PDA

View Full Version : Obama criticized for remarks on ISIS, Christianity



Batista
06 Feb 15,, 16:30
Obama criticized for remarks on ISIS, Christianity - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obama-criticized-for-remarks-on-ISIS-Christianity/articleshow/46145777.cms)



WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama may have thought he was giving a straightforward history lesson at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday when he compared the atrocities of the Islamic State to the bloodshed committed in the name of Christianity in centuries past.But that is not how many of his longtime critics saw it.

"The president's comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I've ever heard a president make in my lifetime," said Jim Gilmore, the former Republican governor of Virginia. "He has offended every believing Christian in the United States."

Rush Limbaugh devoted a segment of his show to what he said were the president's insults to the "whole gamut of Christians" and Twitter's right wing piled on. Guests on Megyn Kelly's Fox News show spent 15 minutes airing objections to the president's comments.

"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Still, the president went on to focus on the terrorism carried out under the guise of Islam, saying that the last few months have shown the degree to which faith can be "twisted and misused in the name of evil."

"From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith their faith professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact are betraying it," he said, describing the Islamic State as "a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism."

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, said in a statement that Obama was trying to "deflect guilt from Muslim madmen." He said the president's comparisons were "insulting" and "pernicious."Gilmore said the comments go "further to the point that Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share."

White House officials had no comment on Thursday night about the criticism.

In his speech, Obama said the use of religion to justify violence and killings "is not unique to one group or one religion.""There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith," he said.

The talk of terrorism was the sharpest note in a speech that was otherwise a reflection on religion and humility, and it was Obama's latest effort to avoid branding recent violence by the Islamic State or those professing common cause with it as "Islamic" extremism.

His team has said that doing so would play into the hands of terrorist organizations, legitimizing their message.

Blademaster
06 Feb 15,, 17:14
Well what Obama said was true. During the dark ages and the Inquisition, people were killed and burned at the stake in the name of religion and many atrocities committed in the name of Christ.

In fact, it is those people that criticized Obama that are offensive for suggesting that we turn a blind eye to the past history of atrocities committed by Christians They are effectively saying that we should forget about the Holocaust as well since that Holocaust falls under what Obama was referencing.

Red Team
06 Feb 15,, 17:20
As a Catholic, I'm not particularly offended by the President's remarks. What offends me are the zealots who claim to represent my beliefs in such a short-sighted, holier-than-thou manner that any remotely negative reference to the Vatican's millenia-long existence (see Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Protestant wars etc. etc.) is seen as "anti-Christian." We should instead acknowledge and atone for our past sins, and use them as an example to others of what can happen when mortal agendas corrupt the message of a higher calling--lest history repeat itself once more.

Bigfella
06 Feb 15,, 19:56
Obama gets criticized for buying a cup of coffee, especially by the likes of drug addict Rush Limbaugh & apologist for the Catholic Church Bill Donohue (what sort of person attacks child abuse victims?). The statements were historically accurate. A non-story.

gunnut
06 Feb 15,, 20:49
ISIS executes a hostage by burning him alive.

Obama says Christianity has done the same thing 700 years ago.

1. Does that mean ISIS represents Islam in his mind?
2. If he thinks we are no better than ISIS, does that mean we can arbitrarily torture to death any and all ISIS members we catch?
3. Does one wrong justify another?

astralis
06 Feb 15,, 21:03
geezus (bad pun intended), read his whole remarks.

his whole point is that Christians did some terrible things in the name of Christ in the past, but that doesn't mean that those actions were what Christianity was about, or represented the whole of Christianity.

similarly, Muslims have done terrible things in the name of Allah and the Prophet, but that doesn't mean that they represent Islam.

antimony
06 Feb 15,, 21:04
ISIS executes a hostage by burning him alive.

Obama says Christianity has done the same thing 700 years ago.

1. Does that mean ISIS represents Islam in his mind?
2. If he thinks we are no better than ISIS, does that mean we can arbitrarily torture to death any and all ISIS members we catch?
3. Does one wrong justify another?

I would read as religion at some points of time is used to excuse the worst of crimes. He is right.

gunnut
06 Feb 15,, 21:08
geezus (bad pun intended), read his whole remarks.

his whole point is that Christians did some terrible things in the name of Christ in the past, but that doesn't mean that those actions were what Christianity was about, or represented the whole of Christianity.

similarly, Muslims have done terrible things in the name of Allah and the Prophet, but that doesn't mean that they represent Islam.

Which part of my entire post was wrong?

astralis
06 Feb 15,, 21:20
what's wrong is that Obama wasn't insinuating 1, 2, or 3.

gunnut
06 Feb 15,, 21:25
what's wrong is that Obama wasn't insinuating 1, 2, or 3.

Therefore I asked the questions.

You don't allow questions any more?

astralis
06 Feb 15,, 21:33
if you know he wasn't insinuating those questions, why are you asking them?

for instance, why would you ask if "ISIS represents Islam in his mind"? why would you think that Obama believes "we are no better than ISIS"?

you're not really asking questions here, are you.

GVChamp
06 Feb 15,, 23:38
The problem with Obama's speech is that he is pandering, and is a child of the Modern West. The Modern West does not understand anything but debt and hedonism, and as a result all social "values" exist to signal status, not to advance society. The US is the most "religious" country. Oh yay, goody, more "Catholics" that use birth control and don't believe in Evolution, both the opposite of the Church's position.
Why?
Well because it makes me feel good.
Okay, you don't have Social Values, you have feel good fashion statements. Good for you! Don't lecture ISIS on what religion is, though.

gunnut
07 Feb 15,, 00:07
if you know he wasn't insinuating those questions, why are you asking them?

for instance, why would you ask if "ISIS represents Islam in his mind"? why would you think that Obama believes "we are no better than ISIS"?

you're not really asking questions here, are you.

Are you sure he wasn't insinuating those questions? Why bring up Christianity from 700 years ago? Why not bring up Imperial Japan from 70 years ago? Why not bring up Nazi Germany from 70 years ago? Why not bring up Abu Ghraib from 10 years ago. We know not all Germans were Nazis. We know not all Japanese were war criminals. We know not all GIs abused prisoners. Why specifically bring up Christianity from a long time ago when there are more recent examples for us to learn from?

GVChamp
07 Feb 15,, 02:27
Because the Crusades were carried out specifically in the name of Christianity.

Okay, but playing off that. The Crusades were carried out by Western Christendom, specifically. Modern Westerners are descended from a group of barbarians that conquered Roman Rump states. We coalesced into kingdoms, but the Church was ABOVE the state, and above ALL states. This worked out pretty well for 900 years, and has a much better track record than the Enlightenment, which gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chattel Slavery, the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, World War I, almost World War III....

Most thinkers throughout history, and I am going back to the Phoenicians, would think separation of Church and State very dumb and think our track record proves it.

Here, let me ask a question:
Thirty Years War is commonly recognized as the last major war over religion in the Western World.

Anyone here think that solved French-German relations?

Monash
07 Feb 15,, 08:55
Anyone who believes the Crusades were predominately motivated by religion needs to seriously re-examine their knowledge of history. The Crusades were not predominately motivated by religious belief. Starting with the 1st Crusade and going downhill from there the motivations were largely driven by geopolitical and economic forces dominating Europe at the time - primarily a request by the Byzantine Emperor to the West for men at arms to push back Muslim invaders following the defeat at Manzikert, a desire by the relevant Pope to impress and in debt the Orthodox Church and a surplus of landless peasants and Norman knights due in part to population growth and the gradual adoption of Patrilineal primogeniture as the standard inheritance system in Western Europe.

As for the comment that "This worked out pretty well for 900 years." again a review of European history would show that Europe was riven by systemic and almost continual warfare during the period in question. This is not to say that the primacy of the Church was the cause of these events but rather that in the end the Church itself could do little to moderate the situation for various reasons including it's own involvement in secular politics.

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 09:08
Anyone who believes the Crusades were predominately motivated by religion needs to seriously re-examine their knowledge of history. The Crusades were not predominately motivated by religious belief. Starting with the 1st Crusade and going downhill from there the motivations were largely driven by geopolitical and economic forces dominating Europe at the time - primarily a request by the Byzantine Emperor to the West for men at arms to push back Muslim invaders following the defeat at Manzikert, a desire by the relevant Pope to impress and in debt the Orthodox Church and a surplus of landless peasants and Norman knights due in part to population growth and the gradual adoption of Patrilineal primogeniture as the standard inheritance system in Western Europe.

As for the comment that "This worked out pretty well for 900 years." again a review of European history would show that Europe was riven by systemic and almost continual warfare during the period in question. This is not to say that the primacy of the Church was the cause of these events but rather that the in the end the Church itself could do little to moderate them.

Correct about the Crusades.Don't think you're so correct about the rest.Warfare was the norm.Christianity did much to limit its effects.You don't get a pyramid of heads and you don't have mass burial alive
Christinity had a role in the eventual progress of the West.Starting with work ethics,individualism and personal responsability.
Christianity benefited the world.Otherwise you'd still have sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl.

Everything human has its downsizes.But there is too much BS about the wrongdoings of Christians(them bad white Europeans),almost nothing about the good and too much praise for the supposed virtues of everything else.

Doktor
07 Feb 15,, 11:47
So, in Obama's view, when will 4th Crusade begin?

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 13:17
The least affected by religion of all :D

Bigfella
07 Feb 15,, 13:50
So, in Obama's view, when will 4th Crusade begin?

Some time last year apparently.


Putin attacked the U.S. and Europe yesterday for backing Ukraine, and likened Crimea, which his government annexed in March, to Russia’s “Jerusalem.”

Ukraine Prepares for Truce With Rebels as Both Voice Doubts - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-04/putin-assails-opponents-on-ukraine-likens-crimea-to-jerusalem)


But through the smoke and grime, Pavel Rasta sees a sacred city - and he's fighting for it, Kalashnikov in hand, just like the Crusaders fought for the heart of Christendom centuries ago. He may be a financial manager - most recently working in a funeral parlour - who's never held a gun before in his life, but he sees himself as the modern version of a medieval knight, dedicated to chivalrous ideas of Christian purity and defending the defenceless.....

"Why do I say Donetsk is Jerusalem? Because what's happening here is a holy war of the Russian people for its own future, for its own ideals, for its children and its great country that 25 years ago was divided into pieces," Pavel says.

BBC News - The Russians fighting a 'holy war' in Ukraine (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30518054)

kato
07 Feb 15,, 14:35
Thirty Years War is commonly recognized as the last major war over religion in the Western World.
Anyone here think that solved French-German relations?
What does the Thirty Years War have to do with the French? It was a civil war in which outside powers got involved only to grab up land and resources. In fact catholic France supported protestant German factions in the Thirty Years War.

The last traditional major religious war in the Western World between different Christian confessions was the Sonderbund War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War) of 1847 btw. Like all other religious wars it was primarily driven by other purposes.

GVChamp
07 Feb 15,, 16:45
Monash,

Continual War in the Middle Ages was generally less dislocating and less damaging than any of the Modern Wars. Most of that you can attribute to State size, but Western Christendom had a variety of norms that contained the scope and duration of conflicts. There's a big difference between a raiding group of bored knights and Operation Barbarossa.

Kind of side-tracking, though, because I agree with you. Saying the Crusades were about "religion" is pretty much sophomoric simplification. There was a LOT going on, socially, economically, politically.

Same is true for ISIS, though, crazy shit like that doesn't happen in a vacuum!

EDIT: Here's my thing. If you read history of any sort, whether religious, historical, business, military, whatever....you eventually see all these Ozymandias figures obliterated by trends coming out of Left Field, that you never saw coming. This terrifies me, and makes me want to have a real strong understanding of the trends of previous societies. When people summarize things up like "Crusades were about religion" and "Separation of Church and State is obviously good, just look at all the wars started over religion," I get real nervous, because these ideas are wrong (or at least extremely simplified). I don't know if it will really matter that they are wrong, because we obviously believe in all sorts of Wrong things, but you never know which Stupid Idea gets you killed until Darwin "selects" you.

Kato,
My point is that the foundation of the Modern Era and the separation of Church and State hasn't really done anything to stop major wars, because most wars aren't ever really "caused" by religion. There's always more crap going on than "My God can beat up your God."

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 17:28
Plus the relation was sorta reverse.''We beat you in the field,so our gods must be stronger''.Not ''our gods are stronger,so we're gonna start a war against you''.
It took secularism for entire groups of people to be demonized en masse.Cathar crusade were the exception,not the rule.

antimony
07 Feb 15,, 17:56
Christianity benefited the world.Otherwise you'd still have sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl.

Everything human has its downsizes.But there is too much BS about the wrongdoings of Christians(them bad white Europeans),almost nothing about the good and too much praise for the supposed virtues of everything else.

Stick to your opinions, I will stick to my facts. Every major religion screwed up the world. The dark ages and Crusades were Christianity. Hardcore Islam screwed up the civilization that the Middle East and everything since then; Hinduism screwed up the subcontinent

Religion poisons everything it touches, we would be much better without them. And before you ask, Stalin and Mao are NOT shining examples of either atheism or rational free thinking.

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 18:11
You don't have facts.

Blademaster
07 Feb 15,, 18:32
Stick to your opinions, I will stick to my facts. Every major religion screwed up the world. The dark ages and Crusades were Christianity. Hardcore Islam screwed up the civilization that the Middle East and everything since then; Hinduism screwed up the subcontinent

Religion poisons everything it touches, we would be much better without them. And before you ask, Stalin and Mao are NOT shining examples of either atheism or rational free thinking.

Those are not facts. Those are just unsubstantiated opinions without any underlying facts to support them and only biased to support an assertion of fallacious "logic".

Going by your standards set forth in your assertions, one could just say that mankind's thinking is bad for the humanity and the world. :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
07 Feb 15,, 18:42
I don't recall the Mongol slaughter had anything to do with any god ... except gold.

tbm3fan
07 Feb 15,, 20:46
Stick to your opinions, I will stick to my facts. Every major religion screwed up the world. The dark ages and Crusades were Christianity. Hardcore Islam screwed up the civilization that the Middle East and everything since then; Hinduism screwed up the subcontinent

Religion poisons everything it touches, we would be much better without them. And before you ask, Stalin and Mao are NOT shining examples of either atheism or rational free thinking.

You might have been better off if you had said that those who search for power and domination simply used religion as a reason to motivate a population whom might not be interested in all the geopolitical power grabbing going on. The average peasant probably could care less about what was going on 20 miles away until the "your religion is under attack" card was played. That is exactly how I see ISIS playing it.

Officer of Engineers
07 Feb 15,, 21:11
Even when you're being clobbered, religion can still be used against you. You've sin against God and that's why the Mongols are here - to punish you.

The Mongols couldn't care less about religion until after they settled in for the riches ... including cultural riches.

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 21:19
Yes,but those who had the fight taken out of them said that.The others saw the spawn of Satan,that needed to be dealt with.And as victories gathered,that view prevailed.
Religion even in this case is a secondary thing.To leadership and morale.

Officer of Engineers
07 Feb 15,, 21:28
What victories?

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 22:20
After Batu Khan they started to lose in Eastern Europe.The Mamlukes also began to beat them around the same time.

It took some hundreds of years to eliminate them as a viable force,but after 1241 they never could do anything but raid.

zraver
07 Feb 15,, 23:06
I don't recall the Mongol slaughter had anything to do with any god ... except gold.

Psuedo-Mongol Tammerlan is as close as you get. It is probably a good thing for humanity the Mogols were not salafist...

antimony
07 Feb 15,, 23:22
You don't have facts.


Those are not facts. Those are just unsubstantiated opinions without any underlying facts to support them and only biased to support an assertion of fallacious "logic".

Going by your standards set forth in your assertions, one could just say that mankind's thinking is bad for the humanity and the world. :rolleyes:

Parents mutilating their children's genitalia. People burnt because they dare to sing hyms in their own language rather than latin. Entire communities massacre each other because of who they think the true successors of their prophets are.

Yeah, no facts indeed.

And my assertion : not a problem with mankind actually thinking (is the sun really a god or just a glowing ball of gas), lots of problems with mankind blindly believing crap.

Mihais
07 Feb 15,, 23:22
Z, they weren't,but there were still too many useless sedentary people and so little pasture for the herds. :biggrin:

antimony
07 Feb 15,, 23:24
I don't recall the Mongol slaughter had anything to do with any god ... except gold.

I never said they were the only game in town. But for something that is spiritual, peaceful and uplifting, religion sure has a high body count

Monash
08 Feb 15,, 02:39
Correct about the Crusades.Don't think you're so correct about the rest.Warfare was the norm.Christianity did much to limit its effects.You don't get a pyramid of heads and you don't have mass burial alive. Christinity had a role in the eventual progress of the West.Starting with work ethics,individualism and personal responsability.
Christianity benefited the world.Otherwise you'd still have sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl.

Everything human has its downsizes.But there is too much BS about the wrongdoings of Christians(them bad white Europeans),almost nothing about the good and too much praise for the supposed virtues of everything else.

Mihais, I was not attempting to underplay the contribution of Christianity to the development of European Civilization and it can be argued that it's influence did have a moderating effect on the conduct of wars during the period in question as an aside to the other positive values it brought to the medieval societies as whole. I would argue however that while it have influenced the conduct of wars between the (at least nominally Christian) Kings & Emperors of the time it did little to reduce the frequency/incidence of war. A Christian King might moderate his behavior in the field when facing a co-coreligionist, if only because of the threat of chastisement for Rome but the fact they shared a common religion did little to prevent him from declaring war in the first place. Not to mention trying to maintain 'Christian values' amongst the troops in the field - pity the rural village set upon by a medieval foraging party for example. Never-the-less there were Ordinances of War issues by Kings at the start of medieval campaigns or battles which set out the conduct of troops and the treatment of prisoners etc and these ordinances were supposed to be followed by the troops and commanders in the field. The Church and Christianity heavily influenced the provisions contained in these ordinances.

Monash
08 Feb 15,, 02:44
So, in Obama's view, when will 4th Crusade begin?

Err ...unless I miss my guess Obama would say it commenced in 1202 and ended (badly) in 1204. :confused:

Monash
08 Feb 15,, 02:52
I never said they were the only game in town. But for something that is spiritual, peaceful and uplifting, religion sure has a high body count

Usually because it makes the perfect vehicle for unifying and aligning the general populous of a nation or region behind the military ambitions of the relevant ruling class. If you can't use religion use race, failing that, historic enmity (a previous history of war with X) or failing that economic privation - they are rich add have lots of food which they won't share , lets get them. In a modern socienty football jerseys will do the trick. All you need is something to separate the 'tribes' into them and us. Religion used to work best though because it is such a universal human trait.

Officer of Engineers
08 Feb 15,, 03:00
After Batu Khan they started to lose in Eastern Europe.There wasn't any great victories to speak of.


The Mamlukes also began to beat them around the same time.Mamlukes were Turks.

Parihaka
08 Feb 15,, 10:33
Late to the party I know. Personally I don't give a fuck about people's invisible friends, nor what they do with their invisible friends unless they go around slaughtering people. What I do object to is being told to get off my high horse because I object to the current bunch of idiot religious types killing masses of people because Christianity and Islam had a war during which Christians killed people. Obama can take his invisible friend, his invisible friends friends and all who think slaughter now is ok because some other nutters did it a Millenia ago and stick it up their pompose insane arses. Daesh bad. Parihaka and people like parihaka kill daesh. Insane people with invisible friends shut the fuck up.

Mihais
08 Feb 15,, 10:41
Busy praying for world peace and many women,can't stfu :biggrin:

Monash
08 Feb 15,, 11:18
Obama can take his invisible friend, his invisible friends friends and all who think slaughter now is ok because some other nutters did it a Millenia ago and stick it up their pompose insane arses. Daesh bad. Parihaka and people like parihaka kill daesh. Insane people with invisible friends shut the fuck up.

Based on the quoted text I'm not sure that is what Obama was doing P. He didn't appear to be justifying war in the name of religion but rather arguing against it.

Mihais
08 Feb 15,, 11:45
But he was also relativizing the issue.''Yeah,there are some muslim baddies today,but look in the mirror ya evil bastards''.

Mihais
08 Feb 15,, 11:48
There wasn't any great victories to speak of.

Mamlukes were Turks.

The Mongols stopped winning in Europe.They kept winning in other areas.

The Mongols that went to the ME were also mainly Turks.

Officer of Engineers
08 Feb 15,, 15:36
The Mongols stopped winning in Europe.They kept winning in other areas.Because they were busy at home. Not because of any European military prowness.


The Mongols that went to the ME were also mainly Turks.Yes, meaning that they had the same military knowledge base.

Parihaka
08 Feb 15,, 17:26
Based on the quoted text I'm not sure that is what Obama was doing P. He didn't appear to be justifying war in the name of religion but rather arguing against it.

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Moral relativity. We means me, because I'm condemning the Daesh but I can't because other God botherers have done mean things somewhere else.

Nor can I condemn, because American Christians owned slaves. Well, tell that to the 140k+ American men who died bringing about the end of slavery in the US. Fuck him, fuck his infantile moral relativism, fuck his invisible friend.

Bigfella
08 Feb 15,, 20:50
“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Moral relativity. We means me, because I'm condemning the Daesh but I can't because other God botherers have done mean things somewhere else.

Nor can I condemn, because American Christians owned slaves. Well, tell that to the 140k+ American men who died bringing about the end of slavery in the US. Fuck him, fuck his infantile moral relativism, fuck his invisible friend.

Well while we're at it, fuck your complete misreading of his point. He's not saying don't judge Daesh, he's saying don't judge all Muslims by the actions of Daesh. An unexceptional point that is regularly made by people from the President right down to some guy on the internet.

There you go, judge away.:)

Parihaka
08 Feb 15,, 21:27
Well while we're at it, fuck your complete misreading of his point. He's not saying don't judge Daesh, he's saying don't judge all Muslims by the actions of Daesh. An unexceptional point that is regularly made by people from the President right down to some guy on the internet.

There you go, judge away.:)
Gosh really? What a novel thought! Not all muslims are fanatical killers? who'd have thought.
We shouldn't judge all Islam by the actions of a few? Blow me down.

I've heard the same banal, infantile tripe for the last 14 years, no matter what the situation, no matter what the context, no matter what the motivations, no matter what the analysis.


Start of discussions about Islamic terrorism:
Let's hear from our resident progressive/liberal/green/whateverthefuck nom de plume de jour..... (NDPDJ)

(NDPDJ) Well mindless autocue interviewer, not all muslims, or even most, are bad, and damn all conservative right wing haters like Pari for saying so.....

(Pari) Uh, but I didn't say so.

(NDPDJ) Not all muslims, or even most, are bad, and damn all you conservative right wing haters for saying so.....

(PARI) Um, ok.

(MINDLESS AUTOCUE READER) Which moves us to our latest topic, the mass murder of (mass murdered ethnic group) by (fanatical misrepresentative of Islam terrorist group). What say you NDPDJ?

(NDPDJ) Well autocue reader, not only are not all muslims, or even most, bad, and damn all conservative right wing haters like Pari for saying so, but conservative right wing haters are just as bad anyway because christians murdered muslims during the crusades. And whites murdered blacks. So Pari should get of his high horse, we all know he doesn't really care anyway cause he's a right winger, and just shut the fuck up, nothing to see here except his evilness and hatred, blah blah blah.

Every time an atrocity has been committed.

The same stock answer.

"Don't judge all muslims by the actions of X,Y, and Z. You're all just as bad anyway"


I don't give a fuck about Islam.

I don't give a fuck about Christianity.

I don't give a fuck about black, or white, or LGBT rights:

What I do give a fuck about is some asinine child politician politicising the ongoing mass murder of men, women and children as a way of diverting from his own lack of interest in that mass murder.
He's a moronic infant.

GVChamp
09 Feb 15,, 02:08
Stick to your opinions, I will stick to my facts. Every major religion screwed up the world. The dark ages and Crusades were Christianity. Hardcore Islam screwed up the civilization that the Middle East and everything since then; Hinduism screwed up the subcontinent

Religion poisons everything it touches, we would be much better without them. And before you ask, Stalin and Mao are NOT shining examples of either atheism or rational free thinking.
Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages. The collapse of the Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages. If anything, the Church was more competent and knowledgeable than the barbarians.

Also, Islam did not screw up the Middle East. The only reason they won any battles was because the Romans and Persians had fought each other for 700 years.

I can respect the opinion that organized religion generally screws things up, but most of human history has just been a bitter slog with incremental gains. Humans never needed religion to screw things up,.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 04:53
Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages. The collapse of the Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages. If anything, the Church was more competent and knowledgeable than the barbarians.

Also, Islam did not screw up the Middle East. The only reason they won any battles was because the Romans and Persians had fought each other for 700 years.

I can respect the opinion that organized religion generally screws things up, but most of human history has just been a bitter slog with incremental gains. Humans never needed religion to screw things up,.

I should have said everywhere from the middle east to the subcontinent. Do you know how islam spread to the subcontinent and what destruction they caused? Of course, they also gave a chance at equalizing things for people who were treated as worse than slaves, by Hindusim.

Yeah, there has always been infighting within mankind, but religion made it moral, even morally imperative, to do so. You are killing/ mistreating/ torturing somebody to save their and your own souls. Takes it to a whole new level.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 04:59
Every time an atrocity has been committed.

The same stock answer.

"Don't judge all muslims by the actions of X,Y, and Z. You're all just as bad anyway"


I don't give a fuck about Islam.

I don't give a fuck about Christianity.

I don't give a fuck about black, or white, or LGBT rights:


This statement is for people who give a fuck for such shit.



What I do give a fuck about is some asinine child politician politicising the ongoing mass murder of men, women and children as a way of diverting from his own lack of interest in that mass murder.
He's a moronic infant.

wow, did not realize Obama had such disinterest for ISIS

Bigfella
09 Feb 15,, 08:33
Gosh really? What a novel thought! Not all muslims are fanatical killers? who'd have thought.
We shouldn't judge all Islam by the actions of a few? Blow me down.

I've heard the same banal, infantile tripe for the last 14 years, no matter what the situation, no matter what the context, no matter what the motivations, no matter what the analysis.



Every time an atrocity has been committed.

The same stock answer.

"Don't judge all muslims by the actions of X,Y, and Z. You're all just as bad anyway"


I don't give a fuck about Islam.

I don't give a fuck about Christianity.

I don't give a fuck about black, or white, or LGBT rights:

What I do give a fuck about is some asinine child politician politicising the ongoing mass murder of men, women and children as a way of diverting from his own lack of interest in that mass murder.
He's a moronic infant.

OK, so its just about having another rant.

Carry on.

Parihaka
09 Feb 15,, 16:49
This statement is for people who give a fuck for such shit.



wow, did not realize Obama had such disinterest for ISIS
For what shit, pray tell.

Parihaka
09 Feb 15,, 16:57
OK, so its just about having another rant.

Carry on.
I'm sorry BF, didn't I show sufficient obeyance to your trite platitudes? Perhaps you and Obama should work on some new ones.

Double Edge
09 Feb 15,, 17:57
I never said they were the only game in town. But for something that is spiritual, peaceful and uplifting, religion sure has a high body count
I think religion is by far the most enduring conception mankind has ever come up with. Sustainable, marketable, a solution to any problem you care to throw at it. If you believe.

A killer idea to date with no equal.

Mihais
09 Feb 15,, 18:04
Not only a simple conception.It's a solution,a help ,an answer and a way of life.If you believe.

Double Edge
09 Feb 15,, 18:20
Incredible scope from the womb to the tomb. What kind of lock in is this.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 19:12
For what shit, pray tell.

Islam, Christianity, black, or white, or LGBT rights )or rather, taking away their rights)

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 19:25
Not only a simple conception.It's a solution,a help ,an answer and a way of life.If you believe.

Yeah, a solution that says that critical thought is not important to understand the universe and everything else. There is a big daddy up there, yo.

There was no evolution, big daddy made everything. The sun and moon are gods. Hell even the wind and sea are gods. That guy plays soccer very well, not because he has practiced and worked hard at his genetically evolved skill, but because GOD gave him talent. So and so has contracted a disease, not because he lives in unhygienic condition but because the big juju in the mountain cursed him. 911 happened because god hates ******s. Innocent children need to be killed because god will grant the murderer 72 virgins.

Very simple and elegant, for those who do not want to think.

Blademaster
09 Feb 15,, 19:36
Yeah, a solution that says that critical thought is not important to understand the universe and everything else. There is a big daddy up there, yo.

There was no evolution, big daddy made everything. The sun and moon are gods. Hell even the wind and sea are gods. That guy plays soccer very well, not because he has practiced and worked hard at his genetically evolved skill, but because GOD gave him talent. So and so has contracted a disease, not because he lives in unhygienic condition but because the big juju in the mountain cursed him. 911 happened because god hates ******s. Innocent children need to be killed because god will grant the murderer 72 virgins.

Very simple and elegant, for those who do not want to think.

:rolleyes: Let me guess... You have never been in a foxhole...

Mihais
09 Feb 15,, 19:48
Yeah, a solution that says that critical thought is not important to understand the universe and everything else. There is a big daddy up there, yo.

There was no evolution, big daddy made everything. The sun and moon are gods. Hell even the wind and sea are gods. That guy plays soccer very well, not because he has practiced and worked hard at his genetically evolved skill, but because GOD gave him talent. So and so has contracted a disease, not because he lives in unhygienic condition but because the big juju in the mountain cursed him. 911 happened because god hates ******s. Innocent children need to be killed because god will grant the murderer 72 virgins.

Very simple and elegant, for those who do not want to think.

I'm not into preaching and I doubt I'll ever be.Nor am I somewhat required to be.And definetely I'm not going to preach to atheists on the internet.I'll only say this.You have your belief.Wrt religion in general(not going in particular,although there are faiths that are better than others,IMO) you take a rather common path among its critics.That is to judge everything by it lowest denominator.I believe you to be wrong(and I have no doubt you think I am),but it's not for me to judge you regrdless what I believe,nor it is to ever try to restrict your freedom.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 20:14
:rolleyes: Let me guess... You have never been in a foxhole...

Yeah, that's a lovely way to approach this. Take a person in extreme stress or fear and use that bully them into believing in a big daddy. Like getting a person to confess to a crime under torture. Very, very ethical and moral (not).

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 20:18
I'm not into preaching and I doubt I'll ever be.Nor am I somewhat required to be.And definetely I'm not going to preach to atheists on the internet.I'll only say this.You have your belief.Wrt religion in general(not going in particular,although there are faiths that are better than others,IMO) you take a rather common path among its critics.That is to judge everything by it lowest denominator.I believe you to be wrong(and I have no doubt you think I am),but it's not for me to judge you regrdless what I believe,nor it is to ever try to restrict your freedom.

That is fair enough. I have no business to poke in your beliefs as long as your faith is kept your private and personal affair. Its when I see faith being used in the public space to dictate policy and/ or get special favours (gays cannot marry etc., Muslims can marry off underage daughters, Hindus get special tax status) that makes me protest.

Mihais
09 Feb 15,, 21:20
Hold on a bit.You're trying to mix with democracy.What is ''normal'' is the will of the majority.It varies a lot,by place &time,but that's another issue. I don't really care if muslims marry in diapers.In their countries,they can do as they please.If the Hindus decided to vote themselves a tax extempt,great for them.If the Christian definition on marriage excludes gays,polygamy etc...,than the state's law must find another way to name the respective unions.
By American standards the above may suck.Well,the world isn't America.There is diversity and specificity.Those evolved to protect a certain way of doing things,otherwise you'd get uniformity.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 21:40
Hold on a bit.You're trying to mix with democracy.What is ''normal'' is the will of the majority.It varies a lot,by place &time,but that's another issue. I don't really care if muslims marry in diapers.In their countries,they can do as they please.If the Hindus decided to vote themselves a tax extempt,great for them.If the Christian definition on marriage excludes gays,polygamy etc...,than the state's law must find another way to name the respective unions.
By American standards the above may suck.Well,the world isn't America.There is diversity and specificity.Those evolved to protect a certain way of doing things,otherwise you'd get uniformity.

Mihais

What is normal is the separation of church and state regardless of demographic composition. The point is that in modern democratic societies religion should not play any role in politics or governance. The same is true for India. I don't care much for muslim countries either, as long as I can continue to ignore them.

Mihais
09 Feb 15,, 21:50
You can separate the Church from the state all you want.You can't stop people voting based on identity politics.

antimony
09 Feb 15,, 23:23
Taking money from religious groups and pushing their agenda is not separating church from state

Gun Grape
10 Feb 15,, 03:54
:rolleyes: Let me guess... You have never been in a foxhole...

I have. And like lots of others that also have, I don't believe in the big guy in the sky.

It also is a bit disrespectful to the memory of people like this

39166



That said, I don't knock those that found something to believe in to get them through the day.

Triple C
10 Feb 15,, 07:05
Ernest Hemingway and John Rawls were atheists and spent a lot of time in foxholes.

Blademaster
10 Feb 15,, 07:54
I have. And like lots of others that also have, I don't believe in the big guy in the sky.

It also is a bit disrespectful to the memory of people like this

39166

That said, I don't knock those that found something to believe in to get them through the day.

I meant no disrespect but don't forget that those people whom Antimony criticize also need something to believe in to get by and Antimony would rather have them believe in his way which may not be enough for those guys.

Mihais
10 Feb 15,, 09:28
Taking money from religious groups and pushing their agenda is not separating church from state

No,it's pushing for identity politics.Same as LGBT vote,black vote,welfare kings&quens vote.

Double Edge
10 Feb 15,, 10:05
Ernest Hemingway and John Rawls were atheists and spent a lot of time in foxholes.
But they believed in a certain set of beliefs and values ie what they were fighting for. They believed they could win even if their position was coming under lots of fire.

That is belief in action and is more general than what denomination or not they believe in :)

Confers an evolutionary advantage. Or in the context of a battle could be all that stands between losing or turning the tide.

Belief, faith in something that is yet to happen whether it happens or not.

Irrational but necessary, in a foxhole.

GVChamp
10 Feb 15,, 15:30
Yeah, a solution that says that critical thought is not important to understand the universe and everything else. There is a big daddy up there, yo.

The Scientific Method is less than 5 centuries old. Your problem isn't with religion, it's with the last 3 million years of human evolution.


Confers an evolutionary advantage. Or in the context of a battle could be all that stands between losing or turning the tide..
Now, I'm not an anthroplogist, but from what I understand, modern hunter-gatherers do not have the "lay down my life" mentality that nations cultivate. Most of human warfare throughout history has been raids and ambushes, not open battle with artillery, so they wouldn't have much use for the "hold the line" heroic sacrifices. The kind of extreme sacrifice we see today is probably a perverse extreme version of the altruism our nomadic ancestors had.
However, I am not an expert.

antimony
10 Feb 15,, 19:34
I meant no disrespect but don't forget that those people whom Antimony criticize also need something to believe in to get by and Antimony would rather have them believe in his way which may not be enough for those guys.

I don't care what people believe in, as long as they don't get in my face with that. Believe in the celestial teapot for all I care, just don't come and tell me that gay marriage needs to be banned because the teapot said so.

antimony
10 Feb 15,, 19:37
The Scientific Method is less than 5 centuries old. Your problem isn't with religion, it's with the last 3 million years of human evolution.


Oh so you believe in evolution now? I guess that progress.:cool:

But seriously, I don't care about your religion or what you believe in as long as you do not try to trample the rights of others.

antimony
10 Feb 15,, 19:39
No,it's pushing for identity politics.Same as LGBT vote,black vote,welfare kings&quens vote.

There is a big difference between trying to ensure that your own rights are protected (gays want to get married), and raining on someone else's parade (stop gays from getting married, no eating beef, no eating pork, someone else cannot practice their own religion because the king wants to practice his).

Keep in mind, the only way true religious freedom can be achieved is by proper separation between church and state. Religious freedoms are valid only in a truly secular state.

Mihais
10 Feb 15,, 21:28
You sorta miss the point.For a society to mantain an identity,a certain level of conformity must exist.
Defending that may sem to you as raining on someone's parade and it may be so.But the nature of that is defensive.
There are many degrees of freedom.Identifying yourself with someone very different may result in being a threat.

antimony
10 Feb 15,, 22:35
You sorta miss the point.For a society to mantain an identity,a certain level of conformity must exist.
Defending that may sem to you as raining on someone's parade and it may be so.But the nature of that is defensive.
There are many degrees of freedom.Identifying yourself with someone very different may result in being a threat.

What is society? Is that same as nation? If yes, then there are lots of things to conform about, like nationalism, instead of religion.

I am not sure what point I am missing. True religious freedom is on possible under a secular, non religious government system. No one is offended if Hindus celebrate Diwali in the US, UK or other parts in Western Europe. Christmas in India is celebrated with far more pomp and vigour than in many Christmas countries. Try doing all of that in Saudi Arabia.

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 08:50
Is the West morally superior to the Islamic State? To most people who own a working moral compass and have an IQ higher than 10, the answer to this question will seem obvious: yes, of course the West is better than that cowboy caliphate built on sand and insanity, on account of the fact that the West doesn’t force women to live in black sackcloths, throw gays off the top of buildings, send Christians into exile, or burn people alive on TV. The modern West is a nicer, more pleasant entity than IS – simples. Or is it? Maybe not. Over the past week, more than a few notable voices in the West have been raised to say that maybe we aren’t much better than IS, maybe we’ve done even worse things than them, and maybe we should therefore STFU and stop passing judgement on that eccentric foreign statelet.
You couldn’t have asked for a better insight into the po-mo, relativistic, judgement-dodging mush of modern Western liberalism than the recent commentary on IS. No less a figure than President Obama got the ball rolling last week when he said at the National Prayer Breakfast that we largely Christian Westerners should come down from the moral highground on the issue of Islamist violence. ‘Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ… [And] slavery and Jim Crow all too often [were] justified in the name of Christ’, he said. If you heard a smartarse sixth-former who’d just discovered Richard Dawkins’ Twitterfeed and is prepping for a BA in post-colonialist codswallop say ‘We burned people 500 years ago, you know’, you wouldn’t bat an eyelid. But the leader of the free world? The face of ostensibly Christian America? The man who, for better or worse, is the embodiment of the West? For Obama to respond to Islamist violence by saying ‘we did it, too’ is surreal — like if in 1985 Ronald Reagan had said, ‘I had to queue for eight minutes the other day to pay for my loaf of bread, so let’s lay off the Soviets, yeah?’.
Bill Moyers, the White House press secretary under LBJ and now one of the key fist-clenching, head-tilting spokespeople for American liberalism, said he couldn’t sleep after he heard that IS had burned to death the Jordanian pilot. No, not because his mind was swirling with thoughts of how wicked IS is, silly, but because he kept thinking to himself: America did the same shit. He said his mind filled with images of the ‘charred corpses’ of black men lynched in America’s South decades ago, ‘tied to a blistered tree in the heart of the Texas Bible Belt’. He even got up in the middle of the night to Google images of these lynchings. Now there’s some hardcore commitment to self-loathing: interrupting your night’s sleep to search for gruesome old images that might confirm that America’s historical heart is as black as the Islamic State’s.
Moyers says that when he reads about IS’s execution-by-burning, he thinks of America’s own historic burners, ‘our own barbarians’: ‘Homegrown. Godly. Our neighbours, friends and kin. People like us.’ I’m sorry, but if you look into the Islamic State’s flames and see yourself, if your first thought upon watching one of IS’s medieval snuff movies is to think of your neighbours and friends and how they allegedly once committed equally demented acts, then there’s something wrong with you. Your moral compass is bust. Here, American history is not something to study and understand but instead becomes a hairshirt of self-loathing we wrap around ourselves in order to hide from the apparently pesky task of passing moral judgement against a fiery pseudo-state in Syria. Hateful episodes from Western history are dredged up to the cynical end of avoiding making moral distinctions and decisions in the present.
Across the Western media, various voices have piped up to say that we in the West aren’t really virtuous enough to have a proper pop at the Islamic State. The Economist, one-time bible of the business class turned wet mag that now gives the Guardian a run for its money in the self-loathing lark, said Obama was dead right to tell Westerners to clamber down from their high horses. ‘If you think your side is too virtuous to sin, it probably will sin’, it said. An academic columnist said that before we bash IS we should ‘look to the French Revolution’, where people were also beheaded (in a brutal civil war for the Enlightened values of liberty and democracy, but hey, don’t mention that). Chris Hedges, former New York Times correspondent turned every pseudo-liberal’s favourite mouthpiece of Western self-hatred, dragged up various old and new instances of American imperialism and concluded: ‘The line that separates us from the Islamic State is technological, not moral.’ ‘The barbarism we condemn is the barbarism we commit’, he said, to the cheering of a million twits on Twitter who had clearly been feeling uncomfortable with the idea that the West is not quite as bad as IS. Hedges and others dress up their moral equivalence between the West and IS as radicalism, a searing critique of Western interventionism. It’s no such thing. It’s better understood as an unwillingness to pass moral judgement on IS — to say it is wicked — disguised as a keenness to condemn the political establishment in Washington and elsewhere.
We’ve also had Glenn Greenwald, the David Icke of the dinner-party anti-war set, arguing that the Islamic State does not have ‘a patent on burning people alive’. Guess who else has done it? We have, of course! Oh, and Israel: Greenwald knows his audience and knows he’ll get a record number of retweets if he likens the Jewish State to the Islamic State. Meanwhile, a very odd column in the Guardian said we shouldn’t get on our high horses about the Islamic State’s manifesto for women, which among other things says nine-year-old girls can get married and women should always be covered from head to toe, because we in Britain still have cases like that of Ched Evans, the footballer imprisoned for rape and later released. What? Yes, apparently Evans’ supporters — ‘each and every one of them’ — have a ‘good deal of common cause with the ideas of these women of the Islamic State’. So thinking that ex-cons deserve a second stab at life is the same as living in a state that has ditched due process in favour of killing or maiming criminals? I think this ***-packet theory needs more work.
What unites all these expressions of discomfort with slamming IS, this repeated tendency to respond to IS atrocities by saying ‘What about the Inquisition, lynchings, slavery, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Dresden, Israel, the BNP, that terrible thing my granddad did in the Somme blah blah blah?’, is an unwillingness to judge, to condemn, to make any kind of strong moral distinction between different ways of life.
In recent years, the West has become hamstrung by self-hatred, consumed by doubt as to the value of modernity, democracy and Enlightenment, as expressed everywhere from campuses that are now more likely to condemn the sexism and racism of Dead White European Males than to read and devour their glorious works, to a school system that tells kids all cultures are equally valid, all religions are worthy of respect, all history is a bloody nightmare, and the Industrial Revolution is without question the worst thing that ever happened. In such a climate, it’s become the fashion, the very thing, to be sniffy about the West, and more importantly to dodge like the plague the making of moral judgements, for who are we to judge considering our grandfathers might have lynched people and our great-great-great-great-great-great grandmothers probably chucked rotten tomatoes at a shoplifter? Anyone who thinks the kneejerk ‘We’re shits too’ uttered in response to IS barbarism is radical, edgy, a challenge to Western imperialism, needs a brain scan — it’s actually the now decades-old academic pursuit of eschewing Enlightenment values made political and media flesh, thrust into the global spotlight.
There’s a serious debate to be had about whether Western intervention is the solution to the problem of the Islamic State – we at spiked very strongly think it isn’t. But this isn’t that debate. This is excuse-making relativism elevated into a horrifying artform. If you think your society isn’t really much better than the Islamic State, then why not take a holiday in the Islamic State, try it out? Something tells me you’ll soon come back to the West, even with its arrogant Christian preachers, ex-con footballers, searchable images of decades-old lynchings, and all the other apparently unspeakable horrors.

Source, (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/hey-who-are-we-to-judge-the-islamic-state/16679#.VNsHXEJ50Qo)with extra links as to what he's talking about if you missed it.

Double Edge
11 Feb 15,, 13:22
Source, (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/hey-who-are-we-to-judge-the-islamic-state/16679#.VNsHXEJ50Qo)with extra links as to what he's talking about if you missed it.
ok, my take on moral relativism is that its intent is to counter extremist ideas by not allowing them to swamp or dominate over others.

here the argument is made that moral relativism is enabling or is being used to justify them and that makes using moral relativism bad.

moral relativism is a double edged sword isn't it. It might seem to enable but at the same time it isn't going to empower anything. You could say it hinders objectivity ie building a basis to make a judgement.

Yes it can. but here are some times where too much clarity isn't a good thing. The subject of Da'ish however isn't one of those times.

Blademaster
11 Feb 15,, 15:06
I don't care what people believe in, as long as they don't get in my face with that. Believe in the celestial teapot for all I care, just don't come and tell me that gay marriage needs to be banned because the teapot said so.

Now you are going off on a tangent going off somewhere God only knows. Come back to orbit pls. That is science speaking, not religion speaking.

antimony
11 Feb 15,, 18:29
Now you are going off on a tangent going off somewhere God only knows. Come back to orbit pls. That is science speaking, not religion speaking.

You can believe in 330 million gods, I cannot believe in the celestial teapot? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you going to disbelieve that too?:pari::mad:

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 19:12
ok, my take on moral relativism is that its intent is to counter extremist ideas by not allowing them to swamp or dominate over others.

here the argument is made that moral relativism is enabling or is being used to justify them and that makes using moral relativism bad.

moral relativism is a double edged sword isn't it. It might seem to enable but at the same time it isn't going to empower anything. You could say it hinders objectivity ie building a basis to make a judgement.

Yes it can. but here are some times where too much clarity isn't a good thing. The subject of Da'ish however isn't one of those times. I really haven't found that many times where it's useful, but I'll take your word for it. Most of the time when I encounter it it's used to 1: denigrate or 2: divert.
The only reason Obama raised the Daesh in that speech was because he knew his comparison would outrage the religious types. The reason BF uses it is because he wants to divert discussion from areas verboten by his political code.
The Obama team was interesting yesterday. He made a relatively innocuous statement a couple of weeks ago, claiming the deli murders in France were random. Vapid, but innocuous from the point of view that the remarks could be easily corrected. Instead his team spent six hours doubling down that there was no Jewish connection, nothing to see here. Reporters were actually yelling questions out of turn at the White House press gallery. After those hours, the two White House staff involved tweeted "of course the shootings were anti-Semitic ". This after several hours of denying any such connection. That's not inept, that's deliberate. In one week Obama bitch-slapped Christians and whites, claiming they were no better than the daesh, then his team bitch-slapped the Jews, presumably in retaliation for Netanyahu, and to advance their alliance with Iran.
Jew baiting, Christian/right baiting and of course white baiting. Cheep theatrics and cynicism rule the day.

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 19:39
And as if by magic. Maybe I should be worried when the Daily Beast agrees with me:eek:

Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/10/obama-s-party-line-radical-islam-denial.html)

astralis
11 Feb 15,, 20:29
here's the entire transcript, so people can judge if this really was a call to humility, or...equating ourselves with DAESH/indulging in moral relativism/anti-Semitism/Christian-baiting/right-baiting/white-baiting...

====
Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast
Washington Hilton
Washington, D.C.

9:13 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, good morning. Giving all praise and honor to God. It is wonderful to be back with you here. I want to thank our co-chairs, Bob and Roger. These two don’t always agree in the Senate, but in coming together and uniting us all in prayer, they embody the spirit of our gathering today.

I also want to thank everybody who helped organize this breakfast. It’s wonderful to see so many friends and faith leaders and dignitaries. And Michelle and I are truly honored to be joining you here today.

I want to offer a special welcome to a good friend, His Holiness the Dalai Lama -- who is a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion, who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings. (Applause.) I’ve been pleased to welcome him to the White House on many occasions, and we’re grateful that he’s able to join us here today. (Applause.)

There aren’t that many occasions that bring His Holiness under the same roof as NASCAR. (Laughter.) This may be the first. (Laughter.) But God works in mysterious ways. (Laughter.) And so I want to thank Darrell for that wonderful presentation. Darrell knows that when you’re going 200 miles an hour, a little prayer cannot hurt. (Laughter.) I suspect that more than once, Darrell has had the same thought as many of us have in our own lives -- Jesus, take the wheel. (Laughter.) Although I hope that you kept your hands on the wheel when you were thinking that. (Laughter.)

He and I obviously share something in having married up. And we are so grateful to Stevie for the incredible work that they’ve done together to build a ministry where the fastest drivers can slow down a little bit, and spend some time in prayer and reflection and thanks. And we certainly want to wish Darrell a happy birthday. (Applause.) Happy birthday.

I will note, though, Darrell, when you were reading that list of things folks were saying about you, I was thinking, well, you're a piker. I mean, that -- (laughter.) I mean, if you really want a list, come talk to me. (Laughter.) Because that ain’t nothing. (Laughter.) That's the best they can do in NASCAR? (Laughter.)

Slowing down and pausing for fellowship and prayer -- that's what this breakfast is about. I think it's fair to say Washington moves a lot slower than NASCAR. Certainly my agenda does sometimes. (Laughter.) But still, it’s easier to get caught up in the rush of our lives, and in the political back-and-forth that can take over this city. We get sidetracked with distractions, large and small. We can’t go 10 minutes without checking our smartphones -- and for my staff, that's every 10 seconds. And so for 63 years, this prayer tradition has brought us together, giving us the opportunity to come together in humility before the Almighty and to be reminded of what it is that we share as children of God.

And certainly for me, this is always a chance to reflect on my own faith journey. Many times as President, I’ve been reminded of a line of prayer that Eleanor Roosevelt was fond of. She said, “Keep us at tasks too hard for us that we may be driven to Thee for strength.” Keep us at tasks too hard for us that we may be driven to Thee for strength. I’ve wondered at times if maybe God was answering that prayer a little too literally. But no matter the challenge, He has been there for all of us. He’s certainly strengthened me “with the power through his Spirit,” as I’ve sought His guidance not just in my own life but in the life of our nation.

Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years. But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends. And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom -- freedom of religion -- the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility. They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both.

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment. And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults -- (applause) -- and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks. Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech. Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.

So humility I think is needed. And the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments. Between church and between state. The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world -- far more religious than most Western developed countries. And one of the reasons is that our founders wisely embraced the separation of church and state. Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all. And the result is a culture where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely and proudly worship, without fear, or coercion -- so that when you listen to Darrell talk about his faith journey you know it's real. You know he’s not saying it because it helps him advance, or because somebody told him to. It's from the heart.

That’s not the case in theocracies that restrict people’s choice of faith. It's not the case in authoritarian governments that elevate an individual leader or a political party above the people, or in some cases, above the concept of God Himself. So the freedom of religion is a value we will continue to protect here at home and stand up for around the world, and is one that we guard vigilantly here in the United States.

Last year, we joined together to pray for the release of Christian missionary Kenneth Bae, held in North Korea for two years. And today, we give thanks that Kenneth is finally back where he belongs -- home, with his family. (Applause.)

Last year, we prayed together for Pastor Saeed Abedini, detained in Iran since 2012. And I was recently in Boise, Idaho, and had the opportunity to meet with Pastor Abedini’s beautiful wife and wonderful children and to convey to them that our country has not forgotten brother Saeed and that we’re doing everything we can to bring him home. (Applause.) And then, I received an extraordinary letter from Pastor Abedini. And in it, he describes his captivity, and expressed his gratitude for my visit with his family, and thanked us all for standing in solidarity with him during his captivity.

And Pastor Abedini wrote, “Nothing is more valuable to the Body of Christ than to see how the Lord is in control, and moves ahead of countries and leadership through united prayer.” And he closed his letter by describing himself as “prisoner for Christ, who is proud to be part of this great nation of the United States of America that cares for religious freedom around the world.” (Applause.)

We’re going to keep up this work -- for Pastor Abedini and all those around the world who are unjustly held or persecuted because of their faith. And we’re grateful to our new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Rabbi David Saperstein -- who has hit the ground running, and is heading to Iraq in a few days to help religious communities there address some of those challenges. Where’s David? I know he’s here somewhere. Thank you, David, for the great work you’re doing. (Applause.)

Humility; a suspicion of government getting between us and our faiths, or trying to dictate our faiths, or elevate one faith over another. And, finally, let’s remember that if there is one law that we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths, and people who are still finding their way towards faith but have a sense of ethics and morality in them -- that one law, that Golden Rule that we should treat one another as we wish to be treated. The Torah says “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” In Islam, there is a Hadith that states: "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” The Holy Bible tells us to “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” Put on love.

Whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace, and bringing light where there is darkness, and sowing love where there is hatred. And this is the loving message of His Holiness, Pope Francis. And like so many people around the world, I’ve been touched by his call to relieve suffering, and to show justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable; to walk with The Lord and ask “Who am I to judge?” He challenges us to press on in what he calls our “march of living hope.” And like millions of Americans, I am very much looking forward to welcoming Pope Francis to the United States later this year. (Applause.)

His Holiness expresses that basic law: Treat thy neighbor as yourself. The Dalai Lama -- anybody who’s had an opportunity to be with him senses that same spirit. Kent Brantly expresses that same spirit. Kent was with Samaritan’s Purse, treating Ebola patients in Liberia, when he contracted the virus himself. And with world-class medical care and a deep reliance on faith -- with God’s help, Kent survived. (Applause.)

And then by donating his plasma, he helped others survive as well. And he continues to advocate for a global response in West Africa, reminding us that “our efforts needs to be on loving the people there.” And I could not have been prouder to welcome Kent and his wonderful wife Amber to the Oval Office. We are blessed to have him here today -- because he reminds us of what it means to really “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Not just words, but deeds.

Each of us has a role in fulfilling our common, greater purpose -- not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depths so that we may find the strength to love more fully. And this is perhaps our greatest challenge -- to see our own reflection in each other; to be our brother’s keepers and sister’s keepers, and to keep faith with one another. As children of God, let’s make that our work, together.

As children of God, let’s work to end injustice -- injustice of poverty and hunger. No one should ever suffer from such want amidst such plenty. As children of God, let’s work to eliminate the scourge of homelessness, because, as Sister Mary says, “None of us are home until all of us are home.” None of us are home until all of us are home.

As children of God, let’s stand up for the dignity and value of every woman, and man, and child, because we are all equal in His eyes, and work to send the scourge and the sin of modern-day slavery and human trafficking, and “set the oppressed free.” (Applause.)

If we are properly humble, if we drop to our knees on occasion, we will acknowledge that we never fully know God’s purpose. We can never fully fathom His amazing grace. “We see through a glass, darkly” -- grappling with the expanse of His awesome love. But even with our limits, we can heed that which is required: To do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with our God.

I pray that we will. And as we journey together on this “march of living hope,” I pray that, in His name, we will run and not be weary, and walk and not be faint, and we’ll heed those words and “put on love.”

May the Lord bless you and keep you, and may He bless this precious country that we love.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

END
9:37 A.M. EST

Bigfella
11 Feb 15,, 20:44
I like the bit where he specifically said he wasn't going to use the US military against Daesh because we are no better than them. Dear god this man is a disgrace!

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 21:08
here's the entire transcript, so people can judge if this really was a call to humility, or...equating ourselves with DAESH/indulging in moral relativism/anti-Semitism/Christian-baiting/right-baiting/white-baiting...


To quote Kate McMillan


For religious relativists not keeping score: The Westboro Baptist death count remains at zero.

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 21:10
I like the bit where he specifically said he wasn't going to use the US military against Daesh because we are no better than them. Dear god this man is a disgrace!
Uh huh.

Most of the time when I encounter it it's used to 1: denigrate or 2: divert.

Parihaka
11 Feb 15,, 22:14
Oh, and it was indeed a lovely speech for the most part. It's when he goes off the cuff to insert his own beliefs that problems arise


Obama, Trying to Add Context to Speech, Faces Backlash Over ‘Crusades’ (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/us/obama-trying-to-add-context-to-speech-faces-backlash-over-crusades.html?referrer=&_r=0)

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
FEBRUARY 6, 2015
WASHINGTON — President Obama personally added a reference to the Crusades in his speech this week at the National Prayer Breakfast, aides said, hoping to add context and nuance to his condemnation of Islamic terrorists by noting that people also “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

But by purposely drawing the fraught historical comparison on Thursday, Mr. Obama ignited a firestorm on television and social media about the validity of his observations and the roots of religious conflicts that raged more than 800 years ago.

On Twitter, amateur historians angrily accused Mr. Obama of refusing to acknowledge Muslim aggression that preceded the Crusades. Others criticized him for drawing simplistic analogies across centuries. Many suggested that the president was reaching for ways to excuse or minimize the recent atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

“I’m not surprised, I guess,” said Thomas Asbridge, a medieval historian and director of the Center for the Study of Islam and the West at the University of London. “Any use of the word ‘Crusade’ has to be made with great caution. It is the most highly charged word you can use in the context of the Middle East.”
It was, Mr. Obama’s aides said, not entirely an accident. The president wanted to be provocative in his remarks, they said, urging people to see how the current brutality of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, fits in the broader sweep of a global history that has often given rise to what he called “a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

Double Edge
12 Feb 15,, 00:32
I really haven't found that many times where it's useful, but I'll take your word for it. Most of the time when I encounter it it's used to 1: denigrate or 2: divert.
It can be used that way. it's a tool. The intent is what matters. The ancients grappled with this and their answer was polytheism. Then we get the all-in-one over everything and we see the mother of all M&A's take place.

if people are starting to argue in this way it means we're losing the PR fight. They can already get recruits now they are getting people to say they are not so bad. They pay well. They say they are a state whereas AQ is a mere org.


The only reason Obama raised the Daesh in that speech was because he knew his comparison would outrage the religious types. The reason BF uses it is because he wants to divert discussion from areas verboten by his political code.
The Obama team was interesting yesterday. He made a relatively innocuous statement a couple of weeks ago, claiming the deli murders in France were random. Vapid, but innocuous from the point of view that the remarks could be easily corrected. Instead his team spent six hours doubling down that there was no Jewish connection, nothing to see here. Reporters were actually yelling questions out of turn at the White House press gallery. After those hours, the two White House staff involved tweeted "of course the shootings were anti-Semitic ". This after several hours of denying any such connection. That's not inept, that's deliberate. In one week Obama bitch-slapped Christians and whites, claiming they were no better than the daesh, then his team bitch-slapped the Jews, presumably in retaliation for Netanyahu, and to advance their alliance with Iran.
Jew baiting, Christian/right baiting and of course white baiting. Cheep theatrics and cynicism rule the day.
This is a message to Iran ?

Why relativise Da'ish, that isn't going to impress Iran.

Something is missing here.

As far as Iran is concerned, i don't know what Obama can do to stop congress from passing more sanctions which would screw everything up. At the same time the clock is ticking to deliver meaningful results. March end we will know more.

Parihaka
12 Feb 15,, 04:08
It can be used that way. it's a tool. The intent is what matters. The ancients grappled with this and their answer was polytheism. Then we get the all-in-one over everything and we see the mother of all M&A's take place.

if people are starting to argue in this way it means we're losing the PR fight. They can already get recruits now they are getting people to say they are not so bad. They pay well. They say they are a state whereas AQ is a mere org.


This is a message to Iran ?

Why relativise Da'ish, that isn't going to impress Iran.

Something is missing here.

As far as Iran is concerned, i don't know what Obama can do to stop congress from passing more sanctions which would screw everything up. At the same time the clock is ticking to deliver meaningful results. March end we will know more.
Sorry, not very clear. The denial that there was any Jewish connection to the deli murders, coupled with the previous animosity toward Netanyahu and Israel (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/) is a message to Iran. Distancing.

Double Edge
12 Feb 15,, 11:35
Sorry, not very clear. The denial that there was any Jewish connection to the deli murders, coupled with the previous animosity toward Netanyahu and Israel (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/) is a message to Iran. Distancing.
A small nod in their direction. Indicates a willingness to deal.

commander
12 Feb 15,, 16:22
Yeah, a solution that says that critical thought is not important to understand the universe and everything else. There is a big daddy up there, yo.

There was no evolution, big daddy made everything. The sun and moon are gods. Hell even the wind and sea are gods. That guy plays soccer very well, not because he has practiced and worked hard at his genetically evolved skill, but because GOD gave him talent. So and so has contracted a disease, not because he lives in unhygienic condition but because the big juju in the mountain cursed him. 911 happened because god hates ******s. Innocent children need to be killed because god will grant the murderer 72 virgins.

Very simple and elegant, for those who do not want to think.

AM, I honestly think religion was born out of humans' inability to process/understand what was going on around them. They looked for answers and when they couldn't come up with one they resorted to a simple answer. Even with all the technology we have now we still haven't uncovered a lot more things. Religious belief is not bad. It provides a security to people to take solace and to justify things that happens around them that were beyond their control. I can't talk about other religion but Hindu's saw Sun as a god because it was the provider of energy that helped to grow their food, helped them migrate in daylight without having to fear the darkness and so on. Same goes for every other god that you can think of barring a few. Hinduism did have revolutionaries that changed how it is perceived/practiced over thousands of years through sages and saints and somehow down the line something fucked up and it became stubborn to changes. I am assuming it was the human greed that saw the potential in religion and started to use it for bad purposes. Science can also be used for both good and bad but it is not the fault of science but the scientists. IMO religion should have been more like science that accepts new theories, discredits older/invalid one's and evolve rather than sticking with the primitive understanding of man trying to explain the unexplainable. Anyway this is a very deep subject and I don't have enough experience or knowledge to debate on. I respect you view on all religions and happy that you take a neutral stance. Criticism is good and only if something is criticised it can be fixed. But just blind criticism of everything is not good in itself too.

Blademaster
12 Feb 15,, 16:38
Oh, and it was indeed a lovely speech for the most part. It's when he goes off the cuff to insert his own beliefs that problems arise

So Parihaka, are you too ashamed to face the past of Christianity where terrible atrocities were committed in the name of Christ that you cannot handle any criticisms of Christianity?

That is my take from all the posts and diatribes you have against Obama. Obama was essentially saying that no religion is immune from atrocities and evil deeds. He is saying that we good men have to do all we can in our power to keep our religion from being abused or used in evil ways. He was not singling anything out but including his own faith so he doesn't come across as a hypocrite for excluding his own faith.

With each passing post you make regarding Obama, you sound eerily close to those right wing fringe Tea Partiers' views.

GVChamp
12 Feb 15,, 17:28
Oh so you believe in evolution now? I guess that progress.:cool:

But seriously, I don't care about your religion or what you believe in as long as you do not try to trample the rights of others.

I'm not religious, and Evolution was founded by Catholics, not atheists. Lamarck=catholic, Mendel=friar (monk basically).
They were inspired by their religion, you insult them for it, and then still expect them to contribute these wonderful ideas to your life.

Seriously, you don't see how you are INCREDIBLY offensive to religous people?

Blademaster,
How is it "right-wing fringe" to quote the New York Times? Is any criticism of Obama right-wing fringe now?

Parihaka
12 Feb 15,, 17:56
So Parihaka, are you too ashamed to face the past of Christianity where terrible atrocities were committed in the name of Christ that you cannot handle any criticisms of Christianity?

No, are you?

Oracle
12 Feb 15,, 17:59
No, are you?

He's not a Christian. He's an American who claims loudly to be a Hindu Indian.

antimony
12 Feb 15,, 19:57
I'm not religious, and Evolution was founded by Catholics, not atheists. Lamarck=catholic, Mendel=friar (monk basically).
They were inspired by their religion, you insult them for it, and then still expect them to contribute these wonderful ideas to your life.

That was meant on a light note, I even said so after that sentence. Seriously, do try not to get your knickers twisted all the time. That was meant in a light tone too. On a serious note, yes, I recognize the role of individual religious people in scientific progression. that does not mean that religion is all on board with science. I recall the story of the American geologist Kurt Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research. A brilliant and promising young scientist, he got influenced by Creationist thinking and came to the honest conclusion that he could either believe in the Bible or in evolution. Tragically (in my view), he chose the former.

Yes, this is one example, but a very instructive one that shows the conflict between scientific thought and religious belief.



Seriously, you don't see how you are INCREDIBLY offensive to religious people?


Do you realize how incredibly offensive religious people are to non-believers or to people of other religions? Seriously, why should I care for their right to be offended, when they cannot stand my very existence as a on religious person? You and I are very lucky that we are in the one country that protects free speech in all its forms. What do you think happens worldwide? If you are going to talk about religion, you cannot close your eyes to that.

antimony
12 Feb 15,, 19:59
So Parihaka, are you too ashamed to face the past of Christianity where terrible atrocities were committed in the name of Christ that you cannot handle any criticisms of Christianity?


How quickly the claws come out in religious folks :rolleyes:

A few posts back Mihais (Christian) and Blademaster (Hindu) were ganging up on me.

astralis
12 Feb 15,, 20:27
no personal attacks, please.

antimony
12 Feb 15,, 20:34
AM, I honestly think religion was born out of humans' inability to process/understand what was going on around them. They looked for answers and when they couldn't come up with one they resorted to a simple answer. Even with all the technology we have now we still haven't uncovered a lot more things. Religious belief is not bad. It provides a security to people to take solace and to justify things that happens around them that were beyond their control.


That is my whole point. Religion is a human construct and has nothing to do with the existence (or lack thereof) of any supreme being. And because it seeks to touch all aspects of human life, including life after death, it has a huge power over the minds of people, all for some fictional sky god (s).

Note that I am not railing against the existence of any supreme being; I am agnostic about that (probably a 5 on the Dawkins scale). My beef is with religion.



I can't talk about other religion but Hindu's saw Sun as a god because it was the provider of energy that helped to grow their food, helped them migrate in daylight without having to fear the darkness and so on. Same goes for every other god that you can think of barring a few.

And we now know that that is wrong. What else is wrong in our Hindu scriptures? Why do we not ask that question?



Hinduism did have revolutionaries that changed how it is perceived/practiced over thousands of years through sages and saints and somehow down the line something fucked up and it became stubborn to changes. I am assuming it was the human greed that saw the potential in religion and started to use it for bad purposes. Science can also be used for both good and bad but it is not the fault of science but the scientists. IMO religion should have been more like science that accepts new theories, discredits older/invalid one's and evolve rather than sticking with the primitive understanding of man trying to explain the unexplainable. Anyway this is a very deep subject and I don't have enough experience or knowledge to debate on.


Again, we are talking about something completely MAN MADE. Hinduism is actually the most accomodative of the major religions, where pretty much anyone can believe in anything and call themselves "Hindu". I have even seen picture of Jesus in Hindu temples and monasteries. I do not have a problem with any of that. I do have a problem in the way free speech and thought is attacked in India.

This is a common theme across all religions across the world. One would have thought that an all powerful god (or 330 millions gods) would have the strength and patience not to get riled up any comments from puny humans. but apparently I am wrong there. People die when religious folks get offended.

I would recommend a book like the GOD DELUSION by Prof. Richard Dawkins to you.



I respect you view on all religions and happy that you take a neutral stance. Criticism is good and only if something is criticised it can be fixed. But just blind criticism of everything is not good in itself too.

My criticism is not blind, but has been reached after due consideration.

commander
12 Feb 15,, 21:52
That is my whole point. Religion is a human construct and has nothing to do with the existence (or lack thereof) of any supreme being. And because it seeks to touch all aspects of human life, including life after death, it has a huge power over the minds of people, all for some fictional sky god (s).

Note that I am not railing against the existence of any supreme being; I am agnostic about that (probably a 5 on the Dawkins scale). My beef is with religion.

Valid point, but IMO religion also helped people to organize themselves, due credit to it. It created social order made us fear the all-seeing-entity and kept us in check. Somehow someone in the middle thought otherwise and corrupted the whole system.



And we now know that that is wrong. What else is wrong in our Hindu scriptures? Why do we not ask that question?

And how is that wrong ? Just curious...
Sorry but that was my understanding, not necessarily that of everyone's. Hinduism did go through various transformations and it is very much acceptable to ridiculing its beliefs. It was only after the fake sadhu's and fake saints that started appearing they twisted it and made it very sensitive to questions., because if questioned then they will lose their following. But that's mainly after the onslaught of mocking, making fun its practices without knowing how it came to existence etc that created this issue. It used to be people who had deep understanding about the religion that questioned it's practices , someone who knew the in's and out's of it that questioned and those were valid one's and were accepted or changed or adapted. But later it became a cool factor to ridicule everything it offers and that's when it became an issue. If someone who questions something without even knowing of it's history will you accept it ? Sadly many don't possess a deep and sound knowledge and people started to become sensitive. That's my honest take on this issue.



Again, we are talking about something completely MAN MADE. Hinduism is actually the most accomodative of the major religions, where pretty much anyone can believe in anything and call themselves "Hindu". I have even seen picture of Jesus in Hindu temples and monasteries. I do not have a problem with any of that. I do have a problem in the way free speech and thought is attacked in India.

Ofcourse I agree, man created this mess. As you pointed out I have seen many atheist Hindu's who are still considered Hindu's and are treated as one. I firmly believe had it not been the step motherly treatment we wouldn't have seen the rise of some right fringe groups like VHP or Bajrang Dal. That's my take.



This is a common theme across all religions across the world. One would have thought that an all powerful god (or 330 millions gods) would have the strength and patience not to get riled up any comments from puny humans. but apparently I am wrong there. People die when religious folks get offended.

I for one believe if a god needs protection then he can't he be a God.



I would recommend a book like the GOD DELUSION by Prof. Richard Dawkins to you.


Thanks would check it out.

tbm3fan
12 Feb 15,, 22:56
I for one believe if a god needs protection then he can't he be a God.



Isn't that the truth.

What we need protection from is those who use/misuse and those who interpret/misinterpret religion to advance their own goals whatever they are.

gunnut
12 Feb 15,, 23:23
Ever noticed radical islamists burn other people while radical Buddhists burn themselves?

tbm3fan
12 Feb 15,, 23:31
Ever noticed radical islamists burn other people while radical Buddhists burn themselves?

Oh, is that one crying out for a one liner but I won't sidetrack...

commander
13 Feb 15,, 00:01
Ever noticed radical islamists burn other people while radical Buddhists burn themselves?

You are forgetting Sri Lanka and Myanmar ....

Bigfella
13 Feb 15,, 02:11
You are forgetting Sri Lanka and Myanmar ....

Don't confuse 'forgetting' with 'never heard of'.

Ironically he's not too fond of Buddhists when they stand up to the Communist dictatorship in China.

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 08:43
You can believe in 330 million gods, I cannot believe in the celestial teapot? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you going to disbelieve that too?:pari::mad:

I see. You want us to take your atheist beliefs seriously while you engage in reductio ad absurdum reasoning against religion. Sure that is gonna fly with the rest of us. :rolleyes: Well for starters, Stephen Hawking's theory about multiple universes was debunked on the fact that he needed multiple universes to prove his M string theory or whatever. There have been no direct or indirect tangible evidence of such theories and yet we are supposed to accept the theory based on mathematics and logic. It is no different from theorizing that there is a flying spaghetti monster or a celestial teapot.

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 08:46
Blademaster,
How is it "right-wing fringe" to quote the New York Times? Is any criticism of Obama right-wing fringe now?

Not quoting the New York Times but taking it out of context and going off on a tangent to a place only God knows where and not making much sense to me. Take a look at the transcript of Obama and compare to the criticisms made by Parihaka and others. I do not simply see how there can be a connect between Obama's words and the points that Parihaka is making. Hence my comparison to the Tea Partiers who have a habit of making incomprehensible out of the world connections between Obama and anything they can think of.

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 08:50
He's not a Christian. He's an American who claims loudly to be a Hindu Indian.

At lease it is better than claiming that he will report anybody he thinks to be subversive to the NSA, a foreign entity outside of his country (which is actually legal grounds for treason in India by the way) and criticizing his very own land for expressing in faiths practiced over 80 percent of the population and yet claim to speak for the entire land. At least I know who I am and you seems to have a hard time figuring out who you are. :rolleyes:

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 08:54
How quickly the claws come out in religious folks :rolleyes:

A few posts back Mihais (Christian) and Blademaster (Hindu) were ganging up on me.

So?? I picked on your posts because you were criticizing, directly or indirectly, on people for having religion. So I took the time and rebutted your assertion made in your posts. Not my fault if other people disagreed with your posts and took issue with it and making those issues public.

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 08:58
No, are you?

No I am not ashamed to face the past of Hinduism and call out for it. For example, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Obama's remarks about India and religion. It is just that Obama may be thinking of Hinduism but his statements can be correctly applied to every religion and offshoot in India. All groups of major religions are or were complicit in religions intolerance and the use of violence in furtherance of their intolerance and law & order were not adhered to in those circumstances including acts instigated by Hindu followers. As a believer of Hinduism, it is my duty to ensure that my religion is not abused or used in the wrong way by those who would use violence or propagate violence that would twist the meaning of my religion, which was the basic theme of Obama's speech.

Bigfella
13 Feb 15,, 10:11
I see. You want us to take your atheist beliefs seriously

Its an absence of belief. A stunningly simple concept really.


Well for starters, Stephen Hawking's theory about multiple universes was debunked on the fact that he needed multiple universes to prove his M string theory or whatever. There have been no direct or indirect tangible evidence of such theories and yet we are supposed to accept the theory based on mathematics and logic. It is no different from theorizing that there is a flying spaghetti monster or a celestial teapot.

Sure it is, and here's why. its just a theory. Those who propose it accept is as such. It is open to being disproved. it can be altered according to new information. it isn't a metaphysical concept that exists in a realm where it can't be falsified the way gods & deities do.

It gets better. No one is going to try to kill anyone for trying to disprove that theory. Wars aren't going to start. There aren't going to be riots, terrorism or repression. A bunch of super smart people will argue like hell, publish papers none of us can understand, perhaps throw a few tantrums & sulk & then, if the proof warrants it, decide the original theory was wrong.

But wait, there's more! This is the super dooper best bit. It doesn't actually matter to us unbelievers. It really doesn't! In terms of our day to day lives it doesn't make a jot of difference which scientific theory of the beginning of the universe is right. Believers don't get that option. The identity of their particular invisible friend(s) and the stories told about/inspired by said friend(s) are absolutely fundamental to their lives (if they really believe). That is why it is not permissible to have Gods who can be disproven.

Not having to care about whose story of creation is right is great. Watching people who are still obsessed with theirs act like those of us who don't need to care actually should is also pretty funny. A bit like watching idiots jump up and down about Darwin, as if he is a 'prophet' whose 'revelation' is being followed by a bunch of 'believers' and whose discrediting will therefore bring evolution crashing down. If Hawking is wrong someone else will work it out eventually. Only an arrogant fool or someone completely lacking imagination or a sense of history could convince themselves that we have somehow reached the limits of human understanding in our lifetimes.

lemontree
13 Feb 15,, 10:18
He's not a Christian. He's an American who claims loudly to be a Hindu Indian.

Oh come on Oracle. That is hitting him below the belt again and again.
Let us not hold it against him for his beliefs and strong affiliation for his roots.

Oracle
13 Feb 15,, 17:22
At lease it is better than claiming that he will report anybody he thinks to be subversive to the NSA, a foreign entity outside of his country (which is actually legal grounds for treason in India by the way) and criticizing his very own land for expressing in faiths practiced over 80 percent of the population and yet claim to speak for the entire land. At least I know who I am and you seems to have a hard time figuring out who you are. :rolleyes:

Ouch! My bad, but I wasn't trying to score points. That was a compliment. :)

Btw, whatever you posted about the 80% stuff and speaking for the entire land, can you prove it? I know. You can't. I speak only for myself. Hindutva people OTOH do speak up time and again for me. Sad to belong to a religion that is going back to the dark ages.


Oh come on Oracle. That is hitting him below the belt again and again.
Let us not hold it against him for his beliefs and strong affiliation for his roots.

I'm sorry if that is what you felt.

I keep myself isolated from religion and religious extremists.

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 17:32
Ouch! My bad, but I wasn't trying to score points. That was a compliment. :)

Btw, whatever you posted about the 80% stuff and speaking for the entire land, can you prove it? I know. You can't. I speak only for myself. Hindutva people OTOH do speak up time and again for me. Sad to belong to a religion that is going back to the dark ages.


You have already proven my point with your words above and you don't even see it and you criticize me for my dual nationality background. :rolleyes: You just basically called 80% of the people for being backwards because you believe that their belief system is backwards.




I keep myself isolated from religion and religious extremists.

Yes and isolated from 90% of the population of India. :rolleyes:

Oracle
13 Feb 15,, 17:44
You have already proven my point with your words above and you don't even see it and you criticize me for my dual nationality background. :rolleyes: You just basically called 80% of the people for being backwards because you believe that their belief system is backwards.

Yes, I feel good. I also feel good about how the lawyer awakens in you everytime you're cornered and you twist my words to suit your argument. Expected. :rolleyes:


Yes and isolated from 90% of the population of India. :rolleyes:

Keep up with the news. I guess it's somewhere around 80%. Muslim population has risen according to 2011 census.

antimony
13 Feb 15,, 17:49
I see. You want us to take your atheist beliefs seriously while you engage in reductio ad absurdum reasoning against religion. Sure that is gonna fly with the rest of us.

No I don't care if you take my lack of beliefs seriously or not. I do care when you try to muzzle others or try to force your views on the rest.


:rolleyes: Well for starters, Stephen Hawking's theory about multiple universes was debunked on the fact that he needed multiple universes to prove his M string theory or whatever. There have been no direct or indirect tangible evidence of such theories and yet we are supposed to accept the theory based on mathematics and logic. It is no different from theorizing that there is a flying spaghetti monster or a celestial teapot.

This is incomprehensible. What does a (failed) scientific theory have anything to do with religion?

Blademaster
13 Feb 15,, 18:23
Yes, I feel good. I also feel good about how the lawyer awakens in you everytime you're cornered and you twist my words to suit your argument. Expected. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: whatever makes your boat floats.



Keep up with the news. I guess it's somewhere around 80%. Muslim population has risen according to 2011 census.

No, you idiot, I was including Muslims and other faiths but giving you 10% for those who do not believe in religion or practice religion since you basically criticized all religions.

astralis
13 Feb 15,, 18:26
enough.

Parihaka
13 Feb 15,, 19:58
No I am not ashamed to face the past of Hinduism.
I really truly couldn't give a monkeys arse what invisible friend cult you genuflect to.
You're not answering the question. You asked was I ashamed "to face the past of Christianity where terrible atrocities were committed in the name of Christ that you cannot handle any criticisms of Christianity?"
My question is straight back at you. Are YOU too ashamed to face the past of Christianity, blah blah blah. It's rhetorical you see. Why, after supposedly reading this thread, you think I was invested in Christianity or any of the other invisible friend cults is beyond me, but there you go.

Parihaka
14 Feb 15,, 02:03
I really truly couldn't give a monkeys arse what invisible friend cult you genuflect to.
You're not answering the question. You asked was I ashamed "to face the past of Christianity where terrible atrocities were committed in the name of Christ that you cannot handle any criticisms of Christianity?"
My question is straight back at you. Are YOU too ashamed to face the past of Christianity, blah blah blah. It's rhetorical you see. Why, after supposedly reading this thread, you think I was invested in Christianity or any of the other invisible friend cults is beyond me, but there you go.
I'm posting this on behalf and with the permission of Blademaster who missed the right of reply with the thread being closed


was close and not allowing me to rebut your comment.

In response to your last comment, no I am not ashamed of facing Christianity even though your question was rhetorical. You were on a bent criticizing Obama when he made the connection to his own religion as an example when good people fail to rise up and say enough and that this is not part of my religion and criticized him for bringing up past deeds.

And yes I did answer your question in more than 1 way.