| BookTalk.org News |
| • Only 4 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
Dan Barker
author of "Godless"
talks about his deconversion
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Mr. Pessimistic 
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender: 
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Irish
In the meantime, I’m not sure who you mean by “others” here:
I presume you mean Mr. P., and possibly Chris, though I’m hoping I’m wrong on both counts. But let me personally distance myself from those “others.” |
I’ll say this; the apologist label was not my doing, even though I agree with it, but I will not speak for anyone else as far as giving names. More than a few people that I have chatted with agree that Mad is no moderate. Most of them have been around for quite a while now and have more experience with Mad’s methods.
Later |
Yeah I called Mad an apologist earlier on...but I was using words he used in this same thread. Mayb ehe is not an apologist like Lewis was or others, but I do agree that he defends and tried to reduce the role of religion in almost every instance that has ever come up in my expereince here. It is always more the fault or result of something else.
By Mad's own admission, he witholds his criticism of religion here because he feels that his contributions would heat up an already heated situation. That is kinda the problem as I see it. He witholds criticism and comes on in defense in the topics that do come up. That will naturally tend to make one look like someone defeding religion IMO. No?
If we want honest discussion, no one should hide how they feel or think on a topic. I sure as hell dont, no matter how much intensity that produces here on the forums.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1284
Thanks
Given: 27
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Irish
I really think this is where the hang-up is between Frank and Mad, whenever this issue comes up. Frank sees Mad as “defending” religion. And, I think anyway, Mad does not look at what he is doing in the same way. Rather his intention is to get a fuller understanding of the root causes of any issue—all of the causes he can possibly determine—and in trying to say that "it isn’t just religion," Frank hears "it isn’t ever or at all religion." |
I suppose it’s possible that I am reading more into Mad’s arguments than he is suggesting, but we all already know that religion in situations like this is not solely to blame. The intertwining of religion and government causes too much of what you call gray area.
That is one point that we all agreed on long ago.
But it seems, from my perspective that Mad is continuously pushing for a more secular reason or abuse of religion by secular authorities in an apparent attempt to clear religion of most of the wrong.
And I do not think that those excuses, forgive religion of its role in the matter.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
| He witholds criticism and comes on in defense in the topics that do come up. That will naturally tend to make one look like someone defeding religion IMO. No? |
In this particular context, I have no doubt that I come across as an apologist. That's because the level of discussion about religion is kept at a very simplistic, black-and-white level, as though religion were constantly on trial. If the horrors of religion weren't a constant discussion point on BookTalk, I'd probably vary my approach a great deal more.
| Quote: |
| If we want honest discussion, no one should hide how they feel or think on a topic. |
It isn't a matter of hiding what I think or feel. It's a matter of responding to the topics raised here. And as I've pointed out hundreds of times, my "defense" of religion (which is really more a critique of politics) is always in response to attacks. It's a subject that I would talk about a lot less in general if it weren't constantly being reiterated by others. I think there's a hell of a lot worth talking about that doesn't have a whole lot to do with religious persecution. It's just all taking a backseat on this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| And I do not think that those excuses, forgive religion of its role in the matter. |
Nor do I -- a point I'm really tired of making. I just don't think it's terribly productive to point out every religious entanglement and leave it at that. Noting the gray area and moving on achieves nothing. A blanket approach like "destroy religion" is unrealistic and unreasonable. A more reasonable approach would be to discuss how to minimize the responsibility religion does play in instances like this, and to also talk about how politics is responsible as well. But you guys just keep linking to articles like this and bitching about the damage done by religion. I'm sure that'll turn out how you want it. The internet, after all, is magic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1284
Thanks
Given: 27
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Mad
Nor do I -- a point I'm really tired of making. I just don't think it's terribly productive to point out every religious entanglement and leave it at that. Noting the gray area and moving on achieves nothing. |
Mad, I would think a moderate would be able to refrain from getting involved in threads like this. Especially since it causes you so much frustration, of course I would not expect this sort of thing to get a moderate all wound up in the first place.
Just my opinion.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frank wrote: |
| And after reading it you still came to a bad conclusion and looked rather silly by the end of the debate. |
I'll agree that I looked rather silly, but it's mostly because I insisted on giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who had no intention of reciprocating the favor. And not that you'd have noticed, but I actually modified my opinion through the course of the discussion. It wasn't your arguments that led to that modification, though -- rather, it was reading and discussing the actual evidence that made me rethink my position.
| Quote: |
| Why not admit, based off of the information available that the Muhammad teddy bear incident is the result of religious intolerance, that it was unjustified, silly and dangerous? |
We haven't looked at the information available. We've limited ourselves to newspaper articles that give only the shallowest information about the culture, political and historical context that influence the situation. If I tell you that Ted's a Mormon and a certified public accountant, you could take that as evidence that Mormonism encourages accounting as a profession, but only because you haven't bothered to look for more information on the matter.
| Quote: |
| Yet he jumps in at every opportunity to defend religion, even when several other theists are already on the case. |
The odd thing about it is, I've also defended atheism on several occasions. That doesn't help your case, though, so feel free to ignore it.
| Rose wrote: |
| But my intention is to defend discourse—because without open, intelligent, considerate debate, we’re all lost. |
In large part, that's what I'm trying to defend. There's so little discussion going on in this forum, and particularly when it comes to this issue. Which is a genuine problem since this issue comes up more often than any other issue. If we're not discussing it, what are we doing with it?
| Frank wrote: |
| Most of them have been around for quite a while now and have more experience with Mad’s methods. |
Those ominous methods! I will admit to occasionally having resorted to the strappado and thumb screws. And while the U.N. has recently designated taser use as a form of torture, I think it quite clear that the American position on that practice has reason to abet it. And yes, once I sent LanDroid to bed without his supper, but only once, and his behavior that evening had been atrocious. Beyond those, I'm not sure what methods you mean.
| Quote: |
| Mad, I would think a moderate would be able to refrain from getting involved in threads like this. |
Actually, I had a very specific purpose, and it looks as though I've achieved it. Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1284
Thanks
Given: 27
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Mad
I'll agree that I looked rather silly, but it's mostly because I insisted on giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who had no intention of reciprocating the favor. |
Your argument in that thread was so awful and your defense of it so total, there was no possibility of giving any benefit to it.
| Quote: |
Mad
And not that you'd have noticed, but I actually modified my opinion through the course of the discussion. It wasn't your arguments that led to that modification, though -- rather, it was reading and discussing the actual evidence that made me rethink my position. |
Yes it took… what… several weeks of back and forth in that thread for you to accept what Mr. P. and I knew innately, so good for you!
| Quote: |
Mad
Actually, I had a very specific purpose, and it looks as though I've achieved it. Cheers! |
If you meant derailing the topic and acting like a jerk, you’re correct, mission accomplished.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| Yes it took… what… several weeks of back and forth in that thread for you to accept what Mr. P. and I knew innately, so good for you! |
No, I never ended up agreeing with you. And what it actually took was reading more information on the topic. But then, you would assume that the only options are black and white, wouldn't you? What else could it mean to say that I "modified" my opinions, except that I conceded defeat to your instinctual wisdom? And do you really think your knowledge about the Witch Crazes is innate? Wild. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:01 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Evelyne wrote: |
| The Arab journalist in the programme, Barry, said that the decision of the Sudanese government was totally unjustified from the point of view of islamic values, and that British Muslims did not support the condemnation. |
I meant to get to this earlier, but got sidetracked by all the talk of my supposed apologetics and underhanded "methods".
Thanks for pointing this report out, Evelyne. I doubt that British Muslims are anywhere near unanimous in their objections, but it does seem likely that there's a strong British Muslim contingent that disagrees with the Sudanese handling of the case. What I do wonder is how qualified the "Dateline London" journalist is to assess "the point of view of Islamic values". I'm not sure there's a definitive Islamic viewpoint that would provide a clear-cut judgment. But your paraphrase of the journalist's report does accord with what I've been saying at least to the extent that it demonstrates that people who profess the same religion will interpret and practice it differently according to the context (cultural, political, aesthetic) in which they live.
And, again, I do apologize for not addressing your reply earlier. Here I am arguing on and on about how rarely we actually discuss with one another, and I've almost managed to avoid responding to someone who wants just that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7210
Thanks
Given: 35
Received: 10 in 9 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people try to make them.
This current event story is all about a group of people that believe in complete nonsense. And their belief is so fanatical that they want to kill other people that don't believe in the same bullshit.
Too simplistic? I don't think so.
Was Mohammed a real prophet? Of course not.
Does God really exist? No.
Is there any harm in naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed? Certainly not.
Did the children or the teacher mean Islam any disrespect? I doubt.
If Muslims weren't convinced that the Koran is true would they be calling for the execution of a school teacher that named a Teddy Bear Mohammed? No chance.
Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1284
Thanks
Given: 27
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Mad
No, I never ended up agreeing with you. |
I never said you agreed with me. I said you finally accepted the flaw that we saw from the beginning.
Hear are your own words on the matter.
| Quote: |
Mad
Frank, my "position" on what caused and sustained the witch crazes is a less solid matter than you've made it out to be, and one of the things that I've found most frustrating about this discussion is that I've succumbed on too many occasions to the tendency to respond as though my opinions on the matter were both final and fully worked out. That has a lot to do with the terms in which you've couched discussion; if you look back at the exchanges between myself and Rose, or myself and Mr. P, you'll see a much greater willingness on the part of both sides to consider the possibilities. You've consistently invited me to defend positions that were far more entrenched and definite than my own, and to my dismay, I realize that I've come out looking as though I really did subscribe to those positions. |
For the record Mad you were the one who made it out to be your position, you could have just said that you were still working on the questions at hand and accepted some of the criticism in the first place; instead you went with your knee jerk reaction to resist anything that I and Mr. P. said.
| Quote: |
Mad
And what it actually took was reading more information on the topic. But then, you would assume that the only options are black and white, wouldn't you? |
No actually, but in this case you argument was so bad that exposing the weakness in it became a priority. You did eventually see the flaw in your theory... weather or not you came to the same conclusion as I did is irrelevant to me.
| Quote: |
Mad
What else could it mean to say that I "modified" my opinions, except that I conceded defeat to your instinctual wisdom? |
Just what I said above.
| Quote: |
Mad
And do you really think your knowledge about the Witch Crazes is innate? Wild. |
here you go putting words into my mouth again...
Not the witch crazes, but people, the way they act and the effect of religion has on those people... yes.
Your secular argument in that thread would mean that every one of the accusers was willing to be a part in the murder of another person for personal gain, in some cases very minor gain, or none at all.
They were also taking a big chance as well; many accusers were later accused themselves and were also executed. The people knew this, so for them to act in the manner you claimed it would take far more than some misfits acting troublesome.
But fear, zealotry and delusion readily cause that behavior.
I don’t know if this was something that you failed to realize when you came up with your “mostly secular reasoning” theory but that is what your argument suggested.
And that’s why I opposed it so strongly.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1284
Thanks
Given: 27
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:20 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Chris
Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth. |
Thank you Chris! 
It’s nice to have another voice of reason thrown in from time to time.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 770
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:27 am Post subject:
|
|
|
This discussion has become a ridiculous disaster.
| Quote: |
| Over analyze this all you want. The bottom line is religion is the real problem and not politics. I think Frank and Nick have done a fine job in showing this rather obvious truth. |
The notion that you can separate religion from politics in this situation is crazy. The woman was placed in prison because she offended the religious sensibilities of some people. There are some questions that I think need to be asked. 1. Does that mean that religion was the sole cause? 2. Does it mean that religion was the main cause? 3. Does it mean that in the absence of religion, such a situation could have arisen?
1. The odd thing about this situation is that the naming of the toy happened months ago. Colleagues knew about it. Parents knew about it. In spite of the fact that these Muslim colleagues and parents encountered the toy, they did not fly into fits of rage. In fact, none of these people even thought the name remarkable as far as I can tell. Mere belief in Islam was not enough to cause anger, and certainly, belief in a god of any form was not sufficient either. If mere belief was not sufficient then religion cannot be the sole cause.
2. Establishing the main cause of this episode is difficult. Certainly, without Islam, this specific charge would never have been brought for obvious reasons. But similarly, I doubt that if the woman had been a native the charges would have been brought. As I pointed out above, her colleagues did not think that this situation would arise. I suspect that the overly-zealous individual that brought the "crime" to the attention of the authorities was looking for offense because he knew the teacher's background.
3. Regarding if this situation could have arisen in the absence of religion, obviously this particular situation could not have happened, but this particular situation has many non-religious parallels in both western countries and communist countries.
For instance, a Rastafarian was arrested in a British court because of his mode of dress. In the States, a man was forced to resign and apologise because he used the word "niggardly." David Irving was sent to prison for three years because he denied the Jewish Holocaust. In China it is possible to be jailed for being a member of Falun Gong, or indeed for praying with the wrong people. In Turkey, the crime of insulting the state can land you in prison. Headscarves are banned from government buildings. Then of course, there are the internment policies adopted in recent times by the British and US governments which don't even require convictions and where innocent people are imprisoned indefinitely. In France, crosses and burkas are banned from public schools. In Albania, possession of a cross or bible was punished with a ten year prison sentence.
So yeah, in the absence of Sharia Law, this situation would not have arisen. However, in the presence of religion or even Islam in particular, there was no need for the situation to arise, and the absence of religion, Islam is no assurance that people would not be convicted for offending local sensibilities.
The fact is throughout Africa, and indeed throughout the world, people are arrested and sentenced to much harsher sentences for even more trivial crimes on poor evidence, but it doesn't get the same attention. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
