The website may be biased, but the polls listed are world recognized polls that are mostly above reproach. Christianity is not at the table on this, nobody is saying that there aren't wackos involved in any religion, but realistically how many christian holy war incidents can you list in the last 20 years? I mean real incidents, not just some random guy doing one thing to a doctor or clinic, but a group of holy christian fighters blowing up swathes of people or beheading them. It's not in the same ballpark, in fact it isn't the same league, or sport.

As far as US international policy goes, we do stupid shit a lot of the time. Other times we get dragged into shit because people complain if we don't. Personally I wish we would cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to go pound sand when they ask for help, but again it is not the issue of discussion we are looking at.

The issue is whether or not Islam, due to the nature of it's teachings, promotes certain things that lead to war and/or brutal acts. The fact is that it does, assuming you follow the tenets laid forth in the Koran and other works, such as the Sunnah and the anecdotes of the 12 Imams.

What other religion currently follows these tenets in it's religious laws?

- Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion.
- If a person has never been a Muslim, he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi and pay a Jizyah tax. They cannot practice their religions openly and they also do not have the same rights and legal protections as Muslims.
- Death penalty for Homosexuals
- Numerous women's rights violations and restrictions
- Child marriage
- Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. It is only very recently that it has started to be redefined by a small amount of Muslims as being possible to be non-violent in nature.

As it stands, Islam is not a religion of peace but of strife. Unless you are a casual follower, you will be trying to promote tenets of this religion either through non-violent or violent ways. As we can see around the world and even through the events of the Arab Spring, the violent ways are far more likely.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

@ChaosEngine I totally get what you are saying. I'm only taking issue with this statement: "it is still practiced in modern Islam."

Would you say that because Jehovah's witnesses refuse to have blood transfusions that it is a practice of "modern" Christianity? No, of course you wouldn't. Jehovah's witnesses are interpreting the Bible/Christianity in a very specific way but you can't claim their beliefs represent mainstream Christian thinking.

Similarly, while there are certainly those who claim female genital mutilation is required in Islam, they aren't mainstream or "modern" in any sense of the word, particularly when you see where the vast majority of FGMs are occurring and the populations (generally poor and uneducated) that are performing them.

So I find that claiming this is a practice of Islam actually conflates the discussion about Islam (and FGM) unnecessarily. About the worst you can say is that in the Koran, Mohammad meets a woman who performs FGMs and she asks him if what she is doing is wrong. He replies along the lines that no, it isn't necessarily wrong but that she shouldn't cut too much away and goes on to elaborate that it is the duty of men to be circumcised but an honor if a woman does it.

So, if you want to criticize Islam about FGM, you can point to this and note that the Koran doesn't denounce the practice--but it also doesn't explicitly require it either.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

>> ^chingalera:

You'd think that since these drones can pinpoint a target and place ordinance onnit to within inches that the "innocents" that get caught in the cross-hairs might be associated with the wrong compound, structure, or lean-to. If you hang with Al. you must be a pal, eh?
That Muslim-to-be in the form of a child, destined for a similar penchant for developmental disability in such close proximity to, and under the care of, some twisted Muslim douchebag well, chances are reasonably predictable that the fruit wouldn't fall far from the tree anyhow.
Tough decisions in a fucked-up world full of delusional Koran and Bible bangers....Whattteryagonnado?
You don't see Sikhs er Zoroastrians making any bombs or popping-off rhetoric?! Any Hindu homicide bombers?
Hell, even Jesus told folks to keep their fucking religion to themselves!!
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."


Just keep defending a failed state, that crushes people under it's boot at will.

You'd think that since these drones can pinpoint a target and place ordinance onnit to within inches that the "innocents" that get caught in the cross-hairs might be associated with the wrong compound, structure, or lean-to. If you hang with Al. you must be a pal, eh?
That Muslim-to-be in the form of a child, destined for a similar penchant for developmental disability in such close proximity to, and under the care of, some twisted Muslim douchebag well, chances are reasonably predictable that the fruit wouldn't fall far from the tree anyhow.

Tough decisions in a fucked-up world full of delusional Koran and Bible bangers....Whattteryagonnado?

You don't see Sikhs er Zoroastrians making any bombs or popping-off rhetoric?! Any Hindu homicide bombers?
Hell, even Jesus told folks to keep their fucking religion to themselves!!

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions. There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^SDGundamX:
You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that).
"Islamophobe" is a word the reality-challenged use so they can more easily compartmentalize and parse a confusing world. I am no more islamophobe than I am a cilantrophobe, Romneyphobe, or panflutophobe.
I've been registered since 2006, but that has nothing to do with recognizing there are some hardened ignoramuses here (although I'm sure you don't like to be called that). There will be Islamic "extremists" and "fundamentalists" (or, as @gorillaman correctly stated, Muslims) as long as the Koran exists, because they are simply following what it tells them to do. Moderate or peaceful Muslims are not (at least, on the whole). They ignore much of the cornerstone of their religion, choosing to cherry-pick from it those tenets that suit them and the kind of life they wish to lead, just as all the various Christian "sects and factions" selectively follow the Bible.
Now, I'm all for muslims who choose to live peaceful, tolerant, and inclusive lives. If you're going to believe in magic and ancient fairy tales, I'd much rather your delusions lead you to First World, socially acceptable life choices. But portraying them as true Muslims is just ignorant, and denies what Islam is. Islamic "fundamentalists" are far, far from a fringe group.


Just for the record, I wasn't implying you specifically were an Islamophobe. Certainly there are lots of Sifters who have submitted anti-<insert pretty much any religion name here> vids to the Sift because they know they'll get a little traction and probably get Sifted. Congrats on getting Sifted, by the way.

Also for the record, Islamophobe is a word used to describe an irrational fear of Muslims that usually leads to discrimination in some form, whether that be people calling for the prevention of the building of a proposed mosque or spying on the entire population of Muslims without cause across multiple states and trying to pass it off as "anti-terrorism tactics" (i.e. the NYPD).

So the view that Islamophobia is "reality-challenged" seems itself to be "reality-challenged" as the above real-world examples indicate.

P.S. Calling someone who disagrees with you an ignoramus says tons more about you and your argumentation skills than it does about your opponent.

>> ^SDGundamX:

You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that).

"Islamophobe" is a word the reality-challenged use so they can more easily compartmentalize and parse a confusing world. I am no more islamophobe than I am a cilantrophobe, Romneyphobe, or panflutophobe.

I've been registered since 2006, but that has nothing to do with recognizing there are some hardened ignoramuses here (although I'm sure you don't like to be called that). There will be Islamic "extremists" and "fundamentalists" (or, as @gorillaman correctly stated, Muslims) as long as the Koran exists, because they are simply following what it tells them to do. Moderate or peaceful Muslims are not (at least, on the whole). They ignore much of the cornerstone of their religion, choosing to cherry-pick from it those tenets that suit them and the kind of life they wish to lead, just as all the various Christian "sects and factions" selectively follow the Bible.

Now, I'm all for muslims who choose to live peaceful, tolerant, and inclusive lives. If you're going to believe in magic and ancient fairy tales, I'd much rather your delusions lead you to First World, socially acceptable life choices. But portraying them as true Muslims is just ignorant, and denies what Islam is. Islamic "fundamentalists" are far, far from a fringe group.

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

Let's see...

A bunch of students were invited to a seminar that described as being about "bullying". They are instead exposed to anti-religious bigotry and sexual innuendo. Rather than sit and listen to insults directed at their belief system, they decided to leave. As they leave, the speaker taunts them further and uses profanities. Oh - yeah - that's not bullying. :eyeroll: This guy is a class-A hypocrite and a jack@$$.

Let's change the parameters slightly. A bunch of journalism students are invited to a speech about Community Service, and the speaker is an Iraq War veteran who starts calling the Koran a bunch of bullcrap, and talking about how much he likes to dress up his lover in a burqa (wink wink). 100 or so Muslim students are offended and get up to leave, and the guy calls the audience's attention to them and starts calling them a bunch of pansy-@$$ cowards. Ha ha ha. Still "not bullying"?

I feel sorry for the kids, but frankly I hope this slimeball keeps doing stuff like this. It proves to everyone (except for the radical, leftist fringe lunatic crowd) just what a sleaze he is. He's a bigot just as bad as the bigots he claims to condemn. He isn't against bigotry and hate. He's just against any bigotry and hate of which he hasn't personally approved. That makes him a demagogue, and his audience is simply other bigots... Bigots like this...

"Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already?"

Classic anti-religious hate and bigotry on parade. Savage of course is constantly going around fomenting such sad, unfortunate, hate-filled suckers. Amazing that these same zealots can mourn the difficulty of achieving a 'peaceful society', and yet fail to see that the primary reason for all this violence is staring at them every time they look in the mirror.

Dan Savage's Blog this morning:

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%.

It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.

I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.

First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.

Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.

This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.

Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.

Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.

It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.

Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.

Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.

Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.

You're correct about polygamy tending to flourish within misogynistic, inbred religious extremist cults. Polygamy doesn't bother me in the slightest. What bothers me are people twisting religious custom into a mask for evil and abuse. Evil hides in all sorts of places where there's an unbendable power hierarchy - Sports teams, Boy Scouts, the armed forces, Residential Schools, etc.

The Shafia trial has just ended not far from where I live. Members of the Muslim community repeated the same message: this is not about religion, this is about abuse -- abuse of women and abuse of power. I heard over and over again from devout Muslims that the only people who would interpret the Koran as condoning 'honour' killing are certifiably insane.

Back to the original topic, gay marriage. Like it or not, an inclusive society must by definition include many conflicting opinions, even bigoted ones.