Tell Me What You Feel About This Statement

[starfish]

he was actually refering to ZuluKingCrowned, but yea jake is right fishey just likes to come in and stir up trouble and act like he's about something. usually its just being a douche and picking the less popular opinion cuz it gives him something to do.

No, but I'll tell you what I'm about. To me it would be intellectually lazy to go through life accepting all popular opinion as fact. It is much harder to look at popular opinion and learn if the opinion has been adulterated to the point that it is no longer valid. When people make a choice to take what I perceive as the easy route and accept others opinion as there own it becomes a mindset of groupthink. Even as I present inarguable facts that blatantly contradict their popular held opinion, to them my facts become unclear or untrustworthy. Do to this mental stubborness and instability of core values they become easily offended.

I'll quote Salman Rushdie who said, "The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)"

[RAzOR]

discrediting someones faith because they are violent? No... and that was the point i have been trying to make.

You know we are talking like 500 years apart. Half of a millennium ago. And the Moors (Muslims) started it back then as well- first paragraph of Wikipedia.

But more to the point, one can absolutely blame anyone, anything, or any religeon based on their actions. And right now Islam has a violent faction within it that is murderous and horrible.

I blame them wholly and clearly. Passive Muslims can do something about it but so far, I have seen no real efforts.

For example, the US Muslim community has no problem rallying large numbers to protest their stereotyping and scapegoating in the aftermath of 9/11 or protesting the arrest of the five flying mullahs.

But I have yet to see an organized demonstration of any significance renouncing specific terrorist acts.

That does not mean I believe they are terrorists, hardly.

I have been told that the Islamic community at large has no religeously based renunciation of the Radical Islamists' citations of the clauses of the Jihad responsibility in the Koran and the call to it as a neglected duty. Consqeuently, the passive Muslim cannot refute the call to arms of their religeon and the become, at the least, non-defiant, because they cannot argue against it.

This is a real danger and must be clearly identified as such.

Kashif might be able to speak much better to this point. I have very little firsthand knowledge of what I speak- I, like most of us, must rely on what we sift out of our daily barrage of largely useless news.

[HtownTurboBrick]

No, but I'll tell you what I'm about. To me it would be intellectually lazy to go through life accepting all popular opinion as fact. It is much harder to look at popular opinion and learn if the opinion has been adulterated to the point that it is no longer valid. When people make a choice to take what I perceive as the easy route and accept others opinion as there own it becomes a mindset of groupthink. Even as I present inarguable facts that blatantly contradict their popular held opinion, to them my facts become unclear or untrustworthy. Do to this mental stubborness and instability of core values they become easily offended.

I'll quote Salman Rushdie who said, "The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)"

starfish im passed the days where i stop to think if any of your replies are worth my time. bottom line you just like to come in a piss people off. you can come in here and spout your psuedointelligent mumbo jumbo, but at the end of the day i don't give you credit for anything more then being an instigator and a grade A douche bag.

[Zulu]

No, but I'll tell you what I'm about. To me it would be intellectually lazy to go through life accepting all popular opinion as fact. It is much harder to look at popular opinion and learn if the opinion has been adulterated to the point that it is no longer valid. When people make a choice to take what I perceive as the easy route and accept others opinion as there own it becomes a mindset of groupthink. Even as I present inarguable facts that blatantly contradict their popular held opinion, to them my facts become unclear or untrustworthy. Do to this mental stubborness and instability of core values they become easily offended.

I'll quote Salman Rushdie who said, "The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)"

So your argument is that your opinion is different from history (consequently, it is an unpopular opinion) and therefore, history is wrong? And now, I'm a sheep also?

I don't see how this is groupthink, defending a point that I agree with from the beginning (and in most cases, the opposite of whatever you say considering that you're on the other end of the spectrum) does not qualify.

I'll quote Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature... Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites? To support roguery and error all over the world?" Hey, look! I can quote irrelevance too!

Edited September 25, 2007 by ZuluKingCrowned

[HtownTurboBrick]

Hey, look! I can quote irrelevance too!

:lol:

[c70turbo5]

I'll quote Salman Rushdie who said, "The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)"

Is this your attempt to justify your kindergarten insult? or telling us you want us to end your misery?

[Michael V70T5]

I don't think the statement can be true in any form, since there is no guidelines on what religion can call for?

[starfish]

I am not going to tell you what religion I am speaking about. I just want to know if you agree with this statement.

"Any religion that demands earthly vengence and retribution for ANY reason is not a religion at all. It is an illness and should be treated as such."

Gary

I fully agree with your statement and have dutifully noted its existance so it really is not much of a secret.

[Zulu]

No pointless rebuttal?

[RAzOR]

I fully agree with your statement and have dutifully noted its existance so it really is not much of a secret.

Fish, you really aren't making any points here. And the Inquisition was horrible but your point SHOULD be that it was 500 years ago. The Catholic Church is very corrupt (at from the US to the Vatican) in the power structure while the ground level faith is still OK.

Bishop Mahoney here is SoCal, and many others, should be in prison. He is a liar and an enabler of institutionalized child molestation. "John and Jane Doe" Catholic are at fault for not getting rid of him. But they can't. And that's first hand proof of corruption since Mahoney has the protection of the authority in the Catholic Church, as do the other priest-molesters. And these are the spiritual leaders.

Before the finger-pointers jump in, Islam is at similar fault. For example, they regularly stone homosexuals to death in some places. This is not only the leadership (like in the Catholic church) but with "Mo and Burqa Doe" enthusiastically participating!

But more to the point, today, Catholicism, Christianity, and the other main religeons do not have a segment that has institutionalized terrorism on a large scale and is actively engaged in a campaign to co-opt the rest of those in their religeon.

That is the problem and challenge Islam poses today and not the rest of the religeons.

The argument that says "well you did it too in 1500" is about as valid today as the understanding of Astronomy in 1500.

[c70turbo5]

But more to the point, today, Catholicism, Christianity, and the other main religeons do not have a segment that has institutionalized terrorism on a large scale and is actively engaged in a campaign to co-opt the rest of those in their religeon.

Really?? Ireland............. Catholic vs. Protestant... cease fire was about 8 years ago today i believe, but tension and violence is still to some degree i am sure due to residential segregation

[RAzOR]

Really?? Ireland............. Catholic vs. Protestant... cease fire was about 8 years ago today i believe, but tension and violence is still to some degree i am sure due to residential segregation

True but that was directed at each other, and limited to Ireland. Stupid and senseless nonetheless.

[Yellow95]

Yawn

Looks like my stalkers back. Exactly who I thought it would offend. See profiling does work.

Gary

[Yellow95]

Most of you need to re-read the post. It doesnt say religions that have done wrong. Hell all religions out there with the exception of maybe Buddhist have done horrific things in the name of religion. I am asking if a "true" religion would expect followers to harm others. I am not pointing fingers at any one religion. Just asking if you think violence should be a part of any religion. Personally I think a religion that expects its followers to harm others is not a religion, but a political agenda.

Gary

[Yellow95]

Really?? Ireland............. Catholic vs. Protestant... cease fire was about 8 years ago today i believe, but tension and violence is still to some degree i am sure due to residential segregation

Very good point, but is it part of thier religion to harm others, or just leaders with an agenda?

Gary