How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

Perhaps I could've been clearer but here's how I parse it:

"Even then, it seemed like the wishful thinking of a bunch of activists who really, honestly, just wanted to smoke pot and get high. I've no objection to that (referring to the aim of wanting to get high), even with the aggressively dumb culture that surrounds it"

Believe me if I was going to lie about something to a political end - which I wouldn't, by the way - I certainly wouldn't admit to it so casually.

Its too much hassle to dig up the post on this stupid tablet, but I'm sure the general tone of my post was scepticism towards the claims of hemp-evangelists and a suspicion of their motives. As an aside I find people who consider legalisation of weed a pressing political issue to be generally misguided, although there are very good arguments to be made for it it especially considering the racial dimension of drug prosecutions. But let's not derail the thread any further

Chengod-

True, but intolerance might be a bit different. As I believe I said violence and intolerance. Murder rates can be for the act of stealing food or any number of other reasons. Terrorist acts, whether that is indoctrination of religion and oppression against gays/women/other nations religions poses a unique threat to society especially if you consider Pakistan into the equation. The civil wars happening in the middle east (Syria/Iraq) are based a lot on religious differences. So this is my concern. As is helping with poverty/equality etc in Africa and elsewhere.

All of the above basically. As I find Christianity equally repugnant. Catholic Church telling African people that condoms are worse than Aids. I mean ffs.

  On 4/5/2013 at 9:35 AM, Iain C said:

No, capitalist powers in the west have a history of supporting strongman dictatorships across the world, like assad and mubarak and for a time Hussein, because its in their interests to do so. Thats not ignorant, it's fact.

And non-capitalist powers haven't? See where I'm getting at? At this point no system is better than any other, because in world history any system has showed similar behaviour as far as I can tell. Perhaps the point is that an economic system is not relevant in the context of the various conflicts which are discussed here. Conflicts like these already took place before money existed.

Capitalism at the root of global inequality and violence.... Take capitalism out of your equation and the world is still filled with inequality and violence. Possibly even more so.

Keep the C-discussion out of this thread please. It's a tiresome song and we've heard it plenty times.

Since the link specifically referred to murder rates, I just thought I'd point that out.

If you want to bring pakistan in to the equation, by all means do so. Let's see how the "war on terror" has panned out there.

http://pakistanbodycount.org/

Deaths from Suicide Bombings (maximum count) = 5,571 (total since 1995)

Deaths from Drone Attacks (maximum count) = 3,148 (total since 2004)

I've had my internet time for the night. Have fun y'all!

  On 4/5/2013 at 9:47 AM, LimpyLoo said:

MisterE, you had me there for a couple paragraphs but then you lost me.

 

 

Lying is not necessarily immoral. For instance, if you are gay and you live in a gay-hostile environment (perhaps in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death) then lying about your sexual orientation is obviously the way to go.

 

 

The fact that hemp is illegal is stupid. The fact that marijuana is illegal is stupid. If a stoner supported legalizing hemp as part of a grand-scheme attempt to legalize marijuana......who cares?!?

 

 

That just seems like such a weird petty detail to amplify and build a case on...

i'm taking lain on his word that i just misread what he was saying, and i dont mean that with any tone of uhh, disbelief or questioning or whatever. and i think your example of a gay person lying to get out of death, it's a good point. ok sure some lies aren't outright unethical. but if it's a lie that is slandering someone else, or in my opinion even if it were slandering a faceless corporation, with accusations that were known by the accuser to be most likely trumped up or entirely false, then yeah i think it's immoral. i think it also distracts from real bad things that corp or person might be up to, like a boy who cried wolf scenario. i think it also hurts whatever your cause actually is too, if say, you have obvious ulterior motives that everyone can plainly see. it makes people lose respect.

sorry, historian here who must take issue with very bad history:

  On 4/5/2013 at 3:18 AM, compson said:

At least in Europe and the West there is more secularism, which could explain why the Ottoman empire was scientifically advance prior to the introduction of Allah. Since 1,400 years ago when this religion started and took hold on that region there has been a decline in scientific advancement and critical thinking. Which is why Islam is of the greatest religious evil today and should be discouraged / criticized.

this is total nonsense in so many respects. Islam was the predominate religion in the Near East for some seven centuries prior to the emergence of the Ottoman Empire, so Islam was never 'introduced' there. if, as i think you probably mean, you are referring to the various political entities which existed in the Near East prior to the age of Muhammad, then this is still nonsense. i strongly suggest you look into the so-called 'Golden Age' of Islam between the eighth and twelfth centuries, as i think SR4 also suggested. it is only due to Islamic learning and preservation that very many Greek texts (including most notably the majority of the works of Aristotle and Plato) survived at all. so few scholars in the earlier medieval West could read Greek that these were completely unknown, whereas they had been either translated into Arabic or preserved in their original Greek in the East. they reappeared in the West principally as a result of the Crusades, when they were plundered and brought back to Western Europe. i think you would also do well to note some of the Arabic-derived words which passed into Latin (and hence English): algebra, alchemy (= early chemistry), alcohol (as in the substance, not a 'drink'), alkali, and others. the etymology of such words reflects the enormous scientific debt the Western world owes to the Arabic world. why do you think 'Arabic numerals' are called so? these were transmitted to the West predominantly via Islamic Spain, where their superiority was recognised by Christian scholars. they gradually replaced Roman numerals across the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a period of great intellectual renewal, and in which Islamic learning played a pivotal role.

i don't need to comment on that last sentence.

  On 4/5/2013 at 4:18 AM, compson said:

My understanding of history is that religion was introduced to control people and to keep them in fear/ignorant.

in that case, you had better read more, because this generalised, over-simplistic view is just ridiculous.

  On 4/5/2013 at 10:15 AM, chenGOD said:

Since the link specifically referred to murder rates, I just thought I'd point that out.

 

If you want to bring pakistan in to the equation, by all means do so. Let's see how the "war on terror" has panned out there.

 

http://pakistanbodycount.org/

Deaths from Suicide Bombings (maximum count) = 5,571 (total since 1995)

 

Deaths from Drone Attacks (maximum count) = 3,148 (total since 2004)

 

I've had my internet time for the night. Have fun y'all!

Where did I say I support drone attacks or even a broad claim that the US had the correct approach with the war on terror? I think Obama, Bush, Clinton were and are horrible in handling Middle East relations.

This is what I was more referring to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts

Pakistan being instable and nuclear.

and to conclude the debate for now with not something I agree entirely with but Hitchens makes a good argument

also:

RELIGION OF PEACE DONT MAKE I LAUGH

  On 4/5/2013 at 11:20 AM, Ron Manager said:

sorry, historian here who must take issue with very bad history:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 3:18 AM, compson said:

At least in Europe and the West there is more secularism, which could explain why the Ottoman empire was scientifically advance prior to the introduction of Allah. Since 1,400 years ago when this religion started and took hold on that region there has been a decline in scientific advancement and critical thinking. Which is why Islam is of the greatest religious evil today and should be discouraged / criticized.

 

this is total nonsense in so many respects. Islam was the predominate religion in the Near East for some seven centuries prior to the emergence of the Ottoman Empire, so Islam was never 'introduced' there. if, as i think you probably mean, you are referring to the various political entities which existed in the Near East prior to the age of Muhammad, then this is still nonsense. i strongly suggest you look into the so-called 'Golden Age' of Islam between the eighth and twelfth centuries, as i think SR4 also suggested. it is only due to Islamic learning and preservation that very many Greek texts (including most notably the majority of the works of Aristotle and Plato) survived at all. so few scholars in the earlier medieval West could read Greek that these were completely unknown, whereas they had been either translated into Arabic or preserved in their original Greek in the East. they reappeared in the West principally as a result of the Crusades, when they were plundered and brought back to Western Europe. i think you would also do well to note some of the Arabic-derived words which passed into Latin (and hence English): algebra, alchemy (= early chemistry), alcohol (as in the substance, not a 'drink'), alkali, and others. the etymology of such words reflects the enormous scientific debt the Western world owes to the Arabic world. why do you think 'Arabic numerals' are called so? these were transmitted to the West predominantly via Islamic Spain, where their superiority was recognised by Christian scholars. they gradually replaced Roman numerals across the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a period of great intellectual renewal, and in which Islamic learning played a pivotal role.

 

i don't need to comment on that last sentence.

 

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 4:18 AM, compson said:

>

My understanding of history is that religion was introduced to control people and to keep them in fear/ignorant.

 

in that case, you had better read more, because this generalised, over-simplistic view is just ridiculous.

Thanks for the info, I concede I have my history wrong. However I never suggested that Arabs or the Ottoman empire didn't bring forth great advancements and progress. I was more referring to this:

  Quote

Corrupt religious opposition to critical thinking; the corrupt ulema wanted to "protect" their position as heads of state. They discouraged creativity to keep the populace from information that might be disseminated through books other than the Koran. Muslims had been aware of the printing press since the 15th century, but it was not until 1727 –- 272 years after Gutenberg—that the Şeyhülislam released a fetva decreeing its compatibility with Islam.^[64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

Further:

  Quote

Although the printing press reached Muslim lands from Europe in 1492, Muslim kings banned setting Arabic into type until the early nineteenth century.

  Quote

An attempt of the same kind had been made by Achmet III., so early as the year 1727: the oulemas gave their consent, but it was rendered nugatory, by excepting the Koran, for a reason, as Mr. Walsh observes, ‘ characteristic of the people—they said it would be an act of impiety if the word of God should be squeezed and pressed together; but the true cause was, that great numbers of themselves earned a considerable income by transcribing those books, which would be at once destroyed, if suffered to be printed.’ As Turks read nothing else but the Koran, the printing-office was soon discontinued. Its renewal by Selim had no better success; it languished and declined on the death of its patron, ‘ who fell a victim to the rage of the Janissaries, for attempting to innovate upon their ancient and venerable ignorance.’

  Quote

The Sultan Bajazet II. issued a decree in 1483 forbidding the use of printed books by the Turks, under penalty of death. This decree was afterwards confirmed by his son Selim I. in 1515, and implicitly obeyed by the Mohammedans, with equal ignorance and fanaticism, until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/03/07/printing-banned-by-islam/

  On 4/5/2013 at 12:06 PM, compson said:

Thanks for the info, I concede I have my history wrong. However I never suggested that Arabs or the Ottoman empire didn't bring forth great advancements and progress. I was more referring to this:

 

  Quote

Corrupt religious opposition to critical thinking; the corrupt ulema wanted to "protect" their position as heads of state. They discouraged creativity to keep the populace from information that might be disseminated through books other than the Koran. Muslims had been aware of the printing press since the 15th century, but it was not until 1727 –- 272 years after Gutenberg—that the Şeyhülislam released a fetva decreeing its compatibility with Islam.^[64]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

i'm no expert on the Ottoman Empire, so what that says there may well be true for the later Ottoman regime. however, i would caution against generalising from 'the Ottoman Empire' to 'Islam' or 'the Arabs'.

  On 4/5/2013 at 12:53 PM, Ron Manager said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 12:06 PM, compson said:

Thanks for the info, I concede I have my history wrong. However I never suggested that Arabs or the Ottoman empire didn't bring forth great advancements and progress. I was more referring to this:

 

  Quote

Corrupt religious opposition to critical thinking; the corrupt ulema wanted to "protect" their position as heads of state. They discouraged creativity to keep the populace from information that might be disseminated through books other than the Koran. Muslims had been aware of the printing press since the 15th century, but it was not until 1727 –- 272 years after Gutenberg—that the Şeyhülislam released a fetva decreeing its compatibility with Islam.^[64]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

 

i'm no expert on the Ottoman Empire, so what that says there may well be true for the later Ottoman regime. however, i would caution against generalising from 'the Ottoman Empire' to 'Islam' or 'the Arabs'.

I don't think I've generalized Arabs, I made an error in articulating why Islam was of poor influence to the Ottoman empire, as my understanding of it is small. But your rightful correction of my lazy statement made me re-examine where/what I heard that made me correlate it as being a regression. In this case Islam provided necessary roots of community to make the Ottoman empire thrive, but as with all religions as science and technology advance, the only route to self-preservation is to continue its old views by censoring and becoming more fascist.

Note the following (compared to western periods and the printing press):

  Quote

During the Tanzimat period (1839–1876), the government's series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the replacement of religious law with secular law^[60] and guilds with modern factories. The Ottoman Ministry of Post was established in Istanbul on 23 October 1840.^[61][62

  Quote

Until the eighteenth century, when, in the reign of Achmet III., Seid-Effendi, who had accompanied his father, the ambassador, to the court of Louis XV. in 1720, was so much struck with the advantages of printing, that he determined his own country should participate in them.

  Quote

The invention of mechanical movable type printing led to a large increase in printing activities across Europe within only a few decades. From a single print shop in Mainz, Germany, printing had spread to no less than around 270 cities in Central, Western and Eastern Europe by the end of the 15th century.^[43]As early as 1480, there were printers active in 110 different places in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, England, Bohemia and Poland.^[9] From that time on, it is assumed that "the printed book was in universal use in Europe".^[9]

In Italy, a center of early printing, print shops had been established in 77 cities and towns by 1500. At the end of the following century, 151 locations in Italy had seen at one time printing activities, with a total of nearly three thousand printers known to be active. Despite this proliferation, printing centres soon emerged; thus, one third of the Italian printers published in Venice.^[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#The_printing_revolution

moon worshipping savages

  On 4/5/2013 at 2:56 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Interesting article, was considering posting it last night in the N. Korea thread.

 

I really ,really like some of Sam Harris's views on so called "religious moderates", but he definitely reeks of anti-Islamic absolutism. So did Hitchens. Read End of Faith, youll know what I mean...and it's really a shame because a lot of those ideas are relevant to all religious belief, he just tends to focus on Islam as this be-all/end-all religion of extremism. Put Christians in a similar Geo-political situation and see how long it takes them to suicide bomb/form dominionist governments on a regular basis.

Hey Smetty I've only read the original article and your response... no time today to read everybody else's responses. I'll get to them later. My response to your post is the following:

I think it's important to remember a few bedrock arguments from Harris. 1. his position starts with the belief that At this point in human history Islam is the greatest threat to survival in general and to institutions brought about by democracy and western constitutions because Islam still dictates gov't policy + informs ethical positions in muslim countries even if the majority of the population are moderates (from recent polls).

2. christianity/judaism/other minor religions are no longer threats to world at large b/c "we" (our governments) no longer take those book literally (for the most part) plus our constitutions separate church and state. Our books are just as or almost as fucking crazy but we don't take them seriously anymore--and I dont think he thinks we would were we in a similar geo-political situation.

If Harris was around 200+ years ago he would be seriously worried about christianity + judaism etc as well as threats to worldwide security + the proliferation of our species. I think Glenn G. missed this point too.

sam harris is by far the worst of those three. it seems like he is a professional smarmy atheist. he has the label "neuroscientist" but dicking around with fMRIs so you can get evidence to "prove" your already established notions is hardly science. tbh i haven't read any of his publications, just looked at his wikipedia. it kinda upsets me that he gives himself credit as a neuroscientist when he barely publishes anything (he's published four neuro papers in the last five years).

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/publications-and-lectures/

he is first and foremost a writer, it seems to me.

and anyway, the article in the op left a really bad taste in my mouth about this dude. what a twat. dawkins is a brilliant biologist, dennett is a brilliant philosopher and hitchen was a great writer. all of them hold views i disagree with in some regard, but i respect them. sam harris tho... blergh.

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:41 PM, Hoodie said:

and anyway, the article in the op left a really bad taste in my mouth about this dude. what a twat. dawkins is a brilliant biologist, dennett is a brilliant philosopher and hitchen was a great writer. all of them hold views i disagree with in some regard, but i respect them. sam harris tho... blergh.

Yeah I've never liked Harris...I really warmed up to Dawkins over time and I've always liked Hitchens and Dennett. He's a bit to close to the "pissy atheist" stereotype used by the really religious apologists (who are also very smarmy)

hahah, "pissy atheist" is the exact thing i was thinking of. good call on the label.

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:46 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:41 PM, Hoodie said:

and anyway, the article in the op left a really bad taste in my mouth about this dude. what a twat. dawkins is a brilliant biologist, dennett is a brilliant philosopher and hitchen was a great writer. all of them hold views i disagree with in some regard, but i respect them. sam harris tho... blergh.

 

Yeah I've never liked Harris...I really warmed up to Dawkins over time and I've always liked Hitchens and Dennett. He's a bit to close to the "pissy atheist" stereotype used by the really religious apologists (who are also very smarmy)

There's a guy who I've been getting into... a great thinker, way better than Dawkins, Hitchens or Dennet.

His name is Alberto Balsalm.

I haven't followed Harris much, listening to this interview with Joe Rogan and he seems pretty sensible, at least compared to the characterization that Greenwald conveyed imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-IBb6NdZtg

I don't have much to say in this thread honestly - just skimming it and no time to do more than that. I'm irreligious but not an atheist - that alone makes most people who are right-wing and/or devoutly Christian immediately skeptical of what I have to say.

It's really impossible to say anything remotely blunt or specific about Islam in a critical or apologetic manner without immediately being labeled or lumped into an ideology, worldview, or political perspective you don't agree with. I suppose being critical or apologetic about Zionism is the same way. Such risk doesn't exist to that extent when criticizing Christianity or religion in general, but it can occur with those discussions as well. Islam is just such a divisive topic.

I try to re-assess my views on things like the Muslim Brotherhood or the Arab Spring with as much focus on political and social context as possible. I fear the spread of radical Islam from a pragmatic view, i.e. in terms of how much it negatively affects the establishment of secularism and democracy in specific countries. I would say that 99% of media commentary about those subjects is absolute irrelevant and untrue bullshit rhetoric - it's a platform for the left and right to slam each other in ad hominem arguments without actually addressing the situation. Threads like this unravel in that as well, and I've been guilty of participating in it.

A good example of how much ignorance and misunderstanding surrounds these discussions is the whole trend of trying to "outlaw" Sharia, especially in local governments. (Oklahoma is the only one I know that passed a ban - it was updated to include all "foreign and religious law to not single out Sharia but it is still dangerously vague legally and was declared unconstitutional last year) One can't criticize the ban without being labelled quite easy as anti-democratic or anti-human rights. It's impossible to label it as hateful or oppressive and likewise one can't point to the right-wing Christian origins of the measures without being dismissed as "assuming" that's the intent. Likewise, I didn't like how the Council on American–Islamic Relations lazily went for the "hate speech" argument. If I was a legislator I would vote to amend it to simply prevent any religious doctrine from impending on any citizen's rights - after all children are often abused by their parents who refuse to give them medical treatment because of their "religious beliefs." But not even the most moderate and rational legislators can do that without being targeted. It's a very tricky thing to advocate secularism with everyone is so dedicated to making such complex issues a simplistic culture war.

greenwald is always thought-provoking and i typically agree with most everything he says in my limited reading of his millions of publications

i was a dawkins-like atheist asshole in high school, but then i grew up. the important lesson for me, was oversimplification. i think dawkins absolutely oversimplifies and, as greenwald claims, applies the same logic he criticizes to his own ideology.

  On 4/5/2013 at 9:35 AM, Iain C said:

No, capitalist powers in the west have a history of supporting strongman dictatorships across the world, like assad and mubarak and for a time Hussein, because its in their interests to do so. Thats not ignorant, it's fact.

you're a conspiracy theorist to suggest that money is ultimately the reason why the west meddles in other countries affair. How could you possibly say something so fucking insane

  On 4/5/2013 at 10:18 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 9:35 AM, Iain C said:

No, capitalist powers in the west have a history of supporting strongman dictatorships across the world, like assad and mubarak and for a time Hussein, because its in their interests to do so. Thats not ignorant, it's fact.

 

you're a conspiracy theorist to suggest that money is ultimately the reason why the west meddles in other countries affair. How could you possibly say something so fucking insane

Do you subscribe to the notion that unstable regimes, not democracies, that are Islamic states / fundamentalist should have nukes because the US has nukes?

I don't see anyone making the equivocation that US foreign policy doesn't have blowback, but is this not a unique threat compared to say the cold war where there was real fear of mutual destruction ie destruction of Earth/Human race? You can't really respond to a nuclear attack, if the attackers are an organization living wherever.

Support for Suicide Bombing

Is suicide bombing justifiable?Percent of Muslims responding Often/sometimes justified (2011)

Palestinian ter. 68% Lebanon 35% Egypt 28% Israel 20% Jordan 13% Indonesia 10% Turkey 7% Pakistan 5%

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=19&survey=13&response=Often/sometimes%20justified&mode=chart

-

With numbers like these, even though its just a fraction of the overall 1.4 billion, we are still looking at around a million people in the Middle East who think suicide bombing is sometimes justified. Let's even assume that this poll mostly represents people who are justifying in the context of "self defense."

Al Qaeda Favorability

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of al Qaeda?Percent responding Favorable (2012)

Egypt 19% Tunisia 16% Jordan 14% Pakistan 13% Turkey 6% Lebanon 2%

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=34&mode=chart

--

So as we look at this issue and we see nuclear technology becoming more and more accessible in time, as well as other weapons, we should be concerned with this and it should be acceptable to direct criticism towards Islam as it is somewhat unique in its evolution and martyrdom.

  Quote

"Suicide bomber" is a derogatory term invented in the West to try and describe what in Islam is known as a Fedayeen or Shahid... a martyr. The point of the bomber isn't suicide - it is to kill infidels in battle. This is not just permitted by Muhammad, but encouraged with liberal promises of earthy rewards in heaven, including food and sex.

To claim moral superiority by complete pacifism against an enemy that has openly declared war on the West/Israel and wishes to gain supreme power by blowing themselves up is certainly something one should be a little wary of by nature.

  Quote

In a 2005 survey of 85 national security experts, 60 percent of the respondents assessed the odds of a nuclear attack within 10 years at between 10 and 50 percent, with an average of 29.2 percent. Nearly 80 percent of respondents expected the attack to originate with a terrorist group.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20003954-503543.html

Now you may claim that this threat is not real, 9/11 was an inside job, and all attacks in Europe etc were not actual acts done in the name of religion but other forms of western propaganda and control. That the intolerance in Muslim countries are lies, that Islam is peaceful, and that if we become complete pacifists and surrender with open arms, that the problem will be solved. You can subscribe to this ideology, but what if you are wrong and a nuclear bomb does get in the hands of terrorists in a decade?

A US city like New York or LA destroyed (millions of lives lost), crippling our economy.... destroying our confidence to the point of handing over our freedoms for security completely.... sending our collective racism to the extremes... all together spiraling into a nuclear war with the Middle East (Iran has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, and "all the others should have nukes as well, if we are going to be equal and "progressive" about the idea)...

But thank god we didn't criticize Islam and fall into the US Propaganda machine right?

If these nuclear assessments are any close to accurate, let's say there is a 10% chance that Pakistan destabilizes within the next decade to a revolution like we saw in Egypt. If you were Barack Obama would you maybe be a little wary of completely ignoring the daily threat assessment briefings? I mean its kind of on your conscious if Manhattan ends up gone by the end of your presidency.

To wrap up this point I will say that, this is why Harris is not really even relevant to this discussion. To make an issue out of these 'new atheists' is entirely missing the point.

As I have said before, I don't think we have good solutions to how to tackle these problems of religious extremists, civil wars, dictators (Look at NK right now).

Even if we went into Darfur for example and defend the civilians from men with machetes, we are still gonna be dealing with pretty horrific examples of collateral damage and bloody murder. There's simply no pretty picture to be seen with that kind of situation.

My view is that I hope we move away from ideologies that spread intolerance due to their old fashion views of the world. That the entire globe can move beyond religion so that we can collectively look at consciousness/meaning of life in less intolerant ways (free of religious doctrine).

We aren't doing ourselves a service to Arabs or ourselves by condemning the criticisms of Islam. As the point of the criticisms is to not incite hatred towards one another but to instill some kind of global acceptance and condemnation of those who spread ignorance and intolerance towards individuals in the name of God... whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist. All of these institutions shall not be above criticism. No matter how many violent protests, threats of violence against journalists ie http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/05/danish-critic-islam-attacked-gunman ... it does not matter. I will not surrender to their rule or scare tactics. Nor will I tolerate the idea that dissent against a religion makes you an Islamophobe.

It's an empty and ultimately ironic point to make. Why should I embrace Islam? And what is crossing the line from being reasonably critical of Islam vs. being an Islamophobe. Seems like the values of limiting dissent and criticism is making its way into the minds of "progressives" or "liberals." Weird.

How nice it must be to deal with first world problems of Western Imperialism, while radical beliefs against women and gays in the name of a religion, "should be left alone" because "it's their culture."

Further:

"Having problems living in an Islamic State?"

"Yes I am."

"Damn really??.... well good luck with that, at least you are not suffering and living under the Fascist Western Elite. You will not believe these atheist people who openly criticize Islam because of US Propaganda. It's like a religion itself.... rooted in racism. Truly oppressive and causing much harm to society."

" "

compson, are you more afraid of islamic terrorists or the daleks?