[mtautomoscow]

Mad dogs. All of them.

[interznakinfo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Holy cow! This is no time for clever puns

[Jjfotqse]

Originally posted by Winston
Obligatory: It's not just Islam, all religion is bad, m'kay? yes.

[Nekas48]

Religion of peace. Need to make pyramids of skulls like Khan.

[skydaypat]

[Hrennilasi]

Originally posted by C0ckney
this is truly awful.

there have been several attacks in india this year, perpetrated in the main by the so called 'indian mujahideen' (the similar sounding 'deccan mujahideen' have claimed responsibility this time). this attack though, seems to represent a new level of planning and sophistication. Three are reports that the attackers came from a cargo ship which was anchored off the shore of Mumbai. The terrorists were seen coming ashore on speed boats. The ship has been seized by the Indian navy.

[pongeystrhjst]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


An atheist nation recently slaughtered Tibetian protestors. Another atheist nation recently sentenced Myanmar protestors to life imprisonment. Yet another atheist nation continues to play footsie with the nuclear arms race while North Koreans are forced to eat their children.

Is teh atheist religion bad too? Yep, the atheists who form a religion around atheists (with meetings, etc) are no better than the theists. Good catch, but a spectacular miss all the same.

Otherwise there is no such thing as an "atheist religion".

[TerriLS]

This action seems the most tense in few years. The attack seems to be quite massive, two hotels are still kept in a hostage situation, random events here and there, explosions... they say that at least 100 people killed, 290 wounded so far, action continues. Woah.

[elalmhicabalp]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


no, its mainly islam Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They're engines for conflict.

The fact that your entire country exists has caused countless peoples' deaths, and your religion is the reason your country exists.

Don't even ****ing try to pretend that it's mainly Islam, it's all of you. You just think you're the good guys, just like they think they're the good guys.

[ViagraFeller]

I read the thread title as "massive tesseract campaign" -- then opened my morning newspaper. Looks pretty brutal.

[Tinasblue]

Originally posted by Asher
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They're engines for conflict.

The fact that your entire country exists has caused countless peoples' deaths, and your religion is the reason your country exists.

Don't even ****ing try to pretend that it's mainly Islam, it's all of you. You just think you're the good guys, just like they think they're the good guys. It's really fun to paint things with a wide brush, but it's not the same and you have to know a bit more to realize the differences.

Of course, all religions are all potential engines of conflict. But some actually are and some aren't. Non-religious ideologies are also potential engines of conflict - but you can agree that fascism is more militaristic than democracy. I do agree that a theist ideology is more militaristic than a humanist one.

But if you choose to "compare" religions, you have to look at objective differences.

The fact of the matter is that Islam is the least mature of the major religions - making it more likely to go back to more primitive, militaristic expansionist phases.

Religions go through phases, and Islam, through out the 20th century, has been slowly reverting to middle ages school of thought, following the crisis in former Ottoman states during the 20th century, and their failure to challenge the west.

Most religions had an expansionist militaristic phase, during which they fought other religions and tried to convert other people by force. Islam is sadly, not far enough from that phase, as Christianity is, or Judaism is.

Also, the muslim world did not experience a renaissance like revolution in ethics and did not develop humanist thought.

Not only did it not happen, Islam is probably the least likely religion to undergo such a development, because it conflicts with its core values. Islam at it's core is very anti-individualistic, and conflicts with humanist values. Islam, at its core, rejects separation of church and state. Islam, at its core is an expansionist religion that believes in using violent means.

Much of this exists in Christianity but to a lesser degree and Christianity has mostly grown out of it already. Islam has not yet.

Judaism is mostly a different story, as it does not have expansionist theory. Judaism does not require converting people. The core thought always speaks of Jews as a small group among other nations, that strives to be more enlightened and give example, but never requires anyone else to convert. The only religious war in the Old Testament is the reconquest of Israel and the tribes' territories. All following conquests by David and Solomon are discussed as political endeavors. Later Judaism turned to become an even more personal religion.

Buddhism is probably a different story alltogether.

And my country does not exist because of religion, but rather because a lack of it.

Zionism was born as an entirely secular concept. It was born around the same time as other European secular nationalist movements. And even then, the main schools of thought talked about keeping your religion to yourself and attempting to integrate into the local statehood and values. Zionism was born as counter-reaction when that policy of integration failed.

At that time, pious Jews were all rabid anti-zionists.

[THOUTHCAW]

Siro's justification is cute, but predictable. I'm not going to say anything more aside from this: Israeli schools are probably some of the best institutions for brainwashing around.

The best part was how Zionism was born as a secular concept. The fundamental tenet of Zionism is to provide a homeland for Jewish people. You have a funny definition of "secular", but then again your country is a theocracy so it's all relative to you...

[GroosteFoessy]

Originally posted by Winston
Sirotnikov

(For those who maybe couldn't tell, my previous post was one of sarcasm). All we notice is how much compassion you showed for the victims before attacking a religion that is obviously beyond your comprehension.

Fool !

[soydaykam]

Originally posted by Winston
I will attack Islam in the context of something like this, yes. Compassion doesn't enter into it. Did you show any, by the way? Look at how many people Christians have killed in the name of religion compared to Islam and get back to me.

[Badyalectlawl]

Originally posted by Winston
You're a moron, but what else is new. Did you look it up? You may be surprised.

[LillyPlay]

Originally posted by Asher
My time is valuable, I'm not wasting it on a fool's errand. Well you should sit quietly then, because even a google search would prove you wrong. Are you slowly turning into BK?

There's no way you can call this, in any way, a secular movement. A quick google would have kept you from appearing silly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
The modern movement was mainly secular in its origins, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe. It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ins_of_Zionism
The Age of Enlightenment in Europe led to an 18th and 19th century Jewish enlightenment movement in Europe, called the Haskalah. In 1791, the French Revolution led France to become the first country in Europe to grant Jews legal equality. Britain gave Jews equal rights in 1856, Germany in 1871. The spread of western liberal ideas among newly emancipated Jews created for the first time a class of secular Jews who absorbed the prevailing ideas of rationalism, romanticism and, most importantly, nationalism. Ibid.
The Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894, profoundly shocked emancipated Jews. The depth of antisemitism in a country thought of as the home of enlightenment and liberty led many to question their future security in Europe. Among those [...] Theodor Herzl, [...] He described the Affair as a personal turning point, Before the Affair, Herzl had been anti-Zionist; afterwards he became ardently pro-Zionist. In line with the ideas of 19th century German nationalism Herzl believed in a Jewish state for the Jewish nation. In that way, he argued, the Jews could become a people like all other peoples, and antisemitism would cease to exist. ibid.
Herzl's strategy relied on winning support [...] He also made efforts to cultivate Orthodox rabbinical support. Rabbinical support depended on the Zionist movement making no challenges to existing Jewish tradition. However, an opposition movement arose which emphasized the need for a revolution in Jewish thought.
[...]

Under Herzl's leadership, Zionism won orthodox Jewish support. However, cultural and socialist Zionists increasingly broke with tradition and used language contrary to the outlook of most religious Jewish communities. As a result, many religious organizations opposed Zionism, both on the grounds that it was a secular movement and on the grounds that any attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency was blasphemous, since (in their view) only the Messiah could accomplish this.
So sayeth lord Google from the holy scripture of Wikipedia.

As you can see, not only do I tear up people who make assertions in fields they know nothing about -- I also tear up people who make assertions in which they obsess over. Yes, I feel incredibly torn up

Admit defeat and go to bed.

[panholio]

Asher, is it possible that you are confusing an ethnicity with a religion? In this case, they are not always the same thing.

[Luisabens]

Originally posted by Asher
Look at how many people Christians have killed in the name of religion compared to Islam and get back to me. No one is denying history.

But two differences remain today:

1) Christianity has grown up and grew out of its militant phase with the enlightenment, and even slightly before. Islam has grown up, but not as much and has began reverting back during the 20th century and its complete defeat to the west and the turks.

2) Jesus, the main prophet of Christianity preaches tolerance, turning the other cheek and prefers to die for people's sins. Mohammad on the other hand is a sneaky warmongering figure, that destroys unbelievers. That is just one of several differences that dictate key differences in philosophy of the two religions.

[xochex]

Siro, explain how this is secular in any way also:
During the First Zionist Congress, the following agreement, commonly known as the Basel Program, was reached:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.[19]
I'm seeing an awful lot of qualifiers beginning with "Jew", which really is curious if it is secular.

[botagozzz]

This is about the only time I can say I agree with Siro. The Zionist movement began as a secular movement, inspired by European nationalism, itself an outgrowth of the French Revolution.

Early Zionist leaders were not known for their piety, and in fact the most anti-Zionist jews are ultra-orthodox sects that believe that Zionism is heretical.

Jewish here is defined as an ethnicity - it is not a measure whatsoever of piety or devotion to Jewish religious rites.