Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

What a complete joke CNN is ? The armpit of journalism through out the world. These baboons ask this guy to come on the show and villianize him for his answers. The do not give him a chance at all. Blind is not even close to what I am thinking. Designed propaganda to make the bible belt feel oh so special. :sick: Look how defensive they get when he asks a simple logical question. It nearly short circuits all their brains at once ! Priceless !

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God

The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork.

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail no more risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.

Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks. For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade.

Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri.

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should just do a simple memorial with names and pictures, or names and date. Kind of like a war memorial. Since not everyone is christian, and we have to also respect the atheists too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the real high posters got there through GDTs and fantasy GM stuff.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in: Less than 70% of Americans think Scientology is a religion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the real high posters got there through GDTs and fantasy GM stuff.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...on the one hand I agree with you, but on the other, why can't Christians also honour them in their own way?

For example, this person(what's sad is the few atheists attacking because they don't like how this person is asking people to pray for the soldiers - it's a facebook page - if you (as an atheist) want to honour them in your way - then make your own page and stop attacking how others are doing it... :

http://www.facebook....them?ref=stream

"PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE, BUT DO NOT TELL ME TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AND JUST IGNORE IT. I AM TIRED OF DEDICATING MY TIME, ENERGY AND HEART ONLY TO BE ATTACKED BY A FACEBOOK MILITIA WHO SAYS DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

I started "Honor Them"

on June 30, 2010. For the past several hours I have been the target (literally) of several Atheists who take issue with my request that some of you join me in prayer. I ask you all this of your own free will. What you choose to do is your decision. These attacks stemmed with 1 man who told me (repeatedly) that I do not honor them all because I publicly use the word pray. I explained to the 'gentleman' that I respect his beliefs and this is how I choose to run my page. Despite my attempts to end the conversation peacefully he continued to belittle all of my hard work and say that I was "wrong" in how I honor them. After asking him to please leave me alone several times I blocked him from the page. I exercised the utmost patience with this man and gave him ample opportunity to respect my beliefs as I respect his. However, this mutual respect was lost on him. This page is about respect, not fighting. However, now I have a bunch of Atheists attacking me in his defense. Is this really why I started this page? NO. Let me remind you that this is MY page. I welcome everyone else to start their own and honor them in the way that they CHOOSE to. WHY Is it always so necessary to attack? Anyone who chooses to attack me, know this, you are a cowardly cyber warrior if you have nothing better to do than attack someone who has done nothing but posted something on her own wall. Are you proud of yourself for attacking a woman via the internet? Are you proud that you have jumped to conclusions and come after a woman without all the facts? OR do you know the facts, but simply think that the only respect to be given should be directed at you? Should I just follow what you say like a lamb being led to slaughter? Or am I allowed to have my own beliefs? Am I not an American? Do I not have rights? Do I not have the freedom to say I PRAY? Anyone who thinks I am wrong for how I honor them, ask yourself this - Is there a wrong way to honor them? Isn't any form of gratitude and honor given important? OR IS IT ONLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS? That's something you may really want to consider. The ME ME ME generation is getting old. ~ Amanda"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be able to, in the privacy of their home or place of worship with like-minded people. I find this "testimony" by Amanda to be self serving and incredibly disingenuous. She isn't respecting other's beliefs on a memorial page, she is asking people to pray with her with no regard of what their beliefs are. You have it backwards Heretic, she should have started a page geared towards prayer for the lost soldiers to attract like-minded individuals as opposed to the diverse group who have lost and who obviously have different views. Claiming the page as hers and then whining about the ME ME ME generation pretty much shows that Amanda is suffering from a severe lack of intelligence.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in: Less than 70% of Americans think Scientology is a religion.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget hypocrisy. The religious are good at that one!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be able to, in the privacy of their home or place of worship with like-minded people. I find this "testimony" by Amanda to be self serving and incredibly disingenuous. She isn't respecting other's beliefs on a memorial page, she is asking people to pray with her with no regard of what their beliefs are. You have it backwards Heretic, she should have started a page geared towards prayer for the lost soldiers to attract like-minded individuals as opposed to the diverse group who have lost and who obviously have different views. Claiming the page as hers and then whining about the ME ME ME generation pretty much shows that Amanda is suffering from a severe lack of intelligence.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name someone who denies being a hypocrite and you just named a liar.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.