*sigh
Men and women will always be unequal.
Clayton -
Anti-religionists like Harris are spreading the erroneous and dangerous Enlightenment propaganda that spirit/soul is an illusion or anti-scientific. The fact is that not only is the spirit/soul “consistent” with science, it is an indispensable part of any truly scientific worldview. The denial of spirit/soul (in particular, the Urge to act and Awareness of the effects of action) is anti-scientific in the same way as the economic positivists’ denial of human action. We can no more apply a microscope to human conscious experience than we can to human purpose (action). Yet both are absolutely real - at least as real as anything that we are aware of (e.g. scientific observations).
While there is no reason I can see to believe in an immortal soul, whatever people refer to when they speak of their “soul” (will, conscious awareness, capacity to think/reason) is as real as any other scientific phenomenon. In fact, all other phenomena always occur within the confines of the soul, that is, they are always perceived by the soul.
Where spirits/souls become anti-scientific is whenever they become a way to sweep aside any difficult-to-solve problem. But people use just about anything as a way to sweep aside difficult-to-solve problems, including the magical beliefs that voting makes a difference or that police keep us safe or judges care about justice, and so on. So, the real problem is not the spirit/soul, the real problem is mental laziness and the resort to magical thinking whenever a difficult-to-solve problem is encountered.
If you think Christians don’t do this, then you haven’t argued with any Christians.
I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but on Planet Earth, the opinions of fundamentalist Christians were the core foundation on which the entire US invasion of the Middle East was built. The Bush administration shrewdly maneuvered this important political group into support for his war.
But if Christians could overcome the problems inherent in Christian beliefs, why can’t Muslims overcome the problems inherent in Islamic beliefs?? This is what I don’t understand. And why is it any of our business? We sorted it out without anyone invading us and bombing us until we gave women a vote or whatever. Let them sort their own problems out.
Clayton -
Clayton, here’s some evidence for you. The guy who posted this is in the military (and a walking contradiction and annoyance with some IRL conversations I’ve had with him).
That shirt is funny… I lol’d in my cube (where I work it’s quite as a library so you get the idea).
But yeah, my brother-in-law is enlisted in the military and he just started parroting this “Islam is violent” crap a few months back. The ranks are fed the most undiluted propaganda. That’s part of the reason I wrote the OP… I realized from conversations with him that the US government is launching an active campaign of anti-Muslim sentiment. It’s been there since 9/11 (and even before) but this latest one is just flat-out propaganda bullshit. Interpolating from conversations with my bro-in-law, I gather that the ranks are being told “Muslims are violent and intent on taking over the world, they must be stopped at any cost.”
I tried to explain that the Islamic empire - espeically the Ottomans - was far, far more powerful than today’s wanna-be gangsta Arabs like Saddam, Gaddafi or Ahmadinejad. I mean, Suleiman the Magnificent actually laid seige to freakin’ Vienna. Somehow, I don’t see the Ayatollah of Iran laying seige to New York. The “Muslim threat” (to the extent it can even be called that) is being wildly exaggerated. Kind of like how they exaggerated about WMDs in Iraq. No, wait, they didn’t exaggerate, they flat-out made shit up.
But that was 2003. It’s been nine years since we started the last War Based on Total Lies which is about 8 years and 11 months longer than the average American’s historical memory span. So, now they’re serving up a whole new War Based on Total Lies.
Clayton -
Clayton, I started a similar thread, “Muslims the Next Jews?”, a while back. But it didn’t get much response. I also posted this article, *“*Growing number of Americans worried they might be Muslim”: http://newsthump.com/2010/08/20/growing-number-of-americans-worried-they-might-be-muslim/
And all this from what - the media? Can people think for themselves anymore? I always hate it when one makes judgement on a group of people they’ve never met or countries they’ve never visited. I have traveled extensively throughout the middle east (including Syria and Egypt) just a short while back. As an American, I’ve never been harrasssed or dealt with any sort of trouble. Additionally I have never saw any of the violence or rioting that seemed to pervade our TVs 24/7. And that was last year, during the uprisings.
Anyone who is tolerant of Islam is a moron. In the short time I have been a member, many people on this site choose to convict Christianity as a fall back when convicting Islam. It’s pathetic. You ought to be able to criticize one thing without bringing up another. It’s analogous to saying, “Jim, I don’t like your philosophy, so let’s discuss it,” and Jim saying, “Well I don’t like yours, so there!” What exactly gets discussed? Nothing.
Muslims of the extreme kind strictly adhere to a philosophy that requires adherents to push for mass conversion. Any hypocrites who disagree with it and are willing to discuss the religion in particular without diluting it by bringing up other religions???
@tri: It’s not changing the subject at all. The point is that this whole line of discussion is utterly subjective. Religion qua religion is not the cause of any violence. The State has co-opted religion for its uses. The secularist narrative since the Enlightenment attempts to blame the excesses of the State on the church but they have the causality backwards. The excesses of the church have been enabled by the protection and exclusivity (monopoly) granted to it by the State. Everything the State co-opts - law, security, even scientific research - is turned to violent ends. Religion is just the scapegoat.
The proximate causes of violence are manifold and the causality is incredibly complex. How much of it is due to upbringing, how much to human nature, how much is due to religious indoctrination or social customs or media or fill-in-the-blank? The ultimate cause of violence, on the other hand, is very simple: greed. All violence (except for a few insane people) is motivated by greed, the desire to own and control what rightly belongs to others.
The murderer is first a man-stealer. In the act of disposing of what is not his (the body of another) he is engaged in theft. Gang shootings are not motivated by an orgiastic love of violence. They are always some kind of reprisal or territorial assault in order to expand territory, quash competitors or punish enemies. Wars - gang shootings on the largest scale - are no different. They are started by the individuals seeking to benefit - whether from spoils, increased territory, control of natural resources, humiliation of rivals or other, more subtle political concessions.
Both Christianity and Islam have bloody roots and bloody history - including bloody recent history. Those pointing the finger at “Muslim violence” are ignoring the systematized, “sanitized” violence of the West. Anyone who thinks that Christianity is no longer a factor in State policy - particularly military capability and foreign policy - has his head firmly buried in the sand.
This is not to say that Islam and Christianity are “the same” - the secularists who lump all religions into one category are simply being disrespectful. Nor should we morally equivocate between the specific crimes committed (primarily by States) in the name of the respective deities. But to argue that one or the other is “more violent” is utterly subjective, meaningless and useless. It contributes heat but no light to the issue.
The comic book version of reality where there are “evildoers” who are just sociopaths hell-bent on wreaking mass destruction is magical thinking. It does not exist in the real world.
Even the suicide bomber phenomenon is completely misrepresented. It’s presented as some kind of inherent mind-control power of Islam to take emotionally vulnerable youths and turn them into maniacal automatons controlled by murderous mullahs. The fact is that suicide bombing is primarily motivated by the money. These are desperately poor people holed up in ghettos with little prospects of escape not only for themselves but for their extended family. Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 a pop for suicide bombers. That’s the equivalent of several million dollars to an American living in the inner city. They’re doing it for the people they leave behind, to give them a chance in life. They’re not crazy, they’re not brainwashed, they’re desperate. But the Mossad/MI6/CIA’s lies continue to beam out to the masses 24/7.
Clayton -
Good point on religion being a scapegoat by organizations and government hellbent on committing wrongdoing and violence. But I cited the above paragraph because I wanted to make a distinction between greed, violence and the cause of both. Greed does not always cause violence, and violence is not always caused by greed. Greed sometimes leads to people hoarding ice cream sandwiches and hiding it from their roommates, something petty. In fact, like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say, greed can be a good thing. Greed is really looking out for oneself before any collective. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. As for violence being caused by greed, it isn’t. Sometimes my little brother eats more macaroni and cheese than what mum tells him to eat since it gives her enough to eat. He knows this, yet he does it anyway. Is any violence being committed? No.
Violence is caused by volition. Same with greed. People choose what they choose because they choose to choose it that way, that’s all. Sure, there are motivations, but choice is a must. A hehaviorist might say violence is caused by greed just as a government official might say that shootings are caused by owning the gun. Control one and you control the other. But people are not machines, nor are we inherently logical beings. We have the capabilities of logic, but we are primarily emotional beings that have free will. Simply bc government takes guns away doesn’t mean that people won’t seek guns. Simply because someone takes greed away doesn’t mean violence will slow to a standstill.
While it certainly is tragic to attack peaceful, tolerant Muslims, let’s not forget what dangers there actually are from Islam and Islamic cultural influences. The Taliban for example is indeed one of the worst enemies against freedom. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive because of Islamic influences on their law system. Many Muslims (somewhat similar to many Christians) seek to curtail freedom because of their religion.
But I think it’s important to remember that a huge cause of antagonism against the US is wrong-headed policy by US leaders. The installation of the Shah, the support of Mujahideen fighters, the Gulf War, military bases in the Middle East, the ongoing Afghan war all contribute to blowback against the United States. Pakistanis wouldn’t be burning effigies of Bush and Obama and shouting “Death to America” if our foreign policy were different.
The Muzzies would still be shouting those insults and threats towards us even if our foreign policy were better, no doubt. They even hit Buddhist temples before. Who the hell have the Buddhists insulted?? Anyhow, I say to hell with all other countries. We need to worry about ourselves from a financial and practical standpoint. And yes, Sir Tenenbaum, you’re correct: the Muzzies need to be watched b/c they are extremely dangerous and totalitarian. Their philosophy is horrible and anybody with half a mind can see that.
@tri: Again, you’re missing the point. By identifying greed as the culprit of violence, I am not trying to imply that, therefore, the solution to violence is to “eliminate greed” as the wacky leftists do. Human nature is what it is, it cannot be changed by wishing.
But the comic-book version of violence is that it is frequently the case that violence is unmotivated or motivated by sheer cruelty or for ideological reasons or tribal hatred. These are all proximate causes and the list of proximate causes of violence is effectively infinite. What is true of all acts of violence - without exception - is that they are committed without the consent of the victim. That’s what makes them theft and that is how they are all motivated by greed, the greed to control what does not rightly belong to you (the body of another).
But in the large arch of history, we can see a pattern in violence. That pattern is clear: most violence is motivated by material ends. Larger territory. Spoils of war. Humiliation of the enemy. And so on. When people say “Muslims are violent” or “Islam is violent”, they are ascribing and intangible motivation to violence to an immense (billion+) group of people and saying “these people are not motivated to violence by greed - like normal human beings - they are super-violent, they are violent for the sake of an idea, they are violent for no material reason.” That’s what I’m countering.
Clayton -
Boy, I’m glad we’ve slaughtered a million+ Iraqis over the last decade to ensure women in Saudi Arabia the right to drive.
Clayton -
Boy, I’m glad we’ve slaughtered a million+ Iraqis over the last decade to ensure women in Saudi Arabia the right to drive.
If there is one thing I am very sympathetic to about the liberterian ethic (and it is an ethic) - it can help in training oneself to shut up about things that we have no business talking about, or are not engaged with - it helps limit all these nonsense sentimental or pornographic (which are the same thing) zeitgeists that posesses people…and I don’t mean that with any cynicism at all, it’s a goo trait to cultivate; which may also make us inherently at odds with left wing mentality.
For those with a hard-on for bombing Iran (h/t LRC):
The Pentagon and Tel Aviv want to reduce those beautiful people to this:
Clayton -
Iran’s constitution says something to the effect of that they exist for the purpose of, or promise to, destroy Israel. And you, Clayton, are claiming that it’s the Pentagon and Israel that want to destroy Iran? Please? Sheer propaganda. If Israel were not threatened, they would not be harming anyone. The muslim world needs a strong does of the NAP.
Bullshit. Cite it.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
Asserting that Iran’s constitution says anything about Iran existing to destroy Israel is sheer propaganda.
Yes, you’re right, there is not a running apartheid in Gaza.
Wow, that must be a joke. After the US, UK, Europe and NATO have invaded and bombed two Muslim nations, precipitating social upheaval resulting in the deaths of many more innocents than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein, and instigated the toppling of half a dozen of their own puppet regimes in the so-called “Arab Spring”; a bloody process which is still under way.
Clayton -
The ranks are also being told they should become fundamentalist Protestants or they will burn in hell, but that doesn’t mean DC decided to launch a campaign to make the army as Evangelical as possible. Something can become instituonalized and remain informal. There can be an ethos that pervades an institution without that sentiment having the support or approval of the central government the institution is subordinate to.
The muslim world needs a strong does of the NAP.
Islam already has a NAP. The Quran says not to attack anyone unless you are attacked. Compulsion doesn’t exist in Islam. If your doing something forbidden God will take notice.
You need a strong dose of reading comprehension. Anenome said “the Muslim world”. Are you telling me that the Muslim world observes the NAP? Really? The Saudi government observes the NAP? UAE? Yemen? really?