UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Mr Sparkle]

ATG said:

Mr Sparkle said:

Indeed, but why are all the violent ones in there?

Coz they were written by people, and the urge for a bit of righteous anger and retribution is a common human trait, just like as it is for people to wishing we'd all be nicer to each other. We're all a mass of contradictory urges and thoughts, so why wouldn't we expect our religious texts to be the same? (Unless of course you believe in gods?)

I was implying that a text that gives permission to be violent can't redeem itself by then giving the opposite view in the next paragraph since permission to be violent has already been given. Hence the text incites violence.

[carmonk]

ATG said:

carmonk said:

You haven't done it yet.

I think you did it for me when you said that "a religious person has to make a choice" ... the text doesn't pull them along by the nose; the reader can't avoid using their own judgement.

The guidance may not be explicit but by and large it is clear to anybody who isn't insistent on assigning metaphorical explanations where there is no need.

ATG said:

The religious often claim to be holding on to eternal, invariant truths as expressed in their sacred texts. But step back and look at the reality. At any one point in time you'll see dozens of competing interpretations. And if you look across history the mainstream interpretations vary even more wildly. With every generation every society reinvents its religions. Stable, prosperous societies lead to moderation and tolerance ... violent chaos breeds violent and chaotic religion. People turn to their religious texts and see their own immediate world reflected back at them. Someone who wants to find justification for retribution will find it. Someone who wants to find tolerance will find it.

So why are some religions, notably Islam, responsible for significantly more violence than others, say Buddhism? The fact is that it's disengenuous in the extreme to say religion is just what the individual chooses. Yes, they must make choices but the overarching message is often clear.

[968]

The real Apache said:

Are you a cretin?

I think you've demonstrated with your initial post and your failure to notice the irony of the above link, shows you must be pretty thick. Thanks for confirming that by posting the above comment, rather than commenting on the link posted.

[Lost soul]

968 said:

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

The difference is these guys will be going to the big house for a long long time and so they should

[ATG]

Mr Sparkle said:

ATG said:

Mr Sparkle said:

Indeed, but why are all the violent ones in there?

Coz they were written by people, and the urge for a bit of righteous anger and retribution is a common human trait, just like as it is for people to wishing we'd all be nicer to each other. We're all a mass of contradictory urges and thoughts, so why wouldn't we expect our religious texts to be the same? (Unless of course you believe in gods?)

I was implying that a text that gives permission to be violent can't redeem itself by then giving the opposite view in the next paragraph since permission to be violent has already been given. Hence the text incites violence.

Uhm ... why does one carry more weight than the other?

[carmonk]

Lost soul said:

968 said:

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

The difference is these guys will be going to the big house for a long long time and so they should

And, I don't see tens of thousands of Westerners marching through the streets praising their name and shouting that they are heroes. Still, 968 will be explaining the relevance of his link any time now.

[Godzuki]

ATG said:

Uhm ... why does one carry more weight than the other?

Which DOES carry more weight? The one that says kill, or the one that doesn't?

[The real Apache]

968 said:

The real Apache said:

Are you a cretin?

I think you've demonstrated with your initial post and your failure to notice the irony of the above link, shows you must be pretty thick. Thanks for confirming that by posting the above comment, rather than commenting on the link posted.

Irony? I doubt it somehow, you've merely done what you always do whenever anyone dares to express their dismay or disgust at the way these backward religious idiots behave, throw up an irrelevant 'look, westerners can be savages too' post

[968]

Lost soul said:

The difference is these guys will be going to the big house for a long long time and so they should

The article suggests that this action was long overdue and was more of a scapegoating action rather than tackling a systemic problem. Whatever the outcome, the actions of these 'savages' are no different to the 'savages' who murdered the UN workers. Let's hope that the brilliant democratic judicial system set up by the Afghan govt and supported by us can bring the perpetrators to justice.

[968]

The real Apache said:

Irony? I doubt it somehow, you've merely done what you always do whenever anyone dares to express their dismay or disgust at the way these backward religious idiots behave, throw up an irrelevant 'look, westerners can be savages too' post

Ah I see, you are actually quite thick then.

[ATG]

carmonk said:

ATG said:

carmonk said:

You haven't done it yet.

I think you did it for me when you said that "a religious person has to make a choice" ... the text doesn't pull them along by the nose; the reader can't avoid using their own judgement.

The guidance may not be explicit but by and large it is clear to anybody who isn't insistent on assigning metaphorical explanations where there is no need.

ATG said:

The religious often claim to be holding on to eternal, invariant truths as expressed in their sacred texts. But step back and look at the reality. At any one point in time you'll see dozens of competing interpretations. And if you look across history the mainstream interpretations vary even more wildly. With every generation every society reinvents its religions. Stable, prosperous societies lead to moderation and tolerance ... violent chaos breeds violent and chaotic religion. People turn to their religious texts and see their own immediate world reflected back at them. Someone who wants to find justification for retribution will find it. Someone who wants to find tolerance will find it.

So why are some religions, notably Islam, responsible for significantly more violence than others, say Buddhism? The fact is that it's disengenuous in the extreme to say religion is just what the individual chooses. Yes, they must make choices but the overarching message is often clear.

"By and large it is clear" ... oh really? Then why are so many Islamic scholars needed to interpret the teachings for the believers? Why are there different sects with different beliefs?

Your argument is hopeless. Give it up. If it was as clear cut as you suggest, do you really think no one else would have noticed?

[Godzuki]

Let's keep it civil, before it spirals!

[carmonk]

Godzuki said:

ATG said:

Uhm ... why does one carry more weight than the other?

Which DOES carry more weight? The one that says kill, or the one that doesn't?

In our society, the one that says kill. If I incite someone to murder then a defence of me later saying the opposite isn't likely to vindicate me in court.

[The real Apache]

968 said:

The real Apache said:

Are you a cretin?

I think you've demonstrated with your initial post and your failure to notice the irony of the above link, shows you must be pretty thick. Thanks for confirming that by posting the above comment, rather than commenting on the link posted.

dunno what you expect really when you insinuate I can't read

[968]

Godzuki said:

Let's keep it civil, before it spirals!

I think civility disappeared with the first post of this thread, wouldn't you say?

[The real Apache]

968 said:

The real Apache said:

Irony? I doubt it somehow, you've merely done what you always do whenever anyone dares to express their dismay or disgust at the way these backward religious idiots behave, throw up an irrelevant 'look, westerners can be savages too' post

Ah I see, you are actually quite thick then.

good answer, predictable but good

[Godzuki]

968 said:

I think civility disappeared with the first post of this thread, wouldn't you say?

You really think that the first post wasn't civil? It wasn't insulting every muslim, just the religitards who committed the act.

[The real Apache]

968 said:

Lost soul said:

The difference is these guys will be going to the big house for a long long time and so they should

The article suggests that this action was long overdue and was more of a scapegoating action rather than tackling a systemic problem. Whatever the outcome, the actions of these 'savages' are no different to the 'savages' who murdered the UN workers. Let's hope that the brilliant democratic judicial system set up by the Afghan govt and supported by us can bring the perpetrators to justice.

If you are capable of responding without sarcasm or insult I'd like to respond by saying there is a big difference. The Afghan savages are doing this because of a belief system, the americans are just savages

[Mr Sparkle]

ATG said:

Mr Sparkle said:

ATG said:

Mr Sparkle said:

Indeed, but why are all the violent ones in there?

Coz they were written by people, and the urge for a bit of righteous anger and retribution is a common human trait, just like as it is for people to wishing we'd all be nicer to each other. We're all a mass of contradictory urges and thoughts, so why wouldn't we expect our religious texts to be the same? (Unless of course you believe in gods?)

I was implying that a text that gives permission to be violent can't redeem itself by then giving the opposite view in the next paragraph since permission to be violent has already been given. Hence the text incites violence.

Uhm ... why does one carry more weight than the other?

Perhaps because the local imam said it does, or perhaps because one seems to be more of a theme throughout the whole text. Regardless of this, if the book gives permission to kill it is inciting violence and that is what we are seeing in 2011 - horrifying violence in the name of a book from the dark ages that is leaving its followers increasing behind modern times in all aspects of life.

[anonymous-user]

western governments need to keep the heroin flowing

surely no one is still under the illusion that western governments aren't complicit in the drugs business?