Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I really wasn't trying to weigh in on this one, other than to say that "the move" of rattling off 6 logical fallacies kills conversation and discussion, whatever the topic at hand may be. Since this isn't a formal debate employing formal logic, but rather a discussion board, it seems relevant to me to point out "internet moves" imported from other sites that kill civil discourse.

It's bad enough that it's dying here already. We really don't need to import "tactics" to crash discussions. A big reason to hang around all these years is that it's not the same as the rest of the tubes in terms of lowest common denominator nonsense.

From Cracked.com

5 Common Argument Tactics That Need to Die


By J.F. Sargent | September 30, 2014 | 337,412 views

I am a sick man. Imagine my soul, withered and black, clawing ineffectually at the inside of my ribcage. It cries ashen tears that smolder when they strike the earthen floor of my innards. And yet, on the outside, I appear fine -- I kind of feel like the word "Adonis" is overplayed at this point, but as far as an accurate descriptor of my physical self, you can't do much better. So why am I so disgusting on the inside? Because I am a man who argues on the Internet, and I have rage-typed myself beyond the realm of redemption. But maybe -- just maybe -- there's still time to save you.
One thing I've learned from the past two and a half decades is that, in the Internet debate, your worst enemy is always you. Lots of common go-to arguments end up working more or less like the demon from Pumpkinhead: your body and soul will be so tainted by the experience that any victory will be bittersweet and violently Pyrrhic.
So, listen close, dear reader, as I explain how you are ******* up your own life whenever you find yourself ...


#5. Accusing Someone of Using a Logical Fallacy


What You Think It Means
"You can't insult me, that's an ad hominem fallacy!"
"No, no -- I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the genetic fallacy. Here's a helpful link to explain what a weasel-dicked moron you are."
"Rhythm: you have it or you don't -- that's a fallacy!"
Imagine this: two men are arguing over who has a bigger dick. The first man argues, "I'm way better at sports, Kevin, and therefore my dick is huge." If Kevin can correctly identify the fallacy in that statement, then he wins every-*******-thing, for-*******-ever. A person who commits a fallacy, or "fellater," has been completely discredited forever, as has any opinion he or she has ever expressed on anything. That person and their entire family must immediately hang themselves with a gold-threaded Ethernet cable, in accordance with ancient and unquestionable laws.
May they go with the glory of the Ancient Gods, for it is by their sacrifice that our great society may endure.


What It Really Means
Understanding logical fallacies is an important skill, because the human brain is a flawed machine notoriously bad at picking out mistakes. But -- and this is important -- it's a passive trait. You can't use your knowledge of logical fallacies to debate somebody, because whether or not someone is using a logical fallacy has little to do with whether or not they're right. And if you don't believe me, then you'remaking a logical fallacy. Possibly even two of them.

Look at it this way: saying "you made a logical fallacy" by itself doesn't hurt their argument, and it doesn't strengthen yours. All you did is change the topic of the conversation so that now you're having a meta-argument about how arguments should be made -- a topic far more robust and intimidating than even the mightiest dick. Also, there's a big difference in saying, "There's a flaw in your argument, and it's relevant for this reason," and, "You are making a stupid error, and here are some Latin words to make you feel stupider." The only reason people ever use Latin words in normal conversation is to feel superior to other people. Just ask Val Kilmer in Tombstone ...

... or me in 2010 when I named my cat Res Ipsa Loquitur (The Thing Speaks for Itself) because she wouldn't shut up.

f you'll allow me to put this in D&D terms: a knowledge of logical fallacies is like a ring that gives you +3 to Strength. It'll improve your defense and offense in certain contexts, but if you're trying to use that ring as a weapon, you're really bad at RPGs and the game master is going to get irritated with you, because how would you even make a roll for that?


#4. Saying "Out of Context" (Without Giving Context)


What You Think It Means
"Now, listen, when I said, 'Nothing arouses me more than driving my Humvee over baby ducks,' that was taken completely out of context, so you have to ignore it."
If you're trying to make a point and you want to use a quote, god forbid you remove it from context, because if you do so you are always lying.
What It Really MeansSo we all get that every time you quote someone, it's "out of context," right? That's why we do quotes: because it's unwieldy to repost an entire film, comic book series, article, or speech every time we want to talk about it. So when you claim something is taken out of context, that's a tautology, which is a really obnoxious way to say, "You're repeating yourself, dumbass."
I get that when people say something is being presented out of context, the idea is that the missing context totally changes the meaning, but at the same time, how often do you actually see that follow-through that explains how the meaning was changed? Even though the argument is completely pointless without that? The classic example is Charles Darwin, talking about evolution forming the human eye:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Some creationists say that this proves that Darwin had no faith in his own ideas. If I say that's taken out of context and you believe me, then you're taking my word for it just as much as as someone who disagrees with me would be putting faith in the person who took the quote out of context in the first place. But if I provide that context ...
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist ... then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

Then ... well, I'm still not providing the whole context there, because I'm worried about how long this entry is getting, but you dig my point, right? You dig right into it. Next entry.


#3. Saying "Don't Lump Me in With All Those Other [Blanks]"


What You Think It Means
"I know all the other 'Donald Trump Is a Lizard King Truthers' are fact-phobic delusionoids, so let's just look at this logically ..."
Sure, there are a lot of idiots who agree with you, but that doesn't reflect poorly on your views. In fact, listening to their stupid points makes you want to speak up even louder, to drown them out!
What It Really Means
You've been tricked by a weird quirk in the human brain that politicians, cult leaders, and crazy people on the Internet are using to deceive you. Turns out, people feel more confident announcing their opinions on an issue if they hear people expressing their stupid (but agreeing) opinions first. To get how this works, imagine you're a normal person who doesn't know a whole bunch about movies, but you're in a conversation where everyone's talking about advanced cinematic techniques and film technology and whatever a "Sidney Lumet" is. You're probably gonna keep sorta quiet, because it'd be embarrassing to admit how much you loved Pacific Rim in that context. But if one of your friends says, "Man, Michael Bay sucks because he uses CGI, and CGI is always terrible no matter how it's used," then there's your opening! That dude's clearly an idiot, so if you start talking, you get to sound smart by comparison. His dumb ideas gave you confidence in your less-dumb ones.


This explains all the stupidity in the world. It's why your favorite politician will frequently make really lame points in speeches to supporters -- they know it's making them feel smarter by comparison. And it's why every single time someone brings up an insane conspiracy theory, they'll start off with, "Now, don't lump me in with all the nutjobs ..." It's those nutjobs that gave them the confidence to speak up in the first place.
The problem is, if you're motivated for a cause by nutjobs, and those nutjobs are the people most associated with your cause ... well, that doesn't by itself mean that the whole movement is full of shit, but it's a pretty big hint. Correlation may not prove causation, but as a great mathematician once said, it does "waggle its eyebrows suggestively and mouth 'look over there.'"

But none of these are as stupid as ...


#2. Complaining About "Bias," a lack of "Balance," or "Agendas"


What You Think It Means
"We need to remove all bias from journalism, because if someone is biased, they cannot be trusted to say or do anything."
To engage with bias is to engage with the sordid face of evil itself. Anyone with an agenda is dead set on the destruction of everything you value in the world, and they will not rest until the last glimmering light of beauty is extinguished and all that remains of our once-great society is a hot wind whispering through dry, desolate fields beneath a burning sky.
What It Really Means
I'm going to defer to people smarter than me now, and borrow someone else's words to point out that "a point of view is not the same thing as a bias," and consensus is not the same as collusion. An example that article uses is the debate over the age of the Earth: the fact that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old doesn't prove that science is biased against Christianity, it shows that creationism doesn't make sense in scientific terms.
A lot of the time, complaints about "bias" are really just an effort to make a bad idea seem good. People may argue: "They won't teach my ideas in schools, they edit them out of Wikipedia articles, and no news organization will cover them. Clearly, there's an agenda against my ideas!" Sure, that's possible. But it's also possible that the ideas are just really stupid, and nobody wants to waste their time on them, right? Not every perspective in every debate deserves attention. Journalists make the call to ignore stupid ideas all the time, and it's vitally important that they do so, or every news story about a murder case would have to include a sidebar about why that jerk totally deserved it.
That's not to say that bias isn't a problem, because it totally is. It just requires a lot of research and explanation.


Bias is a problem when it's a "systematic distortion of reality." And to figure out when that's happening, you gotta identify what information is being withheld, why, and who's benefiting. Yes, that's a lot of research and hard work, but that's what you signed up for when you brought up "bias."
You always have to ask yourself, "Why would someone spread this lie?" And if your answer is, "To advance the [blank] agenda!" then you're missing the point, because that's a bullshit non-answer that's tricking you into not thinking. Why do they want that agenda advanced? Where is the money? Where is the power? Remember, the human brain has an overwhelmingly strong urge to ignore flaws in arguments it agrees with while seeking out flaws in stuff it doesn't like, because we want to win more than we want the truth. If you don't work to counteract that, you're basically just a putty patroller fromPower Rangers, an anonymous soldier for an evil agenda who's about to get beaten up by a teenager in cut-off jeans. Is that really what you want?
Besides, who told you about this bias? Was it someone on Twitter? Because if so, you should keep in mind ...


#1. Every Debate on Twitter Is a Waste of Time


How You Think It Works
"@You Let's debate this thoughtfully, like adults, in a public format that will be remembered forever in this, the golden age of human thought."
As a piece of technology, the Internet is capable of stimulating human debate and interaction on a level never imagined by anyone in history. Now that news sites report on Twitter fads and #hashtags have proven their ability to save the world, the Twittersphere has established itself as the forefront of human thought, and, as such, the default platform for all intelligent debate.
How It Really Works
One-hundred-forty characters, guys. I love Twitter, probably too much. I have a lot of fun cracking jokes and poking funs and hucking guffaws just all over that place -- but the moment you try to argue there, you're an idiot. Hi. I'm an idiot.
I can't remember ever winning a single debate on Twitter -- and I can't remember losing one, either. The only way they ever end is when I get distracted by real life or suddenly realize what I'm doing and say, "What the fuck am I doing?" But it's a rhetorical question, because I know exactly what I'm doing. I just can't bring myself to face it.
The problem is in the human brain. Turns out, it's really easy for us to contradict ourselves without even realizing it. If you have someone fill out a questionnaire about specific, detailed opinions, and then read back those opinions but make them the exact opposite, then those people will start arguingagainst what they said they believed. They'll even develop "coherent and unwavering arguments" in support of something that, just moments ago, they disagreed with. It illustrates that, like we've shown before, people are more interested in being right than they are in any specific ideology. And if you think the sensation of winning isn't worth mangling your own ideals beyond repair, you've clearly never held a cup made out of pewter.


Now, think about how Twitter works. First, there's only 140 characters, so arguments are limited to pithy summaries. Second, it's almost impossible to keep track of how the conversation progresses, especially if people are posting multiple tweets to each other -- so it's unlikely that anyone will keep track or even realize if they've contradicted themselves. Third, even if you win, there's nothing you can do with that. You can't show anybody your victory, because any Twitter conversation about something important is going to be complex and fragmented, and good luck getting anyone to care about screenshots of a 37-chapter-long Twitter bitch-fest.

Here's this entry in Tweet Form: I just had a great idea, everyone: let's never argue about anything on Twitter ever again.

[santafe2]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Our superstition has more value than the superstition of others. Stupidity is sad but intelligence wasted on hubris and superstition is a tragedy.

[DSpencer]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

This type of nonsense has proliferated on the webz over the past decade.

I've made it my personal mission to not let this happen here...at least not without calling it out.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...163#post266163

No true market. No true scotsman.

[DSpencer]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

And who would that be? I am not a practising Christan. I am a practising secularist. I am not interested in importing religions or ideologies that conflict with it.

It's clear we don't agree on the violent nature of the Christian Bible so I won't beat a dead horse. I am genuinely surprised that you are not a Christian because I felt that only a true believer would hold your opinion.

To be clear, my position only related to the theological debate and was not intended to imply that I therefore support importing thousands of Muslims into the US. My position on the refugees is largely based on practical concerns of:

1. The environment: More people means more pollution. I don't think we need more people in the US.
2. The job market: We have plenty of unemployment as is. I don't think we need more workers.
3. The welfare system: I don't think we need more people who don't have jobs (and will likely struggle to get them) living here.
4. Security: I haven't been shown convincing evidence that we can properly screen out terrorists. I don't even know how it could be done in theory.

I become more isolationist by the day. I fail to see how we can stop terrorism through war (short of genocide). Every effort seems to be more like a Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome than a success. I also don't think we can assimilate every refugee from across the world and not imperil our own society. It is a sad situation because on an individual level I feel bad for people who are just trying to escape a hopeless situation. It's unfortunate, but we can't help everyone. We have plenty of our own problems to fix.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I remember reading JS Mill on truth. I quite agree with him that truth does not always triumph. It can be suppressed for many years. What it will do however is be independently discovered and reoccur. And that is not necessarily even the truth in what it actually says but truths related to it. Particular systems are, truthfully, prone to common errors. Confusing "if" and "only if" in logic contains another fundamental truth in that some truths are prone to certain error. Even what the actual texts says , is prone to certain errors. Now again, Islam even if not really attempting a violent domination of the earth( and I do not concede this), must be prone to this error. It is said Islam is a bit of a death cult. Its actually not true. Its a domination cult. Christianity is however prone to death cults , as is Judaism being vulnerable to both death cults and domination. I do not think it is contextually true now, but given the context of when it it was, the texts showing this make it prone to death cultism. Even though the scriptures and historical context more or less proves when the doom was, its a reoccurring error:


Endtimes madness pre 1000 AD

http://www.apocalyptic-theories.com/...hristtext.html

So I know, first hand that basic source text will not only cause fundamentalist rebirths in reoccurring fashion , so will the errors from where it is prone.

Reoccurring end time madness, and death cultism:

Matthew 24
⁹ “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.


Acts7

⁵⁴ When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. ⁵⁵ But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, ⁵⁶ and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
⁵⁷ Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; ⁵⁸ and they cast him out of the city and stoned him.

Fun isn't it? Any idea how often Christan martyrdom appeared? Shocking that the text glories in martyrdom and we find martyrdom all the time isn't it?

Islam , reoccurring conquest.

The Family of Imran

Then their Lord answered them, ‘I do not waste the work of any worker among you, whether male or female; you are all on the same footing. So those who migrated and were expelled from their homes, and were tormented in My way, and those who fought and were killed —I will surely absolve them of their misdeeds and I will admit them into gardens with streams running in them, as a reward from Allah, and Allah—with Him is the best of rewards.’


Contextually this Surah was about Battle of Badr

in Islamic history, first military victory of the Prophet Muhammad. It seriously damaged Meccan prestige while strengthening the political position of Muslims in Medina and establishing Islam as a viable force in the Arabian Peninsula.

Since their emigration from Mecca (622), the Muslims in Medina had depended for economic survival on constant raids on Meccan caravans. When word of a particularly wealthy caravan escorted by Abū Sufyān, head of the Umayyad clan, reached Muhammad, a raiding party of about 300 Muslims, to be led by Muhammad himself, was organized. By filling the wells on the caravan route near Medina with sand, the Muslims lured Abū Sufyān’s army to battle at Badr, near Medina, in March 624. Despite the superior numbers of the Meccan forces (about 1,000 men), the Muslims scored a complete victory, and many prominent Meccans were killed. The success at Badr was recorded in the Qurʾān as a divine sanction of the new religion: “It was not you who slew them, it was God…in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself” (8:17). Those Muslims who fought at Badr became known as the badrīyūn and make up one group of the Companions of the Prophet.
-Britannica

Shocked, shocked I tell ya that Islam martyrdom applies in battle.

Which lunatic martyr do you want next to you?

Now again, faith allows not for just apparent contradictions, but real contradictions. To consider the end of the ages to be future throws it all into contradiction.


Acts 9

²⁵ not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— ²⁶ He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

The future end of the ages != "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself".

It is also well documented in the text that an apostasy was to appear in "ladder days".


Timothy 4

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ² speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Further along in
Matthew 24

¹⁰ And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. ¹¹ Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. ¹² And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. ¹³ But he who endures to the end shall be saved. ¹⁴ And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Astonishing that in the scriptures, which are to be inerrant, we find :

1 John 2

¹⁸ Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the^[c] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

He is saying its the last hour and this is it, because of the aforementioned apostasy .


Its repeated again
Jude

¹⁶ These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. ¹⁷ But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: ¹⁸ how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. ¹⁹ These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.



The "endtimes", poorly translated really means the end of the age. The poor translation "the end" falls into contradiction.

Matthew 12 :32

And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."

Its long gone and this was the Catholic position for quite some time . However once the protestants raided the canon...

Here again words just don't matter to some people. Oddly many secular people just refuse to see the words as well and disregard any threat. Problem is those who practise fundamentals will, and those trying, will get it wrong in the usual ways.

We will see end times madness and death cults for as long as Christians exist since its a common error.

We will see Jihad by the sword because its fundamental to it.

And those that do not see this constant pattern now and through history....I say:

"You don't even know what this sentence means because it has words in it"

[astonas]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Here again words just don't matter to some people. Oddly many secular people just refuse to see the words as well and disregard any threat. Problem is those who practise fundamentals will, and those trying, will get it wrong in the usual ways.


We will see end times madness and death cults for as long as Christians exist since its a common error.


We will see Jihad by the sword because its fundamental to it.


And those that do not see this constant pattern now and through history....I say:


"You don't even know what this sentence means because it has words in it"

All these references to "many secular people", and claims to know what they think. I am a secular person, I for one don't recognize myself, or any other like-minded secular person I know, in these characterizations. I really don't know where these straw men come from. Perhaps they come from not reading others' posts for meaning, only to find argument? In any event, they are not real. I haven't seen anyone here arguing the "Islam is a religion of peace" line that you appear to be objecting so strongly to.


Let me clarify my own position. I do NOT believe that islam is "a religion of peace". I just don't think any other monotheistic religion is either, and I'd like to minimize the extent to which they ALL become radicalized. It's a quite pragmatic goal.

Christianity may SOUND peaceful, when it talks of forgiveness, and everlasting life in heaven, but these doctrines are, when examined rigorously, just as much requirements for terrorism as more violent-sounding passages. (Forgiveness increases the threshold of harm that a person is willing to inflict, and eternal paradise permits one to believe that harm inflicted in this life is less important than some fictional future. You may call those "peaceful" doctrines if you like (I don't) but both are NECESSARY to inspire otherwise rational people to religious violence.)

I would suggest that Christianity is merely temporarily dormant, which makes it APPEAR superficially peaceful. But a better description might be that it is displaying a brief pause in its long and bloody history, because it does not at present feel threatened enough to return to form.

But as we can see in society all around us today, that fact is reversing itself very rapidly indeed. Trump is just one step away from calling on American muslims to be treated like jews in interbellum Germany, and many people cheering that are precisely the ones who call themselves "christian", in spite of your (very elegant, but irrelevant) case that such a thing is not possible.

Theology does not need to be the motivator, it is sufficient for it to be the enabler, to cause terrorism. That is why claims that there is no christian theology that supports terrorism is meaningless. It doesn't NEED to support it directly, at least alone. It is entirely sufficient for it to be there, offering touchy-feely doctrines of forgiveness and eternal paradise, to be just as dangerous as islam. The anger can come from anywhere, but it is the belief that there is something more important than this life that permits turning mere anger into murderous action.

Take the case of someone (christian OR muslim) on the threshold of being radicalized to religious violence. Almost always a young man. Frustrated and angry by some other aspect of life. Not themselves a 'religious scholar' (yet, that "study" usually comes in the radicalization process, at the hands of someone who feeds them selected violent passages and not-necessarily-theologically-correct interpretations).

Now, each text has more than enough lines to make such a person CONSIDER violence. And the "peaceful"-sounding bits are enough to turn that to action. The fact that one of these might be more present in one religion than another is interesting, and permits the well-read many opportunities to show off their textual mastery, but it isn't relevant. As long as sufficient verses exist to point to (which there are, as proven by the rich history of religious violence on both sides) it doesn't matter which has MORE.


All THAT does is determine how much overflow there is.


Think of the kid's reluctance to violence as a cup that must be filled with hateful thoughts, before he is convinced to grab a gun and enter a clinic or a community center to start shooting. Your point, seems to boil down to the Bible having a gallon jug of hate, and the Koran a tanker-truck full. I am happy to concede that point, because it is completely irrelevant:

Both religions have more than enough to fill the cup. Pretending that one of them is therefore "safer" is unfounded.

Furthermore, since the religious doctrines that are dangerous are not just the passages that appear violent, but also and especially the ones that sound safe, NO abrahamic religion has changed sufficiently that it could not return to middle-aged thinking very quickly. They have held on to ALL parts of their texts that caused their long histories of violence.

So when secularists or atheists speak up against religious tests, it is NOT necessarily because they want more believers in the country in which they live.


It is because only in a country with no religious tests will they themselves be allowed to live at all.


Islamists already want to kill atheists. These aren't "people of the book."

But Christian extremists are apparently ALSO happy to do so, given an environment of sufficient fear, or a pervasive enough threat. (How else could health care clinic shootings happen?)


It is fear that permits such christian extremists to recast the "peaceful" parts of their religion into violence, and That. Fear. Just. Keeps. Growing.


Not overseas. Right here.

The theoretical, theological argument that this can't happen in christianity has certainly never stopped anyone in the past, and the idea that it will in the future strikes me as naive. When as a devout youth I read the entirety of the Bible, and told my pastor of that fact, he abashedly admitted that seminaries don't really require that anymore, and that he hadn't done so himself, nor had most of his fellow seminarians. Not even the CLERGY bother with actual theology in most American christian denominations today, instead teaching more practical skills like counseling, and grief-management.

Yes, we are literate now. Ignorance of theology is today a matter of CHOICE, not ability. But it hasn't really declined much anyway.

I'll hasten to add that I know that there are iTullip members who are quite devout, and HAVE studied their holy books very well. But I would also suggest that these are not likely candidates to become violent extremists anyway. That pool of potential terrorists is self-selecting, people with first-hand or in-depth knowledge generally don't seek to join. My focus in this argument is NOT on these more learned individuals, but on the specific question of the candidate for recruitment to terror, for which we are debating the utility of various religions. What matters here is thus the form of religion that HE sees.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that people have taken the time to construct an elaborate and detailed argument, it can be a good exercise, but the simple fact is that the people who are on the edge of radicalization generally don't bother so much with "getting the theology exactly right". There is no sense in which such analysis can be expected to be an effective shield.)


So the "other secularists" that seem to inspire such vitriol AREN'T necessarily more accepting of the many violent religions. Some of us are merely trying to be more consistent in applying a critical eye to all religions equally, and are perhaps looking down the road a few more years, to a future in which christianity might be far less dormant, and more visibly violent.


Eliminating violent religions in the United States is not yet an option. For the time being, all we can do is work to keep such religious violence dormant, by working to minimize the fear that it feeds on.

In any event, trying to stop it at the border certainly can't work -- because we are already surrounded by potentially violent religion. It fills the whole of the nation. And the more divisive things get -- the more we permit the pretense that all these religions are NOT of the same kind -- the more the sum total of violence will grow around us.

The only place secularists and atheists should expect to end up in a holy war is dead in the cross-fire, if we fail to stop the escalating religious strife. Putting our foot down against religious tests is one step we can take.

[LorenS]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

From Wikipedia:

Although records are incomplete, estimates of the number of persons charged with crimes by the Inquisition range up to 150,000, with 2,000 to 5,000 people executed. A symposium commissioned in 1998 to study the Inquisition released its findings: the total number of accused heretics put to death during the Spanish Inquisition comprised 0.1 percent of the more than 40,000 who were tried.

That sounds so like ISIS I can hardly tell the difference.......

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

All these references to "many secular people", and claims to know what they think. I am a secular person, I for one don't recognize myself, or any other like-minded secular person I know, in these characterizations. I really don't know where these straw men come from. Perhaps they come from not reading others' posts for meaning, only to find argument? In any event, they are not real. I haven't seen anyone here arguing the "Islam is a religion of peace" line that you appear to be objecting so strongly to.


Let me clarify my own position. I do NOT believe that islam is "a religion of peace". I just don't think any other monotheistic religion is either, and I'd like to minimize the extent to which they ALL become radicalized. It's a quite pragmatic goal.

Oh thats interesting and what makes them monotheistic religions? Would that because that is what their scriptures say?

Christianity may SOUND peaceful, when it talks of forgiveness, and everlasting life in heaven, but these doctrines are, when examined rigorously, just as much requirements for terrorism as more violent-sounding passages. (Forgiveness increases the threshold of harm that a person is willing to inflict, and eternal paradise permits one to believe that harm inflicted in this life is less important than some fictional future. You may call those "peaceful" doctrines if you like (I don't) but both are NECESSARY to inspire otherwise rational people to religious violence.)

Anyone who is given to imposing beliefs is vulnerable to this. However the actual doctrine of what it says matters , which you have already admitted to doing by defining it as monotheistic which is obviously from the source text.

I would suggest that Christianity is merely temporarily dormant, which makes it APPEAR superficially peaceful. But a better description might be that it is displaying a brief pause in its long and bloody history, because it does not at present feel threatened enough to return to form.

Oh you suggest? since you have no facts, I'd called it a faithful belief, and then you would say so as being completely ignorant of the source text. So like I said, you are one of those exactly like they are , full of faith with zero facts. Yuo can't see the words.

Not only will a zealot find " don't commit violence " in the the text , they will find opposition to it from the same source from others. Its as if you think a recipe for cake is the same as one for a bomb cause they are both recipes. My argument isn't that Christianity is or is not a dangerous ideology, that is far less clear. However compared to Islam is not even close. It like comparing Socrates as being a risk of social defiance equating with Alexander the great.

But as we can see in society all around us today, that fact is reversing itself very rapidly indeed. Trump is just one step away from calling on American muslims to be treated like jews in interbellum Germany, and many people cheering that are precisely the ones who call themselves "christian", in spite of your (very elegant, but irrelevant) case that such a thing is not possible.

Another belief and again with not reverence for words I never implied anything about what is possible. So in addition to not reading about a subject you feel qualified to discuss; you did not even read my post thoroughly . ..He is actually one step away from what we did with Germans.

I'll bet you are ignorant of your own history as you are of what these books teach, just like 95% of American citizens.


http://www.archives.gov/research/imm...-overview.html

mmediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 to authorize the United States to detain allegedly potentially dangerous enemy aliens. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies arrested thousands of suspected enemy aliens, mostly individuals of German, Italian, or Japanese ancestry, living throughout the United States.

You have an irrational faith in your own made up mythological version of history... I also have no doubt what so ever that some people in your new ultra liberalism religion would find it acceptable to see Americans burn because we don't want to offend any Germans. You are exactly like monk burning themselves in protest...well no let others burn.

Theology does not need to be the motivator, it is sufficient for it to be the enabler, to cause terrorism. That is why claims that there is no christian theology that supports terrorism is meaningless.

If what words say is meaningless , then your post is meaningless.

It doesn't NEED to support it directly, at least alone. It is entirely sufficient for it to be there, offering touchy-feely doctrines of forgiveness and eternal paradise, to be just as dangerous as islam. The anger can come from anywhere, but it is the belief that there is something more important than this life that permits turning mere anger into murderous action.

Wow look at you go....Not a single fact as you pontificate philosophically with beliefs. Not one in the whole house of Israel have I seen such faith in your own mythological judgments.

Take the case of someone (christian OR muslim) on the threshold of being radicalized to religious violence. Almost always a young man. Frustrated and angry by some other aspect of life. Not themselves a 'religious scholar' (yet, that "study" usually comes in the radicalization process, at the hands of someone who feeds them selected violent passages and not-necessarily-theologically-correct interpretations).

Yes take one of these....They always find a cause....particularly one that let them kill people like violent forms of nationalism or socialism. We got militant vegans; we got militant socialists; we got militant separatist. If ya don't like frustrated young men then get a dog.

Now, each text has more than enough lines to make such a person CONSIDER violence. And the "peaceful"-sounding bits are enough to turn that to action. The fact that one of these might be more present in one religion than another is interesting, and permits the well-read many opportunities to show off their textual mastery, but it isn't relevant. As long as sufficient verses exist to point to (which there are, as proven by the rich history of religious violence on both sides) it doesn't matter which has MORE.

Oh really then the Bill of rights and its implied violence must go too. It has guns in it. It has soldiers in it. It has fines and detentions in it . Hey that's what Timothy Mcveigh used right? Dissolve this union with the created with the blood of patriots. . It inspires terror.

Your post also has violence mentioned in it. Oh my I misread it and thought it said to kill boy scout leaders.....

I am out of time and will not go on. This post is a train wreck of religious like faith, mythological histories and projections that I have not seen with religious zealotry....Muslims face Mecca. Ultra ,voodoo ,liberal pluralists believe equestrians, that swear in their barns they will kill anyone who harms a horse will live peacefully with those that eat horse meat and turn their cheeks to all who hate them.

Religions are nothing but beliefs and they are not the same. To ignore what the believes are, where they come from , and their authoritative sources, as if its all the same is hypercritical voodoo . Remove thy bone from thine own nose, shamans of equalsim. That is not to mention that these fools want to enact hate laws and plan to put me in prison for attacking inimical ideologies to my way of life with free speech.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

If this is the case, I can only express bewilderment concerning your line of argument. It just seems to me (and it's always possible that I've misread your tone!) that you may have selected the wrong target for invective, if your intent was to connect the end of your argument to the final goal of advancing secularism. Perhaps you can help clarify my misunderstanding?

I do not see how a mere 10,000 starving Syrian refugees (lacking the right to vote, and extremely grateful for a chance to escape Syria) could be expected to wield anywhere near as much political influence on undermining the long-standing tradition of a secular state in this nation as the currently dominant christian population, which is already extremely successful at squeezing unconstitutional religious influence into policy.

(In case the answer is the usual canard of "terrorism!", remember that refugee candidates are screened vastly more carefully than anyone just getting a tourist visa. This is not an EASIER way into the US, but a HARDER path than existing methods for potential terrorists. One might legitimately make the terrorism argument fly in Europe, where the screening system really is overwhelmed. But 10,000 isn't a number that risks overwhelming the far larger and more practiced US system.)

By far the greatest threat to US secularism is not muslims inserting their ideology into laws (not nearly enough votes in that), but christian overreaction to the presence of muslims, which IS ALREADY motivating the insertion of religious ideology into law.

It is religious pluralism, not unity, that both protects and is protected by a secular state.

But as I've said, I have mis-read tone before, and please correct me if I have misunderstood.

I never offer my own opinions before I cite facts and refute falsehoods. If we cannot agree with basic facts then what is the point? Many people just like to ignore hem and make them up. Does Christianity teach violence in any context? No. There is not a single instance. Does it come with the more contextually violent Judaism? Yes. Does it just advance the same agenda? The fact is no. I have offered reams of truth. "Liberty by the blood of patriots" is more of an incitation to violence than the bible as a whole. Someone would have to be determined, ignorant or idiotic to consider Christianity as a violent faith. Assassins will dress up like a nurse or a priest. Anyone looking to kill will look for trust and authority. So passive faith is great disguises to ignorance. The only threat there is being off your guard for fraud which has nothing to do with the substance.

What is my opinion? I think the Quran is a violent and dangerous source of ideology. I don't want to live in an Islamic culture. I don't like it and attack it with speech.

You also act like its an isolated incident. Its not ten thousand, its ten thousand more. Do like Europe? No. Saudi builds and funds masques all over the US and Europe Go ahead and build a church there and see what happens .

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

..I do not see how a mere 10,000 starving Syrian refugees (lacking the right to vote, and extremely grateful for a chance to escape Syria) could be expected to wield anywhere near as much political influence on undermining the long-standing tradition of a secular state in this nation as the currently dominant christian population, which is already extremely successful at squeezing unconstitutional religious influence into policy.

Astonas, try to see the potential for mayhem in the 10K because brother it's there. At it's peak the Irish Republican Army was said to be never more than 14,500 strong and never less than 1000 at it's lowest.

"nearly two per cent of the population of Northern Ireland have been killed or injured though political violence [...] If the equivalent ratio of victims to population had been produced in Great Britain in the same period some 100,000 people would have died, and if a similar level of political violence had taken place, the number of fatalities in the USA would have been over 500,000."^[168] In 2010 it was estimated that 107,000 people in Northern Ireland suffered some physical injury as a result of the conflict. On the basis of data gathered by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, the Victims Commission estimated that the conflict resulted in 500,000 'victims' in Northern Ireland alone. It defines 'victims' are those who are directly affected by 'bereavement', 'physical injury' or 'trauma' as a result of the conflict.

Simon Cunningham. "Troubles created 500 000 victims says official body", The Irish News, 27 September 2011.

I defer to Lake on the details and practicalities. I just don't share your confidence that opening the doors won't give way to all sorts of mayhem.

And for argument's sake say there's zero terrorist potential, no political controversy whatsoever. Just people seeking a better deal. You still have another Mariel and a social disaster for the communities that must accept these dispossessed.

The dominance of Christian populations waves and wanes across our history and is waning before your very eyes. You and your grandchildren get to experience life in a more secular America. That's a seperate topic than the fate of the dispossessed. To quote a favorite film.

Let the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Turkish Republic host them, if you wan't an unsolicited opinion.

[santafe2]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

The dominance of Christian populations waves and wanes across our history and is waning before your very eyes. You and your grandchildren get to experience life in a more secular America. That's a seperate topic than the fate of the dispossessed.

Monotheistic, messianic religion does not do well in the face of prosperity, science and reason, but I think you pointed that out earlier.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

As I see it, have seen it for many years, everyone seems to find their inspiration from recent human history; when in point of fact, we humans have been here for the entire period of our evolution; getting near 60 million years, and that does not include the timescale for the evolution of every other specie surrounding us. Recently I had been invited to an Islamic Finance Conference and had written an earlier short paper titled: A Philosophical Viewpoint and sent it to all the Islamic scholars I had met. This is an extended version.

A Philosophical Viewpoint

Regarding the origins of the use of the human imagination
By those that wish to control humanity

What I write here stems from a lifetime of thought and particularly observation. Nowadays I lead a relatively simple life with few possessions, in very modest accommodation. No one pays me to write, no one “owns” my thoughts; I am not a "Prophet", simply a free man and these are my honestly held beliefs gleaned from my own intellect.

At the age of 18 I left an engineering apprenticeship and joined HM Forestry Commission to train as a Forester. Early spring 1963 while riding on the back of a wagon to deliver logs for a sawmill, through what is the Ornamental Drive, close by Lyndhurst in the New Forest, I found myself in tears as we passed beneath an almost transparent canopy of light green, freshly leafed, ancient Beech trees, all splashed with a shower of rain with a rainbow caressing the tree tops. The entire vision was overwhelming. Another time while watching a Badger set, a young badger slowly came towards me; sniffing the underside of the leaves on the ground as he ploughed his nose through them. When he got to my foot he stopped for a moment, looked up, saw me and cried out and suddenly turned tail; rushing noisily back to his family and the safety of home.

Much more recently, upon rising first thing in the morning, I discovered a tiny, very young mouse, with his back to me sitting on his haunches, his right hand paw stretched out to balance upon the Gas box by my front door. He was bright pink with great big pink ears, as only a very young mouse is; but that mouse was sitting there as though he owned the view. By the time I got back with my camera, he was gone. Even more recently, again when first arising in the morning, as I unbolted the front door; a Sparrow, busy pecking away at a fat ball placed there for the birds to eat, in the hedge opposite the door suddenly stopped. He, (or she), had heard a strange sound, and very slowly turned right around to scan the house, then, having seen nothing to cause fear; continued pecking the fat ball.

All of these experiences, and many more besides, taught me that every living thing possesses, to one degree or another, imagination. Imagination comes in two distinct versions; joy and fear. When a song bird sings it’s heart out at the top of a tree, it is imagining that their sweetheart will hear them and come to them; when the same bird hears an unusual sound, it is imagining that sound spells the potential for danger. We see these two aspects of imagination all around us. At night, even the humble Earth worm, upon your casting a sudden light upon it eating the edge of a leaf, will suddenly draw back into the ground. That is imagination at work.

The fly that speeds away from your hand, does so to protect itself from any possible danger; again, that is imagination at work.

It is my profound belief that the power of imagination is the driving force for the evolution of how all species of animal and insect relate to each other; moreover; since the dawn of their evolution on this planet. That the power of imagination, both imagining something to fear, or to love; drives every aspect of every living thing; how we think; who we are; where we see ourselves in the underlying order of the wider ancient universe that surrounds us.

That everything we, as human beings have created; stems from the long term evolution of the power of imagination; that the power of imagination is an embedded instinct in every living thing here on Earth.

A major part of my present thinking stems from my lifetime work on the subject of the origins of the universe; where I ask everyone to understand that we have to see our recent human history of a few thousand years; in relation to the immense timescales involved with the surrounding universe:

How long has our industrial civilisation been on Earth? A few hundred years, if that! Recorded human history only covers about five or six thousand years at most.

The universe is older and larger than we have imaginations to conceive. What we are looking at is simply the range of our limited technology to observe...... How much knowledge has already been discovered and lost as the universe has evolved? That there are other civilizations out there is a certainty. What we will never know is the sum of all the knowledge, though I guess that at some point, someone else has tried to gather it all into one repository. How far off the centre are we? For all we know, we are just an insignificant dot that lies at a distance from the centre of the universe that is beyond our imaginations ability to conceive. Then again, we may have evolved close to the centre of a thriving community of civilizations.

It is important that the reader understands that my views about the power of the human imagination extend beyond the hum drum matters of life for the song bird or the age of the universe, into a very profound respect for religion; any religion ….. That teaches peaceful acceptance of human frailty through rules that permit freedom to think and debate. That is surely the way forward for all humanity?

To be able to achieve such freedom, we have to learn that all religious beliefs are simply a product of the wonderful imagination of the human species. That a very long time ago, long before recorded history; some form of a celestial being was invented to explain what was to the majority - inexplicable.

Why new fresh plant growth, (which so empowered my own emotions when a young man traveling through an ancient forest); appears after the ground has been frozen solid for months, is a very good example.

It is thus my philosophical belief that, throughout the ages, the concept of a God is just another aspect of the power of that truly wonderful thing, the human imagination; that the human race has to come to terms with that as a fact and adjust religious beliefs to suit reality. Religion is a wonderful idea, full of useful rules for all society to live by; in peace.

On the other hand, religion fails when it creates dreadfully uncivilised doctrine, based upon the idea that anyone not abiding by the rules will become a target for hatred, mutilation, or even murder; where fear in turn leads to thousands of wasted years drenched in war between communities in every corner of the planet. At the extreme we face today; such use of fear has very clearly opened the door to psychotic madness.

For the human race to remain a civilisation; in the truest sense; we have to have the courage to embrace both sides of our wonderful imaginations; we must display the courage to embrace joy, as well as to learn to understand how to control our fear.

History has come full circle

In a series of lectures delivered at Oxford in the Easter terms of 1893 and 1894, James Anthony Froude set out the reasons for the failure of the Spanish inquisition to defeat the English. His book, English Seamen in the sixteenth century, shows how the very same use of fear, led to the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

“English commerce was beginning to grow in spite of the Protector’s experiments; but a new and infinitely dangerous element had been introduced by the change of religion into the relations of English sailors with the Catholic Powers, and especially with Spain. In their zeal to keep out heresy, the Spanish Government placed their harbours under the control of the Holy Office. Any vessel in which an heretical book was found was confiscated and her crew carried to the inquisition prisons. It had begun in Henry’s time. The Inquisitors attempted to treat schism as heresy and arrest Englishmen in their ports. But Henry spoke up stoutly to Charles V, and the Holy Office had been made to hold its hand. All was altered now. It was not necessary that a poor sailor should have been found teaching heresy. It was enough if he had an English Bible and Prayer Book with him in his kit; and stories would come into Dartmouth or Plymouth how some lad that everybody knew – Bill or Jack or Tom, who had wife or father or mother among them, perhaps – had been seized hold of for no other crime, been flung into a dungeon, tortured, starved, set to work in the galleys, or burned in a fool’s coat, as they called it, at an auto-da-fé at Seville.

The object of the Inquisition was partly political: it was meant to embarrass trade and make the people impatient of changes which produced so much inconvenience. The effect was exactly the opposite. Such accounts when brought home created fury. There grew up in the seagoing population an enthusiasm of hatred for that holy institution, and a passionate desire for revenge."

The sad truth is; during the sixteenth century, more than five hundred years ago; an English seaman, shipwrecked on Spanish shores, faced being publicly burned at the stake by a Spanish Roman Catholic Inquisition, simply because he was not a practicing Roman Catholic.

Will someone from Islam please tell me what difference is there between Roman Catholic imagined heresy then and fundamentalist Islamic imagined heresy today?

Both stem from exactly the same mindset; a refusal to accept any other thinking than that which had been taught to them from their own childhood. That it is our childhood teachings that have defined us as a species.

We do know a lot about how the thinking of cultures embracing Islam developed from the very personal experience of T. E. Lawrence set out in his book; Seven Pillars of Wisdom and I recommend everyone read Chapters II and III where he sets out the origins of the many tribes within the Arab movement.

“The origin of these peoples was an academic question; but for the understanding of their revolt their present social and political differences were important, and could only be grasped by looking at their geography…………. These inhabited hills and plains framed a gulf of thirsty desert, in whose heart was an archipelago of watered and populous oases......The desert lapped it round and kept it pure of contact“

“.... Their imaginations were vivid, but not creative. There was so little Arab art in Asia that they could almost be said to have no art,........ Nor did they handle great industries: they had no organisations of mind or body. They invented no systems of philosophy, no complex mythologies.....

They were a people of spasms, of upheavals, of ideas, the race of the individual genius. Their convictions were by instinct, their activities intuitional. Their largest manufacture was of creeds: almost they were monopolists of revealed religions. Three of these efforts had endured among them: two of the three had also borne export (in modified forms) to non-Semitic peoples. Christianity, translated into the diverse spirits of Greek and Latin and Teutonic tongues, had conquered Europe and America. Islam in various transformations was subjecting Africa and parts of Asia. These were Semantic successes. Their failures they kept to themselves. The fringes of their deserts were strewn with broken faiths.

It was significant that this wrack of fallen religions lay about the meeting of the desert and the sown. It pointed to the generation of all these creeds. They were assertions, not arguments; so they required a prophet to set them forth. The Arabs said there had been forty thousand prophets: we had record of at least some hundreds. ..........”

We might very well ask; how many prophets?

To get at an answer, may I suggest you all read; The Faiths of the World, a Dictionary of all Religions and of all Religious Sects, their Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies and Customs, by The Revd James Gardner M.A. published by A Fullerton & Co, (my copy stamped Argyle Sunday School Reference Library, Presented by Mrs. W. L. Williams), wherein you will discover some two thousand pages describing the immense diversity of the religious beliefs of the planet.

Perhaps at last, we can come to grips with the truth of our problem; a desperate debate between two forms of the use of the human imagination:

Arab culture creating many of these religious beliefs; strictly controlled by the edict of the writings of various prophets claiming access to celestial knowledge; yet signally unable to understand that they have been trapped into a very small corner of the potential; and the complex use of the imagination in every walk of life of what we call Western culture; exploring every possible use of the imagination;.

Once again, we face the daemons created by untrammeled imaginations that have come to the surface after many centuries; believing that the murder of innocents has a place within ANY religious institution.

We need to look a long way back in time; to be able to see forward

Human history goes back millions of years. It is not a recent construct; it did not start three, four or five thousand years ago. To start to get at the truth we have to re-learn why our ancestors of old created what we call today; children’s bedtime stories. Why do we tell children such fairy tales? Why do they often involve strange, mythological creatures? For that matter, why do children enjoy them, just before falling asleep?

We need to take our thinking back to an earlier age; back to the formation of what I believe was the early understanding of the power of the imagination; where we learned the need to teach children to understand their own imaginations; to enable them to live without fear from the power of the imagination.

That a child was always vulnerable to fear from imagined thoughts.

That teaching a child to understand the power of their imagination; was a necessary education.

No parent wishes their child to wake at night crying out from fear created by a nightmare.

A child’s nightmares must have been just as prevalent, millions of years ago. Parents, all adults, throughout the evolution of the minds of the evolving early hominids, would have had their own experience of how the power of the imagination would bring them joy from the love of another; while at one and the same time; fear of any potential enemy; particularly, one created by the imagination.

Have you ever watched a dog asleep, dreaming, its feet twitching as though running; acting as if running from, or to, a figment of its imagination? If a dog can dream today, a humanoid a million years ago would have dreamt thoughts garnered from their own slowly evolving imaginations too.

The question to ask today is; who first learned from these early, primitive teachings; that one may create their own interpretation of how to control either love or fear? Of even more importance; as an explanation of that which the majority did not fully understand? That teaching children was the route to power over others?

Remember, every single night the sky was clear above them. Shooting stars, Comets; every star we see today, was entirely visible to every primitive hominid.

It is my belief that when you put together the power of the evolving imaginations of the early hominids with what they could see above them; then it is easy to understand how we evolved to believe in a power that went beyond immediate understanding; to an ephemeral being, a construct of the human imagination:

That God is the rationalization for anything we do not fully understand; anything that takes us beyond the power of our imaginations, where neither science nor existing knowledge can offer explanation.

Now step forward to early human history

Place yourself into the mind of someone that both understands the power of the imagination and wishes to add a manner of control over others surrounding them. How would they achieve that additional power?

They would use whatever means of communication was available to them; in the first instance, the spoken word is a very powerful tool; the written word holds even more potential to control others.

Now imagine a world where others around you fear what they do not understand.

And you use your own imagination to construct an imaginary answer to their perceived fear. Of even more importance, you start to teach children to believe in your proposed use of the power of fear.

This is not something arrived at by any recent prophet; we are talking of millions of years of different individuals trying out the same thought on those around them; each with a quite different result; each result becoming a part of the oral history passed down through the ages.

Now we start to understand how differences will emerge; many will enhance the power to appreciate natural artistic skills. Those drawings of ancient animals on the walls of caves in France were created by a natural artist who lived many tens of thousands of years ago.

Such an artist would have passed on the knowledge of how they created such art to others around them; just as an artist does so today. Art is a peaceful skill. Artists thrive in peaceful communities.

On the other hand, we can be equally certain that, by the same token; the power to control through the use of fear will also have been regularly expressed and equally appreciated by those that thrive within a world of imagined threat. A warrior, as much as an artist, demonstrates abilities to control our emotions; one through the power to protect us; the other to open our hearts to love of beautiful things.

At what point does someone arrive who comes to believe that if they speak, say, a poem, others appreciate the sound and meaning of the words? Remember, oral history goes back much further than any written history; the use of verbal description must have been the first means of general communication between scattered groups or tribal communities.

At what point does another realise that, by the same token, they can create words that can control others?

What fears would those words need to address?

If you are creating words that you wish others to believe were created by someone or something other than yourself; what would you need to do to achieve the illusion of another author?

How would you create rules to prevent others from questioning what you have spoken?

When you walk out into the surrounding wilderness, say to the top of a local mountain; how do you convince others upon your return that the words you now speak; are not from your own imagination?

How do you prevent others from engaging with your words and use their own imaginations to deconstruct what you have said? Allowing them to learn the truth; that you are the author of everything spoken by you, not someone or something else? How do you prevent that?

Am I not correct to suggest?

You would do everything within your power to suppress the use of imagination to question what you say.

That you would set out to create rigid rules specifically designed to control the message.

You use fear of dire consequences to cover up your own culpability in creating the rules in the first place.
So the deliberate suppression of any and every use of the imagination; other than the minimal usage that does not threaten to expose the truth; is always to your advantage.

The very first rule is never draw an image of you; such that you are never identified as the original author; in which case you will always attribute the words to another; either a person from the past, or a celestial "someone" that is already deeply embedded within the imaginations of your audience.

Remember, the message will swing from one extreme to the other as it evolves. From creating simple generous rules of responsible tribal citizenship on the one hand; to, in the worst case, you set out to encourage everyone to kill anyone who argues against what you say............. Indeed, order that no one either listens to or reads another version. Is that the origins of the concept of "Heresy" ?

Then add a belief in a wonderful life after death, which is dramatically exploited to ensure that an impressionable individual, (even a ten year old girl); will kill themselves to so murder “unbelievers” as their guaranteed route to an exceptional afterlife involving riches beyond anything possible here while alive…...

Again, one tribe might well wish to steal another tribes land, why not say that it was given to your tribe by a celestial forefather? A very neat argument; so who first used it to take control of another tribes land?

And in both tribes; who can you believe when the spoken words purport to stem from celestial teachings?

Yes, I am certain that I will have hit a very raw nerve here, not just within any one religion.

The truth is we must now learn to see that all of these contrived beliefs; were always designed to take control of the majority. Leadership control demands the control of the imagination; what better than to attribute that control to an unknowable celestial "God"? Wherein the most extreme cases we see today argue that:

Singing a song; especially as though a song bird, from the heart; is to be seen as a threat.

Flying a kite to emulate the flight of a bird is a threat; as such kite flying stimulates the imagination.

Art in all its wonderful forms is a feared use of the imagination.

The ability to engage against you with words is another use of the imagination that must be suppressed.

The use of words and art combined; is even more to be feared.

So, interposed between many peaceful words that set out to guide normal everyday life; what to eat, what to wear, how to treat with others in your religion; you add words that bring fear to the surface to prevent anyone not agreeing with your construct being permitted to show everyone else the truth.

Describe everyone in that other tribe as heathen, or "terrorists". Use fear to justify their destruction if they refuse to accept your interpretation; your imaginative construct designed to control them.

Yes, indeed, we see a lot of this today; but surely, this was not the first time these methods were used?

As I see it, there will have been many occasions, over millions of years of the evolution of humanity, where individuals repeatedly tried out such ideas, gleaned from their own rich imaginations.

That over such immense timescales; surely every form of such control was tried and tested; perhaps often to the point of the complete destruction of the community wherein such trials occurred?

Why would such history repeat itself?

Surely, if there have been other attempts to gain such control; why do we not today; live upon a planet that is entirely under such control?

The answer is to my way of thinking, very clear; human society will have seen repeated episodes of the use of fear that seem to have burned brightly before collapsing.

Attila the Hun is a good example; he murdered and killed right across Asia; the Roman Empire; the same end result; the Roman Catholic Inquisition as Froude above describes, is another; each time we see relatively brief success before complete collapse. This is not a construct of any single group at this one point in time; this is a repeating failure; each time a failure to recognise the ultimate power of the majority of human society; in their wish to preserve a peaceful existence with each other.

The history of the evolution of humanity has once again come full circle.

Every step forward we learn new things about how we all think; what is ultimately important to the majority.

We learn more about the power of our imaginations and the power of the use of imagination over us.

We learn that the majority reject the use of fear and embrace the use of love.

Why religion remains important?

A lifetime has also taught me that religion; peaceful religion; is a wonderful thing. That by far the majority of peaceful religions create a wonderful sense of community; bringing everyone together under a canopy of rules that engage and encourage the ongoing peaceful interaction between everyone.

Good religion also accommodates dissent; accepts that others among the majority may not believe as they do; accepts other influences, doctrines; even to the secular where there is no belief in God!

There are some very good, peaceful religions; that do great works; we must encourage them while also accepting that human society has evolved to live in peace; with each allowed their own use of their imagination; in their own ways; with their own interpretations. We smile at the use of the God Thor, or Titan, or Mars. Every one of you will have your own version to add to those I highlight herein.

We live on a small planet, surrounded by a vast and ancient universe itself inhabited by trillions of star systems, many of which will, inevitably, carry their own form of life within their oceans and on their continents and islands. It is time for our own imaginations to spread out from here, into the wider universe. We simply have to learn to use our imaginations; peacefully; without at one and the same moment being trammeled by fear; particularly fear created as a cover for another to try and control the majority; an exploit that always fails eventually. A lesson some here, with us today; have yet to learn.

We are a peaceful species who love art and all forms of creativity. We have to learn to make God our friend; for he is simply just another product of our wonderful human imagination.

If you learn anything about your own thinking from reading this then I have achieved something. That is all that anyone can ever wish for, to enlighten, in the smallest way, any other individual. But whatever you do, never let anyone else bully you into believing that there is no value to your own thinking. Upon these principles is founded the concept of debate. One may be wrong in ones thinking, but to express the thought gives the chance for another to challenge that thinking, as I do here. Debate requires acceptance of the possibility of right or wrong to be on both sides and accepted by both sides in equal part and in good humour. Gender; age; experience; who you are or where you have come from; has no part to play. Everyone has the right to think, to speak their mind; verbally, artistically, with the written word, or even satirically, using both words and art in combination; and be listened to. By the same token, no one, absolutely no one; has any right to use any form of coercion to try and impose their viewpoint on anyone else. Freedom of speech is essential. The freedom to think and speak without fear or favour; is an absolute individual right in any debate, on any subject, at all times."

Chris Coles

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

...We live on a small planet, surrounded by a vast and ancient universe itself inhabited by trillions of star systems, many of which will, inevitably, carry their own form of life within their oceans and on their continents and islands. It is time for our own imaginations to spread out from here, into the wider universe. We simply have to learn to use our imaginations; peacefully; without at one and the same moment being trammeled by fear; particularly fear created as a cover for another to try and control the majority; an exploit that always fails eventually. A lesson some here, with us today; have yet to learn. We are a peaceful species who love art and all forms of creativity. We have to learn to make God our friend; for he is simply just another product of our wonderful human imagination.

Chris, you're a treasure. Thanks for sharing this.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Monotheistic, messianic religion does not do well in the face of prosperity, science and reason, but I think you pointed that out earlier.

Yeah I think that is pretty overstated. The Egyptians used eclipses to frighten the people into submission. This is an example of power maintaining its dominions. I don't think pagan Rome spared Cicero. Anytime a culture has an authority it must be usurped to control it. I don't think the Borgia family cared about the religion. They took it because it had power. Most bad Christianity was associated with "temporal power" .

How many examples do we have of liberal tolerant, societies? Those pagan Mongolians ?

We spend a lot of time here fighting for economic truths. If you don't think those truths are being suppressed because it undermines the prevailing power base then we just will never understand each other. The "Church" did burn libraries because of it embarrassed the bible. However it was because it was a power base. We have flooded our schools with utter crap in economic text books, more or less burning the classical economists. While some people are too slow witted to understand there is an active force suppressing classical economic principle because it is hostile to feudalism and mercantilism.

Now to be sure the combination of modern Christianity and Islam worries me. One is often passively self the destructive while the other is actively destructive. When Christianity met Islam it was militant Christianity with an illiterate populace that could fight toe to toe with it. At some point we have to credit Tyndale for a people so defunct they extinguished themselves because sex is carnal...aka Gnostic crap again. Ironically some of this self loathing seems to have appeared in liberalism, not knowing its a culture influenced and stemming from passively fatal Christianity.

You think Christian voilence will destroy us? Quite the opposite. You should worry about it undermining our will to resist.

However to compare Christianity of today compared to days past is just more ignorance and indolence not bothering to mind important details:

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Ya know I suppose this debate did make me learn something. It forced me to unpack so many boxes from the attic , I was able to finally answer the question of what happened to American Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is Greek. We imported Christianity from Europe and is thus an import . The renewal of Greek classical cultural is the foundation of American liberalism. You have convinced me that Christianity is indeed related to this threat. Christian contribution to liberalism has created a sort of self hating concept that I have seen before in "slay the flesh" and self flagellation and guilt and to extreme ends to hatred of the material world. That's modern liberalism . However I concede probably not as one might intend. The secular, self hating gnostic approach of Christian heritage(and now I am quite sure it has influenced it) will not destroy us through violence. It will just passively accept it.


My narrow scope was on direct violence. However as a contextual threat , I concede its inimical influence on destroying Classical Liberalism which had the stones to defend itself.