Irony in Islam

[Severian]

I think you would be happy to know I dont believe in God in the traditional sense.

 

I find that rather disturbing. Would you care to comment in what sense you do (or don't) believe in God?

[AweBurn]

I find that rather disturbing. Would you care to comment in what sense you do (or don't) believe in God?

I dont believe in the God that Western theology has created. I dont believe in a Zues looking figure clad in a toga sitting at the gates of heaven. I believe the idea that God has only spoken to a select few individuals/prophets is simply a tool for control of the religion. I believe we all have access to the humbling presence of something infinantly greater than us. When i use the term i most definatly am not refering to a seperate conscious entity that acts as a governing body for virtue.

 

-AweBurn

 

P.S. Though you didnt ask I also have SEVERE distaste for the concept of Heaven. It is life denying. What reason is there to appreciate a beautiful flower in this life when, in your afterlife, (if you adhere to the necessary regulations to do get to heaven) you will be presented with infinite beauty for eternity.

[Aardvark]

P.S. Though you didnt ask I also have SEVERE distaste for the concept of Heaven. It is life denying. What reason is there to appreciate a beautiful flower in this life when, in your afterlife, (if you adhere to the necessary regulations to do get to heaven) you will be presented with infinite beauty for eternity.

 

Off topic, but, do you believe in an after life then?

[Severian]

When i use the term i most definatly am not refering to a seperate conscious entity that acts as a governing body for virtue.

 

And you are a church minister? Which church would that be?

[AweBurn]

Off topic, but, do you believe in an after life then?

No, I dont believe our minds exist anywhere but in the neurons they are composed of.

 

The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle is a good read that will help you identify the difference between being and thinking and clarify why your thoughts dont make you. I think that was a vague answer but I tend to have difficulties speaking to something that is so subjective like this. Moral of the story, I dont take authoritative answers from gov't, churchs, etc. Sorry!

 

-AweBurn

[gcol]

Off topic, but, do you believe in an after life then?

 

I took him to mean If you believe in heaven, why waste time messing about in this life. The idea is arguable, no?

[AweBurn]

I took him to mean If you believe in heaven, why waste time messing about in this[/i'] life. The idea is arguable, no?

Yes you understood me correctly. Why appreciate this life when the next is infinately better? If the chuch continues to preach of Heaven and Hell our lives will be trying to adhere to a set of rules to get into a place that has yet to be verified by any substantial means.

 

-AweBurn

 

P.S. I'm talking too much but this sort of conversation is what really gets me fired up.

[AweBurn]

And you are a church minister? Which church would that be?

Unitarian-Universalist

[Aardvark]

Yes you understood me correctly. Why appreciate this life when the next is infinately better? If the chuch continues to preach of Heaven and Hell our lives will be trying to adhere to a set of rules to get into a place that has yet to be verified by any substantial means.

 

-AweBurn

 

P.S. I'm talking too much but this sort of conversation is what really gets me fired up.

 

If there's no heaven or hell, then why care about the existence or not of God? Why care about his teachings? Why bother going to your church?

[gcol]

If there's no heaven or hell, then why care about the existence or not of God? Why care about his teachings? Why bother going to your church?

 

I dont know why I am again leaping to his defence, but he has to my satisfaction explained the tenets of his church and beliefs quite well in previous posts. I may not attend, you may not attend, but that is something entirely different

[Aardvark]

I dont know why I am again leaping to his defence,

I'm not attacking him.

 

I may not attend, you may not attend, but that is something entirely different

 

That isn't what i'm asking. :confused:

 

I'm asking him why he thinks his God is worth worshipping? A fair question, surely?

[abskebabs]

I don't mean to offend ppl by saying this but I see there are a lot of ppl with extreme opinions about Islam here, which I can understand with all that has happened in the last 5 years. But I would say that there are no ppl in the world predisposed towards a certain kind of behaviour that is harmful to others just by their religion, race or whatever else alone.

 

One way of thinking of it is that the only devils in this world are the ones circling in our hearts. It is how hatred manifests itself. We try to justify our conflicts by pointing out our differences and become ignorant of each other, while we ignore how mutually similiar we are in our ignorance and hatred for each other when conflict arises.

 

I do wonder though, how many people who have generalised muslims as all being bad, unreasonable, and utterly intolerant of others, actually know any muslims in their everyday lives.

 

I do agree that many trends across the world in Islamic societies are getting pretty scary, as they get more isolationist, defensive of their religion and see the western world[especially the US] as applying double standards to them[for example, don't insist on india keep its civilian nuclear program military nuclear program separate and make a deal with it but stop iran outright].

 

Another example would be criticising other countries for human rights abuses, when America now would seem highly hypocritical, as it keeps prisoners in guantanamo bay[and several secret bases worldwide] without trial or evidence, and has done so for the last 4 years or so. The CIA is then given a free hand to conduct torure without any external supervision. I know that we must combat terrorism, but surely these abuses are just helping Al Quaeda and other affiliated groups gain recruits aren't they?

 

Even in the UK though, where I live; thought the islamic community was pretty well integrated into the society I think it may be getting increasingly isolated. For example I was shocked to find in a poll of 500 muslims taken by a newspaper here; that 40% of muslims would favour sharia law being enforced in certain communities in this country.

[AweBurn]

I'm not attacking him.

 

 

 

That isn't what i'm asking. :confused:

 

I'm asking him why he thinks his God is worth worshipping? A fair question' date=' surely?[/quote']

I dont worship God. By using the term "chruch" i may be unintentionally misleading you. I would consider it a gathering hall of people who believe all the major world religions have some truth behind them. People in my church believe a wide range of religions from Buddhism to Druidic tradition. We realize that in most cases all the paths lead up the same mountain(which is why I defend the Islamic tradition). We understand the perspective nature of existance.

 

It's deep individual pursuit of spirituality.

 

-AweBurn

[Aardvark]

I would consider it a gathering hall of people who believe all the major world religions have some truth behind them. People in my church believe a wide range of religions from Buddhism to Druidic tradition. We realize that in most cases all the paths lead up the same mountain(which is why I defend the Islamic tradition).

 

Interesting viewpoint. How do you deal with the contradictions that can arise between different faiths? If you are accepting that all religions may contain elements of truth what is your response to a claim for exclusive possesion of the truth by a religion?

 

This question seems pertinent as it is a basic Islamic tradition that Islam is directly based on the word of God without any room for interpretation or compromise with other faiths.

 

You seem to face the same dilemma as pacifists facing violent aggression.

[Severian]

I dont worship God. By using the term "chruch" i may be unintentionally misleading you.

 

OK, fair enough. I was indeed mislead because I (mis)associated the word 'church' with Christianity. I was prepared to be morally outraged at you passing yourself off as a Christian minister, but since it is not a Christian 'church' I cannot complain.

 

You do need to get some clearer nonemclature though...

[matt grime]

I don't care about past history of any country. I care about the now that is now. I care about the world thats going to be, but unfortunately I see death coming from Islamic extremists.

 

then I trust you are actively seeking the overthrow of all non-democracies, including those the western governments ships their prisoners to under extraordinary rendition.

 

Another thing. You are dead wrong that I don't have to worry about any attack and I can't believe you treat whats going on so lightly. The rest of your post about how many people are killed on the highways was useless information that had nothing to do with the intent of what I posted.

 

I was not saying that there was no threat from terrorism, but that the threat is minimal of you actually being killed. You face bigger risks than this every day and do not unduly concern yourself with them. There is no reason to be afraid of this anymore than anything else. These people are a tiny number. And, if you read the other follow up by aardvark, this is not a claim of morality, merely statistics, cold impartial statistics. That doesn't mean one should not do anything about it, merely that being afraid of their actions is not necessary.

 

Perhaps I can treat the threat lightly because I grew up with the IRA.

[susu]

I think the reason for the protests is beyond the cartoons.I dont believe violent acts can be attributed to someones religion. A person doesnt become aggressive BECOZ they are muslim. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these acts have nothing to do with religion? Or why these people are so angry?

 

Also regarding Bettina`s title of "savages", to the violent protesters:

I dont think calling them savages is going to help create bridges between diff cultures or religions, do you? Jus beoz you might not manifesting your emotions with physical acts; doesnt make you any less savage than them.

 

I dont think anyone who bases their views on islam

or muslims solely on what is presented in the media has a right to judge.

 

How many people have actually bothered to find out what Islam really is before labelling acts as "islamic"?

[matt grime]

Afghanistan did in effect declared war by refusing to cooperate in handing over the terrorist criminals of Al Qaeda, instead choosing to continue to provide them with sanctury after 9/11.

 

That is questionable. I'm not sure a refusal to comply with a demand made instantly after 9/11 without corroborating evidence constitutes a declaration of war. However waiting longer would not have sated the understandable (see end to note that understanding is not the same as condoning) desire for instant justice. There are uncorroborated reports at least as far as I can tell that since the hand over would not have been to an Islamic Court then it would never have happened. I wonder what might have happened if a request to be tried in such a court had been made?

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is a significant correlation between terrorism and Islam. Most Muslims are not terrorist, that is a truism, but a significant number are or are supporters of it.

 

since you are later going to ask me for corroboration, perhaps here I can also ask for you to state what 'significant number' is in terms of proprtion, or absolute terms, and what evidence there is that that is correct?

 

 

 

Perhaps you forget that Hussien had Bin Laden declared 'Man of the Year' after 9/11?

 

and pre 9/11? my enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

 

 

 

Highly doubtful. The recent elections in Iraq did not show a demand for strongly theocratic government, esp as Iraq is religiously mixed which would make a highly theocratic government almost impossible to enforce.

 

Perhaps you would like to substantial your odd opinion?

 

the main parties are divided along religious grounds.

 

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Sept03/fight.html

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Iraq/July04/marked.html

 

for my 'odd opinion', which isn't even mine, that women in Iraq have traditionally been given a relatively large amount of freedom. That is not to say Hussein didn't curtail those freedoms (he certainly did), but that it is entirely conceivable that in the current climate of religiosity that the democratic government may curtail them even more. We can only hope that the groups reported in that link are successful and that the conservatives do not win out here.

 

Democracy might set back freedoms whilst dictatorship helped protect them?

 

You need to reexamine your ideas.

 

That is not a very accurate representation of what I said. I said that under Hussein it is conceivable that women had more rights than they might perhaps be allowed in the immediate future. You do notice the conditionals there, right?

 

 

Myth. Al Qaeda and Taliban were never supported, helped or funded by the US government.

 

Fact. Islamic Terrorist groups have very broad support across the Muslim world.

 

Well, the first has nothing to do with what I said. Certainly the US in the 80s aided and abetted freedom fighters in Afghanistan (one of whom was Bin Laden) when under soviet occupation. As I was pointing out, it is important to see this in context as more than 'post 9/11'.

 

The second is not necessarily a fact (again, as you ask for corroboration, where is a survey backing this up).

 

 

 

It is possible to make a clear moral distinction to executing someone in a legal system based on clear codes of law and justice accountable to democratic government and between theocratic terrorists.

 

Think about it, the differences are fairly obvious.

 

and did I say otherwise? Bettina said that public beheadings sickened her, quite rightly, yet I believe she supports the death penalty. I could be wrong there, but that is the impression I get. However, I do not think that the death penalty is remotely justifiable in any circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, i withdraw the Iran comments, though this part:

 

Anti American sentiment is based on the Clerics overthrowing the Shahs government? Were are the connections. your making large statements with no supporting evidence. What you are saying just doesn't make sense.

 

should also apply to you: where is your evidence for the things you've asserted as fact?

 

All I was trying to do was point out that an 'unpopular' pro-US, US installed leader (the shah, who pronounced himself 'king of kings') who was overthrown by what has become the clerical leadership of Iran might be a historical explanation for some of the anti-americanism of that country. The US also supported materially Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. That would be another factor. And possibly could lead to an entire thread on 'the irony of western diplomatic relations'.

 

'Unpopular' meaning 'sufficiently to be overthrown' by one of several factions.

 

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Al Qaeda was never supported by the CIA, it never received any support from the West.

 

Excuse me? When did I say Al-Qaeda received support? To repeat myself, the CIA supported freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, one of whom was Bin Laden.

 

 

 

 

 

'Some Palestinians' are moderates. Sure, fine. But the majority of them just voted for Hamas, an organisation that is an openly declared terrorist movement that wants to totally destroy the entire nation of Israel.

 

Please try to bear in mind the existence of a majority vote for violent terrorist fanactics.

 

Hamas won 76 of 132 seats on 77% turnout (bbc news). I don't know if it's a PR system or a first past the post system. in either case it is not a given that the majority of those eligible to vote in Palestine supported Hamas. Nor is it necessarily clear that those who support Hamas support all of their views, or if it were a disenchantment vote with the other parties. It is certainly a myth that the elected officials in any country actually represent the majority of all views.

 

The IRA are part of the power sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland. They were part of a terrorist organization too (and I'm sure that many Unionists would be of the opinion they still are, but that cuts both ways). Margaret Thatcher declared Nelson Mandela to be a terrorist. General Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile after being arrested in the UK for war crimes. Our moral ambiguity in the west is troubling.

 

The problems in the Middle East grew before any attempts to impose anything from the West by force. Force was only used AFTER these problems arose. Your understanding of the situation is upside down.

 

What time scale are we talking here? The biblical one? Or the one that saw that founding of Isreal by the Balfour treaty?

 

 

 

Which they developed after being repeatedly attacked by all their neighbours who openly stated that they wished to completely destroy Israel. Which makes Israels development of nuclear weapons a rational, defensive and morally acceptable matter. As opposed to Iran which faces no external threats and is instead prone to highly aggresive behaviour and threats to its neighbours and Israel.

 

There is no comparision between Israel developing nuclear weapons and Iran wishing to do so.

 

Attacking the civil liberties of a traitor who deliberately broke the law betrayed natioanl security. All countries attack the civil liberties of criminal traitors. In most Arab countries it would not have been solitary confinement, it would have been painful death.

 

Iran has over the years faced attacks from Iraq (who were supported by the US and the British: supergun scandal and everything), and I don't imagine being labelled as part of the axis of evil helped. Of the other two countries named in the state of the union under that label: Iraq has been invaded; North Korea is under little threat of that. One has nuclear weapons one doesn't.

 

There is no moral justification for anyone having nuclear weapons, but there certainly seems to be a practical rationale (again, see the end note on the difference between understanding and condoning).

 

And given the West's current problems with allegations of torture by our allies (particularly in Uzbekistan I think, where the British ambassador was removed for voicing concerns or having an affair, whichever seems most likely) implying that somehow most Arab countries are worse than us on human rights is disingenuous. We turn a blind eye when it helps us.

 

 

Terrorism isn't so bad because earthquakes are worse? Comparing terrorist attacks with legitimate army firing on 'Bloody Sunday'?

 

Serial killers only kill a few dozen people. Lets not bother imprisoning them, after all compared with smoking thats almost nothing.

 

Or perhaps worrying about evil, deliberate murder is the right thing.

 

Again, you're taking this out of context, this is not a moral judgement, or one about what we should do to counteract something. The threat to your life (in the West) from a terrorist attack is not significant; there are fatal incidents that are far far more likely to happen. This was not a moral judgement on anything, merely a statement of likelihood of dying from something.

 

Given the statistics of the last year I am approximately 60 times more likely to die in a car accident than from a terrorist attack in the UK (going with the 52 v 3000 number). Why should I be more afraid that I'm going to be attacked by a terrrorist more than that I will be mown down on the highstreet? It doesn't make sense.

 

Your attempts at drawing a moral equivalence between the West and Islamic dictatorships is wrong.

 

I didn't draw one. But, since we condone by acceptance the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Libya (yes, even they are now 'ok') amongst other countries with questionable human rights, any moral absolutism argument is moot. I don't see what the appellation of 'islamic' has to do with anything. Is a non-islamic dictatorship somehow acceptable? Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror and it has an unelected military leader, too. And nuclear weapons. What are we to do now? Some we support, some we don't. This is far too complicated for such simplistic assessment as 'they are evil'. A lot of the posts in this thread seem to make very simple assertions, sweeping ones, about a very complicated situation with many nuances. Even Bush and Blair go out of their way to pointout the problem is not with Islam, and the Islamic groups in the UK condemn terrorism. Were there many (catholic) Irish-American groups condemning the IRA during the 70s and 80s, and there was plenty of support in parts of America for them. Does that mean we should have labelled all of catholicism and america as you wish to label islam and islamic communities?

 

 

For example, When Blair stated that there would be no invasion if Hussein handed over all WMD, all Hussein had to do was let the UN weapons inspectors come in and confirm that there were no WMD. Instead he refused.

 

A clear example of Hussein being duplicitious while Blair was clear and open.

 

That is not duplicity. It is a refusal to do something.

 

Blair is now claiming some kind of moral post-event justification for ousting Hussein that is completely at odds with his preinvasion words. He is being duplicitous. He is now saying he was evil and had to be removed (no argument there) but previously said he could stay in power.

 

Had Blair made the moral (and illegal) argument for going to war that Hussein needed to be removed because he was a genocidal maniac then I suspect he would have had the support of many of us who have been long time opponents of dictatorships.

 

It is Islamic groups who deliberately target civilians, who deliberately target places of worship, who are following a fanactical creed of hatred. It is these groups who are the problem, not the West.

 

Once more someone confuses 'understanding' with 'condoning'. It is perfectly possible to 'understand' what's going on in the sense of see why someone else might hold the opinion that they do without actually supporting that opinion.

 

I would suggest 'they hate us' not for our freedoms to wear skimpy clothing and buy macdonalds, but because our actions, or inactions, our double standards have created feelings that have been exploited by those preaching a credo (that has historically been attractive to people, eg Hitler and the feelings he built upon of 'betrayal of Germany at Versailles') of 'we're the victims, it is their fault' with catalyst of being able to claim (wrongly) a religious justification for their actions. It is a heady and dangerous mixture of power and misinformation. And I do not believe that imprisoning people without trial (for example) is going to convince anyone who thinks that way that we have any moral highground.

[Pangloss]

One thing that I think might have gotten lost in the shuffle here is what I believe is a legitimate question, which is whether or not Islam, to some degree, is more inherently violent and inciteful of violence than other religions. I think there are valid points on both sides of this issue. You can definitely say that there are aspects of Islam that, if taken literally, seem to point followers towards a path of violence. And yes, you can find things like that in the Bible and other religious texts. But the question I'm asking here is a more subtle one: Is there a difference of degree?

 

Conservative demogogue Ann Coulter has had some interesting things to say on this subject from time to time. (Hey, I may think she's a demogogue, but I have tons of respect for her way with the pen.) She more or less leads the right wing (but not exactly extreme) proponents of the "Islam is inherently violent" camp.

 

One quote in particular that I found interesting:

 

Catholics aren't short on rules' date=' but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates -- that's disgusting.)

 

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?[/quote']

 

(chuckle -- she has to throw in the barb at the end, right?)

 

That particular column was published just a few weeks ago, and may be found in its entirety here:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12301&o=ANN001

 

Of course Coulter makes the classic logical mistake that all demogogues make, lumping everyone into the same boat (is it a "mistake" if it's intentional?):

 

The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans' date=' such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" -- which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

[/quote']

 

But getting back to the point, or rather to bring out another one, here's another point she raises that I think is also perhaps worthy of note:

 

The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things' date=' rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.[/quote']

 

That's interesting, and I had not heard it before. Why didn't I hear that on CNN?

 

Another Coulter column on the same general subject (this one from a week later) can be found here:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12500&o=ANN001

 

In this case she's a little more direct in her attack:

 

After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently' date=' killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.

 

The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.

 

So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm." [/quote']

 

Ouch! That's almost painful to read, and I'm not even a muslim! But what stings about it is the ring of truth in the statement, is it not?

 

Thoughts?

[JohnB]

Bettina, my apologies for the non working link to Amnesty International. The page I linked to was their "News" page and it obviously changed before you got to it. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the story achived anywhere on their site. (Either that or I'm going blind in my old age. )

B: The other link showing the countries I call barbarous and savage, and your comment above is proof that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Just so I've got this right. They do it because they're savage and barbarous societies and you do it because you are civilised and enlightened and just want to protect your people? The majority of civilised nations do not agree with you, hell, the majority of US states don't agree with you, doesn't that say anything about how civilised societies behave? What that list shows is that as a general rule civilised nations have abolished the DP, uncivilised ones haven't.

 

You've accepted that since when committing a crime the criminal doesn't think they will get caught, hence there is no deterrent effect. So what have you got left? Revenge?

 

You advocate the DP within a legal system for those crimes which you think are worthy of it. Many of the nations you call savage or barbarous do exactly the same thing. (Whether we agree with their evaluation is beside the point.) I've been asking why there is a difference and so far the best anyone's come up with is "Because we're better than they are."

So are you saying your only reasoning is that "We do not kill our people"? Thats it? Thats all you would tell the mother?

To quote you "I would simply tell the parents that justice was served. He is being locked up for life without parole." Unfortunately, like yours, our courts can be a bit too lenient some times and the bastard gets out after 10 years or so. Maybe there is a difference between the psyche of the US and OZ, we just don't like the idea of government condoned murder.

Also, I don't know how to handle the little girl that kills. That would be a tough one and no, she wouldn't get life or death obviously.

Why not? She killed didn't she? Or is there one set of rules for the cute little girl in a ponytail and another for the big, bad man?

The killing has to stop and the only way I know is to send a message that if you rape and murder a little kid, you die. Period.

How does that work in conjunction with;

I see what you mean about detterent. Your right. It wouldn't work if he thinks he can get away with it and they all do.

You're "sending a message" to people who you admit aren't going to hear it. That seems about as pointless as sending it in Swahili to the deaf.

I respect you for your convictions, but nothing on the face of this earth, no god, not people holding signs, would ever convince me to spare a person for killing a little girl...never, ever.

I thank you and I also respect you for yours and the passion with which you defend your position. I have always considered myself a friend of the US and it's citizens. I also think it is one of the duties of a friend to argue forcibly when I think a friend is doing something wrong. I do hope you take my comments and arguments in the spirit with which they are written, a disagreement between friends, nothing more.

 

We in the West may not have had a problem with the Middle Eastern (Islamic) people until recently, but I think it would be fair to say that they have had a problem with us for some time.

 

Aside from the colonizing and expanding our Empires over the last 200 years, we even sent entire tank divisions to the ME for the North Africa Campaign during WWII. Watching us lay waste to their land might have irritated them a bit, especially since they weren't even a party to that particular war.

 

We preach "Democracy" and "Freedom" and "Equality" while supporting Dictators. The Shah of Iran has been mentioned, how did helping him maintain power as an absolute ruler further Democratic growth in the region?

 

While the AK-47 is a very popular weapon, there are plenty of sh*thole nations whose armies carry nice, shiny M-16s. If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you be a little bit upset with the nation that is supplying the weapons that keep you oppressed?

 

Perhaps a bit more consistency and adherence to our stated principles would not have gone astray?

[reverse]

Section AA hypothetical story.....

 

Lets say while I'm singing in church' date=' (I really do) I see a muslim man suddenly stand up and start physically beating his wife. (forget that he is in my church) He continues beating her because she spoke when she wasn't supposed to, or maybe lifted her burka and showed her face, or the multitude of other rules I gave you in those links. He continues to beat her relentlessly, until a man in the rear of the church runs down and punches him into the floor until he bleeds and had to be brought out on a stretcher.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

 

True story.

 

I was driving along in my car and I see a man beating a woman on the footpath.

 

So I stop my car, run over and hold the man on the ground.

 

The woman then starts to kick and hit me and tell me to leave her husband alone.

 

So I tell the man he cant beat his wife like that.

 

and the wife yells that he can do what he wants to and that I should let him up.

 

so out of pure desperation I tell them. look If you want to beat on each other it's fine with me...just don't do it on the street, go home and do it.

 

what does that tell you about human nature.

[Bettina]

JohnB.

 

I wanted to get out of this thread but to answer your post, you owe me no apology. I find this thread too much of an emotional struggle for me because I find it hard to comprehend why people are evil and twice as hard to comprehend why people put up with it, don't fight it, or say its not their problem. I just don't understand that kind of thinking. Because of it, I don't express myself well in these kind of threads, or positions, and I often attack people for being either blind, ignorant, or having a total lack of any empathy whatsoever.

 

The scenario of the women getting beaten up in church, and those who would not respond to her distress, was an example. At 97 pounds I would not be able to do it myself so I let my emotions rule because its the only way I know how to fight. I know its immature of course, but its what I feel inside me and its what gets me in trouble here.

 

I am a solid atheist because of the feelings I have and because of the continuing pain I see committed every day in the world I see. From terrorists killing people today, the ones that will be killed tommorrow, all the way back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I didn't need Martin to mention that to me because years ago when I read about that event, I could see vividly a young Japanese women pushing her baby carriage down a sidewalk with her young daughter and son next to her and in an instant being burned alive. I could feel that literally. Those people were not soldiers, they were civilians living in a city, like you and me, and although that was not in my lifetime I am still ashamed of being an American with that blood on my face. I consider that to be much worse than the orginal sin thats mentioned almost every Sunday in church. I will never forgive my government for doing that because I know the real reason that they dropped the bombs was to test them on a live target before the war ended.

 

I also will never forgive those who kill kids for any reason, those who behead people for the dumbest of reasons like culture, religion or whatnot. My convictions on those types of people, what they stand for, and the death penalty for those who commit them, are solid and will never change. I'm very sorry for calling people cowards and other names and surprised still that I didn't get a warning. I at least got the RevPres connection and its been bothering me for a few days now. How I acted here was not me in real life nor how I was brought up. My dad still worries that I'm too naive in many things and still notoriously quiet.... except when I'm here.

 

Reverse.

 

I commend you on your actions because what you encountered is the exception not the rule. Don't hesitate next time to save someone in distress because next time she may thank you, and that thank you will make you feel that life is important.

 

Bettina

[JohnB]

Reverse, you should speak to any cop who has attended a Domestic Violence Incident. The beaten wife attacking the cops is not exactly rare, nor is it restricted to the Islamic community.

 

Bettina, if it causes you discomfort, then we shall let the debate stop right here. You and I are on the same side, we just believe in differing tactics.

 

Oh, and don't be too hard on your government. There is no evidence that the reason you suggested was the one for dropping the bombs.

[Bettina]

Bettina' date=' if it causes you discomfort, then we shall let the debate stop right here. You and I are on the same side, we just believe in differing tactics.

 

Oh, and don't be too hard on your government. There is no evidence that the reason you suggested was the one for dropping the bombs.[/quote']

 

I know were on the same side, its just that we can't see each other. and thanks.

 

I was told once that the enemy wasn't worth the thousands of soldiers that would have been killed invading Japan on foot. I say the young women and her baby and all those kids were worth it. Its just something that I am ashamed of especially when I see movies like "Tora, Tora, Tora". Its ok to view Pearl Harbor as part of history, but not to keep rubbing it into the Japanese people of today with more war movies.

 

I wonder how we americans would feel if Japan started making movies like "Hiroshima" every few years, with all the burning babies. I bet we would cry foul.

 

Anyway, its something I'm not proud of and can't forgive. I treat it as criminal.

 

Bettina

[Jim]

I know were on the same side' date=' its just that we can't see each other. and thanks.

 

I was told once that the enemy wasn't worth the thousands of soldiers that would have been killed invading Japan on foot. I say the young women and her baby and all those kids [i']were[/i] worth it. Its just something that I am ashamed of especially when I see movies like "Tora, Tora, Tora". Its ok to view Pearl Harbor as part of history, but not to keep rubbing it into the Japanese people of today with more war movies.

 

I wonder how we americans would feel if Japan started making movies like "Hiroshima" every few years, with all the burning babies. I bet we would cry foul.

 

Anyway, its something I'm not proud of and can't forgive. I treat it as criminal.

 

Bettina

 

I wouldn't mind discussing the morality of ending WWII with the Bomb; however, I'd hate to get into that if feelings are already sore on the subject. There are fundamental differences between Hiroshima and Pearl Harbor in that (i) the Japanese, unlike us, were unprovoked and (ii) Hiroshima intentionaly involved the killing of children.

 

Actually, I also think that we are fairly gentle in our historical perspective of the Japanese in their conduct in WWII.

 

We won't fight any global wars that do not kill civilians and WWII was a bloody mess that needed to end.

 

The more difficult moral question is whether it was appropriate to use the bomb for geopolitical reasons. It is easy to condemn Truman for using the bomb to show the Russians we were for real; otoh, the policy which the bomb initiated did keep the world safe not just from nukes but also from a disasterous repeat of a world war. It's hard to say what history would look like if there had never been a demonstration of the power of the bomb and the willingness of the US to use it.

 

As harsh as this sounds, we are lucky as a species that the first nuke was dropped at a time when no one was able to strike back. Had it occurred ten years later, none of us might exist.

 

This is the most troublesome issue to me.