gdp's Comments

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Possible honor killing in Canada: Three Muslim sisters murdered; parents and brother ar

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:38:13 +0000

Is there an Islamic text that sanctions honor killings? Which one?

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:40:33 +0000

Ah, but Jesus is God, so if God said to "put [the person who tried to convince you to convert to another faith] to death", then it's really Jesus who said it, no? Look, I'm not going to argue theology with you. As religions go, Christianity is particularly easy to twist and bend to make it fit whatever kind of morality the Christian likes, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. But the fact is that until fairly recently, most Christians would have been horrified by your claim that the moral edicts contained in the Old Testament can safely be ignored, and even today about 40% of Americans would be similarly horrified. Just as many (most?) Muslims today are horrified by 'moderate' Muslims who pretend that the principle of abrogation never existed, and therefore that Mohammad's early injunction that "there is no compulsion in religion" still applies. I agree that Christianity, as Jesus probably intended it, is a lot better than Islam as Mohammad probably intended it. And I agree that Christianity in its 21st century incarnation is better than Islam in its 21st century incarnation. All I'm saying is, Islam's awfulness shouldn't make us pretend that Christianity's and Judaism's awfulness don't exist.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:52:20 +0000

Okay, how about Deuteronomy 13: "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. 12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:00:03 +0000

And as I clearly explained, a 'historical' description of The Eternal Source of Morality's deeds will necessarily influence the morality of those who believe in said description. And it did.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:53:52 +0000

Wellington, I'm sorry to say you're showing a little more stupidity in every post you make. About point one: - Even without results, biologists can assess the potential of each type of stem cells. Also, even if ESCs only had a, say, 50% chance of yielding results superior to those of ASCs, halting funding for such research for religious reasons would still be a crime against humanity. The only agenda I have (in this context) is to reduce human suffering and to create conditions favorable to scientific research. - Please, no dishonest semantic trickery with the meaning of 'fundamentalist'. You know perfectly well what I mean: The Pope is a fundamentalist in the sense that he's not a moderate. About point two: - Do you honestly think that it's rational to base any one of your beliefs on what a bunch of 18th century men believed, no matter how "wise" they were? First, Ben Franklin foolishly bought into the Christian dogma that human nature is intrinsically selfish. We who live in the 21st century know that this dogma is false. While selfishness is part of the human psyche, so is altruism. Evolution has shaped our brains so that we have empathy, an instinct for fairness, and a desire to help other people. - Second, while Christianity can motivate some people to be better than they would be otherwise, so can atheistic ideologies such as secular humanism, which unlike Christianity don't require their 'followers' to delude themselves. - Third, "the last hundred years" don't show what happens without religion, they show what happens with evil ideologies. Which is something we already knew from the previous 5000 years, obviously, although 20th century weapons admittedly enlarged the scope of these ideologies' effects. Secular ideologies can be good or evil, just as religions can be good or evil. But, of course, secular ideologies don't require self-deception, and therefore put us on a better footing to make moral decisions. - Fourth, if your point was that a lack of religion in societies always leads to oppression and violence, look at Sweden. The Swedish population is 80% non-religious, and the remaining 20% is mostly composed of moderate Christians who only go to Church on Christmas, if at all. The only problem with their society is... yep, you guessed it: Islam. About point three: I see you've borrowed another semantic trick from our religious friends. They too love to play around with the meaning of "religion". If "making a religion out of something" means being passionate about it, then I guess I'm religious about my anti-theism. But in that case, I don't actually have anything against "religion". But if "religion" means a moral code dependent on a set of faith-based beliefs, then I'm not making a religion out of anything, because I don't take anything on faith.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:17:00 +0000

My evidence? The three advantages I've mentioned are common knowledge, do a little googling. As for results, neither ESCs nor ASCs have produced ground-breaking results yet. There's a myth circulating around the net that ASCs have produced a cure for dozens of diseases, but a myth is all it is: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/03/adult_s... Regarding the ethical question, you know, there's a reason that the vast majority of people who oppose stem cell research are Christian fundamentalists. Most human beings, Christian fundies included, don't give a shit about 'life'. We eat cows and squash bugs without a second thought. What humans tend to care about is sentience or consciousness. Christian fundies mistakenly believe that embryos have this property. Sane people realize they're wrong. There *are* a few people who honestly and rationally put value on human DNA, or something, but those people are rare enough to be irrelevant. As for the main point: 1) Lincoln had to worry about managing his country's limited resources. I don't. 2) Lincoln knew that the current war would end relatively quickly, after which he could give consideration to other matters. How soon do you think the 'war' on Islam is going to end? When will I finally have permission to 'fight' irrationality? 3) Christians, Hindus, Jews, and other religious folk repulse ME (and other anti-theists). And yet, somehow, I manage to make common cause with them against Islam anyway. Why can't they do the same? 4) As Nykos has pointed out above, the attitude that people in the West tend to have about religion in general is part of the problem we have with Islam. Western-raised people have (undeserved) respect for religious beliefs, just because they're religious. If it wasn't for this dogmatic respect, Islam would be treated just like we currently treat evil secular ideologies, like Nazism and communism. Getting rid of the taboo protecting religion will certainly weaken Islam.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:57:16 +0000

You're raving. That embryonic stem cells have advantages over adult ones is so obvious I feel silly having to write this. Do you understand what the point of stem cell research is? It's the ability to make any kind of tissue or organ we want. Do you understand what makes embryonic stem cells different from adult ones? With a little nudging, they have the ability to turn into nearly any type of cell, because they haven't differentiated yet, unlike adult stem cells. So that's one advantage of embryonic stem cells: Extreme flexibility. Another one is their availability: They're easy to obtain from embryos. Another one is their quasi-immortality: A single embryonic stem cell line can produce an endless number of cells, given enough time. Now, the latest data suggests that there are techniques that can be used to isolate a certain type of adult stem cells which could in turn be granted flexibility comparable to that of embryonic stem cells, given more research. But this is only necessary because American scientists have been forced to tinker with ASCs just to get them to do what ESCs could already do, when, obviously, they could have used their time (and financial ressources) to make further progress with ESCs. All this waste, just because of morons who think that microscopic clumps of cells have magical 'souls'. In any event, your bit about my trying to "establish some kind of rough equivalency between Islamic fanatics and devout Christian believers" shows you've completely missed the point, a point I've made exquisitely clear in the last sentence of my post. Try giving it another read before posting your next rant.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:32:17 +0000

Why not do both? Attack religion in general AND make common cause with religious believers against Islam, I mean? In my job as a software designer, I am currently at odds with one of my colleagues about picking the best solution to a problem we're currently facing. I've bluntly told him that the solution he's advocating is insane and will make our company lose months of time and millions of dollars. He said something similar about my solution. And yet, we're capable of putting our feelings about that particular conflict aside and join forces to work on another project our company is involved in. We didn't have to concede anything, or stop criticizing each other, or "agree to disagree" or any other such nonsense. We simply recognize the fact that being opponents in one context doesn't change the reality that we're allies in another context. I'm sure you understand the analogy.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Tue, 9 Jun 2009 23:19:00 +0000

That's a slightly naive thing to say. Directly, physically hurting someone is not the only way to harm them. Holding back stem cell research, as Bush and his millions of (mostly Christian) supporters have done for the last 8 years, will end up harming those with otherwise incurable diseases. Repressing teenagers' sexuality by making them believe that extra-marital sexual urges are Devil-sent harms them. Socially ostracizing a family of atheists who live in the Bible belt harms them. Filling governmental positions with fundamentalist Christians from Jerry Falwell's Liberty 'University' harms everyone in the USA. The point is, there are various degrees of harm, and just because Islam is the #1 offender doesn't mean we should act as if #2 and #3 are completely harmless.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:41:17 +0000

Good article, Raymond. Your main point is well taken: Islam is definitely the worst of the three Abrahamic religions. However, you're being too soft on Christianity and Judaism. I agree with the distinction you make between descriptive and prescriptive scripture, but it's not quite as clear cut as you want it to be. If all the Bible described was the deeds of various Israelites, your argument would be a good one, but it also describes the actions and words of God, the Transcendent and Eternal Source of Morality; you can't expect Christians to take God's deeds as mere facts that say nothing about the way they should act. For example, when God/Jesus clearly says that those who don't believe in him are apparently so evil that they'll be sent to Hell upon their death, it's inevitable that at least some devout Christians will see non-Christians in a worse light than they would have if Jesus had said instead that all good people go to Heaven regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. When descriptive religious scripture is about God, it becomes prescriptive.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Respecting the Faithful vs. Respecting the Faith

Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:14:43 +0000

Please. The people you're naming are all philosophers, academics, or at least part of the elite. Most of their contemporaries didn't know about their criticism of theism. Do you think the average mortal living in 1760 had ever read a single word written by Hume? What I'm talking about is criticism of religion in every day life. In most social settings, simply inserting into a conversation a mention that religious beliefs are no different than any other kind of superstition will get you branded as 'rude' and 'strident', at the very least, and usually as 'intolerant' or even 'bigoted' too. The politically correct attitude about religion these days among liberals (and many conservatives) is a kind of mushy "all belief about God are true" dogma, as if religious beliefs were like preferences about ice cream flavors. There's also the dogma that all religions are inherently good, so that any evil acts inspired by religious beliefs must have been committed by 'fundamentalists' or 'extremists' who somehow twisted the true meaning of the religion to their nefarious ends. Most Jihadwatch posters (who are mostly Christians, as far as I can tell) seem to think that this kind of stupidity only exists when liberals are looking at Islam, but it existed long before that. It has been the way that liberals have looked at Christianity and all other religions for at least half a century. As I said, going against these two dogmas usually means you'll be seen as rude, intolerant, or (this is my favorite) a "fundamentalist atheist". The only ones who can escape this fate are academics writing books for other academics, and humorists.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Respecting the Faithful vs. Respecting the Faith

Sun, 7 Jun 2009 03:14:15 +0000

"every effect has a cause, isn't that a mathematical principle?" No, it isn't. But even if it was, it wouldn't mean that the universe was caused. And even if the universe was caused, it wouldn't mean that it was caused by an intelligent being. And even if the universe was caused by an intelligent being, it wouldn't mean that this being is supernatural (i.e. is a god), or cares about humans (i.e. is a theistic god).

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim: Respecting the Faithful vs. Respecting the Faith

Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:31:43 +0000

You're an uneducated buffoon, Raymond. First, "it's called the X theory for a reason" is the kind of thing that is only said by people ignorant enough to believe that the Universe was created a few thousand years after the domestication of the dog. Second, the belief that deities don't exist does not require faith, for the same reason that the belief that dragons don't exist does not require faith: They're both implausible hypotheses and there's no evidence in their favor. Third, Christianity has "imposed itself on politics" for 90% of its existence. It's only thanks to secular laws that it has lost that power (for the most part). Fourth, while we should oppose Islam politically and socially because of the hate and bigotry it contains, that's not the reason we should scrutinize it. The reason that we should scrutinize Islam is that it makes highly implausible claims and asks us to believe them on faith, without evidence; just like Christianity, just like Judaism, just like belief in dragons and fairies and all other mythical beings. Fifth, a big part of the reason why it's politically incorrect to criticize Islam in Western society is that it's politically incorrect to criticize any religion, and the blame for that rests solely on the shoulder of Christians. If it was as socially acceptable to mock belief in demi-gods who turn water into wine as it is to mock belief in, say, Elvis Presley's immortality, it would also be socially acceptable to mock Islam and its believers.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Sarkozy: "The Islamization of Europe is inevitable"

Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:30:31 +0000

I'd like to trust Villiers, but he's clearly a nut. Gay marriage is a weapon "being used by European leaders to kill Europe demographically"? Gimme a break. He's obviously a Christian who's looking for an excuse to attack the Great Evil of Homosexuality. Here's a tip for religious people who oppose Islam: When trying to convince the rest of us that Islam is a threat, try putting your religious biases aside for a little while. It's difficult for us to trust you when you so shamelessly revel in self-deception.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Italy: 60% of mosques "run by fanatical imams"

Wed, 6 May 2009 21:08:42 +0000

Uh, only 5% of Italian Muslims attend mosque prayers? That seems way too low. Perhaps they mean that only 5% attend them regularly, or something.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: 18% of Muslims in Denmark agree that "Sharia law should be integrated into Danish law"

Fri, 1 May 2009 04:16:15 +0000

I'm not sure how far we should trust these polls. Obviously, they all assume that the people who answered the question told the truth. Any Muslim who has lived for a few years in a Western country knows that he would be harming the image of Islam by telling an infidel he wants Sharia to be implemented in this country.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Taking the Qur\'anic challenge!

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:44:37 +0000

He'd probably accuse you of selective quoting. The following verse, 8:61, is this: YUSUFALI: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). PICKTHAL: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower. SHAKIR: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: UK jihadist Anjem Choudary explains how Islam will take over the UK#respond

Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:55:44 +0000

The British aren't going to "stand up for their country". How can they, when the vast majority of them have been indoctrinated to believe that "true" Islam cannot possibly be a threat, regardless of the evidence?

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: New Jersey public school accommodates Muslim prayer

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:27:54 +0000

You "prayer isn't allowed in schools" imbeciles never fail to amuse me. Prayer is allowed in schools. Always has been, for all religions. What isn't allowed is state-sponsored prayer. Religiously indoctrinated children are allowed to do anything they like during lunch break, as long as it's not disruptive. What's the problem? Well, in this particular case, the boy's parents requesting special accommodations is a problem, but it looks like it ended just fine.

Jihad Watch : Jihad Watch: Wilders: "Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:23:59 +0000

Well, all religions contain at least one element that I consider evil: They uphold faith, and therefore irrationality and self-deception, as a virtue. But that's only one element, and I can easily imagine a religion that also contains lots of good elements so that, overall, it has a beneficial effect on humanity. I'm not sure that Christianity is one of those 'good religions' (particularly your version of it, since you seem to be a creationist), but I know that Islam _definitely_ isn't, which is why I bother to post here despite knowing that most JW posters are Christians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and so forth. But anyway, that wasn't my original point, no. My conviction is that all religions are false, but they are not equally ridiculous or equally dangerous. The widespread dogma among most liberals, on the other hand, is that all religions are good; equally good. This dogma is so deeply ingrained into their psyches that they are simply unable to consider the possibly that a religion might be fundamentally violent and oppressive. My point is that this is one of the two main factors which has blinded the Left to the danger presented by Islam. If we are to fight Islam, we have to deal with this dogma, either by pretending that Islam isn't a religion (as Wilders is doing), or by acknowledging that Islam is a religion and attacking the dogma that "religions are good by definition". I much prefer the second approach, personally.