permanent and irreversible except by violence. In the
next Turkish election, only the voices of those faithful
to the personal example of murder, massacre, terrorism
and rape set by the prophet will be heard. Those who
doubt the example of the prophet remain silent, or rot
in jail.
Before the election, Turkey was not Islamic, but
Kemalist, no matter what the majority of Turks believed.
Since the election, Turkey is Islamist, no matter what
the majority of Turks believe, and being Islamist, is
necessarily pro terror, no matter what the majority of
Turks believe.
Constantinople
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Koran forbids war on women and children. The Koran does not
> > > require war against non-believers.
>
> Constantinople
>
> > The Koran contradicts itself. The Koran even recognizes this and
> > addresses it:
>
> > "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but
> > We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
> > Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106
>
> > "When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best
> > what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but
> > most of them understand not." Surah 16:101
>
> > Interpreting the Koran is a matter best left up to the experts - such
> > as the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
>
> The widely accepted interpretation, consistent with the Koran's own
> plain guidance on interpretation, is that later revelations supersede
> earlier revelations
Indeed, that is implied by the plain meaning of those two surahs. For
this reason, when trying to determine whether the Koran commands this
or that, it is not enough to see a quote from the Koran. You must be
familiar with the entire Koran, and its chronological order (the order
in which it was revealed to Mohammed). Only then are you in a position
to know what the Koran says, because only then can you know what was
the *last* thing that the Koran said on any particular topic. It is
therefore necessary, if you do not know the Koran very well, to
consult with someone who knows the Koran very well. If someone argues
that the Koran says a certain thing and provides quotes supporting his
view, even if the quotes are accurate and say what he says they say,
that does not mean that he is right.
This of course applies even to the surahs I've quoted here. So,
reader, don't take my word for it, go check it out for yourself.
James A. Donald
<zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> What are you, retarded? Unless there is a clear and
> unambiguous consensus of all Muslims anywhere on the
> face of Earth, "personifying Islam" by claiming that
> it is "at war" with anybody is an obvious lie.
People have beliefs, and religions have beliefs, so we
can legitimately personify a religion to the extent of
stating its beliefs. War is a belief. If one side
believes it is at war, war it is.
> Sure, Billy-Bob, sure. Apparently you're a scholar
> with a specialization in the Koran, so you'll explain
> to us how a few verses in some fucking book compel
> everyone who subscribes to that religion to carry them
> out, literally.
That is what a religion is. If you are a good Muslim,
you believe in the Koran and the prophet. If you
believe in the Koran and the Prophet, you believe you
are at war with the infidels. If you believe you are at
war, war it is.
> Of course, I have no doubt that you, being a Christian
> and all
Neither Constantinople nor myself are Christians.
Christianity is the real religion of peace, and I, as
you have probably noticed, am not particularly peaceful.
> carry out every single god-damned command the Bible
> tells you to
We can tell that Christians do indeed carry out the
commands of the bible from the fact that you freely
insult them in ways you would never dare insult Muslims,
or even Hindus.
Observe the response to "piss christ" They all turned
the other cheek, every single one.
Compare it to the response to "piss christ" with the
reaction to the Mohammed cartoons. Manifestly, beliefs
do affect actions. Christians *are* peaceful, Muslims
*are* violent. Observe not one violent response to such
provocations as piss christ, not one, while there was
extravagant and extraordinary violence in response to
fairly harmless depictions of Mohammed, behavior that
directly reflects the very different teachings of the
two religions.
How many Christians reacted violently to Piss Christ?
Not a one, zero. How many Muslims reacted violently to
cartoon Mohammed? Hundreds of thousands committed
criminal acts, millions cheered them on.
The difference is so overwhelming, so extreme, so
drastic, that to deny it you have to be demented.
The fact that absolutely zero Christians took violent
action against "piss christ", while hundreds of
thousands of Muslims committed acts of violence in
response to cartoon Mohammed directly reflects the fact
that *all* major historical Islamic religious leaders
have personally commanded in war, pillage, rape and
massacre, and absolutely zero major historical Christian
religious leaders have personally commanded in war,
pillage, rape and massacre.
All the great leaders of Islam were war makers, military
leaders, conquerors, slavers. This just is not a
pattern you see in Christianity. Not only did the
original prophet of Islam massacre defeated populations,
every subsequent great Islamic religious leader acted
similarly - some better, some worse, but all directly
commanded wars, personally led them, and took extreme
measures to subjugate the defeated population. In
contrast, absolutely zero great Christian religious
leaders has done this - you do not see popes and bishops
leading armies, burning towns, and personally ordering
the rape of the women of the conquered.
Islam, unless radically reformed into something that is
fundamentally different from today's Islam, different
from Islam as it has ever been in the past, cannot
peacefully coexist inside a society with separation of
Church and state. It must attack, and those attacks
must be met with religious based repression. Muslims
are like communists in that they are plotting to do you
harm with guns and bombs and stuff. At best they are
plotting to do harm in the distant and nebulous future,
but even then, they are plotting to do you harm. We
have to give Muslims special and less favorable
treatment, for much the same reasons as we had to give
communists special and less favorable treatment. They
really are dangerous - observe for example, France's
"youths".
Christian fanatics generally lock themselves in dungeons
and meditate. Islamic fanatics blow themselves up.
Christian leaders that combined the role of military and
religious leader have always been a marginal phenomenon,
and phenomenon that occurred only among those directly
at war with Islam: the Knights of Malta and the Knights
Templar. Further, those combining Christian religious
and secular power have frequently led their followers to
disaster by recollecting Christ's command to forgive
one's enemies and turn the other cheek at some highly
inopportune moment, as Grand Master Bolheim of the
Knights of Malta did.
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 12, 2:27�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> James A. Donald �<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > > The Muslims and the Christians are at war since
>> >> > > > the inception.
>>
>> >> >> Or at least since the 11th century when the
>> >> >> "Christians" went off to pillage and kill Muslims.
>>
>> >James A. Donald
>> >> > Muslims invaded Europe in the seventh century,
>>
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> Given that Islam began in the 7th century that's a
>> >> stupid lie even from a bigot like you.
>>
>> >The Muslims conquered spain in 711 - which is indeed the
>> >eight century though not by much. �They then invaded
>> >what is now France in 732
>>
>> killed people.
>>
>> Christianity.
>
>Excuse me, but James was off by 12 years (as you implicitly
>acknowledge) and you were off by 300 since you didn't even know that
>the Islamic invasion of Europe preceded the Crusades by hundreds of
>years, to say nothing of the even earlier conflicts with Christians in
Nothing excuses the sort of religious hatred that you promote and that
leads to outcomes like the Holocaust.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
>> > Islam thinks it is at war with you.
>
>Alan Ford
>> Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
>
>By the same argument, government is a non-entity. A
>thousand years of history shows that Islam is fully
>capable of continuing to wage war,
And so the religious bigot continues to push the same hatred.
What a good little "Christian".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Constantinople
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:55:29 -0800, Alan Ford
> > Of course, I have no doubt that you, being a Christian
> > and all
>
> Neither Constantinople nor myself are Christians.
> Christianity is the real religion of peace, and I, as
> you have probably noticed, am not particularly peaceful.
Indeed I am not. I'm an atheist and a Darwinist, and I think the
beginning of life - the first self-reproducing molecules - was a
chance event. As for the laws of physics being friendly to complex
life, I think that the anthropic principle is a much more likely
explanation than divine intervention. As for why anything exists at
all, I lean toward Tegmark's view that "all structures that exist
mathematically exist also physically", which I first learned from
Marvin Minsky.
James A. Donald
> penetration of people such as you allege this man was? This is
> preposterous and unbelievable.
Well obviously Major Nidal Malik Hasan did penetrate - despite the
fact that it was well known he was an Islamist, that he said hateful
things about America, Americans and his fellow soldiers, that he was
an adherent of a preacher that is a person of interest and wanted for
questioning in numerous terrorism cases, that he had had contact with
minor members of Al Quaeda and was seeking contact with major members
of Al Quaeda.
> If he was already on the base, promotion was not an issue. There is
> no "affirmative action" program based on religion.
Oh come on.
Muslims get preference, blacks get preference, women get preference.
Are even nazis struck blind by political correctness these days?
If he had been a Christian who said equivalent stuff, he would have
been dishonorably discharged in thirty seconds.
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:52:15 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
>
> > Are you saying there are no mechanisms within the Army for barring the
> > penetration of people such as you allege this man was? This is
> > preposterous and unbelievable.
>
> Well obviously Major Nidal Malik Hasan did penetrate -
No, it is not obvious. It is barely credible.
> despite the
> fact that it was well known he was an Islamist, that he said hateful
> things about America, Americans and his fellow soldiers, that he was
> an adherent of a preacher that is a person of interest and wanted for
> questioning in numerous terrorism cases, that he had had contact with
> minor members of Al Quaeda and was seeking contact with major members
> of Al Quaeda.
Oh, please. I had no idea they had so carefully tailored the
propaganda for the giggle set.
> > If he was already on the base, promotion was not an issue. There is
> > no "affirmative action" program based on religion.
>
> Oh come on.
>
> Muslims get preference,
Of course not.
> blacks get preference, women get preference.
Possibly so, if the numbers don't match. But there is not mandated
affirmative action program for one-legged tea-leaf readers or for
Muslims.
> Are even nazis struck blind by political correctness these days?
Eh? There are no Nazis alive today, no more than Confederacy
loyalists or King George supporters. Please clarify your statement.
> If he had been a Christian who said equivalent stuff, he would have
> been dishonorably discharged in thirty seconds.
Then why do you believe it? Because the TeeVee saidso, saidso, and
saidso?
TCross
James A. Donald
> Let's assume you are correct in this for a moment. How, then, do you
> propose a "set of ideas" can be at war with anyone?
War is itself an idea, an idea that relates a bunch of violent acts to
other violent acts, and relates people engaged in violent acts to
other people less directly involved. "War" is a meaning that we give
deeds. Religion gives meaning to deeds.
> The OP clearly stated that "Islam is at war with [me]". A set of ideas
> cannot possibly be at war with anyone.
States "declare" war, they do not "command" war. A declaration *is*
an idea, the expression of an idea.
A state declares war, and then each citizen, believing himself to be
at war, individually acts accordingly. A religion tells its followers
they are at war, and then each of the faithful, believing himself to
be at war, individually acts accordingly
> Ideas are abstract thoughts,
A religion is both an abstract thought, and a bunch of people that
fully and sincerely accept that thought. If part of that thought is
that you are war with those who fully and sincerely accept that
thought, then you really are at war.
If most Bosnians do not think we are at war with them, then most
Bosnians are not good Muslims. If the government of Turkey does not
think we are at war with them, then government of Turkey are not good
Muslims. Unfortunately, the majority of Turkish voters *are* good
Muslims, and they have recently elected a government that shows strong
indications of believing they are at war with us.
> Now, back to Islam. There are Muslims who clearly would like to conquer
> the entire world and subject it to Islamic faith and law, and then there
> are Muslims who clearly don't want to do that.
If they don't want to do that, they are not genuinely Muslim.
To be a Muslim you must believe that there is no god but god, and
Mohammed is his prophet. If you disagree with conquering the entire
world and forcibly subjecting it to Islamic faith and law, you reject
Mohammed.
Mohammed set a personal example of conquest, and commanded conquest.
Terry Cross
No true Muslim ...?
I don't think this argument is on the pavement any more. You have
redefined Islam to mean a religion of war, and you have redefined
Christianity to mean a religion of peace. When anything means only
what you define it to be, then cats can be vegetarians and chickens
are rogue predators.
TCross
Constantinople
James says that to be a Muslim you must believe that there is no god
but god, and you liken that to saying that cats are vegetarians? Are
you serious? Any Muslim will tell you that you must believe that there
is no god but god. The statement is easy to check and obviously true.
In contrast, claiming that cats are vegetarians is easy to check and
obviously *false*. And you compare the two? Something isn't "on the
pavement any more", but it's your equating an easy to check true
statement about Islam with an easy to check false statement about
cats.
Alan Ford
>>>>> You may think you are not at war with Islam, but
>>>>> Islam thinks it is at war with you.
>
> Alan Ford
>>>> Islam is a religion, a non-entity,
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> By the same argument, government is a non-entity.
>
> Alan Ford
>> Governments are authorities [...], have decision
>> power, frequently exercise it and many times use it to
>> wage wars
>
> All of which Islam does.
Jesus Christ, but you are fucking dense. How exactly does "Islam" do any
of above? Governments in Islamic countries may do so but Islam itself
is incapable of it. It is a concept.
>
> A government derives cohesion in part from a small group
> of people who can meet around a table and make
> decisions, in part from shared beliefs, identity, and
> ideology. A religion does the same things, with rather
> more emphasis on shared beliefs, identity, and ideology,
> and rather less emphasis on a group of people who can
> meet around a table - religious synods being larger and
> less frequent than cabinet meetings.
Bullshit. Religion is a system of beliefs, practices, rituals,
mythology, morality, traditions, etc. Religion "does" nothing. Why do
you insist on being dense?
>
> We can talk of governments as if they were people
> because they have cohesion, and religions as if they
> were people because they have cohesion.
Governments may have cohesion but they also have one thing religions
don't - executive power including the military.
>
>> Islam is a religion, it is most emphatically not an
>> authority
>
> Religion most certainly is an authority.
Religious organizations may have them, but religions don't. Why do you
insist on being dense?
>
>> and has no central decision making power. Hell, there
>> are sects and groups within Islam that are at war (or
>> at least, uneasy peace) with each other. There are no
>> religious wars, really.
>
> That statement is so crazy that I am unable respond.
You're terribly naive for a seemingly grown person. There are no
religious wars - period. All wars are fought for land and resources, be
they oil, spices, slaves or cheap plunder. While religion is
conveniently used as a motivator for the gullible who would otherwise
not be so eager to die for their rich leaders, religions are not the
reason for wars.
> Almost all wars are religious wars - read the long
> telegram, which accurately forecast and explained the
> cold war as a holy war.
??? This is beyond stupid. The Cold War is a perfect example of two
military powers playing monopoly on the world scale for supremacy and
you think this was a religious war???
> <http://www.historyguide.org/Europe/kennan.html>
>
>> Any war is a war for resources
>
> Nonsense - obvious nonsense. What resources are we
> fighting for in Afghanistan?
What the... I am speechless. You are actually suggesting with a straight
face that the US is fighting a religious war in Afghanistan???
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Similarly, the long
> telegram never mentions resources, and it is highly
> unlikely the thought occurred to X or his audience.
> Instead, in the long telegram, X analyzes communism as a
> delusion and religion, and accurately predicted the
> delusionary and religiously motivated behavior that
> followed for the next forty years.
>
> Islam fights for women and souls, not for resources.
??? Islam "fights for women and souls"? What the fuck does that even mean?
> Communism fought to liberate the proletariat from their
> false consciousness.
No, it didn't. Communism, much like any other social structure in the
history of mankind, was just another way a privileged class of people
used the masses to accumulate wealth and privileges. Don't fucking
lecture me what communism is - I spent 25 years of my life in it.
> Fascists thought they were
> fighting for resources, in particular Tojo thought he
> was fighting for resources, but as events proved, this
> belief was every bit as delusionary, every bit as
> religiously motivated, as the communist belief that they
> were fighting to liberate the proletariat. Tojo thought
> he was fighting for resources, but was merely
> rationalizing.
Why do you insist on being dense? What difference does it make what the
result of the war was? Japan fought for supremacy and control of the
Pacific and Asia. The only religious element here was the one offered to
the soldiers who were being duped into dying for the emperor. That
doesn't mean that the ruling class felt the same.
>
>> But, please, feel free to list here an example of when
>> in the few centuries any country launched a war of
>> agression against another country solely in order to
>> expand Islam, i.e. convert the conquered:
>
> The Koran is a long list of such wars of evangelical
> aggression. Mohammed tells us he converted by the
> sword, for example the Massacre of Khaybar and his
> various wars against the various Banu.
There is a long list of "evangelical aggression" attached to almost
every corner of Earth by the same logic.
Spain, England, France, Holland, Portugal, Italy, they were all forming
colonies in order to spread Christianity, huh?
Why do you insist on being dense?
>
>>> Every time an incident like Fort Hood occurs, the
>>> press goes looking for a "moderate" imam, and
>>> invariably the most "moderate" imam they can
>>> interview is alarmingly far from being moderate.
>
>> Who gives a shit what some imam somewhere thinks?
>
> If there was one moderate Imam in America, the press
> would cover him 24/7 every time there was a fort hood
> type incident. Obviously therefore, there is not one
> moderate Imam in America.
Disingenuous speculation. Why do you insist on being dense?
>
> The press dug up a "moderate" - who refused to use his
> own name, who is not an imam - and who *still* sounds
> alarmingly immoderate.
And? How "moderate" do all those Christians sound, from Pat Robertson to
Falwell to any head of any organization that has the word "family" in
its name? Segregation was legal just until a few decades ago, for
fucksake. Blacks were being lynched as late as the sixties. Abortion
providers are being shot even today. That's moderate? There are mass
murderers on almost regular basis and their religion is never
questioned. But if the asshole who goes berserk happens to be a Muslim,
all of a sudden it's a fucking witch hunt for you morons.
>
> The press describes its pet Muslim's views as follows:
> : : While "Richard" is careful to say that he
> : : respects much of Awlaki’s historical
> : : scholarship, he rejects his political
> : : ideology, which posits a black-and-white, us
> : : versus them, view of America’s relationship
> : : with the Islamic world.
> : :
> : : Richard’s own study of Islam has revealed
> : : that such a harsh dualistic approach to
> : : religion ....
>
> That is not moderation. A genuinely moderate Muslim
> would say that Awlaki is a heretic, a terrorist, and is
> going to roast in hell for his crimes against god and
> man. If you are not at war with Awlaki, you are at war
> with the USA.
Nice strawman and a false dichotomy you constructed there. Why do you
insist on being dense?
>
>> How many Islamic countries have invaded a non-Islamic
>> country lately?
>
> Lots: For a map, see "the bloody borders of Islam"
> <http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/> but as this is a
> holy war, no one pays much attention to nations and
> national borders, so one can easily define the answer to
> be zero in any one case - but if one wants the answer to
> be zero, one finds one has a great many cases to explain
> away.
Why do you insist on being dense?
James A. Donald
> beginning of life - the first self-reproducing molecules - was a
> chance event. As for the laws of physics being friendly to complex
> life, I think that the anthropic principle is a much more likely
> explanation than divine intervention.
The anthropic principle only makes sense in the context of spontaneous
symmetry breaking:
To accommodate the observed anthropic restraints on physical constants
we need at least four spontaneously broken symmetries to provide four
degrees of freedom in the constants of physical law, which implies at
least four early rapid cosmic inflationary epochs. We have direct
physical evidence of at least one spontaneously broken symmetry, and
evidence of at least one, possibly evidence of two, early rapid cosmic
inflationary epochs.
Between the Higgs mass and the Plank mass, there is room for half a
dozen or so spontaneously broken symmetries. Half a dozen or so
spontaneously broken symmetries and their corresponding inflationary
epochs would solve the hierarchy problem.
The big desert assumption is equivalent to assuming that the only
spontaneously broken symmetry is the one we know of, which is
insufficient for the anthropic principle to work, and implies only a
single period of early rapid cosmic inflation.