Afghan convert going to get death sentence?
-
Your logic is faulty. A religion can't violate human rights, it's an abstract concept. Only people can violate human rights. Just because some people go to extremes, and that goes for politics too (extreme left, extreme right) doesn't necessarily brand whatever group they belong to as extremist. There are some Democrats and Republicans (in the US) that are extremists, does that mean all Republicans or all Democrats or all political parties are extreme or bad? Some right-to-lifers have killed doctors who have performed abortions. Does that mean that the "Right-to-life" group has violated human rights??? So it is with Religion. Just because some people who belong to a particular religion go to extremes, and even say they're doing it in the "name of their religion" or "their God", doesn't mean everyone in that religion agrees with the extremists' actions. Nor should everyone in that religion nor should ALL Religions be painted with such a brush just because there are some bad PEOPLE. Again, people violate human rights, not some abstract concept. But, as espeir said, Mormonism[^] has not viloated anybodys rights. ---sig---
Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus MackayA religion is nothing but its followers. A religion without followers, is not a religion. It is not an abstract concept, but a very real concept. Ask any devout believer in any religion if what he or she believes is just an abstract concept. What I'm saying is that if you let crazy ideas such as "God demands X" on the loose, and people believe in it, bad shit will happen. It has happened, it does happen, and it will happen.
ahz wrote:
But, as espeir said, Mormonism[^] has not viloated anybodys rights.
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
-
The Swedish government comes to mind. The Norwegian government also comes to mind. The Finnish. The Icelandic. The Danish. I can't recall any of them having violated human rights since they became secular. They've all been at war at some point, so I guess it all depends on a point of view.
espeir wrote:
But I'll go ahead and play this game: Mormonism.
That's probably one of the few. I don't think Buddhists have ever violated human rights. But then again, neither of these religions have established power over a nation, or a sufficiently large population, in order to do whatever they want. Power corrupts. Even more so, whenever you can back your words with God. I think the rise and fall of the catholic church is proof of that. As well as the rise of Islam. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Even more so, whenever you can back your words with God.
Care to compare the Catholic church to the USSR and Mao. They were such peaceful guys without the corrupting power of church behing them. I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
You need to get an edumacation.
-
jan larsen wrote:
No, you joined in because it was becoming really annoying how the German subs kept sinking your merchant vessels. Business as usual.
Funny. I thought it was Pearl Harbor.
jan larsen wrote:
My grandfather planted roadside bombs and deranged trains while your grandparents were sipping coffe and wondering if good old Adolf might turn out to be a good trading partner when the war was over.
Huh? America took Hitler down. Why would we plan on being his trading partner? Ask your grandfather how effective he was planting bombs. Ask him if his little bombs would have gotten anywhere without America's big bombs. Ask him if he's grateful and if he's proud of his ungrateful little snot of a grandson.
jan larsen wrote:
While fantasizing about alternative history can be very amusing, I would consider that outcome highly improbable. Look, we have been occupied several times through history, and we're still a very independant nation. Even if the USSR had had the resources to extend their realm to our territory, we would have made it. I can see that all the cold war propaganda is still hanging around, but try visiting eg. Praque and see for yourself that other nations actually did make it through.
It's hardly alternate. Expansion was the USSR's goal. Why do you think NATO was formed? Ever hear of Vietnam? Afghanistan? Denmark was on the list. America just kept the USSR at bay. Prague made it through for one reason...America. You're welcome. :cool:
espeir wrote:
Funny. I thought it was Pearl Harbor.
Well, it wasn't...
espeir wrote:
Huh? America took Hitler down. Why would we plan on being his trading partner? Ask your grandfather how effective he was planting bombs. Ask him if his little bombs would have gotten anywhere without America's big bombs. Ask him if he's grateful and if he's proud of his ungrateful little snot of a grandson.
I can't, he's dead. Remember my young friend, this was in the last century. Anyway, he was a communist, so I think he would actually have appreciated being 'liberated' by the USSR.
espeir wrote:
It's hardly alternate. Expansion was the USSR's goal. Why do you think NATO was formed? Ever hear of Vietnam? Afghanistan? Denmark was on the list. America just kept the USSR at bay. Prague made it through for one reason...America. You're welcome.
During the cold war every nation was a valid victim for the expansion either USA or USSR. While I appreciate the marshall help, I'm glad that we had Britain and France to keep the USSR at bay while you guys were meddling in the Asia region. As to the collapse of the USSR: that was inevitable, allthough very few would have guessed that it would come that soon. The USSR had it's finest days during the cold war, dictatorships thrive in an athmosphere where national values are attacked from external sources. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Oh brother...Try to keep up. :omg:
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Even more so, whenever you can back your words with God.
Care to compare the Catholic church to the USSR and Mao. They were such peaceful guys without the corrupting power of church behing them. I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
A religion is nothing but its followers. A religion without followers, is not a religion. It is not an abstract concept, but a very real concept. Ask any devout believer in any religion if what he or she believes is just an abstract concept. What I'm saying is that if you let crazy ideas such as "God demands X" on the loose, and people believe in it, bad shit will happen. It has happened, it does happen, and it will happen.
ahz wrote:
But, as espeir said, Mormonism[^] has not viloated anybodys rights.
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
By your logic then, all politics violates human rights. After all, by your logic, what is a political system or philosophy without it's followers or adherents? Since the US government, the Soviet government, the British government, the Iranian government, the Cuban government, the French government (all politcal systems which each follow a unique particular philosphy) have all viloated human rights, then all polical parties violate human rights. Therefore, YOU violate human rights by being alive and believing in a polical philosphy. What a bunch of crap. ---sig---
Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay -
A religion is nothing but its followers. A religion without followers, is not a religion. It is not an abstract concept, but a very real concept. Ask any devout believer in any religion if what he or she believes is just an abstract concept. What I'm saying is that if you let crazy ideas such as "God demands X" on the loose, and people believe in it, bad shit will happen. It has happened, it does happen, and it will happen.
ahz wrote:
But, as espeir said, Mormonism[^] has not viloated anybodys rights.
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm not going argue against you, because I don't know Mormonism that well. But I do know that if the USA was under Mormon law, and you objected to its teachings, you and I would not be arguing about anything. You'd most likely be dead.
That's very idiotic. I'm not Mormon, but Mormonism is a very American religion. They've never forced anybody to join. Sure they try really hard to convince you, but it's not like the secular EU or anything where they repeatedly force you to vote on a constitution (against their own rules) until you finally give in.
-
And yet history says just the opposite. The only Christian violence you can name is either very isolated or very, very old. The secular violence is very prevelant and very recent (and current).
-
espeir wrote:
Funny. I thought it was Pearl Harbor.
Well, it wasn't...
espeir wrote:
Huh? America took Hitler down. Why would we plan on being his trading partner? Ask your grandfather how effective he was planting bombs. Ask him if his little bombs would have gotten anywhere without America's big bombs. Ask him if he's grateful and if he's proud of his ungrateful little snot of a grandson.
I can't, he's dead. Remember my young friend, this was in the last century. Anyway, he was a communist, so I think he would actually have appreciated being 'liberated' by the USSR.
espeir wrote:
It's hardly alternate. Expansion was the USSR's goal. Why do you think NATO was formed? Ever hear of Vietnam? Afghanistan? Denmark was on the list. America just kept the USSR at bay. Prague made it through for one reason...America. You're welcome.
During the cold war every nation was a valid victim for the expansion either USA or USSR. While I appreciate the marshall help, I'm glad that we had Britain and France to keep the USSR at bay while you guys were meddling in the Asia region. As to the collapse of the USSR: that was inevitable, allthough very few would have guessed that it would come that soon. The USSR had it's finest days during the cold war, dictatorships thrive in an athmosphere where national values are attacked from external sources. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
jan larsen wrote:
Well, it wasn't...
:laugh: OK. I suggest you pick up a history book sometime. BTW, Germany sank US ships because the US was supplying allied forces before joining the war. America knew the risks involved beforehand.
jan larsen wrote:
I can't, he's dead. Remember my young friend, this was in the last century.
We were also both born last century. This century is 6 years old...
jan larsen wrote:
Anyway, he was a communist, so I think he would actually have appreciated being 'liberated' by the USSR.
Why am I not surprised! Do you like gray?
jan larsen wrote:
During the cold war every nation was a valid victim for the expansion either USA or USSR. While I appreciate the marshall help, I'm glad that we had Britain and France to keep the USSR at bay while you guys were meddling in the Asia region. As to the collapse of the USSR: that was inevitable, allthough very few would have guessed that it would come that soon. The USSR had it's finest days during the cold war, dictatorships thrive in an athmosphere where national values are attacked from external sources.
Britain was a good partner. Not France. We were the ones with the military to match the USSR's. Without our complete superiority, you would have been 'liberated' long ago. You would now be half-starved waiting for your stale bread.
-
Islam is the same crap as Judaism and Christianity. The main difference is that the middle east has become so saturated with Islam, there's nothing but Islam. Islam has got a powerful hold over the population. And what can you do, but abide to idiocy, if you can't go against God?! Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad shit will happen!? It's so obvious! :sigh: -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad sh*t will happen!? It's so obvious!
Good point. But i dont necessarily think that religion is the only thing at play when people commit acts of violence in the name of a certain religion. People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
-
You need to get an edumacation.
espeir wrote:
You need to get an edumacation.
You sure got him with that one. :doh:
-
espeir wrote:
You need to get an edumacation.
You sure got him with that one. :doh:
Being American, I would expect you to pick up on that. "Edumacation"...It's intentional.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that if you don't keep religion on a short leash, bad sh*t will happen!? It's so obvious!
Good point. But i dont necessarily think that religion is the only thing at play when people commit acts of violence in the name of a certain religion. People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
First off, thank you for being reasonable and understanding what I'm trying to say.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
I won't argue with you on that. But I would like to point out that even if a certain religion isn't encouraging violence, its followers aren't slow to pick up the noose and root out the "evil" - something which is of higher purpose. I'm fairly confident sure that if a religion X has a "bible" containing only the sentence "You must love everyone", that religion will at one point, given enough power and opportunity, will start killing those who doesn't love everyone. My main point is that in the middle east, Islam has gained so much power, that it has engulfed almost everything. The religion has become law. As such, it is impossible to expect anything but crap in such areas. And just to clarify, probably not needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate. :) -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 4:35 Saturday 25th March, 2006
-
First off, thank you for being reasonable and understanding what I'm trying to say.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
People use religion as an excuse for violence. There will always be human nature, regardless of the religion, but when a religion encourages violence, it makes the problem worse.
I won't argue with you on that. But I would like to point out that even if a certain religion isn't encouraging violence, its followers aren't slow to pick up the noose and root out the "evil" - something which is of higher purpose. I'm fairly confident sure that if a religion X has a "bible" containing only the sentence "You must love everyone", that religion will at one point, given enough power and opportunity, will start killing those who doesn't love everyone. My main point is that in the middle east, Islam has gained so much power, that it has engulfed almost everything. The religion has become law. As such, it is impossible to expect anything but crap in such areas. And just to clarify, probably not needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate. :) -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 4:35 Saturday 25th March, 2006
The problem is clear. You're equating an inherently violent religion with Christianity (and most other religions) which is inherently non-violent. As I previously asked (which you conveniently ignored), why don't you provide examples of Christian violence that are both widespread (i.e. actually part of the religion and not isolated incidents) and recent (say...within 100 years).
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
And just to clarify, probably needed for you, but definately for others in this forum; I am not justifying atrocities made by secular governments and/or philosophies. Anybody who thinks that is just asking for my nonparticipation in debate.
You can't argue one without the other. If your claim is that religiosity is violent, then you need a benchmark with which to compare it. That's why I'm comparing it to secularism (which is apparently your viewpoint). And the religious clearly trump the secular in the competition.
-
And yet history says just the opposite. The only Christian violence you can name is either very isolated or very, very old. The secular violence is very prevelant and very recent (and current).
All history says is that there have been fewer religious governments recently than secular. Christian desire to repress others is in fact tempered in large part by secular government, and that still doesn't stop them from wanting to legislate or coerce rights away from others based solely on their beliefs. Totalitarianism breeds violence. The demand that people accept an institutionalized belief system without question breeds violence. Violence is not inherent in secular or religious government, but religion is more likely from the start to demand acceptance without question. Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
-
All history says is that there have been fewer religious governments recently than secular. Christian desire to repress others is in fact tempered in large part by secular government, and that still doesn't stop them from wanting to legislate or coerce rights away from others based solely on their beliefs. Totalitarianism breeds violence. The demand that people accept an institutionalized belief system without question breeds violence. Violence is not inherent in secular or religious government, but religion is more likely from the start to demand acceptance without question. Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence. Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course. -- modified at 15:58 Friday 24th March, 2006
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Name a religious democracy, one that is democratic more than just in name.
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence. Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course. -- modified at 15:58 Friday 24th March, 2006
espeir wrote:
Try to keep up. The comparison is not religious government vs. secular governments. The comparison is religion-backed violence vs. secular-backed violence.
Actually, you snarky jackass, look back a few messages and you will find:
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Name as many religions you can which haven't violated basic human rights at some point in time.
Human rights, not just violence.
espeir wrote:
Oh, and just to add...Secular governments rose to power based on the secular movements behind them. The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because religion (unlike its secular counterpart) has not been driven to acquire power through violence. Islam is the exception, of course.
So what is religion's "secular counterpart"? Wait, let me guess...COMMUNISM!!! The reason there haven't been any theistic governments lately is because technology, travel, and education are making populations more diverse, and diversity precludes monotheism.
-
I think the best point to be made is that ANY form of power will be corrupted and abuses will happen. Cloak it how you want its just mankind being mankind. Some people take more offense if it is cloaked in religiosity than if it is cloaked in motherland statist symbolism but it is still all about controlling those you have power over. And mankinds track record on that isn't what you would call stellar. Enough said. (At least by me!) (Or until I can make another joke!) I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
When did W invade France? :confused:
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
When did W invade France?
Yeah, WTF, when did W invade France?