I repeat my unaddressed point about actions, and especially about prosecuting small illegal actions.

You say, correctly: "(up until the point where they act on that aim)" but you fail to note that most intolerant sects violate the rights of others with essential impunity, first. Muslim men rape French Muslim women -- nobody is punished. Nazis were beating people up; the Viet Cong were murdering any in opposition, and their families.

"Tolerance" is a lack of punishment; when it accepts violations it accepts, and thus encourages, injustice. Once any community becomes ruled by fear, then the most ruthless violators, the ones most feared, will become rulers.

Similarly, the liars like Ward Churchill must be exposed as liars, and ridiculed as liars -- and those who hired him must be more closely examined.
No Federal, State, or City gov't needs to pay for his free speech -- but it shouldn't be illegal to spread the lies he spreads. Such Leftist lies need to fought with truth.

But the US Universities are failing to fight lies with truth. The US Left already is far too tolerant of Bush-hate speech, and intolerant of pro-Iraq democracy war; pro-tax cuts; pro-life speakers. All such positions need to be honestly discussed with good points and bad points; but seldom are.

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade as criminal."

Subject to the usual 'legalistic' dotting of the 'I's', and crossing of the 'T's', I agree with this as a general operating principle. The devil is always in the details, but ---

Rather than the 'good' winning in the end, because it's heart is pure which is the only rational basis for unlimited 'freedom of speech', it is probably much 'truer to say that "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance".

Sometimes as I earlier postulated, you really do have to say when . We should be saying it sometime soon in regards to the Islamists. I am not a 'bigger' person for 'tolerating' someone who openly advocates the destruction of my society under the heel of a murderous barbarism.

I am merely a bigger fool.

The founding fathers would not have hesitated to outlaw Islamic radicalism. Free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. This is also why I agreed with Sidney Hook that we should have kicked the Communists out of our universities. There is no reason to cut slack to those desiring to murder us.

This "tolerance" worshipping is ridiculous. Even the founding fathers weren't as tolerant as is often belived today. Nor are we modern people.

Didn't George Washington talk about expelling the Jews? And Benjamin Franklin was somewhere along those lines as well?

Why not simply spit out that you just want to do the same to the Muslims? Why convoluting in in quasi-philosophical principles and makebelieve logic? Really, why bother? We all hate them, don't we? That's reason enough.

I'll make it real simple for you. If we collectively agree that we consider the Muslims our enemies we need no further "logic" for expelling or exterminating them.

We only need to acknowledge our feelings, which are never false, and then decide upon what course of action to take. Will it be advantageous to wipe them out? Will it be better to move them to uh... say Madagascar (wink-wink, nudge-nudge), or should we just wait and see?

There's a much more recent example that is relevant here, the Communist Party. It's a secular religion. Just because it has no god doesn't make it any less a faith based community, it just makes it a rather sad one.

When the Communist Party had the explicit goal of overthrowing the current order BY VIOLENT MEANS, it was outlawed. When it changed to support overthrowing the current order by voting in tyranny, then it was made legal.

This is the method by which we should handle all faith based groups which advocate tyranny.

I don't know who "E.T." is, and I don't know if he seriously believes this stuff or is some kind of provocateur.

Neither Washington nor Franklin ever talked about expelling Jews from the US.

Washington wrote a famous letter about religious freedom to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport.

There is also a famous hoax supposedly written by Franklin, but it is a much more recent forgery.

The URLs didn't work for some reason.

Washington: http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=200&parent=60

Franklin: http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/print.asp

Lewis said:

"When the Communist Party had the explicit goal of overthrowing the current order BY VIOLENT MEANS, it was outlawed. When it changed to support overthrowing the current order by voting in tyranny, then it was made legal.

This is the method by which we should handle all faith based groups which advocate tyranny."

And I most certainly agree with him!

And ALL inclues those who support what
these Christian "Fundy" leaders say:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm

Lewis said :

"When the Communist Party had the explicit goal of overthrowing the current order BY VIOLENT MEANS, it was outlawed. When it changed to support overthrowing the current order by voting in tyranny, then it was made legal.

This is the method by which we should handle all faith based groups which advocate tyranny."

WRONG !

This is not the method by which we should handle any group which advocates tyranny. The systematic violation of human rights is not legitimate under any circumstances. Our inalienable individual rights do not come from ANY government, democratic or otherwise. Nor do our rights come from the U.S. Consitution. The rights to life, liberty and property are ours because we are human. The Constitution affirms our rights, and is the enforcement mechanism for our rights, but it is NOT the SOURCE of our rights.

If 51% of the U.S. population voted to execute all American Jews, it would not be any more legitimate or moral than if Hitler did it, merely because it was voted in a democratic process. Of course this is an extreme example, but you can apply it to any issue or circumstance.

So the "line" to be drawn is indeed very clear, and very simple. You can become a member of any religious group you chose, so long as it is YOUR choice, and MY choice is MINE. This applies to all individuals. Tyranny cannot be voted in. There is a name for people who advocate such things: traitors. If that that day ever arrives, then it is time for another civil war. I will not live under Sharia "law", thank you very much.

We need to end this absurd fetishization of "democracy". India has been a democracy for decades, and it is just now getting its act together, not because of democracy, but because it is finally embracing capitalism and private property. Iraq is allegedly an embryonic Islamic democracy, but so far the results are mixed. And what shall we now call Gaza ? I guess it could best be desribed as a "terrorist democracy".

It is not primarily democracy which civilizes us. Only individual liberty makes civilization possible. No, sorry...tyranny cannot be voted in...not in the U.S.

Sorry Freeguy, though I support your idea of freedom, you're wrong because tyranny very much CAN be voted in.

In fact, from one POV all "hate speech" laws are a form of tyranny -- and from another POV they are defense against speech about tyranny.

If you think those being murdered in Darfur this week have "rights", I agree with you--but they need an organization to defend their rights against unjust violation. Without defense, such "rights" become as meaningless as UN SC Resolutions 2-15 against Saddam; that is, mere words on paper.

There is no good, totally consistent, criteria for drawing a line on toleration of speech and toleration of hate-speech or subversive speech. But making certain ideas illegal, like violence based overthrow of the gov't, seem reasonable. Do Muslims wanting to vote for Sharia really support that?

What if some of such Muslims support terrorist resistance to enforce Sharia even w/o winning elections -- supporting but not advocating (in public)? Or supporting, but not advocating, lynching? Real lines need to be drawn but it's not so easy.

As to your question, Popper, by a mile. Neither Locke nor Madison had experienced the destruction caused by absolutism. Sure, they had wars, even bad wars, but nothing like the Nazis or the Communists. Nowadays, we have Moslems (and I don't distinguish between the fake term "Islamists" and Moslems; it's all just a matter of degree or desire, on their part, to hide their beliefs from Infidels), who are similarly attached to a worldwide threat. We don't owe it to our children to commit suicide. As for intolerant fundamentalist Christians, they get a pass for now, since they, unlike Moslems, are not part of a worldwide conspiracy.

Spot On Callimachus!

Very nicely done and a good background for the touchy debate of how Free is Free ;-)

I seem to see two major points in the comments:

1) We shouldn't tolerate extremists muslims because they insert bad thing like rape their women here.

2) Communists, Islamists etc that promote totalitarian views are traitors and don't deserve freedom of speech.

I think these are both very important points and actually tie together quite well, from a philosophical standpoint.

In the first statement (particluarly from Tom Grey's early comment re:rape) we must detemine what constitutes "freedom of religion/speech". In an earlier thread one of Jefferson's quotes were used wherein he basically says that if no person is harmed (it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg) then it must be allowed. This still holds true as a governing philosophy here. There is no reason that rape, murder, etc should be tolerated as freedom of speech or religion. If rape is illegal (because it takes freedoms from a citizen) then it should be prosecuted under the law. It is an ACT which HARMS OTHERS. There is no philosophical support from Locke, Madison, Popper, Jefferson or anyone else that I've studied that supports a freedom to harm others. Absolute Freedom, from these perspectives always seems to have included a caveat that it is an absolute freedom in one's personal life only and must not infringe on any right of one's fellow man. (Much as shouting Fire in a crowded theatre would).

In our second point, that of 'treason' by speech, I cannot disagree more. The freedom of speech, as long as it does not harm another individual, must be protected for all. To speak against government should be a freedom provided to all citizens of this nation. However, I see no reason to tolerate hate speech from non-citizens. I say this, in respect to the number of Imams and muslim religious leaders who are not American citizens, but live here and speak against the government.

I see three specific groups of people involved here:

A natural born citizen of this nation, by virtue of birth. I think that this person has complete freedom of speech from a philosophical position. They neither chose this nation, nor this government and cannot therefore be considered a traitor by virtue of his dissatisfaction.

A naturalized citizen of this nation, by virtue of the legal process. I think this person has much less freedom (from a philosophical standpoint) to speak against the government. Of his own free will he chose to become a citizen, he personally swore aligence to this nation. While he certianly should have the right to freedom of speech, hate speech, directed toward the nation as a whole or democracy etc. could easliy be considered traitorus, in some sense.

A non-citizen, here either illegally or by green card. This person, from a philosophical standpoint cannot be a traitor, his loyalties are not to this nation, since he has no aliegence to this nation. However, he also has no 'constitutional right' either. While tolerance is necessary, extremist views surrounded by hate speech should easily provide a philosophical rationale for expulsion from this nation.

Freedom of Speech, Religion and in personal life is not a carte balnce freedom. There have always, as far as I have surmised, been the basic restriction that it must not interefere with the freedoms of others, nor harm others. This simple touchstone means that Fred Phelps should be protected, as should an American promoting Communism or Islamic Extremism. However, it should not protect a muslim man that rapes a muslim woman, or a Christian that shoots an Abortion doctor, or a member of the CIA/FBI/Millitary that tries to undermine the government to replace it with communism. In all of these examples, the freedom to speak and believe is superceeded by the restriction of harming another's freedom.

Islam should be treated no different than we treated the U.S. communist party during the Cold War. They weren't outlawed, but there was no mistake as to their true loyalties and the threat they posed. It was the sensible and constitutional approach-- as the recently declassified FBI Venona files, as well as recently declassified Russian KGB files have confirmed. The wacky Left was kicking and screaming about that too, but we ignored them. And we should ignore them today too.

if KKK and Neo nazis can talk, so why crazy islamists should be any different?

"Even in a tolerant society, not all things are or should be tolerated. You have freedom of speech, but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater."

The shouting fire restriction has nothing to do with tolerance. It deals with a case in which speech itself creates a direct harm. There is a clear casual relation between shouting fire and panic in a crowded theater.

"But what about Islamist religion, which preaches identification with the worldwide Muslim ummah rather than local civic society,"

Many religions identify with international or extra-national group or organization, be it the Catholic Church, the Jewish people, or Tibetan Budahism. At the time of the founding fathers the greatest perceived threat was not Islamism but Papism (Catholicism). And this fear was used in England and later Germany to persecute Catholics.

"which sets religious authority above any secular state power"
Most religions claim a higher authority above secular state power even if they sometimes say something about the need to accept the authority of the state.

"which has a long-term goal of plowing under Western freedoms, including liberty of conscience, and replacing them with shari'a law? "
Christianity also would like to see a world governed by religious laws. The question is whether they want to use force to accomplish that goal. Not all religious Muslims want to acheive that goal, nor do all of them want to use force to acheive it. In any case, the real threat of Islamic radicalism to the Us is not because of their desire to conquer and convert America, as much as they oppose the US strategically.

Rape is not part of Islam, nor does tolerating speech include tolerating a clearly illegal act.

"Sorry Freeguy, though I support your idea of freedom, you're wrong because tyranny very much CAN be voted in."

There is a distinction between what is PROPER and what is POSSIBLE. Yes, it is possible for tyranny to be "voted in", but that would not make the tyranny proper. That is the point Freeguy was making.

We tend to forget that this nation at its founding was based upon the existence of a plethora of religious sects—Quaker, Shakers, Puritans, etc.—escaping from the established state religions of the Old World. Religious tolerance became the ability of one sect to live side by side with another.
The State’s role, as your Madison quote says, is to ensure that this polyglot of worship choices can take place without one using the State to give preference to itself (and its allies) or to discriminate against another. The separation of church and State was intended to prevent “preferred” religions from messing with the others—that is, to keep the State neutral to religious choice.
The chord of tolerance, of live-and-let-live, runs deeply within this country, both in a religious context and out of it—perhaps, for most of our history, because of the frontier, where one could always escape and carry along one’s own beliefs. There a strong, very old libertarian strain that underlies a large portion of our polity—a willingness to tolerate gays and neo-Nazis, fundamentalists and atheists, Italians and Portuguese, the odd and the different—all under the assurance that the State would keep the separation peaceful.
Islam fits into this long-standing truly American strain. This country has been able to absorb wave after wave of religions and sects with an extraordinarily wide range of beliefs, of which Islam is just an example.
We need to recognize that there is no main stream in mainstream America. The mainstream is composed of many separate streams that, through the genius of such men as Madison, are able to live side by side—largely fairly and largely in peace.

Freeguy,

Something to think about.

This [prohibiting them] is not the method by which we should handle any group which advocates tyranny. The systematic violation of human rights is not legitimate under any circumstances. Our inalienable individual rights do not come from ANY government, democratic or otherwise.

Tyranny cannot be voted in. There is a name for people who advocate such things: traitors.

There appears to be a bit of contradiction or tension, at the very least, between these two statements and ideas. Indeed, this seeming contradiction is the conundrum that faces America and the topic of discussion in this thread. It is not an easy question. You site Hitler's rise, but Hitler came to power through the ballot. [Note to itch finger: I know this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it is accurate enough for our purposes.] If one waits until the dictator is already in power to remove him, it may be too late. When do you intercede? When people are voting? When they are campaigning?

Also, is war a systematic violation of the right to life? If not, why? Is killing someone better or worse then forcing them to be silent?

I am not necessarily advocating a specific policy. I am merely showing that it is not an easy question despite what so many, includeing freeguy and Tom, seem to think.

Micha,

"which sets religious authority above any secular state power"
Most religions claim a higher authority above secular state power even if they sometimes say something about the need to accept the authority of the state.

Good point.

Christianity also would like to see a world governed by religious laws.

I think it is important to make a distinction here. The truth of this statement depends upon what you mean by religous laws. If you mean that Christians want the world to be governed by just and moral laws that they believe ultimately derive from God, then I agree. If you mean that all Christians want a law requiring people to to go to church on Sunday, then I strongly disagree--as does the Bible. It is helpful to remember that the New Testament was written during a time when Christians were persecuted by governmental authority for their beliefs. Most of the appostles were martyred for their faith. The Aposles by and large thought very highly of religous freedom.

Indeed, the Bible even teaches against religous law governing the church. Consider the following passage from Roman 14: "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another."

JPB,

I think you bring up a good area of discussion. Let's say, for this argument that one of the two following situations arise (these are both examples and hopefully hyperbole).

1) In 2008 a very areligious Left leaning administration is brought to power, in the wake of a large chunk of Middle America feeling betrayed by those currently running the show. Once in power, these people quickly head down the path of a totalitarian state.

2) In 2008 a very religious Right leaning administration is brought to power in the wake of a large chunk of Middle America feeling betrayed by gay marriage, abortion and other such debates. Once in power, these people quickly head down the path of a totalitarian state.

In short, two possible future Hitlers, Stalins or whoever you'd like to provide as a simile.

Let us further say that some of their totalitarian leanings were not hidden (as was true of Hitler). Perhaps group 1 was constantly expressing what could only be considered Hate Speech about 'Christians', or Group 2 constantly expressing Hate Speech about gays, abortion doctors etc.

When should they be stopped, while campanigning? while voting? once they get power? or once they implement their schemes?

I think the answer was clearly laid out 200 years ago:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

The reason Hitler was able to cause the horrors he did... was because the German people allowed it. If some set of horrific dictators, or religious zealots try to run roughshot over the citizens of this nation, it will either be with their support, or because they failed to defend themselves.

Our right to bear arms, has as much to do with protecting us from our own government as it does with protecting against invaders or thieves. Personal responsibility, not authoritarian control of speech is what would save us. I think.

"If you mean that all Christians want a law requiring people to to go to church on Sunday, then I strongly disagree"

I suppose it is possible to find in any scripture quotations that would justify our modern ideas of religious tolerance and seperation of church and state. But at not so recent times, when religions held some or all governmental or political power, that power was used to enforce both religious morality and practice on the citizenship. This is true both in the Christian, Muslim and Jewish worlds. Most religious Christians today set their goals lower, hoping at best to enforce religious morality through democratic means. There is no denying that the Myuslim world is comparatively behind, both because of the power religion holds in Muslim countries, and because of the groups wishing to use force to promote religion. But this is not an inherant difference between Islam and the other monotheistic religions as much as a difference in circumstances.

Hitler was elected, but he also toppled the democratic system afterwards. Was he elected to topple it? I'm not sure. Were the Germans willing to cooperate with hm afterwards? Yes. Could they have changed things if they hadn't? I do not know.

It would be interesting to see if the democratically elected Hamas ever ran for reelection. If Communism ran for election and reelection, even if it would have won once, it would have later lost. That's the difference between communism and social democracy.

I am sorry, but there is most definitely an inherent difference between Islam and Judaism. I am not an expert on Christianity, so I will let others speak to that.

Jewish religious law commands Jews to work for the welfare of the societies in which they live. This is a positive religious duty.

Judaism does not require that non-Jews be converted to Judaism to be "justified in the eyes of G-d" (a concept foreign to Judaism); Judaism does not preach that G-d hates non-Jews; Judaism does not preach that the laws of Judaism must be imposed on non-Jews; Judaism does not seek to convert non-Jews to Judaism, by force or otherwise.

If the actions of the Islamists are any indication, and if what is said about Islam by people who claim to be its most expert spokesman is to be believed, however, the exact opposite is true of Islam.

Islam has always spread by the sword; Islam has always sought to expand the land under its control by aggressively attacking and subjugating non-Islamic countries; it has always imposed its will by force; non-Muslims living in Muslim countries have only those rights that their Muslim masters decide they should have, so of course these are not rights at all, but privileges that can be revoked at will. And it certainly appears that a great many Muslims living in the West have no allegiance whatsoever to the countries in which they live and feel no duty whatsoever to abide by the laws or respect the culture and mores of the "infidel".

Islam is a positive danger to non-Muslims. It is out for conquest, either by force, subversion, or demographics. The non-Muslim world ignores this at its peril.

The way to fight the scourge of Islam in the West is to expose it relentlessly and to stop worrying about offending Muslim sensibilities. If Muslims threaten or commit violence in reponse to political speech, such as the Danish Mohammed cartoons, any violence they instigate should be met with the full power of the law, including state-sanctioned violence should it come to that. The idea that it should be illegal for anyone, non-Muslims in particular, to "insult" Islam is monstrous.

All "hate speech" codes should be instantly repealed, organizations like CAIR should be subject to constant scrutiny and prosecuted should they be found to be supporting terrorism, violence, and sedition, which are already illegal, to the best of my knowledge. There are plenty of existing laws used to fight organized crime, sedition and treason that could be used against Islamist organizations, if our politicians would only have the guts to use them.

The secular, democratic, pluralistic, tolerant and inclusive society that has developed in the West is in all ways superior to anything that Islam has ever produced. If people cannot be galvanized to protect it out of a misplaced fear of being thought inolerant, we will slowly but surely lose everything we hold dear.

If I knew a member of my synagogue was planning to fly a plane into a building, I would be the first to turn him in, and I would not lose a wink of sleep over it. Until we can be assured that Muslims will do the same, they cannot be trusted.

Jeeze, give me a break!

Some of you must live with little Alice in Wonderland and not in the REAL world

In the REAL world, NOTHING INTRINSICALLY HAS RIGHTS!

ALL Rights are granted by those who have the power to grant them.

(Those with the power to grant rights does NOT include ANY of more than 30,000 some gods humans have INVENTED so far. And NO god exists ANYWHERE other than in the minds of those who believe in them.)

I fear NO god, or all 30,000 gods as they do not exist in the real world.

I do fear the actions of the illogical and irrational programmed religious robots who believe their god is real.

Next, I do not know enough about the Jewish religion to know what Ephraim
said about it is true or not.

I would guess he is as wrong about it as
many, if not most, Christians are about their religion. (And of course, Moslems are always telling us how peaceful their religion is.)

Most Christians would tell me the same type of thing about the Christian religion and they would be totally wrong!

While, as far as I know, the Christian Bible tells it's believers to "NOT KILL"
only 2 times, it tells them "TO KILL" 28 times I know of.

Christians are supposed to kill me for what I have written here and Christians are supposed TO KILL EVERYONE who does not believe in the Christian God.

(Do not argue about what the Bible says as you only prove you do not know what is in it. You would only prove you would flunk a reading comprehension test.)

Here, do some research:

http://www.evilbible.com/

Neil did your counsellor suggest deranged venting as a 'solution' to your obvious 'problems', or are you simply unable to control yourself?

Please for everyone's sake, calm down . Or in the very acceptable alternative, simply STOP. You are becoming extremely annoying in an objective' intellectual' sense, and are a perfect illustration of my point that 'bad' ideas' do indeed tend to drive out 'good' ideas' In your case the effect is much like Water Torture.

Stop, Sir, before you injure yourself. To quote Cromwell who, in considering your 'fixations', is even more apt than usual in this instance---

""You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately; Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

IMO, asking someone to post elsewhere should be the sole perogative of the owner of the website.

Neil,

I too have done enough research to understand what seems to be the motivating factors in religion. I agree that most religious people seem somewhat unclear in their choice of belief versus others. I also agree that religion has been a key tool of political advancement, through war, torture, inquisitions etc. However, I don't think you manner of presentation is doing you any good.

I think you too may suffer some delusions of fact, just as a dogmatic Christian, Jew or Muslim might. For example:

In the REAL world, NOTHING INTRINSICALLY HAS RIGHTS! ALL Rights are granted by those who have the power to grant them.

How do you know that this is true? It's a belief, perhaps, a philosophical position, but certianly not fact. Indeed, I disagree in the extreme with what your statement says. I personally think that every human in the world may have as many rights as they are willing to defend to the death.

You state this idea, philosophy, belief with as much certianty as some religious person might assert that without a doubt Jesus actually lived, or that he's comming back.

I fear NO god, or all 30,000 gods as they do not exist in the real world.

Dogmatic statements of non-existence seem not very different than dogmatic statements of existence.

Christians are supposed to kill me for what I have written here and Christians are supposed TO KILL EVERYONE who does not believe in the Christian God.

That depends heavily on translation and interpertation (very heavily on interpertation). Again though, you state as absoloute your interpertation of the Bible... while scoffing at those who state as absoloutes their interpertation of the Bible.

Think about what you're writing and what you're discussing. It seems to me, perhaps rightly so, that you've recoginized the programming involved with any belief system. Unfortunately, you seem to have failed to apply it to your own.

Though I could be wrong and you might just be stirring up the natives... in which case, carry on ;-) I particluarly liked dougf's digital exorcism... classic!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris
POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

It is true that Judaism, unlike Islam and Christianity, does not seek to convert non-Jews. Although, I think there were two cases of forced conversion in the time of thesecond temple. Obviously, the Jewish kingdoms ofthe first and second temples fought and conquered land from their neighbors (and vice versa), although neither was ever strong or motivated enough to have real imperialistic goals. It should also be noted that theweakness of Judaism nevergave it the option to be very imperialistic.

Islamists should not beconsidered the sole representatives of Islam. If religions were represented by its most extreme spokespeople, than all religions would look very bad.

"Islam has always spread by the sword"
Not true. Therewere times where it was spread by missionaries and merchants.

"Islam has always sought to expand the land under its control by aggressively attacking and subjugating non-Islamic countries"
It is true that Islam officially encourages the conquest of non muslim countries. It is also true that Muslim Empires like the Othomans, used that to justify conquest. Although the Othomans also conquered other Muslims. It is not true that Muslim countries always sought or seek to conquer non Muslim countries. There were times when the impetus to conquer stopped. This happens with most empires, Muslim or otherwise.

"non-Muslims living in Muslim countries have only those rights that their Muslim masters decide they should have, so of course these are not rights at all, but privileges that can be revoked at will."
This is true of anybody living under the rule of another. This is not unique to Islam. The official policy of Islam is not to forceably convert non-muslims, but to give them only second class rights as dhimmis (in the case of Jews and Christians). Hindus also lived under Muslim rule.

"it certainly appears that a great many Muslims living in the West have no allegiance whatsoever to the countries in which they live and feel no duty whatsoever to abide by the laws or respect the culture and mores of the "infidel"."
It does not appear so. The accusation of dual loyalty can be extended (andhas) to Jews, Catholics, Irish, Japanese, and any member of a religious or national minority group. There are even cases when there was dual loyalty (or loyalty just to the foreign group). But most Jews, Muslims, Catholics etc. are loyal to their countries in the West as far as can be seen.

"Islam is a positive danger to non-Muslims. It is out for conquest, either by force, subversion, or demographics. The non-Muslim world ignores this at its peril."
Not true. The danger to the world is The radical Islamic ideology, not Islam as such. Attempts to wage a war against Islam as such threatens the war effort against radical Islamism.
Muslim emigrants are not trying to conquer anything, anymorethan other immigrants. However, any mass immigration poses a threat to the host culture if it is unable to maintain its majority and/or cultural hegemony, and to sufficiently assimilate the immigrants. The US was able so far to acheive these goals to a degree.

IMO, asking someone to post elsewhere should be the sole perogative of the owner of the website--rosignol

I believe that you are attempting to stifle my 'freedom of speech'. Shame on you, sir, especially on this tread. --------- :-)

And besides it was Cromwell not I who suggested the 'going'. I merely recommended the 'calming down' and the 'stopping'. Cromwell's injunction just seemed so apropos and provocative given the 'subject' of Mr. Reinhardt's missives, that I simply could not resist.

At least Tosk got it.

Micha, your rebuttal seems sort of like a long "everybody does it" shrug. You basically admit that much of what I say about Islam is true and then you seem to sort of say "so what?".

That is, really, precisely my point. The whole point is that we are not Muslims, and that should we come under the control of Islam we will be reduced to dhimmis. You admit as much and then just say "that's true everywhere" when one group rules over another.

The implications of this are obvious. Should Islam conquer, we will be reduced to the status of second-class citizens since we are not Muslims. Do you want to live as a dhimmi under Islam? I certainly don't, and since it is the publicly stated aim of the Islamists to establish the rule of Islam wherever they are capabale of doing so and to "reclaim" lands they once ruled but are now lost to them, such as Spain, I think it is perfectly reasonable for any thinking non-Muslim to see Islam as a threat to our freedom, dignity and way of life.

The only spokesmen for Islam we hear are the radical Islamists or smooth dissemblers like Tariq Ramadan. The "moderate" Muslims, if they actually exist, have ceded the field to them. If the masses of Muslims are the nice people you say they are, why do we not hear from them?

"Micha, your rebuttal seems sort of like a long "everybody does it" shrug. You basically admit that much of what I say about Islam is true and then you seem to sort of say "so what?"."

The important thing is to understand that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism is not monolithic thing. It changes over time and space. At the 7th century Islam, like Christianity, was conquering and intolerant. But it is hypocritical to judge Christianity as if its true nature is the way it is behaving now, having adapted to a more libberal secular world, while judging Islam as if it is exactly the same as it was in the 7th century, and is incapable of bahaving any differently. I am not denying that the Islamic fundemtalists want to take over Islam today, and return to what they consider the reality of the 7th century. Jewish and Christian fundementalist have similar but less ambitious goals (that's the point of being fundementalist). I'll go even further and say that a Jewish fundementalist looks back to the days of the second temple, a Christian to the apostles preaching, while a Muslim fundementalist may look back to a Muslim conquests -- so that Islamic fundementalism may become more violent than the other two kinds. But not all Islam or all Muslims are fundementallists in that way. Not even all the religious ones.

"I certainly don't, and since it is the publicly stated aim of the Islamists to establish the rule of Islam wherever they are capabale of doing so and to "reclaim" lands they once ruled but are now lost to them, such as Spain, I think it is perfectly reasonable for any thinking non-Muslim to see Islam as a threat to our freedom, dignity and way of life."
Note, in the beginning of the sentence you speak about Islamists, but at the end you speak of Islam as a threat. a similar sentence would say that Kahanist would like to have Jordan as part of a greater Israel, and therefore Judaism is a threat to Jordan. Or that Jerry Fowlwell is against homosexuals, and therefore Christianity is a threat to homosexuals.

There is a great threat to our freedom. but that is not Islam but the radical Islamic ideology. If we decide to wage war against all Muslims we will compromise the war against that ideology. This is like the difference between a war against Nazi germany and a war against Germans.

"The only spokesmen for Islam we hear are the radical Islamists or smooth dissemblers like Tariq Ramadan. The "moderate" Muslims, if they actually exist, have ceded the field to them. If the masses of Muslims are the nice people you say they are, why do we not hear from them?"

I did not say that the masses of Muslims are nice people. We should be very concerned about the acceptance or apologetic attitude towards Islamic Radicalism among the Muslim masses. But not all of the Muslims are Islamic radicals, nor are all of them mobilized to fight against the west. Most of them are just regular people. if we do not hear from them as much, it is because regular people usually do not spend as much energy speaking to the press.
It is not true that the only spokesmen of Islam we hear are radical Islamists. Bombs are louder than other forms of communication, but there are other voices in the Muslim world, and they can be heard by those wishing to listen. I believe that Michael J. Totten is one of the people listening. Nevertheless, Islamic radicalism is a threat that should be faced. Just don't confuse it with a war on Islam.

Yes, Christianity has evolved. It was separating Christianity from government that defanged Christianity and made it possible for people who are not Christians to live on equal terms in a society where Christians form the majority. If not for that, I agree that life for non-Chrisitians among Christians would probably still be pretty intolerable.

But the West has done it, and that is the difference. I hope that Islam will do so one day as well. But this will require a radical reconfiguring of Islam. At present, there is no conception of the separation of mosque and state in Islamic societies. To the extent that a Muslim is a pious Muslim, I have to assume that he believes in such a philosophy of government, which is, or should be, anathema to any modern Western person, just as the idea of a Christian theocracy is anathema. The Turkish model is still just that, the Turkish model. No other Muslim society has been able to relegate the Islamic parties to a subordinate role, and it is only the Turkish army and the threat of a military coup that makes it possible to maintain the secular nature of ther Turkish government.

When the voices of the Muslim moderates drown out the bombs of the Islamists, I will let down my guard somewhat. But not before. I am sure that the vast majority of Muslims are just plain folks. But that doesn't do me a damn bit of good if they allow the Islamists to run the show, as they are now doing.

In the REAL world, NOTHING INTRINSICALLY HAS RIGHTS!

That's what makes your atheistic worldview so dangerous. Because if you are right-- and there is no God from which we derive our rights-- then the logical conclusion is Stalin. Because what the government giveth, it can take away.

My comments yesterday generated a few replies, two of whom rightly contested one of my assertions. Technically I was incorrect to say that tyranny cannot be voted in, as the recent elections in Gaza sadly show. But my larger point was that in the US, given our constitution, an attempt to deprive individuals of their rights would theoretically be thwarted by the fact that such an action - even a law passed by Congress or voted for in an election - would be declared unconstitutional.

The essence of the American Revolution and our form of government, and the only real bulwark against tyranny the world has ever known, is the idea that the INDIVIDUAL is SOVEREIGN, and the purpose of government is to defend individual liberty AGAINST the will of the MAJORITY. Anything less, any other form of government, will ALWAYS ultimately devolve into tyranny. Democracy without limits is nothing by mob rule, any literally any atrocity can be justified.

So it matters not what you think about the nature of rights, it comes down to this point : either we assert that individual liberty and the right to pursue self-actualization is absolute and a BIRTHRIGHT, or we are saying that whoever has the most power controls us all, and that's ok. I say that is NOT ok because I love the human race.

If "rights" come from the state, then they are not really rights at all. And at that point, we are back to barbarism, and human relationships will forever be only about power for the sake of power and brute force. This is the inescapable result of the belief that we have no natural rights.

The concept of natural rights originated in the West. Other cultures have contributed greatly to the human experience in the realm of art, food, and culture. But it is primarily in the West today, especially in the US, where people of all races and religious tradition co-exist in peace, precisely because of the fact that the INDIVIDUAL, not the group, stands at the center of society, and social interaction is voluntary. Any person or individual who does not accept this truth and seeks to abrogate the rights of individuals, either through the ballot box or violently, is a traitor to this nation and to his fellow human beings. If you disagree with this, then as I see it, you are endorsing a world of power for the sake of power, and never-ending conflict and genocide.

In the REAL world, NOTHING INTRINSICALLY HAS RIGHTS!

That's what makes your atheistic worldview so dangerous. Because if you are right-- and there is no God from which we derive our rights-- then the logical conclusion is Stalin. Because what the government giveth, it can take away.

[shrug]

Governments take away rights all the time, regardless of if those rights are claimed to be derived from divine will. There is a constant tension between established custom, the letter of the law, and the demands of expediency. Sometimes custom prevails, sometimes the letter of the law is obeyed, and sometimes, expediency drives matters, even in the USA- as the American citizens who happened to be of japanese descent will tell you.

God has little to do with it.

As Chairman Mao once said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

He was speaking to communists, but the statement is true regardless of the audience.

Jeeze, Give me a Break!

A. The odds are around 99.0% (if not higher) that YOU are of the SAME religion as those who raised you.

B. the MAJOR reason you are believe in the god you do is because YOU were PROGRAMMED
into it as a child.

C. And you are too lazy, too dumb or too programmed to DE-programm yourself.

Well, child, many of us were NOT too lazy or too dumb or too programmed and we HAVE de-programmed ourselves.

Humans have INVENTED OVER 30,000 DIFFERNT gods so far and NONE of them have any proof what-so-ever they exist ANYWHERE other than IN THE MINDS of you believers.

What you believers never seem to get is MOST of we Atheists HAVE BEEN where you are and we have MOVED PAST IT!

You child, are still in grade school while we have our phds.

PROVE anything has rights which are not granted to them by those who have the powr to grant them!

YOU CAN NOT DO SO!

Yes, governments take away rights (and so does religion) we should have AND they also have GIVEN US RIGHTS.

NO GOD GAVE ANYTHING AS GODS DO NOT EXIST!

Jeeze, Give me a Break!

The odds are around 99.0% (if not higher) that YOU:

A. Are of the SAME religion as those who raised you.

B. Believe in the god you do is because YOU were PROGRAMMED into it as a child.

C. Are too lazy, too dumb or too programmed to DE-programm yourself.

Well, child, MANY MILLIONS of us were NOT too lazy or too dumb or too programmed and so we HAVE de-programmed ourselves.

What you believers never seem to get is MOST of we Atheists HAVE BEEN where you are and we have MOVED PAST IT! (Many of us WERE OFFICALS in a church and were probably MORE religious than you are.)

Check this out: http://www.ffrf.com/

As far as religion, you child, are still in grade school while we have our phds.

PROVE anyone has rights which are not granted to them by those who have the powr to grant them!

YOU CAN NOT DO SO!

Yes, governments take away rights (and so does religion) we should have

AND, they also have GIVE US RIGHTS.

NO GOD GAVE ANYTHING AS GODS DO NOT EXIST!

Humans have INVENTED OVER 30,000 DIFFERNT gods so far and NONE of them have any proof what-so-ever they exist ANYWHERE other than IN THE MINDS of you believers.

PROVE the Hindus are not right and there are MANY gods!

We just believe in ONE LESS god than you do!

Neil C. Reinhardt
Atheist Vet

Opps sorry about the double post. I was informed the first one did not work

>>>Governments take away rights all the time

Governments violate rights all the time. And they infringe on rights all the time. But they cannot take those rights away. That's what "unalienable rights" are. In other words, they make take my freedom at the point of a gun, but they cannot take my RIGHT to be free. Thus, my God-given right to freedom-- because it is unalienable--exists regardless of your gun.

That's not the case in a commie atheist society like Mao's and Stalin's. THEY determine what your rights are, and those rights are fully alienable by the government-- with a gun, or by a simple stroke of the pen. The rights they give, they can take away.

That's the difference between Atheist rights vs God given rights.

Go live in your dream world Carlos, because you sure are not in the real one!

Do you have a clue what logic is?

(Most probably not as you are a PPR!)

You can CLAIM your "right to be free" all you want only if someone with the power to do so puts your butt in concentration camp, all of your CLAIMING to have your "unalienable rights" will not do you a bit of good.

You can CLAIM what you want only the FACTS PROVE your claims to be false!

So Ratatosky,

I guess you, instead of interpreting a street STOP sign to mean "Cease Your Forward Progress" to "Squeal Tires On Payment"?

You must, as there is no way any rational person could mis-interprete the following:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."  Exodus 22:18
 
You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

And Child, any belief system which you yourself, arrived at, ALL BY YOURSELF, is NOT one in which you have been programmed!

Ast here was NO programming and NO programmer.

So Oh Illogical One, do not judge others actions by your own.

Ephraim said:

"Yes, Christianity has evolved. It was separating Christianity from government that defanged Christianity and made it possible for people who are not Christians to live on equal terms in a society where Christians form the majority. If not for that, I agree life for non-Christians among Christians would probably still be pretty intolerable.

But the West has done it, and that is the difference."

Sorry Ephraim, While I WISH you were Right, YOU ARE WRONG!

When the Senior Bush was VP and running for President, he said he did not consider
Americans who were Atheists to be either
citizens or patriots!

Had he said that about ANY other group, there would have been all kinds of hell raised.

Some totally STUPID people are still going around saying: "There are NO Atheists in Foxholes" when it is a total LIE!

An uneducated minority woman on welfare with 10 kids and a prison record has a better chance of being elected to a public office than a sneaky clean white Atheist Vet with a phd does.

Here in the U.S. TODAY, MOST Americans who are Atheists are SO AFRAID of what the Christians will do to them if they know we are Atheists, they WILL NOT publicly make it known they are Atheists.

Our "loving" fellow American Christians harass us, send us hate mail and make nasty or threating phone calls to us, they do not hire or promote us, they fire us, boycott our businesses, they vandalize our property, hurt and/or steal our pets, beat us and our children and sometimes, they kill us.

Christians have been doing all the above to us for nearly 2,000 years and yet some people act like I am some terrible person for simply pointing out the facts.

Just like a person in a crowd who watches a lynching take place without taking any action to stop it is legally just as guilty as those who did the actual lynching, any Christians who do not take active steps to stop other Christians from treating Atheists badly are just as guilty as those who commit those hateful acts toward us.

Sorry Ratatosk,

There are those who say it is not a FACT we landed on the moon or the earth is oval or Evolution is both a Theory and a Fact!

Their denial of facts have no effect on them, they are still facts!

(And would be even if NO one believed them to be.)

Belief does NOT negate fact!

And like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, it IS A FACT that in the REAL world, NOTHING INTRINSICALLY HAS RIGHTS and that ALL Rights are granted by those who have the power to grant them.

Just because YOU and others of your ilk do NOT KNOW it, makes no difference what so ever.

And (Darn it) I forgot to say that IF there WAS a god (fat chance) and IF this god gave people "rights" it STILL is EXACTLY what I said.

You have rights BECAUSE your god, WHO HAS THE POWER, GRANTED THEM TO YOU!

DUH!

ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THOSE WHO HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THEM.

In the world of belief, it could be a god, in the REAL world, it is not.

Here in the U.S. TODAY, MOST Americans who are Atheists are SO AFRAID of what the Christians will do to them if they know we are Atheists, they WILL NOT publicly make it known they are Atheists.

Sounds like you need to make some new friends. All of mine know I'm an athiest, none of them care.

rosignol,

he put it in caps, so it must be true.

Yeah, I noticed that.

He seems to have more free time than Mr. Totten's website can absorb. Maybe we should point him at the nice folks over at the Democratic Underground and Free Republic websites.

:>

This is not a reply to the troll.

I merely wish to point out that those commands from Deuteronomy were specific commands for a specific time and place. They do not apply to us today. Not because Christianity has evolved, but because they are not commands given to Christians. I will add that the reason why God was so hard on Isreal's neighbors is that they were such an evil people. Those strange gods and religions practiced ritual rape and sacrificed children by burning them alive. God put them to the sword not because they were of a different religion but because they practiced rape, torture, and murder in the name of religion, which God wanted to end.

Therefore, they show God's intolerance with evil done in the name of religion.

You don't UNDERSTAND. CAPS are the ONLY defense we ATHEISTS have AGAINST the HORDES of CHRISTIANS that are TRYING to KILL us. The FACT that WE are STILL ALIVE and POSTING PROVES THIS to be TRUE.

CAPS also SERVE to PROTECT from UNICORN ATTACKS. IF A UNICORN IS NOT ATTACKING YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE ME TO THANK.

"In considering the means of counteracting this foreign political conspiracy against our free institutions, I have said that we must awake to the reality and extent of the danger, and rouse ourselves to immediate and rigorous action in spreading religious and intellectual cultivation through the land. This indeed would be effectual, but this remedy is remote in its operation, and is most seriously retarded by the enormous increase of ignorance which is flooding the country by foreign immigration. While therefore the remote effects of our exertions are still provided for, the pressing exigency of the case seems to require some more immediate efforts to prevent the further spread of the evil. The two-fold character of the enemy who is attacking us must be well considered. Popery is doubly opposed, civilly and religiously, to all that is valuable in our free institutions. As a religious system, it is the avowed and common enemy of every other religious sect in the land. The Episcopalian, the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the Quaker, the Unitarian, the Jew, & c. & c., are alike anathematized, are together obstinate heretics, in the creed of the Papist. He wages an indiscriminate, uncompromising, exterminating war with all. As a Political system, it is opposed to every political party in the country. Popery in its very nature is opposed to the genius of our free system, notwithstanding its affected, artful appropriation (in our country only,) of the habits and phraseology of democracy."

That's from Foreign Conspiracy Against the United States, by Samuel Morse, 1835.

Substitute Islamist for Papist, and this could have been written today.

Read the rest here:

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Lks/FCALUS/FCALUS00.htm#TOC

Ratatosk,

Good point. In the end, I suppose that it is the people who are the bulwark of freedom whether by voting or resistance. But please excuse those of us who wonder if it need be so bloody.

I don't know if you have any military experience, but a long time ago, I was in the Marine Corp. While I support second amendment rights, I can tell you that it would take huge numbers of dead to defeat them with small arms. Things like tanks, jets, artilery, and fully automatic grenate launchers take a terrible toll.

Neil C. Reinhardt,

All of the quotes you provided seem to appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. They appear to me, as commands given to Hebrews about how to conduct the politics of the Hebrews. This would seem to apply then, only to those under the Moasic Law Covenant(the contract between YHVH and the Jews as mediated by Moses at Mt. Sinai).

Jesus replaced the Moasic Law with a New Covenant, one between YHVH and all mankind, with himself as the mediator. Where the Hebrew system was a nationalistic system, governing the laws of a single nation (and anyone inside that nation). The christian covenant was no longer nationalistic, nor was it designed to enforce the christian tenants on non-believers. Since then, the politicized chruch has misused their power to do just the opposite, but that's a different issue. However, from a biblical perspective, the only action a Christian should ever take against a non-believer is one of disassociation. Moral legislation, hate mail etc. has no support anywhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In the Hebrew scriptures it applies only to those who were under the Moasic covenant, ie. the Jews.

I have reprogrammed myself, I was one of Jehovah's Wittnesses for the first 25 years of my life. I understand exactly what you're saying about people being programmed into the religion they were raised in. In fact, I would guess that we've read some of the same books and done similar research. The difference, I think, may be that you percieve the religious programming as the only sort of programming there is... it seems that you may think of yourself as deprogrammed. I certianly did for awhile during my process of growth. However, I think you will eventually find that we all are programmed, from birth, in a million different ways. I highly recommend the book "Prometheus Rising" for a decent discussion of exactly how programmed we tend to be (and how we can 'reprogram', but not truly 'deprogram').

I am not an athiest, I consider myself Model Agnostic, which means that I'm willing to use any available model to examine my surroundings, occasionally from a christian viewpoint, an athiestic viewpoint, a pagan viewpoint, a 'magic' viewpoint, a scientific, philosophical or Discordian viewpoint. All of these can be considered maps of the 'territory' of reality. Some maps are more useful than others, some more beautiful, but all of them are not more than maps.

And the Map is not the territory.

Carlos,

Using a Totalitarian Communistic government to make definate statements about athiesm and morals/rights seems to confuse causation with correlation. Certianly many athiests I know consider the individual's rights to be inherent, simply because they do not consider any other human being to have the right to impose their beliefs/ideas/decisions in the private life of the individual. It has little to do with government, or God, granting them.

Simply because a bunch of Authoritarian bastard Communists happen to be athiest, doesn't in any way mean that all, or even most athiests are auithoritarian bastard communists.

Ratatosk,

I'm not implying that because someone is an atheist he must therefore be totalitarian. I was simply pointing out the difference between God given right vs government given rights. Atheistic government-given rights can be taken with the stroke of a pen, while unalienable God-given rights cannot.

And if there are atheists out there who believe our rights are inherent, that's great, and I applaud them. But logically speaking they aren't being consistent with their atheism. This Reinhart fellow above is a blowhard, but at least he follows an internal logic, I give him that.

Why is an absence of a belief in God not logically consistant with a philosophy about the control one has over their own body?

Indeed, there have been many religious nations, indeed even Christian ones which have shown little or no respect for "God Given Rights". There are examples from 1000 years ago and 10 years ago.

For example, Jehovah's Wittnesses were banned in Greece (still may be in fact). This was due almost entirely to the actions of the Greek Orthadox Church, a Christian religion who believes in God Given rights, until they conflict with the Church's control. JW's in Greece have been beaten and imprisoned for exercising their God Given Rights in a christian nation. So too, Burandi, and Malawi where Catholic priests led mobs to attack JW's, including smashing their fingers between bricks, cutting off body parts and in some cases killing the JW.

Of course, almost identical actions were carried out by Hitler, the USSR and Communist China. The problem isn't "God Given Rights" but rather totalitarian regimes that use whatever populist message is useful to gather power for themselves and attack those they find unacceptable.

Ratatosk

JBP,

I salute your service in the marines and I am glad that you agree with me that the true power and responsibility of a democracy lies with its people.

I have no desire to see bloody insurrections, civil war or revolution. However, were Islamic extremism to somehow gain a foothold here in the US, I would prefer to see the streets run red with blood and 100,000 Americans dead with guns in their hands, than to see 100 Americans become dhimmis in this nation. Freedom, to me at least, is worth dying for. If it is worth dying for in Iraq or Afganistan, how much more it must be worth defending freedom here in our own nation.

The Founding Fathers could not have forseen the weapons of mass destruction available today. Machine guns, flamethrowers, Bunker busters and Cruise Missles... However, they understood the single basic principle that seems to hold true even today. A government cannot govern if the people do not allow it to.

Look at the situation in Iraq. Whatever one's opinion of the war and the terrorists, insurgents, revolutionaries, foreign fighters... whatever. It certianly does seem to indicate that small arms can do pretty damn well against the Might of the US Millitary. Consider how much more deadly things would be if most Iraqis supported the insurgents. Our nation was outgunned in the Revolutionary war and by using tactics considered outside the acceptable millitary code, we won (They're hiding in the trees, and they aren't all wearing uniforms!!!). So too, if this nation were overrun by Authoritarian power. Many might die, but they may, perhaps more than any solider in the past 100 years be considered a true patriot in every sense of the word.

Indeed, there have been many religious nations, indeed even Christian ones which have shown little or no respect for "God Given Rights".

Tosk,

because they are betraying their own internal logic, just as an atheist who believes that ANYTHING could possibly be "inherent" without a higher power is betraying his. Without a higher power, there are no absolutes, and thus nothing is "inherent" -- the atheists particular desire about "his own body" notwithstanding.

Philosophically speaking, in a world without a Higher Power (and the moral absolutes thereby derived), the atheist's feelings about "his own body" are no more relevant or important or valid than a cow's feelings about it's body just before it's slaughtered. Philosophically speaking, they're both just meat. Thus the atheistic slaughterhouses of the 20th century should have come as no surprise.

For a atheist humanist the value, worth and rights of a human are derived from his human nature and not from an external higher power.

He who claims to speak with the authority of a higher power, be it god, the aryan race, or materialistic dialectic, will easily consider humans worthless. But those who consider humans valuable in and of their own nature, will always value them.

Slaughtering happens whenever some abstract principle becomes more important than the humans themselves.

>>>He who claims to speak with the authority of a higher power, be it god, the aryan race, or materialistic dialectic, will easily consider humans worthless.

If according to that Higher Power humans have innate worth, then he would no longer be speaking for that Higher Power. He would be speaking for himself.

In a world without a higher power, one atheist may like "human nature" (Tosk), while the other may not (Stalin). Neither of them is objectively right, nor wrong. lol!

Micha,

Well said. I consider myself neither a theist nor an athiest. However, I consider all humans to have an equal value and equal rights. These rights are inalienable, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others since all humans are of the same worth and of equal value.

In a world without a higher power, one atheist may like "human nature" (Tosk), while the other may not (Stalin). Neither of them is objectively right, nor wrong. lol!

How is it that neither is objectively right or wrong?

Stalin presumed that he could impose his Will on others. I do not presume such. This persumption has little to do with Gods that may or may not exist, and more to do with an Authoritarian/Totalitarian perspective. As you agree, many christians have done terrible things, thus not walking the walk of the belief. So, it would be incorrect to say that ALL Christians are totalitarian jackasses, based only on the examples of some totalitarian jackasses that claimed Christianity as their belief system. So too, simply because Stalin was a totalitarian jackass, doesn't mean that it was his beliefs that he was being true to, so much as his own totalitarian desires that he was acting upon. You truly seem happy to conflate causation and correlation when it comes to an Authoritarian Athiest, but then make excuses when it comes to Authoritarian Christians.

It seems much simpler, and requires less supposition, to simply understand that some, but not all, humans (no matter their religious belief system) are capable of horrific acts against other human beings. It, then, are these acts that we must be aware of. These authoritarian directions that we must be on guard against, be they from Muslims, Christians, Athiests or Agnostics. In the course of the 20th century, some of the most horrific acts were perpatrated by Athiests. If we widen our scope to include more than the 20th century, we find that athiests suddenly make up a much smaller group of Totalitarian regimes. Indeed, we tend to see that most of the totalitarian regimes previous to communism were not simply tolerated by the Church, but indeed, supported by and assisted by the Church. So, in the end we find that some of the most horrific acts against human rights have been done by athiests, some by Christians and all by people that didn't respect the individual liberty of each human being for whatever misguided reason.

Tosk,

I've already stipulated that being an atheist doesn't mean you're a totalitarian, and yet you insist on arguing with me that being an atheist doesn't make you a totalitarian. lol! Well, let me say it again. No, being an atheist doesn't make you a totalitarian. Nor do I argue that being religious makes you Mother Teresa. I argue simply that in a world without a Higher Power, everything is relative. Especially morality. Morality is your own personal choice, subject to change at a whim. Someone else, like Stalin, makes entirely different moral choices than yours. Who are you to say he's wrong? Oh, you think he gives a shit that you're the great Squirl of Discord? Not likely. You essentially have no philosophical leg to stand on with him. The only arguments you can offer him are your personal moral preferences. But he has different preferences. And in a world without moral absolutes, it's all relative, baby.

In my view, there isn't that big of a difference between what the Founders thought, and what Popper thought. It is clear, and the Founders are correct, that they wanted a nation in which people had freedom of conscience, and of religion. The state could not impose one religion or the other, neither could it oppose one's right to freely exercise that religion. The line is clear, though. You cannot use your religion to actually subvert freedom of religion, or any other rights. You can believe that you should, but you do not have the right to actually act on such a belief.

Radical Islamists, Communists, Nazis, etc. can express any ideas that they want under the First Amendment, as wicked as those ideas are. They cannot use those ideas to justify acts that take away others' rights.

Rape, murder, actual acts of treason, etc. are not protected speech, because they violate others' rights. The answer is to confront evil ideas with good ideas, not outlaw them (regardless of any justifications the much ballyhooed Venona Papers supposedly establish). When ideas turn to action, then it's another matter.

As a matter of principle, I think Popper was simply suggesting that it is philosophically impossible to have unlimited tolerance (a fact that the hardcore multiculturalists haven't understood yet). It becomes problematic ehrn you start using the state to fight intolerance (a possible risk with a lot of European hate crimes laws), because you're back to the same problem again.

At the end of the day, the Founders believed totally in religious toleration, up until the point when it is used to undermine religious toleration (through state power, terrorism, etc). That rule ought to still apply today.

Every time Carlos posts, he proves one of my original points: "Religious people are as logical and rational as anyone else is UNLESS they are talking about their OWN religion and then logic goes out the window."

All the quotes I gave about Christians KILLING those who are not Christians come from the CHRISTIAN Bible.

PERIOD! END OF STORY!

And Christians here in America have killed other Christians over which Bible school prayers should be taken from. (The Bible Riots of Phil.)

In the last few years Christians here in America have blown up the federal building in Ok. City, abortion clinics, bars and the Olympics in Atlanta, Ga.

Christians here in America have beaten and killed Atheists within the last year.

So do not give me this BULL SHIT about
how Christians do not kill those who do not accept their archaic beliefs.

As far as a person saying they are an
Atheist and no one bothers them only shows what happens in THEIR LITTLE Corner of the United States, It does NOT mean most Americans who are Atheists are not AFRAID to publicly state they are.

All it really shows is those who do not believe me have done very little, to NO research into the matter. I very strongly
doubt they have ever belonged to any of the larger Atheists groups. Like Atheists United of LA, American Atheists or the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Further, I will bet they have never even
read any of their publications and thus are coming from ignorance on the subject while acting as if they actually have a clue. (They do not.)

-----------------------------

Here is a website on Religious Tolerance and they will not publish their phone number. They said they were sorry only they get so many hate Emails, and an occasional death threat, they hesitate to publish their phone number.

(And they are not even Atheists)

Here is their site:

Religious identification in the US
"...the number of Protestants soon will slip below 50 percent of the ... Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from religious groups ...

www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

-------------------------

Next, Before WWII, Hitler published his plans of conquest which few read and of those who did read "Mein Kemph" fewer still believed he would even start to put his plan in action. Yet he helped plunge the world into terrible war killing many, many, many millions.

The Moslem terrorists, just like Hitler did, have PUBLISHED their long range plans to first take over Iraq for a base to then take over:

A. First, the entire Middle East

B. Then ALL of the Eastern Hemisphere

C. And ALL of the Western Hemisphere

They fully intend to KILL ALL of THOSE who resist and put any of those left under a Taliban form of rule.

There are a 100 MILLION Moslems who are willing to take up arms to help the terrorists accomplish these goals.

MANY terrorist attacks against the U.S. and others have been stopped by our using the intelligence gathered in Iraq &
Afghanistan.

How can anyone be so clueless to think
there would have not been another major terrorist attack in the US since 9-11 had the terrorists not been tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The facts are we are never going to have to worry about any of the terrorists killed in Iraq conducting terrorist attacks against us or our friends. (Even the French.)

Our war in Iraq is NOT just about Iraq, it is about the freedom of the world and the survival of our way of life!

It is really too bad those who are against our actions in Iraq either have NO CLUE what is at stake or they are TOO STUPID to understand it!

---------------------

I also strongly support the 2nd Amendment as well and know the ONLY "right" which guarantees a government will keep the other rights is an armed citizenry. As far as having us fight tanks or whatever, try using some common sense.

A. IF it ever got to the point where many if not most American citizens felt the need to take arms against our government, MANY of those in the Armed Forces would be ON OUR SIDE and they would bring their arms with them. Others would stay to provide us with intelligence and sabotage what they could.

B. As far as I know, all of the guerrilla movements which have the support of a large part of the population have ALWAYS succeed in over throwing the government they were fighting

I am also a vet who served in the active army reserves and/or the National Guard for over six years and on active duty as
a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne for over three years.

Last, the jerk who called me a blowhard can shove a sharp cactus up his butt and rotate!

Neil C. Reinhardt

And as far as this JBP TROLL, he PROVES
he just DENYS any facts which prove him wrong. He PROVES he does NOT know what is his little "guide book" the Bible.

Oh so typical of a CLULESS PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOT!

Neil C. Reinhardt

Ratatosk, you say you are an Agnostic.

If you were in a court of law and were instructed to ONLY answer YES or NO and were asked:

"Do you BELIEVE in a god or gods?"

How would you answer?

Answer YES, and you ARE a theist.

Answer NO, and you ARE an Atheist.

I am an a Agnostic Athiest as there is NO WAY for me to KNOW if there is a god or not (which means I am an Agnostic) and I do not BELEEVE in a god which means I am ALSO an Atheist.

And Carlos, both history and current evens PROVE that believing in a higher power does NOT, in any way, make a person more moral or better than an Atheist in any way.

You believers are NOT kinder, more generous, certainly not more logical or intelligent, not braver, more courageous, (Pat Tilman) not more honest or truthful, not harder working or more successful.

Religious people are NOT any more helpful, more just or more compassionate, or any other positive trait than Atheists are.

Being religious has NOT stopped people from committing every crime there is. From lying, raping, torturing and mass murder. Or from committing many, many, many terrorist acts like 9-11

Religious people do not help others more than Atheists do. Religious people do not, on a percentage basis to population, give more to charities than Atheists do.

In fact, Ted Turner, an Atheist gave one Billion dollars to the UN to help others. Atheist George Soros gives millions to do the same.

Another Atheist, Warren Buffet just gave something like 37 Billion dollars to Atheist Bill Gates foundation. And the Gates Foundation has given many, many, many Billions to help others.

If fact Carlos, you religious people MUST be psychology WEAKER than Atheists as we Atheists do NOT need any god or "our Faith" to get us through any hard times, (Chris Reeve) or disease (Lance Armstrong) or what have you.

I have nearly died, both quickly (more than a few times) and slowly in a hospital bed (twice) and I have NEVER even thought about asking any god for help much less doing it.

And we Atheists do not need either a god or "our faith" to succeed in life.

The facts are Carlos, Atheists are the leaders, or among the leaders, in every field other than religion. (and maybe rap music.)

Neil C. Reinhardt

Ratatosk, when you said: "However, I think you will eventually find that we all are programmed, from birth, in a million different ways."

I certainly agree with that.

Still, as you should be able to tell, I was only referring to the religion we were raised in. (and/or may have later become involved in.)

As far as the "reprograming" & "not truly
deprograming"

I would say that sounds correct. I will have to think on it some more.

""argue simply that in a world without a Higher Power, everything is relative. Especially morality. Morality is your own personal choice, subject to change at a whim. Someone else, like Stalin, makes entirely different moral choices than yours. Who are you to say he's wrong? Oh, you think he gives a shit that you're the great Squirl of Discord? Not likely. You essentially have no philosophical leg to stand on with him. The only arguments you can offer him are your personal moral preferences. But he has different preferences. And in a world without moral absolutes, it's all relative, baby."

A common mistake. As if the value of humans founded on the supposedly stronger but invisible foundation of a supreme power is more reliable than a value founded on the observed nature of humans.
"We find this truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal." What is more self evident, what is more relative, what is more subject to changing attitudes of people, the nature of the creator or the nature of the created?

Ultimatly, whether out of belief in the supreme power of your choice, some other abstract principle, or humanism, it is humans who asscribe value to things, and it has no stronger foundation other than that. The theist and the humanist will waste their times equally arguing miorality with Hitler.

Some theists will claim that their belief in a supreme power is an act of faith or choice, and it is this choice that is the moral act, although it is not founded on a strong proof. Equally, the humanist can say that the act of ascribing value to humans is a moral act not founded on proof. But still, the humanist is ascribing value to an actual being, while the theist is ascribing value to a less substantial being.

Ratatosk, you say you are an Agnostic.

If you were in a court of law and were instructed to ONLY answer YES or NO and were asked:

"Do you BELIEVE in a god or gods?"

How would you answer?

I would refuse to answer the question, as it relies on aristotlean logic (IS/IS NOT), which I reject as an incomplete system. I firmly believe that it is a terrible mistake to hold firm beliefs, but I certianly do believe in a god or two when it suits my purpose. When I wanted to experiment with invocation, I believed in Therion and I invoked Therion in what was probably one of the more spiritual moments in my life. Was any of the experience outside of my own neurological system? Well... how the hell should I know.

I believe in Eris, when I'm planning a jake, a mindfuck or am presiding over a conclave of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal. Indeed, Eris has, on occasion appeared and spoken to me, in one instance I recall nothing of the experience, except that I awoke the next morning with several pages of written conversation between She and I... was it all in my head? Maybe. But the belief, however temporary, was I think a very important part of being able to have the experience.

I see belief as a tool, not as a truth. Sometimes, when its useful for me, I believe in a God, Goddess, a pantehon or No God At All. To presume that one could answer any metaphysical question with a direct Yes/No seems ludacris to me and the product of a lack of thought.

Carlos,

My point is that while you may make some philosophical claim that athiest views are subjective and Christian ones Objective... history disagrees. Any view, be it athiest, christian or other, seems subjective.

It seems to me, subjective to believe in an invisible deity that hasn't made a peep in 2000 years. I consider it subjective to accept the Bible as the Word of God, when it appears to have several areas of incorrect information and potential plagerism. It is no more or less subjective that any other belief held by individuals. The problem, I think, centers around dogmatic acceptence of any subjective ideas as objective facts.

Micha,

You post was excellent.

Yes Micha, an EXCELLENT post.

------------

The facts are people have dreams which are so real, they would swear they actully happened. I am sure they could pass any lie detection type of test due to their truly believing whatever it was they had dreamed actually traspired.

I have had at least two of them which I know of. How many other things in my life which I believed happened and which I can not verify as being fact, I have no clue.

I fully believed, for many years, one of my dreams was real, that it had actually happened. The other was disproved within a week.

I know believing a dream actually happened and was true is not unusual as others have told me it happened to them as well.

It is no wonder those who believe in one, or more, gods trully believe their god (s) have communicated with them. Only
belief is not fact, never has been and never will be.

-------------------------

As far Ratatosk evading answering a simple question which most certainly can be answered yes or no, I say:

What a chicken way to not answer a question. Write alot and say little.

It IS either YES, or NO!

Period! End Of Story!

As far Ratatosk evading answering a simple question which most certainly can be answered yes or no, I say:

What a chicken way to not answer a question. Write alot and say little.

It IS either YES, or NO!

Period! End Of Story!

Sorry, I can't express how incorrect your presumption appears to be.

If you personally are stuck in the aristotlean two-valued logical system, I don't consider that my fault. Indeed, simply because I choose to use a three valued system yes/no/indeterminate (or maybe) seems in no way "chicken" to me.

If you happen to catch me on a day when I'm being a pagan and invoking Therion, Babelon etc... then I believe in Gods and Goddesses.

If you catch me on a day when I'm planning being an Erisian, you'll find that I believe in Eris.

If you catch me on a day when I'm doing a Chaos Magic working, you'll find that I either believe in no deity at all, or that I consider all deities as psychological archtypes, or that I consider myself as the only God I can usefully define... or whatever seems most appropriate for the task at hand. If you catch me one a day when I'm feeling rather athiestic, I'll tell you that Gods don't exist and never have outside of the neurological systems of human beings.

You may consider my answer as chicken, but it appears to me as the best answer I can give based on the life I lead and the choices I make.

I have a list of 6 belief systems, once a month I will roll a six-sided die and try to fully believe the matching system for a week. Once I have successfully, in my opinion, accepted the belief I'll cross it off the list and add a new one. I find that its rather easy to believe any system, be it Christian, Athiest, Discordian, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American Shamanism etc. etc. etc. etc. I find that when I believe a system that has Gods, I believe in Gods. When I believe in a system that has no Gods, then I believe in no Gods. Interestingly, I can usually find all sorts of proof to back up either side.

You may be perfectly happy coverting from one set of dogmatic programming (the religion you were raised in) to another, equally dogmatic program (that of atheism). I personally prefer to play with as many concepts as possible. Indeed, after the experimentation I have done, I think that I could provide anyone with the necessary exercises to either completely remove all belief in Deity, or to actually have serious questions about the possibility of the Devine. As Nietzsche said: "We are all greater artists than we realize."

If being happy exploring as many reality tunnels as I possibly can during my lifetime is chicken... then fit me for a suit of feathers. I would prefer to enjoy the exploration of my own neurological system, constantly rethinking assumptions and creating new neural pathways, than to fall into a fetid lifestyle of stagnant thought, where some set of ideas becomes some immutable truth. That which stagnates, dies.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of the ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of the Words of Eris
POEE of the Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

Everything is True in Some Sense, Everything is False in Some Sense, Everything is Meaningless in Some Sense... Everything is True, False and Meaningless in Some Sense. - Principia Discordia

SO your "Schizo."

Have fun in all your dimensions.

The ONLY thing Atheists agree on is there is insufficent evidence to believe in a god or gods.

Try using a dictionary. There is NO Atheist "dogma"

Well, for an experiment:

Have you stopped beating your wife? YES OR NO?!?!?!

I'm going to stay out of the rest of it for now.

Nicheo,

What a STUPID question and one which has NOTHING to do with the subject.

So are you that dumb naturally or do you eat stupid pills?

Neil C. Reinhardt

liming 07年08月30日

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level

rolex replica
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
great wall
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
china tour
china tour
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
猎头
猎头
货架
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机

搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
google排名
google排名
监控
监控
激光打标机
软件工程硕士
集团电话
集团电话
激光打标机
激光打标机
打包机
打包机
拓展训练
塑钢门窗
网站设计
机票
机票
网站建设
数据采集卡
美国国家大学
在职研究生
呼叫中心
交换机
激光打标机
激光打标机

磁控溅射台
磁控溅射台
淀积台
淀积台
镀膜机
镀膜机
匀胶机
匀胶机
溅射仪
溅射仪
刻蚀机
刻蚀机
pecvd
pecvd
去胶机
去胶机
康王
康王
康王
康王
康王
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerl