>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.

>> ^rebuilder:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^rebuilder:
The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

This seems like a lazy copout to me. There is plenty of good in the history of humanity, for one, but most of all, the human mind is the basis of humanity's morality. To say someone is morally compromised you need to compare it to moral standards, that are derived and developed by the human mind over time.
That is pretty much what I mean. Humans are very good at adapting morality to whatever realities they face. I'd say religious doctrines and how they are applied and changed over time offer ample proof of that. Maybe using the word "compromised" is a red herring, since there is no pure morality to be found anyway.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.
>> ^quantumushroom:
A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?



His top 5 most upvoted comments have none of them. Maybe he'll learn something, maybe he won't...

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

Are you kidding? They're all over the place.

I am not religious at all. In fact, I do not believe in god. However, I understand that these people's actions do not reflect a whole population. I think many Christians would find this appalling, and I would agree with them on that matter. Crazy people are everywhere and blaming an entire population on one person's actions is just absurd - regardless of the cause.

This part was good.

You have selectively decided to berate Muslims but I see no difference between you an your fellow Muslims. Many of your co-believers just want piece and prosperity, but you fail to see that.

Except the muslim earns his reputation. Be sure to wiki 'honor killings'. The quran makes it clear the muslim has 3 choices when meeting infidels: convert them, enslave them or kill them. Any other course of action and you are not a real muslim and can be killed along with the other infidels. Yet far-too-many muslims are clearly faithful as they cause problems wherever they're found en masse.

BTW if this piece was real journalism and not anti-Christian propaganda, the "news" source would've found the nearest Christian pastor/deacon/reverend/priest and asked about the Bible and this couple's alleged barbarism.




>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:


A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.

Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.

Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

Don't tell my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
Cause jihad the libs don't understand
And since you told my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
A drone locked on and killed this man

Don't tell my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
Cause jihad the libs don't understand
And since you told my heart, my Al-awlaki heart
A drone locked on and killed this man

~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

>> ^criticalthud:

look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me. And under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?
or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.


You may need your eyes checked. Here are the two 'suspects' you are comparing:

1.Neighbor that looks suspicious, they maybe even wear a turban.
2.Man who's written multiple books and essays on how and why to wage Jihad against America on it's own streets. A man who we have phone records for his mentoring of a person that shot and killed multiple Americans on American soil.

Do those two look the same or remotely comparable to you? There's no question the precedent is troublesome, but you don't think your example is a touch.... extreme?

>> ^Duckman33:

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.
And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.
As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?



Your gonna go with 'people change'? Tell me, your study of Awlaki, did it include where he was and what he was doing when he died? Seems as though his past and present were still in harmony, no?

I'm all for asking Obama tough questions. Unfortunately the 'tough' questions being asked here are banal, obvious and easy to ask. It's the underlying problems that are hard. Instead of asking about the legalities and controversy around killing a mass murder in Yemen, maybe they could probe something both tougher and more helpful. Like what's his position on supporting a dictator in Yemen opposed by Al-Qaida dominated rebels? But it's more politically beneficial to ask the flashy and sexy questions about one dead bad guy.

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.

And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.

As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

>> ^Duckman33:

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.



I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.

If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.

Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.

If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?

If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

durka durka mohammed jihad! durka durka durka


I love these guys!

Also loved South Park kids telling the Aristocrats Joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKGHVA6rb0

That clip was on the aristocrats movie

the recreation of sep 11 was horrible but soooo devilishly funny

>> ^critical_d:

dead
We're sorry but this video is no longer available in this player.
Please go here to get new embed code


I went "here" and got the embed. Fixed. Thanks.