@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.

>> ^SDGundamX:
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say


Uh.. thats EXACTLY what they say, have you even read them? The first THREE commandments deal with this, by forbidding effectively any other viewpoints. There's a reason they are not called The Ten Suggestions.

I know that most religious people don't interpret them this way today, but this doesnt excuse or explain away the actual texts.

The point is that clearly, the morality of those with the modern, liberal interpretation of the ten commandments, do not come from the ten commandments. If they had based their morality on the commandments, then they would not think of the commandments as vague guidelines that can mostly be ignored. Most modern Christians, for instance, support religious freedom, while the very first commandment strictly forbids it.

Even the three commandments that actually deals with anything of concern to a 21st century human, the ones about lying,stealing and killing are first of all to general, vague and imprecise to actually be of any use in forming a proper morality, besides, its pretty obvious that humans have had a basic understanding of these concepts and why they are wrong, or the human race would never have, as Hitchens has pointed out, gotten as far as mount Sinai, or anywhere else for that matter.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

Thank you Seth McFkface, creator of the unfunny "Cleveland Show", a weekly insult to Blacks.

This mosque-with-alibi-attached is an affront to Americans murdered by islam. The dolts who shrug that off should at the very least recognize poor taste.

The imam behind it is a POS radical (big surprise) "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic." That's the vermin's quote.

The quran states it is acceptable to lie to and deceive non-believers.

muslims build mosques to memorialize their conquests.

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord. The faithful muslim has three choices when meeting a non-believer: convert them, enslave them or kill them.

There are a few handfuls of "moderate" muslims. BFD. They are 'wise' cowards who don't speak out against the radicals, therefore they get what they deserve.

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.

Mosque support hamas, wtf? Well I guess Cathedrals support raping children by that logic?! This is just embarrassing to American religious freedom, they should all be ashamed. They are using their freedom of speech to supplant peoples right to practice religion, crazy.

>> ^bobknight33:

Religious freedom yes but for a the most murderous religion on the planet who is responsible for 911 to build a mosque near ground zero is a big slap in the face. Americans are so against this but the friendly left wants to have warm fuzzes in their harts.
Thanks netrunner - funny clip


You don't have the right to not be insulted.

If you're afraid of what might happen as a result of this community center, then you're a coward.

Having freedoms means sacrificing some safety. If you'd rather have safety, go to another country.

>> ^bobknight33:

Religious freedom yes but for a the most murderous religion on the planet who is responsible for 911 to build a mosque near ground zero is a big slap in the face. Americans are so against this but the friendly left wants to have warm fuzzes in their harts.
Thanks netrunner - funny clip


911 911 911 911

Also, Hitler.

Religious freedom yes but for a the most murderous religion on the planet who is responsible for 911 to build a mosque near ground zero is a big slap in the face. Americans are so against this but the friendly left wants to have warm fuzzes in their harts.

Thanks netrunner - funny clip

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

For once, Obama says something that actually isn't entirely stupid. It is too bad that his sudden attack of, "Hey this isn't something the Federal government does..." is so selective and horribly misapplied. The reason the GOP will score a massive PR win over this issue is NOT because Obama is approving a Mosque on the grounds of religious freedom as an aspect of the Bill of Rights. Obama will get hammered because he's standing up for ONE aspect of freedom while he's been relentlessly undermining just about every other aspect of American freedom and Constitutional rights.

He's for the Mosque - but he's against Arizona's right to enforce the law. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the right of the people of California to make their own laws. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the Bill of Rights when it applies to freedom of religious expression for Christians in schools or other places. He's for freedom when it comes to Mosques - but he's against it when it comes to the free market, people buying insurance, and on and on and on...

That's why he's going to get hammered. Not because of his CORRECT position on freedom of religion for the mosque - but because of his WRONG positions on freedoms for just about everything else. P.S. This isn't a federal issue anway. None of his business. The only people that deserve a flogging are the numbnutz on the NY housing board who decided to say the site was not a historical landmark. It was the only site on that whole block not designated as a historical landmark, and they deliberately chose not to make it one against the will of the people of their own state just to make some odd statement (which was NOT freedom of religion).

Yep, I know the christians hate it, but religious freedom ftw!

Religious freedom, bitches!

>> ^bcglorf:

Give them time, they're young.
You say that, but you don't really mean it.
Scientology shouldn't be given time to moderate itself, it should be labeled as the dangerous and destructive cult it is. It should be marginalized and ideally driven to the 'religious' status of Jedi Knights where it is at least understood that the foundation was a sci-fi work from a sci-fi author.
I must say, I'm pretty surprised we can't agree on that.
I can only presume your so keen to class scientology as a religion because that means all the more targets for your barbs against religion. The irony is that you're arguing for the recognition and legitimization of yet another religion. Wouldn't you rather be advocating for us to be heading in the other direction?
That's where I am and it frustrates me to no end when someone like you so helpfully jumps in to the defense of one of the most easily discredited cults out there.
Chop your idealism down a little and start for reform of 'religious' freedoms being limited to those belief systems that are willing to openly and freely share their beliefs and whose teachings include a minimum bar of tolerance.


Oh my god, are you new to the internet or something? I'm arguing, through sarcasm, that all religions should be marginalized and destroyed because they are all guilty of the types of things you want Scientology to be marginalized for.

Give them time, they're young.

You say that, but you don't really mean it.

Scientology shouldn't be given time to moderate itself, it should be labeled as the dangerous and destructive cult it is. It should be marginalized and ideally driven to the 'religious' status of Jedi Knights where it is at least understood that the foundation was a sci-fi work from a sci-fi author.

I must say, I'm pretty surprised we can't agree on that.

I can only presume your so keen to class scientology as a religion because that means all the more targets for your barbs against religion. The irony is that you're arguing for the recognition and legitimization of yet another religion. Wouldn't you rather be advocating for us to be heading in the other direction?

That's where I am and it frustrates me to no end when someone like you so helpfully jumps in to the defense of one of the most easily discredited cults out there.

Chop your idealism down a little and start for reform of 'religious' freedoms being limited to those belief systems that are willing to openly and freely share their beliefs and whose teachings include a minimum bar of tolerance.

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

Surely he doesn't need one. I normally find Dawkins to be possessed by an irritatingly superiority and smugness, but on this point he is entirely justified in having it.

Let's repeat what was said. By Sharia law, in any Islamic country, converting from Islam is to be punished by death. Can anybody in favor of religious freedoms honestly say they have no problem with this? If your religious views consider it ok to murder people for converting away from your faith, I'd call that a valid point of criticism of your faith, no matter which country you are in.

Here in the Western world, we the ignorant infidels don't tolerate that kind of backwards garbage.