A Proxy For Witches

[Winstonm]

I do not mean to pick specifically on Christianity but only use that as an example because I am better versed in that history.

 

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term dulusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities. Remove faith, and the Inquisition is stillborn. Remove faith, and the witches of Salem live.

 

There was no point in burning the qu'ran other than a statement of faith - that the qu'ran is wrong and thus the bible is right.

 

There is no point in killing U.N. workers because of an opinion about which ancient text is held on faith(more opinion) to be right.

 

Eliminate the beliefs. The history of Christianity is not exactly a shining light of tolerance; it is rather disingenuous for Christianity to now castigate Islam for going through a similar period of intolerance. (For those who would argue that Islam is based on intolerance, you will not get a counterargument from me. Instead, I would point out the intolerance of gentiles in Jewish scripture, and the old testament's intolerances along with Christian church history as evidence that all these religions have their intolerant faults, too. The issue that leads to intolerace in all, though, is belief. In that they are all equal.)

 

The good news is that over time these delusionary beliefs must alter stance or risk extinction. Christianity is tolerant today because society demanded tolerance, not that the words in the holy book changed. So, too, will Islam be forced to change over time.

 

Better for all if extinction occured. If not, then evolution will alter the dangers from all sides until religious danger is no longer a threat to the species.

[helene_t]

The history of Christianity is not exactly a shining light of tolerance; it is rather disingenuous for Christianity to now castigate Islam for going through a similar period of intolerance.

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

 

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

 

If someone claims that Islam is more often associated with violence and intolerance today than other religions are today, then one can argue whether this is related to intrinsic properties of Islam or not, or whether it is true or not. But surely the point that it hasn't always been like that is off-topic.

 

Surely a 21st century secular Christian is not responsible for the actions of 11th century Christians. Or for those of 21st century Christian extremists for that matter.

 

Is the point that since Christianity has managed to modernize itself, there is hope for Islam, too?

[kenberg]

 

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term delusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities.

 

Although I understands your point, or I think I do, I quite thoroughly disagree. I am not much on judging people at all unless I have to, but to the extent I do, I judge them entirely on their actions rather than on their beliefs.

 

Fundamentally (and we are speaking of Fundamentalism I guess) I reject the idea that some of us live on faith, others on pure reason. Have you ever tried actually reading Kant? Let me save you some time, don't. I do not believe in the existence of a God, but that's a long way from saying that I have carefully examined every one of my beliefs and am confident they will stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny. Now that would be delusional.

 

The question is not in what people believe but in whether they insist that others believe the same thing. The error comes when good action is judged to be insufficient, one must also have the correct beliefs. Religious people can (but not all do) get pushy about that. They are not the only ones.

[nige1]

My point is that the fault, dear, Brutus, lies not with the actors but with their beliefs. Faith, or what I term dulusional belief, is the bottom line for many atrocities. Remove faith, and the Inquisition is stillborn. Remove faith, and the witches of Salem live.

Megalomaniac psychopaths typically use "Patriotism" as well as "Religion" to stir up trouble. (For example, In Northern Ireland,. The "men of violence" (on both sides) were mostly irreligious petty-criminals who would normally have been satisfied with vandalising telephone-boxes and the like. Charismatic leaders welded those individuals into coherent mafia-like forces for evil, using patriotism and religion to rationalize murder and extortion, armed by terrorist fund-raisers abroad).

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken

We should all examine our prejudices and beliefs in the light of that good advice. Unfortunately, the lesson of history is that we don't learn from history and

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

[awm]

There are a couple ways the history is relevant.

 

It's been suggested in this thread that it makes a difference whether the reaction to the Qu'ran burning was predictable, the idea being that if the pastor should've known that his actions would lead to innocent lives being lost then he shares some responsibility. Of course, he was warned by his own government so obviously he should know... but the long history of violent reaction to the burning of holy books (in both Muslim and Christian communities) should've been a tip off. In contrast, the Danish cartoonists arguably might've been surprised by the violent reaction they got.

 

It's also been suggested that the violence was due to crazies and the pastor shouldn't really be responsible for the actions of crazies. But again, the long history (in multiple religions) of violent reactions to such things implies that either they weren't so crazy after all... or there are a lot of religious crazies in the world. Of course, there is a coherent argument for the latter (which Winston seems to be making) but I doubt that a fundamentalist Christian pastor would want to argue in his own defense that "all religious people are crazy."

[mike777]

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

 

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

[luke warm]

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

 

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

 

There are a couple ways the history is relevant.

not, i think helene is saying, as a defense for present acts... i got from her post that acts by whatever group, muslim or christian or nationalistic or any other, are on that particular group... no, history is not irrelevant, but neither does it have any relevant role to plan in this discussion (imo)

 

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

and that pretty much says it all

[Winstonm]

What's the relevance of history? (This is meant as a non-rhetoric question).

 

Surely those who commit crimes in the name of Islam get no excuse from the fact that once upon a time, similar things were done in the name of Christianity. Or even from the fact that similar things are done in the name of Christianity (and Marxism and Hinduism) today.

 

If someone claims that Islam is more often associated with violence and intolerance today than other religions are today, then one can argue whether this is related to intrinsic properties of Islam or not, or whether it is true or not. But surely the point that it hasn't always been like that is off-topic.

 

Surely a 21st century secular Christian is not responsible for the actions of 11th century Christians. Or for those of 21st century Christian extremists for that matter.

 

Is the point that since Christianity has managed to modernize itself, there is hope for Islam, too?

 

The point is that the society which surrounds the religion and thus the role of the religion within that society is the determining factor.

 

Yes, Islam will become more moderate or will become extinct, just a Christianity has become more moderate in order to fill its role in society.

[hrothgar]

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

 

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

 

Bullshit

 

This event was entirely foreseeable

 

Months back, when the Koran burnings were first being discussed, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state issued statements that this event should not take place because it would lead to riots and the deaths of large numbers of people. I don't much care that other people down the chain had to take actions before the UN workers ended up dead. What is important is that anyone with half a brain could tell that this action had a very significant chance that it would get people killed.

 

As I recall, the law does much distinguish between murder and and hiring a hit man

this feels no different

[Winstonm]

Although I understands your point, or I think I do, I quite thoroughly disagree. I am not much on judging people at all unless I have to, but to the extent I do, I judge them entirely on their actions rather than on their beliefs.

 

Fundamentally (and we are speaking of Fundamentalism I guess) I reject the idea that some of us live on faith, others on pure reason. Have you ever tried actually reading Kant? Let me save you some time, don't. I do not believe in the existence of a God, but that's a long way from saying that I have carefully examined every one of my beliefs and am confident they will stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny. Now that would be delusional.

 

The question is not in what people believe but in whether they insist that others believe the same thing. The error comes when good action is judged to be insufficient, one must also have the correct beliefs. Religious people can (but not all do) get pushy about that. They are not the only ones.

 

Ken,

 

Some delusional beliefs are more dangerous than others. The Jains, for example, also are theists but their beliefs are quite in keeping with furtherment of all living things.

 

Delusional belief mixed with certainty is often deadly. It is the certainty that creates the problem, but without the belief there would be nothing to be certain about.

[Winstonm]

Megalomaniac psychopaths typically use "Patriotism" as well as "Religion" to stir up trouble. (For example, In Northern Ireland,. The "men of violence" (on both sides) were mostly irreligious petty-criminals who would normally have been satisfied with vandalising telephone-boxes and the like. Charismatic leaders welded those individuals into coherent mafia-like forces for evil, using patriotism and religion to rationalize murder and extortion, armed by terrorist fund-raisers abroad). We should all examine our prejudices and beliefs in the light of that good advice. Unfortunately, the lesson of history is that we don't learn from history and

 

I agree. I hope it is understood that when I talk of delusional belief I am not talking only about religious beliefs. There can be danger in the 100% certainty held for any specific belief, regardless of whether that belief is religious.

 

I use the word irrational in a similar way, not as an argument for being "right" but to differentiate the method of reaching a held position. Irrational to me does not mean wrong - it means the conclusion was reached by irrational means.

[barmar]

Comment 2: I'd appreciate a comment from one of the lawyers present... Can I bring a civil suit against some one who hasn't broken a law?

Of course you can. A criminal court found OJ not guilty of murder, yet he was successfully sued for wrongful death. This is a common strategy due to the different standards of proof required in criminal and civil trials.

[hrothgar]

Of course you can. A criminal court found OJ not guilty of murder, yet he was successfully sued for wrongful death. This is a common strategy due to the different standards of proof required in criminal and civil trials.

 

Thanks. nice example

[helene_t]

Maybe I haven't understood the OJ case correctly but wasn't the civil-court verdict based on the premise that he had broken the law, it was just that the evidence was not strong enough to get him convicted in a criminal court?

 

Another example: there is this concept of objective liability. If I get injured during my work and it was just a plain accident then I can hold my employer responsible even if he did all he can legally be required to do to prevent the injury.

[kenberg]

I once had a neighbor who was actively involved in the lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion groups. He had a web site that would list the names and addresses of abortion doctors along with X's or checkmarks or some such (I never actually saw it but I believe I have this about right) beside the names of those who had been killed. I think that civil action against him was successful, criminal action was not. He had been convicted earlier for more direct action, but not for his website advocacy. I can't say that I know the details.

 

At some point I think it should be possible to at least bring civil action and maybe criminal action based on this "violence at a distance" but I confess to muddled thinking. My neighbor was, in essence, advocating and enabling the killing of specific individuals. The pastor was acting in a manner that he could be pretty sure would cause death to someone somewhere. I would not want to be the one explaining the difference to a child whose mother has just been blown up, but I guess that I do sense some sort of difference.

 

It's tough. My older daughter travels for work, including to some countries I would prefer she not spend time in. The idea that she could end up dead from such a chain of events is upsetting.

[luke warm]

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

 

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

Bullshit

 

This event was entirely foreseeable

something tells me this isn't an argument you'd be making had it been a bible burned and, as a result, "christians" began slaughtering others

[hrothgar]

something tells me this isn't an argument you'd be making had it been a bible burned and, as a result, "christians" began slaughtering others

 

I beg to differ...

 

I've always been very equal opportunity in condemning the Abrahamic religions...

I think that they are all quite nasty in their own special ways.

 

Please note: While I have been very quick to condemn the actions of the pastor, I have in no way excused the activities of the various actors in Afghanistan

From Kharzai on down to the individuals comprising the mob, there is lots of blame to go around.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2011-April-08, 14:47, said:

 

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

 

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

 

Arguing that the book-burners hold the moral high ground sounds to me like an argument that one belief system is superior because one set of bad guys only burn books while the other set kills.

 

That seems the same reason the Florida church burned the book in the first place - to illustrate the superiority of their belief system by castigating a competing belief system.

 

How very circular.

[kenberg]

On the "Whose ox is being gored" front I offer the following:

 

Carroll County Maryland, my current place of residence, was recently in the news. A soldier's funeral was picketed by the Kansas church bozos and the parents sued because of emotional distress (close enough anyway, I don't know the exact grounds). The Supreme court recently sided with the church. I suppose the court is right. Our Constitution gives people the right to be thoroughly repulsive. Still, if someone kicked their asses in front of thirty witnesses and on film, it might be difficult to get a jury to convict the kickers. Shooting them would be another matter though, however satisfying the fantasy.

[ggwhiz]

The words "Moral high ground" don't belong.

 

I'm no lawyer but the words "Depraved indifference" come to mind for the Florida crowd who had full knowledge of the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoon. For some of the Wiki-Leaks naming of names postings too.

 

It would suit me to hold everyone to account and turns my stomach that the murderers are more likely to get a medal.

[luke warm]

Arguing that the book-burners hold the moral high ground sounds to me like an argument that one belief system is superior because one set of bad guys only burn books while the other set kills.

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

[Winstonm]

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

 

Really?

 

But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off

 

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills, then.

[PassedOut]

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills, then.

Not you.

[barmar]

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

There's no moral issue in deliberately insulting the cherished beliefs of more than 1/5 of the world?

 

Free speech gives you the right to say just about anything, but that doesn't mean everything is appropriate.

[1eyedjack]

Granted that gratuitously insulting anyone is somewhat gauche, is it any more relatively reprehensible that you are insulting 1/5 of the population than insulting a single individual?