14th February 2013
“In a state tormented by religious divisions, religious neutrality seems the sole solution to prevent a tearing apart of society.”
Paul Cliteur
“In a state tormented by religious divisions, religious neutrality seems the sole solution to prevent a tearing apart of society.”
Paul Cliteur
February 14th, 2013 at 3:40
I agree. But at the same time you cannot treat them all equally. Some religions are much more destructive (presently) than others and need to be held to account. If you merely stay nuetral, they will destroy you first and then proceed to detroy each other. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We must ally with Christianity to destroy Islam, before we address the wrongs of Christianity. We cannot prematurely decimate the only sect willing to stand up to Islam.
February 14th, 2013 at 7:39
TH,
I disagree on allying with Christianity as a rule. I mean, of course there will be specific issues that we might agree with Christianity on, but that’s beside the overall issue of standing up against wrongs as they occur. Instead, we not ignore the faults of Christianity in favor of Islam which is worse, but we weight the deserved criticism accordingly.
Afterall, just look at the trend that certain Christian groups in the US would push for given the chance… they would love to return to a Christian version of contemporary Islamic Brotherhood factions in various nations in the world. And, they’re not on some other continent, they’re either next door or just a car drive away.
So of course we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to one religion’s threats at home in order to deal with another religion’s crimes abroad. We deal with both, according to what is needed to be done.
February 14th, 2013 at 15:18
I agree Dan we shouldn’t discriminate when it comes to advancing reason over faith. The cause of reason is obvious, the cause of faith can’t even be explained reliably by the leading proponents of any faith.
So when one nut bag does something destructive motiviated by his faith it isn’t his specific brand of faith that represents any significance, it is the faith that is the problem. Depending upon bad information is always more likely to create bad results. Like the computer cliche “bad info in bad info out”.
We must resist the temptation to identify one religion as worse than another, especially when the messenger supplying all the facts are Western media outlets run by Judeo-Christian propagandists.
You have to presume a lack of objectivity in the Western media given the deluge of Muslim negative reporting. We still have Jews and Christians committing atrocious acts all over the world but the coverage just isn’t there. That is by design.
Divide and conquor applies.
February 14th, 2013 at 15:41
I disagree. The Muslims are far more dangerous than the modern day faiths of Judaism and Christianity. I am not saying that their past transgressions do not give one pause, but the fact is that it is not the face of those religions now. Islam, however, is a savage religion stuck in the 7th century. They wish to subjigate the world. And they wish homosexuals dead, atheists dead, Christians and Jews dead, and other Muslims dead, to name a few. I am sorry, but I don’t hear those sentiments coming from other religions. The Jews are fighting the Muslims, the Hindus are fighting the Muslims, and the Christians are fighting the Muslims. I don’t see any atheists fighting the Muslims – in fact I see them backing them. It is short-sighted stupidity.
February 14th, 2013 at 16:06
TH,
We’re just saying that you weight the criticism accordingly. Christianity and Judaism aren’t as bad, we agree, and it is reasonable to “go easier” on them as a result.
But to ignore their faults completely?!?!??
Why exactly do you think that we can ignore things like Catholic pedophilia? (for one obvious example)
February 14th, 2013 at 16:24
Dan you can likely attest to the media manipulation here in the US for living abroad. What can you say about how the different faiths are characterized in the US versus Cyprus (I think).
Remember I’m not saying there is no significant unrest?headlines in Muslim countries right now or that there aren’t atrocious acts being committed in Third World countries by Muslim fundamentalists.
What I’m trying to say is that for a billion Muslims worldwide there are (according to the CIA) about 10,000 globally that considered dangerous and organized.
I’m also saying I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t also at the very least an equal amount of Christian and Jews that are dangerous. One only has to look in the American prison population (99% Christian) for a greater number and it has become cliche to say “God made me do it”: No doubt many of these Christian prisoner were religiously motivated.
I appreciate your points Heretic but I can’t escape the thought that you have given a level of credibility to the Western media that they don’t deserve.
All faith is bad!
February 14th, 2013 at 16:27
TH and Sinjin,
Please see my comment at the end of the 11th.
As to going easier on the ones who’ve shown some sign of growing beyond their bloody roots, I will quote Mr. R. Williams at the end of a long monologue delivered in San Francisco in the 1980’s: Joke ’em if they can’t take a f***.
That being because they’re all pretty much jokes anyhow…
February 14th, 2013 at 16:54
I would like to point out one thing about our situation here that is a tad different. We do not have blasphemy laws and have more freedom to criticize what is being done in the name of Allah…
I think Sam Harris does a good job of pointing out that perpetrating an act and being Christian or Jewish is quite different than doing it because you are a christian, muslim, jew. That is a big difference and one that could be said for the majority of the atrocities committed on a daily basis by either group. Now as for how christianity contributes to crimes for believers.. I think it is the “forgiveness factor” of it that christians buy into allowing them to tresspass on others rights and property with impunity… They are taught to believe that god will forgive anything and loves them no matter what they do. I just watched a Dateline ID special on kids that kill and as one mother lay dying after being stabbed numerous times by her adopted daughter – she reassured the daughter that she could still go to heaven. I don’t see the “god made me do it” as much as I see the “god will forgive me and you should too” abuse.
February 14th, 2013 at 18:27
Sinjin,
The media in the US and abroad is a strange animal. Yes, the media is vastly manipulated in the US, but the Left and by the Right. The US is simply the best at gaming the media to manipulate people, hands down.
But for how the faiths are characterized in the US versus Cyprus, it’s tough to compare. But generally here Greek Orthodox is treated as the True religion, of course (literally in ancient Greek, Orthodox means “having the correct opinion”). Other religions are largely ignored, including Islam, except maybe where the Turks are involved.
February 14th, 2013 at 20:55
Jeff,
At present the basis of ownership exists because land ownership is legal.
In most countries real property is bought and sold and with the ownership goes the rights to the resources. The property owner can sell the resources or trade them with other people. I might want to farm and to do so I may need to cut down trees. Another landowner might want to raise a barn and have interest in my wood. The other landowner may employ a laborer who doesn’t own land but does mill logs into lumber. The laborer may be hungry and want to buy my produce. It is the circle of free commerce.
If it were not legal to own land the philosophy still holds true. First: If no one can own property how practically could one person hoard anything? Where would he put it? Now: if you can spin wool from a lamb you happen upon maybe you can tuck that in your pack and when you met with someone you would have something to trade.
Either way there is no theft. No one would accuse you of stealing air for breathing. There are simply some things in nature that can not be owned in any practical sense the are freely shared and not accounted for. Sure you could suffocate someone to death, denying them oxygen, but the video covers this too.
By whose defintion of valuable? Value is unique to every individual. You may think a Mercedes Benz is worth every penny of $50,000 but I might not see it the same way. I may think it is an overpriced waste of money. Value is your willingness to pay what you must to get what you want.
Not conversion from common to private is necessary in either scenario common property or privately owned property.
February 15th, 2013 at 17:58
Sinjin,
What I tried to point out is that at the intersection of societies where individual ownership and common property are not shared ideals that the theft always occurs, and your philosophy DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT. Unless one assumes that individual ownership automatically makes the society that believes in it superior, thus subsuming whatever claim those who hold property in common may have, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR ANCESTORS DID, then you must find some way to justify the taking of common property for individual use between those societies. Without that the entire edifice falls – a philosophy that does not account for the transition from one state to another cannot function as change is the only true constant in all of the universe.
You correctly pointed out that the philosophy works in either steady state, but…
February 17th, 2013 at 19:53
Sinjin,
What I am (poorly) attempting to point out is that just as in physics, so it is in philosophy. It is at the boundary conditions that we find the break downs. Newton broke down at speeds approaching C, and so Einstein came up with Relativity. Relativity broke down at the sub-atomic level, thus begetting Quantum Mechanics, and so on. Your philosophy of liberty breaks down at the intersection between societies of differing philosophies, resulting inevitably in the theft of common property for private use.