Israel signs unilateral ceasefire...

Stan Shannon

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

[citation needed]

For what? My opinion?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Mustafa, if the first two things I learn about a culture from its own members represent a complete contradictions of my own values, what is the purpose of any further investigation? And if I relate that finding to someone else in my own culture, that hardly represents spreading ignorance. Even your attempts to sound 'moderate' are reprehensible to me. Even the most basic concepts you espouse are an abomination to everything I beleive in. That isn't hate mongering, and frankly your attempt to use that emotionally charged language to illicite some sort of endorsement of your point of view is even more reprehensible. I have the right to evaluate other people's principles as I see fit. I am under no moral obligation as a Christian, or as an AMerican or as a human being or in any other way to be tolerant of you or your culture and religion. ANd I refuse to endorse any political or social ideology which would obligate me to be so.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

It is, I'm not denying that, but those laws are not enforced properly. Islam as a religion is completely innocent of the hateful actions being committed in its name. You can say the exact same thing about Christianity. Christianity came with its own laws as well. You're just saying that you choose to follow or not follow some of the rules laid down in the Old Testament, thus rendering you a non-practicing christian. Do not adopt a holier than thou attitude, the halo so doesn't suit you.

No, in fact you cannot say that about CHrisitanity. Christianity was a reaction to a form of political oppression that no amount of violence was going to overcome. It provided a means of spiritual liberation when political liberation was simply not possible. That is its purpose. In fact, it probably has more in common intellectually with Hindu spiritualism than with Judaism. Islam was born for a completly diffrent purpose. It was born to legitimize conquest by the sword and the imposition of a set of political principles to govern those conquests. The history and underlieing principles of the two religions could not be more different.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Tunis, Morocco, Libya are off the top of my head that are countries with an overwhelming Muslim majority where Shari'a is not the law of the land. Jordan is secular even and the Muslim population constitutes of about 90-95% Just because a cou

Stan Shannon

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Funny, you seem to judge me and everyone you deem as a non-Christian or non-Jeffersonian in their views by that.

Those are simply issues which deserve to be defended against grossly dishonest historic and political attacks. Hell, I've spent most of my life argueing against much of Christianity in the very buckle of the bible belt as fervantly as I argue for it here. Many of the Christians who know me ocnsider me to be an atheist.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

You have yet to offer proof of that.

What proof do you want? I'm not anti-abortion, I am against prayer in school, and the teaching of intelligent design, I believe that neither homosexuals or minorities or women should be discriminated against. Hell, for that matter I'm not even strongly opposed to gun control or getting rid of the death penalty, or any number of other issues along the liberal/conservative divide. I endorse all of the intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

What you have historically shown is a tendency to be completely intolerant of anything that does not agree with your hard set ideology. From religion to politics to economics to your perverted sense of civilization. You remind me of this: (not that I'm insinuating you are an ass, just as stubborn as one)[^]

No, what I've shown is an unwillingness to be kowtowed by accusations of intolerance. I am under no obligation to be tolerant of anything. Such a moral imperative simply does not exist. I find the entier concept to be little more than a psuedo-moralistic mechanism people who have no real ability to defend their beliefs intellectually use to demonize any philosphical challange.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Tim Craig

Stan Shannon wrote:

I believe that neither homosexuals or minorities or women should be discriminated against.

Yet you're entirely in favor of your biggoted neighbors being able to pass laws doing so. Guess you just don't want to get your hands dirty.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

For what? My opinion?

Yes, assuming that your opinion is actually based on something.

Stan Shannon

Tim Craig wrote:

Yet you're entirely in favor of your biggoted neighbors being able to pass laws doing so. Guess you just don't want to get your hands dirty.

Well, yes, unless we, as a nation consider it important enough to amend the constitution over. Than it becomes an abosolute right. Sorry, but that is just the way our government was designed to work. Call me, Jefferson, Madison, et al, strange, but we all consider that a far superior method than simply allowing our entire social framework to be changeable at the whim of some wacko judge somewhere.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

My opinion is based on the observation that stone age peoples were ... well ... stone age. Their moral codes were probably not what we would consider 'christian'. Secular Humanism is not christian either, or much of anything else aside from... well... humanist. So, therefore, I contend that while Christianity takes us back to the iron age, and Islam takes us back to the bronze age (or the dark ages, depending on how their history is interpreted), secular humanism takes us back to the stone age. Not to imply that I am asserting that as any sort of scientific hypothesis or anything else other than my own personal opinion. Is that ok?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

soap brain

Stone age people came up with their own religions. There's no way they were secular humanists.

Stan Shannon

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Stone age people came up with their own religions. There's no way they were secular humanists.

Depends on how far back you are referring to. The first evidence of what might be some kind of religious symbolism is about 35,000 years ago. But, in any case, primitive societies have primitive religions and poorly developed codes of moral ethics. I continue to maintain that is essentially what Secular Humanism represents a return to. And I seroiusly doubt that it will be any more capable of sustaining an advanced civilization than those stone age people were.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

soap brain

You seem to be describing moral nihilism more than secular humanism.

Vikram A Punathambekar

That was insightful, thanks. It appears your notion of an Islamic state is more narrowly defined than mine, which I think is the common outsider's view.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

The general trend (though not a requirement except possibly in some of the more "strict" countries like KSA) is that the non-Muslim spouse adopts Islam as a religion.

India isn't any different.

Cheers, Vıkram.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.