So we can't criticise Islam unless we live under a theocratic regime that doesn't allow us to criticise Islam?

Let me very clear. I believe that the vast majority of muslims (any figure would be a guess, but I'll go with at least 90%) are decent people who, deep down, are probably kinda embarrassed at some of the bullshit inherent in their religion (much as the majority of catholics are truly disgusted at their churchs handling of child rape cases).

But that does not stop me from criticising the ideology within the religion. This is not some hypothetical internet argument; the WHO estimates that 140 million girls have their genitals mutilated annually, most in the name of Islam. (I'm not even going to start on the socially accepted genital mutilation of males).

Finally, I take issue with the term "islamophobia", not because it's an *irrational* fear, but because it's a *fear*. I am not afraid of Islam. I object to parts of it on moral grounds.

So yeah, call me an "internet atheist" if you want. Unless you have some evidence to back up your specious little rant, I'm not interested.

I like the hair too. HATE the eyebrows. Jesus ladies stop mutilating your eyebrows.

Violence, death and danger raises the stakes of a narrative and triggers the production of adrenaline in the minds of the viewer. Our ancient ancestors got the same rush by outrunning a grizzly bear. Luckily, we can tap into this brain narcotic with much less risk.

There are films that do seem to pointlessly revel in gore and suffering, most notably Saw 1-26, but Quentin certainly isn't guilty of this kind of torture porn. Steven Spielberg killed at least as many Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark as Quentin killed racist confederates in Django, but Spielberg never gets criticized for it. The violence in both films serve the dual purposes of making the bad guys really bad, and making the catharsis of revenge in the end really good.

Violence in media is a reflection of violence in culture, not the other way around. Quentin didn't dream up slavery, lynchings, torture, mutilation and the other types of racial violence in his film. That stuff really happened.

And to Spike Lee: Django blowing racists to hell with TNT is how Tarrentino deals with race in cinema. Mookie tossing a garbage can through the front window of Sal's pizzaria is how you deal with race in cinema. Both are great films with the same perspective on race done in completely different styles. Get over yourself. If you want to criticize a film about race directed by a white guy, do 'Crash', that movie was a patronizing pile of shit.

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.


I agree 100% about the nonequivalence in moral transgressions. My point of comparison between the two was more how they both are cultural milestones whose influence permeate much of human artistic production and in that sense are an important part of adult cultural baggage, but not childhood teaching tools (Ovid perhaps more for the wtf-ishness).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.

>> ^hpqp:

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.



There was never any incest or genocide the way that they tell them. It matters a lot how you present the stories.

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.


I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

My son is intact. There's no good reason to mutilate someone's genitals. I plan on teaching him about condoms, which are far more effective in the prevention of HIV.

I am all for mutilation. My Penis looks way sexier than with the curtains closed.

I should write an email to my parents right now, screw it, I am txting them.

" thanks for the circumcision, see you at reunion 2012 "

Thanks for the inspiration HPQP.

I almost had an small adult circumcision for medical reasons (simply TOO BIG for the foreskin), but me a doctorman decided that we didn't have to cut too much, and just did a little snip thing. YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED FEAR UNTIL BLOOD RUNS FROM YOUR PENIS!

Anyways, that was an example of an actual good reason for getting it. Mutilating children with this is just barbaric. We don't cut off parts of the ear, just because we get earwax, or because we have to "hear the word of God" - but we do if our earlobe gets skin cancer.


Reason, people. Germany has it. Well, they do now.

Damn, I was hoping to be the first one to comment meaningfully about this subject: seems I came up short (zing!).

I am circumcised. My lady friend and I (who have been together more than five years) have discussed at length (oh! I'm too good) whether I would want a son of mine to be cut as well, so I have mulled this over quite a bit.

Being a nonsuperstitious man (read: nontheist), the only consideration on side of cutting my offspring is that moment in the shower when he is two years old and he asks, "Daddy, why are you different?" (Heading off those who do not yet have children in the close family, I should say that bathing at such a young age with the older crew is not uncommon no matter what your culture.) For a son to see that he is truly, physically different from his old man is probably quite a shock.

Here is the bottom line: I have ZERO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER telling my son that I was cut because of a superstition; that my penis looks the way it does because of a superstitious bond between my parents and their imaginary friend. I am in fact quite excited to tell my young man that there was a time when this kind of thing was necessary so that people could feel closer to whatever it was they thought made the universe. I am excited because it will engender in him the same cynicism that took me more than a decade to discover.

My own father was born and raised Catholic and went to Jesuit schools from pre-K to law school. As Jesus-loving and God-fearing as he was on the surface, he made sure to let me know the barbarism is barbarism. To imagine that genital mutilation is part of a legitimate religious commitment is so far out of whack with current legal and cultural norms. Fuck circumcision and all its superstitious implications.

People still claim health benefits from circumcision. Why? so you too can mutilate your kids? One nurse told us (about our newborn) to pull the foreskin back regularly to clean underneath! Craziness! The doctor told us pull it back no more than enough to expose the tip for any cleaning. That foreskin stays put and seals off the rest of the head until you are horny enough in puberty to pull it back yourself (not very painful when you are horny, believe me). This is probably similar in function to the hymen in that it makes for a smaller chance of an infection.

"What caused me discomfort far more acute - because it was mental, not bodily - were the illustrations of the bestiality, the futility, the insanity of war and of the system that produced war as surely as land uncultivated produces noxious weeds: these were now forced on my notice every day. "

"The first cart of dead that I saw, legs sticking out stiffly, heads lolling on shoulders, all the poor bodies shovelled into a pit and covered with quicklime, made me wonder what the owners had been doing when they were called up, crammed into uniforms, and told to kill, maim, mutilate other men like themselves, with whom they had no quarrel. All of them had left behind many who would be grieved, perhaps beggared, by their taking off. And all to no purpose, for nothing."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWstretcher.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jfyfe.htm

Our military gets kids before they are diagnosed with any mental disorders... they dont weed those with OCD and depression and daddy issues out... we give them guns and tell them they are killers, then they realize its all bullshit and they suicide or go apeshit... at a higher rate than other professions.

you couldnt make a better formula for disaster and record profits. a war that isn't involving most of the population of the country winning is not really a war. its a game for profit and young men who like to feel important.