@SDGundamX

You really don't seem to get it; you keep saying that Harris (and myself) are speaking of Muslims as a group, when what is being discussed, what you so blithely discard, is the motivation that the ideology of Islam provides for violent and unethical action. Where does sharia law come from? Islam. Why do certain populations fight to keep it in place? Because of their religious faith. Why is terrorism and suicide bombing depicted as religious martyrdom by certain religious leaders and a percentage of muslims? Because it has basis in the Qur'an.
Harris is not saying "be afraid of muslims", he's saying "beware the content and effects of Islamic ideology when put into practice".

I should have known that you would not be content with the evidence, because what you want me to show is something I do not argue (nor does Harris), i.e. that muslims are more prone to violence than non-muslims. Just because the effects of an ideology and its doctrines are not universally put into action by its adherents does not mean that it bears no effect. In Uganda, the MP responsible for the "Kill the gays" bill makes it very clear that his motivations are religious, but according to your (il)logic, because other countries with Christian populations do not punish homosexuality with the death penalty, this bill has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nobody is saying that religion is the only cause or aggravating circumstance in all these cases of violence and unethical behaviour, but it is definitely one to be reckoned with; and Islam, in this day and age, is the religious ideology that causes the most harm around the world. If you can't see that, fine, remain willfully oblivious to what is happening around the world, but don't think for a minute that the millions of muslims suffering because of Islam (yes, the majority of its victims are muslims themselves) are going to thank you for your culturally relativistic "respect".

>> ^bareboards2:
As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.
I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.
I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.
So there is my proof that this is what I meant.
I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.
What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming.
And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.
Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.



That's cool.. thanks for enlightening me here. I didn't mean to cast aspersions but I guess that shows how easy it can be to misinterpet peoples intentions/beliefs, which really underscores your point I think. I wouldn't say I feel beat up, just that there seemed to be a tone here. I'll go with your assesment for now.

Personally, I don't tell people what to believe. That is what free will is for. It's up to them to draw their own conclusions. If someone asks, I will answer. If someone is mistating, I will correct. Other than that, to each his own. I will speak the truth as I know it, and hopefully someone will listen, but that's as far as I go. If you try to force something on someone, it just pushes them farther away.

As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.

I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.

I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.

So there is my proof that this is what I meant.

I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.

What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming. edit - And of course when the Bible is used to trump science. That gives me the screaming mimis.

And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.

Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.





>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting


The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting



The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)

So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

A gay man was beat to death in Uganda yesterday. Quite possibly [edit] for being gay. The Christian Right from America went over there and helped roil up the country against homosexuals.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/27/ugandan-gay-rights-activist-murdered

Yesterday. Yesterday. Repeat after me.

Yesterday.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

>> ^EMPIRE:

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.
Lack of education is at the root of all problems.

>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.



Ok, I mistook the feeling behind your original post. You should know though that in general use, ignorant is not a neutral term, it's derogative. It usually implies a negative feeling toward the person being described as ignorant. You are entirely correct that the dictionary definition you've found is right, but you must understand the context. Maybe you should explain yourself better in the future when using terms that could be misleading or give people the wrong idea.

Please don't claim you don't understand that the word ignorant is usually used as an insult, we're all cleverer than that here.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general;

It doesn't say "lacking knowledge by choice". An ignorant is still an ignorant, doesn't matter if forced to it or by choice. Uganda has a high illiteracy rate, which I'm sure says a lot about this.

Lack of education is at the root of all problems.


>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.
Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.
The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.
Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.
To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"


No. Another country on the list of countries run by closed circles of people. We live in coutries with free press, where we get to hear the other point of view. Just think of how much of your world view is formed by what you see in the press. You now have a good idea of how things are in Uganda, but I'm betting you've never been there and seen it with your own eyes. Your view is from what you see/hear in your free press.

Now imagine you live in a country without a free press. How do you know it's not free? You're being told it is. Your world view is being shaped every step of the way. You're being told what to think, but here's the worst bit: You probably don't realise you're being told what to think.

The people in power are constantly shaping the way a nation thinks. It isn't fair to say the people are ignorant. They aren't given the chance to ignore anything. You make your comment because you don't like the way a group of people are being so obviously discriminated against. And yet your comment is discriminating against Ugandans who you've never met and who's views you don't know.

Discrimination like this is a bad thing, let's all stay away from it.

To be clear, I'm not saying this guy is right in any way at all. I'm just saying that all we know is that these are his views. You don't know what is going on in Uganda, so don't tar all Ugandans with the same brush.

Uganda... another country in the list of "mostly made up of ignorants"

Ugh, this is disgusting. The so-called "scientific studies" that "prove" that circumcision diminishes AIDS infection were done in three African countries (Uganda, Kenya and S. Africa), where basic hygiene is still a major problem (amongst many others).

Besides, why do it to non-consenting infants? Does one expect them to have sex in their childhood??

Tags for this video have been changed from 'analingus, salad tossing, uganda, minister, foolish, homosexuality' to 'analingus, salad tossing, uganda, minister, foolish, homosexuality, like ice cream' - edited by Fusionaut

Uganda borders Sudan, Rwanda and the Congo. If you want to be more depressed, realize that 'leadership' like this is actually an upward direction from those neighboring countries.

wow, rachel really seemed to be taking this very personally... claws out *rawr*

as an interesting aside, penn & teller's bullshit! season 3, episode 2 'family values' has a section (begins at 14:50) on cohen and his 'therapy' - what's particularly interesting in the clip is that it shows cohen 'treating' a black man who has 'unwanted same-sex attraction' ... if you watch rachel's coverage and the p&t clips carefully, you'll notice that the cohen 'patient' and the cohen 'rep' sent to uganda to speak-out... are one and the same person

http://www.videosift.com/video/bot-fly-removal
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bot-fly-larvae-in-some-poor-guys-backdisgusting436
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mango-Fly-Larvae-Extraction-on-Girls-in-Uganda
http://www.videosift.com/video/Maggot-in-head

The sift sure loves it's "Ewwww, that's gross! Zoom in closer!" videos, huh