For my Libertarian friends

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: So you think that Muslims are more predisposed to violence than other groups of people?  Well, 11 of the 15 most dangerous countries according to Forbes are either mostly Muslim or on the list because of Islamic extremists. Let's not commit the converse error. Just because terrorists tend to be Muslim, it is not so that Muslim's tend to be terrorists.  "We" weren't making any error.  "We" were providing data- that's all. But since you mention this, let's go ahead and post the question: Are Muslim terrorists usually terrorists because of their religion?  I would say yes.  They don't suicide bomb buildings because they don't like the color of the wallpaper in the Men's room. My point is that you can't conclude that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism just because terrorist are predisposed to being Muslims which is what it appears to me that you're trying to do. That is an error and a very bad one. There are so many other factors besides Islam that could account for the high numbers of terrorists. To attach some sort of casuality there and justify profiling I think is unwarranted. I'm not concluding that Muslims are predisposed to terrorism on account of the inverse being the case.  I'm concluding that because I've studied their literature. Have you read the Koran and the Hadith? “Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ – except for the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.” Yes and have you read the bible?  "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Yep.  Laws for Israel in dealing with other Israelites.  If you didn't want to be in Israel, you could go live with the Midianites or the Hittites or the Mosquito Bites.  Of course, the death penalty for committing adultery was common throughout the ancient near east...and with good reason.  And if you don't want to pay the consequences, don't hook up with someone who isn't your spouse.  Intriguingly, the law regarding adultery in the Mosaic law treated men and women equally as opposed to the law regarding adultery in other cultures at the same time.

I'm surprised you're actually comparing ancient Near Eastern jurisprudence (punishing for a deliberate crime) with an ongoing hatred for Jews at large (killing where there is no crime).


Edited by Epignosis - August 09 2010 at 13:21

Epignosis wrote: Yep.  Laws for Israel in dealing with other Israelites.  If you didn't want to be in Israel, you could go live with the Midianites or the Hittites or the Mosquito Bites.  Of course, the death penalty for committing adultery was common throughout the ancient near east...and with good reason.  And if you don't want to pay the consequences, don't hook up with someone who isn't your spouse.  Intriguingly, the law regarding adultery in the Mosaic law treated men and women equally as opposed to the law regarding adultery in other cultures at the same time. I'm surprised you're actually comparing ancient Near Eastern jurisprudence (punishing for a deliberate crime) with an ongoing hatred for Jews at large (killing where there is no crime).

I'm surprised that you think it's somehow morally better than the Bible recommends a system of murder in governmental form.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

Seriously, you can go through the Holy Books of Judeo-Christian Theology and find atrocity after atrocity. Being of a religion doesn't mean one agrees with all of these ideas. I was raised a Catholic and find most of the Old Testament absolutely horrible and deplorable, and as a bad person for thinking so as my teacher's constantly reminded me.

EDIT: By the way something isn't a crime just because its legislated so. Homosexuality is not a crime. Islam can say that being Jewish is a crime, but that does not make it so. Similarly, the bible can not just declare homosexual acts criminal. I would like to debate God on the issue. I'm pretty sure I would win.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - August 09 2010 at 13:36

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Yep.  Laws for Israel in dealing with other Israelites.  If you didn't want to be in Israel, you could go live with the Midianites or the Hittites or the Mosquito Bites.  Of course, the death penalty for committing adultery was common throughout the ancient near east...and with good reason.  And if you don't want to pay the consequences, don't hook up with someone who isn't your spouse.  Intriguingly, the law regarding adultery in the Mosaic law treated men and women equally as opposed to the law regarding adultery in other cultures at the same time. I'm surprised you're actually comparing ancient Near Eastern jurisprudence (punishing for a deliberate crime) with an ongoing hatred for Jews at large (killing where there is no crime). I'm surprised that you think it's somehow morally better than the Bible recommends a system of murder in governmental form. "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." Seriously, you can go through the Holy Books of Judeo-Christian Theology and find atrocity after atrocity. Being of a religion doesn't mean one agrees with all of these ideas. I was raised a Catholic and find most of the Old Testament absolutely horrible and deplorable, and as a bad person for thinking so as my teacher's constantly reminded me. EDIT: By the way something isn't a crime just because its legislated so. Homosexuality is not a crime. Islam can say that being Jewish is a crime, but that does not make it so. Similarly, the bible can not just declare homosexual acts criminal. I would like to debate God on the issue. I'm pretty sure I would win.

You've turned your original question ("Are Muslims predisposed to terrorism") into a completely new one ("Does the Bible condone unjust violence as much as Muslim writings?").  Would be nice if you stayed on subject.

Once again you've quoted a passage about God's dealings within his own chosen nation (not outsiders).  There are passages about God dealing harshly-but never unmercifully (I can prove this)- with gentiles (You can check out Joshua chapter 6 if you'd like), but I am comfortable with my understanding of most of those passages (I didn't used to be).

Yes- the Bible is full of atrocities.  It reports when Israel was evil and was chastised for it.  That's because it's honest.  However, Jesus Christ did not order nor allow Christians to slaughter non-Christians (or beat their wives).  If you really want to compare the Koran and the Bible in terms of how it directs people to live today, and if you really want to compare Jesus with Muhammad, I am prepared to, but this of course is a tangent from what we were discussing and not really appropriate for this thread.

More on topic though: You just saying what is and isn't a crime also does not make it one way or the other. Can you demonstrate that something is a crime without relying on an initial axiom? 

Equality 7-2521 wrote:    EDIT: How do you really throw up that argument with all the talk about rights you were doing earlier in this thread?

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Epignosis wrote: You've turned your original question ("Are Muslims predisposed to terrorism") into a completely new one ("Does the Bible condone unjust violence as much as Muslim writings?").  Would be nice if you stayed on subject. Once again you've quoted a passage about God's dealings within his own chosen nation (not outsiders).  There are passages about God dealing harshly-but never unmercifully (I can prove this)- with gentiles (You can check out Joshua chapter 6 if you'd like), but I am comfortable with my understanding of most of those passages (I didn't used to be). Yes- the Bible is full of atrocities.  It reports when Israel was evil and was chastised for it.  That's because it's honest.  However, Jesus Christ did not order nor allow Christians to slaughter non-Christians (or beat their wives).  If you really want to compare the Koran and the Bible in terms of how it directs people to live today, and if you really want to compare Jesus with Muhammad, I am prepared to, but this of course is a tangent from what we were discussing and not really appropriate for this thread. I haven't changed the original (rhetorical) question. I'm making the point that violence in a holy book is hardly a point.  I don't see how passage only dealing with Israelites changes anything though. I'm not trying to argue that the Koran isn't worse than the Bible in that regard, but you can't claim that one is so innocent and the other evil.

We weren't even talking about the Bible.  You made an assumption and brought the Bible into it- I'm really not sure why, but okay.

You asked about Muslims being predisposed to terrorism.  I answered by quoting a Hadith.  My argument there does not depend on what the Bible says at all.  You bringing it up is utterly irrelevant to the question.

Epignosis wrote:   More on topic though: You just saying what is and isn't a crime also does not make it one way or the other. Can you demonstrate that something is a crime without relying on an initial axiom?  Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Of course not, nobody can show anything without an axiom system, but I can show it with a better axiom that "All God says is good". EDIT: How do you really throw up that argument with all the talk about rights you were doing earlier in this thread?

It wasn't argument, it was a question.  Hence the .

To answer yours: It is because I don't believe that individualism is intrinsically better axiomatically (as you do).  Collectivism was important for survival in tribal times, but now that we are so culturally removed from that way of life and thinking, we must adopt individualism (at least with respect to the government- churches operate in a somewhat collectivist manner, but that is their freedom to do so).

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Epignosis wrote: You've turned your original question ("Are Muslims predisposed to terrorism") into a completely new one ("Does the Bible condone unjust violence as much as Muslim writings?").  Would be nice if you stayed on subject. Once again you've quoted a passage about God's dealings within his own chosen nation (not outsiders).  There are passages about God dealing harshly-but never unmercifully (I can prove this)- with gentiles (You can check out Joshua chapter 6 if you'd like), but I am comfortable with my understanding of most of those passages (I didn't used to be). Yes- the Bible is full of atrocities.  It reports when Israel was evil and was chastised for it.  That's because it's honest.  However, Jesus Christ did not order nor allow Christians to slaughter non-Christians (or beat their wives).  If you really want to compare the Koran and the Bible in terms of how it directs people to live today, and if you really want to compare Jesus with Muhammad, I am prepared to, but this of course is a tangent from what we were discussing and not really appropriate for this thread. I haven't changed the original (rhetorical) question. I'm making the point that violence in a holy book is hardly a point.  I don't see how passage only dealing with Israelites changes anything though. I'm not trying to argue that the Koran isn't worse than the Bible in that regard, but you can't claim that one is so innocent and the other evil. We weren't even talking about the Bible.  You made an assumption and brought the Bible into it- I'm really not sure why, but okay. You asked about Muslims being predisposed to terrorism.  I answered by quoting a Hadith.  My argument there does not depend on what the Bible says at all.  You bringing it up is utterly irrelevant to the question. Epignosis wrote:   More on topic though: You just saying what is and isn't a crime also does not make it one way or the other. Can you demonstrate that something is a crime without relying on an initial axiom?  Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Of course not, nobody can show anything without an axiom system, but I can show it with a better axiom that "All God says is good". EDIT: How do you really throw up that argument with all the talk about rights you were doing earlier in this thread? It wasn't argument, it was a question.  Hence the . To answer yours: It is because I don't believe that individualism is intrinsically better axiomatically (as you do).  Collectivism was important for survival in tribal times, but now that we are so culturally removed from that way of life and thinking, we must adopt individualism (at least with respect to the government- churches operate in a somewhat collectivist manner, but that is their freedom to do so). It's not irrelevant. Your argument rests on the assumption that violence written in a religion's Holy Book translates into violence committed by its believers. So the bible is very relevant here as a means to challenge that assumption. But why do rights get thrown out the window once God enters the picture? Wouldn't you agree that the government couldn't pass a law that ordered all children murdered because that would not be valid? If we wrote the axioms out fully, I would think I could show my individual right's system would be simpler than yours. More of a hunch than anything, but introducing a god almost always is more complicated than not doing so.

You're losing me Pat.

My argument doesn't rest on "the assumption that violence written in a religion's Holy Book translates into violence committed by its believers."  Let me try again.  If a religion follows a man and a book, and both give commands do harm to those who do not practice that religion (by both his word and his example), then: 1) The followers of the religion are faithful and do as they should in accordance with the religion, OR 2) the followers of the religion only call themselves by the name of that religion but do not follow that religion in practice, OR 3) the followers interpret the command metaphorically.

What you've quoted so far from the Bible is not a parallel what I have quoted.  You have not quoted a passage from it that orders me (a Christian) to terminate non-Christians.

I don't see how I've said that "rights get thrown out the window when God enters the picture."  I also don't see what the government passing a law about children being murdered has to do with this subject.

As for simplicity, I'm not sure what you mean by this either.  Your individuals' rights system vs "my" system?  What "system" am I advocating here?  And how is simpler necessarily better?  How have I introduced God into "my" system (whatever that is)?  I'm really not sure how to respond.

Epignosis wrote: They explained how they arrived at their list on the first page: To determine the world's most dangerous countries we combined rankings provided by iJet and fellow risk-assessment firm Control Risks, giving equal weight to each set of data. The two firms used crime rates, police protection, civil unrest, terrorism risk, kidnapping threat and geopolitical stability to develop their own rankings. Where there was a tie, we assigned the higher spot to the nation with a more recent travel alert on the U.S. State Department's watch list. We eliminated any country that didn't appear on at least two of these three lists. You can accuse anything you don't want to agree with of bias if you wish, but demonstrating that bias is a different task altogether.

Crime rates sounds like the only statistically calculable thing in that list the rest are subjective criteria based on firms I've never heard of.  Not that that means anything. 

Epignosis wrote:   Black or white, eh?  I didn't say that either.  The question is about Muslims being predisposed to terrorism.  I think the evidence I've provided points in that direction, though it would seem (from what I've read and what I've heard in my discussion with Islamic people) a lot of Muslims are Muslim by route #3 (i.e., reinterpreting the Koran and the words and deeds of Muhammad). I've never heard of a "godly edict that gays be murdered."  I have heard that sodomy among the Israelites was an abomination and crime punishable by death, just as adultery was (I differentiate between capital punishment and murder, even if you do not).  What "right" was violated here?  The Israelites couldn't eat pork either.  Or work on the Sabbath.  Or wear clothes woven of both wool and linen  Ancient Israelites were to be concerned with holiness, not some post-Enlightenment notion of  "rights."  These restrictions were to set them apart from other people groups in such a way that other people recognized an Israelite (who belonged to YHWH) even by what he ate or how he dressed. You assume that so long as something does no harm to someone else, it is a right.  I do not (and cannot) share this assumption.  But as you've seen, I hold many libertarian beliefs, particularly in fiscal matters. My basic axiom as far as morality is concerned is very simple: If the God of the Bible exists, then we are accountable to Him.  I believe the God of the Bible exists. If you do not believe the God of the Bible exists, then we (to one degree or another) disagree on what constitutes good and evil (I move we try to turn this thread away from a religious discussion though, seeing as there's seven deadly threads on the subject already ).  Now as far as what laws the US government can pass, that's an easier matter of discussion (the Bible says covetousness is a sin, but I don't think the US government should make covetousness illegal). This certainly doesn't preclude us agreeing on many other things, as I think this thread has shown.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Well first off, of course we'll continue to agree on many things. If I appear angry or something in my argument here I apologize. I'm not actually getting heated or anything. I would agree that most reinterpret their holy writings. I thought you were trying to say that those who do that are not real muslims. Thus my comment about redefining. If some textual passages convinces you that they're more predisposed to terrorism that's fine, but that shows nothing to me. What right was violated? The right of a guy to bang another dude in the butt seems to be violated. There seems to be a communication issue here; I'm not positive what it is. I'm not doubting the historicity here, but I am calling it wrong.

On reflection my wording may have seemed to imply that all Muslims would have to be terrorists- that was clumsy phrasing and syntax on my part.

For the "communication issue," I think I can put a finger on that.  When I talk about Old Testament law, I'm talking about a small group of people called by God to be God's people.  No, these people did not have the same "rights" (if you wish to use that term) as other people.  They knew this, and at many times grumbled against it and rebelled. 

What is important to point out (that I probably was too clumsy to do succinctly) was that God's law applied to Israel only- not any other nation (which is exactly why modern Christians don't follow the Mosaic law- it wasn't a covenant with gentiles in the first place).  By agreeing to a Suzerain-Vassal covenant as they did, the Hebrew people agreed to live under God's law- this same God who rescued them.  If they wished not to, they could have gone back and remained as slaves in Egypt (and some among them even proposed doing just that).

Our government makes laws allowing things that the Bible calls evil, and some things the Bible calls evil our government should not make into laws (because we are not a Christian nation).  Notice nowhere in the Bible will you see early Christians trying to get into politics to change the secular (or religious) laws of the heathen governments, or worse, to use secular politics as a vehicle for promoting Christianity (when that started to happen, biblical doctrines became tainted- Constantine immediately comes to mind). The first Christians lived humbly in their circumstances but were to remain unwavering in their convictions- even unto death.

That said, I can vote here, and will always vote my conscience- and my conscience is tied Christian principles.  You spoke well when you said that what is made into law is not necessarily moral.  I absolutely agree. 

I weep over the myriad of unborn children torn from the womb and discarded.


Edited by Epignosis - August 09 2010 at 19:11

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   On reflection my wording may have seemed to imply that all Muslims would have to be terrorists- that was clumsy phrasing and syntax on my part. For the "communication issue," I think I can put a finger on that.  When I talk about Old Testament law, I'm talking about a small group of people called by God to be God's people.  No, these people did not have the same "rights" (if you wish to use that term) as other people.  They knew this, and at many times grumbled against it and rebelled.  What is important to point out (that I probably was too clumsy to do succinctly) was that God's law applied to Israel only- not any other nation (which is exactly why modern Christians don't follow the Mosaic law- it wasn't a covenant with gentiles in the first place).  By agreeing to a Suzerain-Vassal covenant as they did, the Hebrew people agreed to live under God's law- this same God who rescued them.  If they wished not to, they could have gone back and remained as slaves in Egypt (and some among them even proposed doing just that). Our government makes laws allowing things that the Bible calls evil, and some things the Bible calls evil our government should not make into laws (because we are not a Christian nation).  Notice nowhere in the Bible will you see early Christians trying to get into politics to change the secular (or religious) laws of the heathen governments, or worse, to use secular politics as a vehicle for promoting Christianity (when that started to happen, biblical doctrines became tainted- Constantine immediately comes to mind). The first Christians lived humbly in their circumstances but were to remain unwavering in their convictions- even unto death. That said, I can vote here, and will always vote my conscience- and my conscience is tied Christian principles.  You spoke well when you said that what is made into law is not necessarily moral.  I absolutely agree.  I weep over the myriad of unborn children torn from the womb and discarded. Well said I think that clears things up. I agree with what you said about Christianity in the law. I still have some issues with Israel's laws which aren't resolved by your clarification, but I see no reason to go into it here.

And what I just said is precisely why I get aggravated over local governments in the South that pass ordinances that you can't buy beer or liquor on Sundays. 

Sunday isn't even the Sabbath, you morons!

Modern Christians who try to follow the Old Testament law never follow all of it anyway.  b*****ds ban us from buying booze on the "sabbath" but go eat pork chops and shrimp at the Golden Corral.  Kind of irritates me, to be honest. 

Oh, just looked up state laws on alcohol on Wikipedia.  For Florida, we have:

Supermarkets and other licensed business establishments may sell beer, low-alcohol liquors, and wine. Liquor must be sold in dedicated liquor stores which may be in a separate part of a grocery or a drug store. Beer must be sold in quantities of 32 or fewer ounces or greater than 1 gallon. Forty- and 64-ounce beverages are illegal.

I know for a fact I bought a 40-oz beer just up the road back in October.